Game journalism backlash - the microcosm theory

[Dan_Theman]

I don’t think Timex is saying meritocracies are inherently fair. In fact, I think he’s pointing out why they aren’t.

Imagine an exaggerated sci-fi situation:

We live in a pretend world where DNA manipulation has allowed us to create superhumans for a price. Those that can afford it, manipulate the genes of themselves and their offspring. Superhumans, by definition, can do more than humans. Therefore, these superhumans would get the best jobs and gain the most influence because they’re the most skilled. It’s a horribly unfair and twisted system, but it’s still a meritocracy because people will earn based upon their abilities.

[CraigM]

I don’t think Timex is saying meritocracies are inherently fair. In fact, I think he’s pointing out why they aren’t.

Imagine an exaggerated sci-fi situation:

We live in a pretend world where DNA manipulation has allowed us to create superhumans for a price. Those that can afford it, manipulate the genes of themselves and their offspring. Superhumans, by definition, can do more than humans. Therefore, these superhumans would get the best jobs and gain the most influence because they’re the most skilled. It’s a horribly unfair and twisted system, but it’s still a meritocracy because people will earn based upon their abilities.

So basically Gattica.

[Dan_Theman]

So basically Gattica.

Precisely

[magnet]

Actually, value IS in fact determined by price. They are in fact the same thing.

No, the most you can say is that price reflects economic value, ie the value of goods. There are plenty of other ways to look at value without taking an economic perspective. For instance, from an ethical perspective telling the truth is valuable. So is being kind, and helping those in need. And in your argument regarding merit, you are confusing economic value with ethical values.

It’s an imaginary notion which is totally impossible to derive. How are you determining what that “correct” value is?

From ethical principles.

Those meth cooks are providing a service that millions of people want. While you, personally, may not find value in their services, your personal opinion is not omniscient or more valid.

Why should I care if my opinion is shared universally?

Well, there kind of is, in that if leaders are chosen poorly, instead of through an ability to effectively run a business, then it ultimately detracts from that business’ ability to operate effectively. This will eventually cause it to lose marketshare to companies which are operated in a more effective manner, comparatively.

You are assuming that leaders chosen for their abilities will run companies less effectively than leaders chosen through nepotism or popularity/connections, but this is not necessarily true.

You are also assuming that a company’s sole interest is in keeping its marketshare, which is also not necessarily true.

[Juan_Raigada]

I guess it depends on the definition. The original idea of meritocracy (the confucian one) is to actually abolish the benefits of inheritance/upbringing, so we might call a system that increases those benefits a meritocracy, or we might not. Again, it’s about wether we define based on ideals (and what those ideals are) or on the reality on the ground.

[Timex]

No, the most you can say is that price reflects economic value, ie the value of goods. There are plenty of other ways to look at value without taking an economic perspective. For instance, from an ethical perspective telling the truth is valuable. So is being kind, and helping those in need. And in your argument regarding merit, you are confusing economic value with ethical values

None of those other things are meaningful beyond their tangible, MEASURABLE impact on the world.

What a market does, is actually provide a tangible metric by which to measure all of those things. Honesty in business is valuable, because it ultimately translates into positive public perception, increased sales, etc.

I mean, you can try and move the measurement into intangible fluff, but then you aren’t really holding a scientific discussion any more.

From ethical principles.

Whose?

Why should I care if my opinion is shared universally?

Well, given that you are talking about applying those values universally, if they aren’t representative of the population at large, then you are just implementing a dictatorship where you are imposing your personal values upon everyone else. I guess it works ok if you’re a magically enlightened individual with a singularly clear vision of the future… but you’re not.

You are assuming that leaders chosen for their abilities will run companies less effectively than leaders chosen through nepotism or popularity/connections, but this is not necessarily true.

I don’t think I’m making that kind of assumption at all. Quite the contrary.

Although, ultimately, the success of the business determines their merit… and actually, the merit of the selection process used to pick them.

You are also assuming that a company’s sole interest is in keeping its marketshare, which is also not necessarily true.

It was merely used as a simplistic example which was meant to convey “economic failure” in the market. Certainly, there could be other avenues to success besides a dominant marketshare.

