Tom's Views

Dear [Mentat],

I’ve never said that a person _shouldn’t_  try to improve on his social standing.  What I am saying is that to simply apply brute force elbow grease to the effort [without taking into account our talents and shortcomings] is foolish, particularly when the person’s past familial achievements are not considered.  I don’t believe this idea to be irrelevant because it’s probably among the strongest evidence that proves the logical [rightness] of this philosophy.

Yes, [acknowledging our built-in familial based proclivities and restrictions], in moderation, indeed has positive effects.  It accomplishes, among other things, the following:

• Augments and preserves family harmony by reducing the sort of conflict that often results when children choose vastly differing ways from their parents to succeed.
• Fosters greater togetherness within families by reducing the conflict that so often results when the children opt to follow divergent paths from their parents.
• Increases cross-generational synergy. Since the parents typically spend more time with the child than anyone else during the formative learning years, it is _their_ skills and values that the child is most likely to adopt and build upon. In fact, following in the parents’ footsteps does not necessarily prevent the child from realizing his maximal success potential since he’ll enjoy a tremendous startup advantage.  Sticking with his parents _may even promote his surpassing them_.  Didn’t Einstein say that if he did in fact see the entire forest, that this was because he was able to stand upon the shoulders of giants?  Clearly, he acknowledged this phenomenon with this sentiment.  The same idea applies to children who can stand on their parents’ shoulders.
• Simplifies the career selection process.  For many, the decision of a career path is an agonizing one, particularly when one seeks to differ from his parents, siblings, and relatives by a great socioeconomic distance.
• Offers more support from the family for the chosen career.  If the child picks a path with which the parents are familiar, then they’ll be better equipped to assist the child in his endeavor.  They’ll have more useful advice to offer and will desire to help the child more, owing to the fact that in this scenario, they’ll _know how_ to help him.
• Reduces the chances that the child will pick a path for which he is not well-suited.  Systems like arranged marriages and monarchies have their advantages because they eliminate much of the guess-work from the process of choosing a mate or an occupation.  The problem with them isn’t so much that they assign roles to people, but rather, it’s that they very often don’t match aptitude and available positions very well.  Their methods of matching frequently aren’t very scientific, no doubt because even in modern times, our understanding of how to independently recognize a person’s talents and how long they’ll last isn’t very advanced.  So matching people to occupations according to their _true_ gifts and limitations is at best a shot in the dark these days.  It’s a gamble.  But one day, determining future ability and interest in the child will be as routine and precise as calculating her chances of getting cancer.
• Reduces the stress and angst surrounding the decision. Such decisions can be made more certainly, when the parent supports them.  And this parental support is more likely when the child opts for a path to success that’s similar to the one the parents chose.

For the previously listed reasons, this restrictive philosophy _can actually enhance_ the child’s chances of succeeding big.

Also, this view is not simply a self-fulfilling prophecy, although I’ll admit that taken too far, it can become that.  But in my experience, people don’t ascribe to it merely because they’re lazy or because they’re avoiding work for work’s sake alone.  Often, there are good reasons for this belief, both scientifically as well as experientially based.  Contrary to popular belief, we simply cannot accomplish _anything_ we want.  I talk more about this elsewhere.

There are plenty of reasons to strive to better one’s self.  On the other hand, there are plenty of good reasons _not_ to try.  I’m not so sure that the consequences of this philosophy are [all that dire].  Many a person has lived a full and happy life while attaining only similar success to his parents.  Some folks are in fact, quite proud that they’ve been able to uphold and pass on familial status and tradition.  I’ve seen numerous Chinese restaurants where three, and sometimes four generations of family members work side-by-side without any harm [...].  So my question is this:  Is the act of following traditional values any less notable than that of discarding tradition and creating a new path?  I don’t believe this question to be rhetorical, because the correct answer is: It depends!   It depends on the individuals involved.  If a person is truly not happy with the status quo, then yes, he owes it to himself to explore other destinies.  However, if he’s content, then there’s no good reason for him buck his familial system.  Change therefore, is not always good.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• More Than Effort To Outperform Our Parents