I wonder if you or Brian has any thoughts on how the midwit cycle combines with the general antipathy toward competition. I might suggest that one marker for being a midwit is having credentials yet being unable/unwilling to monetize them via market competition. This leads the person to engage in competition in other less productive arenas, like winning status games inside a bureaucracy, which can often have negative economic effects, both in terms of inefficiency (e.g., bureaucratic kludge) and bad policies (e.g. going for diversity over performance)....
I think you raise a good point re: being unable to monetize their skills and credentials. As I understand Brian's theory, the whole cycle starts off with an aging incumbent institution that can no longer meaningfully compete except by virtue of legacy. This environment is unappealing to people with ability and drive to be the best, and they will generally be well compensated to leave and go where they will be allowed to add more value.
Insofar as people have taste-based preferences for explicit competition, I think they will tend to start selecting out at this early stage as well. The people who remain will often perceive this as a positive change (the environment has become more nurturing, more inclusive, etc.), and from their personal standpoint they are probably right. The institution has shifted to their preferences at the cost of organizational vitality.
In the short term, this is all well and good since there are still plenty of high-status institutions that maintain a sufficiently meritocratic culture and there are gains to a diversity of institutional styles. But if a higher share of important institutions begin the midwit cycle over time, it can pose a threat to meritocracy at a macro level. Institutions that continue to reward merit over other considerations become the subject of intense scrutiny since on the surface it appears less virtuous and fair than corrupt institutions that engage in more covert forms of competition such as the bureaucratic status games and identity metrics you mention.
I wonder if you or Brian has any thoughts on how the midwit cycle combines with the general antipathy toward competition. I might suggest that one marker for being a midwit is having credentials yet being unable/unwilling to monetize them via market competition. This leads the person to engage in competition in other less productive arenas, like winning status games inside a bureaucracy, which can often have negative economic effects, both in terms of inefficiency (e.g., bureaucratic kludge) and bad policies (e.g. going for diversity over performance)....
I think you raise a good point re: being unable to monetize their skills and credentials. As I understand Brian's theory, the whole cycle starts off with an aging incumbent institution that can no longer meaningfully compete except by virtue of legacy. This environment is unappealing to people with ability and drive to be the best, and they will generally be well compensated to leave and go where they will be allowed to add more value.
Insofar as people have taste-based preferences for explicit competition, I think they will tend to start selecting out at this early stage as well. The people who remain will often perceive this as a positive change (the environment has become more nurturing, more inclusive, etc.), and from their personal standpoint they are probably right. The institution has shifted to their preferences at the cost of organizational vitality.
In the short term, this is all well and good since there are still plenty of high-status institutions that maintain a sufficiently meritocratic culture and there are gains to a diversity of institutional styles. But if a higher share of important institutions begin the midwit cycle over time, it can pose a threat to meritocracy at a macro level. Institutions that continue to reward merit over other considerations become the subject of intense scrutiny since on the surface it appears less virtuous and fair than corrupt institutions that engage in more covert forms of competition such as the bureaucratic status games and identity metrics you mention.