Why are some people so against others doing well

[Tefal]

One parent.

My point is that I think it's unfair to claim someone has had a disadvantage in life based solely on the virtue of having one parent.

oh sorry no i didn't mean a disadvantage over an advantage.

i mean its a different experience, a child of two parents for instance might get better language skills because they listen to their parents converse much more than a singular parent may even if the parents are inattentive, but a singular parent may pay much more focus to their child for lack of a partner and speak to them instead while doing the usual tasks around the house so the singular parent child may take more of an interest in the external world


a lone parent child may be exposed to more play groups etc if the parent works than a stay at home mum/dad family.

so may have better social skills or maybe have a weaker bond with the aprent and either become more dependent or even less dependent on the parent depending on their personality.


you must admit it's a fascinating topic because neither you nor i will ever be able to know the others position.

we could discuss and argue and learn from each other for years and never come to a conclusion we both agree on, the very best kind of debate

 

[spoffle]

Yes and?.

I do think social policy should reflect the world we live in & not be based upon protestant Christian work ethics.

And it's highly unrealistic. How could you attempt to write policies to account for unforeseen circumstances that were also considered fair? You really can't because fair isn't something that really exists in life.

What does anything we've discussed have to do with Protestant Christianity?

 

[spoffle]

I am speaking generally as in the whole of society. You understand what it means to speak generally right? That is however the non sense they teach now, that you don't need a father figure etc. This is why we have entire neighbourhoods of single moms living off child support and state benefits. Of course it is important to have a father figure, that does not mean that children brought up in a single parent household can not be successful. I am talking about when we have high percentage of the population growing up in single parent house holds, this will have consequences. You can disagree if you want that is fine.

Statistically it does show that children brought up with single parent households are more likely to not succeed than children brought up with a two parent house hold. This is due to various factors, economic, stability, move house and schools less and therefore better relationships and so on. It is quite a complicated topic.

There are also other political and economic factors that lead people to hate capitalism. Like bank bailouts, the mine closures up north which were blamed on capitalism and so on. You find when parents are of one political persuasion they past these ideals on to their children. People often look at the bank bailouts or mine closures and blame entire capitalist system. Instead of blaming specific corporations or the government.

Oh lawd. This is just a crazy mindless rant. It's madness how you have tried to blame so much on single mothers and the lack of a "father figure".

 

[cheesyboy]

Parental wealth and education demographics are the strongest causal factor in children's attainment at school. Just google "factors in child attainment" for lots of research papers and articles on the matter.

Since this is a fact, and it is also a fact that you cannot have any choice in the matter of your parentage, it seems strange that many insist that everything someone achieves in life is down to their own choices. And that there's no "luck" involved.

 

[elmarko]

And it's highly unrealistic. How could you attempt to write policies to account for unforeseen circumstances that were also considered fair? You really can't because fair isn't something that really exists in life.

What does anything we've discussed have to do with Protestant Christianity?

It's to do with the obsession over the 'work ethic' which judges behaviour & the reality of motivation theory from an unscientific perspective.

I've already said how write policies against unforeseen circumstances. You first admit they exist, you then admit at this time it's impossible to create a system in which all individuals will have an equal chance to succeed. Once these facts have been accepted you simply ensure that if people fail, they are guaranteed at least a reasonable standard of living as opposed to punished with poverty for losing a rigged game.

Parental wealth and education demographics are the strongest causal factor in children's attainment at school. Just google "factors in child attainment" for lots of research papers and articles on the matter.

Since this is a fact, and it is also a fact that you cannot have any choice in the matter of your parentage, it seems strange that many insist that everything someone achieves in life is down to their own choices. And that there's no "luck" involved.

Indeed.

I work in predictive modelling - give me the parental income of 50,000 children & I'll tell you with a good degree of accuracy which ones are most likely to end up in prison, dead from suicide, obese or unemployed. If we did have a good equality of opportunity this would not be the case, the statistics do not lie.

