3 ms·

Rejecting meritocracy entirely as an ideal to even strive for is pure poison. How could a society possibly function if it doesn't elevate competence above inco

Rejecting meritocracy entirely as an ideal to even strive for is pure poison. How could a society possibly function if it doesn't elevate competence above incompetence and expertise above charlatanism? I think we're going to find out!

deepsun 6y ago
Previously it was solved by wars, those who are more competent conquered those who are less. And once they became less meritocratic themselves were conquered by others.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  Oh, it still happens that way. And there are more types of war than just one country going against another. There’s te culture war and the war against drugs. Some say that business is war.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
I think one of the reasons smarter folks tend to fall into manichean thinking on luck vs. talent is that, as the level of success grows, luck plays a larger and larger role. So it is an emotionally powerful fact for people competing at the higher end of the success curve. The mistake is generalizing this proportionality across the entire society and, thus, giving too much weight to luck and not enough to merit. Discussing luck in the case of billionaires makes a lot of sense. Discussing luck in the case of a successful franchisee in town makes less sense.
- gotoeleven 6y ago
  Success comes from merit, luck, and corruption in some proportion. In successful countries merit is a larger portion than in unsuccessful countries. When people say the entire concept of merit is %PEJORATIVE BUZZWORD% so we should stop striving for it what they are really saying is they want success to be allocated by luck and corruption and they think the corruption will benefit them.
raincom 6y ago
Elevating incompetence over competence, as a policy, has been tested for at least 75 years in some Asian country. One can see the results in the bureaucracy, the courts, the police, the education system, etc. of that country today; it is catastrophic. Of course, Amartya Sen who writes books on rationality defends the irrationality of such a policy in that country. I am not naming the country or the policy for 'sensitive' reasons.

deepsun 6y ago

Previously it was solved by wars, those who are more competent conquered those who are less. And once they became less meritocratic themselves were conquered by others.

wayneftw 6y ago
Oh, it still happens that way. And there are more types of war than just one country going against another. There’s te culture war and the war against drugs. Some say that business is war.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

I think one of the reasons smarter folks tend to fall into manichean thinking on luck vs. talent is that, as the level of success grows, luck plays a larger and larger role. So it is an emotionally powerful fact for people competing at the higher end of the success curve. The mistake is generalizing this proportionality across the entire society and, thus, giving too much weight to luck and not enough to merit. Discussing luck in the case of billionaires makes a lot of sense. Discussing luck in the case of a successful franchisee in town makes less sense.

gotoeleven 6y ago
Success comes from merit, luck, and corruption in some proportion. In successful countries merit is a larger portion than in unsuccessful countries. When people say the entire concept of merit is %PEJORATIVE BUZZWORD% so we should stop striving for it what they are really saying is they want success to be allocated by luck and corruption and they think the corruption will benefit them.

raincom 6y ago

Elevating incompetence over competence, as a policy, has been tested for at least 75 years in some Asian country. One can see the results in the bureaucracy, the courts, the police, the education system, etc. of that country today; it is catastrophic. Of course, Amartya Sen who writes books on rationality defends the irrationality of such a policy in that country. I am not naming the country or the policy for 'sensitive' reasons.