When the Perfect Really Is the Enemy of the Good
When luck is part of the equation, we have to change our approach. Striving to be the best is not always the best strategy, especially if our time is limited.
Daniel Altman is Big Think's Chief Economist and an adjunct faculty member at New York University's Stern School of Business. Daniel wrote economic commentary for The Economist, The New York Times, and The International Herald Tribune before founding North Yard Economics, a non-profit consulting firm serving developing countries, in 2008. In between, he served as an economic advisor in the British government and wrote four books, most recently Outrageous Fortunes: The Twelve Surprising Trends That Will Reshape the Global Economy.
Very few aspects of our lives are completely meritocratic. As much as we might like it to be the case, we usually aren’t evaluated solely on our talents and effort. Something that has nothing to do with us will almost always affect our success – and that should change how we try to attain it.
To understand why, consider a math test. If your performance on the test were only judged by the number of correct answers, it would be pretty meritocratic; you’d study hard knowing that every hour invested would help to improve your score. But what if you took the test and then received a lottery ticket that would completely determine your score? The results would not be based on merit at all, and you might not spend any time studying.
Plenty of situations in our lives fall somewhere in between. A promising student’s application to the nation’s top university might fail because there was already a track star-cum-virtuoso violinist in the sophomore class. A great book may never get reviewed because the critics were too busy or the galleys got lost in the mail.
These things aren’t the student’s or the author’s fault. They’re just bad luck. Yet when luck is part of the equation, we have to change our approach. Striving to be the best is not always the best strategy, especially if our time is limited.
When managing our time, we often face a tradeoff between the quantity and quality of the things we do. The student might spend weeks trying to put together a stunning application to a single college, or send five pretty good ones to a range of schools. The author could try to write the Great American Novel over a period of decades, or churn out a decent book every couple of years.
In a meritocracy, both the student and the author might choose the first options, secure in the knowledge that their efforts – if they truly did come close to perfection – would be handily rewarded. But that’s not the reality they face. When the situation is more like a lottery, the only thing that matters is how many tickets you’re holding.
Moreover, sometimes factors besides luck can turn these kinds of situations into a lottery. For instance, it may just be the case that the admissions office and the book critics have different views of what’s important than the student and the author do. The problem is that neither the student nor the author can ever be sure what matters to their respective judges; even without any element of randomness, they’re still looking at a crapshoot.
Realizing that success was partly beyond their control, the student might slap together a dozen college applications, and the author might crank out a dozen books. Quality might suffer somewhat in their eyes, but who could predict what the outcome would be? The judges, whose preferences were unknown, might still approve. A B+ effort from the student’s or the author’s point of view might have the same chance of success as an A.
I worry that quality really is suffering in the areas of our economy where merit is not a sufficient driver of success. We don’t have as many authors writing Great American Novels, and we don’t see some of the most promising students doing their utmost to enter elite institutions. Surmising that their talents and effort might not be appreciated, they choose quantity over quality. As a result, we live in a world awash with mediocre products and unfulfilled potential. A bigger dose of meritocracy might be the cure.
Image credit: sergign/Shutterstock
In a breakthrough for nuclear fusion research, scientists at China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor have produced temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion on Earth.
- The EAST reactor was able to heat hydrogen to temperatures exceeding 100 million degrees Celsius.
- Nuclear fusion could someday provide the planet with a virtually limitless supply of clean energy.
- Still, scientists have many other obstacles to pass before fusion technology becomes a viable energy source.
Military recruits are supposed to be assessed to see whether they're fit for service. What happens when they're not?
- During the Vietnam War, Robert McNamara began a program called Project 100,000.
- The program brought over 300,000 men to Vietnam who failed to meet minimum criteria for military service, both physically and mentally.
- Project 100,000 recruits were killed in disproportionate numbers and fared worse after their military service than their civilian peers, making the program one of the biggest—and possibly cruelest—mistakes of the Vietnam War.
The 116th Congress is set to break records in term of diversity among its lawmakers, though those changes are coming almost entirely from Democrats.
- Women and nonwhite candidates made record gains in the 2018 midterms.
- In total, almost half of the newly elected Congressional representatives are not white men.
- Those changes come almost entirely from Democrats; Republican members-elect are all white men except for one woman.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.