[BelyyTigr]

OK, as suggested in the "Why do supertalented/capable people become criminals" thread, I'm opening up this thread as a spin off thread about "class corruption and discrimination" etc.

Its fairly easy to summarise some of the key concepts of Red Pill culture, as understood across various forums. They centre around manipulative behaviour of women. A manipulative media attempting to attack masculinity and create a species of effeminate men and masculinised women. The next tenet of Red Pill is possibly a condemnation of the large waves of 3rd World immigration the West is experiencing. Togther with a general erosion of "traditional values".

Well I think that there's a strong case for expanding the defintion of Red Pill. I would have it including a manipulation of our environment by Establishment groups. In particular, the way in which we are always told we live in meritocracies, but on closer examination that assurance crumbles away. Ofcourse this is an issue in England where I live. But I don't think it would be much of an issue say in somewhere like Germany.

America is less of a class based society than Britain, in my view. But it does seem to be class based in other ways. For instance, sons, brothers and wives of presidents angling to become president themselves. And the Ivy League phenomenon.

Have you had experience of what is termed "class corruption". By that, I mean you lost some opportunity, job offer or other position because you didn't go to the right high school/come from a particular family or childhood social class? Are you angry at that? Or perhaps you are from a wealthy family and consider it "your right" to exclude those from less wealthy families?

I myself always thought that by working hard in school, I would get good jobs very rapidly on merit. But a little like a friend who was "called by the Dark Side", I realised that what I was being told was in large part, a load of lies. So I started my own buisiness instead.

Do you think something should be done about "class discrimination or corruption"? If so, what? And do you consider it part of awakening to "red pill reality"? Or do you consider your country to be very merit based without any class based issues?

[TooFineAPoint]

In a scale of values, I'd like to believe I put merit fairly high up there.

However, the fear of being screwed over by a partner, or employee, or a community, or whatever, is also real.

So trust is a large variable that, to the extent it can be known, requires a lot of experience dealing with someone. And a sharp understanding of human psychology.

I've always looked at nepotism as a short cut to trust. It may not be the best way to tell a trustworthy person, but it takes away a layer of uncertainty.

So people making nepotistic decisions don't bother me. I look at their successes as a way to maintain trust over broad expanses, and I look at their failures as an opportunity for me or others to squeeze in on the action.

Similar to class discrimination. Of course it sucks when you are on the receiving end. But when you are in a position of having and keeping something, it enters into the consideration of how to protect the current eco-system.

It seems obvious to me that a higher class person would put up a lot of barriers to entry, while keeping their eye open to the very very small percentage chance that if a climber can make it through they will be a formidable acquaintance.

[Delta]

There are many reasons children born to wealthy parents tend to have better life outcomes. Class discrimination is not one of them, because it goes in the opposite direction. Universities openly discriminate against the wealthier ethnicities (i.e. whites and Asians), and graduate programs typically require some sort of sob story essay as part of the admissions process. Even putting college admissions aside, many people have a deep visceral hatred for the "rich white kid" (you think the Duke lacrosse case would've turned into such a media circus/witch hunt without the "privileged white males" angle?).

Make no mistake, wealthy kids have plenty of advantages, but they succeed IN SPITE of people's knowledge that they come from a high status family, not because of it. Presidential elections are all about name recognition and do not reflect how thing are for regular people.

[Kabal]

1. In the U.S. (and other Western nations), IQ is highly heritable, and the correlation between IQ and income/wealth is moderate to strong.

Having high IQ is a much stronger predictor of future income than high SES background. For example, the gap in log hourly wage at age 40 between High IQ (+1 st. dev.) and Low IQ (-1 st. dev.), with average familial SES, was found to be about 3 times versus that of High SES background and Low SES background with average IQ.

Outcome differences between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds is largely just mediated by IQ alone. There are even more cognitive traits to consider, like conscientiousness, discount rates, etc., that would move the "epsilon" (which includes SES effects) even closer to 0.



