Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Two Problems with Meritocracy
Meritocracy has two major problems. The “merit” part and the “-ocracy” part.
Most people unwittingly use “merit” to conflate two different ideas. While “merit” can be used to denote any admirable quality, “merit” is also typically opposed to “luck” — that is, “merit” is what you “deserve” after luck is factored out of the equation.
That explains why people say, “He got ahead by luck, not merit,” or “I got ahead by merit, not luck.”
To oppose “merit” and “luck” in this way is truly ridiculous when you think about it. Many of our admirable qualities are windfalls we reap by accident of birth or circumstance. Yet opposing “merit” and “luck” in this way also seems to be something humans are innately wired to do.
Given the way most people contrast “merit” with “luck”, it’s not surprising that many people conclude that meritocracy – or rule by merit – must involve factoring “luck” out of the equation. I don’t know about you, but most of my leftist friends aren’t anti-meritocracy. Rather, their pro-meritocratic sentiments prompt them to call for government intervention in order to factor out the role that luck plays in shaping people’s lives, so that people are rewarded only for what they “deserve” and not for unearned “privileges”.
But factoring luck out of the equation is impossible – and also stupid, since another name for luck (or at least good luck) is “opportunity.”
If you really believe in an opportunity society, then you cannot honestly believe that luck can’t or shouldn’t play a role in people’s success. Luck is opportunity. Fortunately, acknowledging the substantial role luck plays in success isn’t the same as claiming that hard work plays a negligible role. Indeed, since hard work is under our control and luck isn’t, it’s only prudent to bank on hard work in hopes that when good luck comes our way, we’ll be ready for it.
Many of our raw talents – a high IQ, a musical ear, a naturally beautiful face, or innate physical prowess – are traits we didn’t choose to have. We cannot claim to have “deserved” them merely because we were lucky enough to be born with them. They are not achievements in themselves. Rather, they’re merely opportunities, different from many other opportunities, perhaps, in that we tend to carry them around with us wherever we go, but still only opportunities. That said, opportunities are wonderful. As conservatives, we should neither begrudge people their opportunities nor mistake opportunity for “deserved” achievement. Rather, we should celebrate opportunity and be glad to see people benefit from it.
Moreover, conservatives shouldn’t be ashamed to admit the role luck has played in their success – because there’s nothing shameful about it. There’s nothing shameful about having opportunities. Indeed, the synergy between hard work and luck is a beautiful thing: seizing the opportunities that happen to come your way and working hard to make the most of them tends to increase the likelihood of future opportunities – future good fortune – which in turn gives you more motivation to work hard. This is awesome! People who insist, “Oh no, I succeeded purely on my merits, luck had nothing to do with it,” unwittingly denigrate the value of opportunity — which is sad.
So much for the problem of “merit”. The other problem with “meritocracy” is “-ocracy”. As genferei astutely pointed out in Sal’s thread, conflating a society that rewards achievement with a society that gives high achievers the right to rule others is bizarre, sloppy thinking and also dangerous. Meritocracies throughout history have typically been heavy on civil-service examinations: excellence on an exam gave some people a right to rule others. Obviously, this isn’t what most conservatives have in mind when they advocate “meritocracy.” Nonetheless, it’s a commonsense and historically valid interpretation of the term. Moreover, “rule by highly-certified civil servants” is what many liberals have in mind when they talk about “meritocracy.” And, to be honest, given the word’s literal and historical sense, I think the liberals have a more defensible definition of it than we do.
Our opportunity society does not have to be a meritocracy to be worthwhile. It does not have to neatly separate the “wheat” of humanity from the human “chaff.” It does not have to rank people according to some univocal scale of success. Rather, an open, opportunity-oriented society simply helps people to specialize in something they happen to be good at, whether or not they’ve “earned” that talent and whether or not that talent is “outstanding” in the larger scheme of things.
We don’t need to defend meritocracy at all. Only opportunity.
Published in General
The term merit in the real world no longer even denotes the term “deserve.” I choose to re-invent the definition of the word as something “earned.”
I just read “The Tyranny of Experts” which went into this. Smart people are often dumb. A better word would be unwise. They don’t get the basics. They will “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel”.
It all depends how the word is used. Who defines what “merit” is? Is it from knowledge or experience? Do stupid people make the tests?
Even lucky people have to be smart enough to capitalize on opportunities. People say, “You make your own luck.” I say, “A lot of people make their own misfortune.” They steal defeat from the jaws of victory. (Disclaimer: I am not talking about the Cubs or the Mets.)
