Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

Meritocracy

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 519
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Karpel Tunnel » October 13th, 2018, 4:27 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 7:26 am
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,
Though you could bump them up in the ratings given their effort, which was one of the criteria in you definition.
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.
Or simply not knowing how to evaluate given the very different types of criteria on the list in the definition you gave. Or by being fooled by a current, but perhaps more static state, fostered by privilege.

But actually my point was that there is the hiring moment, where candidates are where they are. But that is just one facet of a society. It seems to me a society calling itself a meritocracy would not simply focus on those moemnts of measurement, but also on seeing to it that merit is what leads to power or freedom to use ones skills. And this would entail seeing to it that candidates showing potential in not so advantageous circumstances are given bridges to advantageous ones. Otherwise it is not merit, but luck that controls the results.
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!)
So we are on the same page to some degree. I would look at the first part a little differently. A kid in a **** environment who scores 12 could be said to be showing more merit than a kid with advantages scoring a 15. We are not in a hiring stage. We are not choosing to let one be a surgeon, so we don't need to treat either student as a final product, just note that the first student managed to score 12 on, let's say, a reading comprehension test, despite being in a family where his vocabularly was not automatically enhanced just listening to mom and dad speak.

I think when people look at meritocracies or imagine them, they often imagine that moment when we have two candidates for a job, and often the job will then be some job where catastrophy is waiting around the corner if we choose the weaker on test measurement candidate right now to operate on your mother's brain since she just had an aneurism. But since we are discussing a society with a specific philosophy, we have to assume that this society will be run not just around those specific Candidate A vs B moments, but is suffused with supporting merit all over the place, in diverse ways.

And again, I would raise the issue that to ensure merit is the criterion I cannot but see that government will have to be all over the place. Private companies may allow guilt and empathy to distort merit evaluations, but they certainly allow connections, family relationships, personality types and other non-merit factors to sway their candidate A vs. B moments.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2873
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by Burning ghost » October 13th, 2018, 4:58 am

Karp -
Though you could bump them up in the ratings given their effort, which was one of the criteria in you definition.
Of course. Adversity against the odds is certainly a sign of merit. To extend this further I believe “adversity” to be necessary to personal development (although how each person is best suited to thsi or that degree of “adversity” is hard to tell.)

You refer to this too here:
A kid in a **** environment who scores 12 could be said to be showing more merit than a kid with advantages scoring a 15.
Measuring “potential” is not an easy task. It is not a direct contradiction principle of a meritocracy though. Rather an embedded problem within the practical application of the idea (as are wages and pleasure in teh work place among a whole load of other problems we’ve not even mentioned.)

The base point being that “merit” comes prior to regard for economic standing even though one may judge - wrongly - that all poor people work harder to achieve the same standards as the rich. Not that I would deny the partial truth of such an argument, but I am far from accepting it as a given for all cases.
Or simply not knowing how to evaluate given the very different types of criteria on the list in the definition you gave. Or by being fooled by a current, but perhaps more static state, fostered by privilege.
You’ll have to expand and clarify this point for me please.
It seems to me a society calling itself a meritocracy would not simply focus on those moemnts of measurement, but also on seeing to it that merit is what leads to power or freedom to use ones skills.
That is a concern I voiced when I spoke of possible “dogma” within some given area of human interest - like with people’s unwavering belief in Aristotle over Galileo regardless of the experimental evidence they were faced with. In such paradigm shifts people assume illusion purposefully emploted or otherwise. This would occur in a predominately “conservative” society whilst less likely in a more “liberal” society - I am not sure a “meritocracy” is favourable to either of these political attitudes, but it can certainly be swayed into dangerous territory by either.
And again, I would raise the issue that to ensure merit is the criterion I cannot but see that government will have to be all over the place. Private companies may allow guilt and empathy to distort merit evaluations, but they certainly allow connections, family relationships, personality types and other non-merit factors to sway their candidate A vs. B moments.
Humans are far from perfect beings. We muddle through and even when we’re doing something with “good intentions” we may end up doing nothing more than fueling our enemies - those with greater “merit”, in that department of human judgement, keep us from falling into complete disarray where hostile force rules all aspects of social action and inhibits the individual.

Don’t worry I am not suggesting I have the perfect measure of people. I bearly understand my own actions and thoughts most of the time. This alone keeps me humble enough to doubt even my strongest beliefs and attitudes. Sadly I think I’m bright enough to act out what I believe where and when I am brave enough to do so ... if what I believe is likley to kill everyone around and cause destruction I hope I’m half as smart as I think I am in order to recognise this ... if not, sorry! :/ hhaha!
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply