6 ms·

No, meritocracy works fine. It's far from perfect, but the 'special case' you describe is actually rare. There are people who are brilliant and hardworking in

by jariel 6y ago

No, meritocracy works fine. It's far from perfect, but the 'special case' you describe is actually rare. There are people who are brilliant and hardworking in the academic sense slinging coffee for life, because both those attributes will result in 'good grades' which is a really good proxy for other things in life.

Kim_Bruning 6y ago
Interesting! Do you have a specific example where it seemed to work fine for you? (The example where I learned was in diverse web communities, including Wikimedia.)
- jariel 6y ago
  Take the most broad and crude measure, educational outcomes, as some, albeit imperfect input to the system and you'll see very unambiguously and consistently that kids with better grades will do better in life, in most measures. Next time you are at the office, look to your left, look to your right: you will notice conscientious people, probably educated, probably reasonably hard working, team work oriented, and probably bright. Then hop on the bus and have conversations with the 'average person'. You fill find somewhat less conscientious, less interested, less curious, less intelligent people. We have very clearly and unambiguously a mostly meritocratic system: as you go from coffee maker, to skilled labourer, to creative worker, to middle management to executive, you'll see a pretty obvious trend. It's funny how the meritocratic naysayers, probably already in the top 20% of income earnings, probably would believer firmly they are more 'deserving' of their job than the dude who drove them there on the bus, but that somehow, the system 'above them' is 'not meritocratic'. The issue then becomes one of 'self awareness': we don't like our boss, we are jealous of others who have more, we see some folks 'skip the line' with better access to education i.e. we see flaws or things 'we don't like' to varying degree and so somehow we believe the system is existentially flawed. It's not. The first time you start to hire people, it becomes perfectly clear: either 'you' are fundamentally part of that of that byzantine, unfair system, inflicting your woes onto everyone with unfair hiring/advancement - or - more likely, you're actually trying to hire decent candidates, capable of doing the work. So what's more likely: 1) you are the lone hero in an unfair world, trying to hire 'good people' while everyone else is either dumb or plotting like Mr. Bean a fools dystopia - or 2) that most people are like you, trying to hire reasonably good people (hopefully the best you can) and trying to do a reasonable job - and there is some intelligence in that process. It's the later. Most modern systems are crudely meritocratic. When they are not, it's obvious, but that doesn't mean those failures are normative or existential to the system.
  - Kim_Bruning 6y ago
    Surely, Merit based metrics should be "a part of this complete breakfast". However, focusing _purely_ on merit based metrics (pure Meritocracy) is not sustainable. It will break down and cease to reward merit almost immediately. (for reasoning, see my previous post). If you are using modern (western) societies as your example; you will see a sophisticated system of laws, subsidies, taxes, education and health investments, etc... which are all at least in part designed to prevent this breakdown and make sure that people who have something to contribute get a chance to contribute to society, and hopefully get justly rewarded. The counter-intuitive part is that the outcomes are more Merit-based than are possible if you directly institute a merit based system. (It seems that policy outcomes are almost never intuitive)
  - _qulr 6y ago
    > Then hop on the bus and have conversations with the 'average person'. You fill find somewhat less conscientious, less interested, less curious, less intelligent people. Wow, this is jaw-dropping stereotype. I used to ride the bus, and unsurprisingly, my level of intelligence was completely unaffected by the mode of transportation I happened to be using at the time. Also, public transportation is more environmentally friendly than everyone driving cars. Now that I think a little more about it, your comment is interesting because I'm wondering how much empirical experience you have striking up conversations with people on the bus? If you're a frequently bus rider, doesn't that make you, by your own argument, less intelligent?
    - username90 6y ago
      He didn't say that bus riders are less intelligent. If you talk to a random person they are pretty dumb, and you find random people at busses. There isn't more to it than that. Personally I experienced the average person when I did my military duty. Most people were forced to attend so you got a good slice of what society looks like. And yes, the average person there wasn't that bright, the discussions I heard there was the dumbest I've ever experienced.
      - _qulr 6y ago
crististm 6y ago
Hi there! If you pay attention to the ratio of pro vs against meritocracy rants in this page you will find some interesting (anec)data. Make your own conclusions!
- username90 6y ago
  By definition the average person will have mediocre merit so it makes sense that most people are biased against meritocracy.
  - crististm 6y ago
    I don't agree with this definition and its conclusions. I am average in a domain but I want competent people around me. I am not against them earning more. What I see is that some people will consider that any type of competence signaled through usual means (e.g. better pay) is in fact corruption and the reason they earn less. You will find many of those people commenting on this post.
- jariel 6y ago
  We don't need 'anecdotes' we have tons of data. Higher IQ, better academic results correlates with better jobs. That's a very crude, but broad measure of meritocracy. But it's even easier than that: show me people earning $180K developing software who are 'complete idiots'. They don't exist. People who earn more are generally smarter, more conscientious, credentialed. It's basically a ridiculous argument to imply that meritocracy doesn't exist, when it's poignantly the basis of almost everything we do. You might be smarter and more capable than your boss but more broadly speaking it's not the case.
  - crististm 6y ago
    I am actually in agreement with you and the meritocracy. My observation is that a disproportionate amount of the comments were from people that do not like meritocracy and are irrationally and hysterically going to argue with you missing the point. They will not be converted. The ones who would know better seem to steer off clear from engaging with incompetent mobs; you will not find them here to have a sane discussion.

by jariel 6y ago

Kim_Bruning 6y ago

Interesting! Do you have a specific example where it seemed to work fine for you? (The example where I learned was in diverse web communities, including Wikimedia.)

jariel 6y ago
Take the most broad and crude measure, educational outcomes, as some, albeit imperfect input to the system and you'll see very unambiguously and consistently that kids with better grades will do better in life, in most measures. Next time you are at the office, look to your left, look to your right: you will notice conscientious people, probably educated, probably reasonably hard working, team work oriented, and probably bright. Then hop on the bus and have conversations with the 'average person'. You fill find somewhat less conscientious, less interested, less curious, less intelligent people. We have very clearly and unambiguously a mostly meritocratic system: as you go from coffee maker, to skilled labourer, to creative worker, to middle management to executive, you'll see a pretty obvious trend. It's funny how the meritocratic naysayers, probably already in the top 20% of income earnings, probably would believer firmly they are more 'deserving' of their job than the dude who drove them there on the bus, but that somehow, the system 'above them' is 'not meritocratic'. The issue then becomes one of 'self awareness': we don't like our boss, we are jealous of others who have more, we see some folks 'skip the line' with better access to education i.e. we see flaws or things 'we don't like' to varying degree and so somehow we believe the system is existentially flawed. It's not. The first time you start to hire people, it becomes perfectly clear: either 'you' are fundamentally part of that of that byzantine, unfair system, inflicting your woes onto everyone with unfair hiring/advancement - or - more likely, you're actually trying to hire decent candidates, capable of doing the work. So what's more likely: 1) you are the lone hero in an unfair world, trying to hire 'good people' while everyone else is either dumb or plotting like Mr. Bean a fools dystopia - or 2) that most people are like you, trying to hire reasonably good people (hopefully the best you can) and trying to do a reasonable job - and there is some intelligence in that process. It's the later. Most modern systems are crudely meritocratic. When they are not, it's obvious, but that doesn't mean those failures are normative or existential to the system.
- Kim_Bruning 6y ago
  Surely, Merit based metrics should be "a part of this complete breakfast". However, focusing _purely_ on merit based metrics (pure Meritocracy) is not sustainable. It will break down and cease to reward merit almost immediately. (for reasoning, see my previous post). If you are using modern (western) societies as your example; you will see a sophisticated system of laws, subsidies, taxes, education and health investments, etc... which are all at least in part designed to prevent this breakdown and make sure that people who have something to contribute get a chance to contribute to society, and hopefully get justly rewarded. The counter-intuitive part is that the outcomes are more Merit-based than are possible if you directly institute a merit based system. (It seems that policy outcomes are almost never intuitive)
- _qulr 6y ago
  > Then hop on the bus and have conversations with the 'average person'. You fill find somewhat less conscientious, less interested, less curious, less intelligent people. Wow, this is jaw-dropping stereotype. I used to ride the bus, and unsurprisingly, my level of intelligence was completely unaffected by the mode of transportation I happened to be using at the time. Also, public transportation is more environmentally friendly than everyone driving cars. Now that I think a little more about it, your comment is interesting because I'm wondering how much empirical experience you have striking up conversations with people on the bus? If you're a frequently bus rider, doesn't that make you, by your own argument, less intelligent?
  - username90 6y ago
    He didn't say that bus riders are less intelligent. If you talk to a random person they are pretty dumb, and you find random people at busses. There isn't more to it than that. Personally I experienced the average person when I did my military duty. Most people were forced to attend so you got a good slice of what society looks like. And yes, the average person there wasn't that bright, the discussions I heard there was the dumbest I've ever experienced.
    - _qulr 6y ago

crististm 6y ago

Hi there! If you pay attention to the ratio of pro vs against meritocracy rants in this page you will find some interesting (anec)data. Make your own conclusions!

username90 6y ago
By definition the average person will have mediocre merit so it makes sense that most people are biased against meritocracy.
- crististm 6y ago
  I don't agree with this definition and its conclusions. I am average in a domain but I want competent people around me. I am not against them earning more. What I see is that some people will consider that any type of competence signaled through usual means (e.g. better pay) is in fact corruption and the reason they earn less. You will find many of those people commenting on this post.
jariel 6y ago
We don't need 'anecdotes' we have tons of data. Higher IQ, better academic results correlates with better jobs. That's a very crude, but broad measure of meritocracy. But it's even easier than that: show me people earning $180K developing software who are 'complete idiots'. They don't exist. People who earn more are generally smarter, more conscientious, credentialed. It's basically a ridiculous argument to imply that meritocracy doesn't exist, when it's poignantly the basis of almost everything we do. You might be smarter and more capable than your boss but more broadly speaking it's not the case.
- crististm 6y ago
  I am actually in agreement with you and the meritocracy. My observation is that a disproportionate amount of the comments were from people that do not like meritocracy and are irrationally and hysterically going to argue with you missing the point. They will not be converted. The ones who would know better seem to steer off clear from engaging with incompetent mobs; you will not find them here to have a sane discussion.