If this were true, and significant, wouldn't we expect to see more successful women in the startup scene? Women appear to be disproportionately willing to do low-status/non public-facing/schlep work, but I don't notice that they are particularly rewarded for it, probably because they tend do this low-status work in the context of an existing organization in which they have little leverage/ownership stake.
Willingness to take risks, and having the means to do so (financial and social capital reserved to draw down upon), on the other hand, seems to better fit the observed pattern.
Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
81–90 of 289 posts
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#82Many, many more people work at things other people think are silly and insignificant only to discover that thing is silly and insignificant and then they give up. Occasionally the opposite happens and the person succeeds. If you only look at the successes it probably looks like a willingness to be low-status is a marker for success, but it really isn't. It tells you nothing of the future outcome. The only thing it pr…
There's probably also the matter of competition. If something is considered significant and important, there won't be much low hanging fruit. If something is considered silly or insignificant, there are fewer people working on the same thing and an increased likelihood you'll be able to contribute something substantial.
Yeah, but in the end you still have something that is considered silly and insignificant, so there's still an uphill battle to success.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#83If this were true, and significant, wouldn't we expect to see more successful women in the startup scene? Women appear to be disproportionately willing to do low-status/non public-facing/schlep work, but I don't notice that they are particularly rewarded for it, probably because they tend do this low-status work in the context of an existing organization in which they have little leverage/ownership stake. Willingness…
> Women appear to be disproportionately willing to do low-status/non public-facing/schlep work
I don’t think this is true at all.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#84Folks in the status professions (banking, law,..) often tell me they want to become an entrepreneur. I always tell them, you wont do it. They attended the right school, joined the right firm, attained that corner office. As a founder they would give up all that, and their family and friends will tell them that they've made a massive mistake, for years, while it appears that nothing is happening.
Then they sheepishly admit that this is true.
As a bootstrapped founder when I was younger, even dating was awkward. People considered me to be quasi-unemployed, despite working 80 hours a week. It's really hard to do if you're thirsty for status.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#85Ability to be under-paid or under-appreciated for the work is the real predictor here. That's why startups are a rich-person's game. The people who succeed by being "low-status" for a long time aren't really low-status at all. . . they are high-status in other ways and can afford to let their start-up garden grow because their sense of self-worth, and income aren't totally tied to it.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#86Yeah, 33 years old, haven't accomplished much, went into school to start a degree in programming, still low status and can't find a job anywhere. I'm not sure willingness is the word for this. All I feel is bitterness. I'm not sure if this is me being reflective because it's my birthday today or what, but I'm so fucking sick of working so hard to get nowhere.
The word you're looking for to describe the situation you're in is "capitalism".
Nobody wants to be "low-status". That's a terrible narrative. All that's being illustrated here is that being low-status is the default, and success is a matter of luck, not of merit or hard work.
Capitalism doesn't care how hard you work. It doesn't even care if you deserve the status you have (high or low). It cares about money above all else, even more than you.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#87The more-correct observation is that any well-understood or easy path to becoming high status will be shut down. Most people are not high status, and want to be. It follows that the path has to be either risky, or difficult to comprehend. If hard work were enough, we'd all be in charge. Lots of hard workers out there.
What about just pure chance? To be born in to the right family, in the right country, to be in the correct field, to have the right idea at the right time. Perhaps the correct path is just luck. We are all rolling the dice here. Just be yourself and do what you find interesting. If it pays off great, if it doesn't that is okay too.
Chance/Luck is surely involved, but I'd argue that you can make it far easier for luck to find you. If you get a degree in an upcoming field or start a company you're not guaranteed anything, but your chances are a lot better than if you're just slacking off.
Sure, at the end it's a dice role, but you can get a better dice ;)
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#88Or far more likely: Most revolutionary breakthroughs are first viewed as silly / insignificant. If they were easily recognisable for what they are, they'd have been discovered already (low hanging fruit). All of my successful ideas started this way.
It's not a willingness to be low-status; it's a willingness to persevere in the face of ridicule/obscurity while ALSO having an actually good idea that you have a chance of successfully iterating on.
The only difference between visionary and batshit crazy is success.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tech is nice because it's tedious and can be difficult and for rich high status people, an easier quicker way to more guaranteed status is Medicine or Law. Your summary is both a good point and a little chilling. I've always wondered in Capitalism how this concept of a JOB for people to have a living wage is sustainable in modern times. Much less for people to innovate and thrive.
I'd contend that getting licence to practice law or medicine is neither quick nor easy. Tech definitely has a lower barrier to entry and has plenty of positions that are far less tedious than equivalent (in terms of pay and status) careers in law and medicine.
Tech workers have to contend with innovation obsoleting their skills, H1Bs undercutting them, and status/prestige is always awarded proportional to one's shrewdness/being a huge braggart.
I worked for a very successful private law practice for 2 lawyers and their entire world was about mingling with other elites they never had to learn a new thing that's for the "clerks" who had 0 status.
Re: Underrated predictor of success: willingness to be low-status
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the path has to be either risky, or difficult to comprehend. Or require being born with a rare gift or trait.
Such as "the right parents", which in many cases is a pretty efficient gate keeper.
The social elevator can take 2 generations. And that is ok. There is a lot of things to learn. It gives hope to one’s dad.
Sadly inheritance is looked down upon, and people would like every citizen to be born with the same information, and this information being delivered by public education.
Sadly, parents teach much better than teachers when it is about the little things that make a life successful. There will never be a way around this. Transmission will never be good between people who don’t care for each others, such as civil servants. Therefore we should acknowledge that, yes, some parts of success will be taught by parents, and tearing children from parents will only lose information instead of elevating everyone. We should elevate parents and teach them so that they, too, can get successful children, and make sure all kids get two parents, and as many grandparents as possible (who are very, very important for psychological stability and growth), and make sure parents can be confident in teaching their children, i.e. not criticizing them for teaching them methods to succeed which have succeeded for a millenium, like, I don’t know, marrying which is the single best predictor of success.
Sure, we can re-engineer humans without parent inheritance, tear them off and give them to childcare centers, but we already know the sad results.
I’ve once asked my Arab employee why only (foreign) Arabs applied to our job (in France) and had the skills, he very acutely noted that their parents don’t allow them to fail, whereas French-born developers were more lazy. The result is very visible here: The only decent application we have are from North Africa.
« The right parents » is not about wealth or social exclusion. It is that some parents decide to be crap parents and destroy a millenium of wisdom at their generation by not transmitting all the accumulated knowledge, generally due to some ideological dream (« my ancestors were all wrong! THIS is how you do it! I shall be free to roam! ») But the failed child is free to start again, marry, work a lot, study success, and he can give his child an excellent life, and his grandson can be CEO of a large company.
Society can’t offset crap parents. Society already does a good job at making social move possible; 86% billionaires of our generation didn’t have billionaire parents. Also, don’t believe I’m not sorry for the victims, but let’s pass the word and teach again the good tips that have worked for millenia, instead of telling everyone they can survive with a mother-and-two-step-uncles, a flat, a brother in jail and a pink dress. It is not ok to say that. We should rather tell them it will be hard and we can help them progress if they choose to live a clean life starting from now.