4 ms·

that seems like you're just saying true merit is hard to determine or measure, which is stated in the original comment. This might be to do with the ways human

that seems like you're just saying true merit is hard to determine or measure, which is stated in the original comment. This might be to do with the ways humans consciously and unconsciously use proxies for complex things like merit. you don't seem to be arguing against a meritocracy, you just seem to be saying that 'it's hard.' as for your statement that "meritocracy doesn't really value merit" you'll have to explain that one.

ZenoArrow 11y ago
> "as for your statement that "meritocracy doesn't really value merit" you'll have to explain that one." I explained it before, but hopefully I'll do a better job this time... How do you measure merit? You cannot measure merit without measuring success. Success can be achieved by more than just merit alone, privilege is another key factor in success, yet there are no mechanisms to distinguish between success based on merit and success based on privilege. In most cases it'll be a mixture of the two anyway, it's hard to find successful people who were born into completely hostile circumstances, or find successful people who had every possible external advantage but didn't have some ability to convert this into success. In short, meritocracies measure success, they don't measure merit, as merit cannot be measured directly, it can only be inferred by success, and success has multiple contributing factors, of which merit is only one. Furthermore, meritocracies tend to favour certain types of success. For example, in school, the abilities of an academically gifted kid are more likely to be recognised compared to a kid that's good at telling jokes, even though they're both valuable traits.
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Saying that a society measures success is a tautology. In a meritocracy, success is correlated with "merit" (whatever that means).
  - cmurf 11y ago
    It stands to reason any ruling class allowed to define the mechanism of handing over power to the next generation will do it via inheritance, hardly any different than primogeniture. It's contrary to Lockean political legitimacy which requires the consent of the governed. And it's also contrary to Paine's Rights of Man which expressly argues against aristocracy and hereditary government, which self-evidently a meritocracy would create because there's nothing to prevent it and every incentive to pass down such power only to ones progeny as the next generation of ruling class.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    It's not a tautology. I've tried to explain this twice now, hopefully third time lucky... Let's start with two questions, if you can answer these it should help us understand why we're not seeing eye to eye: 1. How do you measure merit in a meritocracy? 2. Considering the answer to question 1, is it possible for someone to rise to the top of a meritocracy with an average level of 'merit'?
    - marcosdumay 11y ago
      Well, what success means changes from one society to another, as it's always getting whatever society values. The entire point of meritocracy comes from the postulate that "merit" is some universal concept and that we should adjust our society so success is reached by merit. And then, and just then, we should contemplate those questions, for practical purposes. It's indeed a much more complex idea than most people shouting "meritocracy" around entertain, but it's a meaningless idea. Our society has been less meritocratic on the past, and it's possible to make it more so in the future.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "It's indeed a much more complex idea than most people shouting "meritocracy" around entertain, but it's a meaningless idea." I agree, it's meaningless to follow a meritocracy if we can't explain what we mean by merit (even if it's different in every case, we should still be able to define it in a specific case).
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

ZenoArrow 11y ago

> "as for your statement that "meritocracy doesn't really value merit" you'll have to explain that one." I explained it before, but hopefully I'll do a better job this time... How do you measure merit? You cannot measure merit without measuring success. Success can be achieved by more than just merit alone, privilege is another key factor in success, yet there are no mechanisms to distinguish between success based on merit and success based on privilege. In most cases it'll be a mixture of the two anyway, it's hard to find successful people who were born into completely hostile circumstances, or find successful people who had every possible external advantage but didn't have some ability to convert this into success. In short, meritocracies measure success, they don't measure merit, as merit cannot be measured directly, it can only be inferred by success, and success has multiple contributing factors, of which merit is only one. Furthermore, meritocracies tend to favour certain types of success. For example, in school, the abilities of an academically gifted kid are more likely to be recognised compared to a kid that's good at telling jokes, even though they're both valuable traits.

marcosdumay 11y ago
Saying that a society measures success is a tautology. In a meritocracy, success is correlated with "merit" (whatever that means).
- cmurf 11y ago
  It stands to reason any ruling class allowed to define the mechanism of handing over power to the next generation will do it via inheritance, hardly any different than primogeniture. It's contrary to Lockean political legitimacy which requires the consent of the governed. And it's also contrary to Paine's Rights of Man which expressly argues against aristocracy and hereditary government, which self-evidently a meritocracy would create because there's nothing to prevent it and every incentive to pass down such power only to ones progeny as the next generation of ruling class.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  It's not a tautology. I've tried to explain this twice now, hopefully third time lucky... Let's start with two questions, if you can answer these it should help us understand why we're not seeing eye to eye: 1. How do you measure merit in a meritocracy? 2. Considering the answer to question 1, is it possible for someone to rise to the top of a meritocracy with an average level of 'merit'?
  - marcosdumay 11y ago
    Well, what success means changes from one society to another, as it's always getting whatever society values. The entire point of meritocracy comes from the postulate that "merit" is some universal concept and that we should adjust our society so success is reached by merit. And then, and just then, we should contemplate those questions, for practical purposes. It's indeed a much more complex idea than most people shouting "meritocracy" around entertain, but it's a meaningless idea. Our society has been less meritocratic on the past, and it's possible to make it more so in the future.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "It's indeed a much more complex idea than most people shouting "meritocracy" around entertain, but it's a meaningless idea." I agree, it's meaningless to follow a meritocracy if we can't explain what we mean by merit (even if it's different in every case, we should still be able to define it in a specific case).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]