Timex
5121
But the data thus far hasn’t focused on meritocratic tendencies, but rather social mobility and wealth equality.
There does not seem to be any data about what we are actually talking about here, which is understandable given it would be difficult to actually analyze from a purely scientific perspective. You would have to somehow make note of people who had “merit” but then failed to succeed. But this then presumes some universal measurement of merit as well.
The underlying assumption is that merit naturally occurs in equal distribution across the entire population. For the sake of example, let’s assume that a hypothetical society has a composition 50% impoverished people, 40% middle class, and 10% rich upper class. If this hypothetical example society is meritocratic then one would assume that the top 100 CEOs (or politicians, or investment bankers, or whatever) would have a breakdown where about 50 of them come from poor families, 40 from middle class families, and 10 from rich families. In other words, given that merit is distributed randomly across the population then the elites should reflect that in their backgrounds. Unfortunately, in all modern western societies they do not reflect this.
Looking at measures like social mobility and wealth inequality are used as a proxy to measure this because a mertocratic society should let the best rise and weakest fall in position and wealth. So there should be lots of inter-generational mobility. Again, western societies don’t really demonstrate this happening and indicates that the privileges of upbringing in higher classes weight more importantly than natural talent in determining how well an individual will do in life.
magnet
5123
Exactly. Ancient China was the classic example of meritocracy. As far as I can tell, “meritocracy” was originally used to describe America in a disparaging sense, in that it was starting to overemphasize test-taking and rewarding test results.
A system that rewards people who produce stuff that other people want is called “capitalism”. That’s not the same as “meritocracy”.
As Tortilla pointed out, there is an underlying assumption that natural ability is randomly distributed in each generation. That’s why social mobility is a useful proxy.
A system that fails to reward people with natural ability is, by definition, not a good meritocracy. A meritocracy is supposed to identify and develop natural ability from a young age, and it is not acceptable to allow natural potential to be wasted due to poor parenting or other environmental factors. The appropriate response is to improve the child’s environment to ensure they achieve their full potential.
In the USA, the best examples of meritocracy are probably found in professional sports. There is a constant emphasis on measuring performance and providing necessary professional coaching to develop natural talent. I don’t have statistics handy, but I suspect that the the background socioeconomics of superstar athletes reflects the general population better than the background socioeconomics of white-collar superstars.
Finally, as for the notion that “urban Democratic” policies are responsible for poor social mobility, I’ll let the facts speak for themselves:
Timex
5124
But that assumption is clearly absurd on its face. There’s no way it’s true.
Someone who doesn’t have access to safe living conditions, or good nutrition, or education? That person is going to have less merit than someone who does. This isn’t a moral judgement. It’s not saying they have less “good” or something. It just means that they will, clearly, be less competitive on average than someone who has those things.
For the sake of example, let’s assume that a hypothetical society has a composition 50% impoverished people, 40% middle class, and 10% rich upper class. If this hypothetical example society is meritocratic then one would assume that the top 100 CEOs (or politicians, or investment bankers, or whatever) would have a breakdown where about 50 of them come from poor families, 40 from middle class families, and 10 from rich families.
Not at all. That’s a crazy assumption for the reasons I just listed.
Someone born at the bottom of the economic ladder is going to likely have had a childhood which will result in them being less capable than someone who was born into luxury. Not because of some genetic predisposition, but because they won’t have had the same kind of physical and psychological growth opportunities that the rich person had.
Now, this is exactly WHY it’s important to try and address those inequalities, so that people DO in fact have a better chance to make something of themselves… but just assuming that they are equally capable is kind of naive and silly.
A system that rewards people who produce stuff that other people want is called “capitalism”. That’s not the same as “meritocracy”.
What exactly defines merit to you then?
If producing something which billions of people want isn’t meritorious, then what is?
AlanQ
5125
…that’s exactly the point. A society where some people don’t have access to safe living conditions, good nutrition, or education is not a meritocratic society. That is because success will not be the result of individual merit, but largely luck: did you happen to be born into a rich family or a poor family?
Timex, there’s very specific data of distribution of labor income versus capital income (this has nothing to do with wealth equality) that is directly related to the upper limit on the meritocratic potential of a society. That’s the graph I linked many pages back in this thread (or was it some other thread? I can’t remember anymore).
