This is very much a class-based distinction. Upper class people do not respect you for "making bank." They don't talk about money at all and consider all talk of making money to be beneath them. They have a lot of respect for teachers because they recognize the nobility of the profession: shaping the minds of the future generation of leaders.
Except when you show up at their house in anything cheaper than 100k USD car and wearing anything cheaper than 200 USD shirt. You will get judged implicitly, how wealthy you are all the time. And if you fail to pass that mark, you are automatically off the upper class list.
As an upper class person myself I can verify this is true. I respect people who take on noble professions and I disrespect other rich people for myself. But I take it a step further.
What's more honorable than a teacher? The janitor that cleans our public restrooms to enable us all including the teacher! That's right, stooping to the point where you clean other people's shit is the most honorable thing someone can do when the alternative was becoming a start up billionaire. Hats off to the janitors of the world.
That's why instead of having other billionaire friends as my peers normally would, all my friends are janitorial engineers!
What a realistic depiction of reality I just made! I'm not lying to myself or making stuff up. I respect janitors and teachers!
Everyone knows who's made a smart decision in adulthood by choosing and succeeding in a career that allows they and their family to prosper.
In my experience when you come home for Christmas and everyone's asking questions to the struggling-but-"creative" folks, it's not because truly in your heart either you or they believe they've done something more true, "right," or "better," but that you understand that inquiry is a small flattery that only minimally compensates for the hardship they've chosen, likely from lack of foresight earlier in life. These types love the attention as it makes what they do seem more important, but everyone involved seems to know that it's just a form of compensation.
When you've already beaten the struggle, or sidestepped it smartly, and succeeded, too much of a focus on your career is implicitly understood to not be polite conversation since people naturally compare. People who are smart are smart enough to get this, too, and so are typically happy enough to not talk about themselves.
All this is of course excepting genuine care, concern, and curiosity, but I think it does explain somewhat the balance of conversations overall.
> the hardship they've chosen, likely from lack of foresight earlier in life
Maybe it was a clear-eyed, fully informed choice that they are glad they made. Life is full of trade-offs. I am less impressed by people who avoid hardship and difficult trade-offs.
Certainly exists, though I think it's the minority. It's generally not difficult to tell who is happy or not from their choices, too, and I suspect in such cases the scenario may be reversed. E.g. the graphic designer who is content in life, entertaining the stressed account manager with curiosity.
This is also the vision of ourselves we love to see in stories and movies, since it associates low income with passion and success with unhappiness, even though you can have both (or neither).
I think it's a little disingenuous to make a comparison so extreme, but I guess I'd just ask why that theme seems so popular. Money doesn't make you happy, it's true. But there's a reason it's always presented as a dichotomy. It placates the masses.
Contentment with one's lot in life is easier to fake than income. These stories are popular because they provide a fantasy outlet for people who work hard but are unhappy, to justify their choices by villainizing the path not taken. It is a form of therapy. This therapy would not be needed if the general sentiment of those who pursue careers that many in this thread call "prestige" were actually fulfilling. In reality they are (on average) less fulfilling than simply having any somewhat high-paying job that offers security for oneself and one's family.
There are of course exceptions for people who are true artists, who could not live if their soul was not developed through creative work. But again, they are the minority. The "prestige" we allot to very average jobs is superficial, a social formality we perform as polite society because we perceive it as needless to have people constantly reminded that they did not achieve as much as they could have.
I don't see them much, nor does my comment match this story, nor did I post it because of some popularity.
> they are (on average) less fulfilling than simply having any somewhat high-paying job that offers security for oneself and one's family.
That's a misleading comparison: If you hold all other variables stable, of course a higher-paying job is better. But all other variables aren't stable; we need to make trade-offs. Your argument so far is that somehow the choice you would make must be the choice that would make most people happier.
Also, you've provided no basis for saying that most would prefer or do better one way or another.
> a social formality we perform as polite society because we perceive it as needless to have people constantly reminded that they did not achieve as much as they could have.
They did achieve, but different things on a different scale. It's like a basketball player saying that a hockey player, not having a good jump shot, didn't achieve as much as they could have. They are playing different games.
People in 'polite society' - i.e., people who made choices like yours - tend to have the narrow-minded belief that theirs is ipso facto the preferred way. It's especially a bias of people following a social norm - nothing challenges their belief, the norm supports it. I can't read your mind, but that seems to be the basis of your argument.
