3 ms·

Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living condit

Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world? I think an ideal society would be more in line with John Rawls' philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).

schwartzworld 5y ago
Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.
- jl2718 5y ago
  I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.
imtringued 5y ago
> Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.
mc32 5y ago
The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.
strikelaserclaw 5y ago
I think most rational people can agree that intelligence is mostly luck. There are even studies that say that the amount of grit and conscientiousness are something you are born with (Prime example is people with ADHD who seems to lack these no matter how hard they try, so it is reasonable to believe that you need some measure of brain physiology and not just beliefs and behaviors). But it does not make for a good society if you let unintelligent/not hard working people become the top of society all in the name of egalitarian ideals. I think the best thing is to encourage people to try their best with their given abilities, and to have a culture in society where those who reach the top of society have some measure of responsibility to those who did not inherit any gifts.
- armchairhacker 5y ago
  Yeah I still think that people who are smartest in some way should control society, like how people who have talent for a particular job should be assigned that job. Just that people who are less smart shouldn't suffer worse QOL.
- eevilspock 5y ago
  So imagine we are shipwrecked on an island, and circumstances are such that muscle, hunting skills and fishing/swimming/skin diving ability is more important for survival of the group than the kind of brain that software developers have. So all of a sudden these physical folk have the leverage (aka "merit") to demand a greater share of the resources and power, and pretty soon the software developers are forced to cook, clean and do chores for them. Thus "merit" is very circumstantial. Why does one group "deserve" to be wealthy in one circumstance, and another in a different circumstance? Everyone in our deeply capitalist culture uses the words "merit" and "deserve" in a deeply moral sense to describe something that isn't moral at all. As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word..."
  - strikelaserclaw 5y ago
    First of all i never mentioned merit or who deserves what. I merely stated my opinion as to the organizing principle that would lead to the happiness quotient over the population to be maximal. Ultimately i believe power should lie with the people and not with the elite. If i could make a recommendation to the people, i would tell them that there will always be an elite and that it's better to have intelligent, hardworking elite (who have a responsibility to the people) rather than an elite based on hereditary or based on power.

schwartzworld 5y ago

Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.

jl2718 5y ago
I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.

imtringued 5y ago

> Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair. Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.

mc32 5y ago

The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

I think most rational people can agree that intelligence is mostly luck. There are even studies that say that the amount of grit and conscientiousness are something you are born with (Prime example is people with ADHD who seems to lack these no matter how hard they try, so it is reasonable to believe that you need some measure of brain physiology and not just beliefs and behaviors). But it does not make for a good society if you let unintelligent/not hard working people become the top of society all in the name of egalitarian ideals. I think the best thing is to encourage people to try their best with their given abilities, and to have a culture in society where those who reach the top of society have some measure of responsibility to those who did not inherit any gifts.

armchairhacker 5y ago
Yeah I still think that people who are smartest in some way should control society, like how people who have talent for a particular job should be assigned that job. Just that people who are less smart shouldn't suffer worse QOL.
eevilspock 5y ago
So imagine we are shipwrecked on an island, and circumstances are such that muscle, hunting skills and fishing/swimming/skin diving ability is more important for survival of the group than the kind of brain that software developers have. So all of a sudden these physical folk have the leverage (aka "merit") to demand a greater share of the resources and power, and pretty soon the software developers are forced to cook, clean and do chores for them. Thus "merit" is very circumstantial. Why does one group "deserve" to be wealthy in one circumstance, and another in a different circumstance? Everyone in our deeply capitalist culture uses the words "merit" and "deserve" in a deeply moral sense to describe something that isn't moral at all. As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word..."
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  First of all i never mentioned merit or who deserves what. I merely stated my opinion as to the organizing principle that would lead to the happiness quotient over the population to be maximal. Ultimately i believe power should lie with the people and not with the elite. If i could make a recommendation to the people, i would tell them that there will always be an elite and that it's better to have intelligent, hardworking elite (who have a responsibility to the people) rather than an elite based on hereditary or based on power.