nteresting piece in the NYTimes. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/sunday-review/women-ceos-glass-ceiling.html
I’ve now gotten through the two courses Jordan Peterson has on line. In this video he goes into a lot of the work he’d done in corporate hiring and the psychological instruments he developed to help corporations hire better. It’s a fascinating discussion because he basically notes that corporations don’t really hire for success. https://youtu.be/Q7GKmznaqsQ?t=2m50s
He claims to be able to demonstrate how effective and profitable they could be if they’d hire using more scientific methods (he’s a scientist after all) but then goes into why they don’t.
In another video https://youtu.be/nsZ8XqHPjI4?t=1h48m4s he notes that if you want to really achieve the heights of a dominance hierarchy (which is what a top position is) you’ve really got to be one-dimensional. You’ve got to put all your eggs in that one basket. You’ve got to sacrifice everything else to achieve that one thing. Kind of like the pearl of great price.
There are reasons why men do this more than women.
It’s also not clear it’s a good idea if you want to have a balanced or whole life.
I am struck by the NYT piece some of the implicit assumptions beneath the article. It’s as if the implicit demand is that “yes, it must be a pure meritocracy” but at the same time “it must be fair”. The article seems blind to the inherent tension between the two ideas. Those tensions also surround the “win at any cost” ethos of the current POTUS.
I’m also reminded of a lot of the comments of Jonathan Haidt on the current crop of youth who always appeal to authority to implement and enforce their egalitarian demands. At the very top of a secular structure who are you going to appeal to? Theists appeal to God yet in most cases justice doesn’t come until the age to come.
Haven’t we always know that when it comes to the very top of a competitive environment the tensions between balance and uni-dimensionality are ferocious as well as the moral and ethical issues?
Also consider a Pareto distribution. https://youtu.be/CsRLVZTYpGo Equality of outcome is inherently unfair.
So, what do you want, equality or meritocracy based on pure competition which is multi-dimensional?
What we say is “we want a system that the person who works the hardest wins because of merit” as well as “the people at the top get to have a well balanced life”
In other words you want a world in which there aren’t really any costs. That’s not this world. pvk