Game journalism backlash - the microcosm theory

[Juan_Raigada]

Depends on the reason. If it’s due to apartheid- no. Apathy- yes.

Is Venezuela a Democracy then?

I think we all agree the USA has some meritocratic (as in rewarding merit, not as in Confucian) qualitites, the question is whether these overpower its nepotic/class based qualities (that it seems we all agree are also there). Also It hink meritocracy doesn’t seem to be equally distributed among the different classes. For example, I think it’s probable that among the middle class we can find much more real meritocracy (that is, able people tend to get paid more) than among the working class (where the kind of suppression of merit happens) or the higher class (that accrued capital and inheritance make it really hard to reach through merit only).

[wahoo]

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.

The hybrid system is the system most people want. Especially parents

I also don’t think merit is randomly distributed as there is a hereditary component.

[Juan_Raigada]

I also don’t think merit is randomly distributed as there is a hereditary component.

Data? I think this might be very dubious (there might be a genetic component, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be evenly distributed).

You could actually argue for the opossite of what I think you mean here (since societies have for the longest time not been meritocratic, specially in the upper classes, there might actually be a lack of darwinian pressure that makes those classes lack merit, in a genetic way. So unenvaly distributed but biased against the higher classes). One only has to look at active monarchies to get an idea of how this might be so…

(note: I actually don’t believe the above, but it’s a fun thing to consider).

[wahoo]

Data? I think this might be very dubious (there might be a genetic component, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be evenly distributed).

Believe there is a genetic component however not equally distributed due to assorted mating where people marry in socioeconomic structure. This will double up on hereditary aspects and offset regression to mean.

Also you have problem of social capital, where stable families is now a reflection of education level. Family disintegration is a causal factor of downward mobility. Much harder to rise from single parent family and that is a big problem for mobility.

[Juan_Raigada]

Believe there is a genetic component however not equally distributed due to assorted mating where people marry in socioeconomic structure. This will double up on hereditary aspects and offset regression to mean.

But this implies there’s an uneven distribution to start with (regarding socieconomic structure). While this might be true (I suspect it is to some extent) it’s not neccesarily so. I’d actually love to see some real data analysis on this issue (again, the monarchies of Europe are a very isolated counterpoint at the highest level).

[Soapyfrog]

The hybrid system is the system most people want. Especially parents.

Certainly true. And not unreasonable.

[Timex]

Data? I think this might be very dubious (there might be a genetic component, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t be evenly distributed).

You could actually argue for the opossite of what I think you mean here (since societies have for the longest time not been meritocratic, specially in the upper classes, there might actually be a lack of darwinian pressure that makes those classes lack merit, in a genetic way. So unenvaly distributed but biased against the higher classes). One only has to look at active monarchies to get an idea of how this might be so…

(note: I actually don’t believe the above, but it’s a fun thing to consider).

While it always makes people squeamish, there is really no legitimate scientific argument to be made that success in human society is somehow the one single thing which has no genetic component.

Humans are just like every other kind of animal, and our genes play a role in various aspects of our capabilities. Some people are physically stronger than others. Some people are smarter than others. Elements of these things are unquestionably passed down to our children through our genes. Thus, some elements of what makes some people successful are going to be more likely to be present in their children, compared to the children of people who are unsuccessful, and thus result in an uneven distribution of merit across the population.

Like I said, the idea tends to make people squeamish, but it doesn’t seem like you could make a realistic argument that it’s somehow not present in humans from an evolutionary perspective.

[Juan_Raigada]

Timex, this…

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.

…

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.

…and this…

Humans are just like every other kind of animal, and our genes play a role in various aspects of our capabilities. Some people are physically stronger than others. Some people are smarter than others. Elements of these things are unquestionably passed down to our children through our genes.

Do not follow this:

Thus, some elements of what makes some people successful are going to be more likely to be present in their children, compared to the children of people who are unsuccessful, and thus result in an uneven distribution of merit across the population.

If both your assumptions are correct, you are claiming a low to none upwards mobility of these “success” genes from the lower classes up. Thus, if the highest class is (and we have data for this) inheritance driven, by your assumptions we would see a higher concentration of success genes in the second highest class and in the lower classes, with the class most likely to have fewer of those genes being the upper middle class, the one with enough capital to properly educate their kids to be competitive with the higher classes.

So yes, uneven distribution, but not in the direction you imply.

Now, this assumes that in social success genes are more important that environment, and that’s something that I would like to have data about. It might be so, it might not. Some aspects of human behaviour are more conditioned by genetics than others, and this might be an incorrect assumption.

[Teiman]

I am not a expert, but maybe the timeframe for evolution to play a role in genetics in a human society is too long. Like you would need a society to last from 10.000+ to 100.000+ to see evolution effects.

Then you have smart people having less childrens than poor uneducated people. Hell… some smart people choose to not have childrens at all.

What I am tryiing to say is that maybe this talk about genetics is not relevant or is too complex with unforeseen consequence’s.

