|
Moreover, those selecting new "members" for admission into the group do this "selection" (to some degree; perhaps other-than-consciously) based on the candidates' "fit" into the group-culture (social selection essentially, but since new "fellows" are being selected, self-selection (selecting those who will form part of the group-self) is also a reasonable term). (Although viewing this selection as being done by the culture itself is not far afield.)
And once a person adapts to a (sub)culture ("cultural" awareness and conformity are "desirable" traits in this environment), it's generally clear what the culture demands, even without it being said (etc) -- and, of course, one is subject to being swept along by it -- like with any other cultural current.
This sort of (sub)cultural, social, and "self" selection is common across many (sub)cultural groups. But it has little to do with talent, ability to produce, etc -- and much to do with the extent to which one is an eager, eager-to-please, polly-parroting (taken broadly), careful-to-go-through-all-the-right-motions, posturing puppy.
However, such elites tend to do relatively well, and so many otherwise-decent people get entangled in them.
Of course, selecting those-like-us (or those-like-me) is a way to generate more of the same (whatever). And if there are problems in the group-culture (say, they don't know a thing about production), this is a way to perpetuate -- and exacerbate -- these problems.
Generally, there exists a significant risk that "higher" forms of selection end-up choosing those who are unfit by more basal standards. (For example, selecting those who can play-act very effectively -- but who cannot act effectively (efficiently, etc) -- instead of selecting those who can actually "make-the-kill" with minimum waste.)
|