Your parent has a responsibility to teach you everything that they know and to help prepare you for the future. IF that includes giving you a job at a family-owned business, they should do it out of love and a sense of pride for someone that they are creating because that which they have taught you affects how you interact with society and the contributions that you make.
of course we must choose "the best" for every role, but with that comes the diminishment of NOT "the best". no one would want to board an airplane being fled by an unqualified pilot, rather, this debate is concerned with the circumstances that lead to, to put it in ur terms, "the best" and not "the best" pilots.
The question is how do you end up being the best? And what is the overall causal effect to society by giving all or most of societal rewards to the best? What happens to the 2e best etc. It seems to generate unequal societies, which tend to correlate with higher crimes etc.
@@kwabsofori1902 That's a ridiculous statement. The 'best' doesn't attain all of the rewards and leaving zero to everyone else. We can see this in society already. Is the best basketball player playing by themselves? And what is your alternative? A society that rewards nothing breeding hopelessness as in the communism/socialist world? Come on.
Very well argued. I especially liked his response that we ought to address the inequalities of our current meritocracy not with less meritocracy, but *more* meritocracy. Yes, the system is imperfect, but that doesn't mean that we should just scrap it. Instead, we ought work on ways to ensure that undeserved biases/advantages do not deprive other people of their equal opportunity, and seek to effectively reward talent/contribution/effort instead. He also makes a fantastic point in stressing the lack of a realistic alternative. You can complain and critique the current meritocracy all you want, but unless you have a better idea, then it's ultimately an argument without purpose. The historical systems he mentioned (inheritance, nepotism, patronage, etc.) are obviously much worse in terms of propagating inequality and inaccessibility, so unless you've got some innovative new social system to introduce, we're just going to have to do our best with what we currently have.
You, and Mr Wooldridge, are missing the point. Meritocracy does not care about equality of opportunity. It does not care about the source of merit. It only cares whether someone has it. That is why meritocracy needs to be contained and merit subordinated to equality and fairness.
I am self-made my mother is illiterate and my father is an alcoholic. No one guides me in the journey of life . I have pass many difficulties and solve many problems myself. But sometimes I feel so unsatisfied and cried alone if i had the opportunities which many of my friends got i would be better than them when we are in equal position even though i am lacking in support and wisdom from parents
Competition is healthy and fun as long as it is friendly. No? I agree that the word meritocracy tends to be used in a way that justifies privilege…and that IS problematic.good points on both sides resonate with me. Thanks for this.
Parents become successful and wealthy, kids get better opportunities. Yeah thats how it works, the merit of the parent is what set up their future generations. Why is it only considered fair if we all start off poor and and from scratch/zero? Fair is fair and thats too hard for people to understand.
I am self-made .... my parents never gave me anything. Until forced to by society. Nothing extra and nearly every negotiation/ interaction was mostly in bad faith. They only helped me when it was mutually beneficial. At least one of my two parents operates in bad faith at all times, AND I HATE IT.
Brilliant. And it is a ridiculous question. That stupid Harvard professor who suggests "a lottery of the COMPETENT!!!" as opposed to a system built on excellence.
The best example of meritocracy is "The Royal family 🤔🙄🤓⁉️👍 they have a privilege life they don't deserve. And, it's nothing to do with God given or Divine power?👍⁉️
You can literally see people playing on their phones in that room😂. I have recently come across the word Meritocracy and am already in support of it, but I like to hear anything that proves me wrong abt anything so I am reading 'Elite Capture' atm and I'm not super impressed yet, but it's apparently popular amongst philosophers atm.
Nobody argue the conceptor meritocracy isn't nice. The problem is, it's largely dead, and only really existed for maybe 15 years. THe meritocracy existing today is a few tokens held up as proving its efficacy, and then people feeling either smug, or lousy about themselves for where they wind up. Whilst the overwhelming data shows, where you end up has much much more association with where you started. SUre there are some breakthrough cases, which usually get held up as tokens. VAst vast majority of people will likely end up somewhere close to where their parents were. Part of the issue is generational entrenchment. Sure every parent should help their kid succeed. But what odds does the kid who was not helped, or even hindered have? Much much less. Via no fault of their own. The overall problem being we expel this idea of total responsibility. Which implies power. For the vast majority they have little power to drastically alter their course. You'll meet geniuses who stack shelves cause they needed the money at 19, and lacked the time to study, and you'll meet avg rich people, who had tutors, connections, easy internships and graduate roles, coaching. If you genuinely believe in the meritocracy myth, of individual self determination, you are a moron. You have ither benefitted in our system, or you dream of and associate yourself with the beneficiaries. I've benefitted under our system. And im one of those tokens who did rise up. I can tell you, when you get to those important offices, it's at least 80% filled with people who were born and raised to be there. the other 10-20% being the rare few who overcame the obstacles.
Your parent has a responsibility to teach you everything that they know and to help prepare you for the future. IF that includes giving you a job at a family-owned business, they should do it out of love and a sense of pride for someone that they are creating because that which they have taught you affects how you interact with society and the contributions that you make.
Meritocracy: Choosing the best. Non-Merit: Choosing a random person from a lottery to fill a quota. Hmmm, which one works better? Hmmm...
of course we must choose "the best" for every role, but with that comes the diminishment of NOT "the best". no one would want to board an airplane being fled by an unqualified pilot, rather, this debate is concerned with the circumstances that lead to, to put it in ur terms, "the best" and not "the best" pilots.
