How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself • Hacker News Board

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#61

Post by bjourne » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:42 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #23

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 firs…

> They naturally give their descendents their connections, secret knowledge, wealth, safety and other benefits.

The idea is that society in whole should be set up in such a way that connections and secret knowledge isn't valued as highly as it is now. George W Bush didn't become president because of merit, but because of connections and inherited wealth. A better system would have more highly valued leadership skills, rhethorical skills and general smartness and kept dofuses like him out of power.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#62

Post by larsonf » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 4:49 PM UTC

It seems some of us are missing the implication of the article.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there really were a way to negate all advantages a person could be born into. No social networks, no additional wealth, no additional opportunities, etc. A place where everyone is born at 25 at the exact same moment: no friends, no past, no parents, no money. We can call this place 'Equalistan', population 1 million. Now, in Equalistan, there is still random genetic mutation. Some people are taller, some people have working memories that store more information, some have long-term memories that store more information, some solve problems by simple heuristics, some follow bodily signals for cues, etc. There's no such thing as 'smarter' or 'better' at birth in Equalistan, however, because these only make sense in hindsight. Each person in Equalistan just has a different, inherited strategy at living. Everyone just showed up at the same moment, 25 years old, no history, no buddies, but just an inherited genetic toolset.

Now, in Equalistan, there's a test to decide who gets the most resources. However, no one in Equalistan designed this test because, remember, we are making sure no one has any advantage; each person only has an inherited, random strategies from birth. So everyone takes this test and there is then a distribution of resource possession. But here is the upshot. Every person completely deserves the outcome they receive on the test. After all, the only thing being tested was each person's 'merits'. Now the question is, does it ever matter whether people "deserve" the amount of resources they possess?

The article isn't saying so much that meritocracy begets old-school elitism after assortative mating as much as it's saying that meritocracy itself is a terrifying thing. That it may be 100% the truth that people deserve the outcome they receive in life, but, who cares?

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#63

Post by hakaaaaak » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:07 PM UTC

Evbn wrote: post #50

hakaaaaak wrote: post #29

"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…

If this distribution were considered problematic, controlling for family immigration history could correct it -- a sort of perfect anti-aristocracy.

Discrimination based on immigration history sounds extremely unjust. At that point you may as well base it on height.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#64

Post by booruguru » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

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…

I think it's also worth considering, "How does one become a top doctor or programmer or whatever?" Just because talented people are well paid, does not mean we live in a meritocracy. There are lots of people who have untapped talent they are unable to utilize. Impoverished child prodigies and Taxi driver M.D.s come to mind.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#65

Post by yarianluis » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:22 PM UTC

While this article makes many good points:

"The other great unfairness has to do with the preferences that elite American universities give to well-connected children, either because their parents went to the university themselves or because they have given money."

"An educational institution should focus on attracting the best people, and then work out how to finance the poorer people in that category."

====

Legacy admissions usually come with legacy donations. These donations can be in the millions each year for an organization like Harvard, which in turn pays the tuition of the poorer people in the category.

The issues of legacy admissions and affirmative action are pretty closely linked. So to address one part of the issue without looking at the other is not quite fair.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#66

Post by illuminate » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

maeon3 wrote: post #10

youngerdryas wrote: post #4

When I first read the title I thought this would be an article about governments impeding meritocracy not a screed against it. I guess we are running out of problems if meritocracy is one. Lots of immigrants come here work hard and are very successful. Virtually anyone willing to work hard will succeed but people have different priorities. As for always comparing the US to Nordic countries, if you compare them to Mas…

Meritocracy is not a problem with government, it is the solution. This badmouthing of Meritocracy is a way for the ones who are in power but don't deserve to be there as a way of maintaining that power. On the other hand, if you make it too easy for a young person to climb the ladder (working like a dog), than what's the point of getting to the top? There are no benefits to being there except you will be living a lif…

"Meritocracy is not a problem with government, it is the solution. This badmouthing of Meritocracy is a way for the ones who are in power but don't deserve to be there as a way of maintaining that power"

The myth of meritocracy is more akin to predestination. A person is in power or successful, therefore they were more deserving of the position than others, regardless of privilege, nepotism, special opportunity, luck, originating class, etc.

There is a vast difference between the people who push to make society MORE of a meritocracy than the people who push the false narrative that we ARE a meritocracy, especially those who use themselves as evidence of this.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#67

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:24 PM UTC

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 ;)

[deleted]

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#68

Post by npc » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:33 PM UTC

gyardley wrote: post #54

"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." Good, because of course I would want my income to influence that of my children. Yes, yes, I would want them to work hard and be curious and chart their own path, etc., but because I…

I don't think anyone thinks that it's wrong to try and give your children a better position in life than they would be able to achieve through their ability alone, just that it's beneficial to society as a whole to minimize this effect. Prisoner's dilemma and all that.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#69

Post by patmcguire » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:49 PM UTC

drakeandrews wrote: post #58

druswick wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely! This was the most line of reasoning in the article with the most impact. Property taxes are often progressive, disproportionally affecting the relatively wealthy. That's good. But when the benefits are collected and spent too locally, it means areas with higher property values also get better services. It takes away the progressive quality of property taxes. Continue this to an extreme: property taxes tha…

I think you've gotten your definition of progressive muddled. Property taxes are considered to be progressive because property values are widely considered to correlate strongly with income and wealth. Spending those taxes locally (or apportioning funds for local amenaties based on local tax revenue) is regressive, because increased benefit is then therefore correlated strongly with increased wealth and income. There…

They originate from small New England towns where they would have been progressive. Now that the rich and the poor don't live near each other they're regressive.

Re: How to prevent a meritocracy entrenching itself

#70

Post by pdonis » Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 5:54 PM UTC

api wrote: post #32

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…

Also: merit is not one-dimensional. Which merit is being measured? Merit at what? I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers. They're very good at rapidly building social networks, smoke and mirrors, and shell games that create the illusion of value. The game they play could be called "lie, leverage, flip."…

I've noted for a while that a significant fraction of those successful in business, especially in certain sectors, are basically glorified street hustlers.

Exactly. The Economist article lost me at the point where it said this:

The top 1% have seen their incomes soar because of the premium that a globalised high-tech economy places on brainy people.

No, the top 1% have seen their incomes soar because they have been allowed to game the system in order to siphon wealth from other people's pockets into their own. Exhibit A: Wall Street investment banks.