The main effect of future differences in income between students of selective schools and non-selective schools disappear once student SAT scores are accounted for. Students of more prestigious schools tend to earn more money later-on, not because of some nefarious old-boys-club, but because students of more prestigious schools tend to be smarter.

2. Freedom of association. People should be able to associate with who they want. I would prefer not having an omnipresent "Section 8"ing of all t3h things.

[BelyyTigr]

(05-23-2017 02:34 PM)TooFineAPoint Wrote:  

In a scale of values, I'd like to believe I put merit fairly high up there.

However, the fear of being screwed over by a partner, or employee, or a community, or whatever, is also real.

So trust is a large variable that, to the extent it can be known, requires a lot of experience dealing with someone. And a sharp understanding of human psychology.

I've always looked at nepotism as a short cut to trust. It may not be the best way to tell a trustworthy person, but it takes away a layer of uncertainty.

So people making nepotistic decisions don't bother me. I look at their successes as a way to maintain trust over broad expanses, and I look at their failures as an opportunity for me or others to squeeze in on the action.

Similar to class discrimination. Of course it sucks when you are on the receiving end. But when you are in a position of having and keeping something, it enters into the consideration of how to protect the current eco-system.

It seems obvious to me that a higher class person would put up a lot of barriers to entry, while keeping their eye open to the very very small percentage chance that if a climber can make it through they will be a formidable acquaintance.

As the US, Canada is maybe different to Britain, I have no experience of Canada. Its one thing to choose a business partner in a 2 man partnership on social similarity grounds. But saying "I won't employ someone from a lower middle class family" is a bit pushing it if you're head of grad recruitment for Citibank Canada?

Protecting the "current ecosystem" in a country like Britain, Greece and others, just means "we'll lie through our teeth and give our gang the jobs". Surely just because someone came from your high school, 20 yrs before you, its no measure of trustworthiness. And if the narrative fails, the system is nothing more than fraud. In other words, it is a destruction of trust - with all the associated implications.

(05-23-2017 02:34 PM)Delta Wrote:  

There are many reasons children born to wealthy parents tend to have better life outcomes. Class discrimination is not one of them, because it goes in the opposite direction. Universities openly discriminate against the wealthier ethnicities (i.e. whites and Asians), and graduate programs typically require some sort of sob story essay as part of the admissions process. Even putting college admissions aside, many people have a deep visceral hatred for the "rich white kid" (you think the Duke lacrosse case would've turned into such a media circus/witch hunt without the "privileged white males" angle?).

Make no mistake, wealthy kids have plenty of advantages, but they succeed IN SPITE of people's knowledge that they come from a high status family, not because of it. Presidential elections are all about name recognition and do not reflect how thing are for regular people.

I think Britain and America are different. Americans I meet in Europe say they are almost polar opposites. I can understand some colleges may have "sob story" for black gay tranny applications. But Harvard and Yale? I don't see how you can say privileged people succeed "in spite" of everyone else. I mean isn't that idea that you are privileged that less fortunate people can do fuck all about it - in a class corrupted arena? And by privileged I don't mean "white", I mean very wealth family, private high school academy, Ivy league etc.

What I'm saying is that merit should be the key if a country is serious about performing. If not, then I think that country will go the same way Spain did in the late 19th century ...ie down the toilet. Greece is endemically class corruption based and look how that place has gone!

[Que enspastic]

History is a lesson in nepotism > meritocracy > nepotism. It fluctuates according to the times. Countries like Greece that become too nepotistic and corrupt fall by the wayside and can't move forward until the antidote - focus on merit - becomes prioritised.

The true kicker is studying the collapse of the Russian and Ottoman Empires, both of which were built by meritorious leaders in the crucible of war, maintained by tightly guarded cliques and then surpassed by the more meritorious armies of Prussia / France and British Navy. The only way they could catch up was to modernise (or be overwhelmed by their rivals) but the modernisation programmes required (literacy for the masses, critical thinking, advancement by merit) unleashed the forces that would destroy the existing order from within (nationalists and revolutionaries).

