51:18 This is an excellent point, and I think it gets right to the very core of the required focus for transformative change - critical consciousness raising. When we dig into it, we find that, as mentioned here, it's "really real" among elites, but when it comes to the rest, it's actively discouraged from the top down and in fact the system - from public education, to the messages received via media etc - is designed and used to stymie its existence and development among non elites. So it's primarily a project in raising critical consciousness that is required to facilitate solidarity as a starting point to better organisation of opposition and transformation, instead of reproduction, of the hierarchical social structures that perpetuate the existence of elites.
It's amazing when you consider the utter randomness that is fundamental to everything including the distribution of resources, intelligence, opportunities along with the complexity of environment and genetics and how anyone believes they are responsible for any of it. It seems the fundamental element of sharing that we teach children is thrown out once adulthood is reached and the rich influence systems of neoliberalism that brings out the worst of human capacity
please explain "randomness". As I see it, there's very little, if anything "random" about the distribution of resources, human development (intelligence isn't really a thing), opportunities, environment, genetics, or responsibility.
It's not random, generations ago the rich ancestors were more happy to be dickwads than the general population. It's a distribution of narcissistic traits that keeps the rich rich. The poor are usually humble statistically, and this is the tragedy of this world
@@abody499 no one has any control or choice over anything - where we are born, when, into what country, political/economic situation, our genetics, bodies, brains, environment, wealth and anything you can think of - we can come right into the now and consider what and where is a self? where are these words coming from and why? what vast unfathomable complexity is behind each seeming decision or 'choice' we make
I could go through each example and argue against it, but overall, the issue there is a conflation of randomness with complexity. complex systems aren't random. Sometimes they can seem so because there are too many components for us to disentangle them. However, I will comment on the genetic level to say that this isn't out of anyone's control either, as the physical and mental state of the parents at the time of conception, then onwards from the maternal side till birth, all plays a role in genetic expression. After birth, the individual's environment further plays a constant role in gene expression throughout the lifetime. So it's not something that we have no control over. but it always seems a bit suspicious to me when the argument is that no one has any control over anything. That's just not true. I've worked really hard to develop the higher order thinking skills that help me identify these kinds of flawed arguments, which is motivated by a complex of factors, but ultimately down to my own choice to put the effort in. While there will always be external constraints on decision making, this is how humans develop their agency. It seems to me that when these arguments are made they are either uncritically repeating what's been seen or heard elsewhere, or deliberately trying to promote the idea of there being no point in trying to work anything out.
@@abody499 point taken, but I think genetics is complicated, abd as we have historical examples dangerous to make into any sort of “science of human hierarchy”…,I am not suggesting that is what you advocate (I don’t know, and do not expect to argue about this with you). I think the idea we control our destinies and life is just “complex” not random is an overt statement… unlike sone philosophers these days I do believe we have sone actual agency. I’ve chosen to work very hard in my life, and think it was mainly something in “me” that played a role in my own “choice” to work long and hard for both rich and poor, aiming always to be ethical (something I also perceive as a “choice”). Overall however, bad things happen to good people (well-behaved, law-abiding, hard-working people), and good things happen to those who are badly behaved, LAZY, criminal, wholly transactional in relating to other human beings (and as to the “badly behaved ego are rewarded” - is that excusable by casting those people as victims (themselves) of sociopathy or psychopathy or both?). It is complicated… overall, the life of all on the p,a net historically and now, is *not only* only complicated it is random - at the macro level. I’m sincerely glad your life has worked out well for you while you’ve worked hard, though I know nothing (else?) about you. believe hard work is admirable and benefits everyone in society…. That said, life is not fair even if or especially if you do a deep dive into why groups or individuals “succeed” while others experience violence, natural disasters, various forms of deprivation, crime, war, etc (not “complexities” alone… eg it’s currently random whether many of those events will occur and to escape these, which can destroy people). The extent to which people will go to maintain the belief that life can be fairly SAFE, if we follow the “rules” and work hard, and are fairly decent or polite to other people, and/or useful to society, is extraordinary. Most of my own life I’ve done hard work and been all kinds of “decent” … for the principle of the thing, for the reward of feeling useful and morally good…(including the notion of humility and knowing I’m not perfectly good hard as I may try, but I must try)… yet side by side with this is my effort to avoid FEAR. *IF I CONTROL MY OWN DESTINY I AM SAFE. I submit respectfully that you have a point, yet the comment to which you were replying is not undercut by what you have stated.* Life is terrifying, inherently dangerous, and highly influenced (as to how many lives turn out) by randomness … we humans may understand plate tectonics somewhat, but we will not be responsible for living in a city engulfed by lava from a volcano.
Did the study attempt to separate the effects of attending an elite school/university (quality of education, prestige of degree) from the effects of the connections/networking that occur in such schools/universities? Becoming school/university friends with peers from elite families can be beneficial much later in life (e.g. providing an elite dating/marriage pool; increasing employment opportunities, business ventures; references, introductions, credibility...)
I enjoyed the discussion, my experience of higher education having studied at Conted, OU and BBK is that they are colonised by the middle class students. Even though they were created to bring HE to working people and improve social mobility. I felt at times as soon as I spoke and people heard my accent I was being judged. I still have the occasional panic attack and imposter syndrome even with two good degrees.
“Restrict the number of privately educated students at Russell Group Universities to 10%” is a misguided solution. The students make the university, not the other way around. As is universities offer some a path upwards. Increasing access in this way would increase the participation but severely decrease the value.
@@kinngrimm the material at these schools is not superior, nor are their methods for teaching it. What makes an education from these schools so valuable are the networking opportunities. Schools with an elite reputation attract wannabe “elites” and provide sanctuary for the children of “elites”. Limiting the number of privately educated students at these schools breaks the value proposition. The whole point of going to these schools is to gain access to the posh privately educated kids. They offer a higher class of social circle
@@TheGreekGodOfWallStreet You: "The whole point of going to these schools is to gain access to the posh privately educated kids." - The whole point of this 1h30 video and entire research and book: "Maybe that's not such a great thing"
@@kcking the point of my comment is that you don’t re-shuffle the “elites” by ruining the economic model of these schools, you get rid of the opportunity they present “non-elites” to integrate with them. Furthermore, they are not knowingly advocating for the destruction of these schools. What they want is to increase the accessibility of their opportunities and make them easier to realize, so that there can be greater churn in the re-shuffling process.
I've never met anyone who went to a Russell Group university in order "to gain access to the posh privately educated kids". I'd like to see the empirical evidence which supports that assumption. Moreover, "the economic model of these schools" is not attracting "posh privately educated kids", but based on a number of factors, significantly including attracting foreign students who pay more than the maximum level of fees permitted in the UK (which, of course, limits the costs for "posh privately educated kids" to a much smaller percentage of their family wealth/income than students from less affluent backgrounds who attended state schools).
An important subject, no doubt. However, and this may be due to my Danish roots, I thought it was common knowledge That the elite was self sustaining in staying in power.
“Property, and Finance and Hedge Funds, and these are jobs that are not producing good outcomes for the economy, are not creating lots of jobs”. Another point I have to disagree with. Property (Collateral), Debt and Equity form the backbone of an economy and therefore play a significant role in creating ALL of the jobs.
@@kinngrimm what are the people working for? Money. The aforementioned jobs play a crucial role in the perpetuation of capital. Without them workers have nowhere to work and they get nothing for their work. You think a paying job falls from the sky? Someone has to create it. That takes collateral, debt, and equity.
Inheritance i came to the conclusion is a concept that needs to be overcome. Not just because it causes to give the following generation an advantage compared to others, but these i have seen are often spoiled in many ways with a sense that they deserve it and as they deserve it they are automaticly those with merit. There are those where this might be true, due to their parents having paid attention to their upbringing and trying to give them the lessons they themselves had to learn when they tried to establish the family wealth for the first time, but more often that seems not the case or i just didn't meet often this mythical creature of wealth, power and inherent progressiv ideals for fairness and equality. I am willing to accept special circumstances to a degree, but nothing below 70% inheritance tax as it was once in many places around the world before the 1920. The differance between 100% and 70% would need to be earned by deeds done for society.
