Empire: Total War Heaven

And since double posting isn't allowed, i'll repost my last post (how many posts?) from the previous thread:

Oooh, is that where you are? My parents are just over the border in Daaaaaaarset.

The thing I suppose we are missing out are the subdivisions. Things like upper-middle class and the like (the ones who might have a range rover and a pony for little Tabitha).

I always wonder what i would qualify as.

I wont be here for long, Im moving in a month.

And yes, that the whole entire problem with the class system at the moment. Only 3 classes no longer really covers it. There should be 60million, or whatever the population is at the moment.

If thats what Defines Upper-middle, then I was one of few In my school that isn't that

EDIT - Cos I is fick, can a mod change the title to the SCHOOL revolt, not the YOUTH revolt.

[This message has been edited by bobandirus (edited 06-13-2010 @ 07:16 PM).]

Where you off to then? Er, assuming you feel confortable saying

(Sorry if this is already common knowledge. I tend to have flurries in TWH and miss a lot of the gossip)

As for what defines upper-middle, who knows? Belonging to a golf club with restricted membership. Being on the rotary club. Having the pony. Second house, in france....

I'm moveing from the 2nd worst, to the words place to police in Devon. Yay!

Job definitions for lower middle would be stuff like a Tesco Manager IMO. Sorry if I just offended anyone

And can you change the title please? I feel like a prat not that anyone will realise the Problem...

[This message has been edited by bobandirus (edited 06-13-2010 @ 07:22 PM).]

You'd have to get AndyPandy to do that I'm afraid. My mod rights don't extend to this far forsaken piece of the world

Done. Great new title post, bob.

Apologies for interrupting your conversation, chaps.

Good theme bobandirus.

Saw this in the previous HRP:

All ways stuck me as odd that theres no middle class sport...

I thought it was Tennis.

And speaking of class, I read this the other day:

Bursting the myth of ‘closed-shop’ British social classes

Thirty years ago, Peter Bauer wrote a book attacking the ‘British obsession’ with social class. Brits commonly assume class divisions are sharper in the United Kingdom than elsewhere, and that social movement between classes is difficult to achieve. Against this trend, Bauer insisted Britain is a remarkably open society. He said Brits had ‘class on the brain.’

Britons still have class on the brain. The Conservative Party warned in a recent report that class divisions are so rigid that children born into lowly origins have little hope of success. ‘Social mobility,’ it said, ‘has ground to a halt.’

The last Labour government agreed, for it commissioned no fewer than three inquiries into social mobility in less than two years. They all warned of ‘low’ mobility rates, concluding that ‘birth, not worth’ determines people’s life chances, and described Britain as ‘a closed-shop society.’

The evidence I review in my new book, Social Mobility Myths, shows this is nonsense. Social mobility in Britain within the three main classes is widespread. In the last hundred years, it was more common for people to change classes than to stay in the class to which they were born. This is still the case today. By comparing people born in 1958 with those born in 1970, we find that in both groups, more than 40% had moved upwards relative to the social class of their parents by the time they reached their early 30s, and about one-third had moved down. This looks nothing like a ‘closed shop society.’

Nor is Britain a more ‘closed’ society than other western countries. The proportion of men entering a higher class than their fathers is about the same as in Ireland, France and Germany.

It is true that children of working class parents are less likely to get middle-class jobs than those born to middle-class parents. Politicians seize on this as evidence that working class children are being ‘blocked,’ but this ignores differences in ability.

In an open society, people will be recruited to jobs largely on the basis of their ability, so the brightest people will tend to be found in the higher occupational classes. These people will tend to produce relatively bright children, so the next generation of middle-class children will be over-represented in the higher positions. In a meritocracy, therefore, we should not expect equal success rates among children from different class origins.

All the recent UK government reports ignore this, but my research shows that ability is more than twice as important as class in influencing where people end up in life. Half the variance in class destinations is explained by ability alone.

The myth that Britain is a ‘closed shop society’ has pernicious effects. Tell somebody they are living in a country where hard work and talent are rewarded, and they will strengthen their efforts to succeed. But tell them they are living in a ‘closed shop society’ where mobility has ‘ground to a halt,’ and they’ll probably just give up and drop out.

Millions of people have worked their way up to responsible positions in British society from humble beginnings. It’s time the political class recognised and applauded this rather than denying it.

Peter Saunders is a Senior Fellow at the CIS and the author of Social Mobility Myths, published by Civitas on 1 June.

But nothing quite outdoes this article:

Quoted from Article:

"IT is most odd," said my friend, a Frenchman now living, like most sensible Frenchmen, in London. "Your country has given birth to twins. This Cameron and Clegg, he is the same person, no? They are both, how you say, posh?"

"Yes," I explained. "But they are different sorts of posh."

He looked confused: "But both went to private school, both are rich, both are sons of financiers. Even the hair is similar."

"True," I conceded. "But they are not the same species of posh. David Cameron is Eton-Oxford-country-clubby-cutglass-shooting party sort of posh, whereas Nick Clegg is Westminster-Cambridge-metropolitan-foreign-glottal stop-trustfund sort of posh. Cameron is upper-upper-middle class with a dash of English gentry, but Clegg is middle-upper-middle class with a hint of European aristocracy. These are quite different things."

In British society there are not three classes but an infinite variety of sub-classes, governed by a multiplicity of minute distinctions, invisible and incomprehensible to anyone outside the system. These are partly dependent on wealth, geography and education, but also on lineage, accent, pastimes, parsimony and where you buy your shoes.

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 06-13-2010 @ 10:39 PM).]

In an open society, people will be recruited to jobs largely on the basis of their ability, so the brightest people will tend to be found in the higher occupational classes. These people will tend to produce relatively bright children, so the next generation of middle-class children will be over-represented in the higher positions.

Quoted from Pitt's post above.
The bolded implying they produce brighter children?

Assuming this is true, I wonder whether this would be due more to genes, or upbrining?
Say all the middle class kids were swapped with working class kids from birth. Would those middle class kids brought up as working class then be in higher positions, or those working class kids brought up as middle class? Slightly unethical in a practical sense. I wonder if there's another way to test this from existing census data? Adopted children, for example.

[This message has been edited by bdf101 (edited 06-14-2010 @ 01:43 AM).]

Genetics play a part, but I think environment (opportunities) plays a bigger part. The bright (and lucky) will often rise, and be successful. Success gives them the ability to buy the toys and gadgets needed to stimulate learning, and being in the 'successful' circle puts those children in contact with other children of the same 'level' which generates competition. Plus they can afford tutors, if they feel their children are in need of such, and better schools. Lower-class people most often do not have the financial ability to buy the latest computers, laptops, etc for their children or send them to exclusive schools.

As people tend to form relationships with those in the same environment (physical co-location) the 'bright' tend to mate with the 'bright' while the workers tend to mate with workers. There are exceptions, of course, but generally that tends to happen. Something like 70% of people surveyed have had 'crushes' on or affairs with people they work with (obviously all-male environments or all-female environments are excluded).

[This message has been edited by Terikel Grayhair (edited 06-14-2010 @ 02:04 AM).]

How much of a role do genes really play, in that case?

Say, a kid who had parents who happened to be the exact median in everything (impossible yes, but as a hypothetical). Would there be limits to how far this kid could potentially do, given an excellent upbringing and opportunities?

Put another way, there was a comparison between this kid and another hypothetical kid whose parents were at the 90th percentile in every possible way. Were they to be in an identical environment, would one be noticeably different to the other?

Best ending of a party thread ever. Well done, guys. Great new theme, too- any Rowan Atkinson is good enough for me

I would reckon that the Median Kid would very much be able to get to the same level, educationally, as the 90th percentile kid. It may just take a little bit more effort on his part. This is because Education, in the sense of GCSE, A levels, and Degree, is not mostly about what you have been taught, and your ability to spurt it out in exams. Therefore, the better the teacher, the better you are going to do.

However, if you take someone with an low IQ, and someone with a high IQ, and asked them to do tasks which are similar to the ones used on IQ tests, then you would spot a difference. The difference here is that IQ is much more hard wired into the brain (as far as my biology A level can tell me), you wont be able to change that with any amount of teaching.

It just goes back the the gene and meme theory.


@ Pitt - Good point, I forgot about that, you may well be right with Tennis.


Also, thanks for the OP love

[This message has been edited by bobandirus (edited 06-14-2010 @ 04:17 AM).]

How can ya have any pudding if ya' don't eat ya meat?

Stop. Hey You. You're treading on The Thin Ice here, school represents The Happiest Days of Our Lives. After it, the best you can hope for is to be Comfortably Numb.

Run Like Hell.

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 06-14-2010 @ 04:54 AM).]

Or at least they would be the best years of our lives were it not for school...

My third set of friends are engaged.

I am 19.

That was an ad here some minutes ago
Stupid Photobucket does not give the tags anymore.

[This message has been edited by Tryhard (edited 06-14-2010 @ 08:34 AM).]

A person from my year at school got engaged the other week as well. Another was married about 2 or 3 months ago. And a friend at work proposed to his girlfriend about a fortnight ago.

It must be contagious.

That was an ad here some minutes ago

The picture's a bit small - what did the banner say?

[This message has been edited by Pitt (edited 06-14-2010 @ 06:40 AM).]

The picture's a bit small - what did the banner say?

Can someone help to enlarge it. It is really worth it.

Edit: sent to Pitt. He may be luckier than me.

[This message has been edited by Tryhard (edited 06-14-2010 @ 08:41 AM).]

I feel like a prat not that anyone will realise the Problem...

I made a pretty big Title mistake in my HRP. It was EoJ style. Then Gaius refused to correct it.

I really want to find the Outnumbered clip of Ben talking about genetics and upbringing's effect on children, it's fantastic...

I really want to find the Outnumbered clip of Ben talking about genetics and upbringing's effect on children, it's fantastic...

The one where he reasons that his every action can be blamed on his dad? That is rather good.

[This message has been edited by Andalus (edited 07-07-2010 @ 07:30 PM).]

that is pretty good but my personal favourite is:
Karen: 31, 32, 33
Dad: Are you still counting Chavs Karen?
Karen: No, i'm counting lesbians

Does all the above about upbringing therfore mean the old 11-plus and grammar schols were a good way of doing things after all? All the bright kids put together, irrespective of background. Thus giving kids from more lowly areas a chance to shine and themselves be upwardly mobile.

I quote it regularly, yeah

EDIT: Outnumbered, not Grammar schools. Which I don't like.

[This message has been edited by EnemyofJupitor (edited 06-14-2010 @ 03:53 PM).]