The question is how do you end up being the best? And what is the overall causal effect to society by giving all or most of societal rewards to the best? What happens to the 2e best etc. It seems to generate unequal societies, which tend to correlate with higher crimes etc.
@@kwabsofori1902 That's a ridiculous statement. The 'best' doesn't attain all of the rewards and leaving zero to everyone else. We can see this in society already. Is the best basketball player playing by themselves? And what is your alternative? A society that rewards nothing breeding hopelessness as in the communism/socialist world? Come on.
No one is defending Non-merit... What are you talking about...¿?
@@KarinaLlanos Yes, they are.
Very well argued. I especially liked his response that we ought to address the inequalities of our current meritocracy not with less meritocracy, but *more* meritocracy. Yes, the system is imperfect, but that doesn't mean that we should just scrap it. Instead, we ought work on ways to ensure that undeserved biases/advantages do not deprive other people of their equal opportunity, and seek to effectively reward talent/contribution/effort instead.
He also makes a fantastic point in stressing the lack of a realistic alternative. You can complain and critique the current meritocracy all you want, but unless you have a better idea, then it's ultimately an argument without purpose. The historical systems he mentioned (inheritance, nepotism, patronage, etc.) are obviously much worse in terms of propagating inequality and inaccessibility, so unless you've got some innovative new social system to introduce, we're just going to have to do our best with what we currently have.
" do not deprive other people of their equal opportunity" how can this happen with a monopoly?
Who's talking about less meritocracy...¿?
You, and Mr Wooldridge, are missing the point. Meritocracy does not care about equality of opportunity. It does not care about the source of merit. It only cares whether someone has it. That is why meritocracy needs to be contained and merit subordinated to equality and fairness.
He is ridiculous, I don’t think he has ever met people on welfare at all. What a clown
I am self-made my mother is illiterate and my father is an alcoholic. No one guides me in the journey of life . I have pass many difficulties and solve many problems myself. But sometimes I feel so unsatisfied and cried alone if i had the opportunities which many of my friends got i would be better than them when we are in equal position even though i am lacking in support and wisdom from parents
I want to tell you, strongly believe in yourself.
Keep going
I am sending you good vibes and I want to share this wisdom with you: ua-cam.com/video/gUKMj2JMLqY/v-deo.html
Competition is healthy and fun as long as it is friendly. No? I agree that the word meritocracy tends to be used in a way that justifies privilege…and that IS problematic.good points on both sides resonate with me. Thanks for this.
Do all the debates get published?
any in particular you looking for?
@@nathan_b6276 Travolta Vs Swayze
Parents become successful and wealthy, kids get better opportunities. Yeah thats how it works, the merit of the parent is what set up their future generations. Why is it only considered fair if we all start off poor and and from scratch/zero? Fair is fair and thats too hard for people to understand.
Why should life be fair?
I am self-made .... my parents never gave me anything. Until forced to by society. Nothing extra and nearly every negotiation/ interaction was mostly in bad faith. They only helped me when it was mutually beneficial. At least one of my two parents operates in bad faith at all times, AND I HATE IT.
Brilliant. And it is a ridiculous question. That stupid Harvard professor who suggests "a lottery of the COMPETENT!!!" as opposed to a system built on excellence.
The best example of meritocracy is "The Royal family 🤔🙄🤓⁉️👍 they have a privilege life they don't deserve. And, it's nothing to do with God given or Divine power?👍⁉️
So it seems that the problem is not based on meritocracy but in the gap between the rich and the poor...
He lost merit with that gut and bowtie
Ad Hominem attacks are not an appropriate mode of argumentation. Try using logic and reason rather than emotionally based disparagements.
Bravo!!!!
Such a ridiculous question…
You can literally see people playing on their phones in that room😂. I have recently come across the word Meritocracy and am already in support of it, but I like to hear anything that proves me wrong abt anything so I am reading 'Elite Capture' atm and I'm not super impressed yet, but it's apparently popular amongst philosophers atm.
Nobody argue the conceptor meritocracy isn't nice. The problem is, it's largely dead, and only really existed for maybe 15 years. THe meritocracy existing today is a few tokens held up as proving its efficacy, and then people feeling either smug, or lousy about themselves for where they wind up. Whilst the overwhelming data shows, where you end up has much much more association with where you started. SUre there are some breakthrough cases, which usually get held up as tokens. VAst vast majority of people will likely end up somewhere close to where their parents were.
Part of the issue is generational entrenchment. Sure every parent should help their kid succeed. But what odds does the kid who was not helped, or even hindered have? Much much less. Via no fault of their own.
The overall problem being we expel this idea of total responsibility. Which implies power. For the vast majority they have little power to drastically alter their course. You'll meet geniuses who stack shelves cause they needed the money at 19, and lacked the time to study, and you'll meet avg rich people, who had tutors, connections, easy internships and graduate roles, coaching.
If you genuinely believe in the meritocracy myth, of individual self determination, you are a moron. You have ither benefitted in our system, or you dream of and associate yourself with the beneficiaries. I've benefitted under our system. And im one of those tokens who did rise up. I can tell you, when you get to those important offices, it's at least 80% filled with people who were born and raised to be there. the other 10-20% being the rare few who overcame the obstacles.
Outstanding
Heavenly paradise is based on merit. Prove me wrong
Excellence vs mediocrity. What kind of a society do we want?😴🤔🤓
KO
I think we need to be flexable . Jdx
This whole debate has me upset. I've worked hard... to say the least.
No one is undermining anyone efforts, they are pointing out the blind spots, to truly build up a more just society
This man spits facts