5 ms·

There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework in t

There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework in that order: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/08/10/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/... Asians spend twice as much time on homework as compared to Whites, and about three times as compared to Blacks. Kids of high income families spend more time working on homework than low income kids. So the fact that Asians comprise the student body proportionally larger than Whites, and whites more than Blacks is evidence that hard work pays off. I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others. Granted many of you are probably thinking that the fact that meritocracy doesn't correct for these things makes it inherently unfair, and many are probably thinking that the notion that our processes to allocate opportunitiea should correct for things like disparate time spent on study is itself an act of unfairness. And there's no one right answer to this. This is a kind of question where there is no answer, but rather society continuously develops and evolves a concensus about the right approach.

Data_Junkie 8y ago
Not true. We can see that there is no meritocracy. It's not true. No lack of nuance involved, he who has eyes to see let him see. There is nothing people are more blind to than their own advantages.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Apologies if I'm not recognizing some sort of sarcasm, but saying "he who had eyes to see let him see" and "people are blind to their own advantages" cuts both ways in this debate. Whites are underrepresented at Yale, for example. Is it fair for them to shut down talks about affirmative action because they are underrepresented, and thus they are entitled to dismiss the arguments of others because "he who had eyes to see let him see"? That statement really rubs me the wrong way. In order to form the concensus that pleases society as much as possible (or put more cynically, the concensus that minimizes social displeasure) we need to hear how every group sees the situation. "He who had eyes let him see" is functionally not much different from saying "those who disagree with me shut up". Again, apologies if I'm not seeing sarcasm or reductio ad absurdum. It's hard to convey over text comments.
  - Data_Junkie 8y ago
    It rubs you the wrong way because you don't understand it. It is blatantly obvious, but some people do not have the ability to see it. Those who have eyes to see see it, no matter who lies. Nobody is telling anybody to shut up, just that it is obvious that there is no meritocracy, even if you cannot see that truth.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      There is no meritocracy? So if we compare a kid spends all of his or her childhood doing nothing productive and slacking off in school, a kid that studies rigorously and is engaged in productive activities then you'd expect absolutely zero difference in success between the two in a non-meritocratic system. Let's put that theory to the test. Let's see if college admissions are, at least in part, meritocratic. College admissions depends highly on SAT scores and GPAs, these are probably one of the two strongest factors. Even just spending 20 hours following along with free videos is associated with a >100 point gain on SAT scores [1]. Spending more time on studying does increase grades on average [2]. Test scores and grades are some of the primary factors that determine, for example, college admissions. So, yes there is empirical evidence to suggest that college admissions do depend on several meritocratic factors. Granted you're right that it's not completely a meritocracy. Factors outside of the applicant's control like race, gender, and family background are taken into account. An Asian student and a Black student are going to be judged very differently if they have the same scores - that is at least one instance where the system is not genuine meritocracy. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/09/can-coaching-truly-boost-sat-scores-for-years-the-college-board-said-no-now-it-says-yes/?utm_term=.fd8cf3c3c57d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/... 2. https://news.osu.edu/the-secret-to-academic-success-hours----and-hours----of-study/ https://news.osu.edu/the-secret-to-academic-success-hours---...
      - Data_Junkie 8y ago
        We have different ideas what a meritocracy is. You believe any examples ( as you've given) are evidence of a meritocracy. That's not true. That's like saying it's a democracy if we elect a class leader. We have different standards.
circlefavshape 8y ago
Two questions arise from this. First - in your homework paragraph, you're associating hard work with merit. It's very common - X deserves more than Y because X worked harder. Why do we consider work to be a virtue? And second - even if we have a pure measure of merit we could all agree on, how the fruits of everyone's labours are divided is still debatable. How much should the best/average/worst get compared to each other?
- manfredo 8y ago
