@animal
YES! The role that drug and alcohol abuse plays in failure is enormous. You could include gambling abuse in that equation also. I know everybody knows this and it sounds silly to repeat it but it is so crucial not to succumb to those problems. Presenting yourself as a fit, clean and healthy individual when hustling puts you so far ahead of your competition, especially when work is done on peoples houses. They want the ability to trust you before they allow you into their home.
@Scott
I have not read that book. I'l have to check and see if our library carries it.
"Generalization to society as a whole, is a dangerous implication of Shepard's work. That's what gives me pause."
Thank you for really thoughtful responses. That quote above really resonates with me.
@Axel
That's the way I read it when people put qualifiers on others accomplishments. Maybe I am too sensitive but I find it a bit patronizing to which ever affected group one is defending.
Switching to something more light-hearted: I watched this the other day which was amusing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuWT1FKdjmU
I remember the days when people would talk about their diet leading to incredible gains, haha.
Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Fair enough!
"I have unstoppable hamstrings."
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Anecdotal observations on the differences in macro poverty policy between the two countries I spend most of my time in:
- Country 1 is about the closest you will find to the traditional social democratic welfare state, with unemployment benefits unlimited in time, very good quality universal healthcare, mostly free higher education, fairly good social housing, fallback benefits for those without a right to unemployment benefits, ... Government pensions are usually more than sufficient. Many parents support their children financially into old age. I see quite a few well-fed people with zero sense of dignity in country 1, and very few obviously poor people with a sense of dignity.
- Country 2 has very limited macro support except for fairly good universal healthcare. Wages are two to three times lower. Pensions are the lowest in the EU. Most children support their retired parents financially to the extent possible. I've seen quite a lot of obviously poor people with a sense of dignity and the will to get out of poverty there, and quite a lot of people that have both given up themselves and been given up by society.
- Country 1 is about the closest you will find to the traditional social democratic welfare state, with unemployment benefits unlimited in time, very good quality universal healthcare, mostly free higher education, fairly good social housing, fallback benefits for those without a right to unemployment benefits, ... Government pensions are usually more than sufficient. Many parents support their children financially into old age. I see quite a few well-fed people with zero sense of dignity in country 1, and very few obviously poor people with a sense of dignity.
- Country 2 has very limited macro support except for fairly good universal healthcare. Wages are two to three times lower. Pensions are the lowest in the EU. Most children support their retired parents financially to the extent possible. I've seen quite a lot of obviously poor people with a sense of dignity and the will to get out of poverty there, and quite a lot of people that have both given up themselves and been given up by society.
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 16003
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Without loss of generality, the disagreement can be framing using a gaming metaphor:
outcome = the cards you're dealt + how you play them
Two equally good players who are dealt different cards will have different outcomes. Likewise, two players who are dealt the same cards will have different outcomes if they don't play them equally well.
Random factors can be inserted in both the cards and the playing strategies so that using the same strategy on the same cards will not always lead to exactly the same outcome. However, this just means we have to make statistical conclusions such as "these cards are generally bad" or "this strategy is generally good".
The disagreement comes down to different people trying to make different points about the terms of the equations because the other term is a holy cow to them.
Postmodernists believe that all people are "beautiful" and by implication that individual strategy doesn't matter; maybe more precisely that it shouldn't matter in order for everybody to express themselves in the way they want---never shame the player. As such, the focus is entirely on the card-term. They make their point by correlating the outcomes with various hands and conclude that the problem is "structural". Basically, some are playing on easy-mode and others are playing on hard-mode.
Modernists believe in equal and individual opportunity and are thus loath to admit that not everybody gets dealt the same hand. They make their point by correlating the outcome with various playing styles and conclude that some strategies are better than others.
This draws up the "attribution"-conflict. Humans have a tendency to ascribe their successes to their own hard work while ascribing their failures to bad luck. Humans even tend to do the opposite when it comes to others, which is kinda mean-spirited but humans gotta human.
The problem with this type of debate is that each side is deliberately blind to the argument of the other side. The result is that any argument from the other side easily translates into an insulting form. IOW, postmodernist arguments sound like insults to modernists and vice versa.
Specifically, postmodernists will tell good players that their success is all luck or privilege, while modernists will conclude that anyone who loses simply need to try harder.
We need to recognize that there are both bad players and bad hands.
Also bad players and good hands; good players and bad hands; and good players and good hands. This requires keeping four perspectives in mind. But doing so requires both modernists and postmodernists to slaughter a holy cow. Modernists have to accept that there are bad hands. Postmodernists have to accept that there are bad players.
outcome = the cards you're dealt + how you play them
Two equally good players who are dealt different cards will have different outcomes. Likewise, two players who are dealt the same cards will have different outcomes if they don't play them equally well.
Random factors can be inserted in both the cards and the playing strategies so that using the same strategy on the same cards will not always lead to exactly the same outcome. However, this just means we have to make statistical conclusions such as "these cards are generally bad" or "this strategy is generally good".
The disagreement comes down to different people trying to make different points about the terms of the equations because the other term is a holy cow to them.
Postmodernists believe that all people are "beautiful" and by implication that individual strategy doesn't matter; maybe more precisely that it shouldn't matter in order for everybody to express themselves in the way they want---never shame the player. As such, the focus is entirely on the card-term. They make their point by correlating the outcomes with various hands and conclude that the problem is "structural". Basically, some are playing on easy-mode and others are playing on hard-mode.
Modernists believe in equal and individual opportunity and are thus loath to admit that not everybody gets dealt the same hand. They make their point by correlating the outcome with various playing styles and conclude that some strategies are better than others.
This draws up the "attribution"-conflict. Humans have a tendency to ascribe their successes to their own hard work while ascribing their failures to bad luck. Humans even tend to do the opposite when it comes to others, which is kinda mean-spirited but humans gotta human.
The problem with this type of debate is that each side is deliberately blind to the argument of the other side. The result is that any argument from the other side easily translates into an insulting form. IOW, postmodernist arguments sound like insults to modernists and vice versa.
Specifically, postmodernists will tell good players that their success is all luck or privilege, while modernists will conclude that anyone who loses simply need to try harder.
We need to recognize that there are both bad players and bad hands.
Also bad players and good hands; good players and bad hands; and good players and good hands. This requires keeping four perspectives in mind. But doing so requires both modernists and postmodernists to slaughter a holy cow. Modernists have to accept that there are bad hands. Postmodernists have to accept that there are bad players.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Yes!jacob wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:21 amWe need to recognize that there are both bad players and bad hands.
Also bad players and good hands; good players and bad hands; and good players and good hands. This requires keeping four perspectives in mind. But doing so requires both modernists and postmodernists to slaughter a holy cow. Modernists have to accept that there are bad hands. Postmodernists have to accept that there are bad players.
I would add one thing. There is a contagious element among players.
Spend time with good players who got bad hands. They spread good play to everyone nearby and make us all better.
Alternatively, avoid bad players who got good hands like the plague. They infect everyone nearby with bad play and make us all worse.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
One of the insights that occurs at the post-post-Modern level is that it's not even the case that all the players are playing the same game with their bad/good situations or bad/good states of being. For example, success in Modern terms, inherent of strong belief in agency, is usually defined as achievement of measurable goals in alignment with initial intent. However, if one of my disadvantaged 5th graders told me that he wanted a million dollar or to be a millionaire, the core meaning of what he was communicating from his perspective would be different than the core meaning of such a statement communicated from the perspective of, for instance, a member of this forum. IOW, the fifth grader wouldn't even know where he was aiming with whatever strategy he undertook, because he is lacking the "wormhole of perspective" that a member of this forum who was "slumming" would possess.
An example of this from the "Scratched" book would be when Shephard demonstrates that he holds a perspective at least "3 plays' deep when he chooses to buy some cigarettes, and hang out with the smokers at the shelter, in order to get the social benefits of hanging out, the financial benefits of trading in single cigarettes purchased in bulk, but not the risks inherent in actually becoming a smoker. So, for example, if he had just followed Ego's "linear" Old Testament Purity Law-like dictum of "Shun the company of those with bad habits", he would have had a worse outcome. "Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin", a more 2-dimensional New Testament-like rule-of-thumb, actually led to a better outcome, because a more insightful "chess" move in the game he was playing.
The post-modern "structural' perspective, although frequently misused and abused, is inherently superior to the more "linear" modern perspective, because it does add at least one more dimension of consideration to any problem. This can be proven very simply with "put your money where your mouth is." Who will offer me odds on one of my disadvantaged 5th graders with current net worth of $50 becoming a millionaire 20 years from now vs. a newly arrived member of this forum with net worth of negative $50,000 in student loan debt becoming a millionaire 10 years from now? How far back in the journey of the newly arrived forum member would we have to go for you to accept even odds on my bet? For example, how many members of this forum grew up in households where nobody read above a 2nd grade level in any language? There may actually be one or two, but I'm willing to bet there was some kind of "worm hole" made available in their early environment that gave access to alternative perspective with the great good fortune of being in possession of the innate components of high IQ as force multiplier.
An example of this from the "Scratched" book would be when Shephard demonstrates that he holds a perspective at least "3 plays' deep when he chooses to buy some cigarettes, and hang out with the smokers at the shelter, in order to get the social benefits of hanging out, the financial benefits of trading in single cigarettes purchased in bulk, but not the risks inherent in actually becoming a smoker. So, for example, if he had just followed Ego's "linear" Old Testament Purity Law-like dictum of "Shun the company of those with bad habits", he would have had a worse outcome. "Love the Sinner. Hate the Sin", a more 2-dimensional New Testament-like rule-of-thumb, actually led to a better outcome, because a more insightful "chess" move in the game he was playing.
The post-modern "structural' perspective, although frequently misused and abused, is inherently superior to the more "linear" modern perspective, because it does add at least one more dimension of consideration to any problem. This can be proven very simply with "put your money where your mouth is." Who will offer me odds on one of my disadvantaged 5th graders with current net worth of $50 becoming a millionaire 20 years from now vs. a newly arrived member of this forum with net worth of negative $50,000 in student loan debt becoming a millionaire 10 years from now? How far back in the journey of the newly arrived forum member would we have to go for you to accept even odds on my bet? For example, how many members of this forum grew up in households where nobody read above a 2nd grade level in any language? There may actually be one or two, but I'm willing to bet there was some kind of "worm hole" made available in their early environment that gave access to alternative perspective with the great good fortune of being in possession of the innate components of high IQ as force multiplier.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
@jacob - I probably fall into your post modernistic bucket. But I wouldn't frame my reasoning as "everyone's beautiful".
Rather - some things are impossible. Don't put my food on a 10' shelf, then say "he's just not hungry enough" when I don't eat. No amount of positive thinking will let me reach.
When someone is disenfranchised, it's unrealistic to expect they'll concede to starvation. They're going to steal a ladder. Do it to enough people, they're going to tear down the wall supporting the shelf.
So my interest is in how we make an accurate observation of what is, then extend that into a realistic vision of what could be.
At an individual level, the bad players are infuriating. But it's hard to tease apart luck of the original hand vs. a resolvable skill issue.
I'm listening to Stephanie Land's book Class right now. It's a continuation of her story from the book Maid, including the time doing her undergrad and masters degrees.
A good portion of the book is spent complaining about her financial misfortune, unreliable work, assistance program barriers, etc.
But then she's doing stuff like eating at McDonald's, drinking, smoking, hanging at bars, taking risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Predictably, life has a pattern of collapsing on her. My brain screams skill issue, to the point where it's hard to keep reading. At one point she bemoans the inability to afford an Odwalla smoothie. The entitlement is shameful.
But maybe she's self medicating with those behaviors. Are the destructive patterns unresolvable? Where does the inability to anticipate consequence come from? The impulsivety?
I don't have the answer. I'm a terrible judge of people. But if it's not fixable, we gotta try something else.
Rather - some things are impossible. Don't put my food on a 10' shelf, then say "he's just not hungry enough" when I don't eat. No amount of positive thinking will let me reach.
When someone is disenfranchised, it's unrealistic to expect they'll concede to starvation. They're going to steal a ladder. Do it to enough people, they're going to tear down the wall supporting the shelf.
So my interest is in how we make an accurate observation of what is, then extend that into a realistic vision of what could be.
At an individual level, the bad players are infuriating. But it's hard to tease apart luck of the original hand vs. a resolvable skill issue.
I'm listening to Stephanie Land's book Class right now. It's a continuation of her story from the book Maid, including the time doing her undergrad and masters degrees.
A good portion of the book is spent complaining about her financial misfortune, unreliable work, assistance program barriers, etc.
But then she's doing stuff like eating at McDonald's, drinking, smoking, hanging at bars, taking risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Predictably, life has a pattern of collapsing on her. My brain screams skill issue, to the point where it's hard to keep reading. At one point she bemoans the inability to afford an Odwalla smoothie. The entitlement is shameful.
But maybe she's self medicating with those behaviors. Are the destructive patterns unresolvable? Where does the inability to anticipate consequence come from? The impulsivety?
I don't have the answer. I'm a terrible judge of people. But if it's not fixable, we gotta try something else.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
This is almost exactly how I used to feel when I read the writing of men complaining about their (lack) of luck with women. BUT, what both you and I are not realizing from this perspective is that the stated intention/goal is not the true intention/goal. Land's "true" goal is for the socio-economic structure to resemble the ideal in her head, and the "true" goal of the unsuccessful-at-dating/mating man is for real women to resemble the ideal woman in his head. Let me offer another example that combines aspects of both problems and makes the psychological basis clear. A woman claims to want a boyfriend, but behaves in a manner that makes the possibility of losing 50 lbs., thereby improving her odds at dating, less possible. IOW, it seems like she believes that she is entitled to the benefits of "erotic capital" without engaging in behaviors likely to achieve/maintain it. However, it is quite likely that what is going on subconsciously is that she is rejecting all her potential suitors as being "superficial" if they prefer a thinner manifestation. Therefore, because what she is seeking is "validation" rather than "value", she is stuck in a lose/lose corner which only a change in perspective, as opposed to behavior, will influence. Similarly, somebody with the stated of goal of becoming a millionaire and the simple moral ideal of "hard work" will never achieve stated goal without eventually also having to integrate the practice of "being clever/strategic", even though those who exhibit "clever/strategic" without demonstrating his ideal of "hard work" seem morally suspect.Scott 2 wrote:A good portion of the book is spent complaining about her financial misfortune, unreliable work, assistance program barriers, etc.
But then she's doing stuff like eating at McDonald's, drinking, smoking, hanging at bars, taking risky sexual behaviors, etc.
Predictably, life has a pattern of collapsing on her. My brain screams skill issue, to the point where it's hard to keep reading. At one point she bemoans the inability to afford an Odwalla smoothie. The entitlement is shameful.
OTOH, consider the issue of having "good" hair and how that might work on the motivations of an African-American girl. Do you see how making your hair more "white" might be a problematic path to "success." Who defines what constitutes "good" hair? Similarly, why should any woman accept a standard for "fitness" that includes the ability to perform pull-ups demonstrating the upper-body strength necessary for distance spear-throwing, but not the possession of enough fat/muscle on derrierre to survive a long enforced hike on low rations while pregnant?
Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Wed Feb 07, 2024 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
This begs the question... who is most able to make the most accurate observation? Would it be accurate to say that the person best able to judge is the one who has walked in the other person's shoes? The one who experienced what they experienced?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 6221098921
Is it possible that they understand something that others who haven't had the same experiences do not understand?
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
@Ego:
The Became Rich may have less empathy for the poor than the Born Rich, simply because being somewhat lacking in empathy is an asset in achieving financial success. The survey you linked did not inquire about the level of empathy the Became Rich have for members of the Middle Class or other Rich humans, as would be necessary to eliminate this obvious bias.
Purely anecdotal, but my Rags-to-Riches multi-millionaire friend was definitely on the Shark side of the human spectrum of empathetic functioning. Although, he did buy me some new black tights at Costco, when he observed that I had sewn the holes in a pair, like I was "one of his sisters back on the farm." He would have zero empathy for some of the weak investing moves some of the upper-middle-class members of this forum make. For instance, he was always going on about the kind of idiots who invested in more than one firm in the same industry. He also believed that it was bad for men's health to retire, but bad for women's health to work too much.
The Became Rich may have less empathy for the poor than the Born Rich, simply because being somewhat lacking in empathy is an asset in achieving financial success. The survey you linked did not inquire about the level of empathy the Became Rich have for members of the Middle Class or other Rich humans, as would be necessary to eliminate this obvious bias.
Purely anecdotal, but my Rags-to-Riches multi-millionaire friend was definitely on the Shark side of the human spectrum of empathetic functioning. Although, he did buy me some new black tights at Costco, when he observed that I had sewn the holes in a pair, like I was "one of his sisters back on the farm." He would have zero empathy for some of the weak investing moves some of the upper-middle-class members of this forum make. For instance, he was always going on about the kind of idiots who invested in more than one firm in the same industry. He also believed that it was bad for men's health to retire, but bad for women's health to work too much.
-
ducknald_don
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 12:31 pm
- Location: Oxford, UK
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
I guess it shouldn't be that surprising. After all these people have by definition progressed through the system without meeting any insurmountable barriers. If you ask them they will tell you they got to the top through grit and hard work whilst ignoring the fact that many people have grit and work hard without achieving the same success.Among the Rich, Those With Humbler Origins are Less Sensitive to the Difficulties of the Poor
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Not necessarily. For instance, my multi-millionaire friend attributed his success almost entirely to his native intelligence, and he was definitely not a moralizer, much more of a "survival of the fittest" pessimist/realist. I think he truly came to believe that a personal fortune of at least $10,000,000 was necessary to ensure "survival." I witnessed him yelling "Idiot!" at somebody who had achieved the age of 55 with a net worth of slightly less than $2 million, yet didn't follow his advice on a trade. But, he didn't thoroughly disdain such"idiotic" company, because he needed somebody to periodically drive him home from the strip club.ducknald_don wrote:If you ask them they will tell you they got to the top through grit and hard work whilst ignoring the fact that many people have grit and work hard without achieving the same success.
One of his own more "idiotic" moves was the occasion he barged in on a female employee while she was pumping breast-milk in the employee lounge, saying "I paid for her maternity leave, I should at least be able to see some tits." Cost him approximately $100,000 in court costs and penalties.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
@ego - It's very possible, though I appreciate the empathy and survivorship bias arguments.
My perspective also fails into a savior complex, with everything problematic that entails. Someone from the Became Rich might view my stance as arrogance. How dare I think they need my help? Claiming "my cards are better"? Now that's a charged statement.
Anecdotally, I've also observed attempts at helping don't always go well. Again - it's not an easy problem. An over-simplified stance sells better.
@7Wannabe5 - Land's goal is further obfuscated by the need to sell. Is she writing her truth, or is she catering to the audience? The latest book also includes sex scenes, which took me by surprise. I can see a profit motive though, especially given the Netflix series. She's hustling.
My perspective also fails into a savior complex, with everything problematic that entails. Someone from the Became Rich might view my stance as arrogance. How dare I think they need my help? Claiming "my cards are better"? Now that's a charged statement.
Anecdotally, I've also observed attempts at helping don't always go well. Again - it's not an easy problem. An over-simplified stance sells better.
