Looking back, I feel that I stressed the wrong part of what gives a January birthday an edge in hockey. It's not so much the fact that a 6 month age advantage causes a noticeable difference in body size, it's that a 6 month age advantage means 6 extra months of experience. Consider two 8 year olds who both start playing hockey when they turn 6, one with a January 2014 birthday and one with a September 2014 birthday, and let's say it's now November 2022. The January kid has 34 months of hockey experience, while the September kid has only 26 months of hockey experience. They'll both be put in the same age bracket, but the January kid will have had 30% more time to practice hockey.
Regardless, this video was awesome, this was excatly what I would say about the topic. I know it's and ancient one, but yt recommended it now, and Im glad it did.
another thing to consider is that different people have different effort:success ratios based on their goals, for example a short person has to use more effort to reach something on top of a fridge than a tall person, and the tall person is more likely to succeed.
And also, how is this ratio changes his or her long term motivation. If you struggle all the time you start to be very careful about trying out new directions. Ppl tend to forget but not only succes compounds but failure does too.
I would make the argument that meritocracy is not suppose to be a fair thing, but a functional thing. Because the opposite of meritocracy is hiring people who are incompetent. Whatever takes people are making, the wind of change will blow you around and you must decide whether you are going to own your life or not.
Then there’s also pure chance, where you happen to be in the right place at the right time, riding a wave of luck and circumstances that favor the specific qualities or skills you possess, ultimately bringing you to a place of good fortune.
The main problem I have with this video is that Meritocracy isn't supposed to be fair it's supposed to be efficient. If the smartest aren't running things then its the stupidest.
That's fine. I've seen a few other people that feel the same, though many people do think meritocracies are fair, or at least supposed to be fair, and this video is largely for them.
12:04 it may have helped your case to put in some names of people that got recognized after the grave. Like Vincent, van Gogh, HP Lovecraft, Edgar Allan Poe, Kefka, and Nikola Tesla. There are more. But these people had talent that was onlyv recognized after they died and did. Ot enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. Good video.
Great video. Personally, the conclusion I draw from this is sort-of the first option you outline. I don't think all things should be valued equally necessarily, but no person should be valued based on their unearned skill or lack thereof. We should stride towards a society that values the janitor and the neuroscientist equally as valuable people, but we can still recognize that certain tasks, goals, and things otherwise still exist on a hierarchy of value.
Good video! Alternative title: Why Equality is Impossible People look at the same facts and see the opposite. Perhaps a Performancocratic system would be more rational
What system would take its place? meritocracy while unfair in a lot of ways creates more stablity then say letting incompetant people take hold on industry to try and make up for said unfairness that meritocracy creates for example you care about meritocracy when you need surgery from a doctor, you care about meritocracy when it comes to a mechanic fixing the plane thats going to take you home.
I did say that in the end of the video, that we should still care that the people doing important jobs are qualified for their jobs. The video was about how 1) a pure meritocracy is not even achievable because people will always be rewarded for things they didn't earn, but it was also about how 2) we don't even have a meritocracy in the first place. So I actually think a better system could be one that's even closer to being meritocratic, so for instance if we could eliminate nepotism in hiring. But I also think a better system could be one that incorporates non-meritocratic practices, such as UBI. You can have a society that uplifts the lower classes while still maintaining high standards and high pay for complex and important jobs such as doctors and pilots (because for example if every adult gets a $1,000 a month stipend people would still be incentivized to work to make more money to afford luxuries and gain status, and high-paying jobs would still be appealing).
Based. I tell everyone all the time. You can still be a capitalist (which I am) and not have to believe in meritocracy. It’s not about hard work or skills or talent. Which I still believe in. Except the biggest factor is luck. Iq, wealth, status, parenting, etc. These are all big factors that can lead to true success. You hit the nail on the head with this video.
@@WadeAllen001 We don't know yet where they originate. One says our conciousness is breathed in by the one uncaused. The other say there is a shared mental plane where it comes from. Are our brains creating or recieving?
@user-mp7yz2qt2t I do think the question of whether our brains create or receive consciousness is an interesting one, though I do think the create side of things makes much more sense. But even if they were receivers of consciousness, how exactly would that consciousness and the actions it produces be completely detached from the chain of cause and effect? Plus, how can you be certain that one's will does somehow come from the outside, unconstrained by causality (especially considering you're not certain of how or what causes it)?
I reject your definition of karma-like meritocracy. All it is, is the idea that when you have a goal, you should select / reward the people who are the best at achieving said goal. THAT'S IT. Nothing else. It can be one goal, or ten. It can be a short term, or long term goal. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that your selection process is with that goal in mind, not other societal, social, religious, ideological, or political things should interfere with that process, lest it stop being meritocratic. That's why we have the term to begin with, because people (like yourself) keep insisting that there's alllll these other things, besides whatever the goal is, that should be considered. Suddenly, the bakery can't just hire whoever is the best at making cakes (be it due to luck, genetics, or skill or whatever else, they have that ability) - no instead we have to hire bakers of certain minority groups. Bakers of certain religions. Bakers who believe in climate change. Or bakers who don't like meritocracy. And when you do that, your eye is no longer on the ball, the goal of baking the freaking cakes. It's so simple, yet somehow this video horribly missed the mark. It's quite astonishing, really.
When in the video did I ever even come close to suggesting that a baker should hire people of certain minority groups? Perhaps you should define what it is you're rejecting, because based off what you said I'm not so sure you know what my position is.
@@WadeAllen001 I mainly just disagree that meritocracy is this moral praise we give to people who are succesful. That's not what it is. It's a process for selecting who should be in charge of achieving a goal, based on how good they are at achieving it. Maybe you disagree that this is meritocracy, and that's why you didn't cover it in the video. But what the hell is it then? It's not a bad video, but I dislike the blanket dismissal of "meritocracy cannot exist, because I have basically built a strawman of what people say it is".
@@Google_Censored_Commenter I'm not saying meritocracy is moral praise. I'm saying that most people as far as I know (I suppose you excluded) consider a meritocracy to be a system where people are selected on the basis of their ability and how much work they put in, and not other factors such as how much money they have, who their family is, their social position, luck, etc. So what I'm saying is that, yes, we can select people who are the best at achieving the goal, that's fine and I agree with you there. If we want things to function well, we need to have people who know what they're doing. But what I'm saying in this video is that all these other factors of luck, socioeconomic status, etc. confound the variable of ability or talent or effort or whatever meritocratic standard you want. Perhaps this is obvious, and that's fine, I think it is. But I've heard so many people say things along the lines of "incredibly rich and successful person X worked really hard and is good at what they do, that's why they succeeded," acting like luck wasn't a major factor. I made this video to illustrate that that isn't the case. If you're saying that meritocracy is just the idea that we should put the most suitable person in charge of a task, then I would agree that we should do that (though I don't know about you, but I wouldn't say that we do do that, and of course there are problems with attempting to do that). But I don't think that most people stop there with their idea of meritocracy. Also, I did mention it. It's at roughly 11:25. I said "a meritocracy can't exist, unless, your definition of a meritocracy is simply that the most successful people are the most skilled, regardless of the massive amounts of luck involved in making them skilled in the first place. In that case, it is possible, at least in theory. Though it’s certainly not what we have right now."
@@WadeAllen001 I would say that we do actually select people based on merit for the most part, way more than other countries where corruption, nepotism, religious affiliation or worse play the key role. And not only do they have that key role, society *wants* them to play that key role. That's why we started denoting meritocracies, to distinguish them from the third world countries that clearly don't value the goal itself getting done the best it can be, by whoever it may be. I take your point that people do infer a causal link between success, talent, status, money, motivation etc. when it isn't warranted, and you can legitimately call that meritocracy and argue against it. But I would say that's a misnomer. I mean if that was the core idea, it would be called "succescracy" or something. But no, instead the key idea is *merit* - and that just wasn't addressed. Finally, you say there would be problems with putting the most suitable person in charge of a task, what would those be? I don't see any. There's limited positions for jobs, and those less suitable will not be picked, and thus be out of a job. But that's not a problem caused by meritocracy, ie. selecting the best candidate, that's a wider economic problem with the supply of jobs, or an education policy problem, maybe there's too many or too few qualified people for the given tasks.
Mr. Wade: life is not fair and it never has been and never will be. No two people even have the same definition of what is fair. What we should aspire to have is a meritocracy of results; that is whoever produces the best results get the most rewards. This should produce the best results for everyone, or at least the most for the consumers.
i did. Did you read my original comment? You assume a meritocracies exist to measure the good intentions or effort or plain luck of the workers. It doesn't. It only measures results, as it should. When you go to buy any item in any store you measure what has been made by the usefullness of what has been produced, and it's value to you (it's merit). You don't pay for the estimate of the good intentions or luck of the the producer, only the value of what has been produced.
The problem with your take is that you fail to understand what meritocracy even is. It means judging people by the outcome, not how they achieved that outcome. The moment you put effort in the definition is the moment you misunderstand the whole concept. Effort does NOT matter in meritocracy, only the results. Yes, the idea that you can accomplish anything if you work hard enough is a lie, but it's a lie that has nothing to do with meritocracy. So you're wrong right on the start.
I accounted for that in the video by saying that if your definition of meritocracy only accounts for ability and not effort or luck, then you can have such a system, but it's not what we currently have. The reason I focused so much on effort in this video is because I was addressing the notion of meritocracy that many people hold (the belief that effort is rewarded, or the belief that skill is rewarded and that skill is largely a result of effort), not the notion that you specifically hold, or the technical definition. After all, why target a technical definition that isn't widely used? Interestingly, looking up the definition of meritocracy right now provides a different result than it did when I made this video (as you can see in the screenshot of the definition I included in the video). Obviously definitions do change over time, but I don't think there's any question that effort has commonly been a part of the definition of meritocracy, and is present in many people's minds when they think about it.
@@VincentChan86 there is a difference between having agency (or will) and having free will. You can still make the things you want to happen happen. It's just that you doing those things is part of your code, so to speak. The robot that is you still has preferences and still acts upon the world, it's just that the robot has programming. If your reaction to accepting that you have no free will is to stop doing things, that is unfortunate, but is by no means necessary. You can still do things you enjoy and find meaning in life despite your will to do those things being a product of the chain of causality, like how you can still enjoy a movie despite being unable to change the events within it.
@@WadeAllen001 then insofar as there is will, wouldn’t it mean there ought to be some level of meritocracy, since your choices ultimately determine your fate? And merit is not only hard work (which is also a choice), but the decisions you make on a daily basis. While luck plays a big part in outcomes, serendipity can also be influenced. The baker that has the motivation brought forth by believing in merit is more inclined to reach out to 1000 influencers and celebrities, or make a nicer sign, or invest more intelligently in Instagram marketing, and has a greater likelihood to get the right exposure than the baker that accepts fate and doesn’t do any of those things. Doesn’t the baker that works hard to recruit luck deserve the better outcome?
@@VincentChan86 You seem to think that "accepting fate" means not trying. Understanding that there is no free will does not need to result in inaction. The person who tries hard has as much free will as the person who doesn't. Which is none. One is programmed to try hard and one is programmed to not (at least to not try at the moment. Their programming may lead them to try hard at a different time, or their programming may be altered by their experience and cause them to try hard later). So yes I would say that some level of meritocracy is warranted, that the people who try hard should generally be rewarded, if for no other reason than to influence the programming of the people who aren't currently trying hard, to convince them to also try. But I'm also saying that meritocracies compound unfairness. The child of the baker who tried hard will have an advantage without himself having to try hard, or as hard as the less successful baker has to. And meritocratic ideals aren't reality. One person tries really hard and has a good outcome. Another tries just as hard and doesn't. We'd be fooling ourselves into thinking that effort is actually justly rewarded. So the point is to acknowledge that, otherwise we risk over-praising the successful and assuming the unsuccessful just didn't put in enough effort.
Looking back, I feel that I stressed the wrong part of what gives a January birthday an edge in hockey. It's not so much the fact that a 6 month age advantage causes a noticeable difference in body size, it's that a 6 month age advantage means 6 extra months of experience. Consider two 8 year olds who both start playing hockey when they turn 6, one with a January 2014 birthday and one with a September 2014 birthday, and let's say it's now November 2022. The January kid has 34 months of hockey experience, while the September kid has only 26 months of hockey experience. They'll both be put in the same age bracket, but the January kid will have had 30% more time to practice hockey.
Regardless, this video was awesome, this was excatly what I would say about the topic. I know it's and ancient one, but yt recommended it now, and Im glad it did.
The biggest reasons you cant have meritocracy is the issue of legal inheritance.
another thing to consider is that different people have different effort:success ratios based on their goals, for example a short person has to use more effort to reach something on top of a fridge than a tall person, and the tall person is more likely to succeed.
And also, how is this ratio changes his or her long term motivation. If you struggle all the time you start to be very careful about trying out new directions. Ppl tend to forget but not only succes compounds but failure does too.
I would make the argument that meritocracy is not suppose to be a fair thing, but a functional thing. Because the opposite of meritocracy is hiring people who are incompetent.
Whatever takes people are making, the wind of change will blow you around and you must decide whether you are going to own your life or not.
Thanks. This helps me feel better about the world.
Then there’s also pure chance, where you happen to be in the right place at the right time, riding a wave of luck and circumstances that favor the specific qualities or skills you possess, ultimately bringing you to a place of good fortune.
Very well articulated thoughts.
I completely agree, sadly..
The main problem I have with this video is that Meritocracy isn't supposed to be fair it's supposed to be efficient. If the smartest aren't running things then its the stupidest.
That's fine. I've seen a few other people that feel the same, though many people do think meritocracies are fair, or at least supposed to be fair, and this video is largely for them.
12:04 it may have helped your case to put in some names of people that got recognized after the grave. Like Vincent, van Gogh, HP Lovecraft, Edgar Allan Poe, Kefka, and Nikola Tesla. There are more. But these people had talent that was onlyv recognized after they died and did. Ot enjoy some of the fruits of their labor. Good video.
Great video. Personally, the conclusion I draw from this is sort-of the first option you outline. I don't think all things should be valued equally necessarily, but no person should be valued based on their unearned skill or lack thereof. We should stride towards a society that values the janitor and the neuroscientist equally as valuable people, but we can still recognize that certain tasks, goals, and things otherwise still exist on a hierarchy of value.
This is a way more balanced presentation on the discussion than the painful ranty tirades I saw from pilgrim pass
Good video! Alternative title: Why Equality is Impossible
People look at the same facts and see the opposite. Perhaps a Performancocratic system would be more rational
The term equality as its used in the west does not mean conformity. It means equal citizenship. Ie equal opportunity, equal application of law.
This is really interesting, like the video. You ever seen Robert Sapolsky discussing free will? I feel it fits with this.
I haven't seen him discuss free will. Maybe I'll check it out.
Good video you’ve convinced me and I haven’t even finished the video yet lol
What system would take its place? meritocracy while unfair in a lot of ways creates more stablity then say letting incompetant people take hold on industry to try and make up for said unfairness that meritocracy creates for example you care about meritocracy when you need surgery from a doctor, you care about meritocracy when it comes to a mechanic fixing the plane thats going to take you home.
I did say that in the end of the video, that we should still care that the people doing important jobs are qualified for their jobs. The video was about how 1) a pure meritocracy is not even achievable because people will always be rewarded for things they didn't earn, but it was also about how 2) we don't even have a meritocracy in the first place. So I actually think a better system could be one that's even closer to being meritocratic, so for instance if we could eliminate nepotism in hiring. But I also think a better system could be one that incorporates non-meritocratic practices, such as UBI. You can have a society that uplifts the lower classes while still maintaining high standards and high pay for complex and important jobs such as doctors and pilots (because for example if every adult gets a $1,000 a month stipend people would still be incentivized to work to make more money to afford luxuries and gain status, and high-paying jobs would still be appealing).
Based. I tell everyone all the time. You can still be a capitalist (which I am) and not have to believe in meritocracy. It’s not about hard work or skills or talent. Which I still believe in. Except the biggest factor is luck. Iq, wealth, status, parenting, etc. These are all big factors that can lead to true success. You hit the nail on the head with this video.
14:30 yes.
How?
@@WadeAllen001 We don't know yet where they originate. One says our conciousness is breathed in by the one uncaused. The other say there is a shared mental plane where it comes from. Are our brains creating or recieving?
@user-mp7yz2qt2t I do think the question of whether our brains create or receive consciousness is an interesting one, though I do think the create side of things makes much more sense. But even if they were receivers of consciousness, how exactly would that consciousness and the actions it produces be completely detached from the chain of cause and effect? Plus, how can you be certain that one's will does somehow come from the outside, unconstrained by causality (especially considering you're not certain of how or what causes it)?
Fool, you didn't even prove that I exist in the first place!
I reject your definition of karma-like meritocracy. All it is, is the idea that when you have a goal, you should select / reward the people who are the best at achieving said goal. THAT'S IT. Nothing else. It can be one goal, or ten. It can be a short term, or long term goal. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that your selection process is with that goal in mind, not other societal, social, religious, ideological, or political things should interfere with that process, lest it stop being meritocratic. That's why we have the term to begin with, because people (like yourself) keep insisting that there's alllll these other things, besides whatever the goal is, that should be considered. Suddenly, the bakery can't just hire whoever is the best at making cakes (be it due to luck, genetics, or skill or whatever else, they have that ability) - no instead we have to hire bakers of certain minority groups. Bakers of certain religions. Bakers who believe in climate change. Or bakers who don't like meritocracy. And when you do that, your eye is no longer on the ball, the goal of baking the freaking cakes. It's so simple, yet somehow this video horribly missed the mark. It's quite astonishing, really.
When in the video did I ever even come close to suggesting that a baker should hire people of certain minority groups? Perhaps you should define what it is you're rejecting, because based off what you said I'm not so sure you know what my position is.
@@WadeAllen001 I mainly just disagree that meritocracy is this moral praise we give to people who are succesful. That's not what it is. It's a process for selecting who should be in charge of achieving a goal, based on how good they are at achieving it. Maybe you disagree that this is meritocracy, and that's why you didn't cover it in the video. But what the hell is it then? It's not a bad video, but I dislike the blanket dismissal of "meritocracy cannot exist, because I have basically built a strawman of what people say it is".
@@Google_Censored_Commenter I'm not saying meritocracy is moral praise. I'm saying that most people as far as I know (I suppose you excluded) consider a meritocracy to be a system where people are selected on the basis of their ability and how much work they put in, and not other factors such as how much money they have, who their family is, their social position, luck, etc. So what I'm saying is that, yes, we can select people who are the best at achieving the goal, that's fine and I agree with you there. If we want things to function well, we need to have people who know what they're doing. But what I'm saying in this video is that all these other factors of luck, socioeconomic status, etc. confound the variable of ability or talent or effort or whatever meritocratic standard you want. Perhaps this is obvious, and that's fine, I think it is. But I've heard so many people say things along the lines of "incredibly rich and successful person X worked really hard and is good at what they do, that's why they succeeded," acting like luck wasn't a major factor. I made this video to illustrate that that isn't the case.
If you're saying that meritocracy is just the idea that we should put the most suitable person in charge of a task, then I would agree that we should do that (though I don't know about you, but I wouldn't say that we do do that, and of course there are problems with attempting to do that). But I don't think that most people stop there with their idea of meritocracy.
Also, I did mention it. It's at roughly 11:25. I said "a meritocracy can't exist, unless, your definition of a meritocracy is simply that the most successful people are the most skilled, regardless of the massive amounts of luck involved in making them skilled in the first place. In that case, it is possible, at least in theory. Though it’s certainly not what we have right now."
@@WadeAllen001 I would say that we do actually select people based on merit for the most part, way more than other countries where corruption, nepotism, religious affiliation or worse play the key role. And not only do they have that key role, society *wants* them to play that key role. That's why we started denoting meritocracies, to distinguish them from the third world countries that clearly don't value the goal itself getting done the best it can be, by whoever it may be.
I take your point that people do infer a causal link between success, talent, status, money, motivation etc. when it isn't warranted, and you can legitimately call that meritocracy and argue against it. But I would say that's a misnomer. I mean if that was the core idea, it would be called "succescracy" or something. But no, instead the key idea is *merit* - and that just wasn't addressed.
Finally, you say there would be problems with putting the most suitable person in charge of a task, what would those be? I don't see any. There's limited positions for jobs, and those less suitable will not be picked, and thus be out of a job. But that's not a problem caused by meritocracy, ie. selecting the best candidate, that's a wider economic problem with the supply of jobs, or an education policy problem, maybe there's too many or too few qualified people for the given tasks.
