5 ms·
If you're fine with a system that rewards those who grew up in middle class and above families and punishes those that don't then I disagree but okay. But don't
by frgtpsswrdlame 6y ago
If you're fine with a system that rewards those who grew up in middle class and above families and punishes those that don't then I disagree but okay. But don't call that a system based on merit when you're quite transparently admitting it's not.
Meritocracies are an inhuman system which, to the extent they can be realized, only happen incidentally. How many of the relatively well to do people on this board subvert the meritocracy every day by giving their children every little advantage that tons of families just simply never could give their children. What would it take to make a meritocracy work? Ironically it would take a great flattening. But precisely because they believe in gain from advantage, the biggest proponents of meritocracy can never argue for the one thing that would actually make their system work. So instead we end up in this weird limbo where merit is actually subverted over and over again by a highly stratified social/economic makeup that begins in childhood and has strong persistence throughout life. "Actual" meritocracy may arise from time to time as a result of society spanning tragedy but will also quickly disappear and that doesn't exactly seem like the type of thing we should be aiming for anyways.
- dahfizz 6y agoThey address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. The whole point of a meritocracy is to be the best you can. Giving every advantage to your children that you can afford is the whole point of meritocracy. It's not "fair" but it produces peak performance, like the article says
- discreteevent 6y agoAgreed and overall the article is very good. It is worth emphasising though that it is unfair and that environment plays a huge role in many people's success. At least some of the aristocrats knew that they were lucky and as a result had some kind of noblesse oblige. Some people at the top of the meritocracy think that because they got there on merit then they deserve as much as they can get.
- sjg007 6y agoIronically this is not meritocracy.
- dahfizz 6y agoFrom Merriam Webster: a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit. A meritocracy only cares about demonstrated ability. If the kids next door could afford a better tutor, they probably have a greater demonstrated ability than you. They would still succeed under their own merit.
- frgtpsswrdlame 6y ago>They address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. If there's no equalizing basis then you can't say it's about merit. Was feudalism actually about merit? After all who's more capable of being the king than his own son? >The whole point of a meritocracy is to be the best you can. I agree but with a very strong emphasis on the "you." >Giving every advantage to your children that you can afford is the whole point of meritocracy. Just a second ago you were saying it was about advancing yourself. Now it's about advancing your bloodline, those are two different things. >It's not "fair" but it produces peak performance, like the article says There's no reason to believe it produces peak performance. Even if you're a big believer in individuals advancing themselves in efficient markets and all that what you actually want is very liquid markets. If certain jobs become chock full of rich kids because they're the only ones who can receive all the training then that's very strong evidence of inefficiency and thus big evidence that we are not receiving "peak performance."
- sjg007 6y agoSo.... "Be Best" ???