 

[spoffle]

oh sorry no i didn't mean a disadvantage over an advantage.

i mean its a different experience, a child of two parents for instance might get better language skills because they listen to their parents converse much more than a singular parent may even if the parents are inattentive, but a singular parent may pay much more focus to their child for lack of a partner and speak to them instead while doing the usual tasks around the house so the singular parent child may take more of an interest in the external world


a lone parent child may be exposed to more play groups etc if the parent works than a stay at home mum/dad family.

so may have better social skills or maybe have a weaker bond with the aprent and either become more dependent or even less dependent on the parent depending on their personality.


you must admit it's a fascinating topic because neither you nor i will ever be able to know the others position.

we could discuss and argue and learn from each other for years and never come to a conclusion we both agree on, the very best kind of debate

Oh. no I understand what you mean now. I would agree that it is an interesting topic, and there are so many different variables that influence the outcome.

Speaking of language skills, I grew up mainly around adults, and very few children, and my parent(s) (at the time) didn't do the baby talk thing, but spoke to me properly. So I was speaking at an early age, which carried over to speaking and reading in school where I was consistently at a higher level.

 

[Tefal]

Parental wealth and education demographics are the strongest causal factor in children's attainment at school. Just google "factors in child attainment" for lots of research papers and articles on the matter.

Since this is a fact, and it is also a fact that you cannot have any choice in the matter of your parentage, it seems strange that many insist that everything someone achieves in life is down to their own choices. And that there's no "luck" involved.

my parents parents were poor. especially my mums.

my dad is an only child and did very well, my mother was one of 5 and each and every one of those 5 is now successful and middle class (although one has passed away he made sure his family was provided for and was a man of enviable character).

none of those 5 had the advantage of wealth or a rich parent but they each had the advantage of a very good pair of parents, and each of their families has continued to rise above what they were before in terms of wealth.

the ability to instil within your child a sense of worth and motivation is worth more than money (up until a certain degree where money can buy out mistakes of course then even a ****** person will probably succeed to a degree.)

 

[Tefal]

Oh. no I understand what you mean now. I would agree that it is an interesting topic, and there are so many different variables that influence the outcome.

Speaking of language skills, I grew up mainly around adults, and very few children, and my parent(s) (at the time) didn't do the baby talk thing, but spoke to me properly. So I was speaking at an early age, which carried over to speaking and reading in school where I was consistently at a higher level.

ah my mother did that too, she never used baby talk and despite being dyslexic i score incredibly high in reading ability all through school and at college when i started my apprenticeship a few years ago. (aural ability though i score practically zero, so i equal out as normal lol)

interestingly in the years the tester woman had worked at the college no one had read through the full word sheet in on of the dyslexia tests before me in the time allowed, she joked shed have to stop saying "don't worry no one finishes it".

language is something i love, i may lack the ability to write particularly well but i love the differences between people and their use of English the ability for the language to convey so much meaning and different meanings with even the same words is amazing too me. yet English was always the subject i scored worst in.

but until i was about 6 my father worked mainly abroad and obviously he was hardly ever home during that time so i was raised until then mostly by my mother.

so i wonder if like you i maybe benefited from the advantage of her talking to me as an adult to fill the, emptiness is a bad word but you know the way you feel when your partner isn't there? that. in the way she will have talked to me and my brother as company, adults even rather than fawning over us with her partner as children.

 

[FoxEye]

Skipping to page 3, apologies.

I think some of the problem is the constant bombardment of advertising, and the idea that we need to own a lot of expensive crap to be happy.

Ie, need a BMW/Audi/Mercedes, need a 60" TV, need an expensive bathroom, sofa, XBox, new smartphone every year, etc, etc. Everyone is trying to sell us something, and we're conditioned to believe we need it all.

Or that our material possessions define how successful we are.

Hence those who can't afford the crap purveyed on TV can end up feeling worthless.

And then there are plenty of people who struggle to keep their heads above water, leaden with debt, just to afford to live (rent, food, bills). More common perhaps than some realise.

Lastly, we have to admit that not everybody can be a lawyer, a banker, or an architect. Some people will always have to be bin men. Some people will have to serve in McDonalds.

And very lastly, as more and more companies adopt ever more automation, we are going to put more and more people out of work completely. Our social security net is going to have to be widened and the state will have to pay more people for doing nothing.

Fun times ahead... fun times.

 

[Tefal]

Statistically it does show that children brought up with single parent households are more likely to not succeed than children brought up with a two parent house hold.

