The problem is that merit in the sense of "measurable outcome" isn't what matters -- as any poker player can tell you. In the presence of large random variation (hello, life) you can only judge merit based on process, not outcome. But process is not measurable. Even experts sometimes disagree on optimal process.
So in the end, if you want to judge meaningful objective merit, you have to fall back to subjective opinions.
This is why any attempt at objectively judging merit (in anything but highly artificial situations) is fundamentally flawed, and you might be better of giving things away by lottery, or equally to all.
----
Of course, there are outliers. There are people whose process is so obviously and irreparably bad that nobody would contest that fact. These can be handled separately.
Comments
The problem is that merit in the sense of "measurable outcome" isn't what matters -- as any poker player can tell you. In the presence of large random variation (hello, life) you can only judge merit based on process, not outcome. But process is not measurable. Even experts sometimes disagree on optimal process.
So in the end, if you want to judge meaningful objective merit, you have to fall back to subjective opinions.
This is why any attempt at objectively judging merit (in anything but highly artificial situations) is fundamentally flawed, and you might be better of giving things away by lottery, or equally to all.
----
Of course, there are outliers. There are people whose process is so obviously and irreparably bad that nobody would contest that fact. These can be handled separately.