It also isn’t a guarantee of success (nothing is). It’s a way of stacking the deck in your favor. It’s really one of the only things you can do if you want to move to a better socioeconomic status.
Frankly, I'm tired of this new pervasive idea that the system will always be against anyone that isn't rich and there's no point in even trying if you are poor. Ironically, this victim menality will continue to keep many people in poverty
We now live in an age of free information. There is free Internet access in almost every library in the country and you can learn many new skills from free video tutorials, college courses, and web pages. There are no more excuses.
But that's not even the point, really. The point is that, even if I were inclined to blame the poor for their own situation as you do, your theory would still have no explanatory value when comparing the previously-poor to the never-poor. Your "theory" is simply counterfactual and illogical. The fact that it's also offensive is just the icing on the cake.
Where did you see that? I can't find it anywhere in the article, the article the article is based on, or the abstract the article the article is based on references.
I know you said that was just a theory, but it's a variation on a too-common theme that I - and many others - find offensive. The experiment specifically involved people who have the same current socioeconomic status. Some had been affluent all their lives, while others had become affluent from poorer beginnings. If self-discipline is what allows some to become richer than others, don't you think those who became wealthy by their own efforts might know a bit more about it than those who had their wealth handed to them? Why, then, would they still exhibit this distinct reaction to offers of food? I don't think your theory has any explanatory power at all.