Personal success (Split thread)

[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?

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.

Most of the research within developed societies points at the psychometric traits of conscientiousness and IQ being significantly correlated with financial success for all levels of parental socioeconomic status.

[plodder]

Didn't your indy article suggest a correlation of around 1% increase in wages? That's about a pound a day for most people.

[plodder]

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.

Hang on, do you mean someone in Mali becoming as rich as Bill Gates, or wealthy by Malian standards?

I read recently that in the West it's never been easier to be a billionaire and never been harder to become a millionaire (adjusted for inflation etc)

[plodder]

I'll fess up a little - I've an agenda here. Whilst I believe that historically, for all its faults, capitalism has been a genuinely positive force for social mobility. However I think this has recently changed and it's now an increasingly parasitic construct in need of a reset.

(I'm aware that capitalism has been described as parasitic by Marxists etc all along. I think they threw the baby out with the bathwater).

[sheldrake]

Hang on, do you mean someone in Mali becoming as rich as Bill Gates, or wealthy by Malian standards?

Probably both. Dodging starvation, horrific tropical diseases, warlords and natural disaster on the way to an office job seems more of a struggle and a coin-flip than overcoming the social stigma, bad public transport issues etc.. of a council estate in Tyneside.

I read recently that in the West it's never been easier to be a billionaire and never been harder to become a millionaire (adjusted for inflation etc)

Interesting, where did you see that?

I definitely think social stratification is increasing. The cost of big-ticket capital items you need for social mobility like home ownership, university education etc.. has certainly been increasing faster than wages for a few decades now.

I think Marxists have a lot of sharp observations but they make two fundamental errors: -

i) Just like extreme Thatcherites, but in the opposite direction, they have a misguided and incomplete view of human motivation.

ii) They mischaracterise all profit as the result of a zero-sum transaction. Sometimes it is (e.g. theft, fraud, monopolies that force you to pay up via regulation when you'd never choose it yourself etc..), sometimes it isn't (when you buy an album you've hankered after, and it's a delight, both you and the musician end up richer; you wanted the album more than the money, and the musician needed the money, and they earned it by creating something that didn't exist before). This is understandable because Marxism grew out of a semi-feudal world where workers were often almost like property with no savings or bargaining power. It is more obviously off-key in 21st century Britain.

I think good economic policies would recognise that people are at least somewhat motivated by personal material interests (whether they're public or private sector) and channel that into the second type of profiteering.

[sheldrake]

Didn't your indy article suggest a correlation of around 1% increase in wages? That's about a pound a day for most people.

He cites 1-2% for IQ to underscore that he believe conscientiousness is more significant than that.

The tiny apparent delta there is probably a reflection of many people clustering into a narrow range. There won't be many (if any) medical doctors with an IQ of 70 in the UK, for example. Conversely, there will probably be plenty of people with an IQ over 130 who are long term unemployed. I know at least one personally. You probably do too.

This old research in New Scientist seems to come to simillar conclusions https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... etter-off/

(misleading title: they do earn more other things being equal, but it's easily overwhelmed if they have poor impulse control etc..)

Key here in the research is that people say the positive behavioural traits are trainable. This is why it can have a very harmful effect to send out a cultural message that financial success is just luck. Humans adapt their behaviour in response to incentives.

[Grumble]

Didn't your indy article suggest a correlation of around 1% increase in wages? That's about a pound a day for most people.

He cites 1-2% for IQ to underscore that he believe conscientiousness is more significant than that.

The tiny apparent delta there is probably a reflection of many people clustering into a narrow range. There won't be many (if any) medical doctors with an IQ of 70 in the UK, for example. Conversely, there will probably be plenty of people with an IQ over 130 who are long term unemployed. I know at least one personally. You probably do too.

This old research in New Scientist seems to come to simillar conclusions https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... etter-off/

(misleading title: they do earn more other things being equal, but it's easily overwhelmed if they have poor impulse control etc..)

Key here in the research is that people say the positive behavioural traits are trainable. This is why it can have a very harmful effect to send out a cultural message that financial success is just luck. Humans adapt their behaviour in response to incentives.

I agree, there are a lot of lucky factors when it comes to personal success but you still need the skills to take advantage of those. That they are trainable just shows that parents and schools have a big influence as well. Not realising that all these things happened before you left school and thinking that it’s all down to you is a position of privilege though, isn’t it? I suspect though that if asked many rich people with a moment’s reflection would credit their parents and quite probably one or two particularly influential teachers too.

