3 ms·
I'd say that's still better than the other fake narrative: The game is rigged, the cards are stacked against you, they're holding you down, don't even try.
by gridlockd 6y ago
I'd say that's still better than the other fake narrative: The game is rigged, the cards are stacked against you, they're holding you down, don't even try.
- fwip 6y agoIs it? For the question "what predicts your pay", your "grit" beta coefficient is only 0.09, compared to a sum of .55 determined by your gender, background, and intelligence. That is, raising your "grit level" by 1 standard deviation will only increase your pay by 0.09 standard deviations, when compared to your age-matched peers. Somebody only one standard-deviation down on each of the other factors would have to be 6 standard-deviations higher on grittiness in order to get the same pay. That's the difference between the 0.1th percentile of grittiness and the 99.9th percentile. The data shows that increasing your grit enough to compensate for even small levels of adversity is impractical.
- gridlockd 6y ago> Is it? Yes, because if you buy into that narrative, you're going to be a loser, guaranteed. If you don't, you might still be unsuccessful, but you will earn (self) respect. You gave it your best shot. Nobody respects the person who never tries, who always makes excuses, who blames everyone and everything but themselves. It's bad for you.
- fwip 6y agoMaybe we shouldn't base our respect for people on how much grit they seem to show, if it doesn't seem to matter anyways.
- gridlockd 6y agoIt does matter even by the numbers shown in the paper. It matters more than agreeableness, emotional stability and even conscientiousness. It just doesn't make up for intelligence. Also, if you're lazy and smart, you're still going to be a loser. You'll still need some amount of grit.
- fwip 6y agoIt matters half as much as conscientiousness, was the conclusion.