Personal success (Split thread)

[plebian]

New thread on the reasons for personal success split from the Corbyn thread

I want to see someone who adopts my “party of small businesses” strategy. It seems an obvious political winner to me.

- 6 million SMEs in UK (Small & Medium Enterprise, < 50 employees)
- 17 million people work for a SME
- Everyone thinks they hate big business and bankers: exploiting workers, not paying tax, CEOs with huge pay, bankruptcy scandals etc etc
- Everyone pretends to like local small business, thinking it’s good to buy local and British and from the little high street shop (even if they actually buy at Tescos and Amazon)

Labour has to present itself as being a safe choice on the economy and good for businesses and prosperity, yet simultaneously attack the Conservatives as being controlled by billionaires and tax dodgers.

Become the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

And it works really well with local constituency campaigning in the northern areas they need to win back - Labour candidates can spend the next 4 years championing the small businesses in their areas. Campaign for a local shop losing out to Amazon or a little construction company hurt by govt spending cuts or a small exporter struggling due to the red tape created by Johnson’s policies. Constantly boast about how much PAYE, tax, rates and VAT these companies pay, unlike the companies that own the Conservative Party.

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.

When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

My tears of course change nothing. These are the c.nts we live with, any labour party is going to have to court them or thrash about losing and cock blocking the opposition which could be taken by a new party which would.

[sheldrake]

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.

When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

My tears of course change nothing. These are the c.nts we live with, any labour party is going to have to court them or thrash about losing and cock blocking the opposition which could be taken by a new party which would.

Think of it as a sliding scale. All the environmental factors you mention doubtlessly did contribute to his success, but individual effort and willingness to take a risk starting his own business would have played a factor too. (And his middle class upbringing may have been connected to his parents' willingness to do the same).

The reason people like him don't usually vote for people like Corbyn is that his socioeconomic philosophy appears not to recognise the value of this individual effort and willingess to take risks. Worse, it actually appears culturally hostile to people like him, and people who aspire to be like him, or people who see that people like him created their job opportunity (of which there are many).

Blair, for all his faults, understood this and sold his ideas with this balance still acknowledged but just shifted left a bit to help the struggling more.
Corbyn comes across as an angry revolutionary who criticizes people who've done things he never had the guts or work ethic to do and wants to destroy what they've created.

[plebian]

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.

When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

My tears of course change nothing. These are the c.nts we live with, any labour party is going to have to court them or thrash about losing and cock blocking the opposition which could be taken by a new party which would.

Think of it as a sliding scale. All the environmental factors you mention doubtlessly did contribute to his success, but individual effort and willingness to take a risk starting his own business would have played a factor too. (And his middle class upbringing may have been connected to his parents' willingness to do the same).

The reason people like him don't usually vote for people like Corbyn is that his socioeconomic philosophy appears not to recognise the value of this individual effort and willingess to take risks. Worse, it actually appears culturally hostile to people like him, and people who aspire to be like him, or people who see that people like him created their job opportunity (of which there are many).

Blair, for all his faults, understood this and sold his ideas with this balance still acknowledged but just shifted left a bit to help the struggling more.
Corbyn comes across as an angry revolutionary who criticizes people who've done things he never had the guts or work ethic to do and wants to destroy what they've created.

He was supremely lucky in the life choices made before it. Setting up his own company was low risk as he had a captive client and super low cost base (software). He certainly has talent and has an air of affability but he has said sh.t like "I make my own luck" which is patently fantasy land ego tripping balls.

[sheldrake]

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.

When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

My tears of course change nothing. These are the c.nts we live with, any labour party is going to have to court them or thrash about losing and cock blocking the opposition which could be taken by a new party which would.

Think of it as a sliding scale. All the environmental factors you mention doubtlessly did contribute to his success, but individual effort and willingness to take a risk starting his own business would have played a factor too. (And his middle class upbringing may have been connected to his parents' willingness to do the same).

The reason people like him don't usually vote for people like Corbyn is that his socioeconomic philosophy appears not to recognise the value of this individual effort and willingess to take risks. Worse, it actually appears culturally hostile to people like him, and people who aspire to be like him, or people who see that people like him created their job opportunity (of which there are many).

