Michael Sandel vs Adrian Wooldridge on Meritocracy

Micheal Sandel and Adrian Wooldridge go head to head in this debate on meritocracy. Meritocracy has long been an article of faith in the modern Western world. Get an education, work hard and the rewards of success will be yours, regardless of class, privilege or wealth. But recently meritocracy has come under attack, with the charge led by Michael Sandel, the Harvard philosopher whose public debates on how we define the common good have won him a global following.
But not everyone agrees. Taking issue with much of Sandel’s arguments is Adrian Wooldridge, the political editor at The Economist. In this week's debate they argue whether we need more or less meritocracy in society. The host is BBC broadcaster Ritula Shah.
For the Intelligence Squared discount on Michael Sandel's new book click here: www.primrosehillbooks.com/pro...
For the Intelligence Squared discount on Adrian Wooldridge's new book click here: www.primrosehillbooks.com/pro...
--
About Intelligence Squared:
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world.
Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
Click here to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and receive our audio podcasts as soon as they are released: apple.co/3nKUHV4
Brilliant minds, debate, online events, ask your questions. Try Intelligence Squared +: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE SQUARED+?
Intelligence Squared+ brings you live, interactive events online every week. You can ask your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events, live and on-demand, featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers.
Subscribe to Intelligence Squared+ today: www.intelligencesquared.com/plus
Follow Intelligence Squared:
Instagram: / intelligenc. .
Facebook: / intelligence2
Twitter: / intelligence2
Listen to our podcasts?
Intelligence Squared Podcast: play.acast.com/s/intelligence...
How I Found My Voice with Samira Ahmed: apple.co/32WnrPV

[@davethenerd42]

Thank you Mr. Sandel for introducing me to your lectures on Justice and John Rawls. The discussions and debates in your series among your students engaged me and made me challenge my previously held beliefs and understandings of the way the world works. What a time to be alive, where someone like me has access to this kind of content.

[@giialiinh]

could not agree more, prof sandel crushed his opponent in this discussion.

[@silversurfer4441]

Actually, we practically live in an aristocracy rather than a meritocracy. I'll give one example. I applied to UCLA's school of film and animation and was one of only seven students chosen for the program. The competition was fierce but my abilities opened the door for me. Up to that point we have a meritocracy. But when I discovered that since I was an out-of-state student my fees were triple that of someone who resided in California and that my first year would have set me back about $100,000, I told the head of the program that I needed to see if I could get the money for that. He said, okay, but hurry it up because if you cannot attend, we have to go DOWN the list of applicants. I decided I couldn't afford it and they then chose a less qualified candidate merely because they had more money. No doubt, a kid with rich parents. That sort of devolution in selection of "talent" is happening all the time and in fields much more important than film and animation. What about medicine? Maybe the doctor making decisions on your health is some chump whose parents could afford their tuition even though they barely squeaked by the tests. Something to think about. Might be a contributing factor behind why the third leading cause of death in the USA is doctors making poor medical choices.

[@robertridley9279]

There should be more likes for this comment. I wish I could like it more than once.

[@Hellcat-to3yh]

The problem is that meritocracy always devolves into aristocracy. Much how capitalism always devolves into feudalism. It’s just a matter of time.

[@luistirado88]

​@Ronald Reagan what we produce is in large part contingent upon factors that are beyond our control. Therefore, it's a mistake to equate economic success with merit.

[@illdoctrine9329]

You didn’t go on to establish a comparable institution in your own state?

[@christopherviscuso1882]

@@Hellcat-to3yh Doesn't have to. That's one of the many reasons why we need an estate tax, well funded and staffed public schools and a ban on private schools, maybe a UBI, and other such equalizing measures to ensure as much as possible an even playing field for everyone.

