4 ms·

I don't understand you. Are you saying nobody has merit? That somebody wrote a parody about it doesn't prove anything. It's also not obvious that it would cem

I don't understand you. Are you saying nobody has merit? That somebody wrote a parody about it doesn't prove anything. It's also not obvious that it would cement a status quo: people can still strive to have merit? And does the concept forbid helping people to acquire skills? You can perhaps say Meritocracy is not the whole story (because of the self-sustaining elites problem), but it could be part of the solution, together with the usual efforts to give everybody a chance.

KuraFire 13y ago
Something that actively reinforces the status quo by what it is, is unable to ever be “part of the solution” by its very nature. The very idea of meritocracy reinforces the status quo, by virtue of “merit” generally being defined by the people who have the most privilege and power, and who, additionally, rarely ever recognize the merit of the contributions of people who are Not Like Them. (also, the term was coined as a parody, as a warning; it wasn't just "written about")
- facepalm 13y ago
  That criticism doesn't make sense: I don't think anybody believes that in general the people in power today are so because of their merits. So how does a call for meritocracy cement the status quo? I think people want people with actual merit in power instead of many of the current crop. OK, the GitHub carpet perhaps made that claim, but they were truly trying to create a new kind of company. I'm pretty sure they didn't define merit to be "privilege and power" but coding skills and open source contribution. Now you can make a very complicated case trying to reason why some people are excluded from open source and programming, but I don't really buy it. Everybody can start coding with an investment of perhaps 300$. Maybe some people are unlucky in that they never hit upon the idea. But it would be very difficult to prove that people can be actively prevented from programming (except by ways that would exclude them from everything, like making them slaves and never giving them any free time to do anything). Also, why does the status quo always have to be bad?
  - pron 13y ago
    > But it would be very difficult to prove that people can be actively prevented from programming Well, kids growing up in poverty without the right role models are pretty close to being "actively prevented from programming". > Also, why does the status quo always have to be bad? It doesn't, but it can't be an ideal either. The status quo can be better than the past (or "relatively good"), but still very far from an ideal. If you believe people should always work to make the world better, than trying to maintain the status quo is pretty bad (unless you see some danger looming).
    - facepalm 13y ago
      "Well, kids growing up in poverty without the right role models are pretty close to being "actively prevented from programming"" Not really - they can still get a computer for 300$, head to the nearest library and get started. Yes, there are bad fates - perhaps they never learned to read and so on. It's really possible someone never gets the chance. But as I said, programming is then really the last skill that can be blamed for being unattainable, plenty of other professions that would be way more forbidding. " If you believe people should always work to make the world better, than trying to maintain the status quo is pretty bad" But wouldn't people be forced to try to have merit, so they would automatically work on improving the world?
pron 13y ago
Meritocracy, like all real or imagined power systems, isn't about merit, though – it's about power. Power is real, so who gets it in a meritocracy? Let's say it's people with merit. Alright then, imagine this poor black girl growing up in the projects. She sees drug abuse all around her, but she stays away from it. She grows up and tries really hard to get her kids out of poverty. While she takes two jobs and sits with her kids for hours every day to tutor them, she fails as bad influence proves too strong. Now imagine this boy growing up in Manhattan to rich parents. They send him to all the right schools and make sure he takes part in all the right extracurricular activities. He works hard and gets into Harvard, where he continues to study hard to get his Comp Sci degree. A meritocracy grants power to those with merit: which of these two people will have power? One of the reasons meritocracy is a joke is that merit cannot be measured; only success. Those who claim to believe in meritocracy think it simply means removing power from those who've gained success without merit (say, through connections and/or inheritance). But that doesn't really change the picture much, because the biggest bias is against those who haven't had success at all, in spite of their merit. Like I said in my previous comment, when considering meritocracy, you should ask yourself "who does not have merit and why?"
- facepalm 13y ago
  Still, you can not seriously ask of tech companies to hire the poor girl from the slum instead of the Harvard comp sci major because the girl never had a chance to learn comp sci? I don't think such a rule would be beneficial for society. If comp sci doesn't convince you, imagine you are seriously ill. Who should be your physician - somebody who studied medicine at Harvard, or somebody who never had a chance to study medicine? As I said, I don't see why Meritocracy could not be part of the solution. I don't think it implies that society shouldn't try to give people a fair chance all along the way. It doesn't even define what kind of merits should be rewarded. Perhaps "helping people to achieve their potential" would be the merit regarded the highest. And if you dismiss Meritocracy on those grounds you mentioned, aren't you straight back in communism territory? You probably wouldn't be allowed to pay the comp sci major more than any other unskilled worker, either. Otherwise it would be unfair, right?
  - 13y ago

KuraFire 13y ago

Something that actively reinforces the status quo by what it is, is unable to ever be “part of the solution” by its very nature. The very idea of meritocracy reinforces the status quo, by virtue of “merit” generally being defined by the people who have the most privilege and power, and who, additionally, rarely ever recognize the merit of the contributions of people who are Not Like Them. (also, the term was coined as a parody, as a warning; it wasn't just "written about")

facepalm 13y ago
That criticism doesn't make sense: I don't think anybody believes that in general the people in power today are so because of their merits. So how does a call for meritocracy cement the status quo? I think people want people with actual merit in power instead of many of the current crop. OK, the GitHub carpet perhaps made that claim, but they were truly trying to create a new kind of company. I'm pretty sure they didn't define merit to be "privilege and power" but coding skills and open source contribution. Now you can make a very complicated case trying to reason why some people are excluded from open source and programming, but I don't really buy it. Everybody can start coding with an investment of perhaps 300$. Maybe some people are unlucky in that they never hit upon the idea. But it would be very difficult to prove that people can be actively prevented from programming (except by ways that would exclude them from everything, like making them slaves and never giving them any free time to do anything). Also, why does the status quo always have to be bad?
- pron 13y ago
  > But it would be very difficult to prove that people can be actively prevented from programming Well, kids growing up in poverty without the right role models are pretty close to being "actively prevented from programming". > Also, why does the status quo always have to be bad? It doesn't, but it can't be an ideal either. The status quo can be better than the past (or "relatively good"), but still very far from an ideal. If you believe people should always work to make the world better, than trying to maintain the status quo is pretty bad (unless you see some danger looming).
  - facepalm 13y ago
    "Well, kids growing up in poverty without the right role models are pretty close to being "actively prevented from programming"" Not really - they can still get a computer for 300$, head to the nearest library and get started. Yes, there are bad fates - perhaps they never learned to read and so on. It's really possible someone never gets the chance. But as I said, programming is then really the last skill that can be blamed for being unattainable, plenty of other professions that would be way more forbidding. " If you believe people should always work to make the world better, than trying to maintain the status quo is pretty bad" But wouldn't people be forced to try to have merit, so they would automatically work on improving the world?

pron 13y ago

Meritocracy, like all real or imagined power systems, isn't about merit, though – it's about power. Power is real, so who gets it in a meritocracy? Let's say it's people with merit. Alright then, imagine this poor black girl growing up in the projects. She sees drug abuse all around her, but she stays away from it. She grows up and tries really hard to get her kids out of poverty. While she takes two jobs and sits with her kids for hours every day to tutor them, she fails as bad influence proves too strong. Now imagine this boy growing up in Manhattan to rich parents. They send him to all the right schools and make sure he takes part in all the right extracurricular activities. He works hard and gets into Harvard, where he continues to study hard to get his Comp Sci degree. A meritocracy grants power to those with merit: which of these two people will have power? One of the reasons meritocracy is a joke is that merit cannot be measured; only success. Those who claim to believe in meritocracy think it simply means removing power from those who've gained success without merit (say, through connections and/or inheritance). But that doesn't really change the picture much, because the biggest bias is against those who haven't had success at all, in spite of their merit. Like I said in my previous comment, when considering meritocracy, you should ask yourself "who does not have merit and why?"

facepalm 13y ago
Still, you can not seriously ask of tech companies to hire the poor girl from the slum instead of the Harvard comp sci major because the girl never had a chance to learn comp sci? I don't think such a rule would be beneficial for society. If comp sci doesn't convince you, imagine you are seriously ill. Who should be your physician - somebody who studied medicine at Harvard, or somebody who never had a chance to study medicine? As I said, I don't see why Meritocracy could not be part of the solution. I don't think it implies that society shouldn't try to give people a fair chance all along the way. It doesn't even define what kind of merits should be rewarded. Perhaps "helping people to achieve their potential" would be the merit regarded the highest. And if you dismiss Meritocracy on those grounds you mentioned, aren't you straight back in communism territory? You probably wouldn't be allowed to pay the comp sci major more than any other unskilled worker, either. Otherwise it would be unfair, right?
- 13y ago