Mr. Wade: life is not fair and it never has been and never will be. No two people even have the same definition of what is fair. What we should aspire to have is a meritocracy of results; that is whoever produces the best results get the most rewards. This should produce the best results for everyone, or at least the most for the consumers.
Did you watch the video?
i did. Did you read my original comment? You assume a meritocracies exist to measure the good intentions or effort or plain luck of the workers. It doesn't. It only measures results, as it should. When you go to buy any item in any store you measure what has been made by the usefullness of what has been produced, and it's value to you (it's merit). You don't pay for the estimate of the good intentions or luck of the the producer, only the value of what has been produced.
@@tony-gy2bq I never mentioned good intentions in my video.
The problem with your take is that you fail to understand what meritocracy even is. It means judging people by the outcome, not how they achieved that outcome. The moment you put effort in the definition is the moment you misunderstand the whole concept. Effort does NOT matter in meritocracy, only the results. Yes, the idea that you can accomplish anything if you work hard enough is a lie, but it's a lie that has nothing to do with meritocracy. So you're wrong right on the start.
I accounted for that in the video by saying that if your definition of meritocracy only accounts for ability and not effort or luck, then you can have such a system, but it's not what we currently have. The reason I focused so much on effort in this video is because I was addressing the notion of meritocracy that many people hold (the belief that effort is rewarded, or the belief that skill is rewarded and that skill is largely a result of effort), not the notion that you specifically hold, or the technical definition. After all, why target a technical definition that isn't widely used? Interestingly, looking up the definition of meritocracy right now provides a different result than it did when I made this video (as you can see in the screenshot of the definition I included in the video). Obviously definitions do change over time, but I don't think there's any question that effort has commonly been a part of the definition of meritocracy, and is present in many people's minds when they think about it.
So just give up and do nothing, and blame everyone.
I didn't say that, and that isn't the only other option (to suggest so would be a false dichotomy).
If there is no agency and self determinism, and you are not in control, what is the point of attempting to control anything?
@@VincentChan86 there is a difference between having agency (or will) and having free will. You can still make the things you want to happen happen. It's just that you doing those things is part of your code, so to speak. The robot that is you still has preferences and still acts upon the world, it's just that the robot has programming. If your reaction to accepting that you have no free will is to stop doing things, that is unfortunate, but is by no means necessary. You can still do things you enjoy and find meaning in life despite your will to do those things being a product of the chain of causality, like how you can still enjoy a movie despite being unable to change the events within it.
@@WadeAllen001 then insofar as there is will, wouldn’t it mean there ought to be some level of meritocracy, since your choices ultimately determine your fate? And merit is not only hard work (which is also a choice), but the decisions you make on a daily basis. While luck plays a big part in outcomes, serendipity can also be influenced. The baker that has the motivation brought forth by believing in merit is more inclined to reach out to 1000 influencers and celebrities, or make a nicer sign, or invest more intelligently in Instagram marketing, and has a greater likelihood to get the right exposure than the baker that accepts fate and doesn’t do any of those things. Doesn’t the baker that works hard to recruit luck deserve the better outcome?
@@VincentChan86 You seem to think that "accepting fate" means not trying. Understanding that there is no free will does not need to result in inaction. The person who tries hard has as much free will as the person who doesn't. Which is none. One is programmed to try hard and one is programmed to not (at least to not try at the moment. Their programming may lead them to try hard at a different time, or their programming may be altered by their experience and cause them to try hard later). So yes I would say that some level of meritocracy is warranted, that the people who try hard should generally be rewarded, if for no other reason than to influence the programming of the people who aren't currently trying hard, to convince them to also try. But I'm also saying that meritocracies compound unfairness. The child of the baker who tried hard will have an advantage without himself having to try hard, or as hard as the less successful baker has to. And meritocratic ideals aren't reality. One person tries really hard and has a good outcome. Another tries just as hard and doesn't. We'd be fooling ourselves into thinking that effort is actually justly rewarded. So the point is to acknowledge that, otherwise we risk over-praising the successful and assuming the unsuccessful just didn't put in enough effort.