Original subtitles

Today we look at the question of success.

Okay? The question is, who succeeds and why?

Okay, so we've done a lot of research and

we've discovered that people who succeed, succeed for certain

reasons.

So, there is a Columbia

psychologist named Walter Mischel and he devised a very famous experiment called

the marshmallow test.

In the marshmallow test it's very very easy okay so imagine a room and I invite

a four-year-old or five-year-old to come into this room And I have a conversation

with him or her.

I ask them, how's your mother?

What do you like to do?

And it's a very good conversation.

Then, suddenly, I get up and say, I'm really sorry, but I need to go across

the hallway for another meeting, but I'll be back, okay?

So just wait for me.

And here, I'll make you a deal.

Here's a marshmallow. I'm going to put a marshmallow in front of you.

And you can have it right now.

If I come back and the marshmallow is still there, I will give you two

marshmallows.

Okay? And then Walter Mitchell, he goes away, and he goes

behind the room, and through a mirror, he's able to see the students as they

struggle to contain themselves, because obviously they want two marshmallows.

And there are some students who can, in fact,

resists the temptation to eat the first marshmallow, and they get a second

marshmallow. But then there are others who cannot.

And Walter Mischel will spend 50 years just tracking them, okay?

What he discovers is this.

The students who resist the temptation, who get the second marshmallow, they are

much more likely to do better in school.

They have higher test scores.

They have better careers. Their careers are more stable. They get promoted in

their careers.

They're much more able to find a stable relationship.

They avoid jail. They avoid drugs. They avoid alcohol.

They're more lean.

They're more fit. They live longer.

Better teeth.

And those who cannot resist and eat the first marshmallow right away,

they have the opposite effect, okay?

And so the idea is that for Walter Mischel, success means

delayed gratification.

And all this means is that people who succeed are capable of long-term

planning.

To succeed today, I will make sacrifices necessary.

Okay? So, if my friends are playing outside and I need to do my homework,

well, I'm going to stay home and do my homework.

So long-term planning, what he calls delayed gratification.

Or a much more simple way of saying this is the idea of self-control.

Right?

Or the idea of emotional regulation.

You're able to keep your emotions in check.

If you're angry, you're able to calm yourself down.

Okay, and so we've tried, we know about this, and that's why in school we focus

on the idea of emotional regulation. Teaching you how to better control your

emotions. How to do long-term planning.

Okay?

So that's one theory of success.

Another theory of success comes to us from another psychologist named Carol

Dwight. And she's at Stanford.

And she wrote a book called Mindset.

And what she tells us is that those who succeed in life have a growth mindset.

And those who fail in life have a fixed mindset.

And it's not hard. The idea is resilience.

Those who have a growth mindset, if they fall or they fail, they see themselves

This opportunity for me to learn.

So I'm going to think about what I did wrong.

Next time, I'll do better.

And a fixed mindset are people who cannot accept the idea of failure, who

think that it's because they're not capable of improving, and therefore,

they give up.

Okay? So those with a growth mindset, if they fail, they try harder. Those with a

fixed mindset, if they fail, They just give up.

And so the idea of resilience, okay? Pretty simple, right?

And the third idea of success comes to us from Kay Anders Ericsson, who is a

Swedish psychologist.

And she wants to know why certain people are able to succeed as musicians or

athletes. And he creates the idea of deliberate practice.

Okay? So what he found is that people who want to become athletes or

musicians, they work really hard. They practice every day.

The people who succeed practice strategically.

Okay? So those who work hard just work a long time. But those who

work strategically have a plan. The plan is this.

What are my goals?

How can I achieve these goals?

And then how do I improve my plan?

Okay? So they're examining their own practices.

And they're trying to figure out where the weaknesses are, where they can

improve. And instead of a plan on how to improve, and then they follow this plan.

And if this plan helps them improve, they stick to the plan.

But if the plan doesn't really work, they change the plan as well. So this is

the idea of self-reflection.

Or self-assessment.

Constantly thinking about how you are as a student and figure out... figure out

how to improve your own learning strategies.

And what K. Anderson Erickson discovered is that if you do this, you'll succeed

at anything.

And this is true, okay? And the reason why we know it's true is there are two

American psychologists named Dunning and Kruger.

There's something called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And so what they did was this. They ran an experiment.

There are 500 students in their psychology class, first year university.

They made every student take an IQ test.

And then after they took the IQ test, they asked each student, how do you

think you did on the IQ test?

Do you place in the top 5% or the bottom 5%?

And it turns out that no one got the ranking

correct. So those who were in the top 5%

in terms of IQ, thought they were maybe in the top 20%. Because for them it was

easy, so they assumed everyone, for everyone else it was easy as well.

But what was dramatic is that those who scored the lowest thought they were

average, okay? So the worst 5% in the class thought they were in the top 50%,

or just average.

And the reason why is, those people who are stupid, lack the capacity to know

they're stupid.

Okay? So what Dunning-Kugler discovered is that the hardest part of being a

student is to assess yourself properly.

To know exactly where you stand and how to improve.

Those who are stupid are often the most confident in the world. That's what's

called the Dunning-Kugler effect.

And this helps explain why the world is Why it is, because often the people in

power are stupid, they don't know they're stupid, they're more confident,

and they do stupid things, like Donald Trump, okay?

Alright?

Alright, so now we have these three theories, right? We have self-control,

we have resilience, and we have self-assessment.

And so as educators, as schools, what we can do is devise strategies

and curriculum to help students all succeed.

Correct, right?

The problem is that when we actually try this, it doesn't work.

Okay? If you take a bad student and you teach him self-control, resilience, and

self-assessment, the student doesn't actually get better.

The reason why is, and this is a very important idea for you guys to remember,

is that correlation

does not equal causation.

Okay? You guys need to remember this.

Just because things are correlated does not mean they cause each other.

So I'll give you an example.

We know that successful people, they get up early in the morning.

Okay? They get up at 4 o'clock in the morning.

But just because you get up at 4 o'clock in the morning does not mean you

succeed.

Okay?

Just because you work hard, Just because you're resilient, just because you have

growth mindset, does not mean you'll succeed.

But if you're successful, you'll get up early in the morning because you are

more motivated.

If you are successful in life, you will have more self-control.

You will have more resilience. You'll be more humble.

Does that make sense?

So if you're rich, guess what happens?

You become successful.

And therefore, you will have growth mindset, self

-control, deliberate practice.

Does that make sense?

But just because you have growth mindset, deliberate practice, and

resilience, does not mean you succeed.

Okay? So the question for us is, why does this happen?

And ultimately, who succeeds?

Okay, so we know for a fact that rich people are much more likely to succeed

than poor people.

And in fact, what we know from macroeconomic studies is that school

doesn't really matter.

It doesn't matter how well you do in school. If your parents are rich, you'll

be successful in life.

If your parents are poor, you will not be successful in life, okay?

So what's the difference?

Okay, so now let's look at parenting strategies between rich and poor.

Okay?

So, there are lots of differences, but let's focus on three major differences.

The first major difference is that rich parents

speak to their kids more than poor parents.

Okay? High vocabulary, low vocabulary.

When rich parents speak to the kids, rich parents will use high vocabulary,

longer sentences.

Poor parents will just be, no, yes, go away.

Okay? Another major difference is in attitude.

So rich parents use a friendly attitude and poor parents use an

authoritarian or command attitude.

So for example, if you are a rich kid and you

go and touch a stove and you burn your hand, the rich parent will say,

listen, you made a mistake.

Don't worry about it. Let me explain to you why touching a fire is bad for you.

Because you'll burn yourself and you might have to go to a doctor and

we will feel pain if you hurt yourself. Okay? So the rich parent will spend a

lot of time explaining to the child why this is wrong and how not to do it

again.

The poor parent is like, don't you ever do that again or I'll beat the crap out

of you.

Okay? Don't do that.

Pretty simple, okay?

But as you can understand, the rich kid will understand that the world is

safe and that he is respected in this world.

Okay?

Whereas the poor child will think that the world is scary and he or she must be

afraid of adults.

And this carries on into school, right?

Because as a rich kid, you go to school and you think that, oh, my teacher is my

friend. So you smile at the teacher and you hug the teacher and the teacher

smiles back. And now you're friends, right?

But if you're a poor kid and you see the teacher, you're afraid to look at the

teacher.

You don't smile. You are stressed, okay? And the teacher thinks that you might be

a problem child.

So the problem with this is that, yes, being a third-term parent is effective,

but it creates stress in the family.

It makes the child feel unsafe.

And this leads to the third major difference between rich parents and poor

parents. Rich parents offer stability.

Poor parents can only offer volatility.

This is a very simple idea.

Rich parents have money so they can afford to keep promises.

So, I'm a rich parent. I say to my child, okay, next week we'll go to

Thailand for vacation.

Guess what? Next week you guys go to Thailand for vacation.

But if you're a poor parent, money is always an issue. So it's hard for you to

keep promises, right?

So it's like, next week we'll go to McDonald's for lunch. But your

paycheck... It's not enough, so you're like, sorry, we can't go anymore.

Okay?

And now, because of these different parenting styles, we understand why

rich kids behave different from poor kids, right?

So let's look at the idea of self-control.

Right, self-control.

What is the marshmallow test?

Marshmallow test is not a test of self-control.

It's a test of your trust in others, right?

If you believe that the teacher who goes outside, if you believe that he or she

comes back and will keep his or her promise, then you will not eat that

marshmallow.

But if you think that this teacher is lying to me, then you're not going to

eat that marshmallow.

Then you will eat that marshmallow, right?

So it's not really about self-control. It's about your belief and trust in

authority figures.

So if you're rich, stability, you have stability.

But if you're poor, you don't have stability. So you're actually better off

eating that marshmallow rather than waiting for that second marshmallow.

Because guess what? Most of the time, you will not get that second

marshmallow. Do you understand?

So it's not that...

poor kids are stupid, poor kids are rational, and they're responding to the

circumstances that they live in.

Okay? And resilience, right?

Well, the idea of resilience is that you believe that the world will help you.

Right? So if you're rich, and you believe that everyone helps you, you can

be resilient.

Because

If you fail, someone will help you get up. If you're poor, if you fail, that

probably tells you you shouldn't be doing this.

Okay? You probably won't succeed doing this.

So, you don't have much confidence in others.

Okay? And the idea of self-assessment, right?

Looking inward.

Well, if you're a poor child who lives under a lot of stress, it's hard for you

to be self-reflective. Because if you look back at yourself, all you think

about is your pain and your stress.

Okay?

So, from these different parenting strategies, we can now explain why

different students behave the way they do.

This, of course, may lead you to think, okay,

Well then, rather than construct our schools around self-control, resilience,

and self-reflection, we should construct our schools around better

parenting skills, okay? Which means that, hey, let's construct schools where

kids are exposed to a lot of vocabulary, where teachers are friendly, and where

there's a lot of stability, okay?

And we've tried this.

It's more effective, but it doesn't really work either.

Why? Because the kids come in too late.

A lot of their worldview is already established.

Then you're like, okay, well then let's change how parents behave.

And when you do that, what you recognize is that, nope, you can't change how they

behave either.

Okay?

So no matter what you do, you end up... with massive differences between the

poor and the rich.

The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

So now the question for us is why is this

the case?

And it's the case because society is a hierarchy.

And the hierarchy is usually divided between the rich and the poor.

And these two worlds are night and day. They're very, very different.

As a poor person, if you want to survive, you have to obey authority.

Okay? But if you're a rich person, the way that you get along with others, the

way that you maximize your outcome is by negotiating with others.

Okay? Negotiating.

Okay? So negotiating can also mean debate, right?

So who should be the boss? Well, let's have a debate and present different

evidence as to figure out who should be the boss.

So negotiation means debate and argument.

So this helps us understand why different parents

parent their child differently.

If you're a poor parent, your responsibility is to make sure that your

child knows how to obey authority.

That's why you command your child.

But if you are a rich parent, you want your child to be able to negotiate with

authority and that's why you respect your child and you teach your child how

to debate, how to argue, how to negotiate with others.

Okay?

Because they live in different worlds.

Another way of saying this is that

From day one, rich kids know that they're playing a different game than,

they're playing a different game from poor kids.

Okay? So, let's go back and look at parents.

Okay?

So, poor parents command their child.

Don't really speak.

