4 ms·

Heavily contrasted things such as a janitor and a surgeon are not what is meant a meritocracy. What is usually meant is within an organization of surgeons ranke

Heavily contrasted things such as a janitor and a surgeon are not what is meant a meritocracy. What is usually meant is within an organization of surgeons ranked based on talent, effort, and achievement. Fact is all of those things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some cases luck -- especially the higher up the hierarchy you go as individuals may get credit for efforts of people below them and all of that is attributed to their efforts. The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes easier cases. A good surgeon might work 36 which might be worse for his patients survival than if he works 12 hour shifts. You might get individual surgeons that are very lucky in terms of their success rate, not for any other reason than survivor bias. You might get a team of surgeons where a leader takes credit but it's the juniors that are actually really good at what they do.

onlydeadheroes 8y ago
> Fact is all of those things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some cases luck Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. > The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes easier cases. That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers.
- devoply 8y ago
  > Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. https://cramster-image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V1.png https://cramster-image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V... Normal curve as in measuring IQ. Most people on it are in the middle. The people on the extremes are exceptional. Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ. How do you explain that if there is a real meritocracy. Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful? > That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers. It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock?
  - onlydeadheroes 8y ago
    So your point is that reducing humans to a contentious number (IQ) and sorting them thus should immediately translate into their social/financial positions in reality, and if not then it's all politics and isms? That is laughable. > It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock? Of course. Common practice for some. But then the hard cases are still there and someone needs to take them, right? And those who do, gain respect. That's merit.
  - sebastos 8y ago
    >Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ. Sources please. That's not my understanding of the literature at all. >Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful? People who are extremely meritorious should be extremely successful. High IQ can be a contributing component to being effective, but other aspects would contribute too. You'd naively expect a correlation, though not a strict causal link. Which I believe you do find. [1] http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intellige...
- blastbeat 8y ago
  > People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. Or just people, who experience(d) a highly competitive environment, where excellent performance doesn't imply advancement, and advancement was often preluded by average performance.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    By definition that would not be a meritocratic environment then. It doesn't prove that it's bad but rather the opposite.
towaway1138 8y ago
The fact that merit is often difficult to evaluate doesn't mean that it's not important, crucial even.
perl4ever 8y ago
It's perfectly true that there are many reasons why determining merit can go awry, but the thrust of your argument seems to me to defend making choices that one does not believe are correct. Simply being more conscious of the possibility you are wrong is not a useful way to improve your decision. There was an episode of the Seinfeld sitcom where a character decides to do the opposite of his first impulse, because he's so often wrong. It was funny because that is obviously not a good way to improve decisions in real life where there are nearly infinite ways to do things badly. If you are trying to pass a math class, and you keep getting problems wrong by doing what you think is correct, choosing to do things you think are wrong is not likely to improve your results.

onlydeadheroes 8y ago

> Fact is all of those things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some cases luck Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. > The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes easier cases. That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers.

devoply 8y ago
> Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. https://cramster-image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V1.png https://cramster-image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V... Normal curve as in measuring IQ. Most people on it are in the middle. The people on the extremes are exceptional. Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ. How do you explain that if there is a real meritocracy. Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful? > That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers. It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock?
- onlydeadheroes 8y ago
  So your point is that reducing humans to a contentious number (IQ) and sorting them thus should immediately translate into their social/financial positions in reality, and if not then it's all politics and isms? That is laughable. > It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock? Of course. Common practice for some. But then the hard cases are still there and someone needs to take them, right? And those who do, gain respect. That's merit.
- sebastos 8y ago
  >Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ. Sources please. That's not my understanding of the literature at all. >Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful? People who are extremely meritorious should be extremely successful. High IQ can be a contributing component to being effective, but other aspects would contribute too. You'd naively expect a correlation, though not a strict causal link. Which I believe you do find. [1] http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intelligence-and-socioeconomic-success-A-meta-analytic-review-of-longitudinal-research.pdf http://www.emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Intellige...
blastbeat 8y ago
> People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent. Or just people, who experience(d) a highly competitive environment, where excellent performance doesn't imply advancement, and advancement was often preluded by average performance.
- manigandham 8y ago
  By definition that would not be a meritocratic environment then. It doesn't prove that it's bad but rather the opposite.

towaway1138 8y ago

The fact that merit is often difficult to evaluate doesn't mean that it's not important, crucial even.

perl4ever 8y ago

It's perfectly true that there are many reasons why determining merit can go awry, but the thrust of your argument seems to me to defend making choices that one does not believe are correct. Simply being more conscious of the possibility you are wrong is not a useful way to improve your decision. There was an episode of the Seinfeld sitcom where a character decides to do the opposite of his first impulse, because he's so often wrong. It was funny because that is obviously not a good way to improve decisions in real life where there are nearly infinite ways to do things badly. If you are trying to pass a math class, and you keep getting problems wrong by doing what you think is correct, choosing to do things you think are wrong is not likely to improve your results.