6 ms·

Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the

Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. But they aren't that special. Often, they're high-performing individuals with a somewhat-damaged attachment that they have found ways to channel productively. Their success and visibility feed more success and visibility. So we talk about them more and more, dissect their histories, daydream about what potential causes could be. But I can guarantee you there are plenty of people who did those same things whom we never hear about. There's certainly a luck component to it. Once I realized that, I then had to question: why hold these people up on a pedestal at all? They don't need my help in maintaining their position, after all. I reject the idea that they're "higher value" individuals than I am, despite culture's insistence otherwise. If luck played such a role, why should I value them more? (It's hard to talk about this without reeking of sour grapes.)

hartator 3y ago
> Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. Sure, having kings, emperors, or prophets like the good old days was so much less individualistic.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  Yes, it was. Individualism is the last thing you want if you want people to act as though their lives are worth less than the king's / emperor's / state. You don't want people valuing themselves and having legal and economic standing, free to make agreements between themselves. You want them to do what you want them to do.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    you may as well claim everyone in the US believes their lives are less important than the presidents. In truth, the president very rarely has any major effect on the lives of Americans, therefore they don't really care one way or the other. Or to put it another way, that food needed to be harvested regardless of who was king, as long as said king didn't interfere with the food harvesting, people might have opinions but ultimately didn't care.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      I can't find them anymore, but I've read interesting articles on attitudes of slaves and minorities. One of these wrote of certain slaves valuing themselves less than their owners. Then there's the research on black children preferring white dolls to black dolls. Huge numbers of people have a status quo bias. Anytime the leadership changes you're dealing with fear impulses.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        I'm familiar with the doll research, the children were asked which doll was prettier and chose the white doll. That's not the same as preferring the white doll.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Possibly, but I'm referring to how large-scale decisions were made. You can wipe out inequality with a sustained attack on the wealthy[0], but if you value all lives, not just the lives of your group, then you shouldn't see that as an option. If you value your pilots' lives you cannot invent kamikaze planes, nor even cheap planes. You have to invent F16s and the like, that improve their pilots' survivability at significant cost. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
robertlagrant 3y ago
> why hold these people up on a pedestal at all? I think the premise is flawed. Everyone doesn't praise great men. In fact, one of the identifying features of a 21st century American is which "great" men they criticise.
pompino 3y ago
I don't think this argument is all that great - most rational people have already internalized that luck plays a role for everyone in the world. To start with there is the "i was born healthy, wasn't malnourished, wasn't in a war zone" kinda luck. Then there is the "being at the right place at the right time" kinda luck - which is part luck, part perseverance and persistence. You won't be in the right place if you never try or want it. Then there is the "my direct reports did all the work, but I took the credit" kinda luck - which is pretty much any manager in the world. Then you come to the "i have the title & power to affect change, the high standards/insight to enforce certain ideas or create certain products, and the financial backing to work through failures" kinda luck, which is where everyone wants to be, and thinks they can execute better then the other guy - but they're almost always wrong. The person who got there was self-selected by the system, and fought their way to reach the spot. The kinda of personality traits, qualities and other attributes that got that person the job, are not simply borne out of luck. Its the combination of their life experience and working through difficult situations, taking a collection of people of varying ability, personalities, etc along for the journey and getting a a large chunk of people to agree with them, etc. Its not that easy to hand-wave this away. The seeming counter-examples of people who were just gifted the role through nepotism or what have you, are not really examples, because they don't have the respect and don't play in the same league.
- mattgreenrocks 3y ago
  This is essentially arguing that systems ultimately select for competence, given a long enough timespan. And I'd agree! But I lack faith that the system produces people that I look up to. They did well at their game, I can respect that. It may not be my game, though.
  - pompino 3y ago
    I directly addressed what I thought was the main point you were making about luck. Who people "look up to" is a more complicated issue.
- zoeysmithe 3y ago
  Except there is incredible luck and bias. Being born to rich or connected parents. Being white. Being male. Business culture has rarely been a meritocracy. Like the post above you said, there really isn't a lot going on here that millions others don't have. Its luck, failing upwards, and cultural biases and corrupt business culture making these people leaders. Scientifically, the only trait we've found these people have in common is that they're all low empathy, dark triad types, sociopaths, etc. That is to say, to climb to the top, like in the royal courts of old, the system tends to choose not those with the most merit, but those who are the most ruthless and dishonest socially. Steve Jobs was a ruthless bully and had a mess of a personal life. Apple workers accepted being screamed at him as part of the job. Elon Musk walks the floors of his factory and fires people on whims, then bought twitter to spread hate speech. Torvalds is a bully of the highest order and regularly has child-like tantrums over code suggestions. etc, etc. The meritorious in our system tend to get locked down in skill worker positions, bullied out of jobs, burned out by being the hard worker to the 'idea guy' or the 'chummy country club guy' or the 'rich kid' or the 'bully' or the 'loud mouth political player', have their work and labor surplus stolen, etc. The game-playing sociopath is the one who ends up in the c-suite. You do not live in a just universe. This is trivially provable.

