Why is it said that a person’s social class is basically fixed after the age of 35?

Let’s compare two historical figures: Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek.

We will find a very core and simple standard that can determine whether a person is on the rise or decline after 35.

This standard is: the attribution path when facing adversity.

The watershed at 35 essentially reflects the fixation of attribution style. I read the biography of Teacher (a nickname for Mao), and found that around the age of 35, his situation was more dire than any mid-career crisis faced by today’s professionals.

At that time, the Autumn Harvest Uprising failed, and the troops were reduced from several thousand to a few hundred;

He went to Jinggangshan, besieged by warlords from various factions, lacking clothing and food;

Even more critical was the career crisis: he was elected out as the party secretary at the Seventh Red Army Congress, forced to leave the core command position, went to Jiao Yang to recover, and sat on the sidelines.

At that time, Lin Biao was asking: How long can the Red Flag still fly?

Isn’t this a typical 35-year crisis? Project failure, team disintegration, marginalization by leaders, uncertain future...

But what did he do in adversity?

He didn’t write diaries cursing his luck, didn’t complain about the bad environment, didn’t blame his teammates for being too weak...

In “The Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire” and “Why Can China’s Red Regime Exist?”, he did three things:

Research: Clarified the essence of Chinese society, identified who are friends and who are enemies.

Inner seeking: Analyzed the internal conditions for the existence of the red regime, without hoping for the mercy of enemies.

Strategy: Proposed guerrilla warfare by workers and peasants, and formulated specific tactics. Contrast this with Chiang Kai-shek.

When faced with setbacks, his diary was filled with records like:

The defeat in Yuxiang-Gui campaign was caused by chaos within the CCP and internal corruption.

The loss in Northeast was not due to lack of strength, but due to incompetence and cowardice of subordinates.

The failure of the Xu-Beng campaign was because the generals were afraid of death, and Americans watched passively.

Do you see it?

Chiang Kai-shek’s thinking pattern was: external attribution.

Whenever problems arose, it was always the environment, subordinates, allies, or enemies being too cunning.

Only he himself was working hard and enduring hardships...

Therefore: most people, at 35, their way of thinking is completely Chiang Kai-shek’s.

When facing career bottlenecks, they blame the company;

When industry declines, they blame the economic environment;

When family pressure mounts, they blame their partner.

I find a psychological term very interesting: defensive attribution.

This mechanism allows you to feel psychological balance in the short term and less pain. But the cost is: you lose the ability to evolve.

Because you think the problem is always outside, so you don’t need to change.

Teacher’s thinking is internal control. No matter how bad the environment, I will analyze what I can do.

At 35, if you are still complaining about the environment, then your social class is indeed fixed.

If, like Teacher, you are still sitting on the sidelines researching how to divide land and establish bases, then 35 is just the starting point of your deep accumulation and potential eruption.

#毛泽东 #Chiang Kai-shek