Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

The ideal relationship is that Peasants provide Kings with wealth in order for them to defend the peasants.

Isn't that what feudalism was, and didn't that suck?

It did suck but that is because Kings used the fact that they had more physical power then the peasants who provide for them... against the peasants and used it as an example of why they are super special awesome.

[Reelya]

The ideal relationship is that Peasants provide Kings with wealth in order for them to defend the peasants.

Isn't that what feudalism was, and didn't that suck?

Feudal farmers actually lived longer healthier lives than urban factory workers up to the 1900s or so. It was really electricity, running water and sewerage that helped out, not the capitalist economic system replacing feudalism.

The Registrar General reported in 1841 that the average life expectancy in rural areas of England was 45 years of age but was only 37 in London and an alarming 26 in Liverpool (Haley). These are life-long averages that highlight a very high infant mortality rate; in the first half of the 19th century, 25 to 33% of children in England died before their 5th birthday (Haley).

[Flying Dice]

Enough cynicism! Nearly everyone is competent at something, and anyone who's a complete idiot can learn. If most people in the human race were just dumb, we would not have gotten this far.

More seriously, this. There's no such thing as a useless person, though even I'll admit that some people are more useful than others. The question is whether or not they can be blamed for it.

I have worked with people--mentally sound adults--in the past who were consistently unable to perform simple tasks (on the level of "square peg in square hole, round peg in round hole") after dozens of explanations and demonstrations, and who would repeatedly do the equivalent of hammering the square peg into the round hole and vice-versa until they were fired. There are certainly useless people in the sense that they are incapable of performing any useful function in society. I suppose if you're arguing for the existence of objective value in human existence that wouldn't fly, though.

That's one of the decisions we have to make as a pre-post-scarcity society: do we make provisions for members of society who do not, have not, and will not contribute in any meaningful way to still enjoy the support and benefits of said society? Amusingly enough uselessness is classless, by the by.

[Rolepgeek]

Eh, I was just interested in this because I've read a lot about all the ways meritocracy can be subverted (most of them involve some form of charisma) and I find it kind of depressing. The idea that meritocracy might not actually be that important in a perfect society lessens the blow a little.

It also means that we can stop focusing on fixing meritocracy and instead try to think of a society that fits the the needs of those who's skills are valued by society, as well as those whose skills are less valued.

With enough charisma, just about anything can be subverted.

Like, seriously, Charisma is god-stat. Diplomacy is god-skill. Gettting other people to do your bidding via persuasion, charm, and manipulation allows you accomplish a shitton.

I have a suspicion that they might be better at a different job, too, Flying Dice. I guarantee you I'd be terrible in retail. As a lab assistant, I think I'm alright.

[EnigmaticHat]

Meritocracy doesn't work because you can't judge merit objectively.

Or, more accurately: its really easy to tell how competent someone is when they're taking an anonymous survey that has no effect on their life.  But when there's a position of power at stake, suddenly people have this way of gaming the system.  Or putting the people who made the system in the first place on top.

I would also argue that most people could be trained to do most things.  When someone's (this is going to be an extreme case so bear with me) rich, well loved, educated, well groomed, and having a great day, they're just going to be a little better at everything because everything in your life going your way will do that to a person.  Doesn't mean that that guy struggling to make ends meet who just went through a difficult breakup would be strictly less competent if you stripped away the situational advantages.  Even tho that guy is more likely to end up in his underwear arguing with a map of the subway at 3 in the morning.  Its like, is it really the rich guy who's so competent?  Or is it the education, the money, the family and friends and connections?  If the rest of us had those things, we'd be more competent to wouldn't we?  And by the opposite token, after 3 months begging on the streets without ever taking a shower, there isn't a person among us who could get a job without help.

[Rolepgeek]

I feel like the point/idea of meritocracy is that you get competent people making informed decisions in government, not you reward the people who appear most skilled.

Or you hold tournaments, and whoever survives may rule.

[hops]

The issue with meritocracy is that merits are fundamentally against the concept of equality and human dignity. In an ideal world everybody should be perfect.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Or you hold tournaments, and whoever survives may rule.

This is already happening.

[hops]

I'd support anything that involves Trump and Hillary duking it out in an AWP duel.

[Neonivek]

Or you hold tournaments, and whoever survives may rule.

This is already happening.

Yeah... If that is how a Meritocracy is run... well... we are in a meritocracy.

And frankly... I am half-convinced we are living in a meritocracy... a dysfunctional one mind you.

I'd support anything that involves Trump and Hillary duking it out in an AWP duel.

Given how much of a Weenie Trump is after being hit by a tomato... Yeah Hillary wins.

[Frumple]

... paper crane man is now paying a head devil that appears to be squatting in his soul to basically chop up his brain with a magic kung-fu laser sword. And, like. Cash. He's paying the head devil with the local currency.*

This. This is why I read translated stuff. You just don't really get this shit from english native literature. You get other sorts of pleasing absurdity but not this sort of pleasing absurdity.

* Being fair, as near as I can tell the local currency is what amounts to the rough equivalent of varying strengths of mana potion, but... still.

[EnigmaticHat]

I feel like the point/idea of meritocracy is that you get competent people making informed decisions in government, not you reward the people who appear most skilled.

Or you hold tournaments, and whoever survives may rule.

"Competent" is a nebulous concept, even when compared to "apparent skill."

[Neonivek]

... paper crane man is now paying a head devil that appears to be squatting in his soul to basically chop up his brain with a magic kung-fu laser sword. And, like. Cash. He's paying the head devil with the local currency.*

This. This is why I read translated stuff. You just don't really get this shit from english native literature. You get other sorts of pleasing absurdity but not this sort of pleasing absurdity.

* Being fair, as near as I can tell the local currency is what amounts to the rough equivalent of varying strengths of mana potion, but... still.

This is why as much as I complain about anime as much as I've been burned by terrible animes and terribly handled plotline (though I am between both hating Kindaichi World's Worst Detective... and actually loving how ridiculously bad it is)... That I still stand by it.

Since otherwise there are almost no shows with continuous storylines or themes.

[heydude6]

I have a suspicion that they might be better at a different job, too, Flying Dice. I guarantee you I'd be terrible in retail. As a lab assistant, I think I'm alright.

The problem with the idea that they may be better at a different job is that society may not value that job as much.

Let's use a hypothetical example with a person named bob

Bob does not have the work-ethic/intelligence/passion to become a lawyer, which means that he doesn't have access to a lawyer's salary.

But Bob has the work-ethic/intelligence/passion to become a garbage man. As a matter of fact, his skills and talents make him a great garbage man and so he gets a garbage man's salary.

Now Bob is leaving his apartment in order to get to work when he sees his neighbour Joe speed past him in the new Infinity he bought. Unlike Bob, Joe did have the work-ethic/intelligence/passion to become a lawyer so he gets to enjoy all the benefits a lawyer's salary brings. Meanwhile, Bob needs to take the subway.

Bob sees Joe and he thinks about all the things Joe has that he doesn't: a house, a large disposable income, fancy clothes, the ability to eat out at high quality restaurants, not having to fear paying for his children's college, etc.

On the other hand, Bob's life sucks. His living conditions are horrible, he barely has any free time because he has to work a second job to support his family, he can't afford healthy food so his nutrition is poor, and the future of his children are uncertain.

This right here is how modern society handles meritocracy in its purest and least corrupt form. The excellent live lives of pleasure and luxury while the mediocre struggle to survive. Now you may not have sympathy for Bob because you could argue that he deserved it (the only reason why he's in this position is because he isn't good enough to get a good job, let's assume Bob and Joe came from the same background for arguements sake), but the thing is, Bob is still performing an essential service that society needs to survive. It's just that his is valued a lot less. Even then, does any human being deserve to live like that?

And thus, I will state what I consider to be the biggest problem with meritocracy, "What do we do about the people who aren't good enough?"

[Neonivek]

What is kind of funny about that situation Heydude6

Is that... the guy who likely lives off of Bob's hard work... Might do something society could do completely without.

Though here is a funny thing I didn't think of...

Only people who "Show Merit" can develop Merit. Causing a sort of social stagnation as people in the lower rung are discouraged from trying to achieve under a meritocratic system.