
A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s morally wrong - foolrush
https://aeon.co/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-morally-wrong
======
manfredo
There's definitely proof that the world does respect hard work. Consider the
fact that Asians, Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks spend time working on homework
in that order: [https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2017/...](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-
chalkboard/2017/08/10/analyzing-the-homework-gap-among-high-school-students/)

Asians spend twice as much time on homework as compared to Whites, and about
three times as compared to Blacks. Kids of high income families spend more
time working on homework than low income kids. So the fact that Asians
comprise the student body proportionally larger than Whites, and whites more
than Blacks is evidence that hard work pays off.

I think these claims that meritocracy is false lack nuance. It's not that
meritocracy isn't fair, it's that a pure meritocracy free of bias is _too_
fair: it doesn't attempt to rectify the fact not everyone starts with the same
resources and that certain groups have different attitudes towards thinks like
education than others.

Granted many of you are probably thinking that the fact that meritocracy
doesn't correct for these things makes it inherently unfair, and many are
probably thinking that the notion that our processes to allocate opportunitiea
_should_ correct for things like disparate time spent on study is itself an
act of unfairness. And there's no one right answer to this. This is a kind of
question where there is no answer, but rather society continuously develops
and evolves a concensus about the right approach.

~~~
circlefavshape
Two questions arise from this.

First - in your homework paragraph, you're associating hard work with merit.
It's very common - X deserves more than Y because X worked harder. Why do we
consider work to be a virtue?

And second - even if we have a pure measure of merit we could all agree on,
how the fruits of everyone's labours are divided is still debatable. How much
should the best/average/worst get compared to each other?

~~~
manfredo
Good point, hard work in and of itself does not equate to better results in
meritocracy. Meritocracy sorts people based on performance, not hard work. But
hard work is generally necessary to improve performance.

* If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of winning? Sure, maybe Alice has a disability, or maybe Candice is some running demigod. But if I had to put money on it I'd bet on Alice.

* If half the class studies for 21 hours a week and the other studiss for 7 the which would you bet is going to have the higher class average? I can speak firsthand to the fact that there will still be big variance. Some subjects can't naturally to me, others were like a brick wall. But chances are the students putting in 3x the study will do better.

So pointing out that groups that work harder get ahead is decent evidence that
meritocracy does function. Especially when the groups in question are groups
like Asians and Jewish people in America that were subject to significant
prejudice and discrimination throughout history. Meritocracy _can_ enable
groups to overcome prejudice.

Granted there are definitely groups not well served by meritocracy. Groups
that don't have as much family support, and don't have a strong cultural
emphasis on education (I realize this last point does mirror racial sterotyoes
but I did post evidence to show truth behind it) are at a big disadvantage.
Any yes, it's probably worth compromising pure meritocracy to even the playing
field to a degree.

Distribution of the fruits of labor is a valuable discussion, but it is
tangential to the discussion of meritocracy. There will be varing
distributions of wealth even if we wholly reject meritocracy.

~~~
coldtea
> _If Alice trains 30 hours a week for a year for a marathon and Candice
> trains 2 hours a week for a year who do you think has the better chance of
> winning?_

If Caleb and Makayla study 30 hours a week for a year for SATs suffering
parental apathy, lack of means, working an evening job, a bad school district,
and Emma and John study 20 hours a week for a year, being primed from birth
for college, with understanding parents, a nice weekly allowance, and a good
school district, which would you bet is going to have the higher SAT average?

[https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-
penci...](https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-
on-a-plate)

~~~
manfredo
I'm not sure how a web comic from New Zealand is supposed to form an effective
refutation in response to quantative data on academics in the United States.
In case it wasn't clear I'm most talking about America. The posted article
opens with statementd from Barack Obama and Trump so I think this narrowed
scope is on topic. I don't have much experience or knowledge of other
countries meritocratic systems.

Oppressed minorities have gotten themselves out of poverty by emphasizing hard
work and education. I've already listed Jewish Americans and Asian Americans.
The Irish also underwent a similar process. Back during the 19th and early
20th century Irish were widely discriminated against and many didn't consider
them White. Irish community leaders started emphasizing education in the early
to mid 20th century. And by 2018 Irish have succeeded to the point that Irish
surnames are considered signs of privilege. Cuban American households by now
make about $20k more than the average American households [1]. Latin Americans
as a whole are following suit.

Minorities have overcome oppression through meritocratic systems. It certainly
hasn't worked for _every_ demographic. But I don't think you're giving
minorities enough credit in their ability to succeed through their own effort.

1\.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Americans)

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm not sure how a web comic from New Zealand is supposed to form an
> effective refutation in response to quantative data on academics in the
> United States. In case it wasn't clear I'm most talking about America._

Let me clarify this part, then: the post is about nothing particular New
Zealandish that's not also the case in the US. It has been reposted and
recommended in American media so many times precisely because it is relevant
in the US too.

Furthermore, this is more than clear in the comic itself, which is told in a
universal manner, and doesn't refer to any particular
trait/habit/circumstance/factor of New Zealand life.

If anything, it is more USA than New Zealand (which has much less inequality
of the sort the comic criticizes).

> _Oppressed minorities have gotten themselves out of poverty by emphasizing
> hard work and education. I 've already listed Jewish Americans and Asian
> Americans._

Jewish and Asian Americans didn't have 400 years of being abducted from their
countries and working to death as slaves in the USA. After the initial racism
against them as newcomers subsided they were quickly tolerated.

Blacks on the other had, had the contempt and the prejudice of their ex-owners
and their children and grandchildren. They had started from less than 0, as
they had their culture stolen from them in 400 years of slavery (as opposed to
newer Jewish and Asian immigrants arriving with their old world cultures --
from "bar mitzvahs" and "delis", to "tiger moms").

Asians and Jews had their persecution up around the 40s or so, but they didn't
have segregated schools, hotels, restaurants up to the late 60s. They didn't
have to put up with redlining when looking for places to live (up to now).
They don't have discrimination against them in white collar jobs still.
They're not routinely killed without questions asked by cops in percentages
unheard of for any western country police force (even accounting those
countries total population, not just the black population).

~~~
manfredo
Again, I mentioned that meritocracy hasn't been successful for every single
demographic. My whole point is that meritocracy _does_ uplift poor minorities
when effort is put in. Don't get me wrong it almost certainly takes more
effort for a poor minority to succeed than a rich person - I've been
reiterating this since my original comment. But meritocracy does provide a
ladder to lift groups out of poverty in a manner that society as a whole seems
fair. I think you recognize this when you reference "tiger moms" as part of
the reasons why Asians have succeeded.

The fact that it hasn't worked for Blacks in America doesn't alter the fact
that is _has_ worked for Irish, Germans, Asians, Jews, and Latinos. One can
make a decent claim that more minorities have benefitted from meritocracy than
have been left behind.

------
rmah
As far as I can tell, that article should properly be titled "A belief that
life is a meritocracy is not only false, it's morally wrong".

Most of the author's problems seem to revolve around the fact that real life
is not actually a pure meritocracy, not in the idea that meritocracy itself is
a bad ideal. Even his examples where people show bias in assessment of others
when they believe they are operating in a merit-based system are just examples
that the system is not actually merit-based.

What I find disappointing is that the author does not even bother to offer
even a hint at an alternative.

~~~
ewzimm
The argument that it is morally wrong seems to hinge on the argument that
meritocracy promotes selfishness. However, I find the examples used to be
problematic. It's shown that when people are led to believe that their success
in a game is based on their skill, they are less likely to support
redistributing the rewards. This is an example of selfishness. However, what
about all the other participants in the game? If they believe that they lost
because of someone else's skill, are they less likely to expect redistribution
of rewards? If this is the case, it could be shown that meritocracy promotes
selfishness in the person at the top but selflessness in everyone else, and
therefore a net gain in selflessness in society.

As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live
in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or
one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that
most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to
work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today.

The other subject discussed is people's perception of effort and skill in
success. Most people seem to think that it's an important factor. But isn't
this true even if luck and circumstance are large factors as well? It's a well
known fact that people who win lotteries often lose their money and end up
less happy than they expect. Anyone can be given the world and waste it. It's
not wrong to believe that sustained success requires both effort and strong
external support.

Therefore, what I learned from this article is that most people want to live
in a meritocracy, and I suspect that most people are happier with their lack
of success and reward if they believe that their cicrumstances are somewhat
under their control and there exists opportunity to better themselves through
effort. We should work toward a more meritocratic world so that more people
can realize these ambitions.

~~~
inertiatic
>As a thought expermiment, what kind of world would most people prefer to live
in, one in which success and rewards can be gained by skill and hard work or
one in which success is distributed randomly? This article seems to imply that
most people prefer the former. If that's true, then meritocracy is an ideal to
work toward, no matter how perfectly or imperfectly it exists today.

You mean, the better out of those 2 options. There are more than the 2 options
you present though, so the fact that it is ideal doesn't follow.

Some people would prefer the option, for example, where rewards aren't random
but evenly distributed.

