Tom's Views

Dear [Mentat],

[...] One can indeed succeed within the framework established by his limitations.  A blind person might never be able to fly a plane for example.  But he _can_ be a lawyer, a systems analyst, a therapist, and many other occupations for which his limitations as well as his gifts are suited.   Acknowledging the power of one’s own shortcomings does not prevent him from succeeding.  In fact, doing so may make his subsequent success sweeter than if he’d just forged ahead and sought success in disciplines for which he has few gifts and many limitations.  Indeed, the presence of this fatalism serves as an important guidepost that helps a person position himself properly for success, by showing him which directions would likely lead to dead ends or that would limit his success potential more so than he’d like.

Also, consider that it is possible to have a fatalistic philosophy toward one activity while being intensely motivated to succeed at another.   The presence of resignation only keeps one from succeeding if he possesses it for all possible success paths for him. To think that one must ignore his limitations to succeed is wrong.  Indeed, the awareness of one’s limitations, once he tries a few success paths without success, can actually spur him to make progress in areas for which he is better suited to succeed.  [You've got to lose to know how to win, as Aerosmith sang in their hit, Dream On].

As to your question of how people who stick within their limits know how to handle their newfound wealth:  Well, many of them don’t handle it well at all.  In fact, they promptly lose it.  Would you say, for example, that Michael Jackson knew how to safeguard his wealth?  Did he know how to spend wisely or how to invest?  Last I heard, he owes hundreds of millions to his creditors, a debt which, even if he liquidated his estate, could not be paid in full.  He’s one of those cases you cite of someone making a giant leap beyond his bohemian upbringings.  But his lofty rise and quick fall also illustrates that acquiring and sustaining financial success is difficult without the deeply ingrained and success-promoting disciplines, traditions, and values that one gets from multiple generations of his ancestors.

I believe that persons from well-to-do families have, first of all, a better chance of acquiring their own wealth, and then, they are more likely to preserve it once they’ve got it.  The reasons for this number in the tens.   But I’ll just briefly mention a small number of them here:

• They possess knowledge of how to get and stay rich which they pass on to their children.  While it’s true that not all of that would work for the children given the changing economic climates from generation to generation, it at least supplies the offspring with basic wealth-generating concepts; ideas they master at very early ages due to early exposure.
• The way the parents behave also determines in large degree how the children behave as adults.  Indeed psychologists report that the single most important role model a child has is the same sexed parent, with the opposite sexed parent following close behind.
• The many practices and habits of the wealthy who actively engage their children are also passed on, and as noted, become second nature to many of them.  Now you could argue that history is full of children who defy their parents – they don’t want to take over the family business for example.  Nonetheless, the children still have benefited from this inherited habit set, even if they don’t use it as their parents would have preferred.  Their parents impart much general information, which applies to most any venture, and thus, the children are in a notably better position to duplicate their parents’ success if not their professions.

Finally, this ceiling as you call it may not be made of a completely impervious material.  But it is there to be sure, and presents a formidable barrier to practically everyone who reaches it.  It can be penetrated, but not without serious effort, effort which many consider to be too much.

Tom Hesley