Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 About if you want, we can get started. Okay. All right. Well, I, um, I decided to take this topic up because, um, I read, I Rand's essay on the topic. She had an essay called an untitled essay in which she sort of blasted meritocracy. And I, I thought it was one of the, the less formulated essays, um, uh, that Iran had done where she sort of said it was an Anticon and a contemp package deal. And I think, I think I had a, a, another understanding of meritocracy the literature on it is gargantuan. And, um, I wanted to sort of take up meritocracy in its rich nuance sense that I don't think Rand really dealt with white prop. And since this is open objectiveism, I am an objective, I'm an admiring Rand, but I think that sort of constructive criticism of the way that she dealt with it, um, that's necessary.
Speaker 0 00:01:04 So I wanted to sort of rescue meritocracy from the way she sort of just dismissed it as this contemp thing and, and really give a proper definition of meritocracy and why I think against the backdrop of certain social maladies, um, it is something that is quite restorative and, and quite proper and ethical. So when we think of meritocracy, I think it is given the literature that I've read and the dictionaries definition and various dictionaries it's, it's basically a social system, uh, in which the success and status in life, uh, depend primarily on individual talents, ABI and effort. It's a social system in which people advance on the basis of their merits. Okay. So when we think about meritocratic society, we think of our meritocratic system, it contrasts with an aristocracy where people advance on the basis of the, on status titles, titles of family and other relations.
Speaker 0 00:02:11 So when we think of our good old United States of America, we probably think of it. We have thought of it as a sort of meritocratic society, right? Because we think of meritocracy, meaning societies that are built on the belief that if you work hard, if you have dedication, if you're resilient, if you pull yourself up by the bootstraps, um, then you can make it based on your merits and not on any kind of special pull or privileges. So it's written also against the backdrop that our culture is dominated and ruled by the principle of what Rand properly called metaphysical egalitarianism. And here I think grant is absolutely right. That is metaphysical. Egalitarian. Egalitarianism is the belief in the equality of all men where she's, we're not talking about equality before the law equality is, is taken to be, um, the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. So egalitarians don't are not talking about manmade institutions, but nature that is, uh, they want to defy what you call as a law of causality. They want a demand for equal results from unequal causes or equal rewards for unequal performance.
Speaker 0 00:03:36 And, um, what we see as a sort of consequence of that is a leveling down of, of mankind to the common denominator of its least competent members. So equal results from unequal causes and equal rewards for unequal performance is an aggregation of the law of causality because you cannot redistribute values and you cannot redistribute, um, the various attributes that allow for unequal outcomes like intelligence, like frugality, like, um, athletic. Prowes just the various attributes that we have that we do not have in common. You cannot redistribute. How do you redistribute those? So we see this tangibly in the assault on excellence in academia. Um, we see it in the divestment equity and inclusion in initiatives where the criteria and for employment rests, not in merit excellence, but, uh, diversity based on gender race, or in this case now trans identity. I also wanna talk about it against the backdrop of, um, um, academic or corporations that are suffused by Aoke ethos.
Speaker 0 00:04:55 Um, more importantly, we see this taking place in, um, the idea that truth and logic are so criminalized today, they're seen as a constructs of racist, white imperialists and that the in Peerless and that they're not up to the task or that they cannot adjudicate among truth claims as there is no objective reality out there to adjudicate as an arbiter. And that there are no philosophical meaning tests to corroborate are, are validate these, these arguments. We also live in a culture where feelings are involved as sources of authority and feelings are presented as reasons why others should defer to the view of the speaker or dis or discount someone else's. And let you take a feeling like rage, or you take a feeling like anger and it's taken as a justification for truth. And so the dialogue itself is killed because it is, it is putting the, putting the ground of judgment beyond the reach of other participants.
Speaker 0 00:06:00 We, we can't share, I don't have access to someone's feelings, right. Um, rather than rather I think the justification or the justification or methodology should be reason, which is an, which is an natural, but we all share and which is open to all. So we see the assault on, on excellent and excellence. We also write against the, the backdrop of what's called de leveling, which is taking place in a lot of K through 12 educational programs where honors programs for academically superior students are dropped on the premise that it is discriminatory and against whom against the slow learners against the cognitively challenged. So again, if you think of the proper definition of meritocracy as a social system, in which success and status in life depend primarily on individual talents and effort, a social system in which people advance on the basis of their merits, we can see how these programs are really bent on paralyzing.
Speaker 0 00:06:59 Those who have talent and, and who have merit. Um, Jose, one of my favorite philosophers who I know I Rand liked in her early thirties or I, she didn't, she, she and she through various sources, I it's been known that she respected him tremendously. She didn't name him as one of her influences, but he's certainly one of my favorite philosophers, Jose. Um, I just finished teaching him, uh, in his revolt of the masses. He makes a number of very interesting claims, which, um, he wrote this book before an Rand wrote the fountain head, and you can see some of his influence, I think on her thinking. Um, and I just wanna read a couple of quotes here. He says the, the mass manner, the average man is becomes a, a, a, a qualitative determinant. He's a social stray man. He's the measure in which he's undifferentiated from other men, man, repeating in himself.
Speaker 0 00:07:56 He's a generic type. Um, and what is there in this conversion of quantity into quality, simply this by means of quality. We can understand the Genesis of quantity. Um, he says, we can tell a mass man on me, C1, this person represents a mass phenomenon. The mass man is anyone who does not value himself for good or ill by any particular criterion. And who says instead that he's just like everybody else. Um, the mass man is those who demand nothing of themselves in particular for whom living is to be at all times what they already are without any effort at perfection boys floating on the boys, floating on the waves. Um, another interesting quote from him, he says the masses have become intractable. The Massman does not comply. He does not follow rationally. He does not respect natural minorities. He push, he pushes them aside and supplants them. And another very interesting quote sounds very much like Rand, a very interesting quote. Um, he says, um, history is now dependent on the decision of mediocrities or to put it in the active voice. The mass man Hitha directed from above is now dominated or determined to govern the world. Uh, one more quote from Jose said, um, on page 14 of the revolt, the brilliant book, the revolt of the masses, he says, um,
Speaker 0 00:09:32 Well, I'll just stop there. Let me go on, cuz I wanna get through what I have to say. Um, so history, in some sense is dependent on the decisions of mediocrities or the sensibilities of the common mass person who's whose ethos and whose sensibilities supersede those who have Mor refined and honed and sustain standards. So the question really is, um, uh, you know, how do we get here? We can, we can sort of try to understand the provenance of, of this new kind of sovereign mass as an intractable mass asset constitutes of Confederacy of nihilistic supplanters. Um, and as how do we get here? We could go back to the importation of critical theory. We could go back to postmodern and deconstructionists thought the Frankfurt school, um, all of which gave rise to the revolutionary victim studies programs of the 1960s lack studies, women's studies, post-colonial studies, LGBT studies all over which declared war and Western civilization and the Western can, um, the use of reason and logic again, as unassailable incontrovertible tools to arbitrate among truth claims.
Speaker 0 00:10:48 And I think the epistemological colony, um, in some sense of their combined methodologies led to the elevation of ethical relativism as a national norm. And it has soused discourse in one manner or another, and led to the outright disbelief in the idea that there is an objective reality. Um, so what is the ultimate bottom line, um, before I get to the sort of ethical upshot of meritocracy? Well, our, our universities certainly have become existential disruptors. Um, they, I think our terrorist cells, um, silos that have morphed into one kind of irre reduce of a primary, the categorical Des destruction of the Republic of the United States of America, um, and the cultivation where the cultivation of excellence and the high goal of preparing students to be sovereign and autonomous citizens have been superseded by overt political consciousness, raising with the goal of sailing the first amendment and to invoke systemic nihilism, strategic systemic nihilism, and the destruction of all values that onger the Republic.
Speaker 0 00:12:00 So the question is, I often ask myself, how do we get here? And I think the answer is liberalism and the, and it's the beauty and the, and the tragedy of liberalism is that it allows everyone into the historical process and it's a factor into the future. Um, so heaps and heaps of people have been thrust upon history and at such an accelerated speed that it's impossible to sort of incorporate them into a rational demo OS in a secure and fast manner because there's no vetting process. Really. So the, what we find on the liberalism is that the democratization of any life sphere, whether it's education, um, entertainment has a leveling effect where again, the, we, we find the leveling down of humankind to the common denominator of its least competent members. And we have a new sovereign mass, a sort of intractable mass that constitutes a Confederacy of nihilistic sub planters.
Speaker 0 00:12:59 So, um, I have about five more minutes and I wanna say that the, the person of excellence, the meritocratic individual strives to seek a status over and beyond what he or she is. It's an aspirational identity that becomes a moral virtue in that it involves the shaping of the self into an embodiment of excellence through rational means, right? It's a life of effort of volition and values that shape a life that determines or deeply influences one's identity. And the volition aspect underlying the system of meritocracy is where the system gains its moral offshore. So excellence, cultivated, and horn ability, which translate into merit is a trading currency. I think which grants one once just desserts in life that, and, and that's not inherited status. That's not privilege, which are the hallmarks of an aristocracy. So applied excellence, I think, is both the predicate and a concomitant of an active volition, a will a free will in search of the highest, most exalted form of living a life of sustained flourishing. That is based on a set of what I would call preexisting virtues that are the material means for achieving a meritorious status, sustain rational thinking resilience in Rand's term, holding productive work as one's noble activity conscious at all times. And bearing in mind that falling below the excellence threshold commits one to a life of mediocrity, a life of com compromise agency, which time is and thwarts one's ability to live optimally.
