4 ms·

Meritocracy doesn't exist and believing it does is bad for you (2019)

40 points by labrador 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pvg 2y ago
Big ole thread at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19415309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19415309
BMc2020 2y ago
This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  from what I've seen over the past few years, a surprising effect of this conversation has demotivated a whole generation of people. its a mixture of nihilism and demotivation. like with the 'privilege' discussion, even when defined as 'fewer roadblocks', people just realize they weren't born in one socioeconomic bracket so there's no point in bothering. I'm surprised because when I look at some individual circumstances, I see lots of opportunity available to them that they can't perceive. They didn't 'check their privilege' at all, actually, despite telling trust funders of certain phenotypes that. Play the cards you're dealt, but actually look at the cards. On the same vein, there are plenty of people with all of the necessary resources and subsidies that do nothing with their life. Fall into substance abuse, or derailed in some other ways. Many now choose to marginalize themselves in order to "live their truth". Which means someone financially successful or acknowledged for their contributions can still be celebrated for playing the cards they were dealt.
  - theGnuMe 2y ago
    The joke is that meritocracy is something that only people accepted to Stanford believe in.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Which is the problem. Why bother leaving the couch or going to school if you can't be the next Bill Gates without some luck. Might as well be going into impoverished schools and cancel classes because math and reading or any other measure of capability has been proven to have zero impact on life outcomes.
      - theGnuMe 2y ago
        The alternative is not nihilism.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The thrust of my point is that it would not be factually correct to assert such a thing. Behavior, effort, knowledge, and discipline matter. Even if it is in a probabistic sense.
riku_iki 2y ago
I didn't capture why author decided that it doesn't exist, but I think it as most of the time is just not white/black situation, but more many shades of grey.
Clubber 2y ago
"The harder you work, the luckier you get."
- labrador 2y ago
  "born on third base and thinks he hit a home run"
  - Clubber 2y ago
    If you weren't fortunate enough to get born on third base, working hard applies, now more than ever.
rayiner 2y ago
Whether or not meritocracy exists, believing that it does is essential for upwards mobility. Studies suggest that having an external locus of control-believing that your fate is determined by factors outside your control—is associated with lower academic achievement: https://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/7094/pdf https://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/7094/pd... (pp. 399-400). A remarkable statistic is that Asian Americans raised in poverty have more than double the upward mobility of white Americans raised in poverty. Asian kids raised in the bottom 20% of income have a 25% chance of growing up to be in the top 20% versus just 10% for similarly situated white kids. Folks are resistant to studying why, but I strongly suspect part of the reason is that Asian kids are generally taught that hard work produces results, and are discouraged from thinking about whether things are “fair” or not.
- dooglius 2y ago
  This looks like a case of erroneously inferring causation from correlation. If there is variance in the degree to which people are impeded by factors outside their control, then all that is required to observe such an association is that people be aware of such impediments. Beliefs need not have a causal role.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  Anecdotally, quite a few Asian Americans I know of, came from relatively wealthy circumstances in their home country. Their parents were doctors, lawyers, etc. When they came to the US, they often started at rock bottom as their licenses and degrees didn't translate. They worked at menial jobs but quickly found a white collar job. Their children often were able to get into nationally recognized universities.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    It’s far from “quick,” because as you recognize licenses and degrees don’t translate. I know a few people who worked their way back up by getting degrees in the U.S., but that takes many years. My cousin’s mom redid med school and residency, during which time my cousin grew up in a two bedroom apartment in Queens with her parents and brother. Note that the study I linked above compares the income of the household in which a child grew up to that person’s income in adulthood. So a kid whose parents “quickly found a white collar job” wouldn’t be categorized as having grown up in the bottom 20%. Also, your anecdotes are strong evidence of meritocracy! If a doctor or lawyer in old country can start out as a bellhop in the west and then work their way back up to being a doctor (like my uncle) that’s meritocracy! My mom is from a rich family back in old country, but extensive third-world landholdings don’t count for anything in America. And her master’s degree in chemistry was worth nothing in the U.S., especially given her limited English skills. So she worked in retail her whole career. At her earnings peak 15 years ago she was making $120k+ as a floor associate at a furniture store.
999900000999 2y ago
>Bill Gates His Mom knew the chairman of IBM. That's a connection no normal person will ever have. Steve Jobs and Steve Woz actually had to start from a middle class. Comparison is the theft of joy, I haven't been evicted since I got my first apartment at 19 and with any luck I'll retire early. That's enough for me. I'm widely more success than I could of imagined. Yes someone else is making a million a month, has a beautiful partner and a family. Someone else just got out of prison and is struggling to stay in housing. I will never know why the rich ( north of 10 million in the US) feel a need to keep working though. Start a band, travel, etc. Why deal with VCs breathing down your neck. Then again, if I woke up rich I'd probably start a game studio as a passion project. I'd want to release all the code open source. I want the popular games of the future to at a minimum be open core.
- kubb 2y ago
  Every time this sentiment comes up, it's worth repeating: it's not about envy. It's not about how much they have or how much better their life is than yours. It's about inequality creating a worse world for everyone. We all do this exercise of being happy with what we have regularly. This is how you deal with the reality that you live in. But you shouldn't let this coping mechanism stop you from pushing for a better world with less inequality. Getting comfortable with how broken things are is necessary, but not sufficient. Imagining that things could be worse is only half the answer. The other half is thinking how things could be better.
- verteu 2y ago
  > I will never know why the rich ( north of 10 million in the US) feel a need to keep working though. Start a band, travel, etc. I suspect it's selection bias: Non-workaholics rarely build vast wealth.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Arguments against merit make two errors. First is treating it as a formula, not a correlation. Second is conflating merit for free will. Merit is not about freedom from circumstance. As the article points out, luck can be stow someone with more merit. Someone can have better parenting, education or genes through no action of their own. This does not mean they lack merit. Merit is a performance metric. Working hard or having talent won't always result in equal rewards in the real world. Nobody is making this straw man. However, talent and effort improve outcomes relative to lack of talent and lack of effort, all else being equal.
- tonyedgecombe 2y ago
  > Nobody is making this straw man. Actually I think many are, including a lot of politicians.
- roxolotl 2y ago
  I think it’s pretty clear that the strawman is, at least, the actual loudest opinion. Maybe it’s not the majority but if you look at the backlash against DEI you very clearly see that those claiming DEI is to blame for the current ills of society are arguing from that straw position. The goal of something like DEI is to round the edges of the arbitrary merit such as systemic disenfranchisement. A just meritocracy would evaluate people on _relevant_ merit to the judgement at hand. Such a society does not exist.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I think DEI is largely a debate about what constitutes merit. E.g. Is it about hard work or performance. If performance, what metric. This is most obvious in school admissions. People argue if admissions should be blinded to race, or calibrated to take into account effort. However, Nobody is arguing that merit doesn't exist, as in a straight F student that can't read should be admitted to Stanford.
    - roxolotl 2y ago
      Absolutely agree that merit is real and exists. I think DEI/AA though is actually trying to make society more meritocratic along the lines of performance. It is a thumb on the scale. But not of what is considered instead of who is considered.
roxolotl 2y ago
It is a statement on where we are today that this was flagged today but not 2019
- labrador 2y ago
  I bet the same people who don't like this challenge to meritocracy also would tell you they believe in luck
- Centigonal 2y ago
  It's crazy that this was flagged -- acknowledging the role of structuralism is apparently a radical act in 2025.