Parallels can be drawn for collapse of Roman Empire, decline of Venetians and the genesis of the French Revolution. The great ones build the social structure and then their progeny try to shut the doors on future up and comers with predictable consequences.

[Delta]

(05-23-2017 03:14 PM)BelyyTigr Wrote:  

I think Britain and America are different. Americans I meet in Europe say they are almost polar opposites. I can understand some colleges may have "sob story" for black gay tranny applications. But Harvard and Yale?

Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale are the worst when it comes to requiring some emotional underdog story to gain admittance. The stereotype of these schools being a good old boys' network of trust fund kids is no longer true. White students are vastly under-represented at these schools compared to the white share of the population.

Quote:

I don't see how you can say privileged people succeed "in spite" of everyone else.

I didn't. I said something much more specific and nuanced than that. Please reread it.

Quote:

I mean isn't that idea that you are privileged that less fortunate people can do fuck all about it - in a class corrupted arena? And by privileged I don't mean "white", I mean very wealth family, private high school academy, Ivy league etc.

What I'm saying is that merit should be the key if a country is serious about performing.

The privileges enjoyed by children born to upper class families are not separate from merit; they create merit. For example, these children:
-have higher innate IQs (as Kabal points out in detail)
-almost always come from in-tact families that instill discipline and have high expectations for their children
-have better community role models
-grow up in safe environments
-attend school with kids that also have these advantages, and therefore have better peer groups.

In other words, a purely meritocratic society should observe that wealthy children end up in higher places when they grow up, because they are bred and raised to be successful.

What you're arguing, that it's common for high status individuals to be chosen over more qualified lower status individuals, is not remotely true, at least in America. The opposite occurs far more often, and is an officially sanctioned policy of universities.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-23-2017 02:54 PM)Kabal Wrote:  

1. In the U.S. (and other Western nations), IQ is highly heritable, and the correlation between IQ and income/wealth is moderate to strong.

Having high IQ is a much stronger predictor of future income than high SES background. For example, the gap in log hourly wage at age 40 between High IQ (+1 st. dev.) and Low IQ (-1 st. dev.), with average familial SES, was found to be about 3 times versus that of High SES background and Low SES background with average IQ.

Outcome differences between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds is largely just mediated by IQ alone. There are even more cognitive traits to consider, like conscientiousness, discount rates, etc., that would move the "epsilon" (which includes SES effects) even closer to 0.

True when hourly wage is concerned, but the problem is that the true rich are not accounted for in hourly earnings data. Bill Gates likely stopped being accounted for, Warren Buffett as well.

There is a huge subset of people with relatively high IQs, but modest incomes like teachers. Yes - you have Wallstreet and many highly paid professions that have high-IQ necessary, but then you have the amazing number of Disney-entrepreneurs who come with massive money. They can be sometimes morons, but still make plenty of money since a lot of projects are funded.

Another important point - since they stopped inbreeding it is rather common that wealthy families often have way higher IQs. You are usually not going to marry into those families without having a substantially higher IQ. In a way that skews the matrix as well, but the main point is the "hourly wage" focus, which makes not much sense to the 0,1%.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

dd

[britchard]

It wasn't until I read posts on this forum by foreigners talking about the class system in the UK that I became aware of my own susceptibilities to very quickly relate everything about other people to class. I had been doing this without even realising, completely subconsciously.

Even very small things such as the drinks people drink, the shop they buy their food from, what style of suit they wear to weddings, where they go on holiday or perhaps even their names. Also I found that when observing other people meeting for the first time, most of the questions were often asked to generate a response which were a giveaway of the respondent's class.

There are most definitely class barriers in every Western society, particularly in the Anglosphere. I would suggest that there has been an increase in class 'warfare' in the US over the past few years. And the same behaviour that we see in the UK over class is becoming more prevalent. Voted for Trump? White and female? Most likely lower/lower middle class. Voted for Clinton? White and female? Most likely upper middle class.

I reckon I could work out a lot about someone in the UK by asking them just 5 questions:

Which political party do you support?
How old are you?
Male or female?
Level of education?
Which supermarket do you use?