Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

You did notice that I said, "Treat people equally, based on merit and need". It should be said that unintelligent and incompetent people who inherit or win large sums of money soon fritter it away. Intelligence and wealth are strongly positively associated, but obviously not absolutely so.

Aside from "helping one's fellow wo/man", having a vast underclass of angry, needy people with nothing to lose makes for a less safe and cohesive society. Much of the problem is driven by property. Politicians implement policies that pump property prices and, by coincidence, the politicians making these policies tend to own multiple properties. There's been a constant push of wealth into property, which effectively reduces a nations productivity, ie. ability to generate prosperity with work.

No society in history has ever had perfect equality, so there is always a degree of inequality that will change over time. In the last four decades there's been a fairly sharp increase in inequality, resulting in the current problematic wealth gap.

DEI, however, assumes that people are forever disadvantaged if they have a certain level of melanin in their skin, providing them with discounts, benefits and boosted opportunities in housing, employment and health. Never mind that a "black" man was POTUS not long ago.

[Good_Egg]

There is no validity to the elite theory myth that rich people are rich because they are smarter or work harder.

Some days I think that the root of the left-right divide, the fundamental differences in people's thinking, is whether they see wealth as basically deserved or basically undeserved.

Either proposition is often no more than a prejudice.

The reality is that life is complex. Some people are - as far as we can tell - rich because they were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time with the right skillset. Some other people are - as far as we can tell - poor because of their own bad choices.

Sometimes it seems better not to judge...

[Mo_reese]

Quick Reply - We have an wealth inequality problem that is getting worse geometrically. Standing in the way of a fix are those that believe that the rich are so because they are better.

[Pattern-chaser]

Standing in the way of a fix are those that believe that the rich are so because they are better.

Yes, I've never understood this. The closest I can get to any sort of explanation is Stockholm Syndrome...

[Sy Borg]

Standing in the way of a fix are those that believe that the rich are so because they are better.

Yes, I've never understood this. The closest I can get to any sort of explanation is Stockholm Syndrome...

It's hard to admit that some people are smarter and more capable than you are.

Those in Mugabe's Zimbabwe could not believe that the rich white farmers knew anything that the average person didn't. So they displaced the rich farmers with regular black people. The result? A huge drop in productivity and widespread starvation.

If you are not rich and resentful of this, chances are that you cannot admit your limitations, and are jealous of those with the ability to make things happen and follow through in the long term.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's hard to admit that some people are smarter and more capable than you are.

No, it isn't. If nothing else, growing up as an autist in NT society teaches us this lesson, however hard it may be for us to learn. I am happy to admit that "some people are smarter and more capable than" I am. ... Although I have noticed that, if I am unwise enough to claim that *I* am "smarter or more capable" than some others, it is considered arrogant and boastful. And it is disbelieved without further consideration. Humility is praised and accepted, but the opposite is not. Oh well...

Perhaps the important point here, coming back a little onto topic, is that the rich are not rich because they are more capable, but because they are less moral — willing to do whatever it takes to become, and to remain, rich.

If you are not rich and resentful of this, chances are that you cannot admit your limitations, and are jealous of those with the ability to make things happen and follow through in the long term.

I assume this is a general comment, not aimed specifically at me. I suppose there's an element of truth in it, for some people, at least...?

[Mo_reese]

It's hard to admit that some people are smarter and more capable than you are.

I don't find it hard at all. I imagine that those that it only bothers those that think they are smarter than most.

I agree that it was not the best idea to hand farms over to people that hadn't been trained to run farms as a reparation for past wrongs. Maybe training the people would have worked out better.

[Sy Borg]

It's hard to admit that some people are smarter and more capable than you are.

No, it isn't. If nothing else, growing up as an autist in NT society teaches us this lesson, however hard it may be for us to learn. I am happy to admit that "some people are smarter and more capable than" I am. ... Although I have noticed that, if I am unwise enough to claim that *I* am "smarter or more capable" than some others, it is considered arrogant and boastful. And it is disbelieved without further consideration. Humility is praised and accepted, but the opposite is not. Oh well... 😐

Perhaps the important point here, coming back a little onto topic, is that the rich are not rich because they are more capable, but because they are less moral — willing to do whatever it takes to become, and to remain, rich.

