4 ms·

> 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 do

by 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.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    > Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance The you're not talking about the same kind of meritocracy that I am. I explicitly spelled out that my usage of the world meritocracy refers to a system in which people are evaluated based on capability and/or performance. If that's not what you're talking about the we're just talking past each other. > 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. Wealth creates larger opportunity to improve performance. A wealthy marathon runner can take more time off work to train than one that scrapes by financially. But it does not directly factor into the meritocratic process. Dollars in your bank account make it easier to put in the effort to train, but they don't immediately improve your running speed. Nor do connections. Knowing the right people isn't going to make someone a faster runner. At least short of things like colluding with a referee, but if that happens then the system is no longer purely meritocratic.

by mftrhu 8y ago

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.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > Such a system does not evaluate people based on capability or performance The you're not talking about the same kind of meritocracy that I am. I explicitly spelled out that my usage of the world meritocracy refers to a system in which people are evaluated based on capability and/or performance. If that's not what you're talking about the we're just talking past each other. > 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. Wealth creates larger opportunity to improve performance. A wealthy marathon runner can take more time off work to train than one that scrapes by financially. But it does not directly factor into the meritocratic process. Dollars in your bank account make it easier to put in the effort to train, but they don't immediately improve your running speed. Nor do connections. Knowing the right people isn't going to make someone a faster runner. At least short of things like colluding with a referee, but if that happens then the system is no longer purely meritocratic.