Category: Philosophy & Worldview

  • The Tyranny of Merit

    Michael J. Sandel

    If I go by my blog posts, it was in 2004 that the thought first occurred to me – “humankind protests against all kinds of disparities – race, sex, age etc..but aren’t institutions like IIMs promoting discrimination based on intellectual aptitude“. I did not know the word meritocracy then (coined by Michael Young in 1958, who saw it as a dystopian concept), but since 2015, the word and the world it has created has been appearing in many of my posts. That’s why this was a book I was looking forward to. And it didn’t disappoint. Despite an American context, it peels the layers, and the insights are universal. 

    Meritocracy began as a remedy, and its earliest proponents probably understood that while it may not be able to bring about equality, it could help create mobility across the levels of society. Unfortunately, it has increasingly moved away from that purpose too, and has now created a system where those are already privileged have a disproportionate advantage over those who do not. And no, education, especially the way it is now, is not a solution. And anyway, mobility can no longer compensate for inequality. Meritocracy was a means to an end, but I can’t help but think that its progress is mirroring that of a related “inter-subjective” concept – money, which is now an end in itself. 

    The author begins with the recent success of populist movements – Trump, Brexit – some of which are a threat to democracy, and provides his perspectives on why they were able to rally people. The answers lie beyond the usual suspects – backlash against racial, ethnic, gender diversity, and the dislocation caused by globalisation. In short, a technocratic way of conceiving public good, and meritocratic way of defining winners and losers. The former removes moral arguments from public discourse and treats them as matters of economic efficiency. The technocratic version of meritocracy de-links merit and moral judgment, by defining the the common good only in economic terms, and equating it to GDP. The latter creates hubris among the winners by deeply embedding the thought that their success is all their own doing without luck or privilege playing any part, and humiliation and resentment among the losers, by making it seem that their status is purely their fault. The author does an excellent job of highlighting this change through the American political rhetoric, and the “you deserve it” narrative in everyday life. 

    For the longest while, education was the ticket to the “American Dream”, but this has created damage on multiple counts. It has eroded the self esteem of those who have not gone to college, devaluing their contributions, and making it seem the sole reason for their lot in life. It has also promoted credentialism, the “last acceptable prejudice”, making a college degree a pre-condition for dignified work. “Smart vs dumb” began to replace “just vs unjust” and “right vs wrong” in public discourse and policy. Democratic institutions too became the exclusive preserve of the credentialed class (in the West) making it less representative. The author shows how the support base of various parties have changed over decades, alienating the working class and adding to polarisation. 

    There is a fantastic section on whether we deserve our talents, or are responsible for the value that society happens to place on them. While he acknowledges the effort involved in success, there really is no question on the importance of talent in the overall equation. Another part that really proved to me how I was conditioned to accept meritocracy was the exploration of free-market liberalism and welfare state liberalism’s alternatives to meritocracy. In the first, the author quotes Friedrich A Hayek, when pointing out that “Market outcomes have nothing to do with rewarding merit. Merit involves a moral judgement about what people deserve, whereas value is simply a measure of what consumers are willing to pay for the goods and services sellers have to offer“. In the second, he quotes John Rawls, “If people competed on a truly level playing field, the winners would be those endowed with the greatest talent. But differences of talent are morally arbitrary as differences of class“. Later in “Success Ethics”, he uses Frank Knight’s “..meeting market demand is not necessarily the same thing as making a truly valuable contribution to society.” Also useful was the nuance between deserving and entitled, and the rabbit hole of moral thinking it opens up. The author also provides recommendations on how we can attempt to fix this tyranny – in the domains of education and economics. 

    Why is all this important? Technology is making more and more jobs extinct, and my generation is already feeling the pain. Beyond the economic aspects, work also makes huge contributions to meaning, dignity, and does its share of removing our fear of becoming obsolete and irrelevant. Contributive justice, as opposed to the distributive justice that both sides of the political spectrum are attempting to achieve. To quote R.H.Tawney, “Social well-being… depends upon cohesion and solidarity…Individual happiness does not only require that men should be free to rise to new positions of comfort and distinctions; it also requires that they should be able to lead a life of dignity and culture, whether they rise or not.” By promoting meritocracy and free-market evaluations of our contributions, we are increasingly removing that agency from a human’s life.

