3 ms·

In addition to racial discrimination, there is privilege discrimination (on the basis of luck). This can affect you regardless of race but of course it's likely

In addition to racial discrimination, there is privilege discrimination (on the basis of luck). This can affect you regardless of race but of course it's likely worse when combined with racial factors. Privilege discrimination can be quite overwhelming because the media doesn't talk about it and the perpetrators of it don't hold back at all. Some ways privileged people discriminate against unprivileged/unlucky people (e.g. when competing for a promotion or investment): - "They are too negative, we need someone charismatic." (In fact, PersonX's exposure to wave after wave of bad luck has made them a critical thinker, a realist, which makes them perfect for the job). - "I don't like PersonX. They can't build rapport with stakeholders." (Because PersonX's has had real problems in their lives, they cannot relate to the artificial problems which members of the elite class constantly create for themselves). - "They lack confidence." (In reality, what they lack is overconfidence; they have the ideal level of confidence/doubt to navigate a cut-throat marketplace; overconfidence breeds neglect which can destroy the company). - "They don't have a track record of success" (Because they were always overlooked and never given a first chance to prove themselves; as a result, they've spent decades optimizing themselves and fixing every tiny flaw and gap in their knowledge and personal character; they are highly optimized and perfect for the job). There is an inversion of cause an effect in the minds of privileged people which makes them think that they need confident people. In fact, confidence is more a consequence of luck than it is of competence. Nobody likes overconfident people. When you have power, you don't need any confidence; the less, the better. Power earns respect and on its own, it is the best substitute for confidence.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
This feedback loop certainly does happen to some extent, but my intuition is that it's a small extent. At least in elite academia in the U.S. you get tons and tons of bonus points in every possible situation for being from an "under-represented" group (for some broken definition of "under-represented"). And yes, I benefit from this sometimes.
- cryptica 5y ago
  I don't think it's a small extent at all. The idea that confidence/charisma is a good thing is at the heart of global entrepreneurial culture. It has become so deeply embedded into people's mindset that they don't even realize that it's a bias. They think leaders need charisma in the same was that you need oxygen to breathe. It's quite crazy though because so many charismatic leaders have turned out to be frauds; e.g. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Adam Newmann of WeWork, Trevor Milton of Nikola, and countless smaller examples which most of us have experienced personally in our own careers. On the other hand, many of us have seen or experienced the effectiveness of more modest critical thinkers in leadership roles. Jeff Bezos himself admitted that "[people who were right a lot of the time] were people who often changed their minds." Confident people don't change their minds because, in most settings, it projects a lack of confidence.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    I'm not sure why you would think about entrepreneurship in particular, it's a small part of "elites". I think the value of the personality traits you describe changes a lot with culture. For instance, I think the kind of confidence/charisma you're describing would go very poorly in Japan. My intuition is that what you describe does happen, but it's a very small part of what's going on. I think that people who fall into this feedback loop are already psychologically predisposed, whereas there are plenty of people in the world who display this sort of confidence and charisma and came from nothing. My own internal model is 1st gen immigrants who run successful multi-store businesses.
    - cryptica 5y ago
      I get what you're saying. It's true that some very lucky people manage to escape their unprivileged position early enough in their careers such that it is not a problem for them. Their career growth trajectory has given them a constant source of optimism which has given them confidence in their abilities and their future. That's because they believe there is a strong correlation between talent, work and success - That's the source of their confidence. I think if you look at unprivileged, highly skilled, talented people who've been struggling to break through glass ceilings for a decade or two (in spite of delivering high quality work), then, you will get a better picture of what it means to be 'unprivileged'. These people are not confident in the future because they don't believe that there is a correlation between talent, work and success. Yet they are the most highly capable and they would have the best chance of succeeding if given the chance. But they probably won't be so lucky. They will be the most discriminated against of all. The consequences of being discriminated against in the past will be used as a basis to discriminate against them in the future. "We should not give them the opportunity because they have no track record of financial success." (Nevermind that they do have a track record of excellence in their fields but the financial proceeds of their work were captured by others higher up in the hierarchy).

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

This feedback loop certainly does happen to some extent, but my intuition is that it's a small extent. At least in elite academia in the U.S. you get tons and tons of bonus points in every possible situation for being from an "under-represented" group (for some broken definition of "under-represented"). And yes, I benefit from this sometimes.

cryptica 5y ago
I don't think it's a small extent at all. The idea that confidence/charisma is a good thing is at the heart of global entrepreneurial culture. It has become so deeply embedded into people's mindset that they don't even realize that it's a bias. They think leaders need charisma in the same was that you need oxygen to breathe. It's quite crazy though because so many charismatic leaders have turned out to be frauds; e.g. Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos, Adam Newmann of WeWork, Trevor Milton of Nikola, and countless smaller examples which most of us have experienced personally in our own careers. On the other hand, many of us have seen or experienced the effectiveness of more modest critical thinkers in leadership roles. Jeff Bezos himself admitted that "[people who were right a lot of the time] were people who often changed their minds." Confident people don't change their minds because, in most settings, it projects a lack of confidence.
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  I'm not sure why you would think about entrepreneurship in particular, it's a small part of "elites". I think the value of the personality traits you describe changes a lot with culture. For instance, I think the kind of confidence/charisma you're describing would go very poorly in Japan. My intuition is that what you describe does happen, but it's a very small part of what's going on. I think that people who fall into this feedback loop are already psychologically predisposed, whereas there are plenty of people in the world who display this sort of confidence and charisma and came from nothing. My own internal model is 1st gen immigrants who run successful multi-store businesses.
  - cryptica 5y ago
    I get what you're saying. It's true that some very lucky people manage to escape their unprivileged position early enough in their careers such that it is not a problem for them. Their career growth trajectory has given them a constant source of optimism which has given them confidence in their abilities and their future. That's because they believe there is a strong correlation between talent, work and success - That's the source of their confidence. I think if you look at unprivileged, highly skilled, talented people who've been struggling to break through glass ceilings for a decade or two (in spite of delivering high quality work), then, you will get a better picture of what it means to be 'unprivileged'. These people are not confident in the future because they don't believe that there is a correlation between talent, work and success. Yet they are the most highly capable and they would have the best chance of succeeding if given the chance. But they probably won't be so lucky. They will be the most discriminated against of all. The consequences of being discriminated against in the past will be used as a basis to discriminate against them in the future. "We should not give them the opportunity because they have no track record of financial success." (Nevermind that they do have a track record of excellence in their fields but the financial proceeds of their work were captured by others higher up in the hierarchy).