OMG,

"Networking is nothing more than an attempt to gain an advantage on the basis of criteria which has nothing to do with the merits of the relevant activity. It is reprehensible for the same reason as drug cheating Olympians."

Have you got no friends and no social skills? this is the silliest analagy i have ever encountered.

Life is about building relationships, so to parallel it with drug taking makes no sense whatsoever. Are you dark on people who network as you feel it gives them an unfair advantage? It does not matter what you do, if you cant build relationships with people in anything that you do, you will not succeed.

i am dumbfounded you took this line, have you got nothing better to do

I agree with Realist on this - what a silly take on the Marion Jones story. Mirko's analogy of social networking with cheating has to be the weakest and most tenuous that he's presented here.

Actually, I would have thought that an individual 'cheating' (i.e. breaking the rules) to win a running race is behaviourally about as far from making strategic social alliances as you can get.

On the other hand I suppose it is interesting that Mirko has focused on two disparate human behaviours that are highly adaptive in evolutionary terms, but he doesn't appear to be aware of that fairly critical aspect of his topic.

Mirko's hypothesis fails at its first sweeping statement that "we all want to live in a meritocracy, whereby people succeed or fail purely based on their capacity to perform the task at hand."

Mirko's glib conception of a meritocracy ignores the ethnographic facts about how human beings collectively judge who is best able 'to perform the task at hand'. Unfortunately for Mirko's meritocracy, no means of deciding merit can escape the contaminating clutches of social networks which, deliberately or otherwise, set the normative standards by which the performance of individuals is judged.

How do we determine who is the 'most (naturally) talented and hardest-working athlete', the 'brightest students', the 'best business ideas' the 'most dedicated and resourceful person?'

By getting together and agreeing, whether formally or informally, on what the standards and benchmarks should be and how and under what conditions they will be measured and evaluated. And that process can only but occur through a social network, my lad.

Mirko's meritocracy is a chimera that could never exist in human society because the means of constituting it are unavailable to human beings who must carry out their activities in social networks in order to make any progress whatsoever.

You might as well argue that we're "cheating" because we have opposable thumbs, while chimps have to make do with clumsier hands.

Whether from a meritocratic or social networking paradigm, this article merits a 'fail'.

And why discuss this? What possible benefit does this article have for the readers? You are right in thinking I am an idiot and wasted time in replying. But it continually astounds me the articles that add little at all to the human experience.

Some people have too much time on their hands.

I implore those that might follow to not post to this fellows contribution - I recognise the hypocrisy in my own contribution here - Mirko is a serial pest and offerererer(er) of opinions on all manner of things - and needs to be stopped - NOW

Let him devote all his time defending Mokbel and other nefarious scalliwags - but Puhleese! discourage him from writing.

I think the author tackled networking badly. The references to "social" networking really shot the argument down. Its business networking that really could be argued to constitute cheating. There are specific functions within busines areas and professions that are held regularly to enable new exploitative links to be sought out and formed, and professional and business students are now taught networking. This form of networking is purely in a strategic sense, they are not out looking for friends of even groups people that have the same common goals and beliefs. Most business networking is conducted on the basis of "what might you be able to do for me" and if the answer is good enough, the seeker will quite happily lie about their own beliefs/opinions etc in order to "get-in" with those that he believes to hold the most advantage for him. What the implication of this is, is that for the most part only those with the "right" connections will get a chance, or at least will be given first chance. You might have a brilliant product or idea, but unless you know the right people to get it off the ground, or to help you promote it to financiers etc, then it will often never see the light of day. On the other hand, plenty of inferior things do get up, mostly purely on the basis that the originators had the right contacts. What Mirko also badly pointed out is that we like to believe that we live in an egalitarian society, the old "fair go". Unfortunately the way that business networking now works is that there is no such thing. That's why it may be considered akin to cheating.

Years ago when I played footy the "magic sponge" in a bucket of water would be trotted out and applied to whatever body part had just been bruised, knocked, stomped upon.

These days we take it for granted that professional football players are escorted back up the tunnel where they are given expert medical treatment by their club medics.

What the TV camera do not show you is the injection of various pain killers and other drugs that allows players to 'magically' return to the field - and score tries and kick gaols, even win games. And we love it.

Why all the fuss about Marion using drugs for performance enhancement when we all religiously follow other sports where such drugs are not only used but now an integral part of how we 'watch the game'.

All these sports journalists bagging Marion are nothing more than hypocrites.

Without drugs in sport how many records would be broken every few years at the Olympics?

Indeed would the Olympics still exist if there wasn't for performance enhancement?

There are two kinds of cheating – cheating is sports where it is allowed and those sports where it is not. And a paper thin line divides the two.

