“I want a man who's kind and understanding. Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?” Zsa Zsa Gabor
In meritocracy, one is judged according to one’s personal past
performance and achievements. Is this the best principle to follow when
looking for a suitable romantic partner?
What is meritocracy?
Meritocracy is a system in which people are chosen in light of their
personal past performance and achievements, without taking into account
their past circumstances, including their socioeconomic background. In
social organizations, this view holds that certain resources, such as
entering universities or getting certain positions, should be
distributed according to performance, as measured by the examination of
demonstrated achievement. Meritocracy intends to abolish various types
of biases, some of which, like nepotism, should indeed be eliminated.
However, it is also evident that disregarding a person’s background is
likely to generate a tremendous bias
against those from less fortunate backgrounds or circumstances. Indeed,
a common criticism against meritocracy in the educational system is
that it is increasingly stratified, and an elite class that is created
represents a narrow segment of the population. Hence, it ignores
diversity.
In his book, The Diversity Bonus (2017), Scott Page argues that teams
including different kinds of thinkers outperform homogenous groups on
complex tasks. Page severely criticizes the meritocracy system's ability
to build successful teams. He argues that the principle of
meritocracy—the idea that the “best person” should be hired—runs counter
to the multidimensional or layered nature
of complex problems. In his view, there is no best person. Page claims
that even if people have extensive knowledge about the relevant domain,
no test or criteria applied to individuals will produce the best team.
Every domain possesses such depth and breadth that no test can suffice.
He argues that optimal hiring of teams to fulfill certain complex tasks
depends on context; hence, optimal teams should be diverse. When
creating a forest, you do not select the best trees; rather, you choose
trees that are compatible with each other, and this requires diversity.
Romantic diversity
Emodiversity—that is, the variety and relative abundance of the
emotions that a person experiences—is an independent predictor of mental
and physical health, such as decreased depression
and less visits to doctors (Quoidbach, et. al, 2014). Is romantic
diversity useful as well? We can speak about holistic diversity, as when
the lover takes into account the range of the beloved's features and
sees him or her as a diverse, whole person, and object diversity, as
when a person’s love is directed at various individuals. The first form
of diversity, which is highly praised, underlies long-term profound
love. The second form is more disputable. Polyamorous lovers claim that
loving two people at the same time does not damage, and can even
enhance, the intensity and depth of their love for each individual
(Ben-Ze’ev & Brunning, 2017).
The value of meritocracy in choosing a romantic partner
“I don't wish to be everything to everyone, but I would like to be something to someone.” Javan
The value of meritocracy in guiding one's decision when choosing a
romantic partner is not immediately evident in light of the complexity
and diversity of such a task.
The non-relational properties of the beloved, such as wisdom,
external appearance, social status, financial state, performance, and
achievements, which stand on their own, are typical constituents of
meritocracy. However, such properties alone cannot determine the
generation of long-term profound love, at the heart of which is the
interactions between the partners. On the contrary, it is often the case
that on their way up, successful people are quite inconsiderate of
others. Our partners can be highly educated, attractive, rich, and
famous, but they might just not suit us. We might not find them
sufficiently sensitive to us or genuinely interested in our flourishing;
sometimes, they might even be threatened by our success or autonomy.
Moreover, being with a person who is, in light of the principle of
meritocracy, highly superior or inferior to you is quite problematic and
often leads to low-quality relationships and a greater tendency to
engage in extramarital affairs (Ben-Ze’ev, 2016).
Despite the above considerations, the non-relational properties of the beloved are not without value in generating romantic love.
These properties, such as wisdom, external appearance, social status,
financial state, and achievements, stand on their own, regardless of the
lover’s perception. The lover does not have a privileged epistemic
status concerning them; they are mostly open to other people's
examination, and there is a wide consensus about them. For example, it
is easier to fall in love with a rich, wise, and handsome person than
with a poor, stupid, and ugly one. Furthermore, the former are more
likely to provide better circumstances for our personal flourishing.
The most relevant properties for generating profound romantic love are the relational
properties, which encompass the way the two lovers interact with each
other. Examples of such properties are caring, kindness, reciprocity,
sensitivity, and the ability to bring out the best in each other. The
major concern of relational properties is that of suitability in
enhancing the couple's flourishing. This concern relates to the
uniqueness of the specific romantic connection.
Compatible with these claims, Paul Eastwick and Lucy Hunt (2014)
present empirical evidence showing that most people's judgments about
mate value are more relational than non-relational, especially as people
get to know each other better over time. They further suggest that
although consensus emerges on desirable (non-relational) qualities in
initial impression settings, this consensus is weaker than the tendency
of participants to see one another as uniquely and subjectively
desirable or undesirable over time. Eastwick and Hunt conclude that
despite the unbalanced distribution of desirable non-relational
properties in the population, “mating pursuits
take place on a more-or-less even playing field in which most people
have a strong chance of being satisfied with their romantic outcomes”
(2014: 729).
Concluding remarks
“I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am
out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me
at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.” Marilyn
Monroe
The principal of meritocracy can easily assess nonrelational
properties, while romantic uniqueness, which is generated by the
partners’ unique interactions, is not subject to such a comparative
assessment. Hence, the value of meritocracy in searching for a suitable
romantic partner is limited.
The diversity and complexity of romantic partnerships are much
greater than those of a successful professional team of neuroscientists
or company managers. Accordingly, the optimal romantic match is hard to
predict without considering the partners' actual joint interactions. In
any case, matches should not be based on finding the best person in the
world, but rather on locating the most suitable partner in the couple’s
given circumstances.
Many people, it seems, go about the search for their desired partner
in the wrong way. They start with the non-relational properties and then
try to see whether the relational properties ensue. A partner with all
the best individual qualities may be alluring, but bearing in mind that
romantic concerns apply to the connection between the partners, rather
than to them as individuals, it is essential to value the importance of
strong relational properties in the search for profound love.
By Aaron Ben-Zeév Ph.D.
No comments:
Post a Comment