I have noticed a strong undercurrent among some on HN that has bought into the anti-work movement that seems to have a very high overlap with anti-capitalist/communist/socialist crowd (and also, I suspect, a very poor grasp of history and economics).
This is pure garbage. Please suggest an alternative to "The Myth." I see two immediate problems with any alternative that far out-weigh its purported benefits. (1) Any solution you propose involves a government imposing its will on the people, 'reallocating' their wealth, and using that loot to pick and choose the winners. (2) Any alternative to "The Myth" necessarily deprives people of ownership of their future -- you create more victims. When people believe they have no control over their destiny, they fall prey to nihilism. Thanks to rhetoric like yours coming from BLM, Antifa, and the rest of the progressive ilk, you only need to look at the news to see how well a nihilistic society works.
A false belief that we we have control over our destinies and ignoring the vast amount of luck is how we end up with increasing suicide rates. It also leads to poor outcomes because we can blame simply blame the poor performers rather than examine the systems. Why adjust the system when we can blame it on personal failure for free.
You can turn that right around though- Why improve yourself when you can just blame the system? Nature, nurture, free will, and pure luck all have a role to play. Sometimes a system is dysfunctional, sometimes a person within that system is dysfunctional- no matter what there's always a tendency to avoid personal responsibility when things don't go well (for all parties involved, the system included)
People improve themselves for reasons beyond monetary gain, therefore money is not the sole motivating force.
Your belief that "there's always a tendency to avoid personal responsibility when things don't go well' is your personal opinion and says more about your personal view of the world. If this is true, why the increase in suicide, depression, anxiety. Why are American's the most stressed out population?
Ignoring the affects of American's economic system and the role it plays in our growing mental health issues is itself not mentally healthy. Blaming each of the millions of individuals for not thriving for personal failings in a system we control is sociopathic.
> Your belief that "there's always a tendency to avoid personal responsibility when things don't go well' is your personal opinion and says more about your personal view of the world. If this is true, why the increase in suicide, depression, anxiety. Why are American's the most stressed out population?
Not wanting to take responsibility for problems is human nature, and I'd say your denial of it 'says more about your personal view of the world'. Its comforting to blame others when things go wrong so we often do, whether its justified or not. I don't see whats so controversial about that observation.
As for stress in America, there are as many reasons for it as there are Americans. Just because there is an increase in 'suicide, depression, anxiety' doesn't mean you should uncritically ascribe it all to whatever your pet political issue happens to be
> Ignoring the affects of American's economic system and the role it plays in our growing mental health issues is itself not mentally healthy. Blaming each of the millions of individuals for not thriving for personal failings in a system we control is sociopathic.
I never implied I was ignoring the issues with American economics, I'm just trying not to deal in absolutes and blame it all on either the system or the individuals within it- a reasonable take would be to blame the system for its shortcomings and the individuals for theirs, not to maginify or ignore one or the other.
One could easily argue that your mindset is just as mentally debilitating as the one you criticize- IE. the removal of personal agency by blaming the system encourages feelings of helplessness- 'There's no point in trying to improve my lot in life because the system will always keep me down', causing people to miss out on opportunities they'd otherwise take advantage of, keeping them down and increasing their feelings of 'depression and anxiety'
There are ultimately a lot of assumptions here that amount to you really, really sitting on the fence super hard.
You assume that blaming the system encourages helplessness, I argue blaming the system encourages people to try and change the system. For example, the medical system in America is the reason why my family was poor. Therefore, I firmly believe the medical system should be torn down and replaced with something better. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.
You say fence-sitting, I say moderate. Anyways, you're absolutely right that 'The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.' My argument is that principle applies for both the system and the individual, not just one or the other. Blaming the system encourages systemic change, but blaming the individual can encourage personal change. It depends on the situation. Often both are at fault to different degrees and just blame each other, never acknowledging their own faults.
To your point, sometimes the system really is a rotten edifice of garbage that needs to be eradicated and rebuilt. I have my own experiences with the american medical system and I'm with you there completely. I don't think any amount of personal merit is going to help you navigate that particular system, its fundamentally broken. So yes the blame there is justified, and hopefully that blame does encourage it to change.
