Home > Critical Thinking, Current Affairs, Dystopia, Economy, Musings, Reason, Secular Religions, Skepticism, Technology, Thoughts on Economics > Justifications for Privilege Based on IQ and Merit are Lies

Justifications for Privilege Based on IQ and Merit are Lies

One of the staples in any version of CONservatism and LIEbertarianism is the idea that ability, merit and utility has a reasonable correlation with the success of a person. While some of the less retarded morons might make some noise about “value transference” and suggest that the system might not be based on merit- the vast majority of morons believe that we live in a just world.

However, even a cursory unbiased look at the world around would suggest that it is not the case.

1. In my early 20s, I was almost broke for about a year after completing my MSc. Then things changed and I got one job and another in a peripherally related area which paid almost 60k/year. So how did I go from almost broke and without hope to 60k/ year within 2 years?

Did I suddenly become more intelligent, knowledgeable or capable? Nope.. my enormous change in lifestyle came from luck and chance- not any change within myself. If a bunch of things had not lined up, things could have gone in a very different direction- and I would have had to kill a few people who deserved it regardless of the consequences.

2. I know many people in their 50s who used to have excellent jobs in science and technology driven companies. Their journey from well-remunerated employment to relative poverty had nothing to do with changes in their intrinsic productivity or ability, but were driven by the need of companies to reduce their payrolls for driving up their share prices and ultimately- executive compensation.

So what changed between the last day these people had their old and well-paying jobs to the next? How did they suddenly go from being valued employees to liabilities? Why did their supposed social value change so fast, even if their abilities and capabilities did not?

In summary- I have used a couple of easy to understand examples to demonstrate that justifications for privilege based on IQ, Merit or other supposed proxy markers of “superiority” are rooted in self-deception.

Comments?

  1. February 9, 2012 at 10:30 pm

    “If a bunch of things had not lined up, things could have gone in a very different direction- and I would have had to kill a few people who deserved it regardless of the consequences.”

    whatever-keep on talking dirty. I’m sure it turns on the white power turds at IMF….

    as I’ve said before, probably the only fight you’ve been in was Street Fighter II

    Fighting to kill demonstrates that you are not good at killing.

    • February 9, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      so do you use poison in their water or shoot them with your quarter inch pee-shooter….

      People with severe burns or similar cutaneous injuries usually die a slow and painful death.

      • February 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm

        so is that phospherous or acid that you’d prefer?

        or do you put kerosene in a water bottle and spray it on them then use a spray can/zippo to light ’em up?

        Acid is risky and often too localized. White phosphorous is toxic at close quarters.

        The idea is to cause extensive and diffuse 3rd degree burns.. use you imagination.

      • February 9, 2012 at 10:52 pm

        as far as the 3rd degree burns, you could just tamper with their shower head so scalding water comes out….

        hahaha, you won’t be able to get me as I never bathe-now the IMf guys are gonna say I’m the same race as you…..
        —-

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite (especially certain combinations that are fairly stable + cheap)

      • February 9, 2012 at 11:02 pm

        so i guess you won’t be buying fertillizer like your hero Brevik….

        you do know that homeland security is looking at all this of course….

        There is an advantage in using inexpensive and commonly used materials in exotic ways.

  2. February 9, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    insults aside, though it is fun and you probably like the attention….

    this is heresy to the tough guys who believe in “game.”

    just think, your success with a woman has to do with HER choices as well as being in the right place at the right time. You may or may not have certain characteristics/prerequisites…

    Compared to the labor market-either a company is hiring or you’ve got some inside track and either you have what they are looking for or not. At best good interviewing skills might get your foot in the door…

    so I suppose “game” adds up to interviewing well….

  3. February 9, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    “So what changed between the last day these people had their old and well-paying jobs to the next? How did they suddenly go from being valued employees to liabilities? Why did their supposed social value change so fast, even if their abilities and capabilities did not?”

    Obviously their employers thought it was a strategic choice to get cheaper labor….

    Back to the “game” analogy…

    A “Gamster’s” woman could dump him for all sorts of reasons that only she knows-ie “It’s not you, it’s me…” and he’ll sit there saying he has to “tighten his game…”

    Yep!

    • February 9, 2012 at 10:43 pm

      wow, it’s almost like I’m talking to you in real time mr. diablo….

