Many people in America believe that being near the top of the heap in a meritocracy equates to being wealthy. It's how we justify the 80-20 Rule, where 80 percent of the people have only 20 percent of the wealth, and vice versa.
We tend to tell ourselves and firmly believe the bottom 80 percent aren't as talented as the top 20 percent.
Is this really the case? Or is this just another thing we like to tell ourselves that helps us explain why we're at the various levels of wealth where we find ourselves?
"... When the team rank individuals by wealth, the distribution is exactly like that seen in real-world societies. “The ‘80-20’ rule is respected, since 80 percent of the population owns only 20 percent of the total capital, while the remaining 20 percent owns 80 percent of the same capital,” report Pluchino and co.
That may not be surprising or unfair if the wealthiest 20 percent turn out to be the most talented. But that isn’t what happens. The wealthiest individuals are typically not the most talented or anywhere near it. “The maximum success never coincides with the maximum talent, and vice-versa,” say the researchers..."
This is from an article on wealth and luck. I added the bold to the sentences I found most interesting.
It gives a radically different perspective, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment