5 ms·

Sure it is, GP is just pointing out that attaining that skill is not a thing of equal opportunity. All one is guaranteed in a meritocracy is that the most skil

by d4mi3n 7y ago

Sure it is, GP is just pointing out that attaining that skill is not a thing of equal opportunity. All one is guaranteed in a meritocracy is that the most skilled person available reaps the benefit. However, a pure meritocracy does not guarantee who and how those skills are developed. IIRC this is one of the big criticisms of meritocracy as a form of governance—a system of skilled individuals is not necessarily a fair one.

chmod775 7y ago
In a meritocracy the most talented, hardworking child would have received the best training and equipment, not the richest one. A pure meritocracy doesn't even guarantee that a child could be wealthy without having talent. As soon as someone with wealth but without merit is able to obtain economic goods (such as the highest quality training and equipment) that are not obtainable by those with merit, whatever system you have ceases to be a pure meritocracy. It's not a meritocracy.
- np_tedious 7y ago
  It's eventually meritocratic, but the part that considers solely merit starts late enough that some have had far more opportunity to develop their talents than others
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    It's worse than that. The system is actively destructive of talent. Someone with talent from an average background is going to be "out-merited" by someone with average talent from a privileged background - because the privileged person will have the resources to develop their skill, while the other person won't. In fact not only will they not have the resources, they'll have extra costs - in the form of forced time spent working away from music to pay the bills, college debt, and so on. And of course limited access to physical and social benefits - good instruments, lessons, practice facilities, and ultimately choice of college and the resulting class network. Apart from the obvious financial implications, those distractions will saddle the victim with a huge extra cognitive load. A lot of people will be crushed by it, no matter how talented they are.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Please remember that work, by definition, has a negative utility. We only do work for its side effects. And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit. It can command respect, though, and indicate a future growth potential. A child is never wealthy; the child's family may be. Being born into a wealthy family is a privilege. I child who doesn't waste that privilege, and makes the best of the somehow elevated starting position, deserves as much respect as a hard-working child that achieves impressive results starting from a worse position. It's pretty easy to just coast and achieve nothing if your parents already give you everything.
  - chmod775 7y ago
    > And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit The usual textboook definition of merit in the context of a meritocracy is "talent, effort, and achievement". > A child is never wealthy; That's just somewhat true in our particular flavor of society, and even there children may be wealthy independently of their caretakers. In a meritocracy where merit is essentially equivalent to wealth or currency, a child may very well be considered wealthy just on its own.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Meritocracy is a spectrum really. Essentially if it looks only at current merit regardless of the circumstances it is still technically meritocratic even if it is unfair. If only the best fighters can be knights but those raised in wealth have a vast advantage but any peasant outliers can become one it is more meritocratic than one which only allows those of noble birth but selects from canidates within. The fact the nobles compete is the only thing which gives a scintilla of meritocracy. A system of commissions for officers based entirely on wealth would ironically be less meritocratic than the nobles only pool because it doesn't factor merit in at all. The adhectives eglataran and meritocratic are technically two separate aspects. Although they are synergistic in that the aspects are stronger together than apart. Equal opportunity of resources would be more meritocratic than a "pure" meritocracy and more meritocracy undermines "gatekeepers" which may emerge among eglatarans where merit isn't what determines advancement.
amelius 7y ago
Yes, we need a fair-o-cracy, but nobody so far invented the rules for it.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Well, the rules are simple: Nothing besides talent should ensure you get better music schools, training opportunities, teachers, or more time to practice.
  - sverige 7y ago
    Working that out in a practical way is not simple, though. There's the rub.
  - KC8ZKF 7y ago
    Is it fair to some are born with more talent than others? Is it fair that a 5’8” hard working talented basketball player will never be as successful as Lebron James?
    - wallflower 7y ago
      Not a fair comparison. Most NBA players will fall short to Lebron James because of his brain. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-greatest-weapon-brain https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-gr...
    - coldtea 7y ago
      If it's beside human intervention, then yes, it's humanly fair. The universe might not be fair though, but I'd say the universe does not give a f...
    - Spooky23 7y ago
      Looking at the pinnacle of performance is distracting. I coach little league. Every year I see kids with amazing talent drop out or not scratch the surface of potential due to a variety of factors, most of which boils down to lack of time.
  - 7y ago
sverige 7y ago
Then there's the example of Florence Foster Jenkins, who gives the lie to both the idea that wealthy people are going to succeed artistically, and that wealthy people (viz., her audience at the time) have superior taste. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcs9yJjVecs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcs9yJjVecs

by d4mi3n 7y ago

chmod775 7y ago

In a meritocracy the most talented, hardworking child would have received the best training and equipment, not the richest one. A pure meritocracy doesn't even guarantee that a child could be wealthy without having talent. As soon as someone with wealth but without merit is able to obtain economic goods (such as the highest quality training and equipment) that are not obtainable by those with merit, whatever system you have ceases to be a pure meritocracy. It's not a meritocracy.

