4 ms·

Privilege is highly underappreciated. Take Mozart or even composers coming from poverty like Beethoven or Brahms. They were all privileged in various ways, eit

Privilege is highly underappreciated. Take Mozart or even composers coming from poverty like Beethoven or Brahms. They were all privileged in various ways, either from being born in a musical family that recognized the prodigy early on (Mozart and Beethoven -- a poor musical family for Beethoven), and I mean extraordinarily early. I think the greater shame would be if we did not appreciate their prodigy. That people have different potential for different things is an inherent consequence of human diversity. As long as individuals are significantly different both culturally as well as physically/mentally (and as long as variation is as unpredictable as it is -- which is probably inherent), we'll need to discover and give opportunity to the right individuals to lead or create what they have to create. I think diversity (and its limitation -- which also allows understanding each other and our internal worlds) is one of the most interesting traits of the human condition. I certainly would prefer we had a wide ranging system for detecting potential and providing exceptional conditions for the development of certain people (I don't know if this could be called privilege or not), less sensitive of their initial economic condition, class, or place of birth.

wwweston 6y ago
> Privilege is highly underappreciated. Perhaps if it was more widely distributed it would be more broadly appreciated. ;) (or taken for granted, YMMV)
- chii 6y ago
  If privilege was widely distributed, it ceases to be "privilege". The very fact that it's _not_ widely distributed makes it a privilege!
  - gjm11 6y ago
    That's true for some reasonable definitions of "privilege" but not others. Originally-originally, "privilege" meant being subject to some special dispensation that e.g. exempted you from laws that applied to everyone else. (Latin: "private law".) The term then broadened to apply to other sorts of advantages held by individuals and groups, and indeed earlier uses of it are concerned only with unusual advantages enjoyed by (say) the upper classes. But these days it's commonly used to mean any substantial unearned advantage that people have as a result of belonging to one group rather than another. And by that definition, a kind of privilege absolutely can be widely distributed. For instance, it is widely and plausibly held that being male confers substantial advantages in life -- that people take men more seriously, are more inclined to promote men to senior positions, tend to give credit to men rather than women for projects in which both are involved, etc. (In, let's say, Western Europe and North America.) Some people disagree with that, saying that maybe it was so 30 years ago but that that sort of sexist discrimination has basically gone away now. Some of those people go further and say that actually now it's being female that confers unearned advantages. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would agree that at least one of the following two propositions is true: (1) 30 years ago, being male conferred substantial unearned advantages in life. (2) Now, being female confers substantial unearned advantages in life. Either way, we've got an example of a widely-distributed characteristic that confers substantial advantages for reasons other than merit.
  - nwienert 6y ago
    Which is exactly why it’s important to remind those who have it, especially when they tend to enjoy authoring ode’s of self-congratulation.
- gnramires 6y ago
  I agree! Disregarding that technically everyone can't be privileged -- taking it in the sense each individual should have the opportunity to develop as much as his potential. Things are of course never so simple, as there are limited resources, we can't always tell what their potentials (esp. of children) are, some potentials add more value to society, and sometimes the individuals don't even want to develop their potential! This should be a primary goal of education. Then it becomes very personal, exciting, ready to bring out the best in ourselves.
bawolff 6y ago
Privilige is a lot like talent (i suppose talent is a type of privilige). Yes it is needed to succeed, and yes it is unfairly distributed. However, people think that's all that is needed to succeed at a high level, where really that is about 5% of what is needed. The other 95% is a lot of hard work and self improvement. Which is hard. I know i personally probably don't have the self control to work hard enough to truly make it big. For some reason humans seem to fixate on the part of the equation we cannot control, even though its the part that probably matters the least.
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > The other 95% is a lot of hard work and self improvement. That is not my experience. I see that as Magical Voluntarism. It's also not true for the 99% of humans who are having to make do with a plundered commons [1]. [1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-11/guy-standings-plunder-of-the-commons/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-11/guy-standings-...
  - darawk 6y ago
    There are enormous numbers, in absolute terms, that are reasonably privileged in the modern world. Millions. But only a tiny number of those people go on to found a billion dollar company, or become one of the greatest composers in world history. It's unequivocally true that privilege plays an important role, and that we should strive to give everyone that same level of opportunity. But the people that succeed at the level of PG or Mozart are clearly working harder, and/or are more innately talented than their equally privileged peers.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > But only a tiny number of those people go on to found a billion dollar company, or become one of the greatest composers in world history. That aren't the only things that qualify as "succeed" though, are they? Most of those that are privileged succeed. They may not turn $10mm into $10bn, but they'll likely see it turn into $20mm. I agree generally that the money & connections you start out with aren't all, but 5%? No, certainly not. We'd see many rich people fall into poverty if that was the case. > But the people that succeed at the level of PG or Mozart are clearly working harder, and/or are more innately talented than their equally privileged peers. That I agree with, completely. Hard work is a multiplier. But working three times as hard with $1000 won't get you close to just working normally with $10,000,000.

wwweston 6y ago

> Privilege is highly underappreciated. Perhaps if it was more widely distributed it would be more broadly appreciated. ;) (or taken for granted, YMMV)

chii 6y ago
If privilege was widely distributed, it ceases to be "privilege". The very fact that it's _not_ widely distributed makes it a privilege!
- gjm11 6y ago
  That's true for some reasonable definitions of "privilege" but not others. Originally-originally, "privilege" meant being subject to some special dispensation that e.g. exempted you from laws that applied to everyone else. (Latin: "private law".) The term then broadened to apply to other sorts of advantages held by individuals and groups, and indeed earlier uses of it are concerned only with unusual advantages enjoyed by (say) the upper classes. But these days it's commonly used to mean any substantial unearned advantage that people have as a result of belonging to one group rather than another. And by that definition, a kind of privilege absolutely can be widely distributed. For instance, it is widely and plausibly held that being male confers substantial advantages in life -- that people take men more seriously, are more inclined to promote men to senior positions, tend to give credit to men rather than women for projects in which both are involved, etc. (In, let's say, Western Europe and North America.) Some people disagree with that, saying that maybe it was so 30 years ago but that that sort of sexist discrimination has basically gone away now. Some of those people go further and say that actually now it's being female that confers unearned advantages. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone would agree that at least one of the following two propositions is true: (1) 30 years ago, being male conferred substantial unearned advantages in life. (2) Now, being female confers substantial unearned advantages in life. Either way, we've got an example of a widely-distributed characteristic that confers substantial advantages for reasons other than merit.
- nwienert 6y ago
  Which is exactly why it’s important to remind those who have it, especially when they tend to enjoy authoring ode’s of self-congratulation.
gnramires 6y ago
I agree! Disregarding that technically everyone can't be privileged -- taking it in the sense each individual should have the opportunity to develop as much as his potential. Things are of course never so simple, as there are limited resources, we can't always tell what their potentials (esp. of children) are, some potentials add more value to society, and sometimes the individuals don't even want to develop their potential! This should be a primary goal of education. Then it becomes very personal, exciting, ready to bring out the best in ourselves.

bawolff 6y ago

Privilige is a lot like talent (i suppose talent is a type of privilige). Yes it is needed to succeed, and yes it is unfairly distributed. However, people think that's all that is needed to succeed at a high level, where really that is about 5% of what is needed. The other 95% is a lot of hard work and self improvement. Which is hard. I know i personally probably don't have the self control to work hard enough to truly make it big. For some reason humans seem to fixate on the part of the equation we cannot control, even though its the part that probably matters the least.

bergstromm466 6y ago
> The other 95% is a lot of hard work and self improvement. That is not my experience. I see that as Magical Voluntarism. It's also not true for the 99% of humans who are having to make do with a plundered commons [1]. [1] https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-11/guy-standings-plunder-of-the-commons/ https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-12-11/guy-standings-...
- darawk 6y ago
  There are enormous numbers, in absolute terms, that are reasonably privileged in the modern world. Millions. But only a tiny number of those people go on to found a billion dollar company, or become one of the greatest composers in world history. It's unequivocally true that privilege plays an important role, and that we should strive to give everyone that same level of opportunity. But the people that succeed at the level of PG or Mozart are clearly working harder, and/or are more innately talented than their equally privileged peers.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > But only a tiny number of those people go on to found a billion dollar company, or become one of the greatest composers in world history. That aren't the only things that qualify as "succeed" though, are they? Most of those that are privileged succeed. They may not turn $10mm into $10bn, but they'll likely see it turn into $20mm. I agree generally that the money & connections you start out with aren't all, but 5%? No, certainly not. We'd see many rich people fall into poverty if that was the case. > But the people that succeed at the level of PG or Mozart are clearly working harder, and/or are more innately talented than their equally privileged peers. That I agree with, completely. Hard work is a multiplier. But working three times as hard with $1000 won't get you close to just working normally with $10,000,000.