5 ms·

Every example you give is in terms of an individualist view point, and yet understanding what makes a "functioning society" requires some conception of a common

by scrod 15y ago

Every example you give is in terms of an individualist view point, and yet understanding what makes a "functioning society" requires some conception of a common good. It is impossible for any significant portion of society to be treated by the very best doctors, or to send their children to the very best schools. To do what's best for society, the majority merely need access to good and decent services. From the dictionary: Elitism is "the advocacy or existence of an elite as a dominating element in a system or society." A society that favors the elite individual above all else is by nature hierarchical, exclusionary, and anti-democratic. Elitist societies by definition disempower the majority for the enrichment of a few. And as per the definition of "society" — "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community" — elitism is an absolute failure. Your attitude epitomizes this online community, and that's not a good thing. Frankly, it's pretty repugnant.

temphn 15y ago
> It is impossible for any significant portion of society to be treated by the very best doctors Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which was used to inoculate millions. Just about every medical procedure used in practice and documented in textbooks was developed by the best doctors, systematized, and then scaled out. > or to send their children to the very best schools. Take a look at ai-class.org, ml-class.org, db-class.org. Textbooks were version 1.0 of this concept, and also tend to be written by the best educators. The point: different people in different areas have different talents. The key is to come up with models that allow the efforts of the talented in each area to scale out so that more can access them, and so that the less talented can benefit from the solutions even if they couldn't think them up in the first place[1]. This is a process of iteration. But the iteration won't even get started if one rejects quality/elitism from the beginning. [1] How many of the tens of millions of people operating browsers, iPhones, refrigerators, or automobiles can understand them, let alone improve them, let alone invent them? Civilization is based on finding the best, allowing them to amass resources, and rewarding them for distributing their discoveries to as many as possible. Denying that a technical elite exists is counterproductive.
- forensic 15y ago
  >rewarding them for distributing their discoveries to as many as possible If the 80% has no money, then the 80% cannot reward the elites.
- yardie 15y ago
  Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which was used to inoculate millions. Just about every medical procedure used in practice and documented in textbooks was developed by the best doctors, systematized, and then scaled out. You pretty much sunk your argument with the very first example. Salk gave the polio vaccine away for free so that kids wouldn't have to die anymore from it. Elitism states that only the best should have it. Altruism states that everyone deserves to have it.
defen 15y ago
Has there ever been an advanced society that did not have elites? That was not hierarchical or exclusionary? How do you propose that humanity rid itself of these troublesome qualities? It seems like you're just here to proclaim your own moral superiority.
- danssig 15y ago
  The OP was obviously making a "wake up and think about what you're saying post". What did you contribute exactly?
  - defen 15y ago
    Allow me to expand on my point. To me the OP was obviously engaging in a worthless semantic debate. The post to which he was replying said (paraphrased) "elitism is good, everyone wants to best for themselves and their kin." It was clear from the post what temphn meant by elitism. Then scrod came in with the dictionary definition of "elitism". And my point is that people will always favor their family, their friends, people who have been through similarly trying circumstances. The formation of factions of people who cooperate is inevitable, and some will be successful. Furthermore the beautiful, the intelligent, the charismatic, the ruthless will always have an advantage over the masses. Does anyone really want to live in a society that's NOT run by people who are in some way "the best"? I understand that some people are against hereditary wealth and privilege, but in a meritocratic society it's just a different set of people who are the elite. Again I ask, where is the society which is not dominated by an elite? At this point it's impossible to tell if the post was edited, but when I read it last night, I don't recall seeing the phrase "above all else". It's not implied by his dictionary definition, so that part of his statement is too strong - "dominating element" vs "above all else". It's clear that scrod has contempt for any society with an elite (which I again emphasize is every advanced society on earth right now). And then finally the moralizing came in: "Your attitude is pretty repugnant", in an attack on a strawman!

by scrod 15y ago

temphn 15y ago

> It is impossible for any significant portion of society to be treated by the very best doctors Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which was used to inoculate millions. Just about every medical procedure used in practice and documented in textbooks was developed by the best doctors, systematized, and then scaled out. > or to send their children to the very best schools. Take a look at ai-class.org, ml-class.org, db-class.org. Textbooks were version 1.0 of this concept, and also tend to be written by the best educators. The point: different people in different areas have different talents. The key is to come up with models that allow the efforts of the talented in each area to scale out so that more can access them, and so that the less talented can benefit from the solutions even if they couldn't think them up in the first place[1]. This is a process of iteration. But the iteration won't even get started if one rejects quality/elitism from the beginning. [1] How many of the tens of millions of people operating browsers, iPhones, refrigerators, or automobiles can understand them, let alone improve them, let alone invent them? Civilization is based on finding the best, allowing them to amass resources, and rewarding them for distributing their discoveries to as many as possible. Denying that a technical elite exists is counterproductive.

forensic 15y ago
>rewarding them for distributing their discoveries to as many as possible If the 80% has no money, then the 80% cannot reward the elites.
yardie 15y ago
Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, which was used to inoculate millions. Just about every medical procedure used in practice and documented in textbooks was developed by the best doctors, systematized, and then scaled out. You pretty much sunk your argument with the very first example. Salk gave the polio vaccine away for free so that kids wouldn't have to die anymore from it. Elitism states that only the best should have it. Altruism states that everyone deserves to have it.

defen 15y ago

Has there ever been an advanced society that did not have elites? That was not hierarchical or exclusionary? How do you propose that humanity rid itself of these troublesome qualities? It seems like you're just here to proclaim your own moral superiority.

danssig 15y ago
The OP was obviously making a "wake up and think about what you're saying post". What did you contribute exactly?
- defen 15y ago
  Allow me to expand on my point. To me the OP was obviously engaging in a worthless semantic debate. The post to which he was replying said (paraphrased) "elitism is good, everyone wants to best for themselves and their kin." It was clear from the post what temphn meant by elitism. Then scrod came in with the dictionary definition of "elitism". And my point is that people will always favor their family, their friends, people who have been through similarly trying circumstances. The formation of factions of people who cooperate is inevitable, and some will be successful. Furthermore the beautiful, the intelligent, the charismatic, the ruthless will always have an advantage over the masses. Does anyone really want to live in a society that's NOT run by people who are in some way "the best"? I understand that some people are against hereditary wealth and privilege, but in a meritocratic society it's just a different set of people who are the elite. Again I ask, where is the society which is not dominated by an elite? At this point it's impossible to tell if the post was edited, but when I read it last night, I don't recall seeing the phrase "above all else". It's not implied by his dictionary definition, so that part of his statement is too strong - "dominating element" vs "above all else". It's clear that scrod has contempt for any society with an elite (which I again emphasize is every advanced society on earth right now). And then finally the moralizing came in: "Your attitude is pretty repugnant", in an attack on a strawman!