11 ms·

The fall of the meritocracy

58 points by emgoldstein 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Reassuring to learn that the word 'meritocracy' originally came from satire and not from serious proponents
- yen223 11y ago
  The phrase "big bang" also started as satire, but I don't think any serious scientist would argue the concept is bad. Arguments from etymology aren't productive.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    Oh I know that (I study linguistics!). It's just amusing.
tanderson92 11y ago
If the failures of meritocracy and elitism interest you, I highly recommend reading "Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy" by Chris Hayes, who currently works for MSNBC. Aaron Swartz wrote a wonderful review on CrookedTimber: http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/18/guest-review-by-aaron-swartz-chris-hayes-the-twilight-of-the-elites/ http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/18/guest-review-by-aaron-sw...
yarrel 11y ago
Starts trollish. Does it get less so?
- jkldotio 11y ago
  He finishes up with A Modest Proposal. Edit: Oh no! I am getting downvoted by HN users who didn't get the reference and/or have completely no idea what I believe with regard to the issues at hand in the article.
  - pron 11y ago
    I think the whole piece is satirical, but the satire is either too vague and lacks all humor, and so ends up being more disturbing than thought provoking or funny (which I can only assume was the author's intent). I'm afraid some people might take this joke seriously. In fact, I'm afraid the joke must be lost on anyone not familiar with the "scientific" social Darwinist writings of the 1920s and '30s which this piece clearly tries to emulate. A promo piece for "The Man in the High Castle", perhaps?
    - tomp 11y ago
      Why would it be satire?
      - pron 11y ago
        Well, like I said, it's not very good satire, but I figured it must be satirizing one of two things: 1. The kind of writing you can find in some blogs popular among certain people who publish writings in favor of "reason" but whose reason or curiosity does not extend to the workings of actual people. They are either blind to the strong irrational forces motivating them, or aware and afraid of them and wish to be rid of them, as "reason" (at least their interpretation of it) is something that they feel they can cope with. They then propose solutions to solve society's problems provided that society was made of point-mass people and somehow displayed tractable dynamics. I call this kind of writing "spherical-cow sociology". What these people really want is a recognition of their own abilities and their own rise to power, something they feel they've been unjustly denied and rightfully deserve. This is a modern manifestation of the comic-book heroes of the 1930s-'60s, all created by people who felt powerless. Unlike those comic-book writers, the contributions of the contemporary group are questionable, as the models of society they come up with serve their own particular psychological needs and lack the mass-appeal of Superman. 2. The kind of writing popular in the 1920s and '30s by social Darwinists who actually were curious about real people and knowledgeable about the workings of society, but were seeking moral justification for their continued subjugation of others. These were people who were already in power (i.e. they felt sufficiently empowered), but felt pangs of guilt regarding their treatment of others, which they wanted to sweep away. The giveaway is the laser-focused emphasis on intelligence and material benefits, simplified-ad-absurdum models that appeal to the limited thought of those in the first group, and the suggestion of eugenics, a popular choice among those in the second.
- tomp 11y ago
  It's a very good, if long, article. The basic premise of the article is that if the society is meritocratic, it would eventually exhibit ever-increasing amount of inequality. It also discusses why this is a problem and a potential solution.
rdtsc 11y ago
Similar discussion about this in reference to: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/meritocracy_is_a_massive_lie_race_inheritance_and_the_the_truth_about_the_rigged_american_dream/ http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/meritocracy_is_a_massive_lie...
beatpanda 11y ago
The author uses a raft of terms he doesn't bother to define -- "top university", "prestigious occupation", "social status", and so on, so much that it makes the article meaningless. IQ, and all the other "objective" measures he leaves as an exercise to the reader to define, mostly measure how well-adapted a person is to society such as it currently works right now. If you believe we've arrived at the society we have now due to "human nature" or some other kind of natural settling, and not, to just pick one alternate hypothesis, an unimaginable amount of violence and plunder carried out across the globe over the last few centuries, then the conclusions in this article make sense. Otherwise, it probably has some holes.
- tomp 11y ago
  I think the basic premise of the article is completely sound: in a meeitocratic society, the inequality increases approximately to the degree that IQ is inherited.
  - varjag 11y ago
    Is there reliable evidence that the IQ is inherited in quantities that actually matter? I know it's a popular premise, but this article takes it to sure-shot levels.
    - Malician 11y ago
      http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf It seems very thoroughly accepted - among researchers who have studied the subject. The popular press produces a lot of articles downplaying the subject. For example, if a study shows that IQ is likely the result of thousands of genes combined rather than just one or two, there will be ten articles the next day saying "scientists unable to find genetic basis for IQ" and "IQ not genetic."
      - varjag 11y ago
        No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. I am not questioning that IQ might well be a genetic factor, just wondering if there are any conclusive studies that it's directly inherited. Because the study you linked is very open-ended on this, and this has been core premise for the article discussed.
panic 11y ago
There are more factors at work here than genetics. Imagine how much pressure would be put on the child who has been selected (at great expense) from 100 embryos as "most likely to succeed"!
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
Reverse this: "(b) creating opportunities for those born on the wrong side of the tracks, so if you start with very little that doesn’t mean you’ll end up with very little, or that your children will" And you see immediately why meritocracy is a sham. No one wants their stupid and lazy kids to end up "with little", and the rich have the means to ensure this happens. Of course, like many things to do with rich vs poor, this applies on the national scale too. And generally not even those on the wrong side of the tracks think that people on the wrong side of the border, regardless of merit, should be allowed to cross it to get a better life.
taliesinb 11y ago
Among other things, the author presents the argument that a more efficient meritocracy will exacerbate the fact that we don't all have the same genetic endowments, and these endowments are subject to hereditary capture to a similar degree that wealth is. Furthermore, future technologies will allow the wealthy to simply buy permanent genetic advantages for their descendants. Just as a universal basic income is presented as one antidote to wealth inequality, the idea of universal genetic enhancement is presented, specifically of intelligence (whatever that is). If we assume it's a fait accompli that members of our elites will pursue genetic enhancement of intelligence for their children or themselves, what are the strongest consequentialist objections to the idea of free, universally-provided genetic enhancement, assuming such therapies are actually effective, practical, and safe? One obvious objection is of a "Brave New World" variety: we have yet no idea how systematic selection to increase "g" (or any trait, for that matter), could stunt or enhance other traits, deplete valuable kinds of cognitive diversity we can't yet measure, or twist our values in some immeasurable and negative way. Worse still, it's easy to imagine government scientists in more authoritarian societies stumbling on allele combinations that enhanced political docility, consumption-oriented behavior, thriftiness, and so on, and selecting for those in the next generation to solve demographic, economic, or political problems. On the flip side of that fear is the hope that we could select for propensities that help us solve the daunting list of global co-ordination problems that now face us, climate change and dangerous AI being the two most generic ones. The consequences of failure there are so dire that we may even have reason to see such enhancement as necessary -- the equivalent of a species-level adrenaline shot to get us through an existential crisis. And what if we could make ourselves less dishonest, manipulative, cynical, and tribalistic? What if we could design our values to be different from what they are, to be what we wished they were? That's much scarier for me, for reasons that are harder to explain. And it mirrors a bit the problems of building an self-enhancing AI that doesn't "diverge to evil". I'm sure there's a rich seam of blogosphere material out there on these topics, maybe even some academic papers, would be very interested if someone is willing to share some links to specific arguments or discussions.
- lmm 11y ago
  I don't have a specific post in mind, but if you're interested in this kind of thing then I highly recommend http://slatestarcodex.com http://slatestarcodex.com
pron 11y ago
I find it ironic that people who believe they possess an inordinate amount of intelligence so often fail to notice how limited is its capacity for solving actual human problems. Or perhaps it is not ironic at all, because every man with delusion of grandeur -- intelligent or not -- would think that it is the qualities that he possess would one day make him a member of the ruling class, or falling short of that -- a superhero. Luckily, we who have studied computer science and know a thing or two about completeness and complexity and therefore the limits of reason, can easily call the bluff. After all, when human beings are concerned a solution to a problem may involve nothing more than swaying the minds of people, something people with high intelligence often seem comically unable to do. So while I could easily think of a few qualities humanity is in urgent need of more than intelligence — charisma, empathy, good looks and a sense of humor — I believe that this particular piece would have been much better if the author’s eugenics plan had been in effect prior to his birth.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  > people who believe they possess an inordinate amount of intelligence so often fail to notice how limited is its capacity for solving actual human problems > we who have studied computer science and know a thing or two about completeness and complexity and therefore the limits of reason, can easily call the bluff It seems that even with that, there are many people in the second group who belong to the first group. To me, humans are not actually that different in their inborn intelligence. The bell curve actually falls of quite quickly besides the mean. The most difference is specialized training.
- puredemo 11y ago
  >when human beings are concerned a solution to a problem may involve nothing more than swaying the minds of people, something people with high intelligence often seem comically unable to do. So you're advocating that we select for charismatic, persuasive people of average intelligence? Seems like a rather short-sighted plan, considering this would describe most used car salesmen.
  - pron 11y ago
    I advocate nothing of the sort, just note that it is just as likely to work as the author's "plan", which (like most texts, really) is more of a testament to his personal psychological issues than to his reasoning abilities. Do we have a good reason to believe a society made of used-car salesmen would be worse than that made of Aspy scientists? :) If I advocate anything, it is that we base our social policies on careful study of actual society rather than a simplification made for people who are unable or unwilling to grasp the complexities of the human condition.
asgard1024 11y ago
Meritocracy is a very quaint goal. There is so much value in our societies produced by capital that cannot be attributed to work or decision-making of some living person - such as machinery, know-how (technological and organizational), land, natural resources, organic products. Most people, if they would be paid based on merit, couldn't survive in our society, because they produce so little of value on its own. Fighting for "meritocracy" therefore becomes fight for attribution, how big piece of resulting pie you deserve. But this deserve has not much to do with merit of your work, it has to do with your ability to fight for it, imperfect information, and kindness of other people.
- lmm 11y ago
  So how about we spend a few minutes trying to solve those problems rather than just throwing up our hands? A sufficiently low-friction market already resolves a lot of the attribution issues, and we're already seeing that happen - as transaction costs shrink it becomes more and more practical to outsource more of a business. What if it reached the point where every company was <50 people - small enough that everyone knew everyone? Or even the point where everyone was a freelancer? Externalities are of course a thing. But technology is improving to the point where we can track them and build them into the market. What if e.g. for every gram of pollution, you were charged in real time?
  - plonh 11y ago
    You miss the key: a huge amount of my value is generated by tools created by our ancestors -- who deserves credit for those tools? Me? Those dead people's children?
    - lmm 11y ago
      You presumably bought the tools at a fair price that reflects how much value they add for you.
      - asgard1024 11y ago
        I actually didn't.. They are just there! I got them for free (as a part of my training) and they have immense value. You argument hints at something called labor theory of value, which quickly leads to contradictions, once you include time and technological progress into your models (such as people should get more for labor even if they are doing less of it). Honestly, I think if people are honest to themselves, they will see that there is plenty of stuff providing value for free (a simple example - tree that grows apples). Then asking to be paid just for your merit is obviously a losing proposition.
arethuza 11y ago
"Meritocracy" is one of those odd words that was defined to have one meaning and now appears to be generally used to mean almost the exact opposite - perhaps worth reading this article from the chap who coined the term in the 1950s: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment
- WillPostForFood 11y ago
  Not coincidentally, The author of your article is the father of the author of the OP. I don't think the definition has shifted so much as the intent behind the word (negative to positive).
  - arethuza 11y ago
    The article mentions Bevin: "Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union." And was Foreign Minister in the Atlee government, ardent ant-Soviet, arguably one of the founders of the Atlantic alliance and many other achievements. That route is pretty much closed these days. My own personal favourite is William Robertson - who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1916-1918. He went from a private soldier to that lofty position. Richard Holmes points out that an equivalent rise would be impossible today - even with much smaller forces to command. These people were successful because they were good - not on "merit" as is usually defined.
  - plonh 11y ago
    Has the intent shifted? The 2001 article specifically called out the Blair government for , well, Blair tbought it was good intent, but that is the problem: Young argued that it was being used to negatively impact society.
  - pron 11y ago
    Meritocracy still has purely negative connotations among those who study society, and positive connotations among politicians or corporations who wish to justify their current practices. You won't hear the word "meritocracy" mentioned by sociologists or historians as anything but a joke, or, if they're patient, as a starting point of a dystopia.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
He's really keen to paint "liberals" as genetics denialists. I have never met or heard of...well, anyone who claims that mental ability is 100% based on environment; I'm sure there's someone, but they don't have a lot of company. Of course it's not 100% based on genetics, either; it's been clear for quite a while that nature and nurture both play a role. So, yeah, I'm thinking troll. That or "articulate nutcase." But probably troll.
- pluma 11y ago
  I have certainly heard "liberals" dispute sexual dimorphism in humans based purely on ideological concerns. Some people tend to overcompensate when it comes to common biases. This also goes hand-in-hand with the thinking that the disenfranchised can't be racist/sexist/bigots by definition.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    So, even while looking out for those flaws, you still can't testify to any liberals holding the specific position that the article ascribes to all of them? That does seem to suggest that the basic premise is flawed.
brohee 11y ago
In Coming Apart, Charles Murray estimates that there will always be 14 per cent of children in the top 5 per cent of the IQ distribution curve who are the offspring of parents with below-average IQs. Admittedly, that’s not much when you consider that the remaining 86 per cent will have parents with above-average IQs, It really makes me wonder about the author IQ.
- plonh 11y ago
  Why?
  - brohee 11y ago
    Because it's stupidly wrong. He misses the possibility for average people to have high IQ children. The sentence parses as : 14% high IQ children are from lower IQ couples, 0% are from average IQ couple, 86% are from high IQ couple... It also dismisses the existence of mismatched IQ couples, and highly intelligent men with a hot air head isn't unheard off, and nowadays women have their toy boys too...
    - plonh 11y ago
      In probability , the fraction of the population at exactly 50%ile is approximately 0.
      - brohee 11y ago
        It's prose. When you say someone is of average height, you usually mean within a standard deviation of average, not that the person is exactly the locale appropriate average height... At best that sentence is very poorly worded, at worst the author is a shining example of regression to the mean.
    - lumpypua 11y ago
      > It also dismisses the existence of mismatched IQ couples Yep, IQ has a higher statistical variance in men than in women, basically guaranteeing that there will be couples with IQ mismatches, going both directions.
SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
> "In The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994), Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray argue—pretty convincingly" Anyone care to comment on that? I thought that taking "The Bell Curve" seriously was a big red flag?
- plonh 11y ago
  The Left hates TBC. The Right loves it. The Left (who invented the word) believe "meritocracy" is sheep's clothing covering the wolf of privilege. The Right believes they have better genes. There is no common ground, both sides think the others are unsound.
  - ZeroGravitas 11y ago
    Well it was written as a specific well-funded piece of political propaganda for the right, so it's not surprising that they like it. People could be misled into thinking that the left and right are having a disagreement about some neutral science findings the way you phrased it, like e.g. "The right-wing hates climate science" (and where they also heavily fund "scientists" that are prepared to write books full of nonsense that suits their goals that "the left" "hate"). edit: and as, luck would have it, as someone else just pointed out, the most recent article on this site is about climate denial: "This raises the matter of what we now routinely refer to as “climate change” – catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), to use one of the climateers’ favoured and emotionally laden descriptors. Tony Abbott, speaking frankly, once conceded that “climate change is crap” It struck me recently that the crank-like approach to climate change may have helped some big businesses in the short term, but may well cause blowback for their goals as reality sets in.
- puredemo 11y ago
  >I thought that taking "The Bell Curve" seriously was a big red flag? To whom? Certainly not to most scientists..
  - SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago
austerity 11y ago
Even without the author's counterargument the assertion that one's genetics is an unfair advantage strikes me as absurd. Your genetics is not something you've got, but literally a part of what you are. Questioning whether one deserves to be oneself is like asking what's north of the North Pole - just because you can put these words together in a sentence doesn't mean it it makes any sense. Furthermore, intelligence is not a "good" in itself. You earn ("deserve") goods by being useful to others. If a "gifted" individual invents a technology that makes life more comfortable for the unintelligent, does he not deserve a reward regardless of what enabled him to do so? On a different note, I don't understand how anyone can consider equality of outcome desirable, regardless of whether it's achievable or not. If your outcome is guaranteed to be equal to that of others then it by definition doesn't depend on your own choices. If it's not the ultimate unhuman antiutopian existence I don't know what is.
- puredemo 11y ago
  >the assertion that one's genetics is an unfair advantage strikes me as absurd. Are you saying you don't see the advantage inherent to having a much higher IQ?
  - austerity 11y ago
    No. I am saying I don't see what it means for this advantage to be fair or unfair.
    - puredemo 11y ago
      What is fair or unfair is entirely subjective. Personally, it would seem a bit unfair to me if I was born with a 95 IQ, in the cosmic sense at least.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Anything above or below IQ = 100 is unfair by the very definition of IQ. But I understand the sentiment, I'd also feel cheated by the universe if I were born with below-average IQ. The debate over fairness/unfairness seems to me like another example of the typical trap humans fall into - instead of bickering over who gets more of the pie, we should be focusing on increasing the size of that pie. If all the effort put in the discussions about meritocracy would be put towards intelligence augmentation, we'd have a world better for everyone, regardless of what gene he or she got.
ricksplat 11y ago
> The left loathes the concept of IQ Sorry. Nope. Too much other stuff to read to be giving time to an article that employs such a fallacious and/or naive opening to be bothered. Sorry if I'm wrong, but this has immediately marked itself out as a propaganda piece, and I note it has been deservedly flagged. Next ... !

