4 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoSurely, 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 agoHe 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> If you talk to a random person they are pretty dumb, and you find random people at busses. No, that's not how randomness works. If you talk to sufficiently many random people, you will likely get a wide distribution of people. Besides, talking to strangers is not a good measure, because people are often guarded around strangers. Especially on the bus, I thought people who tried to talk to me out of the blue were a bit strange and to be avoided.
- tyu2 6y agoIt's also not random. I've talked a couple of times in my life to strangers in public transport, well, they actually talked to me, both times somehow accidentally people who I talked to were IT professionals, one was a programmer, the other one was a sysadmin and it was in the 90s in former soviet republic, hard to randomly encounter such people back then.