3 ms·

A lot of people find moral value in a meritocracy. This "success to the successful" shows the limits. A lot of people would agree that if someone is 5x smarter

A lot of people find moral value in a meritocracy. This "success to the successful" shows the limits. A lot of people would agree that if someone is 5x smarter and work 5x more than someone else, then making 25x more money could be fair. My intuitive take is that our system rewards those people with a lot more than x25... this article seems to go in the same direction. If that is true, is it morally fair? What would be fair? Do we even care about fairness?

trgn 3y ago
Why do smart people need to be rewarded more? What's so special about being smart, that this is the main axis of merit? You never hear the same said about, say, being strong, healthy, patient, cold blooded (maybe this one), ... It's always "smart". "Smart" must be rewarded. Colleges must pick "smart". Not being facetious. I want to learn more about the origins and apologetics of the cult of smart. ("hard work" I can see. That certainly has pedigree - toiling the land to please god, that sort of thing, there's something virtuous about it).
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  I assume people view it as more meritocratic because smart people tend to do more useful things (E.g. scientists, lawyers, doctors, etc), but I don't really think it's meritocratic. Generally "smart" = born with high intelligence and the right personality traits (I.e. conscientious). I see it mostly as lottery.
  - trgn 3y ago
    Thanks for chiming in. When smart becomes a catch-all term, it feels a little tautological, but makes sense to me in that context.
mrpowelldev 3y ago
If smarts follow a normal distribution, then someone 5x smarter than your average Joe is exponentially more rare. Supply and demand would suggest their compensation increase wouldn't merely be linear.
RhodesianHunter 3y ago
I think you may have missed the point, being that the person who's 5x smarter and works 5x harder may well not get anything unless they're the incumbent.

trgn 3y ago

Why do smart people need to be rewarded more? What's so special about being smart, that this is the main axis of merit? You never hear the same said about, say, being strong, healthy, patient, cold blooded (maybe this one), ... It's always "smart". "Smart" must be rewarded. Colleges must pick "smart". Not being facetious. I want to learn more about the origins and apologetics of the cult of smart. ("hard work" I can see. That certainly has pedigree - toiling the land to please god, that sort of thing, there's something virtuous about it).

ZephyrBlu 3y ago
I assume people view it as more meritocratic because smart people tend to do more useful things (E.g. scientists, lawyers, doctors, etc), but I don't really think it's meritocratic. Generally "smart" = born with high intelligence and the right personality traits (I.e. conscientious). I see it mostly as lottery.
- trgn 3y ago
  Thanks for chiming in. When smart becomes a catch-all term, it feels a little tautological, but makes sense to me in that context.

mrpowelldev 3y ago

If smarts follow a normal distribution, then someone 5x smarter than your average Joe is exponentially more rare. Supply and demand would suggest their compensation increase wouldn't merely be linear.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago

I think you may have missed the point, being that the person who's 5x smarter and works 5x harder may well not get anything unless they're the incumbent.