[sheldrake]

Didn't your indy article suggest a correlation of around 1% increase in wages? That's about a pound a day for most people.

He cites 1-2% for IQ to underscore that he believe conscientiousness is more significant than that.

The tiny apparent delta there is probably a reflection of many people clustering into a narrow range. There won't be many (if any) medical doctors with an IQ of 70 in the UK, for example. Conversely, there will probably be plenty of people with an IQ over 130 who are long term unemployed. I know at least one personally. You probably do too.

This old research in New Scientist seems to come to simillar conclusions https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... etter-off/

(misleading title: they do earn more other things being equal, but it's easily overwhelmed if they have poor impulse control etc..)

Key here in the research is that people say the positive behavioural traits are trainable. This is why it can have a very harmful effect to send out a cultural message that financial success is just luck. Humans adapt their behaviour in response to incentives.

I agree, there are a lot of lucky factors when it comes to personal success but you still need the skills to take advantage of those. That they are trainable just shows that parents and schools have a big influence as well. Not realising that all these things happened before you left school and thinking that it’s all down to you is a position of privilege though, isn’t it? I suspect though that if asked many rich people with a moment’s reflection would credit their parents and quite probably one or two particularly influential teachers too.

But if you asked them what they learned, many of them would talk about character traits like work ethic, not just factual knowledge. The danger with sending out the message that success is 'all luck' is that it undermines the ethos that fosters those character traits. I think this is one of the factors in the continual underperformance of marxist economies; they've literally undermined people's reason to work hard. This seems to be what was happening in super-unionised 70s britain when we ended up calling in the IMF.

At the other end of the spectrum refusing to acknowledge there's any luck involved makes people harsh and unsympathetic to people in desperate need of help.

Getting this balance right is basically at the heart of the debate between right wing and left wing economics as I understand it.

[Grumble]

But if you asked them what they learned, many of them would talk about character traits like work ethic, not just factual knowledge. The danger with sending out the message that success is 'all luck' is that it undermines the ethos that fosters those character traits.

Yes, I meant that parents and schools were teaching work ethic/mental discipline. I don’t think my comment made it through the split earlier, I think given rich parents and all life’s advantages but with no work ethic you end up with Bertie Wooster.

[sheldrake]

Agreed. For the small number of 'old money' people I've gotten to know well, trying to make sure their kids don't turn out like that is a big deal they spent a lot of time thinking about.

[plodder]

But if you asked them what they learned, many of them would talk about character traits like work ethic, not just factual knowledge. The danger with sending out the message that success is 'all luck' is that it undermines the ethos that fosters those character traits.

Yes, I meant that parents and schools were teaching work ethic/mental discipline. I don’t think my comment made it through the split earlier, I think given rich parents and all life’s advantages but with no work ethic you end up with Bertie Wooster.

Yes, but Bertie Wooster gets to keep all his wealth etc. It’s only his kids and grandchildren that don’t get the estate, indolent lifestyle etc - it takes that long to fritter away. Even then they’ll have the Wooster surname and connections and take up a lovely job in the Arts or something.

[plodder]

Although there is a danger in telling people that success is mainly luck, there’s a greater danger in telling them it’s all due to hard work and gumption. The latter is the route to pointless and fruitless wage slavery for millions, who would be far better off focussing their efforts in improving equality of opportunity. But in order for them to do this we need to collectively recognise the significant inequalities in opportunity we currently have.

[bjn]

Although there is a danger in telling people that success is mainly luck, there’s a greater danger in telling them it’s all due to hard work and gumption. The latter is the route to pointless and fruitless wage slavery for millions, who would be far better off focussing their efforts in improving equality of opportunity. But in order for them to do this we need to collectively recognise the significant inequalities in opportunity we currently have.

This ^.

[sheldrake]

Although there is a danger in telling people that success is mainly luck, there’s a greater danger in telling them it’s all due to hard work and gumption. The latter is the route to pointless and fruitless wage slavery for millions, who would be far better off focussing their efforts in improving equality of opportunity.

I do not agree with this at all. Their work is not pointless and fruitless, they create and maintain the abundant society we live in now. What exactly would you have them do instead? how exactly would these masses of people, pulled from their factories, call centres & offices 'improve equality of opportunity' whilst nobody is cleaning the toilets, delivering the food, processing the tax returns etc..?

