Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 106 posts

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#21

Post by Uchikoma »

chime wrote: post #18
stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

I disagree. Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. A good surgeon can make 3-4x a poor surgeon. A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer. If you are a fantastic programmer and you make $50k/yr in US, it means either (1) you don't care about money (2) you don't know how to negotiate. There is no way a fantasti…

"Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top."

The article seems to contradict that:

"Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places."

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#22

Post by arethuza »

michaelochurch wrote: post #16

Every elite in history has called itself a "meritocracy". Who defines "merit"? The elite. They will always look out for themselves in doing so. If anything, the "dumb", brutal aristocracy of medieval Europe had more of a claim of innate superiority ("merit") than the current elite. Because of superior nutrition and better working conditions, they were half a foot taller, probably 20 IQ points smarter, and overall mor…

"What we actually have in the US is some degree of social mobility within the middle class."

That pretty much describes the situation in the UK - very few people describe themselves as working class these days, you can't really become proper upper class (although your grandchildren might) so we're all left debating the silly distinctions between lower, middle and upper middle class!

[NB I usually joke to my wife that the easiest way of spotting "proper" upper middle class men is their trousers - nobody else seems to wear cords in quite those distinctive colours of pink and startling bright green.]

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#23

Post by ap22213 »

Given the audience of this site, it's interesting that this topic has even floated toward the top. And, it's also interesting (but hardly surprising) that most of the comments are blindly for meritocracy.

Yeah - meritocracy sounds great in principle. And, we can agree that it's leagues better than aristocracy. But, over generational scales, aristocracy and meritocracy are very closely aligned.

Meritocracy begins first with a wave of smart, risk-taking, hard-working, uncompromising, (perhaps immoral) people who usurp the establishment. And, we certainly celebrate that. It brings a shift, and usually rewards many others.

But, it's when those same people put their children and grandchildren in positions where risks nearly vanish that we worry about. They naturally give their descendents their connections, secret knowledge, wealth, safety and other benefits. And, they unconsciously change the rules to favor themselves. And, they seem to dismiss all those elements when their spawns happen to reach similar heights. And, slowly, they begin to believe that it's some genetic component, or something innate in them, that has caused it. And, then the new aristocracy is born.

I think the article is bringing attention to this, and it's good to do so. The new rich should be allowed to let their children and grandchildren live great lives. But, those descendents should not become the gatekeepers of the rest of the world's amazing talent. There are just to many brilliant, hard-working people in the world, who aren't connected, who need a chance.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#24

Post by michaelochurch »

stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

First, we aren't the real elite. Founders are yeoman project managers at best, engineers are less than that-- not even able to raise a family in the Valley-- and even the venture capitalists are, for the most part, merely junior elite.

I'm not so sure about that claim, anyway, given that IQ is relative. The intellectual edge of the modern elite is quite thin, by historical standards.

The upper-class average IQ is generally held to be in the upper 100s-- no higher than 110-- even if class is defined to include social connections, respectability, and educational pedigree in addition to income.

So the upper class is only about 0.5-0.7 standard deviations smarter than the general population. That's not that much. They're also a small elite: less than 0.1% is running the world. For every Davos Man, there are 10,000 people wanting to see him fall. In any pool of that size, there are some fiercely smart people.

Compare that to the medieval elite, which had superior nutrition by far. They had what would be close to average height and intelligence today. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) was considered a giant. He was about 6 feet tall. Average people were a foot shorter, and were probably at an IQ level around 70-75.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#25

Post by tnuc »

chime wrote: post #18
stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

I disagree. Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. A good surgeon can make 3-4x a poor surgeon. A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer. If you are a fantastic programmer and you make $50k/yr in US, it means either (1) you don't care about money (2) you don't know how to negotiate. There is no way a fantasti…

>...it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top.

And then;

>Nobody's saying children of farmers or auto-mechanics are any less able. They just don't get the best training.

So it's a meritocracy but the training isn't available to all? Doesn't sound like a meritocracy to me.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#26

Post by tytso »

Uchikoma wrote: post #21
chime wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. A good surgeon can make 3-4x a poor surgeon. A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer. If you are a fantastic programmer and you make $50k/yr in US, it means either (1) you don't care about money (2) you don't know how to negotiate. There is no way a fantasti…

"Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top." The article seems to contradict that: "Using one-generation measures of social mobility—how much a father’s relative income influences that of his adult son—America does half as well as Nordic countries, and about the same as Britain and Italy, Europe’s least-mobile places."

