Many years ago I was in charge of a relatively small group within a very large corporation. I had to determine who was hired and fired and who was going to perform certain tasks. I quickly realized that trying to only pick who was "best" at a particular task came with problems, mostly ego driven. Having someone not quite as good at a particular task but with a good attitude went a long way toward a smoothly functioning and effective team. Most reasonably intelligent people, given a bit of time and effort, can perform very well but, putting the brakes on a prima donna attitude is very difficult. A good work environment usually produces better results than a bunch of superstars trying to grab the spotlight from one another.
I like to think of it as: we define merit as performance against some set of measurable standards for knowledge or ability ONLY, when it should be:
-meet some reasonable threshold for performance standard
-then evaluate the candidate for closeness and cultural fit to the existing organization.
DEI is shit because it fails both rules. It will hire under-performers under the guise of “equality” and “uplifting the marginal” (failing the first rule), who are simultaneously poor cultural fits for the organization hiring them, by definition (that’s what diversity is all about), thus failing the second rule too.
Something like H1B will pass the first rule (bring in the technically competent), but fails the second (H1B puts huge numbers of foreigners from places that make them a poor fit for America’s existing culture into the immigration and citizenship pipeline).
It has to be both. Can the individual stand on his own as a competent person, AND how well will he work and synergize with the others who are already part of the team?
No, you’re wrong. And that’s why ‘merit’ is a mirage. DEI has a set of criteria for performance, you just don’t like it. ‘Merit’ isn’t in the person (which is what everyone seems to assume) but, rather, in the system which sets the goals and creates the evaluation procedures.
It’s another 'universalist concept’ that is just a dead-end for Whites.
DEI uses the same old metrics of performance, e.g. SAT scores and GPA, but selectively lowers the threshold to accommodate more of the politically preferred identity class. University admissions practices are a good example. Being black or gay isn’t a standard of competence on a given task, it’s a state of being.
Taking it to its conclusion, if you say merit is in the eye of the beholder then that would mean you believe an objective standard of quality doesn’t exist, it’s all relative. Is that what you’re arguing for?
Here's another way of putting it. Jesus wasn't "meritocratic" in how he picked his disciples. On paper, they completely lacked any qualifications or prior experience for being future church leaders. He did not pick a single man who came from a theological background, and they were so uneducated that their speaking abilities shocked Jewish leaders.
Based on how modern people view meritocracy, Jesus' discretionary selection would be in violation of its spirit, because they weren't the most qualified based on how modern people define "qualified."
It really comes down to the issue of who has final say. People who favor meritocracy want a system in which a person who is not directly involved in the selection process can make an assessment from an outside perspective of whether or not the best person was chosen based on objective metrics that can be quantified, and if they conclude it wasn't they have the ability to overrule the decision.
Spot on! Excellent essay and fantastic analogy. I’ve played with a number of bands over the years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would much rather play with someone (who may not be the most talented or skilled) but I can get along with, has a good sense of humor, similar values, etc than the best hotshot virtuoso who may be arrogant, obnoxious, or unreliable.
Good points. It's also worth pointing out that likely nearly every other team in a tournament had someone doing their best, using a variety of methods, to pick their teams. And they all lost. While one team wins and all the others lose, no one really knows what gave the winning team the edge. But at least we know that picking team members based on everything but the game is a losing strategy.
It would appear the coach selected people who were as talented as possible for each position of the game, and the players being "a family" meant not only that they would not replace anyone, but that they would be more efficient with someone they knew. The obvious counterargument to the idea meritocracy is bad is that you could get people who can play ANY position, which would create a hypercompetent team and thus the odds of a team which saw themselves as a family losing due to lessened ability to work with a talented newcomer would be nonexistent, as the team would already be the best players. Also, the West is not meritocratic, since culture and society I think has declined for around a thousand years, such as education and critical thinking, so the only meritocracy would be for jobs with high mobility, such as mechanics, plumbers, and jobs that can make you a blue-collar millionaire, and for entry-level positions like clerks, receptionists, and fry cooks (the cooks eventually becoming managers).
I was also surprised the article did not talk about the theory of the Four Americas, which includes Real America (Trump supporters and such), and an America which supports tokenism for the elite and justifies cultural elitism against Real America, said cultural elitism based on meritocracy. This America is the America of the New Democrats, Conservative Lions like Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and the McCains (but not Marco Rubio), and Log Cabin Republicans like Ivanka and Melania Trump, Jared Kushner, and Rachel Maddow. Also, I was surprised the article did not talk about the obvious connection Real America has to the Dixie of "The Nine Nations of North America," the Coastal South of "Albion's Seed," and the Deep South of "The Eleven Nations of North America," and the America of the cultural elites has to "the Foundry" of the first book, "Greater New York" and "Southern California" of the second, and "the New Netherlands" and "the Midlands" of the third.
TJ Martinell did not mention "meritocracy" would be the same as classical aristocracy, since "aristocracy referred to the rule of an small educated elite, as opposed to today where it means "nobility": remember, "timocracy" referred to people with "honours" like land, meaning a noble elite ruling (like in Tlaxcala, half of Biafra, the city-states of India, and the communitarian mandalas of China and Greater India). Finally, TJ Martinell did not mention the social science fiction book "The Rise of the Meritocracy," whose author before his death criticized the attempt for Tony Blair to create a real meritocracy, the author also pointing out what I have pointed out: that Blair's "meritocracy" backed by National Conservatism was actually nepotistic elitism which had nothing to do with talent. Of course, given the timeline I mentioned in passing, the meritocracy described in the book is not a meritocracy at all, but again a cronyist cultural elitism like that of Blair and the New Democrats.
The majority of people who are fired are not fired for reasons related to technical skills but for character, initiative and other interpersonal shortcomings.
This reminds me of Socrates‘s arguments against democracy. Pretty much the same problems. You have to figure out who’s best at deciding who’s best. Then, you need to decide who’s best at figuring out who’s best at deciding who’s best. And so on.
russian five. 90s red wings. federov. the konstantinov and kozlov. then fetisov, and finally larionov. one line. piece by piece. eventually affected the other lines, the style of play, and the entire organization.
"Lastly, it’s worth noting that the Founding Fathers didn’t take a meritocratic approach when it came to immigration and citizenship. During the first Congress, they passed the Naturalization Act (1790) permitting foreign white people to become citizens who were “of good character.” Their wealth and abilities were not their primary concern."
Didn't they only allow property owner to vote and to be naturalized?
Many years ago I was in charge of a relatively small group within a very large corporation. I had to determine who was hired and fired and who was going to perform certain tasks. I quickly realized that trying to only pick who was "best" at a particular task came with problems, mostly ego driven. Having someone not quite as good at a particular task but with a good attitude went a long way toward a smoothly functioning and effective team. Most reasonably intelligent people, given a bit of time and effort, can perform very well but, putting the brakes on a prima donna attitude is very difficult. A good work environment usually produces better results than a bunch of superstars trying to grab the spotlight from one another.
Such a good way of approaching this myth
Or, as I have put it many times: 'Merit' is not in the person, 'merit' is in the system that judges 'merit'.
I like to think of it as: we define merit as performance against some set of measurable standards for knowledge or ability ONLY, when it should be:
-meet some reasonable threshold for performance standard
-then evaluate the candidate for closeness and cultural fit to the existing organization.
DEI is shit because it fails both rules. It will hire under-performers under the guise of “equality” and “uplifting the marginal” (failing the first rule), who are simultaneously poor cultural fits for the organization hiring them, by definition (that’s what diversity is all about), thus failing the second rule too.
Something like H1B will pass the first rule (bring in the technically competent), but fails the second (H1B puts huge numbers of foreigners from places that make them a poor fit for America’s existing culture into the immigration and citizenship pipeline).
It has to be both. Can the individual stand on his own as a competent person, AND how well will he work and synergize with the others who are already part of the team?
No, you’re wrong. And that’s why ‘merit’ is a mirage. DEI has a set of criteria for performance, you just don’t like it. ‘Merit’ isn’t in the person (which is what everyone seems to assume) but, rather, in the system which sets the goals and creates the evaluation procedures.
It’s another 'universalist concept’ that is just a dead-end for Whites.
DEI uses the same old metrics of performance, e.g. SAT scores and GPA, but selectively lowers the threshold to accommodate more of the politically preferred identity class. University admissions practices are a good example. Being black or gay isn’t a standard of competence on a given task, it’s a state of being.
Taking it to its conclusion, if you say merit is in the eye of the beholder then that would mean you believe an objective standard of quality doesn’t exist, it’s all relative. Is that what you’re arguing for?
One could argue it was still a meritocratic basis that the players were chosen, as he was choosing the best players for the team.
Here's another way of putting it. Jesus wasn't "meritocratic" in how he picked his disciples. On paper, they completely lacked any qualifications or prior experience for being future church leaders. He did not pick a single man who came from a theological background, and they were so uneducated that their speaking abilities shocked Jewish leaders.
Based on how modern people view meritocracy, Jesus' discretionary selection would be in violation of its spirit, because they weren't the most qualified based on how modern people define "qualified."
It really comes down to the issue of who has final say. People who favor meritocracy want a system in which a person who is not directly involved in the selection process can make an assessment from an outside perspective of whether or not the best person was chosen based on objective metrics that can be quantified, and if they conclude it wasn't they have the ability to overrule the decision.
Excellent read and I agree. We have to care about having our people, the right people, in the driver's seat. Keep heart o7
Spot on! Excellent essay and fantastic analogy. I’ve played with a number of bands over the years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that I would much rather play with someone (who may not be the most talented or skilled) but I can get along with, has a good sense of humor, similar values, etc than the best hotshot virtuoso who may be arrogant, obnoxious, or unreliable.
One of my favorite childhood movies, along with Secondhand Lions
Good points. It's also worth pointing out that likely nearly every other team in a tournament had someone doing their best, using a variety of methods, to pick their teams. And they all lost. While one team wins and all the others lose, no one really knows what gave the winning team the edge. But at least we know that picking team members based on everything but the game is a losing strategy.
It would appear the coach selected people who were as talented as possible for each position of the game, and the players being "a family" meant not only that they would not replace anyone, but that they would be more efficient with someone they knew. The obvious counterargument to the idea meritocracy is bad is that you could get people who can play ANY position, which would create a hypercompetent team and thus the odds of a team which saw themselves as a family losing due to lessened ability to work with a talented newcomer would be nonexistent, as the team would already be the best players. Also, the West is not meritocratic, since culture and society I think has declined for around a thousand years, such as education and critical thinking, so the only meritocracy would be for jobs with high mobility, such as mechanics, plumbers, and jobs that can make you a blue-collar millionaire, and for entry-level positions like clerks, receptionists, and fry cooks (the cooks eventually becoming managers).
I was also surprised the article did not talk about the theory of the Four Americas, which includes Real America (Trump supporters and such), and an America which supports tokenism for the elite and justifies cultural elitism against Real America, said cultural elitism based on meritocracy. This America is the America of the New Democrats, Conservative Lions like Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, and the McCains (but not Marco Rubio), and Log Cabin Republicans like Ivanka and Melania Trump, Jared Kushner, and Rachel Maddow. Also, I was surprised the article did not talk about the obvious connection Real America has to the Dixie of "The Nine Nations of North America," the Coastal South of "Albion's Seed," and the Deep South of "The Eleven Nations of North America," and the America of the cultural elites has to "the Foundry" of the first book, "Greater New York" and "Southern California" of the second, and "the New Netherlands" and "the Midlands" of the third.
TJ Martinell did not mention "meritocracy" would be the same as classical aristocracy, since "aristocracy referred to the rule of an small educated elite, as opposed to today where it means "nobility": remember, "timocracy" referred to people with "honours" like land, meaning a noble elite ruling (like in Tlaxcala, half of Biafra, the city-states of India, and the communitarian mandalas of China and Greater India). Finally, TJ Martinell did not mention the social science fiction book "The Rise of the Meritocracy," whose author before his death criticized the attempt for Tony Blair to create a real meritocracy, the author also pointing out what I have pointed out: that Blair's "meritocracy" backed by National Conservatism was actually nepotistic elitism which had nothing to do with talent. Of course, given the timeline I mentioned in passing, the meritocracy described in the book is not a meritocracy at all, but again a cronyist cultural elitism like that of Blair and the New Democrats.
The majority of people who are fired are not fired for reasons related to technical skills but for character, initiative and other interpersonal shortcomings.
This reminds me of Socrates‘s arguments against democracy. Pretty much the same problems. You have to figure out who’s best at deciding who’s best. Then, you need to decide who’s best at figuring out who’s best at deciding who’s best. And so on.
russian five. 90s red wings. federov. the konstantinov and kozlov. then fetisov, and finally larionov. one line. piece by piece. eventually affected the other lines, the style of play, and the entire organization.
"Lastly, it’s worth noting that the Founding Fathers didn’t take a meritocratic approach when it came to immigration and citizenship. During the first Congress, they passed the Naturalization Act (1790) permitting foreign white people to become citizens who were “of good character.” Their wealth and abilities were not their primary concern."
Didn't they only allow property owner to vote and to be naturalized?