5 ms·
The argument that it is morally wrong seems to hinge on the argument that meritocracy promotes selfishness. However, I find the examples used to be problematic.
by ewzimm 8y ago
The argument that it is morally wrong seems to hinge on the argument that meritocracy promotes selfishness. However, I find the examples used to be problematic. It's shown that when people are led to believe that their success in a game is based on their skill, they are less likely to support redistributing the rewards. This is an example of selfishness. However, what about all the other participants in the game? If they believe that they lost because of someone else's skill, are they less likely to expect redistribution of rewards? If this is the case, it could be shown that meritocracy promotes selfishness in the person at the top but selflessness in everyone else, and therefore a net gain in selflessness in society.
As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today.
The other subject discussed is people's perception of effort and skill in success. Most people seem to think that it's an important factor. But isn't this true even if luck and circumstance are large factors as well? It's a well known fact that people who win lotteries often lose their money and end up less happy than they expect. Anyone can be given the world and waste it. It's not wrong to believe that sustained success requires both effort and strong external support.
Therefore, what I learned from this article is that most people want to live in a meritocracy, and I suspect that most people are happier with their lack of success and reward if they believe that their cicrumstances are somewhat under their control and there exists opportunity to better themselves through effort. We should work toward a more meritocratic world so that more people can realize these ambitions.
- inertiatic 8y ago>As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today. You mean, the better out of those 2 options. There are more than the 2 options you present though, so the fact that it is ideal doesn't follow. Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random but evenly distributed.
- ewzimm 8y agoI used those two examples because they were the ones presented in the article, luck vs merit. But you're right that there are many more options for distribution. Whether people would prefer opportunities for success with merit without rewards or without certain rewards like financial compensation if they would receive more recognition instead is an interesting line of inquiry. If we can establish that people overall prefer a merit-based rather than a luck-based success system, it opens up opportunities to figure out what kinds of things people value in return for their success. I wonder if people would even prefer fewer rewards for success if that success could be made more merit-based as a result. Maybe companies should reduce salaries and redirect that money toward more robust systems to recognize skill and merit in employees. It would make an interesting experiment. Would you take, for example, a 10% pay cut if in exchange you and everyone else at your job were given weekly evaluations with opportunities for advancement, with at least one person being given more responsibilities with no pay raise and the bottom earners gaining a raise as a result of increased efficiency and reduced pay for the top earners? That might not sound like a great deal, but maybe it could be crafted in a way to be appealing to people.
- Recurecur 8y ago"Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random but evenly distributed." Some would also prefer the option of having it rain $100 bills every morning...however wildly unrealistic that might be.
- apacheCamel 8y agoI think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an example, whenever I play a video game with my friends, they are usually a lot better than I am. I play probably just as much as them but they are inherently better. I don't think either of us worked harder, we all play roughly the same games and all grew up playing together. I am just not as good at them. Was this me not working as hard/harder as them or was it them being lucky and they were born good at those particular skills? I feel like my skill cap at the games we play are much lower than them and they usually rank much higher than me even though we put in the same amount of hours. Personally, I would say it is luck.
- ewzimm 8y agoYou're absolutely right that this is the way the article presents it, but I'm not so sure that it's a useful definition of luck. It really just seems to extend the definition of luck to include everything and makes the argument a tautology. Everything is luck-based because everything is luck. I don't think anyone who values people's aptitude diminishes their opinion of that aptitude because it requires a certain genetic profile. In things like athletics, it's even emphasized. This argument seems to create a strawman version of merit which means some kind of inner quality gained through pure willpower with no external influences from the world whatsoever. This might have some meaning in a certain kind of religious thinking which interprets the world as a reflection of a higher spiritual reality, but if we're confining our definitions to tangible things, it's an incomprehensible idea.