Talk:Meritocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] intelligence PLUS effort :vs: intelligence TIMES effort

I have big problems with merit being described as "intelligence PLUS effort" whereas in reality merit (or performance) is much better described by "intelligence TIMES effort" (or "talent TIMES effort" generalized to any occupation). To keep the argument close to the operators: if you have no talent at all (t near 0) you can spare as much effort as you want, there wont be success and if you dont invest any effort (e ~= 0) you can have arbitarily high talent, there also wont be success. So this point is closer modeled by the multiplication operator, than by the sum operator. Thus I dont see any reason for the sentence not to be fixed towards "TIMES".

If there is a rational and good argument against my reasoning, feel free to change it back, but please justify it here.

Either way smells of original research. A great deal of the foundation of this article exists without citation; a clear and accepted definition is needed.

[edit] See also - Contrast with

Hey stevie, I knowthey can be listed undr "see also", indeed they still are, but I think its helpful to point out that they arn't synonyms. Alot of people have no clue about a given subject, and pointing things out like that is pretty cool. Example (talk • contribs) 18:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, but I won't revert any longer. This is an unusual approach to See also. I haven't seen this in any other article. I see contrasting terms in many See also's that aren't distinguished and really don't need to be. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 18:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to address you personally, but not trying to focus on you instead of the subject @ hand. Frankly, w this situation being all I have to go by, I'd have to say my impression of you is vaguely positive. Oh right, thats an ad hominem ;) Anywho, its not a big deal, I just like it my way better, and think its more informative. If you can find some obscure rule somewhere, I'll probably have to defer to the bureaucracy (or secretly edit the policy page whilst yer not looking XD but this isn't exactly a big issue for me either. The article could use some more content if your in anyway expert on the subject, BTW. I'm off to check the 1911 britannica! Cheers, Example (talk • contribs) 18:43, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see what's going on in the See also section; after all, none of the terms listed is a synonym of, and all should be contrasted with, "meritocracy". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And that's generally true of See also items... they either contrast with the article term, or they're similar to the term, but not the same. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 22:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the "See also" section, and while I was at it I tidied up the grammar and style. The section on Singapore reads rather like a propaganda piece; I removed one obviously PoV sentence, but it could probably do with a more extensive rewrite. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't really see that racialism was terribly relevant (especially as there was a link to race in the text). Why, though, did you revert my "s? I thought that they were preferred? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK< recent edits have been fairly good, and since you both seem to dislike the "contrast with", and especially since I see your point about all the see also's being contrasts rather than synonyms, I surrender that particular. One thing tho: what this article really needs is more content, rather than more pruning. Pruning is cool, but I'd like to see a better explanation of what meritocracy really is, and perhaps some better examples of it. I'll see what I can do, cheers, Example (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More content is always a good thing. Be bold. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Character quotes (") are preferred from what I've seen, and I've been editing for almost a year. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Contrib} 08:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikipedia article on quotation marks, it uses neither... instead, throughout, it uses ‘ and “. Damn! I've been using " in all my articles and edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Ereinion's edits

The Summary as Ereinion had it was:

'''Meritocracy''' is a system of [[government]] which is strictly based solely on ones abilities
('''merit''') rather than by wealth or social position; “merit” means roughly ''intelligence plus
effort''. 

Most often, meritocracies are confused with [[aristocracy|aristocracies]], a system that morbidly caters to bias
and nepotism. A true Meritocracy acknowledges individual prowess and rewards it in kind, regardless of
disposition. 

Most systems of government contain some form of meritocratic elements; for instance, [[United States
Constitution|the constitution of the United States]] decrees that all men are created equal and that life,
liberty, and the persuit of happiness is not to be infringed upon. However, while this is elemental of a
meritocracy, it does not assure the recognition of, or the rewarding of, individual accomplishment.

Some would suggest that the [[military rank]]ing system is perhaps the closest to a pure meritocracy, however,
each military is limited by its government. Therefore, military services are better classified as
[[bureaucracies]], or as psuedo-meritocracies. Pure meritocracies, however, are virtually non-existent.

Aside from spelling and grammar, this introduces some emotional and very PoV claims, as well as inaccuracies (the characterisation of aristocracy in particular). I don't see anything here worth keeping, but if anyone else does, we could discuss it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? How was my chracterization of an aristocracy inaccurate? PoV has nothing to do with it, I didn't say anything that wasn't historically or contemporarily accurate. If you felt wording needed to be changed that's different. Having said that, I fail to see what attacking any spelling or grammatical errors accomplishes, or implying I have an emotional issue with the subject. This has nothing to do with the topic as a whole. Unless you're just trying to be foul, in which case you need to check your own PoV issues. I'm reverting it back until someone else can make a civil contribution -- UHC. Ereinion Image:RAHSymbol.JPG 22:43, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aristocracy: the term 'morbid' has no place here (it's not even clear what it means in this context, beyond being negative); it's not clear what you mean by aristocracy being biassed; the notion of nepotism makes no sense — aristocracies are generally hereditary.
U.S. Constitition: the quotation has no relevance to meritocracy, except in so far as most meritocracies, but also many non-meritocratic systems, accept it.
The military: there's no explanation as to why the 'limitation' by government has any effect on its meritocratic nature, nor any explanation as to why it should be counted bureacratic.
What was removed (with no explanation) was pefectly adequate. It could doubtless be improved (what couldn't?), but this is no improvement. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not even up for debate. Either learn some amenities or don't contribute. It's just that simple. But, if you need help in learning this, please see Wikipedia:Civility. If you need help with it, I would be happy to explain it. Until then, I hope it teaches you something. Ereinion Image:RAHSymbol.JPG 01:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm interested that you feel that heavy sarcasm counts as civility, but let it pass.
I've given my reasons for reverting the article; you seem to have no relevant responses, so I assume that you now agree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Han Fei Zi?

I'm surprised to find Han Fei Zi in the article. If I'm not mistaking, He was in favor of full power of the prince and refused the use of counsellors. gbog 4 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)

[edit] Cool it with the weird political agendas

Hi all. Meritocracy is one of the most important principles in all of human civilization, it deserves a better wikipedia entry than it has. Including Singapore but excluding Europe and America? What the hell is that about, come on, maybe you don't like the present leadership but really, these guys *invented* the meritocratic institutions of Constitutions (the US Constitution which someone evidently doesn't think belongs here, that's absurd, read it and the Federalist Papers then think about the possibility that is represents the first meritocratic government in recent history) and Democracy and the Free Market Capitalist System. Those who make best use of resources get the most resources? Ring a bell? It's Anglo. Capitalism, individual liberty, equality under the law. Thomas Jefferson? Adam Smith? John Stuart Mill? The Glorious Revolution of 1688? Hello dearies, I know history is boring but you have to read something of it before you are equipped to interact in the world.

Yet someone thought it was better to praise Singapore? Disneyland with the Death Penalty? A lot of people work very hard and honestly to create Wikipedia, so keep your weirdo political agendas out of it. The philosophy entries are ruined by this kind of immaturity, please don't ruin something as important as political entries that actually have real-world consequences.

I definitely agree with you about Meritocracy deserving a better article (we can help), but the United States and Europe (from what I understand; I can't speak too well for Europe) are mostly Democratic Republics. Meritocracies are based only on the idea that people should only hold a position if they deserve it based on criteria of merit. If you think about it, a meritocracy doesn't need democracy- you could just as easily have a test (as the Chinese did) to determine who fills which positions. As a side note, sorry if that was unintelligible, I have a hard time getting my point across sometimes.Robinson0120 10:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the US constitution specifically recognises the equality of everyone..which is pretty much as far as you can get from a meritocracy. 193.11.107.175 16:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actually, not bad, philosophy is worse!

Well, I just returned from the philsophy section, and I have to say, this page really is not that bad after all. I think the Singapore section is quite reasonable, and I'm impressed there haven't been rants and reverts, as is usually the case with things political. But why anyone cares so much about philosophy, I can't imagine!

Anyway, AI cat Eric Baum made an interesting point, no matter what a person's political agenda is, he always thinks everyone who disagrees even slightly is completely delusional, and everyone seems to think this, and even when we change agendas we never consider how we were deluded before or whether we are deluded now. Given the fact that people probably are not cognitively equipped to deal with politics, I think wikipedia has done very well. But it could still use a 'meritocratic' haha moderation system.

- anon

[edit] If America is so Meritocratic

Then why is George W. Bush President?--35.10.47.197 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if you're joking. I don't like President Bush, myself, but I still think America's fairly meritocratic. If you can't look at Bush, then look at Clinton. The man was, forgive the expression, poor white trash from the working class and an abusive family. You might not think he was a good president, but he didn't represent any national elites, in my mind. Hashshashin 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You believe the United States is meritocratic? I have to strongly disagree with that, Hashshashin. America today isn't based NEARLY as much on meritocratic principles as it is on the values of democracy and, to a seemingly lesser extent, the republic. Just think about what Bush says all the time- it's not "We're bringing meritocracy to the Middle East," it's "We're bringing democracy to the Middle East." Most Americans seem to feel the same way, and care more about electing someone than that they are the best person, academically and logically speaking for the job, because when it comes down to it, people are voting so that their ideas (or those they agree with) can be put into law and enforced, not because they want the best people in power. Excuse my rambling. (Also, just so you know, I am not the previous poster.) Robinson0120 10:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on wwether or not you consider popularity to be a "merit", I suppose. Most people that I know seem to vote based on their emotional response to a candidate or their Party loyalties, not on a rational or impartial assessment of job qualifications. And that's why Bush is President.

Noclevername 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meritocracies in history

Sorry, I'm not good at editing, but I just thought that an article on meritocracy should include references to the Ming dynasty and it's extensive civil service exams. As well as other past instances in Chinese history.

Yes, please help by adding content. I'll try to clean up after if need be :) Sam Spade 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, The following line at the head of the article is inaccurate: "Chapter Five of John Locke's Second Treatise on Government, which set out the virtues of a meritocracy, in which men rise by virtue, talent, and industry"

Chapter Five deals with Locke's famous "labour theory of property" according to which one may acquire property through labour alone. The chapter deals exclusively with this theory and not at all (not even a little) with the virtues of meritocracy as is being claimed.

[edit] Herbert Spencer

Shouldn't there be some mention of Herbert Spencer?

Yes, please add content regarding Herbert Spencer. He and social darwinism could have their own section. Sam Spade 16:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore

The section on Singapore is not at all neutral, and makes several unverifiable claims on the political situation in Singapore. I notice that most of the offending changes were put in place by various anonymous contributors from Singapore. While Singapore is an interesting case for meritocracy since it is official policy there, this article should not become a political battleground. kaikaun 07:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plato and Democratic Centralism

He was into meritocracy also. He mentioned that only those able to lead (for him, the Philosopher) were fit to rule government.

Not only was plato into meritocracy but he also constructed a theoretical one. There are three types of individuals, those who are ruled by instinct, those ruled by emotion, and those ruled by logic, as plato put it. In the meritocracy those ruled by instinct should be the labourers, those ruled by emotion the policemen and firefighters etc. and those ruled by logic the governers. In order to prevent corruption he took into account greed, nepotism, and ignorance. To combat these, take these individuals out of the family while young and rise them as a commune and teach them all the philosophies you can. This was his basic idea of a meritocracy and once again I am not going to edit the main body until I can find my citations.

On a similar vein, Lenin preposeed a similar system in the formation of Democratic centralism, in which each rank within the party was elected only by those who have shown their worth to the rank immediately below, thus, though not a true meritocracy, Democratic centralism may be mentioned since it is designed in such a way as to sift out exemplary members of the party into higher office/council.

IdeArchos 04:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in British mouths??

British politicians, both on the left and the right, stress the importance of making Britain as meritocratic as possible. I am sure that most of the world's countries' politicians would say the same, though... The section needs to provide more information and not just what people stress... I believe it is not at all NPOV. --Francisco Valverde 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarify description vs. rhetoric

There should be a clear distinction made between attempts, by whatever means, to achieve meritocratic ends and attempts to use the idea of meritocracy to justify manifestly un-meritocratic conditions. Most expressions of a Social Darwinist nature, for example, are merely apologetics for the status quo rather than genuine descriptions of the fair result of a meritocratic process.

Also, with limited resources and positions available in any society, competition is going to be a necessary aspect of any system that is not completely overcome by caste momentum. Again, the distinction between reality and rhetoric needs to be made, as real competition rests on some sort of parity between competitors while the struggle between unequals would only be called a "competition" by those wishing to disguise their unfair advantage.

[edit] Description of Youngs book

The article says: "In the book, this social system ultimately leads to a social revolution in which the masses overthrow the elite, who have become arrogant and disconnected from the feelings of the public." In the book, there is only hints of the revolution. The causes of the revolution (if indeed there is one) are much more complicated than described here.

[edit] Joseon Dynasty (Korean, 1392-1910)

A society high on Confucianist philosophy, seems almost like the schoolbook example of a meritocracy society to me.

[edit] The USA and Australia

Both of these countries need to be added to the section of "Meritocratic States". I will write something up and add it. Most of Europe is debatable and I don't know enough about it to write something without a POV. Admiral.Ackbar 14:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Cleanup

This is really one of the worst political articles I have yet seen on Wikipedia. There were lots and lots and lots on personal opinions, unfounded assumptions and original "research", if it can even be called that. The section

"Wealth alone is seldom a good indicator of merit; but is often used as such by some people. Moreover, every responsible parent struggles to make and provide a better life for their children, passing on the benefits of their knowledge, social connections, and resources to ensure their childrens' success."

is only one example of the hogwash this article tried to pass of as encyclopedic. And that was only in the introduction!

Parts of article were also way too biased, making a huge effort to pass off the one or other kind of government as the one and only true way. Example given is the original authors opinion on egalitarianism:

"[...]utopian fantasies of societies where everything is assigned on a supposedly more equal footing.[...]"

I tried to remove everything that could not at least be assumed to be slightly based on known and researched facts. Some sections are much smaller now, but at least it is more concise and to the point. Lots of citations and references are still required, though. --TheOtherStephan 23:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this last edit. You should have requested for sources where they were needed, not completely erased other people's work. In particular when you selectively remove only positive points, which is highly suspicious. Apparently, your own political bias (obviously left-wing) is the cause behind such a hurry to remove everything that doesn't fit that particularly world view. This article is not perfect, but it certainly wasn't as bad as you are trying to portray. Again, it is evidently just your own political view trying to project its aversion to meritocracy on this article, all disgused as a critique against "POV". No, sir. I'm not buying this. Justice III 16:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

More than 90% of what I removed was part of the introduction, which was bloated beyond comprehension and full of completely irrelevant tidbits of facts and pseudo-facts, as well as repeating the few relevant parts over and over. Take as example the part about what "responsible parents" are supposed to do and how much wealth is an indicator of success. This stuff simply has no place in an encyclopedia, it belongs completely to the realm of "common sense" and you know how reliable that is. And what was said about the egalitarian characteristics of meritocratic governments ("allows for an end to distinctions based on such arbitrary things as sex, race or social connections.") can be found in "Origin of the term". There is no need to repeat in in the introduction. The introduction is supposed to be short, concise and to the point.

Also, even positive opinions need to be removed when there is no real grounding in sources and citations. Yes, I'm a deletionist and I'd rather completely remove obviously unreferences sections than have them stand for perhaps months, but that's not because of my own policial orientation. I have also deleted disparaging opinions by critics of meritocracies, there simply were far fewer to be found. The general tone of the article was pro-meritocracy. Frankly, I don't care either way. I was simply looking for historical precedents when I stumbled over this article.

[Edit]: Okay, maybe I should have left that bit about Thomas Jefferson. That's an oversight, really, I was originally planning to move it to a section about the US and add a "citations needed" flag (because there was none). I'm sorry about that, I'll fix it at once.--TheOtherStephan 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like take this oportunity of cleaning up talk, to consider this: British politicians, both on the left and the right, stress the importance of making Britain as meritocratic as possible at the United Kingdom subsection. I don't believe it is at all encyclopaedic. What do you consider. I would just take it off... Francisco Valverde 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have finally deleted the British section. If anyone disagrees I would ask him to at least improve the section with more substantial information. It is not enought that some people "stress" a point --Francisco Valverde 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention the Apache Software Fondation

I think that the article could mention the Apache Software Fondation as an example of an (open source) organization which is explicitly a meritocracy.

[edit] Request for comment on adding a section

I'd like to see a section on pitfalls of or objections to meritocracy. The article now has one paragraph that mentions the issue of dubiously valid measurements, but this is a point that could be developed much further and there may be other concerns, such as the tendency for a meritocratic class to perpetuate itself (highly-educated people, placed in positions of privilege, tend to have more highly-educated children, and so on). For neutrality's sake two separate sections such as "Proponents' arguments" and "Detractors' arguments" might be preferable.--7Kim 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed plato

The society covered in The Republic resembles more of a totalitarian aristocracy than a meritocracy-- for example, the Guardians pass down their power to rule as "philosopher kings" through their lineage. He makes clear that only a select few of the lower castes will be eligible for Guardianship. The non-Guardians are kept ignorant by force feeding them blatant lies about their intellectual capabilities from a young age. This is because Plato's philosophy in the Republic is that The Good is more important than Truth. Please avoid the blatant Original Research falsehood, Wikipedia Editors. Thank you, --Urthogie 10:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/r/Talk%7EMeritocracy_15ae.html"