The reason why is because if, in the top 1% (which was the data provided), there’s more income generated through capital revenue and not through labor, then it becomes extremely unlikely (an statistical anomaly) for those in the upper 10% who work to reach the wealth and social class of those who don’t. Since no matter how much they make, those who inherited capital (or won it but no longer work) are earning more income, thus separating those two very specific classes without a meritocratic (labor based) way in between both. That is, there’s a ceiling to the meritocracy, and the gap is widening.
I think what Timex is trying to get at is that, under perfect circumstances, the ideals on which the society in question is built are indeed meritocratic, even if in reality there’s not equal access to the means of merit. He is talking about the concept of a meritocratic society as an ideal written in law (which it is) while you are talking about the reality on the ground.
Is a country where less than 50% of the population votes a democracy?
Timex
5128
But no, because I’m not measuring merit based upon some kind of abstract potential determined at the moment of conception. Different people do not automatically have equal merit.
That merit is measured by what they actually DO.
In a meritocracy, success is determined by the actions taken by individuals, not equally distributed across the population.
Now, it’s beneficial to everyone to help everyone maximize their potential, and thus eventually contribute as best they can, but even without that you can still have a meritocracy.
Depends on the reason. If it’s due to apartheid- no. Apathy- yes.
magnet
5130
It’s traditionally defined in terms of standardized testing to identify the best and brightest, and then empower them. Again, look to the civil service in ancient China for the roots of meritocracy. Economic productivity had nothing do with it.
Someone born at the bottom of the economic ladder is going to likely have had a childhood which will result in them being less capable than someone who was born into luxury. Not because of some genetic predisposition, but because they won’t have had the same kind of physical and psychological growth opportunities that the rich person had.
True meritocracy begins in childhood. If two high-testing 3 year olds have the same aptitude scores, then they should be equally rewarded with environments that allow their skills to flourish. Give them identical access to tutors and coaches. Every two years, repeat the process of testing and reward.
If society doesn’t equally reward merit until someone is adult, then it isn’t a true meritocracy. It’s a hybrid of meritocracy and nepotism.
AlanQ
5132
OK, but in a society where some people grow up starved and ignorant and others do not, success is not determined by actions taken by individuals. It is determined primarily by whether or not a person is born into the right circumstances. That is the opposite of meritocracy.
magnet
5133
As I mentioned, “meritocracy” was once used in a disparaging sense by people who understood what it really meant: rewarding people for their academic credentials rather than their actual contributions.
But you don’t get to redefine it as “capitalism” just because you like the sound of the word “merit”.
Wow, you’re really out there, captain.
magnet
5135
Feel free to educate yourself.
But it was ‘‘The Rise of the Meritocracy’’ that made Mr. Young world famous. Written as a doctoral dissertation looking back from the year 2034, the book described the emergence of a new elite determined not by social position but by achievement on the standardized intelligence tests that were a very real, and dreaded, fact of educational life in 20th-century Britain. To name this new elite, Mr. Young forced the marriage of a Latin root to a Greek suffix, yielding ‘‘meritocracy.’’
He meant the term as a pejorative, for underneath the mock academic tract lay bitter social commentary. Though the test-based system of advancement emerging in postwar Britain appeared to provide opportunity for all, it was, Mr. Young argued, simply the centuries-old class system in sheep’s clothing.
If you prevent people from exploring their potential you aren’t reducing their merit you are suppressing it. That is not meritocracy, it is exactly the opposite.
Yes. I loathe this kind of circular reasoning that arises as a justification in any society which oppresses certain segments of the population. Group X must be of less worth because they can’t accomplish Y followed by Group X doesn’t need access to opportunities to accomplish Y because they are clearly worthless. It all hangs together as long as one doesn’t notice that one is proving an assumption by making the assumption in classic circular reasoning fashion.
Don’t want to derail a fascinating conversation on merit but couldn’t resist throwing in the latest comments from our friends on gender imbalance in the latest news from E3.
I have to be honest, playingwithknives, this doesn’t add anything to either conversation. Twitter is an empty room where people shout and all they hear back is a echo. Like any good toddler with a tantrum, the only solution is to ignore them. Be part of the solution, not the problem.
Anyway, back to the real discussion on hand, is Desslock really opposite that reality doesn’t conform to his beliefs? Or is he just pulling the tigers tail? I know Timex is always good for an interesting discussion, even if I don’t understand where Desslock is coming from.
Desslock, what is your central thesis and supporting arguments for the idea that the US is a Meritocracy?
magnet
5140
Ok, and I can’t resist throwing in a few of Sarkeesian’s more recent comments:
