This is the definition I am using:

a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated abilities and merit.

  • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1510 months ago

    As a general rule, yes. People who are able to better perform a task should be preferentially allocated towards those tasks. That being said, I think this should be a guiding rule, not a law upon which a society is built.

    For one, there should be some accounting for personal preference. No one should be forced to do something by society just because they’re adept at something. I think there is also space within the acceptable performance level of a society for initiatives to relax a meritocracy to some degree to help account for/make up for socioeconomic influences and historical/ongoing systemic discrimination. Meritocracy’s also have to make sure they avoid the application of standardized evaluations at a young age completely determining an individual’s future career prospects. Lastly, and I think this is one of common meritocracy retorhic’s biggest flaws, a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance, which is where I think a lot of people who advocate for a more meritocracy-based society stand.

      • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        610 months ago

        If I was guessing, in general, I think people who advocate for a pure meritocracy in the USA feel the world should be evaluated in more black and white, objective terms. The financial impact and analytic nature of STEM and finance make it much easier to stratify practitioners “objectively” in comparison to finding, for instance, the “best” photographer. I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy. But I’m no expert.

        • @Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          410 months ago

          I think there is also a subset of US culture that thinks that STEM is the only “real” academic group of fields worth pursuing, and knowledge in liberal arts is pointless -> not contributing to society -> not a meaningful part of the meritocracy.

          Yeah I agree with this quite a bit.

    • @Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      210 months ago

      Just to make it clear the definition that I used does not talk about choosing people for tasks they are suited for, but rather putting them in positions of power, success, and influence.

      • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        Well you need to clarify further then. Are you saying we should make the best scientist the president, or the person with the most aptitude for politics and rule to be president? I don’t see how this is functionally different than what I said.

        • @Danterious@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
          link
          fedilink
          210 months ago

          Well the way I interpret it is that people who demonstrate their ability are put into a position where they are rewarded more relative to their peers and/or have control over what their peers do.

          So for example if I was a engineer and based on some metric was considered highly valuable then I would be paid more than other engineers and I would be put into a position where I can give other engineers directions on what needs to be done.

          • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            810 months ago

            Then no, I don’t agree with this specific implementation of the system, at least the second half. I do think more productive/effective workers should be compensated more. But being a good engineer does not make you a good manager, and the issues associated with promoting an excelling worker into management (a job requiring a substantially different skill set) are so common there’s a name for their inevitable failure, The Peter Principle

    • @AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      110 months ago

      a person’s intrinsic value and overall value to society is not determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance

      I don’t think anyone who views contributions in STEM fields as the most valuable to society has any respect for finance.

      • @godzillabacter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        210 months ago

        All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential, and I’ve never heard one of them bash Econ/finance/investment as a career path. But 🤷‍♂️

        • @AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          010 months ago

          All of my encounters with individuals who feel liberal arts are useless and STEM is the way seem to, at their core, feel that way because of earning potential

          You were saying a group of people believe that value as a person is determined by their contributions to STEM fields and finance.

          Now you’re saying that this group of people believe that value as a person is determined by earnings potential. Those are not the same things.