Scrutable

Imrael wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 5:24 pm

My personal experience (but also observed in a few others) is that parenthood made me more small-c conservative - less likely to job hop, take business risks etc. And quite a lot less geographically mobile. Which probably made me more "average" for my background, skills and experience.

Conscientious is interesting - for me conscience pulled me out of long hours burnout projects to attempt "work life balance", but (rather contradicting that) didnt stop me from taking a contract role in a "panic" project that promised to pay very well but meant weekdays away.

Since we've not really defined success, maybe thats it.

Adulthood did the same for me. I look around me and I'm doing OK, but I'm hardly at the top of my field, or a renowned expert in my hobbies. I've not even got particularly far down my personal wishlist of things I want to achieve - in fact I haven't really got one.

I am having a fairly nice time most of the time and don't feel like a failure, but I also don't judge myself to be particularly successful according to the normal metrics.



(As an aside I've not got kids and I'm a little suspicious of the mental transformation that takes place when people first have them, which appears to be both profoundly important and at least in part due to hormones. Rather than any great leap forward into maturity and increased awareness of others, which is what the parents often perceive themselves to be doing, I often sense a lot of selfishness, obsessiveness and self-righteousness aggrandising which is entirely understandable due to their hugely increased responsibility but is perhaps not quite as morally pure as many new parents feel it is)

Its exactly as you describe.

There is no more moral purity to this instinct than any other, like eating when you are hungry.. this instinct generally drives people to work more if society demands that as the condition of material comfort and advantage for their offspring. If society doesnt demand that... well you get the picture.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:35 pm

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.

I've used that as an argument of something that New Labour did that made a real difference, when talking to people who thought they were just Red Tories.

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:45 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:27 pm

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.

Wealthy parents who had no choice but to intervene and support their local decaying school would be anything but wishy-washy.

Indeed. They'd vote Tory to bring private schools back.
The problem is not the school buildings, it's the ethos and the methods.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:51 pm

Its exactly as you describe.

There is no more moral purity to this instinct than any other, like eating when you are hungry.. this instinct generally drives people to work more if society demands that as the condition of material comfort and advantage for their offspring. If society doesnt demand that... well you get the picture.

This is an odd description of "conscientious". Most of the additional work parents do is parenting. That's important but it is so normal it's hard to describe this as success.

I'd like to see data suggesting that parents work harder at their jobs than non-parents, and I'm completely prepared to call b.llsh.t on this one. Parents (especially new parents) might *feel* that they're working harder at their jobs, but if they do (and I want convincing) then this will be because (a) their kids are exhausting them, and (b) the hormonal / instinctive effects described above.

By your logic employers would be actively seeking out new mothers due to their highly focused and noticeably increased work ethic, due to their overwhelming maternal drive to earn money to provide for their children.

My children were five and eight when I walked away from full time employment, and not being able to spend enough time at home with them was an important part of why I did that.

The longest I’ve been in one job since then (about seventeen years ago) is around four months.

I don’t know whether this might appear to go against the idea of providing well for offspring, to me it feels more like the adage ‘work smarter not harder’ in order to be able to be there for them, so to speak.

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:20 pm

This is an odd description of "conscientious".

The desire to protect and provide for their young is what drives them to be more conscientious. Conscientiousness is not some kind of platonic absolute virtue, it's a psychometric trait that correlates with 'sense of duty', 'work ethic' etc..

Conscientiousness can also be undesirable in some contexts, so lets strip it of moral value and just look at it as an economically useful behaviour.

I'd like to see data suggesting that parents work harder at their jobs than non-parents, and I'm completely prepared to call b.llsh.t on this one. Parents (especially new parents) might *feel* that they're working harder at their jobs, but if they do (and I want convincing) then this will be because (a) their kids are exhausting them, and (b) the hormonal / instinctive effects described above.

I think you've gone on a slight tangent here by comparing parents to non-parents rather than looking at how you'd expect the same parent to behave in different circumstances, or against younger versions of themselves; let me ask the question in a different way: Do you think those parents would care as much about making a personal effort to provide for their children if they knew that they were guaranteed an income of £1000 per week per child by the state ?

