Meritocracy

Discussion for all topics (until the forum becomes large enough to justify splitting things up this will be where all topics go)
archon
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 11:02 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by archon » Tue Aug 01, 2017 2:55 am

Raininginsanity wrote:
Sat Jul 29, 2017 3:31 pm
Barrett’s personal observation is validated by a newly published study in the peer-reviewed journal Child Development that finds traditionally marginalized youth who grew up believing in the American ideal that hard work and perseverance naturally lead to success show a decline in self-esteem and an increase in risky behaviors during their middle-school years. The research is considered the first evidence linking preteens’ emotional and behavioral outcomes to their belief in meritocracy, the widely held assertion that individual merit is always rewarded.
Nice find. That is interesting. I wonder if "growth mindset" is a confounding variable here.
Snap. You beat me to that one.
MarxBro wrote:
Sun Jul 30, 2017 2:39 am
i'm really not sure what the point of discussions of "meritocracy" are here since capitalism is not designed to be meritocratic. is this one of those rationalist "pipe dream" things? i really don't get it...
Okay, this just seems blatantly false. Capitalism is supposed to meritocratic - you are rewarded by the sweat of your brow, and what you can sell, and nothing else. On the other hand, I'm not sure how you can call communism meritocratic - isn't the whole point that everybody is treated equally - to each according to his needs, and from each according to his means, and all that.
"Don't be silly -- if we were meant to evolve naturally, why would God have given us subdermal implants?"

phaedrus
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon May 08, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Meritocracy

Post by phaedrus » Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:52 pm

Capitalism isn't supposed to be meritocratic. Capitalism is a machine for allocating resources. That's all it is. Under conditions of high risk-aversion, well, no one ever got fired for buying IBM, or for making hiring decisions on conventional credentialism.

archon
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 11:02 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by archon » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:39 am

phaedrus wrote:
Thu Aug 03, 2017 8:52 pm
Capitalism isn't supposed to be meritocratic. Capitalism is a machine for allocating resources. That's all it is. Under conditions of high risk-aversion, well, no one ever got fired for buying IBM, or for making hiring decisions on conventional credentialism.
Yeah, but how does it allocate resources? Resources allocated based on your skill at selling thing (or having things to sell, alternately), seems like a pretty meritocratic way of allocating resources, to me. Assuming you value those things as merit.

How else can something be meritocratic or not?

(not particularly pro-capitalism - but it does reward people for being good at what the market wants)
"Don't be silly -- if we were meant to evolve naturally, why would God have given us subdermal implants?"

MarxBro

Re: Meritocracy

Post by MarxBro » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:38 am

"what the market wants" - ha! total fetishism!

archon
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 11:02 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by archon » Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:41 am

MarxBro wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 7:38 am
"what the market wants" - ha! total fetishism!
One: Pot, Kettle, ect.

Two: What exactly do you mean? Is this an ideal implementation/actual implementation thing. Because communism has never had issues with that one. Never.
"Don't be silly -- if we were meant to evolve naturally, why would God have given us subdermal implants?"

MarxBro

Re: Meritocracy

Post by MarxBro » Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:19 am

... uh, if you don't even know what 'fetish' refers to in marxist terminology why even try to have a retort? fetish refers to the tendency to see man's own powers as originating externally, outside of social relations. nothing to do with ideal/actual implementation.

archon
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 11:02 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by archon » Mon Aug 07, 2017 12:54 pm

MarxBro wrote:
Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:19 am
... uh, if you don't even know what 'fetish' refers to in marxist terminology why even try to have a retort? fetish refers to the tendency to see man's own powers as originating externally, outside of social relations. nothing to do with ideal/actual implementation.
So is your issue that I said "what the market wants" rather than "what other people are willing to pay"? They seem equivelent to me. The market is just a abstraction of others taking economic action to fulfill their own desires, no? Or are we talking at right angles?
"Don't be silly -- if we were meant to evolve naturally, why would God have given us subdermal implants?"

MarxBro

Re: Meritocracy

Post by MarxBro » Mon Aug 07, 2017 10:29 pm

the market is not 'just an abstraction' - it is an institution maintained by the state - it is not a pure aggregate of people's desires and never could be. this is what i mean by fetishism!

MarxBro

Re: Meritocracy

Post by MarxBro » Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:24 am

to get back to the original topic - what 'merit' is this? the merit that the bourgeoisie wish to enforce is a very different concept than the merit of the proletarian.

archon
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu May 25, 2017 11:02 am

Re: Meritocracy

Post by archon » Wed Aug 09, 2017 4:20 am

MarxBro wrote:
Tue Aug 08, 2017 12:24 am
to get back to the original topic - what 'merit' is this? the merit that the bourgeoisie wish to enforce is a very different concept than the merit of the proletarian.
Yeah, getting back on topic.

Defining merit is a hard question, and probably one of the biggest issues to trying to formally implement any kind of meritocracy. Mostly people just seem to want to allow the people in charge to guess at merit based on broad guidelines. Which is never going to work. The main forms I can think of are the Confucian style universal merit - you get someone who is good and morally upstanding, and competent, and put them in charge, and hope everything will work out. Merit as a measure of competence is also common - and is the form scott was defending most - just make sure that each job has the best person available doing it, and that they are rewarded in proportion to what their work is worth. Which is hard and complicated and subjected to politics, and the fact that you can only promote someone so far before the job changes (and thus the peter principle is invoked). There are lots of issues, but once again - what other metric are you going to use to promote people?
"Don't be silly -- if we were meant to evolve naturally, why would God have given us subdermal implants?"

Post Reply