A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you

Post Reply New Topic

Why would I want to win a race?

Fortune: Why do Americans still believe in the market's invisible hand?

How the Invisible Hand Was Corrupted by Laissez-Faire Economics

Harvard Business Review: There Is No Invisible Hand

Economists had to admit a while back the invisible hand doesn't actually work.

A shame about the political commentary...

Economists of all stripes agree on the fundamentals of market forces. Even Karl Marx thought that the price of a product tended towards the labor cost to produce it because of market forces. Where they differ greatly is in the exact effects of specific policies.

Why would you want to win a race?

Because it feels good to come in first sometimes. That’s rarely happened to me.

I don’t get what’s wrong with wanting to win.

I believe in the “good old college try.”

What’s wrong with striving?

Don’t you strive to put your best foot forward in being clever during philosophical discussions? And overtake all in wittiness?

Well, it should be obvious that both sides of the argument have a point. The world is partially based on merit, to what degree it's hard to say, but certainly not 100%, nor is it 0%. Bosses can and will give their friends and their children jobs to help them out, which often means the best person for the job didn't get it, but on the other hand even people like that would lose their position if they were completely incompetent and/or didn't do any work at all. I mean, probably.

Of course, the real issue with the idea of a meritocracy is inherited wealth. The simple fact is, the children of wealthy people often do less than nothing to earn their money, and as such end up poor, or they do just barely enough to not end up poor and leave their children with debt, or they pull all kinds of fraud and cheat a lot of people out of their money.

At the other end of the scale is the fact that some people start with nothing and end up rich because they're clever in just the right way to make a success out of themselves, or some people start with something and make even more out of themselves.

It really is bad for everyone when it's assumed that any time someone is successful it can only be because they're honest and competent, but it's just as bad to assume that people are only successful through luck or dishonesty. However, I think the first of these two positions is more harmful though because whereas a person of merit can show you their merit and prove that they didn't get there through luck or by cheating, someone who is incompetent or more importantly dishonest, especially if they are in a position of power, can arrange things to keep their power merely by virtue of the fact that they're already in a position of power.

Of course there's a whole other layer to this issue that comes with the question, of exactly how much we value certain things over others, which partially goes back to the problem of people in power being able to use that power to skew things in their own favour. If you have the view that no one becomes successful without merit then you might never question the existence of billionaires, but you don't need to come close to questioning the success of everyone in the world to ask how can we ever say that the value of someone's contribution to society is hundreds of times the value of some other people? If you think about that seriously and look at history, it's obvious that over the centuries people in positions of power have used those positions to their own benefit, and you would be right to wonder if that might be to the detriment of everyone (likely including them).

I am not an alpha male wannabe...
I don't have the competitive mindset which is a manifestation of the evolutionary mechanism in most people...
I have removed much of the toxic neurotypical indoctrination of my youth...
I also see this competitiveness as a legacy/relic of our more primitive history with its "might makes right" mentality...
And, seemingly unlike you, I haven't committed to the norms and values dictated by the alien neurotypical social protocols...



I didn't suggest there was anything wrong with you wanting to win...
I said it is a matter of choice whether or not one wants to strive for something...



I don't put my best foot forward to exert power over others...
How often have you seen me "say": "To each their own"; "whatever floats your boat"; "whatever bakes your cookies"?...

I am interested in personal development...
I am interested in understanding what makes me tick...
I am interested in developing my critical thinking skills...
I strive to be more and more coherent and conceptually cohesive after much of my life was damaged due to ontological insecurity through a dissociative disorder...and having a social disconnect due to my being on the spectrum...
And I don't chase other people's rainbows...

Simply put, I have been striving for self-actualisation...
And this doesn't entail a comparison between myself and other people...
It is a case of seeing where I was...
Where I am now...
And where I might be...
Once again, I focus on personal improvements...

And so do I. I focus on “personal improvement,” too.

Believing that there is no meritocracy doesn't make it any less real.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick, author of I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon

Even in a communistic situation, there will always be people who strive for more and more goods and power.

A meritocracy is inevitable even in the purported and theoretical absence of it.

Human nature would not allow a communistic system to work in the form intended by the theoreticians. Usually, these systems acquire an authoritarian realization which is a paradox to the original intention.

Sure, but a certain degree of corruption and cronyism is inevitable as well. As I was saying before, society isn't completely based on merit either. Also, inheritance and private ownership of factories is a thing. Put these two together and you have to ask, if someone passively gains wealth just by virtue of the fact that they own stuff, is that merit?

Take a moment to imagine if no one was allowed to privately own things like factories, or in other words, the means of production. Does that idea sound familiar? So yeah, communism is about removing the non-merit based success, not about removing merit from the system. In theory.

From The Conquest of Bread, by Peter Kropotkin


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgrpwwN8zM0

Growing up, I HAD to rely on my own merit. If I had relied on friends or wealth (or even "luck"), I would have died.

I'm not saying that nepotism and bribery don't exist, nor am I saying that nobody uses them to get ahead. I am saying that for me, merit was the only option.

The professor argues you got lucky.

Your genetics enabled you to be successful.

Casual factors enabled you to be successful (e.g., you didn't get hit by car and lose your limbs).

The professor doesn't know me, so his opinion of me will naturally be shaped to support his pet theories.The same genetics that gave me autism, a bad heart, scoliosis, asthma, and high cholesterol, right?Cause: I worked to put myself through university + I studied hard to earn an MSEE + I worked harder and smarter than my peers to earn my promotions.
Effect: I earn a six-figure salary, I own my home, and I am readying another home overseas for retirement.

There is nothing wrong with striving to be the best, in our current system, striving to be the best and acomplishing it does not insure that you will be successful, money wise. I am a perfect example of that, I built swimming pools, I was very good at it, I enjoyed taking the time to admire my creation and how excellent the end result was. My boss said I was the most professional employee he had ever had, the most trust worthy employee he had ever had and had excellent work ethics, I'm one of the very few people who obsessed on how level my pools where, I'm one of the very few that can build an aboveground by myself even in 15mph winds and still build it near perfect. That did not prevent him from paying me a McDonald's yearly salary, paying me by the hour, giving me a 10-99 while I'm making less than 18k a year, working 9 months out of the year, while he rolls cash in, moves into a 350,000 dollar home, upgrades his pool store to double the size and continuesly tells me he can't afford to give me a raise knowing that I have anxieties that prevent me from quiting.

Just because you try your hardest and become one of the best does not mean people will treat you fairly and give you what you deserve, if you have a weakness, most employers will exploit that weakness no matter how good you are as long as it will line their pockets. Greed is man kinds hugest failure.