Mediocracy

[Loddfafner]

Do we live in a mediocracy? I do not refer to rule by the media. A mediocracy is a dictatorship of the mediocre.

Discuss.

[Mesrine]

A mediocracy is a dictatorship of the mediocre.

Assuming mediocres are the majority, then mediocracy can't really be a dictature. :D

[Loddfafner]

It is a dictatorship if you happen to be in the minority.

[Jägerstaffel]

I think this would be a very apt way to describe our modern society.

I am not in favour of any of the current modes of government right now. I wish for Enlightened Despotism; rule by a good Tyrant or King.

We aren't fit to rule ourselves. I mean look at the Apricity. If the masses ruled this place, it would be a mess. Thank God for Loki and Arctic Fox, no matter what you think of their views. :)

[Mrs Ulf]

Yes, way I see it is were all suppose to fit into a neat little package. Be born, exist, contribute to society. Intended only to contribute as others have done before us.

No joy can be found from our forced acceptance and participation. Waiting for those brief moments when we feel real.

[Cato]

Yes, it doesn't take a great deal of perception to be able to tell that the world in which we dwell little values the person who stands above the rest- unless he's colored. If you're white, forget it.

[Ulf]

So if we're all convinced it's a mediocracy why aren't we all out trying to run for office?

[Mrs Ulf]

So if we're all convinced it's a mediocracy why aren't we all out trying to run for office?

I don't need a place in office to break from it. I just need enough guts to remove myself.

[Ulf]

I don't need a place in office to break from it. I just need enough guts to remove myself.

If we're self-aware enough to recognize the mediocracy then maybe we aren't mediocre. So, it wouldn't be hard to out-smart the mediocre. So why should we sit back and let them ram it up our asses?

Or are we actually mediocre but don't believe we are?

Either way, wrong question. :coffee:

[Mrs Ulf]

Mediocracy will forever be the normal. So on and so on.

Even if you spend the time to 'change' it.

Change only for you, if you gain followers then maybe a movement will begin, then let the world change with you. Only to spawn a new Mediocracy.

[Ulf]

Mediocracy will forever be the normal. So on and so on.

Even if you spend the time to 'change' it.

Change only for you, if you gain followers then maybe a movement will begin, then let the world change with you. Only to spawn a new Mediocracy.

So we're not mediocre enough to be mediocre but we're mediocre enough to change nothing.

Mediocre or apathetic? :shrug:

[Mrs Ulf]

So we're not mediocre enough to be mediocre but we're mediocre enough to change nothing.

Mediocre or apathetic? :shrug:

Apathetic?!. Try to change a plugged in world. Its not at all like it used to be. Everyone can write a book, anyone can have a website...

Your words, lost among everyone else. Lost in the crowd. Mass transit of information.

[Aemma]

Mediocrity itself exists of course and an argument can certainly be made that it seems to have garnered a cushy little seat at modern society's table. If we take a quick look at Wikipedia's definition which defines the word mediocracy as


...a situation in the society in which mediocre people prevail. The society is subordinated to a quasi-egalitarian ideology in which words and ideas are redefined to be convenient for the average people. Other symptoms include dumbing, jargonism, infantilisation, vacuity, phoney democratisation and authoritarianism,

the image of today's society as one which caters to Joe and Josephine Average is all too real. Isn't this what statisticians like to see, a nice smooth Bell Curve with a good clear 68% of the population falling in the normal range (ie average) +/- one standard deviation? Isn't "average" what is normally targeted in our society today???

Modern society is built for the average and functions well for the average. It has not much room and much less tolerance for the outliers--the truly deviant, be they poets or lunatics, found under the curve.

[Ulf]

Mediocrity itself exists of course and an argument can certainly be made that it seems to have garnered a cushy little seat at modern society's table. If we take a quick look at Wikipedia's definition which defines the word mediocracy as



the image of today's society as one which caters to Joe and Josephine Average is all too real. Isn't this what statisticians like to see, a nice smooth Bell Curve with a good clear 68% of the population falling in the normal range (ie average) +/- one standard deviation? Isn't "average" what is normally targeted in our society today???

Modern society is built for the average and functions well for the average. It has not much room and much less tolerance for the outliers--the truly deviant, be they poets or lunatics, found under the curve.

Sure, society is geared towards the mediocre, as they would make up the majority. But is society ruled by them? I don't know, maybe, how many scientists or philosophers run for office? :(

[Mesrine]

Needless to say, people who endlessly complain about the mediocres forget to put their name in this very, very long list.

[Amarantine]

Sure, society is geared towards the mediocre, as they would make up the majority. But is society ruled by them? I don't know, maybe, how many scientists or philosophers run for office? :(


Society is part of socio-economic-political system, and in micro view, is ruled by medicracy (that is for sure, just short and quick look on our state leaders in all european countries, and picture is complete).

Medocracy is purposely established and purposlesy conducted. Why?

Answer is quite easy, don't let population to really think, to have real and total perseption of their small lives and life issues. Create false crisis, create wars, create hangry states, create bank loans, create nuclear central, create virusis...why? Create average School system, don't let the real knowledge (remember the ancient" knowledge is a power"), create bad health system, create average Bologne declaration to make all Universities in Europe equal (this declaration is total disaster for future ((de)generations),etc etc

Modern slavery. Brain washing. Who cares about colateral, who cares about populations...I think, this method is really on the top in USA, and Europe still resist a bit but very fast we will be in the same position.

[Skandi]

Needless to say, people who endlessly complain about the mediocres forget to put their name in this very, very long list.

And? even if we are mediocre that does not stop us having a wish to be governed by those who are not. Surely you can see that one does not have to be gifted to know that one is "normal"? I may well not want to rule but I sure don't want to be rules by the average Sun reader.

[Phlegethon]

We all get smashed by the Bell Curve.

[Lars]

Absolutely! We live in the age of the tyranny of the crowd. The average person vote by feelings alone and their motivation to vote is to gain goods, wealth, benefits etc. on expense of others. They are not capable to see the greater good.

[SuuT]

The idea of Proportional Representation (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch15.htm) is actually pretty funny if one is in the mood.

[Aemma]

Sure, society is geared towards the mediocre, as they would make up the majority. But is society ruled by them? I don't know, maybe, how many scientists or philosophers run for office? :(

Read the chapter that SuuTie appended. It makes for interesting reading and elucidates the point very well I think. :)

As for scientists or philosophers running for office, no typically they don't run and I would surmise precisely because they are not part of the Majority. You don't become a scientist or philosopher by being part of the Majority in that sense. Scientists and philosophers are intellectual mavericks (or should be at any rate)--part of the outlier group I alluded to--genuine thinkers. Their intellectual playground if you will is not within the stifling confines of the groupthink majority--in theory at any rate. I qualify this last bit as a sheer reminder that even these fine mavericks of free thought have been co-opted to a large degree by mediocracy's need to infiltrate the once strong bastion of free thought--the university.

[Cato]

Mediocre is accepted as normal because the vast majority of people haven't realized that they can rise above abnormal mediocracy.

[Aemma]

The idea of Proportional Representation (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch15.htm) is actually pretty funny if one is in the mood.

Good nuggets in this SuuTie. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you. :)

Some quotes extracted from the text:


The moral authority of the majority is partly based upon the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than in a single individual, and that the number of the legislators is more important than their quality. The theory of equality is thus applied to the intellects of men [my italics]; and human pride is thus assailed in its last retreat by a doctrine which the minority hesitate to admit, and to which they will but slowly assent. Like all other powers, and perhaps more than any other, the authority of the many requires the sanction of time in order to appear legitimate. At first it enforces obedience by constraint; and its laws are not respected until they have been long maintained.


The moral power of the majority is founded upon yet another principle, which is that the interests of the many are to be pre- ferred to those of the few.



When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. *One of my favourites*



A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength.



I am therefore of the opinion that social power superior to all others must always be placed somewhere; but I think that liberty is endangered when this power finds no obstacle which can retard its course and give it time to moderate its own vehemence.



But the majority possesses a power that is physical and moral at the same time, which acts upon the will as much as upon the actions and represses not only all contest, but all controversy.

Overall I find this chapter to be a good read. If anything it does make one think more fully about the notion of the Many constituting any real claim to legitimate increased brilliance.

[SuuT]

Mediocre is accepted as normal because the vast majority of people haven't realized that they can rise above abnormal mediocracy.

Circular/Begging the question.


@Aemma:

As Aristocracy is an Ethos, and DeTocqueville is a voice from that hollow, his words can never be inapplicable; whereas there never has been, is not, and never will or can be, a democratic thinker whose deeds from the spirit of experimentation will not be muted by the next democrat.

[Liffrea]

When Thomas Carlyle wrote of the “4th estate” he was referring to the press, but what he really meant was public opinion. Public opinion, like mob rule, is dependent solely on the ability of an individual or group of individuals to harness it and point it in a direction desired, any form of government from tyranny to democratic relies either on popular assent or acquiescence. The majority of people don’t have thoughts, they have opinions…..

Of course all societies, whether we like it or not, are geared towards the perpetuation of the rule of a minority, what that minority is varies from place to place and in time. In Rome the minority was the landed aristocracy, some 5% of whom owned over 80% of all land in the Roman Empire. In Britain, shaped politically over the last two hundred years or so, the minority is more a plurality, the British political elite has always been adaptive, which is a major reason that England never experienced the upheavals that France, Germany or Russia experienced, even our Civil War was more a squabble between haves and haves over varying levels of power.

In a system relying solely on the ability of one man mediocracy can be fatal, Rome, again, provides an example of a state heavily centralised on one man whose inability to rule could have a dramatic effect on the empires ability to function (and Rome had it’s fair share of incompetents and degenerates), of course an Emperor had to have backers, but once in power and with appropriate support he could do pretty much what he liked. In Britain this is less the case, largely because we have a system of control by a fluid class system that negates the effect one man can have, it’s not democratic, anyone calling Britain democratic doesn’t understand the word, but it works, that is not really in doubt. A man of little talent or ability (step forward Mr Brown) can become PM (as long as he ticks all the right boxes for the people that matter) and if he doesn’t the he will die in the court of “public opinion”.

Do the mediocre rule? Of course not, what an absurd system would it be if most people were actually allowed to make real decisions? Think on it, think of the people you know or the people you see every day, are they really the kind of people you would want to rule the society you live in? I walk pass drunks, druggies, hoodies and assorted deadbeats every day, all entitled to vote, amazing! I’m actually asked to believe that this bloke sitting on a curb to pissed to stand at 8:30 in the morning is a decision maker! That his “wisdom” is taken into consideration by the “great and the good”. He’s manipulated, the same as anyone else of the “plebs”, he’s used to further others ambitions, that’s the extent of his use to society. Harsh but none the less, I believe, true. The people who run society aren’t mediocre, manipulative and ruthless, certainly, but mediocre, no.

[Cato]

Circular/Begging the question.

Pointing out the obvious fact that mankind's potential far outweights his mediocre tendencies.

[SwordoftheVistula]

When Thomas Carlyle wrote of the “4th estate” he was referring to the press, but what he really meant was public opinion. Public opinion, like mob rule, is dependent solely on the ability of an individual or group of individuals to harness it and point it in a direction desired, any form of government from tyranny to democratic relies either on popular assent or acquiescence. The majority of people don’t have thoughts, they have opinions…..

Of course all societies, whether we like it or not, are geared towards the perpetuation of the rule of a minority, what that minority is varies from place to place and in time. In Rome the minority was the landed aristocracy, some 5% of whom owned over 80% of all land in the Roman Empire. In Britain, shaped politically over the last two hundred years or so, the minority is more a plurality, the British political elite has always been adaptive, which is a major reason that England never experienced the upheavals that France, Germany or Russia experienced, even our Civil War was more a squabble between haves and haves over varying levels of power.

