posted by
n1
on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:20AM
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
from the in-my-day-we-called-it-social-darwinism dept.
When Michael Young, a British sociologist, coined the term meritocracy in 1958, it was in a dystopian satire. At the time, the world he imagined, in which intelligence fully determined who thrived and who languished, was understood to be predatory, pathological, far-fetched.
Today, however, we’ve almost finished installing such a system, and we have embraced the idea of a meritocracy with few reservations, even treating it as virtuous. That can’t be right. Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
When the Term Meritocracy was Coined in 1958, it was in a Dystopian Satire
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 59 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by khchung on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:24AM
Would you prefer that instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:33AM
That is just the mirror image.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:46AM
What you have is a niggerocracy which triggered a resurgence of racism and set the civil rights movement back 40 years. MLK had a dream that white crackers could tell amusing jokes about black niggers with inoffensively satirical intention. And a short while ago it seemed the dream was coming true and we could all get along without everyone taking offense to everything. Then the niggerocracy happened and popular opinion went full racist against white people. Brother that is not how equality works.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:14AM
Niggers deserve to be large and in charge because Martin Luther King said the black man is superior.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:59AM
Because those are the only two choices right?
We don't live in a meritocracy and the suggestion is somewhat laughable with only a superficial drilling into the facts:
- Scientist's wages...need I say more?
- Politician's wages...
- Current corporate structure with shareholders
- Trust fund children
- Donald Trump
- etc
For the record, we very much live in a Plutocracy.
All hail the rich!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:38AM
Who says scientists are smarter than finance guys? Most science is just crank-turning.
Finance has been doing a brain-drain on gifted people precisely because it pays so well.
Citing politicians and trump is kinda stupid too because a handful of counter-examples aren't statisically meaningful.
As for shareholders and trust-fund babies (which is redundant, dummy) that's capital versus labor. This is about valuing labor.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fustakrakich on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:04PM
Because those are the only two choices right?
Well, yes and no...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by wisnoskij on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:44PM
You seem to be confused about meritocracy, and think it supposed to be some sort of economic system. It's not. A Meritocracy is based around making the best at science scientists, and the best at politics politicians. It is not about what sort of incentives the system used to reward the people who go into those positions.
The best example is Donald Trump. he has spent by far the least money on his campaign, and so far has outperformed all the other candidates. He is simply better at campaigning than any other person in the race, and is being rewarded based on this merit. Its not a pure meritocracy, money matters, but as we are seeing, there really is no correlation at all between how much each candidate is spending and their success.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday June 18 2016, @02:49PM
A Meritocracy is based around making the best at science scientists, and the best at politics politicians. It is not about what sort of incentives the system used to reward the people who go into those positions.
You gotta do what you gotta do!
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Saturday June 18 2016, @09:35PM
I am not confused, but you apparently are. Those in power hold sway and make financial decisions leading to the economy being geared towards those people. This is basic politics.
meritocracy:
- government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit.
- a society governed by people selected according to merit.
What you are suggesting is NOT a meritocracy nor what we currently have:
- Our political leaders are selected on popularity (rather than merit) due in large part to their ability to out campaign their opponents. Hence why we have Trump, Bush, etc. They are almost always wealthy people themselves and/or backed (and thus controlled) by billionaires.
- The scientific profession and other experts are treat as wage slaves paid as little as possible while the majority of power in their fields resides in the hands of the wealthy running the company.
- In technology the vast majority of innovative startups are bought out by wealthy people and then run according their wishes. (sometimes the creators BECOME wealthy themselves and thus have a say...otherwise no)
At no point is the current system of government selecting those most fit for their position based on merit/skill/etc.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday June 19 2016, @01:53AM
Yes it is. That is the entire point. We choose our leaders based on merit. How we have chosen to go about measuring this merit is a popularity contest because we believe that the decision should be made directly by every citizen instead of relegated to the few or the one.
(Score: 2) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday June 19 2016, @05:14AM
Dude. Popularity != merit in a race to run the country. Maybe to win an acting award or some such.
Merit:
- the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
How does this describe Trump? The guy is popular because he insults people and says bigoted things, not because he is good or worthy at the role of being president. Trump is a distraction in this discussion.
And also, the president does not make all the decisions...the wealthy do.
It is sad you think so...but feel free.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:07PM
How else are you supposed to run an interview where every single citizen gets a vote on who merits the job the most? No system lets you perfectly measure the merits of all applicants, and this only gets harder to do when you increase the number of interviewers to several million or more.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Mr Big in the Pants on Sunday June 19 2016, @11:21PM
Good question.
I believe (according to my mother's tales of yore) switzerland used to (still?) have a system whereby the positions such as finance minister were selected from those considered leaders in their field rather than just whatever politician won the popularity contest. I only remember this vaguely so take it with a grain of salt. I do know they have a VERY direct democracy (in other words approximating a TRUE democracy, not the current shame most countries have) with voting on important bills happening several times a years.
Ideas off the top of my head for such systems which may or may not work but still answer the question:
- Independent body with safeguards tasked to review candidates for portfolio positions based on experience and expertise. If one is not cynical and defeatist one could imagine any number of scenarios, restrictions and safeguards to avoid corruption. Many countries use such systems for high level public servants already. Popularist politicians still exist and can debate, vote etc.
- Candidates selected by the public but strictly based on their work and public service record with a shortlist of candidates selected as above. No vapid campaigning allowed, only substantial debates and interviews.
That is all that is on the top of my head in these minutes. The possible implementations of the above could be endless and there are many hybrids.
I am sure there could be much discussion on how viable such systems could be, what their flaws are and the parrots will repeat their old mantras about the current system being better than all the others etc etc.
Nevertheless it answers your question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 22 2016, @02:12PM
popularity might not be the kind of merit you want in the 'leaders of the country', but it's still a kind of merit
as it stands the race for office is based on popularity-based merit
so it _is_ a meritocracy, just not the right kind
as a sidenote, it's a very rare politician that actually leads as opposed to ruling or managing
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:36AM
We have that in the USA. For our next president, most people will be choosing the slightly-less terrible candidate.
But where is this "meritocracy" that has been installed?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Aiwendil on Saturday June 18 2016, @09:31AM
Canada?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nerdfest on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:19PM
Sorry.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:58PM
Definitely not, Justin is the P.M.
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday June 19 2016, @04:09AM
Well we went from a failed economics professor to a successful math teacher who also has an engineering degree (acquired after teaching).
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Sunday June 19 2016, @01:43PM
Was in part an attempt at humor, in part in that the PM in Canada actually has at least some education in STEM..
But if you want a serious answer: Singapore
(and let's not forget that germany's Merkel is a trained scientist (chemistry research))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @11:53AM
I have been under the misconception that the "merit" prefix implied "...deserve or be worthy of (something, especially reward, punishment, or attention).", as in EARNED it. Earned as opposed to being "gifted", i.e., born with it. Kind of like being elected to representative office in government verses being born into royalty, that latter implying some bizarre birthright to have dominion over others not so fortunate in the genetic lottery.
The dictionary definition of "mertiocracy" includes "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." ... I always have assumed that "their ability" implied "demonstrated ability", rather than simply being born with a high I.Q.,
Certainly, a lot of potential derives from circumstances of birth, but much more important is what one makes of what they have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:36AM
Today we have affirmative action, employment equity, preferential procurement, no-child-left behind, H1B, etc.
Merit hardly factors. That's not sustainable.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:53AM
For the past 15 years it's been Preferential Treatment for Black Lesbian Veterans of Bushbama's Wars. Are you White or Male or Straight or Civilian? No Job for you! Not. Ever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:08PM
Don't forget, if you're over 26, you can't even get drafted...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:55AM
No matter the intelligence.
Meritocracy may have made some gains but my own impression is that this still reigns supreme:
"it's not what you know, it's who you know"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @07:01AM
Damn it, I'm ugly and I know nobody. The only solution is a killing spree. Death to the beautiful well-connected people!