  • Figuring

    Brain Pickings has been one of my favourite websites for a long time, and thus, this book automatically went into the wishlist. But as with many good things, it took a while to get into the cart! This is not a book that one can (or should) categorise easily, but as a reader, what I got was an appreciation of the essence and texture of life, and its interconnectedness. The book, I’d say, is poetry delivered in prose. A good thing for people like me who cannot appreciate the former! I read the title -“Figuring”, both as exploration and understanding, as well as mathematics being the language of the universe, but I am guessing it’s the first that the author intended. 

    The narrative is guided by the lives of many people. Some of them easily known, and some others not famous enough, unfortunately and unfairly. The book begins with Johannes Kepler, who would “quarry the marble out of which classical physics would be sculpted”. The stargazer, writer of science fiction, whose North Star was the discovery of truth, irrespective of what society thought of it. Including an insight far ahead of time – “The difference between the fates of the sexes is not in the heavens but in the earthly construction of gender.”

    Maybe the narrative was constructed with intellectual successors in mind too. And it’s probably through the years of sifting through content for the blog that the author found connections between the historical figures – events, mutual friends, pure chance, dates. And thus it is that we reach Maria Mitchell, “besotted with the splendour of the cosmos”, all of 12 years old, catching an eclipse, and beginning her journey towards becoming America’s first professional astronomer. She would hold Mary Somerville, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Caroline Herschel as examples of the era’s “few women of genius who have become the successful rivals of man in the paths they have chosen.” Ada Lovelace has a brief cameo here too. 

    In 1825, Margaret Fuller is fifteen, and writes that “I am determined on distinction”. In 1845, she would author “Woman in the Nineteenth Century” that “lit the Promethean fire of possibility for women”. Even as her intellectual life soared, there were very few highs in her personal life. 
    Much like Emily Dickinson, whose hundreds of poems were “verses of unambiguous beauty that thrill and taunt with their ambiguous meaning”. Though she was not well-known during her lifetime, she is now regarded as one of America’s foremost and unique poets. 

    Harriet Hosmer started her battles against expectation and convention fairly early in life, but with that also came the awareness that “everyone and everything we love is eventually swept away”. And yet she gave humanity a distinct perspective of what is possible as an artist and a human being. 

    The last recipient of the intellectual torch (in the book) is Rachel Carson, a relatively more contemporary figure. In another show of narrative mastery, the author links Carson’s story to its beginning – Lise Meitner, a pioneer in nuclear physics, whose scientific discoveries would have malevolent applications. A turning point for science and humanity. As Rachel Carson would observe years later, “We still talk in terms of conquest. We still haven’t become mature enough to think of ourselves as a very tiny part of a vast and incredible universe.. We’re challenged, as mankind has never been challenged before, to prove our maturity and mastery – not of nature but of ourselves.” Rachel Carson showcased and ignited the questions and fights that have now become global environmental movements. 

    The book forces us to ask the essential and existential questions – what makes a good life, what does it mean to live one that positively impacts humanity? And to me, whether it is worth it. Meanwhile, to note that along with these personalities, there are also giants in the periphery, who are probably more popular – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Darwin, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Walt Whitman, and so on. 

    As I wrote before, the book is difficult to categorise not just because of its narrative style and content, but also because of the multitude of themes it covers – feminism, Transcendentalism, queer relationships, the stars in the sky and the life on the ocean floor – all from the perspective of “the pale blue dot” and its sentient beings. 

    P.S. With 100 pages to go, I had a visceral experience of the transience of life – a heart attack! Such is life.