Speaking as someone outside a significant social norm, it's as if one day I made a 90 deg right turn off the highway and hit the accelerator. I am going far and fast; people still on the highway say, 'they're not getting anywhere'. It's annoying and a bit isolating; it's a trade-off but that's the choice I preferred, and there's not a moment's doubt in my mind about my direction. In fact, I think many of them would benefit from joining me (or taking their own roads), but 99% can't imagine a world outside their social norms, they can't see there's anything on the landscape but that one narrow highway. What a fool I would be, what a waste it would be, to let their reactions dictate my life.
It's not just a social formality. A lot of people buy into it. It's wierd. It's a sort of lie told to ourselves. If a person lies to themselves basically it means that part of them believes in the lie, and another part of them knows the truth.
Everyone at least has one lie they tell themselves so you can sort of relate. Everyone and I mean everyone is aware of the social formality you're talking about. There's literally no need to spell it out because you're just regurgitating truths that are obvious and self evident. The only time you would need to spell it out is when you encounter a poor soul who lies to himself. That's why my post was sarcastic because it's so obviously not true. Rich people do not actually respect poor people... it's absurd. Anyway as for lying to one self... This is exactly what wolverine is doing.
There's no winning here. That person will continuously construct a scaffold of rational points to support his beliefs because not doing so results in some sort of admission he can't directly face. But even so... an aspect of him knows you're telling the actual truth.
Are you saying anything more than: 'My perspective and beliefs are the truth, and therefore anyone who disagrees is deluding themselves?'
What supports your claims? Why are you so certain that there's nothing beyond them, nothing more to the world that you could learn?
> Rich people do not actually respect poor people... it's absurd.
Certainly not all do, and certainly not all don't. I'll point out that equality is a popular, fundamental notion across cultures. "all men are created equal" Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's the foundation of democracy, where poor and rich have the same vote.
>Are you saying anything more than: 'My perspective and beliefs are the truth, and therefore anyone who disagrees is deluding themselves?'
What else can I say? The points being talked about here are so obvious that it seems ludicrous to me that people don't believe it. From my perspective it's like someone was explaining to you that 2 + 2 = 4 and I'm more inclined to believe that you're just being delusional and lying to yourself.
But that's the nature of bias isn't it? Maybe I'm the delusional one. But there's no real way we'll convince one another otherwise.
>Certainly not all do, and certainly not all don't.
Most don't. It's just a general truth. Just like most men don't wear dresses, or most men are stronger than women, or most humans have 10 fingers. There ARE exceptions, but that does not eliminate the existence of a very general and very obvious truth.
And let me clarify what I mean by respect. I don't just mean lip service, or donations or creating non-profit charities because it's the current trending thing to do. I mean actual respect. Like genuine respect where you look up to them, hang out with them as peers and even genuine trust. Rich people do NOT actually respect poor people.
>I'll point out that equality is a popular, fundamental notion across cultures. "all men are created equal" Liberté, égalité, fraternité. It's the foundation of democracy, where poor and rich have the same vote.
All men are NOT created equal. Think about it. This isn't even remotely true or real. It is also why not all people are equal under democracy.
Have you ever wondered why we want everything politically to be fair under democracy while economically we want everything to be unfair under capitalism? It's so ironic we associate communism with dictatorship and capitalism with democracy.
>> Are you saying anything more than: 'My perspective and beliefs are the truth, and therefore anyone who disagrees is deluding themselves?'
> What else can I say? The points being talked about here are so obvious that it seems ludicrous to me that people don't believe it. From my perspective it's like someone was explaining to you that 2 + 2 = 4 and I'm more inclined to believe that you're just being delusional and lying to yourself.
What you can do is provide evidence and reason. That's what separates delusion from fact, what protects us from bias. That something is obvious etc. to you is not evidence; it fits just as well a delusion.
We're all subject to delusion. That you seem to believe it only affects others regarding this issue, and not yourself, makes you a strong candidate for it IMHO.
Also that you seem completely incurious about what other people think on this issue; you just rule them out a priori. That's another strong signal, at least when I find myself doing that.
If someone says 2 + 2 = 5 I also rule them out "a priori". I'm just biased like that. You clearly aren't. So you should spend more time considering my side of the argument because clearly you're the less biased and more rational person here.
But I would suggest not bothering with posting another argument here for me to read. Just consider my points internally. My dogmatic stance is unlikely to change since I am the more biased and less rational party here so anything you reply with is unlikely to convince me.
I'm not being snarky or sarcastic here. Genuinely I will not even consider 2 + 2 = 5.
If you haven't already, I encourage you to watch the musical My Fair Lady with Audrey Hepburn. It's an absolutely brilliant meditation on class (with fantastic songs, fashion, and comedy to go with it). I saw it last week and I can't stop thinking about it.
