
Meritocracy doesn't exist, and believing it does is bad for you - walterbell
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
======
Zanni
While the findings on discrimination based on holding meritocracy as a value
are interesting, the premise of the article--that meritocracy is wrong--is
itself wrong. Or at least, it's arguing against a strawman version of
meritocracy in which everyone gets _exactly_ what they deserve, but I don't
know anyone who believes that.

The idea of a meritocracy is that you can improve your outcome by working hard
and smart. That doesn't guarantee that you'll do better, or even as well, as
everyone who works less hard or smart than you. Weight lifting is a perfect
example here. Train hard; gain strength. Train smart; gain more strength with
less effort. But, there's always going to be someone who gets stronger with
less effort than you. Does that mean you shouldn't bother with weightlifting?
That it's all a scam?

------
flippinburgers
With any luck Olympic medals will no longer be handed out based on who crosses
the finish line first!

Sure luck plays a part, but to find fault with someones accomplishments
because they are lucky? Very weak argument. People succeed due to luck,
perseverance, and hard work. In some cases it is smart work.

Imagine no longer finding value in a person who has started and then sold a
company. They have value and merit far above someone just out of school.
Simple fact.

~~~
mjfl
> Imagine no longer finding value in a person who has started and then sold a
> company.

This is a great point. One could imagine comparing two candidates for a job,
one had started and sold a company, the other just coming out of school. For
the meritocracy total-denier the two candidates have equal prospects - since
it must have been luck that the one candidate was able to build and sell their
company. In practice this is __completely __false, the candidate that sold
their company is __light years __better than any given recent grad.

~~~
apacheCamel
I can understand this but at the same time it could possibly go the other way.
What if the person sold the company because it was going downhill? What if it
wasn't properly managed and the whole thing was sold just to get rid of it? I
would say someone who has experience building and selling a company has value
but not in every situation and it isn't always 'light years' ahead.

~~~
mjfl
I would say the fact that someone would pay for their company, no matter what
the situation is, puts them light years ahead. There's no stronger signal than
someone else being willing to part with cash in order to obtain the rights
their work.

------
prepend
“In the U.K., 84% of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey
stated that hard work is either “essential” or “very important” when it comes
to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69% of
Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill.”

The article does not present anything to counter this widely shared belief in
the UK and US.

Being rewarded for intelligence and skill is not the same as only being
rewarded for intelligence and skill. The fact that luck is a factor does not
mean that skill is not a factor. Or that hard work is not a factor.

I’m not sure if the author is accidentally conflating this illogical leap, or
purposely trying to mislead.

Meritocracy, to me, does not mean some Star Trek episode world where only
merit determines position. I think it means that merit is the most influential
determinant. I would like to see some research of the impact of skill vs luck.
Meritocracy is preferable, I think, to other systems like heredity or
seniority or equity based on random factors.

------
mjfl
If you get significantly better grades than your peers, you can land yourself
a high income job, no matter how poor you grow up. Many US immigrants take
advantage of this, and have achieved single generation jumps from lower class
to upper middle class. I have known several, personally. Isn’t this the
definition of meritocracy?

~~~
throwaway77384
I would say that it is a facet of meritocracy. After all, status alone doesn't
necessarily represent the reward one might expect for one's achievements.

For certain people, class, or remuneration probably matters much less than
recognition, for example. If said recognition goes to whomever shouts the
loudest or makes sure to 'appear' best (even though anyone with expert
knowledge would immediately know this person isn't the best), then you are no
longer living in a meritocracy.

I should note that I find the whole idea of a meritocracy rather flawed, as it
would somehow require to perfectly equate all of your actions, every single
day, in every walk of life with some kind of reward or easy-to-query metric.

That's just not feasible. And even if it was, who would want another type of
China-style sesame credit on steroids?

------
towaway1138
Maybe, but I still want my surgeon to really good at surgery.