Don't communicate.

And don't keep promises, okay?

Alright, so poor parents do these three things.

And we know that if they do these three things, the outcome won't be so good,

okay? And the reason why they do this is that they're not playing a game.

to improve their kid's outcome, they're playing a game to get along with other

parents.

Okay?

Okay. Colleagues.

Family.

Okay.

Authority.

Okay, so another saying this is this.

Police.

Boss.

Okay, family, okay?

Alright, so as a parent, you're trying to figure out how to negotiate with the

police, with your boss, and with your family.

So if you're a poor person, and the police knows you're a poor person, the

police is going to bully you.

And if you fight back, the police will probably put you in jail.

Okay? So it's very important that you...

Accept authority.

You don't challenge authority because if you do, you'll probably get into

trouble.

Your boss, right?

If you're a poor person, your boss will just command you about.

And so it's very important that your child knows how to take orders.

Rather than ask questions, rather than debate, your child must learn how to

just follow orders. Or at least keep his mouth shut, okay?

And then family.

It's about maintaining good relations with those who can most support you. And

that often means the same values.

Okay? So if your family members or your friends, if they are parenting their

child in this manner, you're also going to copy them, okay? Imitation.

Alright? And for a poor person, this is the optimal strategy

of how to parent.

Okay? Does it make sense, guys?

Because if you do another way, okay?

If you choose to be a friend to your child, if you choose

to communicate,

if you choose to keep your promises, then your friends and your family

will think that you're doing something wrong.

You understand?

They won't think, oh my God, you are an enlightened parent who's read a lot of

parenting books and great for you.

They're going to think there's something wrong with you.

Okay? So let me give you an example of this.

Let me give you an example of this.

So,

My wife and I have three kids, okay?

My parenting style.

So my wife and I have three kids.

And this is how we parent our kid, okay? First of all, we give our child a

lot of freedom.

So we don't have our kids do activities, okay?

We don't have our kids do lots of activities.

We don't send our kids to math class. We don't send our kids to swimming class.

We don't send our kids to piano class, okay? We just let our kids run around

and play.

The other thing that we do is we communicate a lot with our child.

Communication. We believe in democracy in our family.

If we're going to make a decision together, we want everyone to

communicate together.

Okay?

So,

A normal Chinese family will just have a very tight schedule, right?

And the other thing that we do that's different is we tell stories.

The other Chinese families will do math.

So we raise our children in a way that's very different

from normal Chinese families, from the way that you've been raised.

And we do this because both my wife and I, we spend a lot of time talking about

parenting. I've read a lot of books about parenting.

I spent many decades researching the best education possible.

And so that's why we raise our children in this way.

And guess what?

Because we do this, we have no friends in China.

We have family, but they all think we're crazy.

Okay?

But we do this because for us, what's most important is to make sure that our

children are happy and healthy, and that they have a chance to be creative and be

successful in life.

Because I think that if you do it this way, the child will not be creative,

will not be successful.

But if you do it this way, your child will fit into China better.

Okay?

So, parenting, the goal...

the incentive is not for your child to succeed.

The incentive is for your child to fit into China or the larger social

environment that you are in.

Okay? And that's why it's very hard to change the way people

behave. And that's why social structures are extremely rigid because

The game they're playing is often just to fit into their environment.

Does that make sense, guys?

Any questions before I move on?

Yep.

Thanks.

So for poor families, is there any way for the poor kids to succeed, to be the

rich parent you described in the future?

Yeah.

Okay. That's a really good question, okay?

So, we know that there are certain poor kids who do succeed.

For example, I'm a poor kid who succeeded.

We immigrated to Toronto, Canada, when I was like six years old, and my father

was a dishwasher, so we were a very poor family, okay?

But I succeeded because I left Canada for the United States.

So, Canada is a very rigid place.

where poor people basically move up a bit, but not too far.

But I was able to succeed because I was able to get a scholarship to go study in

the United States.

So there are opportunities.

The problem, though, is that it means leaving your community.

Does that make sense?

So one way to succeed is to abandon your community.

But that's high risk.

So you have to be extremely individualistic to take such a

risk.

So that's why most people don't do it. Because if you think about it, the

safest option for you is to stay within your community.