[magnet]

Although, ultimately, the success of the business determines their merit… and actually, the merit of the selection process used to pick them.

Timex, in your version of “meritocracy”, people are empowered according to their “value”. But the only definition of “value” you accept is whatever the market decrees. And because the market makes no errors, the “value” of any person must always reflect the status quo.

For example, the slaveholding South had a free market economy. Was it a meritocracy?

I suspect you are forced to answer “yes”. Once you have abdicated any sort of judgment from the loop, you can use “meritocracy” to describe anything (provided it has a free market).

Can you think of an example of a free market economy that is not a meritocracy? If not, then your definition of “meritocracy” is tautological, which means it’s basically worthless.

[Quaro]

I guess it depends on the definition. The original idea of meritocracy (the confucian one) is to actually abolish the benefits of inheritance/upbringing, so we might call a system that increases those benefits a meritocracy, or we might not. Again, it’s about wether we define based on ideals (and what those ideals are) or on the reality on the ground.

Exactly what I meant when I felt like Timex was using the term in a different way than anyone else. A ‘meritocratic’ society isn’t one I associate with inherited wealth being a large factor.

[Timex]

Exactly what I meant when I felt like Timex was using the term in a different way than anyone else. A ‘meritocratic’ society isn’t one I associate with inherited wealth being a large factor.

Even in the Confucian scenario, the exact same thing happened.

Your merit was determined by academic tests… But rich people would perform better on those tests, for the same reasons that rich people will perform better in things like school today… because they are better fed, better sheltered, better educated, etc.

It was a meritocracy because you still had to perform well on the tests… but it didn’t eliminate the advantages that wealth conveyed in terms of being better prepared to take those tests.

[Juan_Raigada]

But the idea was to abolish those benefits. Might not have worked, but that doesn’t change what was intended. Again, depends on what you define.

BTW, the idea that rich people perform better in school today is not real everywhere. I think (remember reading about it, but can’t find the data) where you have good functioning public education systems you tend to have the lower middle and middle classes perform better (more potential benefits, upper classes don’t see the utility as much). But even in those societies the working class still underperfomrs because of the issues already raised.

[Timex]

Timex, in your version of “meritocracy”, people are empowered according to their “value”. But the only definition of “value” you accept is whatever the market decrees. And because the market makes no errors, the “value” of any person must always reflect the status quo.

Well, yes… because it’s the only effective way of actually determining value in any real and useful way. It provides a value determination based upon the emergent intelligence of the population at large participating in the market.

For example, the slaveholding South had a free market economy. Was it a meritocracy?

Well, ELEMENTS of it were, but they were somewhat overshadowed by the fact that they were literally enslaving other human beings through force. I mean, among different slave owners I guess there was some sort of meritocracy, in that “good slave owners” would be relatively more successful than “bad” ones.

I think you’re getting hung up on some notion of a universal and constant determination of value… Such a thing doesn’t exist. Value reflects the contemporary notions of the time. The notion of meritorious conduct likewise differs through the ages.

In the case of the slaveholders though, assuming you take an objective view of the situation, I think that what would prevent the system from being a meritocracy would be that actions would be taken not based upon a truly free market, but rather from a system where many individuals (i.e. all the slaves) had no impact on the determination of the market’s perception of merit. Thus, the system was not really serving the population at large.

I suspect you are forced to answer “yes”. Once you have abdicated any sort of judgment from the loop, you can use “meritocracy” to describe anything (provided it has a free market).

Yes, the free market essentially provides the basic foundation for a meritocracy.

Can you think of an example of a free market economy that is not a meritocracy? If not, then your definition of “meritocracy” is tautological, which means it’s basically worthless.

Well, no, it’s not tautological, because it would preclude systems where you have some dictator who tries to manage the system, and rewards his cronies for supporting him rather than their actions benefiting the people.

For instance, the Soviet Union was not a meritocracy in most ways, because success within their system was not judged by a market comprised of the population’s purchasing choices, but was rather judged by political connections within a tiny group of elite dictators.

But the idea was to abolish those benefits. Might not have worked, but that doesn’t change what was intended. Again, depends on what you define.

I’m merely pointing out the fact that the system you are using as the definition of the original meritocracy functions in a manner very similar to what we are describing in our current system. Success is determined by actions of an individual, but advantages may be conveyed through inheritence to give those people a better chance to perform successful actions.

BTW, the idea that rich people perform better in school today is not real everywhere. I think (remember reading about it, but can’t find the data) where you have good functioning public education systems you tend to have the lower middle and middle classes perform better (more potential benefits, upper classes don’t see the utility as much). But even in those societies the working class still underperfomrs because of the issues already raised.

You will get no argument from me that investing in education to give everyone as good a chance as possible to perform successful actions wouldn’t be a universally good thing.

[Juan_Raigada]

For instance, the Soviet Union was not a meritocracy in most ways, because success within their system was not judged by a market comprised of the population’s purchasing choices, but was rather judged by political connections within a tiny group of elite dictators.

Wait a second, it depends on how you describe things. While in the CCCP the top positions where indeed reserved to people with political connections, most of the non-leadership parts of the society could be argued to be more meritocratic than the current Western world, in that education access was universal and test scores and performance did indeed influence your career and your opportunities (not defending the Soviet system at all -it’s indefensible- but trying to be fair).

You either take the societies as a whole (admiting we lack meritocratic values in practice, and that the Soviet Union was hellish in many ways, also in practice) or you look at each system in an abstract ideal way. But you can’t look at the perversions of the Soviet system when evaluating it’s qualities while ignoring the perversions in our system in order to qualify it.

[Desslock]

Merit is just one part of the equation. It’s sort of like saying, “getting successfully elected inherently favors merit.” But it also favors connections, wealth, and plain old nepotism. .

Agree, but it’s a bad comparison, since merit (accomplishments, intelligence, ability) is almost unimportant compared to wealth, connections, charisma in US politics. It’s a system that actually strongly discourages people of merit from participating, whereas people of merit will otherwise be successful in the US and other Western societies (and most every society, in fairness) even if they’re not politically dominant.

[magnet]

Well, yes… because it’s the only effective way of actually determining value in any real and useful way. It provides a value determination based upon the emergent intelligence of the population at large participating in the market.

The market is good at determining some values, particularly the value of goods. And as an algorithm, it generally converges. But it’s not as effective in determining the value of other things, like clean air. Or helping others in need. Or patriotism. When the market fails, other methods of determining value become necessary, including religion, philosophy, and civics.

If you think about it, that’s exactly why we bother to have churches, civic institutions, and philosophers. They tell us what to cherish and value when the market can’t. They allow us to answer questions like, “What’s more valuable, security or privacy?” They force us to veto the market when it calculates the amount of blood money that will atone for murder.

Yes, I know that their answers are often messy and contradictory compared to the neat solutions provided by the market. That doesn’t make them wrong. People aren’t robots, they can sort out the conflicts on their own.

In the case of the slaveholders though, assuming you take an objective view of the situation, I think that what would prevent the system from being a meritocracy would be that actions would be taken not based upon a truly free market, but rather from a system where many individuals (i.e. all the slaves) had no impact on the determination of the market’s perception of merit.

I think you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If there is an “objective” problem with the free market of the antebellum South, then you are assessing value without using that market itself. Are you using some sort of philosophical principles, perhaps?

But if you can claim that the markets of the antebellum South failed to properly assign value based on your own principles, then why can’t we claim that other markets failed based on our own principles?

Thus, the system was not really serving the population at large.

In Saudi Arabia, there is a free market but women cannot hold most jobs. Is it a meritocracy?

For instance, the Soviet Union was not a meritocracy in most ways

The Soviet Union did not have a free market economy.

Again, you seem to be claiming that all free market economies are, by definition, meritocracies. If so, then “meritocracy” is not a useful term. If not, then provide an example of a free market economy that is not a meritocracy.

[Juan_Raigada]

Agree, but it’s a bad comparison, since merit (accomplishments, intelligence, ability) is almost unimportant compared to wealth, connections, charisma in US politics. It’s a system that actually strongly discourages people of merit from participating, whereas people of merit will otherwise be successful in the US and other Western societies (and most every society, in fairness) even if they’re not politically dominant.

