4 ms·

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 mo

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.

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.