#so like. whats the reason. why doesnt he seem as satisfied with the outcome as louis is since he wanted him saying
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
fascinationstreetmp3 · 2 months ago
Text
the thing about this whole scene that gets me the most is not even armand trying to bring the interview back on track or "she wanted to say yes", it's his expressions afterwards. like... the lingering pained look of concern leading into the jaw clench tiniest littlest mouth quirk/smirk(?) combo. what is going through his mind
62 notes · View notes
letstalkaboutfandomsbaby · 3 years ago
Note
So many headcanons that nanami hard dom, degradation, bdsm kinks etc. When the manga shows that nanami is 100% gentleman. Like he lets nobara & nitta sits on a chair while he kneels down, he doesnt let yuji go w him when he fights mahito bec he dosnt want him to be in danger, he gently wipes the tear of a transfigured human. He may have intimidating exterior but he is a big softy inside and they all think that he is rough n bed. Nanami will never hurt you in bed even if ask for it and hes the type will say 'I'll make love to yu' not 'I'll fuck you'.. Nothing wrong w hcs that hes rough ofc but just want to see more soft nanami.
YES anon, I feel the exact same way!!!!
Tumblr media
Nanami has a cold, blunt exterior which could easily be interpreted as that of a hard dom who wants total control of his partner, but that's just what people see on the surface.
Nanami is gentle. He is kind. He is passionate about food and making sure that kids get to be kids. He loves to read. He wants to get married one day. He may seem cold and distant, but his true feelings shine through when needed, like when he tried to quietly comfort a transfigured human in pain. He tries to hide this part of himself because he's at work and he needs to be focused and prepared for the worst outcome.
Nanami is, deep down, a hopeless romantic. His ideal date would be cooking a meal for his partner, relaxing on the couch with a good book and a glass of wine, his arm around you and your hands intertwined as you read your respective books. He wouldn't mind watching a movie either, a blanket thrown over your laps at you lean against him, his head resting atop of yours. He's a sap, a total goober when it comes to love, and he knows that with his line of work, settling down with someone he really loves isn't the best idea. That's why he isn't married yet: he's waiting until his reality is safe and secure so he can fully be with the one he loves and dedicate himself to them completely.
These mushy-gushy feelings are bound to leak into the bedroom. You are the love of his life, his darling, his reason for living: he's going to treat you like the most valuable treasure on the planet because, to him, you are. If you want, need him to be rough, he will do whatever he can to satisfy you, but it will never please him the way that traditional love-making does.
He showers you with affection, worshiping you to the point where it makes you sick, kissing every inch of skin as if thanking you for letting him have you in this way. He's gentle, he goes slow, he makes sure you're enjoying this as much if not more than him. He doesn't want to be rough with you: he's rough with curses at least 40 hours each week, so the rest of the time he wants to be gentle and kind. He wants to hear you moan and sigh with each thrust, your body trembling beneath his once you finally cum, showing him parts of yourself that others could only dream of getting a glimpse of. His heart aches with an ancient feeling, something that can only be described with long-lost poetry buried deep within the sands of time.
He loves you. He loves you in a way that feels earth-shattering, as if this union could destroy everything you've ever known before. Shockingly, he doesn't care. The world as he knows it can burn for all he cares. All he needs is you, you with all your kindness and sincerity and pure love that makes him wish he had could run away from this life and hide away with you, relaxing on some far away beach, the sun unable to hold a candle to your radiance.
He really loves you.
Tumblr media
153 notes · View notes
vegetalass · 6 years ago
Text
Animalia, or the Circle of Life
Sorry y’all i been writing this forever but i got distracted a lot lmfaoo
Based on the line “you’re an animal, steel. A dog.” and my idea of Sidestep’s “game.” I wish it was more violent / angry, but this is the only thing I could think of.
Basically you have a PHAT crush on steel and he knows but he doesnt care and decides to cut you out first. Snip snip i guess.
Villain name: Ophelia
Warning: Contains Fallen Hero: Retribution spoilers!
Huge shout-out to @m4rkab for beta reading and providing amazing feedback! As well as Capri and Sock in the discord chat for helping me brainstorm ideas! and to Grum, of course!
FH:R belongs to @fallenhero-rebirth
Steel/gn!Reader - 2663 words
_________________________
In a way, Steel has always looked slightly deformed to you.
For starters, his arms are a little bit too big for his waist, and his back stands just a little too taut, almost as if you could see the metal rods fused to the bones that hide beneath his skin. It’s never really been a problem, this aspect of him, especially since these are things you easily forget whenever you’re not in his vicinity. It’s only when you stare at his malformed figure in a sad kind of longing as you quietly join him in the Ranger’s HQ, that you realize that there’s always been something off about him that you can’t quite seem to place.