John,
I appreciated your honesty of how your business succeeded because it came out at the right time. In technology this is especially true. Of course it was not only luck your ignorance had its place. ;)
My main objection to the word “meritocracy” is it’s such a mouthful.
So I boil it down to this: God deals the cards; we play the hand.
The great philosopher and NBA player Larry Bird once said ” the more I practice the luckier I get” after being accused of making lucky shots.
As I mentioned, there’s a synergy between luck ( including raw talent) and hard work. You do make some of your own luck, Not all of it, though.
I’m in rehearsal, and will check in later.
Merit is a shorthand term for the combination of ability and effort which tends to lead to achievement. I think you set up a bit of a strawman by characterizing merit as being opposed to luck. I don’t think anyone disputes that luck plays a role in virtually every aspect of human endeavor. I certainly don’t.
Is an indisputable fact that people are not all equal. You’re absolutely right that inequality is often the product of chance. The concept of merit, in the context of this discussion, is a distinction between any qualities which are intrinsic to a person and those which are extrinsic. Intelligence, musical and athletic prowess, work ethic, and initiative are all qualities intrinsic to a person. Inherited wealth, education, and social standing extrinsic. You’re right that many intrinsic qualities are a product of luck, but that is largely beside the point. Intrinsic qualities make us who we are. If you are trying to evaluate a person it doesn’t really matter how he came to be who he is. Whether LeBron James “deserved” his exceptional athletic ability is irrelevant in assessing how good a basketball player he is.
I’m traveling at the moment, so my response on the “-ocracy” argument will probably not be forthcoming until tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll be waiting with baited breath.
Luck is not a dirty word. I think George Washington preferred the word “providence”. A lot of good things happen because people are lucky. This also makes life fun. You work hard but it is dumb luck that makes success in business and marriage at times. By thinking this way you laugh it off.
People who think they can make it without providence don’t understand how many variables there are. You can only control so much. If only life were more of a closed system we would have a chance.
Tim Duncan > LeBron James
Bated breath. Yet another failing of iPhone dictation.
Bird is a neighbor; I know he practices what he preaches in his retired role as runner, golfer, and charitable fund raiser extraordinaire. He doesn’t choose to undertake anything unless he can do it better than anyone else. :)
I generally argue luck versus skill with respect to games. Applies to life as well, if you figure that ‘skill’ includes things like hard work.
Everyone has good luck, everyone has bad luck. Skill consists in taking advantage of the opportunities luck brings you, seeing opportunities where other people don’t, mitigating the effects of bad luck and, whenever possible, positioning yourself such that you can take advantage of any good luck which may or may not come your way.
Luck doesn’t get you to the top alone. We all know where lottery winners end up five, ten years down the road. You do need good luck to get yourself to the top, but you also need the skill. It is entirely proper to praise this form of merit. And it’s not appropriate to whine about bad luck preventing your rise. Sometimes it’s bad luck and there’s nothing you can do about it, but most of us at least have a shot if we know how to take it.
What you merit is what you deserve. Having a natural aptitude is important, but hard work is more so. Luck is not to be discounted, but luck alone can only take you so far.
Nobody gave me an education: I took it. I dunned professors, bullyragged teaching assistants, slept on the floor of the microcomputer lab so I wouldn’t miss my time on the bench, burnt the midnight oil (and at least one memory card – whoops) and in general kept at it until I had gotten what I came for.
I’m still depressurizing from a very productive day. I tracked down and killed a bug that I first detected about three weeks ago. A genius wouldn’t have needed so much time. Unfortunately, there weren’t any geniuses available.
Not any more of a strawman than the one many people set up in their own minds – or at least apparently set up, given the way they talk.
I didn’t think you did.
I almost did at one point. Or rather, I thought that stoic endurance ought to be equal to any amount of bad luck. Even had up on my wall, “What doesn’t kill us only makes us stronger.” Stupid, stupid idea. Especially with modern lifesaving medicine, there’s a lot that won’t kill you but will leave you incapacitated indefinitely.
When bad luck does strike, sometimes the answer isn’t to keep trying harder. Sometimes the answer is to cut your losses. “Invictus” is a foolish poem. (It is, however, a poem that keeps on getting read at family funerals for some reason.)
But not everyone has average luck.
