The Science of Success (We Die Here Fighting)

funmiakinpelu (58)in #science • 6 years ago (edited)

Hi Friends,

If there is any one catch phrase that has lain steeped in my brain like a dormant bacterium, it is this:

Winners will always be winners; and losers will always be losers.

Yes, I know, this perception, it is not quite up to snuff; but in the short span of time I have spent on Earth, I have not quite been able to shake off this hypothesis with any solid proof. This theory that sounds all too wrong has proven itself to be true over and over again. No offence to cheap psychological motivations, but I only have one reason why successful people succeed, just as I only see one reason for persistent failure. In all good sense of logic, successful people succeed because they are successful and losers lose because they are looosers.

Moocs_and_the_science_of_learning_(14551102562).jpg
Wikimedia by William Brugh CC BY SA 2.0

A student who passes exams effortlessly can rarely become a dull nut in the future, but then, a student who fails so much would one day perfect the art of failure. A country who has tried so hard to scale above its economic, political, social and religious banalities is only going to try harder and harder and harder before realising that the spots at the peak had already been taken. And then, the football team (Talk of Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iran, Nigeria...) that has lost once to a rival, might not for another 24 years win a single game against that opposition. And this is not because they don't have good, strong legs but because they have good, strong minds.

Ok, admitted. This is yet another rant from me. But this is one such rant that has lurked in my mind for a near forever. I have never ceased to wonder, why is it so hard to break a long abiding jinx that has tailed a particular person, community, country or continent? The world is filled with dilemmas and paradoxes of failures and successes, and it's becoming hard to ignore the fact that there must be some scientific basis for the new, georacial success differential. So, in denunciating the present thoughts on my mind, I have turned to science to provide answers. And here's what science had to say.

GENOME Vulnerability

Wikimedia by Cole S CC BY SA 4.0

Science has it established that the nuance of success has its fine grain steeped in the childhood development of individuals. But this is without paying too much attention to the role genes play in shaping the mentality, and eventual success of a person. Most of the gene compositions in people are designed to help them succeed in any such environment they find themselves, so that they are expected to bloom and thrive whatever the circumstance. This is how things are meant to work, at least. But a new thread of scientific discovery has modified this expect and drawn our eyes to the fact that genes can be influenced and spurred to success or failure by the environment they interact with. This means that the most frail of persons, can with the right environment, be highly successful and imaginative.

Let's delve a little deeper,

MARIAN Bakermans-Kranenburg, a professor of child and family studies at Leiden University, was very interested in determining how far genome traits determined the success or otherwise of a growing child. But even more, she was interested in knowing if a said environment could alter the already fated genial disposition of a child towards success. With these intents, she planted cameras in the homes of children between the ages 1 to 3 whose "externalizing" traits (throwing tantrums, screaming, complaining, refusing to help around) easily predisposed them to being mediocres, failing both academically, socially and financially in their adult lives.

Out of the 2, 408 children and parents she screened, Bakermans-Kranenburg chose to use 25% for her experiment. And of this 25%, she made sure to pay attention to 120 children, visiting their homes, capturing their moments of externalizing and teaching the parents through extracted video clips how to deal with arising situations with their kids. On the other hand, Bakermans-Kranenburg left the other half of the 25% to themselves. You can guess what happened - those who were given special care began to perform better, and become more successful at things, while those who weren't kept their bad behaviors to themselves..

But even with clear indication that one's environment very well influences one's success rate, researchers are still strongly holding on to what is called "genetic vulnerability" or "stress diathesis". What this basically means is while our genes might not necessarily contribute a meaningful quota to how well we do in life, there are certain variants of important behavioral genes that make people more susceptible to having a particular personality, mood or character disorder that determines their output in life. Hence, a person, having these rare gene variants, can turn out pretty bad especially if conditions surrounding them are very unfavourable.

However, recently, the table seems to be turned. Modern scientists are coming all out to prove that although these "risk genes" cause one to be predisposed to failure, they also can form the building blocks of success. This is because the risk genes do not only cause increased genetic sensitivity to the bad experiences of life, but also to the good experiences. This orchid gene hypothesis (a contrast to the vulnerability hypothesis) was what Bakermans-Kranenburg used as the fundament of her experiment.

Yes, Race is a Thing

Wikipedia by Illustration from Types of Mankind, Public Domain Licensed

Unlike the once cultivated belief that there is no scientific basis for the concept race, new researches have gone on to show that race is real, and it does determine a lot, including whether a person will succeed or fail in life endeavors. I won't dwell much on this but I must needs say that the breakthrough discoveries on the human genome have opened scientists up to the fact that evolution didn't just happen centuries ago, it has continued through several recent years and even up to this time. Although it is now hard to evaluate the recent evolution ls, you would want to know these evolutions have been happening repeatedly and on a regional basis*. Believe it or not, but scientists have proven that certain genes belonging to certain people, tribes or classification have been favoured over time by natural selection.

The slow and unnoticed evolution has, arguably, influenced the prevailing social structures in several places. The unceasing rate of evolution is said ty o have also come to bear in the productivity of several countries (the England Industrial Revolution is a very good example) just as it has enhanced the cognitive responses or IQ of races like the Jews while depleting others. I am making no particular conclusions, but at the same time it's more or less very evident that although racism is not some concept that should be used in social contexts, it has a well founded base in science. And this base is connected to the height of successes.

Body Sizes

So I have been serving us quite some hard morsels to swallow, and I don't intend giving it a break till you are very full. In a competitive situation as simplified as a rock-paper-scissors challenge, it has been discovered and proven that one's body size goes a long way to determine victory or defeat. Even without any empirical fact, there is an uncanny way in which size collocates with success and failure. Often times, when we succeed, we say we have had a "big win" or "a great deal of success" and then, we are on a failing streak, we usually would say that we are having a bit of a downturn.

Wikimedia by Ephert CC BY SA 4.0

Certain Asian researchers felt the need to investigate whether these mental representations of sizes correlate empirically with physical body sizes. There are two scenarios that can occasion wins or losses to be determined by body sizes. First, there is the ontogenetic development whereby children due to being bullied by those of larger sizes learn subconsciously that it is impossible to win against adults or larger people. On a phylogenetic basis, (something which is more attuned to lower mammals), where physical battles are what determines success, having a large size is usually an advantage. And then, even when an animal is small in size, it tries to give a bloated sense of being dangerous when faced by predators. The porcupine, for one, send spikes sticking out; several birds spread their wings and some other animals simply enlarge in size only to deplete later.

Based on these scenarios, the researchers reached a hypothesis that large people succeeded more in competitions, while smaller people lose more. But in a present world as modern and complex as this, one couldn't be too sure of this. Hence, their selection of a game (rock, paper, scissors) not related to size in testing their hypothesis. Using the Barsalou’s perceptual symbol theory (PST), it was discovered that true to their hypothesis, the ones with larger sizes won more than those with smaller sizes. What do you think of this, uhn?

Personality

Diagram_of_the_Big_5_personality_traits (1).jpeg
Wikimedia by U3081508 CC BY SA 4.0

New researches have it that one's personality, not intelligence quotient (IQ) is the strong determinant for success. That one is smart enough to pass an exam would not necessarily mean one would be successful or rich. It was the particular trait of being conscientious (a combination of self discipline, team spirit, perseverance etc.) that won someone the heart of success. It was Heckman, founder of the University of Chicago’s Center for the Economics of Human Development, that reached that conclusion. But being a Nobel Prize winner, he could've "reach" the conclusion, he had to go on four different sets of research investigating thousands of people in the US, UK, and the Netherlands to finally arrive at the theory. During the course of the research, it became clear that those with low IQs but better non cognitive skills like conscientiousness performed better in their test results and these were the ones that climbed up to the peak of the ladder of success.

Adrenaline

Wikimedia by Jynto Public Domain Licensed

Adrenaline_3D_ball

It is easy to think that having a rush of adrenaline, maybe during a competition, can cause one to do the unexpected and succeed ultimately. This might be true, but having to rely on adrenaline for far too long puts too much stress on an individual, and where there is negative stress, failure lurks around.

Final Words

I have spoken at length about just what influences the Q parameter (this is the formula of success in science). And honestly, I feel, more than just being scientific explanations for circumstances that are rather difficult to box up, these phenomena manifest truly in influencing the successes of individuals, and even of entire nations. But whatever the case, whatever the loss encountered due to any of these issues beyond our control, it is good to know that "success" isn't the highly sort after gold, it is merely a gold mine. The real gold actually lies buried in failure being repeated over and over again till the surface of the metal is scratched. It is when we have failed one too many times that we truly savour the feeling of success, when and if it ever comes. For that reason, we should keep on digging dust, chaffs, and dross, for it is only by scouring deeper that success will rear its shiny head. And as we dig, as we keep failing, as we hope for the sun to come out tomorrow, let our chant ever be, We Die Here Fighting!