RISK SOMETHING
  • About
  • Blog

DIVERSIFY YOUR PORTFOLIO: RISK EMBRACING YOUR WEALTHS AND POVERTIES

5/31/2014

19 Comments

 
Picture
Diversify your portfolio. The idea is simple: if you put all your money in one type of investment, that investment could fail and you could lose all your money.

This idea is so fundamental to investing that it's not even considered a "tip" or "advice." It's just truth. 

Well, money is only one type of wealth. So why is the idea of diversifying financial wealth so universal while the idea of diversifying social wealth is treated as a gentle, noble, and totally optional idea? 

Is having a diverse social portfolio just as crucial a foundation for security as having a diverse financial portfolio? I'll explore that idea using myself as a test subject.   

I was brought up by two loving, supportive, highly-educated professionals who have dedicated their careers to development of the mind. My parents' minds have a command of facts, historical events, poetry, 5th grade class rosters (really), books of the Bible, and ancient Greek, among other astounding things. This is power I'll call cerebral power. 

My parents applied their cerebral power to teaching me some amazing skills, like task management, personal organization, reading/writing proficiency, metalingual awareness, how to argue effectively, and a thousand other skills that are valued in the professional world. For that, I am supremely grateful. I LOVE YOU, MOM AND DAD!!!

əəəəəəəəəəə HOWEVER! əəəəəəəəəə
 
I have realized that the world is full of situations where cerebral-dominance (and the money that tends to follow it) not only falls short, but can actually do harm. Here's a nerdy graphic that illustrates which components of life might come easily and which might be challenging for a person like me who has been raised to be cerebral-dominant.

Picture
Many of us cerebral-types understand that approaching life exclusively with the thinking brain doesn't work. Yet it takes immense effort to reprogram ourselves to be able to "let go" of that cerebral dominance. I mean, nobody who claims that they "can't dance" is proud of that.  

To complicate things, our society tends to put cerebral-dominant people on a pedestal--we see them as people who can "make the hard decisions" and "get things done." But we don't see the social poverty that comes with such a narrow approach to life. We tend to spend our time around other people who are like us, and so we cerebral types go further down into our logic-holes, until we believe the lie that we were never even able to dance, or sing, or howl at the moon in the first place.  

But the world never fails to present us with moon-howling moments...and if we don't learn to seize them, then those moments pass us by. We feel it when we've missed an opportunity to break out of our cocoons and transform ourselves, even if we can't put our finger on what we missed or why we missed it. I call that poverty. 

Meanwhile, people who weren't raised to be cerebral-dominant often struggle with the demands that institutions and bureaucracy place on them, especially if they weren't lucky enough to be born into a stable financial situation. A mortgage-lender wants people to make payments on time, every time. For people without money who struggle with organization and bookkeeping, this situation can be catastrophic, as a bank has the power to tear apart their lives. I call that poverty, too. 

So what?

Each of us (cerebral-dominant and other-dominant) has wealths to share with the other. Each of us is suffering from different poverties, and we could each become more resilient and adaptable if we could just find ways to connect with people who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. But our distinct ways of presenting ourselves (behavior, dress, speech, etc.) make it REALLY HARD to achieve connection across dividing lines. So most often, we stay down in our own poverty-holes, some of us painfully aware of what we lack, some of us fooled into believing we have no poverty just because we can't see it with our eyes. 
Picture
















The bottom line:
We should be open to connection with people from a wide variety of backgrounds out of a desire for self-preservation, if nothing else. Our poverties leave us unprepared for the inescapable challenges of life. Having networks of friends and allies who have radically different life experiences can help us find resources to cope with those challenges. For our own good, we need to reach out to the world around us, humbly give of our wealths, and proudly beg for our poverties.

***Below, Ivan extrapolates on this point.  

19 Comments
Anna W
5/31/2014 06:26:03 am

Is assortative marriage something to counter too? Greenwood's paper: "Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality"
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2378360

Reply
Abraham Lateiner
5/31/2014 01:23:06 pm

Anna, going to read this and get back to you! Sounds fascinating...

