I have a sit-in lab to prepare for, so I must keep this short. Two things.
First I must say that I loved Zit Seng's presentation on web performance, despite having a runny nose throughout a large part of it. While I didn't understand most of what he was talking about, I did, more or less, get the general feel of how hard keeping servers up and running actually are in the real world. I think it was halfway through the presentation that I turned around to ask Kah Hong if he had experience in any of this, and he said no, and I pointed out that every time sgBeat's server crashed his mum would be the one to get it up and running again. He chuckled at that.
(I must also say - as a Mac user in NUS - that Zit Seng's blog is an invaluable resource on how to connect, print, and pretty much configure your Mac to work with SoC/NUS related assets. I don't know how I could've survived my first sem without him. The guy is just plain brilliant.)
Second, I rather enjoyed Prof's session on "Grades, Scholarships and Meritocracy". I didn't have much to say throughout the lecture, simply because there wasn't much I disagreed with. (Well, it was either that or I didn't have much interest in how Singapore manages its scholarship allocation.) After the lecture Tomithy asked how I was going to respond to Prof's arguments, but the truth is that there isn't much argument to be had. Our discussion (of which the first few comments have disappeared, due to a bug in Blogger) was primarily centered around the causes for a declining importance in grades.
What struck me the most has been that this session even existed. 50 years ago the advice would've been: "get good grades and you get a good job. Period." Today the advice is: "grades are important only for your first job." Could there be another decrease, 50 years down the road? I am convinced that there would be, but to what I am not particularly sure. I believe it would be really interesting to find out.
One last point, on meritocracy.
I am a big supporter of meritocracy, because I believe it works. It is clear, too, that Singapore is one of the ideology's most fervent worshippers. But in order to play with meritocracy, in order to live with it, it would do to examine some of its larger flaws.
What is meritocracy, in its purest form? Meritocracy essentially says that if you have talent and drive, you would and should rise to the top. But it also implies that those who are at the bottom, deserve to be at the bottom, and should stay there so long as they deserve it. It implies that our failures are merited and deserved the same way our successes are merited and deserved.
In the middle ages, when you met a poor person, that person would be described as 'an unfortunate'. Literally - an unfortunate; a person who has not been blessed by fortune. Today - and particularly in meritocratic societies such as in the US and in Singapore - such a person might be more unkindly described as a 'loser'.[1]
Alain de Botton points to Emile Durkheim, whose work in sociology shows us that such thinking leads to increased rates of suicide. "There are more suicides in developed individualistic countries than in any other part of the world." he says, "And some of the reason for that is that people take what happens to them extremely personally. The own their success. But they also own their failure."
When people say that many Singaporeans are unhappy, we should recognize that this is a net effect of meritocracy in action. The members of a meritocratic society are told that they can be whatever they want so long as they have the talent and ability to do so. When the reality doesn't reflect this ideal, people become very rapidly anxious, and envious, and just largely unhappy with life.
Perhaps it would be less of a problem if the reality reflected the ideals proposed by meritocracy. But this cannot ever be true: the reality is that there are too many random factors: there are accidents of birth, illnesses, freak explosions, and so on so forth, to truly reward people according to their merit. I have a friend in my cluster who has probably more business sense than most of my cohort combined. He is a fourth year student; very interested in entrepreneurship, but he is honest with himself. His parents are unwell. He would probably have to work at a job in order to take care of them.
A somewhat related idea that we now hold today is that we are told that we - and only we - are in control of our destinies. This is ridiculous, of course. There is as much probability of you becoming the next Bill Gates as there is of a peasant farmer becoming royalty back in the 1800s, in England (Botton uses the example of the French aristocracy). The difference is that today it isn't made to feel that way. We are told that we can go out and do whatever, be whoever we want to be, because of meritocracy, and this isn't always true.
There was a paradox in last night's session, and I'm not sure if many of us noticed it. Prof talked about meritocracy in the third part of his lecture. But he also mentioned that life is inherently unfair. What we seem to forget is that the two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other. While meritocracy is a beautiful philosophy, we must also be honest about its failings - there is no such thing as a perfectly meritocratic society. It is impossible. We just like to think that it isn't.
Meritocracy is mankind's finger at the face of life's unfairness, and if we think about it carefully: life usually wins.
How you deal with all that unfairness is up to you. Historically speaking, mankind's solution has been to turn to religion. In religion you are told that you are not always responsible for your failures: that sometimes, due to accidents of birth, or luck, or happenstance, you fail and it is not your fault. That is the kinder view of things, and it is one that I subscribe to; there may be others, of course.
I am not suggesting that we scrap meritocracy altogether. I am a big believer in the ideals of meritocracy. I think it is the best thing we've got, barring all alternatives. I am however arguing that we must be honest with ourselves. Meritocracy isn't a perfect ideology, there are problems with it, and those problems are often what leads us to become a deeply unhappy people.
1. Adapted from Alain de Botton's TED talk.↩
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Colophon
if (isNerd) return true is a student blog about software and web development. It is currently being used to catalog my experience of CS3216, a 2009/2010 crazy-die module taught by Assistant Professor Ben Leong at the National University of Singapore.
Blog Archive
Stuff
23 comments:
Your citation of the problem with meritocracy as highlighted by Alain de Botton is good. I agree that's it a problem 'cos meritocracy is a double-edged sword.
"The members of a meritocratic society are told that they can be whatever they want so long as they have the talent and ability to do so. When the reality doesn't reflect this ideal, people become very rapidly anxious, and envious, and just largely unhappy with life."
Your description of the unhappiness is quite accurate. The problem comes from people not having a realistic view of what they are and the assumption that studying hard => good grades => success. My view is that these folks have themselves to blame by not waking up to the realities of life. Most people fail, not from a lack of intelligence, but a lack of drive and tenacity.
Perhaps it would be less of a problem if the reality reflected the ideals proposed by meritocracy
This demonstrates that you still get it. Meritocracy is not about equality of outcomes, but equality of opportunity.
This means that if you are talented, you have a chance at reaching the apex of the food chain even if you are not rich. It DOES NOT mean that if you are rich, you don't have a better chance of getting there (of course you have!). Another key problem with many Singaporeans is that they don't seem to get this. They expect the HDB dweller to have the same chance of winning scholarships as the rich dude. How is that plausible?
I have a friend in my cluster who has probably more business sense than most of my cohort combined. He is a fourth year student; very interested in entrepreneurship, but he is honest with himself. His parents are unwell. He would probably have to work at a job in order to take care of them.
Well you friend can always work and deal with his families financial issues first and then do what he needs to do later. Ray Croc started McDonalds when he was 60 or something like that. Singaporeans have too many excuses for their failings - that's another problem. Another common complaint is having to repay the tuition loan (which is like a pittance compared to the debt than many Americans are saddled with).
What we seem to forget is that the two ideas are diametrically opposed to each other.
They are not lah. Meritocracy means that the most talented will rise to the top, it DOESN'T say anything about the distribution of talent.
Meritocracy isn't a perfect ideology, there are problems with it, and those problems are often what leads us to become a deeply unhappy people.
On this count, you're right. Question is: how are you going to deal with it PERSONALLY. It really doesn't matter how everyone else thinks.
For all the problems with meritocracy, the question that people have to ask themselves is: would they like the allocation of scarce resources to be based solely on one's station in life at birth or do we want to let the poor folks have a fighting chance. The aristocracy probably aren't a fan, but for the remain 90% of the population who aren't in the aristocracy, perhaps meritocracy is worth something in spite of its flaws? :-)
They are not lah. Meritocracy means that the most talented will rise to the top, it DOESN'T say anything about the distribution of talent.
What I meant was that meritocracy is a stab at creating a fair world, but life is inherently unfair. In that way, at least, both ideas are quite diametrically opposed.
You're right in that it's my personal response that matters. I think there's no other choice, because meritocracy is so valuable. My current stance is that, I push myself to succeed, but I must not take my failures too personally. I am religious; perhaps this helps a little - every time I go to church I am reminded that I am not the centre of the universe, and that there are bigger things that I cannot control around me.
The aristocracy probably aren't a fan, but for the remain 90% of the population who aren't in the aristocracy, perhaps meritocracy is worth something in spite of its flaws? :-)
It certainly is. =) I come from Malaysia, where the average kid is faced with unfairness fairly early on in school. What Singapore has is really quite valuable, dangers-of-meritocracy and all notwithstanding. It's still the best we've got.
What I meant was that meritocracy is a stab at creating a fair world, but life is inherently unfair. In that way, at least, both ideas are quite diametrically opposed.
Still wrong. Depends on where you stand, it might make the world "fairer". It makes not claims on creating a completely fair world.
Life being inherently unfair is not an idea. It's a FACT.
'Statements', then. To be honest I'm still wrapping my head around your last statement. I've always thought meritocracy was our (mankind's) attempt at creating some semblance of fairness. I suppose it hinges on the definition of 'fair' ...
Okay I'm getting drawn in again. Need to get back to work!
I could say that meritocracy is unfair. Meritocracy generally favours the intelligent who work hard. Intelligence, unfortunately like fathers, are not attributes we can choose for ourselves. There is no fairness in the decision of how intelligent you are when born. As such, meritocracy is built unfairness. =P
Fairness is subjective. If the majority agrees that meritocracy is fair, then it is fair. Is communism really fair? Well, it strives to be and to many people in the past, it did seem fair. So what's fair really?
On a more serious note, I think that happiness is all about the mindset. We should learn to be contented with what we have and what we can realistically accomplish. If I have done my best and I can only go a shorter distance in life as compared to others, so be it. Why should I inflict pain on myself for being unable to achieve unrealistic expectations?
Singapore is a very sheltered country. The government really does try to take care of every part of society. Also, it is possible to survive and still enjoy life in Singapore even if one has a "low" pay. Just learn to settle for less and be contented with life.
Money Can't Buy Happiness
We are so much more fortunate than people in 3rd world countries. How come we're still unhappy? Admittedly, the environment plays a large part in shaping us. The climate in Singapore is competitive and stressful; there are huge demands placed upon the individual. So? It still boils down to the mindset and whether we can accept our own lives and be content.
In Singapore, with regards to happiness: changing the system is not the best solution; a solution is that the change should be in the individual.
Yea, but of course, mindsets are also genetically influenced right? How? Life is unfair, too bad? Well, the best we could do is make help available for people with mentally depressive mindsets and nurture an environment to promote positive mindsets. As of now, this environment is sorely lacking. But I don't believe for a minute that changing systems dramatically that are core to Singapore's survival will do anything to improve such an environment.
@Jon Low,
There is no fairness in the decision of how intelligent you are when born. As such, meritocracy is built unfairness. =P
You are absolutely right. :-)
So what's fair really?
Good question. I was going to ask you that: suppose the world was fair, what would it look like? Is it communism (the theory, not the practice)?
Why should I inflict pain on myself for being unable to achieve unrealistic expectations?
How do you know if expectations are realistic or unrealistic? Lots of parents want their children to become scholars. Realistic or not? :-)
In Singapore, with regards to happiness: changing the system is not the best solution; a solution is that the change should be in the individual.
What makes you say that? How do you know that WP cannot replace the PAP and bring more happiness to Singaporeans?
Yea, but of course, mindsets are also genetically influenced right?
This is new to me: mindsets being genetically influenced? Why do you say this? Do you have evidence?
I don't believe for a minute that changing systems dramatically that are core to Singapore's survival will do anything to improve such an environment.
What then can be done to improve the environment?
Meritocracy generally favours the intelligent who work hard.
I would have to disagree on this. Meritocracy does not reward the intelligent more than it does the non-intelligent. Intelligence is a baseline - I can't find better analogies at the moment, but the one Malcolm Gladwell uses in Outliers is that of a basketball player. You have to be tall to be a basketball player. But once you're above a certain height threshold, your height matters less and other factors come into play. Michael Jordan, for example, wasn't by far the tallest person on the court, and yet he was the most remarkable.
So it is with intelligence. My guess is that if you're above a certain level of intelligence, other factors comes into play. And those other factors - such as creativity, or drive, or resources - suddenly matter more. And there's the issue of compensation, of course. E.g.: I'm not as intelligent as you are; and so I compensate some other way, for instance hiring more intelligent people to work for me.
So meritocracy is arguably fair, because as long as you're above a certain threshold, you can still make it.
But seeing as this is a system that attempts to take life's unfairness head-on, there would of course be bits where the philosophy fails.
Fairness is subjective. If the majority agrees that meritocracy is fair, then it is fair.
This isn't true. We do have some idea of fairness, as human beings, and we must remember that even the communists realized that their system wasn't fair, by any objective measure of the word. (Here's we're coming dangerously close to religion, because religion argues our sense of fairness comes from God. Very risky area, this).
Well, the best we could do is make help available for people with mentally depressive mindsets and nurture an environment to promote positive mindsets.
But on what? I suggested religion as an alternative mindset (it gives a strong alternative to the meritocratic ownership of success and failure) ... but what other environments might there be? Not everyone is religious, remember ...
Re: Prof, I think a fair society would look like heaven. But that would involve the judgment of a higher being, something that secularist individuals would reject outright. Interesting question to ponder, though.
Meritocracy does not reward the intelligent more than it does the non-intelligent.
Who are we kidding. Intelligence confers an inordinate advantage in a meritocratic society like Singapore. :-)
As I was discussing with Yanjie yesterday, success factors are divided into nature and nurture. Nurture is something that people do something about; nature you cannot (unless you figure out how to pick your parents).
Two guys, one smarter, one not so smart. If they both work at the same nurture factors, the latter is never going to catch up with the former (at least academically), so who are we kidding?
Jon Low is absolutely right. Meritocracy does not make life fair. It just promotes an illusion to the 90% of the folks who are not in the aristocracy that they have a chance at it. In theory, it's true, but in practice, only a small proportion of these 90% will make it (whether because of nature or nurture or both).
Then again, it's important to give people HOPE.
We do have some idea of fairness, as human beings
This statement is correct. Most people think they understand what is fairness. Most times, that understanding is flawed.
I think a fair society would look like heaven. But that would involve the judgment of a higher being
Isn't Singapore already a society of lesser mortals ruled by a higher being? This is heaven? :-)
@Yanjie,
Context is not entirely important since academic success in Singapore is correlated with overall "success" anyway.
What do you exact mean by "meritocracy does not make life fair"?
Basically meritocracy != equality of outcomes.
Some folks will end up A LOT better off than other folks.
Aiyoh boss ah, can specify what kind of context you're referring to?
@Cedric: To put it in context, Prof Ben and I were referring to academics only. So the apex refers to those in the academic apex only, intelligence refers to intelligence in academics only, drive refers to drive in academic performances only.
So it should not be confused (which I did previously) with referring to other forms of intelligence or drive in other areas. Nor should a person's academic intelligence and drive to perform academically should be extrapolated with a person's intelligence in general and drive in general (which is a very common mistake, sadly).
What we agreed upon is solely in the ACADEMIC CONTEXT. From what I see, it seems like you weren't clear which intelligence and drive he was referring to, much like what I had earlier.
@Boss: Aiyoh, one more "academic" in the prefix makes things a lot clearer lah. Especially when Cedric's context is not just academic. Will die to be a bit more clear meh? Like that we can save a lot more words from arguing over different context what. :P
Shucks I'm nagging. :p
Nuture is something that people do something about
Not clear about who you're referring to as "people", but from my interpretation, if you're referring to the individual doing something about themselves as "nuture", not very correct leh. It's also "figure out how to pick your parents" what. It's the people around you, esp. your parents, who nurture you and provide the environment si boh?
Jon Low is absolutely right. Meritocracy does not make life fair. It just promotes an illusion to the 90% of the folks who are not in the aristocracy that they have a chance at it. In theory, it's true, but in practice, only a small proportion of these 90% will make it (whether because of nature or nurture or both).
Then again, it's important to give people HOPE.
The way you put it, meritocracy is macham some hegemonic thing that the aristocrat put to placate the lower people with hope.
What do you exact mean by "meritocracy does not make life fair"? I don't quite get it. :P
@Boss,
Context is not entirely important since academic success in Singapore is correlated with overall "success" anyway.
That's base on a very narrow definition of success which is thankfully, changing.
I have not given enough thought if what we talked about nature and nurture is transferrable from the academic context, so at the moment, I wouldn't agree or disagree if it is taken out of that context, and thus, would prefer that it wouldn't be taken out of the academic context.
