Meritocracy and its Evils

[The Parkus Empire]

How do you feel about meritocracy? Do you support it, or oppose it?

I personally strongly oppose it, T.S. Eliot and Christopher Lasch furnished excellent critiques of it. Here is an article on why meritocracy is destroying our society: http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2009/ ... cracy/amp/

Meritocracy constantly sifts humanity and rips individuals from their station in life.

Taking it for granted that I do not write to the disciples of the Parisian philosophy, I may assume, that the awful Author of our being is the Author of our place in the order of existence; and that, having disposed and marshalled us by a divine tactic, not according to our will, but according to his, he has, in and by that disposition, virtually subjected us to act the part which belongs to the place assigned us. We have obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact. They arise from the relation of man to man, and the relation of man to God, which relations are not matters of choice. On the contrary, the force of all the pacts which we enter into with any particular person, or number of persons, amongst mankind, depends upon those prior obligations. In some cases the subordinate relations are voluntary, in others they are necessary—but the duties are all compulsive. When we marry, the choice is voluntary, but the duties are not matter of choice. They are dictated by the nature of the situation. Dark and inscrutable are the ways by which we come into the world. The instincts which give rise to this mysterious process of nature are not of our making. But out of physical causes, unknown to us, perhaps unknowable, arise moral duties, which, as we are able perfectly to comprehend, we are bound indispensably to perform. Parents may not be consenting to their moral relation; but consenting or not, they are bound to a long train of burthensome duties towards those with whom they have never made a convention of any sort. Children are not consenting to their relation, but their relation, without their actual consent, binds them to its duties; or rather it implies their consent, because the presumed consent of every rational creature is in unison with the predisposed order of things. Men come in that manner into a community with the social state of their parents, endowed with all the benefits, loaded with all the duties, of their situation. If the social ties and ligaments, spun out of those physical relations which are the elements of the commonwealth, in most cases begin, and alway continue, independently of our will, so, without any stipulation on our own part, are we bound by that relation called our country, which comprehends (as it has been well said) "all the charities of all." Nor are we left without powerful instincts to make this duty as dear and grateful to us, as it is awful and coercive. It consists, in a great measure, in the ancient order into which we are born. We may have the same geographical situation, but another country; as we may have the same country in another soil. The place that determines our duty to our country is a social, civil relation.

Meritocracy functions as a brain drain on all areas but the elite hubs, stripping both rural areas and poorer urban areas of their meritorious members. Children of middle class families go away for education, that is, testing and qualification for merit sorting. They go far from their families and communities to do this, and after being sorted they frequently move away permanently. Even it's rare they stay in one place, they buzz around like solitary locusts following occupational or other economic currents until they perhaps get married. But even then they don't settled down, and after marriage go from home to home, then their children grow up and go to school, and the processes repeats. This is making any culture but pop culture very difficult to maintain, because culture is extremely hereditary, we grow up into it. It's impossible for it to be nomadic except with nomadic communities. But since communities these days are seldom nomadic, it is very regional, and so it is jeopardized. Only strong religious backbone to a culture (as with Jews) could preserve under these conditions, otherwise it will vanish. Imagine if you will that half the Samoans left the Pacific and lived elsewhere, and their numbers were replaced by outsiders. And then half the population again left and dispersed. And again. There would soon be no Samoan culture. Do the descendants of Continental immigrants in the U.S. maintain the cultural distinction between Germany and Italy? No, of course not.

Meritocracy is dangerous

[Ifreann]

Just dropped on NSG, I Hate A Thing That Everyone Else Likes by DJ Parkus is a remix of his hit single I Like A Thing That Everyone Else Hates. Can DJ Parkus top the charts once again? Watch this space to find out!

[Firaxin]

People should always be rewarded for their merits. I'm sure they prefer being rewarded than getting the same as everyone else. It encourages them to continue performing above average.

Also, why exactly would people have to move if they perform well?

[The Parkus Empire]

People should always be rewarded for their merits. I'm sure they prefer being rewarded than getting the same as everyone else. It encourages them to continue performing above average.

Also, why exactly would people have to move if they perform well?

Occupational demand after educational qualification

[The Parkus Empire]

Just dropped on NSG, I Hate A Thing That Everyone Else Likes by DJ Parkus is a remix of his hit single I Like A Thing That Everyone Else Hates. Can DJ Parkus top the charts once again? Watch this space to find out!

I don't record in echo chambers

[Aillyria]

So, our convo in the LWTD provoked this? I shouldn't be surprised you'd feel this strongly about "muh tradition". But my position is the same, so I'll just import my last post from our convo here, as it is relevant.

Muh individualism

Not necessarily, I'm looking at this from a socialist perspective. The proletariat must have ownership of the MoP, and the most basic of that is one's own labor. If one cannot have agency over their own value and labor, then you haven't liberated the worker, but enslaved him.

[The Parkus Empire]

So, our convo in the LWTD provoked this? I shouldn't be surprised you'd feel this strongly about "muh tradition". But my position is the same, so I'll just import my last post from our convo here, as it is relevant.

Not necessarily, I'm looking at this from a socialist perspective. The proletariat must have ownership of the MoP, and the most basic of that is one's own labor. If one cannot have agency over their own value and labor, then you haven't liberated the worker, but enslaved him.

Saying the individual ought to be footloose is individualism, aye.

[Western-Ukraine]

Merit alone should in most cases determine an individual's position in the societal hierarchy, lest we fuel the corrupt systems. Only a few exemptions to the rule ought to apply, such as patriotism, citizenship, and common decency. It is the mission of society to incentivize the most meritorious individuals where needed. When it comes to public offices, popular support should be the determinant, though.

[Kurnugia]

The more interesting question: What is your alternative? Being against is easy.

[Aillyria]

So, our convo in the LWTD provoked this? I shouldn't be surprised you'd feel this strongly about "muh tradition". But my position is the same, so I'll just import my last post from our convo here, as it is relevant.

Saying the individual ought to be footloose is individualism, aye.

Ok...I haven't denied that, I am a market socialist after all.

In your OP, you mentioned meritocratic systems "rip people from their station in life", how is an individual's "station" determined in your traditional wonderland?

[Kernen]

Meritocracy creates the most efficient outcomes of intellectual development and productivity. Culture can take a back seat.

[Western-Ukraine]

Meritocracy creates the most efficient outcomes of intellectual development and productivity. Culture can take a back seat.

Culture and meritocracy aren't exclusive. In fact, meritocracy is our best bet for culture.

[The Parkus Empire]

The more interesting question: What is your alternative? Being against is easy.

1. Take nonacademic occupations outside of academics as much as possible. Teach them through apprenticeships instead. This not only stops educational exodus, it frees many from the burden of massive student debt.

2. Drastically reduce property taxes. They make keeping a home in the family difficult if property values go up or the family slips into poverty. They also perpetuate gentrification and ghettoization, making it impossible for a poor neighborhood to lift themselves up, leaving hope to be about moving away.

[The Parkus Empire]

Saying the individual ought to be footloose is individualism, aye.

Ok...I haven't denied that, I am a market socialist after all.

In your OP, you mentioned meritocratic systems "rip people from their station in life", how is an individual's "station" determined in your traditional wonderland?

A station is mostly determined by birth, your family, your neighbors, your cultural background, etc

[The Holy Therns]

Well. That's a weird way to think.

[Ceolophysia]

Meritocracy constantly sifts humanity and rips individuals from their station in life.

Ah, essentialism. No one has a station in life. People make their own paths.

Meritocracy functions as a brain drain on all areas but the elite hubs, stripping both rural areas and poorer urban areas of their meritorious members.

There's nothing wrong with more people getting rich. It's better that less people are in poorer areas. Being poor is not a good thing.

Children of middle class families go away for education, that is, testing and qualification for merit sorting.

That's bad?

They go far from their families and communities to do this, and after being sorted they frequently move away permanently. Even it's rare they stay in one place, they buzz around like solitary locusts following occupational or other economic currents until they perhaps get married. But even then they don't settled down, and after marriage go from home to home, then their children grow up and go to school, and the processes repeats.

That doesn't mean they don't keep in contact. If the son of a teacher in a rural area doesn't want to have the same life as his father and would rather be a pilot in the Air Force, good on him. If he does want to be a teacher, good on him. It doesn't matter what someone does, as long as they're contributing to the economy and society.

This is making any culture but pop culture very difficult to maintain, because culture is extremely hereditary, we grow up into it. It's impossible for it to be nomadic except with nomadic communities. But since communities these days are seldom nomadic, it is very regional, and so it is jeopardized.

What's so important about cultures? If a culture has problems, let those problematic areas die. If a culture is jeopardized, the strong elements of the culture will survive and the weak ones will die. That's a positive thing

Only strong religious backbone to a culture (as with Jews) could preserve under these conditions, otherwise it will vanish.

What about all the Jewish atheists, who only have the cultural element and not the religious element?

Imagine if you will that half the Samoans left the Pacific and lived elsewhere, and their numbers were replaced by outsiders. And then half the population again left and dispersed. And again. There would soon be no Samoan culture.

No, not really. The Samoan culture would just split into two or more new cultures, which are probably all better in some way than the original.

Do the descendants of Continental immigrants in the U.S. maintain the cultural distinction between Germany and Italy? No, of course not.

And that is a good thing. Immigrant groups should assimilate into the culture of the country they moved into. America is a melting pot after all, and these groups left their marks on American culture anyway. Americans love Italian pizza and German beer. That is a good thing, unless you are a multiculturalist.

[Petrolheadia]

The more interesting question: What is your alternative? Being against is easy.

1. Take nonacademic occupations outside of academics as much as possible. Teach them through apprenticeships instead. This not only stops educational exodus, it frees many from the burden of massive student debt.

Why don't we have either?

2. Drastically reduce property taxes. They make keeping a home in the family difficult if property values go up or the family slips into poverty. They also perpetuate gentrification and ghettoization, making it impossible for a poor neighborhood to lift themselves up, leaving hope to be about moving away.

It had to go to homeownership, didn't it?

[Aillyria]

Ok...I haven't denied that, I am a market socialist after all.

In your OP, you mentioned meritocratic systems "rip people from their station in life", how is an individual's "station" determined in your traditional wonderland?

A station is mostly determined by birth, your family, your neighbors, your cultural background, etc

You do realize the logical consequence of that is a caste system, right? You can't even argue for that on theological terms, much less economic ones.

[Halliway]

Ok...I haven't denied that, I am a market socialist after all.

In your OP, you mentioned meritocratic systems "rip people from their station in life", how is an individual's "station" determined in your traditional wonderland?

A station is mostly determined by birth, your family, your neighbors, your cultural background, etc

[Kernen]

Meritocracy creates the most efficient outcomes of intellectual development and productivity. Culture can take a back seat.

Culture and meritocracy aren't exclusive. In fact, meritocracy is our best bet for culture.

I'm being kind and giving Parkus the benefit of the doubt regarding the connection between meritocracy and culture. I'm really not willing to wade into that part of the debate, so I'm attacking the normative value of the conclusion.

[Kernen]

A station is mostly determined by birth, your family, your neighbors, your cultural background, etc

I was born to an abusive lower class family surrounded by KKK members and trailer park slumlords. I got out, attended law school, and am working my way into an upper middle class hundreds of miles from the anti-intellectual cesspool I came from. What possible value would there be for me sticking around my "station", where my best hope was to sling burgers or drive a semi?

[The Parkus Empire]

Meritocracy functions as a brain drain on all areas but the elite hubs, stripping both rural areas and poorer urban areas of their meritorious members.

There's nothing wrong with more people getting rich. It's better that less people are in poorer areas. Being poor is not a good thing.

Children of middle class families go away for education, that is, testing and qualification for merit sorting.

That's bad?

They go far from their families and communities to do this, and after being sorted they frequently move away permanently. Even it's rare they stay in one place, they buzz around like solitary locusts following occupational or other economic currents until they perhaps get married. But even then they don't settled down, and after marriage go from home to home, then their children grow up and go to school, and the processes repeats.

That doesn't mean they don't keep in contact. If the son of a teacher in a rural area doesn't want to have the same life as his father and would rather be a pilot in the Air Force, good on him. If he does want to be a teacher, good on him. It doesn't matter what someone does, as long as they're contributing to the economy and society.

This is making any culture but pop culture very difficult to maintain, because culture is extremely hereditary, we grow up into it. It's impossible for it to be nomadic except with nomadic communities. But since communities these days are seldom nomadic, it is very regional, and so it is jeopardized.

What's so important about cultures? If a culture has problems, let those problematic areas die. If a culture is jeopardized, the strong elements of the culture will survive and the weak ones will die. That's a positive thing

Only strong religious backbone to a culture (as with Jews) could preserve under these conditions, otherwise it will vanish.

What about all the Jewish atheists, who only have the cultural element and not the religious element?

Imagine if you will that half the Samoans left the Pacific and lived elsewhere, and their numbers were replaced by outsiders. And then half the population again left and dispersed. And again. There would soon be no Samoan culture.

No, not really. The Samoan culture would just split into two or more new cultures, which are probably all better in some way than the original.

Do the descendants of Continental immigrants in the U.S. maintain the cultural distinction between Germany and Italy? No, of course not.

And that is a good thing. Immigrant groups should assimilate into the culture of the country they moved into. America is a melting pot after all, and these groups left their marks on American culture anyway. Americans love Italian pizza and German beer. That is a good thing, unless you are a multiculturalist.

Atheist Jews can inherit culture, but they cease to transmit it after a few generations unless they live in a Jewish community or marry back into the faith.

On the one hand you say Samoans should split into a new Samoan culture wherever they move, on the other you say if they move they should assimilate. Which is it?

[Halliway]

A society based on ability. A caste system would have to be set up, or otherwise everybody would be associated by the ability of the merit, and divided as such. It really depends on the level of division, but the most important thing would be the government system. An autocracy would be ruled by the most capable despot, whether they wanted to or not. A democracy would be ever changing, but would garner the most results. A socialist society would have to be separated.

[The Holy Therns]

A station is mostly determined by birth, your family, your neighbors, your cultural background, etc

I was born to an abusive lower class family surrounded by KKK members and trailer park slumlords. I got out, attended law school, and am working my way into an upper middle class hundreds of miles from the anti-intellectual cesspool I came from. What possible value would there be for me sticking around my "station", where my best hope was to sling burgers or drive a semi?

Clearly, if you didn't stick around, there'd be one less meritorious member in that trailer park.

[Petrolheadia]

There's nothing wrong with more people getting rich. It's better that less people are in poorer areas. Being poor is not a good thing.

That's bad?

That doesn't mean they don't keep in contact. If the son of a teacher in a rural area doesn't want to have the same life as his father and would rather be a pilot in the Air Force, good on him. If he does want to be a teacher, good on him. It doesn't matter what someone does, as long as they're contributing to the economy and society.

What's so important about cultures? If a culture has problems, let those problematic areas die. If a culture is jeopardized, the strong elements of the culture will survive and the weak ones will die. That's a positive thing

What about all the Jewish atheists, who only have the cultural element and not the religious element?

No, not really. The Samoan culture would just split into two or more new cultures, which are probably all better in some way than the original.

And that is a good thing. Immigrant groups should assimilate into the culture of the country they moved into. America is a melting pot after all, and these groups left their marks on American culture anyway. Americans love Italian pizza and German beer. That is a good thing, unless you are a multiculturalist.

Atheist Jews can inherit culture, but they cease to transmit it after a few generations unless they live in a Jewish community or marry back into the faith.

On the one hand you say Samoans should split into a new Samoan culture wherever they move, on the other you say if they move they should assimilate. Which is it?

100-point question: why do we need a Samoan culture?