3 ms·

The word may be a recent(-ish) coinage, but the principle certainly has cropped up in various societies throughout history[1], probably the Chinese system of ex

The word may be a recent(-ish) coinage, but the principle certainly has cropped up in various societies throughout history[1], probably the Chinese system of examinations to appoint bureaucrats being the most famous. It strikes me as interesting that lots of measures seem to be "IQ plus effort" - practically speaking, though I generally want people to be more intelligent, I primarily want them to be good at what they do. So for me a system that rewards people for performance makes the most sense - smart but ineffectual, lazy, or crooked are all possible (even common), but hardly meritorious... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Definitions

dahart 7y ago
I’m currently interviewing people for jobs, and reflecting on what this conversation means to me. Of course I’m trying to hire the most talented people from the group. Like, no question that I’m seeking people who are good at what they do. And we try to actively filter people who are ineffectual, lazy, or crooked. So merit is essentially what I’m seeking. But I have no doubt that the people I interview & the ones we choose to hire are, on average, privileged. It would not surprise me much if I looked back on all my interview scores ever and found a high correlation between my rating and the candidate’s family income. I think I can see how my own hiring according to merit is a good thing for my company, but potentially bad for society - if what we want is real equality of opportunity.