[MASeeker]

I think in general most people have the belief that you as an individual are responsible for your experiences in life and that if you are successful then that is all your own hard work etc and if you fail in life that ultimately you have nobody to blame but yourself. However it seems to me that there are so many "hidden" forces at work in peoples lives for better and worse that are beyond their control which are built into society and into the very neurobiology of our brains and how these areas intersect to suggest that we have total self determination is untrue.

I am not saying that we have no effect on our lives through concious effort but I think it is a great deal less then we think which is why it is just not possible to point out to a depressed person they are just seeing things all wrong or that an over weight person should just eat less because the chances are there are a whole constellation of issues which tie into the depression or the overeating and lethargy which led to weight gain in the first place. Over a long period of time negative thinking or negative experiances such as suffering abuse or trauma can alter the brains architecture and it's neurochemistry perhaps leaving them chronically low in neurotransmitters such a serotinin or gaba which leave them prone to high anxiety and depression as well as a slew of health problems.

Without intervention it is pretty hard to rectifiy such a problem, even a highly intelligent person with the will to change their life will find it very difficult to operate positively in a brain enviroment that is constantly fearful and anxious.

It is difficult to say who will have these problems and who will avoid them it could be that one could have a number of difficult or traumatic events but due to a happy secure childhood and good parenting come though ok or someone who suffers evem minor set backs could due to an upbringing that failed to foster security and confidence could find themselves stuck for years or even a lifetime in varying degrees of depression and negative behaviours.

There are obviously treatments drugs, therapy and self help but I don't think that many people get the relevent help the need and even if they do it can be years before they do which often means many wasted years of life, perhaps time spent on benefits, health problems addictions, criminal activity etc.

I do feel that people who have been fortunate for the most part, not saying they have not worked hard sometimes despise "failures" without appreciating that we don't always have the control we think we have.

[Annoying-Mouse]

I wouldn't really call them hidden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

But, yeah I agree. People need to be more empathetic. Some people go to ****ty state schools and do well and then expect others to do well without taking into consideration their difference in circumstances like home environment, social circle etc which all could effect someones ability to do well. Or they live in a ****ty area and don't commit crime and expect others not to commit crime when again difference in home environment, social circle, education level etc.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
I wouldn't really call them hidden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

But, yeah I agree. People need to be more empathetic. Some people go to ****ty state schools and do well and then expect others to do well without taking into consideration their difference in circumstances like home environment, social circle etc which all could effect someones ability to do well. Or they live in a ****ty area and don't commit crime and expect others not to commit crime when again difference in home environment, social circle, education level etc.

Thanks for the links I will read them now, I think they are not hidden as such if you are aware of them and have some knowledge of sociological theory but for a lot of people they are "hidden" they just feel out of control of their lives and don't understand why they are unable change their circumstances when there is a whole complex psychosocial system at work around them and within them. They think they ought to be able to alter behaviour via force of will but it's much more complex than that neurologically.

Anyway, thank you for your response I agree we need to show more empathy for others as it is impossible to really understand another persons experience of life.

[g_star_raw_1989]

I agree with you to some extent. I remember watching something not too long ago whereby a man was attached to some instrument that was scanning his brain activity and then asked to make certain decisions by pressing certain buttons on control he had been given. By looking at his brain activity, the experimenter was able to guess correctly the decision six seconds before the man actually made it.

What this showed was that we unconsciously make certain decisions before we even consciously act upon them. Concious decisions are almost a secondary process in the decisions we make.

[reggiebush]

yes there is luck, its not about being top of your class and studying the hardest.

I've seen it from people i went to school with, to people i graduated with.

Also my mother has a silly friend always gets herself into a silly situation but with luck everything turns out much better. Also her mothers inheritance and investments have helped her. This is a woman in her fifties, who acts like a 25 yr old girl at times.

Having family connections helps also knowing people who have significant power. My mother used to work for a livery company in the City and their apprentices get good jobs in the city. Another time one top mason at the same livery company, his teengae son got kidnapped by the farc when out in colombia, a few phone calls to people with high connections they released him within weeks, it never made the press. While other people spend years in the jungle or die in captivity.

Being attractive can bring luck also, you have to deal the cards you were given. However I do think all these graduate schemes and institutions stop people from finding their own luck in someways, making everything preplanned almost.

[Clare~Bear]

And your question is . . . ?

[MASeeker]

(Original post by g_star_raw_1989)
I agree with you to some extent. I remember watching something not too long ago whereby a man was attached to some instrument that was scanning his brain activity and then asked to make certain decisions by pressing certain buttons on control he had been given. By looking at his brain activity, the experimenter was able to guess correctly the decision six seconds before the man actually made it.

What this showed was that we unconsciously make certain decisions before we even consciously act upon them. Concious decisions are almost a secondary process in the decisions we make.

I think we are only just at the very beginning of understanding ourselves and it will be a long journey but I feel it throws up a lot of questions about our preconcived notions of self determination. The prior poster who mentioned cognative bias was onto something.

This book seems relevent as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...aniel-kahneman

[MASeeker]

(Original post by Clare~Bear)
And your question is . . . ?

I was generating discussion ... behold!

[The Mr Z]

I think even more to the point, successful people (especially the most successful) are completely unaware of all the external factors that conspired to lead to their success. The incredible amount of luck involved even in situations they thought they were in complete control over, the extent to which a call they made comes good not from making the right decision, but from a series of events beyond their influence making the wrong decision still come good.

And equally they're completely unaware that for all the people as unduly fortunate as them, there are as many unduly unfortunate, who through no lack of merit end in the worst of situations, and the number of people who are stuck somewhere in the middle, things neither going spectacularly well nor disastrously wrong.


It's far to easy to not notice the many factors and think that someone's situation is the result of their own poor choice, and then use that to justify derision of them.



Not to detract of course, I'm a huge believer in merit, but you should always remember that no matter how inherently good you are you still rely on getting lucky.
And if you're good and have lucked out, make some good come of it because otherwise it's a waste of good luck. Do something with your luck that's going to make a positive difference, rather than just sitting back and enjoy the benefits.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by reggiebush)
yes there is luck, its not about being top of your class and studying the hardest.

I've seen it from people i went to school with, to people i graduated with.

Also my mother has a silly friend always gets herself into a silly situation but with luck everything turns out much better. Also her mothers inheritance and investments have helped her. This is a woman in her fifties, who acts like a 25 yr old girl at times.

Having family connections helps also knowing people who have significant power. My mother used to work for a livery company in the City and their apprentices get good jobs in the city. Another time one top mason at the same livery company, his teengae son got kidnapped by the farc when out in colombia, a few phone calls to people with high connections they released him within weeks, it never made the press. While other people spend years in the jungle or die in captivity.

Being attractive can bring luck also, you have to deal the cards you were given. However I do think all these graduate schemes and institutions stop people from finding their own luck in someways, making everything preplanned almost.

This is true, luck or proximity to resources are key. Also one of the key factors in finding the motivation to effect real change in ones life is the belief the one can realistically achieve the desired outcome. If a person from a poor background wants to achieve something like being a successful literary novelist for example while not impossible, it is likely that they will have more difficulty doing so simply because they don't have the same self image of themselves as the sort of person who writes literary novels. Even if they are hugely talented they may never really commit to a writing project because they deep down don't believe or percieve themselves as the sort of person who is a writer.

Perhaps the term habitus is useful here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology)

[g_star_raw_1989]

(Original post by MASeeker)
I think we are only just at the very beginning of understanding ourselves and it will be a long journey but I feel it throws up a lot of questions about our preconcived notions of self determination. The prior poster who mentioned cognative bias was onto something.

This book seems relevent as well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011...aniel-kahneman

That book does look very interesting - cheers for the link.

[I Gurn Hard]

I often get so bored that i stare at my balls for hours on end.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by The Mr Z)
I think even more to the point, successful people (especially the most successful) are completely unaware of all the external factors that conspired to lead to their success. The incredible amount of luck involved even in situations they thought they were in complete control over, the extent to which a call they made comes good not from making the right decision, but from a series of events beyond their influence making the wrong decision still come good.

And equally they're completely unaware that for all the people as unduly fortunate as them, there are as many unduly unfortunate, who through no lack of merit end in the worst of situations, and the number of people who are stuck somewhere in the middle, things neither going spectacularly well nor disastrously wrong.


It's far to easy to not notice the many factors and think that someone's situation is the result of their own poor choice, and then use that to justify derision of them.



Not to detract of course, I'm a huge believer in merit, but you should always remember that no matter how inherently good you are you still rely on getting lucky.
And if you're good and have lucked out, make some good come of it because otherwise it's a waste of good luck. Do something with your luck that's going to make a positive difference, rather than just sitting back and enjoy the benefits.

That's a good point I did read somewhere although I can't find the link at the moment that even the most successful hedge fund managers if studied over time have results similer to random selection and luck and that is why bonuses are now called retention bonuses rather than performance bonuses!

I don't grudge anyone good fortune especially not if they are decent folk who work hard and as you say make a difference but I think it is important to acknowledge the role luck plays and how misfortune can similarly destroy a persons life.

I think that seeing that it exists and talking about it is a vital step is finding ways to prevent inequality and support people rather than this punitive view we tend to see where the blame is placed solely on the individual.

[prog2djent]

This you OP?

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by MASeeker)
That's a good point I did read somewhere although I can't find the link at the moment that even the most successful hedge fund managers if studied over time have results similer to random selection and luck and that is why bonuses are now called retention bonuses rather than performance bonuses!

I don't grudge anyone good fortune especially not if they are decent folk who work hard and as you say make a difference but I think it is important to acknowledge the role luck plays and how misfortune can similarly destroy a persons life.

I think that seeing that it exists and talking about it is a vital step is finding ways to prevent inequality and support people rather than this punitive view we tend to see where the blame is placed solely on the individual.

I agree.

I'd also stipulate that unawareness of the good fortune that led to one's own situation is the largest contributing factor to people not being willing to make a difference and improve other people's lives with the advantages they've acquired. They feel that they should be able to reap the rewards of what they consider to be purely their own endeavour, but realising that the majority contribution is luck (and that their endeavour merely allowed for the good luck to occur) creates a responsibility to give back and use your success to make it possible for other people to enjoy the same success.

Equally misinformation about how much of a role pure misfortune plays in someone's entire life prospects underpins much acceptance of both social and economic right-wing thinking. (Ultimately the right relies on philanthropy, a very left-wing attitude, to fill in all the gaps.)

[ckingalt]

Of course there are many factors at play beyond our control. There are more factors we don't control than there are that we do. I choose to ignore them when critiquing myself. I recently faced the biggest failure of my professional career. There were many external causes that were not my doing. I still take full responsibility.

I could blame other people, other factors, and unfair policies for my failure and I would be justified in doing so. The only thing that would accomplish is making me feel better about my failure.

I choose to blame myself. I failed to prepare, adapt, and execute as well as I could have. Next time I will do those things a little better.

[SnoochToTheBooch]

(Original post by MASeeker)
I think in general most people have the belief that you as an individual are responsible for your experiences in life and that if you are successful then that is all your own hard work etc and if you fail in life that ultimately you have nobody to blame but yourself. However it seems to me that there are so many "hidden" forces at work in peoples lives for better and worse that are beyond their control which are built into society and into the very neurobiology of our brains and how these areas intersect to suggest that we have total self determination is untrue.

I am not saying that we have no effect on our lives through concious effort but I think it is a great deal less then we think which is why it is just not possible to point out to a depressed person they are just seeing things all wrong or that an over weight person should just eat less because the chances are there are a whole constellation of issues which tie into the depression or the overeating and lethargy which led to weight gain in the first place. Over a long period of time negative thinking or negative experiances such as suffering abuse or trauma can alter the brains architecture and it's neurochemistry perhaps leaving them chronically low in neurotransmitters such a serotinin or gaba which leave them prone to high anxiety and depression as well as a slew of health problems.

Without intervention it is pretty hard to rectifiy such a problem, even a highly intelligent person with the will to change their life will find it very difficult to operate positively in a brain enviroment that is constantly fearful and anxious.

It is difficult to say who will have these problems and who will avoid them it could be that one could have a number of difficult or traumatic events but due to a happy secure childhood and good parenting come though ok or someone who suffers evem minor set backs could due to an upbringing that failed to foster security and confidence could find themselves stuck for years or even a lifetime in varying degrees of depression and negative behaviours.

There are obviously treatments drugs, therapy and self help but I don't think that many people get the relevent help the need and even if they do it can be years before they do which often means many wasted years of life, perhaps time spent on benefits, health problems addictions, criminal activity etc.

I do feel that people who have been fortunate for the most part, not saying they have not worked hard sometimes despise "failures" without appreciating that we don't always have the control we think we have.

I'd go further than that. I don't think we really have any say in what we do at all, we just seem to react as far as I can tell, and we control (or what seems like us controlling) a hell of a lot less than we take for granted. We go through life having experiences thrust upon us that we have no say in. Our brain constantly downloads information from the senses that it has no choice but to accept, and that info gets filtered and distorted before being presented to our consciousness. Something triggers/motivates every thought we have and it all comes down to external influence if you trace your thoughts back far enough. We surely don't just pull them out of thin air, and even if they did come to us by "magic", that still wouldn't be us doing it. It's easy to plant ideas in people's heads without them realising it, it happens all the time. I reckon we're just computers with a massive range of reactions to situations that involve loads of possible influencing factors, whether conscious or sub. I don't think it's anyone's fault or achievement for ending up who they are really. I don't see a reason why you should draw the line at just "some" of our behaviour being pre-determined.

[TieMeUp]

(Original post by MASeeker)
...

I don't want to address every point you made, but I will say that raw intellectual horsepower (IQ) is a good correlation for professional success, but with notable outliers.

My perception is that there are a lot of Oxbridge PPE types who thrive in an environment that rewards consistency, conscientiousness and continuous output at an acceptable (rather than remarkable) level of quality.

You do tend to have a lot of people who get through with 2:1s who are not what you would call naturally clever, they don't have that kind of spark of intellect, the wit, which is so apparent in very highly intelligent individuals.

But they are traits that society values and rewards. There are also individuals of clearly high intelligence, exceeding many Oxford graduates in terms of raw intellectual horsepower, who simply cannot access the kind of structured, consistent support they need to reach their full potential. That is an extraordinary shame.

I do suspect that things are starting to shift as the ability to be a human word processor, garbage in, garbage out, is not as impressive in an age of personal computing. When the civil service of the 19th century had great need for such individuals, the system (the Oxbridge tutorial system) was fit for purpose.'

I do wonder if it is still so. I do have a perception of a minority (but significant enough to be notable) of Oxford PPE / BA Juris types who seem to conform to this description, who are skilled at identifying material issues and synthesising what is being written to an acceptable standard, but don't quite have the overarching, deeply analytical genius type intellect. Much more mechanical, instrumental.

I'm speaking about anecdotal and professional observations, and not as someone who has been to Oxford or Cambridge, but it does seem to be an observation that is shared by other people.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by TieMeUp)
I don't want to address every point you made, but I will say that raw intellectual horsepower (IQ) is a good correlation for professional success, but with notable outliers.

My perception is that there are a lot of Oxbridge PPE types who thrive in an environment that rewards consistency, conscientiousness and continuous output at an acceptable (rather than remarkable) level of quality.

You do tend to have a lot of people who get through with 2:1s who are not what you would call naturally clever, they don't have that kind of spark of intellect, the wit, which is so apparent in very highly intelligent individuals.

But they are traits that society values and rewards. There are also individuals of clearly high intelligence, exceeding many Oxford graduates in terms of raw intellectual horsepower, who simply cannot access the kind of structured, consistent support they need to reach their full potential. That is an extraordinary shame.

I do suspect that things are starting to shift as the ability to be a human word processor, garbage in, garbage out, is not as impressive in an age of personal computing. When the civil service of the 19th century had great need for such individuals, the system (the Oxbridge tutorial system) was fit for purpose.'

I do wonder if it is still so. I do have a perception of a minority (but significant enough to be notable) of Oxford PPE / BA Juris types who seem to conform to this description, who are skilled at identifying material issues and synthesising what is being written to an acceptable standard, but don't quite have the overarching, deeply analytical genius type intellect. Much more mechanical, instrumental.

I'm speaking about anecdotal and professional observations, and not as someone who has been to Oxford or Cambridge, but it does seem to be an observation that is shared by other people.

I am not sure I agree, I have know brilliant and I mean brilliant people who have left school at 14 and worked all their life in manual jobs but have still been open to knowledge, curious and insightful. The have in spades what might be called fluid intelligence and while they may not study at a top or even any university and aquire the requisite schema for taking part in the discourse of the dominant cultural paradigm they are able to use this "raw intellectual horsepower" just as effectiving in forming a cognition of the world if not more so.

Look at the current government, many of them are the oxbridge PPE types you speak of and I don't see much intellectual superiority in westminster, merely a whiff of superiority with little to back it up.

Intelligence is multifaceted and we all have our strengths and weaknesses, a fair society would be one that allowed us to be ourselves in service of the whole and the whole inservice to the individual each performing to his or her own strengths and taking according to their needs. This allows for all ways of being, and removes the need for one type seeking dominance over the other.

The model we have now presupposes that the oxbrige fellow is "superior" to the manual worker when there isn't any proof of that at all. It comes down again to those cognative biases which operate to make us feel ok about inequality.

[MASeeker]

(Original post by ckingalt)
Of course there are many factors at play beyond our control. There are more factors we don't control than there are that we do. I choose to ignore them when critiquing myself. I recently faced the biggest failure of my professional career. There were many external causes that were not my doing. I still take full responsibility.

I could blame other people, other factors, and unfair policies for my failure and I would be justified in doing so. The only thing that would accomplish is making me feel better about my failure.

I choose to blame myself. I failed to prepare, adapt, and execute as well as I could have. Next time I will do those things a little better.

So here you are "proudly" taking responsibilty for this professional failure even though you also makes sure we know it wasn't really your fault and you even list all the factors that were really to blame you still lable yourself responsible. A nice example of bad faith I must say and all so you can maintain your ideologically motivated cognative bias that you deserve your successes and that inequality and social injustice aren't your problem but rather the choice and just deserts of those that suffer them.