40 points by labrador 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

pvg 2y ago

Big ole thread at the time https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19415309 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19415309

BMc2020 2y ago

This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are “self-made” and over the effects of various forms of “privilege” can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much “credit” people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of “luck” can be insulting.

yieldcrv 2y ago
from what I've seen over the past few years, a surprising effect of this conversation has demotivated a whole generation of people. its a mixture of nihilism and demotivation. like with the 'privilege' discussion, even when defined as 'fewer roadblocks', people just realize they weren't born in one socioeconomic bracket so there's no point in bothering. I'm surprised because when I look at some individual circumstances, I see lots of opportunity available to them that they can't perceive. They didn't 'check their privilege' at all, actually, despite telling trust funders of certain phenotypes that. Play the cards you're dealt, but actually look at the cards. On the same vein, there are plenty of people with all of the necessary resources and subsidies that do nothing with their life. Fall into substance abuse, or derailed in some other ways. Many now choose to marginalize themselves in order to "live their truth". Which means someone financially successful or acknowledged for their contributions can still be celebrated for playing the cards they were dealt.
- theGnuMe 2y ago
  The joke is that meritocracy is something that only people accepted to Stanford believe in.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Which is the problem. Why bother leaving the couch or going to school if you can't be the next Bill Gates without some luck. Might as well be going into impoverished schools and cancel classes because math and reading or any other measure of capability has been proven to have zero impact on life outcomes.
    - theGnuMe 2y ago
      The alternative is not nihilism.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        The thrust of my point is that it would not be factually correct to assert such a thing. Behavior, effort, knowledge, and discipline matter. Even if it is in a probabistic sense.

riku_iki 2y ago

I didn't capture why author decided that it doesn't exist, but I think it as most of the time is just not white/black situation, but more many shades of grey.

Clubber 2y ago

"The harder you work, the luckier you get."

labrador 2y ago
"born on third base and thinks he hit a home run"
- Clubber 2y ago
  If you weren't fortunate enough to get born on third base, working hard applies, now more than ever.

rayiner 2y ago

Whether or not meritocracy exists, believing that it does is essential for upwards mobility. Studies suggest that having an external locus of control-believing that your fate is determined by factors outside your control—is associated with lower academic achievement: https://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/7094/pdf https://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter/article/viewFile/7094/pd... (pp. 399-400). A remarkable statistic is that Asian Americans raised in poverty have more than double the upward mobility of white Americans raised in poverty. Asian kids raised in the bottom 20% of income have a 25% chance of growing up to be in the top 20% versus just 10% for similarly situated white kids. Folks are resistant to studying why, but I strongly suspect part of the reason is that Asian kids are generally taught that hard work produces results, and are discouraged from thinking about whether things are “fair” or not.

