Personal success (Split thread)

[plodder]

Oh no, I object to the statement that parenthood leads to greater financial success. I've asked a couple of questions regarding this that I'd be grateful if you could revisit. I think most parents would see success in non-financial terms.

I also want to understand whether you mean financial success relative to a baseline of greater immaturity in the same individual, or financial success relative to peers.

The former is a silly definition - we know people's earnings increase with age and it's not due to having children, it's to do with increased skill. However I think this is the definition you want to use?

For the latter definition many adults (especially women) feel that they need to make a choice between career and family. Are these people wrong?

[Gfamily]

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

[dyqik]

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

And also that they are more likely to achieve run away success.

Conscientiousness obviously has a direct and mechanistic effect on financial matters. If you don't check things very carefully and can regularly, a financially disadvantaged position is more likely to result disaster - that's obvious. So you can't use things like bankruptcy rate etc. to demonstrate that precariousness directly. What you'd need to do is show that conscientious people are less often in a precarious financial position where the average person would be at some level of risk of disaster, and that they are better at getting away from that precarious position. That's fairly likely to be true because there's pretty easy to understand mechanisms whereby that could happen.

You should then also look at the role that lucky factors, like parents character, availability of role-models, access to good advice, etc., plays in developing conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is massively entangled with social capital, and general availability of time and effort to carry it out, after all.

[plodder]

That would do it. My experience (back to the anecdotes) is that those who are most conscientious (i.e. full time carers, volunteers, the helpful person on my street) tend to have relatively small amounts of disposable income, whereas the selfish thoughtless cynical bastards drive round in the big Audis. But I'm probably completely wrong.

[plodder]

I think we need to agree a very precise definition of conscientiousness.

[dyqik]

I think we need to agree a very precise definition of conscientiousness.

An objectively measured one, of course.

[plodder]

That's easy, it's just your bank balance multiplied by the number of children you have. We can work backwards from there.

[plodder]

It's as if... as if... the rich deserve it. All of it. Because they're better people.

Or perhaps Frank Grimes has a point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHoy0h ... e=youtu.be

[dyqik]

It's as if... as if... the rich deserve it. All of it. Because they're better people.

Or perhaps Frank Grimes has a point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHoy0h ... e=youtu.be

I'm sure Grimes disagrees - is she still dating Elon Musk?

[sheldrake]

And also that they are more likely to achieve run away success.

Other things accounted for, it is rarer that they're poor and more likely that they are rich.

...
You should then also look at the role that lucky factors, like parents character, availability of role-models, access to good advice, etc., plays in developing conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is massively entangled with social capital, and general availability of time and effort to carry it out, after all.

I don't think you've read the existing research on this yet.

The role models, parental character etc.. are all things that help form conscientiousness, correct.

[sheldrake]

Oh no, I object to the statement that parenthood leads to greater financial success. I've asked a couple of questions regarding this that I'd be grateful if you could revisit. I think most parents would see success in non-financial terms.

We're only discussing economic success here.

I also want to understand whether you mean financial success relative to a baseline of greater immaturity in the same individual, or financial success relative to peers.

The former.

The former is a silly definition - we know people's earnings increase with age and it's not due to having children, it's to do with increased skill. However I think this is the definition you want to use?

here's a body of research supporting social investment theory which says that assumption isn't right. I think you're working very hard to suggest that people's children are foremost in their minds when they're motivated to provide

[Gfamily]

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

Other things accounted for, it is rarer that they're poor and more likely that they are rich.^{[citation needed]}

Lets start with an objective measure of conscientiousness - got one yet?

[sheldrake]

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

Other things accounted for, it is rarer that they're poor and more likely that they are rich.^{[citation needed]}

Lets start with an objective measure of conscientiousness - got one yet?

Conscientiousness itself is tested psychometrically.

[Gfamily]

Other things accounted for, it is rarer that they're poor and more likely that they are rich.^{[citation needed]}

Lets start with an objective measure of conscientiousness - got one yet?

Conscientiousness itself is tested psychometrically.

You keep snipping this bit

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

Is it because you have no evidence for your claim

we've already established that conscientiousness is highly correlated with [economic success]

[sheldrake]

Lets start with an objective measure of conscientiousness - got one yet?

Conscientiousness itself is tested psychometrically.

You keep snipping this bit

To establish a strong correlation, you would have to show that it is rare that highly conscientious people are financially precarious.

Is it because you have no evidence for your claim

we've already established that conscientiousness is highly correlated with [economic success]

I've posted evidence of that earlier.

[Gfamily]

I've posted evidence of that earlier.

No, I don't think you have.

[sheldrake]

I've posted evidence of that earlier.

No, I don't think you have.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747784/

There's loads of research on this, I can keep going until you're satisfied

[Gfamily]

I've posted evidence of that earlier.

No, I don't think you have.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747784/

There's loads of research on this, I can keep going until you're satisfied

Didn't think you had.

conscientiousness demonstrated beneficial associations of small-to-medium magnitude with all success outcomes¹

Finally, Conscientiousness is unrelated to extrinsic career success (Boudreau et al., 2001), salary and promotions (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), and hourly wage²

[sheldrake]

No, I don't think you have.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498890/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747784/

There's loads of research on this, I can keep going until you're satisfied

Didn't think you had.

conscientiousness demonstrated beneficial associations of small-to-medium magnitude with all success outcomes¹

That supports my point.

Finally, Conscientiousness is unrelated to extrinsic career success (Boudreau et al., 2001), salary and promotions (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001), and hourly wage²

From the abstract: -

Measured concurrently, emotionally stable and conscientious participants reported higher incomes and job satisfaction.

The part you have quoted is not the conclusion of the paper linked, it is the conclusion of an older paper the study mentions in a literature review section, it then goes on to critique the methodology.

The first paper, from 2012, also contradicts the much study you've just cited.

[Gfamily]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but a low to medium correlation is not a high correlation.

[jimbob]

Also, learned helplessness is a phenomenon that probably has an effect. If you've been ground down by a combination of external factors outside your control, it's going to be far harder to actually develop the go-getting, conscientious-yet-risk-taking personality that might, if you're lucky, make you rich.

[sheldrake]

Also, learned helplessness is a phenomenon that probably has an effect. If you've been ground down by a combination of external factors outside your control, it's going to be far harder to actually develop the go-getting, conscientious-yet-risk-taking personality that might, if you're lucky, make you rich.

This is after controlling for family circumstances, trauma, mental illness etc..

[sheldrake]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but a low to medium correlation is not a high correlation.

It's one of the most highly correlated traits, and it is trainable.

[Gfamily]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but a low to medium correlation is not a high correlation.

It's one of the most highly correlated traits, and it is trainable.

OK - you're clearly stuck in that place.

[sheldrake]

I'm not sure what point you think you're making, but a low to medium correlation is not a high correlation.

It's one of the most highly correlated traits, and it is trainable.

OK - you're clearly stuck in that place.

There are conflicting studies about whether IQ or Conscientiousness correlate more highly, and I suspect it depends on which other variables you control for. Conscientiousness seems to be more trainable though, and it's important to note that at no point have I said that either are more important than family socioeconomic background.