Some people might start off more knowledgeable, and some may have more difficulty learning in the future than others, but with enough determination, if it’s probable, it is by definition possible, no matter what the odds are, and that makes it a matter of agency.
I understand the article is saying that agency is the part of the equation we have control over, but I am trying to point out a flaw in this thinking.
A possibility for one person is vastly different for another which is often ignored. Success for a child born in a trash heap in Bangladesh is possible, but it is nowhere near what it is for a child born into privilege in Beverly Hills. One is born luckier than the other and this will have more bearing on their life outcome than all the hard work and can-do attitude anyone can muster.
In fact, in these two circumstances, if the poor child works their ass off and the rich kid doesn’t even really try, it won’t change much of anything in regards to the gap between them. It is going to require unbelievable luck for the poor child to succeed to the same level as the rich kid’s utter failure. Technically -- yes, it is possible. But it is far more likely that they will remain in their socioeconomic spheres because birth circumstances plays a much larger role than attitude.
This is like saying it is possible for me to jump out of an airplane without a parachute and survive if I practice dropping and rolling. Technically, I could survive. According to the article, I should only focus on the skills portion of the equation because I have no control over the luck portion. We should close our eyes to the absurdity.
The problem with this Cult of Optimism is that it implies failure is our responsibility when the circumstances created by luck often have greater influence on the outcome -- because I don’t control luck. We have to blame someone, right? Now, most people would conclude it is stupid and dangerous to tell someone they could survive a parachute-less airplane jump, but we don’t apply that to things like success for people in truly shitty circumstances.
For instance, try climbing out of an entry level, minimum wage job while missing all your front teeth. Try saving enough money to get them fixed while struggling to survive. Yet, we would tell this person if they work hard enough and believe, they can go on to become an astronaut because technically, it is within the realm of possibility. Who, realistically, is going to hire them?
It is equally stupid to tell a Bangladeshi child that if they work hard and truly believe, they can go to Harvard, get an MBA and get a job with a hedge fund and live in Beverly Hills. I mean, I guess it is technically possible. Instead, if someone points out how improbable success will be for a poor child, they are labeled “negative" or “pessimistic.” It is the Cult if Optimism which ignores the reality of luck and condemns that child to failure -- which often comes from those with no understanding of the reality of their situation.
It is usually the most fortunate dispensing this wisdom, people who want to believe that disadvantage is earned.
This Pollyanna approach to the very real struggle of people is dangerous because we simply don’t want to acknowledge how little control we have in life. So we fill people’s heads with nearly impossible dreams that are statistically highly improbable to achieve without tremendous luck.
Instead, we would do well to acknowledge their struggle and work to even their playing field a bit.
In the end, which do you think will help the poor kid with the minimum wage job and no front teeth? Telling them to dream big by focusing on that within their control or simply getting them low-cost dental care?
How about acknowledging the reality of inequality and that other people may very well have it so much harder, their success is virtually impossible without help? THIS would be the greatest help, wouldn’t it?