  Good point, hard work in and of itself does not equate to better results in meritocracy. Meritocracy sorts people based on performance, not hard work. But hard work is generally necessary to improve performance. * If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? Sure, maybe Alice has a disability, or maybe Candice is some running demigod. But if I had to put money on it I'd bet on Alice. * If half the class studies for 21 hours a week and the other studiss for 7 the which would you bet is going to have the higher class average? I can speak firsthand to the fact that there will still be big variance. Some subjects can't naturally to me, others were like a brick wall. But chances are the students putting in 3x the study will do better. So pointing out that groups that work harder get ahead is decent evidence that meritocracy does function. Especially when the groups in question are groups like Asians and Jewish people in America that were subject to significant prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Meritocracy can enable groups to overcome prejudice. Granted there are definitely groups not well served by meritocracy. Groups that don't have as much family support, and don't have a strong cultural emphasis on education (I realize this last point does mirror racial sterotyoes but I did post evidence to show truth behind it) are at a big disadvantage. Any yes, it's probably worth compromising pure meritocracy to even the playing field to a degree. Distribution of the fruits of labor is a valuable discussion, but it is tangential to the discussion of meritocracy. There will be varing distributions of wealth even if we wholly reject meritocracy.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? If Caleb and Makayla study 30 hours a week for a year for SATs suffering parental apathy, lack of means, working an evening job, a bad school district, and Emma and John study 20 hours a week for a year, being primed from birth for college, with understanding parents, a nice weekly allowance, and a good school district, which would you bet is going to have the higher SAT average? https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-penci...
mftrhu 8y ago
> I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others. I'm sorry? How can you, in the same breath, talk about meritocracy - a pure meritocracy, at that, which should only evaluate people based on their own merits - while describing something that doesn't even addresses "the fact not everyone starts with the same resources"? The resources people start with - their location, their family, their upbringing - are not their own merit.
- manfredo 8y ago
  It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task. A marathon is a pure meritocracy, short of any dirty shenanigans. You go from point A to point B, the faster the better. Are marathons fair? Even if we exclude differences like sex and physical disabilities some are going to have a better aptitude for running. Some are going to lead lives that give them a lot more free time to spend on training. Some may be professionals that spend most of their working hours training. That said, if someone genuinely suggests that handicaps be given in the Olympics or other high profile events to counteract these favors people are going to laugh at such a notion. Things like college admissions isn't exactly the same as a marathon. But many, probably most, agree with the general principle that students that work harder do better and students that do better get stronger chances of being admitted. Allocation of opportunities based on capability and performance has its flaws - and I did suggest that they should be corrected - but it is one of the most accepted way of overcoming clan-based thinking and is accepted by many cultures and societies.
  - mftrhu 8y ago
    > It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task. You were not talking about a "meritocracy", which would already be a problem considering that it doesn't hinge on merit[1], but a "pure meritocracy". If you use "pure meritocracy" to refer to a system where neither pure performance nor merit are used to rank people, and call it "too fair", then you are twisting the meaning of the words "meritocracy" and "fairness" into something unrecognizable. Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance. Such a system certainly does not evaluate people based solely on their merits. Such a system cannot be called meritocratic, or fair. To do so is ridiculous. [1] Because amongst the "initial resources" you speak of there are also wealth and connections, which do not improve "capability or performance in some task", which only improve the chances of someone obtaining and keeping the job.
coldtea 8y ago
>There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework in that order The main problem with meritocracy (or its lack thereof) is not about those working hard not getting compensated accordingly. It is about what background, encouragement, financial support, and chances each individual had, from baby to adult, to work hard on their homework/business ideas/development/etc -- and what powers they have against them as well (e.g. racist HR profiling). You'll find that these ethnic groups had that kind of (statistical average) support (or lack thereof) in a same order as their "working harder on their homework".
- manigandham 8y ago
  And yet individuals are not their group identities which is why a person can go beyond and below the average through their own effort and choices.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    And yet, when trying to correct systemic wrongs, what some individuals can and cannot do is irrelevant. If you have a class of people (let's call them W) playing life in easy mode, and another class (let's call them B) playing life in hard more, then the fact that some people in class B still finish the game is irrelevant. Meritocracy is not about "see, still a person from B class can win". It's about all players playing at the same difficulty level. So, not only the fact that an individual can go "beyond and below the average through their own effort and choices" is irrelevant, when discussing meritocracy, but a society would still be meritocratic even if no B ever was able to win the game and W had all the top scores -- as long as B and W played the game at the same difficulty.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      It's not irrelevant. You just see people as groups which is unfortunate. What you're arguing for is equality of outcome which is impossible. There are billions of factors in a person's life that are constantly changing and you cannot control for them all, or even a small portion. And you definitely can't think of them as groups to get there. Taking away individuality is the worst thing you can do to a person.