[@nischalshetty2411]

I noticed how several people in the comments seem appalled by the idea that Michael Sandel is objecting to the idea of "merit". But that is not the case. In the beginning of his pitch, between 3:18 and 5:01 of this video, Michael Sandel makes the distinction between how he views "Merit" (vis-a-vis competence, and acknowledges it is a good thing) and how he views "Meritocracy" (which he doesn't fully endorse). It's similar to how one can respect the concept of "Liberty", while at the same time acknowledge that "Libertarianism" (which is based on the foundation of individual Liberty) has its shortcomings. There is a nuance in his argument, which I feel is important. The purpose of the ethic of Meritocracy (as is the spirit of aristocracy, technocracy, etc.) is about deciding how to allocate societal honours, esteems, and rewards. In other words, determining "who *deserves* what". If an aristocratic society generally allocates rewards and honours on the basis of birth (which one does not "choose"), then a meritocratic society tries to allocate rewards and honours on the basis of talents (which may also be genetic gifts or results of family support). The idea of "effort" here is independent. One could argue that an aristocrat who inherits a business empire, or a privileged child who can afford top-quality private tuitions, also puts in "effort" to achieve his/her successes. If two children put in equal effort (let's say the hours spent in studying), it's more likely that the student who is from a better family or has better natural talents will accumulate more rewards. Are the winners entitled to the rewards? Yes. But can we declare that the winners "morally deserved" the rewards purely on merit? Maybe not. If the winners in such contexts recognised this, would they not be more humble and respectful towards the others, rather than looking down upon the "less fortunate" as unmeritorious and undeserving?

[@amritmohanty1937]

Great explanation.

[@MrMatt-qs2ck]

This is helpful, but then I find his argument even more odd. If he is talking about the trouble with 'morally' meritocratic societies, then he is not criticizing societies that compensate or hire based on merit. That's good. But then he seems to be criticizing societies who 'moral think' they are deserving of what they get. This is odd for two reasons: For one, his whole argument is criticizing some unknown people whose minds he cannot read; For another, the practical implications simply seem to be that we should be more thankful, humble and generous. Worse, there is a danger with Sandel's argument in that he seems to slide into political applications when he says things like, “Having one’s own talent is not one’s own doing… having that talent is a gift” suggesting we do not 'own' our talents and hence should not be compensated for their work.

[@nischalshetty2411]

@@MrMatt-qs2ck I acknowledge the observation you made that the phrasing of Michael Sandel's arguments in this video seem a little harsh on Meritocracies. I wonder if this is because the format was: "a For vs Against Debate". I, too, sense a danger in someone wrongfully taking Prof Sandel's arguments (in this debate) to a different political extreme, where people discredit "the idea of merit" and try to distribute society's rewards and honours based on more contentious criteria (ethnicity, family wealth, access to political connections, etc.). I am personally inclined towards meritocratic societies, for practical reasons; and also because I believe such a society - at least, in principle - tries to incentivise citizens towards pursuing what they are most competent at. This video - and especially Prof Sandel's arguments - got me thinking about the limitations or practical shortcomings of such a society. The main takeaway I got from the debate was that Meritocratic societies have the lurking danger of making some of their citizens feel "systematically left out" if their talents don't match their society's "current" demands. Or in the worst case, feel humiliated for lacking useful talents. Both of these - I feel - are caveats to Meritocracy, and are not really convincing reasons to abolish Meritocracy in favour of other known alternatives.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

michael sandel wrote the book Tyranny of merit. i cannot think of a more moronic claim.

[@tongfattho6913]

Meritocracy is about the outcome of talents plus efforts. The harsh reality is that not all are born equal. The smart has a easier path than the less smart to achieve the same outcome, other things being equal. Also. rewards for the outcome are not linear. Meritocracy inadvertently create inequality. It needs to be moderated to maintain sense of equality.

[@johncrow5552]

Inequality, when based on intelligence and effort is GOOD. We need peeps to work long hours, to invent things. Rewards create inequality. Rewards are given to peeps who work hard.