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

If you are not rich and resentful of this, chances are that you cannot admit your limitations, and are jealous of those with the ability to make things happen and follow through in the long term.

I assume this is a general comment, not aimed specifically at me. I suppose there's an element of truth in it, for some people, at least...?

It's as natural for people with certain aptitudes and circumstance to gain power and not always wield it objectively as it's natural for others to resent that. All part of the usual argy-bargy. There is currently internal competition between various demographics. I see it as destructive, cancerous, to society as a whole. If the competition involves aspects of people that they can work on and improve, that can strengthen society. OTOH, if the competition is between groups based on qualities of birth, that cannot be changed, then it's divisive and harmful to society.

[Belinda]

In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids.

Exactly right. I worked in HR for some time and we had affirmative action programs that I agreed with. Each year, we'd gain a subsidy to hire an Aboriginal trainee, and help that young person get established in the work scene. It was a good system. However, every other position in the organisation was filled via merit, although there's always some measure of cronyism and nepotism.

That's how affirmative action should work, not as an overall hiring policy. Any deviation of merit is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

The question is, why are the west and its corporations self-sabotaging?

Is it actually a matter of fact that standards in the West of merit generally are sabotaged throughout all levels of work forces? I am only asking as I simply don't know------- I'd have thought that in Academia peer reviews, and in commerce profits and losses, would keep standards up.

[Pattern-chaser]

...I'd have thought that in Academia peer reviews, and in commerce profits and losses, would keep standards up.

I don't think there are standards, standards that are acknowledged and adhered-to, that is. There is only personal avarice, and a wish not to be constrained by any applicable behaviour-limiting laws. It's almost the opposite of "standards".

Standards are adhered-to in the real world only when flouting them would be obvious, and detection of non-compliance likely. I'm afraid people don't hold standards as something to be admired and worked towards, but only as impediments on the path to personal wealth.

What I have written here is cynical, and it is not even generally true of all humans in all walks of life, but there is a strong thread of truth in it nonetheless, I believe.

[Pattern-chaser]

It's hard to admit that some people are smarter and more capable than you are.

No, it isn't. If nothing else, growing up as an autist in NT society teaches us this lesson, however hard it may be for us to learn. I am happy to admit that "some people are smarter and more capable than" I am. ... Although I have noticed that, if I am unwise enough to claim that *I* am "smarter or more capable" than some others, it is considered arrogant and boastful. And it is disbelieved without further consideration. Humility is praised and accepted, but the opposite is not. Oh well...

Perhaps the important point here, coming back a little onto topic, is that the rich are not rich because they are more capable, but because they are less moral — willing to do whatever it takes to become, and to remain, rich.

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

If you are not rich and resentful of this, chances are that you cannot admit your limitations, and are jealous of those with the ability to make things happen and follow through in the long term.

I assume this is a general comment, not aimed specifically at me. I suppose there's an element of truth in it, for some people, at least...?

It's as natural for people with certain aptitudes and circumstance to gain power and not always wield it objectively as it's natural for others to resent that. All part of the usual argy-bargy. There is currently internal competition between various demographics. I see it as destructive, cancerous, to society as a whole. If the competition involves aspects of people that they can work on and improve, that can strengthen society. OTOH, if the competition is between groups based on qualities of birth, that cannot be changed, then it's divisive and harmful to society.

This post deserves more thought and time than I currently have. I will try to remember to come back and reply, but don't hold your breath. My memory is shot...

[Sy Borg]

In the book Caudacity, the author, John Falcone, states "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is Affirmative Action on steroids.