[Timex]

Timex, this…

…and this…

Do not follow this:

If both your assumptions are correct, you are claiming a low to none upwards mobility of these “success” genes from the lower classes up. Thus, if the highest class is (and we have data for this) inheritance driven, by your assumptions we would see a higher concentration of success genes in the second highest class and in the lower classes, with the class most likely to have fewer of those genes being the upper middle class, the one with enough capital to properly educate their kids to be competitive with the higher classes.

So yes, uneven distribution, but not in the direction you imply.

Now, this assumes that in social success genes are more important that environment, and that’s something that I would like to have data about. It might be so, it might not. Some aspects of human behaviour are more conditioned by genetics than others, and this might be an incorrect assumption.

Certainly, I think that social elements which limit mobility certainly would prevent those genes from moving up from the lower economic classes. But the amount of which that takes place would be difficult to determine. Certainly it’s not 100%.

Bear in mind here, I’m by no means suggesting that success is somehow entirely based upon genetics. That would be absurd. Merely that there must be SOME genetic component to it, which would further erode the notion that merit can be assumed to be evenly spread across the entire society.

I think your point here is interesting, that the inherent “stickiness” of economic position would create some effects on the overall distribution. Although it’s a little more complex than what you present here, because it would generally have a unidirectional effect on the edges of the economic ladder, and minimal effects on the middle.

That is, for the lower end of the economic ladder, the inherent difficulties presented to those people will dampen the effect of traits (both biological and behavioral) which would normally lead to success. However, it would also AMPLIFY the effects of traits which would lead to failure. On the opposite side of the economic spectrum, with really rich people, it would do the opposite, dampening the impact of negative traits, and amplifying positive ones. For the middle class, it likely be evenly spread, and probably the most purely meritocratic section of the population.

So for poor people, it’d be difficult to move up (although possible). But easy to continue to fail. For rich people, it’d be hard to fail, but if you have a good idea or something you’d have a chance to build it into something really great.

In terms of human behavior being conditioned by genetics, I believe that most higher level behavior is really not determined by your genes at all. But certain low level functions which affect that behavior are.

I am not a expert, but maybe the timeframe for evolution to play a role in genetics in a human society is too long. Like you would need a society to last from 10.000+ to 100.000+ to see evolution effects.

Then you have smart people having less childrens than poor uneducated people. Hell… some smart people choose to not have childrens at all.

What I am tryiing to say is that maybe this talk about genetics is not relevant or is too complex with unforeseen consequence’s.

I think it’d likely that evolution takes some slightly different forms with humans than with things like bateria. We have longer lifetimes, and in modern society people don’t necessarily DIE do to disadvantageous traits. But we also have, in addition to our pure genetic makeup, behavioral patterns which we transfer from one generation to another, and which are much more mutable.

[Alstein]

I am not a expert, but maybe the timeframe for evolution to play a role in genetics in a human society is too long. Like you would need a society to last from 10.000+ to 100.000+ to see evolution effects.

Then you have smart people having less childrens than poor uneducated people. Hell… some smart people choose to not have childrens at all.

What I am tryiing to say is that maybe this talk about genetics is not relevant or is too complex with unforeseen consequence’s.

People having less children isn’t due to brains, but a couple of generations of reduced child mortality. This is why I’m not too worried about population growth. It will normalize in about 50-60 years when India and possibly Pakistan stabilizes the way China is starting to.

[Juan_Raigada]

He does have a point that the higher the income/social status, the lower the birthrate (until you get to inheritance driven families, where the birthrate explodes again). Or how successful people that succeed through work are less likely to have kids. It’s not necessarily smarts, but also how competitive is the environment, and how kids factor into your competiviness (underdeveloped societies: competitive, but kids help your odds -extra income-. Developed societies at certain socioeconomic levels: competitive, but kids hamper you).

I agree it’s not due to brains, though.

[Quaro]

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.

Isn’t this a slightly different definition of merit than is classically used in the context of discussions like this?

[Timex]

Isn’t this a slightly different definition of merit than is classically used in the context of discussions like this?

It’s always a difficulty in describing things like meritocracy. Many people who all support the notion of a meritocracy have widely different definitions of what constitutes merit.

[Soapyfrog]

It’s always a difficulty in describing things like meritocracy. Many people who all support the notion of a meritocracy have widely different definitions of what constitutes merit.

I suppose there could be a lot of wrong definitions out there… like the idea that being rich increases one’s merit.

[Timex]

I suppose there could be a lot of wrong definitions out there… like the idea that being rich increases one’s merit.

But a market is an efficient means by which society can assign value to goods and services, and thus merit to those who provide them in the form of wealth transfer.

[Alstein]

That’s assuming it’s a free market. Market power inequalities can destroy a free market.

[Soapyfrog]

But a market is an efficient means by which society can assign value to goods and services, and thus merit to those who provide them in the form of wealth transfer.

Wealth could be a consequence of merit (ideally it would be!), but not a cause of it.

[Timex]

Wealth could be a consequence of merit (ideally it would be!), but not a cause of it.

Absolutely

[Soapyfrog]

See it’s just that earlier you said:

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.

And this is completely wrong.