Meritocracy
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Meritocracy
What you actually need is a generalist to see the bigger picture.
In your perfect world, do plumbers get more money than surgeons. Do surgeons get more money than carpenters, or do carpenters get more money that plumbers - you still have not begun to even understand the most simply complexities of a meritocracy, let alone even begun to start to answer a single question adequately.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
For diagnosis you certainly need a generalist. A diagnostician has more merit when determining an illness (what’s your point?)ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 11th, 2018, 4:34 pm When there is a problem the osteologist sees in as a bone problem, the astrologer sees it as a problem with your stars, a pharmacist tells you you need drugs, and a surgeon tells you that you need an operation.
What you actually need is a generalist to see the bigger picture.
In your perfect world, do plumbers get more money than surgeons. Do surgeons get more money than carpenters, or do carpenters get more money that plumbers - you still have not begun to even understand the most simply complexities of a meritocracy, let alone even begun to start to answer a single question adequately.
What “perfect world”? How much people get paid is not a question I am asking here, nor one I see any point of answering more than I have already. If you have a different answer then go ahead and answer it (and I have answered this in the last post I made.)
What don’t I understand? Enlighten me please.
My question was simple and put to you and everyone else. I outlined the beginnings of my thoughts onteh matter and no more. What are positive and negative aspects of a meritocracy?
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Meritocracy
I suppose I mean you don't get it.Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 12:35 amFor diagnosis you certainly need a generalist. A diagnostician has more merit when determining an illness (what’s your point?)ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 11th, 2018, 4:34 pm When there is a problem the osteologist sees in as a bone problem, the astrologer sees it as a problem with your stars, a pharmacist tells you you need drugs, and a surgeon tells you that you need an operation.
What you actually need is a generalist to see the bigger picture.
In your perfect world, do plumbers get more money than surgeons. Do surgeons get more money than carpenters, or do carpenters get more money that plumbers - you still have not begun to even understand the most simply complexities of a meritocracy, let alone even begun to start to answer a single question adequately.
I can keep throwing out the peals, but if you keep **** on them, we ain't gonna have any kind of worthwhile discussion.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
True, I made the mistake of assuming people knew what a meritocracy was - it refers to “merit” in terms of who is best fit for a position in society. Those with the talent, capacity, knowledge and hardwork being better suited to a position than those with talent, capacity, knowledge or industriousness.
You asked how they shoudl be paid. It seems obvious enough that people should be paid in a free market system where price is determined by supply and demand - there are some obvious problems with that, but it is not a direct repercussion of a meritocracy.
Another example of what meritocracy means is that rich kids are not paid into a university by their parents and that the students who get into university are measured by their academic ability, not based on wealth, race, religion or any other such thing. The primary elements determining who goes to university being talent, ability and hardwork.
If you wish to keep talking about wages you’re probably missing the principle point of a meritocracy. If not explain your point - I can see an argument here nut you don’t appear to have one and choose to imply that I’m missing something without giving any hint as to what it is.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Meritocracy
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Meritocracy
or corporations from choosing 'representatives' or nepotism. It is hard to have a number of employer freedoms, since one employers are free to promote some, fire others, divvy up tasks, they can game and control advancement not having to do with merit. IOW some of the fundamental characteristics of private enterprise pretty much entail anti-meritocracy.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Meritocracy
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
Nothing. Yet when it comes down to who you hire or choose for this or that position you don’t judge them, in a meritocracy, by their social standing. That is essentially the definition of a meritocracy - ability over any bias and without sympathy to those that do not fulfill the requirements.
Example: Just because one doctor may have had private tuition or not during their education it makes no difference to you. You still want the best doctor not the doctor from what you determine as coming from the “better” social strata.
I find it strange that no one has addressed the individual human element of this. That is even if someone is talented, hardworking and possess refined ability and knowledge in a given area, it doesn’t necessarily mean they will enjoy taking on such a position - it might well be that their knowledge is so great that they see no value in the given area and dismiss it on personal principle.
Let us say as an exampe that someone is born and trained to be a footballer. They have innate ability and in their youth a great passion that drove the to become bar none the “Greatest Footballer” to have ever lived. They are at the peak of their career and with another decade of high level success and further potential for growth, yet they’ve lost their love for the sport. Obvously this person is perfect for the position of footballer when it comes to talent and ability, with many people wishing to have their capacities (regardless of fame or wealth - I cannot emphasis my lack of interest in this particular area) and be loved and admired by many as this person is.
Maybe you can see my thinking now?
That is if the best people for a position refuse that position then what? The blithe response would be if they don’t care for the position then they’ll be unfit for it - but this isn’t necessarily because if someone excels in a certain area then the amount of “effort” they put into it will still outshine the passionate person who lacks any knowledge or ability.
On an indivdual level I find myself asking “Just because I can, should I?” Do talented people “owe” something to society? To what degree should people except their lot and march on? It is plain enough to see that someone with a passion for science who is utterly terrible at mathematics, practical experimentation and extremely disorderly, no social skills to speak of, and no swriosu artistic talent, will not be able to fill any position in “science” either directly or indirectly. This would be the opposite problem to the “Greatest Footballer”.
It seems to me that almost everyone on Earth makes some trade off. They pick a position they find interest and enough value in in order to have more time to pursue personal interests and passions - and sometimes it makes more sense to keep your hobby separate from your position in society in terms of emlpoyment within the structure.
We know straight off the bat that the principles of a meritocracy are “talent”, “ability” and “effort”. We’ve also had severasl people repeat over and over about the dificulty of measures these human qualities and the issue of who dictates the means and method of any measurement (accurate or not.)
I have mentioned about how best to order these qualities. It seems obvous enough to me that “effort” is useless without “ability”. It also seems to me that “ability” is actually nothing more than the manifestation of what comes about due to a combination of “talent” and “don’t personally see how “talent” is lesser than “effort”, because if we take two people of equal “talent” and one puts more effort into their project then the one with more effort will obviously come up trumps, whilst if we take two people of greater and lesser talent and give them the lesser talent more effort and the greater talent less effort then we cannot say for certain which will have the better ability. But of course this is a stupid and deeply naive approach!
When talent is equal effort mattters. When effort is equal talent matters. When effort is low talent matters. When talent is low effort matters. The state of affairs here is that low talent means a need for a great deal of effort in order to get anywhere, whilst a great deal of talent means little effort is needed to get anywhere.
Greta -
The “leftist” view I was talking of earlier refers to this point. The need to equate “merit” and “talent” with what is “fair”. The desire to enforce equality and to allow idiots to rule as much as we allow geniuses to rule. I don’t see sense i this approach even though the harsh reality is iften difficult to stomach when it comes to people being unable to find a place in society and achieve the roles they’ve been told they are just as capable as eveyrone else (a lie.)
TH -
Discuss what you can here. Don’t assume I am looking at this in a trivial manner. I am well aware of the vast abyss of problems embedded within the practical application of this, and I am by no means able to take it all in at once so don’t be shy. Be direct, don’t throw “peals.” My ignorance is ever growing and the more aware you can make me of others ignorances the better for me and the better for you (if you wish to improve your ability to explicate what you know to a wider audience rather than resort again and again to jibes, taunts and insults - even though they do work on some people, but it’s a very risky game to play and often does little more tha expand the gulf between us and eradicate the meaningful landscape we can all relatively happily play upon.0
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
What is confusing? Simply google “meritocracy” and look up the political definition of a “meritocracy”. It CLEARLY states that “merit” is against giving positions to people based on wealth, race, sex, etc.,.Eduk wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 4:44 am I agree Karpel. I think enforcement of meritocracy would be impossible with humans (as real life demonstrates). Capitalism is the closest system I know to meritocracy, I find the OP somewhat confusing as people are already paid according to their talent a percentage of the time.
It does state that resources should be given to those with merit. This I take it people translate as money and earnings, but that is not really what is being said. What is being said is that within any given field those with the best ablities should be given trh most resources because they have the best understanding of how to spend these resources to extend the field further - and specialised is something TH has ppointed out in this manner but was sadly too lazy to explicate prefering to place himself on a pedestal rather than try to actaully open up a meaningful discussion about that problem (the problem being essentially that a “meritocracy” is likely prone to breeding a degree of dogmatism.)
