If women experience ick when they encounter men who advertise their moral/aesthetic/status failures due to their discomfort they feel at their own failures, which failures of the general populace do you think gross out contemporary elites the most (e.g. obesity)?
Which of the elites’ own failures do you think they are most anxious about (e.g. urban decay occurring on their watch)?
That’s the worse part- the failures that elites are the most sensitive to are no longer any real concrete failures, instead it is just the perception of failure that the vast majority of the people are scared of. Things that are coded to higher status aren’t actually more functional or more beautiful or truer in any sense anymore, they just accidentally become status symbols and are self-justifications.
Perceptions are subject to “outdated” moral codes or sometimes just forces of nature so they are never completely fictional, but perceptions can be faked or manipulated for one’s benefit. So you may still survive off of general perceptions if you are somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy but when the elites attempt to do the same thing, the whole hierarchy collapses in on itself. In that sense, we don’t actually have any elites at all anymore, just a bunch of people LARPing as such.
Elites desperately fear losing caste, and their anxiety naturally isolates them and breeds condescension toward the middle class. Moreover, elites know that meritocracy favors their caste and they suspect that, although they cannot explain how, the same forces that burnish the gloss on the elite spread a pall of gloom over the middle class. No matter how pure their motives and how scrupulous their victories, meritocratic elites are implicated, including through achievements that they admire, in inequalities that they deplore.
I haven’t read the whole book, but meritocracy is a rather strange culprit to choose in all this. The observations made are all quite accurate but calling whatever we have right now a meritocracy is the folly. There is such a big difference between elite status earned by collecting the *signifiers* of merit versus the elite status that has genuine unshakable virtue and integrity to it- the former is fragile and insecure and terrified of facing inequalities that are inherent to the real world, while the latter is a self-confident authority by itself even when you take away their social position. We have all slipped into the habit of calling the signifiers of merit, like money and wealth or competence in running the rat race or even a fake facade of beauty, merit itself. And so meritocracy, to the author, seems to mean something like a hierarchy dictated by the *perceived* productivity and effectiveness of people over the real productivity and effectiveness.
Simply put, a person who has become elite by collecting signifiers of status is aware of how fragile his position is and so feels that exposure to his inferiors might tarnish him, while a person who is elite by his virtue does not have such qualms and will in fact elevate his inferiors just by his presence.
I don’t agree with much of the guy’s framing regarding what we are actually operating with. I don’t think anyone is going to look at the first quarter of this century and think we have had too much merit in the halls of power.
But the bit about the anxiety feels very real to me. This was on full display regarding recent discourse in public health (occupied by many worthless busybodies with myriad credentials).
Great article! There is definitely a class of insecure “new money” folks that feed on external validation instead of first principles. The essence of a true elite class is imposing transcendent purpose and culture from pure first principles, not simply obtaining women and money with no ultimate goal in mind. Real Nobles aren’t concerned with proving how elite they are to peasants, or vindictively dominating them to boost their ego. Many of the children of the (true) American Nobility are choosing not to participate in this corrupt hierarchy at all, instead getting into environmentalism, traveling, alternative music, extreme sports, etc. All the High-IQ, elite people I grew up with went one of two routes: the Boston/NYC/Miami route, or the Vermont/Colorado/Montana route. Needless to say, I think the latter group is more elite.
I see the kind of people that claim elite status while being willfully blind to their own values, often because they have no values beyond pure domination for its own sake, as leading a completely sterile hierarchy. It produces nothing real and ultimately just rots for lack of substance.
These are exactly the kind of people to be swept up in the poorly thought-through social “causes” of the day and create hypersensitive agitation on the behalf of the same unsuccessful people that they otherwise despise. When you think that you don’t really deserve your high position, and are in the end no better than the people that you cheated to get ahead, you adopt the ideologies of the oppressed to justify yourself.
The modern experience: brilliant in their field, confidently marching like a conquering emperor out of their area of expertise right into the minefield of Everywhere Else.
Without doubt, Americans have divided themselves into a hierarchy of social status. We have created a caste system. That wasn't supposed to happen (although at least the Southern colonies certainly were organized in such a hierarchy). And it seems that our governmental system has also become a hierarchy, of control.
"Isn’t it time some of these questions were actually answered?" IMHO it's way past time. It might even be too late.
I really appreciate your input, but I am not against hierarchies. What I want, is a return of the kind of people that have real transcendent values, that can go beyond climbing hierarchies just for the sake of being at the top of everyone else.
This is the right perspective. Our current "elite" are scum bags that deceive and thieve their way to the top. True elite are men like George Washington or Robert E Lee. Folks that don't want to be at the top, but feel a duty to do so, out of love for their nation and people.
Yes, some systems work best, or even only, as hierarchies. Hierarchies are necessary. Maybe society, as a social structure, is best as a hierarchy, although I am not convinced of that.
And the distinction between a ruler or a leader at the top of a hierarchy is crucial. People voluntarily followed George Washington, he was a leader. People obeyed George III only because he was the king. A genuine leader does have "real transcendent values".
If women experience ick when they encounter men who advertise their moral/aesthetic/status failures due to their discomfort they feel at their own failures, which failures of the general populace do you think gross out contemporary elites the most (e.g. obesity)?
Which of the elites’ own failures do you think they are most anxious about (e.g. urban decay occurring on their watch)?
That’s the worse part- the failures that elites are the most sensitive to are no longer any real concrete failures, instead it is just the perception of failure that the vast majority of the people are scared of. Things that are coded to higher status aren’t actually more functional or more beautiful or truer in any sense anymore, they just accidentally become status symbols and are self-justifications.
Perceptions are subject to “outdated” moral codes or sometimes just forces of nature so they are never completely fictional, but perceptions can be faked or manipulated for one’s benefit. So you may still survive off of general perceptions if you are somewhere in the middle of the hierarchy but when the elites attempt to do the same thing, the whole hierarchy collapses in on itself. In that sense, we don’t actually have any elites at all anymore, just a bunch of people LARPing as such.
From The Meritocracy Trap:
Elites desperately fear losing caste, and their anxiety naturally isolates them and breeds condescension toward the middle class. Moreover, elites know that meritocracy favors their caste and they suspect that, although they cannot explain how, the same forces that burnish the gloss on the elite spread a pall of gloom over the middle class. No matter how pure their motives and how scrupulous their victories, meritocratic elites are implicated, including through achievements that they admire, in inequalities that they deplore.
https://bookreadfree.com/59776/1503091.amp
I haven’t read the whole book, but meritocracy is a rather strange culprit to choose in all this. The observations made are all quite accurate but calling whatever we have right now a meritocracy is the folly. There is such a big difference between elite status earned by collecting the *signifiers* of merit versus the elite status that has genuine unshakable virtue and integrity to it- the former is fragile and insecure and terrified of facing inequalities that are inherent to the real world, while the latter is a self-confident authority by itself even when you take away their social position. We have all slipped into the habit of calling the signifiers of merit, like money and wealth or competence in running the rat race or even a fake facade of beauty, merit itself. And so meritocracy, to the author, seems to mean something like a hierarchy dictated by the *perceived* productivity and effectiveness of people over the real productivity and effectiveness.
Simply put, a person who has become elite by collecting signifiers of status is aware of how fragile his position is and so feels that exposure to his inferiors might tarnish him, while a person who is elite by his virtue does not have such qualms and will in fact elevate his inferiors just by his presence.
I don’t agree with much of the guy’s framing regarding what we are actually operating with. I don’t think anyone is going to look at the first quarter of this century and think we have had too much merit in the halls of power.
But the bit about the anxiety feels very real to me. This was on full display regarding recent discourse in public health (occupied by many worthless busybodies with myriad credentials).
Great article! There is definitely a class of insecure “new money” folks that feed on external validation instead of first principles. The essence of a true elite class is imposing transcendent purpose and culture from pure first principles, not simply obtaining women and money with no ultimate goal in mind. Real Nobles aren’t concerned with proving how elite they are to peasants, or vindictively dominating them to boost their ego. Many of the children of the (true) American Nobility are choosing not to participate in this corrupt hierarchy at all, instead getting into environmentalism, traveling, alternative music, extreme sports, etc. All the High-IQ, elite people I grew up with went one of two routes: the Boston/NYC/Miami route, or the Vermont/Colorado/Montana route. Needless to say, I think the latter group is more elite.
I see the kind of people that claim elite status while being willfully blind to their own values, often because they have no values beyond pure domination for its own sake, as leading a completely sterile hierarchy. It produces nothing real and ultimately just rots for lack of substance.
These are exactly the kind of people to be swept up in the poorly thought-through social “causes” of the day and create hypersensitive agitation on the behalf of the same unsuccessful people that they otherwise despise. When you think that you don’t really deserve your high position, and are in the end no better than the people that you cheated to get ahead, you adopt the ideologies of the oppressed to justify yourself.
We don't need to imagine getting pulled off in every which way and not giving a fuck about each other - we live it.
In order to get ahead, we sacrifice our lives to what we do. We become perfectly adapted to it, and nothing else.
Unfortunately, there are many people that are either woefully ignorant or just sheltered from this reality in their own little bubble.
The modern experience: brilliant in their field, confidently marching like a conquering emperor out of their area of expertise right into the minefield of Everywhere Else.
Without doubt, Americans have divided themselves into a hierarchy of social status. We have created a caste system. That wasn't supposed to happen (although at least the Southern colonies certainly were organized in such a hierarchy). And it seems that our governmental system has also become a hierarchy, of control.
"Isn’t it time some of these questions were actually answered?" IMHO it's way past time. It might even be too late.
I really appreciate your input, but I am not against hierarchies. What I want, is a return of the kind of people that have real transcendent values, that can go beyond climbing hierarchies just for the sake of being at the top of everyone else.
This is the right perspective. Our current "elite" are scum bags that deceive and thieve their way to the top. True elite are men like George Washington or Robert E Lee. Folks that don't want to be at the top, but feel a duty to do so, out of love for their nation and people.
Yes, some systems work best, or even only, as hierarchies. Hierarchies are necessary. Maybe society, as a social structure, is best as a hierarchy, although I am not convinced of that.
And the distinction between a ruler or a leader at the top of a hierarchy is crucial. People voluntarily followed George Washington, he was a leader. People obeyed George III only because he was the king. A genuine leader does have "real transcendent values".