Personal success (Split thread)

[sheldrake]

You can have freedom without loss of purpose. I think this ties in to our social stratification because people have been demoralized.

What does modernity mean, other than 'that thing we're currently doing'? Does it have a positive value you can articulate?

[plodder]

People can live in a range of highly stratified societies whilst having a very profound and strong sense of purpose. For example feudal societies, or cults. I don't agree that people feel listless and so they don't try and that's why an ever increasingly small number of remaining non-listless people get the goodies. In fact I think this is so over-simplified and fundamentally wrong I'm going to ask you to back this position up with more than conjecture.

[sheldrake]

People can live in a range of highly stratified societies whilst having a very profound and strong sense of purpose. For example feudal societies, or cults. I don't agree that people feel listless and so they don't try and that's why an ever increasingly small number of remaining non-listless people get the goodies. In fact I think this is so over-simplified and fundamentally wrong I'm going to ask you to back this position up with more than conjecture.

You've made something of a leap there, I didn't say the listlessness was the 'one true cause'. It's a factor amongst many, and it definitely prevents effective, united action to change things.

Think about the organized, coherent alternatives on offer.

[plodder]

How important is this factor compared to the others? Do you want to do a ranked list of the main ones? We might be agreeing and someone else might want to step in.

[sheldrake]

How important is this factor compared to the others? Do you want to do a ranked list of the main ones? We might be agreeing and someone else might want to step in.

My incomplete list

1) Parental socioeconomic status (this one is very complex because it's correlated with a host of other traits like the behaviours encouraged in childhood etc..)
2) Behavioural Trait - Conscentiousness (this is the thing that can be 'trained down' by bad cultural messaging/policy incentives. Honestly believe it can harm the working class to tell them that all their problems are caused by semi-mythical rich people and only politicians can save them)
3) IQ (Flynn effect is real, diet and the early childhood environment impact it etc.. It's also got a significant genetic component we can't do anything about)
4) Childhood trauma from abuse, messy parental divorce etc.. (some problems here may have become more likely due to cultural changes, but I'm open on it, I have no doubt that all kinds of bad things just stayed behind closed doors in the past etc..)
4) Ethnic background (some ethnic groups outperform 'white british' significantly, so it's not one-way here).
5) Gender
6) Random noise

[plodder]

You think a lack of conscientiousness is why the cabinet is stuffed with Etonians? Or do you think #1 hugely overrides all the others, in which case why have a "noise" category?

[sheldrake]

You think a lack of conscientiousness is why the cabinet is stuffed with Etonians? Or do you think #1 hugely overrides all the others, in which case why have a "noise" category?

I think the Cabinet is a fairly minor indicator of success. They're not that well paid. David Davis made it to the Cabinet from a South London council estate. Thatcher was a Greengrocer's daughter etc..

In the Tory party politics is something you do after you're rich, not how you get rich, most of the time.

[sheldrake]

Current Cabinet social backgrounds; they're not all that posh to be honest.

Boris Johnson - Posh, Eton, Oxford

Dominic Raab - Father a czech immigrant who fled Hitler and became a manager at Marks & Spencer. Went to a local free grammar school. Studied Law at Oxford. I'd class that as a bright, hard working person from the Lower Middle Class, simillar to us but perhaps with a better school.

Sajid Javid - Parents were both immigrants, Dad a bus driver. Racially bullied at school. Got where he is on hard work and IQ.

Priti Patel - Parents were immigrants. Studied at a comprehensive in London (that had 'grammar school' in the name despite being a comp).. Did economics at university.

Michael Gove - Lower/Middle Middle class parents (dad ran his own small business). Went to state school then won a scholarship to a private school. Made it to Oxford. A bit spooky looking but probably has a high IQ.

Robert Buckland - Minor private school in Wales then Durham university, middle or upper-middle class.

Steve Barclay - Grew up in Lancashire. Dad was a full time trade union official and his mum was in the civil service. Got sent to a minor local private school, then did history in Cambridge. Middle-middle class. I wonder if his dad's mates knew he was sending his son private ?

Ben Wallace - Posh. Millfield school then the Scots Guards

Matt Hancock - Upper Middle class in cheshire. Parents ran a software business. Private school followed by Oxford.

Could go on if you want, but I think you get the picture. There are a lot of people in this list who weren't exactly born into it.

