4 ms·

The issue of meritocracy often turns semantic. Different realities can be justified with the same word depending on people's conception of justice and efficienc

by Bakary 6y ago

The issue of meritocracy often turns semantic. Different realities can be justified with the same word depending on people's conception of justice and efficiency. The other aspect not mentioned is that a society can be meritocratic, but the peak performance that results does not necessarily lead to work that is useful to society in aggregate. I am reminded of Jeff Hammerbacher's infamous quote: "the best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads." That quote is simplistic to humorous effect of course, but it underlies an important natural run-off effect of meritocracy: that much activity is redistributive instead of creative. That's why thinking simply in terms of atomized individuals (as articles on meritocracy written in English usually do) pitted against each other leaves aside too many important questions and outcomes. edit: to add to this, the last paragraph of the article is deeply ironic since you have people fighting over scraps precisely because smart people have captured much of the pie growth, and did so in a way that would be considered meritocratic by the author.

sanxiyn 6y ago
I am not sure what is ironic about the last paragraph. The point is that growth and distributioin are orthogonal concerns.
- Bakary 6y ago
  The author's argument is that their conception of meritocracy is laudable because it grows the pie, and growing the pie is the most important thing if we are to avoid fighting for scraps. They're not saying that growth and distribution are orthogonal, just that the former leads to a better latter and ought to be prioritized. This is ironic in the sense that much scrap fighting is the result of growth being captured and allocated by meritocratic elements (as defined by the author) in ways that make fighting for scraps more likely, from nobles wasting the surplus on political struggles to the smartest people today redistributing wealth around instead of creating it. Perhaps a more poignant example would be the deterioration of the environment. Peak performers have created much wealth in the past by harnessing fossil fuels, but the negative externalities can now lead to an equal if not worse destruction of wealth in the future. The author's view does not take into account these situations that go beyond the simple struggle between individuals in a historical, physical, and geographical vacuum.
  - username90 6y ago
    Do you consider that countries like Sweden are still mostly meritocratic? Growing the pie is almost always a good thing, it gives you more resources to tax so you can benefit the poor. The problems you see in USA aren't that they focus too much on merit but that they focus too little on redistribution afterwards.
    - Bakary 6y ago
      I think the concept of meritocracy is more or less a smokescreen that adds a redundant layer of morality to discussions of systemic problems. Of course, that layer could be seen as inevitable considering human psychology and the need to assign moral worth to groups or individuals. For example, I don't disagree with the author's thesis that the outcomes are what matter in the end. It's just that their reasoning does not go far enough and stops at individuals instead of systems. In this sense it is clouded by the notion of meritocracy and the desire to discuss it.

by Bakary 6y ago

sanxiyn 6y ago

I am not sure what is ironic about the last paragraph. The point is that growth and distributioin are orthogonal concerns.

Bakary 6y ago
The author's argument is that their conception of meritocracy is laudable because it grows the pie, and growing the pie is the most important thing if we are to avoid fighting for scraps. They're not saying that growth and distribution are orthogonal, just that the former leads to a better latter and ought to be prioritized. This is ironic in the sense that much scrap fighting is the result of growth being captured and allocated by meritocratic elements (as defined by the author) in ways that make fighting for scraps more likely, from nobles wasting the surplus on political struggles to the smartest people today redistributing wealth around instead of creating it. Perhaps a more poignant example would be the deterioration of the environment. Peak performers have created much wealth in the past by harnessing fossil fuels, but the negative externalities can now lead to an equal if not worse destruction of wealth in the future. The author's view does not take into account these situations that go beyond the simple struggle between individuals in a historical, physical, and geographical vacuum.
- username90 6y ago
  Do you consider that countries like Sweden are still mostly meritocratic? Growing the pie is almost always a good thing, it gives you more resources to tax so you can benefit the poor. The problems you see in USA aren't that they focus too much on merit but that they focus too little on redistribution afterwards.
  - Bakary 6y ago
    I think the concept of meritocracy is more or less a smokescreen that adds a redundant layer of morality to discussions of systemic problems. Of course, that layer could be seen as inevitable considering human psychology and the need to assign moral worth to groups or individuals. For example, I don't disagree with the author's thesis that the outcomes are what matter in the end. It's just that their reasoning does not go far enough and stops at individuals instead of systems. In this sense it is clouded by the notion of meritocracy and the desire to discuss it.