58 points by emgoldstein 11y ago

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

Reassuring to learn that the word 'meritocracy' originally came from satire and not from serious proponents

yen223 11y ago
The phrase "big bang" also started as satire, but I don't think any serious scientist would argue the concept is bad. Arguments from etymology aren't productive.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Oh I know that (I study linguistics!). It's just amusing.

tanderson92 11y ago

If the failures of meritocracy and elitism interest you, I highly recommend reading "Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy" by Chris Hayes, who currently works for MSNBC. Aaron Swartz wrote a wonderful review on CrookedTimber: http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/18/guest-review-by-aaron-swartz-chris-hayes-the-twilight-of-the-elites/ http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/18/guest-review-by-aaron-sw...

yarrel 11y ago

Starts trollish. Does it get less so?

jkldotio 11y ago
He finishes up with A Modest Proposal. Edit: Oh no! I am getting downvoted by HN users who didn't get the reference and/or have completely no idea what I believe with regard to the issues at hand in the article.
- pron 11y ago
  I think the whole piece is satirical, but the satire is either too vague and lacks all humor, and so ends up being more disturbing than thought provoking or funny (which I can only assume was the author's intent). I'm afraid some people might take this joke seriously. In fact, I'm afraid the joke must be lost on anyone not familiar with the "scientific" social Darwinist writings of the 1920s and '30s which this piece clearly tries to emulate. A promo piece for "The Man in the High Castle", perhaps?
  - tomp 11y ago
    Why would it be satire?
    - pron 11y ago
      Well, like I said, it's not very good satire, but I figured it must be satirizing one of two things: 1. The kind of writing you can find in some blogs popular among certain people who publish writings in favor of "reason" but whose reason or curiosity does not extend to the workings of actual people. They are either blind to the strong irrational forces motivating them, or aware and afraid of them and wish to be rid of them, as "reason" (at least their interpretation of it) is something that they feel they can cope with. They then propose solutions to solve society's problems provided that society was made of point-mass people and somehow displayed tractable dynamics. I call this kind of writing "spherical-cow sociology". What these people really want is a recognition of their own abilities and their own rise to power, something they feel they've been unjustly denied and rightfully deserve. This is a modern manifestation of the comic-book heroes of the 1930s-'60s, all created by people who felt powerless. Unlike those comic-book writers, the contributions of the contemporary group are questionable, as the models of society they come up with serve their own particular psychological needs and lack the mass-appeal of Superman. 2. The kind of writing popular in the 1920s and '30s by social Darwinists who actually were curious about real people and knowledgeable about the workings of society, but were seeking moral justification for their continued subjugation of others. These were people who were already in power (i.e. they felt sufficiently empowered), but felt pangs of guilt regarding their treatment of others, which they wanted to sweep away. The giveaway is the laser-focused emphasis on intelligence and material benefits, simplified-ad-absurdum models that appeal to the limited thought of those in the first group, and the suggestion of eugenics, a popular choice among those in the second.
tomp 11y ago
It's a very good, if long, article. The basic premise of the article is that if the society is meritocratic, it would eventually exhibit ever-increasing amount of inequality. It also discusses why this is a problem and a potential solution.

rdtsc 11y ago

Similar discussion about this in reference to: http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/meritocracy_is_a_massive_lie_race_inheritance_and_the_the_truth_about_the_rigged_american_dream/ http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/meritocracy_is_a_massive_lie...

beatpanda 11y ago

The author uses a raft of terms he doesn't bother to define -- "top university", "prestigious occupation", "social status", and so on, so much that it makes the article meaningless. IQ, and all the other "objective" measures he leaves as an exercise to the reader to define, mostly measure how well-adapted a person is to society such as it currently works right now. If you believe we've arrived at the society we have now due to "human nature" or some other kind of natural settling, and not, to just pick one alternate hypothesis, an unimaginable amount of violence and plunder carried out across the globe over the last few centuries, then the conclusions in this article make sense. Otherwise, it probably has some holes.

tomp 11y ago
I think the basic premise of the article is completely sound: in a meeitocratic society, the inequality increases approximately to the degree that IQ is inherited.
- varjag 11y ago
  Is there reliable evidence that the IQ is inherited in quantities that actually matter? I know it's a popular premise, but this article takes it to sure-shot levels.
  - Malician 11y ago
    http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/amp-67-2-130.pdf It seems very thoroughly accepted - among researchers who have studied the subject. The popular press produces a lot of articles downplaying the subject. For example, if a study shows that IQ is likely the result of thousands of genes combined rather than just one or two, there will be ten articles the next day saying "scientists unable to find genetic basis for IQ" and "IQ not genetic."
    - varjag 11y ago
      No, what I mean is that there are genetic factors that aren't necessarily hereditary, or even hereditary but not within the immediate offspring. E.g. my son has the same birthmark as my mother but I don't. Same for a number of Mendelian trait diseases. I am not questioning that IQ might well be a genetic factor, just wondering if there are any conclusive studies that it's directly inherited. Because the study you linked is very open-ended on this, and this has been core premise for the article discussed.

panic 11y ago

There are more factors at work here than genetics. Imagine how much pressure would be put on the child who has been selected (at great expense) from 100 embryos as "most likely to succeed"!

ZeroGravitas 11y ago

Reverse this: "(b) creating opportunities for those born on the wrong side of the tracks, so if you start with very little that doesn’t mean you’ll end up with very little, or that your children will" And you see immediately why meritocracy is a sham. No one wants their stupid and lazy kids to end up "with little", and the rich have the means to ensure this happens. Of course, like many things to do with rich vs poor, this applies on the national scale too. And generally not even those on the wrong side of the tracks think that people on the wrong side of the border, regardless of merit, should be allowed to cross it to get a better life.

taliesinb 11y ago

Among other things, the author presents the argument that a more efficient meritocracy will exacerbate the fact that we don't all have the same genetic endowments, and these endowments are subject to hereditary capture to a similar degree that wealth is. Furthermore, future technologies will allow the wealthy to simply buy permanent genetic advantages for their descendants. Just as a universal basic income is presented as one antidote to wealth inequality, the idea of universal genetic enhancement is presented, specifically of intelligence (whatever that is). If we assume it's a fait accompli that members of our elites will pursue genetic enhancement of intelligence for their children or themselves, what are the strongest consequentialist objections to the idea of free, universally-provided genetic enhancement, assuming such therapies are actually effective, practical, and safe? One obvious objection is of a "Brave New World" variety: we have yet no idea how systematic selection to increase "g" (or any trait, for that matter), could stunt or enhance other traits, deplete valuable kinds of cognitive diversity we can't yet measure, or twist our values in some immeasurable and negative way. Worse still, it's easy to imagine government scientists in more authoritarian societies stumbling on allele combinations that enhanced political docility, consumption-oriented behavior, thriftiness, and so on, and selecting for those in the next generation to solve demographic, economic, or political problems. On the flip side of that fear is the hope that we could select for propensities that help us solve the daunting list of global co-ordination problems that now face us, climate change and dangerous AI being the two most generic ones. The consequences of failure there are so dire that we may even have reason to see such enhancement as necessary -- the equivalent of a species-level adrenaline shot to get us through an existential crisis. And what if we could make ourselves less dishonest, manipulative, cynical, and tribalistic? What if we could design our values to be different from what they are, to be what we wished they were? That's much scarier for me, for reasons that are harder to explain. And it mirrors a bit the problems of building an self-enhancing AI that doesn't "diverge to evil". I'm sure there's a rich seam of blogosphere material out there on these topics, maybe even some academic papers, would be very interested if someone is willing to share some links to specific arguments or discussions.

lmm 11y ago
I don't have a specific post in mind, but if you're interested in this kind of thing then I highly recommend http://slatestarcodex.com http://slatestarcodex.com

pron 11y ago

I find it ironic that people who believe they possess an inordinate amount of intelligence so often fail to notice how limited is its capacity for solving actual human problems. Or perhaps it is not ironic at all, because every man with delusion of grandeur -- intelligent or not -- would think that it is the qualities that he possess would one day make him a member of the ruling class, or falling short of that -- a superhero. Luckily, we who have studied computer science and know a thing or two about completeness and complexity and therefore the limits of reason, can easily call the bluff. After all, when human beings are concerned a solution to a problem may involve nothing more than swaying the minds of people, something people with high intelligence often seem comically unable to do. So while I could easily think of a few qualities humanity is in urgent need of more than intelligence — charisma, empathy, good looks and a sense of humor — I believe that this particular piece would have been much better if the author’s eugenics plan had been in effect prior to his birth.

asgard1024 11y ago
> people who believe they possess an inordinate amount of intelligence so often fail to notice how limited is its capacity for solving actual human problems > we who have studied computer science and know a thing or two about completeness and complexity and therefore the limits of reason, can easily call the bluff It seems that even with that, there are many people in the second group who belong to the first group. To me, humans are not actually that different in their inborn intelligence. The bell curve actually falls of quite quickly besides the mean. The most difference is specialized training.
puredemo 11y ago
>when human beings are concerned a solution to a problem may involve nothing more than swaying the minds of people, something people with high intelligence often seem comically unable to do. So you're advocating that we select for charismatic, persuasive people of average intelligence? Seems like a rather short-sighted plan, considering this would describe most used car salesmen.
- pron 11y ago
  I advocate nothing of the sort, just note that it is just as likely to work as the author's "plan", which (like most texts, really) is more of a testament to his personal psychological issues than to his reasoning abilities. Do we have a good reason to believe a society made of used-car salesmen would be worse than that made of Aspy scientists? :) If I advocate anything, it is that we base our social policies on careful study of actual society rather than a simplification made for people who are unable or unwilling to grasp the complexities of the human condition.

