On Fri, 2014-04-11 at 14:21 -0700, glen wrote: > Again, we're limited by our binary, unidimensional, and translational > understanding of "merit" and the reward for merit. That > limited/ambiguous understanding is the root of the problem. And it's > why both Nick and Marcus are both logically right and wrong. > > As long as something so base/universal as money is the foundation for > it, meritocracy will be vapid or utopian, perhaps both.
If there is a line for merit, money seems as good as any. If the discussion is about finding a multi-dimensional Pareto optimal front, then we need to be at least precise enough to formulate experiments to measure the tradeoffs. It's not acceptable to just say that family and community have infinite merit. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
