Sounds very defeatist to me. Plenty of workplaces try a lot harder: setting specific goals to achieve in order to get promotions rather than relying on interpersonal relationships, for example.
> Interestingly male social spaces are actually less focused on appearance than female ones.
I think it’s telling that your example here is high school. IMO the focus is always on who has the most power. In high school, yes, the pretty girls have power, because of the way the boys treat them. I can’t say I’ve seen the same dynamic play out in adult workspaces.
Improve and do better for whom? Those of us with adequate social acumen can deal with human nature just fine.
It is observably true though that low status persons often fantasize about somehow overturn the social order such that when it all shakes out they come out on top. It’s so common that it’s a well-known and frankly overworked trope.
The world has seen plenty of revolutions and other social disruptions and every single time those with a good grasp of human nature come out on top. You can fight reality if you wish, but you can never beat it.
> Plenty of workplaces try a lot harder: setting specific goals to achieve in order to get promotions rather than relying on interpersonal relationships, for example.
And it’s telling how reliably chumps fall for that story. The process is observably no more than a fig leaf covering office politics except perhaps at the levels where nobody with influence gives a fig.
Welcome to life. Human social hierarchies have always worked like this. The only thing this dot collector is doing is presenting it explicitly in a way even people with poor social acumen can easily see.
Interestingly male social spaces are actually less focused on appearance than female ones. The quarterback’s popularity doesn’t rest on whether or not he’s pretty.
Whether or not the social dynamics of big established companies and high risk startups vary due to this is interesting to consider.