I appreciate the thought experiment of considering whether we would truly act differently in difficult circumstances, as most never engage in that level of self-reflection. However, this article seems to beg the question.

Specifically, it starts by assuming that in the face of challenges like being born in poverty, the average person would not overcome them through will or effort alone. As a result, it cultivates empathy for those who fail to transcend their circumstances. It then implies that the solution is changing the environment, not the individual.

But this is circular reasoning. It assumes that it's all the environment, and concludes with it being all the environment.

Looking at the fall of social mobility in the US, I conclude that the average person indeed does not overcome poverty.

It is not circular reasoning. It is just something you do not agree with.

That article is decidedly not about considering whether you would act differently.

What the authors is doing is pointing out is that assuming you would act different is unhelpful. It is far more helpful and interesting to look at a situation, and examine what are all the things that would cause you to to end up in those circumstances despite your best effort. What this does is forces you to overcome the human minds tendencies towards lazy evaluation, to really break down all the forces acting upon the situation these individuals encounter.

This is actually very similar to a technique useful for startups. Assume you have failed some number of years from now. What are some of the reasons you might have failed?

> Specifically, it starts by assuming that in the face of challenges like being born in poverty, the average person would not overcome them through will or effort alone.

I would concur. Three ways out of poverty would be sports, art/music and crime (bad idea). Knowledge, luck and the right mindset and are important too. There is the book Rich Dad Poor Dad about the mindset part.