What Oxford taught me about posh people • Hacker News Board

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#221

Post by vr46 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

simonh wrote: post #171

vr46 wrote: post #97

I am acquainted with a disproportionate number of Oxbridge grads, mainly through my old school, which has always targeted those universities for its boys. While everyone is smart and pleasant, there is the constant reinforcement that Oxbridge grads seek each other out throughout their lives to almost exclusively hang out with each other. I mean, as towns they're not exactly next door, but in London there is the joint…

I'm friends with a gang of three Oxford graduates, who met each other there in the 80s. I know them through mutual interests and like minded mutual friends. They're just part of the gang, get on with everyone regardless of background. What you do notice though, is they absolutely know how to work their asses off. They're constantly organising things, writing stuff, offering to edit and help develop other people's wor…

I hear you and it’s like this with my school alumni too, but I don’t think that the school and university can take too much credit for this, all these boys (and I went to a boys’ school, if that wasn’t clear) were very much like this at 11 or 13, education just refined and channeled them. This is why I find the self-selecting group quite odd, as membership is only one indicator of common ground.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#222

Post by WalterBright » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

teachingassist wrote: post #217

WalterBright wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The USSR had (and has) much more resources per population. Japan achieved great wealth with insignificant natural resources. 2. Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. The money was to be made by cramming poor people in below decks. In colonial…

> Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider. > Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. "The medi…

> too expensive for poor people to typically consider.

Seriously? Poor people spend a grand on iPhones.

Besides, have you seen those pictures of immigrants going through Ellis Island clutching their battered suitcases? Do they look like rich people to you?

> That seems like middle class people to me.

Yup. Came poor and moved up to middle class.

BTW, I am properly amused by your theory that the US became a superpower via rich people immigrating and transferring their money to the US. That doesn't even pass the sniff test.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#223

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:27 AM UTC

teachingassist wrote: post #217

WalterBright wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The USSR had (and has) much more resources per population. Japan achieved great wealth with insignificant natural resources. 2. Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. The money was to be made by cramming poor people in below decks. In colonial…

> Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider. > Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. "The medi…

> That seems like middle class people to me.

Seems like just below middle income, which is typically deep in the working class and pretty far from the petit bourgeoisie, the balance-of-capital-and-labor-dependence middle class between thr working and capitalist classes.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#224

Post by kanche » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:28 AM UTC

AlexSW wrote: post #52

I went to a state school and state sixth form, and my experience definitely deviates from that presented in the article and some other comments here. I think the part of the article which focuses on more personalised teaching rings the most true for me. There may be differences due to the subject, level, or college. I did a one-year masters in STEM in a very international graduate Oxford college. But the vast majorit…

True, some of the Oxford colleges give a "posh" vibe: Magdalen College; some colleges are very friendly: Linacre College

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#225

Post by jseban » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:29 AM UTC

jseban wrote: post #219

iso1631 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can we improve our average level of well-being What average? MEAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 1 person with $10m and 99 people with nothing (mean=100k) System 2: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) The latter is far far better despite on mean being worse. MEDIAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 51 person with $1m and 49 people with nothing (median=$1m) System 2: 100 people with $250k (median=250k) The…

Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much, you stifle productivity to the point where you have no improvements at all, and your mean will start to regress. Why? Because you have removed all incentives for people to improve, and rather introduced the perverse incentive of preferring to be on the receiving end. In reality it's more like System 1: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) System 2: 98…

Personally I much prefer System 2 and I'm happy that I have 60k instead of 50k. Money is just a tool to give me freedom, and 60k means more freedom than 50k, so I'll take that deal any day.

The rich guys who have 10 houses or whatever, doesn't bother me at all, I simply don't care, and I'm sure that they are not much happier. Exactly the same way that I don't spend my time grudging over the fact that some guys are 100 times more handsome and charming and talented than me

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#226

Post by wccrawford » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:35 AM UTC

> No one asked whether these students were really the most intelligent people.

Right, it only confirmed that they met the minimum standards of the University and had graduated. It was never about "most intelligent", but merely met a minimum requirement of knowledge and intelligence.

And there are plenty of people who fail to meet that requirement, but despite what they say about "college level iq", most people can pass if they work at it.

After all that, the author still manages to go back to their "us vs them" thinking, too. They're still looking down on people who weren't raised like they were.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#227

Post by jseban » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:36 AM UTC

t-writescode wrote: post #197

WalterBright wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)

And their unfairness for the collective and individual betterment is arguably a good thing.

It could be and also could not be, it depends on where you draw the line. You want to incentivise strong people as much as possible (freedom), and also help weak people as much as possible (redistribution).

If you tip too far over to either side, it's going to be a bad thing, and there is probably a much better way to find the sweet spot than to argue over what is "fair".

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#228

Post by gverrilla » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:37 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #215

mrpopo wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has seen the most spectacular rise from poverty to wealth ever seen in history. This is not true, historians collectively agree that Korea has seen the most spectacular rise. Also, your comment was spectacularly off-topic and anachronistic. A country being a manufacturing powerhouse during WW2 doesn't mean that immigrants have a fair chance today. First they need to be able to enter, then they need to be abl…

> historians collectively agree I'm not buying that. S. Korea's population is 51 million. The US elevated far more. Besides, SK's economy is free market, not communism. > First they need to be able to enter, 100,000 per month are flooding over the border. > then they need to be able to succeed. Evidently they believe they can, or they wouldn't come. As for around here in Seattle, there are immigrants everywhere . I j…

Ask them for a bite. There's a collective spirit to food in a lot of cultures - particularly the poor ones.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#229

Post by iso1631 » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:37 AM UTC

jseban wrote: post #219

iso1631 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how can we improve our average level of well-being What average? MEAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 1 person with $10m and 99 people with nothing (mean=100k) System 2: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) The latter is far far better despite on mean being worse. MEDIAN: Two systems of 100 people System 1: 51 person with $1m and 49 people with nothing (median=$1m) System 2: 100 people with $250k (median=250k) The…

Yeah but in reality what happens is that if you redistribute too much, you stifle productivity to the point where you have no improvements at all, and your mean will start to regress. Why? Because you have removed all incentives for people to improve, and rather introduced the perverse incentive of preferring to be on the receiving end. In reality it's more like System 1: 100 people with $50k (mean=50k) System 2: 98…

Except it's not, system 2 might have 90 people with 60k and 2 people with 10m, but there's also 8 people with less than nothing.

I'm far more interested in the quality of live of the 5th, 10th and 25th percentile than the 50th, 90th and 99th.

Re: What Oxford taught me about posh people

#230

Post by teachingassist » Tue, Jun 01, 2021, 10:38 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #223

teachingassist wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Did you know that the reason the Titanic was built was to en-masse ship poor people to the US? The first class bit was mostly window dressing. Third-class passage was £8, approximately $1000 in today's currency, i.e. more expensive than an equivalent trans-atlantic flight today, and too expensive for poor people to typically consider. > Middle class and rich people rarely immigrate. It's the poor that do. "The medi…

> That seems like middle class people to me. Seems like just below middle income , which is typically deep in the working class and pretty far from the petit bourgeoisie, the balance-of-capital-and-labor-dependence middle class between thr working and capitalist classes.

That's a fine definition, but puts middle class in at least the top 10%, if not comfortably the top 1%, by wealth and income.

My question was whether we have different definitions of poor - if you are distinguishing poor as everyone below middle class, and this is your definition of middle class, then you're simply claiming that everyone is poor.

Saying "poor people do X" now just boils down to "some people do X" [for example, the claim that poor people buy $1000 retail iPhones]. To me, that's not a very useful or interesting definition for this purpose.