对观点的价值进行分类排序，不仅仅符合创意择优的需要，而且本身也必不可少。让每个人总是就每件事都展开辩论，同时又能把工作完成，这肯定是不可能的。对所有人都一视同仁，更容易远离事实而不是更接近事实。同时，对所有的观点都应当以一种开放的心态对待，尽管要与观点表述人的经验、过去业绩适当联系起来。
设想一下，我们这个团队正在向贝比·鲁斯（美国传奇棒球运动员）学习请教如何打棒球，而某个从未打过棒球的人不断打断他，总就如何挥舞球棒进行探讨。不考虑每个人不同的过往表现和经验，这对整个团队的工作到底有利还是有弊呢？当然，认为每个人的观点都一样重要，是有害且愚蠢的，因为人与人在可信度上是有差别的。最有效率的做法，是让鲁斯不被打断地讲完动作要领，然后花些时间来回答问题。但是，由于我个人坚信求得理解比简单地接受那些原则更加重要，我将鼓励新球手不要认为鲁斯曾是有史以来最优秀的强棒，就觉得他说的都对。如果我自己是那个新手，我就会不断地质疑鲁斯，直至我相信自己了解了事实。
Having a hierarchy of merit is not only consistent with an idea meritocracy but essential for it. It’s simply not possible for everyone to debate everything all the time and still get their work done. Treating all people equally is more likely to lead away from truth than toward it. But at the same time, all views should be considered in an open-minded way, though placed in the proper context of the experiences and track records of the people expressing them.
Imagine if a group of us were getting a lesson in how to play baseball from Babe Ruth, and someone who’d never played the game kept interrupting him to debate how to swing the bat. Would it be helpful or harmful to the group’s progress to ignore their different track records and experience? Of course it would be harmful and plain silly to treat their points of view equally, because they have different levels of believability. The most productive approach would be to allow Ruth to give his instructions uninterrupted and then take some time afterward to answer questions. But because I’m pretty extreme in believing that it is important to obtain understanding rather than accepting doctrine at face value, I would encourage the new batter not to accept what Ruth has to say as right just because he was the greatest slugger of all time. If I were that new batter, I wouldn’t stop questioning Ruth until I was confident I had found the truth.
