The difference between meritocracy and "meritocracy" is that the former is a training function, whose goal is to learn the set of contributors whose contributions can be ignored.
In "meritocracy", on the other hand, that set is the initial premise and the purpose of every production is to justify it post-facto.
Obviously the distinction between these two things is essential. Now think about the perspectives from which the distinction is imperceptible.
In a perfect meritocracy, those who are best skilled will rise to the top. And many skills do not depend on nature or nurture.
Just look at the IT industry. For decades some of the best and brightest came up through the ranks with zero formal training, just a thirst for knowledge, a passion for the subject, and (in many cases) an autistic drive for order and perfection. It’s only been in the last decade or so where degrees have started to increase in importance, and for many job applications they’re just a Nice To Have.
It'd be worthwhile to point out that many of these "best and brightest" come from predominantly Western/wealthy countries and are raised in enviroments conducive to learning and technology. They often, but not always, go to excellent colleges in wealthy countries with good education systems and succeed in corpos or organizations based in the same nations. As the article pointed out, the thirst for knowledge, passion, drive, etc., are usually all due to either nature (inhereted from the parents) or nurtute (growing up in an enviroment that encourages said traits). There are certainly people who have beat the odds, but outliers are expected. The general trend is that the advantaged create offspring who are also advantaged. Sure, regression towards the mean exists but someone born in a wealthy nation with an enviroment that supports education is almost always going to be better off than someone born into a poor nation in an enviroment that doesn't value education.
The difference between meritocracy and "meritocracy" is that the former is a training function, whose goal is to learn the set of contributors whose contributions can be ignored.
In "meritocracy", on the other hand, that set is the initial premise and the purpose of every production is to justify it post-facto.
Obviously the distinction between these two things is essential. Now think about the perspectives from which the distinction is imperceptible.
In a perfect meritocracy, those who are best skilled will rise to the top. And many skills do not depend on nature or nurture.
Just look at the IT industry. For decades some of the best and brightest came up through the ranks with zero formal training, just a thirst for knowledge, a passion for the subject, and (in many cases) an autistic drive for order and perfection. It’s only been in the last decade or so where degrees have started to increase in importance, and for many job applications they’re just a Nice To Have.
It'd be worthwhile to point out that many of these "best and brightest" come from predominantly Western/wealthy countries and are raised in enviroments conducive to learning and technology. They often, but not always, go to excellent colleges in wealthy countries with good education systems and succeed in corpos or organizations based in the same nations. As the article pointed out, the thirst for knowledge, passion, drive, etc., are usually all due to either nature (inhereted from the parents) or nurtute (growing up in an enviroment that encourages said traits). There are certainly people who have beat the odds, but outliers are expected. The general trend is that the advantaged create offspring who are also advantaged. Sure, regression towards the mean exists but someone born in a wealthy nation with an enviroment that supports education is almost always going to be better off than someone born into a poor nation in an enviroment that doesn't value education.