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:28 pm

By your logic employers would be actively seeking out new mothers due to their highly focused and noticeably increased work ethic, due to their overwhelming maternal drive to earn money to provide for their children.

Employers do actively seek out mothers to employ. They're covertly very cagey about hiring young women who might be about to become pregnant, when they're not prevented by behaving like that by strong female bosses or HR department though.

There are no prizes for guessing that female conscientiousness used to be culturally focussed on childcare and male conscientiousness on breadwinning and that's now significantly dissolved, but the principal of 'not living just for the moment' once people become parents is still real.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:40 pm

There are no prizes for guessing that female conscientiousness used to be culturally focussed on childcare and male conscientiousness on breadwinning and that's now significantly dissolved, but the principal of 'not living just for the moment' once people become parents is still real.

You *still* haven't linked this sober outlook to "success", unless you're sticking to your definition of success as "being less useless than a young, lazy, stoned Sheldrake".

f.ck me. You "successfully" stopped being a teenager. Have a gold star for the fridge, you've earned it.

I mean, we've had decades of Tory policies, all stemming from the jolting realisation that it had suddenly become impossible to regularly m.st.rbate five times a day.

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:57 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:40 pm

There are no prizes for guessing that female conscientiousness used to be culturally focussed on childcare and male conscientiousness on breadwinning and that's now significantly dissolved, but the principal of 'not living just for the moment' once people become parents is still real.

You *still* haven't linked this sober outlook to "success", unless you're sticking to your definition of success as "being less useless than a young, lazy, stoned Sheldrake".

I think the problem is you won't accept that success is relative, but it is, and I also think you're side-tracking.

Can you really not see that this sober outlook makes people more likely to work and behave responsibly? You also honestly can't see that, for example, giving somebody £1000 a week for free might disincentivise them from working?

I'm honestly surprised this isn't obvious to you. Genuinely stunned.

(p.s.. it's not possible for you to m.st.rbate 5 times a day? poor sod)

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:58 pm

f.ck me. You "successfully" stopped being a teenager. Have a gold star for the fridge, you've earned it.

I'm still lazy and perpetually stoned, and I'm 29. Maybe sheldrake is right. Time to impregnate someone, I guess.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:49 pm

(p.s.. it's not possible for you to m.st.rbate 5 times a day? poor sod)

Yeah, those are rookie numbers, plodder.

It's okay BOAF, when you hit 30 something you'll reflect on your life and decide to get some of your sh.t together.

At that point you can go around telling everyone how successful you are, and how effective your own will-to-power is at removing so-called obstacles that most whinging snowflakes can't be bothered to do anything about.

Because that's all success is. It's relative, you see. Not to your peers, but to your own adolescence.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 11:49 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:57 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:40 pm

There are no prizes for guessing that female conscientiousness used to be culturally focussed on childcare and male conscientiousness on breadwinning and that's now significantly dissolved, but the principal of 'not living just for the moment' once people become parents is still real.

You *still* haven't linked this sober outlook to "success", unless you're sticking to your definition of success as "being less useless than a young, lazy, stoned Sheldrake".

I think the problem is you won't accept that success is relative, but it is, and I also think you're side-tracking.

Can you really not see that this sober outlook makes people more likely to work and behave responsibly? You also honestly can't see that, for example, giving somebody £1000 a week for free might disincentivise them from working?

I'm honestly surprised this isn't obvious to you. Genuinely stunned.

(p.s.. it's not possible for you to m.st.rbate 5 times a day? poor sod)

Who is proposing giving anybody £1000 a week for free? Why not £100000?

You see that homeless bloke in that doorway, the one who looks like he's in his 60's but actually he's in his early 30's?

The one who went through the care system after his mum had a breakdown and got taken away, and then had a spell in prison after a string of failed jobs?

He's just signed up to sell the Big Issue*! What a success he is! What a great, inspiring story for the rest of us - if only we had that kind of gumption and drive, we'd be successful too!




*I am aware that the Big Issue requires their vendors to make considerable effort in order to become a licensed vendor, including standards of behaviour, and that these are difficult and important first steps away from the dependency cycles that contribute towards homelessness. Achieving these represent significant personal successes (and it's a good reason to buy from badged vendors). But to downplay the societal factors in this person's situation, and to focus on the individual's personal drive is of course a crushing mistake.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:56 am

It's okay BOAF, when you hit 30 something you'll reflect on your life and decide to get some of your sh.t together.