Maybe you’re just being harsh because he doesn’t really like you. Hell, maybe you’re harsh all the time. But when you gently skim his mind and accidentally get a feel for how uneasy he still is around you, it’s easy to begin thinking about all of the wasted effort you’ve put into getting to know him. He only has to snarl at you for you to remember that he is not your friend and never will be, which makes it easy to understand why there must be something else that is causing you to look at him like he’s an animal.
It’s unfair. The fact that Steel won’t be nice to you and you have never been allowed to be nice at all. You know that he doesn’t deserve to be judged as such, when he’s been trying to get to know you the way that one deserves to be known… But it’s hard when you can see right through his forehead, and understand that nothing will ever be enough.
The most dangerous animals are often the most beautiful, after all, and though his scars are a warning that do nothing to favor him, still, you can’t help but think what a handsome man he could’ve been had he not waged a war against you and the whole fucking world.
You wish you could’ve been real friends. More than friends.
Maybe you will be in the next life, after you finally kill him in this one.
You play a game — in your head, that is — where you pretend that everyone normal is actually hideous and that everyone hated is loved, and that here, in this game, you’re the only beautiful savior left who’s going to protect the Los Diablos citizens from evil.
Steel is there, in all his glory, and Ortega too, along with the rest of the Rangers, and it's here that you remain on opposing sides, but instead of helping they just hinder, and instead of having their victories broadcast on television, their mugshots hang from telephone poles all city-wide.
Even though you could’ve been a Ranger, you’ve decided that this vision is much more satisfying.
The fantasy continues with everyone you love turning out to be a Re-Gene and not a single person who turns away when they see blue skin or orange tattoos. You live your life in the open, proud of your scars and body, and become as revered as Ophelia as Ortega is as Charge or as Chen Wei is as Steel, deformities and all.  
The long-awaited celebration comes last, when you finally imagine how you save the day and how people cheer for you, this other you, the real you. And it’s when you see Steel there, begging for your forgiveness against all odds and factors, though you take your time, you also decide to forgive him, not for his sake, but for yourself and the people, to prove that kindness and love really can be a choice.
Because in this pretend place, Steel loves you.
This is always how the game ends, happily, as the real Steel would never choose kindness, and even at your friendliest, you don’t think you would, either.
There’s nothing in the world, you think, that could be better than this. It’s just... too bad it’s not real.
Whatever. It doesn’t matter now, and in fact, probably never will.
Because Steel is still cruel, and because you know that if he even thought of the connection between you and villainy that he would shoot you in the face on sight. And who would want a relationship with a man like that even on his best days?
Not you.
Well…. that’s a lie. But this whole “crush” thing is a recent development. You weren’t expecting to fall for him, not when he can barely look at you in return.
To say he even tolerates you would be a kindness. You talk, you laugh, and you smile, as though you’re normal people in a normal city, doing things that people in a normal relationship would do. Any human could be fooled by his nature, and part of you has been, too. But you’re not a human, and Steel is used to being on TV,  so both of you know when a hand that’s been extended isn’t really a hand at all. And despite the passing kindnesses that you have shared together, Steel still won’t let you in.
You know this, because when you bask in his mind’s image of you, you can see that part of him wants to. He’s just better at being reasonable, or you guess, as Ortega would say, “hurting himself.”
Because you do like Steel. You do. It’s just really complicated to explain, and you know that Steel wouldn’t ever feel like listening.
You can imagine the laugh Ortega would have at this problem already, and frankly, you can imagine having one, too. It would be a lot easier to be nice and kind to Steel if he was nice and kind to you. Because those are the rules, and even if you do have a weird thing for him, you have a much longer history that needs to be respected.
Which is funny, since you’re even at the HQ right now.
Steel shuffles, breaking your train of thought, and turns around, shoulders and then head, before noticing you hiding in the silence of the room you share.
Piss.
“Hi, Chen,” you nod, pretending that you hadn’t just been imagining all the different ways you could get him on his knees. That’s ironic.
“Sidestep,” he acknowledges, body still tilted sideways on the chair he’s been resting on, elbows on his knees.
“Can’t use my name?” you joke, trying to force a smile, at least to replicate the feeling of normality instead of the vicious aura of displacement that already surrounds you. It’s been enough just to have this ill-fated crush on him, you don’t want to reek of insecurity, as well.
He chuckles softly, chest expanding, but the smile doesn’t reach his eyes.
He seems nervous, disrupted by your appearance, as if you caught him in a moment of vulnerability and hesitation. His face is tilted down, and despite the obvious recognition in his eyes, his back stays hunched. You’d be curious at his predicament, but you’re a telepath, and you don’t have to wonder for long.
At the the first burning touch to his mind, you can already see the person that’s reflected back at you, and it’s not hard to see why he’s acting so bothered.  
You might as well be a monster from the way your image distorts. Your face breaks into a mocking smile, with teeth like pointed needles, and as your body grows to a tower-like height and becomes layered with dark armor that is unmistakable in shape and form, you begin to reach out in all directions, as well.
You look terrifying yet familiar, but you recognize the feeling of Steel’s hesitation at the thought. You know this is one of the reasons why you think he is capable of being nice.
You break instantly from your trance at the sound of his voice, though he hasn’t moved an inch.
“This thing we have…” he trails off, waving his hand in the air. You stare at him, feeling like a deer caught in headlights from your resting place by the door.
The way he says your name makes you feel sick.
“I don’t want you coming to the HQ anymore.”
You continue to stare at him, silent at his confession despite the fact that you could have seen it coming.
That you should have seen it coming.
“You’re a variable that I cannot afford,” he voices, again dancing around any explanation or reason why, “and you can’t keep leading me on like this.”
In your game, this is the part where Steel says he’s just worried about you. If this were your game, you also know that Steel would say he’s sorry.
You know it’s naive to assume that he doesn’t suspect that you’re Ophelia, but you’re not sure what evidence he really has, and it makes you angry to think that you may have slipped.
But it’s hard to decide if it was intentional or not, and if this is the outcome, if it was worth it.
“Say something,” he demands, voice straining and suddenly angry, as he watches your eyes hover distractedly over his body but never focus. He rests his face in his hands, rubbing his eyes roughly with terrible metal knuckles.
“I’m...” you start, sucking in a sharp breath when you finally look at his face, “not leading you on.”
His reply is instant. “Then what are you doing?”
He glares at you from behind his hands, but you do not flinch as you’re unsure of what he’s expecting your answer to be.
You see the monster in his mind again, the one that’s a wrongful depiction of you, now shedding a stream of bloody tears. Suddenly, it becomes harder to watch through Steel’s eyes, as the You-Beast morphs from something hideous into the kind, little kid you were eight years ago, still stained in blood.
Oh, Chen! I just want to be a Ranger!
What a sick joke. A cruel one.  
Because that is not your answer, it never was, and now, you have nothing left to say to him, it being clear when your eyes slip to the floor in shock. Anger radiates from every inch of his person, and yet, you can’t find it in yourself to care the way you would’ve, even if you had just a week ago. You reach out for purchase against the slope of his thoughts, and see that his response is easy and his words are endless.
He narrows his eyes.
“I’m being kind. I’ve been more than kind. I just…” he rubs the bridge of his nose, and restarts the thought. “You know that I care for you.”
“You do?” It’s not checkmate, but it’s a start.
He hesitates. You’re a mind reader, after all.
Both of you remain quiet, standing in wait for a battle that is bound to happen. In some ways, you feel numb to his words, unfazed at his unkindness a part of you has always known him to be hiding. Yet, there is also a piece of you that forces your eyes to close in an attempt to concentrate just enough to stop yourself from lashing out. You don’t want to face the consequences of becoming angry at a man who is too pathetic to let you be happy in your spare time.
You peel your eyes open, and realize you have begun to cry.
“I don’t want to watch you drag your baggage around as if there is a way to mend what is broken.” His voice is stern, and suddenly you feel like a kid.
Your hands reach out, finding the closest thing to your body that fits in your hand and throwing it in his direction. He flinches, but the half-full bottle of Neon Rangerade misses his head by a good foot and a half and he stares at you with a blank expression.
“I’m not broken,” you croak, trying to defend what little reason you have left, “ Nothing is broken.”
The words feel heavy on your tongue, like the pills you could never swallow, but Steel ignores your disposition in his stupor. Normally, you’d attempt to reach a finger into his mind, but you know the only things that would be left there are his weird image of Ortega and about a thousand vile words.
“I don’t deserve being lied to,” he says blandly this time, distantly, while gazing far out the window at God knows what.
You don’t care to know what he’s thinking about anymore, or which incident it is that bleeds and stains in his mind. You have been good at keeping your mouth shut, but this conversation has been all the confirmation he needs. Silence can be a poison, and though you could easily find out what it is that Steel has been holding onto, what grief he carries in his heart, you can’t find it in yourself to press him any harder. He would know if you did, and you’re already crying.
He’s being cruel by doing this to you; forcing you to sew your lips shut even when all you wanted was him. People say that it’s the Re-Genes who lack any Humanity. Another fucking joke.  
“You’re an animal, Steel. You know that, right? A fucking dog.”
That’s ironic.
You wipe your wet cheeks. You shouldn’t be crying about a man you know never cared.
“Maybe,” he finishes, avoiding your eyes, “but that doesn’t mean shit coming from you.”
You watch as Steel stands up, finally broken from the paralysis you must’ve put him in. He glances once more at the white folder in his hands, and then at the leaking Rangerade you threw on the floor. He slowly puts down the files, and reaches for the bottle that is staining the carpet a bright orange. He’s always been a good boy.
You want to say you like that about him.
You can’t.
As he rests the bottle on the table, you notice Ortega’s face on the label that gazes up at the both of you in a trained and empty smile. You know it well, because part of you is empty, too.
“I’ll kill you, Steel.” you finally say, angry at both yourself and him for appearing so weak, so flushed red and angry. You turn to watch him as he pushes past you with heavy footsteps, and when he reaches the door to the long, sunny hallway that stretches out to the elevator, he doesn’t stop to look at you.
“I know.” His final words are cold, and it doesn’t take any telepathy to realize that he knows you aren’t lying.
Tomorrow you will be enemies again, and whatever your feelings were, they won’t matter now, because any kindness Steel had left for you died the moment you let yourself fall. The moment you realized it wasn’t a game anymore.
This is the animal kingdom, after all. It always has been, and the both of you are predators, waiting for the day when you can finally taste the sweetness that comes with being deadly.
It’s the circle of life.
You think about your game; about the fake Steel who begs on his knees for you and the boy he becomes when he kisses you despite your tattoos and scars. Despite being broken and animalistic.
You made him up in your head.
It makes you sad… Because it’s true that the real Steel hates you, and that if anyone else you loved knew you weren’t human, they would run for the hills, too. But most of all, it’s too bad that the people of Los Diablos don’t see you as their hero, and probably never will, because even if you pretend you don’t care, it would be really, really nice to feel loved.
Steel made you realize that.
And as you leave the HQ alone for the last time, a long time after Steel, you play the game over. This time, though, not forgiving anyone.
19 notes · View notes
nottodaylogic · 6 years ago
Text
light.
Summary: EVEN MORE OF THE GAY LOGINCE! With a special question bECAUSE @shootingace / @ohbytheangel and I have NO. SELF. CONTROL. WHATSOEVER. Based on a post by @today-only-happens-once and dedicated, once more, to @sanders-sides-thuri :)
Pairing: Logince 
A/N: Takes place after sun., part 3/3 of the Logince Fluff series, written, again, with @shootingace :) this is the last part, super fun (and frustrating since I’ve never been to Olive Garden) to write! 
@hghrules @becca-becky @tinysidestrashcaptain 
Hope y’all like it! :D
The tile in one pocket and the box in the other seemed to almost, nonsensically, burn as Logan walked. They’d talked over this topic before, multiple times, so there was no logical reason to be nervous.
And yet.
“Date night?” he asked his boyfriend, kissing him on the cheek. Roman startled, accidentally mutilating the word he was typing. He just looked at it, betrayed. “I’ve prepared some activities,” Logan murmured.
Roman looked very excited. “Ooh, activities! I like activities!”
“I like you.”
Roman flushed, deep and red. “Aren’t you sappy today. What’s the occasion?”
“No occasion. I was simply stating a fact.” He hummed, extending his arm. “I have made reservations. Shall we leave?”
“Hold on, just let me finish this sentence.”
This meant “let me finish this scene because I have no self control and must write a lot even though there are other priorities.”
“Of course.” Logan dropped a kiss to Roman’s head and walked away swiftly to get his coat.
Ten minutes later, as he expected, Roman staggered in, haphazardly yanking his jacket on. Logan looked at his watch.
“Precisely on time.” He opened the door. “Come. Our destination awaits.”
“Where are we going?” Roman asked mischievously.
“You shall see.”
“Tell me? Pleeeeeease?”
Logan smirked, leaning in and pressing a short kiss to Roman’s lips. “Will that satisfy you for the time being?”
“Mmmm, I don’t think so.” Roman tugged Logan closer, kissing him deeply. He set his hand on the small of Logan’s back, like he was about to dip him, making Logan go breathless.
“Now will you tell?” Roman asked, pulling back.
“It’s a surprise,” Logan breathed, though he wasn’t sure how much longer he could keep it a surprise if Roman insisted on making him fall even more in love.
Roman leaned in and whispered, “rude.” He then dropped him.
Logan scrambled to his feet, thankful for his 18 Dexterity. “Hey. We don’t have to go on the date if you don’t want to.”
“No, I want to! It’s incredibly romantic, my dear. Surprises are exciting yet it’s so hard to wait!”
“As Virgil would say, ‘because you are an impatient baby’.” Logan guestuted forward, towards the car. “After you.”
Logan pulled into the parking lot. There weren’t many decent spots, but he managed to grab one.
Roman turned to him excitedly, seeing their destination. “Ooh, Olive Garden?”
“I come prepared to woo the server into giving us extra breadsticks to take home.”
“You’re the best.”
Logan blushed softly. “Thank you. Now, our reservation awaits us.”
They entered the restaurant and were seated right away, thanks to Logan planning ahead and making a reservation.
“Your server will be right with you,” the host said, showing them to their table.
Roman pulled out Logan’s chair dramatically. “Monsieur, your chair?”
Logan rolled his eyes. He sat down, pushing out Roman’s chair with his foot. “There. Now we are even.”
“You’re a nerd,” Roman said fondly.
Logan inhaled, ready to refute this claim, but instead said only: “I know.”
“Wow. And you say I have an ego.”
“It is true, why are you pointing that out?” Logan was confused and a bit flustered by how sweet Roman was being.
Roman snorted. “You’re adorable.”
“No, I am very serious. I am not adorable. Patton is the adorable one.”
“That’s true, but it doesn’t mean you’re not adorable.”
That’s when a server came up to their table, preventing Logan from protesting more. “Hey, I’m Remy, can I get you anything to get started?” He set a menu in front of the couple.
“Breadsticks,” Roman said, at the same time Logan said, “water, please.”
“Of course. Some waters and a basket of breadsticks?”
They nodded and Remy left. The two chatted about movies that they hoped to watch, the drama that Logan heard from his students, how Roman’s characters were behaving.
“I try to get them to do something! And usually, they’re pretty good with cooperating. Just, these past few days, they just… won’t.”
“Can’t you simply… make them do it?”
Roman made distressed noises. “But I can’t! It feels weird then, and out of character! Okay, okay, enough about my distress. Spill the tea that you hear from your students.”
“Alright.” Logan adjusted his glasses. “You will not believe what Lizzie told me Justin K. did…”
Roman clapped excitedly. “Ooh, that idiot Justin! What did he do this time?”
“Well…”
Logan told him, Roman’s grin growing, becoming more and more mischievous.
“So let me get this gay. He told this teacher, who was literally eight months pregnant, that he didn’t think women needed a maternity leave?”
“Mhm.”
“Has he ever been pregnant? Or given birth?”
Logan laughed. He loved Roman so, so, much. “Not that I know of.”
“Wow.”
“Yeah. I know that teachers aren’t supposed to have favorites, but Justin is definitely on my ‘not a favorite’ list. Not that I have any such thing.”
“You know, I think we’re supposed to be deciding what to order right now,” Roman mentioned.
“As if you don’t get the same exact thing every time we come here.”
“You got me there.”
“That’s a meme.”
“You got me there.”
Logan stifled a laugh. “I love you.”
Roman smiled. “Love you too.”
That’s when Remy came back to take their orders. Roman ordered spaghetti and tomato soup. Logan ordered lasagna and a Greek salad. A chat and two baskets of breadsticks later, their dinner had arrived.
Logan ate his lasagna and laughed at Roman’s jokes, but the weight in his pocket—why did he bring the ring, it might get lost, he didn’t need it, this is illogical—was very present in his mind.
And worse was the nagging thought that Roman might say no. Of course, they had talked about marriage, but you could never be completely sure of an outcome.
“Something on your mind?” Roman asked, his foot brushing Logan’s.
Logan smiled. “You.”
Roman laughed. “You’re so sweet. It’s great.”
And with those words, that laugh, Logan felt himself drawn back into the moment, the fears of a future yes or no gone for the time being.
When they returned back home, Logan brought out the scrabble board.
Roman raised an eyebrow. “Not even gonna ask me if I wanna play this?”
“You’ve been bringing up how you want to play Scrabble for ten days now.”
“True.”
They set it up, Logan allowed his boyfriend to pick the starting word (LADDER) (“what? It’s the only thing I can do!”), and the game began.
“Your turn,” Roman said, gesturing to the board.
Logan set down the letters R, O, M, A, and N.
“Hey, no! That doesn’t count, it’s a proper noun!”
“I’ve let you get away with many proper nouns over the years. Cut me some slack.” Logan sat back, gesturing to the board. “You go.”
Roman put down O, P, and E to write NOPE.
Logan tried not to take this as a bad omen.
He then added L, O, V to the E in NOPE, making it LOVE.
“Awww, you sap,” Roman teased, swooning. “That’s so sweet.”
They continued playing, Logan adding FOREVER and DEDICATION to Roman’s words (OCEAN and DISBELIEF)
“Is something amiss?” Roman felt his forehead, looking overly concerned for the comedic effect. “You seem to be exceedingly sentimental today.”
Logan brushed this off with a, “It was simply what I could make with my letters and the board.”
Roman eyed him curiously, but dropped the topic. “Your turn.”
Logan wordlessly set down his piece, putting it right next to ROMAN, so that it read ROMAN, will you marry me?
Roman started to protest about how “that’s not in the rules of the game, Logan!”, but then he stopped, obviously having read the piece.
His eyes snapped up, meeting Logan’s.
“You… you… Logan.” It seemed he couldn’t say anything more.
Logan slid out his chair, dropping to one knee, holding the box with the ring in front of him. “Marry me, Roman Princeton?”
“Lo… Logan, oh my gosh. Oh my gosh.” And then he was out of his chair, too, stumbling towards Logan. He leaned down, taking Logan’s face in his hands, kissing him softly. “Yes, yes, of course, yes.”
Logan let Roman pull him to his feet, his arms around Roman’s waist, holding him tight. “Roman. I love you. I love every moment we’ve spent together. I treasure every memory I share with you. And I’d like to make more memories with you. For the rest of forever.”
Roman nodded, pressing his his forehead to Logan’s shoulder. “Yes,” he choked out.
“Hey, Ro, don’t cry,” Logan whispered, rubbing Roman’s crisp, clean shirt between his fingers. “Don’t cry.”
But he would be lying if he said that he wasn’t crying a little too.
Because finally, finally, he would be marrying the love of his life.
Because… because he just loved Roman so much, loved him so much that sometimes he didn’t know what to do with all the feelings.
Because Roman was going to be his, his, forever and ever and ever.
“I love you so damn much, Roman.”
“I love you too.” Roman pulled back slightly, holding his hand out. “You going to… you going to actually put that ring on me?”
Logan laughed softly and slid the ring onto Roman’s finger, then pull Roman’s hand to his mouth, kissing the back of it. “I love you. I love you so much, Ro.”
“I know.”
Logan laughed, pulling Roman close and kissing him. “You're wonderful, Princey.”
“Mmm, I know.” Logan stared at Roman, deadpan. “Just kidding, you are too.” Roman nudged Logan’s chin with his nose then kissed his cheek. “Love you. So freaking much.”
“Dance with me?” Logan asked, the words spilling out of his mouth before he could really process what he was asking.
“Where’s the music?”
Logan tilted his head. “Sing?”
Roman snorted. “Well, we need some sort of background music, Lo. I can’t sing if I’m gonna kiss you, and I’d very much like to kiss you.”
Logan blushed, his breath catching in his chest.
“C’mon, babe,” Roman said. “Music.”
So Logan grabbed his phone, pulling up the “romantic songs for my nerd” playlist Roman had made for him.
On came As Long As You’re Mine from Wicked, and Logan pulled Roman close.
They danced and twirled and laughed together, Logan falling more and more in love. Roman was so beautiful, so loving, and Logan got to spend the rest of his live with him.
“I love you, Roman.”
“Yeah?” Roman whispered.
“Yeah.”
“Prove it.”
So Logan twirled Roman, then pulled him back, dipping him and kissing him softly.
Roman let out a soft gasp. “I love you so much,” he murmured, tangling his fingers in Logan’s hair.
“Love you too.”
Later, they lay on the bed together, staring at the ceiling, tired, content.
Roman curled up on Logan’s chest, so beautifully exhausted. “How long were you planning to propose?”
Logan thought for a moment. “A little while.”
“How long did you know you wanted to marry me?”
Running his hands through his fiancé’s hair, he responded, “Forever, probably. I just—I never imagined my future without you. And then a few weeks ago I realized that why not get married?”
Roman seemed to think this through for a moment when he asked, “Why me?”
The question took Logan by surprise. “Why you what?”
Roman looked directly into Logan’s eyes. The expression there was raw, unable to be described. “Why did you want to marry me?”
Because you’re the only person I’d ever want to marry. Because you’re the only person I’d ever want. Because you’re stellar. Because you’re funny and sweet and dramatic and unique and loving and thoughtful and romantic. Because despite loving you, I can’t find the vocabulary to express all of this. “Because I love you.”
“Aww, Lo.” Roman reached up, kissing Logan softly. “Now we get to plan a wedding.”
“But first we should go to bed.”
Roman’s eyebrows raised as he smirked, and Logan only slightly regretted his phrasing. “As you wish.”
Logan blushed, but nobody could prove it, so what did it matter?
Logan woke first in the morning, a stream of light illuminating the room. He glanced down at Roman, snoring, the ring on his finger shining.
And Logan knew that they would get to spend the rest of their lives like this.
54 notes · View notes
s7groupinc-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesconsulting-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radleybatesdigital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesassociates-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesvaluations-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatescapital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
butchdollyparton · 5 years ago
Text
Sidestep Questions
Had these questions as a draft, accidentally deleted when I meant to post, oh well. I didn’t come up w these, im just answering them.
Subject Sidestep Vandria Almat // Eden // Nemesis
1. what is their secret identity? do they have any nicknames? what is the meaning behind them? No nicknames 2. what is their sexual/romantic orientation and gender? Pansexual; female-presenting, but really not particular about gender 3. what is their villain name? why did they choose it? Nemesis. It fits. She's not sure if she's her own nemesis, or the Rangers', or her past's. But it's her name now and it suits how angry she is. 4. what does their villain armor look like? what is their typical style of dress? Her villain armor is mysterious. Typically, she dresses simply, and in black. Easier to put outfits together that way. And she thinks it makes her look sharp. 5. what is their zodiac sign? Bruh idfk. She doesnt know when her birthday is 6. what is their mbti type? intj 7. what is their dnd alignment? Lawful evil 8. are they more calculating or more sincere in their interactions with others? Calculating. She sometimes wishes she could be more sincere, but has been ingrained to manipulate her answers to give people what they want and to also manipulate people to give her what she wants. It makes genuine connections very difficult. 9. how honest are they? Depends on what honesty gets her. She's only interested in lying as far as it serves her purposes. 10. are they a leader or a follower? Definitely a leader. It's not something she was always aware of, but she wouldn't be able to accomplish what she does now without being very driven and having great leadership skills. 11. are they more self-serving or more focused on others’ needs? Absolutely self-serving. She won't go out of her way to harm others but also doesn't waste time or make herself vulnerable in order to help others. 12. do they prefer to solve things diplomatically or through violence? She'd prefer that everyone just did what she wanted. So… manipulations? Which I guess is diplomacy. She's most satisfied with an outcome when all the other parties' interests just so happen to facilitate her own somehow. 13. do they want to be well-known, or do they prefer to remain obscure? Right now, at the end of rebirth, she wants to be obscure. Most optimistically, her actual identity will fade into obscurity while her villain identity becomes more infamous. 14. are they more daring or more cautious? Rather a mix of the two. She's very calculating about the risks involved and is very committed once she's determined a plan of action, but she won't be a daredevil just for the adrenaline rush. 15. what is their greatest flaw? She's very quick to assume that others' intentions toward her are insincere or even malicious. She never really trusted that Ortega would always have her back. And she feels validated in that fear after the events of heartbreak. She's even less likely to trust others with her true self. That's why she builds so many layers, and why she relies on Eden as such a developed fake identity. 16. what is their best virtue? She's very intelligent, a great tactician, charming, a fantastic liar. But more than that her determination and pure bullheadedness makes her stunning. 17. what is their ultimate goal? She wants to show the world the truth about the government research and actions that lead to her creation and subsequent abuse. 18. what is their greatest fear? That someone could control her again like heartbreak. 19. what scarred them the most about the heartbreak incident? The fact that someone so completely invaded her mind, controlled not only her actions but also made her doubt her own mind and self. 20. how do they feel about death? She flirts with it a bit. In some way, she views this whole endeavor as a very long, drawn-out suicide note. She doesn't really see a way that this has a happy ending. 21. what is their philosophy? Get back up. Every time she's been knocked down, her most prevalent thought is, "What do I do next?" 22. how do they feel about their telepathy? is it a gift? a curse? It's like having… any other sensory ability. She obviously experiences what it would be like to be headblind, but it's nothing that she wants forever. It's just that it's nice sometimes to rest her eyes. She wouldn't intentionally blind herself just to take a break from seeing. 23. how do they feel about possessing people? It's a necessity and not worth getting worked up about. Normally, people don't even notice anything different. 24. how do they typically come across to strangers? to friends? do they frequently use their telepathy to influence others’ perceptions of them? She more relies on how she dresses, body language, and speech to influence normal people day-to-day. She constantly at least brushes against others' consciousnesses, reading their emotions and random thoughts. In more important interactions, she will shamelessly use her telepathy to get the outcome she wants. She tries not to be too harsh with people's minds, though, as a mix of empathy and a desire not to leave obvious tracks. 25. do they prefer to be alone or with other people? Alone, generally. Or rather, with people, but as Eden. She really likes the true anonymity that Eden affords her. But she will just go hang out places where no one she once knew would look for her. It's easy to be just another tired face in the crowd. 26. do they have any friends? allies? She respects Dr. M, not that they've ever actually met face-to-face. The same w Rosie/Boris. That's really it. She wouldn't count Ortega as a friend anymore. She doesn’t trust herself to be friends with Ortega and control the situation. 27. what qualities might someone appreciate about them? what would drive someone away? Her wit, her charm are both things that draw people to her. But she has a tendency to be very cynical and dry when truly speaking her mind, which would drive people away. Which is her intent, when she even lets people get close enough to her to get past the charm. 28. what do they find attractive in others? what’s a turn-off? She likes people who are intelligent and passionate. She doesn’t have a set of physical attributes that she finds attractive. A turn-off would be if someone acts brutish, imprudently, or intentionally hurts others with no other reason. She understands some amount of collateral damage but is disgusted with people who carelessly kill others. 29. do they flirt often? Not really, beyond the casual flirting you do with a stranger you never see again. She doesn’t see much of a point to it. No one will ever get close enough for her to lower her shields, so why go beyond the most casual of flirting? 30. what is their love life like? Nonexistent, like her social like. Honestly, she's been so tired and depressed lately that a sex life has not even been of interest. All her focus has been on her plans and managing three separate lives as Vandria, Eden, and Nemesis. 31. what is their combat style like? She moves extremely quickly, always a step ahead. She uses her telepathy to predict her opponent's intentions. She prefers to block or evade until an opportunity to strike rises. And then she strikes hard and without hesitation. She doesn’t linger to gloat or torture people. Any people standing in her way simply need to be removed; hurting them specifically isn’t the goal. 32. do they favor forceful mind control or subtle manipulations? Definitely subtle manipulations, where people feel like it was their idea all along. She'd rather not crush someone's mind and leave drooling bodies in her wake. She also takes a sort of pride in masterfully changing someone’s mind about something without brute force. 33. how do they feel about herald idolizing them? Kind of pitying, kind of mystified. She knows that heroes aren't really who they present themselves as, especially her, and that their jobs are hardly as glamourous or straightforward as it would seem. She also doesn't really get why he would idolize her. There other, more famous, respected, interesting candidates than her old, retired ass, especially now that he’s had the misfortune to actually meet her. 34. are they nostalgic for their sidestep days or eager to move on? A bit of both. She's nostalgic for a time where she felt more relaxed, a bit more open, where she had people she felt she could rely on, at least to some extent. But she knows she can't go back. She's tired of wanting to turn back time. She's set on her path and I don't think there's much, if anything, that could turn her from it. 35. if they could have any other superpower, what would they choose? Teleportation. She would fucking love that.
0 notes
s7groupinc-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesconsulting-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radleybatesdigital-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesassociates-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes
radlybatesvaluations-blog · 6 years ago
Text
Adam Radly Bob Bates: Meritocracy doesn’t exist, and believing it does is bad for you
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=webfeeds Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life–money, power, jobs, university admission–should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the “even playing field” upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill. Respondents in both countries believe that external factors, such as luck and coming from a wealthy family, are much less important. While these ideas are most pronounced in these two countries, they are popular across the globe.
Tumblr media
Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called “grit,” depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.This is to say nothing of the fortuitous circumstances that figure into every success story. In his book Success and Luck, the U.S. economist Robert Frank recounts the long-shots and coincidences that led to Bill Gates’s stellar rise as Microsoft’s founder, as well as to Frank’s own success as an academic. Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best. According to Frank, this is especially true where the success in question is great, and where the context in which it is achieved is competitive. There are certainly programmers nearly as skilful as Gates who nonetheless failed to become the richest person on Earth. In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.
Tumblr media
In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical, and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.The “ultimatum game” is an experiment, common in psychological labs, in which one player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and told to propose a division between him and another player (the responder), who may accept the offer or reject it. If the responder rejects the offer, neither player gets anything. The experiment has been replicated thousands of times, and usually the proposer offers a relatively even split. If the amount to be shared is $100, most offers fall between $40-$50. One variation on this game shows that believing one is more skilled leads to more selfish behavior. In research at Beijing Normal University, participants played a fake game of skill before making offers in the ultimatum game. Players who were (falsely) led to believe they had “won” claimed more for themselves than those who did not play the skill game. Other studies confirm this finding. The economists Aldo Rustichini at the University of Minnesota and Alexander Vostroknutov at Maastricht University in the Netherlands found that subjects who first engaged in a game of skill were much less likely to support the redistribution of prizes than those who engaged in games of chance. Just having the idea of skill in mind makes people more tolerant of unequal outcomes. While this was found to be true of all participants, the effect was much more pronounced among the “winners.” By contrast, research on gratitude indicates that remembering the role of luck increases generosity. Frank cites a study in which simply asking subjects to recall the external factors (luck, help from others) that had contributed to their successes in life made them much more likely to give to charity than those who were asked to remember the internal factors (effort, skill). Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behavior. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
Tumblr media
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The “even playing field” is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race, and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this “paradox of meritocracy” occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behavior for signs of prejudice.Meritocracy is a false and not very salutary belief. As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just. However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles. Its ideological alchemy transmutes property into praise, material inequality into personal superiority. It licenses the rich and powerful to view themselves as productive geniuses. While this effect is most spectacular among the elite, nearly any accomplishment can be viewed through meritocratic eyes. Graduating from high school, artistic success, or simply having money can all be seen as evidence of talent and effort. By the same token, worldly failures becomes signs of personal defects, providing a reason why those at the bottom of the social hierarchy deserve to remain there. This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit. Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination, and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate. Clifton Mark writes about political theory, psychology, and other lifestyle-related topics. He lives in Toronto.      Radly Bates affiliates: S7 Group Radly Bates Index Radly Bates Consulting Radly Bates Capital Radly Bates Associates Radly Bates Digital Radly Bates Valuations Follow us on social: https://issuu.com/radlybatesconsulting https://issuu.com/radlybatescapital https://issuu.com/radlybatesdigital https://issuu.com/radlybatesassociates. https://issuu.com/radlybatesvaluations https://issuu.com/s7loans Read the full article
0 notes