Meritocracy? Values, beliefs and deserving

From Henry's personal library
(translation assisted by ChatGPT)


If I were the CEO of a gaming company, who would I hire? The brazillian entrance exam system, supposedly, gives everyone the same chances. The grader doesn't know who answered the question or whose test they are grading. Either the answer is correct or not. If it's an essay question, it's scored between zero and X points. If it's multiple choice, it's the computer that reads the answer sheet. I learned something myself: when the answer isn't written or is very poorly written, what does the grader see? They see that the expected answer isn't written! They don't guess thoughts and an answer that you never wrote there! That's why in writing tasks, the grader doesn't interpret arguments. They can't know what you meant, but didn't express properly! Do you remember in the movie "The Pursuit of Happyness" with Will Smith? There's a scene in the elevator where one of the candidates forgot to answer the questions on the other side of the sheet. How is the test's grader going to guess?

In the brazilian national team, who gets in? Following Bernardo (Bernardinho) Rezende's example, the players with a certain set of qualities to form the winning team. It's not enough for a player to be the best in their position, or that's not even the point. The point is that the ensemble has to be the best, and not always the player with the highest statistics (points) is the one who will serve in that position. The example he gives is of Ricardinho, who was then the best setter in the world and was cut off. I won't even touch on political issues, corruption, sponsors, and prejudices. I'm assuming a scenario free from that.

A player eligible to be part of the national team must share the values of that team; otherwise, they are not suitable for that team, but perhaps for another. What does this have to do with entrance exams and USP (University of São Paulo)? Part of the dropout rate could be explained by this lack of synchrony between your values and those of the university or college you are attending. I believe that effort is greater when the values of the company and your own are more aligned or synchronized. Ricardinho didn't leave the national team because he was a bad player, but because there wasn't this alignment of values. I left USP, and part of that was also due to lack of synchrony. A natural question here would be: are the university's values synchronized with those of society? I won't delve into this discussion because it's not the point here, and I'm not qualified to discuss it.

In the entrance exam, yes, the more points, the better. But does that mean those who pass are more intelligent? Better? More hardworking? The grader doesn't know. The testing system doesn't know. The system doesn't know how much you studied. It doesn't know if you were forced or if it was voluntary. There's no measurement of effort and dedication. But the system presumes that the more points, the better. It's the cheapest system available to evaluate thousands of people at once. But it's also the crudest, attempting to indirectly assess effort through a final score.

Now, there's another premise embedded in the entrance exam system: the premise that everyone has equal access to education. Which is false. I used to support FUVEST (Fundação Universitária para o Vestibular. The board or committee who makes the entrance exam), but now I disagree and understand the position of many professors at USP (Universidade de São Paulo) who are against the entrance exam. The entrance exam wasn't designed to select those who deserve it more, let alone those who need a college education more.

If I were in the HR department of a company, would I evaluate competencies and skills or decide who deserves more? Deserves how and why? How would I know about everyone's life? A curriculum, without manipulation, supposedly tells if a person is hardworking. But what is the scale of effort then? How do you compare people like that? I've had several teachers, recalling their time as students, and colleagues say, "*** studied little and got a higher grade than me, who studied much more!". Thiago Klafke in the video says, "You won't be hired because you think you deserve it." I'll be honest, I didn't like college exams and still don't. But I also don't know what the alternative is. A physics professor from the Institute of Physics | University of Sao Paulo (IFUSP) told me, "Exams are the worst thing, but how do you evaluate 50 to 100 students at once?" I simply can't attribute my dropout and failure in college to exams and grades alone. Within USP, there are both students who want to pass no matter what and those who appreciate rigor and demand because that's how they learn. I never thought lowering the standards was a solution, although I also didn't agree with raising the level of exams too much and failing the entire class either.

I persisted a lot to pass the Fuvest and I did. But I didn't graduate. I overvalued what Fuvest wanted, which was pure and theoretical knowledge. In addition to solitary study, which is another premise of the entrance exam's model. Isn't it questioned that much of what is learned in the classroom is very detached from reality? Well, currently, I also question what should be taught in schools. Many schools and families value study and theory above all else. The entrance exam represents the belief that the more you know, the better. It's pure technical competence, and yet the test is still limited in its selection power because the test time is limited. What's the use of having a Ph.D. in food science if I can't cook? That's the point. I remember at least one professor at USP telling me that some so-called doctors dive into theory and never come out. This applies to any field of knowledge.

There's a common point in the videos of Peter Jordan, Bernardinho, and Paulo Storani. A team is made up of a sum of individuals. Nobody can be good at everything at the same time or be good at nothing. Both extremes are idealizations. You can replace people, but if you change the team's values, you dismantle everything. I believe the lesson here is that people can be replaced in what they do, but there will always be a trade-off of gains and losses because no two people are alike. I would question if there are unshakeable people, such as the phrase "nobody is irreplaceable." Are there people without weaknesses or negatives? This leads me to a belief that all individuals need and should complement each other in a team or group.

Yet another common point in the three videos mentioned, including Thiago Klafke's. Losses, failures, and stress. Not passing the entrance exam, failing calculus, not graduating and obtaining the dreamed diploma, losing a lot of money, not winning a gold medal, falling victim to a scam, being fired, or not being hired. The question that remains is: What did you learn? Blaming the process, the test, the rules, the recruiter, the company, or the competition is easy. All sources I used have in common the phrase: "Hold yourself accountable for your own actions". Not doing so is actually what prevents psychological treatments from working. Now, the question of where these mental barriers come from is a discussion beyond my ken. But there's an argument that Alan Mocellim uses that I agree with: accountability hurts.

At least more than one professor at USP, each in their own words, told me the following: if you don't study or plagiarize others' work, the worst that can happen is failing. In the job market, there's dismissal, lawsuits for plagiarism. There's a common saying (in Brazil) that says the entrance exam is the last easy test of your life. I lived that. The content covered in the entrance exam is basic. In higher education, knowledge is more complex and deeper than in the entrance exam. Postgraduate studies are even more in-depth than undergraduate studies. The academic environment is one of rigor and demand because all science depends on rigor and demand. A professor criticizing a work and pointing out errors is much much less than losing an Olympics, a company going bankrupt, a life without employment, or the risk of a police operation being a catastrophe. This is a belief I hold: a more rigorous process is necessary to achieve better results. However, I am not qualified to discuss the methods of the process.

Now, the inverse problem. If I were the CEO and had to dismiss? Renato Cariani reports in a podcast that out of three people in the company, one would be cut. Of the three, the one who delivered the most results was a single person who also indulged the most in life. The other two were married and had children, but one of them delivered the least. Who left? The one who delivered the least results. Fair? An argument that caught my attention: the least performing one wasn't living well and if his concern about employment and income were significant, shouldn't he be the one feeling more pressure to deliver more results? I've heard many interviews on the radio and read various articles. Choosing people based on camaraderie, politics, or social justice criteria. It's the recipe for failure. Criteria of love and passion are the worst. It's the recipe for a catastrophe or tragedy. Think about it, if I let personal feelings take precedence and put friendship ahead at the expense of the company's health. If it fails, everyone loses. Is it worth it? The example Bernardinho gives is the cutting of Murilo in the 2016 Olympic Games. Given Murilo's physical condition, the team wouldn't reach gold. The speech of BOPE (Rodrigo PIMENTEL and Paulo Storani) from RJ (Rio de Janeiro) is more or less in this direction, one person making mistakes (playing the hero, for example) puts the entire operation at risk.

I have read a lot about various disorders, including personality disorders, and a lot about ego. It's not something I can delve into here, and I don't have the expertise for it either. But feeling capable or prepared isn't always supported by reality itself. This happened with my level design website. It doesn't count for much when applying for a job at a gaming company. This also happens in the university entrance exams, in college exams, and with many people. But I also imagine the problem with dismissal. If you think you're so important and necessary that the cut wouldn't happen to you, or, with luck, you'd be the last one to be cut. Dismissal can be fair or unfair. Personally, my rule of thumb is: the more detached you are from reality and from yourself, and the further you are from your peers, the more biased your self-evaluation will be.

One thing you learn in college, and it's not in the classroom, is that effort isn't just brute and directionless. Good results also depend on well-directed and well-measured effort. Not always more hours or heavier / intense effort is better. It depends on how you make use of those hours and how you train, study, practice, read, listen / hear, think, etc. From personal experience, studying calculus isn't just about solving as many exercises as you can handle. In sports, several coaches or physical education teachers teach that training also depends on technique. It's not just about more hours or more weight. This led me to discover a certain hidden belief: that you believe you are perfectly prepared. Perfect how? Does perfection exist? Does someone control all possible variables? If you have achieved perfection, there is no more training, no more studying, no more learning, it's over.

What do hiring decisions and firing decisions have in common? No individual or individual value is worth more than the entire group. Each part has its importance and value, but I would also say that a structure where everyone has exactly the same importance and value is an utopia. Forced equality assumes that everyone is equal, which is impossible. At least when we have an ideal scenario without undue favoritism. To get in, there's a minimum effort required, and your values must have some compatibility with what the employer wants or expects from you. To leave, again, effort and values. Without a minimum effort and with incompatible values, you can't continue to be part of that group.