~~~
ewzimm
I used those two examples because they were the ones presented in the article,
luck vs merit. But you're right that there are many more options for
distribution. Whether people would prefer opportunities for success with merit
without rewards or without certain rewards like financial compensation if they
would receive more recognition instead is an interesting line of inquiry. If
we can establish that people overall prefer a merit-based rather than a luck-
based success system, it opens up opportunities to figure out what kinds of
things people value in return for their success.

I wonder if people would even prefer fewer rewards for success if that success
could be made more merit-based as a result. Maybe companies should reduce
salaries and redirect that money toward more robust systems to recognize skill
and merit in employees. It would make an interesting experiment. Would you
take, for example, a 10% pay cut if in exchange you and everyone else at your
job were given weekly evaluations with opportunities for advancement, with at
least one person being given more responsibilities with no pay raise and the
bottom earners gaining a raise as a result of increased efficiency and reduced
pay for the top earners? That might not sound like a great deal, but maybe it
could be crafted in a way to be appealing to people.

------
blastbeat
Belief in meritocracy is yet another version of the just-world fallacy. If you
belief in a just world, you need to fight off any counter evidence. This leads
automatically to discrimination. Same thing with merits and success. To not
acknowledge happenstance and luck is a huge red flag for me.

~~~
sharemywin
Also, it assumes one right answer. That everything can be converted to a
number and combined into a rank-able scale.

There's different perspectives and trade offs.

~~~
sebastos
Why does it assume that?

It assumes that when _you_ make up a scale, the people that deserve to be at
the top of it tend to be there. There's no reason for it to imply there's one
universal scale of good people versus bad people.

For instance, if you want to understand why some people make more money than
others (a trait that _is_ well-ordered, and can be put into a list), then
somebody who believes in meritocracy would say that the people who make the
most money earned it. If you want to understand why different people hold
different positions in a company, then the meritocrist would say that between
all the people who wanted each position, the person who was best for it tends
to be the one that gets it.

Each of those scales may be more or less sympathetic to an explanation by way
of meritocracy. But anyone who wants to make that argument doesn't have to
construct an a priori global list of goodness for all people to give you an
answer.

~~~
sharemywin
That's the thing nobody deserves anything. How do you prove one scale is
better than another? GDP - arbitrary. GINI index - arbitrary. Violent
submission? I guess at the end of the day there's your answer.

------
onlydeadheroes
Talk is cheap. Meritocracy is the new bad word for some political segments,
but the day you need complex surgery and they bring in the janitor, you grow
up real fast.

~~~
devoply
Heavily contrasted things such as a janitor and a surgeon are not what is
meant a meritocracy. What is usually meant is within an organization of
surgeons ranked based on talent, effort, and achievement. Fact is all of those
things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some cases luck --
especially the higher up the hierarchy you go as individuals may get credit
for efforts of people below them and all of that is attributed to their
efforts.

The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes
easier cases. A good surgeon might work 36 which might be worse for his
patients survival than if he works 12 hour shifts. You might get individual
surgeons that are very lucky in terms of their success rate, not for any other
reason than survivor bias. You might get a team of surgeons where a leader
takes credit but it's the juniors that are actually really good at what they
do.

~~~
onlydeadheroes
> Fact is all of those things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some
> cases luck

Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who
stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average
talent.

> The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only
> takes easier cases.

That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually
doesn't work among peers.

~~~
devoply
> Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People
> who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached
> average talent.

[https://cramster-
image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V...](https://cramster-
image.s3.amazonaws.com/definitions/DC-2238V1.png)

Normal curve as in measuring IQ. Most people on it are in the middle. The
people on the extremes are exceptional. Plenty of studies show that the
correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely
successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ.
How do you explain that if there is a real meritocracy. Shouldn't people who
are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful?

> That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually
> doesn't work among peers.

