[lbo-talk] Harry Potter, Metritocracy, and Reward

Tayssir John Gabbour tayssir.john at googlemail.com
Thu Aug 23 08:52:19 PDT 2007


On 8/23/07, andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joanna, and may Tayssir, your take on this involved a
> deeply liberal (not radical) sense that somehow any
> deviations from equality of reward, including respect
> and honor, ought to be independent of any qualities
> that are outside the individual's control.

If you look at what Joanna wrote, she isn't against "respect and honor" for talented people: "So, you have a skill/talent/gift and you have the respect of people whose respect matters." She does seem to be against the idea of people competing for trinkets like medals though, like in schools.

My view is pretty non-political. More cultural and psychological. I just happen not to think that certain kinds of heavy adulation is healthy or helpful, like the "praise beyond measure" you mentioned.

I do agree that my view is shared by many liberals, and isn't particularly exotic. For example, Bill Gates Sr. mentioned something similar about the "myth" that acquiring wealth is "a function of enormous personal attributes" like "personal intelligence and energy." But I don't see why the non-radicalness of my views is a problem.

So, what are the negative consequences of adulation of Great Men and Women? Well, let's take concrete examples.

* Chavez. Why do many on the left replicate the cult of personality

which the right builds? It's almost all either love or hate, when

some US citizen mentions him.

* The Founding Fathers. I don't need to say much here to this

audience.

* Feynman. I've actually seen people write, "Feynman's almost

certainly smarter than you." But I actually read what Feynman

himself said, like his philosophy that what one person can do, you

can too.

* Marx. Doesn't it kinda bum people out to hear someone go on about

The Master? Don't they respect the person's views a little less?

The more I learn about some field, the more I realize that the exciting stuff is often obscured. Like in computing, a field I know something about. In fact, even those who know better go overboard in their praise -- they obscure the interesting dissent which existed back in the days when the exciting stuff was alive.

And gushing praise typically sets up expectations which usually end up disappointing people. I think this devalues the interesting stuff.

The love of the groupie is not the true love. ;) But maybe I've strawmanned or misunderstood your position terribly.

Tayssir



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list