Blair, for all his faults, understood this and sold his ideas with this balance still acknowledged but just shifted left a bit to help the struggling more.
Corbyn comes across as an angry revolutionary who criticizes people who've done things he never had the guts or work ethic to do and wants to destroy what they've created.

He was supremely lucky in the life choices made before it. Setting up his own company was low risk as he had a captive client and super low cost base (software). He certainly has talent and has an air of affability but he has said sh.t like "I make my own luck" which is patently fantasy land ego tripping balls.

Maybe he made 30% of his luck or something. It's possible for this guy to be misjudging it and for Corbyn to be unreasonable. It's still quite hard to build a successful business for most middle class people. That first step into the world where nobody is paying a salary is one most of us never willingly make, even if we've got decent educations and savings. If he inherited Trump-like wealth that's a different story.

[Gfamily]

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.
When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

Which includes the fact that he has access to a workforce that has the mix of skills to enable his SME to operate at the scale it is.
Also, a mature market for his business, with a legal framework that protects his interests.

John Donne had it clear.

[dyqik]

He was supremely lucky in the life choices made before it. Setting up his own company was low risk as he had a captive client and super low cost base (software). He certainly has talent and has an air of affability but he has said sh.t like "I make my own luck" which is patently fantasy land ego tripping balls.

I saw this and thought of this argument.

If 1024 fair coins are each tossed 10 times, chances are good (> 63%) that at least one will come up heads 10 times in a row; and that coin will be proud to explain how its skill, faith, guts & determination made its achievement possible, and how that combo can work for you too.

ETA: and the coin might not have even tried to start a company until the 7th or 8th toss.

[sheldrake]

Coins and people are different though. Human courage, effort and talent are real, even if inot the whole reason (or even most of the reason) for somebody's success.

Treating people like they're not real has bad effects. Coins dont change their behaviour in response to expected rewards. People very much do.

[plodder]

What percentage of human success is down to drive, innovation and will to power? And what percentage parentage, privilege and other forms of luck?

[Grumble]

What percentage of human success is down to drive, innovation and will to power? And what percentage parentage, privilege and other forms of luck?

Without some drive the others would only lead to Bertie Wooster.

[sheldrake]

What percentage of human success is down to drive, innovation and will to power? And what percentage parentage, privilege and other forms of luck?

It might be that the majority is luck and patronage (at least in some societies), but the other things would still matter.

You and I were undoubtedly very lucky in the global scheme of things, but some of the things we did also required some genuine effort on our part wouldn't you say ?

I bet you've also met at least one or two people from much richer backgrounds than us who haven't achieved much in life and perhaps pissed away much of their inheritance? (I have met a few of these, I've also met people from tougher backgrounds than mine who are much more successful than I am)

People do research to try and answer these kinds of questions scientifically all the time (fully aware I'm posting a news source and not a paper here)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 80376.html

The research I've seen says people's financial status at the age of 50 is correlated with multiple things. Parental socioeconomic status is definitely up there, as we'd expect, but various personality traits (as measured psychometrically) and IQ correlate strongly too.

I realise that IQ is extremely contentious and I don't want to advocate for it either as an objective measure of 'innate talent' or as the one true factor. Just illustrating that 'well off stable family' is only part of a picture alongside other more individual stuff.

The point I'm trying to make is that devaluing those other things that aren't just luck can have bad effects on a society. Human beings, on the whole, adapt to the system of rewards and sanctions a society signals to them.

[PeteB]

People do research to try and answer these kinds of questions scientifically all the time (fully aware I'm posting a news source and not a paper here)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 80376.html

That was quite interesting - I would have got the answer wrong

He likes to ask educated non-scientists — especially politicians and policy makers — how much of the difference between people’s incomes can be tied to IQ. Most guess around 25 percent, even 50 percent, he says. But the data suggest a much smaller influence: about 1 or 2 percent.

I'm a bit with Tim Minchin

[plodder]

What percentage of human success is down to drive, innovation and will to power? And what percentage parentage, privilege and other forms of luck?

It might be that the majority is luck and patronage (at least in some societies), but the other things would still matter.

You and I were undoubtedly very lucky in the global scheme of things, but some of the things we did also required some genuine effort on our part wouldn't you say ?

I bet you've also met at least one or two people from much richer backgrounds than us who haven't achieved much in life and perhaps pissed away much of their inheritance? (I have met a few of these, I've also met people from tougher backgrounds than mine who are much more successful than I am)

People do research to try and answer these kinds of questions scientifically all the time (fully aware I'm posting a news source and not a paper here)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 80376.html

The research I've seen says people's financial status at the age of 50 is correlated with multiple things. Parental socioeconomic status is definitely up there, as we'd expect, but various personality traits (as measured psychometrically) and IQ correlate strongly too.

I realise that IQ is extremely contentious and I don't want to advocate for it either as an objective measure of 'innate talent' or as the one true factor. Just illustrating that 'well off stable family' is only part of a picture alongside other more individual stuff.

The point I'm trying to make is that devaluing those other things that aren't just luck can have bad effects on a society. Human beings, on the whole, adapt to the system of rewards and sanctions a society signals to them.

OK, easier question. In general, do you think those at the very top of the pile are more likely to have got there through luck? How’s about those at the bottom of the heap?

[sheldrake]

OK, easier question. In general, do you think those at the very top of the pile are more likely to have got there through luck? How’s about those at the bottom of the heap?

I'm not aware of evidence that effect of parental socioeconomic background is stronger at the top of the heap than the bottom.

Being born in a remote village in Mali where starvation is a regular actual problem seems like a big deal to overcome. Getting from there to say, a university and a middle class job in Lagos or London seems about as hard as somebody from our background becoming an astronaut or a billionaire.

I expect, on average, the people who make either of those transitions to exhibit more intense work ethic and/or creativity than the people who don't.
I expect that you or I, being born in Mali, would probably still live in Mali. We might have gotten relatively safe jobs govt. jobs or something and not had to worry about starving.

I may have misunderstood your question?

[plodder]

It’s self evident that someone travelling from the very bottom to the top has further to go than someone travelling from the nearly top to the top (and vice versa).

What I’m keen to understand is what you think about the proportion of people at each extreme who are there due to luck, rather than heroics of skill and endeavour, or a lack thereof.

[sheldrake]

It’s self evident that someone travelling from the very bottom to the top has further to go than someone travelling from the nearly top to the top (and vice versa).

What I’m keen to understand is what you think about the proportion of people at each extreme who are there due to luck, rather than heroics of skill and endeavour, or a lack thereof.

I think there's probably some curve of how much personal input matters that tapers at either extreme of the scale.

The delta in personal input between doing my job and earning 5 times as much is probably significant, I've seen one or two moderately successful entrepreneurs and several people a couple of steps up megacorp hierarchy up close for extended periods, and I know they are more focussed and often work longer hours than me.

The gap between those people and the google founders probably has more luck in it.

However, it's still very unlikely that people like the Google founders aren't in the top percentile or two in things like work ethic/focus, IQ etc..

[plodder]

What about those at the bottom?

[jimbob]

I want to see someone who adopts my “party of small businesses” strategy. It seems an obvious political winner to me.

- 6 million SMEs in UK (Small & Medium Enterprise, < 50 employees)
- 17 million people work for a SME
- Everyone thinks they hate big business and bankers: exploiting workers, not paying tax, CEOs with huge pay, bankruptcy scandals etc etc
- Everyone pretends to like local small business, thinking it’s good to buy local and British and from the little high street shop (even if they actually buy at Tescos and Amazon)

Labour has to present itself as being a safe choice on the economy and good for businesses and prosperity, yet simultaneously attack the Conservatives as being controlled by billionaires and tax dodgers.

Become the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

And it works really well with local constituency campaigning in the northern areas they need to win back - Labour candidates can spend the next 4 years championing the small businesses in their areas. Campaign for a local shop losing out to Amazon or a little construction company hurt by govt spending cuts or a small exporter struggling due to the red tape created by Johnson’s policies. Constantly boast about how much PAYE, tax, rates and VAT these companies pay, unlike the companies that own the Conservative Party.

The owner of the sme for which I work with 30 odd souls didn't vote labour because of Corbyn but before that he was always banging on about tax.

He seems like a nice guy but is under the impression that he is the sole reason for his success, ignoring his middle class upbringing, state education, university in pre loan times and the general benefits of living in society.

When he started articulating his ideas I lost all respect for him. It makes me weep that educated people can be so ignorant of the reasons for their success.

My tears of course change nothing. These are the c.nts we live with, any labour party is going to have to court them or thrash about losing and cock blocking the opposition which could be taken by a new party which would.

Apparently - according to the person sitting opposite to me on the train yesterday, even Jeffry Archer had the self-awareness to state that a lot of his bouncing back from bankruptcy was due to his social capital.

[sheldrake]

What about those at the bottom?

You mean of the global distribution, or in the UK?

[jimbob]

That was quite interesting - I would have got the answer wrong

He likes to ask educated non-scientists — especially politicians and policy makers — how much of the difference between people’s incomes can be tied to IQ. Most guess around 25 percent, even 50 percent, he says. But the data suggest a much smaller influence: about 1 or 2 percent.

I'm a bit with Tim Minchin

Nice link

[Imrael]

Something doing the rounds on my twitter feed chimed a bit with this

if 1024 coins are tossed 10 times, the odds are one will produce 10 "heads". In the Twitter parable that coin will then go on to boast about how its hard work and diligent rotation bought it success.

My take on the whole thing is that successful people will tend to ignore the inflence of luck/privilege, because it goes with the self confidence etc that contribute to their success. Ones with that trait who dont succeed wouldnt particularly stand out in the general population.

(I once had some forum fun with someone into a "deserving poor" view, asking why we didnt spend much time talking about the "undeserving rich")

[dyqik]

Something doing the rounds on my twitter feed chimed a bit with this

if 1024 coins are tossed 10 times, the odds are one will produce 10 "heads". In the Twitter parable that coin will then go on to boast about how its hard work and diligent rotation bought it success.

My take on the whole thing is that successful people will tend to ignore the inflence of luck/privilege, because it goes with the self confidence etc that contribute to their success. Ones with that trait who dont succeed wouldnt particularly stand out in the general population.

(I once had some forum fun with someone into a "deserving poor" view, asking why we didnt spend much time talking about the "undeserving rich")

I posted that, but it got missed from the great thread schism (I have reported it to be moved over here).

[plodder]

What about those at the bottom?

You mean of the global distribution, or in the UK?

Either

[Woodchopper]

Something doing the rounds on my twitter feed chimed a bit with this

if 1024 coins are tossed 10 times, the odds are one will produce 10 "heads". In the Twitter parable that coin will then go on to boast about how its hard work and diligent rotation bought it success.

My take on the whole thing is that successful people will tend to ignore the inflence of luck/privilege, because it goes with the self confidence etc that contribute to their success. Ones with that trait who dont succeed wouldnt particularly stand out in the general population.

(I once had some forum fun with someone into a "deserving poor" view, asking why we didnt spend much time talking about the "undeserving rich")

I posted that, but it got missed from the great thread schism (I have reported it to be moved over here).

Apologies, now moved

[Martin Y]

OK, easier question. In general, do you think those at the very top of the pile are more likely to have got there through luck? How’s about those at the bottom of the heap?

Is that an easier question though? If you're looking to see if there's a good correlation between success and IQ, diligence, positive outlook or whatever versus luck, maybe looking at the outliers isn't where you'd spot it.

[sheldrake]

What about those at the bottom?

You mean of the global distribution, or in the UK?

Either

I think within in the UK it's less related to luck than it would be for somebody born in Mali. I think being born in the poorest parts of the developing world is harder to work your way out of than, say, being long-term unemployed people Tyneside or Merthyr Tydfil. I don't think the individual component ever reaches zero.