Yes, every society is divided in sections (not really social classes, more like occupational sectors) that have different rules. The one I know most, for example, is not very meritocratic in politics nor in the private enterprise (corruption and nepotism overpower merit also there, the business and political world in not clearly separated here), but in the public sector there’s intense meritocracy (driven by examinations).

[Desslock]

As for DOOM 4, I don’t mind people protesting the violence either, although I personally feel just indifferent towards it. It makes sense that people object to those kind of experience being one of most marketed, and lauded. It brings absolutely nothing to the table. I think it says a lot about how infantile the medium -or a section of the audience- still is.

To be clear - I like violence in games and find it strange that there isn’t more more nudity and sex too in games marketed to adults (at least RPGs, since obviously that’s a huge part of human society). I like violence as a consequence to action - can’t stand non-R-rated action movies that make the consequences of violence trivial or obfuscate it. But to have these exec-types laud and cheer it just seems weird - hard to imagine a movie director, for instance, just talking about the gore in a war movie. Over-the-top violence can be humorous and cathartic, but it’s not what I ever thought games like DOOM were primarily about.

[Quaro]

The market is good at determining some values, particularly the value of goods. And as an algorithm, it generally converges. But it’s not as effective in determining the value of other things, like clean air. Or helping others in need. Or patriotism. When the market fails, other methods of determining value become necessary, including religion, philosophy, and civics.

If you think about it, that’s exactly why we bother to have religion, civic institutions, and philosophy. They tell us what to cherish and value when the market can’t.

Yes, I know that their answers are often messy and contradictory compared to the neat solutions provided by the market. That doesn’t make them wrong. People aren’t robots, they can sort it out on their own.

I think you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If there is an “objective” problem with the free market of the antebellum South, then you are assessing value without using that market itself. Are you using some sort of philosophical principles, perhaps?

But if you can claim that the markets of the antebellum South failed to properly assign value based on your own principles, then why can’t we claim that other markets failed based on our own principles?

In Saudi Arabia, there is a free market but women cannot hold most jobs. Is it a meritocracy?

The Soviet Union did not have a free market economy.

Again, you seem to be claiming that all free market economies are, by definition, meritocracies. If so, then “meritocracy” is not a useful term. If not, then provide an example of a free market economy that is not a meritocracy.

Great post that really cuts to the heart of it.

[Quaro]

If we could just classify games according to more granular genres maybe we wouldn’t spend so much time worrying about Doom4 as a game.

Movies have “torture porn”, so how about “gore porn”. Some people like the genre and others don’t but at least it doesn’t have to represent the entire market of games - just like Saw 4 is not representative of all movies.

The thing that stood out is that it was the opening press conference of E3, the first game talked about, and they made such a big deal of the extra gore it as a selling point. So it’d be like opening up the biggest film festival in the world with a presenter who spends a large part of the presentation being like, “Check out this slowmo head-ripping scene, and this super closeup entrail-ripping scene, and this one, and this one, this is the best movie ever!”

I honestly think it’s a step backwards in terms of gameplay. The last thing I want in a game like Doom is to freeze the action and take control away from me as a player so I can watch canned animations of me ripping a creature with a chainsaw. Over and over again. I’d prefer enemies instantly explode and retain the tempo of the action.

[Juan_Raigada]

Yes, it’s about the gratuitousness being part of the marketing buzz instead of a consequence of other internal choices of the developers.

[Timex]

I don’t think Timex is saying meritocracies are inherently fair. In fact, I think he’s pointing out why they aren’t.

Imagine an exaggerated sci-fi situation:

We live in a pretend world where DNA manipulation has allowed us to create superhumans for a price. Those that can afford it, manipulate the genes of themselves and their offspring. Superhumans, by definition, can do more than humans. Therefore, these superhumans would get the best jobs and gain the most influence because they’re the most skilled. It’s a horribly unfair and twisted system, but it’s still a meritocracy because people will earn based upon their abilities.

Yes, exactly.

I specifically pointed out elements of our system, and other meritocracies which were inherently unfair. A meritocracy does not imply “fairness”. It merely implies that meritorious conduct, as judged by contemporaries, will result in success (or at least contribute to it).

The gattica analogy is particularly excellent, as it takes it to the extreme.