Another thing in relation to the implementation of the meritocratic system is how to control the bias of whom is in the position to hire someone, and ensure that the person was hired based on his/her merits and not on something else
The opposite of meritocracy is not mediocrity, the opposite is aristocracy, snobbery, classism, racism, the opposite are all the elements that undermine meritocracy as it should be and it doesn't allow to run society based on the actual principles of meritocracy.
probably because some are just better than others? your comment seems to imply that we don't (or shouldn't) make these sort of judgements all the time.
The other thing is to be able to measure "being worthy"... Which is the criteria to measure it? And I would say, whether we believe it or not, this will pin down to cultural background, how you were raised, what you country value in terms of social dynamics, so at the end, ends up being a matter of who has the ability to play "the game" better, but no much about being worthy for the position
It is clearly a matter of fact that access to being assigned merit is restricted by wealth. How will inherited right to rule be addressed in such a system?
@@onseayu I'm not really interested in historical alternatives. Only pointing out that a meritocracy does not exist independent of hereditary plutocracy.
@@thesayerofing sure...but if you're unaware of the history, you're susceptible to making the same errors in addressing this point. and given previous outcomes, it's probably something worth considering. i.e. some nepotism > mass democide
In a healthy, capitalist market, businesses and managers should be hiring the most competent person for the job to maintain their competitive edge. Any unjust compromise on the basis of discrimination, nepotism or DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) will have a direct cost. Thus, we can be assured that in the private sector atleast, meritocracy will win.
Don’t agree that peoples lives have been improved in the last hundred years because of meritocracy, rather the advancement of science and technology has improved populations health and working environments and these are significant contributing factors.
Merit as a principle sounds good, however, the thing it will be how do we ensure the exercise of that principle in all society... ¿? Without having other aspects, outside of merit, interfering in the position of a person in society
Its very simple, you hire the most competent person for the job and you denounce discrimination, racism, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and any other practices that actively interfere.
I think he swept it under the rug by implying the wage gap was merely an example of 'American capitalism' and not meritocracy per se. But he didn't define that point and moved on quickly, so all-in-all an unsatisfying response, if it even was a response.
This guy is the only one in the debate that actually understood what the debate was about, they all were discussing things with absolutely no relation to the question whether meritocracy has its merits, if they understood the topic the argument of for example professor Markovitz (I think it's his name) of the relation between skills and position in society in the Netherlands wouldn't have been made because meritocracy isn't only about skills and talent but also about hard work, or for another example the arguments made by the las speaker of proposition about inheritance of position as she pointed out that if your father is a doctor you are 24 times more likely to be one has nothing to do with a meritocratic society where they look at your talents, skills and hard work. My point is that the proposition judged our current bad in our society as meritocracy and the opposition judged the achievement of society through time as the world moving towards meritocracy, if the sides would have understood more the topic they would have spoken mpre about the morality of meritocracy and the harm and good that it can do to a society, and not whether today we live in a meritocratic society or not. I would also like to point out that when the mp was speaking prof. Markovitz said that the income inequality has grown since 1960 that it can be said that in the 60 the society moved towards a less meritocratic system with affirmative action looking at where people came from tether than their merits.
If meritocracy as it is working now was a fair system any person who wants to be president of America will become, based on their merits and not the money, popularity, cultural background, connections, etc, or maybe the problem are the criteria on which we based the merit... And if is that so, I come back to my previous question, which is the criteria we use to measure "being worthy" of something...¿? I personally think there is more to talk about, 8 speakers is not enough for this debate.
Of course my countryman did not enter Oxford after having attended an ordinary high school and a normal, run-of-the-mill university. No, judging by his Linkedin page he went to an elite and very selective high school where they teach Latin and Ancient Greek, before enrolling at a, once again, elite and highly selective university ’college’ which has a much higher teaching staff to student ratio and which uses interviews as one of its entrance requirements. But I’m sure all that extra academic training and attention, which other talented Dutch kids did not receive, did not help Jacobus in any way to get into Oxford. On the contrary, he pulled himself into Oxford by his own talented bootstraps, much like the Baron von Munchausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his own hairs. Thus perfectly illustrating everything that Markovits argued is wrong with meritocracy.
The idea that anybody can achieve all their goals and get to the very top purely by being talented and working hard is delusional🤦♂️ It’s a lot easier for an idiot born into wealth to get a successful career than a talented person brought up in poverty; just like it’s easier for a straight white man to succeed than a woman, LGBT person or person of colour with the same amount of talent or in a lot of cases with more talent. Meritocracy also implies those at the top are all there purely through merit and hard work, which is clearly absolute rubbish. Basically meritocracy is just an attempt to excuse our broken, unequal, unjust society and those who believe in it probably think they’re superior and more talented than others, even if they’re not. You only have to take a look at the current UK govt and the talentless, bone idle hacks serving in it as well as many businesses and other organisations across the globe to realise it’s all about wealth, connections and sucking up to the right people and less about merit, talent or hard work🙄
Working hard will lead to success is a delusion? Sorry, never experienced that. I don’t concern myself with others and how much they have or were born with. Blame your parents and wallow in self pity. What exactly do you want or expect someone to do with you? Feel pity? There are plenty of successful gay men and women, doing better than me. Do I care? No, so what? I am a white man so everything was handed to me? You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about but if it makes you feel guilt free and accept where you are, and helps you avoid blaming yourself for the outcomes, good for you.
@@dishman1966 Yes, it is a healthy mindset to feel responsable for your wellbeing. But it is good to recognize that not even our perseverance is the result of anything other than our environment and physiology (brain and inputs), none of which anybody gets to choose. So we can feel lucky for the gifts we have instead of deserving of them. That way one can be understanding with the people that don't have them. Because instead of deserving of their misfortune, they are a victim of their circumstance. So they deserve our help when we are able to offer it.
@@mdl9224 in severe cases with disabilities or as a child but I happen to believe in free will and telling someone they can’t succeed so why try because you were born with or weren’t blessed with the innate desire to work hard is very destructive and a recipe for disaster in one’s life. Isn’t message “try harder” and forget your origins, someone has it worse, a better idea? Is the message “blame your circumstances, you aren’t at fault for anything since you are just a collection of chemicals, what you would tell your child? If so, i respectively disagree.
@@dishman1966 I agree, that the first message is more useful as it promotes a desire to improve. But when a classmate is struggling with a math problem and they ask for your help you don't tell them "try harder". You try to find an angle to explain it that gets to them. If you can't find it, it's alright, you are trying to help. But in our society a majority of people that already figured out the problem is saying to the rest - "Try harder" - and are just sitting there, watching them struggle.
You are right that in today society you are much more likely to succeed if you come from a family of wealth or that you can be discriminated by the color of your skin, your gender and your sexual preference, but this is not meritocracy, meritocracy is the idea that everyone is judged by their merits, so you are making the case that meritocracy doesn't exist and not the case that meritocracy doesn't have its merits
I designed the IPOD and Microsoft Zune concepted and designed the Iphone, Spearheaded the design of the Lamborghini Aventodor, Mercialago, Hurican, all tesla models, project management for the design of Facebook, Twitter, and, UA-cam. Created the MYSPACE concept. I wrote most of Drake's discography. I redesigned the Porsche 911 gt3 rs, 911 turbo, designed the cayman, boxster, and all porsche suv's. designed every new Ferrari from 2004-to-2022. Also concepted the Apple Store. am responsible for the kindle. had a 4.3 for most of high school. So why will oxford not allow me in? This list is not exhaustive
The proposition seems in large part to reffer to nepotism & capitalism, as meritocracy.
What was the result for this debate? It's such a shame that results aren't typically included at the end (or even in its own separate video).
Another thing in relation to the implementation of the meritocratic system is how to control the bias of whom is in the position to hire someone, and ensure that the person was hired based on his/her merits and not on something else
The opposite of meritocracy is not mediocrity, the opposite is aristocracy, snobbery, classism, racism, the opposite are all the elements that undermine meritocracy as it should be and it doesn't allow to run society based on the actual principles of meritocracy.
8:05 feels like the most compelling part of the argument
Why some human beings are more worthy than others?
probably because some are just better than others? your comment seems to imply that we don't (or shouldn't) make these sort of judgements all the time.
The other thing is to be able to measure "being worthy"... Which is the criteria to measure it?