Reply
Abraham Lateiner
6/2/2014 09:36:14 am

Anna, OK I read the abstract and I'm anticipating that the actual paper is going to be pretty stats-heavy. HOWEVER...I hadn't thought of this and it certainly is related! I'm advocating for a widening of our social circles, but an extension of that would certainly be being open to partnering with people who are different from us!!! Maybe that's a future post...

Mark Stearns
5/31/2014 06:28:43 am

I like the insights expressed here. The idea that there are a diverse array of intelligences or capabilities--a diverse array of strengths or "wealths" both cognitive or cerebral and non-cognitive--is now fairly well understood at least among the more psychologically inclined types. But the idea that there is an inverse relation here as well, that these intelligences can also be mapped against an array of different kinds of poverties is, I think, far less understood, and a very meaningful insight. And I agree: one of our biggest mistakes in our culture is to associate cerebral intelligences or capabilities with personal advancement or sophistication. The underlying insight here is that the quality of a person is neither necessarily nor sufficiently determined by their monetary wealth or their cerebral / cognitive intelligence, but by a portfolio of different intelligences, wealths, and poverties that make up a whole person. I think most people have yet to appreciate, or viscerally understand, what this idea means at a truly deep level. I know I'm still working on it myself.

Reply
Abraham Lateiner
5/31/2014 01:14:15 pm

Mark, thank you! I'm certainly working on it too...I'd be lying if I said that I can look at different people and see clearly their respective wealths and poverties without giving more weight to one or the other...I think it's got to be a practice!

Reply
Ari Pliskin link
5/31/2014 09:53:38 am

Very interesting idea. Especially since we just had our 10th college reunion together I've been thinking about that way that our elite university was a cerebral-heavy factory. While a few dance classes there did thankfully bring some embodiment to my experience and plant the seeds for my yoga and meditation practice, the bulk of my academic and perhaps even social life was oriented towards the rational and heady. I'm glad I've incorporated more non-cerebral practice and essence into my life since college.

Also, while there is some evidence that part of our intelligence is literally situated in the belly, neuroscientists are getting more and more precise about which areas of the brain are associated with which activities. It is possible that some of your "non-cerebral" activities are actually still associated with regions of the brain, although perhaps different regions than those associated with rational and analytical activities... but I guess that's a pretty cerebral point.

Reply
lisa marie garver
5/31/2014 10:14:16 am

Yes, it is. And rightly so.

Reply
Abraham Lateiner
5/31/2014 01:15:44 pm

Ari, thank you for pointing out the brain's role in activities I labeled "non-cerebral." I will respond to Lisa's comment (which also points this out) with my thoughts.

Reply
Lisa Marie Garver
5/31/2014 10:12:50 am

I agree with the idea, but I am disturbed with the process of explanation to bring about the point.

If cerebral means anything that requires brain power, almost anything is cerebral and ALL of the things in your graph require a lot of it.

Your brain is needed even just to breathe and move. To dance, requires A LOT MORE. True that if a dance is devoid of emotion, and of physical skill (which is learned through using your brain) it will probably not be fun to watch and might even be stressful for the dancer, but it still requires a LOT of brain power.

If cerebral means things that are considered intellectual such as reading/writing, debating, introspection I would totally disagree that time and money management are factors.

Maybe I don't know my history well enough. Tell me, sas Einstein good with money? Did Plato write his books with in a timely manner for his publisher?

To say that either the ability to be devoid of emotion, or the ability to explore, analyze, and express thoughts about the world are a power that creates financial wealth is saying the opposite of what you want it to say.

Poor people read books. Some poor people have degrees.