Keep going and eventually we all get back to the realisation that an economic mode of production based on the provision of needs, rather than wealth extraction, accumulation, and preservation, is what needs to be adopted.
BEIJING - China has seen an increase in suicides among young people in recent years. The number of children aged five to 14 years old who died by suicide jumped nearly 10 per cent annually from 2010 to 2021, according to a recent study from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Children and adolescents have faced severe mental disorders and elevated suicide risks from intense competition to do well at school. Half of people suffering from depressive disorder in China are students, according to a 2022 national survey.
In the truest context of holography-quantization Actuality, every single person learns ,relearns the process of information In-form-ation substantiation of coherence-cohesion objectives positioning as measures and rulings proportioning probability-wave integration navigation through the Singularity-point Aether relative-timing reference-framing containment positioning. The map that is the Observable constant past is negotiated in coordination with the functional worldwide ecology. Fundamentally it's a voluntary participation, "do or die", you're IT.
They seem unable to even conceive that different outcomes are anything but the result of discrimination. They were so close when they identified that the share of wealth among the top one-percent had declined but achievement had not, but they couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge that the elite is culturally superior and that this explains their success. I have no trouble in saying that Asian-American culture is in many respects superior to my own. The way in which that culture instils industriousness and respect for tradition in their children has resulted in the proportion of Asian students at MIT, the most prestigious engineering and sciences university in the world, being close to fifty percent, despite Asians making up less than ten percent of the American population. This astonishing record of success is not a fluke or the product of a skewed system. It’s the result of cultural attributes that are extremely valuable in society, and it completely confounds the authors’ conclusions. The simple fact is that the children in the UK who went to disciplined schools, who were made by their parents to delay gratification, who were brought to the theatre…are better prepared to make a success of life. There are some advantages that it is right to adjust for - private school children being given greater assistance in applying to university, for instance - but other advantages like having a greater capacity for work are a brute fact of life that we must accept or be driven to despair. The part of the presentation in which they argue elites rough themselves up to deflect hostility is bizarre. They tell us they performed an experiment (in the loosest possible sense of the word) which finds elites are trivially less likely to cite high-brow books and music if they have been primed with a question about disadvantage. This they conclude supports their claim of ‘performative ordinariness’. But maybe the respondents whose choices are influenced in this way (a very small proportion) are recognising that expressions of adoration for high-brow art are alienating to minorities (i.e. a sympathetic motivation), or maybe they are deciding on reflection that their instinctive affection for high-brow art is the real performance and that they really prefer the Beatles - or maybe the findings can’t be replicated, like so much else in the social sciences! It’s so obviously wrong to assume that the change in stated preference must indicate an attempt to disguise true preferences. The authors likely put a great deal of work into that part of their research and felt compelled to give it an airing, but it’s such an odd and feeble line of enquiry. On a final note, the three policy recommendations are ludicrous. A tax on super-wealth woukd easily be avoided (and would have no effect anyway), a cap on private school admissions would lead to a mass exodus to state schools in wealthy catchment areas that perpetuate the same advantages, and randomly assigning Oxbridge places based on an A Level grading system that is notoriously undiscriminating achieves nothing but weakening one of the UK’s very last world-leading institutions.
I suspect that much “success” of the elite is not due to cultural superiority. Financial advances are often built on insider connections,favoritism,the wealth of one’s parents etc. Low self image holds otherwise capable people back. There are all kinds of "good" out there...opportunities, benefits, help, pleasures, gratification, happiness etc. If you do not think that you deserve them, they will not come into your life. You can't accept from Life what you think, down deep, you don't deserve. You will block it from coming in. Or if it does come in, you won't be able to hold on to it. It will slip away.
They are talking about 1% not some children from middle class families that prioritize disclipine... People that are in 1% are BORN to succeed in life thanks to their resources and not as you describe it "CULTURAL SUPIERORITY". Its common sense, if you struggle to put food on the table working a 9-5 job you are less likely to go to the theatre with your kids, private piano lessons etc.
I'd argue it's better to get a university education regardless of employment outcome as it would certainly lead to an overall improvement in decision making in the species. Education is always the key, and is a lifelong endeavour.
chat gpt is easy to trick into getting things wrong. in fact, it often gets things wrong all by itself. anyone using it should know enough to spot when it's getting things wrong, and should always verify its outputs before accepting them as fact. Anyway, reducing complex issues to mere summaries rarely leads to enhanced understanding.
Talk about class...Black people's ancestors were all slaves. This is history and it won't change. I attend international schools and private schools here in HK. 30 something years ago if I knew there were blk, Indians or Mainland Chinese studying or teaching in those schools in HK. I wouldn't choose to study in those schools. My dad paid for my school fee. He was a business owner
Excellent work and superb presentation. What a shame it was not possible to watch the slides projected before 24:28.
51:18 This is an excellent point, and I think it gets right to the very core of the required focus for transformative change - critical consciousness raising. When we dig into it, we find that, as mentioned here, it's "really real" among elites, but when it comes to the rest, it's actively discouraged from the top down and in fact the system - from public education, to the messages received via media etc - is designed and used to stymie its existence and development among non elites.
So it's primarily a project in raising critical consciousness that is required to facilitate solidarity as a starting point to better organisation of opposition and transformation, instead of reproduction, of the hierarchical social structures that perpetuate the existence of elites.
It's amazing when you consider the utter randomness that is fundamental to everything including the distribution of resources, intelligence, opportunities along with the complexity of environment and genetics and how anyone believes they are responsible for any of it. It seems the fundamental element of sharing that we teach children is thrown out once adulthood is reached and the rich influence systems of neoliberalism that brings out the worst of human capacity
please explain "randomness".
As I see it, there's very little, if anything "random" about the distribution of resources, human development (intelligence isn't really a thing), opportunities, environment, genetics, or responsibility.
It's not random, generations ago the rich ancestors were more happy to be dickwads than the general population. It's a distribution of narcissistic traits that keeps the rich rich. The poor are usually humble statistically, and this is the tragedy of this world
@@abody499 no one has any control or choice over anything - where we are born, when, into what country, political/economic situation, our genetics, bodies, brains, environment, wealth and anything you can think of - we can come right into the now and consider what and where is a self? where are these words coming from and why? what vast unfathomable complexity is behind each seeming decision or 'choice' we make
I could go through each example and argue against it, but overall, the issue there is a conflation of randomness with complexity. complex systems aren't random. Sometimes they can seem so because there are too many components for us to disentangle them. However, I will comment on the genetic level to say that this isn't out of anyone's control either, as the physical and mental state of the parents at the time of conception, then onwards from the maternal side till birth, all plays a role in genetic expression. After birth, the individual's environment further plays a constant role in gene expression throughout the lifetime. So it's not something that we have no control over.
but it always seems a bit suspicious to me when the argument is that no one has any control over anything. That's just not true. I've worked really hard to develop the higher order thinking skills that help me identify these kinds of flawed arguments, which is motivated by a complex of factors, but ultimately down to my own choice to put the effort in. While there will always be external constraints on decision making, this is how humans develop their agency.
It seems to me that when these arguments are made they are either uncritically repeating what's been seen or heard elsewhere, or deliberately trying to promote the idea of there being no point in trying to work anything out.
@@abody499 point taken, but I think genetics is complicated, abd as we have historical examples dangerous to make into any sort of “science of human hierarchy”…,I am not suggesting that is what you advocate (I don’t know, and do not expect to argue about this with you). I think the idea we control our destinies and life is just “complex” not random is an overt statement… unlike sone philosophers these days I do believe we have sone actual agency. I’ve chosen to work very hard in my life, and think it was mainly something in “me” that played a role in my own “choice” to work long and hard for both rich and poor, aiming always to be ethical (something I also perceive as a “choice”). Overall however, bad things happen to good people (well-behaved, law-abiding, hard-working people), and good things happen to those who are badly behaved, LAZY, criminal, wholly transactional in relating to other human beings (and as to the “badly behaved ego are rewarded” - is that excusable by casting those people as victims (themselves) of sociopathy or psychopathy or both?). It is complicated… overall, the life of all on the p,a net historically and now, is *not only* only complicated it is random - at the macro level. I’m sincerely glad your life has worked out well for you while you’ve worked hard, though I know nothing (else?) about you. believe hard work is admirable and benefits everyone in society…. That said, life is not fair even if or especially if you do a deep dive into why groups or individuals “succeed” while others experience violence, natural disasters, various forms of deprivation, crime, war, etc (not “complexities” alone… eg it’s currently random whether many of those events will occur and to escape these, which can destroy people). The extent to which people will go to maintain the belief that life can be fairly SAFE, if we follow the “rules” and work hard, and are fairly decent or polite to other people, and/or useful to society, is extraordinary. Most of my own life I’ve done hard work and been all kinds of “decent” … for the principle of the thing, for the reward of feeling useful and morally good…(including the notion of humility and knowing I’m not perfectly good hard as I may try, but I must try)… yet side by side with this is my effort to avoid FEAR. *IF I CONTROL MY OWN DESTINY I AM SAFE. I submit respectfully that you have a point, yet the comment to which you were replying is not undercut by what you have stated.* Life is terrifying, inherently dangerous, and highly influenced (as to how many lives turn out) by randomness … we humans may understand plate tectonics somewhat, but we will not be responsible for living in a city engulfed by lava from a volcano.
Did the study attempt to separate the effects of attending an elite school/university (quality of education, prestige of degree) from the effects of the connections/networking that occur in such schools/universities?
Becoming school/university friends with peers from elite families can be beneficial much later in life (e.g. providing an elite dating/marriage pool; increasing employment opportunities, business ventures; references, introductions, credibility...)
I got an answer from reading his book, "Class ceiling". In a nutshell, yes, it did.
Please show slides on UA-cam recording.
I enjoyed the discussion, my experience of higher education having studied at Conted, OU and BBK is that they are colonised by the middle class students. Even though they were created to bring HE to working people and improve social mobility. I felt at times as soon as I spoke and people heard my accent I was being judged. I still have the occasional panic attack and imposter syndrome even with two good degrees.
Some timestamps would be greatly appreciated!
“Restrict the number of privately educated students at Russell Group Universities to 10%” is a misguided solution. The students make the university, not the other way around. As is universities offer some a path upwards. Increasing access in this way would increase the participation but severely decrease the value.
Decrease the value how and why?
@@kinngrimm the material at these schools is not superior, nor are their methods for teaching it. What makes an education from these schools so valuable are the networking opportunities. Schools with an elite reputation attract wannabe “elites” and provide sanctuary for the children of “elites”. Limiting the number of privately educated students at these schools breaks the value proposition. The whole point of going to these schools is to gain access to the posh privately educated kids. They offer a higher class of social circle
@@TheGreekGodOfWallStreet You: "The whole point of going to these schools is to gain access to the posh privately educated kids." - The whole point of this 1h30 video and entire research and book: "Maybe that's not such a great thing"
@@kcking the point of my comment is that you don’t re-shuffle the “elites” by ruining the economic model of these schools, you get rid of the opportunity they present “non-elites” to integrate with them. Furthermore, they are not knowingly advocating for the destruction of these schools. What they want is to increase the accessibility of their opportunities and make them easier to realize, so that there can be greater churn in the re-shuffling process.
I've never met anyone who went to a Russell Group university in order "to gain access to the posh privately educated kids". I'd like to see the empirical evidence which supports that assumption.
