Comment by liber8 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by liber8 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Delayed gratification never gets talked about enough. It is the heart of capitalism. It's also, without a doubt, the most important contributor to success.

But, I don't think it's fair to say it has to come from inside the person somewhere. Obviously, you're right in the literal sense, as you can't impose delayed gratification on a free adult. But, that doesn't mean its inherent in someone's genetics. I think the far more likely reality is that people learn delayed gratification by watching those around them. Even if you do have some preternatural foresight as a child, it's extremely difficult to see how delayed gratification makes you successful in life if you never see anyone that's successful due to their practice of delaying gratification.

This cuts across wide social divides as well. I grew up in a wealthy family, in a wealthy suburb and had wealthy friends. Everyone had wildly successful parents. Guess which kids ended up losers (and there are a lot of them)? The ones whose parents were too busy with their careers and placated their guilt by trying to buy their children's happiness. These were the kids who got everything they wanted, any time. These were also the first kids to smoke, try drugs, have sex, and play video games instead of do homework or go to football practice. Now these people are working minimum wage jobs, if they're working at all. The few who used their family connections to get into sales gigs, or similar, are generally broke. They make a little bit of money, then blow it all in a weekend.

I can only imagine how this effect is amplified growing up in the lower socio-economic classes. My friends at least knew people that became successful, and saw that it was possible. I'm sure it's easy to think that improving your life is impossible if you'd never met anyone who did it, or if your parents, family, and friends were impoverished, or alcoholics, or drug addicts.

Yeah good points all. I say this as somebody who generally is supportive of various kinds of welfare programs, because I've seen how they can be actual safety nets for people in trouble. I think these programs don't address this point at all, and don't really want to face it.

There's a kind of mythology in welfare advocacy circles, that people just need to have that safety net, and some sort of kernel of desire will bounce them right back out of it. I know that's true for some people, but there really are quite a lot of people for which it isn't. And addressing this is a tremendous social problem. The problem in my eyes is that advocacy circles don't want to recognize this and thus haven't really done any real work in addressing.

On the other hand addressing it might also undermine most of modern consumer culture which is a fundamental driver of modern capitalism.

This might translate into a general lack of research dollars and interest into actually solving this problem on the low success end of the bell-curve.

I think you neglect to consider that not all people are success-minded, that some, even given all the good influence and knowledge and skills, would rather not use that to pursue things that are usually defined as success--except for the very very few who make it as cultural big names.

These people are usually artists, intellectuals and researchers and their priorities are a far cry from money (and sometimes stability.) Some good decades ago they could get by with a variety of part-time jobs and work on what they believe on the side, and live their whole lives this way and be happy (even by the process of life itself, as opposed to goals and results.) Nowadays that's getting much harder to do of course, and people with this mindset are struggling to make ends meet, let alone live in a bustling city. Add to that student debts and all that--I think it's no wonder quality cultural production has somewhat declined in the views of many, especially in comparison to the 50s, or the 70s. New York used to have a bunch of these people, and it allowed artistical serendipity to take place easily, so dense were their ranks. Nowadays living there, for these people, is no option unless you can live with well-off parents.

These kinds of people might be labeled the cultural elite, and historically they have created most of our art, either through making ends meet somehow (which was more possible) or being supported by patrons or parents--hence why I think 'cultural elite' is befitting, they're supported by an elite who tends to be success-minded or power-hungry (or rent-seeking, which used to be way more prevalent), but they themselves are not.

They're somewhat carefree people, the saner of whom also do not need a lot to live on and don't want to raise a family, so those could conceivably live off basic income. I think that would be good for society, because the success-minded people who naturally come to control decision-making and run things around don't seem to care much (or don't grok) that there's this other side of mankind who don't quite fit in what they build. At least culturally these people still get a say, they do shape culture after all, but I'm afraid that's gonna be less and less so, at least when it comes to the masses. The internet helps give them voice, sure, but when those who are like this and have a cosmopolitan view can't afford a like-minded city, we lose scenes and movements and all these beautiful artistic expressions of a time and place and group of people.

In the field of software development, of course, there are many, who usually devote their lives to open source or learning materials and don't really mind not having money (except when it starts pressing hard.) Richard Stallman could well be considered a great example who went on to make amazing contributions for our collective good, and his patron was the US Military. Alas, research budgets are being cut and cut, especially long-term research without sure profitability, and universities are on their way to bankrupcy, and times like that don't look like they're coming back again.

Well, I did broadly define success as "able to cover your living expenses while saving some for later".

As a former wanna be professional violinist, I definitely don't think becoming a billionaire is the only mark of success. But I also think that if you can't cover your basic living expenses no matter how modestly you've sized them you're doing it wrong.

Outside of that narrow definition, I'd encourage everybody to do whatever it is they wish to do and gives them fulfillment.

I knew a guy who quite a mid six-figure job to open a Tae Kwon Do school because he enjoyed the art and liked teaching people better than what he was doing. He didn't make much money, sold his house to buy the school and lived in the back of his school for a few years, but he always made rent, paid his bills and didn't miss a meal.

I think that's cool. He did what he wanted to and didn't fall into some kind of sense of entitlement that he should be taken care of by other people because he was pursuing his passion.

I have another friend who graduated with a degree in digital media right at the top of the 90s .com boom, when people were throwing wheelbarrows of money at anybody who could operate a keyboard, and turned it all down to go play guitar in Irish folk bands. He made enough to rent a basement apartment and feed and clothe himself, and got to see lots of the world going on tour. That's fantastic and I love that he got to follow his desire. He still does a version of this, but now he's a also a professional staff guitarist for a major guitar maker and does professional guitar soundtracks for commercials. That's awesome to me.

I totally think of these people as successful.

> I think you neglect to consider that not all people are success-minded

Or rather, they have a different interpretation of "success".

The heart of capitalism is capital. There are many ways to get it, one being delayed gratification. Another is inheritance, which plays not such a small role. Another is being at the right place and time.

Given how few people actually are capitalists in this world, I suspect a THAT is the heart of capitalism. A small heart with little room for you and me.

>>I suspect a THAT is the heart of capitalism<<

I'm assuming this is a typo, but I can't quite make out what you mean. Are you saying that inheritance is the heart of, presumably, the capitalism in practice today?

Even if we accept this as true, I don't think it refutes the main point that delayed gratification is the heart of capitalism. Even if you have inherited capital, this is almost certainly because your ancestor practiced delayed gratification. That capital was accumulated because someone didn't gratify himself by spending it. Simply because the current owner of the capital didn't have to delay gratification to get it doesn't mean that delayed gratification isn't the ultimate source of that capital (nor does it mean the current owner doesn't practice delayed gratification to keep or grow that capital).

Of course, in some very, very rare instances (which of course are highly publicized, so it's what we immediately think of when we think of "inherited wealth"), so much wealth gets accumulated that its more or less impossible to spend it all, and thus no delayed gratification is necessary. But, pick out any time frame, and you'll find that the vast majority of this hallowed class of inheritors squander the inherited wealth by the end of the third generation. If they managed not to, it’s almost certainly because they have learned to practice delayed gratification.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com