That's what's going to guarantee you the best outcome.

But if you choose to abandon your community and just say, you know what,

I'm going to go somewhere else and try my luck, that's taking a really high

risk.

So to succeed, you have to take high risk.

So another possibility is war.

That traditionally, historically, has been the best mechanism

of social mobility.

When you go fight a war and you do really well, you'll get promoted in

life.

Okay?

But again, war is high risk because chances are you'll get killed.

Okay? So not just war, but also revolution.

Right?

Okay? And of course, the best way, of course, is to marry up.

Marrying up.

And that's why, remember in our very first class, we talked about the dating

game, right?

Where women only want 5 and 4.

The reason why is that 5 and 4 are high status and 3 to 1 are

low status.

So if you're a woman, you don't want to marry into a low status family because

your children will be screwed over.

Your best option is to take a risk, gamble into a high status family.

Traditionally, war and marrying up are the

two major mechanisms of social mobility.

In today's world, abandoning community can

also lead to success.

Okay, basically immigrating to a place that offers more social mobility, which

often means United States.

Okay, but another way of saying this is, you have to get really lucky, guys.

Okay, so there's lots of poor people who think that, you know, I succeeded

because I worked hard and I'm really talented.

Look, I was born poor. I lucked into Yale.

Okay, it's luck.

You can work as hard as you want.

but the chances are against you.

And it takes a certain personality, which is you're really individualistic,

you're very ambitious, and you have high risk tolerance.

Most people don't have that.

So yes, there are certain people who, despite their background, they're able

to succeed.

But that's often the exception to the rule, as opposed to the rule itself.

So thank you.

Is this clear?

Any more questions, guys, before I move on?

Okay.

Can be luck counted as a kind of ability or it's just coincidence?

Okay, that's a really good question. Yeah, okay.

Yep.

So, you're absolutely right, okay?

So, luck is a form of strategy.

Okay? Strategy.

And all this is saying is that you are trying to position yourself in a place

that allows you to get lucky.

Okay? So I left Canada and I went to the United States because I knew that in

Canada, it doesn't matter how hard you work, no one cares.

But in the United States, if you work really hard, then you might get lucky

and you might meet someone who's like, wow, you're a really hard worker. I want

to promote you.

Okay? So you're right in that.

Yes, you can strategize and increase your luck, but it's still luck.

And those who succeed are able to think strategically and far ahead

and position themselves in a way that allows them to get lucky.

And they often have the characteristics that we talked about, like self-control,

resilience.

and the ability to look inward and better understand what you're good at.

Okay?

So it takes a combination of factors.

But the point I'm trying to make is that these people are a minority, okay?

1% of the population, really.

Okay? And they still depend on luck.

Any more questions before I move on?

Okay, so this leads us to a question, which is, okay, well, the way that I

frame everything, okay, the way that I frame everything, you have poor and you

have rich.

And as discussed, they live in their own world, and they don't really connect

with each other. They have different parenting strategies. They have

different outlooks.

The rich stay with themselves.

The poor stayed amongst themselves.

So this looks like a very stable system, right? Stability.

The word we can use is equilibrium.

Now the question then is, why do societies collapse?

Why are there revolutions?

Why are there social changes?

This looks like a system of equilibrium where because of parenting, people know

their place.

And people know how to best strategize about maintaining their place.

So why is there social change?

And the reason why is that this system has problems and it's

stable, but the main problem is this system.

It's the rich that's problematic.

And the reason why is that the rich are taught from day one to negotiate a

better outcome.

Okay, so another way of saying this is that the poor is like minimum

outcome, okay?

The rich want the maximum outcome.

The poor are like, you know what, if I'm, you know, if I'm alive, if I have a

decent job, I'm okay.

But the rich are like, no, I need to be the top dog.

I need to improve my lot in society.

Otherwise, what's the point of my life?

Okay? So you have high expectations, okay? High expectations,

low expectations.

Okay? And this is a problem because power,

it's a zero-sum game.

Okay? Hierarchy is a zero-sum game.

So only a few people can be at the top.

So eventually you get into a situation where there are too many

rich people and not enough powerful positions.

And this is what's called elite overproduction.

