[epgui]

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "meritocracy trap". ie.: believing they are mostly where they are because of ability, worthiness or hard work, rather than mostly luck.

That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

[tharne]

I often really like this community, but I have found people here especially prone to falling to the "no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap". ie.: believing that they are where they are due to vast and well-executed systemic conspiracies rather than mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability.

That's really unfortunate, and results in a lot of non-self-aware political bickering.

[epgui]

The difference between my comment and yours is that the meritocracy trap is a real thing that has been the subject of scholarly works. Also, I speak not from a place of disappointments, but rather from a place of great privilege. I am extremely lucky to be where I am (and yes, I worked hard for it too).

For an overview and references, see:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_meritocracy

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Meritocracy_trap

[twblalock]

You are arguing against a strawman here. Nobody claimed we have a perfect meritocracy.

[epgui]

Nobody claimed this directly, but when you boil down most progressive policies to their naked objective, it comes down to redistribution in one form or another, taking from the rich and lifting everyone (most noticeably lifting the poor).

Most objections to progressive policies boil down to the idea that the more fortunate people deserve what they have, and that redistribution would make less fortunate people not work as hard. In other words, the world is unfair because of "hand-wavy general incentives".

I am aware that second paragraph was not a great steel-man, and there are many variants and nuances of these positions, but generally the implicit assumption is that we have good (I did not say perfect) vertical mobility, when in reality this is not usually the case.

[cee_el123]

user: tharne said

> believing where they are due to well executed systemic conspiracies rather than their mistakes, missteps, or a simple lack of motivation or ability

the implication certainly is that if you don't make mistakes, missteps, work hard and have talent - in other words if you are full of merit - you'll assuredly end up in a good place

sounds like saying we live in a meritocracy

[cee_el123]

"no-dissapointment-in-my-life-is-ever-my-fault trap"

I am one of those people who certainly missed the boat due to my own missteps, mistakes, lack of motivation

But let's talk about those who don't/didn't have the favourable circumstances and opportunities I had/have

Is not being able to afford / be-accepted-for a life changing college degree that person's fault 50% of the time ? is it their parents' fault ? is it the grandparents' fault that the parents weren't better off ? if so ... where does this blame game stop ? at some point govt/society needs to step in and give you a boost regardless of your background

debatably, inheritance & land ownership are well executed systemic conspiracies

mistakes, missteps, lack of motivation, are all fine - but "lack of ability" ? you're arguing against yourself there - if there is such a thing as lack of ability - that's certainly a terrible reason to disqualify a person from having their basic needs met

[jschveibinz]

> if there is such a thing as lack of ability - that’s certainly a terrible reason…

I think this is a good point. Nobody should be disqualified, and there are in fact many programs available to help people achieve their personal best.

Community college is an excellent stepping stone, as are vocational training programs. These are available in some states at a very low cost.

There is self-affirmation in achieving completion of any project, and completion of a training program that enables one to work, to create, to contribute and to develop self-agency is a wonderful thing to do.

[twblalock]

Government is constantly giving people a boost. Need-based grants for college, for example. All sorts of welfare programs. Food stamps. Unemployment insurance. Housing vouchers. Social security and Medicare in retirement.

I’m not sure what kind of society you are arguing against, because it’s not the one we have.

[twblalock]

On the contrary, the view that life outcomes are due to circumstances and luck leads to the denigration of success and competition, abdication of responsibility for one's life choices, and ultimately to really bad economic policy that will make everyone worse off.

We now see this kind of thing even infecting our education system, and it's driving a lot of liberal people to the political right. Look at how Asian American voters acted in the recent San Francisco school board recall, for example. (Also: try telling those people that their success in our society is due to luck, even though they came here in poverty and were discriminated against every step of the way...)

[epgui]

On the contrary, the only way to be successful while not putting in a lot of hard work, is to start off from a very fortunate place.

The idea is that we want the system to be more meritocratic, and that a good place to start is to acknowledge that it's currently not as meritocratic as we tend to think. That's what the "meritocratic trap" is: thinking we have meritocracy when we don't.

[throwabro789]

> even though they came… in poverty

That was always reductionist. Many emigres from China, Japan, Korea, USSR states, the Middle East and India arrived with high education levels. For 20th century society, where war could blow up or seize all your assets, education you ship with you in your brain is wealth that matters. Lots of uneducated people left behind in those countries, they just died or their life sucks now.

[epgui]

Indeed, and access to education is in fact one of the biggest barriers to vertical mobility in the US.

[jschveibinz]

Can you please provide some data to back up this assertion?

It is true that life situations (poverty, lack of parental assistance, safety and security, cultural roadblocks, etc.) are impediments to successful participation in school.

But is “access to education” a a demonstrable problem? Many states offer very low cost or free access to community college higher education.

[epgui]

There's about a million different ways you could do a PhD on this subject: data on this question is not missing.

Some search queries I recommend (just as a starting point):

- "Factors in access to education"

- "Access to education causal"

- "Access to education in America"

- "Access to education world data"

- "Access to education developing countries"

- "Public education and vertical mobility"

- "Relationship between education and innovation"

- "Relationship between education and health"

- "Public health and economic productivity

- "Access to education and marginalized groups"

[jschveibinz]

Here is a website for the ACLU that you can use as a reference. If you believe that any child is being denied access to education, the ACLU is a good place to go to get assistance in getting justice:

https://www.aclu.org/other/your-right-equality-education