Exactly right. I worked in HR for some time and we had affirmative action programs that I agreed with. Each year, we'd gain a subsidy to hire an Aboriginal trainee, and help that young person get established in the work scene. It was a good system. However, every other position in the organisation was filled via merit, although there's always some measure of cronyism and nepotism.

That's how affirmative action should work, not as an overall hiring policy. Any deviation of merit is ultimately an act of self-sabotage.

The question is, why are the west and its corporations self-sabotaging?

Is it actually a matter of fact that standards in the West of merit generally are sabotaged throughout all levels of work forces? I am only asking as I simply don't know------- I'd have thought that in Academia peer reviews, and in commerce profits and losses, would keep standards up.

Academia itself is intimately involved with the degradation of the west - advocating de-growth and de-industrialisation, and disparaging and dismissing the (many) great achievements of the west.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

"Jealous"? Do you really think that is why I (or others) have replied as I (we) have? I think that here, our context is rather broader, and we're considering most if not all of humanity, not just a few envious individuals. Is that not so?

But to get to the heart of this, perhaps we could usefully consider what we mean by "successful"? We started off with the end result — wealth; riches — and tracked back to see where that wealth came from. Then, setting aside those who merely inherited family wealth, you looked at capable and 'successful' people. But what is it about those people that leads you to describe them as "successful"? Is it just that they have obtained or achieved wealth, or is there more to it than that?

[Sy Borg]

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

"Jealous"? Do you really think that is why I (or others) have replied as I (we) have? I think that here, our context is rather broader, and we're considering most if not all of humanity, not just a few envious individuals. Is that not so?

But to get to the heart of this, perhaps we could usefully consider what we mean by "successful"? We started off with the end result — wealth; riches — and tracked back to see where that wealth came from. Then, setting aside those who merely inherited family wealth, you looked at capable and 'successful' people. But what is it about those people that leads you to describe them as "successful"? Is it just that they have obtained or achieved wealth, or is there more to it than that?

Okay, to be financially successful. Whatever. And yes, you seem to be jealous.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you grossly underestimate the abilities and qualities needed to be successful. Ruthlessness is indeed one quality that's proved useful and, it seems, is essential to thrive in the top end of business and politics. You have to be a "killer", a predator, rather than prey. These are the alphas, the silverbacks of wider society (though they would not be alpha in a rough bar room, which has physically robust alphas).

Life is inherently competitive. Large societies tend to out-compete smaller ones. Large societies can only form if the vast majority of members are "domesticated" - good-natured, generally well-intentioned. and non-violent. However, large societies are complex, with increasing specialisation. Thus, some members need to be ruthless (leaders, farmers), uncaring (surgeons, pilots) or violent (police, military). By the same token, some need to be especially sensitive and caring, who excel in human/health services.

As an autist, it would be logical to support such pluralism and accept different qualities of people in different positions, as it has allowed you (analytics mathematical, not very social) to find a niche. Likewise, it's irrational for extraverts to judge or mock autistic spectrum people.

Don't be jealous. Marvel at the myriad abilities and qualities of people.

"Jealous"? Do you really think that is why I (or others) have replied as I (we) have? I think that here, our context is rather broader, and we're considering most if not all of humanity, not just a few envious individuals. Is that not so?

But to get to the heart of this, perhaps we could usefully consider what we mean by "successful"? We started off with the end result — wealth; riches — and tracked back to see where that wealth came from. Then, setting aside those who merely inherited family wealth, you looked at capable and 'successful' people. But what is it about those people that leads you to describe them as "successful"? Is it just that they have obtained or achieved wealth, or is there more to it than that?

Okay, to be financially successful. Whatever. And yes, you seem to be jealous.

If "successful" means acquiring and retaining personal wealth — the capitalist's mantra — then I personally reject it. And I have lived my life (in the capitalist country in which I was born and raised) accordingly. I have tried to give priority to the happiness and wellbeing of me and my family, over financial 'success'.

I find that my attitude to "success", as you describe it, is closer to despising it than to being "jealous" of the poor misguided souls who have (IMO!) wasted their lives chasing $$$.