asgard1024 11y ago

Meritocracy is a very quaint goal. There is so much value in our societies produced by capital that cannot be attributed to work or decision-making of some living person - such as machinery, know-how (technological and organizational), land, natural resources, organic products. Most people, if they would be paid based on merit, couldn't survive in our society, because they produce so little of value on its own. Fighting for "meritocracy" therefore becomes fight for attribution, how big piece of resulting pie you deserve. But this deserve has not much to do with merit of your work, it has to do with your ability to fight for it, imperfect information, and kindness of other people.

lmm 11y ago
So how about we spend a few minutes trying to solve those problems rather than just throwing up our hands? A sufficiently low-friction market already resolves a lot of the attribution issues, and we're already seeing that happen - as transaction costs shrink it becomes more and more practical to outsource more of a business. What if it reached the point where every company was <50 people - small enough that everyone knew everyone? Or even the point where everyone was a freelancer? Externalities are of course a thing. But technology is improving to the point where we can track them and build them into the market. What if e.g. for every gram of pollution, you were charged in real time?
- plonh 11y ago
  You miss the key: a huge amount of my value is generated by tools created by our ancestors -- who deserves credit for those tools? Me? Those dead people's children?
  - lmm 11y ago
    You presumably bought the tools at a fair price that reflects how much value they add for you.
    - asgard1024 11y ago
      I actually didn't.. They are just there! I got them for free (as a part of my training) and they have immense value. You argument hints at something called labor theory of value, which quickly leads to contradictions, once you include time and technological progress into your models (such as people should get more for labor even if they are doing less of it). Honestly, I think if people are honest to themselves, they will see that there is plenty of stuff providing value for free (a simple example - tree that grows apples). Then asking to be paid just for your merit is obviously a losing proposition.

arethuza 11y ago

"Meritocracy" is one of those odd words that was defined to have one meaning and now appears to be generally used to mean almost the exact opposite - perhaps worth reading this article from the chap who coined the term in the 1950s: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

WillPostForFood 11y ago
Not coincidentally, The author of your article is the father of the author of the OP. I don't think the definition has shifted so much as the intent behind the word (negative to positive).
- arethuza 11y ago
  The article mentions Bevin: "Bevin left school at 11 to take a job as a farm boy, and was subsequently a kitchen boy, a grocer's errand boy, a van boy, a tram conductor and a drayman before, at the age of 29, he became active locally in Bristol in the Dock Wharf, Riverside and General Labourers' union." And was Foreign Minister in the Atlee government, ardent ant-Soviet, arguably one of the founders of the Atlantic alliance and many other achievements. That route is pretty much closed these days. My own personal favourite is William Robertson - who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1916-1918. He went from a private soldier to that lofty position. Richard Holmes points out that an equivalent rise would be impossible today - even with much smaller forces to command. These people were successful because they were good - not on "merit" as is usually defined.
- plonh 11y ago
  Has the intent shifted? The 2001 article specifically called out the Blair government for , well, Blair tbought it was good intent, but that is the problem: Young argued that it was being used to negatively impact society.
- pron 11y ago
  Meritocracy still has purely negative connotations among those who study society, and positive connotations among politicians or corporations who wish to justify their current practices. You won't hear the word "meritocracy" mentioned by sociologists or historians as anything but a joke, or, if they're patient, as a starting point of a dystopia.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

He's really keen to paint "liberals" as genetics denialists. I have never met or heard of...well, anyone who claims that mental ability is 100% based on environment; I'm sure there's someone, but they don't have a lot of company. Of course it's not 100% based on genetics, either; it's been clear for quite a while that nature and nurture both play a role. So, yeah, I'm thinking troll. That or "articulate nutcase." But probably troll.

pluma 11y ago
I have certainly heard "liberals" dispute sexual dimorphism in humans based purely on ideological concerns. Some people tend to overcompensate when it comes to common biases. This also goes hand-in-hand with the thinking that the disenfranchised can't be racist/sexist/bigots by definition.
- PhasmaFelis 11y ago
  So, even while looking out for those flaws, you still can't testify to any liberals holding the specific position that the article ascribes to all of them? That does seem to suggest that the basic premise is flawed.

brohee 11y ago

In Coming Apart, Charles Murray estimates that there will always be 14 per cent of children in the top 5 per cent of the IQ distribution curve who are the offspring of parents with below-average IQs. Admittedly, that’s not much when you consider that the remaining 86 per cent will have parents with above-average IQs, It really makes me wonder about the author IQ.

plonh 11y ago
Why?
- brohee 11y ago
  Because it's stupidly wrong. He misses the possibility for average people to have high IQ children. The sentence parses as : 14% high IQ children are from lower IQ couples, 0% are from average IQ couple, 86% are from high IQ couple... It also dismisses the existence of mismatched IQ couples, and highly intelligent men with a hot air head isn't unheard off, and nowadays women have their toy boys too...
  - plonh 11y ago
    In probability , the fraction of the population at exactly 50%ile is approximately 0.
    - brohee 11y ago
      It's prose. When you say someone is of average height, you usually mean within a standard deviation of average, not that the person is exactly the locale appropriate average height... At best that sentence is very poorly worded, at worst the author is a shining example of regression to the mean.
  - lumpypua 11y ago
    > It also dismisses the existence of mismatched IQ couples Yep, IQ has a higher statistical variance in men than in women, basically guaranteeing that there will be couples with IQ mismatches, going both directions.

SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

> "In The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994), Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray argue—pretty convincingly" Anyone care to comment on that? I thought that taking "The Bell Curve" seriously was a big red flag?

plonh 11y ago
The Left hates TBC. The Right loves it. The Left (who invented the word) believe "meritocracy" is sheep's clothing covering the wolf of privilege. The Right believes they have better genes. There is no common ground, both sides think the others are unsound.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  Well it was written as a specific well-funded piece of political propaganda for the right, so it's not surprising that they like it. People could be misled into thinking that the left and right are having a disagreement about some neutral science findings the way you phrased it, like e.g. "The right-wing hates climate science" (and where they also heavily fund "scientists" that are prepared to write books full of nonsense that suits their goals that "the left" "hate"). edit: and as, luck would have it, as someone else just pointed out, the most recent article on this site is about climate denial: "This raises the matter of what we now routinely refer to as “climate change” – catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), to use one of the climateers’ favoured and emotionally laden descriptors. Tony Abbott, speaking frankly, once conceded that “climate change is crap” It struck me recently that the crank-like approach to climate change may have helped some big businesses in the short term, but may well cause blowback for their goals as reality sets in.
puredemo 11y ago
>I thought that taking "The Bell Curve" seriously was a big red flag? To whom? Certainly not to most scientists..
- SideburnsOfDoom 11y ago

austerity 11y ago

Even without the author's counterargument the assertion that one's genetics is an unfair advantage strikes me as absurd. Your genetics is not something you've got, but literally a part of what you are. Questioning whether one deserves to be oneself is like asking what's north of the North Pole - just because you can put these words together in a sentence doesn't mean it it makes any sense. Furthermore, intelligence is not a "good" in itself. You earn ("deserve") goods by being useful to others. If a "gifted" individual invents a technology that makes life more comfortable for the unintelligent, does he not deserve a reward regardless of what enabled him to do so? On a different note, I don't understand how anyone can consider equality of outcome desirable, regardless of whether it's achievable or not. If your outcome is guaranteed to be equal to that of others then it by definition doesn't depend on your own choices. If it's not the ultimate unhuman antiutopian existence I don't know what is.

puredemo 11y ago
>the assertion that one's genetics is an unfair advantage strikes me as absurd. Are you saying you don't see the advantage inherent to having a much higher IQ?
- austerity 11y ago
  No. I am saying I don't see what it means for this advantage to be fair or unfair.
  - puredemo 11y ago
    What is fair or unfair is entirely subjective. Personally, it would seem a bit unfair to me if I was born with a 95 IQ, in the cosmic sense at least.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Anything above or below IQ = 100 is unfair by the very definition of IQ. But I understand the sentiment, I'd also feel cheated by the universe if I were born with below-average IQ. The debate over fairness/unfairness seems to me like another example of the typical trap humans fall into - instead of bickering over who gets more of the pie, we should be focusing on increasing the size of that pie. If all the effort put in the discussions about meritocracy would be put towards intelligence augmentation, we'd have a world better for everyone, regardless of what gene he or she got.

ricksplat 11y ago

> The left loathes the concept of IQ Sorry. Nope. Too much other stuff to read to be giving time to an article that employs such a fallacious and/or naive opening to be bothered. Sorry if I'm wrong, but this has immediately marked itself out as a propaganda piece, and I note it has been deservedly flagged. Next ... !