So at the moment, I only agree if it is placed in the academic context hor. :P
Basically meritocracy != equality of outcomes.
Some folks will end up A LOT better off than other folks.
But the whole idea of meritocracy is the more capable ones get better things, while the lao pok ones don't get as much. So I don't equality of outcomes is the problem at all. That is the whole idea of meritocracy mah.
Rather, the issue is how do you determine who's laupok and who's better well enough to distribute it as it is intended to be? Those at the very top of the academic apex, no issues, as we've discussed.
But things are less clear slightly below the academic apex onwards. They may not get top scholarships, but the uneveness of distributing the pie from meritocracy still applies to these murky areas. This is where the problem lies I think.
@Prof Ben
How do you know that WP cannot replace the PAP and bring more happiness to Singaporeans?
Not as of now at least. The PAP has a very rigorous approach to deciding who stays and who is out in the party. I don't think I see the same rigor with the WP. In addition, the PAP is doing a pretty good job to the extent it is difficult for the WP to suggest alternatives. The WP doesn't have the same level of playing field either; the PAP has the advantage of government agencies backing up and ensuring that proposed policies are well researched and sound.
Also, I believe that new changes were made to accommodate more opposition voices in parliament. I think this is a really smart move played by the PAP because it defeats the WP's argument as being a check and balance. It gives Singaporeans the cake and tea, vote for PAP, there's still the check and balance in parliament.
With that said, I think that the WP is growing and it will become more competent. I hope they do because it means that the PAP cannot rest on its laurels.
But Prof Ben, you know all this already. =P
Lots of parents want their children to become scholars. Realistic or not?
These parents should also learn not to inflict pain on others with their own unrealistic expectations. =P
This is new to me: mindsets being genetically influenced? Why do you say this? Do you have evidence?
My bad, maybe mindset is the wrong word. Also, I make the assumption that personality is genetically influenced. I don't have concrete evidence but this is the impression I've formed after reading various things. Environment does play a huge part too. However, if a person is predisposed to depression, then happiness will be harder to achieve. Depressive thinking will affect one's mindset: "I can never be as good as others, my life is terrible", etc.
My point was to say that behaviours and personalities are genetically influenced and thus, no matter how small the extent, do play a role in deciding one's mindset. This is my opinion and I think there is definitely a lot of room for different ones.
What then can be done to improve the environment?
Tough question. If I get to attend MP talks/feedback sessions, I'll ask this for sure. The best answer I can give is that I will start with myself and the people around me. I will teach my children and others to have a positive mindset and hope that the influence will spread. Even if it doesn't, at least I hope there are more people that are now better off.
I think that such an environment cannot be created purely with policies. It requires the people to become aware and take action. The people are the culture and environment.
@Cedric
This isn't true. We do have some idea of fairness...
If my statement of fairness being subjective is incorrect, then it means that fairness must be absolute. (Am I creating a false dichotomy?)
If fairness is absolute, then everyone else must have the same sense of what fairness is and act predictably in the same way. This doesn't appear to be the case.
Everyone has different interpretations of what is fair, thus it is subjective. Of course, this is an outer perspective. For individuals, their perspective is that their interpretation of fairness is absolute.
My opinion is that very few things in this world is absolute. Our perceived notions of what is acceptable, good, evil or moralistic are subjective. This is a perspective I take when looking at things overall.
However, at a personal level, it is not quite possible to live this way. Life needs boundaries and definitions. Each society has their own set of rules and absolutes. To survive, I have to conform. I have to live by the absolutes set by society.
So if fairness is subjective, does that mean that there is no point in people pursuing fairness? I am not keen to discuss fairness at a philosophical level; we all have our own beliefs and I am not going to force others to take mine. But if we're going to talk about fairness for implementation to improve lives, I think it's worthwhile.
@Jon Low: I won't want to be drawn into a philosophical argument as well, but I would say that of the many things in life, the human sense of fairness is one of the few(?) absolutes.
Think about little kids as they are playing. Without any teaching they very quickly say things like "But that's not fair!"
And it is so all over the world. Even countries cutting deals act similarly, when they are wronged, very quickly they protest "But that's not fair!"
We don't have to teach fairness; it is something that comes very naturally. The religious argument is that we inherit this from something outside of this world; but I shall not go there. (In fact, C.S. Lewis's entire argument for God and religion is predicated from this one absolute. He's written a whole book - The Abolition of Man - examining the other possible explanations; and I do not dare to go there. It's rather heavy.)
What is the point of this argument? Well, you asserted that meritocracy is only considered fair when the majority of people consider it fair. I'm merely pointing out that it's not a decision; what's really happening is that meritocracy turns out to be the philosophy where the least amount of people go "But that's not fair!". You are right that the majority dictates meritocracy as the best philosophy, but you're wrong on the assumption that fairness is a construct determined by majority voting.
@Prof:
Context is not entirely important since academic success in Singapore is correlated with overall "success" anyway.
Just pointing something out: if the government succeeds in pushing startups as a viable alternative to the salaried job, then this reality should change. You don't need good grades to be successful in a startup, after all. In fact, some may say that excessive intelligence is a disadvantage (smart people tend to trust in their intelligence more, and are less likely to ask for advice). So it's not true that academics are the only context that matters. Not in the future, and certainly not at an international level.
Related thought: could this be one reason why Singaporean companies suck at an international level? Everybody here is filtered by grades, excessively so, and grades have little or no correlation to economic productivity. That's not a problem per se, but if everyone who has lousier grades are told from an early age that they're less valuable (at a degree that is more crushing than our American/Malaysian counterparts), what's the probability of them recognizing that they can still succeed anyway?
Caught an assumption in my last paragraph: I asserted that people with good grades tend to be more regimented in their thinking than those who do not. This is not always true, and I have no way of proving this.
@Yanjie,
So I don't equality of outcomes is the problem at all. That is the whole idea of meritocracy mah.
Do you know how many Singaporeans don't understand this? Or at least it seems to me that it's lost on them from the stuff I've been reading? :-)
@Jon Low,
But Prof Ben, you know all this already.
Is it? How would you know that? Didn't know you're a part-time mind-reader in addition to being your part-time magician. :-P
@Cedric,
You don't need good grades to be successful in a startup, after all. In fact, some may say that excessive intelligence is a disadvantage (smart people tend to trust in their intelligence more, and are less likely to ask for advice).
Being an idiot doesn't improve the chance of success for a startup. Like it or not, good grades are correlated with intelligence. Like it or not, being smart is always helpful in almost any context in life. On WHAT BASIS, do you make the claim that smart people are less likely to ask for advice -- and big deal if smart people trust their intelligence more? They shouldn't shouldn't they?
could this be one reason why Singaporean companies suck at an international level?
Singaporean companies don't suck in case you dunno. Temasek is buying up lots of stuff abroad (if these foreign countries will let us). The issue with Singapore is that a lot of the talent is concentrated in the Govt and GLCs, but that's a consequence of the scholarship system.
Is that a problem? Would you rather have the wealth of the nation in the hands of state entities like Temasek or in the hands of folks like Li Ka Shing?
That's not a problem per se, but if everyone who has lousier grades are told from an early age that they're less valuable (at a degree that is more crushing than our American/Malaysian counterparts), what's the probability of them recognizing that they can still succeed anyway?
There are a lot of people with lousy grades who are extremely successful at business, so I don't it as an issue. They don't see it as an issue either. Anyhow, who is the one who is telling those with lousier grades they are less valuable?
Being an idiot doesn't improve the chance of success for a startup.
I am not arguing that being an idiot gives you an edge in business. I am arguing that good grades no longer predicate success in a society with startups as an alternative.
On WHAT BASIS, do you make the claim that smart people are less likely to ask for advice -- and big deal if smart people trust their intelligence more?
I realize I have been intellectually dishonest. These ideas are not my own, and I cannot defend them well. That argument is made on this basis. Thomas J Stanley's spent a large number of years studying millionaires in America. His book contains exhaustive statistical research on both the relationships between economic productivity and CGPA, intelligence, courage, inheritance, and upbringing.
He had another academician develop a geographical profiling tool to figure out where in America are high concentrations of millionaires, and from there he began drawing links for the book. It's a great read. One of the first conclusions he makes is that CGPA only matters to one half of the millionaire population - these are elite doctors and lawyers and CEOs. The other half are classified as dumb students. He spends much time teasing out how these less-than-intelligent people competed with the geniuses, and won.
