Either way, the reason those on the top are hard to shake is that they’re established. Once any group of people are established, they create a barrier to entry by others. Especially if their dominance is mutually supportive. Top bloggers link to each other and support their dominance. Just like any established elite does. It’s not good or bad, it’s just the nature of human systems.

I agree with you, ethnicity and gender can be a factor in someone’s success. I just don’t agree that it is the factor. Where you are born, your genetic makeup, the way your parent’s raise you, the socio-economic background you come from, it all is a factor. You can work very hard and not succeed even if you happen to be white and male. Race and gender are factors, but not overwhelming so. Talent and hard work are by far the deciding factors in someones success based on my experience.

I am aware that I might be passed up for a variety of opportunities due solely to the fact that I am not a minority or female, so I see your point about networking effects.

I agree also that we all need to have some social awareness when it comes to discriminating against others. I just want an even playing field instead of a system that puts ethnicity/gender ahead of actual qualifications. If we look at a profession like firefighting, statistically it is predominantly held by males. Everyone has an equal opportunity to take the tests that the job requires, so why the disparate ratio in genders? It could be that males have some sort of physical advantage or it could be that for social reasons it appeals more to males. Making assumptions based solely on statistics is poor policy. Have a standard, make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to meet the standard and then select the best candidates. In my opinion, this seems like the most rational way of doing things.

Since by taking a position not in line with yours I am just “repeating endlessly that it isn’t so”, I guess this will be my last comment. Your argument represents the truth, and my side is therefore irrelevant. I enjoyed the discussion with you (though I wonder if Scott has grown tired of us). Although it seems that “endlessly repeating something” is working out for you. Cheers.

The argument is this: Ethnicity and gender is A FACTOR, because of networking effects. *A FACTOR*. So, statistically, one can see this factor at work in the way the wealthy and powerful are overwhelming white males.

What didn’t this say? It didn’t say “hard work” was meaningless. It did say that you can work very hard, and not succeed based on another barrier, race, sex, etc.

This is a very objectional idea to some people, because it implies many disturbing consequences, most notably that some sort of social awareness is important. So they repeat, endlessly, that isn’t so. But endlessly repeating something doesn’t make it true.

Ironically, you are now the one making the straw man attack. If I said that hard working, intelligent people tend to become wealthy, does it follow that lazy unintelligent people tend not to become wealthy? Most of us live in societies that reward hard work and talent. You are distorting my argument that hard working and talented people are justly rewarded when you imply they have gained their wealth/influence solely based on their ethnicity or gender. Also, being talented and hard working does not guarantee you anything, but it certainly opens up more opportunities. Let us unmask the question by asking how people have become wealthy or influential instead of just looking at superficial attributes like ethnicity or gender. I would be willing to bet that regardless of their ethnicity or gender, the wealthy and influential members of a society are on average harder working or more talented then the general population.

I feel this is a digression of the original discussion however, which was about influence and power within the blogosphere. You speak of the immense inequality of power and top-down gatekeepered pontification. If you want to look at the logical problem, let us use Occam’s razor. When trying to explain the phenomenon of influence within the blogosphere, is it simpler to assume that those bloggers who are more talented writers or contribute the most to the community will become the most influential? Or shall we assume that there is some sort of conspiracy and architecture in place where the powerful hold back the powerless? I would put forth that mine is the simpler, and therefore more likely explanation.

So, say you discover my site on LinkLike and want to trade eyeballs with me. You send me an invitation and I accept (double opt-in, isn’t it?). You paste the ad code on your site and my ad begins appearing. Your ad begins appearing on my site, too. For every pair of eyeballs you send to my site, I must send a pair to yours. Otherwise my ad stops showing on your site until the click flow balances out.

This click metering might seem like overkill, but I wanted high caliber sites to feel comfortable partnering with low caliber sites.

Is that what you had in mind? If you try it out, I would like to know what you think of it. Thanks- Sid

It would be *so* nice to see guys doing something about the problem, if there is one, rather than just posturing like a bunch of gorillas, and then link-grooming one another.