  • The Psychology of Money

    Morgan Housel

    My job is at the intersection of marketing and personal finance, and that’s the reason why I appreciate this book even more. It is a difficult subject to communicate, but a job that needs to be done. What makes The Psychology of Money really good is that it views money not (only) through the technical lens, or the “get rich” advice, but explores the emotional aspects of personal finance, and then articulates in a way that is relatable. I might be a little biased because I subscribe to the author’s worldview, and apart from index fund investing, have exactly the same approach. But I think everyone should read this book, because, as the author quotes (Voltaire), “History never repeats itself; man always does.”

    I will try not to paraphrase the lessons because they need to be read in the author’s narrative style for them to (hopefully) sink in. He begins with calling out the fact that personal finance is well, personal, and while there are definitely rules in finance and investing might, one’s behaviour is based on one’s experiences and emotions. And some of it is very generation specific. For instance, the idea that one is entitled to a dignified retirement life took root only in the 1980s! 

    He then moves on to risk, and the role of luck, followed by the importance of knowing what you really want, and then, some excellent illustrations of the “magic pill” – compounding – at work. The next couple of chapters make some key points that are often ignored- the difference between getting wealthy and staying wealthy, and the importance of “tail events”.

    The definition of “freedom” is something I could completely relate to. I’d flip the original maxim for a quick understanding – “money is time”. The more agency over time I have, the happier I am. The next two chapters about wealth are extremely insightful – no one is as impressed as your possessions as you are, and spending money on showing others that you have money is the fastest way to lose it! Wealth is income not spent, and it increases optionality. And while, one cannot control externalities, what is possible is an efficiency in savings. “One of the most powerful ways to increase your savings isn’t to raise your income. It’s to raise your humility.” 

    The following chapters get deeper into the how emotions play a large role in financial decision making, how it is better to be reasonable than trying to be coldly rational, and also, how important it is to leave room for error. I really loved the Benjamin Graham quote – “the purpose of margin of safety is to render the forecast unnecessary.” This is also important because our own desires and notions of happiness change with time. There are also some nuanced perspectives on optimism, and my views about it have changed now! 🙂

    Another extremely important lesson is not taking financial cues from others without really understanding what game they are playing – what are they optimising for, and why. e.g. day traders vs long-term investors, at a transactional level. The author uses the final chapter to show what he is aiming for, and therefore the rationale behind his own investments. 
    As I mentioned earlier, the author’s goals resonate with me – “..you only do the work you like with people you like at the times you want for as long as you want.” But at the risk of repeating myself, I think this book will help you frame your relationship with money, irrespective of where you are in your thinking and understanding of personal finance. So I insist you read it! Now!

    P.S. The postscript is an excellent read on how the US economy and its people got to where they are, both in terms of macro economic events and trends, and expectations. It’s superbly insightful in terms of understanding consumer psyche. Wonder if someone has done this for India.

    The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel

  • Logicomix

    Apostolos Doxiadis, Christos H. Papadimitriou, Alecos Papadatos (Illustrator), Annie Di Donna (Colorist)

    I have to confess I gamed this a little. This is my 300th review on goodreads, so I wanted it to be a special. So I chose a unique book – a graphic novel whose title also includes “an epic search for truth”. And thankfully, it was a fantastic experience. 

    While the story is based on the life of Bertrand Russell, it is presented through the different perspectives of its makers too. In a sense, we get to see the debates they had and how they progressed on the storytelling. Self-referential is a multi-meta when we’re talking of logic, and paradoxes! Russell is a mathematician but mathematics is also his language to engage with philosophy and thus “the truth”. Indeed, it is difficult to draw clear lines between the two deep subjects, and it only gets deeper when you add logic into the mix. The journey is as spiritual as it is scientific. And many believe it is solvable. To quote Hilbert, “In Mathematics, there is no Ignorabimus (Latin for “we shall not know”). As Russell continues to work on his Herculean task of establishing a logical foundation for all mathematics, he crosses paths with some of the foremost thinkers of the era, and probably of all time. Kurt Gödel, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Henri Poincaré and so on. (the creators note that some instances have been created for narrative purposes)