And I would say, whether we believe it or not, this will pin down to cultural background, how you were raised, what you country value in terms of social dynamics, so at the end, ends up being a matter of who has the ability to play "the game" better, but no much about being worthy for the position
It is clearly a matter of fact that access to being assigned merit is restricted by wealth. How will inherited right to rule be addressed in such a system?
untrue
And that that a pro meritocracy are against the idea of being assigned merit only by wealth.
this might be true to a degree. but as the speakers keep bringing up...what about the alternatives? how good are they? historically, not very.
@@onseayu I'm not really interested in historical alternatives. Only pointing out that a meritocracy does not exist independent of hereditary plutocracy.
@@thesayerofing sure...but if you're unaware of the history, you're susceptible to making the same errors in addressing this point. and given previous outcomes, it's probably something worth considering.
i.e. some nepotism > mass democide
In a healthy, capitalist market, businesses and managers should be hiring the most competent person for the job to maintain their competitive edge. Any unjust compromise on the basis of discrimination, nepotism or DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) will have a direct cost. Thus, we can be assured that in the private sector atleast, meritocracy will win.
Don’t agree that peoples lives have been improved in the last hundred years because of meritocracy, rather the advancement of science and technology has improved populations health and working environments and these are significant contributing factors.
What would happen in a bottom to top system, where Train drivers, postal workers, nurses recieved higher status than, Doctor,lawyers ,and Politicians?
The only sane case from the Opposition (specifically the first argument, about meritocracy being a motivator, a stimulant for the individual)
Yes, meritocracy sounds good, the thing is how do we implement it to ensure society is run by it and not something else...¿?
Merit as a principle sounds good, however, the thing it will be how do we ensure the exercise of that principle in all society... ¿? Without having other aspects, outside of merit, interfering in the position of a person in society
Its very simple, you hire the most competent person for the job and you denounce discrimination, racism, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and any other practices that actively interfere.
He never addressed Markovits' point.
I think he swept it under the rug by implying the wage gap was merely an example of 'American capitalism' and not meritocracy per se. But he didn't define that point and moved on quickly, so all-in-all an unsatisfying response, if it even was a response.
I wish he had, but the point was a non-sequitur from someone who insists on falsely equating merit and money.
Well said.
Meritocracy is the best in your journey of success and growth in order to realize the true story of life.
this statement has no value.
Well done!
This guy is the only one in the debate that actually understood what the debate was about, they all were discussing things with absolutely no relation to the question whether meritocracy has its merits, if they understood the topic the argument of for example professor Markovitz (I think it's his name) of the relation between skills and position in society in the Netherlands wouldn't have been made because meritocracy isn't only about skills and talent but also about hard work, or for another example the arguments made by the las speaker of proposition about inheritance of position as she pointed out that if your father is a doctor you are 24 times more likely to be one has nothing to do with a meritocratic society where they look at your talents, skills and hard work. My point is that the proposition judged our current bad in our society as meritocracy and the opposition judged the achievement of society through time as the world moving towards meritocracy, if the sides would have understood more the topic they would have spoken mpre about the morality of meritocracy and the harm and good that it can do to a society, and not whether today we live in a meritocratic society or not.
I would also like to point out that when the mp was speaking prof. Markovitz said that the income inequality has grown since 1960 that it can be said that in the 60 the society moved towards a less meritocratic system with affirmative action looking at where people came from tether than their merits.
Jajajajaja 😅😅😅
If meritocracy as it is working now was a fair system any person who wants to be president of America will become, based on their merits and not the money, popularity, cultural background, connections, etc, or maybe the problem are the criteria on which we based the merit... And if is that so, I come back to my previous question, which is the criteria we use to measure "being worthy" of something...¿?
I personally think there is more to talk about, 8 speakers is not enough for this debate.
Of course my countryman did not enter Oxford after having attended an ordinary high school and a normal, run-of-the-mill university. No, judging by his Linkedin page he went to an elite and very selective high school where they teach Latin and Ancient Greek, before enrolling at a, once again, elite and highly selective university ’college’ which has a much higher teaching staff to student ratio and which uses interviews as one of its entrance requirements. But I’m sure all that extra academic training and attention, which other talented Dutch kids did not receive, did not help Jacobus in any way to get into Oxford. On the contrary, he pulled himself into Oxford by his own talented bootstraps, much like the Baron von Munchausen pulled himself out of the swamp by his own hairs. Thus perfectly illustrating everything that Markovits argued is wrong with meritocracy.
