The Trouble With Meritocracy | Hacker News Reader

The Trouble With Meritocracy

douthat.blogs.nytimes.com

12 pointsrobg10 comments

Clearly Mr. Douthat means something very different than I do by "meritocracy." If "meritocracy" means existing political leaders or (as in his linked article) "D.C. elites", who appear to come by their positions through some combination of oligarchy and cronyism, then I suppose I am against it.

On the other hand, please bring me the "meritocracy" comprised of leaders who have the intellectual capacity and willpower to make rational decisions based on actual evidence and honest debate. You know, meritorious ones.

I think the author doesn't really believe in meritocracy. The issue really doesn't seem to be as to whether the best are getting the places. The author seems to imply though not state that anyone can be able and meritorious of being part of the elite. His problem seems to rather be as to people from which background should we open the door to and which to close to, background, or colour, or sexual orientation, or add some other divisive label, not meritocracy. He probably is talking rather about mediocrity :P

It's the usual stance of a media that cares about being "objective" but not being informed: everyone has an important opinion, and we had better consider them all equally! Nobody dares suggest that some of the opinions are right and some are wrong, and if you do, then you're "partisan" and you're out of the club.

My biggest objection to this entire piece is its lack of specificity. Mr. Douhat simply waves his hands at a lack of "intellectual diversity" within the "elite", without ever defining what he means by "elite" or "intellectual diversity".

Even if we confine ourselves to the Washington elite, we find a vast difference of opinion between places like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute and places like Center for American Progress and Brookings. If we move outside of Washington, we find an even greater range of views amongst the "elite". I mean, a lot of programmers are fairly libertarian in both social and economic views, and don't have a real home in either major party.

I think Douhat isn't thinking clearly about the topic at hand. If he was, he'd see that he's being spooked by the shadow of a problem rather than the real problem, which is the rising inequality of achievement and opportunity all over the world. You want to increase the diversity of the meritocracy? Allow more people to demonstrate their merit.

Well, in a snipped he quoted, there was mention of different ways of governing America, and much more specifically, different views on the origins of man. Those are the likely examples of "intellectual diversity".

Erm, so the trouble with meritocracy is that higher education is bad? And we don't want to subject underprivileged demographics to the intellectually conformist ... education conveyor belt?

That we want to keep underprivileged demographics at home so they can critique the elites from afar?

Clarity is severely lacking. It's hard not to file this one under Anti-intellectual tripe.

Unlike democracy, meritocracy cannot accommodate diverse cultural and socioeconomic society.

Some would argue even democracy could not accommodate such things.

The article presumes we live in a meritocracy. That appears to be more myth than objective reality. Akin to the myth of "the American Dream".

I see no evidence that the upper crust actually has become homogenous. Whether defined by education or wealth, the "elite" probably contains more unlikely members today than ever before.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com