Hacker News Reader

Comment by arvinsim | Hacker News Reader

I used to believe in meritocracy. I used to think it was an objective and fair way to structure society.

As the article expounded, it just ends with people who has less to contribute being marginalized.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." - https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_115...

We give far too much importance to personality and achievement, and far too little importance to character.

Meritocracy came to America in a big way starting in the 1950's, propelled by factors such as the space race and the discrediting of racism. It was a good idea. The unforeseen consequence of it was that it displaced the idea that wealth and power gave some additional responsibility to the wealthy and powerful to sustain the fairness of the social contract. When Americans adopted the concept that society ought to reward work of great merit, cause and effect were conflated and those of great wealth and great power were largely liberated from taboos against excessive exploitation, solipsism and hedonism.

I think the problem is not meritocracy but an idea that you can assign each person a number that is sum of their contributions to the world and that number can be roughly estimated. Then what follows is simplistic view that worth is a one dimensional thing and you can use < operator to compare people's worth. And this is childish, unnecessary and harmful.

What should the selection process be for the doctor who treats your life-threatening illness? For the pilot who holds your life in his hands?

"At the time of the accident, van Zanten was KLM's chief flight instructor, with 11,700 flight hours, of which 1,545 hours were on the 747." - Wikipedia. Meritocratic thinking was a major cause of the worst air accident ever.

With doctors, I think it's well established that the academic hurdle is pointlessly high. I.e, instead of picking the top 10 applicants to med school, you could shortlist 50, pick 10 at random, and the doctors who graduated would be indistinguishable. I couldn't cite any of the evidence for that.

>Meritocratic thinking was a major cause of the worst air accident ever.

What's the theory here? A random person off the street would be less likely than an experienced pilot to make such a mistake?

>I.e, instead of picking the top 10 applicants to med school, you could shortlist 50, pick 10 at random, and the doctors who graduated would be indistinguishable.

Sure, test scores are an imperfect proxy for competence, especially at the extreme ends. You're still allocating the slots to people you deem competent.

Meritocracy is something natural. Maybe less obvious today when we live in relative wealth and the fact that life is a struggle is obfuscated.

But in older times when failure led to starvation, increased vulnerability and death it was probably more clear. Those who contributed most was highly regareded by the simple fact that their existence increased your own chance of survival.

> Those who contributed most was highly regareded by the simple fact that their existence increased your own chance of survival.

Long term I think that you are right. But in the short term may be more useful an idiot that is on your side that a great contributor that plays against you.

It is better a 20% of 100 than a 5% of 150.

So, meritocracy and tribalism are two forces pushing in opposite directions. The past seems full of both.

And is very natural to mistake tribalism for meritocracy (my group deserves more because we are better - true or not).

What you mean by > great contributor that plays against you.

How? How contributor plays against you if you don't contribute anything?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com