Many missed opportunities by so many "elite" thinkers in a meritocratic debate forum. Irony.
Yes. The problem is that most of these fools forgot to read the classics once they stopped being required.
Very well said. The best arguments of all.
Quite a good bloke this one
Fantastic
So great speaking all person।।।in present of presedent।।।।।
It’s “precedent” dear
And next up, a debate on whether happiness is better than misery.
The most qualified person for that job, gets it. Period.
The idea that anybody can achieve all their goals and get to the very top purely by being talented and working hard is delusional🤦♂️ It’s a lot easier for an idiot born into wealth to get a successful career than a talented person brought up in poverty; just like it’s easier for a straight white man to succeed than a woman, LGBT person or person of colour with the same amount of talent or in a lot of cases with more talent. Meritocracy also implies those at the top are all there purely through merit and hard work, which is clearly absolute rubbish. Basically meritocracy is just an attempt to excuse our broken, unequal, unjust society and those who believe in it probably think they’re superior and more talented than others, even if they’re not. You only have to take a look at the current UK govt and the talentless, bone idle hacks serving in it as well as many businesses and other organisations across the globe to realise it’s all about wealth, connections and sucking up to the right people and less about merit, talent or hard work🙄
Working hard will lead to success is a delusion? Sorry, never experienced that. I don’t concern myself with others and how much they have or were born with. Blame your parents and wallow in self pity. What exactly do you want or expect someone to do with you? Feel pity? There are plenty of successful gay men and women, doing better than me. Do I care? No, so what?
I am a white man so everything was handed to me? You haven’t the faintest clue what you are talking about but if it makes you feel guilt free and accept where you are, and helps you avoid blaming yourself for the outcomes, good for you.
@@dishman1966 Yes, it is a healthy mindset to feel responsable for your wellbeing. But it is good to recognize that not even our perseverance is the result of anything other than our environment and physiology (brain and inputs), none of which anybody gets to choose.
So we can feel lucky for the gifts we have instead of deserving of them. That way one can be understanding with the people that don't have them.
Because instead of deserving of their misfortune, they are a victim of their circumstance. So they deserve our help when we are able to offer it.
@@mdl9224 in severe cases with disabilities or as a child but I happen to believe in free will and telling someone they can’t succeed so why try because you were born with or weren’t blessed with the innate desire to work hard is very destructive and a recipe for disaster in one’s life. Isn’t message “try harder” and forget your origins, someone has it worse, a better idea? Is the message “blame your circumstances, you aren’t at fault for anything since you are just a collection of chemicals, what you would tell your child? If so, i respectively disagree.
@@dishman1966 I agree, that the first message is more useful as it promotes a desire to improve.
But when a classmate is struggling with a math problem and they ask for your help you don't tell them "try harder". You try to find an angle to explain it that gets to them. If you can't find it, it's alright, you are trying to help.
But in our society a majority of people that already figured out the problem is saying to the rest - "Try harder" - and are just sitting there, watching them struggle.
You are right that in today society you are much more likely to succeed if you come from a family of wealth or that you can be discriminated by the color of your skin, your gender and your sexual preference, but this is not meritocracy, meritocracy is the idea that everyone is judged by their merits, so you are making the case that meritocracy doesn't exist and not the case that meritocracy doesn't have its merits
I designed the IPOD and Microsoft Zune concepted and designed the Iphone, Spearheaded the design of the Lamborghini Aventodor, Mercialago, Hurican, all tesla models, project management for the design of Facebook, Twitter, and, UA-cam. Created the MYSPACE concept. I wrote most of Drake's discography. I redesigned the Porsche 911 gt3 rs, 911 turbo, designed the cayman, boxster, and all porsche suv's. designed every new Ferrari from 2004-to-2022. Also concepted the Apple Store. am responsible for the kindle. had a 4.3 for most of high school. So why will oxford not allow me in? This list is not exhaustive
Meritocracy and Capitalism are not compatible.
Mechanical atheist perspectives.... try your best argument the next time you audition for the LSO.... GOD SAVE YOU+++
Жиза