dooglius 2y ago
This looks like a case of erroneously inferring causation from correlation. If there is variance in the degree to which people are impeded by factors outside their control, then all that is required to observe such an association is that people be aware of such impediments. Beliefs need not have a causal role.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
rawgabbit 2y ago
Anecdotally, quite a few Asian Americans I know of, came from relatively wealthy circumstances in their home country. Their parents were doctors, lawyers, etc. When they came to the US, they often started at rock bottom as their licenses and degrees didn't translate. They worked at menial jobs but quickly found a white collar job. Their children often were able to get into nationally recognized universities.
- rayiner 2y ago
  It’s far from “quick,” because as you recognize licenses and degrees don’t translate. I know a few people who worked their way back up by getting degrees in the U.S., but that takes many years. My cousin’s mom redid med school and residency, during which time my cousin grew up in a two bedroom apartment in Queens with her parents and brother. Note that the study I linked above compares the income of the household in which a child grew up to that person’s income in adulthood. So a kid whose parents “quickly found a white collar job” wouldn’t be categorized as having grown up in the bottom 20%. Also, your anecdotes are strong evidence of meritocracy! If a doctor or lawyer in old country can start out as a bellhop in the west and then work their way back up to being a doctor (like my uncle) that’s meritocracy! My mom is from a rich family back in old country, but extensive third-world landholdings don’t count for anything in America. And her master’s degree in chemistry was worth nothing in the U.S., especially given her limited English skills. So she worked in retail her whole career. At her earnings peak 15 years ago she was making $120k+ as a floor associate at a furniture store.

999900000999 2y ago

>Bill Gates His Mom knew the chairman of IBM. That's a connection no normal person will ever have. Steve Jobs and Steve Woz actually had to start from a middle class. Comparison is the theft of joy, I haven't been evicted since I got my first apartment at 19 and with any luck I'll retire early. That's enough for me. I'm widely more success than I could of imagined. Yes someone else is making a million a month, has a beautiful partner and a family. Someone else just got out of prison and is struggling to stay in housing. I will never know why the rich ( north of 10 million in the US) feel a need to keep working though. Start a band, travel, etc. Why deal with VCs breathing down your neck. Then again, if I woke up rich I'd probably start a game studio as a passion project. I'd want to release all the code open source. I want the popular games of the future to at a minimum be open core.

kubb 2y ago
Every time this sentiment comes up, it's worth repeating: it's not about envy. It's not about how much they have or how much better their life is than yours. It's about inequality creating a worse world for everyone. We all do this exercise of being happy with what we have regularly. This is how you deal with the reality that you live in. But you shouldn't let this coping mechanism stop you from pushing for a better world with less inequality. Getting comfortable with how broken things are is necessary, but not sufficient. Imagining that things could be worse is only half the answer. The other half is thinking how things could be better.
verteu 2y ago
> I will never know why the rich ( north of 10 million in the US) feel a need to keep working though. Start a band, travel, etc. I suspect it's selection bias: Non-workaholics rarely build vast wealth.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Arguments against merit make two errors. First is treating it as a formula, not a correlation. Second is conflating merit for free will. Merit is not about freedom from circumstance. As the article points out, luck can be stow someone with more merit. Someone can have better parenting, education or genes through no action of their own. This does not mean they lack merit. Merit is a performance metric. Working hard or having talent won't always result in equal rewards in the real world. Nobody is making this straw man. However, talent and effort improve outcomes relative to lack of talent and lack of effort, all else being equal.

tonyedgecombe 2y ago
> Nobody is making this straw man. Actually I think many are, including a lot of politicians.
roxolotl 2y ago
I think it’s pretty clear that the strawman is, at least, the actual loudest opinion. Maybe it’s not the majority but if you look at the backlash against DEI you very clearly see that those claiming DEI is to blame for the current ills of society are arguing from that straw position. The goal of something like DEI is to round the edges of the arbitrary merit such as systemic disenfranchisement. A just meritocracy would evaluate people on _relevant_ merit to the judgement at hand. Such a society does not exist.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I think DEI is largely a debate about what constitutes merit. E.g. Is it about hard work or performance. If performance, what metric. This is most obvious in school admissions. People argue if admissions should be blinded to race, or calibrated to take into account effort. However, Nobody is arguing that merit doesn't exist, as in a straight F student that can't read should be admitted to Stanford.
  - roxolotl 2y ago
    Absolutely agree that merit is real and exists. I think DEI/AA though is actually trying to make society more meritocratic along the lines of performance. It is a thumb on the scale. But not of what is considered instead of who is considered.

roxolotl 2y ago

It is a statement on where we are today that this was flagged today but not 2019

labrador 2y ago
I bet the same people who don't like this challenge to meritocracy also would tell you they believe in luck
Centigonal 2y ago
It's crazy that this was flagged -- acknowledging the role of structuralism is apparently a radical act in 2025.