Data_Junkie 8y ago

Not true. We can see that there is no meritocracy. It's not true. No lack of nuance involved, he who has eyes to see let him see. There is nothing people are more blind to than their own advantages.

manfredo 8y ago
Apologies if I'm not recognizing some sort of sarcasm, but saying "he who had eyes to see let him see" and "people are blind to their own advantages" cuts both ways in this debate. Whites are underrepresented at Yale, for example. Is it fair for them to shut down talks about affirmative action because they are underrepresented, and thus they are entitled to dismiss the arguments of others because "he who had eyes to see let him see"? That statement really rubs me the wrong way. In order to form the concensus that pleases society as much as possible (or put more cynically, the concensus that minimizes social displeasure) we need to hear how every group sees the situation. "He who had eyes let him see" is functionally not much different from saying "those who disagree with me shut up". Again, apologies if I'm not seeing sarcasm or reductio ad absurdum. It's hard to convey over text comments.
- Data_Junkie 8y ago
  It rubs you the wrong way because you don't understand it. It is blatantly obvious, but some people do not have the ability to see it. Those who have eyes to see see it, no matter who lies. Nobody is telling anybody to shut up, just that it is obvious that there is no meritocracy, even if you cannot see that truth.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    There is no meritocracy? So if we compare a kid spends all of his or her childhood doing nothing productive and slacking off in school, a kid that studies rigorously and is engaged in productive activities then you'd expect absolutely zero difference in success between the two in a non-meritocratic system. Let's put that theory to the test. Let's see if college admissions are, at least in part, meritocratic. College admissions depends highly on SAT scores and GPAs, these are probably one of the two strongest factors. Even just spending 20 hours following along with free videos is associated with a >100 point gain on SAT scores [1]. Spending more time on studying does increase grades on average [2]. Test scores and grades are some of the primary factors that determine, for example, college admissions. So, yes there is empirical evidence to suggest that college admissions do depend on several meritocratic factors. Granted you're right that it's not completely a meritocracy. Factors outside of the applicant's control like race, gender, and family background are taken into account. An Asian student and a Black student are going to be judged very differently if they have the same scores - that is at least one instance where the system is not genuine meritocracy. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/09/can-coaching-truly-boost-sat-scores-for-years-the-college-board-said-no-now-it-says-yes/?utm_term=.fd8cf3c3c57d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/05/... 2. https://news.osu.edu/the-secret-to-academic-success-hours----and-hours----of-study/ https://news.osu.edu/the-secret-to-academic-success-hours---...
    - Data_Junkie 8y ago
      We have different ideas what a meritocracy is. You believe any examples ( as you've given) are evidence of a meritocracy. That's not true. That's like saying it's a democracy if we elect a class leader. We have different standards.

circlefavshape 8y ago

Two questions arise from this. First - in your homework paragraph, you're associating hard work with merit. It's very common - X deserves more than Y because X worked harder. Why do we consider work to be a virtue? And second - even if we have a pure measure of merit we could all agree on, how the fruits of everyone's labours are divided is still debatable. How much should the best/average/worst get compared to each other?

manfredo 8y ago
Good point, hard work in and of itself does not equate to better results in meritocracy. Meritocracy sorts people based on performance, not hard work. But hard work is generally necessary to improve performance. * If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? Sure, maybe Alice has a disability, or maybe Candice is some running demigod. But if I had to put money on it I'd bet on Alice. * If half the class studies for 21 hours a week and the other studiss for 7 the which would you bet is going to have the higher class average? I can speak firsthand to the fact that there will still be big variance. Some subjects can't naturally to me, others were like a brick wall. But chances are the students putting in 3x the study will do better. So pointing out that groups that work harder get ahead is decent evidence that meritocracy does function. Especially when the groups in question are groups like Asians and Jewish people in America that were subject to significant prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Meritocracy can enable groups to overcome prejudice. Granted there are definitely groups not well served by meritocracy. Groups that don't have as much family support, and don't have a strong cultural emphasis on education (I realize this last point does mirror racial sterotyoes but I did post evidence to show truth behind it) are at a big disadvantage. Any yes, it's probably worth compromising pure meritocracy to even the playing field to a degree. Distribution of the fruits of labor is a valuable discussion, but it is tangential to the discussion of meritocracy. There will be varing distributions of wealth even if we wholly reject meritocracy.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? If Caleb and Makayla study 30 hours a week for a year for SATs suffering parental apathy, lack of means, working an evening job, a bad school district, and Emma and John study 20 hours a week for a year, being primed from birth for college, with understanding parents, a nice weekly allowance, and a good school district, which would you bet is going to have the higher SAT average? https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-penci...

mftrhu 8y ago

> I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is too fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like education than others. I'm sorry? How can you, in the same breath, talk about meritocracy - a pure meritocracy, at that, which should only evaluate people based on their own merits - while describing something that doesn't even addresses "the fact not everyone starts with the same resources"? The resources people start with - their location, their family, their upbringing - are not their own merit.

manfredo 8y ago
It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task. A marathon is a pure meritocracy, short of any dirty shenanigans. You go from point A to point B, the faster the better. Are marathons fair? Even if we exclude differences like sex and physical disabilities some are going to have a better aptitude for running. Some are going to lead lives that give them a lot more free time to spend on training. Some may be professionals that spend most of their working hours training. That said, if someone genuinely suggests that handicaps be given in the Olympics or other high profile events to counteract these favors people are going to laugh at such a notion. Things like college admissions isn't exactly the same as a marathon. But many, probably most, agree with the general principle that students that work harder do better and students that do better get stronger chances of being admitted. Allocation of opportunities based on capability and performance has its flaws - and I did suggest that they should be corrected - but it is one of the most accepted way of overcoming clan-based thinking and is accepted by many cultures and societies.
- mftrhu 8y ago
  > It seems to me you're indexing too heavily on the "merit" in meritocracy. When most people, myself included, talk about meritocracy they are simply referring to systems where people are ranked based on capability or performance in some task. You were not talking about a "meritocracy", which would already be a problem considering that it doesn't hinge on merit[1], but a "pure meritocracy". If you use "pure meritocracy" to refer to a system where neither pure performance nor merit are used to rank people, and call it "too fair", then you are twisting the meaning of the words "meritocracy" and "fairness" into something unrecognizable. Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance. Such a system certainly does not evaluate people based solely on their merits. Such a system cannot be called meritocratic, or fair. To do so is ridiculous. [1] Because amongst the "initial resources" you speak of there are also wealth and connections, which do not improve "capability or performance in some task", which only improve the chances of someone obtaining and keeping the job.

coldtea 8y ago

>There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework in that order The main problem with meritocracy (or its lack thereof) is not about those working hard not getting compensated accordingly. It is about what background, encouragement, financial support, and chances each individual had, from baby to adult, to work hard on their homework/business ideas/development/etc -- and what powers they have against them as well (e.g. racist HR profiling). You'll find that these ethnic groups had that kind of (statistical average) support (or lack thereof) in a same order as their "working harder on their homework".

manigandham 8y ago
And yet individuals are not their group identities which is why a person can go beyond and below the average through their own effort and choices.
- coldtea 8y ago
  And yet, when trying to correct systemic wrongs, what some individuals can and cannot do is irrelevant. If you have a class of people (let's call them W) playing life in easy mode, and another class (let's call them B) playing life in hard more, then the fact that some people in class B still finish the game is irrelevant. Meritocracy is not about "see, still a person from B class can win". It's about all players playing at the same difficulty level. So, not only the fact that an individual can go "beyond and below the average through their own effort and choices" is irrelevant, when discussing meritocracy, but a society would still be meritocratic even if no B ever was able to win the game and W had all the top scores -- as long as B and W played the game at the same difficulty.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    It's not irrelevant. You just see people as groups which is unfortunate. What you're arguing for is equality of outcome which is impossible. There are billions of factors in a person's life that are constantly changing and you cannot control for them all, or even a small portion. And you definitely can't think of them as groups to get there. Taking away individuality is the worst thing you can do to a person.