3 ms·

Let’s suppose people initially have equal opportunity and merit. Now let’s say 10 percent of the population will be “chosen” such that they are lucky and have “

Let’s suppose people initially have equal opportunity and merit. Now let’s say 10 percent of the population will be “chosen” such that they are lucky and have “talent,” such that they’re now better than the others in activities that determine merit. In the first generation this is fine - after all there are all sorts of people: tall, short, fat, skinny etc. In this scenario, though, the 2nd generation of people, aka the kids of the first, will all be equal again, except for the children who happened to be born by those who were the chosen. Those kids will be able to be better prepared, all things being equal. Now add the potential for the kid to be both born by a chosen and also be chosen themselves - the merit will grow exponentially. Eventually at say generation 100, despite things originally being equal - all of those who are considered to have relative merit will basically just be descendants of those who just happened to be lucky. Add in reality and things like money, oppression, over consuming fixed resources that allow for improvement and you can perhaps understand the frustration of some.

slibhb 5y ago
Who cares? The point of meritocracy is to select people who can solve problems and make the world better. It's not to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. To put it another way, if rich people raise their children to be more capable of making the world better then why is that a problem? Let's say Einstein was only a genius because his parents bought a nice house with no lead paint. Who cares? Why does that matter? What matters is the work he did. Now, if you want to pass a law that says "no more houses with lead paint" that's lovely. But it has nothing to do with meritocracy.
- endisneigh 5y ago
  I’m not really sure what to tell you - you don’t see the problem my example highlights? Lol. How would you feel if people with merit actively prohibited those without from improving? Still don’t care? You’re right though, meritocracy wouldn’t be a problem if merit existed only to objectively improve the world. Is that true?
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I see the problem your example highlights. It has nothing to do with meritocracy. It has to do with social policy. > You’re right though, meritocracy wouldn’t be a problem if merit existed only to objectively improve the world. Merit doesn't have to be objective. All we can do is subjectiviely do our best to determine merit using whatever tools we can. If we're wrong, we're wrong (and we will often be wrong). Being wrong is fine and inevitable. It's not an excuse to say "meritocracy is bad".
    - endisneigh 5y ago
      I’m not following you - meritocracy and subjectivity are inherently contradictory. Also, the example I gave and the problems it illustrate are inherent to the example - there’s no policy you could invoke that would remedy it. Feel free to share an example of how you’d fix the example to remove the dilemma, if you would like.
      - slibhb 5y ago
        I don't agree. We have meritocracies based on things most people consider subjective (art, music, writing). What makes it a meritocracy is not that there's some objective measure of merit, just that there's an attempt to determine merit severed from factors deemed irrelevant (usually birth, class, race, sex, gender, beauty, etc). No one is saying we have determined God's own concept of merit. "Merit" can and will shift over time. Different individuals will assess it differently. All we can do is our best.
        AstralStorm 5y ago
        And by doing the best, you mean doing the most to pervert that system into a hereditary feudalismn for own reproductive fitness, just like happened everywhere this was attempted. It starts with placing kids in better schools, cheating, disabling help programs and ends up at modifying tests to serve themselves better. And most importantly, by design creates an underclass of undesirables. People less able or outright disabled, who could be used by others to seize power.
- ip26 5y ago
  Wasn’t the point of meritocratic institutions to create opportunities for everyone, so that even those of low birth have a chance at success? A rejection of the fixed aristocracy? That’s the problem with iterative meritocracy, late in the game it becomes indistinguishable from aristocracy.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    > That’s the problem with iterative meritocracy, late in the game it becomes indistinguishable from aristocracy. In a functioning meritocracy, if a genius is born into to a poor family, he will be recognized and promoted.
rufus_foreman 5y ago
>> Eventually at say generation 100, despite things originally being equal - all of those who are considered to have relative merit will basically just be descendants of those who just happened to be lucky At generation 100, a person will have 633,825,300,114,114,700,748,351,602,688 slots in their family tree going back to generation 1. Everybody will be related to everybody.

slibhb 5y ago

Who cares? The point of meritocracy is to select people who can solve problems and make the world better. It's not to make everyone feel warm and fuzzy. To put it another way, if rich people raise their children to be more capable of making the world better then why is that a problem? Let's say Einstein was only a genius because his parents bought a nice house with no lead paint. Who cares? Why does that matter? What matters is the work he did. Now, if you want to pass a law that says "no more houses with lead paint" that's lovely. But it has nothing to do with meritocracy.

endisneigh 5y ago
I’m not really sure what to tell you - you don’t see the problem my example highlights? Lol. How would you feel if people with merit actively prohibited those without from improving? Still don’t care? You’re right though, meritocracy wouldn’t be a problem if merit existed only to objectively improve the world. Is that true?
- slibhb 5y ago
  I see the problem your example highlights. It has nothing to do with meritocracy. It has to do with social policy. > You’re right though, meritocracy wouldn’t be a problem if merit existed only to objectively improve the world. Merit doesn't have to be objective. All we can do is subjectiviely do our best to determine merit using whatever tools we can. If we're wrong, we're wrong (and we will often be wrong). Being wrong is fine and inevitable. It's not an excuse to say "meritocracy is bad".
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    I’m not following you - meritocracy and subjectivity are inherently contradictory. Also, the example I gave and the problems it illustrate are inherent to the example - there’s no policy you could invoke that would remedy it. Feel free to share an example of how you’d fix the example to remove the dilemma, if you would like.
    - slibhb 5y ago
      I don't agree. We have meritocracies based on things most people consider subjective (art, music, writing). What makes it a meritocracy is not that there's some objective measure of merit, just that there's an attempt to determine merit severed from factors deemed irrelevant (usually birth, class, race, sex, gender, beauty, etc). No one is saying we have determined God's own concept of merit. "Merit" can and will shift over time. Different individuals will assess it differently. All we can do is our best.
      - AstralStorm 5y ago
        And by doing the best, you mean doing the most to pervert that system into a hereditary feudalismn for own reproductive fitness, just like happened everywhere this was attempted. It starts with placing kids in better schools, cheating, disabling help programs and ends up at modifying tests to serve themselves better. And most importantly, by design creates an underclass of undesirables. People less able or outright disabled, who could be used by others to seize power.
ip26 5y ago
Wasn’t the point of meritocratic institutions to create opportunities for everyone, so that even those of low birth have a chance at success? A rejection of the fixed aristocracy? That’s the problem with iterative meritocracy, late in the game it becomes indistinguishable from aristocracy.
- slibhb 5y ago
  > That’s the problem with iterative meritocracy, late in the game it becomes indistinguishable from aristocracy. In a functioning meritocracy, if a genius is born into to a poor family, he will be recognized and promoted.

rufus_foreman 5y ago

>> Eventually at say generation 100, despite things originally being equal - all of those who are considered to have relative merit will basically just be descendants of those who just happened to be lucky At generation 100, a person will have 633,825,300,114,114,700,748,351,602,688 slots in their family tree going back to generation 1. Everybody will be related to everybody.