I'm not sure why you seem to think that proving the existence of a genetic component to intelligence, ability, etc. somehow destroys meritocracy. It doesn't. If anything, it confirms it. The whole point of meritocracy is that people aren't equal and that those with the most ability should rise to the top. It may sometimes be presented in…
I'm not sure why you seem to think that proving the existence of a genetic component to intelligence, ability, etc. somehow destroys meritocracy. It doesn't. If anything, it confirms it. The whole point of meritocracy is that people aren't equal and that those with the most ability should rise to the top. It may sometimes be presented in a distorted way that suggests that anyone who works hard will be successful, but I don't think that's an accurate or sensible interpretation.
This is a completely separate question from asking whether meritocracy is good. In practice, it tends to be somewhat illusory, since actual merit (however one might measure it) is never the only factor in someone's success.
Destroys meritocracy in terms of destroying its legitimacy as a way of allocating economic resources.
Personally I think the legitimacy remains because while people can't decide to do more than they are capable of, they can definitely decide to do less. That's why communism didn't work. But that's a different justification than the one our system operates under today.
Societies need incentives, but there is no reason why they need to be monetary incentives.
Hell, while academics in our own economy are generally solidly upper-middle class, I think it's self-evident to say to the extent they are driven by external forces to continue to research and publish, it's much more the social credit of recognition by their peers than crass monetary rewards.
Right but on average people prefer monetary incentives as they are fungible. You can convert money into respect, things, security, appeal on the dating market, experiences, etc.
Allocating resources based on supply and demand is still valid. It doesn't matter why somebody is a brain surgeon, all that matters when it comes to compensation is that there are very few of them compared to the demand for their services.
I'm not sure why you seem to think that proving the existence of a genetic component to intelligence, ability, etc. somehow destroys meritocracy. It doesn't. If anything, it confirms it. The whole point of meritocracy is that people aren't equal and that those with the most ability should rise to the top. It may sometimes be presented in a distorted way that suggests that anyone who works hard will be successful, but I don't think that's an accurate or sensible interpretation.
This is a completely separate question from asking whether meritocracy is good. In practice, it tends to be somewhat illusory, since actual merit (however one might measure it) is never the only factor in someone's success.
Destroys meritocracy in terms of destroying its legitimacy as a way of allocating economic resources.
Personally I think the legitimacy remains because while people can't decide to do more than they are capable of, they can definitely decide to do less. That's why communism didn't work. But that's a different justification than the one our system operates under today.
Societies need incentives, but there is no reason why they need to be monetary incentives.
Hell, while academics in our own economy are generally solidly upper-middle class, I think it's self-evident to say to the extent they are driven by external forces to continue to research and publish, it's much more the social credit of recognition by their peers than crass monetary rewards.
Right but on average people prefer monetary incentives as they are fungible. You can convert money into respect, things, security, appeal on the dating market, experiences, etc.
You’ve just nailed down why a communist society will likely not use money
Allocating resources based on supply and demand is still valid. It doesn't matter why somebody is a brain surgeon, all that matters when it comes to compensation is that there are very few of them compared to the demand for their services.
"they can definitely decide to do less" haha! Never thought of it in those terms before. I like it.