3 ms·

Intelligence, conscientiousness, affluence/social capital- pick any two and you get success on average. That’s about all there is to it. Success could look li

Intelligence, conscientiousness, affluence/social capital- pick any two and you get success on average. That’s about all there is to it. Success could look like making a bunch of money, starting a business, doing research, making interesting art. The point is a smart, hard working person can pretty much choose to do anything and an intelligent person will do fine with an infinite runway regardless of work ethic, etc. To the extent that college used to be a strong signal for those attributes it was also a strong proxy for success. Continually expanding college weakens the signal and the proximate worth of a college degree. In so many words, college for everyone confuses cause for effect - cynically, it’s not universities that make people successful, it’s that people who will succeed in life are overwhelmingly selected by and go to college- moreover, better colleges tend to matriculate people with greater quantities of those attributes. If college ceased to exist, the same cohort would still come out on top. See also, the vast majority of graduates don’t work in their major (education as a signal). This is painting a bit too broadly - a degree still shows that you can jump through pointless hoops which is valuable to employers and some degrees are valuable in and off themselves because they gate professions that are necessary for society (medicine/engineering). I’d also point out that colleges historically ignored large pools of candidates from certain demographics for political reasons. I suppose there is probably some learning that manages to happen once in a while too, which is worth something if not the cost to society of fueling the higher ed apparatus.

asoneth 5y ago
> Intelligence, conscientiousness, affluence/social capital Agreed that these are important factors in success, but in practice they don't seem to be equivalent in importance. An unsuccessful person who lacks intelligence or conscientiousness but was born into affluence in the US is more likely to remain higher on the socioeconomic ladder than a successful person who has both intelligence and conscientiousness but was born poor. That said, I believe that with hard work and intelligence it is possible for someone to move up no matter their starting point and we should celebrate the famous outliers who lept up the ladder. But it's also responsible to acknowledge that they are famous because they are outliers and that most people seem to end up within a rung or two of their parents.
- username90 5y ago
  > An unsuccessful person who lacks intelligence or conscientiousness but was born into affluence in the US is more likely to remain higher on the socioeconomic ladder than a successful person who has both intelligence and conscientiousness but was born poor. Are you using the same scales here? If the affluent person was 1% you should take a top 1% person in terms of intelligence or grit. If the affluent person was top 25% in intelligence then the other person should be in a top 25% income family. (top 25% intelligence isn't even 110 IQ, so not high at all) It isn't fair to take a bottom 10% person with top 2% intelligence and compare that to a top 0.1% in terms of wealth and top 25% in terms of intelligence, but that is the kind of argument people usually makes.
  - asoneth 5y ago
    It's a bit hard to use a consistent scale given the non-linear utility of money/intelligence/grit and the subjectivity of measuring the latter two. But another way of thinking about it is to look at the research on economic mobility. [1] For example, someone whose parents were in the top quintile is more likely to end up in the top quintile than anywhere else, followed by the next-highest quintile, etc and is much less likely to end up in the bottom quintile. Whereas someone born in the bottom quintile is more likely to remain in the bottom quintile, followed by the next-lowest, etc and is much less likely to end up in the top quintile. One way to interpret that data is through the lens of the just-world hypothesis. This assumes that the United States is a meritocracy and that people will eventually end up at the correct quintile based on their personal effort and characteristics. And if there happens to be generational social stratification then it's probably due to intelligence and grit being hereditary. Another way to interpret it is that the people with resources have instituted rules and systems that increase socioeconomic inertia so that they can pass as much of their status on to their children as they can while still allowing for enough mobility to prevent a revolution. Having met, worked with, and taught people in the top and bottom quintiles, I do not find the first hypothesis compelling. That's not to say there is no movement, and those people I have met who have climbed the furthest are also some of the most intelligent, hard-working people I know. But telling them fairy-tales about meritocracies is not helpful -- they need to be prepared to fight long odds and work significantly harder to climb up than someone who is basically already there. [1] https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2013/07/cpi%20dp12/piinternationalmobilitychart1825.jpg https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/...

asoneth 5y ago

> Intelligence, conscientiousness, affluence/social capital Agreed that these are important factors in success, but in practice they don't seem to be equivalent in importance. An unsuccessful person who lacks intelligence or conscientiousness but was born into affluence in the US is more likely to remain higher on the socioeconomic ladder than a successful person who has both intelligence and conscientiousness but was born poor. That said, I believe that with hard work and intelligence it is possible for someone to move up no matter their starting point and we should celebrate the famous outliers who lept up the ladder. But it's also responsible to acknowledge that they are famous because they are outliers and that most people seem to end up within a rung or two of their parents.

username90 5y ago
> An unsuccessful person who lacks intelligence or conscientiousness but was born into affluence in the US is more likely to remain higher on the socioeconomic ladder than a successful person who has both intelligence and conscientiousness but was born poor. Are you using the same scales here? If the affluent person was 1% you should take a top 1% person in terms of intelligence or grit. If the affluent person was top 25% in intelligence then the other person should be in a top 25% income family. (top 25% intelligence isn't even 110 IQ, so not high at all) It isn't fair to take a bottom 10% person with top 2% intelligence and compare that to a top 0.1% in terms of wealth and top 25% in terms of intelligence, but that is the kind of argument people usually makes.
- asoneth 5y ago
  It's a bit hard to use a consistent scale given the non-linear utility of money/intelligence/grit and the subjectivity of measuring the latter two. But another way of thinking about it is to look at the research on economic mobility. [1] For example, someone whose parents were in the top quintile is more likely to end up in the top quintile than anywhere else, followed by the next-highest quintile, etc and is much less likely to end up in the bottom quintile. Whereas someone born in the bottom quintile is more likely to remain in the bottom quintile, followed by the next-lowest, etc and is much less likely to end up in the top quintile. One way to interpret that data is through the lens of the just-world hypothesis. This assumes that the United States is a meritocracy and that people will eventually end up at the correct quintile based on their personal effort and characteristics. And if there happens to be generational social stratification then it's probably due to intelligence and grit being hereditary. Another way to interpret it is that the people with resources have instituted rules and systems that increase socioeconomic inertia so that they can pass as much of their status on to their children as they can while still allowing for enough mobility to prevent a revolution. Having met, worked with, and taught people in the top and bottom quintiles, I do not find the first hypothesis compelling. That's not to say there is no movement, and those people I have met who have climbed the furthest are also some of the most intelligent, hard-working people I know. But telling them fairy-tales about meritocracies is not helpful -- they need to be prepared to fight long odds and work significantly harder to climb up than someone who is basically already there. [1] https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/reports/2013/07/cpi%20dp12/piinternationalmobilitychart1825.jpg https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/~/media/images/...