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Saturday June 18 2016, @09:43AM
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @06:59AM
Monopoly the game was originally meant as a warning against rentier capitalism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @07:31AM
I thought Monopoly was an educational game to teach greed. I never played it. I assume that's why I simply don't care about money.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:57AM
No, the GP was right. However the "lesson" goes over most people's heads and it is more likely to teach them greed as you say. As in gambling, before the event most people assume they will be a winner even if they actually lose in the board game simulation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:18AM
Actually, it was meant as a demonstration of Georgism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism [wikipedia.org]
but when you mention getting rid of ALL taxes besides on land, the left goes apeshit over the wealthy not paying their fair share and the right gives you fairytales about homesteading conferring ownership rights.
And always that first-mover advantage magically falls in their favor.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by quintessence on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:03AM
We also know the attractive get a far easier ride the average uggos. Why no special accommodation for the misshapen and homily? Sometimes you get through this life on your brains. Sometimes through having nice teeth. Even odds as to which is more successful long-term.
I mean, if you really want to talk elitism, look no further than Hollywood and the cult of celebrity. Short of winning the genetic lottery or having some hefty cash on hand for extensive plastic surgery, the dumb, the smart and the ugly are permanently barred from that multimillionaire lifestyle. But the Kardashians are worth every last cent while spending money on researching something like fusion is always met with suspicion.
Intelligence is not lauded (as any person with a modicum of intelligence will tell you) unless it produces wealth for someone else. It's a handmaiden-whore for the aspirations of the owner class and the well-connected, and once it serves its purpose, it on the same breadlines as the blithering idiot. How many times have you heard "if you're so smart, why ain't you rich"? How many revolutions started with executing the intellectuals?
The reason society moved towards the idea of meritocracy is that it was an improvement over the nepotism and graft that use to dominate even more than they do now. You want dystopian satire? Read Machiavelli.
Fact of the matter is some very bright people are attempting to move society past the grind of the ownership class into something hopefully better for even the less than mentally endowed.
And the ugly truth is that discipline and dedication will outperform intelligence most days. And that is a quality you can develop in the bright and not so bright alike.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:12AM
Fact of the matter is some very bright people are attempting to move society past the grind of the ownership class into something hopefully better for even the less than mentally endowed.
Which masturbatory economy are you alluding to here? Basic income? Bitcoin? Robots? Basic income paid in bitcoin by taxing robots? Be more explicit, fuckface.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:25AM
Which masturbatory economy
VR porn isn't even here yet.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves (and you just know it's going to be proprietary like marriage).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:25AM
The reason society moved towards the idea of meritocracy is that it was an improvement over the nepotism and graft that use to dominate even more than they do now. You want dystopian satire? Read Machiavelli.
This meritocracy thing sounds intriguing. Has it been tried before?
And the ugly truth is that discipline and dedication
Hahaha! That's a good one! Discipline and dedication! Next you're going to tell me that there's some kind of invisible hand that'll send me gold and wealth from the Jerb Creators in reward for discipline and dedication!
This mythology intrigues me.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:20AM
This mythology intrigues me.
Quite. As Confucianism influenced even Voltaire, and was a key component of the Enlightenment. Perhaps you should read more?
The fact the reign of kings has died down might have been your first clue.
Although civilization does occasionally advance through leaps and bounds, mostly it moves incrementally through, gasp! discipline and dedication, much like the push to end global poverty
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim [economist.com]
But that requires seeing the world from a broader perspective than your navel.
(Score: 0, Troll) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday June 19 2016, @01:24AM
Lol. You imagine I am unfamiliar with these things. The kings are building themselves back up again.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:29PM
> And the ugly truth is that discipline and dedication will outperform intelligence most days
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you didn't bother to read the article, didja?
Because despite your little tantrum, your conclusion ain't all that far off from the author's point.
Since you seem to think you are speaking as someone with at least "a modicum of intelligence" we are now left with a dilemma...
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:49AM
Studies have furthermore found that, compared with the intelligent, less intelligent people are more likely to [...]. They’re also likely to die sooner.
This is evolution: adapt or die out. It's a natural law, not the law of man. Intellect is a core component to survival through adaptation. Your fight is with the universe, not other people.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Saturday June 18 2016, @12:51PM
This is evolution: adapt or die out. It's a natural law, not the law of man. Intellect is a core component to survival through adaptation. Your fight is with the universe, not other people.
True but, from the article:
Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth
What shouldn't happen is that people shouldn't have the right of control over other people. Just because someone is smarter shouldn't give them the right to control those who are less smart, prohibit them from engaging in peaceful activities that don't have victims, prohibit them from earning a living by doing what they will with what is their own, etc.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:02PM
ust because someone is smarter shouldn't give them the right to control those who are less smart
Kind of hard to do when the less smart are more susceptible to believe propaganda and the moderate-smart protect the media propaganda machine when it's favorable to them, and the most smart are seen as "crazy conspiracy theorists". Thus scaremongering easily leads the lesser smart down a road of belief designed to manufacture consent for violence. [youtube.com]
It's like the Flouride debate. All the so-called "smarter" people call the smartest people idiots and conspiracy theorists for not wanting to drink 8 glasses of water a day with fluoride in it, even though the tubes of fluoridated toothpaste say to call poison control if you swallow more than a pea sized amount of the paste. Fluorosis, poisoning by fluoride, is a real thing that causes hardening of ligaments calcification of joints and destruction of teeth. [google.com] Fluoride is very hard to get rid of byproduct from manufacturing aluminum, and environmental groups prohibit it from being dumped into the environment so they sell it to people as "cavity fighting" when it's really a poison that causes arthritis-like symptoms and shouldn't be in our water.
This is just one example why the smart people should be the ones that decide things for the simpletons. Problem is: All the uneducated idiots think they're smart and dismiss legitimate concerns of corruption as "tinfoil hat nutjob speak". They're the same unquestioning fools who always believe the "scientific consensus", even when the "consensus" is totally wrong and corrupt such as when most studies "proved" smoking tobacco didn't cause cancer... That conspiracy was upheld into the 90's due to the profit motive. There is a profit motive in pushing "fluoride = perfectly safe" propaganda too.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:16PM
Kind of hard to do when the less smart are more susceptible to believe propaganda
The less smart shouldn't be permitted to control the smart, either.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gravis on Saturday June 18 2016, @08:53AM
The government could, for example, provide incentives to companies that resist automation, thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy.
Why would we want to do that? Machines are faster and more reliable than humans. This is regressive thinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @10:38AM
The world is in a painful transition to the proverbial "post scarcity" society where Everything is automated and done by AIs. The problem is how to get there. One very smart guy has said it cannot be done/won't be done and that the answer is to indeed go full Luddite.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/04/03/0250211 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @11:44AM
> Why would we want to do that? Machines are faster and more reliable than humans. This is regressive thinking.
So what? Why is maximum efficiency on some tasks more important than the livelihood of actual people? This is inhumane thinking.
I've got this funny feeling that if your job were automated away, you'd change your tune. Just look at how many people complain about H1Bs. Is it worse to give your job to someone willing to work cheaper than it is to give it to a machine?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday June 18 2016, @04:24PM
Why has the livelyhood of people to be linked to having a job?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @05:20PM
Better figure out how to fix that problem before cavalierly throwing away the jobs that people depend on for their livelihood.
You can argue all you want about how things should be, but what actually matters to real people in the real world is how things are.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:11PM
Because life requires resources. Air is still free, but in developed societies, water costs (in order to pay for the delivery and disposal infrastructure, testing and purification, etc). Food ... well you could grow or hunt your own ... but that requires land and water (i.e., resources) and the effort of cultivation or capture (i.e., a job). All that stuff ain't free. In modern society (as opposed to primitive, hunter-gatherer), efficiency has been created by division of labor ... specialists function to produce, for example, food, and the aforementioned infrastructure has been built to deliver water and power, vastly improving quality of life. But still, it only appears free to newcomers that lack the experience of and with the build-out of the infrastructure. It all took, and continues to take, a lot of work, i.e., jobs that need be done. This thinking applies much more broadly than the couple of specific cases used for illustration, but the bottom line is, survival and flourishing requires effort, i.e, jobs to be done. We utilize money to account for, and trade, the value of a wide variety of skilled tasks, some involved with the basics of survival, some involved with the wants of flourishing. Everyone gets to share in the bountiful orchestration of all these survival and flourish activities by contributing to the effort in some way, i.e., a job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:30PM
This is not directly related to jobs.
Not if they are automated. Then it's the machines that do those activities. Which was the starting point of this discussion, after all.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 18 2016, @10:48AM
No to "Merit"
Yes to Honour.
Remeber: opposing men taking young female children as brides is a death sentence: (Dt 13:6 hebrew) (elohim means judges/rulers/gods/etc)
Men are permitted to rape2own female children: (Dt 22:28-29 hebrew)
Enticing others to follow something else is a death sentence: (Dt 13:6 hebrew)
That means it is our duty to kill the feminists / stormcucks / whiteknightnationalists in europe and other areas who oppose man+girl.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday June 19 2016, @08:45PM
Come try me, like you threatened to late last year, bigmouth.
I know you won't. You're scared to death of me. You hate me, but you also know taking on a six-foot dyke in steel-toed boots would be the last mistake you ever make.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23 2016, @08:54AM
Don't know who you are, you seem to think I do or ever remember conversing with whomever you are, however I wouldn't "take on a 6 foot steel toed dyke" (btw: you're short, cuntlet). I would just shoot whomever in the back until whomever was dead.
Those women who are enemies of the God of Deuteronomy are not to be afforded respect.
Just execution.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 23 2016, @04:22PM
You want my last medical records? 183cm on the dot, 75kg (yes, I could stand to drop a few of those...it's happening, give it a couple months). I'm taller than most men and heavier than around a third of them, partly because my second job involves a lot of moving boxes.
So, Mikee, am I to assume that by the above post you are indeed threatening me with death by gunshot? Should I find out where you work and send your employer all the screencaptures of your behavior I've been saving up? :) If you wanna talk "rape2own" just wait till you end up in prison!
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:25PM
Being intelligent is not equivalent to meriting everything, and no one has ever seriously proposed that a meritocracy is a society that just gives intelligent people all the wealth and power. A Meritocracy is a society that rewards the better essay with the better grade, that makes the most talented football players professional football players. This is best understood next to the system it replaces, the class based system. A system where you get to be (or are forced to be) a professional hockey player because you are the son of Wayne Gretzky, or get the best mark in class because you are the son of the mayor/chief/clan leader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @03:17AM
Although Gretzky's daughter did make the cover of Golf Digest [golfdigest.com], even though I doubt she could break 90 on a tournament course...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @12:37PM
Clearly, you failed to RTFA, or at least to understand the quoted part that talks about what the inventor of the term meant. You make the mistake of imagining the word "meritocracy" means what it sounds like. As the article points out, at least when coined, it meant rule flourish or languish by birthright.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by zip on Saturday June 18 2016, @01:44PM
The author of that article doesn't seem to understand what meritocracy is. It (as a form of government) means that only those who have shown to have merit in a certain field can help decide issues in that same field. For example, most people here would qualify for some sort of technical/privacy committee, but would be hard pressed to get in to something related to agriculture.
Lack of intelligence (as well as awareness) is the cause of most of the issues in society today. We need intelligence to overcome the evolutionary defects that have accrued over millennia (see lack of long term planning). Sure, half of society will always fall below the 100 IQ mark, but that's just due to the definition, it's a relative scale. As long as we get smarter on the absolute scale, the world will only get better. Unfortunately this is not in the interest of those who stand to lose (governments, multi-billion corporations).
EOF
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 19 2016, @05:25AM
s/t