Taking the view that success is nothing more than an outcome of a random percolation process, the individuals on the `winning’ end of that percolation process are significantly different from the people that got stuck somehow. They have
more skills, more knowledge, more contacts, more experience. Yes there are arguable counter examples: PhDs that do management and lose their technical edge, or individuals that are too specialized to do anything very useful. But by in large it is helpful
to be around people that study and solve hard problems for a living and accumulate expertise. If it is a given that there are only so many slots available or needed for highly-skilled people in a society, then whether there is `justice’ for that selection
isn’t really related to merit as a thing (versus as a process). What’s really needed to get more people through some kind of enriching percolation process is a *demand* for it – huge numbers of open, positions that will participate in creating diverse
services people want to pay for. Then the various kinds of organizations that provide appropriate support for learning can adapt to that need.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 10:28 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: [FRIAM] Getting You Libertarians' Goats
This should do it!
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/michael-j-sandel/the-tyranny-of-merit/
The thesis is that “meritocracy” is the cause of the fact that the us is now the least socially mobile country among the western democracies.
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |