Totally agree. Another issue is that retaining incompetent, underperforming, or unpleasant workers makes it hard to retain top talent in fields where such talent is rare--not just sports but science and the arts too. People who have special skills and are extremely good at their jobs will lose patience with a work environment in which incompetent people are coddled, and they will vote with their feet.
Your last paragraph took the air out of my comment.
Baseball gave me a chance to become a major leaguer. As a youth, I was given the coaching and venues to take my career as far as it would go. It was quickly obvious to everyone, including me, that I wasn't going to get very far down this path. But I got the chance and learned the truth. I can't ask for anything more than that.
Back in the 80s, someone wrote that Dennis Connor, of America's Cup fame, might be the greatest sailor in history. I thought, how do they know? Maybe I'm the greatest sailor in history. I was never given the chance to test that.
Baseball let me take the test. I failed, but I got to take the test, and that made moving on much easier.
Meritocracy gets a lot of hate, in part because people are not used to the real thing, they are used to something that's been corrupted by Goodhart's Law. Indeed, many people give the idea of "real meritocracy" as much credence as your average conservative gives the idea of "real communism", as in the saying "real communism has never been tried" - they think it's impossible and a fool's errand due to both technical barriers and human nature.
Baseball is unusual in that (it seems to me) they really do have it down to a science - all the metrics measure what they're supposed to and, taken together, form a virtually complete picture of whether a player is good. There's no credentialism, for example, no Ph.D. in batting theory that can substitute for a high batting average.
As for why meritocracy is unpopular on the left - well, in hiring it's kinda mutex with "equity". You can't give jobs to the most-qualified and still use hiring as welfare for the less-qualified.
You know where meritocracy in baseball is not manifesting? The fucking Bronx. Yet I keep tuning in like some kind of masochist to watch the worst goddamn season the franchise has had since I was in kindergarten.
I'd take the soft cushy workplace over the ruthless meritocracy any day of the week, and it's not just because I was born incredibly privileged. In professional baseball it's considered perfectly normal to sacrifice player's physical and mental wellbeing to ensure that 5% more bases get balled. On the other hand, it's absolutely not worth sacrificing employees' health and wellbeing to ensure that 5% more burgers get flipped.
Appreciate the article, but doesn't it ignore the entire premise of Moneyball, that the way we measure players for the meritocracy is subject to bias? Moneyball worked not because there was no meritocracy before that, but because the way they established merit was flawed, and there was a better way.
In a cutthroat environment like professional sports, there is incentive to find the flaws in the measurements in order to gain an advantage, but in the short run, any given individual being selected based on merit could be measured using improper values.
I'm late to this article but it hits home. I played baseball up through college, where I was an average at best pitcher (DIII, so this barely qualifies as a humblebrag). It became painfully obvious, as in line drives ricocheting off my body, that I was approaching my performance ceiling and the end was near. It was really hard to refocus since playing baseball had been a core part of my daily routine for almost my entire life. But in some ways it was good to be presented with the objective facts. I have a family member who wants to be an actor. I'd say he is the equivalent of a DIII pitcher. He gets minor jobs but struggles to pay bills and also pursue the dream. He's in his 40s now and I wonder about the lack of an objective reality in that pursuit. It seems like slowly pulling off the world's biggest band-aid.
wow. a very difficult choice. perhaps there is a way to measure performance and include interpersonal relationships in a way that uses the objectivity of choice 1 versus the communitarian spirit of choice 2. a ruthless meritocracy distorts group function into superstars and expendables, that doesn't work in fostering group cohesion (society cohesion, not team cohesion). the other extreme leads to complacency but with sufficient group vision, the group can still accomplish great things. why be a dualist, one or other ?
IMO this article presents a strawman version of peoples' arguments against meritocracy. It's not that people want option B - it's that meritocracy never works as intended (except maybe in baseball?).
For example, many companies will use the label of "meritocracy" to cover up a bunch of bad practices. If you got fired, it wasn't because of bias against women, or because you rejected the advances of the boss - it's because you weren't meritorious enough!
Look into the "myth of meritocracy" for way more info on why people actually dislike the idea.
There’s this, and then there’s the New York Mets. Ownership paid the equivalent of the GDP of several small countries to sign two aging pitchers, and here we are: pitchers gone, team record 54-66.
Totally agree. Another issue is that retaining incompetent, underperforming, or unpleasant workers makes it hard to retain top talent in fields where such talent is rare--not just sports but science and the arts too. People who have special skills and are extremely good at their jobs will lose patience with a work environment in which incompetent people are coddled, and they will vote with their feet.
Loved this one Jeff. Just the right mix of sports nerd and politics nerd.
Your last paragraph took the air out of my comment.
Baseball gave me a chance to become a major leaguer. As a youth, I was given the coaching and venues to take my career as far as it would go. It was quickly obvious to everyone, including me, that I wasn't going to get very far down this path. But I got the chance and learned the truth. I can't ask for anything more than that.
Back in the 80s, someone wrote that Dennis Connor, of America's Cup fame, might be the greatest sailor in history. I thought, how do they know? Maybe I'm the greatest sailor in history. I was never given the chance to test that.
Baseball let me take the test. I failed, but I got to take the test, and that made moving on much easier.
“I was as useless as FDR’s tap shoes”...A+ metaphor Jeff, I am dead now
Meritocracy gets a lot of hate, in part because people are not used to the real thing, they are used to something that's been corrupted by Goodhart's Law. Indeed, many people give the idea of "real meritocracy" as much credence as your average conservative gives the idea of "real communism", as in the saying "real communism has never been tried" - they think it's impossible and a fool's errand due to both technical barriers and human nature.
Baseball is unusual in that (it seems to me) they really do have it down to a science - all the metrics measure what they're supposed to and, taken together, form a virtually complete picture of whether a player is good. There's no credentialism, for example, no Ph.D. in batting theory that can substitute for a high batting average.
As for why meritocracy is unpopular on the left - well, in hiring it's kinda mutex with "equity". You can't give jobs to the most-qualified and still use hiring as welfare for the less-qualified.
"I think meritocracy benefits outsiders, and therefore should be considered left-wing."
Why does meritocracy have to be left or right? Can't it be neither?
You know where meritocracy in baseball is not manifesting? The fucking Bronx. Yet I keep tuning in like some kind of masochist to watch the worst goddamn season the franchise has had since I was in kindergarten.
I'd take the soft cushy workplace over the ruthless meritocracy any day of the week, and it's not just because I was born incredibly privileged. In professional baseball it's considered perfectly normal to sacrifice player's physical and mental wellbeing to ensure that 5% more bases get balled. On the other hand, it's absolutely not worth sacrificing employees' health and wellbeing to ensure that 5% more burgers get flipped.
Appreciate the article, but doesn't it ignore the entire premise of Moneyball, that the way we measure players for the meritocracy is subject to bias? Moneyball worked not because there was no meritocracy before that, but because the way they established merit was flawed, and there was a better way.
In a cutthroat environment like professional sports, there is incentive to find the flaws in the measurements in order to gain an advantage, but in the short run, any given individual being selected based on merit could be measured using improper values.
I'm late to this article but it hits home. I played baseball up through college, where I was an average at best pitcher (DIII, so this barely qualifies as a humblebrag). It became painfully obvious, as in line drives ricocheting off my body, that I was approaching my performance ceiling and the end was near. It was really hard to refocus since playing baseball had been a core part of my daily routine for almost my entire life. But in some ways it was good to be presented with the objective facts. I have a family member who wants to be an actor. I'd say he is the equivalent of a DIII pitcher. He gets minor jobs but struggles to pay bills and also pursue the dream. He's in his 40s now and I wonder about the lack of an objective reality in that pursuit. It seems like slowly pulling off the world's biggest band-aid.
wow. a very difficult choice. perhaps there is a way to measure performance and include interpersonal relationships in a way that uses the objectivity of choice 1 versus the communitarian spirit of choice 2. a ruthless meritocracy distorts group function into superstars and expendables, that doesn't work in fostering group cohesion (society cohesion, not team cohesion). the other extreme leads to complacency but with sufficient group vision, the group can still accomplish great things. why be a dualist, one or other ?
IMO this article presents a strawman version of peoples' arguments against meritocracy. It's not that people want option B - it's that meritocracy never works as intended (except maybe in baseball?).
For example, many companies will use the label of "meritocracy" to cover up a bunch of bad practices. If you got fired, it wasn't because of bias against women, or because you rejected the advances of the boss - it's because you weren't meritorious enough!
Look into the "myth of meritocracy" for way more info on why people actually dislike the idea.
I’m an NFL fan. Cutting players is like trimming your toenails-if you don’t do it, it will be a lot uglier when you are finally forced to!
Another terrific column from an underrated talent.
There’s this, and then there’s the New York Mets. Ownership paid the equivalent of the GDP of several small countries to sign two aging pitchers, and here we are: pitchers gone, team record 54-66.