He does, however, say that this may only be possible in America. =(
(Also: I suspect some of his analysis is biased, but the data itself is well worth the read)
I remember him making the assertion that intelligent individuals are less likely to surround themselves with smarter people; and that the less intelligent ones do so more because they're very clear on all their shortcomings. But I would have to reread the book to figure out if this was based on his data, or based on comments by a millionaire, or is his own assertion.
PS: he also makes some very interesting observations as to how millionaires saw school while they were still in it. They see it as an enormous learning opportunity - not for grades alone, but to learn to make good character judgments, and to meet new people, and to make connections.
I am arguing that good grades no longer predicate success in a society with startups as an alternative.
Let's get one thing straight shall we? The failure rates of startups in Singapore is like 99.9% when I last counted. You call that an alternative?
One of the first conclusions he makes is that CGPA only matters to one half of the millionaire population
I believe that I have said pretty much that same thing haven't I? Also note that 50% is a pretty large proportion.
I remember him making the assertion that intelligent individuals are less likely to surround themselves with smarter people
With this statement, I can guarantee you that this fella doesn't always know what he's talking about. Intelligent people know that to succeed, they *need* to surround themselves with smart people. Hopefully folks smarter than themselves. :-)
he also makes some very interesting observations as to how millionaires saw school while they were still in it. They see it as an enormous learning opportunity - not for grades alone, but to learn to make good character judgments, and to meet new people, and to make connections.
This point however is CORRECT. Hopefully you guys have figured this out by now too. :-)
@Cedric
How can fairness be absolute if different parties see fairness differently?
Why is it that in Singapore, murder gets you the death sentence but elsewhere, one gets a life sentence?
Why is it that in other countries, the fair treatment of women differs from one another?
Why is it that women do not serve National Service here but have to in Israel?
I don't mean to say that fairness does not exist. When I mean is that fairness is not an absolute value, the definition of fairness varies accordingly to how people want to see it.
you're wrong on the assumption that fairness is a construct determined by majority voting.
People do not have the same values about fairness. I really cannot see a situation where fairness is perceived the same way with everyone.
Is it fair to incriminate homosexuals for homosexual sex in Singapore's law? Apparently, it is fair. Who decided this? Definitely not the minorities. So why is it that in other countries, such laws against homosexuals are considered unfair?
If that's the case, what is fairness? Is it not dependent on people?
Meritocracy does not make life fair. It just promotes an illusion to the 90% of the folks who are not in the aristocracy that they have a chance at it. In theory, it's true, but in practice, only a small proportion of these 90% will make it (whether because of nature or nurture or both). Then again, it's important to give people HOPE. The way you put it, meritocracy is macham some hegemonic thing that the aristocrat put to placate the lower people with hope.
---
Mm, I actually disagree with that. It isn't an illusion that they have a shot - they DO have a shot in a meritocratic society. It gives them a better shot, but just doesn't completely remove the disadvantage of starting off lower.
All of you probably know that.
And this is turning into an argument about defining "fairness" lol.
I think you are all repeating yourselves over and over again for the most part :P You all probably know 90% of what someone else has posted, so it's like telling each other what you all already know... for SO MANY posts, and for what purpose? It's like you all like to type and just prolong this. Not that it's a bad thing, it's fun. And probably how most discussions go :P It really puzzles me whenever it happens :X Not to be rude or anything.
Good point, Shannon. But don't worry - I plan to integrate the best ideas from this discussion thread to the end of the original post, both for this one and the last one.
@Jon: Let's take the discussion about fairness offline. This is connected directly to relativism, which is the dominant form of postmodern thinking. Disproving or proving it would take far longer than this discussion thread. (I would also like to send you Lewis's original argument against the relativism of fairness ... it's about 100 pages, though, so it's a bit ... erm, heavy).
@Prof: Agreed. I felt uncomfortable immediately after posting that argument, and I don't have access to Stanley's data at the moment. So in retrospect I shouldn't have run with that argument. I do recommend that you read the book, though - it's a very valuable source of objective data on millionaire thinking - provided you distill his analysis, of course).
Post a Comment