#and the notion of privilege and material wealth and luck and how that can all flip at the drop of a hat with enough force
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
piosplayhouse · 2 years ago
Text
What is about mxtx characters that makes their worst fans become infamous for literally the opposite of what their faves represent.. like bad wwx fans being outright hostile towards anything that strays off the path of canon, bad sqq fans being dicks to teenagers with bad takes, and now bad sqx fans arguing that scum villain fans are just bitter over tgcf being luckier and getting more stuff right now. Like the fables write themselves
142 notes · View notes
theshatteredrose · 5 years ago
Text
Turquoise Lotus Father (Treasure Seekers Saga 2) - Chapter 8 - Etrian Odyssey 5 Fanfiction
Tumblr media
AN: Another chapter done, in spite of my headaches and sinus infection :’D Anyway, hope you enjoy reading and let me know what you think~!
Ao3 | Wattpad | FFNet
Chapter 8:
The delicious smell of breakfast greeted Drayce as he walked down the stairs. And as he stepped into the dining room, he received another greeting from none other than Tokala. The therian looked as cheerful and energetic as before. Perhaps even more so.
And, would you look at that, he wasn’t hiding his tail!
The same brown colour as his hair, his tail was long and fluffy (and curled into a circle at the tip), and wagged happily as he greeted everyone.
“Hey, good morning! I helped make breakfast for everyone, so eat up!”
“Tokala is quite talented in the kitchen,” Ashton stated as he placed a few plates of that delicious smelling food onto the table. “It was nice to have an extra set of hands, especially when it comes to feeding you lot.”
Drayce could honestly feel his mouth water. His stomach didn’t growl, thankfully. That would be embarrassing. “Looks delicious. Can’t wait to dig in.”
As Drayce sat down at the so-called head of the table, and his guildmates occupied the other seats, Caelem sat on the chair closest to him and tapped his arm to gain his attention.
“Is it ok if I help out in the library today?” he asked.
Drayce didn’t have a problem with that. “Sure, that’s fine.”
“We can swap places,” Kamali suggested. “I’d like to venture into the labyrinth today.”
“Ah, that’s good.” Caelem was rather relieved by that. He no doubt held the notion in his head that he was somehow letting down the guild by choosing to follow his interests rather than join his guildmates in the labyrinth.
Drayce leaned his elbow onto the table and rested his chin in the palm of his hand as he regarded Caelem. “You’re really into this research stuff, huh?”
Caelem instantly flushed a light pink. “Ah, w-well, I just want to learn as much as I can about my village’s founding father.”
Drayce laughed to show that he wasn’t judging him. It would be highly hypocritical of him to do so. “Haha, no no, it’s fine.” He then turned his attention toward their two new guests that sat on the other end of the table together. “What about you, Tokala, Salim?”
“Eh?” Salim appeared momentarily caught off guard by the question. “Er, dunno.”
“I left the necklace with Shashi,” Tokala began to prattle openly. “He promised to take care of it for me. Maybe Salim and I can explore around town? We haven’t really had the chance to.”
That sounded reasonable. They weren’t members of his guild, so it wasn’t like he could ask them to do something. Even if they were members, if they had other plans, they were welcomed to do whatever they want.
“That’s fine,” Drayce said absentmindedly. “Leave the investigation to us for the day then. Go out and have fun. Just be sure to be home before dark.”
“Home…” Tokala repeated slowly, his expression unreadable. A wide smile soon reappeared on his lips and he looked genuinely happy. “Ah, sure!”
Drayce simply sent Tokala a small smile before everyone fell into a comfortable silence as they enjoyed their breakfast. The food was quite delicious today. Ashton had always been a brilliant cook, but it seemed that Tokala was quite talented, too.
Ashton was a hard worker. He wondered if Tokala and Salim were willing to join his guild?
Never mind that for now. He had better get some food into him and get ready for a trek into the labyrinth.
Breakfast was quickly finished and those who were to enter the labyrinth today set off to gather their belongs and essentials. Drayce trekked back to his room to get himself dressed in his armour and adventuring clothes, as it were. His shield rested down stairs, along with his cannon. He kept them down there in case he needed to dash out into the labyrinth at a moment’s notice.
Before he left his room, he checked his pocket for an Ariadne Thread and tied it to his wrist in order to be in constant contact with it. The last thing he wanted was struggling to grab a hold of the thread to activate it while fending off a monster attack with his other hand. He certainly didn’t want to endure such a scenario against those Toxipedes.
“Ok, everyone ready to go?” Drayce asked as he stepped into the seating room.
Blayke, Kamali, Faelen, Nashoba, and Zohar were already there. And they appeared more than ready to go.
“Our goal for the day is to simply gather materials,” Drayce stated as he grabbed his cannon and shield, slipping the leather straps over his head and upon his shoulders within reaching range. “But if you guys hear or sense anything, do let me know immediately. We’ve been lucky so far with this project. We can only hope that our luck holds out just a little bit longer.”
“You got it,” Blayke returned, speaking for everyone.
With Drayce now ready to go as well, he turned to Ashton, the ever-dedicated caretaker who wanted to see them off. “We’ll be back sometime after lunch, most likely. But definitely before dark.”
“I’ll hold you to that,” Ashton said with a small smile.
With that done, they six of them headed out.
Using that neat little trick to skip straight to the second floor, the six of them soon found themselves in the opulent walls of Yggdrasil. It always surprised him how crisp and fresh the air was within the labyrinth. The scents and smells were invigorating. Not to mention the sights of the beautiful flowers and lush green foliage.
They soon found in their usual formation. Drayce took the lead with Blayke a mere step or so behind him. Faelen with his faithful wolf by his side took the middle. While Kamali came next, and at the back came Zohar.
Drayce soon got used to hearing the footfalls of his companions. Blayke’s stern marching. Faelen’s quick footsteps in time with his beloved wolf. Kamali’s calm wandering. And Zohar’s steady pace. It was relaxing, in a way. A steady rhythm.
And yet he was certain that he was hearing another. One attempting to match his own. And when Drayce purposely missed one of his steps, he heard a much softer one fall in his place. A soft growl from Nashoba and a light tug on Drayce’s arm from Blayke told him that he wasn’t the only one who noticed.
They were being followed.
“Drayce,” he said quietly but sternly.
Drayce nodded his head. “Yeah. Go for it.”
At soon as those words left his lips, Blayke darted off to the left, toward the sound of the mysterious footfalls. With his rapier at the ready in a purely offensive stance, he lunged toward the foliage. As he stabbed into the undergrowth, there was an immediate response. A response in the sound of a high-pitched yelp in surprise and in a flurry of leaves, someone appeared.
A young man by appearance. Blue hair, green eyes, and clothing that were a little…unusual. Dark blue pants and blazer with a white button-up shirt.
“Wha-?” the guy spluttered as he held up a blade that was similar to the one that Caelem wielded defensively. “H-hey, put that sword away! I’m completely innocent here!”
“Why should I?” Blayke spat as he kept his rapier toward the kid, even as another silently revealed themselves from the foliage. “You’ve been following us.”
The other man, a harbinger by appearance if the dark purple leather and large scythe he carried easily over his shoulder was any indication. He had long purple hair with a peculiar blue streak that framed the left side of his face. He also had quite piercing dark pink eyes. Though, he kept his eyes downward toward the ground, even as he moved to stand next to the blue haired guy.
The guy with blue hair unexpectedly lowered his weapon and rubbed the back of his neck in a totally unguarded way. “Ah, well, it’s because…” he started before a broad smile slipped across his lips. “Heh, we’re lost as shit.”
Huh, Drayce wasn’t expecting that, honestly. Blayke didn’t seem to believe him, though.
“Shh…” Faelen whispered softly to Nashoba. The white wolf had his heckles raised and his head low to the ground. He was growling softly as he stared at the two strangers before.
“Something wrong, Fae?” Drayce asked as he checked in on the young rover.
“Nashoba isn’t fond of them,” Faelen replied simply as he crouched down next to the wolf, keeping his hand on his companion’s back in an attempt to settle and calm him.
“Oh, come on!” the guy with the blue haired whined childishly. “Really, I’m totally innocent. And lost.” He turned to the man next to him and his tone took on a…well, cooing tone. “Aren’t we, Runi~?”
The other, ah Runi (that may just be a nickname, though), didn’t immediately respond. He barely even lifted his head. “…Yes,” he finally uttered in a rather sullen voice.
Drayce took a moment to study the two. He couldn’t really see or even sense anything untoward about them. They appeared like a pair of down on your luck explorers that were just starting out, lured in by the stories of wealth and privilege of Yggdrasil.
“I see,” Drayce said as he approached the two. “Are you part of a guild?”
“Yup,” the more chatty of the two cheerfully replied. “There’s two of us at the moment, but we’re totally a guild.”
While Drayce didn’t see much of a threat from the two, Blyake was still very suspicious. “I don’t believe that.”
That received a childish pout from the blue-haired guy. “Dude, why so suspicious?”
“For many, many reasons, I assure you,” Blayke returned swiftly as he kept his rapier toward him. “And I’m not afraid to get violent if I have to.”
“Wow, ok, cool.” That was rather sarcastic. He wasn’t all that afraid.
“Blayke, easy,” Drayce said as he placed a hand on Blayke’s back, prompting him to lower his blade. He stayed suspicious, though, and continued to glare at the two. Especially when Drayce took to the front to regard the two. “So, you two are lost, are you?”
“Heard that you can get some rare materials on this floor that get you some good money. We’re just starting out with this explorer business, you know? Not as easy as they say…” he paused for a moment as he glanced down at the ground to the side. He soon painted a broad smile on his lips once again. “Anyway, the name’s Keita, but you can call me Kei. And this is Runihura, but you can call him Runi~”
Runihura didn’t make an attempt to response. And he still wouldn’t lift his head to look at anyone.
That was rather curious.
“Well, it’s nice to meet you, fellow explorers. My name is Drayce, this is Blayke, Faelen, Zohar, and Kamali.”
“Nice to meet ya,” Keita chimed happily as he took a moment to cast a gaze over everyone. He soon narrowed in on Faelen. “Especially you, Faelen~ Your hair really is quite stunning. It looks like fairy floss. I could just eat you all up.”
Faelen flushed lightly and subconsciously hid behind Drayce. Drayce, himself, felt his protective heckles raised and Nashoba uttered a low, threatening growl.
“Keep your hands where I can see them,” Drayce found himself stated in a stern manner.
Keita snorted, not remotely intimidated. “Protective, much?”
“Extremely,” Drayce replied quickly. “But especially of my little brother. He’s fifteen, just so you know.”
“Ok, cool,” Keita responded dismissively before he rested his weapon upon his shoulder and shoved his free hand into the pocket of his trousers. “Anyway, you guys look like you know where you’re going so that’s why we’ve been following you. Really. Ain’t that right, Runi?”
Runihura still made no attempt to respond. Or even react to them at all.
Keita sighed deeply and loudly. “Man, you’re just a bubbly conversationalist, aren’t you?”
Drayce shook his head in mild amusement while Faelen uttered a small giggle.
Keita immediately turned his head in Faelen’s direction and smiled widely. “Oh hey, I got a giggle. Sweet.”
Faelen flushed again and ducked further behind Drayce. He did lean around him ever so slightly so he could peer at the strange youth.
Drayce didn’t get a bad vibe from the two. They were a little odd, but who wasn’t, right? If what they said was true, they were new to the gig of exploration and where currently lost. Being lost in the labyrinth was dangerous. He couldn’t turn his back on a pair of explorers.
“Alright, you two can tag along,” Drayce said. “But don’t do anything reckless, ok?”
“Alright, cool!” Keita grinned again. “We’ll be good.”
Well, they would have to wait to see.
They fell into a semi-awkward silence as Drayce reinstated their journey. He took his place at the lead as the others trailed together behind him. Blayke stayed closer to Faelen, though, as did Nashoba. Neither of the very protective two liked Keita’s interest and proximity to the sweet rover.
Drayce, himself, kept a closer eye on Faelen. But that was just the leader in him. He was protective of everyone. Especially in regards to someone he didn’t know all that well, yet.
“Hey, you have something in your hair,” Keita suddenly announced.
Drayce looked over his shoulder just in time to watch as Keita pulled a green leaf from Faelen’s hair, causing the rover to look rather uncomfortable. “Ah…?”
Blayke immediately slapped Keita’s hand away. “Brat, weren’t you told to keep those god damn hands to yourself?”
“Come on, I’m not doing anything,” Keita immediately protested. “Besides his hair looks like cotton candy~”
Faelen tilted his head to the side. “What’s cotton candy?”
Keita released an overly dramatic gasp and looked absolutely scandalised. “You’ve never had cotton candy?! That’s an outrage!”
Blayke bristled wildly. “God damn it, brat, shut up!”
“Boo, stop being such a stick in the mud!”
“If you don’t shut the fuck up, I’ll be burying you up to your neck in mud!”
The kid was loud and carefree, it seemed. He definitely rubbed Blayke the wrong way!
Yet, there was…something not quite authentic about the Keita. Runihura was rather suspicious himself. He wouldn’t look at anyone. He would just look down at the ground in front of him, refusing to make eye-contact.
Maybe he was just a bit awkward. Not everyone was made for prolonged social interaction.
Drayce shook his head to clear it. It was best for him to concentrate on trekking through the labyrinth for the time being. He needed to keep an eye out for any gathering points. From what Zohar told him, they were looking for something that was far different than the mining spots that were located on the first floor.
Blayke and Keita continued to bicker as they travelled through the halls.
As they entered into an open area, Drayce’s gaze was drawn to the darken corner. There were more flowers located in that area. Flowers and plants that he hadn’t seen previously. He was able to lead the group over in order to give a closer inspection, but a hand touching his arm pulled him to a stop.
“Drayce?”
Upon hearing Kamali’s voice, Drayce immediately turned his attention to him. “Hm?”
Kamali leaned forward and cupped his hand around his mouth. So Drayce leaned forward with his head to the side to allow the warlock to talk into his ear. “I sense mana nearby. It’s faint, but it’s near that grove over there, I believe.”
He had indicated to the flowery corner that had gained Drayce’s attention.
“Ok,” Drayce said in response. “You do the searching then, ok?”
Kamali leaned back and gave him a small smile. “Of course.”
The others of the party seemed to be distracted by Keita’s antics with Blayke, so Drayce just silently led everyone to the possible gathering point. Kamali dutifully stepped forward and crouched down to inspect the ground and vegetation. And Drayce took on a protective stance to ensure that a monster wouldn’t attempt to ambush them.
After a few seconds, Kamali unexpectedly uttered a soft noise of surprise. Drayce immediately turned to look at him and found the warlock already up on his face. He held something tightly in his enclosed hands.
Before Drayce could ask if he found something interesting, Kamali huddled close to him and unfurled his hands to reveal a small silver token. In the shape of a coin. But it wasn’t the fact that it was silver, nor in the shape of a coin that immediately caught his attention. Within the very centre of the coin was an engraving. Of a lotus.
“This is…?”
“It’s a token of some kind.” Kamali kept his voice low so not to arouse suspicion. “And the pattern is similar to that of the one of the music box.”
“Is this what we need to activate the map?” Drayce asked quickly.
Kamali gave a small smile. “Possibly.”
What a find!
They were suddenly interrupted by none other than Keita who physically pushed his way between the two of them. “What you guys whispering about? Find something rare?” his gaze soon fell onto the silver token in Kamali’s hands. The kid moved faster than Kamali could react. “Wow, that IS a rare one. Can I have it?”
Blayke grabbed Keita by the shoulder and roughly pulled him back. “Are you serious? We found it,” he snapped.
“You won’t give it to me?” Keita pouted. A grin suddenly slipped across his lips and he took a step back.
And before anyone could react, he grabbed his blade in both hands, one grasping the handle, the other the sheath. He then lifted the blade up and pulled the blade halfway out of the sheath. He slipped around behind Faelen, dropped the blade over his head, and directed the sharpen edge toward Faelen’s throat.
“What about now?” Keita smirked.
Drayce felt his heart leap into his throat. “What? Fae!”
“D-Drayce…” Faelen stuttered.
Keita shifted to pull Faelen closer toward him, ensuring that he was a shield between them. Runihura ducked behind Keita, but did little else.
Drayce instinctively reached for his weapon, while Blayke did the same. Kamali clutched the silver token tightly in one hand while the other reached out to snare Nashoba’s collar, keeping the wolf from lunging.
