I find that people tend to either over or underestimate the "middle class"iness of their upbringing.
My parents were smart and had a little extra cultural capital but yeah, we were pretty middle class. Maybe lower-upper-middle class.
I mean, that would do it. I suppose it depends on when and where you grew up. Suffice it to say that this kind of upbringing sounds unusually high-end compared to the actual American middle class for the past 30-odd years (where you would likely find both parents working, home ownership a tenuous proposition, and private schools out of the question).
I point this out mostly because we're sorely in need of a reexamination of what's "normal" and what should be normal in this country.
My brother went to a state school undergrad, then got grad degrees from Harvard and Georgetown. He's almost done paying off an assload of debt, but it's meant he's had to work as a consultant these last ten years.
I would also argue it's the combination of smart and naturally outgoing or extroversion. Being extroverted seems to be naturally correlated to being successful or being a successful leader for most people. It doesn't make sense to me, other than I guess if you're your own cheerleader you're more likely to find opportunities.
I highly recommend the book to anyone who thinks they're an introvert, manages introverts, or has introverted family members -- it helped me understand/be happy with many of my own personality traits that I'd overlooked or misunderstood. (And, after reading the book, I realize I'm an ambivert, not an introvert.)
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/...
I'm sure there's something there to study, but I'm also sure I don't know what it is.
My fiancee is a social ace. She knows how to make everyone feel good and always has a big smile. She connects deeply with people.
But when she's done she has to spent the next three days binge watching The Wire to recover.
A lot of introverts are very socially skilled, they just require time to get their energy back.
https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
At some point, the top-tier IC positions are going to require the type of skills that are commonly associated with extroverts.
https://keavy.com/work/thriving-on-the-technical-leadership-...
>I’ve chosen to cultivate a path for myself that enables me to dig into complex technical and product problem spaces and help lead technical and strategic direction for my organization, as an engineer but not a manager.
Like it or not, if you ever want to escape the delivery trap, you're going to have to be able to effect change that cuts across multiple organizational entities in your workplace, and that's going to require selling yourself and your ideas.
To me, this is a novel insight, thanks :) I have been wondering what has been causing my frustration towards these kind of subreddits. But this makes it clear that the problem is a lack of actual discussion and no challenges made against the assumptions of the in-group.
I have noticed this is a broad trend on a lot of the internet; the internet has a lot of data, but most of that data is repeated a lot. If you want new and interesting information you often have to look elsewhere (e.g. books).
A particularly annoying example to me is the ausfinance subreddit which is obsessed with a housing market crash that they seem to think will definitely happen tomorrow. Anything pointing in that direction immediately gets extrapolated as the horseman of the Australian housing market apocalypse, nevermind the fact it was trending the opposite direction yesterday.
And so there's a distinct "lack of addictive qualities" when I open it, followed by some very rewarding content. It does take a little time to put together but it helps that we have social streams now to sample from, since so many of them ultimately link to a slower-moving source of real content like a personal blog.
Why? Because all of those articles are written by people paid a small amount of money to do quick research and write something in less than half a day. Most of them probably even haven't even read a single book on the subject.
It's so much better to read about something and get that broadband information, to encounter an obscure fact that sheds new light on something or makes the whole thing click.
For particular groups, where it is a place to discuss things amongst themselves, that's defensible, but in r/news, r/politics? Today, in r/technology of all places, there were some utterly disgusting hate being spewed because Ivanka Trump is going to CES for some reason.
And some non-defaults are pretty toxic, like /r/mfa or /r/bodybuilding. They'll straight up mock you there for legitimate questions.
However, the great thing about reddit is it's highly subreddit dependent, and you can always find a new, better community.
Now, the advice is often pretty decent in those subs, but it's not helpful if you don't want exactly what they recommend. And they put way too much emphasis on the narrow range of things they think are worthwhile.
Anyway, back to commenting on the article:
> So why are we all doing this? Why do so many smart people fall victim to this trap of chasing success and prestige purely for the sake of it?
Survivorship bias. There are a lot of smart people everywhere living quiet, normal lives. They don't necessarily seem that different unless you know them well, because they're not trying to rock the world with their brilliance.
In fact, what we think of as "smart" does not correspond to "has high natural ability." "Smart people" are people who have decided to make their identities center around being smart. They've worked hard at it.
My brother and I were from a normal middle class background but both went to fancy private schools. My uncles apparently all got tested high IQs and they have thick Texan accents, they like handball and guitar and fishing. They're normal people. Their Facebook comments aren't even all that articulate. But you can tell they're intelligent because they seem to "get" things and they don't say dumb stuff.