In the frenzy leading up to the exams, I’ve had Matt not-so-subtly insert “99.95”, VCE references and whatnot into MSN conversations… even more than usual. My guess is that he’s either kindly reminding me of old VCE trauma, or it’s a manifestation of ENTER-related elitism that our beloved Dr He has drilled into him.
There are possibly two ways of determining whether you are elitist:
1) Your opinion of someone changes when you discover how ‘elite’ they actually are.
2) Your treatment of those who are not ‘elite’ – instant dismissal of their opinions screams elitism.
Contrary to popular (cough Asian) belief, however, there are many aspects to an individual apart from VCE performance – and therefore different types of elitism, or shallowness.

Physical Elitism
It’s undeniable that this is ubiquitous in our society. As much as we’d like to deny it, everybody is innately shallow to an extent. Besides, physical attraction is, in a way, an evolutionary device: those that lack a fine physical appearance – whether it is due to physical disability or a severe case of acne – fail to score chicks and reproduce. Hotties procreate with ease. Darwin’s natural selection at its most obvious.
Looks are an external shell created from luck, and will inevitably fade in time. So unfortunately, your hotness depends largely on the genetic lottery.

Intellectual Elitism
This is intellectual ‘shallowness’ as opposed to ‘usual shallowness’. Having a care factor directly proportional to someone’s VCE score a la Dr sHe is a dead giveaway.
It can be argued that there is a correlation between intelligence and ‘relatability’: intelligent people are arguably better at generating engaging conversations… or at least something beyond monosyllabic grunts and vacuous discussions about the latest Big Brother surprise twist. And if you’re unable to learn from someone, it is harder to have a meaningful relationship with them. To an extent, this justifies elitism and gravitation towards smarter people.
But assuming that shallowness is actually 'wrong' in the first place, society leads you to believe that intellectual shallowness is deeper than physical shallowness. What makes them different if it’s all ‘shallowness’ in the end?
The nature of looks and intelligence are starkly different. Intelligence is acquired through a mixture of talent and diligence. Some seem to be more naturally gifted; others simply work harder to excel. Although the genetic lottery is responsible for talent, a need for diligence always remains.
Moreover, intelligence once acquired will last a lifetime. It is largely a product of determination and hard work, such that admiration seems to be more justified and is seen by society to be looking ‘deeper’.

So what isn’t shallow? The usual answer is personality. Your personality is almost completely forged by you and your choices, rather than being automatically left to genes and chance. Granted, upbringing and environments do shape one’s personality. There is not one aspect of a person that is purely 100% autonomous, but personality seems to be the closest and therefore 'deepest' part of us.

Ultimately, being elitist is your own choice, and should not be criticised. But if you take things at face value, can that give you the greatest reward, or will you carelessly overlook something special?

Labels: Ramblings

0 comment(s)