Hacker News Reader

Comment by lawlessone | Hacker News Reader

>But another explanation is that the rich child ends up a rich adult because his rich parents actually instill more merit in the child and he ends up with more skills and abilities.

How is that in itself not a form of privilege? is it different to attending an elite school?

View on HN

It can be both privilege and meritocracy. Think of the movie Gattaca. The people with enhanced genes were privileged from the wealth of their parents, but also genuinely better in some areas because of that. The same thing if parents are able to afford tutors, or to spend time helping their child out in homework they will get better grades and do better. The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.

> The key to remember is that a meritocracy is not fair.

I think you've just completely upended the meaning of meritocracy to suite your argument.

Next you'll be arguing lootboxes make games more fair.

>Think of the movie Gattaca

Was literally a movie about unfair privilege. people in it were granted privileges and opportunities based on their genes whether they had accomplished something or not.

Can you explain what you mean? This definition for meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." says nothing about fairness. If people are able to gain increased ability based on privilege than you have an unfair meritocracy. Since it is pretty clear that you can indeed do this, through parental involvement, tutoring, nutrition, better medical care, etc. than it follows that meritocracy is not fair.

There's lots of definitions, I think this one is probably closer to what we think of when discussing meritocracy:

an elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meritocracy

There is still no conflict though, so long as class privilege and wealth can be transformed into ability and talent.

Well no because the definition is 'rather than class privilege or wealth.' Transforming wealth into ability and talent is class privilege.

If ability comes from wealth, it's still ability. I'd read "rather than class privilege or wealth" to mean that those things aren't considered merits in and of themselves, except to the degree that they can help someone achieve their full potential.

Meritocracy is very much in conflict with equality. Meritocracy means you are judged on your merit. It is completely orthogonal to a nature-vs-nurture argument.

For example, this is exactly the sort of debate we've been having in Singapore, which prides itself on being a highly 'meritocratic', which consequently people have criticized for exacerbating income/social inequality.

Equality vs equity.

Most people intend the latter when they mean the former (at least from usage).

Just because a system is meritocratic doesn't mean it's just in some broader sense. It just means that the behaviors that society defines as being worthy of merit are consistently rewarded. It doesn't say anything about how or why people are acculturated in a certain way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com