Most of the population have to do fairly boring sh.t for 40 hours a week for most of their adult life just to pay the bills. They're not doing this because somebody has planned an intricate series of interlocking pointless tasks to keep them busy, they're doing these tasks because somebody else needs them to and is willing to pay them. This interlocking web of 'stuff people want doing' is how all the mundane things we depend on for a 21st-century life is kept ticking. Without it, life would be *way* more barbaric and uncomfortable than it is now. There would actually be less surplus wealth and time available for people to study the humanities, pursue scientific research, create art etc..

But in order for them to do this we need to collectively recognise the significant inequalities in opportunity we currently have.

People growing up in the UK today have opportunities undreamt of by their ancestors. If you try to eliminate all the differences in how much support parents give their children, you would remove one of the greatest incentives for work that there is.

Societies that believe in the value of individual effort and reward it are more prosperous.

The are stlll big swathes of the Earth where success is actually more dependent on luck than it is here in Britain, and yet many of those societies believe more in their own effort than we do. That's a part of how their economies grow so fast and why when people from those societies emigrate here they often end up more successful than the 'indigenous' within a generation.

There's a really seductive but dangerous tone to the 'life's unfair' narrative.

[sheldrake]

I want to be fair-minded here. How about you describe really specific things you want to change about opportunity. Maybe some specific things will make sense to me.

[plodder]

Although there is a danger in telling people that success is mainly luck, there’s a greater danger in telling them it’s all due to hard work and gumption. The latter is the route to pointless and fruitless wage slavery for millions, who would be far better off focussing their efforts in improving equality of opportunity.

I do not agree with this at all. Their work is not pointless and fruitless, they create and maintain the abundant society we live in now. What exactly would you have them do instead? how exactly would these masses of people, pulled from their factories, call centres & offices 'improve equality of opportunity' whilst nobody is cleaning the toilets, delivering the food, processing the tax returns etc..?

Most of the population have to do fairly boring sh.t for 40 hours a week for most of their adult life just to pay the bills. They're not doing this because somebody has planned an intricate series of interlocking pointless tasks to keep them busy, they're doing these tasks because somebody else needs them to and is willing to pay them. This interlocking web of 'stuff people want doing' is how all the mundane things we depend on for a 21st-century life is kept ticking. Without it, life would be *way* more barbaric and uncomfortable than it is now. There would actually be less surplus wealth and time available for people to study the humanities, pursue scientific research, create art etc..

But in order for them to do this we need to collectively recognise the significant inequalities in opportunity we currently have.

People growing up in the UK today have opportunities undreamt of by their ancestors. If you try to eliminate all the differences in how much support parents give their children, you would remove one of the greatest incentives for work that there is.

Societies that believe in the value of individual effort and reward it are more prosperous.

The are stlll big swathes of the Earth where success is actually more dependent on luck than it is here in Britain, and yet many of those societies believe more in their own effort than we do. That's a part of how their economies grow so fast and why when people from those societies emigrate here they often end up more successful than the 'indigenous' within a generation.

There's a really seductive but dangerous tone to the 'life's unfair' narrative.

This deserves a proper response and I don’t have time right now: but in the meantime it’s important not to confuse “having a job” with “knocking yourself silly because Cinderella”

[plodder]

Although there is a danger in telling people that success is mainly luck, there’s a greater danger in telling them it’s all due to hard work and gumption. The latter is the route to pointless and fruitless wage slavery for millions, who would be far better off focussing their efforts in improving equality of opportunity.

I do not agree with this at all. Their work is not pointless and fruitless, they create and maintain the abundant society we live in now. What exactly would you have them do instead? how exactly would these masses of people, pulled from their factories, call centres & offices 'improve equality of opportunity' whilst nobody is cleaning the toilets, delivering the food, processing the tax returns etc..?

Most of the population have to do fairly boring sh.t for 40 hours a week for most of their adult life just to pay the bills. They're not doing this because somebody has planned an intricate series of interlocking pointless tasks to keep them busy, they're doing these tasks because somebody else needs them to and is willing to pay them. This interlocking web of 'stuff people want doing' is how all the mundane things we depend on for a 21st-century life is kept ticking. Without it, life would be *way* more barbaric and uncomfortable than it is now. There would actually be less surplus wealth and time available for people to study the humanities, pursue scientific research, create art etc..

But in order for them to do this we need to collectively recognise the significant inequalities in opportunity we currently have.

