Complex Numbers

On Merit

Meritocracy. Sounds good, right? Maybe think again.

https://aeon.co/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you

A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you

Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum continually return to the theme that the rewards of life – money, power, jobs, university admission – should be distributed according to skill and effort.

Which, on the surface, certainly sounds ideal. Right? To each according to one's contribution.

Most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is meritocratic. In the UK, 84 per cent of respondents to the 2009 British Social Attitudes survey stated that hard work is either ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ when it comes to getting ahead, and in 2016 the Brookings Institute found that 69 per cent of Americans believe that people are rewarded for intelligence and skill.

"Should be" is one thing. "Is" is quite another.

Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false.

Hey, I'm living proof of that.

This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.

Okay, but "everyone has different genetics and background" is so obvious as to be not worth pointing out in most cases.

Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.

I've been saying this for years: if hard work was all it took to become wealthy, there would be no poor sharecroppers.

But here's the important part:

In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways.

You may think you have that high-paying position on Wall Street because you deserve it based on all the work you put in and sacrifices you made. You might even be right. You're still (probably) a douche.

The article goes on to summarize some of the science behind this idea.

The ‘even playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ‘paradox of meritocracy’ occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral bona fides. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behaviour for signs of prejudice.

I've noticed similar things (unscientifically, of course). People I've known who are convinced they are "good" act like bigger assholes than those who recognize that they're flawed.

As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle that people prefer to believe that the world is just.

"That person is poor. It must be because they deserve to be poor. No need to do anything, then."

Anyway, obviously, the essay here is one person's opinion. I'm not so sure about the ultimate conclusion ("it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal") As with most things, I think there's probably a middle ground. I'd say, at the very least, we should try to recognize when we're just lucky, and, obviously (at least to me), stop thinking that the world as it is is just and fair.

That doesn't mean we can't try to make it more just and fair, though.