Has the list seen this? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy
A report coming out of the meritocracy, based on big data sets. Makes the conversation you're having kind of -- well, what cave do you dwell in? On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Nick Thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > Well, then I misspoke. For the concept of meritocracy to make any sense, > there has to be some “ontology” of merit – i.e., we have to agree upon some > objective property that a person has by which we can predict his or her > success. Otherwise, the statement that Jones succeeded “because he was > good” makes no sense. Larding below: > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Eric > Charles > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:52 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] meritocracy (was Re: Openness amplifies > Inequality?) > > > > Following Glen's lead to move the discussion of meritocracy here: > > Nick... I think your understanding of a meritocracy is limited. To > rephrase your assertions: > > Meritocracies favor the children of the meritorious, if those parents do > something to instil their meritorious nature into their children. My guess > is that the variance explained by this at mid-adulthood is under .3. > Regression towards the mean is a strong effect, and having gone to a better > elementary school can only help you so much at age 40. > > *[NST==>Well, nothing guarantees that the idiot child of the objectively > meritorious individual will become wealthy, but even conceding regression > toward the mean, it sure as hell is more likely, no? Variance .3? Where > the dickens do you get that? <==nst] * > > Meritocracies favor those who disregard their families, unless individuals > also have to compete with meritorious couples and larger social units that > work collaboratively together to achieve even greater ends. Sure, we often > socially assign the "merit" to an individual member of such groups, but > that is a different problem all together. > > *[NST==>Seems like you are starting to beat me over the head with my own > point. If there is such a thing as ontological individual merit, , the > nepotism and cooperation work against it. I don’t happen to think there IS > any such thing. The argument is a reduction. You are supposed to get to > the end of it and have doubts about the concept of merit. My conclusion is > that the social and political system should contain powerful biases to > favor the children of those that are currently less powerful. <==nst] * > > Meritocracies favor those who disregard their communities, unless regard > for community is taken into account as one of the metrics of merit. For > example, in a healthy company (mythic entities, it would sometimes seem) > "managers" are people skilled at nurturing communities of a particular size > and scale. They also tend to be "good community members" by other metrics, > supporting Rotary, charity functions, etc., because, at the least, being a > good community member creates good business connections. > > Finally: Does meritocracy favor those in the group that gets to decide > merit? Yeah, probably most of the time, unless some metric of otherness is > given merit - for example, if we think decisions are made better in teams > consisting of people who are not all from the group that holds power. > > > > Also, valuing diversity is not contrary to being libertarian: > http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2014/03/libertarianism-and-american-philosophy.html > > Eric > > P.S. I know this is a bit delayed. It is my first post in a year or two, > and it took a while to figure out how to get around the changes in email > address. Thanks Stephen for getting me back on the list with an address > from which I can send! > > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Lab Manager > Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning > American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A > 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20016 > phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 > email: [email protected] > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Eric Charles < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Following Glen's lead to move the discussion of meritocracy here: > > Nick... I think your understanding of a meritocracy is limited. To > rephrase your assertions: > > Meritocracies favor the children of the meritorious, if those parents do > something to instil their meritorious nature into their children. My guess > is that the variance explained by this at mid-adulthood is under .3. > Regression towards the mean is a strong effect, and having gone to a better > elementary school can only help you so much at age 40. > > Meritocracies favor those who disregard their families, unless individuals > also have to compete with meritorious couples and larger social units that > work collaboratively together to achieve even greater ends. Sure, we often > socially assign the "merit" to an individual member of such groups, but > that is a different problem all together. > > Meritocracies favor those who disregard their communities, unless regard > for community is taken into account as one of the metrics of merit. For > example, in a healthy company (mythic entities, it would sometimes seem) > "managers" are people skilled at nurturing communities of a particular size > and scale. They also tend to be "good community members" by other metrics, > supporting Rotary, charity functions, etc., because, at the least, being a > good community member creates good business connections. > > Finally: Does meritocracy favor those in the group that gets to decide > merit? Yeah, probably most of the time, unless some metric of otherness is > given merit - for example, if we think decisions are made better in teams > consisting of people who are not all from the group that holds power. > > > > Also, valuing diversity is not contrary to being libertarian: > http://fixingpsychology.blogspot.com/2014/03/libertarianism-and-american-philosophy.html > > Eric > > P.S. I think this is my first post in a year or two. Hi everyone! And > thanks Stephen for getting the change in my email address fixed. > > > > ----------- > Eric P. Charles, Ph.D. > Lab Manager > Center for Teaching, Research, and Learning > American University, Hurst Hall Room 203A > 4400 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20016 > phone: (202) 885-3867 fax: (202) 885-1190 > email: [email protected] > > > > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 5:52 PM, glen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Just to be a little more clear and to avoid the presumption that we're not > making some progress already, I have something like this in mind: > > Human Resources Management Ontology > http://mayor2.dia.fi.upm.es/oeg-upm/index.php/en/ontologies/99-hrmontology > > But my suspicion is that such an ontology will still be lacking in a large > number of the variables we consider when thinking about an individual's > health, well-being, happiness, usefulness, and value/merit ... most notably > it's missing all the ecological, biological, and medical ontologies. (Don't > _you_ think about ticks and the epidemiology of lyme disease when you > consider a new job offer?) > > And, of course, even though the ontolog[y|ies] might be huge, it's still > just a start. We'd need to use such a scheme to build and falsify models > of how any given individual or company (vector) might wander in the spanned > space. Are there unreachable pockets? Unconnnected pockets? Etc. > > -- > ⇒⇐ glen > > ============================================================ > 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 > > > > > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA [email protected] mobile: (303) 859-5609 skype: merlelefkoff
============================================================ 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