Moreover, "the economic model of these schools" is not attracting "posh privately educated kids", but based on a number of factors, significantly including attracting foreign students who pay more than the maximum level of fees permitted in the UK (which, of course, limits the costs for "posh privately educated kids" to a much smaller percentage of their family wealth/income than students from less affluent backgrounds who attended state schools).
FUNCTIONAL FORM AND STRUCTURAL CHANGE
An important subject, no doubt. However, and this may be due to my Danish roots, I thought it was common knowledge That the elite was self sustaining in staying in power.
“Property, and Finance and Hedge Funds, and these are jobs that are not producing good outcomes for the economy, are not creating lots of jobs”. Another point I have to disagree with. Property (Collateral), Debt and Equity form the backbone of an economy and therefore play a significant role in creating ALL of the jobs.
So money does more to further an economy than people working or what are you getting at?
@@kinngrimm what are the people working for? Money. The aforementioned jobs play a crucial role in the perpetuation of capital. Without them workers have nowhere to work and they get nothing for their work. You think a paying job falls from the sky? Someone has to create it. That takes collateral, debt, and equity.
@@TheGreekGodOfWallStreetYou're obscuring the distinction between commercial and investment banking.
@@kenlandon6130 you don’t think investment banks play a role in the debt and equity markets? That’s like, what they do 🤦♂
Inheritance i came to the conclusion is a concept that needs to be overcome. Not just because it causes to give the following generation an advantage compared to others, but these i have seen are often spoiled in many ways with a sense that they deserve it and as they deserve it they are automaticly those with merit. There are those where this might be true, due to their parents having paid attention to their upbringing and trying to give them the lessons they themselves had to learn when they tried to establish the family wealth for the first time, but more often that seems not the case or i just didn't meet often this mythical creature of wealth, power and inherent progressiv ideals for fairness and equality.
I am willing to accept special circumstances to a degree, but nothing below 70% inheritance tax as it was once in many places around the world before the 1920. The differance between 100% and 70% would need to be earned by deeds done for society.
Keep going and eventually we all get back to the realisation that an economic mode of production based on the provision of needs, rather than wealth extraction, accumulation, and preservation, is what needs to be adopted.
@@abody499 Well put, i couldn't agree more.
@@kinngrimm Thank you, comrade.
25:50 -there's a well known amphibian that I can think of who utilises this and-
29:08 ok never mind. carry on
BEIJING - China has seen an increase in suicides among young people in recent years.
The number of children aged five to 14 years old who died by suicide jumped nearly 10 per cent annually from 2010 to 2021, according to a recent study from the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
Children and adolescents have faced severe mental disorders and elevated suicide risks from intense competition to do well at school. Half of people suffering from depressive disorder in China are students, according to a 2022 national survey.
In the truest context of holography-quantization Actuality, every single person learns ,relearns the process of information In-form-ation substantiation of coherence-cohesion objectives positioning as measures and rulings proportioning probability-wave integration navigation through the Singularity-point Aether relative-timing reference-framing containment positioning.
The map that is the Observable constant past is negotiated in coordination with the functional worldwide ecology. Fundamentally it's a voluntary participation, "do or die", you're IT.
Does everyone know what LSE stands for?
Most people who would be here do, but if there's any doubt, it can be found in their channel homepage.
@@abody499
Thank you.
You might just tell me 😉
Oh, my apologies. I didn't realise you were actually asking the meaning. Sorry, I just assumed a more literal meaning in the question.
London School of Economics ( and Political Science )
They seem unable to even conceive that different outcomes are anything but the result of discrimination. They were so close when they identified that the share of wealth among the top one-percent had declined but achievement had not, but they couldn’t bring themselves to acknowledge that the elite is culturally superior and that this explains their success.
