4 ms·

Chris Dillow is my favorite economics blogger. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com One of his quotes from memory is

by rb808 9y ago

Chris Dillow is my favorite economics blogger. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com One of his quotes from memory is "Meritocracy is the myth that justifies inequality", which explains a lot of the current world.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rb808 9y ago
To add to this - yes he's not the only one who talks about it, the idea is even on the wikipedia page for meritocracy. Its worth following Chris, much of what he talks about is outside the world of regular media ideas, and usually has lots of interesting references. On this topic - he often says that social mobility is not a great goal to aim for, helping working & middle classes achieve interesting & rewarding work with security is better goal. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/06/beyond-meritocracy.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli... http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/05/social-mobility-cui-bono.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
See also, the "Just-World Hypothesis", which investigates why people feel this need to blame victims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis
k__ 9y ago
Some parties here in Germany actively pushing this. They talk about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. But what can you do? You're phenotype is mostly determined by stuff you can't control. If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f*cked and you can't control this either. Even if you're high on openness and have a average to high IQ, you're still playing a high risk game.
- Cthulhu_ 9y ago
  I do agree to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome; those people with low IQ won't end up in the high tiers of e.g. the scientific world, simply because they can't. Equality of opportunity does not rule out a proper socialist system. You give everyone the same opportunities at life and work by e.g. affordable health care and insurances for everyone, but also scholarships for everyone so they can follow what they want to do instead of be restricted by e.g. what their parents earn. And if you can't work because of whatever reason, you don't have to end up on the streets. Equality of opportunity gives everyone the chance to graduate university; equality of outcome gives everyone a university degree regardless. I'm probably misinterpreting it. But give everyone the opportunity, and there will be enough social mobility so that people now born in poverty can grow up to become e.g. software developers, and pay that little equal opportunity was paid for them during their education back tenfold within just a couple years of working in that industry. That's my experience anyway, my dad was a not-greatly-paid metalworker with a high interest mortgage (as was the times back then) and three kids, I'm a college graduate and my first job paid almost as much as his.
  - k__ 9y ago
    I don't really think this is the problem here. Sure, you shouldn't give any idiot a degree without doing something for it and yes, you shouldn't make it harder for intelligent people to get degrees, just because their parents are poor or something. But if you have low conscientiousness and low IQ, that was also given to you without asking. It's playing on the same level as poor parents. With your proposed change (which is already done in countries like Germany, we have almost free healthcare and education) you still have 50% of the population that has a IQ below 100.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      This is only bad because of what, job market preferring to hire geniuses if not at least above average people making 50% of population or so unviable? In addition setting relatively insane filters on the other half limiting them too. Often for quite dumb jobs too. Sounds like a systemic problem.

by rb808 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rb808 9y ago

To add to this - yes he's not the only one who talks about it, the idea is even on the wikipedia page for meritocracy. Its worth following Chris, much of what he talks about is outside the world of regular media ideas, and usually has lots of interesting references. On this topic - he often says that social mobility is not a great goal to aim for, helping working & middle classes achieve interesting & rewarding work with security is better goal. http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2016/06/beyond-meritocracy.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli... http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/05/social-mobility-cui-bono.html http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...

ZeroGravitas 9y ago

See also, the "Just-World Hypothesis", which investigates why people feel this need to blame victims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

k__ 9y ago

Some parties here in Germany actively pushing this. They talk about equality of opportunity and not equality of outcomes. But what can you do? You're phenotype is mostly determined by stuff you can't control. If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f*cked and you can't control this either. Even if you're high on openness and have a average to high IQ, you're still playing a high risk game.

Cthulhu_ 9y ago
I do agree to equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome; those people with low IQ won't end up in the high tiers of e.g. the scientific world, simply because they can't. Equality of opportunity does not rule out a proper socialist system. You give everyone the same opportunities at life and work by e.g. affordable health care and insurances for everyone, but also scholarships for everyone so they can follow what they want to do instead of be restricted by e.g. what their parents earn. And if you can't work because of whatever reason, you don't have to end up on the streets. Equality of opportunity gives everyone the chance to graduate university; equality of outcome gives everyone a university degree regardless. I'm probably misinterpreting it. But give everyone the opportunity, and there will be enough social mobility so that people now born in poverty can grow up to become e.g. software developers, and pay that little equal opportunity was paid for them during their education back tenfold within just a couple years of working in that industry. That's my experience anyway, my dad was a not-greatly-paid metalworker with a high interest mortgage (as was the times back then) and three kids, I'm a college graduate and my first job paid almost as much as his.
- k__ 9y ago
  I don't really think this is the problem here. Sure, you shouldn't give any idiot a degree without doing something for it and yes, you shouldn't make it harder for intelligent people to get degrees, just because their parents are poor or something. But if you have low conscientiousness and low IQ, that was also given to you without asking. It's playing on the same level as poor parents. With your proposed change (which is already done in countries like Germany, we have almost free healthcare and education) you still have 50% of the population that has a IQ below 100.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    This is only bad because of what, job market preferring to hire geniuses if not at least above average people making 50% of population or so unviable? In addition setting relatively insane filters on the other half limiting them too. Often for quite dumb jobs too. Sounds like a systemic problem.