Jan 15, 2023·edited Jan 15, 2023Liked by Rob Henderson
I'm studying for a master's in public health, and we endlessly discuss the "social determinants of health" but never once has the success sequence been mentioned in any of my courses. Considering that poverty and educational attainment are key predictors of poor health, efforts at avoiding "blaming the victim" ensure that disadvantaged populations stay sicker than those with more privilege. What are we doing here?
1. Re the success sequence. Are there any good studies showing which way the causality runs? In other words, are people successful because the hew to the three rules, or are people who are more likely to be successful, ones who tend to hew to the three rules, e.g. because they are more conscientious. I have looked for a while (and asked a number of authors) for an answer to this question and have not received a good one.the To be clear, I suspect that hewing to the success sequence rules is good advice and likely to be helpful. I just wonder if it is not being oversold based on limited empirical data.
2. It would be nice to promote the ideal of social equality-- that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules is entitled to the respect of their fellow citizens no matter what their income or wealth might be. This was the idea behind Mickey Kaus's book The End of Equality where he argued persuasively that trying to achieve material equality was doomed to failure, but we should focus on the potentially more achievable social equality. I think this is another way of looking at the suggestions you make in your concluding paragraphs-- one that reaffirms what they are saying in a different way.
I particularly liked the part about how people stopped smoking because we shame people who smoke. Also, people got fat because we have made it socially acceptable to be obese. Bill Burr has a bit about girls telling fat girls to keep eating because they will take themselves out of the mating pool. I think this reveals the reality of the fat positivity movement.
One weird trick to a virtuous society... the exaltation in status of dignity culture. Hopefully an accurate summation. I couldn't agree with anything in life more.
This is in many ways a balanced and perceptive essay that deserves wide circulation, and I will link to it at my site. I worry that throwing in criticisms may undermine that. Nonetheless, that is sort of who I am, and I used to be one of the go-to answerers about IQ and the limitations of IQ on Quora.* I gave up. I used to be president of a High-IQ society (Prometheus) and a member of a few others in the 80s and can assure that in general, no one is more aware that IQ ain't everything than those groups. They have spent their lives working with, marrying, and interacting with the other Hi-Q's. A few still worship the Ultimate Number, but not many. They are the allies of the people who value a score of other abilities (honesty, emotional control, respect, and resilience come up a lot), not their enemies. So. I hope I provide value.
Rob: "People often treat intelligence, a relatively immutable trait, as the sole predictive variable in determining life outcomes." I think because of who you interact with online, you greatly overestimate the percentage of people who really think this way when the chips are down. There are some, and they are clear, forceful, and influential with each other, which magnifies their influence. But I have been unable to post on the topic of IQ for almost two decades without getting serious pushback, nor comment on any conservative site without eliciting same. People give lip-service to the idea that "yeah, sure, IQ and the genetics of it are important," but those are routinely excluded from the research in most cases. I worked as a psychiatric social worker for 40 years and let me assure you that none of them credit IQ, nor do 80% of the psychologists, psychiatrists, psych nurses, occupational therapists, etc. And those are the professionals in the field who deal with actual patients and persons in need of services.
The horrible upshot of this is that because the people who overvalue intelligence but cannot bear to admit that they think all that much of it are so hypocritical, no one else can break through - as you attempt to here - to talk about the real value of other things, like responsibility, conscientiousness, charm, beauty, luck, perseverance. Taking IQ out of the conversation ends up taking Everything Else out of the conversation. I value twenty things more than IQ, but if I talk about the real practical value of IQ at all I get regarded as someone who cares about nothing else. Jealous people - those with IQ 110-130 - are obsessed with it. Above and below that range you get a better percentage of people who are more reasonable. Rob, you are above 130, which frees you from that foolishness and allows you to see the importance of other virtues.
Sorry to subject you to my standard rant. It's just that I am so tired of the same argument after 50 years. If some equally obsessed person wants more detail about my thoughts, my pseudonym is the name of my site.
*I eventually settled on recommending Wisdom, according to D&D, Classical, and Medieval definitions - essentially the Four Cardinal and Three Theological Virtues - as the recommended focus for effort. I doubt anyone listened for more than a minute when I wrote that.
Jan 16, 2023·edited Jan 17, 2023Liked by Rob Henderson
Bless you, Rob, for creating posts like this. It is highly humane and generous to spend your highly valuable time on giving people hope, direction and encouragement in their lives.
This is the best and most needed article I've read in a very long time, if not ever. It would be great to publish this on a larger scale. Really nice work Rob.
Jan 17, 2023·edited Jan 17, 2023Liked by Rob Henderson
Rob, Thank you for your very basic exposé. Even before recent progressive thinking, publishing IQ was avoided, I think because it is widely understood it can inappropriately advance or reduce self-esteem. I took an IQ test at some point, but I never learned the score. I do think that it is difficult to optimize individual or group outcome simply by leveraging their general-IQ-score. American religion dictates that all people were created equal before God.
Most of us are working with a team that we cannot change. StartUps focus on getting an A+ team together. In wider society, the rules say we cannot delete that fraction of the population that we wish were not on our team. So the challenge going forward is not just to recognize that there are intrinsic traits that influence the power of individual and groups, but also to deal with the differences it in a synthetic and empowering way, within our social/political system. This is the hard part. Maybe this is one of the traditional tasks of religion.
Prior to birth control, green revolution, public health, greater longevity, telecoms, free markets, we were forced to accept the demise of the less graced members of society. There was only so much room on the boat. Now, in some places, there is enough room on the boat for everyone. That challenges the prior set of rough default rules. Neolithic brains are in unfamiliar territory. Again, the challenge is how to to deal with these changes, and the differing individual and group traits, in a synthetic and empowering way, within our existing "democratic" social/political system.
Excellent advice, the success sequence could (and should) be part of our educational system. Many factors can cause variations in IQ, many of the influences are not genetic but could be “medical” in nature. In utero injury, exposure to toxins, heavy metals, hypoxia, head injury, nutritional deficiencies etc. No matter the cause, each individual has potential and ability, work has merit and dignity no matter how humble.
We each have the ability to share this important information and life strategy. If we each bring it up from time to time with friends, acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors it could really become an accepted maxim. We have plenty of “sayings” that are culturally ubiquitous like “saving for a rainy day”. The Success Sequence can and should be as well-recognized in our culture.
I love the idea of elevating work, even humble work. Some jobs that seem very unglamorous actually pay very well. Some jobs give access to sunshine and fresh air in addition to the actual labor. And most importantly, people employed in humble jobs usually still find spouses, have children and their own home. It may not fit everyone’s dream of accomplishment but it’s still pretty solid. When they are 80 years old and have a few grandchildren, that in itself is a reward beyond price.
In the end it’s up to us, to share this life strategy, to link the article and podcasts, to spread the message.
Great article! IMHO some people confuse Cognitive ability and IQ. The two are different. Cognitive ability tests for a specific domain expertise. IQ tests and ranks a person's overall intelligence. Rob writes three predictors of success that that align with both. That may/may not correlate to happiness. In my experience, I know people who possess great cognitive ability who are truly unhappy. I also know some average to average-lower IQ people who lead very happy lives.
Absolutely, intelligence does seem to be highly overrated. As far as the behavior of elites I wonder if the truth is they don't want these simple but necessary messages pushed because they fear the lower classes challenging them and displacing them? So they say hard work won't get you anywhere, society is unfair, etc, so that the lower classes will just wallow in misery instead of working hard to change their circumstances.
Hi! I think it would be wonderful to dissect Forest Gump along the lines that you just mentioned in this article. Also, coming from an immigrant family where parts of our family are very successful and parts are family really are not ( and working class), having basic standards and rules was constantly drilled into us by our Mom. We had a slightly dysfunctional childhood but our mom insisting on standards and being in a neighborhood surrounded by mostly functional families really helped, especially for my younger brother.
"The majority of your human ancestors were dumber than you." Our human ancestors were brilliant about their own worlds. How intelligent would you be as a hunter-gatherer? "They endured unimaginable hardships. Social norms were a major reason for this—tried and true patterns of behavior that reliably lead, on average, to a decent life." Folkways are heuristics of intelligent life before us. We are not smarter than than our ancestors, we are smarter about our world than our ancestors would be in our world.
Also, I think the processing of food is going to turn out to be more important that then "availability of junk food" hypothesis. Reheated oils seem to PROGRESSIVELY mess with the hunger signals of some people but not others; people who consume only one starch (rice, potato, corn, wheat) SOMETIMES seem to not gain much weight; it is all looking very individual and even (gulp) genetic what is safe for you.
The bad news is that all overweight people are going to have to give up something they like. The good news is that it won't be everything, and it won't even be the same thing.
