Hacker News Reader

Comment by rmah | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

>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.

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.

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

Some would also prefer the option of having it rain $100 bills every morning...however wildly unrealistic that might be.

I think another point of the article (that I at least read into, maybe too much, I am not sure) was that having merit/skill is luck based in itself. To give an example, whenever I play a video game with my friends, they are usually a lot better than I am. I play probably just as much as them but they are inherently better. I don't think either of us worked harder, we all play roughly the same games and all grew up playing together. I am just not as good at them. Was this me not working as hard/harder as them or was it them being lucky and they were born good at those particular skills? I feel like my skill cap at the games we play are much lower than them and they usually rank much higher than me even though we put in the same amount of hours. Personally, I would say it is luck.

You're absolutely right that this is the way the article presents it, but I'm not so sure that it's a useful definition of luck. It really just seems to extend the definition of luck to include everything and makes the argument a tautology. Everything is luck-based because everything is luck. I don't think anyone who values people's aptitude diminishes their opinion of that aptitude because it requires a certain genetic profile. In things like athletics, it's even emphasized.

This argument seems to create a strawman version of merit which means some kind of inner quality gained through pure willpower with no external influences from the world whatsoever. This might have some meaning in a certain kind of religious thinking which interprets the world as a reflection of a higher spiritual reality, but if we're confining our definitions to tangible things, it's an incomprehensible idea.

The immediate alternative is to accept that life is not a meritocracy, and ceasing to act as if it were. In particular, it means not using fairness as a justification for policies that might be fair in a pure meritocracy, but not in the real world. "Fairness" sounds compelling, but when applied an unfair system, it can end up magnifying injustices.

It might be a good thing to push towards the "pure meritocracy" you mention, though the article does offer arguments that it's not possible. If it's not possible, then some things that push towards it potentially make the problem worse. One of the virtues of pure meritocracy is that it is simple, and if a system accepts an impure meritocracy while rejecting complications based on that virtue, then it will fail to achieve what you want a pure meritocracy to do and enshrine the evils of an impure one.

Even if it is possible, it won't happen immediately, and you will have to deal with that. Don't be surprised if people reject it when you say "Oh, I'm working towards a pure meritocracy, in a way that just happens to benefit me first, and I promise that as soon as I've got that I'll be sure to make it a pure meritocracy for you, too."

Essentially, I'm saying that if you want pure meritocracy as your alternative, you need to offer some evidence that there's a practical way to get there from here. And all the way there, not just a few things in that direction, unless you can show that they really do benefit everybody (or at least that most people would agree is a better state, not just some, and especially not when those "some" are those who are already better off).

No true scotsman?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com