Speaker 0 00:14:50 And one uses one's meritorious agency as both an inoculant and an antidote to social balance and to existential sinkholes who drag the aesthetic and cultural value and the quality of life for everybody by means of their ability to in a totalizing manner, uh, insert their non-value I think as normative prescriptives in the world. So I think meritocracy read this way codifies into a pyramid of ability, those in a society who simply put art's best, whether we're talking about janitors doctors, carpenters, engineers, the bus driver, that iron ran starts out ATLA, shrug, ATLA shrugged with hedge fund managers. It is the vetting agency against the ravages of hyper democracy, which is a system that lets everyone into the domain of creative human social intercourse. And today it remains agnostic on the creative hierarchy that judges those to be excellent, good, average, bad, and just worthless next week. I'll talk about how elite properly understood in the non-political sense is the corollary of a proper system of meritocracy, a sort of aristocracy of refined and sustained and higher sensibilities and conceptions of the good life. And that'll be the topic for next week. So I did not want to go over 20 minutes and I did not. Um, cuz I wanted the room for questions. Yeah,
Speaker 2 00:16:28 Yeah. Let's mix it up. Uh, first of all, I just wanna recognize a few PD room, um, Jr. Chairman of the board of the Atlas society. Also my creative partner, Patrick re over. It's great to see you here. Um, we are gonna start taking some questions. I wanna also thank Scott. Um, I's always, uh, a master of these rooms and, um, a cohost here at the ATLA society. Uh, we're gonna take some questions. So just go ahead and raise your hand. I would love to ask you, uh, all a favor, if you would, please tap that little share button down below and um, please share it on clubhouse, share it. Uh, if you're on Twitter or Facebook, I'd love to get some other people pick some other people into the room. It would be really wonderful. So, um, I'm actually going to, uh, as I usually do, uh, we have a, um, either another scholar or, uh, course a trustee of the outlaw society. I'm gonna go to Jay leper first, Jay
Speaker 3 00:17:35 That's great. Jason, this is a terrific topic and really appreciate you taking it on the way you do. Can you comment on the relationship between, and I don't wanna take you a field from where you are, but determinism and how that is used to undermine, um, a meritocracy and, and attack, and then also the role of luck, which is a fact, but it it's it's as you, as you say it it's, it's the, primarily the results are primarily influenced by the, the, uh, the agency and, and, and, uh, virtues of the, uh, of the actors. Can you hear me? Yeah. Jason,
Speaker 0 00:18:23 I have to myself. Yeah, there I go. I think the termism, the term, the, the determinist, um, sort of, uh, try to are, are the original metaphysical egalitarians in the sense that they somehow, um, state that, um, either one's genes or one's genetic component, or one's even one's inheritance of one's character, um, or one's disposition is determined, um, by some sort of causal phenomenon outside of one's, um, capabilities or outside of one's volition. And therefore, you know, the liberal state has an obligation to sort of ran, wrote about this has, has an obligation to undo, um, what has been endowed by nature or what the individual him or herself can't alter, which is an in a radical component of one's DNA, or one's make up in some way. Um, and so I think egalitarianism or egalitarians sort of win, try to win that argument by showing that every component of, or every attribute that could influence one's destiny or have a, a share on the course of one's life. Let's say in terms of one's upward mobility is certainly outside, um, of one's capabilities because one is already predetermined by attributes over which one has no control like intelligence, uh, which we know is just not true. We know that there are things that one can do to, to improve one's mind. Um, and, um, so that's, that's briefly, that's the first way that I would, um, answer that question. And what was the second part of the question? Jay
Speaker 3 00:20:14 Was the, how luck is, is claim as a dominant factor,
Speaker 0 00:20:20 Right? Well, I mean, this, you know, this is, this is sort of like, um, another, um, this is another way that the egalitarian metaphysic egalitarians try to win, uh, or coerce liberal state to sort of impose on the rest of society, a set of, um, laws or, or, or mandates in the sense that I think they really overstate look, no one, no one can deny the role that some source, some role that luck plays in a person's life, right? Timing, right place at the moment. But, um, you look at successful people and you realize that no successful person who has sustained success over a long period of time could have had that much luck ha occurring every single day, every single month, every single year of one's life. So I think though the best rejoinder to the luck argument would be to say, nobody could be that consistently lucky every day, every year, every month of their life to sustain a successful way of life.
Speaker 0 00:21:27 That is a person might have been lucky, um, at one point, and there's nothing that one can do. One can't punish a person for being lucky, but more importantly, even if one is the lucky recipient of luck, <laugh>, um, it's what one does with that lock and lock alone might be necessary, but it's certainly not a sufficient condition for sustained and protracted success in one's life. One has to sort of capitalize on that lock and use one's mind and one's ability, um, to do with what that lock availed itself or how that lock availed itself to a person. So the lock argument I'm never won over by because, um, to live a life, an optimal life, a sustained life over a protracted period of time. Um, one is never one luck doesn't deal itself out in such, um, generous doses to one person. So, so significantly over a protracted period of time.
