Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair.
But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world?
The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.
I think most rational people can agree that intelligence is mostly luck. There are even studies that say that the amount of grit and conscientiousness are something you are born with (Prime example is people with ADHD who seems to lack these no matter how hard they try, so it is reasonable to believe that you need some measure of brain physiology and not just beliefs and behaviors).
But it does not make for a good society if you let unintelligent/not hard working people become the top of society all in the name of egalitarian ideals. I think the best thing is to encourage people to try their best with their given abilities, and to have a culture in society where those who reach the top of society have some measure of responsibility to those who did not inherit any gifts.
Yeah I still think that people who are smartest in some way should control society, like how people who have talent for a particular job should be assigned that job. Just that people who are less smart shouldn't suffer worse QOL.
So imagine we are shipwrecked on an island, and circumstances are such that muscle, hunting skills and fishing/swimming/skin diving ability is more important for survival of the group than the kind of brain that software developers have. So all of a sudden these physical folk have the leverage (aka "merit") to demand a greater share of the resources and power, and pretty soon the software developers are forced to cook, clean and do chores for them.
Thus "merit" is very circumstantial. Why does one group "deserve" to be wealthy in one circumstance, and another in a different circumstance?
Everyone in our deeply capitalist culture uses the words "merit" and "deserve" in a deeply moral sense to describe something that isn't moral at all. As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word..."
First of all i never mentioned merit or who deserves what. I merely stated my opinion as to the organizing principle that would lead to the happiness quotient over the population to be maximal. Ultimately i believe power should lie with the people and not with the elite. If i could make a recommendation to the people, i would tell them that there will always be an elite and that it's better to have intelligent, hardworking elite (who have a responsibility to the people) rather than an elite based on hereditary or based on power.
I was speaking to everyone, not you specifically. I basically agree with what you wrote, except the part about "top of society".
You have a group of good friends. A group of friends that genuinely cares about each other as individuals as well as the health of the group as a whole. One of you is better at leading, or mediating disputes, is calm under stress, or has a car or a bigger house or more money. The group deciding/allowing this person should generally lead, or is the one that drives everyone around, or pays for more things, doesn't mean they are "at the top of the group". There is simply no need for that. It's simply a group being both loving and smart, one that understands fairness isn't about bean counting, and it was luck in the first place that gave one member those advantages.
A healthy, unselfish, "egalitarian" group or family will naturally, without ever having knowing about “socialism” or “communism”, will end up embodying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This ideal does not imply allowing anyone to take advantage of the others.
In fact I'll claim that all healthy families embody this kind of socialistic ideal. Whether and how this can scale to a society is debatable, but we should have that debate honestly, and without being constrained by presupposing the current way of looking at things is somehow an absolute truth. People once thought that the divine right of kings was absolute truth. Or that white people were superior (even Lincoln believed this). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26590540
One of my most favorite words is “solidarity”. I don’t think many people in this selfist day and age really knows what that means.
Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair.
Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.
Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.
I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.
Comments
Idk how many others share this opinion, but I consider even intelligence to be luck. So if you're giving the more intelligent people better jobs / living conditions it's still unfair.
But moreover, intelligence is too broad to rank. There's STEAM intelligence, which is what most people consider "intelligence". But there's also emotional intelligence, "quick-thinking" intelligence, "street smarts", etc. and even STEAM is kind of broad. So when you say meritocracy, do you mean that someone who's very analytical, but has no empathy or emotional understanding whatsoever, should rule the world?
I think an ideal society would be more in line with John Rawls' philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice).
The "A" in STEM probably does not belong there and in any case has the least amount of "meritocracy" of anything since it's all about gatekeepers, I mean curators and trendsetters.
I think most rational people can agree that intelligence is mostly luck. There are even studies that say that the amount of grit and conscientiousness are something you are born with (Prime example is people with ADHD who seems to lack these no matter how hard they try, so it is reasonable to believe that you need some measure of brain physiology and not just beliefs and behaviors).
But it does not make for a good society if you let unintelligent/not hard working people become the top of society all in the name of egalitarian ideals. I think the best thing is to encourage people to try their best with their given abilities, and to have a culture in society where those who reach the top of society have some measure of responsibility to those who did not inherit any gifts.
Yeah I still think that people who are smartest in some way should control society, like how people who have talent for a particular job should be assigned that job. Just that people who are less smart shouldn't suffer worse QOL.
So imagine we are shipwrecked on an island, and circumstances are such that muscle, hunting skills and fishing/swimming/skin diving ability is more important for survival of the group than the kind of brain that software developers have. So all of a sudden these physical folk have the leverage (aka "merit") to demand a greater share of the resources and power, and pretty soon the software developers are forced to cook, clean and do chores for them.
Thus "merit" is very circumstantial. Why does one group "deserve" to be wealthy in one circumstance, and another in a different circumstance?
Everyone in our deeply capitalist culture uses the words "merit" and "deserve" in a deeply moral sense to describe something that isn't moral at all. As Inigo Montoya once said, "You keep using that word..."
First of all i never mentioned merit or who deserves what. I merely stated my opinion as to the organizing principle that would lead to the happiness quotient over the population to be maximal. Ultimately i believe power should lie with the people and not with the elite. If i could make a recommendation to the people, i would tell them that there will always be an elite and that it's better to have intelligent, hardworking elite (who have a responsibility to the people) rather than an elite based on hereditary or based on power.
I was speaking to everyone, not you specifically. I basically agree with what you wrote, except the part about "top of society".
You have a group of good friends. A group of friends that genuinely cares about each other as individuals as well as the health of the group as a whole. One of you is better at leading, or mediating disputes, is calm under stress, or has a car or a bigger house or more money. The group deciding/allowing this person should generally lead, or is the one that drives everyone around, or pays for more things, doesn't mean they are "at the top of the group". There is simply no need for that. It's simply a group being both loving and smart, one that understands fairness isn't about bean counting, and it was luck in the first place that gave one member those advantages.
A healthy, unselfish, "egalitarian" group or family will naturally, without ever having knowing about “socialism” or “communism”, will end up embodying "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". This ideal does not imply allowing anyone to take advantage of the others.
In fact I'll claim that all healthy families embody this kind of socialistic ideal. Whether and how this can scale to a society is debatable, but we should have that debate honestly, and without being constrained by presupposing the current way of looking at things is somehow an absolute truth. People once thought that the divine right of kings was absolute truth. Or that white people were superior (even Lincoln believed this). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26590540
One of my most favorite words is “solidarity”. I don’t think many people in this selfist day and age really knows what that means.
Why is it unfair? If the capable people can pull themselves ahead they can pull the rest along with them. The opposite is impossible. Of course, I am assuming a functioning economic system with reasonable inflation and interest rates. We don't have that luxury.
Anybody who has worked crappy jobs knows that intelligence and income aren't related. Some of the smartest people I've ever met earned their living bussing tables or preparing salads. It's not an exaggeration to say that your busboy could have a masters degree.
I love the implicit equivalence of education and intelligence in that statement. So ironic. The statement of the problem self-explains the source of the problem.