Okay? And then what happens here is that in order to

get power, certain factions of the rich will align with certain factions

of the poor against the powers that be.

So all revolutions are always between the half a lot

versus half some.

It's never between rich and poor. It's always between half a lot and half some.

So the people who led the Chinese Revolution, people like Mao Zedong, Zhou

Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, they were not poor people. They didn't come from poor

families.

But they weren't rich enough.

So the Chinese Revolution was really between the urban elite versus the rural

elite. The have a lot versus have some. If you look at every revolution in human

history, that's always been the case.

If you go back to Chinese history and you look at all these revolutions that

started in China, It was always led by the middle class or

the aspirational class, usually merchants, right?

Merchants. Because they were discriminated heavily in society, but

they had money.

And they wanted to transform their money into power.

And so when times were bad, when people were looking for change, they took the

initiative and led people into revolution.

Okay?

Okay, does it make sense, guys?

Alright, any questions?

Alright.

in those rich people, so how could they lead the poor people to vote, to follow

them, to start the revolution, because revolution needs a huge amount of

people, like the public base to initiate.

Okay.

Okay, great question. So revolutions are almost the same.

So over time, because of the structure,

because of the inequality between rich and poor, certain problems arise, okay?

And these problems are extremely common.

The first problem, okay, problems.

The first problem is indebtedness.

Because the rich have a monopoly over wealth, for the poor to survive, they

need to borrow money.

But over time, because of interest rates,

the poor find themselves

in slavery.

Okay?

Because if you can't afford to pay back the bank or the rich person, then

your body is collateral.

Okay? So you become a slave. But not only do you become a slave, but your

children become slaves as well.

So slavery becomes a very common problem.

And then the third issue, of course, is landlessness.

So these are the three most common problems that ultimately become the

seeds of revolution.

The poor get into debt, and so they lose their land, and their children become

slaves. Their children's children become slaves as well.

Because of interest rates, it's impossible for you to pay back that.

Okay? So now you have a majority of people who have absolutely no incentive

to live.

So what happens now is that an elite,

okay, say to these people, follow me

into revolution and I will clear your debts.

I will give you land.

And I will end slavery.

And that's it.

Okay?

Every single revolution has been like this.

There have been different names.

Okay? So, for example, communists are like, we'll create a communist paradise.

But what's a communist paradise? A communist paradise is where debt is

canceled, where people are given land, and where no one's a slave. Okay?

And others are like, okay, we'll create a religious paradise.

Islam. Okay? So, Muhammad, the Islamic revolution was about this, initially.

Later on, it changed, right?

And Muhammad said to everyone, we're going to create a kingdom of heaven.

What's a kingdom of heaven? A kingdom of heaven is where people don't have debt,

where people have land to feed themselves, and where there are no

slaves.

So if you're a Muslim, you can never be a slave.

So every single revolution, it's this pattern, where over time, because of

inequality in society, you have people

who fall into too much debt, they become slaves, they have no land, and then

because of elite overproduction, you have this faction that splinters off,

and who, in order to obtain power, get the people on their side, okay?

And you look at the Roman Civil War, Julius Caesar was saying the same thing,

right? Why was he so popular? Because he was saying to the Roman people, if I

become king, I will get rid of your debt, I will free you of slavery, and I

will give you land.

And that's why they had to kill him.

Why is Donald Trump so popular in America right now? Same thing, man.

Where Americans are in debt to their credit cards, student loans, their

houses, and so they believe that if Donald Trump were to come to power, if

he were to become king, what's the first thing the king does?

What the first thing the king always does is

cancel all debts.

Because if you cancel all debts, who loses power?

It's the rich who lose power.

And it's the rich who are most dangerous to a king.

Okay? Does that make sense?

So again, this is a very similar pattern in human history. It's all game theory,

okay?

Any more questions, guys?

Okay, ask one more question, then we'll break, okay?

Is this clear to you guys?

Okay.

So another way of understanding this is that according to game theory,

individuals don't really matter.

You have to look at large groups, you have to look at large social trends.

You cannot really change the outcome for certain groups of people like poor kids

unless you look at the overall structure.

in which they live.

One more question, guys, then we'll break for the day.

Yeah, Alan.

