Quote:
There is a major assumption in the original article that if people can think critically and understand more, they will make decisions which are better for the whole society.
I beg to differ with that assumption.
Having a society where everyone has greater knowledge and thinking skills may just make all of the individuals better at pursuing individual interests.
Increasing the power of a selfish person usually doesn't make them less selfish.
|
To argue this point is to debate the concept of Objectivism. I know that the mere mention of Ayn Rand raises the hackles of many, and I don't know that there is room in this thread for that debate. However, I would suggest that being "selfish" is not inherently bad, especially if one has critical thinking skills, and is able to make decisions that incorporate both the individual's needs, as well as the need for a stable society.
As far as the existence of "talent", I seem to remember reading an article much like the one Sigaba references. I think it was in Scientific American. It was certainly thought-provoking to consider that there may not be such a thing as "talent". I think I came away not entirely convinced that this is true, but feeling that talent may not be one particular thing, such as skill at playing the piano, as it is a set of innate skills that happen to complement each other, and are then reinforced by a learning environment that happens to favor a given talent. As a simplistic example, a "talented" piano player may be someone who happens to have a good ear (perfect pitch), as well as good manual dexterity, and grows up in a household where he/she is exposed to music at an early age, and has access to a piano. Maybe I'm totally wrong, but having tried to teach difficult skills to people in my trade, it's hard for me to believe that some people just don't have "it".