“W-why?” Faelen murmured, his voice soft and shaky. And seemingly on the verge of tearing up.
“Hey, any excuse to get closer to you, right?” Keita returned with a sickly flirtatious smile. He even went as far as to nuzzle his cheek against the top of Faelen’s head. “Your hair really is as soft as it looks.”
Upon hearing Faelen whimper, Drayce found himself levelling his gun directly at Keita. Aiming for right between the eyes.
“Ok, you’ve got two seconds to release him before I put a bullet in your neck,” Drayce hissed. He was inwardly surprised by the anger in his voice, yet not so much. That kid tricked him and was using Faelen as a hostage. He had every right to be angry.
“How violent,” Keita cooed mockingly as he brought his blade a few millimetres closer to Faelen’s neck. “Just hand over the token and we’ll leave.”
He couldn’t trust his word, but he was in no state to negotiate either.
“Fine.”
Keita appeared honestly surprised for a short second. “That was quick.” He soon shrugged before he made a motion with his head. “Runi.”
Drayce wasn’t going to risk Kamali being pulled into a hostage situation, too. So he took the token from him and held it out in an outstretched hand himself. Runihura silently stepped out from behind Keita and hurried over toward Drayce. Oddly enough, the harbinger still wouldn’t lift his gaze toward him. Even as he snatched the token from his hand and darted back quickly.
“The real thing?” Keita asked as he kept Faelen in front of him.
“Yes,” Runihura answered simply.
“Good,” Keita muttered before he smiled broadly and insincerely. “See, no harm done. We’ll catch you guys later. And thanks for finding the token for us!”
Keita thankfully dropped his arms from around Faelen and leapt back. Faelen stumbled forward slightly and clutched at his throat. Drayce dropped his hold on his cannon, instead reaching out to take Faelen into his protective arms. He held him close to his chest as Blayke and Zohar stepped forward. Nashoba also leapt forward, ready to tear a hole or two in Keita.
But the brat managed to stay out of range. And infuriatingly, he continued to smile.
“Later, precious!” he cooed, likely directed toward Faelen, before he disappeared into the foliage of the labyrinth. Runihura close behind him.
With the others of their party making a semi-circle around them, Drayce took a step back and crouched down in front of Faelen. He kept one of his on his shoulders as he carefully inspected him for any injuries with the other. He immediately searched his throat first.
“Are you all right? Let me look at you. Did he hurt you? Where did he touch you?”
Thankfully, there didn’t appeared to be any injuries. Nothing to his throat. No blood. No cuts.
“I’m…fine,” Faelen replied shakily.
A strong prang of guilt struck Drayce right in the chest. “Fae…I’m so sorry.”
“It wasn’t your fault!” Faelen immediately insisted. “You couldn’t have known!”
There was some logic to that, but Drayce’s guilt and concern overrode all of that. He was, however, thankful that the young rover hadn’t been physically harmed. So grateful in fact that he pulled Faelen into a tight hug, which was immediately returned.
Nashoba snuggled up to Faelen, nudging his hand with his nose as Kamali rubbed a comforting hand up and down his back. Drayce felt a light tingling sensation race up his spine. And as he lifted his gaze, he immediately realised that Zohar had summoned Theodore. Likely as a precautionary measure.
The likelihood of those two returning was slim. But better safe than sorry.
Blayke uttered a frustrated sight. “I might be making a wild assumption here, but those two are probably bandits.”
Drayce pulled away from his hug with Faelen, but kept him close to his side. “Yeah.”
“They knew of that token. Before we did,” Zohar murmured as he and a surprisingly serious Theodore kept a narrow and suspicious gaze at their surroundings. “Perhaps there are others?”
That was a strong possibility.
“Yeah,” Drayce sighed as he scooped up his cannon and holstered it to his side. “I think we know who’s been tailing us this whole time.”
Blayke kicked at the ground, utterly frustrated. “Tch. I knew it wouldn’t be long before those bandits got involved.” He ran a hand through his hair. “We’re going to have to tell Ramus about this.”
Drayce couldn’t prevent himself from wincing. “You’re right.” He sighed aloud as he idly ran his fingers through Faelen’s hair. “Let’s…head home for now. Those tokens need to be researched, as well.”
