[tomxor]

> Meritocracy is a fallacious idea – a convenient lie told to those whose lack of wealth or social class leaves them at a distinct disadvantage.

This is a bit oversimplified. Meritocracy is not an outright fallacious idea, but depending on the subject, there is a certain threshold of opportunity above which it becomes the dominant force, and for many that threshold is out of reach.

For instance, learning to program is fairly "accessible" today, but even it has certain minimum requirements, a threshold of opportunity above which the playground becomes more equal: You need a computer, internet access, enough free time... eventually you need a job. The one that really generalises against meritocracy is "you need free time", because most of the world is fighting for their next paycheck and are not in a position to attempt to improve their life. I believe this is what the author is getting at, wealth and "social class" are just an indirect way of saying "the freedom to pursue more opportunities".

However throwing out meritocracy completely is not the solution to this, if replaced with ideas revolving around inclusivity and equality alone it will fall apart - meritocracy is part of equality, it's just not all of it, it doesn't automatically solve equal opportunity... And this is where I think the author is missing the point: the world, society, government does little to ensure equal opportunity - This is the point squid game is making, everyone starts equal unlike reality.

[kiba]

Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people, really? Merit reward merits. It's advantage compounding on advantage, whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win, then you can then plow that back into winning more.

A meritocracy is inherently a society of elite. It is not egalitarian.

[tomxor]

> whether that's luck, gene, talent, or just good environments and good parents. You win

You are conflating the very two things i am trying to distinguish here... luck, good environment, good parents are all opportunities.

Talent is something you earn with hard work, passion, effort, and yes is compounded and encouraged by merit, but can only do so given the opportunity. If society does not reward these things it falls apart, if a business does not reward these things, poorly qualified people end up making things, passionate people end up demotivated and stop improving, dispassionate or incompetent people produce rubbish without improving, nothing good comes out of this.

Many people suggest the merit is all that's needed, and that's not true, you need both. Honest insightful and successful people recognise how important opportunity was in their success, and when the world is viewed with this perspective you realise meritocracy is not enough - but being insufficient does not automatically make it bad.

[edit]

for clarity, I more delicately rephrased the part the parent quoted before they posted their reply, but I did say that:

> Meritocracy is a friend of disadvantaged people

[Jensson]

> Many people suggest the merit is all that's needed, and that's not true, you need both. Honest insightful and successful people recognise how important opportunity was in their success, and when the world is viewed with this perspective you realise meritocracy is not enough

The whole point of meritocracy is to give opportunity to those with talent. If you think that is what we need to do, then you are pro meritocracy, that is its main strength. The opposite of meritocracy is nepotism where opportunity goes to the friends and family of those in power.

[kiba]

The whole point of meritocracy is to give opportunity to those with talent. If you think that is what we need to do, then you are pro meritocracy, that is its main strength. The opposite of meritocracy is nepotism where opportunity goes to the friends and family of those in power.

If you have two world class mathematicians as parents with connections to a network of the world greatest mathematicians, then chance are you will receive world class mathematics education.

If you have the correct gene that confers even higher IQ, then of course, you will do even better.

The idea who your parents are don't matter when selecting purely by ability is a farce. Of course they matter.

[sershe]

Even accepting that there's no moral difference between those scenarios of "parents mattering" (which I do not, but that is a separate argument), in one system someone becoming say a doctor depends more on their parents giving them an "IQ gene", instilling good work habits, and giving them access to good medical education. In the other, non-meritocratic system, it depends more on parents having power and connections. One of these still produces outcomes that are way better.

[hnbad]

Meritocracy is a fallacious idea exactly because it ignores social context. It's the equivalent of talking about spherical cows. Meritocracy not only assumes you can judge merit perfectly and that merit is expressed perfectly, but also that it is observed and rewarded perfectly. None of these is true and none of this can be true in any human society.

It's a lot like trying to reason about society as a network of perfectly rational actors making optimal decisions. The problem is not only imperfect knowledge and flawed decision making but personal biases on all sides, and not all of these biases are undesirable (unless you are looking for an optimum devoid of all externalities).

E.g. you could argue that insufficient risk taking is a failure to execute on your potential merit, but you may be risk averse because you lack a social safety net (e.g. wealthy parents) or because you have vulnerable dependents (e.g. a sick or disabled spouse, parent or child).

Meritocracy only works on an abstraction of what people are, but people can't be that simply because they're human animals with emotions, desires and needs. And this doesn't even go into undesirable biases like (unconscious) racism or sexism.

--

Spoilers ahead:

That said, where a lot of surface level readings of the squid game (the game in the show) fail is that they take the Frontman at face value. The game is decidedly not meritocratic. To start with, the games are very much not a level playing field as the participants carry over advantages and disadvantages from their life outside the game (e.g. poor health, physical strength, age, etc). The games also intentionally disrupt any attempts at cooperation (e.g. by alternating between picking teams and picking opponents without making it clear which is which). Several participants even outright cheat or are aided by staff. And the penultimate game not only replaces any pretense of skill with pure chance but also changes the rules when one participant reveals a relevant skill. But more importantly than anything else, one of the participants is revealed to actually be the person who invented the game and participates freely, even beating (killing) other participants, but is spared the consequences (execution).

Not only is the society outside the game shown to be unjust and impact the pretense of meritocracy within the game, the Frontman actively sabotages a meritocratic victory in one of the games for the entertainment of the VIPs and one participant is exempt from all consequences because his wealth and status allows him to participate on his own terms and manipulate the other participants, skewing the results.

The participants don't volunteer to come back because the game is meritocratic, they come back because they think they have a chance. In fact ultimately the victor is a gambler who tried to win by uniting some of the weakest participants (though punished by having to cheat the seemingly most vulnerable person in order to survive), and a ruthless tactician willing to sacrifice everyone to get ahead but ultimately sacrificing himself out of regret. Heck, after weeding out most of the survivors in a blatant game of chance, one of the three finalists is gravely wounded (and consequently murdered) by sheer bad luck and we know that at least of the participants that made it to the game of chance got there by actively cheating their opponents (and at least one was "gifted" their place by another participant sacrificing themselves voluntarily).

If anything, the game demonstrates an environment intentionally set up to disrupt any attempt at solidarity (tho this idea was portrayed much more explicitly in The Platform) while blaming the individual for their failure in a system designed to prevent their success.

[tomxor]

> Meritocracy is a fallacious idea exactly because it ignores social context.

This is just a war of semantics: I'm using it as a distinct abstract idea, you are implying it must be an all encompassing model of society. As an analogy, would you say we should ban seatbelts because they ignore the fact that some people drink and drive and still cause death and destruction despite seatbelts?

Literally all i'm saying is that meritocracy is a part of equality just like seatbelts are a part of safety, and not a panacea... to be accompanied by other mechanisms.

Can you imagine a world where we do not reward people for improving themselves and becoming more useful? How is that not part of equality.

[kiba]

Meritocracy is a fallacious idea exactly because it ignores social context. It's the equivalent of talking about spherical cows. Meritocracy not only assumes you can judge merit perfectly and that merit is expressed perfectly, but also that it is observed and rewarded perfectly. None of these is true and none of this can be true in any human society.

Meritocracy is a form of elitism, perfect ability to select by merit or not. We would have end up with a moneyed elite either way.