3 ms·

The original quote strikes me as a strawman. To anyone familiar with the science instead of the dogma, it's obvious that genetics have a huge impact on conscien

The original quote strikes me as a strawman. To anyone familiar with the science instead of the dogma, it's obvious that genetics have a huge impact on conscientiousness and IQ. But meritocracy, even in its most hyperbolic idealized form, doesn't strive for everyone getting equal outcomes, but rather outcomes in proportion to their ability. There are certain things that we almost axiomatically consider the property of the individual, and their body is generally one of them (the fairly-universal revulsion at the theoretical idea of "redistribution of sex" rests on this assumption that your body is yours in a way that the product of your labor is not). I'm not aware of anyone arguing for meritocracy encompassing all of society: this would suggest that eg the intellectually disabled shouldn't be taken care of if they can't be economically productive. The application is generally much more limited than resource allocation, to things like production: those who are the best at a job should be the ones doing it (and compensated for doing so), for the benefit of society overall, while a separate belief demands allocation of a baseline of resources to anyone who needs them based solely on their inherent worth as a human. This comment isn't interpreted as a full-throated defense of meritocracy as much as a lament that this gross misunderstanding of the concept has so rapidly become dogma among the stupider (and unfortunately, louder) parts of society.

claudiawerner 8y ago
That's part of what the piece is attacking, though, the notions that society currently does work as a meritocracy. Very few people argue that it should work that way, but the author picks up on the (shockingly common) belief that the world (in particular, the capitalist global market) is a meritocracy. This belief is, in my view, omnipresent even among HNers. A common argument against non-market ways of organizing society is that because the market distributes rewards according to merit (in the sense of "equality of opportunity") then a non-market way of distribution would be unjust. This is simply a re-hash of the "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome" argument, and the concept of equality of opportunity (and its dim-witted cousin meritocracy) has been attacked[0] on many fronts by all kinds of people - let alone its (perceived) implementation in modern life in the market. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#EquOppMer https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#EquOpp...

claudiawerner 8y ago

That's part of what the piece is attacking, though, the notions that society currently does work as a meritocracy. Very few people argue that it should work that way, but the author picks up on the (shockingly common) belief that the world (in particular, the capitalist global market) is a meritocracy. This belief is, in my view, omnipresent even among HNers. A common argument against non-market ways of organizing society is that because the market distributes rewards according to merit (in the sense of "equality of opportunity") then a non-market way of distribution would be unjust. This is simply a re-hash of the "equality of opportunity" versus "equality of outcome" argument, and the concept of equality of opportunity (and its dim-witted cousin meritocracy) has been attacked[0] on many fronts by all kinds of people - let alone its (perceived) implementation in modern life in the market. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#EquOppMer https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equal-opportunity/#EquOpp...