I'm studying for a master's in public health, and we endlessly discuss the "social determinants of health" but never once has the success sequence been mentioned in any of my courses. Considering that poverty and educational attainment are key predictors of poor health, efforts at avoiding "blaming the victim" ensure that disadvantaged populations stay sicker than those with more privilege. What are we doing here?
Hallelujah. The guy (or gal) who picks up your garbage deserves at least as much respect as any other working member of society.
Two thoughts:
1. Re the success sequence. Are there any good studies showing which way the causality runs? In other words, are people successful because the hew to the three rules, or are people who are more likely to be successful, ones who tend to hew to the three rules, e.g. because they are more conscientious. I have looked for a while (and asked a number of authors) for an answer to this question and have not received a good one.the To be clear, I suspect that hewing to the success sequence rules is good advice and likely to be helpful. I just wonder if it is not being oversold based on limited empirical data.
2. It would be nice to promote the ideal of social equality-- that everyone who works hard and plays by the rules is entitled to the respect of their fellow citizens no matter what their income or wealth might be. This was the idea behind Mickey Kaus's book The End of Equality where he argued persuasively that trying to achieve material equality was doomed to failure, but we should focus on the potentially more achievable social equality. I think this is another way of looking at the suggestions you make in your concluding paragraphs-- one that reaffirms what they are saying in a different way.
I particularly liked the part about how people stopped smoking because we shame people who smoke. Also, people got fat because we have made it socially acceptable to be obese. Bill Burr has a bit about girls telling fat girls to keep eating because they will take themselves out of the mating pool. I think this reveals the reality of the fat positivity movement.
One weird trick to a virtuous society... the exaltation in status of dignity culture. Hopefully an accurate summation. I couldn't agree with anything in life more.
This is in many ways a balanced and perceptive essay that deserves wide circulation, and I will link to it at my site. I worry that throwing in criticisms may undermine that. Nonetheless, that is sort of who I am, and I used to be one of the go-to answerers about IQ and the limitations of IQ on Quora.* I gave up. I used to be president of a High-IQ society (Prometheus) and a member of a few others in the 80s and can assure that in general, no one is more aware that IQ ain't everything than those groups. They have spent their lives working with, marrying, and interacting with the other Hi-Q's. A few still worship the Ultimate Number, but not many. They are the allies of the people who value a score of other abilities (honesty, emotional control, respect, and resilience come up a lot), not their enemies. So. I hope I provide value.
Rob: "People often treat intelligence, a relatively immutable trait, as the sole predictive variable in determining life outcomes." I think because of who you interact with online, you greatly overestimate the percentage of people who really think this way when the chips are down. There are some, and they are clear, forceful, and influential with each other, which magnifies their influence. But I have been unable to post on the topic of IQ for almost two decades without getting serious pushback, nor comment on any conservative site without eliciting same. People give lip-service to the idea that "yeah, sure, IQ and the genetics of it are important," but those are routinely excluded from the research in most cases. I worked as a psychiatric social worker for 40 years and let me assure you that none of them credit IQ, nor do 80% of the psychologists, psychiatrists, psych nurses, occupational therapists, etc. And those are the professionals in the field who deal with actual patients and persons in need of services.
The horrible upshot of this is that because the people who overvalue intelligence but cannot bear to admit that they think all that much of it are so hypocritical, no one else can break through - as you attempt to here - to talk about the real value of other things, like responsibility, conscientiousness, charm, beauty, luck, perseverance. Taking IQ out of the conversation ends up taking Everything Else out of the conversation. I value twenty things more than IQ, but if I talk about the real practical value of IQ at all I get regarded as someone who cares about nothing else. Jealous people - those with IQ 110-130 - are obsessed with it. Above and below that range you get a better percentage of people who are more reasonable. Rob, you are above 130, which frees you from that foolishness and allows you to see the importance of other virtues.
Sorry to subject you to my standard rant. It's just that I am so tired of the same argument after 50 years. If some equally obsessed person wants more detail about my thoughts, my pseudonym is the name of my site.
*I eventually settled on recommending Wisdom, according to D&D, Classical, and Medieval definitions - essentially the Four Cardinal and Three Theological Virtues - as the recommended focus for effort. I doubt anyone listened for more than a minute when I wrote that.
Bless you, Rob, for creating posts like this. It is highly humane and generous to spend your highly valuable time on giving people hope, direction and encouragement in their lives.
Thanks for writing this Rob. I needed something like this to stiffen my back and get me out of this January slump.