It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can
actually win. Do you live under a rock?

~~~
onlydeadheroes
So your point is that reducing humans to a contentious number (IQ) and sorting
them thus should immediately translate into their social/financial positions
in reality, and if not then it's all politics and isms? That is laughable.

> It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can
> actually win. Do you live under a rock?

Of course. Common practice for some. But then the hard cases are still there
and someone needs to take them, right? And those who do, gain respect. That's
merit.

------
benchaney
This article (like so many others) inappropriately conflates believing that
meritocracy is ideal with believing that meritocracy exists today. Given that,
it’s hard to interpret its conclusions.

------
rijoja
"Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to
promote discriminatory behaviour"

Of course it does, meritocracy is the process of discriminating good
candidates from bad candidates.

I'm so fed up with people attaching emotions to the word discrimination. It is
not an inherent evil.

"Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement
meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to
eliminate."

Then they haven't implemented meritocracy properly then, have they?

------
squozzer
I would argue that as a way to describe a selection process, "Meritocracy",
warts and all, works great.

By warts, I mean that merit, as shorthand for "assessment of skill, talent, or
capability", has other factors mixed in because _flawed people_ decide who
gets life's prizes.

The Gates example shows the missing ingredient - not luck, but recognition of
luck's role in success, what some might call humility. The article referred to
gratitude research, which probably means the same thing.

It's a missing ingredient because it doesn't seem too valuable anymore,
especially when compared to other qualities, such as the ability to "talk
smack."

And it's associated with sackcloth and ashes, or being a "loser." Moreover,
it's often called false.

Coming back to meritocracy, what do we have as alternatives? Random selection?
Suppression of individual differences (aka C.S. Lewis' "Parity of Esteem")? I
don't know.

Parity of Esteem ref =
[http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Toast_CSL.pdf](http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Toast_CSL.pdf)

------
1787
I am annoyed by the article's use of Bill Gates to exemplify the "fortuitous
circumstances that figure into every success story". Bill Gates and Microsoft
is not "every success story". I would be surprised to find even a hardcore
believer in an ideologized meritocracy who thought that tail events like Bill
Gates and Microsoft didn't have a huge luck component.

Meritocracy-as-strong-just-world-hypothesis is a weak-man argument.

I am a believer in meritocracy. But, I note, I'm not a believer in any
ideological big-M Meritocracy. Rather, I think meritocracy is the best
practical way we know to organize things. In a liberal society, rather than
get everybody to agree on the latent virtues they love the most, I think it
makes sense to have demonstrated capability as a common ground evaluation
metric. As another poster in the thread suggests, what do you want from your
surgeon if not demonstrated capability?

------
gumby
It seems most people don't realise that "meritocracy" was coined half a
century ago as a sarcastic term for a possible dystopia. One in which many
people now find themselves.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Actual dystopia, surely?

He was referring to major flaws of the two stream, grammar and secondary
modern, school system in place in the UK at the time. That it led to "an
obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications". So we still
inhabit it.

That two tier education was supposed to be a three stream system including
technical schools for engineering and trades, except almost none of those were
built. So the UK spent decades wondering aloud why our education couldn't turn
out engineers and tradespeople like Germany.

Subsequent UK attempts at school specialisation have been even worse.

------
ObscureMind
The article talks about morals, which by themselves are based on values and
beliefs, therefore not defensible ethically and logically.

Meritocracy is not ethically defensible under argumentative logic -- Hans
Herman Hoppe has provided the framework for that.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
_Morals_ are not defensible _ethically_? That sounds... really bizarre. Could
you explain why you think that is true?

Or, could you explain why you think ethics are _not_ based on values and
beliefs?

------
joyeuse6701
Is luck evenly distributed? If so, then at least on one level of abstraction,
is not the world fair? If it is not evenly distributed, then by what mechanism
is luck parceled out to individuals?

Bill Gates may be lucky in that he had little choice over the circumstances in
which he was born into, but did not his parents make decisions that led to a
better outcome? His luck could be said to be the merit of his ancestors.

------
shkkmo
I would point out that the equal opportunity espoused in the quote that start
that article is not at all the same thing as meritocracy.

A balanced playing field doesn't mean that luck plays no role. It also doesn't
mean that you can't provide a safety net and do some balancing of outcomes. It
just means you have eliminated systematic biases.

------
zzzcpan
I kind of agree with the article. I think of meritocracy as just another way
to promote exploitation of people, hard work, submissive attitudes, acceptance
of inequality. Basically every capitalist's dream society.

But it's pretty bizarre that people actually believe that being exploited is
just hard work they have to do to get ahead and not being able to meet basic
needs to live a normal life is just not working hard enough or not being
talented enough to deserve a normal life.

It's morally acceptable to believe in meritocracy only as long as everyone's
basic needs are met and they can't be exploited.

