[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.