I grew up in a family of people with a LOT of intellectual debate and educational encouragement, but rife with addiction and mental illness on my dad's side, and on the other side an emphasis towards physicality and practicality (also with addiction). We went camping A LOT and learned about nature. I know how fish/hunt, to build a fire, how to survive in the wild in both cold and hot temperatures, and even though I don't hunt, I am aware of many animals and plants in the northwest and whether they are dangerous or edible. Of course, I was always only mildly interested in these things, so my cousins are much more knowledgeable and skilled.

Living in the city there is a totally different type of "nature". Even though you didn't really highlight it in the video you shared of Ivan, that thing you told me about "social intelligence" to me is his version of that. You can read in books about nature and you can read in books about life in the city, but you have to live there to be able to apply it and you have to develop skills to be able to survive long term.

But this is almost totally disconnected from wealth in my mind. A rich person can be a complete idiot. Exhibit A: Paris Hilton. We know from watching tv how P.H would fair on a farm, in the wild, etc. And that was with help of a SLEW of people from television. P.H. would not survive as she is today without wealth. But she's just one example, right? There are plenty of wealthy people that have the knowledge and skills that myself and Ivan has.

So why am I not a college professor making 5-6 figures?

The answer is this : aptitude + environment/time

People have asked me "why did you let yourself become impoverished in order to do your work?" and they have said "you are poor because you chose to work for free"

But they forget this: I started with nothing, financially.

Actually, I didn't start my work with nothing financially. I started in the hole. Because I convinced my grandma, who only has a small amount of money and a lot of grandchildren that need help to co-sign on a humongous loan to go to the school of my dreams.

But I had the audacity, to try to do my work and start something that would create resiliency and positivity for kids that, like me, couldn't really afford music lessons.

If I had an inheritance or money through marriage, I could work for free all I wanted and everyone would cheer me on and pat me on the back. "that Lisa Marie has such a big heart". Hell, I could feel a lot better teaching my students because I wouldn't have to worry about a LOT of things. Money can't buy happiness, but it can take care of a lot.



Reply
Abraham Lateiner
5/31/2014 01:22:31 pm

Lisa, you bring up some really good points.

1. I certainly wouldn't say that being cerebral-oriented automatically means a person will earn a lot of money, an idea which your examples from your own life clearly show to be untrue. There are plenty of very cerebral people who are not financially rewarded by society. I WOULD say that people who are more heart/gut-centered in their ways of being are usually NOT able to be financially upwardly mobile by relying on those non-cerebral-focused skills. Thank you for shining a light on this distinction.

2. When I use the term "cerebral," I don't mean anything that uses your brain. Of course dancing, meditation, and everything else on my graphic requires cerebral power. I was looking for a term that encompasses the part of the brain that pursues logic above all and seeks to reduce the power of emotion or feeling to influence thought or behavior. I'm open to suggestions for another term that is more precise and less confusing!

Reply
Jane
6/1/2014 03:01:02 am

As I understand your post, and another commenter also alluded to this, you're getting into Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences. So when you say "cerebral power" you're referring to just two of the modalities (as put forth by Gardner) -- Linguistic Intelligence and Logical/Mathematical Intelligence. Maybe this is a better, if wordy, term. Or, "What you need to know to ace the SAT."

The other types of intelligences are:

Musical Rhythmic Intelligence
Bodily/Kinesthetic Intelligence
Spatial Intelligence
Naturalist Intelligence
Intrapersonal Intelligence
Interpersonal Intelligence
Existential Intelligence

I'd say the examples of "non-cerebral skills" on your graphic fall into these categories.

Einstein once said, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” :)

Jane
6/2/2014 12:44:34 am

P.S. I would also include executive functioning skills under your umbrella of "cerebral power."

"Linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligence + executive functioning skills" -- now THAT'S a mouthful.

Reply
Abraham Lateiner
6/2/2014 02:49:39 am

Jane, you and Mark have brought up something that I knew about but didn't directly connect to what I was writing. You are absolutely right...this idea of different wealths is connected to multiple intelligences. I think the idea of multiple intelligences is widely accepted, yet if you look at what we actually hold up and value as a society (measured by what we reward financially), we don't actually hold all these intelligences in equal standing. I am fighting to change my own perception so as to be able to value all wealths as equally valid, just as all intelligences should be held up as equally valid.