  4. Conquistador
    February 10, 2012 at 12:59 am

    In your example you cite 50 somethings who are now unemployed. The next question arises why weren’t they sociopathic enough to move up into management? It’s not like they weren’t aware of the system. They were very much a part of it and you’ve previously said they cared little for anyone else “below them” or facing hard circumstances.

    • hoipolloi
      February 10, 2012 at 11:53 am

      “The next question arises why weren’t they sociopathic enough to move up into management?”

      Which company or organization promotes all its emplyees? Everyone can aspire to be in the management but say only one in ten gets promoted, even if everynone is performing at top grade. Comes close to blaming the victim.

  5. Webe
    February 10, 2012 at 1:52 am

    > the vast majority of morons believe that we live in a just world

    True. For most people scuttling this rather odd belief is literally a matter of life and death. People like to complain, but as soon as you propose bundling your influence to do something about it, 90% of the people instinctively react as if the people in authority are not there for nothing after all, even though they explicitly deny on a daily basis that those people are doing the right thing. I have even experienced people being seriously disadvantaged by some bureaucrat who would rather suffer than accept help in fighting some authority who is contravening procedures — because admitting that these people are simply wrong/injust is even more threatening to them.
    The drive to legitimate and justify the way things are (happen to be) is so basic it is right up there with food and shelter. The whole spiel about “a nation of laws” and “property rights” are obviously justification ex post fact.

  6. Wun Hung Lo
    February 10, 2012 at 2:36 am

    Sink your pearls into some of these gems from the real Ferdinand Bardamu (from the Voyage au Bout de la Nuit):

    “As a matter of principle, in all things and for all time, I agreed with the boss. I haven’t made much practical headway in the course of my harassed existence, but I had learned the essential principles of servile etiquette. Consequently, we had become good friends. I never opposed him, and I didn’t eat much at the table. A pleasant sort of assistant, in sum, economical, not the least ambitious, no threat to anyone.”

    “It had its advantages that on the whole [my boss] should consider me with a certain contempt. A boss always finds the crumminess of his staff rather reassuring. A slave must at all costs be slightly, if not superlatively, contemptible. An assortment of chronic moral and physical defects justifies the horrible treatment he is getting. Then the earth turns more smoothly, for each man occupies the place he deserves.”

    Polite society calls it ‘people skills’ – I don’t want you to be good, I want to like you! – and in our victim-pity atmosphere, you’ll be liked if you can improve another’s self-esteem at your expense. This is why most people get employed by word-of-mouth connections – one mediocrity is happy to pass on an opportunity to a companion mediocrity that he can relate to on relatively equal terms.

    If you are forced to compete on the open market, and you appear too polished and intelligent (cardinal sin of modernity), most ‘HR professionals’, overwhelming our favorite western women, will just luuuurrrve letting you down gently.

    • February 10, 2012 at 8:02 am

      A big part of the employment game is placcating your superiors just like a big part of PUA is placcating women…

      if you do become self-actualized-you might find that you have few friends-probably easiest done when you are sitting on a mountain of cash….

      • Wun Hung Lo
        February 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm

        Exactly right.

  7. hoipolloi
    February 10, 2012 at 4:40 pm

    “One of the staples in any version of CONservatism and LIEbertarianism is the idea that ability, merit and utility has a reasonable correlation with the success of a person.”

    Merit itself is an elusive thing. Like the rhetorical statement what is truth, one can ask what is merit. People against affirmative action in the U.S. and reservations for minorities in India harp about merit. Like one of my surpervisors said one time that all evaluations are subjectve even when they are claimed to be based on merit. For people who make decisions about hiring, giving grants, awards etc. merit means ethnicity and personality they are comfortable with. Skills and talents are secondary. Around half of the Nobel prizes in medicine or physiology and chemistry ( I could not speak of others) could have gone to any number of people. They are not game changers. Merit is being in sync with the prevailing elite in a society. Most of the time it is not in your hands.

  8. February 11, 2012 at 9:03 am

    In Western culture ‘meritocracy’ is one of those hallowed words thrown around without people really understanding what it means – or if it really means anything.

    What’s ‘merit?’ It all depends on what a mass society values in its people,
    No one ever really stops to ask: what if the society’s values as a whole are petty and rotten.
    What is a ‘meritocracy’ worth then?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: