4 ms·

You might find this interesting from the author that coined the term meritocracy. In particular addressing point 2. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/j

You might find this interesting from the author that coined the term meritocracy. In particular addressing point 2. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." I think you can see inklings of this in support for Trump, Brexit and distrust of elites the term for the new 'meritorious' social class. Further merit in a job should extend well beyond technical skills.

josephg 8y ago
Wow, ok, so it looks like there's a 3rd thing we're discussing: Does meritocracy mean "status based on qualifications" or does meritocracy mean "status based on relevant ability". Reading that article it looks like the term 'meritocracy' was coined to refer to the former, but we didn't have a word for the latter and so the word has been co-opted and muddied. "Meritocracy is a discredited concept" could thus mean any combination of these statements: 1. We don't / can't currently hire based on collage degrees 2. We don't / can't currently hire based on relevant ability 3. We shouldn't try to hire based on collage degrees 4. We shouldn't try to hire based on relevant ability People in this extended comment thread seem to be arguing assuming that these stances are interchangeable, or arguing assuming that there is consensus about which of these points we're arguing and they know what it is. Personally, I believe that we should try our best to hire based on relevant ability. Because I want the most qualified people as coworkers and creators of the products and services I consume. I welcome debate of the idea, but arguing about meanings badly is pointless. Slatestarcodex wrote a great piece about this whole thing a few years ago. I highly recommend having a read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/24/targeting-meritocracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/24/targeting-meritocracy/ > The intuition behind meritocracy is this: if your life depends on a difficult surgery, would you prefer the hospital hire a surgeon who aced medical school, or a surgeon who had to complete remedial training to barely scrape by with a C-? If you prefer the former, you’re a meritocrat with respect to surgeons. Generalize a little, and you have the argument for being a meritocrat everywhere else.
- meheleventyone 8y ago
  It's muddied because we have to define merit. Take for example your quote from Slatestarcodex. That's purely about qualifications. Surgeon A might be an alcoholic and Surgeon B might have an incredible success rate. Are their qualifications relevant then? Anyway the point of the article and book isn't about merit as just qualifications but about the detrimental impact of rewarding only merit on the stratification of society. Changing the criteria for merit just alters the stratification.

josephg 8y ago

Wow, ok, so it looks like there's a 3rd thing we're discussing: Does meritocracy mean "status based on qualifications" or does meritocracy mean "status based on relevant ability". Reading that article it looks like the term 'meritocracy' was coined to refer to the former, but we didn't have a word for the latter and so the word has been co-opted and muddied. "Meritocracy is a discredited concept" could thus mean any combination of these statements: 1. We don't / can't currently hire based on collage degrees 2. We don't / can't currently hire based on relevant ability 3. We shouldn't try to hire based on collage degrees 4. We shouldn't try to hire based on relevant ability People in this extended comment thread seem to be arguing assuming that these stances are interchangeable, or arguing assuming that there is consensus about which of these points we're arguing and they know what it is. Personally, I believe that we should try our best to hire based on relevant ability. Because I want the most qualified people as coworkers and creators of the products and services I consume. I welcome debate of the idea, but arguing about meanings badly is pointless. Slatestarcodex wrote a great piece about this whole thing a few years ago. I highly recommend having a read: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/24/targeting-meritocracy/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/07/24/targeting-meritocracy/ > The intuition behind meritocracy is this: if your life depends on a difficult surgery, would you prefer the hospital hire a surgeon who aced medical school, or a surgeon who had to complete remedial training to barely scrape by with a C-? If you prefer the former, you’re a meritocrat with respect to surgeons. Generalize a little, and you have the argument for being a meritocrat everywhere else.

meheleventyone 8y ago
It's muddied because we have to define merit. Take for example your quote from Slatestarcodex. That's purely about qualifications. Surgeon A might be an alcoholic and Surgeon B might have an incredible success rate. Are their qualifications relevant then? Anyway the point of the article and book isn't about merit as just qualifications but about the detrimental impact of rewarding only merit on the stratification of society. Changing the criteria for merit just alters the stratification.