Reply
Jane
6/2/2014 06:51:01 am

I should have been more explicit in my comment... I was responding to your open call for suggestions on terms more precise than "cerebral power."

I had a brief discussion about your blog post with a friend this morning and it generated two questions. Mine was, "What society? Whose society?" And hers was, "How do you define value?" It's all relative, I suppose. I think, however, it is clear that if you value one thing over another, you're creating a dichotomy and therefore a bias that is hard to overcome.

Abraham Lateiner
6/2/2014 09:43:28 am

Jane, can you think up a snappy 1-3 word phrase that captures "Linguistic and logical/mathematical intelligence + executive functioning skills"? I think you've got something here...

Addressing your two questions:
1. By "society" here in this post I mean the part of America that carries the greatest proportion of financial and policy-making power. In other words, the people and institutions that largely get to set the agenda for the country (legislatively, politically, and financially).
2. I think I judge if the above society "values" a person's offerings by whether or not that person is able, through hard yet not back-breaking work, to find sustainable employment that affords them stable living conditions, healthcare, nutrition, and time to raise a physically and emotionally healthy family. That's my answer "off the dome," so I'm not married to it.

Reply
Lisa Marie Garver
6/3/2014 04:08:43 pm

Sorry, Abe but I still think that

a. poor people are capable of logical/mathematical intelligence + executive functions, anyway.

b. society rewards MONEY with MORE MONEY.

c. if you really want people to expand their horizons, you've got to really believe in the concept that poor people are all capable of everything that rich people are capable of. Most people don't, and that's the whole trouble to begin with.

The theory of multiple intelligences hasn't been widespread. I definitely think it has some weight, but I think its nothing without the concept of aptitude and environment.

But none of this really matters right? Because if you REALLY want to be a part of another community, you have to risk to lose your identity and be vulnerable. That's why most rich people choose to send money. Of course I don't have stats for that, but I'll leave it as that until I'm proven wrong.

Again, I am obviously all for it. I am almost an expert at joining new things and taking risks. But the fact is that I may never know what it's like to be rich because I'm pretty sure the only way to get rich as a poor person is to focus only on that and nothing else. And, money holds enough weight to make me play the game, thats about it. I'm too focused on living.

Abraham Lateiner
6/4/2014 06:36:41 am

After a conversation with Lisa, I have made a few changes to this post. She pointed out that the class status we are born into has a huge impact on whether or not we can "market" our skills into financially-rewarding jobs. It's not just whether or not we have the skills.

Good point, Lisa. Now, instead of trying to identify what skills society rewards financially, I am focusing on how people with different skill sets struggle in certain situations, and what consequences those struggles have on their lives.

Lisa Marie Garver
6/4/2014 06:58:10 am

Hey I want to let everyone reading this know that I really, really , really, appreciate the thought and effort and intention behind this article. Sometimes in my pursuit for justice I argue myself into a corner.

Everything that I mean can be said much better in this song

http://youtu.be/-vhxhFWSIq0

Reply
Anna W
6/4/2014 04:54:45 pm

Lisa's comments made me think back to a group of students I taught in rural Ireland from the itinerant traveller community. Socioeconomically disadvantaged and academically weak--barely literate or illiterate. As young adolescents, most would leave school by age sixteen. A handful of the boys were exceptionally good with math. They honed skills playing darts and betting; they could beat me any day in a basic quantitative test/ amazing speed in their calculations.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Abe Lateiner

    If real change requires people to take risks, what would it mean for a straight, White, cisgender male, tall, thin, able-bodied, English-speaking US citizen with class privilege to take risks?

    RSS Feed

    Subscribe!

    * indicates required

    Archives

    September 2017
    March 2017
    October 2016
    July 2016
    March 2016
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014

Proudly powered by Weebly