Believing in "meritocracy" makes you act like a dick

[anon61221983]

@green_machine

I’m not sure how you can decouple physical health from access to healthcare.

Just because someone gets access to something doesn’t mean they deserve it more. Again health care is not a privilege, it’s a human right. Any other position is bullshit.

@green_machine

you edited your post after I quoted you to change “good family” to “well to do family,” then called me out on equating the two.

No. I did not - you’re equating wealth and a good family… I’m just drawing that out in my own words. You keep saying that the elite class is inherently suited to positions of power, but there is literally no actual evidence for that in reality. Some people at the top have talent for management, others do not.

You keep equating wealth with being “good”… A good family, apparently according to you, is a family of wealth and privilege. And that they deserve to be in positions of power, not because of their individual talent, but because of their class and coming from “good” families, which you seem to mean equals rich. Fuck that. Once again, we’ve JUST seen a case where the wealth not only used legal, but illegal means to privilege their already privileged children. None of those people were naturally (which YOU keep assuming is related to being a “good” or rich family implies) more talented, smarter, or better at managing people and resources (which is literally the job of a manager), since later on in life (if they had not gotten caught, which less face it won’t matter once it goes off the news cycle) they will be in positions of privilege.

@green_machine

If you just want to shift goal posts around every time I poke holes in your arguments then what’s the point?

What holes? Being rich doesn’t equal being qualified or good. If you disagree, that’s your position. At least own it. Saying that you’re not talking about wealth and privilege equaling greater merit is moving the goal posts. My position has been firmly staked out since the beginning of the thread.

@green_machine

Medical care is about people’s access to doctors and medicine after having been born.

Which you seem to be arguing certainly people (the wealthy) are more entitled to than others.

[ETA] Just a note about healthcare, privilege, and merit… one of the best guitarists of all time (no argument from anyone) struggled to pay his medical bills… was he of less merit than some rich kid who gets access to health care because of the family he just happened to be born into (and whose family happens to be in the music industry, for example)?

Zack Stentz

Once more, healthcare is a human right, and some people shouldn’t get access to it just because of an accident of birth.

@anon67050589

How can a family be “good”, or meritorious, if the spouse and children are being abused?

Because money? /s

[anothernewbbaccount]

@generic_name

the most hard working, intelligent and talented would rise to the top

You still ignored the role played by blind luck - good or bad.

[anon67050589]

@anon61221983

You keep equating wealth with being “good”… A good family, apparently according to you, is a family of wealth and privilege. And that they deserve to be in positions of power, not because of their individual talent, but because of their class and coming from “good” families, which you seem to mean equals rich.

And, it ignores the fact that domestic abuse happens equally in those families as in poorer families. How can a family be “good”, or meritorious, if the spouse and children are being abused? How can they do their best work, and live up to their best potential?

[anon67050589]

I have a lot of thoughts about what kind of friend husband human being this guy is, after reading that astonishingly clueless piece.

[anon61221983]

If @green_machine has a different definition of a good family than they seem to be implying, I’d like to hear it. Because the way they’ve framed their argument it’s that being from a good family (which in this case seems to mean a wealthy one, who has access to the things that allow people to be healthy, get a good education, etc), makes one inherently more deserving of leadership positions in our society. This is not true, and is essentially just an argument for nobility. If that’s not their meaning, they should clarify, because this is how many of us are reading their argument.

If meritocracy is meant to mean the best rising to the top, that is not the reality we live in. Plenty of people rise to the top on their network of connections, whether or not they are suited to do the job. A network is no replacement for actually knowing how to do something.

[green_machine]

@anon61221983

I’m not sure how you can decouple physical health from access to healthcare.

Just because someone gets access to something doesn’t mean they deserve it more. Again health care is not a privilege, it’s a human right. Any other position is bullshit.

I agree that someone with access to good healthcare doesn’t intrinsically deserve that more those without. My point is that someone who is healthier definitely can be better qualified to hold a certain job. For one thing, it determines who even survives into adulthood to be eligible to hold a job.

@anon61221983

You keep saying that the elite class is inherently suited to positions of power, but there is literally no actual evidence for that in reality.

Nope. I’m saying that being born into privilege usually results in real-world advantages like better health, education, opportunities for experience, and connection, and those are advantages that often do impact real-world job performance. Rich people don’t deserve those advantage more than non, but they do typically have them.

You did indeed initially write your post with “good family” rather than “well to do family” before your edit, and based on the context I assumed you that you meant to equate wealth and privilege with “good family”. Why you’re lying about this I can’t fathom. You can try to cram all the words in my mouth that you want, but literally no one is making the argument of “good = rich” that you’re railing against, least of all me.

[generic_name]

@green_machine

Nope. It comes down to better access to medical care enjoyed by privileged people.

So by that logic universal health care and education would be the way to lift everyone out of poverty and improve society across the board…

It did sound like you were making a “nature vs. nurture” argument, coming down on the side of nature.

[tuhu]

@green_machine

I agree that someone with access to good healthcare doesn’t intrinsically deserve that more those without. My point is that someone who is healthier definitely can be better qualified to hold a certain job. For one thing, it determines who even survives into adulthood to be eligible to hold a job.

Dockworking is physically strenuous, and benefits from someone in top shape.

That is probably why our society fast-tracks all the rich kids into physical labor occupations.

[green_machine]

@generic_name

Nope. It comes down to better access to medical care enjoyed by privileged people.

So by that logic universal health care and education would be the way to lift everyone out of poverty and improve society across the board…

It did sound like you were making a “nature vs. nurture” argument, coming down on the side of nature.

Yep. Equalize the playing field. So much talent is going to waste because so many talented people start at such a relative disadvantage.

[anon61221983]

@green_machine

My point is that someone who is healthier definitely can be better qualified to hold a certain job.

Why.

@green_machine

For one thing, it determines who even survives into adulthood to be eligible to hold a job.

Again, why does survival equal merit, except in that it implies survival of the fittest, which when applies to our social world is a eugenics idea, at it’s very heart. It’s the old argument that was updated to coopt Darwin (social darwinism) to justify class stratification in a new way. The people who get to adult hood didn’t do so because they “deserved” it, they did because they had enough privilege to have access to good care. Are you saying that a child who dies young, because they were born to a poor family deserved to die? If not, clarify, because living to adulthood has nothing to do with merit.

@green_machine

Nope. I’m saying that being born into privilege usually results in real-world advantages like better health, education, opportunities for experience, and connection

But you’re arguing that such things (which are blind luck to the people born into them) are equating to merit for a postion, even if that position is won through cheating others (like the current college scandal). Are you saying that having your parents bribe school officials is okay, because the people had the privilege to do so?

@green_machine

Rich people don’t deserve those advantage more than non, but they do typically have them.

How is that merit? Again, you are equating merit with wealth, when that’s not the case.

@green_machine

You did indeed initially write your post with “good family” rather than “well to do family” before your edit,

I did not edit you, however, which was what you implied. I did change MY comment to well to do, because that is what you keep stating should be a definer of merit. If you are not equating wealth and a good family, then why do you keep tying the economic advantages that some enjoy, which allows them to end up in positions of power, to merit.

@green_machine

Yep. Equalize the playing field. So much talent is going to waste because so many talented people start at such a relative disadvantage.

If almost everyone here is getting a different message than you intend, then perhaps you need to clarify what you mean. Many of us are getting that you’re equating merit with wealth, that the wealthy families to overwhelmingly hold positions of power in our society hold those positions because they are the best suited to do so, and that it’s a form of merit that they got there. If you are NOT arguing that, then perhaps you need to clarify what you’ve meant all along.

[anon15383236]

@green_machine

I’m saying that being born into privilege usually results in real-world advantages like better health, education, opportunities for experience, and connection, and those are advantages that often do impact real-world job performance. Rich people don’t deserve those advantage more than non, but they do typically have them.

So let’s pin this down then. Aside from what I bolded there, all you’re doing is stating the obvious. What I bolded is not obvious – are you trying to claim that rich people do a better job in leadership roles than others would do, because of those advantages? And thus, that all is well and good in capitalist countries in these terms?

[L0ki]

@tuhu

I feel you might be putting too much weight on the “equitable” nature of the feudal social contract.

I refer the Hon. Dinosaur to the answer I gave some moments ago…

@L0ki

The first part of that may be closer to the reality of feudal life but even there my understanding of contemporary sources is that people did expect the mutual obligations to be observed or at least acknowledged even if breached more often than not.

No one is surprised or outraged when the corporate overlord abandons its minions.

People did make a fuss when lords’ obligations were ignored too flagrantly. Of course, mostly when those feudal obligations were owed to other great lords rather than mucky peasants but that’s par for the course.

I’d agree the pretence of any degree of equity was always a pretence. I’d say it’s worn thinner now.

[Wanderfound]

@tuhu

Dockworking is physically strenuous, and benefits from someone in top shape.

That is probably why our society fast-tracks all the rich kids into physical labor occupations.

Ian Laking

McDuff.bsky.social

Omelette Coleman

[karl_jones]

I am reminded of this passage from John Brunner’s The Shockwave Rider (1975):

“You know, last night I was thinking over a new approach — a new argument which may penetrate your obstinacy. Consider this. You speak of us at Tarnover as though we’re engaged in a brutal arbitrary attempt to ensure that the best minds of the current generation get inducted into government service. Not at all. We are simply the top end of a series of cultural subgroupings that evolved of their own accord during the second half of last century. Few of us are equipped to cope with the complexity and dazzling variety of twenty-first- century existence. We prefer to identify with small, easily isolable fractions of the total culture. But just as some people can handle only a restricted range of stimuli, and prefer to head for a mountain commune or a paid-avoidance area or even emigrate to an underdeveloped country, so some correspondingly not only cope well but actually require immensely strong stimuli to provoke them into functioning at optimum. We have a wider range of life-style choices today than ever before. The question of administration has been rendered infinitely more difficult precisely because we have such breadth of choice. Who’s to manage this multiplex society? Must the lot not fall to those who flourish when dealing with complicated situations? Would you rather that people who demonstrably can’t organize their own lives were permitted to run those of their fellow citizens?”

“A conventional elitist argument. From you I’d have expected better.”

“Elitist? Nonsense. I’d expected better from you. The word you’re looking for is ‘aesthetic.’ An oligarchy devoted by simple personal preference to the search for artistic gratification in government — that’s what we’re after. And it would be rather a good system, don’t you think?”

“Provided you were in the top group. Can you visualize yourself in the lower echelons, a person who obeys instead of issuing orders?”

[anon67050589]

I just want to say that I think I get what @green_machine is trying to say. I do think they’re saying that wealth grants all sorts of advantages, including medical, which has long term consequences, and I don’t think they’re saying that we should just accept that and continue on, but rather make changes so that everyone has access to basics like enough to eat and good medical care.

It would be nice to get confirmation from the source, obviously.

[anon61221983]

Yes, if that’s what they meant, then I’d like to hear that from them, too.

My problem was that they were equating merit with wealth. Mayhaps they also have a different definition of merit than we’re working from? But if I’m not the only one who read their comment that way, then perhaps they’re not being clear in their meaning.

[green_machine]

@anon61221983

For one thing, it determines who even survives into adulthood to be eligible to hold a job.

Again, why does survival equal merit, except in that it implies survival of the fittest, which when applies to our social world is a eugenics idea, at it’s very heart.

You’re a very talented mental gymnast.

@anon61221983

If you are not equating wealth and a good family, then why do you keep tying the economic advantages that some enjoy, which allows them to end up in positions of power, to merit.

@anon15383236

So let’s pin this down then. Aside from what I bolded there, all you’re doing is stating the obvious. What I bolded is not obvious – are you trying to claim that rich people do a better job in leadership roles than others would do, because of those advantages?

Those two quotes go together. A fundamental assumption I have is that advantages such as being in good health, having relevant education and job experience, and having useful connections and contacts, all help someone do a better job in a leadership role than someone else who lacks those advantages. And I think that it’s desirable to have the person who will perform best in a job to do the job. However another critical qualification for a leadership position is personal integrity, and that’s one advantage that has no relationship to being born into wealth (unless it’s an inverse relationship). Being born wealthy doesn’t guarantee suitability for leadership at all – it’s not the whole ball of wax – but it does often unfairly help someone accrue a number of qualifications for that kind of role. If we can level the playing field with respect to some of those advantages such as health and education, then hopefully we end up with higher-integrity leaders.

The call to action is to recognize what advantages help people succeed in positions of power, and then do our best to ensure that everyone has access to those advantages.

[anon61221983]

@green_machine

You’re a very talented mental gymnast.

You’re equating living to adulthood with merit here, not me - or you seem to do so. Again, you need to clarify what you mean, instead of assuming that you’re clear and I’m just too dense to understand you.

@green_machine

A fundamental assumption I have is that advantages such as being in good health, having relevant education and job experience, and having useful connections and contacts, all help someone do a better job in a leadership role than someone else who lacks those advantages.

Doesn’t that leave out people who have some sort of disability… FDR say? Came from a wealthy family, but he also had polio (or probably more likely, Guillain Barre syndrome).

@green_machine

And I think that it’s desirable to have the person who will perform best in a job to do the job.

Yet, you’re still assuming that the person with the advantages got there on merit, instead of luck.

@green_machine

but it does often unfairly help someone accrue a number of qualifications for that kind of role

Okay. The way you’ve worded many of your posts doesn’t reflect that at all. Again, clarity helps.

@green_machine

The call to action is to recognize what advantages help people succeed in positions of power

It also matters to understand how power actually works though. We do not live in a meritocracy by any stretch of the imagination. And putting talented people who are good leaders in positions of power does not deal with that reality, nor does it address the far more fundamental question of how we distribute the resources we ALL need to live. That’s the real question at hand.

[anon67050589]

@green_machine

having relevant education and job experience, and having useful connections and contacts

That’s an assumption I don’t think is valid.

The advantage of having useful connections and contacts means someone can find themselves in an educational setting that is not right for them, but they’ll still graduate, and the job opportunities that come from those same connections will not necessarily have anything to do with that young person’s skill set or interests. (In fact, if anything, it has to do with their parents’ interests, because those are the contacts doing the offering.) It also may cause them to leapfrog over grunt work that might be boring but is an excellent base for really understanding the entire work process.

Basically, being dropped into an advantageous position does not mean it’s the right person for the job.

It’s like a multi-generational Peter Principle.

[anon61221983]

@anon67050589

Basically, being dropped into an advantageous position does not mean it’s the right person for the job.

Right? I don’t know why that’s controversial at all. It seems pretty straight forward point to me. These are often people who never have to work hard toward anything because their path is already set… But again, this comes back to the definition of merit itself and tying that of distribution of resources in a society. Should only the meritorious get health care, food, housing, and clothing (etc), or is that something that we all get because it’s the humane thing to do. This is at it’s heart a debate not about wealth distribution, but about resource distribution and how it should happen (via the markets, the state, through all of our collective works shared with all, something else).