Speaker 4 00:22:33 Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2 00:22:35 And there's also my, uh, favorite quote by branch Ricky, that luck is the residue of design and, um, there's of course the, the luck of, of your birth or misfortune of your birth, depending on, um, how you came into the world. But, uh, so much of what is seen as, as luck, uh, is often just the result of many, many years of making the right moves and the right choices, um, and setting, setting yourself up to have more luck in life. So, uh, alright. Uh, John Lang also a long timer with the ATLA society. Love the profile pick John,
Speaker 4 00:23:16 Thank you. Um, Jason, I just want to congratulate you, your opening statement was marvelous. So many original ideas, and if not completely original then knew and interesting formulations and constructions and little set pieces of rhetoric that CA capture critical. I important ideas going to your overall theme. And I also something everybody knows we live in a zeitgeist or a paradigm of egalitarianism, which has gone to toxic extremes. And, um, you you're you're, you're on something here. Thank you. And I, I'm sorry, it doesn't contribute much, but, uh, thank you very much.
Speaker 0 00:24:14 Oh, thank you, John. That means a lot to me. Thank you.
Speaker 2 00:24:17 Thank you, John. Um, alright, fails.
Speaker 5 00:24:23 Uh, Hey, thank you, Jennifer. And thank you, Jason, for doing the room. Jason, I've interacted with you quite a bit, uh, in some of the rooms that Greg, uh, S or Greg has, um, uh, hosted, um, uh, with you in the past, in any case, uh, I wanted to ask you a couple things, you know, um, you know, one of the very interesting things that I find is, um, you know, uh, there's the concept of the, the influence, in least in America of Asians. So, uh, for example, um, many people have come to the us immigrants really relatively poor. My father was one of them. He came from India and, um, literally had nothing, um, worked full time, put himself through college and, you know, um, he was pretty successful in, in, in his life. And, uh, you know, um, and as a result of a lot of his choices and decisions and actions, then, um, you know, I I'd say in many ways I was born on, on third base.
Speaker 5 00:25:24 I had two loving parents who supported me and whatnot. And, uh, I think I did okay for myself. Uh, but you see in modern society, the example of many of these really poor immigrants, you see it in places like New York city, like with some of those charter schools, like S Stuyvesant, um, many of those Asians who get into those schools, the dirt poor, very like poverty line, slightly above the poverty line and whatnot. And, uh, they end up doing really well. And in modern society, you find that there's this criticism they often are called, well, look, if you point to that example that they say that you're white adjacent, the reason for their success is because they have bought into and participated in white supremacy. I'd just be, I mean, and this is just something that you hear, like people who are really focused on these concepts of equity and, um, the nature of, of, uh, you know, various, uh, inequities in society and, um, uh, institutional racism and oppression and whatnot.
Speaker 5 00:26:24 Uh, I'd just be curious as to what you think of any of that into what extent you think, you know, look given historical injustices, uh, how do we do a better job of rectifying issues of the past that could affect the present in the future without essentially making even a bigger mistake and essentially doing the same thing to, uh, punish those who are high achievers or who are working really hard, uh, to prove themselves because ultimately in my view, if you really push equity above merit, you're discouraging anyone from really putting that effort in, in many ways. It, it, it's very, um, uh, self defeating. Uh, and I'd be curious as to your views on that, and thank you so much for, uh, for, for putting this room together. And I'll be curious to watch the rest of your series.
Speaker 0 00:27:16 Thanks. Thanks a lot. Um, I would, I would, I'm an immigrant too, and I came here with $120 in my pocket, um, with the blessings of my family and, you know, worked my way up, uh, worked for jobs to put myself through school before getting a scholarship to do my PhD and, uh, you know, and, and, and <laugh>, and was, was, was teased by, uh, when I was working in, in the lowest rungs of a bank stuffing envelopes for 6,000 hour was teased by in a predominantly black working environment was teased quite, quite often as acting white and being white, um, because I was punctual for work because I studied my, my butt off and, um, took my vacation time. My one week vacation time off at work to, to write my term papers. Um, I never, and to use my spare time at lunch, not to gossip and to, to chat, but to study, I was constantly accused of being a, a brainiac and acting white and thinking white.
Speaker 0 00:28:10 And I think that when we sort of condescend to minorities and, um, and by into the politics of identity and cultural particularism and pride that any of that nonsense above universal, um, values like resilience, like hard work like excellence, um, excellence. I wanna stress and resilience and perseverance as universal values that are conducive to merit and achievement and success. We do a great disservice to people. So I think the left primarily has valorized and prioritized cultural particularism identity politics, and all the nonsense like that, that goes with it. Um, like, you know, whatever cultural beliefs might be a fix to a particular ethnic group, sort of being senseen racially sensitive to those beliefs rather than saying, look, there's a pathology going on here. I mean, I say this all the time to my I'll just be very open here. I say this all the time to my students, um, at, at DePaul, when I see a whole bunch of black kids in the quad and the Asian students are in the library, I say, then, what the hell are you doing?
Speaker 0 00:29:25 Sitting here? You know, um, get in the library, move, move it, move it. And I, I point my finger and say, get up, get up. And I say, yeah, okay, prof, okay, easy on know problem. And I said, no, easy on you. Get your asses into the library and study, you know, what are you doing sitting outside, um, um, liming as you call it or, or, or whatever. Um, so I think we've just got to identify, look that there are not all cultures are equal. I've written articles about this. Some cultures are more superior to others. There are pathological traits and behaviors that are in are not necessarily endemic, but are, but in here in certain cultures. And we've got to name them out and say that, look, hold up certain cultures like Asian cultures that have certain values that are superior in terms of their relationship to achieving success and say, these, you should pin your aspirational identity, regardless of what race or ethnic ethnicity you are. You should pin your aspirational identity on these values because they yield something that all of us want success and get beyond the politics of identity. I know I do this all the time, and I think we, we, we, we do a great disservice when we sort of let the politics of identity and cultural or ethnic or racial particularism rule, um, or con or vocabulary, we're gonna offend people, but in the wrong run, I think we're going to spell, um, a recipe for success.
Speaker 4 00:30:50 Jason, let me interrupt. Um, you you're really hitting a good point here. The typical socially intelligent person today is infused with the culture of egalitarianism to the point that it is rude to say to someone, Hey, that person is superior to you because they're working hard or because they're studying hard or to, to make any judgment as to inferiority or superiority is a profound offense in normal social conversation. And the fact that anybody that has intelligence is forced to submit to that and unconsciously submits to it as a, a standard of conduct is, uh, deplorable. And thank you for pointing it out. And it makes me realize that when I see it in conversation hereafter, I'm gonna stop. And if it's appropriate, call it out and say, look, you know, right here, there was an opportunity to make a distinction between better and lesser, and that's a good thing, and it shouldn't be rude to do that. I'll shut up now. Thank you.
Speaker 2 00:32:10 Thanks, John. And I also just, uh, for fails, I, I pinned a, um, interview that we recently did with Kenny zoo, uh, which was talking about the Asian success story, um, particularly in academics, but also how that attend tends to attract, um, counter discrimination and how they're penalized, uh, for their success. And some of the, some of the actions that his group is taking to try to, um, have some legal remedies against that. Sam, thanks for your patience.
Speaker 8 00:32:47 Oh, sorry guys. I'm just listening in for now.
Speaker 2 00:32:49 Sure, Alan.
Speaker 9 00:32:53 Yeah. Hi Jennifer. Hi, Jason. Uh, you know, I, I, I read that one of your goals for, since you took over or became head of the Atlas society was to appeal to young people. And in that light, and I say this in reference to my challenges with my teenager, uh, I, I remember reading in my, my recollection of it from the book called passages, that one of the challenges of people in their twenties is trying to establish some sense of security and stability in their lives. And that being in your twenties is <laugh> a very scary time for most people. And when it comes to meritocracy, I think the trap is with the current political, can
Speaker 6 00:33:52 You watch me?
Speaker 2 00:33:57 Okay. It looks like he had some background interference there. Um, I wanna, again, just encourage people to raise your hands, come on up, share some thoughts, questions. Um, Damien, There we go. You have a question, good professor hill, And I'm not seeing you muted. So, um, sometimes lately it seems to be happening more and more on the platform that, uh, the people come up, but, um, are unable to speak. And so what I would recommend is that you sign out and sign back in and then we will, um, we will get you in the mix here. So, um, There we go. And then you are, um, Damien your are, um, Damian, if you wanna unmute yourself now, I think we're gonna be clear. There we go.
Speaker 10 00:34:56 Hello. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 2 00:34:57 We hear you.
Speaker 10 00:34:59 Okay. Hello. Um, thank you. Um, I guess quick question, I just, I guess, do we grant, I guess people the power when we entertain these arguments, because when it comes down to, for me is always going, be about resources. And if you don't grant people access to the, your resources or the fruits of your, your, your work, like, I don't understand what the argument would would be from the, I guess from the other side, I hope the question kind of makes sense. So do we give them power by even entertaining these arguments,
Speaker 0 00:35:41 Jason? Uh, I don't know what you mean by give, give hope the power,
Speaker 10 00:35:49 Give people. So, um, if, to me, okay, elitism. Okay. If I, if I, if I have something or I create something, I produce something, I have to produce something to become elite in a sense we have to gain resources, gain wealth, you know? And so for me, if I don't grant, how can I give people the, the, the space to even, I dunno, argue that I owe them something, I guess that that's the, that's the question I'm asking
Speaker 4 00:36:30 If I might jump in Damien, are you talking about distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of result that is everyone must have equal opportunity to get in the game and produce, as you say. And, um, is that your question? How do we make sure that we have equality of opportunity to even play the game?
Speaker 10 00:36:57 Not necessarily, uh, my, my question. I mean, my, my question really just revolves around. Why do, why does a person have to defend themselves against like elite claims or,
Speaker 4 00:37:10 Oh, okay. I look through the telescope backwards. Okay. Now I see what you're getting at. Yeah. That's a difficult one,
Speaker 0 00:37:19 Jason, that, yeah, I would, I would say one, well, one has to for, well, for a couple of reasons, I mean, look at what's going on at Harvard university, um, with Asian students, right, where they are having to file lawsuits, because if you're an Asian student today and you're an, a student you're almost guaranteed not admission at Harvard university. So there is a sense. And speaking as a professor of 25 years, I can assure you that if you're a person of color and having sat on the admission committees of four other universities, where I taught including one Ivy league university, um, that if you're a person of color and you have a, a, B minus average, there is no progressive university or college in the United States that will accept you. That will not accept you. But if you're Asian and you're interpreted as being white adjacent, as the said, um, you, you run the risk of having all of the attributes that constitute your agency as being an efficacious one used against you.
