4 ms·

> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. I don't understand this point of view. It sounds like, by calling it a lie, your real complaint is the ways atte

by ericb 8y ago

> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. I don't understand this point of view. It sounds like, by calling it a lie, your real complaint is the ways attempts at meritocracy have fallen short of being an actual meritocracy. That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? If this is not how you feel, what is the word for the appropriate assignment strategy that we should be strive to use to decide who gets jobs and promotions?

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? I would actually say no, at least when it comes to when arguments for a meritocracy are used as arguments against redistribution of wealth from the more "meritocratic" to the less. Consider, as a thought experiment, if instead of features like intelligence, communication skills, self-confidence, etc., that our economic system instead only valued basketball skills as the means for distributing wealth. That system would be a meritocracy: great basketball players with tons of talent and effort would be really wealthy and successful, while talentless or lazy basketball players would be poor. I think this is a good thought experiment because of some of the things it highlights. Perhaps most importantly, all short people are pretty much destined to be forever poor in this meritocratic system. If you are short, what value would you see in abiding by this system at all if tall, great basketball players took all the gains? What about if instead great basketball players could be wealthy and successful, but they still had to pay a very large amount of taxes to ensure that short people didn't starve (or revolt). While a (true) meritocracy may be ideal for how jobs are to be distributed, if it is also how wealth is distributed it means that it is also, by and large, a lottery of DNA. How is that any more "fair" than an aristocracy?
- someone454 8y ago
  Spud Webb was short, but a helluva player.
- ericb 8y ago
  I'm not sure that "fairness" is exactly the right ideal if our goal is the most health and wealth for the most people? I want my doctor to be really great--to be in that job because he is the best at it. I don't want someone placed there by a truly random lottery, and I do want the guy who won the intelligence DNA drawing to be the one I talk to. I also want wealth to motivate people to get into that job, as it is so tough to gain that knowledge, I don't know if there will be enough people without a financial reward.
  - snotrockets 8y ago
    Fairness in opportunities, which you just disqualified by assuming the best Dr need to be a MALE and GENTICALY PREDETERMINED SMART. My (short) experience working in health care suggest both are very bad qualifications for a health professional.
    - ericb 8y ago
      So, first off, fair point for calling out that I said "guy." I tried to edit it once I saw my mistake, but the post was locked. I'm curious, though, why you would not want someone who was genetically smart? Why would you want a "dumb" healthcare professional treating you? Do you not believe intelligence to be related to genetics? Also, how does being male make one a worse healthcare professional? If you are saying you want fairness in opportunities, then isn't discriminating on the basis of someone being male the opposite of fairness?
    - burfog 8y ago
      To be coldly rational, you want to pick from the group that is the most discriminated against for entry into medical school. Right now in the USA, that would be Asian males. An exception is if you may need the doctor to insert a hand into your body. In this case, note that Asian female doctors generally have the smallest hands. An exception is if you are very heavy and might require feats of strength for your care. In this case, young non-Asian males are most likely to have the needed strength.
  - thefringthing 8y ago
    It's pretty telling then you went for male pronouns to describe your hypothetical doctor.
krageon 8y ago
This argument for meritocracy is what a real communist will tell you about communism now. It works basically for anything that we don't have good working examples for right this second. Given that there are no good working examples and/or haven't been any so far, how would we fix the problems that we have seen and can foresee? Given those concerns, I think it is not reasonable to just say "we need to try again and try harder" because it does a disservice to those times it was tried in the past. Maybe there is a fundamental problem there that still has to be solved? For a meritocracy, this isn't super complicated. Who decides what has merit? How will you measure this? Are the things that you measure the right things? Given that there is a possibility for side-channel information (for example, certain groups of people having terms they "look for" and that you only know about being part of this group), how will we solve this?
- danieltillett 8y ago
  I feel like misquoting Churchill here and saying meritocracy is the the worst system except for all the alternatives.
  - snotrockets 8y ago
    You'd also be doing injustice to his saying. A (liberal) democracy gives every one the same opportunity. This isn't the case with so called meritocracy.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.
      - snotrockets 8y ago
        No; Meritocracy is judging by the results. If we're both in a dancing competition, but you have dance shoes and I wear a workman's steel toed both, giving you the win is meritocratic, even though the opportunity isn't equal. If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism (we all know how that turns out, and to what a douchy sausage fest so called "meritocracies" ends as)
normal_man 8y ago
It is not possible to have an "actual" meritocracy. There's simply no way to account for all personal biases and all the historical context that you'd need to to get a truly "objective" decision made.

by ericb 8y ago

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

> That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? I would actually say no, at least when it comes to when arguments for a meritocracy are used as arguments against redistribution of wealth from the more "meritocratic" to the less. Consider, as a thought experiment, if instead of features like intelligence, communication skills, self-confidence, etc., that our economic system instead only valued basketball skills as the means for distributing wealth. That system would be a meritocracy: great basketball players with tons of talent and effort would be really wealthy and successful, while talentless or lazy basketball players would be poor. I think this is a good thought experiment because of some of the things it highlights. Perhaps most importantly, all short people are pretty much destined to be forever poor in this meritocratic system. If you are short, what value would you see in abiding by this system at all if tall, great basketball players took all the gains? What about if instead great basketball players could be wealthy and successful, but they still had to pay a very large amount of taxes to ensure that short people didn't starve (or revolt). While a (true) meritocracy may be ideal for how jobs are to be distributed, if it is also how wealth is distributed it means that it is also, by and large, a lottery of DNA. How is that any more "fair" than an aristocracy?

someone454 8y ago
Spud Webb was short, but a helluva player.
ericb 8y ago
I'm not sure that "fairness" is exactly the right ideal if our goal is the most health and wealth for the most people? I want my doctor to be really great--to be in that job because he is the best at it. I don't want someone placed there by a truly random lottery, and I do want the guy who won the intelligence DNA drawing to be the one I talk to. I also want wealth to motivate people to get into that job, as it is so tough to gain that knowledge, I don't know if there will be enough people without a financial reward.
- snotrockets 8y ago
  Fairness in opportunities, which you just disqualified by assuming the best Dr need to be a MALE and GENTICALY PREDETERMINED SMART. My (short) experience working in health care suggest both are very bad qualifications for a health professional.
  - ericb 8y ago
    So, first off, fair point for calling out that I said "guy." I tried to edit it once I saw my mistake, but the post was locked. I'm curious, though, why you would not want someone who was genetically smart? Why would you want a "dumb" healthcare professional treating you? Do you not believe intelligence to be related to genetics? Also, how does being male make one a worse healthcare professional? If you are saying you want fairness in opportunities, then isn't discriminating on the basis of someone being male the opposite of fairness?
  - burfog 8y ago
    To be coldly rational, you want to pick from the group that is the most discriminated against for entry into medical school. Right now in the USA, that would be Asian males. An exception is if you may need the doctor to insert a hand into your body. In this case, note that Asian female doctors generally have the smallest hands. An exception is if you are very heavy and might require feats of strength for your care. In this case, young non-Asian males are most likely to have the needed strength.
- thefringthing 8y ago
  It's pretty telling then you went for male pronouns to describe your hypothetical doctor.

krageon 8y ago

This argument for meritocracy is what a real communist will tell you about communism now. It works basically for anything that we don't have good working examples for right this second. Given that there are no good working examples and/or haven't been any so far, how would we fix the problems that we have seen and can foresee? Given those concerns, I think it is not reasonable to just say "we need to try again and try harder" because it does a disservice to those times it was tried in the past. Maybe there is a fundamental problem there that still has to be solved? For a meritocracy, this isn't super complicated. Who decides what has merit? How will you measure this? Are the things that you measure the right things? Given that there is a possibility for side-channel information (for example, certain groups of people having terms they "look for" and that you only know about being part of this group), how will we solve this?

danieltillett 8y ago
I feel like misquoting Churchill here and saying meritocracy is the the worst system except for all the alternatives.
- snotrockets 8y ago
  You'd also be doing injustice to his saying. A (liberal) democracy gives every one the same opportunity. This isn't the case with so called meritocracy.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Well isn't giving everyone the same opportunity the definintion of a meritocracy? Of course no society is a meritocracy, but it is hard to think of a better system.
    - snotrockets 8y ago
      No; Meritocracy is judging by the results. If we're both in a dancing competition, but you have dance shoes and I wear a workman's steel toed both, giving you the win is meritocratic, even though the opportunity isn't equal. If you judging system by it's ideal implementation, then you should argue for Communism (we all know how that turns out, and to what a douchy sausage fest so called "meritocracies" ends as)

normal_man 8y ago

It is not possible to have an "actual" meritocracy. There's simply no way to account for all personal biases and all the historical context that you'd need to to get a truly "objective" decision made.