[U]pper- and middle-class members tend to be future-oriented, purposeful, rational, and self-disciplined. Lower-class people... tend to have a strong present-orientation, are capricious, hedonistic, purposeless, and therefore unwilling to pursue a job or a career with any consistency. People with the former values therefore tend to have higher incomes and better jobs, and lower-class people tend to be poor, jobless, or on welfare. In short, the economic fortunes of people tend over the long run to be their own internal responsibility, rather than to be determined -- as liberals always insist -- by external factors.
1. Reminds me of the age old debate in international development between dependency and modernization theory. Dependency theory: poor countries suck and it's OUR fault. Modernization: poor countries suck and its their own fault. I've always been more inclined towards modernization theory... but not sure if it works so well on the level of the individual. Poor people are poor and it's because their lazy and hedonistic; vs. Poor people are poor because society keeps them down.
2. Also reminds me of some psychological research that shows "success" is linked to the ability that people either have or don't have to defer gratification. Here is a cool Ted about the "marshmallow test."
Also, there is an excellent RSA video about perceptions of time that clearly applies. People who can defer gratification live more in the future than those that do not.
I'm not sure if this whole theory of time perspective is correct or not, but it makes more sense than "poor people are lazy."
Hahahahaha.
ReplyDeleteSure, Bush looks to me like a very successful fellow who spent almost no time in hedonism.
I'll bet you could find at a 1:1 ratio examples of "successful" people who live in the now and make little thought to the future (ie. musicians dying at 27, sports athletes, you're average Enron employee, etc.) as you could find successful people who defer satisfaction.
This whole concept strikes me as a shallow justification to rationalize success in a career.
Malcom Gladwell, I'm sure, would have a great deal more to add to these kinds of points; that success is rarely attributed to a single actors will alone.
Most NHL'ers were born within a 50 day spread, and for some dumb reason, tall people tend to wind up in positions of authority more often than shorter people, regardless of merit.
If people were cyborgs, incapable of feeling, then I would be able to agree that a persons place in society is a direct result of their own initiative.
Did you watch the RSA video? I think that is actually quite compelling.
ReplyDeleteAs to the issue of success: Sure, people may be successful for other reasons, but that doesn't meant the time consciousness/deferred gratification theory is wrong. The issue is: given a certain amount of luck, intelligence, elite status etc... does the ability to defer gratification matter? IMO, yes for sure. Can we really ignore the marshmallow test? All the research on the geography of time backs it up too.
As for Gladwell, i'm not sure what to think of that argument. He's got a few good anecodtes that luck matters more than intelligence. But the time theory doesn't speak to intelligence either, but more to dedication/practice. Gladwell's book focuses a lot on the 10,000 hours of practice theory of success... and why some people get that early or not. it seems to me that to practice at something 10,000 hours, you need to have the ability to think about the future and to defer gratification.
Oh, for sure. It's only one thing that moves anything, which is will which doesn't exist, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd as to the 10,000 hours thing.
I would like to know how that number came to being.
What skill are we talking about?
It takes as long to master aero-space engineering as it does to master working the check-out line at Loblaws?
Where is the cut off line for skills that take less than 10,00 hours?
This number is so obscure it's actually a little humorous.
Hey, you're the one who referenced Gladwell. HIs whole theory is based on that 10,000 hours thing. Anyway, there is a lot of research to back it up that he lists in the book. I've come across it elsewhere. It's also "deliberate practice" that matters, not just doing something, but preparing for something. So, rehereasing a song for a concert as opposed to playing scales over and over again ... is what counts as deliberative practice in music.
ReplyDeleteWill? Where'd you get that from?
ReplyDelete