"Her story is sure to be a compelling one and a great example of what the right mindset can achieve regardless of your situation."
Am I the only one who is not comfortable with this outlier / (perhaps romanticized) story being used to justify that homeless people _can_ do something about their situation (so if they don't they really are trash and deserve their condition!)? Of course they can, but the potential barrier is just way too high (compared to correct living conditions citizens) for the journalist to consider we are being human enough.
That really rubbed me the wrong way as well: it sucks that now something as unloaded as doing your best and hard work has become a politicized Horatio Alger statement about how the right mindset can achieve anything regardless of where you come from.
My first reaction was to want to say that the reporter should ask her opinion on if anyone can achieve great things regardless of their station in life, but that goes too far in the other direction. Instead the article should just state the facts about how she has achieved what she did without trying to discern any political or moral points from it.
Apart from the meta stuff, she sounds awesome. I usually grumble at these things because privilege plays such a big role--and who knows, maybe she has her own form of privileges that aren't represented by homelessness--but she managed to beat the odds. Good for her.
Well, I have little to no respect for journalistic ability these days so I would expect "feel good" lines to be thrown into an otherwise factual story.
My issue with the "mindset is everything" idea is that it is, itself scientifically false.
And no, I don't think its to any one's benefit to believe bullshit. You can bet some slimy "self help" guru is already planning to feature this story in his next sales pitch.
The problem with this idea is that it gives false hope to people who either lack the natural (genetic) ability or the social support structures (family, supportive schools, access to research facilities, etc) to succeed.
There were obviously several factors important to her success: innate genetic potential, a supportive family, access to supportive researchers. To isolate and credit one factor just perpetuates myths that do no one any good.
Finally the thing that I find most amusing about the "mindset is everything" idea is that mindset itself has a large genetic component and to the extent it can be enhanced it requires some pretty heavy intervention (cognitive behavior therapy, possibly certain meditation practices).
That line felt dismissive. The news tidbit is interesting, and that kind of loaded message tacked at the end takes away from it. She is succeeding despite stacked odds, and her situation isn't something that can be brushed off.
It's odd how completely opposite I understand that same sentence. I understand that sentence to be the same as:
"Her story is sure to be a compelling one and a great example of the extreme barriers the right mindset can overcome. In this case, an exceptional person managed to overcome even the apparently insurmountable barrier to get out of their dire situation."
I'm not comfortable with using an outlier as a data point, no. I'm also not comfortable when outliers are also used to prove the opposite (effort is useless, luck is everything, etc). We should not be using outliers to form our understanding about how the world works, period.
Not sure why people are pooh poohing this story or making it out to be something it's not -- it's just a great, inspirational story.
Especially vs. the Thiel 20 under 20 thread yesterday where there was a lot of discussion (and admitted jealously) about the fellowship winner's likely advantages -- and the simple fact that most people who participate in this stuff know about it and are able to get neat research gigs run mostly by professionals because their parents are well-to-do and academics (I know, as a kid whose dad is a math prof).
I'm inspired. I'm reminded of the team of high school students (underrepresented, low-income) who beat MIT in a robotics competition.
Furthermore, "While she was working on her project, the family had a roof over its head. But financial reversals following a car accident last year led them this month to a Bay Shore shelter" (from http://www.newsday.com/opinion/samantha-garvey-s-amazing-gri...)
And even were this not true, I'd have questions about how she got the resources, equipment and expertise to pull this off. Its an interesting story but a lot missing for me to have any take-away from it. And feels too much like the typical throwaway feel-good story.
This is not the first time she has been homeless. Her family has been living on the edge of poverty for years, like many american families have been.
She's doing her research at SUNY Stony Brook, a local University, which does have the lab resources.
Here's are two important takeaways:
1. her parents love and support her. That's the most important thing we can give our children.
2. she doesn't feel sorry for herself, but presses on, taking advantage of opportunities as they arise.
It reminds me of Liz Murray, another young woman from New York who was homeless in High School (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDQjH816L6E)
Her parents weren't as capable (they were drug addicts), but she credits their love with helping her get through.
Public and school libraries have access. She is running this race with weights tied around her ankles (compared to the average high schooler). Homeless or not, financial distress in families have very negative effects on kids her age.
Approximately 1/4 of Americans have no way to come up with $2,000 in 30 days. An additional 19% would need to pawn/sell possessions and/or take payday loans to raise $2,000 in 30 days.
I know I couldn't come up with $2000 in 30 days (I might come close if I sold everything I own). Does that make me poor? It certainly doesn't stop me from chasing my dream.
If she made it this far the work does speak for itself. But part of me thinks this story will be used as propaganda for both classist and anticlassist. The ones that believe we do have a problem and this girl shouldn't be homeless (I'm in this camp). And the others that believe everything is fine, the system works, and everyone can rise out of poverty if they try hard enough.
Why not? The top 20% is a big cut in the field. The Intel STS isn't trivial at all, and I'm impressed that someone with any sort of hardship made it the semifinals there.
I'm surprised by these comments. I came in to see if there was any mention of a fund to support/sponsor her. I did the science fair circuit back when it was the International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) and it gets expensive to compete at that level. I also earned a good chunk of change from prizes and royalties from a commercial for Philips Petroleum (I was in environmental sciences). But you have to get there first.
Not sure why this type of story has to unravel into class warfare noise. I get enough of that elsewhere. The signal to noise ratio should be better here.
I saw a decent length video segment. The thing I left with is that this wasn't a handout, this young woman works hard and has a great deal of drive. Great, supportive mother, too. Very inspirational. She seems ripe for somebody to snap her up and invest in her education.
Am I the only one who is not comfortable with this outlier / (perhaps romanticized) story being used to justify that homeless people _can_ do something about their situation (so if they don't they really are trash and deserve their condition!)? Of course they can, but the potential barrier is just way too high (compared to correct living conditions citizens) for the journalist to consider we are being human enough.