3 ms·

I would suggest that you keep studying life. From what I've learned: life was never promised as being fair. Civilization is a thin veneer over the Jungle, but

I would suggest that you keep studying life. From what I've learned: life was never promised as being fair. Civilization is a thin veneer over the Jungle, but it does try (without ever achieving 100% success), to provide fairness. One can debate where in the world Civilization is thriving vs. struggling (it's mostly struggling). Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity", or assigning merit based on immutable physical traits like race and gender).

jwolfe 5y ago
> Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity", or assigning merit based on immutable physical traits like race and gender). Allowing inheritance from one generation to another is an immediate disqualifier for meritocracy as well. As is the existence of private schooling bought with money.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  Apples and Oranges. Inheritance has nothing to do with meritocracy. One can argue about whether or how much inheritance should be taxed -- but that's a wholly separate, topic. Hiring, raises, and promotions should not be based on skin color, eye color, gender, or other immutable traits. In a meritocracy, these are instead determined _solely_ by how provably capable a person is (per Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s prescription). In fact, Meritocracy _would_ explicitly reject the idea of "inheriting" a job (as is done in orgs with nepotism), so I'm confused as to what your point is.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity" You really pick 'equity' as the example? I get thats it fashionable to hate on woke politics around these parts, but aren't your forgeting that most of the world is more like Russia, i.e. jungle, where stongest rules because they can, with mirderous intent. I mean if you are talking about principles of life, its got to be universal, not just applying in a handfull of fortunate countries. The principles of we go by, they are in conflict with one another.
- kerneloftruth 5y ago
  The point is that Equity undermines Meritocracy -- and you can say the same in reverse. They are mutually exclusive concepts. I'll repeat from my reply above: Hiring, raises, and promotions should not be based on skin color, eye color, gender, or other immutable traits. In a meritocracy, these are instead determined _solely_ by how provably capable a person is (per Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s prescription). Slathering on a layer of "but we want to contrive a correction to history, and institute racial discrimination as a remedy to past racial discrimination" undermines the weight of merit, and creates new harm to individuals and society. Per Dr. King, a meritocracy is the correct solution. Two wrongs do not make a right.
astrange 5y ago
The word "meritocracy" was invented for a book about how it doesn't exist and would be a bad idea if it did.

jwolfe 5y ago

> Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity", or assigning merit based on immutable physical traits like race and gender). Allowing inheritance from one generation to another is an immediate disqualifier for meritocracy as well. As is the existence of private schooling bought with money.

kerneloftruth 5y ago
Apples and Oranges. Inheritance has nothing to do with meritocracy. One can argue about whether or how much inheritance should be taxed -- but that's a wholly separate, topic. Hiring, raises, and promotions should not be based on skin color, eye color, gender, or other immutable traits. In a meritocracy, these are instead determined _solely_ by how provably capable a person is (per Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s prescription). In fact, Meritocracy _would_ explicitly reject the idea of "inheriting" a job (as is done in orgs with nepotism), so I'm confused as to what your point is.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

"Meritocracy does exist and does work, except where it is undermined (i.e. "Equity" You really pick 'equity' as the example? I get thats it fashionable to hate on woke politics around these parts, but aren't your forgeting that most of the world is more like Russia, i.e. jungle, where stongest rules because they can, with mirderous intent. I mean if you are talking about principles of life, its got to be universal, not just applying in a handfull of fortunate countries. The principles of we go by, they are in conflict with one another.

kerneloftruth 5y ago
The point is that Equity undermines Meritocracy -- and you can say the same in reverse. They are mutually exclusive concepts. I'll repeat from my reply above: Hiring, raises, and promotions should not be based on skin color, eye color, gender, or other immutable traits. In a meritocracy, these are instead determined _solely_ by how provably capable a person is (per Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s prescription). Slathering on a layer of "but we want to contrive a correction to history, and institute racial discrimination as a remedy to past racial discrimination" undermines the weight of merit, and creates new harm to individuals and society. Per Dr. King, a meritocracy is the correct solution. Two wrongs do not make a right.

astrange 5y ago

The word "meritocracy" was invented for a book about how it doesn't exist and would be a bad idea if it did.