Fact: Most of the wealthy are white and male.

True? False? I believe this is not worth disputing.

If merit is the sole factor for wealth, then it follows that non-white-males must not be as meritorious. Some people do indeed believe this, to very elaborate lengths. I even understand the reasoning. But this comment-box is too small to hold all the refutations.

Repeating that it’s a perfect world, no matter how many times you do it, is no escape from the logical problem here.

If that is the argument, I consider it a poor one. People do not become wealthy, powerful or influential by accident. The majority of these people got to where they are by hard work and intelligence. Most societies provide ample opportunity for people to succeed if they apply themselves. Playing the role of the victim and claiming that the powerful are keeping you powerless, while the easy way to go, does nothing to help you improve yourself. People need to take personal responsibility if they will ever have a chance to become successful.

Lets try to look at an individual deeds and work, and not worry about whether they are a white male or not. I reward bloggers with my readership based on their content, not on ethnicity or other irrelevant factors. If you write intelligently on interesting subjects or provide novel ideas, people will read you blog. The only inequality I see is in the quality of blogs available. Some people have great blogs, other people don’t. Why should we be surprised that the people with better ideas or a flair for writing tend to become more influential within the community?

“It’s kind of a Zen thing — you have to let go of your expectations before they can be met.”

I agree totally – well put.

I felt better just reading your

post, even if no one ever wrote it,

because the real reader

sees reading as an avocation,

not a profession;

Those who need an actual text

in order to read

are just whores.

++++
’sup! positious

There is no immense inequality of power, just the natural distribution of talent. There will always be a small number of people who are more intelligent, better writers, or in some other way are more talented than the rest of us. Your ‘BigHeads’ derive their status and power from the bottom-up process of readers recognizing the value of their ideas. Anyone can become the next major voice in blogging if they are able to provide content that others want to read.

The inequality of power argument is a poor one because power/influence is not equally distributed, but rather is distributed based on the talents of each individual.

I also do not buy into your top-down gatekeepered pontification argument, as there are just as many blogs that dissent with the gatekeepers as there are blogs that espouse what is being pontificated.

Intent is never easy to determine, even by the principal actor. My principal intent with this post was not to generate incoming links (at least I don’t think it was), but sure enough that’s what happened.

If Nick’s analysis is cogent and thought-provoking, then I’m not sure if I really care what his principal intent was, because I get value out of reading it.

If he stops being interesting, then people will stop linking to him — so I really don’t have a problem with him link baiting or getting links. Isn’t that what’s so great about a free and open blogosphere?

Hugh MacLeod commented on Nick’s post and said no one links unless there’s something in it for them, which I agreed with.

However, it’s much less analytical than that may sound. Just like in business, you give with some form of an expectation of a return, but you just can’t always be sure what form that return will take.

Also, agree on the “blogging is the new screenwriting/novel” thing. Everyone wants to write that Great American Blog nowdays.

Perhaps you should do a post titled “Nick, Why Do You Blog?”

Rex, maybe I’ve got blinders on, but I don’t see that Nick’s principal intent is to “belittle and ridicule.” And I didn’t get the sense that he was saying “don’t blog.” I think his principal intent is hype-busting, in this case, “don’t have a illusions about blogging based on the hype.”

Of course, there’s a fine line between being contrarian and iconoclastic, and unnecessarily rubbing people the wrong way — I’ve crossed it myself enough times.

Maybe Nick’s “allegory” was too harsh a way to discuss the issue — but that doesn’t mean the issue shouldn’t be discussed. I don’t think he was so far off to apply the concept of “innocent fraud” to perceptions among bloggers of how the blogosphere works. But many of the responses to his post were as much (if not more) a response to his attitude than his analysis — which is not to say he doesn’t bear responsibility for that outcome — I guess I just find personally that there are other attitudes in the blogosphere that put me off more than Nick’s.

I’m frequently provoked into writing by Carr’s blog – which is the point, I guess.