hartator 3y ago

> Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. Sure, having kings, emperors, or prophets like the good old days was so much less individualistic.

robertlagrant 3y ago
Yes, it was. Individualism is the last thing you want if you want people to act as though their lives are worth less than the king's / emperor's / state. You don't want people valuing themselves and having legal and economic standing, free to make agreements between themselves. You want them to do what you want them to do.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  you may as well claim everyone in the US believes their lives are less important than the presidents. In truth, the president very rarely has any major effect on the lives of Americans, therefore they don't really care one way or the other. Or to put it another way, that food needed to be harvested regardless of who was king, as long as said king didn't interfere with the food harvesting, people might have opinions but ultimately didn't care.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    I can't find them anymore, but I've read interesting articles on attitudes of slaves and minorities. One of these wrote of certain slaves valuing themselves less than their owners. Then there's the research on black children preferring white dolls to black dolls. Huge numbers of people have a status quo bias. Anytime the leadership changes you're dealing with fear impulses.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      I'm familiar with the doll research, the children were asked which doll was prettier and chose the white doll. That's not the same as preferring the white doll.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Possibly, but I'm referring to how large-scale decisions were made. You can wipe out inequality with a sustained attack on the wealthy[0], but if you value all lives, not just the lives of your group, then you shouldn't see that as an option. If you value your pilots' lives you cannot invent kamikaze planes, nor even cheap planes. You have to invent F16s and the like, that improve their pilots' survivability at significant cost. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror

robertlagrant 3y ago

> why hold these people up on a pedestal at all? I think the premise is flawed. Everyone doesn't praise great men. In fact, one of the identifying features of a 21st century American is which "great" men they criticise.

pompino 3y ago

I don't think this argument is all that great - most rational people have already internalized that luck plays a role for everyone in the world. To start with there is the "i was born healthy, wasn't malnourished, wasn't in a war zone" kinda luck. Then there is the "being at the right place at the right time" kinda luck - which is part luck, part perseverance and persistence. You won't be in the right place if you never try or want it. Then there is the "my direct reports did all the work, but I took the credit" kinda luck - which is pretty much any manager in the world. Then you come to the "i have the title & power to affect change, the high standards/insight to enforce certain ideas or create certain products, and the financial backing to work through failures" kinda luck, which is where everyone wants to be, and thinks they can execute better then the other guy - but they're almost always wrong. The person who got there was self-selected by the system, and fought their way to reach the spot. The kinda of personality traits, qualities and other attributes that got that person the job, are not simply borne out of luck. Its the combination of their life experience and working through difficult situations, taking a collection of people of varying ability, personalities, etc along for the journey and getting a a large chunk of people to agree with them, etc. Its not that easy to hand-wave this away. The seeming counter-examples of people who were just gifted the role through nepotism or what have you, are not really examples, because they don't have the respect and don't play in the same league.

mattgreenrocks 3y ago
This is essentially arguing that systems ultimately select for competence, given a long enough timespan. And I'd agree! But I lack faith that the system produces people that I look up to. They did well at their game, I can respect that. It may not be my game, though.
- pompino 3y ago
  I directly addressed what I thought was the main point you were making about luck. Who people "look up to" is a more complicated issue.
zoeysmithe 3y ago
Except there is incredible luck and bias. Being born to rich or connected parents. Being white. Being male. Business culture has rarely been a meritocracy. Like the post above you said, there really isn't a lot going on here that millions others don't have. Its luck, failing upwards, and cultural biases and corrupt business culture making these people leaders. Scientifically, the only trait we've found these people have in common is that they're all low empathy, dark triad types, sociopaths, etc. That is to say, to climb to the top, like in the royal courts of old, the system tends to choose not those with the most merit, but those who are the most ruthless and dishonest socially. Steve Jobs was a ruthless bully and had a mess of a personal life. Apple workers accepted being screamed at him as part of the job. Elon Musk walks the floors of his factory and fires people on whims, then bought twitter to spread hate speech. Torvalds is a bully of the highest order and regularly has child-like tantrums over code suggestions. etc, etc. The meritorious in our system tend to get locked down in skill worker positions, bullied out of jobs, burned out by being the hard worker to the 'idea guy' or the 'chummy country club guy' or the 'rich kid' or the 'bully' or the 'loud mouth political player', have their work and labor surplus stolen, etc. The game-playing sociopath is the one who ends up in the c-suite. You do not live in a just universe. This is trivially provable.