\"Writing.Com
*Magnify*
    November     ►
SMTWTFS
     
27
28
29
30
Archive RSS
SPONSORED LINKS
Printed from https://writing.com/main/books/action/view/entry_id/1059766
Image Protector
Rated: 18+ · Book · Personal · #1196512
Not for the faint of art.
#1059766 added November 19, 2023 at 8:56am
Restrictions: None
Revisited: "On Merit"
It's time travel time, and the random entry I'll feature is from August of 2020: "On MeritOpen in new Window.

The article I discuss therein  Open in new Window. is still up, from Aeon, apparently published in early 2019—the Before Time. It discusses how belief in meritocracy is not only false, but dangerously false.

And I don't think my views on the topic have changed in the past three years. What has happened in the intervening time is that I found, read, linked and commented on other articles that touched on the role of luck (as opposed to merit) in an individual's level of success. Though, as the article points out, "merit" is itself a product of luck: someone was born at the right time, with appropriate talent, and was raised in an environment that promoted use of that talent.

So what I want to say today comes from an experience I had yesterday evening.

Yesterday was quite pleasant for mid-November around here. Relatively warm temperatures continued on into the early evening, so I took my laptop outside to enjoy what's surely the season's last gasp of habitability outdoors. Thing is, I live about a mile and a half from UVA's football stadium, and it was Saturday, and there was a home game.

I know this because I heard pretty much every word the announcer said, every cheer, every drumbeat.

Now, if I made sustained noise that could be heard a mile and a half or more away, I'd be visited by cops. Understandable? Sure. Fair? Not so much.

Honestly, the noise didn't bother me that much. It's the principle of the thing that got me wondering. We put up with a lot of things to support Sacred Sports that simply wouldn't fly in other circumstances.

College athletes, from what I understand, don't get paid directly, though some go on to the NFL or whatever and pull down salaries that most of us can only dream of... all because their talent, experience, and physical parameters fit the needs of the sport. Work and practice are involved, sure, but almost every occupation requires work and practice.

But a belief in meritocracy might cause someone to believe that, by virtue of these elements, the athletes are more deserving of this measure of financial success than, say, math teachers. And the proof seems to be right there: athletes get paid more than math teachers, so their contribution to society must be proportionately greater. This is a circular argument.

"But, Waltz, a football player only has a decade or two to make bank, while math teachers can do their thing well into middle age and often beyond." Okay, fine, forget athletes; consider, instead, movie actors, rock stars, or some other profession of limited use to society compared to, say, teachers, civil engineers, or firefighters. I'm not knocking the individuals, here; you have the talent and experience, I don't blame you for squeezing every last dime out of leveraging your abilities. I don't follow sports, but I do get entertained by movie actors and musicians, and I appreciate their work. No, I'm questioning the idea that people get rewarded in accordance to their contribution to society.

Because they obviously don't.

And that's not even getting into systemic barriers to entry in many fields, with more opportunity still going to those groups who are historically privileged. I'll say this for sports: it's one way for someone without many other opportunities to achieve some measure of success.

There are, of course, other ways of measuring success besides money. But it's pretty damn obvious (from this and many other examples) that, in the world we live in, financial success isn't a measure of one's value.

Or, to quote from the original article one more time,

Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.

Another way to get rich is to win a lottery jackpot. We tend to view such people as "lucky," but it's just as lucky to be born into a place and time when your abilities are in high demand, and thus rewarded more.

In short, no, the world isn't fair. If it were, though, I'd be worried. As it is, we can work to make it less unfair, but I agree with the point made in the article: belief in meritocracy only makes it less fair.

© Copyright 2023 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.
Printed from https://writing.com/main/books/action/view/entry_id/1059766