    The story is rendered in flashback mode, as Russell is asked to lend his voice to those who oppose US involvement in WW2. I found it a perfect setting as he practically narrates his life thus far, and in the end, his response to the protesters pretty much summed up what he learned from his life and his quest. Though the novel is primarily about Russell’s pursuit, it also gives the reader a view of his life in the real world – his lonely childhood, his many marriages, his friendships, his relationship with his student Wittgenstein, his passion to bring a sense of order, the connection between madness and logic, and his stance on the two world wars. All of this makes it a deeply layered book with some wonderful thoughts. “The tragic loneliness of every human being. The finiteness and profound futility of life”

    But I think the reason why I loved this book was also because it resonated a lot with my perspectives, my affection for logic, and the lessons I have learned when I have tried to bend reality to fit it. (“Sure, Frege, Russell, Whitehead were excellent map-makers, but maybe eventually they confused their reality with maps” “All the facts of science are not enough to understand the world’s meaning“) This also leads to a lot of over analysis. (As Russel writes, “Like me, he was constantly analysing everything, a habit deadening to the emotions“). And something about the genesis of it all – “Maybe what brings them to logic is a fear of ambiguity and emotion“. But of many moments, I think my favourite is when Wittgenstein survives a near-death experience and understands that”The meaning of world does not reside in the world“.

    Even if you’re not into graphic novels (I am not), this one is a must read.

    P.S. If you have read similar books, do share.

    Logicomix : An Epic Search for Truth

  • Weapons of Math Destruction

    Cathy O’Neil

    Humans have had biases for the longest while. But they have come a long way from from the simplistic ones that helped the species band together and survive, or even the the heuristics we have applied and continue to use at an individual level. As search engines and social networks move from tools to utilities, we have now begun to see the dark side of “software is eating the world” – when biases and discrimination are being codified into systems, resulting in blind discrimination that widens inequality by preventing people from climbing out of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and all the things that we as society should be ashamed of. 

    The author, thanks to her education and experience, is well placed to write on the subject. She calls the mathematical models or algorithms WMDs – Weapons of Math Destruction. They have three common characteristics – scale, opacity and damage. To elaborate, they typically use data sets to create scoring systems that evaluates people in various ways. Most of these systems are proprietary. The scale at which these systems operate is really large, and therefore the damage they cause is also equally massive. Most of the people affected don’t even realise they’re being discriminated against and sent on a downward spiral. And most importantly, there is no feedback loop to make the system better. 

    The author frames it very well through examples across life stages – how teachers and students are evaluated in schools and universities, how employees – potential and existing – are screened, how online ads for predatory services like payday loans are targeted, how insurance premiums are decided, how law and order systems end up “creating” criminals simply based on location data, and perpetrates injustice, how scheduling software destroys any sense of work-life balance. These are not dry, statistical examples, but backed by stories of actual humans devastated by an unfeeling algorithm, with nearly no chance to work their way out of it.

    In the future, what really stops us reaching “Minority Report” scenarios? Arresting people because they could be potential criminals, screening applicants based on health issues they could have in the future, and so on. And since everything is based on users sharing data, it seems certain that privacy will come at a price. In the past, when greed and business “progress” began to have harmful effects on society, the government stepped in and put laws in place to safeguard us. But now governments themselves use these systems! We still have a chance to work our way out of this and bring back dignity. For instance, the European model, in which data collection must be approved by the user and is opt-in, and the reuse of data is prohibited. 

    But will we? In our efforts to remove biases, we have ended up creating systemic monstrosities that lack empathy, and only focus on efficiencies. Those who learn to game the system profit. Winners keep winning, losers keep losing, as fairness is forgotten because entire business models are built on them. As the author rightly points out, “The technology already exists. It’s only the will we’re lacking.” And that, really, is the problem, because “Algorithms are opinions embedded in code”. An important book for the times we live in, and the future.