All behaviour (darts ability) and characteristics (height) and thinking habits (achievement orientation) follows a normal distribution. Psychs learn that. Here you want equality of OPPORTUNITY. Some short guys are amazing at basketball. Inclusion is a good idea. Inability to throw a dart is robbing us of data and potential champions. Talent tends to rise to the top and lift everything. The next Einstein may be in Namibia!
What no-one is taught is that OUTCOMES follow a pareto distribution. 20% of the achievers (EG: dart throwers) get 80% of the prize money. This is true in all aspects of human life - sport, etc. That's the real world. Fedex, Raffa, and the Djoka have won the last 18 Slams and all the money despite hundreds of tennis pro's on the tour. What if there was a limit to one slam every 3 years for fairness and equality. No more Rodger. Soon, no more tennis on TV. We love the struggle and we love champions.
A dangerous idea is to disrupt this. Equality of OUTCOME. Then you get stalinist communism, Mao, Pol Pot, famine, etc. In the history of the world this is a very bad idea. "Half of all CEO's and garbage collectors must be men from Jan 1 2011".
The other dangerous idea is not to monitor the tribe as 20% of the millionaires become multis, and then 20% of them become billionaires, all the while thinking they are exceptional. Some of it is that, and a lot is luck. When this "dominance hierarchy - pareto extension" gets too TALL the tribe reacts (French Revolution). The gap between the winners/lucky and the rest/unlucky has become unacceptable to the tribe.
Thats where we are globally. This US election is going to be interesting even if just a s a psychological experiment. I think Americans have had a guful of more money going to the oil barons to protect them from renewables than is spent on the entire education system. People would not know that of course (Media has become hyper-extended with only a few powerful owners).
As the Zen Master said - lets see.
Comments