This is the best and most needed article I've read in a very long time, if not ever. It would be great to publish this on a larger scale. Really nice work Rob.
Rob, Thank you for your very basic exposé. Even before recent progressive thinking, publishing IQ was avoided, I think because it is widely understood it can inappropriately advance or reduce self-esteem. I took an IQ test at some point, but I never learned the score. I do think that it is difficult to optimize individual or group outcome simply by leveraging their general-IQ-score. American religion dictates that all people were created equal before God.
Most of us are working with a team that we cannot change. StartUps focus on getting an A+ team together. In wider society, the rules say we cannot delete that fraction of the population that we wish were not on our team. So the challenge going forward is not just to recognize that there are intrinsic traits that influence the power of individual and groups, but also to deal with the differences it in a synthetic and empowering way, within our social/political system. This is the hard part. Maybe this is one of the traditional tasks of religion.
Prior to birth control, green revolution, public health, greater longevity, telecoms, free markets, we were forced to accept the demise of the less graced members of society. There was only so much room on the boat. Now, in some places, there is enough room on the boat for everyone. That challenges the prior set of rough default rules. Neolithic brains are in unfamiliar territory. Again, the challenge is how to to deal with these changes, and the differing individual and group traits, in a synthetic and empowering way, within our existing "democratic" social/political system.
best regards, Dan Martin (The guy from Palo Alto)
Excellent advice, the success sequence could (and should) be part of our educational system. Many factors can cause variations in IQ, many of the influences are not genetic but could be “medical” in nature. In utero injury, exposure to toxins, heavy metals, hypoxia, head injury, nutritional deficiencies etc. No matter the cause, each individual has potential and ability, work has merit and dignity no matter how humble.
We each have the ability to share this important information and life strategy. If we each bring it up from time to time with friends, acquaintances, coworkers, neighbors it could really become an accepted maxim. We have plenty of “sayings” that are culturally ubiquitous like “saving for a rainy day”. The Success Sequence can and should be as well-recognized in our culture.
I love the idea of elevating work, even humble work. Some jobs that seem very unglamorous actually pay very well. Some jobs give access to sunshine and fresh air in addition to the actual labor. And most importantly, people employed in humble jobs usually still find spouses, have children and their own home. It may not fit everyone’s dream of accomplishment but it’s still pretty solid. When they are 80 years old and have a few grandchildren, that in itself is a reward beyond price.
In the end it’s up to us, to share this life strategy, to link the article and podcasts, to spread the message.
Great article! IMHO some people confuse Cognitive ability and IQ. The two are different. Cognitive ability tests for a specific domain expertise. IQ tests and ranks a person's overall intelligence. Rob writes three predictors of success that that align with both. That may/may not correlate to happiness. In my experience, I know people who possess great cognitive ability who are truly unhappy. I also know some average to average-lower IQ people who lead very happy lives.
Absolutely, intelligence does seem to be highly overrated. As far as the behavior of elites I wonder if the truth is they don't want these simple but necessary messages pushed because they fear the lower classes challenging them and displacing them? So they say hard work won't get you anywhere, society is unfair, etc, so that the lower classes will just wallow in misery instead of working hard to change their circumstances.
Hi! I think it would be wonderful to dissect Forest Gump along the lines that you just mentioned in this article. Also, coming from an immigrant family where parts of our family are very successful and parts are family really are not ( and working class), having basic standards and rules was constantly drilled into us by our Mom. We had a slightly dysfunctional childhood but our mom insisting on standards and being in a neighborhood surrounded by mostly functional families really helped, especially for my younger brother.
"The majority of your human ancestors were dumber than you." Our human ancestors were brilliant about their own worlds. How intelligent would you be as a hunter-gatherer? "They endured unimaginable hardships. Social norms were a major reason for this—tried and true patterns of behavior that reliably lead, on average, to a decent life." Folkways are heuristics of intelligent life before us. We are not smarter than than our ancestors, we are smarter about our world than our ancestors would be in our world.
Also, I think the processing of food is going to turn out to be more important that then "availability of junk food" hypothesis. Reheated oils seem to PROGRESSIVELY mess with the hunger signals of some people but not others; people who consume only one starch (rice, potato, corn, wheat) SOMETIMES seem to not gain much weight; it is all looking very individual and even (gulp) genetic what is safe for you.
The bad news is that all overweight people are going to have to give up something they like. The good news is that it won't be everything, and it won't even be the same thing.