[@microgiants7592]

True in the US today. But it used to be that the big muscular guy got the logging job, or the ditch digging job over the smart one. It depends on the economy. Right now smart does tend to win. Too bad in some ways, but important that we have smart people as programmers, doctors etc. Yet all work does have dignity.

[@avadakedavra80]

This is primarily just a semantic debate between allocating opportunities to talent vs. do you ‘deserve’ your talent. They should clarified their definition of meritocracy at the start.

[@jake_runs_the_world]

The person who choses to peruse a carrier becoming an academic in most cases has enough family wealth as a safety net. So it's not just intelligence and hard work .

[@TheLivirus]

Swedish academic here. All my BSc engineering friends earn more than me.

[@M.Redsky]

@@TheLivirus but do they work harder for it? the question I'll pose to you: per joule of energy expended, whom is compensated better? Hard to answer without exhaustive experiments, is my intuition.

[@mohammedphilonous6856]

What a dumb unfounded conclusion, it may well be true that many people who pursue a career in academia are financially comfortable, but the fact that you equate that with requiring less work and less intelligence is dumb and lazy.

[@TheLivirus]

@@mohammedphilonous6856 Make sure you aren't missing the point entirely before you throw insults around. He's just saying that an academic career is financially risky, so a safety net of a wealthy family probably increases the likelihood of making that career choice.

[@mohammedphilonous6856]

@@TheLivirushe said that getting into academia simply means belonging to a wealthy family which will serve as a safety net. He said it with confidence and generalized, that is misleading. I guess I must blow off some steam.

[@justobserver6406]

I was originally in favor of more meritocracy, but Michael's final conclusive remarks moved me. Indeed, people should be more humble and appreciative of the gifts they receive from God, instead of feeling so entitled. Just think about those CEO making multi-millions dollar, thinking they are king/God within their organizations, and elites of the society. But in fact, without the teams of hard-working employees supporting them, can they achieve what they achieve?

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Employees don’t create the companies, carry the risk, or post the positions. - the business owners do.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

These academics fail to realize the drive parents have to leave a legacy to their children. If you take away that incentive with high inheritance tax- rich people will leave the country.

[@lizgichora6472]

# IQ² Thank you: Great discussion, meritocracy offers some a competitive edge and opportunity for recognition and esteem.

[@TheLivirus]

Great discussion! Though they don't seem to agree on the definition of meritocracy.

[@Luca-wm9er]

i believe there is no definiton of meritocracy, as there is no definition of democracy

[@TheLivirus]

@@Luca-wm9er I disagree. The issue is that there are _many_ definitions and that they don't agree on which one they are talking about.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

Regardless of how one defines meritocracy what we can all agree upon is that it can only exist when all have equal opportunities otherwise there is no merit. We also overlook the fact that meritocracy is an ideology created to justify a disease called social inequality which was brought about by greed/capitalism/vanity. In any healthy society people will excell in things and will be regarded as special but that will not translate into "getting ahead" because in any healthy society everyone understands we are on the same boat. There is no getting ahead? We are either all living in a healthy society or we are all getting sick. Any healthy living organism functions that way. It is not rocket science. But nobody can get to this obvious conclusion because it is not accepted by the current sick system. Today represented by the corporate neo-liberal capitalist elite who keeps us too drunk with vanity to see things clear. That's all. Like the devil played by Al Pacino says at the end if "devil's advocate" vanity is his favorite sin.

[@N.i.c.k.H]

@@VelhaGuardaTricolor Comparing a healthy body to a healthy society is fundamentally flawed. Every single one of our cells is us in the sense that they have the same DNA. There is no competition between my own cells because they are all, in the sense of DNA, perfectly equal. This is not true of societies. Competition within a society is the natural, proper and inevitable order of things. The only reason that we exist as thinking beings is because of evoloution and evoloution works on competition within a species as well as between species. Peacocks do not have flashy tails to impress foxes. If there were no competition between peacocks for the flashiest tail then they wouldn't have flashy tails.

