3 ms·

You have a very interesting world view. >The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted. >To me merit is something that comes from withi

by Veelox 8y ago

You have a very interesting world view. >The two girls are equally meritorious yet only one will get admitted. >To me merit is something that comes from within, not from without. >but that knowledge isn't itself merit. I don't get your definition of merit. The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. In the book Player of Games the Azad society plays a game called Azad. A person's rank in society is determined by how well they play the game in the "annual" tournament. People who are able to be better trained on the game perform better and thus have a higher rank in society. From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Either way, what is your reasoning?

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
>The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. Yes, there are exceptions. But for most of history the crown prince, is in fact the best person to rule. All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? >From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. Correct. If in Azad society my parent's wealth or the high school I attended had a significant bearing on my skill at the game then I would say that is not a meritocratic system. >If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? If it was able to remove environmental and structural effects then yes, that would be meritocratic. >Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.
- Veelox 8y ago
  >All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? I would say that it often has the same outcome as a meritocratic system. Suppose if every US election, after deciding the winner, they rolled a 20-sided dice and on a 1, elected the loser instead. This would be democratic most of the time but it would not be a democratic system. Similarly since a bloodline aristocracy uses bloodline as the deciding factor not merit, it is not meritocratic. >Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit. I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
    >I would say that it often has the same outcome as a meritocratic system. Doesn't that seem even a little bit condemnatory of your conception of merit? Your meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. That once in a while they differ isn't a great credit, it's damning with faint praise. >I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit? Then why call it a meritocracy? Call it a knowledgocracy or something of that sort. Again, I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without. The asian girl's advantage over the black girl is entirely from without so it shouldn't be considered - they should have an equal chance to be admitted.
    - Veelox 8y ago
      >Your meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. I think there is a big leap from saying the crown Prince is most qualified to take the thrown and saying a meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. I think Prince Charles is probably most qualified to take the thrown but I don't want the British government to go back to mostly inherited positions. >Then why call it a meritocracy? Google defines a meritocracy as "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." So since it is deciding on ability which is dependent on training and experience it is still a meritocracy. >I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without. But what is that thing within? It seems like you have ruled out experience and skills because both of those can be bought by wealthy parents. Even hard work is something that can be taught. It seems like you mean something closer to potiential (future ability) than merit (current ability). Also, what do you look for as evidence of merit?

by Veelox 8y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago

>The crown prince might be given every advantage be that doesn't mean when the king dies the crown prince is best qualified to rule. History is full of examples. Thus because the crown prince will become king regardless of his current ability when the king dies it is not a meritocracy. Yes, there are exceptions. But for most of history the crown prince, is in fact the best person to rule. All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? >From how you have spoken, I think you would count this training as privilege and not something that increased merit. Correct. If in Azad society my parent's wealth or the high school I attended had a significant bearing on my skill at the game then I would say that is not a meritocratic system. >If we had a similar test that accurately predicted future success and job applications were decided by this test, would that be meritocratic? If it was able to remove environmental and structural effects then yes, that would be meritocratic. >Would that change if parents were able to send there kinds of a special $10k/yr school that significantly increased their children's results on the test? Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit.

Veelox 8y ago
>All of those instances are meritocratic? We'll admit the occasional error but would you at least say that bloodline aristocracy is often meritocratic by your definition? I would say that it often has the same outcome as a meritocratic system. Suppose if every US election, after deciding the winner, they rolled a 20-sided dice and on a 1, elected the loser instead. This would be democratic most of the time but it would not be a democratic system. Similarly since a bloodline aristocracy uses bloodline as the deciding factor not merit, it is not meritocratic. >Absolutely it would change. It's no longer a measure of merit, now it's a measure of merit AND your parents' wealth AND your parents' willingness to spend on your development. We can't separate out those factors so the test is now useless as a measure of merit. I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago
  >I would say that it often has the same outcome as a meritocratic system. Doesn't that seem even a little bit condemnatory of your conception of merit? Your meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. That once in a while they differ isn't a great credit, it's damning with faint praise. >I feel like what you are saying is that merit is independent of the training and experiences you receive. I define merit as the ability to perform the given task well. With that definition, you have to include training and experience because they have effects on ability to perform. So if you exclude training and experiences, what do you mean by merit? Then why call it a meritocracy? Call it a knowledgocracy or something of that sort. Again, I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without. The asian girl's advantage over the black girl is entirely from without so it shouldn't be considered - they should have an equal chance to be admitted.
  - Veelox 8y ago
    >Your meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. I think there is a big leap from saying the crown Prince is most qualified to take the thrown and saying a meritocracy is frequently indistinguishable from aristocracy. I think Prince Charles is probably most qualified to take the thrown but I don't want the British government to go back to mostly inherited positions. >Then why call it a meritocracy? Google defines a meritocracy as "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." So since it is deciding on ability which is dependent on training and experience it is still a meritocracy. >I find merit to be something that comes from within not from without. But what is that thing within? It seems like you have ruled out experience and skills because both of those can be bought by wealthy parents. Even hard work is something that can be taught. It seems like you mean something closer to potiential (future ability) than merit (current ability). Also, what do you look for as evidence of merit?