←back to thread

Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

(assemblingamerica.substack.com)
360 points namlem | 1 comments | 14 Jul 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
didibus ◴[14 Jul 25 18:44 UTC] No.44563798[source]▶
The obsession with meritocracy needs to be toned down a bit. In my opinion, the very idea of merit is fuzzy and lives right beside corruption and bias.

Merit is measured in imperfect ways, by other people, and fundamentally, we don't want a hierarchy of classes, even if we claim the higher rankings/elites have merited it.

Human dignity isn't contingent on outperforming others, and everyone would likely rather live somewhere that doesn't feel like constant competition is needed to enjoy leisure, food, shelter, pastimes, etc.

When it comes to who we should trust for critical work, taking decisions on our behalf, etc., we do want someone qualified. I find the idea of "qualification/qualified" much nicer than "merit". The latter seems to imply a deserved outsized reward, like it justifies not why you are given the responsibility of something important, but why you are allowed to be richer, higher ranking, etc., than others.

replies(2): >>44564195 #>>44564398 #
programjames ◴[14 Jul 25 19:38 UTC] No.44564398[source]▶
> and fundamentally, we don't want a hierarchy of classes, even if we claim the higher rankings/elites have merited it.

What do you mean by this? What creates a hierarchy of classes? Different social groups? Differing amounts of wealth? Different amounts of power to get stuff done? I think, in the end, it's got to come down to power, but I feel like it's good for society to distribute more power to people able to get better things done.

I agree with you that the term 'merit' now has a connotation of 'you deserve everything you can get'. It feels like a misappropriation of stewardship to take $100m to buy a yacht. If a government official did that, they would go straight to jail, but we somehow justify it under capitalism because maybe the CEO really wanted a yacht, and that's the only reason they started the business (in which case, I'm actually kind of fine with that $100m going to a yacht, as long as they were in the business of creating, not extracting, wealth). I don't think this is really a solvable problem, because to measure who's good at creating wealth, you kind of have to use wealth. Maybe we could have government-assigned stewards over pots of money, but that might have even bigger problems.

replies(1): >>44566180 #
1. didibus ◴[14 Jul 25 22:44 UTC] No.44566180[source]▶
Very plainly put, you want a large middle class, and a rotating lower and upper class, with the various aggregate metrics from min to max, and everything in between to rise over time.

In that state, you want to enlarge the pool of people whose lifestyle affordances are more and more similar to one another, and since no one is poor for too long, or rich for too long, they don't enshrine themselves as some systemic class of people forming clicks, bad habits, group identity of them and the others, falling into self-selection and preservation, or some vicious cycle that entraps them there, etc.