Position in Society, Role of Smartness

 In today’s society, some people are higher up in the value chain than others. The existence of a hierarchy in society is inevitable, it seems. Some people have jobs that pay more money, have higher-end homes, get classified into certain tiers based on their income, are judged by society based on their profession, and have an inherent value ascribed to them dependent upon their choices, profession, perhaps even lifestyle and life choices.

Whether the existence of such a hierarchy is good or bad perhaps seems irrelevant to even consider. It seems to me that value hierarchies have existed for all of humanity, and continue to exist even in other animals, such as wolves, and play an important role in the interactions between different animals, based on what I know.

Smarter people are higher up in the hierarchy. This is an important point I wish to make. Those who are higher up in the hierarchy also tend to me smarter. Striving towards the top of the hierarchy seems like a good goal to have. Doing so that in society, one has more resources than others, has control over possessions, can influence others, and can live more comfortably. However, even if the majority of people are striving towards the top of a value hierarchy, there will be failure, by the very definition of hierarchy.

Perhaps, however, rather than questioning this hierarchy, it would be a valuable discussion to ruminate upon what differentiates individuals in different parts of the hierarchy--low and high. Furthermore, we may ask, to what extent should one’s goals be dominated by a desire to reach the top of such a hierarchy?

One, seemingly obvious remark I can begin with is the idea that those who are higher in this value hierarchy earn more respect. Because of their greater influence and resources, whether in the form of money, assets, or position in their career, they naturally control that which others seek from them. Like a leader of a wolfpack controls the decisions of the entire wolfpack more so than any other wolf in the pack, these peoples at the top of the hierarchy are at the top precisely because of their resources. Thus, they are respected more, sought after more, and generally tend to attract others around them because of such “wolfpack leader” influence.

Meanwhile, on the other hand, those who are at the lower end of the value hierarchy, such as civil workers, fast food restaurant employees, and secretaries, do not control such demanded resources, and thus, their opinions and wishes are not respected nearly to the same extent. Thinking about this idea outside of companies and businesses, and tangible assets, the perks of occupying a position higher in society also include the capacity to influence others’ beliefs to a greater extent, to fulfill one’s wishes more easily, and to lead a more comfortable and leisurely life, if one so desires. Furthermore, opportunities can be opened, such as the luxury of sending one’s kids to an expensive private school, or using one’s popularity and influence to become connected to other individuals who occupy a similar position to you in society. As a quick example of this, a rapper named Logic had the chance to play GM Hikaru Nakamura at chess, likely due to his reputation and fame, even though he was rather badly performing at the game.

One last remark that I wish to make to conclude this section is the idea of fluidity within this value hierarchy, and efforts people make to reach the top, through hard work and smart work. For example, studying chess the entire day during one’s entire childhood, and focusing on continuous improvement would, in my opinion, put one’s skill level on par or close to par with those at the top of the chess hierarchy, thus opening up that individual’s opportunities to not only interact with other chess players at the top level, such as Grandmaster Nakamura, but also to compete with them for prizes, fame, and even a higher ranking at the game.

On the other side of the coin, however, attaining such a high position in society necessitates dedication of a huge part of one’s efforts, mental faculties, and bodily resources, and sacrifice of time that could be spent engaging in another activity. Such an effort may even come at the expense of one’s subjective senses of happiness and satisfaction. So, in pursuit of reaching the top of the value chain, these individuals have essentially tied their own sense of achievement to their ability to reach the top of the value chain. In such a scenario, when such a difficult achievement is influenced not only by one’s effort but also by a plethora of external factors, watching one’s efforts culminate in utter failure to reach the elite level is not unlikely as far as I can tell, and while one would be remarkably good at the board game, their resulting failure to reach the top as easily as others may would be an indication of the discrepancy in the difficulty of reaching the top of such a hierarchy.

All in all, I would conclude that such life goals should be monitored to ensure that they are within one’s locus of control, and that the amount of effort and resources they dedicate towards reaching the top are, at minimum, not put to waste, and that, preferrably, there is a high association, if not a guarantee, that striving towards the top of such a value hierarchy would not result in a make-or-break scenario, but rather some position that reflects one’s effort.