[sheldrake]

Outside of politics, I see drive and a sharp brain overcome parental background all the time. I work with people who grew up in villages in the developing world with so-so electricity supplies who earn more than an MP. I definitely don't think socioeconomic background overwhelms everything else, not by a long chalk.

[plodder]

No, but that's only one aspect of luck. Having access to good institutions is extremely important, and that's a hell of a lottery.

[sheldrake]

No, but that's only one aspect of luck. Having access to good institutions is extremely important, and that's a hell of a lottery.

I do agree with that. So what do we do to improve them? I think history has shown it's possible to spend more money without making them better, so it's important what any extra money is spent on. What would you change ?

[plodder]

Essentially I would have a drive towards equality of opportunity as a central strategy for policy makers across all functions. The blockers would need to be identified and systematically removed across all policy areas.

The inefficiency of not proving people with good opportunities hugely outweighs any minor inefficiencies associated with whether teaching assistants should have SEN roles or whether disability ramps are expensive or whatever.

For example, only a small segment of our society has the luxury / opportunity of being able to hone their skills as a creative writer, and so our national discourse is overwhelmed by uninspiring and plummy middle brow crap. If we want the BBC to compete with HBO we need to encourage the best people to write, and that means widening the net. This principle applies across the board.

It should be noted that people tend to only come here for opportunities from emerging economies. You don't see many Americans over here trying to find an opportunity. We need to get as high up this scale as possible.

Improving our institutions to provide equality of opportunity is essentially a long term infrastructure project that needs enormous amounts of planning.

[plodder]

Outside of politics, I see drive and a sharp brain overcome parental background all the time. I work with people who grew up in villages in the developing world with so-so electricity supplies who earn more than an MP. I definitely don't think socioeconomic background overwhelms everything else, not by a long chalk.

Needs data. My impression is that people brought up in the big house get to keep it.

There's an old trope - you're always only three bad months away from being homeless.

However we could add that you're almost never three good months away from being financially secure for life.

The ladders are hard to climb and the snakes are extremely slippery. If you think about it, it should be just as easy to rise as it is to fall.

[lpm]

Essentially I would have a drive towards equality of opportunity as a central strategy for policy makers across all functions. The blockers would need to be identified and systematically removed across all policy areas.

The inefficiency of not proving people with good opportunities hugely outweighs any minor inefficiencies associated with whether teaching assistants should have SEN roles or whether disability ramps are expensive or whatever.

For example, only a small segment of our society has the luxury / opportunity of being able to hone their skills as a creative writer, and so our national discourse is overwhelmed by uninspiring and plummy middle brow crap. If we want the BBC to compete with HBO we need to encourage the best people to write, and that means widening the net. This principle applies across the board.

It should be noted that people tend to only come here for opportunities from emerging economies. You don't see many Americans over here trying to find an opportunity. We need to get as high up this scale as possible.

Improving our institutions to provide equality of opportunity is essentially a long term infrastructure project that needs enormous amounts of planning.

Yes.

It's odd, because I agree with Sheldrake on a lot, but he doesn't seem to come to the same implications as you and me.

The waste of talented resources is a vast inefficiency, from the obvious things like racism to regional accents being discriminated against. How can we win and prosper in a competitive world if we over-invest in privileged people and under-invest in talented people? A long term strategy of equality of opportunity would be a great investment, not a cost.

[plodder]

Agreed.

Also note I should have said "young Americans". Obviously the old ones come over here to exploit the sh.t out of us.

[sheldrake]

For example, only a small segment of our society has the luxury / opportunity of being able to hone their skills as a creative writer

I'm not sure this is true. Joe Orton, Sue Townsend, Colin Wilson, etc.. a lot of writers from lower middle/working class backgrounds.

and so our national discourse is overwhelmed by uninspiring and plummy middle brow crap. If we want the BBC to compete with HBO we need to encourage the best people to write, and that means widening the net. This principle applies across the board.

The BBC doesn't compete with HBO because it's parochial, depressing UK-centric crap and it faces no real competitive pressure to up it's game thanks to the license fee.

You don't see many Americans over here trying to find an opportunity. We need to get as high up this scale as possible.

That's because pay is lower in the UK for most positions. The only places I see significant numbers of Americans are at the high end of banking and people on secondment from large US tech firms who go mostly go home once the special deal where they get a subsidised flat and US pay expires.