@7Wannabe5 - Land's goal is further obfuscated by the need to sell. Is she writing her truth, or is she catering to the audience? The latest book also includes sex scenes, which took me by surprise. I can see a profit motive though, especially given the Netflix series. She's hustling.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Interesting. I would think that the people who actually experienced social mobility would know more about it than those for whom it is a theoretical exercise.ducknald_don wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:20 pmIf you ask them they will tell you they got to the top through grit and hard work whilst ignoring the fact that many people have grit and work hard without achieving the same success.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
I doubt that. The people I know who made some real money, or at least are in the process of trying to, don't value hard work. They value finding good opportunities and exploiting them. Of course, you have to work hard doing that, but they are aware that hard work just for hard work's sake is never going to get them ahead.ducknald_don wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 3:20 pmI guess it shouldn't be that surprising. After all these people have by definition progressed through the system without meeting any insurmountable barriers. If you ask them they will tell you they got to the top through grit and hard work whilst ignoring the fact that many people have grit and work hard without achieving the same success.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
@zbigi:
Second that. However, that doesn't negate the fact that "hard work and grit" alone might be enough to get you up the first rung given the competition.
In his experiment, Shephard describes the tier of success he wants to achieve within a year as getting to a place where his next level of ambition would be achieved through attending school or starting his own business. So, the next question might be if "hard work and grit" is enough to succeed at school and/or self-employment? I would suggest that it's definitely not the case that "hard work and grit" is initially required to succeed at either of these undertakings. In fact, this is why bright children often become slackers, because they can spend years in school not having to study to get good grades. Similarly, the most beautiful don't have to work very hard at being charming in order to get dates. However, as in the fable of The Tortoise and The Hare, some degree of diligence is necessary to maintain any given lead over time.
So, another question might be how to instill "values" that were skipped over or counter-instilled in some due to an early lead? For instance, how could a beauty learn to drop the cold reserve she developed to put off too many ardent swains in her youth in favor of a manner of warm charm as she grew older? How could somebody who primarily suffers from boredom reboot herself as somebody who primarily suffers from ambition?
Of greater relevance to this forum would be the question: Why is reducing one's spending to 1 Jacob a more difficult to achieve ambition than achieving a net-worth of $1,000,000 for most members of this forum, even though maintaining spending at less than 1 Jacob is evidently quite easy for at least a billion slackers on this planet? Why do we admire The Moneyless Man, but not the bums-who-choose-to-stay-bums in Shepard's account?
Second that. However, that doesn't negate the fact that "hard work and grit" alone might be enough to get you up the first rung given the competition.
In his experiment, Shephard describes the tier of success he wants to achieve within a year as getting to a place where his next level of ambition would be achieved through attending school or starting his own business. So, the next question might be if "hard work and grit" is enough to succeed at school and/or self-employment? I would suggest that it's definitely not the case that "hard work and grit" is initially required to succeed at either of these undertakings. In fact, this is why bright children often become slackers, because they can spend years in school not having to study to get good grades. Similarly, the most beautiful don't have to work very hard at being charming in order to get dates. However, as in the fable of The Tortoise and The Hare, some degree of diligence is necessary to maintain any given lead over time.
So, another question might be how to instill "values" that were skipped over or counter-instilled in some due to an early lead? For instance, how could a beauty learn to drop the cold reserve she developed to put off too many ardent swains in her youth in favor of a manner of warm charm as she grew older? How could somebody who primarily suffers from boredom reboot herself as somebody who primarily suffers from ambition?
Of greater relevance to this forum would be the question: Why is reducing one's spending to 1 Jacob a more difficult to achieve ambition than achieving a net-worth of $1,000,000 for most members of this forum, even though maintaining spending at less than 1 Jacob is evidently quite easy for at least a billion slackers on this planet? Why do we admire The Moneyless Man, but not the bums-who-choose-to-stay-bums in Shepard's account?
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
I thought that the bums who chose to stay in the shelter were the most interesting in the initial summary, but apparently the author didn't.