On the other hand, to give a topical example- Let's say Jimmy weighs 600 lbs and never exercised a day in his life, and now he's facing an absurd medical bill for his heart surgery. There's plenty of blame to go around there, there are certainly some systemic factors at play (not the least of which being the medical system taking advantage of him), but to completely absolve Jimmy of personal responsibility for his poor choices and just blame the system is unhealthy, and does encourage a sense of individual helplessness. Yes the system should be blamed and changed for all the things it did wrong, but so should Jimmy
The point is that blame should be assigned where its deserved in the degree that it's deserved, but often the individualists will just blame the individual and the collectivists will blame the system, with no nuance in between
Intelligence and who your parents are, are certainly the luck of the draw. But, why are hard working and industrious people overrepresented amongst the “lucky”? There’s plenty of evidence that merely being lucky doesn’t make you hard working so it would seem that being hardworking and industrious tends to allow you to take advantage of the luck that comes your way.
It's not all or nothing. You can acknowledge that meritocracy is heavily exaggerated while still believing people have a significant level of control over their own lives.
I'm a huge critic of a lot of uses of "meritocracy" as a sole guide in how things are or should be, but this attack on it still feels lacking. Would be akin to my talking about "the myth of good people", because there have always been bad people. Or because the "good people" we look towards were not perfectly "good" in all ways.
It seems it is still very fair that the US approached an ideal meritocracy far more so than many of the other nations that could be looked towards. Is that not at all the case?
A lot of the annoyance in SV for this being a "myth" is it easily turns into "the myth of individual achievement." That is, folks see it as an argument to show why individuals are not worthy of the praise they may or may not get.
I think it is very fair to argue against the idea that there are perfect meritocracies. But... there are few perfect anythings? To what end does that argument go?
Put differently, the dream of a meritocracy is far more appealing as an ideal than the vast majority of ideas that have been competed with it.
To directly address the rhetoric of the article. The concern at the end of "It will be no small task to right this ship, and to refit it to more closely resemble the vessel of opportunity we aspire to." But, the entire point of the success of the US system is that we do, in fact, have the best chance at getting to this ideal over anyone else. And we have had our best successes not be replacing older ways, but by incorporating them into what we try next.
We more closely resemble that aspiration today than we ever have in the past. And yet we have far more calls for ceasing our progress in the name of past mistakes than ever in our past, too. This could be fine, as we also have far more capability today than ever in the past. But it is tiresome to hear wave after wave of why the successes we have, are somehow not actually successes at all.
It’s known that China, Russia, and their Allie’s promote anti-western content to steer discussion or drown out engagement through the use of bot networks upvoting and downvoting content across social media. I don’t know to what extent, but if I had to guess it’s pretty significant. Is that happening here? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Realistically, the game was always played by the wealthy and the few that were lucky enough to be at the right place and the right time. Survivorship bias is almost inescapable as the mega successes crowd out all of the other failures and attempts.
To use myself as an example: My family was poor and my father passed away when I was young. A wrongful death suit was the sole reason why I had a modest college fund. That fund was the reason why I was able to go to college and become a software engineer and escape poverty. I still had to sacrifice my personal health in many ways to make that money last, as a large amount of it went to supporting my parents.
Multiple steps of the path that lead me today could've failed. My personal health sacrifice very literally could've killed me given the stuff I put off, I could've gotten injured, my mother could've needed more medical support. There's so many dice rolls that can put you on the path to success or failure in America and a lot of people don't even see them, or are lucky enough to not have to make those rolls in the first place. In every step I took there's a shadow of me whose roll failed.
In many senses I'm somewhat thankful of that poverty I went through because it keeps me grounded. But also that poverty and system that created it is a construct of over a century of the 'American Exceptionalism' mythos. And I didn't even have to experience the worst of it.