Do beliefs and behaviors change? Over time, it's possible. But it's difficult. I follow Alan Mocellim and Pedro Calabrez, and both the latest psychology and neuroscience have a consensus: it's impossible to rewrite the mind, erase everything, and start from scratch. That only exists in science fiction movies, supernatural movies with possession of spirits, or superhero movies with mind-controlling powers. Do values change? Bernardinho says the values of the winning team are not up for discussion, but methods are. I would add that good values don't change and are enduring. I won't try to discuss ethics and values of companies here because it'd be impractical for me. I can only comment that completely changing the values of an organization is extremely difficult, especially when there are values that have lasted for a long time.

There is a common thread among all the sources I used for this article. Bernardinho's speech, for example, emphasizes that a person stays in sports out of necessity, passion, or a combination of both. This applies to working with games, as in the case of Thiago Klafke, who is doing what he wanted. It also applies to college, where I was and didn't finish. It applies to the BOPE as well. College wasn't necessary for me, and I was never passionate (it took me time to realize this) about the field (meteorology in my case). I saw this in practice; the most dedicated colleagues and professors, if not passionate about the field, were there out of necessity and did what needed to be done (studying, in this case). In the BOPE, those who quit are those who don't share the BOPE's values. In relationships, one thing that Alan Mocellim teaches is that if you have values closer to the other person's, the relationship is better. If you don't even know what values are, that's where problems begin.

To persist, to be resilient, to insist, to continue. Daniel Martins de Barros asks if this isn't a mistake, if this isn't stubbornness. In my case, in college, it was. Alan Mocellim doesn't address this directly, but rather abusive and toxic relationships that persist for too long. Often, the problem is this: if you don't know what values you have or have a significant cognitive distortion and distorted values, you keep stubbornly continuing a relationship that should have ended already. In the BOPE, those who continue through that hellish training are not the stubborn ones, but those whose values are compatible with the BOPE's. I would say the same applies to the college entrance exam. To take it multiple times, trying the same major (in Brazil you choose the major before applying) and not being approved, maybe it's time to consider another path other than the one you're trying and failing at. If there's no passion or necessity, then what is there? My level design website at least indicates a minimum of passion. However, passion alone is insufficient. Determination and discipline are also lacking.

Responding to the initial question: at the time of publishing this text, I don't have a completed portfolio, and that's the bare minimum, the smallest competence as Pedro Calabrez would say. It's the homework, as they say in school. Hiring someone who hasn't done the minimum? Me? To do the bare minimum doesn't guarantee anything, but it significantly increases the chances. Not doing the minimum is relying solely on luck. I'd say it's not just luck, but it's believing in a miracle, and in the worst way possible. If you watch Thiago Klafke's video and think that his invitation to Blizzard right after his great-grandmother's passing was purely luck, you'll be ignoring many other factors, not just that. The video is a snippet, not a recap of an entire life.

There are some psychological issues related to feeling that you are not enough, excessive pressure, perfectionism, obsessions, self-blame, self-doubt, but that's already getting too far off-topic. I also wouldn't have the expertise to discuss it here.

References

Hugh McCutcheon has different methods and is quite different from Bernardinho. But if you compare the values behind them, they are almost the same.

Thiago Klafke's conclusions are very consistent with Pedro Calabrez, Daniel Martins de Barros, and Peter Jordan.

Valorie Kondos has a very similar speech to Hugh McCutcheon. The values are the same or almost the same. In many points, it is almost the opposite of BOPE, but when it comes to war, there is no kindness. Of all the sources, she is the most loving and compassionate. Her way of treating athletes is quite different from Bernardinho's.

References (portuguese only)

Mário Sergio Cortella. I lost count of how many times I listened to him on CBN radio. One of the best communicators in the country.

Lyoto Machida. I have never met him and have never followed MMA. But he has very very strong values.

I mentioned BOPE, but I don't know the values of BOPE, so I can't agree or disagree with them.

I came across Renato Cariani by chance when some video about nutrition appeared to me. He has a mentality of both an athlete and an entrepreneur at the same time. His story is another example of doing what needs to be done.

Paulo Storani has a war mentality because the public security problem is indeed a war with many deaths. But he has very similar values to Bernardinho as well.

BOPE - translates to "Special Force Operations Squad". An elite squad within the police.

Retrieved from "https://www.henry-ym.org/index.php?title=Meritocracy%3F_Values,_beliefs_and_deserving&oldid=1380"