[djajshgsjja]

Suppose:

1. There exist some quality “merit” with a random uniform distribution across the population.

2. Some systems used to measure merit are biased for and against different subgroups of the population.

3. People obtain power and wealth based these biased measurements.

4. Subgroups with more power and wealth expend resources optimizing their performance on the tests, further biasing the results.

5. The winners in this system label it a “meritocracy”.

This story rings true to me. That doesn’t necessarily mean merit-based systems are all bad. They can still provide lots of opportunity to the poor who have enough aptitude they can still beat the test despite the bias. Other systems may have worse problems.

In practice, organizations like Mozilla still have a competitive merit-based hiring process even if they say they oppose meritocracy. They might attempt to apply a correction to unbias the merit measurement. Getting rid of the trappings of meritocracy might make it a more welcoming place to work for everyone and raise the total merit (even if there’s no way to measure it).

[rich-w-big-ego]

Why don't you come out and say what you really mean? djajshgsjja is attempting to justify a handicap against the successful subgroups. But what amount of handicap should there be? In what measure should the handicap apply? How can you apply any sort of handicap without a massive bureaucratic intervention, with swaths of each organisation dedicated to applying handicaps? Ah, but the bureaucratic intervention is the linchpin. We arrive at the diversity and equity offices in Universities across North America. We arrive at the Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion by Law Society of Ontario that requires every law firm of 10 or greater to complete an annual report about how they are advancing the goals of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are parts of an ideology based on absolutely no science or literature, and ignores the deadly catastrophes of the 20th century whose millions of dead were preceded by cutting off the successful subgroups at the knees.

[tomp]

So what you’re basically saying is, meritocracy is awesome, we just need to measure “merit” better.