This video explores the concept of meritocracy, examining its definition, prevalence, and consequences. The speaker critically analyzes studies on meritocratic beliefs across generations and political affiliations, ultimately arguing that meritocracy, as it exists, is harmful and perpetuates inequality.
Meritocracy's Definition is Fluid: The meaning of meritocracy is inconsistently defined, hindering empirical analysis and creating confusion in public discourse. The term originated as satire, yet its current usage often contradicts its initial intent.
Belief in Meritocracy Varies: Studies reveal inconsistencies in meritocratic beliefs across age groups and political ideologies. Younger generations and those with higher education levels express more skepticism towards the existence of a meritocratic society.
Meritocracy Perpetuates Inequality: The video argues that meritocracy, as practiced, doesn't accurately reflect reality. Success is significantly influenced by factors outside individual control like family wealth, social connections, and systemic biases, leading to a perpetuation of existing inequalities. Examples like Ivy League admissions and economic mobility studies are used to illustrate this point.
Meritocracy is Harmful: The video highlights the negative psychological and societal effects of meritocracy. It fosters self-blame among those who fail, leading to demoralization and decreased ability to overcome obstacles. The bias against the undereducated is also identified as a significant problem. Furthermore, the idolization of "winners" reinforces the illusion of meritocracy and exacerbates inequality.
Alternatives Exist: The video proposes alternatives to a competition-based meritocratic system, including worker co-ops and lottery-based admissions to institutions like Ivy League schools. These alternatives challenge the inherent limitations and inequalities embedded within a competitive framework.
The speaker doesn't argue that hardworking people should receive the same rewards as those who aren't. Instead, she contends that the current system, falsely labeled "meritocracy," is deeply flawed because success is largely determined by factors outside individual control (family wealth, social networks, systemic biases). She argues this system is harmful because it:
Perpetuates inequality: Privileged individuals benefit disproportionately, regardless of their merit.
Creates self-blame and demoralization: Those who fail are blamed for their circumstances, hindering their ability to improve their situation.
Masks injustice: The success of a few is used to justify the system's fairness, ignoring the systemic issues that prevent others from succeeding.
Therefore, her critique is not about equalizing rewards regardless of effort, but about dismantling a system she believes is fundamentally unfair and doesn't accurately reflect true merit.
No, she doesn't advocate for completely abolishing merit-based evaluation. Her proposed solutions aim to address the systemic flaws within the current system, rather than eliminate merit entirely. The solutions mentioned include:
Worker cooperatives: These redistribute ownership and decision-making power, creating more equitable workplaces.
Lottery-based admissions: This would replace highly competitive, often biased, college admissions processes with a random selection of qualified applicants, addressing the role of privilege in access to higher education.
Redefining merit: Shifting the focus from easily gamed metrics (test scores, elite credentials) to skills and abilities that genuinely reflect competence and contribution.
These solutions aim to create a fairer system where success isn't solely determined by a rigged competition but also by factors that promote genuine equality of opportunity and social value. The overall goal is to move beyond the limitations of a competitive, hierarchical structure.
That's a fair summary. The speaker's central argument isn't against the idea of meritocracy (rewarding merit), but against the way it's currently implemented. She believes the current system is a false meritocracy, where inherent biases and systemic inequalities heavily influence outcomes, making it unfair and ultimately harmful. Her solutions focus on reforming the system to better reflect true merit while also addressing broader societal inequalities.
The title "Merit is Bad, Actually" is provocative and designed to grab attention. While the video doesn't argue that merit itself is bad, the title reflects the speaker's central argument: the current system, often presented as meritocratic, is fundamentally flawed and produces negative consequences. The "actually" adds a layer of contrarianism, suggesting a counterintuitive but ultimately well-supported argument. The title is effective clickbait, drawing viewers in to hear the speaker's detailed explanation of why the commonly accepted notion of meritocracy is problematic.