And more importantly, he wanted to get Faelen and his guildmates somewhere safe. He didn’t care what those bandits did to him, but they weren’t allowed to lay a finger on any of his guildmates!
2 notes · View notes
oldguardaudio · 4 years ago
Text
When Politicians Call For Fairness - They're Usually Lying
When Politicians Call For 'Fairness,' They're Usually Lying
By Ben Shapiro
September 22, 2021
  This week, President Joe Biden attempted to inject life into his ailing presidency by dragging out of the closet the hoariest of political cliches: "fairness" in taxation. Touting his new $3.5 trillion tax and spending bill, which would radically increase corporate taxes, personal income taxes and so-called sin taxes, Biden stated, "It's not enough just to build back; we have to build back better than before ... I'm not out to punish anyone. I'm a capitalist. If you can make a million or a billion dollars, that's great. God bless you. All I'm asking is you pay your fair share. Pay your fair share just like middle-class folks do."
Of course, those who earn high incomes don't pay like middle-class folks do. They pay far, far more. IRS statistics show that the top 1% of income earners pay more in federal income tax than the bottom 90% combined — while the top 1% earned 21% of all income in 2018, they paid 40 % of all income tax revenue. The top 10 % paid over 70 % of all federal income tax. In fact, according to the American Enterprise Institute, those in the highest quintile of income earners pay, on average, well over $50,000 per year in net taxes — taxes minus government benefits received — while those in the bottom 60% of income earners receive net tax benefits. According to The Washington Post, the top 10 % of American income earners pay nearly half of all income taxes, compared with just 27% for the top 10% of Swedes, 31% for the top 10% of Germans, and 28% for France's top 10%.
So what, precisely, does Biden mean by "pay their fair share"?
    Perhaps he means simple sloganeering. Like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez donning a Cinderella ball gown emblazoned with the words "TAX THE RICH" to the Met Gala — a dress made by Aurora James, a woman who owes tens of thousands of dollars in back taxes and who has received over $40,000 in federal pandemic aid — class warfare sloganeering is more about the sloganeering than the class warfare. No Democrat seems prepared to define what "fairness" constitutes, other than "a word I use to pander to the rubes, while hobnobbing with the rich."
And Biden's "fairness" pitch has to do with good economic policy, of course. In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama was asked during a debate about raising the capital gains tax, even if it lowered net government revenue. He answered, "I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." In other words, Obama explicitly stated that he would damage the economy on behalf of a vague, kindergarten notion of equal outcome.
In the end, the "tax the rich to be fair" notion rests on a simple lie: the lie that income distribution is purely a matter of privilege or luck. It isn't. In the main, in a free market system, income distribution is the result of successful decision-making that must be incentivized rather than punished if we wish to see a more prosperous society. Some people game the system; some are indeed beneficiaries of insider deal-making. But most success in capitalism is due to innovation, entrepreneurialism and creativity. Biden's "fairness" cuts directly against these core elements of progress on behalf of political pandering.
    If we truly care about fairness — a more nuanced and complete definition of fairness that encompasses rewards for productive decisions and disincentives for counterproductive decision-making — we must abandon the politically convenient notion that those who earn more have somehow stolen from the system and must be punished for their crimes. Lack of distributive equality does not equal unfairness, and anyone who argues differently abandons the real world — and the possibility of a better life for everyone — in favor of the flattering lie that all roads ought to end in the same basic material outcome.
Ben Shapiro, 37, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, host of "The Ben Shapiro Show," and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is the author of the New York Times bestsellers "How To Destroy America In Three Easy Steps," "The Right Side Of History," and "Bullies." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.
Photo credit: Free-Photos at Pixabay
            Like it? Share it!
      1
opinion conservative conservative taxes economics free market wealth capitalism taxation inequality fairness tax the rich
Tumblr media
About Ben Shapiro
Read More | RSS | Subscribe
Check out my new Podcast | Audio episode!
0 notes
s7groupinc-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesconsulting-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radleybatesdigital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ��paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesassociates-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesvaluations-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatescapital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
s7groupinc-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesconsulting-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radleybatesdigital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesassociates-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesvaluations-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatescapital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes