Jess Martin
A
It doesn’t offer an alternative though. So if not #meritocracy - what then?

Aristocracy?
Nepotism?
Oligarchic rule?

It seems the ones criticising meritocracy want mediocrity.

If it’s not a level playing field, what kind of field is it? Wealth, power and connections?
bill doyle @bill_doyle
‘In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.’
05:03 AM - Apr 22, 2023
05:09 AM - Apr 22, 2023
Avatar
0
57
1
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
In response to Jess Martin.
Why do you equate meritocracy with a level playing field?
05:18 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
0
Jess Martin
A
In response to Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff.
Where did I argue it was a level playing field?

It’s not. But at least in a meritocracy there are more transparent hurdles as opposed to other systems in place.
05:20 AM - Apr 22, 2023
2
0
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
In response to Jess Martin.
I assume that as your implication from your statements:
"It seems the ones criticizing meritocracy want mediocrity.
If it’s not a level playing field, what kind of field is it?"

Meritocracy can perhaps be seen as an amplifier of the status quo biases, with credential-ism more-so, seems to me.
05:34 AM - Apr 22, 2023
2
0
Jess Martin
A
In response to Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff.
I would not know what your status quo over there is but the outcomes are easy to see.

My point is, what is the alternative to a meritocracy if it is currently unappetising? There are oligarchical systems around the world that are completely repellent
05:45 AM - Apr 22, 2023
2
0
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
In response to Jess Martin.
Sadly, here merit is based on grades, college degrees, and work history....which seems fine until you discover that work history is based on college success, and college entry is based on SATs, which in turn are based on grades and activities, which correlate completely with family income.
1/2
05:58 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
0
Jess Martin
A
In response to Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff.
So the systems currently underpinning the American meritocracy, say such as credentialism, should be reviewed because it is no longer fit for purpose as income inequality is a far bigger, structural hurdle.

Is that your view or have I misinterpreted it?
06:01 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
1
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
In response to Jess Martin.
It's one of several major issues, as merit is mostly within the working/middle-class world. Wealth inequality is huge on a generational timeframe, certainly. The whole structure of job-centric healthcare and target unemployment, low minimum wages, and employer-centric laws contribute as well.
06:08 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
0
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
Marginal tax rates, corporate taxes, inheritance taxes, and other forms of redistribution factor in as well.

We do not have an ergodic society. If you want to pigeon-hole my position, this is it: we need wealth to be ergodic, and thus need to create feedback loops that promote ergodicity.
06:10 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
0
Jess Martin
A
In response to Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff.
I am not aware of ergodicity (sp) but if you can point to a country that probably best fits that example, I nay understand it better.

Yes, your revenue base needs to be reassessed as is your current structure of healthcare funding which remains the most expensive in the OECD.
06:15 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
1
Fietser Pete - Peter Som de Cerff
A
In response to Jess Martin.
Ergodicity is not a simple concept, but the crux is that movement between categories is equal-opportunity, which also means the median and the mean are the same.

So, rich can become poor, and poor can become rich, with equal probability. And the few wealthy don't skew avg income far beyond median.
06:20 AM - Apr 22, 2023
1
0

 

{{ notificationModalContent }} {{ promptModalMessage }}