Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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