3 ms·

I don't think meritocracy is a myth. The myth is the belief that the current world is perfectly meritocratic. I still doubt it is something that we want in our

• wlpu 5y ago
  While there is a want or whim, those with ability, real or apparent, will always be highly sought after. I doubt it's possible to solve without removing humans from the equation. That said, I would gladly be convinced otherwise.
• mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. This has been pushed by the Enlightenment and even before because that's the fairest and most just. For example, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789: "All the citizens, being equal in its (the law) eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents." (Article 6) That's what meritocracy means. In the same way as in a fair competition you want the best player(s) to win, not those who know or pay the referee. It does not mean leaving the poorer and less able fend for themselves on the thinking that perhaps it's their fault if they poor.
  • kiba 5y ago
    Meritocracy means to get jobs and positions based on your merits (i.e. objective skills and criteria), not birth or connections. Of course, luck will always be part of it but that's unavoidable. It doesn't matter because the elite always have advantage. They have better access to tutors and education and can go very far. If all that we care about is awarding the best for every position, then that's fine, but that's not entirely how we want to structure society.
    • mytailorisrich 5y ago
      > t doesn't matter because the elite always have advantage. They have better access to tutors and education and can go very far. That's unavoidable but can still be kept in check by investing in good public education. It's more important to make sure that the most disadvantaged have the opportunity to progress on their own merit than to hit the most advantaged. If you don't like the elite having too big an advantage because of their wealth and background then you want more meritocracy. There'll always be an elite. That's not a problem. The fair way, though, is for that elite to be made of people who got there based on their own merit, not birth, not connections, not background, not corruption. That's what meritocracy is. > that's not entirely how we want to structure society. No, that's how we want to structure society, as I mentioned in my previous comment. That's the fairest and most just way we've found and it is massively better than the alternative (birth rights, privileges, connections, etc)
• perl4ever 5y ago
  I think jobs generally need to be done by people who are above some minimum threshold of competence. Above that threshold, there's no need to hire based on ability and other criteria can be used. I feel like I've read somewhere that free markets should, in theory, enforce exactly this constraint - that it should be more profitable to not hire people who have greater skills or talent than the minimum.
• strken 5y ago
  Depends what you mean by meritocracy. I'm okay with spending resources in an inefficient way if it helps the poor. I'm less okay with bringing back hereditary aristocracy. I'm very much not okay with Harrison Bergeron.
  • doggodaddo78 5y ago
    Legacy advantages in college admissions needs to go away. It's affirmative action for the rich.
    • kiba 5y ago
      Suppose we did eliminate the legacy advantages, social connections, admission based on ability to pay, that doesn't change the fact that the rich always have a leg up on the competition.
      • ThrowawayR2 5y ago
        > "...that doesn't change the fact that the rich always have a leg up on the competition." All of the proposals other than meritocracy so far gives the rich even more of a leg up over everyone else, which is why meritocracy continues to enjoy widespread support. Meritocracy focused on objective measures and unbiased assessment at least gives talented ordinary people a chance at outcompeting the rich.
• prepend 5y ago
  > because meritocracy is about promotion of ability above all other consideration It depends on the position. I do want this when it comes to surgeons as I’m concerned with outcome not with fairness to all the surgeons who weren’t born with a silver spoon. Or when I’m hiring a programmer. I want the best programmer and don’t want to even out all the candidates based when some are worse but have good reasons why. I also think it’s a good ideal once everyone is in the door and are competing for bonuses or whatnot. If I have a sales organization, I want to incentivize high sales achieved within an ethical, sustainable manner. If one person makes $10 in sales and one makes $5, the person with higher sales gets the bonus. I don’t want to give the bonus to the $5 person because it was harder for them to earn that $5. It’s unclear to know what’s truly fair, but clear to know who sells more. This is an ideal and not perfect. But if not striving for merit and quality, what’s the goal? The goal isn’t that everyone gets the same. The goal is that the organization excels.
  • imtringued 5y ago
    >Or when I’m hiring a programmer. I want the best programmer and don’t want to even out all the candidates based when some are worse but have good reasons why. This only works because there are more suitable candidates than you want to hire. If you only need to fill one position but there are 10 good candidates out of 1000 applicants you want to pick the cherry. If the position inverses and you have 10 positions to fill but only 5 candidates you are going to get all 5 even if the 5th is terrible but can do the job.
    • prepend 5y ago
      Yes, of course. The principle is the same in that you want merit to drive who gets positions. Whether there are a billion applicants or 2.