I have no trouble in saying that Asian-American culture is in many respects superior to my own. The way in which that culture instils industriousness and respect for tradition in their children has resulted in the proportion of Asian students at MIT, the most prestigious engineering and sciences university in the world, being close to fifty percent, despite Asians making up less than ten percent of the American population. This astonishing record of success is not a fluke or the product of a skewed system. It’s the result of cultural attributes that are extremely valuable in society, and it completely confounds the authors’ conclusions.
The simple fact is that the children in the UK who went to disciplined schools, who were made by their parents to delay gratification, who were brought to the theatre…are better prepared to make a success of life. There are some advantages that it is right to adjust for - private school children being given greater assistance in applying to university, for instance - but other advantages like having a greater capacity for work are a brute fact of life that we must accept or be driven to despair.
The part of the presentation in which they argue elites rough themselves up to deflect hostility is bizarre. They tell us they performed an experiment (in the loosest possible sense of the word) which finds elites are trivially less likely to cite high-brow books and music if they have been primed with a question about disadvantage. This they conclude supports their claim of ‘performative ordinariness’. But maybe the respondents whose choices are influenced in this way (a very small proportion) are recognising that expressions of adoration for high-brow art are alienating to minorities (i.e. a sympathetic motivation), or maybe they are deciding on reflection that their instinctive affection for high-brow art is the real performance and that they really prefer the Beatles - or maybe the findings can’t be replicated, like so much else in the social sciences! It’s so obviously wrong to assume that the change in stated preference must indicate an attempt to disguise true preferences. The authors likely put a great deal of work into that part of their research and felt compelled to give it an airing, but it’s such an odd and feeble line of enquiry.
On a final note, the three policy recommendations are ludicrous. A tax on super-wealth woukd easily be avoided (and would have no effect anyway), a cap on private school admissions would lead to a mass exodus to state schools in wealthy catchment areas that perpetuate the same advantages, and randomly assigning Oxbridge places based on an A Level grading system that is notoriously undiscriminating achieves nothing but weakening one of the UK’s very last world-leading institutions.
I suspect that much “success” of the elite is not due to cultural superiority.
Financial advances are often built on insider connections,favoritism,the wealth of one’s parents etc.
Low self image holds otherwise capable people back.
There are all kinds of "good" out there...opportunities, benefits, help, pleasures, gratification, happiness etc.
If you do not think that you deserve them, they will not come into your life.
You can't accept from Life what you think, down deep, you don't deserve.
You will block it from coming in.
Or if it does come in, you won't be able to hold on to it.
It will slip away.
They are talking about 1% not some children from middle class families that prioritize disclipine... People that are in 1% are BORN to succeed in life thanks to their resources and not as you describe it "CULTURAL SUPIERORITY". Its common sense, if you struggle to put food on the table working a 9-5 job you are less likely to go to the theatre with your kids, private piano lessons etc.
30:05 I love women's rights.
You are all fired due to the fact, that no one has given me what I wanted. Everyone employeed by the royal crown.
lollipop yumm who else here from sociology
No socialist ever made ordinary
More people going to bad unis for none existent jobs with a pile of debt
I'd argue it's better to get a university education regardless of employment outcome as it would certainly lead to an overall improvement in decision making in the species. Education is always the key, and is a lifelong endeavour.
God they beat around the bush… chat gpt, summarize in 5 sentences, thx
chat gpt is easy to trick into getting things wrong. in fact, it often gets things wrong all by itself. anyone using it should know enough to spot when it's getting things wrong, and should always verify its outputs before accepting them as fact.
Anyway, reducing complex issues to mere summaries rarely leads to enhanced understanding.
So depressing to have working class cabinet to the right of conservatives
The caste system is eternal.
Talk about class...Black people's ancestors were all slaves. This is history and it won't change. I attend international schools and private schools here in HK. 30 something years ago if I knew there were blk, Indians or Mainland Chinese studying or teaching in those schools in HK. I wouldn't choose to study in those schools. My dad paid for my school fee. He was a business owner
That's the irony of democracy for you 😂 socialism isn't any better
socialism is inherently democratic
LSE = London School of Envy.