Of course it’s not appropriate to whine about bad luck preventing your rise. It’s ill-mannered, ungracious. And usually also ungrateful and inconsiderate to the many who may have had worse luck than you.
That said, people who don’t make reasonable allowances for luck will drive themselves crazy beating themselves up over stuff they have no control over. Sometimes the rational response to a failure ought to be, “Oh, bad luck, I suppose.” Not, “How could I not have overcome that obstacle. Why do I suck so hard?”
Sometimes the problem is the first step. It is not solvable practically. Propel waste time on things they should give up on. That is where a Simon Cowell is good instead of bad in discouraging people. Yul Brenner is the best actor to sell your shampoo. People can follow their dreams but they need to know the odds.
Fixing typos. I couldn’t do it the normal way.
You have every reason to be proud of your hard work. Your admirable work ethic doesn’t demonstrate, though, that luck is only ever the residue of design. Sometimes luck is just luck.
Well…
But that’s Ralph Waldo Emerson. Important as cause and effect is, it’s not like he had the strongest grasp of reality.
His ideas on self-reliance were pretty messed up, too I recall. Not because self-reliance is a bad thing, but because effective self-reliance isn’t as he described it.
Self-reliance isn’t about being an eccentric nonconformist content to “go it alone”. Whatever he says, humans are social animals who prosper by relying on each other (in trade, in families, etc). Effectively self-reliant people aren’t those who eschew reciprocal obligations altogether, but those who reciprocate responsibly so that they’re not moochers.
Granted. I’ve definitely had this discussion with the people who blame themselves too much for situations that they don’t have control over. Even so, I think people generally have more control over their circumstances than they give themselves credit for. Often times, when they throw their hands up and say “It’s all luck!” what they mean is “I’m never dragging myself out of this hole.”
Sure. But how large is the standard deviation?
I got respect for a man who does what he can with what he has, even if he never achieves success however it’s defined. I got very little respect for the sort who fail, blame their bad luck and never try again.
Most certainly, it’s not all luck.
I don’t know what it is about the human mind that wants to conflate luck having a significant role in success with luck being responsible for everything. Nonetheless, the conflation comes so naturally to people that it’s just easier for many to claim either “It’s all luck” or “It’s all effort”, ignoring any combination of the two.
Additionally, people aren’t always good at identifying which circumstances they do have the most control over. (I know I sometimes have trouble with this.) A frantic effort to try to control what’s less under your power at the expense of picking something more under your power not only wastes energy, but is likely to leave you frustrated, feeling as if your efforts don’t really matter – because you picked a way in which they won’t.
I think hard work is wonderful and puts you in a place to capitalize on situations. What I am saying is that sometimes the uncontrollable things swing your way. It can be like magic. And ….. there can be a comedy of errors when everything goes wrong. The Titanic sinks. The opposite is the underdog wins. One thing I know. Life is not fair.
What surprised me is when I read Pele believed winning in soccer required luck. Of course he played and practiced hard but in the end in comes to timing to get the goal in. A little fast or slow and the shot is missed. Life is also irrational. People pick things for the strangest reasons. You might have a lot of skill but no style. Style matters just as much as skill at times.
I was asking myself the same thing. That said, while we can imagine there being an average amount of luck and a variance about that, I doubt we can measure it.
I mean, actuaries undoubtedly know who are the outliers for collecting on their various insurance premiums, but even that doesn’t capture the full scope of human luck, or account for ways in which policyholders voluntarily (though perhaps unconsciously) change their behavior, knowing they’re insured.
On the other hand, blaming yourself when you shouldn’t can also demotivate you from trying again.
For example, perfectionists have a tendency to blame themselves for failure so savagely that they actually inhibit themselves from trying again in the future. They may make an excuse to the outside world of “Oh, it was just bad luck” to save face, but it’s not what they really believe and what they really believe isn’t helping.
What? Oh, nothing, just wanted to point out the irony here….
(Your point is well taken. Can’t really discuss it further without looking like I’m going for subtle barbs after that irony crack.)
Yeah, right? Give me a card game to analyze any day of the week. Or a perfect biography of everyone, so they can analyze the opportunities they took
Sure, but in that case it isn’t just their bad luck which is keeping them down…
Midge, I read your first two sentences and just had to repeatedly pound on the “like” button! (What’s that you say? No “like” button for posts? Oh, I suppose I’ll need to add a content-free comment just to let Midge know how **completely** I agree).
I’m certain the rest of the post is just as good, I’ll go back and read it now. Grin.