I think of someone who has the a stated goal that is obviously not their real goal of suffering from an insecurity. This need not be true, they could be delusional for delusions sake. But my working hypothesis is that the delusion (wanting society to be an ideal, wanting women to be an ideal) is covering up an insecurity.7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 2:22 pmThis is almost exactly how I used to feel when I read the writing of men complaining about their (lack) of luck with women. BUT, what both you and I are not realizing from this perspective is that the stated intention/goal is not the true intention/goal. Land's "true" goal is for the socio-economic structure to resemble the ideal in her head, and the "true" goal of the unsuccessful-at-dating/mating man is for real women to resemble the ideal woman in his head. Let me offer another example that combines aspects of both problems and makes the psychological basis clear. A woman claims to want a boyfriend, but behaves in a manner that makes the possibility of losing 50 lbs., thereby improving her odds at dating, less possible. IOW, it seems like she believes that she is entitled to the benefits of "erotic capital" without engaging in behaviors likely to achieve/maintain it. However, it is quite likely that what is going on subconsciously is that she is rejecting all her potential suitors as being "superficial" if they prefer a thinner manifestation. Therefore, because what she is seeking is "validation" rather than "value", she is stuck in a lose/lose corner which only a change in perspective, as opposed to behavior, will influence.
I have two working hypothesis that I think are relevant and related to each other:
(1) "Trauma" which begets insecurity is responsible for most of the problems in the world.
(2) If someone does something, on some level, they wanted to do it.
It's very tempting with books like these to draw broad conclusions. Shepard's book seems to imply that everyone could pull themselves up by their bootstraps while Eihrich's book would seem to imply that the system beats everyone down. Teasing out effects in social sciences is very difficult as people resist neat classifications, correlations abound and cause and effect are often jumbled. While these books are interesting stories, their sample size are n=1 and biased through their own narrative lenses.
Both authors set out to see what would happen to them given a certain set of assumptions and restrictions and told their story. Societal conclusions that can be thought about are many, but societal conclusions that can be proven are none.
I think @jacob did a great job of highlighting the two sides of the argument we've seen in the discussion thus far, as well as how both sides tend to be blind to the others perspective.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Yes, that's what I meant by seeking "validation" rather than "value."Jin + Guice wrote:I think of someone who has the a stated goal that is obviously not their real goal of suffering from an insecurity. This need not be true, they could be delusional for delusions sake. But my working hypothesis is that the delusion (wanting society to be an ideal, wanting women to be an ideal) is covering up an insecurity.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
For one month every summer, my idyllic country walk is interrupted by a camp that opens up to inner city youth. The mom's driving the kids often stop and ask me for directions. The expression of excitement, wonder and awe on the kids faces in the backseats is extremely moving. It makes me feel like an asshole for whining about the fucking bugs. I always address the kids and say something like "you should see the pool" although it has entered my mind to say "watch out for the bears" but it's good to know I have not yet lost all quality control. The point is it's truly another world for them. Like a arriving on another planet would be for me.
Anyone can pull up their bootstraps. But it is contextualized within geography/culture. You can't sell more life insurance policies in an impoverished neighborhood. But you can sling more dope. You can aspire to be Michael Jordan. The problem is if you don't become him, there are not endless opportunities to become a middle management version of an NBA player. You can aspire to be Jonas Salk. Fortunately, if you don't become him, there are plenty of lab benches in the pharmaceutical industry. Yes these are class issues. But for some, it's not a climb, it's a death defying traverse, then a climb.
Re: Starting from scratch in the minimum wage system
Very true. The problem as I see it, is how the idea of privilege is a tool used by the privileged as a means of control.
Confucius and another Henry said something like "The man who says he can, and the man who says he can not.. are both correct"
<Cannot............Maybe............Can>
It is certainly true that those who are successful can be blind to the reasons others cannot. Similarly, those who are not successful - but had the ability to be - have a motivation to convince themselves that they could not. Face saving.
If you were trying to control others, inducing them to believe that they are helpless, is top priority. The more people believe they cannot, the more they depend on you. By appealing to our natural desire to save face, we can be led to enslavement.