Something has gone fundamentally wrong with how we judge people and ideas. We’ve created a bizarre system where achievements are punished and mediocrity is rewarded - all depending on which team you belong to.
The 99/1 Problem
Look around and you’ll notice this everywhere: someone with a track record of substantial positive contributions makes a minor misstep (a trivial faux pas, perhaps) and faces disproportionate criticism or outright dismissal. Canceled, excommunicated. Meanwhile, another person or group with largely negative impacts receives effusive praise for the smallest positive gesture.
This imbalance in judgment (where a 1% flaw can erase 99% good, while 1% good can obscure 99% bad) isn’t random or accidental. It reflects something deeper about our cultural dynamics. We’re not applying consistent standards. We’re wielding selective focus that conveniently aligns with pre-existing biases or preferred narratives.
Incentivizing the Wrong Things
A society that rewards the wrong behaviors will inevitably produce the wrong outcomes. It’s simple cause and effect. When we create perverse incentives, we guarantee perverse results. If you disagree, read Sowell and Munger, and/or look around.
What happens when achievement becomes a liability? When the tallest flowers are cut down first? People adjust their behavior accordingly. They keep their heads down. They avoid excellence. They signal the right allegiances rather than producing actual value. This dynamic, where success itself becomes a target, echoes Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment – a revaluation of values driven by envy.
We should want as many people as possible engaged in a virtuous competition of doing their best. For themselves and society at large. Instead, our inconsistent standards incentivize tearing down, causing chaos, and performing symbolic gestures over substantial contributions.
The Abandonment of Good and Bad
Perhaps most troubling is how we’ve abandoned straightforward concepts of good and bad in our misguided pursuit of “objectivity.” We’ve overcorrected so severely that we’ve arrived at an Orwellian inversion: up is down, helpful is harmful, achievement is privilege, destruction is justice.
While evaluating complex situations requires nuance, the fundamental distinctions between beneficial actions and harmful ones aren’t actually that difficult to discern. Actions that build, heal, create, and uplift are generally good. Those that destroy, harm, divide, and tear down are generally bad.
Yet we now twist ourselves into philosophical pretzels to avoid these simple judgments. Selectively, of course, depending on who’s being evaluated.
Those who have faced genuine adversity (perhaps living under oppressive regimes or experiencing true hardship) often see through this game more clearly. When you’ve experienced real stakes, when actions have had stark, unavoidable consequences in your life, you develop a sharper appreciation for substance over appearance and less tolerance for playing games with standards. As Solzhenitsyn observed from his experience under totalitarianism, those who have faced stark realities often possess a moral clarity that cuts through the ideological games.
Those insulated from such experiences might understandably have a different calibration for what constitutes serious versus trivial, or meaningful versus symbolic. But this insulation doesn’t make their judgment superior - quite possibly the opposite.
If we want a healthier society, we need to realign our incentives with our stated values. We need standards that apply universally, regardless of group affiliation or narrative convenience.
This means: • Judging people primarily on their overall contribution, not isolated missteps • Recognizing genuine achievement even from those we disagree with • Demanding more than symbolic gestures from those we align with • Resisting the urge to participate in pile-ons and cancellations • Calling out double standards wherever they appear
When rules don’t apply both ways, they aren’t rules at all. They’re weapons or tools of control. And a society armed against itself cannot thrive.
The path forward isn’t complicated. It does, however, require courage. Good faith over gamesmanship, principles over partisanship, and consistent standards for everyone. Anything less guarantees continued division, distrust, and decline. Re-establishing consistent standards is key to creating the conditions for individual flourishing that thinkers like von Humboldt or Mill saw as essential for a healthy society.