Statistically improbable is not impossible, so on occasion one will beat the odds. But no matter one's knowledge, skills and abilities, to beat the odds this time does not guarantee the same individual will beat the odds next time. The individual has obviously reduced their personal statistical improbability perhaps by a significant amount (and the overall statistical improbability by a tiny amount), but depending on the beginning odds, odds are a statistical improbability will remain a statistical improbability. And of course the other side of this coin is that on occasion one will lose to odds that were in their favor. This reasoning affirms the presence of luck; the capricious whim of fractious circumstance.

I guess my question this week is why do we congratulate someone who wins a lottery? Why do we afford respect and even adulation to someone who was born on third base? And why do we blame someone for their suffering from our oppression? Within this last question, this withholding, this refusal, of opportunity is (in so many ways) the poster child for “capricious whim of fractious circumstance.” A circumstance created and perpetuated by us.

Perhaps to recognize the folly in our consistent and consensus censure of those (we perceive as) less deserving, we must first understand the inanity of acclaim. But as humans we are driven not only to exist, but also to justify our existence. So we are compelled to stop and bask in glory, soak up accolades, and, when necessary, embellish, exaggerate and boast. But think how much better we would be if effort spent seeking and soaking were instead spent learning and growing. I should not need kudos for merely doing my job, and a supervisor or peer should not feel obligated to expend effort handing them out. To be driven by praise is to aid and abet status quo by defrauding improvement; diverting time and effort from change-for-the-better to building-one's-ego.

Today, more and more, instead of guiding and rewarding productivity and efficiency Adam Smith’s invisible hand appears to be guiding ego and rewarding power, which is perceived by many as feelings of importance that come from recognition. And when one is motivated by recognition, especially recognition from those they perceive as powerful or important, little or no thought is actually given to improvement. For the worker, maintaining the status quo becomes the most efficient way, the shortest route, to the hearts of the rich and powerful; and maintaining the status quo is the ultimate objective of those in power – it’s good to be King. And today, instead of appearing greedy, the ruling class works to come across as generous. And they are generous, sometimes expansively so, with their words and their rules and their processes and their bureaucracy and their thank yous and their smiles. And too often, the working class is as (or more) effusive. And all this mutual admiration does not move us forward. Comedian George Carlin once said, “That invisible hand of Adam Smith’s seems to offer an extended middle finger to an awful lot of people.” Today, though the middle finger is still prominent, that invisible hand also offers condescending pats on the head. And finally one result, (perhaps the worst result), of this greed-to-gratitude shift is that the rich and powerful are also focusing less and less on productivity and efficiency, and even less on a future that requires change-for-the-better.

So perhaps I have stumbled across the realization that acclaim is in actuality a wolf in sheep’s clothing; a dressed up version of censure and oppression. Misleading and manipulative. Yet we like it. Perhaps because it makes us feel better about all the hardship and injustice.