Speaker 0 00:38:35 And that seems to be quite unjust because one has through tenacity and resilience and a great deal of discipline, built an agency and built one's merit, meritorious agency into something quite wonderful. And then one is penalized for it. So we do live in a society in which egalitarianism sort of rules in a sense, and we envy, or we Des despite might be a, a too strong word, but we certainly envy, or in some sense, we disparage those who are meritorious, and we deny them entrance into the Pantheon of, of academic institutions or corporate, you know, let's just stick with academia for a while. So one has to defend oneself. If one finds oneself in the position of being punished or being left out of institutions. In spite of the fact that one is more than qualified, uh, for entrance. And one sees that people who are less qualified than one is being granted entrance in the name of something like equity or in the name of something like humanitarianism or because one is a protected class, um, belongs to protected class that falls along gender or racial lines, that's, that's protected by the state.
Speaker 0 00:39:57 So I think when one is singled out as a member of a group that does have, uh, uh, a meritorious sort of agency affix to one, and one is singled out as a member of that group and is punished in some sense for, for it, by not being admitted to an institution. One has got to find a way to defend, to defend one's self. And I see no, no stronger way than default back on something like cratic paradigm. I mean, I hope that answers your question, but there are lots of people out there. Uh, these K through 12 programs that I talked about where they're closing the honors honors programs on the grounds that they're, they discriminate against the slow learners, or you have a bunch of gifted students who want to learn, and you might have students who are not that gifted, who can aspire to be gifted, to be high achievers who want to pass out the standards and they're eradicating all standards. So I, I think when you have annihilators and disruptors and, and destroyers of standards, um, it's, it's bad for everybody. It's bad for the people who, who are high achievers and it's bad for the people who are not there yet, but aspired to be there.
Speaker 10 00:41:19 Can I ask just one follow up question, um, because I understand what you're saying as far as when it comes to school and we're talking about children, but when we talk about adults, high achievers, they get results. And so for me, if society wants to, you know, penalize people who get results for whatever reason, isn't that an avenue for a strategy to just like hoard those types of people, or like gather those people in, I guess, have a concentrated group of just those types of people who kind of been like outcast, but they're just, you got, got pretty much your own meritocracy, right there. Isn't that like an avenue for that?
Speaker 0 00:42:04 Well, that's, that would, that would, that would assume that we'd live in a society that's not open to the admission of talent. I mean, the, the one thing about a meritocracy in a free society is that it's open to all persons who are committed and that their institutions and that there are opportunities to advancing your, your talent to, to improving your, your skill to, you know, going from, I can't tell you how many times I've been in the hospital. Lots of times, I guess I have bad karma. And I have seen, you know, there's a shortage of nurses in this country. And so a lot of nurses that have dealt with me have been from the Philippines or from Africa or from the Caribbean I've had. And there's one story that's very moving, you know, there's this Jamaican nurse. And she was a domestic servant in Jamaica, which is the country that I was born and raised in.
Speaker 0 00:42:54 And, uh, she came to America, taught herself by to speak standard English by watching a lot of American television, got her associate's degree, worked for three more years, became an RN. Um, and then got a master's degree in, in business, um, because you wanted to be entrepreneur. So this presuppose, this assumes that we live in a society that is, seems more like Europe that would be closed off the upward mobility, and that they're not institutions that are available for us to sort of increase our skill set and achieve some, some semblance of some modicum of upward mobility. And I, I just don't think America is that country. If it were that country, we wouldn't have swarms of immigrants coming in here. And in some sense, in many, many, many cases achieving as Israelis attested achieving some semblance of upward mobility. Um, so meritocracy doesn't presuppose that it's just that it's a hermetically closed system that is closed. That is just, you know, for an, an elite chosen few, uh, it's open to all, or to as many people who are willing to improve in whatever sense they can improve. Uh, we're not all equal. So some are going to advance more than others. And because some people are just faster than others quicker than others. Um, but it's not a hermetically closed system, as you might find in other societies that have a fusion of meritocracy coupled with aristocracy, um, America just doesn't seem to be that, that sort of country to me, at least.
Speaker 2 00:44:32 Jay, did you have something to add?
Speaker 3 00:44:35 I I'd like to ask a question. Was that to me Jack? Or is that something, yeah,
Speaker 2 00:44:39 Go ahead please.
Speaker 3 00:44:40 Yeah. Um, Jason, what would you say is the, is the strongest, uh, leverage point or argument for the anti meritocracy? The egalitarian, because one of the, you know, spinoffs from Damien's question is, well, what is the moral right, for someone to take my stuff or to, you know, inhibit, uh, my aspirations in my life, uh, high life, um, based on their need, you know, that, that idea that their need or some, what is the strongest leverage point that, that you are aware of? Not necessarily when we, you, any one of us would agree with, but, um, cuz it, it is hard when you, when you bring it down to that to say, well, what is the moral point? Where, where does that come from? It's my life. I thought,
Speaker 0 00:45:32 Yeah. I mean, I, I think the strongest point they would have is saying something like, um, you have, if you have some sort of inherited privilege, like your, you, you come from a rich family and you have inherited generational wealth and I don't, but even then, um, one could say that even if I have inherited generational wealth, I still deserve it. And that's a hard pill to swallow. I deserve it because it's based on the judgment and the appraisal of my, um, of an ancestor who in his or her judgment has decided to be que that well, to me, so your poverty or your, yeah, let's just use poverty, your poverty, can't be, uh, a mortgage on your needs in general. Let's not even use poverty, just basically your needs. Can't be a mortgage on my life because that wealth was originally earned. I mean, that's just, the's what if, what if, what if the's father decided to bequeath him all his money, um, that he earned through no special help?
Speaker 0 00:46:43 No, no government help. Who through no knows no strings through his own hard efforts. And data has decided to beque that money to someone else. Let's say he has children. I don't know. But, and then someone says, um, I, I, my needs constitute a mortgage claim on, on your efforts. And the person said to the is, well, you didn't do anything. You just inherited that money from your father when thes would say, well, look, um, that's the judgment of my father. And, um, I am as deserving of it as any producer because, um, my father is the first is, is, is the originate of that wealth. And he has the right as the owner of property in his body. And as a sole owner of the property of his body, he has the right to determine who is the beneficiary of the products of that property, which resulted from the con enjoyment of reason and labor from his body.
Speaker 0 00:47:43 And I am that person. So no, no one's claim can supersede the autonomy. The autonomy argument that is I'm the autonomous owner of my body, my reason, and my labor produced the wealth. I decided to give that wealth to someone else. Um, your needs can never, ever supersede the ownership of, of what, of that, which resulted from my body. And I think that's the best, that's the best counter argument that, that one could give to someone who wants to say that my needs are so great. And your position is a position that you didn't earn at all. You just inherited there's are two start positions, but that's, that's, that's the best, best argument that I would actually counter argument that I would actually give.
Speaker 2 00:48:30 Thank you, Jason. And thank you, Jay. Um, Alan, you're back.
Speaker 9 00:48:38 Yes. I'm sorry for that, uh, lively interruption, but, um, as I was saying, yeah, the, the twenties are characterized by this, uh, insecurity and, and need to find stability. And what I'm finding is is that, um, I'm sorry, what I'm finding is that the current narrative with the push for equity and all of that placates that need, whereas before the idea of meritocracy means ultimately, well, you have to work to achieve that stability. Whereas the, the equity argument says, don't worry, we'll take care of it. You don't need to work. It will be handed to you. So the question is, how do you make meritocracy sexy for young people is the best way I, I can ask the question.
Speaker 2 00:49:40 Thank you, Alan. Jason.
Speaker 0 00:49:43 Yeah. Thank you, Alan. I that's, you know, I, I teach the degeneration now in my, in my classroom of 16, the 18 to 22 year olds. And, um, and it's a challenge that I face and I don't think that one has any really business making it sexy for them at all. I say, um, you, you, you, you, you, you state the facts of reality and you, you, you equip them with an education and education in the proper sense of the term in the proper sense of the term. And I think a brand would agree with this is that which equips them to be sovereign autonomous individuals who can exercise jurisdiction over their bodies and navigate the world and reality. Ultimately, they're going to have to face a reality that is unforgiving and relentless. And so I'm not really, I'm what I tell my students. I don't use the word sexy, but I'm really not interested in making meritocracy sexy for them.
Speaker 0 00:50:45 What I'm interested in doing is giving them the best education I can honing their minds, making them and also train as AIAN. So making them with the best critical thinkers, the most well rounded, giving them a great liberal arts education, a well rounded human making them well rounded human beings, making them amazing thinkers, making them phenomenal human beings so that when they hit the ground, they hit the ground like the Fox and they keep on running that they can navigate the world. But this idea of trying to make something sexy for them in order to make life easier, a buffer, uh, I think would do them a great disservice. I mean, actually what I tell them is the opposite. Um, Alan, I tell my students that, I'm sorry, I'm really sorry. But the world is a much, much more complicated and difficult world. I'm 57 than it was than, than, than it was when I was graduating from college in the early nineties.
Speaker 0 00:51:44 That, um, that it is going to be much more demanding of you all the more reason why you've got to take your education even more seriously than I had to take my education because the world is, the world is more complex. The world is more demanding of you, your overly scheduled and your resume's going to be, your resume's gonna have to be twice as filled as it was when I was graduating. So as opposed to making it more sexy for them, I actually give them a really hard dose of reality. And I said, look, some of your kids are being trained to be floor managers, uh, at Walmart. And you're paying $38,000 a year at DePaul university to be a floor manager at Walmart. So you better take your education seriously and not Harbor any illusions at all, because life out there is tough kids.
Speaker 0 00:52:33 So buckle up, come to class, don't miss one single class. Don't roll your eyes about any of the subject matter, buckle up, because life is tough and you have got to develop a very thick skin. And, um, and I will equip you. And along with us, a handful of other teachers will try to equip you with the skillset that you will need to navigate the world. So I just think that the idea of making it sexy is, is a bad idea. I think what I try to do is prepare them for a reality that is very, very complex, and to make sure that when they graduate from college, they have that skillset that can navigate that very, very, very complicated reality. It's going to be very demanding of them.
Speaker 2 00:53:12 Thank you, Jason. All right, folks, we have six more minutes. Um, and I'd love to see if we can squeeze in Liberty though. I'm concerned cuz I can't see your mute button. So I'm worried you might not be able to unmute Connie. Can you unmute, if not, sweetheart, just slip back out and back into the room or clubhouse Jenny.
Speaker 11 00:53:36 Hi. Uh, um, I'm just here to listen and uh, it's been a good conversation. So thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 00:53:43 Thank you for joining us. Um, Jordan, Dr. Jordan SHA would love to get your question for professor hill.
Speaker 12 00:53:55 Sure. No, I just have a comment, uh, sorry. I couldn't come up earlier when I was invited, but um, you know, as a recipient of generational wealth, um, and knowing many people who were, uh, I think that cronyism and nepotism, uh, are, are much stronger drivers, uh, than we give credit to. I think that hard work is overrated. I can think of so many instances where people have had opportunity because of who they know. Uh, I I've been, I've been impacted by affirmative action. It was an opportunity that I lost and uh, it's happened before in public service. And so, you know, I think that, uh, I think that we have to certainly honor the fact that, uh, people at elite universities benefit from networking and all kinds of things. I think hard work is probably lower on my list as a predictor of success, but that's certainly not perhaps basing it on empirical data. So just wanted to offer that. Thanks.
Speaker 11 00:55:03 Hi. I do wanna chime in, I think Dr. Jordan is making a good point. Um, you know, when I I've been a recruiter in Silicon valley for 20 plus years and uh, I don't think we always, uh, give credit to, uh, hard work. Um, you know, I think sometimes, or maybe now I do see the shiny pen penny syndrome a little bit more. Um, so yeah, I think you made a good point. Thanks.
Speaker 0 00:55:36 Well, are you, are you both telling, are you both telling me that you valorized and you hire mediocrity that, that, that, that, that even if there are people who are the beneficiaries of generational wealth, that, that if they display mediocrity and, and you see someone who displays efficacy and talent, that you choose mediocrity over hard work and efficacy, because if that's the case, then we're lost. We're just, we're just, we're finished as a civilization. Really.
Speaker 11 00:56:09 I think people get lucky. Uh, I do think that it's sometimes there are people who right. Time rhyme, right place, right. Moment get very lucky. And then, but I don't think hard work always gets acknowledged or, or, uh, you know, we don't really, I don't know. I, I, I just don't see it. Thanks. I mean, an example,
Speaker 10 00:56:42 No, just wanna add like hard work. I UN hard work to me seems subjective in a sense sometimes, but to me, results are results. And regardless if it comes hard or easy for a person, if they can get results, that's kind of what my focus is. So I just want to throw that.
Speaker 2 00:56:58 I think that's a, that's a really good point. Um, because a lot of time, uh, people who, you know, there's working hard and there's working smart and, uh, if you can say, well, I, I pulled all the all-nighters and I worked my tail off, but I still didn't get, uh, the same, you know, number of sales or I, I still didn't manage to get the breakthroughs that, that somebody else, and he just worked half as hard. So I think when we're talking about meritocracy, We're talking about more than, than hard work we're talking about, you know, um, can you provide value that, that, and be in a, a free, um, exchange with others who, uh, who you can help?
Speaker 0 00:57:44 I agree. And that's why I use the term efficacious because I think, and I like the terms working smart because efficacious means means to me means an end result that that is, that is successful. Yeah.
Speaker 2 00:57:57 Okay. Well with that, we are at time. So I want to, uh, thank everybody. Thank you. Of course, professor hill for, uh, this really intriguing and provocative topic. And I'm looking forward to the second part of this discussion. I put the link up there, um, for those who want to get notices of, of what kinds of not, not just clubhouse events, but also what kind of webinars. Um, and of course, um, professor, uh, Richard Salzman has his morals and markets that's for students and young adults. Um, so check it out, uh, because we've got a lot going on next week on, um, Tuesday, we've got, uh, Robert, trinky talking about cosmetology, uh, why groups, um, that seem to, or, or, uh, or, you know, groups that have a lot in common, they, they will fracture into different groups. Um, then also on Tuesday, we're gonna be doing a clubhouse, um, mastering emotions and overcoming grudges Wednesday, uh, Robert Tru Sinski and Steven Hicks are gonna have a webinar discussing objectiveism and art. Um, and then on, um, Thursday, we're gonna have, and ask me anything with, uh, Richard Salzman and, um, yeah. And then the following Friday, a week from today, we'll have the part two of this series with, with Jason Hesel. Thank you all. And I look forward to seeing you next week.
Speaker 0 00:59:26 Thank you everybody.
