I read this article with interest, and it captures much of what I believe in. It's just that, since I'm not one of those wealthy 1%, I feel like I'd come across too much as though what I'm trying to say is just sour grapes.
Still, if you look throughout history I think the signs of decline are rather consistent. A group of elite gain control, and they use that power unwisely...to their own advantage. They alienate the have nots, who eventually get angry enough to rise up and overthrow the elite. Rinse, recycle, repeat.
Easy to look at the French aristocrats and see their role in the French Revolution. Less easy to see it today, in ourselves. (It doesn't help that a system on the verge of collapse can linger. How long has North Korea stood?)
Signs of decline? When talented people are stifled, and have little chance to succeed. (Supposedly part of why Napoleon won so many battles. The Revolution allowed talented commoners to advance, where before they were stuck following less talented aristocrats.) When people start justifying the situation, claiming that they deserve (or are entitled) to being in those top roles. (i.e. claims that the nobility is naturally better and more deserving.)
What's funny is that we consider ourselves a meritocracy, at least the ones at the top do. Probably don't consider any of this as applicable.
Yet that's what all the stories about the squeezing of the middle class, the growing costs of college, the shifting of college aid to those already wealthy rather than to the smart but needy...all of that sums up to a change. You can't really claim that the people on top are deserving, when so many people never even got the chance to compete.
For me, personally? I've known too many extremely smart people who couldn't afford to go to college, too many regular people working extremely hard just to stay afloat, and too many mediocre people who think they deserve to be in charge, to believe the cream always rises to the top.
Yet in a way, that isn't what bothers me the most. It seems in any society, some group manages to come out ahead. What bothers me is tied up with good decision-making, or the lack thereof.
First - my favourite, groupthink. When too many people come from the same types of backgrounds, they think so much alike that they are more likely to make the same leaps in logic...and convince themselves that they've thought it all out. We have far too many examples of 'the best and the brightest' coming up with poorly vetted plans and I think part of it is the similar training and backgrounds of all our elites.
Second - it's too easy to convince themselves that they are somehow wiser, or better. That they don't have to worry about the appearances of favouritism or bias, because of course they are too smart or wise to be influenced like that. That nice, cozy, friendly relationship may not seem bad to the ones involved. Heck, that's part of what everyone looks for in life...and can probably even seem good.
Just - not when it creates a good ol' boys network that marginalizes or neglects others. Or makes it appear that who you know is more important than what you're capable of.
Still, if you look throughout history I think the signs of decline are rather consistent. A group of elite gain control, and they use that power unwisely...to their own advantage. They alienate the have nots, who eventually get angry enough to rise up and overthrow the elite. Rinse, recycle, repeat.
Easy to look at the French aristocrats and see their role in the French Revolution. Less easy to see it today, in ourselves. (It doesn't help that a system on the verge of collapse can linger. How long has North Korea stood?)
Signs of decline? When talented people are stifled, and have little chance to succeed. (Supposedly part of why Napoleon won so many battles. The Revolution allowed talented commoners to advance, where before they were stuck following less talented aristocrats.) When people start justifying the situation, claiming that they deserve (or are entitled) to being in those top roles. (i.e. claims that the nobility is naturally better and more deserving.)
What's funny is that we consider ourselves a meritocracy, at least the ones at the top do. Probably don't consider any of this as applicable.
Yet that's what all the stories about the squeezing of the middle class, the growing costs of college, the shifting of college aid to those already wealthy rather than to the smart but needy...all of that sums up to a change. You can't really claim that the people on top are deserving, when so many people never even got the chance to compete.
For me, personally? I've known too many extremely smart people who couldn't afford to go to college, too many regular people working extremely hard just to stay afloat, and too many mediocre people who think they deserve to be in charge, to believe the cream always rises to the top.
Yet in a way, that isn't what bothers me the most. It seems in any society, some group manages to come out ahead. What bothers me is tied up with good decision-making, or the lack thereof.
First - my favourite, groupthink. When too many people come from the same types of backgrounds, they think so much alike that they are more likely to make the same leaps in logic...and convince themselves that they've thought it all out. We have far too many examples of 'the best and the brightest' coming up with poorly vetted plans and I think part of it is the similar training and backgrounds of all our elites.
Second - it's too easy to convince themselves that they are somehow wiser, or better. That they don't have to worry about the appearances of favouritism or bias, because of course they are too smart or wise to be influenced like that. That nice, cozy, friendly relationship may not seem bad to the ones involved. Heck, that's part of what everyone looks for in life...and can probably even seem good.
Just - not when it creates a good ol' boys network that marginalizes or neglects others. Or makes it appear that who you know is more important than what you're capable of.
No comments:
Post a Comment