np_tedious 7y ago
It's eventually meritocratic, but the part that considers solely merit starts late enough that some have had far more opportunity to develop their talents than others
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  It's worse than that. The system is actively destructive of talent. Someone with talent from an average background is going to be "out-merited" by someone with average talent from a privileged background - because the privileged person will have the resources to develop their skill, while the other person won't. In fact not only will they not have the resources, they'll have extra costs - in the form of forced time spent working away from music to pay the bills, college debt, and so on. And of course limited access to physical and social benefits - good instruments, lessons, practice facilities, and ultimately choice of college and the resulting class network. Apart from the obvious financial implications, those distractions will saddle the victim with a huge extra cognitive load. A lot of people will be crushed by it, no matter how talented they are.
nine_k 7y ago
Please remember that work, by definition, has a negative utility. We only do work for its side effects. And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit. It can command respect, though, and indicate a future growth potential. A child is never wealthy; the child's family may be. Being born into a wealthy family is a privilege. I child who doesn't waste that privilege, and makes the best of the somehow elevated starting position, deserves as much respect as a hard-working child that achieves impressive results starting from a worse position. It's pretty easy to just coast and achieve nothing if your parents already give you everything.
- chmod775 7y ago
  > And the merit here is producing great music; working hard is not a merit The usual textboook definition of merit in the context of a meritocracy is "talent, effort, and achievement". > A child is never wealthy; That's just somewhat true in our particular flavor of society, and even there children may be wealthy independently of their caretakers. In a meritocracy where merit is essentially equivalent to wealth or currency, a child may very well be considered wealthy just on its own.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Meritocracy is a spectrum really. Essentially if it looks only at current merit regardless of the circumstances it is still technically meritocratic even if it is unfair. If only the best fighters can be knights but those raised in wealth have a vast advantage but any peasant outliers can become one it is more meritocratic than one which only allows those of noble birth but selects from canidates within. The fact the nobles compete is the only thing which gives a scintilla of meritocracy. A system of commissions for officers based entirely on wealth would ironically be less meritocratic than the nobles only pool because it doesn't factor merit in at all. The adhectives eglataran and meritocratic are technically two separate aspects. Although they are synergistic in that the aspects are stronger together than apart. Equal opportunity of resources would be more meritocratic than a "pure" meritocracy and more meritocracy undermines "gatekeepers" which may emerge among eglatarans where merit isn't what determines advancement.

amelius 7y ago

Yes, we need a fair-o-cracy, but nobody so far invented the rules for it.

coldtea 7y ago
Well, the rules are simple: Nothing besides talent should ensure you get better music schools, training opportunities, teachers, or more time to practice.
- sverige 7y ago
  Working that out in a practical way is not simple, though. There's the rub.
- KC8ZKF 7y ago
  Is it fair to some are born with more talent than others? Is it fair that a 5’8” hard working talented basketball player will never be as successful as Lebron James?
  - wallflower 7y ago
    Not a fair comparison. Most NBA players will fall short to Lebron James because of his brain. https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-greatest-weapon-brain https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/11067098/lebron-james-gr...
  - coldtea 7y ago
    If it's beside human intervention, then yes, it's humanly fair. The universe might not be fair though, but I'd say the universe does not give a f...
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    Looking at the pinnacle of performance is distracting. I coach little league. Every year I see kids with amazing talent drop out or not scratch the surface of potential due to a variety of factors, most of which boils down to lack of time.
- 7y ago

sverige 7y ago

Then there's the example of Florence Foster Jenkins, who gives the lie to both the idea that wealthy people are going to succeed artistically, and that wealthy people (viz., her audience at the time) have superior taste. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcs9yJjVecs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hcs9yJjVecs