I have no doubt that there are problems in America caused by the fact that children who are born from poorer families have significant handicaps (i.e., it's hard to concentrate in school when you're hungry, and the sound of gunshots at night tend to distract you from homework).

It's also true, though, that to whatever extent that genetics influence relative income (and despite counter examples such as the Romney family, I'd like to hope that intelligence has _some_ correlation with income) that might explain some of the correlation between parental income and the income of their children. A proper study should try to study the correlation of parental income with the income of the income of adopted children (preferably adopted under the age of two). This is why sociological research is so difficult....

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#27

Post by michaelochurch »

vannevar wrote: post #19
stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

Yes, the article brushes aside the idea of wealth redistribution, but the simple truth is that, all else being equal, the more money you have, the easier it is to make more of it. It's like a marathon that gets easier as you go on. Even the wealthy acknowledge it: "The first million is the hardest." So we have (or had) a progressive system of taxation to attempt to counter the natural flow of wealth toward the wealth…

It's like a marathon that gets easier as you go on.

Marathons actually get a lot harder as you go on. Miles 0-16 are no different from regular short runs, 17-20 is hard and you start to flag, 21-24 is brutally difficult, and 24-26.2 is easier for psychological reasons.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#28

Post by michaelochurch »

chime wrote: post #18
stcredzero wrote: post #13

An "entrenched meritocracy" is a contradiction. It's not a true meritocracy. Instead, it's an aristocracy claiming to be one, which is a bit tautological, since every such class claims it deserves its privileged position. People in other times and places believed they deserved their privileges just as sincerely as you do right now. Of course, the situation is different because we're smarter than they are ;)

I disagree. Except for the ultra-wealthy 0.0001%ers, it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top. A good surgeon can make 3-4x a poor surgeon. A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer. If you are a fantastic programmer and you make $50k/yr in US, it means either (1) you don't care about money (2) you don't know how to negotiate. There is no way a fantasti…

it is as close to a true meritocracy it has ever been because the ones with merit rise to the top.

How? Please explain what magical elevator makes this happen, because VC-istan seems to be a combination of connections and luck, large organizations tend to be clueless and political, and academia has been dying for at least a generation and a half. What I've seen may be limited and atypical, but I haven't seen anything that looks like this. I've seen the same nonsense that humanity has been repeating for thousands of years.

A good programmer can make 2-3x a poor programmer.

That has more to do with the fact that the good programmers tend to gravitate toward high-COL places. Even those good programmers can't raise a family (in NYC or Silicon Valley) on what they make unless (a) they beat the VC-istan game (see above) or (b) they work for those large companies, in which case advancement is 90% political.

The closest thing to a meritocracy seems to be finance, which is seriously flawed but is more honest about its shortcomings.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#29

Post by hakaaaaak »

"Outdated affirmative-action programmes should give way to schemes to help students based on the poverty of the applicant rather than the colour of his skin."

Tell that to Harvard and look at Caltech's Asian student enrollment numbers: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/339778/racial-quotas-...

Race should be left out of the qualifications for getting into university, but be prepared for those universities' Asian student populations to grow significantly, probably whether they are rich or poor. That's fine with me (I dislike racial quotas), but it wasn't mentioned.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#30

Post by arethuza »

CJefferson wrote: post #3
davidiach wrote: post #2

This is really strange in my opinion. We should make it harder for rich children to get a good eduction and easier for poor children? Really? Why not make it harder for bright students to get good grades and easy for dumb students to get good grades? That would lead to greater "equality" too.

The fact that someone on a site like hacker news (which I like consider are on the more intelligent side) would make a comparison like this, deeply disturbs me. We clearly have fundamentally different world views. (edit: I don't want this to sound like davidirch shouldn't have that opinion, just that it's easy to assume people will share your opinion) I don't understand how you can be against what seems to be a compl…

"except to remove situations where they currently have an (in my opinion) unfair advantage"

How would you do that?

Post reply on HN