4 ms·

"Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness." Depends on what you

by fleddr 4y ago

"Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness." Depends on what you mean by starting point. If my neighbor is genetically advantaged from the start to perform in a particular task then that may be "unfair", it's still best to let that person win. Dragging down top performers is the worst we can do nor should we boost non-performers in artificial ways. If the unequal starting point is socio-economic, say a genius going to waste because they have no access to education, then I agree that this is bad. The solution is accessible/affordable schooling. Importantly though, that gives access, not outcomes. You still need to pass the test and prove (and improve) your capability.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Okay, how do you combat the fact that the kid from the shitty home is going to do worse on that test no matter what, despite any potential ability they may have if they are given the proper resources? Any system that does not manage that issue cannot be a meritocracy, because people who would be the best WILL be passed over for someone who had a luckier start.
- polski-g 4y ago
  > how do you combat the fact that ... Why must this be "combatted" at all?
- goatlover 4y ago
  I disagree that it's a fact that the kid from a shitty home is going to do worse on a test no matter what, since plenty of people have led successful lives and gotten good educations coming from a shitty homes. Environment isn't deterministic like that. The individual has a say in the matter of how well they will do on the test.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Well to use an analogy it's possible for a competitor starting 200m from the finish line to beat one starting 50m from the finish line. Is it a fair race? Most people would think no. It's not about determinism at all, and pointing to people born in shitty situations who managed through luck and hard-work to overcome those difficulties does not mean everything is all-right, that is just silly.
    - fleddr 4y ago
      People born in shitty situations is not all-right but it doesn't defy merit. Merit means that your input (effort, energy, dedication, discipline) has a large if not decisive effect on your outcome. Regardless of other people achieving even more. In fact, especially for disadvantaged people merit is the dream maker.
      - andrepd 4y ago
        >Merit means that your input (effort, energy, dedication, discipline) has a large if not decisive effect on your outcome. But it doesn't, and this can be easily measured. Are you saying this is how you wished things were? Then I agree with you, that's what we should strive for. Are you saying this is how things are? That's just false (hilariously so).
        fleddr 4y ago
        What? Are you saying that working hard makes no difference?
        andrepd 4y ago
        "large, if not decisive", your words.
- fleddr 4y ago
  What proper resources? A government cannot fix a shitty home. You cannot equalize and compensate for every single variable, just like you can't equalize genetic advantages/disadvantages or plain good and bad luck. What you can do is to offer a baseline equal chance, in the form of an accessible/affordable high quality public schooling system. It's one of the most sound investments any society can make. Those that are able (capable, talented, willing) then have a fighting chance. Some will have to grind a little harder than others, but that's life. The point is that you get a chance to perform, and then you perform to your ability. You don't have to match the luckiest and most talented out there. I myself was born in the lower working class, with no studying peers in my entire network, and dysfunctional parents. Yet, lucky to live in a country with a pretty decent public schooling system. You know what shocked me most? How stupidly easy it is. The bar really is absurdly low. All I did was to consistently show up and pay attention in class. To take the education serious, which supposedly is a tall order nowadays. Next, in my follow-up education I was advised to take the middle road, and to not aim too high. I dismissed the school director's advise and said that I will aim high. I'll simply cope by grinding through it. I'll study day and night if needed to match my superior peers. Guess what? No such grinding was needed. Again I simply consistently showed up and paid attention, whilst my peers were drunk and couldn't bother to even show up. It was so stupendously easy that I could work so much on the side that I graduated debt-free. If you don't do well on a test, do better. The world shouldn't give you an easier test because that's not the point of a test. You know who scores well on test? Girls. Consistently better than boys. Why? They take the education more serious. They pay attention, ask questions, take notes, do their homework. Consistently and with discipline. Sounds almost like...merit.

by fleddr 4y ago

mrguyorama 4y ago

Okay, how do you combat the fact that the kid from the shitty home is going to do worse on that test no matter what, despite any potential ability they may have if they are given the proper resources? Any system that does not manage that issue cannot be a meritocracy, because people who would be the best WILL be passed over for someone who had a luckier start.

polski-g 4y ago
> how do you combat the fact that ... Why must this be "combatted" at all?
goatlover 4y ago
I disagree that it's a fact that the kid from a shitty home is going to do worse on a test no matter what, since plenty of people have led successful lives and gotten good educations coming from a shitty homes. Environment isn't deterministic like that. The individual has a say in the matter of how well they will do on the test.
- andrepd 4y ago
  Well to use an analogy it's possible for a competitor starting 200m from the finish line to beat one starting 50m from the finish line. Is it a fair race? Most people would think no. It's not about determinism at all, and pointing to people born in shitty situations who managed through luck and hard-work to overcome those difficulties does not mean everything is all-right, that is just silly.
  - fleddr 4y ago
    People born in shitty situations is not all-right but it doesn't defy merit. Merit means that your input (effort, energy, dedication, discipline) has a large if not decisive effect on your outcome. Regardless of other people achieving even more. In fact, especially for disadvantaged people merit is the dream maker.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      >Merit means that your input (effort, energy, dedication, discipline) has a large if not decisive effect on your outcome. But it doesn't, and this can be easily measured. Are you saying this is how you wished things were? Then I agree with you, that's what we should strive for. Are you saying this is how things are? That's just false (hilariously so).
      - fleddr 4y ago
        What? Are you saying that working hard makes no difference?
        andrepd 4y ago
        "large, if not decisive", your words.
fleddr 4y ago
What proper resources? A government cannot fix a shitty home. You cannot equalize and compensate for every single variable, just like you can't equalize genetic advantages/disadvantages or plain good and bad luck. What you can do is to offer a baseline equal chance, in the form of an accessible/affordable high quality public schooling system. It's one of the most sound investments any society can make. Those that are able (capable, talented, willing) then have a fighting chance. Some will have to grind a little harder than others, but that's life. The point is that you get a chance to perform, and then you perform to your ability. You don't have to match the luckiest and most talented out there. I myself was born in the lower working class, with no studying peers in my entire network, and dysfunctional parents. Yet, lucky to live in a country with a pretty decent public schooling system. You know what shocked me most? How stupidly easy it is. The bar really is absurdly low. All I did was to consistently show up and pay attention in class. To take the education serious, which supposedly is a tall order nowadays. Next, in my follow-up education I was advised to take the middle road, and to not aim too high. I dismissed the school director's advise and said that I will aim high. I'll simply cope by grinding through it. I'll study day and night if needed to match my superior peers. Guess what? No such grinding was needed. Again I simply consistently showed up and paid attention, whilst my peers were drunk and couldn't bother to even show up. It was so stupendously easy that I could work so much on the side that I graduated debt-free. If you don't do well on a test, do better. The world shouldn't give you an easier test because that's not the point of a test. You know who scores well on test? Girls. Consistently better than boys. Why? They take the education more serious. They pay attention, ask questions, take notes, do their homework. Consistently and with discipline. Sounds almost like...merit.