3 ms·

I don't believe in the idea of a true meritocracy because not only does every system have different things to merit and because often we can't define what those

by Grimm1 6y ago

I don't believe in the idea of a true meritocracy because not only does every system have different things to merit and because often we can't define what those merits should be. Though as someone stated in another comment this isn't all or nothing anyway and the concept of merit can and has been useful at various levels. That said I do believe that making things more equal inherently requires you to re-evaluate how you value people and makes you lean towards things of substance from a person (though what is of substance is still abstract and varied) and less the superficial ques we very very heavily rely on now such as wealth status, school, profession etc etc. Edit: Cleaned up the first paragraph I had rolled two separate thoughts into one run on.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
'Merit' is to be defined in context. For example in the job market one would want people to be hired on merit, i.e. based on their qualifications and skills to perform the job, not based on who they know, race, gender, etc. In the Olympic Games, merit is how one athlete compares to the others in a fair race. This is transparent and fair, and the best we can hope for.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  Sure and I think I said this in another comment somewhere in the thread, merit is probably fine for smaller systems with homogeneous groups. I think both of those qualify. Even then what I look for in an employee is probably different than what you look for so even our ideas of what constitutes a merit are different.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Merit is fine for society at large, and again we haven't come up with something fairer and more equal while valueing individual freedoms at the same time. It has also the benefit of ensuring a minimum of competence for people in public office and expert positions.
    - Grimm1 6y ago
      I just don't agree there is some objective standard of merit because there isn't, its a subjective concept. That leads to issues because not everyone's system is the same arguing otherwise would be blatantly false.

by Grimm1 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

'Merit' is to be defined in context. For example in the job market one would want people to be hired on merit, i.e. based on their qualifications and skills to perform the job, not based on who they know, race, gender, etc. In the Olympic Games, merit is how one athlete compares to the others in a fair race. This is transparent and fair, and the best we can hope for.

Grimm1 6y ago
Sure and I think I said this in another comment somewhere in the thread, merit is probably fine for smaller systems with homogeneous groups. I think both of those qualify. Even then what I look for in an employee is probably different than what you look for so even our ideas of what constitutes a merit are different.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Merit is fine for society at large, and again we haven't come up with something fairer and more equal while valueing individual freedoms at the same time. It has also the benefit of ensuring a minimum of competence for people in public office and expert positions.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    I just don't agree there is some objective standard of merit because there isn't, its a subjective concept. That leads to issues because not everyone's system is the same arguing otherwise would be blatantly false.