Comment by tmsbrg

> Maybe the Victorian elite succeeded in spite of being feckless and incompetent: the Industrial Revolution created great wealth, which they enjoyed passively and parasitically.

I'm surprised this obvious explanation is handwaved away.

> We cannot run controlled experiments on Victorian Britain, so this thesis is hard to test.

Sure...

> Books about successful people often make success sound rather unappealing. Education should be intense and rigorous, focused on driving up IQ and on the ‘STEM’ quaternity of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Once adulthood is reached, life follows an austere pattern, with a 5am start, cold baths, daily visits to the gym, little or no alcohol, a Huel-rich diet, and Stakhanovite working hours.

Books about succesful people tend to focus on these types of hard working ones who build their own wealth. It's more interesting than "hey this rich person got rich from their parents". But the modern elite has enough parasitical rich people who would fit more with the Victorian elites, living mostly off of their parents' wealth and connections, think Paris Hilton, Miss Heineken, the Chinese Fuerdai or the modern nobility.

Based on the premise it seems the author just has gripes with STEM focus and efficiency culture. That seems like a legit standpoint, but it's so weird to try to use Victorian elites to support this point. What about looking at the working class, that actually, you know, puts in all the work?