<p>
[quote]
sakky: I said socially exclusive clubs and pecking orders are bad ("nonsense") and that I look down on schools that have them. You said that there was no need to use such words; some people value social ladders, and use them to do admirable things for themselves and the world.</p>
<p>My point in my message (#19) about prizefighting is: just the fact that some people value X, and use X to do admirable things for themselves and the world, does not make X good. It is possible that everyone individually would be better off if X did not exist; (eliminating X would be a Pareto improvement).</p>
<p>Thus, your Levi Jackson arugment, which purports to show that I am wrong to call things like social hierarchies "nonsense", shows nothing at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Come now, Ben Golub. Feeling a bit utopic (or possibly dystopic) perhaps? My general point had nothing to do with socially-elite clubs per se, but on the general point of social success. Some people value it. Others don't. </p>
<p>Now if you are trying to say that socially-exclusive clubs are bad things, that would be one thing. But if you trying to say that social success of any kind is unnecessary and important, I would have to say that you're just gone right off the rails. Let's face it. Human beings are social creatures. Always have been, always will be. Take away all the secret societies and eating clubs and whatnot and you will still have some people who have better social skills than others do and thus are better at leading teams and creating social change. Furthermore, it's not just a matter of somebody simply being born with charisma or leadership abilities, but rather about people learning how to socialize and taking time to develop their social networks. It's hard work, and some people decide they want to do it, and others don't. If you are imagining a world where social skills are unimportant, you are basically imagining a world where all human beings are unfeeling robots, and that's quite a dystopic fantasy. </p>
<p>Look, I'll put it to you this way. What does it matter if you're a great intellectual and you know the answer to something, if you don't have the social skills to persuade others that you're right? We'd all like to think that the truth will always 'out', but the fact is, it doesn't always 'out'. Often times, credit for intellectual discoveries is given not to the person who actually made the discovery first, but rather the person who is able to make a discovery and also convince others of that discovery. </p>
<p>Let's not also forget that the life of an academic is not all pure intellectualism. There isn't a department in a school in the world where internal politics doesn't have something to do with who gets hired and who doesn't, who gets tenure and who doesn't, who gets more funding and who gets less, who gets the good teaching assignments and who doesn't, and so forth. Even at Caltech and MIT, you know that internal political battles can and do rage. The better your social skills, the better your chances of winning these battles.</p>
<p>My point is that social skills and social success are not 'nonsense'.</p>