You don't get that many Americans anywhere in the European private sector for this reason.

Improving our institutions to provide equality of opportunity is essentially a long term infrastructure project that needs enormous amounts of planning.

How much equality of opportunity and what needs doing to provide it?

[plodder]

You think I'm going to reformat that lot?

Sue Townsend is a great example. She had a succession of normal jobs (worked in a petrol station etc) and attended a writing course at her local theater in the late 1970's where she plucked up the courage to try and put pen to paper. The theater was subsequently almost demolished in 1988 and again in 2009 due to council cuts in arts support, which of course is a form of limiting opportunity to people who can't afford it.

It's now called the Sue Townsend theater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Towns ... ing_career

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Townsend_Theatre

[sheldrake]

You think I'm going to reformat that lot?

Sue Townsend is a great example. She had a succession of normal jobs (worked in a petrol station etc) and attended a writing course at her local theater in the late 1970's where she plucked up the courage to try and put pen to paper. The theater was subsequently almost demolished in 1988 and again in 2009 due to council cuts in arts support, which of course is a form of limiting opportunity to people who can't afford it.

It's now called the Sue Townsend theater.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Towns ... ing_career

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Townsend_Theatre

But it wasn't actually demolished.

What about the others? and J.K. Rowling? There are loads of examples of people becoming writers who weren't dilettantes living on inherited share dividends, before we even look at the US, Caribbean, Australia etc..

[Bird on a Fire]

A difference I'd like to point out is that plodder and others are claiming systematic barriers to success caused by certain circumstantial factors. Sheldrake often responds by pointing out individuals who have overcome those barriers, seemingly with the implication that because they are surmountable, addressing the barriers is less important than identifying what is special about those individuals who get past them.

As ever, I think what we need are proper numbers on a few (preferably mutually-agreed) outcome measures - education? salary? wealth? - from different backgrounds, and then compare those with the actual frequencies of those backgrounds in the general population. As this started as a UK-focussed discussion I think that's probably the best context to look for stats. I expect the ONS publishes everything we need.

[dyqik]

A difference I'd like to point out is that plodder and others are claiming systematic barriers to success caused by certain circumstantial factors. Sheldrake often responds by pointing out individuals who have overcome those barriers, seemingly with the implication that because they are surmountable, addressing the barriers is less important than identifying what is special about those individuals who get past them.

As ever, I think what we need are proper numbers on a few (preferably mutually-agreed) outcome measures - education? salary? wealth? - from different backgrounds, and then compare those with the actual frequencies of those backgrounds in the general population. As this started as a UK-focussed discussion I think that's probably the best context to look for stats. I expect the ONS publishes everything we need.

Survivorship bias has already been mentioned upthread. Which sheldrake is doing in spades.

[plodder]

It feels like anything to keep the opposition going tbh.

[sheldrake]

Its not contrarianism, its because I think a degree of inequality is actually necessary for a society to function well and this will inevitably lead to some inequality of opportunity if we're not to destroy important parental incentives. Survivorship bias may be true, but there is a lot of data suggesting that parental socioeconomic class doesnt overwhelm everything else.

I'm open to specific interventions, we already have many. I dont feel that you guys are spelling out specific interventions very clearly.

If you asked me to agree to tear dowb all barriers to success, I wpuldnt agree with that aim. Im not saying no barriers exist.

[Bird on a Fire]

It feels like anything to keep the opposition going tbh.

If somebody is a natural opposer, if I were inclined to engage with them at all I would do so by putting my best-researched, thought-through and expressed argument on show and see where they (and others, of course) poke holes in it, not just waffle away at each other about what we reckon.

[Bird on a Fire]

I'm open to specific interventions, we already have many. I dont feel that you guys are spelling out specific interventions very clearly.

Nor do I. Pretty much the only concrete suggestion so far is banning private education, which would directly affect only about 10% of people. I think your criticism of it as levelling-down rather than levelling-up is a fair one, and the proposed pathways to improvement (rich parents would have more incentive to vote - even though richer demographics are already better-represented than poorer ones in elections) are, to be generous, wishy-washy and unevidenced.

[lpm]

SureStart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sure_Start

Very successful, studies show it made a great return on investment, then cut back by the Conservatives. There's nothing about SureStart that you wouldn't support, Sheldrake, given your stated positions.