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Meritocracy
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: Meritocracy
That's after the fact, where provable. IOW if I can show that an employer saw I was poor or black and prove that is why he did not hire me - not easy, but possible - I have legal recourse. But Eduk was raising issues where what leads up to a certain stage of skill or experience on paper or other merits is unfair to, for example, the poor, and likely not demonstrated that long term the criteria hold up for which is the best candidate.Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:15 am What is confusing? Simply google “meritocracy” and look up the political definition of a “meritocracy”. It CLEARLY states that “merit” is against giving positions to people based on wealth, race, sex, etc.,.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
Obviously. Some people are born in positions that give them a better chance to fulfill their potential in the real world. I’d not argue that in the slightest. It doesn’t mean you’d hire someone because they are “poor” over their ability, although it would perhaps influence your choice if you wished to help someone out, then you’d be choosing employees based on “wealth” rather than ability - that is certainly one area where a “meritocracy” breaks down, when someone is employed due to “empathy”, “sympathy”, and/or “guilt” above actual merit.Karpel Tunnel wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 7:02 amThat's after the fact, where provable. IOW if I can show that an employer saw I was poor or black and prove that is why he did not hire me - not easy, but possible - I have legal recourse. But Eduk was raising issues where what leads up to a certain stage of skill or experience on paper or other merits is unfair to, for example, the poor, and likely not demonstrated that long term the criteria hold up for which is the best candidate.Burning ghost wrote: ↑October 12th, 2018, 5:15 am What is confusing? Simply google “meritocracy” and look up the political definition of a “meritocracy”. It CLEARLY states that “merit” is against giving positions to people based on wealth, race, sex, etc.,.
It does, however, make sense to give more opportunity to people rather than “compensate” their “disadvantageous” start to life - and the there is the possiblilty of a “rough” start to life being “beneficial” to some personality types. The value of money is known more by those without it than those with it (I’d say that those with no money, and those with billions, more likley understand that other things are more important ... well, there is a degree of that I’d throw my hat in with at least!)
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Meritocracy
No you aren't hiring someone because you want to help them out. You are hiring them because you think they have more merit but they have not been able to demonstrate that up to this point due to extenuating circumstances.It doesn’t mean you’d hire someone because they are “poor” over their ability, although it would perhaps influence your choice if you wished to help someone out, then you’d be choosing employees based on “wealth” rather than ability
In an ideal world then giving opportunity would be far preferable. However we don't live in an ideal world.It does, however, make sense to give more opportunity to people rather than “compensate” their “disadvantageous” start to life
Not necessarily.The value of money is known more by those without it than those with it
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Meritocracy
What is the "reward" that those of higher competence receive? Is it entrance into a restricted area, or is it a higher reward for the same work as someone with lesser competence? Folks' opinions on the validity of such a system is going to vary based on the answer.
Then there is the issue of a theoretical meritocracy, that exists in the mind only, where competence can magically be assessed in an impartial way, as opposed to here in the Real World, where bright (and many not so bright) people can "game" the system to appear more deserving, yet aren't.
The reality is that we currently have (in the West) imperfect "meritocracy" in most areas. It works OK but somehow (magic, perhaps?) those higher in the power structure end up more "deserving" than the rabble, statistically. We're still trying to figure out why... any thoughts?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Meritocracy
I hope no one would suggest someone of lesser competence deserves a position because they have “passion” above “ability.” I am not talking about salary/wage. As an example not is allowed to conduct any experiment they wish to at CERN.Is it entrance into a restricted area, or is it a higher reward for the same work as someone with lesser competence?
Of course in realiry anyone can “game” the system to some degree or another. Given that this is not generally the case everywhere and that people do get into positions due to more than mere chicanery it is fairly obvious that we live, in the west especially, in a “functional” meritocracy not a free for all, no holes barred, “I think I’m better at you so I’ll beat you down” kind of world.
A couple of questions rather than thoughts. What does “derserving” mean here in relation to the premise of a meritocracy? I would say that someone with talent in an area should have more say over how to apply that talent than some nobody who has idea about the subject matter. In this sense what people “deserve” is a completely redundant term - and I’ve argued this point extentively before with H&N. Then I have to ask what you mean by “power”? This is important if your aim is portray “power” as some corrupting force only with no actual benefit for society at large (which necessarily exists due to different levels of competence through people’s ability to bring about change.)those higher in the power structure end up more "deserving" than the rabble, statistically. We're still trying to figure out why... any thoughts?
Remember, I am talking about meritocracy not capitalism.
Who would suggest that the incompetent be given control over the competent? To me it’s cut and dry on the surface, yet the issue of assessment is another problem entirely, and not one I feel we’ll ever solve. In some areas more than others it is quite obvious who should be in positions of influence and who shouldn’t. In sports it is easy enough to see, generally speaking, where the best players play. The goes across the whole spectrum of human activity, and whilst there are grey areas here and there we generally agree upon a common standard of judgement - like in how well a somg sells (and here there is an issue because if the “market” is determined by those who know little then do we judge millions of screaming teenagers about the best music around or the professoinals within the business?)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023