Am I condoning drugs in sport? Of course not. But you gotta wonder where professional sport and sports media would be without them.

Networking, it appears has been very successful for Victor Conte, founder and owner of BALCO, the drug laboratory, where his social networking with elite athletes no doubt brought him personal gain.

The elite athletes also derived personal gain and glory from running high on rocket fuel rather than ability.....until they were found out!

My son-in-law, a successful engineer, who comes from a family of high achievers refuses to enrol his children in a private school for the very reasons Mirko has alluded to.

Social networking to enhance his and the children's social status in life is not on as far as he is concerned and their future endeavours for success must be come from their diligence and a desire to achieve, not from association with those who aspire to gaining a high profile by mixing with the "affluent crowd" and the anticipated, subsequent leg-ups.

I fully comprehend the thread of Mirko's article. He clarifies very well, the practice of networking in the ethics-free zones. I have been an observer for many years - even a participant in this shallow though increasingly large section of society, seemingly condoned by most posters on this thread - naive, or do they simply lead a sheltered existence?

Why not open the following URL to find how "socialites" Burke and Grill's ethics-free networking in Western Australia has affected some public officials? These officials, once so chuffed in being members of the "purple circle" have now been charged with misconduct under the Corruption and Crimes Act.

Hot off the press today, chaps!

http://www.ccc.wa.gov.au/publications.php

Link: Smiths Beach

Apply a little logic and it becomes obvious that athletes cannot go on breaking records forever - the old "4 minute mile" will never be run in 4 seconds.
Sport is riddled with drug taking. If we could take the politics out of the Olympics and stop treating the athletes like gods and heroes then things might settle down a little - fat hope of that. An Olympic gold medal means more to athletes than human rights abuses or Ms Jones drugtaking...our athletes will take performance enhancing drugs too if they think they can get away with it.

LLB? You ain't defending me mate. This is one of the silliest articles I've read. Logic right out the window.

Got to be careful we don't accuse or condemn anyone for anything because we are all guilty of something or other.

That is the ultimate logic of Mirko's thought, and what kind
of world it would be if we refrained from all judgement?

I agree with the old biblical saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" But to adhere to to this injunction would mean no sanctions against anything. I think the biblical meaning was rather don't cast judgement whilst pretending that you yourself are perfect.

We have to pass judgements but perhaps with humility and awareness that there but for good fortune go I.

The analogy between Olympic Medal Cheating and social networking strikes me as ludicrous. I can think of few astute business people who would confer an advantage on a dolt if it meant passing over someone else with more merit and profitable upside. People have to network in order to be available when the opportunity comes.

How many in that final of the 100m sprint in Sydney were using exactly the same steroid as Marion Jones and did not get caught?

I would say 90% of them would be taking something illegal and those who perform at this level,must take the chance or not bother competing.The Tour De France is a farce and thus the competitors will be always one step ahead of the drug testors.

Someone will eventually invent a steroid than builds muscle and endurance,that will be untracible within days of abstinence and thus undetectable.

Marion Jones was just unlucky to be caught.So don't take sport too seriously.

This is a silly article. The quality of OO has really gone downhill the past year or so.

Comparing networking with drug taking in sport is so silly you have to wonder whether it's been written as tongue-in-cheek; a challenge maybe. You can imagine the author's mates coming up with two completely unrelated topics and challenging him to link them in an article.

Anyway, networking is important. If I'm looking for someone for a position and if I know the applicant then that's worth a lot. I know their strengths and their weaknesses. If I don't know them; if they are respondents to a job ad for example, it is much harder to judge them. Similarly, a personal recommendation from someone who I trust is worth a lot as well. I think of some people in my network and if they say someone is good then I can be reasonably confident they are. Similarly (and it's happened at least once) if they say someone is not good, then they can save me from a possibly disastrous mistake.

Silly, silly article.

"Comparing networking with drug taking in sport is so silly you have to wonder whether it's been written as tongue-in-cheek; a challenge maybe."

Pineapple, your invidious comments above give cause for concern over your abilities to correctly comprehend the contents of this article.

Mirko has simply cited the Marion Jones case as an example of how cheating has permeated most sections of society and how parts of society, devoid of any sincerity, purposely engage in networking, strictly for personal gain.

"This is a silly article. The quality of OO has really gone downhill the past year or so."

Really, Pineapple? I note your very first post on OO was as recent as 25/8/07. Therefore, you've only been registered on this forum for some 6 weeks.

Your initial comments on OO, during the 25 August, were addressed to the author of the article, Alexander Deane:

"Gosh Alex. Will you please piss-off back home to England. There's nothing for you here."

Welcome to OLO Pineapple and thank you for your "worthy" contributions.