Is it just me or does this article twist the (rather simple) idea of meritocracy?
What you contribute and the quality of what you contribute defines the respect and influence you receive as a result (in a given community, of course). I don't see how that can be tied into "normal" social statuses as this author is trying to imply.
What you contribute and the quality of what you contribute defines the respect and influence you receive as a result (in a given community, of course). I don't see how that can be tied into "normal" social statuses as this author is trying to imply.
Thoughts?