Jun 12, 2023·edited Jun 12, 2023Liked by Liz Haswell
"It’s that the environment brought out some of my worst personality traits. And, if you are initially successful in the environment, like I was, it’s even harder to look at it critically—or at least there is little incentive to do so." A pithy and powerful couplet here.
For me, the hyper-competitive environment of graduate school and the job search really made the chip on my shoulder as a first-gen student bigger. It's pretty tough not to feel angry when you realize that a lot depends on secret handshakes and networking. That got a little better when I was able to mentor other first-gen students, but it was startling to discover that academe is not a meritocracy and that the principles from my blue collar upbringing -- work hard, be dependable, embrace hardship -- did not necessarily guarantee results or recognition. I think I often (over)compensated for this lack of fairness by emphasizing publications, awards, and other tangible markers of achievement, even though I knew that there could never be enough lines on the CV. Now I'm wondering if my socialization fits with G in your formula (growing up blue collar isn't a genotype, but I guess by the time you are fully formed, it might as well be). I am also loyal and trusting by nature. If I feel that a person or institution has exploited that loyalty rather than valuing and reciprocating it, that will assuredly bring out my worst. I'm still trying to decide whether this is a matter of tempering my expectations of others and of institutions or whether my instinctively high standards for personal and work relationships are healthy.
Thanks for linking to my podcast, too -- really appreciate that!
Happy to link to your podcast! A friend recommended “The Tyranny of Merit” to me over the weekend and I’m looking forward to checking it out. I think it’ll speak to some of what you mention here.
It was actually a lawyer who made the connection explicit for me, with a geometry metaphor. Nature and Nurture (or Genes and Environment, as you say here) are like Length and Width in rectangles. If you have an area, you have to have both, by definition. Otherwise it's just a line.
"It’s that the environment brought out some of my worst personality traits. And, if you are initially successful in the environment, like I was, it’s even harder to look at it critically—or at least there is little incentive to do so." A pithy and powerful couplet here.
For me, the hyper-competitive environment of graduate school and the job search really made the chip on my shoulder as a first-gen student bigger. It's pretty tough not to feel angry when you realize that a lot depends on secret handshakes and networking. That got a little better when I was able to mentor other first-gen students, but it was startling to discover that academe is not a meritocracy and that the principles from my blue collar upbringing -- work hard, be dependable, embrace hardship -- did not necessarily guarantee results or recognition. I think I often (over)compensated for this lack of fairness by emphasizing publications, awards, and other tangible markers of achievement, even though I knew that there could never be enough lines on the CV. Now I'm wondering if my socialization fits with G in your formula (growing up blue collar isn't a genotype, but I guess by the time you are fully formed, it might as well be). I am also loyal and trusting by nature. If I feel that a person or institution has exploited that loyalty rather than valuing and reciprocating it, that will assuredly bring out my worst. I'm still trying to decide whether this is a matter of tempering my expectations of others and of institutions or whether my instinctively high standards for personal and work relationships are healthy.
Thanks for linking to my podcast, too -- really appreciate that!
Happy to link to your podcast! A friend recommended “The Tyranny of Merit” to me over the weekend and I’m looking forward to checking it out. I think it’ll speak to some of what you mention here.
It was actually a lawyer who made the connection explicit for me, with a geometry metaphor. Nature and Nurture (or Genes and Environment, as you say here) are like Length and Width in rectangles. If you have an area, you have to have both, by definition. Otherwise it's just a line.
Oh, interesting! Probably needs to be 3D as it wouldn’t all scale linearly!