That makes sense. It’s pretty much everyone everywhere. ‘Fair’ is whatever benefits you. Just actively notice who uses the word and how and it’s a fairly (har) obvious pattern. A few people actually mean it! They’re rare.
Edit: I should have said this originally. Just watch how children use the term. This is after they’ve learned how powerful it is but before they’ve learned to hide the self interest.
Anyone notice the prevalence of grade school logic that’s been evolving to adults? Fair is what benefits me, throw a tantrum when caught doing something wrong and you can get away with it, or, my favorite…when asked about something, respond basically with “I know, I’m just not telling you.”
Soon enough we’ll have an outbreak of cooties. That’s the endgame here.
Imma just put this here:
“So what did I write that created such a fuss? In brief, my dissertation shows that recent immigrants score lower than U.S.-born whites on a variety of cognitive tests. Using statistical analysis, it suggests that the test-score differential is due primarily to a real cognitive deficit rather than to culture or language bias. It analyzes how that deficit could affect socioeconomic assimilation, and concludes by exploring how IQ selection might be incorporated, as one factor among many, into immigration policy.”
Interestingly, this is what “meritocracy” has always meant. It was coined in 1958 by Open University founder Michael Young “who critically defined it as a system where ‘merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications.’”
IOW: Meritocracy has always been used to describe awful dysfunctional systems run by self-deluded fools.
Why are you “just putting that here”? That article is pretty atrocious, verging on an apology for social darwinism. I have to assume that you’re condemning it, but it’s hard to tell without commentary.
Here’s mine: Sometimes the most dangerous racism is couched in the seemingly reasonable and academic language of sociology and psychology, but that doesn’t make it any more true than the rantings of the NSM.
As demonstrated by the original article, the solution to bad science is more science!
My issue with this article is that the way the results are phrased makes it sound like non-whites somehow don’t have this bias towards self-interest. Did they study a bunch of people of different races and find that only white people behaved as described? No, they only studied white people. If I do a texting-while-driving study using only black people, do I then put out a headline trumpeting ‘blacks are bad drivers when texting’? What conclusion would someone draw from that summation?
I’m sure subtle (or overt) racism isn’t a whites-only issue, but if we are talking about North America, they certainly have the greatest opportunity to be racist, and perhaps even the greatest motivation.
From personal experience, I’ve met the occasional Native American that was pretty overtly hostile to me based on skin colour, but that only has the mildest affect on me compared to what white prejudice against Native Americans can do.
(And I’ll also add that I think a lot of that non-white racism comes from bitterness rather than a conviction of just being naturally better-than, indicating different solutions are needed in each case.)
It’s totally atrocious, sorry to post and run!
You touch on it, but I think it bears specific note that Young coined the term for his work “The Rise of the Meritocracy”, a work of satire.
Deciding whether or not Young intended the term as defined to be satirical or genuine itself is left as an exercise to the reader, but my own opinion after reading was that he uses the term condescendingly as a way for the privileged to justify their privilege.
Believing that, hearing people take the term seriously bothers me quite a lot.
Ssssh, the world outside the white West don’t real. Tumblr SJWs taught me that.
I have to disagree with this headline. To me it sounds more like “Whites favor meritocracy when meritocracy doesn’t favor Asians.” It’s a subtle difference. Is it possible that the white respondents prefer a method that doesn’t favor Asians, blacks, whites or ANY race?
I’m curious if anyone knows of a source outside JSTOR. I’m honestly too broke to justify spending $9 on a download.
The main reasons I’m curious is because while I’m sure they were careful to gauge the political views of their groups before splitting them up, I’d feel better knowing if and how they did it. Also:
“white ranking of the measure went up in importance when respondents were informed of the Asian success in University of California admissions.”
I’m wondering what “white ranking” means, because the way they worded it, it sounds horribly racist, as if my fellow white folks were saying to give white people preference to keep those Asians out of college…
I think my only problem with the more progressive methods of admissions is that it’s a bandaid at best. Letting someone into college who has bad scores merely because they’re in an under-represented group doesn’t prepare them for college. One horrible example from my own schooling (but admittedly anecdotal, one-off, not evidence at all) was this woman who sat behind me every day in class muttering, “this is boo’shit,” every 10 seconds. It was a required class, but taught by the highest-rated prof on campus. He had 50 minutes to lecture, and would lecture for exactly 50 minutes. Exactly. The guy was awesome. One day she stopped fussing with her beehive exactly long enough to stick a hand up and with great attitude, posed the question: “When we is getting our papers back?” Yeah, it was an undergrad class, but it was a 400-level class, with most people in the class graduating and hopefully entering the professional world. Letting her in did nothing to fix the educational system back home that so obviously failed her; obviously she had the aptitude to pass the standardized testing, but she knew nothing about how to behave professionally. You might say, ‘Hey, you’re being racist,’ but in a professional situation I can’t act like I did back home, either. You folks in places like San Francisco and Chicago don’t exactly make it a secret that you don’t like lower-class people with drawls. I had to suppress the drawl.
But of course you won’t see the more affluent areas letting the poorer areas’ schools have more funding. That there’s soshulizm.
Would somebody please post an example of a system/process/institution where meritocracy favors blacks or other minorities? If there is no such thing, then there aren’t two sides to this argument.
Is “social Darwinism” wrong? If you claim it is, please provide details of why it is, including citations of your sources.
Thank you for injecting a note of sense into this. Without a control group or some kind of comparison, the results are utterly meaningless.