At that point you can go around telling everyone how successful you are, and how effective your own will-to-power is at removing so-called obstacles that most whinging snowflakes can't be bothered to do anything about.

Because that's all success is. It's relative, you see. Not to your peers, but to your own adolescence.

You're being silly now. What do you actually need demonstrating to you?

You don't really doubt that humans adjust their attitude towards work based on the rewards or sanctions they think they'll receive, do you?

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 9:04 am

You see that homeless bloke in that doorway, the one who looks like he's in his 60's but actually he's in his early 30's?

The one who went through the care system after his mum had a breakdown and got taken away, and then had a spell in prison after a string of failed jobs?

He's just signed up to sell the Big Issue*! What a success he is! What a great, inspiring story for the rest of us - if only we had that kind of gumption and drive, we'd be successful too!




*I am aware that the Big Issue requires their vendors to make considerable effort in order to become a licensed vendor, including standards of behaviour, and that these are difficult and important first steps away from the dependency cycles that contribute towards homelessness. Achieving these represent significant personal successes (and it's a good reason to buy from badged vendors). But to downplay the societal factors in this person's situation, and to focus on the individual's personal drive is of course a crushing mistake.

You're pretending to not understand multi-factor outcomes now.

There are rewards and sanctions, but also obstacles and opportunities. Or to put it another way, many if not most of society's rewards and sanctions have a strong element of fortune.

You want multi factor outcomes? OK.

For example (gasp, some actual science), this research suggests that education is the key factor in homelessness after running some models to try and unpick causation.

https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcent ... 6947-13-94

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:01 am

There are rewards and sanctions, but also obstacles and opportunities. Or to put it another way, many if not most of society's rewards and sanctions have a strong element of fortune.

You want multi factor outcomes? OK.

For example (gasp, some actual science), this research suggests that education is the key factor in homelessness after running some models to try and unpick causation.

https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcent ... 6947-13-94

Sure. I'm not sure where this disagrees with anything I've said?

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:18 pm

for most people having their own place and staying out of unemployment is success, relative to being stoned most of the time and occasionally picking up the odd minimum wage gig.

This - your definition of success (and attendant perception of humanity) that's hopelessly inadequate.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 10:40 pm

plodder wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:28 pm

By your logic employers would be actively seeking out new mothers due to their highly focused and noticeably increased work ethic, due to their overwhelming maternal drive to earn money to provide for their children.

Employers do actively seek out mothers to employ. They're covertly very cagey about hiring young women who might be about to become pregnant, when they're not prevented by behaving like that by strong female bosses or HR department though.

I honestly feel like you are living in a totally different universe to me, sheldrake. I have had the complete opposite experience, from trying to get a new job when I'd just gotten married to all the subtle (and not so subtle) comments about how flaky/unreliable/insufficiently dedicated mothers are to their employment. Now I am one, it's fair to say that I'm way more efficient - multi-tasking, decisiveness and prioritisation are things I've honed in new ways during my maternity leave. But I honestly couldn't care less about making more money - I just want to be a better parent. And that actually means earning less so I can be part time. And not going for promotion because the role demanded lots of 'out of hours' working.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 8:56 am

It's okay BOAF, when you hit 30 something

That would be impressive.

plodder wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:50 am

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 15, 2020 4:18 pm

for most people having their own place and staying out of unemployment is success, relative to being stoned most of the time and occasionally picking up the odd minimum wage gig.

This - your definition of success (and attendant perception of humanity) that's hopelessly inadequate.

We're explicitly talking about financial success here. Any broader and more subjective definition of success is highly likely to be more humanly fulfilling, but much harder to quantify and not what we're discussing when we talk about equality of economic opportunity.

If you're happy to discuss specifically economic success, then we've already established that conscientiousness is highly correlated with it, and that conscientiousness is trainable. You do accept both of those things, don't you ?

It seems like you just object to the idea that parenthood motivates conscientious behaviour, have I understood correctly ?