This is the definition I am using:
a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.
Yes, but it doesn’t last for long. It just takes a few bad apples on top for the system to quickly go corrupt, which is why the powers on top need to constantly fear being changed by the people
“No! You can’t change me!”
“Yes we can”
::: changes him :::
“Well, I guess that does feel better”
“Told you”
What do you mean by doesn’t last long? Also if the society was a complete meritocracy what accountability would the people have?
Well, human judgement is not perfect, and eventually a snake would be able to climb the ranks and corrupt the whole system.
This is why democracy is the only system that can allow for “constant revolution” and if the current system is broken or corrupt, it’s the only way that allows for a consistent peaceful transfer of power. It is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but as Churchill once said “ Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”
And for when the people in charge decide they’re not going to hand over their power despite being elected out, we have rules about it not being allowed to clear out people’s weapons.
Basically we do our best to ensure there are no circumstances where those in charge get to ignore those they’re ruling over. It’s a way of solving the agency problem given humans’ tendency to ignore the rules when they want to.
Another way to put it is that a politician might decide “oh this system of democracy isn’t going to keep me in power, so I’ll just step outside of it to the world of anything goes” and then an armed populace can say “nope, we’ve got moves there too, and they’re way worse for you than getting voted out”.
It makes the attractiveness of that step outside the system go way down.
It’s a good idea in theory, but there’s a few problems:
- Wealth and power above a certain level tends to become generational no matter how meritorious the origin
- People who are less capable through disability, ilness, generational poverty or anything else not their fault would still be left behind
- A lot of jobs and other functions can benefit from several different skillsets, some of which aren’t mutually inclusive
- Who decides who’s best? Who decides who decides? Etc ad infinitum.
I don’t.
The core issue: Who determines merit, ability, and position? The people who write the rules are the actual government, and governments secure their own power. Like every flawless paper-government system, it crumples as soon as the human element wets the paper.
However, assuming the rule book could be written flawlessly, with “perfect” selfless humans writing the initial rules and then removing themselves from power, there are unsolved issues:
- Popularity contests in determining merit. (I like Johnny Depp better than Amber. Who loses more status?)
- Comparing apples to oranges. (Are Athletes or Artists more worthy, what about the Plumbers and Mailmen?)
- Power corrupts.
- Do morals and ethics have a say in merit? (Save the entire planet, then start kicking cats. Still a hero?)
- How long does a merit last? (When a champion, or athlete, is no longer fit, are they de-positioned? Look at Rome.)
- Brilliant mathematicians get rewarded with what? (Better supercomputers, or political power? What qualifies them to make policy?)
The core issue: Who determines merit, ability, and position? The people who write the rules are the actual government, and governments secure their own power.
You touched on a really important point here: when humans are judging skill, it’s subjective and not really meritocratic.
One of my favorite psychology professors says that people really like the idea of meritocracy, when it’s actually present. He gives the example of sports, and how people aren’t bitter about a particular team winning, or that there’s big inequality between the players, and that the reason people are okay with that inequality is the presence of the playing field and the high speed cameras and whatnot means meritocracy is the actual basis for reward, not personality politics.
In business, government, etc it’s all people judging other people, and on an individual basis. A group of people evaluating is better, like star ratings for an uber driver are probably more trustable than performance evaluations from someone’s boss. The latter can be so heavily distorted by that one person’s judgment.
The ideal is using measurable performance as the measure of “merit”. Like when people run a marathon. As long as the course is visible to confirm nobody’s cheating, that marathon time is yours in a way your degree or your job or your salary isn’t.
It’s also why people are so in favor of free markets deciding resource allocation rather than people: the free market is at least a large crowdsourced combination of everyone’s needs, instead of just some mental image of those needs in the mind of a few committee memebers.
I truly appreciate your contribution to this long dead conversation. It is to my regret I didn’t respond sooner, but I cannot seem to withhold my desire to share. The following could be summed up as, “Everything wrong with sports. Merit is ambiguous. People abuse ambiguity for their own gain.”
the presence of the playing field and the high speed cameras and whatnot means meritocracy is the actual basis for reward,
to confirm nobody’s cheating
Cheating in this context might be summed up as: Violating rules, unsporting. Possibly underhanded, deception, fraud, or trickery. A disparity or unfairness through action.
Sports being a meritocracy is absolutely true on a small scale. However, with a macro view some disparities come to light.
Disparities:
- Genetics.
- Environmental development. (Such as being trained from a young age, being able to afford a better coach, better nutrition, more opportunity, etc, etc.)
- Trickery. {An American football case, where the quarterback confuses the opposing team by standing up with the ball and walking toward the goal, comes to mind.)
- Undetected cheating. (Performance enhancing drug usage. Not illegal doping, but doping that hasn’t been determined as such yet. Delaying select competitors before they get to the field. Etc.)
- Luck. (The wind blowing the ball. An opposing competitor stepping on an uneven spot of turf, or their gear malfunctioning,)
- Individual contribution and shared merit. (Do the players on the team who didn’t contribute still gain merit?)
Exempted due to applicability: (read low or protracted defensibly and a vague determination of where “the game” begins and ends; philosophical)
- Player selection process. (Sure, the wisest managers would ideally select the best players, but offense and emotions may occlude foresight.)
- Who gets selected to be pulled off the bench? {A big can of worms.}
-
- Depends on the coach, instead of the player.
-
- The player not played gains less or no merit.
-
- Argument to be had about the coach being the chess player of the game and merit based on strategies employed, sharing player’s merit with the coach.
- Player trading.
- Corrupt judges/referees.
- Rigged games.
- Politics influencing decisions.
- Uncooperative players inhibiting success.
- Cultural biases.
people really like the idea of meritocracy
Back to the first half of my original point. People do really like the idea of meritocracy… when it aligns with their own views. “Merit” is founded on virtue, worth, or value. And all three depend on the evaluator.
-
For instance, a football fan at a baseball match may not find the players very worthy, because it isn’t football.
-
Another instance, is cheating meritorious? A superior strategy requiring exceptional ability to successfully sabotage your opponent. (Devil’s advocate, and a very Chinese sentiment. I’ll not be defending this point, but it is wise to consider the biases inherent in personal culture determining what merit is.)
-
Alternatively honor and respect determine merit. Also highly subjective, just look at Jihad contrasted to The Crusades.
This leads to the other half: Anything subjective is subject to abuse, because generally humans are selfish and tribal. It’s how our ancestors survived. Any permanent governing system must account for, incorporate, protect, benefit from, and forcefully constrain or alter the governed’s nature as necessary for the benefit or balancing of the governed and the governing system’s continued future. Anything else eventually leads to revolution or collapse.
In truth, I believe a perpetual motion is impossible. Something must continually power and correct the machine running the humans but humans aren’t capable of doing so. We will likely continue to have revolutions and disparities caused by revolutions until our collapse. The best we can hope to do, is make living on this rock less miserable for our fellow inhabitants.
Please have a lovely day.
As a general rule, yes. People who are able to better perform a task should be preferentially allocated towards those tasks. That being said, I think this should be a guiding rule, not a law upon which a society is built.
For one, there should be some accounting for personal preference. No one should be forced to do something by society just because they’re adept at something. I think there is also space within the acceptable performance level of a society for initiatives to relax a meritocracy to some degree to help account for/make up for socioeconomic influences and historical/ongoing systemic discrimination. Meritocracy’s also have to make sure they avoid the application of standardized evaluations at a young age completely determining an individual’s future career prospects. Lastly, and I think this is one of common meritocracy retorhic’s biggest flaws, a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance, which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.
which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.
Why do you think this is?
If I was guessing, in general, I think people who advocate for a pure meritocracy in the USA feel the world should be evaluated in more black and white, objective terms. The financial impact and analytic nature of STEM and finance make it much easier to stratify practitioners “objectively” in comparison to finding, for instance, the “best” photographer. I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy. But I’m no expert.
I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy.
Yeah I agree with this quite a bit.
I don’t think the idea of meritocracy only lives in the U.S.
I didn’t say it did, but I am a citizen of the USA and the vast majority of my cultural experience and knowledge, and therefore what I can intelligently comment on, are centered on the US.
That’s fair.
Just to make it clear the definition that I used does not talk about choosing people for tasks they are suited for, but rather putting them in positions of power, success, and influence.
Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don’t see how this is functionally different than what I said.
Well the way I interpret it is that people who demonstrate their ability are put into a position where they are rewarded more relative to their peers and/or have control over what their peers do.
So for example if I was a engineer and based on some metric was considered highly valuable then I would be paid more than other engineers and I would be put into a position where I can give other engineers directions on what needs to be done.
Then no, I don’t agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there’s a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle
a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance
I don’t think anyone who views contributions in STEM fields as the most valuable to society has any respect for finance.
All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential, and I’ve never heard one of them bash Econ/finance/investment as a career path. But 🤷♂️
All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential
You were saying a group of people believe that value as a person is determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance.
Now you’re saying that this group of people believe that value as a person is determined by earnings potential. Those are not the same things.
SO LONG AS IT IS ACTUAL MERITOCRACY,
and not just privilege’s gaslighting about it ( via making-certain that the poorest have inferior-nutrition, inferior-air-quality, worse-pollution, inferior-education, inferior-healthcare, etc ),
then yes, I hold it is The Proper Way.
However, it REQUIRES a truly-level playing-field, and not a 2-tiered “level” playing-field.
The Scandinavian system of ONLY public-schooling, so there is only 1 tier of education-quality, is a required component.
Student nutrition needs to be guaranteed.
Healthcare needs to work properly, for all.
Livingwage needs to be for all full-time work, and companies that try to hire only part-time for the real-work, have to have the profit-benefit of such hamstringing-of-many-lives cut from them all, permanently.
Fairness requries careful systematic, & openly-honest enforcement, because the DarkHexad: narcissism/machiavellianism/sociopathy-psychopathy/nihilism/sadism/systemic-dishonesty ALWAYS seeks to enforce abusive-exploitation, and it is underhandedly aggressive, and natural in our human nature.
Not mitigating it == accommodating it.
Salut, Namaste, & Kaizen, eh?
_ /\ _
But what is merit exactly? Who decides the criteria we use to measure it?
I believe in the theory of a meritocracy, I even think it could work.
I don’t believe it exists anywhere in the world in practice where power and money are at play.
Every ‘ocracy’ is some kind of meritocracy. It’s just a matter of what the merit is and how it’s measured. They all suck because manipulators break them all.
Aristocracy says people who are in power are there because their fathers did too.
Which is the basis of their merit, in an aristocratic system.
Which they think is some kind of merit, and it’s not really too outlandish. There’s a pretty good chance that you’re awesome if your dad is awesome.
Institution by natural selection
Sounds right until you realize the system invalidates itself by making selection unnatural. 🤣
In theory it’s how things should work (put the most competent person willing to do the job in the position), in practice it would again lead to even more white men (disclaimer: I’m one) in better positions because of the advantages they tend to have growing up just from their skin colour and sex.
The only way a meritocracy works is if everyone starts with the same possibilities in life and even then, as time pass you still end up with a system where a person that was at the top when they were young will tend to always be at the top since they always get the best opportunities.
deleted by creator
That’s too vague a definition. Like, if person A is an accomplished athlete, the best basketball player ever, I do not think his position of power or success should be, say, president. I think this is actually a very dangerous mindset derived from the capitalistic notion that success determines your–I’ll call it value. If you’re successful, you must be smart; If you’re smart, you can be anything, even the president. Success is equal to wealth in these talking circles, and it sort of ends up as a backwards meritocracy. You gain merit measured by your success (wealth) instead of the other way around
But if you define it as a place in which positions of authority are given to people who have proven themselves knowledgeable and capable in the field in which the position of authority is being granted, I do believe in it in principle. I say that because principle and practice are rarely the same in politics and sociology. There are countless other factors that will impact your “success” that are not actually based on your expertise in the field. Better people have designed public transport, electric cars, social media, and spaceships than Elon Musk, yet the man sits in a position of tremendous influence. In a just meritocracy, we would never have heard his name
Which brings about the point that we have certain ideas as a culture (or maybe system) that awards some merits disproportionately more than others. Some will say his merit is in being a ruthless business man. He’s good at that, I guess, so he should be the leader of the company. His “merit” of being a bad human being is being disproportionately rewarded compared to the merit of the scientists that actually design his spaceships, and the engineers that make them work. Meritocracy only really works in a closed system. The most capable archaeologist will be the head of the expedition. If you let the ideas go beyond that, and start comparing apples to oranges, you start seeing instead a system’s idea of what’s important, and by extension that of the society built in that system
I believe in a theoretical meritocracy but I think there are some pitfalls. We have a market that’s very efficient at rewarding incredibly unproductive people. The correlation between money and skill in the modern world just… isn’t. So we’d really need a better evaluation system… if we had that I think it’d be achievable.
Love the idea, though.
It’s easily manipulated. We already have barrier to entry in several professions via required degrees and certifications. Those degrees and certifications require significant time and resources to attain. They can also be skewed to certain demographic a la old school SAT exams.
My own personal experience is the CPA exam. Passing it shows me nothing of one’s accounting abilities. I’ve seen people who pass it and I wonder how they tie their shoelaces in the morning without injuring themselves. I’ve seen others who haven’t passed it but are brilliant accountants.
All that exam tells me is that a person had resources to not work for six to nine months so they could study and pass the exam. That’s it.
But without it, you’re just not gonna go very far in the industry at all.
Then the AICPA keeps making the exam more difficult and whines that there’s a shortage of young talent.
So what “merit” are we going to measure in this hypothetical system?
There is a meritocratic aspect to reality. There are also meritocratic aspects to capitalism. So it’s partly real, for sure.
A real meritocracy would nurture merit. In terms of policy that would manifest as socialist policies that create a level playing field.
Hiring based on identity is fiercely anti-meritocratic. Expensive degrees and high interest student loans are also anti-meritocratic.
Generally yes with two huge caveats.
First, It has been widely demonstrated that diverse teams are more productive and produce higher quality products than homogeneous teams.
Second, selection criteria is heavily biased towards homogeneous teams and has also been demonstrated to stifle innovation.
Desire/inspiration is nearly as important as capability and non-optimal teams (according to most, if not all selection criteria) will consistently outperform “optimal” teams in any tasks that require innovation.
I think that when we do things we should generally listen to the person who best understands how to do it.
I don’t think that your position in life should be determined by it
