Wednesday, April 15, 2020
The last post got me thinking about one of the golden moral precepts of the age, "Equality of Opportunity", and the related belief in "meritocracy". Few seem to question these; but a Yale Law School professor named David Markovits did so in a commencement speech a few years back:
YouTube video of Markovits speech
He elaborated on it in a book titled "The Meritocracy Trap". His basic claim is that meritocracy and Equality of Opportunity are not producing the benefits that were expected of them. They both aim to replace hereditary aristocracy with a more fair system with a level playing field. The problem that Markovits points out, however, is that elite families have the means to educate their kids -- private schools, summer prep, test-taking schools -- so that they can out-compete kids from poorer families. And, consequently, you have a system that is more-or-less the same as the old aristocracies. He's not claiming that these people don't deserve to be there. He claims they really do have the talent; but it's not talent that was innate -- it was built through years and years of intense schooling; and that this can more than make up for what was missing at birth.
He also makes the point that, not only is meritocracy bad for the poor families who can't afford to give their kids the elite training, but it is also bad for the elites, themselves. All the intensive training causes kids to become miserable; and many elite adults suffer burnout and depression, too.
I partly agree with him, but think that innate abilities matter more than he thinks, and not just intelligence, but also personality, creativity, attention / focus, social skills, and other things. Many of these are very srongly influenced by genetics. This short piece in Aeon Magazine I think makes a better case against meritocracy, and takes into account these other "luck" components (e.g. genetics):
Aeon Magazine piece
What is the alternative? To begin to answer, you have to focus on one of the main problems, which is "inequality" -- monetary inequality, esteem inequality, power inequality.
Matt Bruenig wrote something once that I think is very insightful. I don't have the link, but recall that he said what is *really* needed to reduce the levels of inequality is more "capture"; that is, more ways for people to thrive and prosper, given their particular strengths and weaknesses. If there are only very few ways for people to get ahead, then hierarchies and inequality will surely result.
Looking to the future, cognitive enhancement will arrive one day (e.g. drugs to make you smarter; or chips to implant in your brain to make you smarter), and will offer another solution. I can't say when this will occur... and laws will be needed to keep wealthy individuals from using it to put themselves even further ahead... but I am fairly certain it will arrive one day. I hope I live to see it -- just to see the reactions on the faces of the "winners", who suddenly discover they are merely average in a sea of millions of newly-enhanced individuals.