In a system relying solely on the ability of one man mediocracy can be fatal, Rome, again, provides an example of a state heavily centralised on one man whose inability to rule could have a dramatic effect on the empires ability to function (and Rome had it’s fair share of incompetents and degenerates), of course an Emperor had to have backers, but once in power and with appropriate support he could do pretty much what he liked. In Britain this is less the case, largely because we have a system of control by a fluid class system that negates the effect one man can have, it’s not democratic, anyone calling Britain democratic doesn’t understand the word, but it works, that is not really in doubt. A man of little talent or ability (step forward Mr Brown) can become PM (as long as he ticks all the right boxes for the people that matter) and if he doesn’t the he will die in the court of “public opinion”.

Do the mediocre rule? Of course not, what an absurd system would it be if most people were actually allowed to make real decisions? Think on it, think of the people you know or the people you see every day, are they really the kind of people you would want to rule the society you live in? I walk pass drunks, druggies, hoodies and assorted deadbeats every day, all entitled to vote, amazing! I’m actually asked to believe that this bloke sitting on a curb to pissed to stand at 8:30 in the morning is a decision maker! That his “wisdom” is taken into consideration by the “great and the good”. He’s manipulated, the same as anyone else of the “plebs”, he’s used to further others ambitions, that’s the extent of his use to society. Harsh but none the less, I believe, true. The people who run society aren’t mediocre, manipulative and ruthless, certainly, but mediocre, no.

All of this is very true, but I think 'mediocracy' refers to a society geared towards the immediate desires of the mediocre and worse. In order to gain the vote of the 'bloke sitting on a curb to pissed to stand at 8:30 in the morning' they have to construct a society in which it is possible for this bloke to sit on a curb too pissed to stand at 8:30 am and not starve to death, more specifically setting up a system which confiscates property from those who work and redistributes it to such characters who sit on the curb all day.

[Black Turlogh]

I believe we do, yes. There's nothing really wrong, by my own standard, with being a "mediocre" man, but the trouble I have with much of the world is that people are generally far too content with their mediocrity. The endless search for self-improvement and enrichment has been lost somewhere down the line. The highest of virtues that were previously seen as the standard to live by, even if only unsuccessfully, have been replaced with what I can only call a collection of petty pursuits.

But that's just my own way of seeing it. Quixotic as usual. :tongue

[Poltergeist]

The trouble is not "mediocre" people (criteria according to which some should be deemed "mediocre" are elusive and problematic anyway), but mediocrity as a general criterion of the society, because of which then many people don't strive for anything higher than the average.

[SuuT]

All of this is very true, but I think 'mediocracy' refers to a society geared towards the immediate desires of the mediocre and worse. In order to gain the vote of the 'bloke sitting on a curb to pissed to stand at 8:30 in the morning' they have to construct a society in which it is possible for this bloke to sit on a curb too pissed to stand at 8:30 am and not starve to death, more specifically setting up a system which confiscates property from those who work and redistributes it to such characters who sit on the curb all day.

This mirrors my thoughts exactly. Moreover, it's not that the representational system(s) (be they parliamentary; or, a two-party whose causa prima is virtually indistinguishable from one another [etc.]) are a farce: It's that the dynamic of the sytem(s) are such that the illusion of not only choice is present, but that the illusion that these 'choices' are actually the best available to the electorate encases the dynamic, itself.

I think I prime example of this (in America) is the fact that Ralph Nader can't seem to get any attention to save his life. Why? He'd be too good (read: representative).

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by SwordoftheVistula
All of this is very true, but I think 'mediocracy' refers to a society geared towards the immediate desires of the mediocre and worse. In order to gain the vote of the 'bloke sitting on a curb to pissed to stand at 8:30 in the morning' they have to construct a society in which it is possible for this bloke to sit on a curb too pissed to stand at 8:30 am and not starve to death, more specifically setting up a system which confiscates property from those who work and redistributes it to such characters who sit on the curb all day.

An excellent point.

To which I would suggest a couple of things.

The vote had never been much more than a PR exercise, it’s probably one of the best con tricks in political history and probably the biggest joke, let's give the "plebs" the means to vote for their own bondage, sublime!

The question is do the mediocre rule? I would suggest no, they are ruled because they are manipulated into supporting a system that they only indirectly gain from and are largely exploited by. The drunk on the curb benefits (quite literally) from not working, he’s provided the means to indulge his lower nature by the system, does this mean he has the government over a barrel? Only in so far as any ruler has to keep the “plebs” happy by “bread and circuses” but that doesn’t make him an arbitrator of succession or executioner of policy it just keeps him where the “great and the good” want him. The Romanised elites of the provinces were firmly convinced they benefited from becoming “Romans” they didn’t realise all they were doing is tightening their own shackles. The drunk on the curb believes the same thing, tell him otherwise and he will laugh in your face……that’s why he rules nothing.

[Mesrine]

And? even if we are mediocre that does not stop us having a wish to be governed by those who are not. Surely you can see that one does not have to be gifted to know that one is "normal"? I may well not want to rule but I sure don't want to be rules by the average Sun reader.

But where are those leaders "who are not mediocre"? Nowhere. We just have to pick one among what our country produces. The various Sarkozy, Royal, Bayrou, Obama, McCain, etc, are the best our countries have to offer.

[Poltergeist]

There is also merdocracy. Romance speakers will understand what it means.:D

[Loddfafner]

"As if there were safety in stupidity alone."
-- Henry THOReau

[The Journeyman]

On the one hand I think, yes, people with lower IQ's and less breeding can be dead weight and useless to a society. However, on the other extreme, people with very high IQ's or those with an inflated sense of entitlement due to higher social status may have an uncompromising ego or may be less capable of relating to their fellow man. I think the voice of the ordinary folk keeps these people grounded in a way.

[Curtis24]

I think we do live in a society where the mediocre are condescended to by the media and by the rulers. But at the end of the day, its still the intelligent, hardworking people who have influence.

[Grumpy Cat]

Mediocre makes up the majority, and society caters to them. People who are above average are outcasts, but end up prevailing.

I got made fun of when I was a kid because I was smart and had good marks. I purposely tried to dumb myself down to fit in at one point. But, I could still pull off a high GPA without cracking a book. I gave up on that and accepted being the outcast, now the kids who were mean to me are asking me if I would like fries with that. Status quo isn't always the best place to be.

[Aemma]

I think we do live in a society where the mediocre are condescended to by the media and by the rulers. But at the end of the day, its still the intelligent, hardworking man who is rich, has a beautiful wife/girlfriend, and makes the real decisions. Whereas the mediocre man is not rich, only encounters the beautiful on television, and has limited power to influence events.

Really? I don't see this happening too much to be honest. I see the Wal-Mart set having more decision-making power in this world than not tbh. It's not a good thing, to paraphrase Martha.

[SwordoftheVistula]

at the end of the day, its still the intelligent, hardworking man who is rich, has a beautiful wife/girlfriend, and makes the real decisions

But, since we live in an increasingly politicized world with more governmental control, in a democracy, 2 dumbasses can vote to take the smart guy's money.

Also, as regards social influence:


Mediocre makes up the majority, and society caters to them. People who are above average are outcasts

[CelticTemplar]

No tyranny please.

[Monolith]

Judging from the sea of comments of various retards I see on a daily basis, I would say we all live in an Idiocracy. However, I don't think those who have a say on truly important issues are in any way mediocre, unfortunately.

[Curtis24]

Seriously... we need a tyrant. :cool:

[Liffrea]

What we need is a society based upon competition, self reliance and a willingness to advance. One that draws out potential rather than promotes the baser tendencies.