I get the impression reading articles like this that the authors take exception not only to the 'myth' of meritocracy in regards to its misrepresentation in political rhetoric in the past couple centuries, but to the idea of meritocracy itself. There is an underlying animosity towards the very concept that makes me think the idea of any one person being better than another in any regard is what truly makes the author uncomfortable, and motivates them to try deconstructing the entire idea of meritocracy on the basis of discrimination (as opposed to just pointing out some historically unfair applications of it)
My theory is that Americans struggle with this topic because of the distinct lack of socialist (for lack of a better word) policies.
If your society has a rigorous social safety net that essentially prevents homelessness and deep poverty, you can still have meritocracy in how the upper-middle class income is distributed, and still retain a good conscience.
If you have to pass rows upon rows of homeless people on the way to your six-figure-salary job, you need to either get rid of you conscience on behalf of those people, or be deeply critical of the system.
I love how people act like Meritocracy is oppressive, or something like that mertiocracy is as simple as this.
You have a choice of two surgeons to operate on you for a rare and risky surgery. One has 80% of his patients die on the operating table the other has 10% of his patients die on the operating table. Which one are you going to choose? That's meritocracy
Another example, you need to hire a carpenter. Both your neighbors recently had to hire a carpenter. The neighbor on the right hired a carpenter that showed up late, overcharged, and did shoddy work that is already coming undone. The neighbor on the other side hired a carpenter that was punctual, did good work and finished ahead of schedule. Which carpenter are you going to choose? Congratulations you're reinforcing the "Myth" of meritocracy.
This article is worthless. It's just another made up 'thing' to prop up some other 'thing'. It's just more noise, and we already have a lot of that. It's also got so many holes that it looks like someone used it for target practice.
i prefer meritocracy to anything else. it may not be perfect, but talk is cheap, world is filled with people on bullshit jobs where they do nothing. there are people that push science, human achievements and create new things we did not have before.
if you think you have better, create a company, apply your "rules" there and let's see how it goes.
me, seeing that POS article you linked, i'm just gonna move my left hand towards my popcorn.
33 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 75.4 ms ] threadYour belief that "there's always a tendency to avoid personal responsibility when things don't go well' is your personal opinion and says more about your personal view of the world. If this is true, why the increase in suicide, depression, anxiety. Why are American's the most stressed out population?
Ignoring the affects of American's economic system and the role it plays in our growing mental health issues is itself not mentally healthy. Blaming each of the millions of individuals for not thriving for personal failings in a system we control is sociopathic.
Not wanting to take responsibility for problems is human nature, and I'd say your denial of it 'says more about your personal view of the world'. Its comforting to blame others when things go wrong so we often do, whether its justified or not. I don't see whats so controversial about that observation.
As for stress in America, there are as many reasons for it as there are Americans. Just because there is an increase in 'suicide, depression, anxiety' doesn't mean you should uncritically ascribe it all to whatever your pet political issue happens to be
> Ignoring the affects of American's economic system and the role it plays in our growing mental health issues is itself not mentally healthy. Blaming each of the millions of individuals for not thriving for personal failings in a system we control is sociopathic.
I never implied I was ignoring the issues with American economics, I'm just trying not to deal in absolutes and blame it all on either the system or the individuals within it- a reasonable take would be to blame the system for its shortcomings and the individuals for theirs, not to maginify or ignore one or the other.
One could easily argue that your mindset is just as mentally debilitating as the one you criticize- IE. the removal of personal agency by blaming the system encourages feelings of helplessness- 'There's no point in trying to improve my lot in life because the system will always keep me down', causing people to miss out on opportunities they'd otherwise take advantage of, keeping them down and increasing their feelings of 'depression and anxiety'
You assume that blaming the system encourages helplessness, I argue blaming the system encourages people to try and change the system. For example, the medical system in America is the reason why my family was poor. Therefore, I firmly believe the medical system should be torn down and replaced with something better. The first step to fixing a problem is admitting that there is a problem.
To your point, sometimes the system really is a rotten edifice of garbage that needs to be eradicated and rebuilt. I have my own experiences with the american medical system and I'm with you there completely. I don't think any amount of personal merit is going to help you navigate that particular system, its fundamentally broken. So yes the blame there is justified, and hopefully that blame does encourage it to change.
On the other hand, to give a topical example- Let's say Jimmy weighs 600 lbs and never exercised a day in his life, and now he's facing an absurd medical bill for his heart surgery. There's plenty of blame to go around there, there are certainly some systemic factors at play (not the least of which being the medical system taking advantage of him), but to completely absolve Jimmy of personal responsibility for his poor choices and just blame the system is unhealthy, and does encourage a sense of individual helplessness. Yes the system should be blamed and changed for all the things it did wrong, but so should Jimmy
The point is that blame should be assigned where its deserved in the degree that it's deserved, but often the individualists will just blame the individual and the collectivists will blame the system, with no nuance in between
This seems kind of counterintuitive. If anything, a belief in agency gives people a hope for something better
Intelligence and who your parents are, are certainly the luck of the draw. But, why are hard working and industrious people overrepresented amongst the “lucky”? There’s plenty of evidence that merely being lucky doesn’t make you hard working so it would seem that being hardworking and industrious tends to allow you to take advantage of the luck that comes your way.
Read some Zinn.
https://www.howardzinn.org/collection/peoples-history/
You're welcome.
It seems it is still very fair that the US approached an ideal meritocracy far more so than many of the other nations that could be looked towards. Is that not at all the case?
I think it is very fair to argue against the idea that there are perfect meritocracies. But... there are few perfect anythings? To what end does that argument go?
Put differently, the dream of a meritocracy is far more appealing as an ideal than the vast majority of ideas that have been competed with it.
To directly address the rhetoric of the article. The concern at the end of "It will be no small task to right this ship, and to refit it to more closely resemble the vessel of opportunity we aspire to." But, the entire point of the success of the US system is that we do, in fact, have the best chance at getting to this ideal over anyone else. And we have had our best successes not be replacing older ways, but by incorporating them into what we try next.
We more closely resemble that aspiration today than we ever have in the past. And yet we have far more calls for ceasing our progress in the name of past mistakes than ever in our past, too. This could be fine, as we also have far more capability today than ever in the past. But it is tiresome to hear wave after wave of why the successes we have, are somehow not actually successes at all.
Meritocracy fantasy seems to play a large role in libertarian dogma.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/20/technology/ch...
To use myself as an example: My family was poor and my father passed away when I was young. A wrongful death suit was the sole reason why I had a modest college fund. That fund was the reason why I was able to go to college and become a software engineer and escape poverty. I still had to sacrifice my personal health in many ways to make that money last, as a large amount of it went to supporting my parents.
Multiple steps of the path that lead me today could've failed. My personal health sacrifice very literally could've killed me given the stuff I put off, I could've gotten injured, my mother could've needed more medical support. There's so many dice rolls that can put you on the path to success or failure in America and a lot of people don't even see them, or are lucky enough to not have to make those rolls in the first place. In every step I took there's a shadow of me whose roll failed.
In many senses I'm somewhat thankful of that poverty I went through because it keeps me grounded. But also that poverty and system that created it is a construct of over a century of the 'American Exceptionalism' mythos. And I didn't even have to experience the worst of it.
If your society has a rigorous social safety net that essentially prevents homelessness and deep poverty, you can still have meritocracy in how the upper-middle class income is distributed, and still retain a good conscience.
If you have to pass rows upon rows of homeless people on the way to your six-figure-salary job, you need to either get rid of you conscience on behalf of those people, or be deeply critical of the system.
You have a choice of two surgeons to operate on you for a rare and risky surgery. One has 80% of his patients die on the operating table the other has 10% of his patients die on the operating table. Which one are you going to choose? That's meritocracy
Another example, you need to hire a carpenter. Both your neighbors recently had to hire a carpenter. The neighbor on the right hired a carpenter that showed up late, overcharged, and did shoddy work that is already coming undone. The neighbor on the other side hired a carpenter that was punctual, did good work and finished ahead of schedule. Which carpenter are you going to choose? Congratulations you're reinforcing the "Myth" of meritocracy.
Where does it end? What is the end game? What is the definition of done when your career depends on discussing such topics?
if you think you have better, create a company, apply your "rules" there and let's see how it goes.
me, seeing that POS article you linked, i'm just gonna move my left hand towards my popcorn.