3 ms·
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 hel
by 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 agoWell, 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]