People growing up in the UK today have opportunities undreamt of by their ancestors. If you try to eliminate all the differences in how much support parents give their children, you would remove one of the greatest incentives for work that there is.

Societies that believe in the value of individual effort and reward it are more prosperous.

The are stlll big swathes of the Earth where success is actually more dependent on luck than it is here in Britain, and yet many of those societies believe more in their own effort than we do. That's a part of how their economies grow so fast and why when people from those societies emigrate here they often end up more successful than the 'indigenous' within a generation.

There's a really seductive but dangerous tone to the 'life's unfair' narrative.

This deserves a proper response and I don’t have time right now: but in the meantime it’s important not to confuse “having a job” with “knocking yourself silly because Cinderella”

[plodder]

oooh a double post, get me!

[sheldrake]

I agree there's a difference but shouldn't people be allowed to decide where their own line is?

[Pucksoppet]

[/quote]I think it was Louis Pasteur who, upon being asked why he was so lucky (i.e. successful) in his research, said:

Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés.

which is often translated as: "Chance favours the prepared mind", missing the restriction to the field of observation.

So while I regard luck having a lot to do with success, I think the amount of 'luck' you get is related to how prepared you are to take advantage of situations. Even so, some people are the one in 1024, and yet believe their success is all their own work, other unfortunates (literally) at the other end of the scale might well have worked damned hard and got nowhere, which is very demoralising.

The linkage of success to personality certainly has truthiness, but even linking the 'Big Five' to Work success is far from uncontroversial, as Wikipedia points out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_ ... rk_success

Had I taken more risks with my finances, I might well have been extremely well off. By that measure, I have been unsuccessful, but at the time I was making what turned out to be pivotal decisions, I literally did not know enough about the necessary areas to make informed decision: and this is from someone normally consumed with analysis paralysis and who can be reasonably expected to have looked at things in what appears to others as unreasonable amounts of detail. So while preparation is good, you still have to choose what areas to be prepared in, knowing that it is impossible to be an expert in everything, or even to know who to trust.

I would certainly be unsurprised to learn that random chance plays a larger role in life outcomes than most people expect, which is a bit dispiriting. The 'American Dream' is founded on the idea that if you work hard enough for long enough at enough things (bouncing back from failures), you will be successful/rich/happy. To me that looks a bit like playing a Martingale strategy with your life. The winners evangelise about how easy it is (anyone can do it!), and the losers keep quiet, giving a biased sample of inputs for the next marks. There are winners. But at what human cost?

[plodder]

So what’s interesting about the 1 in 1024 is of course there’s one other person with 10 tails in a row. And we might look at the middle of the bell curve and find more normal results.

[sheldrake]

I would certainly be unsurprised to learn that random chance plays a larger role in life outcomes than most people expect, which is a bit dispiriting. The 'American Dream' is founded on the idea that if you work hard enough for long enough at enough things (bouncing back from failures), you will be successful/rich/happy. To me that looks a bit like playing a Martingale strategy with your life. The winners evangelise about how easy it is (anyone can do it!), and the losers keep quiet, giving a biased sample of inputs for the next marks. There are winners. But at what human cost?

Think of the human cost of giving up. Pushing ourselves is an important part of our condition. Our brain's pleasure centres are triggered by pursuing a goal and attaining it; this is why idle children of the super-wealthy are jaded; they're literally unable to derive the same degree of pleasure from things that were obtained effortlessly.

Pretending success is all luck, or so much about luck that nobody is meaningfully accountable for their own success is to risk creating a grey world of aimless, unsatisfied people who struggle to find meaning and don't get much done.

Exactly like big swathes of communist societies.

[sheldrake]

So what’s interesting about the 1 in 1024 is of course there’s one other person with 10 tails in a row. And we might look at the middle of the bell curve and find more normal results.

The coins aren't like people. They don't adapt to rewards, or vary in their personality. They'll literally start acting differently as you try to correct for all the unfair coinflips.

[plodder]

On average they do. Please be careful not to muddle “giving up” with “don’t stop believing”

[sheldrake]

On average they do.

I see it differently; 1000 coinflips won't skew differently because of the result of 1000 coinflips the day before. Groups of people actually do, because they learn and have a collective memory.

Please be careful not to muddle “giving up” with “don’t stop believing”

I do that because I think they're causally connected. Both in terms of the direct behavioural influence the beliefs can have, and through the effects of policies that might stem from those beliefs.