this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
84 points (92.9% liked)

Asklemmy

43907 readers
1066 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (13 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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 ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 9 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.

load more comments (10 replies)