3 ms·

It is both empowering and negative.[0] I got the same mentoring early in life. Networking matters. And yeah the system sucks and is a poor meritocracy, if th

It is both empowering and negative.[0] I got the same mentoring early in life. Networking matters. And yeah the system sucks and is a poor meritocracy, if that itself is even the better state of affairs. Regardless, we live in the system we have and we either work it to our benefit or not. Meta: [0] Naysayers, knowledge is power. Prior to said mentoring, I had near completely dismissed networking, believing is was unnecessary and a sign of poor skills and other such ideas. Realizing how things actually do work was literally life changing. If impacts like that are not signs of empowerment, I do not know what is. Meritocracy sounds nice, and perhaps is a worthy state of affairs, that is not currently the system we live in. That may be hard news. Was to me. As always, it sure would be nice and far more productive to read a rebuttal...

FrojoS 4y ago
The "system" is just the underlying nature, isn't it? Nature is not a pure meritocracy. It's more efficient to accomplish work when you work with others, provided you complement each other, and it's easier to work with others if you know them well and can trust them. Having to find new people frequently, learn who they are, what they are capable of, and if they are trustworthy instead of relying on your existing network is not efficient. A political system in which these fundamental rules of nature are forcefully suppressed, e.g. a pure meritocracy, is a horrible system, in my view. Fortunately, if something is not efficient, it will be replaced by something efficient in the long run.
- ddingus 4y ago
  I don't see nature as a pure meritocracy myself. I have had a large number of people express the desire for "the system" to be a pure, very functional meritocracy, and I myself envisioned it more that way much earlier in life. As for efficency... Maybe! There are strong arguments either way. I prefer a base network, with fluid edges able to respond with depth and breadth.
- ddingus 4y ago
  Underlying nature... You mean as people? That's a fluid thing. We do not have to run it like we do, and I feel we shouldn't. So no. It is a contrived thing. Can be changed, should be. However, at this moment it is also what we live with, so know it well, work it best we can.

FrojoS 4y ago

The "system" is just the underlying nature, isn't it? Nature is not a pure meritocracy. It's more efficient to accomplish work when you work with others, provided you complement each other, and it's easier to work with others if you know them well and can trust them. Having to find new people frequently, learn who they are, what they are capable of, and if they are trustworthy instead of relying on your existing network is not efficient. A political system in which these fundamental rules of nature are forcefully suppressed, e.g. a pure meritocracy, is a horrible system, in my view. Fortunately, if something is not efficient, it will be replaced by something efficient in the long run.

ddingus 4y ago
I don't see nature as a pure meritocracy myself. I have had a large number of people express the desire for "the system" to be a pure, very functional meritocracy, and I myself envisioned it more that way much earlier in life. As for efficency... Maybe! There are strong arguments either way. I prefer a base network, with fluid edges able to respond with depth and breadth.
ddingus 4y ago
Underlying nature... You mean as people? That's a fluid thing. We do not have to run it like we do, and I feel we shouldn't. So no. It is a contrived thing. Can be changed, should be. However, at this moment it is also what we live with, so know it well, work it best we can.