4 ms·

> Then again, as a political liberal, I tend to say an un-liberal thing when talking about income distribution... income isn't distributed evenly, but neither i

> Then again, as a political liberal, I tend to say an un-liberal thing when talking about income distribution... income isn't distributed evenly, but neither is talent. Mediocre people don't advance society. They tend to stay where they started (which explains a lot of management mediocrity - some are born into positions of privilege, but lack the talent to do anything with it but maintain the status quo). The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. I tend to take the another point of view on this: a society structured in a way that denies determination to individuals and communities because those people/communities are perceived to be untalented or unworthy is a society that perpetuates injustice and perpetuates and creates institutionalized class divisions. > The way to maximize success for society as a whole is to maximize the opportunity of its most talented members, by eliminating cultural and social barriers to success. Is this really true? If we ignore the problems of the average person or community do we really advance society? In a lot of ways western societies now turn a blind eye to class divisions, racism, sexism, etc. Can we say as a society this treatment really advances things? Is advancement for some really a society-wide advancement?

beat 13y ago
I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average.
- king_jester 13y ago
  > I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. Agreed. > I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. I think this might depend on how we are defining talent. Ultimately people have worth even if they don't meet any definition of talent just by virtue of being a human being. > "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). How exactly are we defining talent here? It seems like you would see some people as not having said talent and that those people wouldn't contribute to the advancement of society. However I would view such a definition of talent as an institutional barrier. There are a wide variety of people with different interest, skills, abilities, disabilities, and levels of function. That some of these people don't meet a definition of talent or, because of the way such a definition is crafted, cannot be talented is a really limiting factor for the success of society. Again, has society really advanced so long as there are classes in which people are viewed as less useful than other people? Promoting the value value, even if just implicitly, of some groups over others is a part of systemic, institutional barriers. > To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average. I'm not really sure how this could be qualified. Social revolutions and changes aren't just the result of a few key individuals and there has been a tendency to ignore those people who have participated in such social change based on who they are or the kind of work they performed, or possibly the work they did not or could not do.

beat 13y ago

I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average.

king_jester 13y ago
> I think you misunderstand me. "class divisions, racism, sexism, etc" are impediments to talent. Agreed. > I firmly believe that talent and ambition are distributed evenly across humans, regardless of gender/race/class/etc, and I presume you do as well. I think this might depend on how we are defining talent. Ultimately people have worth even if they don't meet any definition of talent just by virtue of being a human being. > "Advancement for some" as a function of talent is, in my opinion, society-wide advancement, because mediocre people aren't going to advance society, period. "Advancement for some" as a function of gender/race/class is an impediment to society, because the talents of those it excludes are squandered (or worse, turned to destructive paths). How exactly are we defining talent here? It seems like you would see some people as not having said talent and that those people wouldn't contribute to the advancement of society. However I would view such a definition of talent as an institutional barrier. There are a wide variety of people with different interest, skills, abilities, disabilities, and levels of function. That some of these people don't meet a definition of talent or, because of the way such a definition is crafted, cannot be talented is a really limiting factor for the success of society. Again, has society really advanced so long as there are classes in which people are viewed as less useful than other people? Promoting the value value, even if just implicitly, of some groups over others is a part of systemic, institutional barriers. > To be sure, I'm being elitist here, and I don't deny that. But I think the empirical evidence is on my side. Show me a social revolution led by average minds, and I might rethink. More likely, I'll point out the brilliant minds that led the average. I'm not really sure how this could be qualified. Social revolutions and changes aren't just the result of a few key individuals and there has been a tendency to ignore those people who have participated in such social change based on who they are or the kind of work they performed, or possibly the work they did not or could not do.