Define succeed.


oo and in two words every statistic called upon is brought into question and doubt.

if someone can do it in one I'll give them a cat picture.

 

[elmarko]

Skipping to page 3, apologies.

I think some of the problem is the constant bombardment of advertising, and the idea that we need to own a lot of expensive crap to be happy.

Ie, need a BMW/Audi/Mercedes, need a 60" TV, need an expensive bathroom, sofa, XBox, new smartphone every year, etc, etc. Everyone is trying to sell us something, and we're conditioned to believe we need it all.

Or that our material possessions define how successful we are.

Hence those who can't afford the crap purveyed on TV can end up feeling worthless.

And then there are plenty of people who struggle to keep their heads above water, leaden with debt, just to afford to live (rent, food, bills). More common perhaps than some realise.

Lastly, we have to admit that not everybody can be a lawyer, a banker, or an architect. Some people will always have to be bin men. Some people will have to serve in McDonalds.

And very lastly, as more and more companies adopt ever more automation, we are going to put more and more people out of work completely. Our social security net is going to have to be widened and the state will have to pay more people for doing nothing.

Fun times ahead... fun times.

I actually agree with everything you say here.

 

[cheesyboy]

my parents parents were poor. especially my mums.

my dad is an only child and did very well, my mother was one of 5 and each and every one of those 5 is now successful and middle class (although one has passed away he made sure his family was provided for and was a man of enviable character).

none of those 5 had the advantage of wealth or a rich parent but they each had the advantage of a very good pair of parents, and each of their families has continued to rise above what they were before in terms of wealth.

the ability to instil within your child a sense of worth and motivation is worth more than money (up until a certain degree where money can buy out mistakes of course then even a ****** person will probably succeed to a degree.)

You touch on an interesting facet of the opportunities discussion.

Social mobility has never been higher in the UK than it was for the baby boomer generation (I am assuming your parents, being from large boomer-style families are from that era). The new middle class created from these social movements has, in effect, pulled up the ladder. High house prices, caused by government policy favouring protection and growth of house prices (it's a vote winner among the boomer generation), are a major squeeze on living standards, among other factors such as pensions.

Your final paragraph again comes back to "luck". Having parents with the appropriate outlook is the key to children's attainment. This partcular set of values tends to tie up with the values and ethic which get people into positions of better earning power - i.e. those parents with good parenting skills will tend to also be "good" performers in the world of work. Hence the correlation with parental education and wealth demographics for child attainment.

 

[Tefal]

And very lastly, as more and more companies adopt ever more automation, we are going to put more and more people out of work completely. Our social security net is going to have to be widened and the state will have to pay more people for doing nothing.

Fun times ahead... fun times.

who builds designs, and maintains these automation's?

also you're aware that most of Britain's manufacturing by value is not things that are readily accessible to automation.

 

[DJ_Bucho]

I don't know what it is but I tend to see this more and more in todays society. I personally think it's great if my friend's are doing well and are successful. But I know that a number of people I know (mentioned no names) do get extremely worked up and jealous of others if they are doing significantly better than they are.

 

[Haggisman]

Lastly, we have to admit that not everybody can be a lawyer, a banker, or an architect. Some people will always have to be bin men. Some people will have to serve in McDonalds.

And very lastly, as more and more companies adopt ever more automation, we are going to put more and more people out of work completely. Our social security net is going to have to be widened and the state will have to pay more people for doing nothing.

Fun times ahead... fun times.

Surely these last 2 balance each other out to some extent? The more we automate things, the less people need to do them...

If the ordering, cooking and serving process at McDonalds is automated, none needs to do that job...

 

[anything I don't mind]

Oh lawd. This is just a crazy mindless rant. It's madness how you have tried to blame so much on single mothers and the lack of a "father figure".

That was not the only reason that I have offered. I bet you didn't even read what i said. It was actually calmly written. Calling something a crazy mindless rant is not an argument. Your first argument was that i offended you and then your argument was that it was a crazy mindless rant.

Define succeed.


oo and in two words every statistic called upon is brought into question and doubt.

if someone can do it in one I'll give them a cat picture.

The statistics was actually the reverse, to be fair, I am just drawing a conclusion based on that and my own experiences. It was found that a high percentage of criminal offenders grew up in single parent house holds, it did not differentiate between mother or father. It is just more common due to the divorce process for the female to get the children and this is why i was drawing the conclusion that this must also be a contributing factor to that bad attitude that a lot of people have towards work ethnic or capitalism in general. I am open to be proven wrong here, what i am saying is not necessarily always correct. Although i do have tendency to write in such a way that it seems that way. I have been trying to figure this one out myself for a while and said all the factors that i think contribute to that.

 

[Housey]

I think people are seeking to make overly complex arguments to uphold their own perspective, for that is all it is in the entire thread, a perspective. Life has shown me that there are 3 or 4 factors that determine success. Luck is certainly a factor, right time, right place, right people certainly is something often outside of your influence. We also have ability, some people have it, many people don't or are unable to know what their's is and then we have ambition. Again some people have it and many people don't but it tends to be combinations of these things that drive success together with their work ethic and willingness to go extra than most the people around them.

However, my experience has shown that hard working people with ambition will usually always rise to the top and people who think they have it but really don't, will usually be the most vociferous in their defence of those who fail and angry towards those that don't. Again this is just my perspective, but it is based on personal experience of 30 years in the wold of work where I've managed to achieve some success. I have also seen people achieve massively more and many massively less, but when you cut to the reasons why it is rarely just luck. I have never once despised or been angry towards people who have had success or who have money, even when it is predicated on their parents wealth. I have been relatively angry towards those who have had lots of opportunities but have failed to take them, that does annoy me and let me be clear, in these cases it is 100% their fault they are yet to succeed.

I think that people who spend so much time concerned with the well being of others, not least those who 'have', whatever that is, are usually hiding some personal issues and use it as a form of deflection for their own lack of success. We are not all the same, we are all built differently and have different skills and attributes and trying to make us all homogenised and living to the same set of rules or to the same set of principals will never work. Also trying to analyse it in the minutest of detail why some people are successful and some people are not is more often than not wasted effort for the answer is clear. Some people are just better at it, many people are average and many are utterly useless and the reasons why is usually because of that, not always, but usually.

I spoke at my old school a few weeks back, to the 5th year (as I used to call it), kids who were about to start out on their career. I spent 90 minutes giving them some sage like perspectives as a former student of their school who was never a star but who did well (in relative terms). In that 90 minutes you could already start to see the kids who were likely to make something of their future and those who were likely to find it less easy. I didn't need to go into science or philosophy, I just felt it based on the 3 or 4 things I spoke about in the first paragraph.

 

[Em3bbs]

And very lastly, as more and more companies adopt ever more automation, we are going to put more and more people out of work completely.

I remember people saying the same thing when I started work over 20 years ago. Back in the days where IT and automation was non existent in many companies. Guess what - people adapted and a lot more people work in automation/IT areas now.

 

[spoffle]

I think people are seeking to make overly complex arguments to uphold their own perspective, for that is all it is in the entire thread, a perspective. Life has shown me that there are 3 or 4 factors that determine success. Luck is certainly a factor, right time, right place, right people certainly is something often outside of your influence. We also have ability, some people have it, many people don't or are unable to know what their's is and then we have ambition. Again some people have it and many people don't but it tends to be combinations of these things that drive success together with their work ethic and willingness to go extra than most the people around them.

However, my experience has shown that hard working people with ambition will usually always rise to the top and people who think they have it but really don't, will usually be the most vociferous in their defence of those who fail and angry towards those that don't. Again this is just my perspective, but it is based on personal experience of 30 years in the wold of work where I've managed to achieve some success. I have also seen people achieve massively more and many massively less, but when you cut to the reasons why it is rarely just luck. I have never once despised or been angry towards people who have had success or who have money, even when it is predicated on their parents wealth. I have been relatively angry towards those who have had lots of opportunities but have failed to take them, that does annoy me and let me be clear, in these cases it is 100% their fault they are yet to succeed.

I think that people who spend so much time concerned with the well being of others, not least those who 'have', whatever that is, are usually hiding some personal issues and use it as a form of deflection for their own lack of success. We are not all the same, we are all built differently and have different skills and attributes and trying to make us all homogenised and living to the same set of rules or to the same set of principals will never work. Also trying to analyse it in the minutest of detail why some people are successful and some people are not is more often than not wasted effort for the answer is clear. Some people are just better at it, many people are average and many are utterly useless and the reasons why is usually because of that, not always, but usually.

I spoke at my old school a few weeks back, to the 5th year (as I used to call it), kids who were about to start out on their career. I spent 90 minutes giving them some sage like perspectives as a former student of their school who was never a star but who did well (in relative terms). In that 90 minutes you could already start to see the kids who were likely to make something of their future and those who were likely to find it less easy. I didn't need to go into science or philosophy, I just felt it based on the 3 or 4 things I spoke about in the first paragraph.

This, many times over, and I think it's been madness to suggest that policies should be put in place to forcibly equalise this sort of thing (firstly because I don't think it'll ever work for the above reasons, and secondly it's far too much state control or influence over a person's actions).

 

[anything I don't mind]

I think people are seeking to make overly complex arguments to uphold their own perspective, for that is all it is in the entire thread, a perspective. Life has shown me that there are 3 or 4 factors that determine success. Luck is certainly a factor, right time, right place, right people certainly is something often outside of your influence. We also have ability, some people have it, many people don't or are unable to know what their's is and then we have ambition. Again some people have it and many people don't but it tends to be combinations of these things that drive success together with their work ethic and willingness to go extra than most the people around them.

However, my experience has shown that hard working people with ambition will usually always rise to the top and people who think they have it but really don't, will usually be the most vociferous in their defence of those who fail and angry towards those that don't. Again this is just my perspective, but it is based on personal experience of 30 years in the wold of work where I've managed to achieve some success. I have also seen people achieve massively more and many massively less, but when you cut to the reasons why it is rarely just luck. I have never once despised or been angry towards people who have had success or who have money, even when it is predicated on their parents wealth. I have been relatively angry towards those who have had lots of opportunities but have failed to take them, that does annoy me and let me be clear, in these cases it is 100% their fault they are yet to succeed.

I think that people who spend so much time concerned with the well being of others, not least those who 'have', whatever that is, are usually hiding some personal issues and use it as a form of deflection for their own lack of success. We are not all the same, we are all built differently and have different skills and attributes and trying to make us all homogenised and living to the same set of rules or to the same set of principals will never work. Also trying to analyse it in the minutest of detail why some people are successful and some people are not is more often than not wasted effort for the answer is clear. Some people are just better at it, many people are average and many are utterly useless and the reasons why is usually because of that, not always, but usually.

I spoke at my old school a few weeks back, to the 5th year (as I used to call it), kids who were about to start out on their career. I spent 90 minutes giving them some sage like perspectives as a former student of their school who was never a star but who did well (in relative terms). In that 90 minutes you could already start to see the kids who were likely to make something of their future and those who were likely to find it less easy. I didn't need to go into science or philosophy, I just felt it based on the 3 or 4 things I spoke about in the first paragraph.

I agree completely housey. I think from my perspective there are two reasons why i would try to understand why people are more prone to the four things that you have pointed out as being the main factors. To me those four things seem like a given in the discussion, it is understanding what causes people to have those four things over others, that is worth discussing. From an economic perspective I want to understand if there are economic factors that lead to more of these four things and then on social perspective i want to understand in terms of maximising these four factors in general for society and what leads to them. I don't like just stopping at who cares about other people or not trying to understand what leads to these factors and just accepting them as a matter of luck.

Marxists take the position, as far as i am aware, so please correct me if i am wrong. Very basically said, people are victims of their circumstances and that is why we need government to push equality based education on to children in schools. While i do appreciate that circumstances can greatly change outcomes, there are many exceptions going both ways. People are not in fact a victim of their circumstances from an economic perspective as we can see that many of the most successful business people grew up poor. Just the same many rich children squander their opportunities and make nothing of themselves.

Ability is not recognised or appreciated and more importantly failure is not recognised and children do not experience failure out of fear of upsetting them. Well from my experience at school that is what i found although it was not as bad where i went to school as it was private schools competing and there was not so much a mention of anti-capitalism or equality the entire time in my school career.