Ep18 - Meritocracy and Free Will: Are Human Societies Built on Illusions?

In the episodes published so far, we have analyzed wars, political crises, and global instability. But all these dynamics, from the Middle East to Europe, are not natural events, like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption. On the contrary, they are the result of human actions, carried out within our societies.

Now, if we observe the world from above, a bird's-eye view, we can divide human societies into two major spheres: the Western and the Eastern. And for some time now, within Western society, we have been witnessing a rather worrying phenomenon: the attempt to gain global hegemony. What is evident is a frantic race for supremacy. This effort causes inequalities between countries, creating wealth on one side and misery and poverty on the other. Those born in a stable, wealthy country have opportunities for education and career, while those born in a conflict zone or extreme poverty risk not surviving or leading a severely limited life.

The inequalities between people living in rich countries and people living in poor countries are evident, but within rich countries, there is another inequality that is a little less obvious. An inequality that is often consciously or unconsciously masked by a simple word: merit. The concept of merit is profoundly mythologized in our societies, be they Western or Eastern. When we talk about merit, in fact, we unconsciously fall under the influence of a mental distortion, or, to put it more correctly, a so-called cognitive bias. It is as if we were observing reality through filters that distort it, much like looking through sunglasses. Well, in this episode, we want to reflect precisely on this point: what is merit really, and how much of it is truly under our control.

Before diving into today's episode, however, let's take a step back with a small Chinese story, the Parable of the Farmer. It doesn't serve to introduce the episode, but as a methodological tool to better understand reality. Indeed, we must first agree on one concept: what seems like good luck or bad luck to us is nothing more than chance (or randomness). Good fortune and bad fortune do not exist except as human inventions. And if we interpret success and merit in terms of luck, we risk misunderstanding everything. Chance, not luck, governs our lives.

The parable tells the story of an old farmer. At one point, his horse ran away. The neighbors rushed to help him, saying, 'What bad luck!' But the farmer replied, 'Perhaps so, perhaps not. Who can say?'

The horse returned, accompanied by other wild horses. The neighbors then rejoiced: 'What good fortune!' But this time too, the farmer replied, 'Perhaps so, perhaps not. Who can say?'

The farmer's son broke his leg trying to tame one of the wild horses. The neighbors then exclaimed: 'What bad luck!' The farmer still replied, 'Perhaps so, perhaps not. Who can say?'

A few months later, the army conscripted all the young men, but the farmer's son was not conscripted because of his broken leg and survived. The neighbors said, 'What good fortune!' And the farmer: 'Perhaps so, perhaps not. Who can say?'

This example shows that events do not have absolute value; their meaning emerges only in relation to subsequent developments. Everything is the result of chance, a chain of unpredictable events. It is we who give a positive or negative meaning to events. And so, if good fortune and bad fortune do not exist, but only chance, perhaps merit also belongs to the same category of illusions or, to put it differently, human inventions.

At this point, we can return to our question: what is merit really, and how much of it is truly under our control? Our thesis is the following: merit does not exist at all, except as a human invention. Exactly as happens with good luck or bad luck, it is all the result of chance, and it is we humans who give meaning to certain peculiarities.

If we think of extraordinary people from the past, such as Leonardo or Einstein, Michelangelo or Mozart, a word immediately comes to mind: genius. These people were undoubtedly geniuses. But if we think of less famous people, yet brilliant in a certain field, we speak not of genius but of merit. The boundary between genius and merit is not sharp, but we recognize the merit and effort in training of a hundred-meter champion like Carl Lewis. The medals are deserved, as they are the result of constant commitment and determination. If a student does well in school, they are said to be meritorious. In short, if a person achieves exceptional results, they are said to have merit. Those who fail, on the other hand, have no merit. The concept of merit is particularly evident in the school context. So much so that the current Italian government named the Ministry of Education this way: 'Ministry of Education and Merit.' Essentially, those who succeed in life, who are successful, have merit; all the others do not. If a person does not achieve certain educational or career goals, they lack merit.

But things are not as simple as they seem. If some people succeed while others do not, the question we should ask is: why do some people achieve exceptional results and others do not? The answer is not in merit, but in a combination of biological, social, and random factors. This is what the neurobiologist, anthropologist, and primatologist Robert Sapolsky explores in his book: Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Sapolsky argues that our genetics, the environment in which we grow up, and the experiences we encounter completely determine our behavior. Free will, as we imagine it, is an illusion. We espouse this thesis, but attention: we are not the only ones saying it. Already in the seventeenth century, the Dutch philosopher Spinoza wrote that men believe themselves to be free because they are ignorant of the causes that determine them. Men ignore the causes that determine behaviors, because human behaviors are not under the control of the will, the so-called free will. Spinoza had realized that men were often subject to their own behaviors against their own will. If a behavior occurs but is not desired, then who or what causes it? Spinoza believed that behaviors were caused by nature. It is nature that decides human behaviors. A few centuries later, the neurobiologist Sapolsky tells us that science has discovered that human behaviors are determined by a combination of biological, social, and random factors. Spinoza spoke of nature; Sapolsky of biology. What Spinoza intuitively understood as the 'necessity of nature,' today molecular biology and neurosciences translate into neural networks and genetic predispositions. In other words, what Spinoza intuitively grasped with philosophy, science demonstrates today with data...

That’s just a glimpse! The full story — and the full context — are in the podcast episode below. Curious to hear more? Listen the full episode on your favorite platform:

Amazon Music.

Apple Podcasts.

Spotify

Castbox