So, like, is that the society

or like just the elite that really rule the country who really have the power

and have the motivations to maintain a society that a certain degree of social

mobility is allowed but not all of them but but but not a really a big social

mobility so that first firstly they can maintain their power but second like

they give their lower class people a hope to get into the rich class

but not using revolutions or other things that will turn the society into

collapse.

Okay, yeah.

Okay, look, you're absolutely right. So social mobility is really the best form

of governance, right?

As long as you enable people with talent and ability and ambition

to climb up, they'll be happy.

And your society will be very stable. But not only will it be very stable, it

will be very prosperous, very creative.

And it doesn't matter what system you have, okay?

So the example is, okay, America in the 1950s was a democracy.

And there was a lot of social mobility.

And so people worked really hard, and America became very wealthy.

But guess what? In China in the 1950s, China was not a democracy.

It was a communist system.

But in the 1950s, people worked really hard as well.

Why? Because China was destroyed after decades of war, and there were lots of

opportunities for social mobility.

If you worked hard, you got promoted very quickly in the system.

So even though it was a communist system, not a capitalist system, even

though it was a command economy rather than a democracy, people worked really

hard because they thought that by working hard, they could improve their

lives. So social mobility is the best form of governance. You don't need

democracy. You don't need any system, okay? As long as you have social

mobility, people will be happy.

The problem, though, is that over time, less than a generation,

all the positions of power are failed, okay?

So the people with talent who made the country great, who made the country

wealthy, when they get into power,

They don't want people like them to replace them. They want their children

to replace them.

Okay? And over time, these children are a lot.

So what happens is at the very top, all the positions are filled.

And there's a waiting list as well.

So if you are a poor person who works hard, really

talented,

Unfortunately, all those positions at the top are filled already.

And there's also a waiting list, so too bad.

And again, you just look at Chinese history, right?

Look at Chinese history, where at the beginning of the dynasty, you had all

these talented people take the civil entrance examination, the keju, and

these are really top people.

But then what happens is that they have children, and they teach their children

how to do on the keju.

And then eventually they're like, you know what, we'll just cheat.

So they corrupt the keju.

And then eventually they're like, you know what, screw this.

Whoever can pay to pass the keju will pass the keju.

And then all the positions at the very top are filled. There's no more social

mobility. So what do people do?

They engage in revolution, right?

So you look at Hong Xiuquan, right?

He failed the keju.

position at the top for him, so he started, so he believed he became the

brother of Jesus, right?

And he started this revolution that claimed tens of millions of lives in

China.

Why? Because there was no social mobility for him.

50 years ago, prior, he would have been a civil servant.

Same thing for Mao Zedong, right?

By the time that Mao Zedong became a university student, the Kejiu had been

eliminated. So there's no way for him to climb the ladder anymore.

Therefore, he had to start engaging in new ideas.

Okay?

So, you're absolutely right in that social mobility is the best way to

maintain social harmony.

But, people have children. And they want their children to succeed.

And they will arrange the system in a way that only their children can

succeed. Which screws over every other children.

everyone else, and so they have no choice but to overflow the system, okay?

Or another way of saying this is game reset.

Game reset.

This is what a revolution is, okay?

So another way of saying this is that 100 people are playing a game, 10 people

are winning, and they keep on winning, And they can only win.

So everyone else is like, screw this game, let's start a new game.

And the 10 people are like, nope, we're happy playing this game.

They can't agree, so the 90 people can only, the only thing they can do is a

revolution, which allows for game reset, which now again allows for social

mobility.

And that is the course of human history.

Okay?

Either you climb up the ladder.

If they don't allow you to climb up the ladder, then you'll just break the game.

But unfortunately, again, once you're in power, you want your children

to inherit your power. And so you'll rig the game in a way that only your

children can succeed.

And that's why the schools are the way they are.

Schools for the rich are very different from schools for the poor, right?

Schools for the rich, there's a lot of freedom, there's a lot of creativity,

the teachers are very good. You go to poor schools and it's the complete

opposite. And the reason why is the system is set up to make sure that

certain people succeed and everyone else fails.

Okay?

Does that make sense, Alan?

Okay, great. Any more questions, guys?

Alright. Good. I'll see you guys next class, okay?