Hello all,

Thanks for reading and commenting. Here’s a couple of more thoughts on to add to the discussion:

-Yes, Trump most frequently talks about the “level playing field” with regard to international trade (and in relation to making fun of Christine Blasey-Ford, oddly enough). Now, I agree there is a disanalogy with some of the survey data because he’s saying that in that context meritocracy does not exist, but he is making a moral appeal to the concept. Do you think that the change in context changes the logic of the meritocracy argument?

-I, like Michael Young who popularized the term, think that some form of selection for merit is a reasonable staffing policy in an organization. However, as a justification for the general distribution of wealth and power in the world, it’s an ideological snowjob. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t put skillful people in positions where they’re useful. But “merit” still can’t justify anything like existing inequalities.

-On the relative influence of luck and merit: I believe that talent and effort contribute to success. But they also don’t determine it; luck also plays a major role. If you don’t like the word “luck”, then say “external factors” (birth, education, genetics, coincidence, a good mentor, etc etc). External factors matter a lot, and a lot more than people think (check out Robert Frank’s book which I link to for evidence). Thinking about these external factors helps people to think about the big picture and makes them more open to helping others. Focussing on internal factors instills a nasty sense of personal entitlement and is insulting to those who haven’t achieved a lot of success. So you wind up closer to the truth and less of a jerk if you think more about the effects of internal factors.

Clifton Mark

Written by Clifton Mark