SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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This discussion has been archived.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.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(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