I think this hints at what gets people so enthusiastic about the free market. It's not simply a judgment about good economic systems. The point is that it's very hard (maybe even theoretically impossible) to make objective judgments about merit and value and morality. Instead, allowing people to choose what they find meritorious or valuable by paying for those things, or patronizing establishments they like, or donating to organizations they like, avoids the necessity of having some group of mandarins decide what is worthwhile, based on the shaky criteria of the sort described here.
This is also many economists perspective. In his classic Hayekian work, Knowledge and Decisions, Thomas Sowell argues that the market does not reward merit, it rewards productivity (in an expansive sense of producing something that others will pay you for...which is ultimately the only way to make money that isn’t rent seeking.)
The new attack on “merit” thus begins with a straw man, that free market folks think the market rewards objective “merit” and everyone “deserves” exactly what they get in some cosmic sense. Incidentally, I think this also reveals what Sowell writes about in his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice. There is also a Nietzschean ressentiment at play, as in “we don’t like what the market rewards, we want to go reward the thing that we find more valuable, let’s burn down this evil system!”
Excellent perspective. Thanks for this post. I think the word "merit" is part of the problem we have distinguishing between moral worth and everything else.
An everything-else-tocracy probably doesn't cut it.
This was the first thing i read this morning, and it got me off to a good start to my day.
Consider this statement: "benefits are doled out in perfect proportion to the extent that a person exhibits M."
It demonstrates an important difference in worldview that might correlate with left/right politics but matters regardless.
In a capitalist society, benefits aren't *doled out* according to anything, merit or otherwise. Benefits are generated and traded, and those who produce more have more. (All this is of theoretical, of course.) People don't get rich because they are have more M, or are more moral, or more devoted to Brad, or even because they are smarter. They get rich because they produce something other people want.
Bezos is the extreme example today, of course: he's not rich because he has more merit, he's rich because he made something everybody uses.
Of course there are counterexamples, where 'production' must be taken with a grain of salt. Do Wall St traders actually 'produce' anything? Perhaps not.
Some places do dole things out: university grants, etc. And of course measuring how much someone produces in the context of a corporation or government agency or whatever is hard, so we often end up measuring something like merit or intelligence instead, either as a proxy or because that particular institution no longer cares about actual production.
Moreover, it's often true that the wealthy are wealthy because of their parents, either through an explicit inheritance or an implicit one, like a fancy education or connections within a particular business or something.
So we shouldn't just say that the rich certainly deserve to be. But the idea that the way one gets stuff is by demonstrating one's merit is certainly not the basis for a capitalist society.
The question is: are you rewarded for what you are, or for the things that you do.
The part about “our metrics are shitty, but we use them anyway because what else could you do?” reminded me of this piece by James Fallows, tracking the history of metrics and credentials, written in 1985, but truly evergreen:
Each game, each discipline has its own rules to define worth. If a middle school student takes a math test, the higher score has higher worth. If we are talking about PE, jumping higher or running faster has more worth. Art and music, same thing: more beautiful is better. In business, more profit is good, employee and customer satisfaction are important too. We know how merit works. The problem is that we are trying very hard to pretend that we do not.
>>There’s a sense that when we pick someone for a desirable job or a spot in a prestigious school, we’re deciding that that person is superior.
Which really didn't cause much resentment on either side back when the good colleges, elite professional associations and exclusive clubs all practiced some form of ritual hazing.
I believe meritocracy is useful in specific, narrow, easily observable and easily measured situations. Think a job. Even then, outside influences beyond someone’s control can interfere with accurate assessments.
In a broad sense, meritocracy is not reasonable because there would be far too many variables to identify and measure. It’s like the perfect plan or contract: it’s simply too difficult to identify every variability up front.
I would argue that there is a difference between something being meritocratic and something being fair. I did a grid analysis of that concept here, which may be of some use to you in your next article on the topic. (or not! :) )
I think the concept you take down in this piece is much stronger than what most people mean by "meritocracy". When I for one use that word, I'm talking about things like jobs and scholarships going to those who are best qualified. It doesn't have to be based on a single "stat", be it intelligence or whatever else, and it doesn't apply to any part of life except that job or scholarship.
I'm interested to see where this goes, though. (And as both a Catholic and a mathematician, I love the idea of "useful" and "meaningful" being independent qualities.)
I think this hints at what gets people so enthusiastic about the free market. It's not simply a judgment about good economic systems. The point is that it's very hard (maybe even theoretically impossible) to make objective judgments about merit and value and morality. Instead, allowing people to choose what they find meritorious or valuable by paying for those things, or patronizing establishments they like, or donating to organizations they like, avoids the necessity of having some group of mandarins decide what is worthwhile, based on the shaky criteria of the sort described here.
This idea is part of next week's column.
This is also many economists perspective. In his classic Hayekian work, Knowledge and Decisions, Thomas Sowell argues that the market does not reward merit, it rewards productivity (in an expansive sense of producing something that others will pay you for...which is ultimately the only way to make money that isn’t rent seeking.)
The new attack on “merit” thus begins with a straw man, that free market folks think the market rewards objective “merit” and everyone “deserves” exactly what they get in some cosmic sense. Incidentally, I think this also reveals what Sowell writes about in his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice. There is also a Nietzschean ressentiment at play, as in “we don’t like what the market rewards, we want to go reward the thing that we find more valuable, let’s burn down this evil system!”
Excellent perspective. Thanks for this post. I think the word "merit" is part of the problem we have distinguishing between moral worth and everything else.
An everything-else-tocracy probably doesn't cut it.
This was the first thing i read this morning, and it got me off to a good start to my day.
Consider this statement: "benefits are doled out in perfect proportion to the extent that a person exhibits M."
It demonstrates an important difference in worldview that might correlate with left/right politics but matters regardless.
In a capitalist society, benefits aren't *doled out* according to anything, merit or otherwise. Benefits are generated and traded, and those who produce more have more. (All this is of theoretical, of course.) People don't get rich because they are have more M, or are more moral, or more devoted to Brad, or even because they are smarter. They get rich because they produce something other people want.
Bezos is the extreme example today, of course: he's not rich because he has more merit, he's rich because he made something everybody uses.
Of course there are counterexamples, where 'production' must be taken with a grain of salt. Do Wall St traders actually 'produce' anything? Perhaps not.
Some places do dole things out: university grants, etc. And of course measuring how much someone produces in the context of a corporation or government agency or whatever is hard, so we often end up measuring something like merit or intelligence instead, either as a proxy or because that particular institution no longer cares about actual production.
Moreover, it's often true that the wealthy are wealthy because of their parents, either through an explicit inheritance or an implicit one, like a fancy education or connections within a particular business or something.
So we shouldn't just say that the rich certainly deserve to be. But the idea that the way one gets stuff is by demonstrating one's merit is certainly not the basis for a capitalist society.
The question is: are you rewarded for what you are, or for the things that you do.
I feel like I just read Kant, updated for the modern age. Very interesting thoughts.
The part about “our metrics are shitty, but we use them anyway because what else could you do?” reminded me of this piece by James Fallows, tracking the history of metrics and credentials, written in 1985, but truly evergreen:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1985/12/the-case-against-credentialism/308286/
Each game, each discipline has its own rules to define worth. If a middle school student takes a math test, the higher score has higher worth. If we are talking about PE, jumping higher or running faster has more worth. Art and music, same thing: more beautiful is better. In business, more profit is good, employee and customer satisfaction are important too. We know how merit works. The problem is that we are trying very hard to pretend that we do not.
I think we need a TV writer-comedian’s analysis of the Ted Lasso craze. I simply do not get it.
>>There’s a sense that when we pick someone for a desirable job or a spot in a prestigious school, we’re deciding that that person is superior.
Which really didn't cause much resentment on either side back when the good colleges, elite professional associations and exclusive clubs all practiced some form of ritual hazing.
I believe meritocracy is useful in specific, narrow, easily observable and easily measured situations. Think a job. Even then, outside influences beyond someone’s control can interfere with accurate assessments.
In a broad sense, meritocracy is not reasonable because there would be far too many variables to identify and measure. It’s like the perfect plan or contract: it’s simply too difficult to identify every variability up front.
I would argue that there is a difference between something being meritocratic and something being fair. I did a grid analysis of that concept here, which may be of some use to you in your next article on the topic. (or not! :) )
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/real-talk-about-meritocracy?s=w
I think the concept you take down in this piece is much stronger than what most people mean by "meritocracy". When I for one use that word, I'm talking about things like jobs and scholarships going to those who are best qualified. It doesn't have to be based on a single "stat", be it intelligence or whatever else, and it doesn't apply to any part of life except that job or scholarship.
I'm interested to see where this goes, though. (And as both a Catholic and a mathematician, I love the idea of "useful" and "meaningful" being independent qualities.)