4 ms·
This is the "what about" fallacy or something like that. The article is about meritocracy, which is often overstated. You very rarely hear people claiming that
by eeZah7Ux 8y ago
This is the "what about" fallacy or something like that. The article is about meritocracy, which is often overstated.
You very rarely hear people claiming that "hard work and intelligence" is always ineffective in every context.
- happytoexplain 8y agoI can't tell which part of this post is getting downvoted, but it rings totally true and relevant to me.
- darawk 8y agoThe title of this article is literally "meritocracy doesn't exist". Not "meritocracy is overstated" or "we don't live in a perfect meritocracy".
- claudiawerner 8y agoThat's because meritocracy is not a synonym for the idea that hard work has any value at all. The article isn't saying what you think it's saying if you read it as "hard work doesn't matter at all and luck is all that gets you anywhere in capitalism".
- darawk 8y agoI did read the article. > Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. Yes, he offers a token line at one point that effort and skill can be relevant. However, most of the article makes a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about Gates's success being due purely to luck, and fortuitous circumstances (as though examining the right tail of the distribution is even relevant, of course, he also doesn't even provide any evidence for his claim anyway).