As we've established that a large component of ability is genetically pre-determined, talent is relatively blind to economic starting conditions. (For follow-on responses to my post: let's agree to set some of the tired social Darwinist tropes to rest, please.)
You don't get to dictate what viewpoints others express on a forum, and it is not polite to use pejoratives to label their views. I think the parts of your sentence are contradictory, since intelligent parents tend to earn more and also to have more intelligent children.
And this is exactly why the gifted lobby has difficulty gaining mainstream traction. If we're tone deaf to the needs of society at large and expound a fatalistic view of social class, our perspectives are viewed as elitist and wrong-headed, and subsequently ignored, however much merit gifted parent advocates' arguments may hold.
We are here in service of our own children, to be sure. But, more importantly, we are contributing to a discussion intended to forward the broader interests of those gifted children who lack a parental voice in their corner. And, though we may differ in our views as to the degree to which environment versus genetics drives ability, that we agree that environment plays at least a significant minority role necessitates a discussion of how to move the needle on environment, which is the subject of this thread.
So yes, I will reiterate my pre-emptive general request that we, as a community, not allow this thread to devolve as so many others before it have.
But I thank you for pointing out a missing word in my earlier post which would cause confusion--"a large component of ability is
not genetically determined." That was my error.
