The Moral Peril of Meritocracy | Hacker News Reader

The Moral Peril of Meritocracy

nytimes.com

24 pointsyarapavan12 comments

> What happens when a ‘gifted child’ finds himself in a wilderness where he’s stripped away of any way of proving his worth?

You primarily prove your worth to yourself, and if that capability is stripped away then you get depressed. You learn helplessness. The author is conflating proving your worth to proving your worth to others. Then he goes on to make an insane conclusion to shed the self, dissolve the ego.. This is the type of guidance that gives gurus and pseudo-counselors a job for life.

I have a commitment to my family, and I know deep down that it’s primarily because of the benefit to my own well-being. I had kids because I wanted them. So what I benefit? If I’m a good dad, everyone wins. There is no other motivation mechanism in the natural world.

But how do you know your own worth? Worth being a social construct requires the evaluation of others. You cannot give yourself worth any more than you can 'give' yourself material wealth in a thought. The value of self worth is in direct proportion to the defined ego: the thing the creates the distinction between the "I" and "Them". Ergo, if you give yourself a worth, you are feeding your ego an illusion of social acceptance of the 'Other'. The way to move beyond the whole craving situation is to reduce the desire for the self-worth (i.e. putting the ego on a diet).

You know your worth (in the moment) primarily as the felt experience of your calm-energy level. When it goes up, you’re firing on all cylinders in a non-manic way, you are at your 100%. That is a person who is experiencing their worth. If that is driven by the evaluation of others (as you perceive it), then what happens to you if you are around manipulative people who want you to behave in their best interests at the expense of your own? And since you can assume that you will generally find yourself around such people, I can tell you that narrative, ‘worth is a social construct requiring the evaluation of others’, is a path to misery.

You sure can include the opinion of others, you should to some degree as we live in a society, and our safety and support depends on other people, but you should make an assessment of the people who are making judgements on you. If you are around criminals, gaining their approval is likelier to land you in jail, which will lead to a future with diminished calm-energy. (Though if you cannot escape savage circumstances outside then maybe jail is better for you).

I know what your saying, but I think it's still reversed. What is this "worth" of "calm-energy level"? I like being calm, but I find no rewarding value (aside from a better mood). Instead, what I'm defining is that your sense of calm arises from when you just stop looking to define yourself (and your worth). The calm is a byproduct of feeling more connected between things- which necessitates the awareness of worth to diminish. How can one thing and other thing have worth if they are all the same, interconnected thing? Seeking self-worth is predestined to make you never find it. This is a bit similar with self-love, where love is something you 'allow' to happen (instead of 'giving'). Loving yourself is allowing yourself to be yourself, which is why it's also called self-acceptance.

That's a new way to spell oligarchy, or do ladders on mountains roll from the bottom up? Articles like this spell out a painful economic correction of overheated speculation, add that to EU tensions the eventual Yuan float and the standard 4 year political blackmail play being rolled out again to hedge against hyperfinancialization. Irresponsible and jaded advertising to keep the lights on, preying on the naive, miseducated and historically blind public. If you like this guys mountain he might sell you his bridge to get across.

It considerably understates the case to say that I carry no brief for David Brooks, but even so, I can't argue or even quibble with anything he says here.

Has some interesting ideas but also some I disagree with strongly.

Very little in our society is truly a meritocracy. Even when he starts using that word he simultaneously describes self-promotion and politics. Those are the things that are rewarded, and it is strange that he conflates them with merit.

> [...] while our educational system generally prepares us for climbing this or that mountain, your life is actually defined by how you make use of your moment of greatest adversity.

That statement is giving me a lot to think about. Thanks for submitting this link.

There was a recent episode of the New Economics Foundation podcast “The Myth of Meritocracy” [1] that had a lengthy discussion in the U.K. context. I read a little of Jo Littler’s “Against Meritocracy” [2] book.

[1] https://neweconomics.org/2019/08/weekly-economics-podcast-th...

[2] https://www.routledge.com/Against-Meritocracy-Open-Access-Cu...

None of this discounts a meritocracy, it simply discounts the notion that the only goal in life is monetary. If you look at many organizations (non-corporate), position and reward don't come in monetary or positions of power, but in fulfillment. Doctors Without Borders, Buddhist monasteries, etc. etc. Yet all of these will reward effort and merit in some way or another, unless I'm missing something here. While this was a sweet little story and all, merit has function and the baby shouldn't be thrown out with the bath water.

Of course, whether or not the philosophy described in the article has merit, one has to ask what purpose it might serve the author and the publication to produce this article now.

Me, I think it's to have something to point to when the recession hits, and then say "See? It's not so bad. You'll be better off for it. Don't worry about why this happened, or why things like this seem to keep happening. It's an intensely personal journey you're on, and the last thing you need to be worrying about is how those of us who enjoy a comfortable life in walled enclaves keep effortlessly doing so while everything you had is now gone."

That's just me, though.

> I can now usually recognize first- and second-mountain people. The former have an ultimate allegiance to self; the latter have an ultimate allegiance to some commitment. I can recognize first- and second-mountain organizations too. In some organizations, people are there to serve their individual self-interests — draw a salary. But other organizations demand that you surrender to a shared cause and so change your very identity. You become a Marine, a Morehouse Man.

The second mountain mindset sounds like a great mindset to get indoctrinated into a cult with. And what types of people are more likely to get indoctrinated into a cult? Those in what the article describes as the "valley". Those going through harsh times.

I'm not saying you should only serve yourself, but the mindset the author describes as the 2nd mountain is pretty terrifying.

Love is unconditional, but you still need to think for & about yourself. Also I'm not cleaning a room twice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com