Not one of them but I will take a stab: those who believe in a “just world”, that good is consistently rewarded and the smart will consistently succeed (and its converse), tend to have less empathy for those who have less. They are not those who will say “There by the grace of God go I.” and try to help out. They are those who, as you humorously, but not inaccurately, put it:
The smart don’t always manage to succeed. Good is sometimes punished. If everyone appreciated that luck of the draw has at least something to do with it, maybe more would have more empathy for those in need.
Rand, do agree that there is a SES inertia, as described in my post #78? Or do you think that people consistently achieve within their lifetimes to exactly a level equal to their abilities and effort, be that moving significantly up or down SES levels?
I agree that taking luck to its logical end takes all purpose out of a discussion and turns it into a navel-gazing exercise.
But doing as Gladwell did and taking a few individuals and looking at what factors, both extrinsic and intrinsic, helped shaped their lives? I find that worthy of study. I would think it would be helpful to someone who wants to raise a “success” story, actually. You may not have lots of money, but if you can encourage your kid to find something that he or she likes and is talented in, let them have at it, unimpeded. Give him or her the 10000 hours that Bill Gates had to learn programming. They may not turn out to be an uber-success with it, but it certainly won’t harm them in the process. I think about children who grow up with very strict, rigid religious upbringings, like the Amish or orthodox/fundamentalist sects. What ingenuity is being squashed under such conditions? Studying all the factors of success, not just some of them, allows you to answer questions like this.
Oh, I’m not against pride. The other day I never felt prouder for my sister than when I found out she had passed her board exams. Every time I learn something new, I feel pride in myself. But there’s pride, and then there’s haughtiness and snobbery. If one accepts the idea that in an alternate universe, there exists a twin who’s identical in every way except he went down this path instead of that path, so now he’s eating Hungry Man dinners every night instead of the filet mignon that his twin eats in this universe, then it keeps heads from getting too big.
I think one can be a big advocate for personal responsibility AND recognize that sometimes shit happens. Or fortune happens. I don’t think I have low expectations for myself or other people just because I recognize how important random events are to our lives. I consider myself a realist. It means I don’t get too disappointed when things fall apart, nor do I feel like I have to praise the Lawd if something good happens. That’s all.
I suppose my experience mirrors this, although I have met some very successful but arrogant bastards too. However, it does seem to me that the idea of personal achievement and individuality is an American concept. We tend to play the blame game more than anyone else. It’s what makes us deny the existence of class barriers in our society and turn things like universal health care into political hockey pucks. There’s an expectation here that if you don’t do well, it’s your own damn fault. And if you won’t accept personal responsibility for your shortcomings, you’re just making excuses and holding yourself back even more.
I don’t think it’s rambling. But then again, a random neutron just hit me somewhere, so I can’t be held responsible for anything.
If one analyzes the question of success truly in good faith–with the goal of understanding and not playing gotcha ya or whatever it is we do in GD on a regular basis–then you don’t ever worry about knowing when to stop. Because you’re trying to appreciate the bigger picture, not conduct an exercise.
No, because if a poor parent has no choices to give a kid, for instance because beans and rice are the only thing they can afford to fix for dinner, this doesn’t make them a shitty parent, just a poor one. They’re just doing the best they can. Similarly, they won’t be asking little Timmy what car they want on their 16th birthday either, because they don’t have any money for any car. Rich people have more options than poor people, as money tends to grant people access to things by virtue of being money. And it has nothing to do with how good they are as people.
Only an idiot would infer that I’m equating poor parents to shitty ones.
Luck is just a word for events that are random or otherwise out of your control. God and his plan are just imaginary, but claiming that someone’s position is due to God’s Plan generally involves a lot of amoral self righteousness, either in the form of praise or condemnation. Luck’s just luck, not to the credit or blame of anyone.
I think that is a small thing to get hung up on. But maybe you don’t understand where I’m coming from. Maybe I’m weird, but I find it inspirational to look at the bigger picture of success because it’s a reminder that potential is not a rare thing. A lot of people are capable of great things, they just need the right opportunity to come along so that their potential is manifested. In that way, it’s not that different than the hope that people have about life on other planets.
When you think about the multitude of factors–both instrinsic and extrinsic–that had to come together precisely the right way to make Earth hospitable to life as we know it, it seems unreal how improbable that all is. Some people take such improbability as a sign that there has to be is an intelligent creator. That’s no different than the hero-worship culture that we have today, which portrays achievement as mainly the product of an exceptionally gifted individual who did something no other person could do.
The reality is this: out of the kajillion-trillion planets out there, statistically speaking, we were bound to get at least one planet to “luck out” with the full suite of conditions necessary to support life. And lo and behold we did, and that planet is called Earth, and here we are, talking about it. This wasn’t divine intervention. This was luck, plain and simple.
The inspiration comes in when you consider the fact that if Earth “lucked out” so could another planet. There is nothing so instrinsically unique about our planet that precludes the existence of others that are like it. And too there is nothing instrinsically unique about Bill Gates that precludes others like him. These potential Bill Gates just need opportunities, that’s all.
The point is two-fold. One, to undermine the idea of innate genius that many of us have. This idea that the Gates, Buffets, Jordans, Lennons, and Mozarts of the world are so exceptional and uniquely talented that their success was preordained. I don’t say that to begrudge them their success, or to minimize the affect of their hard work, but rather to stress the importance of extrinsic factors.
Second, it’s to underscore how society can maximize human potential and successful outcomes by creating more “luck”. There is such a small supply of great opportunities and nurturing environments, and a large demand for them. Whether they be playing in a hockey all-star team, having access to computers when few other did, or a second chance after trying to poison your tutor. We can change that calculus by ensuring that environments that breed success are plentiful. Most importantly, its instructive because it gives up a blueprint for how we can collectively become more efficient and effective.
I think it would make people less tolerant of terrible inner city public schools, relatively high infant mortality, vast childhood food insecurity, and a broken criminal justice system. I think people tolerate these things because they assume the people affected are of little benefit to society- that they inherently have little worth because they look different, speak differently, dress differently, don’t speak the same language you do, or are (or seem to be) less intelligent. If they appreciated turning a blind eye to problems such as these is a huge hindrance to finding and developing the next Bill Gates, they might be more willing to make efforts to ameliorate some of the aforementioned issues (among others).
Second, I think successful people would have a little more compassion and humility, and poor people would have a little more hope. It reminds me of this anecdote by Warren Buffet about how someone can derive hubris from a coin flip.
I don’t suggest that rising to the level of a Tiger Woods or a Mark Zuckerberg is pure luck, but it would behoove most people to appreciate how much of their path in life is completely out of their hands. Most sane people would still buy car insurance even if it weren’t mandated because they recognize that no matter how great a driver they are, shit happens. They recognize that so much of accident avoidance is beyond their control. Of course being a great driver helps, but it doesn’t prevent drunks and speedsters from getting behind the wheel. Seeing that is the case, society has taken on a collective responsible to license drivers, ensure a minimum competence, and to penalize behaviors that will lead to danger or negative outcomes. We do that because it’s beyond one person’s ability to navigate a complex system where there are millions of complex interactions that can affect the outcomes of driving. In a similar vein, as a society, we can take a far more active role in ensuring minimal situational and environmental standards that will give most a solid chance to succeed. In order to do that, you need people to appreciate that it’s our collective responsibility rather than an individual one.
Well, with that explanation I think I am getting where you are coming from, and just come from a different angle.
We both agree that a lot of people are capable of great things. And from a public policy POV we are pretty much on the same page. Not only does everyone deserve an opportunity, we all benefit by everyone having one. As a team we do better if we get the most out of every player, not just rely on one or two stars to carry us.
But we still come from very different angles. Looking from the individual level I see more danger in the “it’s just luck” perspective. That perspective, to me, engenders a passive approach to what happens to us. Can everyone with enough practice play golf as well as Tiger Woods? No. But for those in the more typical pack, the one who works to take advantage of their luck will more often be able to look back and be thankful for how lucky they have been, and those who do not will always complain about how they never get any breaks.
I hear where you are coming from but I see the problems with it as well. It is not just luck that you see so many Asian kids excelling in music and math; it is a cultural tendency for parents to have their kids drill and drill and drill. No magic sauce. No special luck. No justification in resenting that accomplishment or in attributing it to just luck. Now I do not choose to have my kids drill like that and I am content with that choice. But I do not then begrudge the fact that my child is not a concert pianist as the result of luck.
Success takes three things. Luck, talent, and or perseverance. Sometimes one is good enough. Most people need all three.
Inate intelligence is talent - but applied intelligence is perseverance and luck. Intelligence is nurtured and grown. If you don’t have parents (and a school and a community) to nurture it - you haven’t been lucky - you will need more talent and perseverance. Perseverance is something that can be encouraged - if you get lucky with parents who teach you perseverance, you’ll need less talent.
From a non intelligence example - Tiger Woods is a good golfer because he was born that way. He’s a good golfer because he was lucky enough to be born into a family that put a putter in his hands at two in a place and time that he could learn to golf. And he had the perseverance to practice for years. Had his Dad been into baseball, maybe he’d be a rather mediocre baseball player.
Kids born into poverty may have the talent, but they seldom have the luck and are seldom encouraged in perseverance - at least in regards to developing intellectual skills.
Vincent van Gogh was a genius and lived a life of struggle and poverty. And I don’t think too many NFL players are plucked from the best and brightest. Genius and financial success are not always equated.
"Dear Tylor,
Your new Mother and I are having a great time in Aspen. Sorry we won’t be able to make Parent’s Weekend at Choate next Saturday. I know you wanted to go to Exeter like your friends, but you’ll thank us when you are at Harvard next year studying pre-law and they are freezing their asses off at Cornell. I looked it up and you were right! It is actually one of the Ivy’s. Who knew?
Anyhow, here’s a check for $15,000. Remember that it is supposed to be for books and fixing your Beemer. And try not to bang it up again. You know the school is getting frustrated with your “accidents”.
I am not sure we disagree here. However, I will say that genius is usually an ex post facto label. People are only called that after they have demonstrated a unique ability. As such, it’s a label that says less about their innate ability than other’s recognition of their actions, and the ability of a society to nurture those talents.
Actually, this explanation, while accurate in some ways, gives an incomplete picture according to many people who have studied the subject. Gladwell touches upon this very issue in Outliers to show, once again, how the answer to disparities like this is more complex than just the one or two things we usually fixate on.
Yes, there is a cultural-based work ethic that helps Asian kids to excel in math (a ethic that didn’t arise from a vacuum either), but there is also a linguistic element to it as well. Chinese languages have an advantage over most other languages in the way they express numbers.
What this means is that if you take a bunch of English-speaking kids and drill them to death on math, and take a bunch of Mandarin-speaking kids and drill them to death on math, the Mandarin kids will come out top, even if the kids are identical in every other way. The small advantage imparted by Mandarin when it comes to processing numbers amplifies itself over time. How? Chinese kids become less frustrated with math than English-speaking ones because they grasp numbers easier, which means they are more likely to pursue it with gusto rather than dutifully, and thus, they end becoming more likely to succeed it at.
Should we take a look at this and conclude that Americans are hopelessly ill-equipped to compete against Asians when it comes to math? Of course not. It’s only by understanding where the Asian advantage is coming from, we can tweak how we teach math and become better at it.
I don’t think we’re miles apart on this either. My perspective probably comes across as stronger on the “luck+environment” side of the equation than yours because I found the arguments presented in Outliers to be more compelling than the conventional wisdoms most often asserted in these kinds of discussion.
You can make this very important point until the rapture and it will always be glossed over. I’m not sure why, but I strongly suspect it is because the conclusion it leads to is that perhaps the septic tank mucker ought to be paid a living wage too. It’s a point I’d like to slap Obama upside the head with every time he talks about sending all the kids to college as if that were going to improve things for the bulk of the population. Even a populace composed of 300 million people with doctorate degrees is going to have most of them in merely average jobs (or worse).
Suppose we lived in a world where, upon birth, every baby received a lottery ticket. Half of the babies, randomly selected, received exactly twice as much food as they needed in order to live. The other half received no food, and starved to death.
Would you be in favor of social programs to take food from the fortunate half to give to the unfortunate half? (and forget charitable programs; for every person who decides not to participate in a charitable program, a baby starves to death)
Now suppose we lived in a world where food was free, limitless, and equally available to all, but some people were too lazy to go get it, even though it required exactly the same effort on everyone’s behalf.
In that world, would you be in favor of social programs to take food from those who bothered to go get food to give to those who couldn’t be bothered?
Again, I have not read any Gladwell, but I am indeed familiar with that point (Asian counting systems are completely base ten, not also having our funky base 12 mixed in, with “eleven, twelve”, instead of “one-teen, two-teen”*). There are also other differences in cognitive styles that are very much culturally learned and if you are interested in that stuff you’d enjoy this book very much. Still, I think that Gladwell overstates the case and is doing a bit of oversimplifying himself. See this review for example. There is an advantage from that no doubt going into Kindergarten, but
They take off again later and that bit seems to be due to the drilling.
I don’t think we are too far apart either.
*As an aside, that funky base 12, and base 60 for that matter, are also based on finger counting. Count on one hand with your thumb on each phalynx (section of each finger). Each finger has three of them and you count against four fingers … one dozen. Count that dozen on one finger of the other hand. On two hands you can count up to 5 dozen … sixty. Pretty cool nerd trivia, eh?
This is definitely true to a certain extent, but there’s an excluded middle to consider.
Economic growth is going to be stifled if huge chucks of the population are uneducated relative to the rest of the world. Yes, if everyone becomes uber educated, you’ll end up with janitors who have masters degrees. But you’ll also have more inventors, more technological breakthroughs, and more savvy business people who know how to turn new ideas into profit. This means more people working. More opportunites.
So even if janitors eventually will have to have masters degrees to secure their jobs (by the time this happens though, there will be robots doing the work…same with the McDonald’s fry cooker), it’s not the end of the world. There once was a time that people with only a fifth grade education could get fairly decent jobs. Those times are no more, and yet everyone accepts this as just the way things are.
That said, pushing people to go to college when their skills and inclinations are best suited for something else is not going to do anyone any favors.
I’ll take a look at that book; it’ll give me more food for thought on this subject. As for Gladwell, he actually spends more time talking about the cultural reasons why Asians outperform in math than he does discusses their numbering scheme, so it’s probably hasty to say he overstates anything. It’s just one data point he offers for consideration in the mileu.
Sorry, but I read this paragraph in the voice of Steve Urkle!
I believe the opposite, it’s attributing success to skill and effort that encourages passiveness, or outright self destructive behavior. It encourages the belief that you are scum for not being wealthy, that your parents are scum, your grandparents are scum and so on back through history, or they’d have been wealthy. It encourages poor children to disregard their parents, because if their parents weren’t worthless and stupid they wouldn’t be poor. It encourages people who fail to prosper or who lose their jobs to suicide, because their failure to acquire wealth proves that they are worthless vermin that no one will miss. It encourages teachers to do an indifferent job educating the poor because if they weren’t incompetent and worthless, they wouldn’t be poor.
Tell me something though Der Trihs how many people do you know who have made it from poverty into middle class and above who believed that success is due to luck and how many who believed that success is due to skill and effort?
I know quite a few who have made it out of poverty and into middle class and above. Some who have worked for me or for my Dad years back, on their way up. None thought their parents were scum for not being wealthy; they admired their parents for working hard in order to give their kids a better chance and they were damned if they were going to let their parents down. Now they own their own businesses or are doctors or nurses. Some very smart, some just smart enough when coupled with drive and, sure, a good break or two that they capitalized on.
Skill and effort are not a sure bet to success. But they are a better bet than any other available.
