social mobility, who tried? who achieved and who failed?

[WALKYRIA]

Lately I was searching on " the realities of social mobility" in the context of a fear common in INTP= fear of the light= fear of success and its consequences(mainly because we are afraid of losing ourselves and to change )... and I stumbled on the interesting notion that type of education( which is strongly correlated to social class) was the main promoter of socio-economical mobility or success in society. And fairly enough I always had the intuition that something in my education( poor guy who almost educated himself) missed like lateral activities; something in the way I speak or express myself or constantly doubt; something related to the fact I'm almost unable to play the social game.... Being a self-made average med student, I'm always impressed by how a select few students approach situations in a very confident and bold way and how they are gogetters and super high achievers . U can sense that they deal with rules they have been trained for since long time; and my guess is that the trend it can be generalized for all the " socially mobile" degrees thus who attract rich kids... that there is indeed an education for success and that natural talent alone sometime won't be enough.

(WIKIPEDIA: social mobility):
Sociologist Annette Lareau discusses two different ways to raise children: concerted cultivation and natural growth:
- Concerted cultivation, normally used by middle-class families, incorporates scheduling many structured, organized activities for the child. Such children learn to use their language to reason with parents and other adults, and they often adopt a sense of entitlement.
- Natural growth is almost the exact opposite of concerted cultivation. Occurring mainly in poor or working-class families, this style of childrearing does not include organized activities, and there is a clear division between the adult and the child. Children usually spend large amounts of their day creating their own activities, and they hardly ever speak with adults. In fact, adults use language in order to direct or order the children, never to negotiate with them.[11]

so INTP, what is your idea on this? Mine is that We INTPs are fairly intelligent people but who haven't been properly educated for success....
Also this can explain why rich people tend to stay rich and generate succesful kids while poor people tend to stay poor..

 

[TBerg]

If I am a rich kid who ended up on the streets, does that mean I succeeded in being socially mobile?

 

[Hadoblado]

It has a big impact, but don't make the mistake of externalising causality entirely. It may be true that if you were raised differently you'd be more goal oriented, but it's also true that some people in the same position as you would develop the desired outlook for success.

nature+nurture blablabla

I do mirror your situation though. I was never taught to strive, but to accept. There was nothing to strive for.

@Tberg
Yes. Though that's not ordinarily the goal for people in established positions.

 

[ummidk]

It would seem to me that INTPs are capable of being successful insofar as they can generally be quite productive at what they set their mind to, but tend to have limited motivations towards this success when compared with other groups.

Also social skills (Where INTPS don't often excel) tend to help your ability to succeed in most work environments, if not to just demonstrate yourself as someone hire-able. Also, allowing you to create connections with your co-workers/bosses who will then be less likely to support your release or more likely to support your advancement.

If I am a rich kid who ended up on the streets, does that mean I succeeded in being socially mobile?

Yes....but most would say not in a good way.

 

[QuickTwist]

If I am a rich kid who ended up on the streets, does that mean I succeeded in being socially mobile?

It just means you are an exception.

Branching off from this idea people who are born rich usually stay rich and those who were born poor usually stay poor. I do mean to say usually because there are exceptions to most things when it comes to social and economic structures.

There is usually a difference in worldview between the very poor impoverished, the working poor, the middle class ect. Often times people who are poor view things more in terms of survival than those who were raised in the middle class and again the middle class view things more in terms of survival than the rich. This is a generalization of course.

The poor often live in environments where there is more danger ie. more crime, war ect. This is where I think the democratic party is not as efficient as it should/could be for many reasons. One reason is that in America we have this thing called welfare. This is a terrible idea. One reason it is a bad idea is because you don't fix social economic problems by giving ill equipped people money in which they can do whatever they want with it. As someone said, I think it was @Hadoblado, the middle class has more opportunity to be productive members of society because they have been taught to set goals and use their reasoning for productive endeavors.

I would not begin to know nor do I care to attempt to solve the issue of how you would change productivity among the poor realistically so don't ask me. Perhaps if you were to ask a social worker/engineer they might have a better idea... if they are both realistic and think that there is a problem.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the poor. I think there is a lot of good stuff that comes from them, but financial planning is not their strong suit for the most part.

[Edit] p.s. This is about as political as I get so don't expect a whole lot more of these kinds of posts.