[@VelhaGuardaTricolor]

@@N.i.c.k.H Competition within a SICK society is indeed the natural and inevitable order of things, like in a sick body you have cancer cells that will grow for their own sake despite the harm they cause to the whole body which they (like you) believe are no part of.

[@namelesswarrior4760]

So are one of these 2 guys saying that whatever success he has achieved wasn't based on his own merits?

[@joneskurian3923]

unfortunately even though I agree with Adrian, I don't think he argued the point well enough.

[@insaneweasel1]

I think you are correct, but to be fair the arguments presented by his opponent were absolutely nonsensical.

[@voidlr]

I felt that Sandel was arguing with the wrong dude here, Adrian has more of an economic background and is not well-posed to tackle a philosophical theory for governance. I'm definitely on Sandel's side here, but I've seen way better challenges to his theory elsewhere. Just felt that this whole debate was a waste of time, since they're not even on the same wavelength.

[@voidlr]

@@insaneweasel1 LOL if they were nonsensical, he wouldn't be teaching at Harvard, or invited to any of these talks.

[@Michael-jv7uq]

I'd like to see Sandel debate Jordan Peterson on this topic.

[@taohe8450]

Obviously Sandel and Adrian are not of the same level, like the Chinese novel "Three Body" described they are of different dimension....

[@hemlock527]

Yes, or Yaron Brook

[@Michael-jv7uq]

@@hemlock527 I will familiarize myself with Yaron Brook. Thanks

[@hemlock527]

@@Michael-jv7uq I never heard if him academically either. But he's an influential supporter of Ayn Rand who lectured under her private institute in Objectivism, and Rand has had large influence on libertarians.

[@arthurwittmann6242]

Peterson would want maximum productivity for the world, Sandel would want morality justice. Both are not on the same value basis.

[@qingzhou9983]

Wonderful debate. Michael is the best one to articulate the more human approach of equal opportunity and the dignity of life based on moral principle. However Michael did not effectively take on Adrian's utilitarian arguments of Meritocracy. The weakest point of Adrian's argument is that in US right now with the highest inequality in history and lower mobility comparing to Europe (Michael pointed it out once, but did not elaborate more), the meritocracy is weakening the foundation of our society and democracy. Hence based on Adrian's own criteria we are having too much meritocracy right now. Another point Michael missed is that he is not proposing to abolish meritocracy. HE is moderating the problem of meritocracy with either redistribution or at least moral demotion of meritocracy, very much like the Necessary Evil of Central Government.

[@jaredstevens5382]

I agree event though he lost the debate

[@qingzhou9983]

@Historylover You are absolutely right. Democrats are for the Real Equal Opportunity and Republican is only for Equal Access to The Opportunity. They do not care whether you have the ability to take the advantage of the Opportunity. However, it is very costly and intrusive to really make the Equal Opportunity really Equal for poor and disadvantaged.

[@tayzk5929]

@Ronald Reagan Taking away freedom is often good.

[@tayzk5929]

@Ronald Reagan Restrictions in freedom, such as laws and a strict socially enforced morality, were also a foundation of our country.

[@tayzk5929]

@Ronald Reagan Sure, and that's also important. I don't however fetishize a totalizing focus on maximizing freedom in all areas.

[@drtajay]

More and more meritocracy with absolutely no chance for corruption

[@NaffiAxx]

We need more of it.

[@murraylove]

The problem here is that 'meritocracy' is not defined and the two of them are talking about almost completely different things. It ends up reducing to one saying "good meritocracy is good" and the other saying "bad meritocracy is bad"! In that context I agree with both of them but it doesn't tell us how to build a good society. I don't really know much about Singapore but if it's as described then it must have good general health and education and universal access to decent housing and nutrition. Social democracy is the only possible basis of a meritocratic society. Equality of opportunity is a daily requirement not just a few key moments. 'Winner takes all' and 'dog eat dog' can only promote the merits of greed and strength and tools of persuasion. There are surely far more meritorious forms of merit!

[@jarrodyuki7081]

nope there is no alternative.

[@nagendrabhatnagar]

A very engaging debate, full of deep insights. It is nobody's case that merit is a better yardstick to judge a person than the accident of birth. Adrian Wooldridge is right to an extent in placing faith in Meritocracy but he also agrees that there are issues. Prof. Michael Sandel is as persuasive as ever and he effectively brings out the problems of the current incarnation of Meritocracy. A number of comments on the video miss the basic point Prof. Sandel was making that current day Meritocracy has turned into another form of aristocracy with the rich spending a lot to train / tutor their progenies - whether one likes it or not but it creates an unfair playing field and creates Hubris - as he has famously said in few of his other talks on the sunject - They inhale their success too deeply. While meritocracy at it's core is a sound concept, it is not as simple as that. As an earlier comment very rightly wrote, Michael Sandel is simply talking / writing about grave issues resulting from the current shape Meritocracy has taken. The sharply rising inequalities, be it the US or the UK or India, are a fact of life and not any flight of fancy. It will be a good idea to read Michael Sandel's latest book - 'Tyranny of Merit - What's Become of Common Good', where the first chapter itself give the live example of the case of Manipulations in the US in admissions to Ivy Colleges. Those interested may also like to read Prof. Danial Markovitz's, Prof. of Law at Yale, book - The Meritocracy Trap. A fascinating book, very data based, where he has proven that Income inequalities have risen in the US over the past few decades as well as the lot of blue collar workers has detoriated.

[@ryuk-gj9uz]

I completely agree with you. Most of the people here are missing the point that this is not an argument with black and white truth. Prof. is just pointing out the cons of "Meritocracy", which should be done to improve the effectiveness of "Meritocracy".

[@moimeme6533]

On a related note see the book “Survival of the Richest” , also contains compelling data on the widening gaps in class in the post-WW2 war era.

[@user-do2ji7wi6i]

What is Meritocracy?คุณธรรมคืออะไร ? คุณธรรม คือสมมุติบัญญัติที่ใช้พูดเพื่อแสดงว่าอะไรถูกต้องในการกระทำ ในการพูด ในการคิดของมนุษยทุกคน การที่คนใดคนหนึ่งคิดดี พูดดี ทำดี นั้นแสดงว่าผู้นั้นมีคุณธรรม นี้เป็นคำจำกัดความเบื้องต้น ถ้าคนใดคนหนึ่งคิดชั่ว พูดชั่ว ทำชั่ว คนทั้งหลายที่พบเห็นบุคคลผู้นั้น พวกเขาต่างต่างกล่าวว่า คนผู้นั้นไม่มีคุณธรรม-from Thailand.

[@ZambeziKid]

Love Sandel[s thoughts. Would love to hear more solutions though.

[@jaimeivantamayo]

Daniel Markovits' The Meritocracy Trap gives actionable solutions.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Sandels ideas are insane.

[@davidnguyen7891]

27:28 if you don’t deserve your innate abilities, then why do you deserve your achievements, if they are a result of your innate abilities

[@pablobulldog]

1. Need a chess clock to ensure the time split between speakers is more meritocratic. 😏 2. Both meritocracy and equity are ideal concepts in an imperfect world. We can only work to approach the ideals as best we can.

[@soungookokogoahead]

I like Sandel. He is something right, I feel.

[@karleells8603]

something right you say? by claiming merit to be tyrannical? seriously, you belive that garbage?

[@NaffiAxx]

@@karleells8603 failures believe this, they want to blame everyone but themselfs.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Saying winners don’t deserve their winnings is pure insanity from a useless academic- sandel

[@23Hiya]

This is such a wonderful conversation. I find it a little ironic the way that China appears in this conversation. First, they are the great threat that justifies more meritocracy. The world is competitive and often mercilessly so, therefore, we must meritocracy. Then later China is the enlightened foil to the brutal military competition of the Blood Axe. I think that actually sums the disagreement pretty well. I am compelled by Sandel that meritocracy is not internally a positive moral force, but Woolridge is quite right that in a world with real existential threats the moral calculus gets weighted in sometimes unseemly ways.

[@robertsmithee1455]

Watching Wooldridge use the 'specter' of the Twice Impeached Private Citizen as a consequence of 'less meritocracy' while overlooking the powerful argument that he instead represents the 'might makes right' heart of meritocracy is disappointing.

[@nlight101]

There are no accident Sir

[@georginabravo4508]

Could you please tell which societies are non meritocratic?

[@evadebruijn]

IMO India with its caste system would take impressive word/mind acrobatics to be argumented for being a true meritocratic society.

[@vv6533]

@@evadebruijn You could say the same thing about western society. Just replace the word caste with class rofl

[@darmaw22]

20 minutes into this talk, I don't feel my intelligence being squared, but being √.

[@shakhzod8513]

Go away, enemy of intelligence! 😡

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

What a dishonest comment- when sandel says “people land on top”. No one accidentally succeeds at anything

[@sadiesins5442]

Ah, a new set of biopolitics to decide who are worthy of wealth and who deserves to live in poverty. Maybe if we rewarded human life with a universal basic income as the default, we wouldn't be squabbling over what makes a person worthy.

[@titanneotech3093]

Income and support are not innate and natural to life. Sure we have built society. But once you determined that all shall have... What happens when none produce. The natural order is one that has some benefiting from geography of birth. Being born in a desert versus a bountiful rainforest. Resources are finite and the natural order does not provide offsets for an inequality .

[@johncrow5552]

Why should everyone get money for free? Why should everyone live? It doesn't happen in other species so why should it happen in ours? We are already overpopulating the world.

[@NaffiAxx]

Money doesn't grow on trees sorry commie.

[@marceloarbert5617]

Black females are the most educated milenials of EE.UU. they took the opportunities and with no family to support them

[@tayzk5929]

Do you want society to be eugenic or dysgenic? Hierarchy, inequality etc harms some people but less hierarchy and inequality can harm even more people.

[@gandydancerfilms6272]

Some one should have muted Sandel, he was fiddling with papers all the way through Adrian's talk.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

thats because sandel has no thoughts that make sense, so he was searching his paperwork for some.

[@birgittemunch3886]

Hi, absolutely great discussion. I was surprised by the strength of Prf. Sandels arguments and debth of his knowlegde.. Beeing scandinavian I have a lot of comments - things I do not agree with - but, maybe due to first hand experience with the scandinavian traditions, I appreciate Prf. Sandel, and are confused/surprised by Mr. Wooldridge's approach... do British people ever look upon their own narrow mind and history? The post-war period in DK (nordic countries?) have encouraged upward mobility via meritocracy, and - despite the better figures than UK, mentioned by Prf. Sandel - the consequense for society (and education) is questionable... lots to be learn from good scholars! Great discussion...

[@elmundodefer]

Speaking of deserveness and unfairness, I can't believe this video doesn't even reach 500 likes compared with so many stupid videos that hit millions of views. This was soo interesting!

[@microgiants7592]

That may say something about peoples real interests!

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

It’s simple. “The tyranny of merit” is a worthless claim.

[@moimeme6533]

Priorities, right? 😆

[@moimeme6533]

Mr Woolridge makes a compelling point that Meritocracy is a product of 19th century Revolutions…if that is the case perhaps it could be viewed as an evolutionary step forward at a societal level, opening the door to an even more highly evolved era …as the saying goes from MLK &/or others: “ *_the arc of morality is long, but it bends toward justice_* “. Just a thought.

[@_Botao_]

I think I follow doctor Sandels argument but the question then comes - in a society that dropped the meritocratic assumption, how would job openings be filled? By what criteria I mean? Would private companies be forced to consider aplicants that showed less accolades or promise? I would not have conceded the idea that the discussion on meritocracy is that of a moral claim alone. It also is, sure, but it is just as much one of economic claim. Economics and moral shoul not mix together - whatever are the areas that an economic system fails to account for in a way that we consider good for the society, we should fix them with taxation for as long as that economic system produces the expected level of growth and prosperity.

[@TheLivirus]

Sandel has no objections to using merit as basis for allocation of jobs. His critique regards merit as basis for allocation of esteem, status, power, wealth, etc. A good salesman should be a salesman. But, perhaps we shouldn't assume that the salesman deserves all the wealth he is able to accrue, or that his profession makes him a better person than the man repairing his car.

[@_Botao_]

@@TheLivirus In our world, your carrer will be the most important predictor of your status and power to strangers. I see no reason why it shouldn't be. If you want to contest that, then this is no longer a matter of meritocracy as a concept. It now becomes a question of putting the foundations of our economy in check. I see nothing wrong with marginalism and by that I mean I don't think any other economic principle explains transactions/occurrences in a more clear and self-evident way. Do you have a proposal?

[@TheLivirus]

@@_Botao_ I was trying to describe my understanding of Sandel's perspective. I'm not sure I agree with him.

[@dothedeed]

​@@_Botao_ I think his point is that IQ is a poor measure of merit. Having a high IQ can just be an indirect way the existing class structure replicates itself. The brain is a physical structure and is impacted by nutrition and early childhood education. So making cuts to school lunch programs for the poor then bragging about your kid's intelligence and career is not meritocratic. They've benefitted from 20+ years of handicapping the general population by the time they applied to be a surgeon and it is no surprise that they came out on top. And so what if a person isn't smart? Does that mean they can't contribute and should have their basic needs met? Effort, risk and value to society are better ways to award wealth and power. But the riskiest, most necessary, and hardest jobs often come with poor pay - see the current pandemic. We can't claim to live in a meritocracy when people working 3 jobs earn less than someone living off capital gains. And starving the lower classes is a recipe for societal instability and ultimately revolution. Money exists to serve people, people do not exist to serve money.

[@_Botao_]

@@dothedeed Oh I don't think anyone in the scientific community contests that IQ is not only variable throughout someone's life but is heavily influenced by your environment. I honestly have no idea why they were even talking about IQ because in our society we in fact reward IQ very poorly - look at the income level of a History or Philosophy PhD and those of say a Hollywood actor or a social media influencer. I think when you say "better way" you are making a moral claim and even though I am not even sure Sandel could defend that on a moral ground, like I said I don't think economics and moral should mix and we should use taxation to address those issues. I am glad that social democracies in the west have mostly agreed that we in fact should have social safety nets to guarantee that people have their basic needs met. But I don't think anyone would ever say that because of that a country like Norway or Denmark are not meritocratic. They in fact rank higher the the US in the economic freedom axis. Taxes are just that great. Effort, time spent and risk have never been the ways we evaluate someone's work but like in the comments above if you have an issue with marginalism and have a better proposal I am all ears.

[@gandydancerfilms6272]

Listening to Sandel I get the problems of woke confusion now befogging American academia.

[@N.i.c.k.H]

As usual, at heart, this is an argument about free will which leads to a false belief that being hard working is somehow, magically, less an accident of birth than being born tall or smart or to a rich family. If being hard working leads to deserved successs and being hard working is not an accident of birth or environment then it must be a choice of free-will. But who would chose not to be hard working if it were a choice? Who would choose not to be meritorious wherever it was a matter of choice? Perhaps it's because those who are not meritorious like to drink beer say, rather than work hard. Now we must ask ourselves where that liking for beer came from. We cannot reasonably argue that we choose what we like or how much we like it so we see there is NO aspect of a meritocracy that is not a product of birth or environment.

[@robdavies4294]

Big 5 personality traits are also not chosen but predict success reasonably well so ids say the equaltion is, physical lottery, mental lottery, personality lottery and effort (some of which is linked to personality, birth order etc) are the internal elements of merit. Then there's all the external environment that helps or hinders any of those being fulfilled. I think one thing is true. Even if there was a fair starting line outcomes wiuld vary radically.

[@smithavempaty9136]

I know it's a debate, and you have to argue diametrically, but you seemed to over simplify things to further your week position to begin with. You know that admissions are not solely done on SAT scores. Consistent gpa over the years, extraculcs, voluntary social work, your articulation skills measured through your essays, your life story, your race as a mandatory check on your application, your parents income levels, your instate, out of state or foreign born-ness, your hispanicity, and several other positive and negative discrimination factors are also taken into consideration. You should have known.

[@nagendrabhatnagar]

It is not as simple as that, as an earlier comment very rightly wrote, Michael Sandel is simply talking / writing about grave issues resulting from the current shape Meritocracy has taken. The sharply rising inequalities, be it the US or the UK or India, are a fact of life and not any flight of fancy. It will be a good idea to read Michael Sandel's latest book - 'Tyranny of Merit - What's Become of Common Good', where the first chapter itself give the live example of the case of Manipulations in the US in admissions to Ivy Colleges. You may also like to read Prof. Danial Markovitz's, Prof. of Law at Yale, book - The Meritocracy Trap. A fascinating book, very data based, where he has proved that Income inequalities have risen in the US.

[@voidlr]

@@nagendrabhatnagar Asking them to commit to an entire book is a bit much.. I'd recommend maybe checking out the Cosmic Skeptic interview or one of his speeches to see if you vibe with his stuff before committing to it.

[@zuha924]

He knows all of this... Maybe buy Sandel Book and you'll be enlighted or read Rawls and Hayek for some deeper understanding of the problem with merit and meritocracy

[@Gelindeful]

@53:05. Focusing on "meritocracy" is a symptom of a broken system. Stop the race and its importance will wane. The pandemic provided a unique platform to do this, but it wasn't done. I feel I saw minimal or non-existent hazard pay and gratitude towards a long neglected class. The race became painfully evident. It's the biggest hurdle for humans. We'd like to think we're above being a lion heartlessly munching on live prey, but really we're willing to do the same to each other.

[@useraccount3448]

Prof Sandel emphasizes on the morality(deservingness) of the meritocracy. While Adrian is trying to defend as if Sandel wants to uproot this system. No, Sandel just wants the world to acknowledge that meritocracy has irreparable flaws, those who couldn't move up the meritocratic ladder shouldn't be considered inferior. Infact they should be taken care of basic needs, even at the cost of meritorious people's wealth. Sandel's entire philosophy boils down to an equal view for all people and lower strata be given the dignity and financial security. He doesn't reject meritocracy, just exposes it, to have a fair view, the spirit of humility at all the levels of society and a more just public policy.

[@useraccount3448]

@Dnomyar Akunawik Thanks 🙏.

[@udaysinghsaini7042]

Glad to see this comment :)

[@insaneweasel1]

Do you think when he grades papers, he takes points from the high scoring students and gives them to the lower scoring students? If he doesn't then he really isn't putting his ideas into practice don't you think?

[@nischalshetty2411]

@@insaneweasel1 in the beginning of his pitch, between 3:18 and 5:01 of this video, Michael Sandel makes the distinction between how he views "Merit" (and acknowledges it is a good thing) and how he views "Meritocracy" (which he doesn't endorse). It's similar to how one can respect the concept of "Liberty", while at the same time acknowledge that "Libertarianism" (which is based on the foundation of individual Liberty) has its shortcomings. There is a nuance in his argument, which I feel is important. And to your question about whether Prof Sandel would redistribute marks, it's a "No" (as is evident if you have read his books or watched his lectures). The students who got the high marks are entitled* to their high scores. Because they may be gifted with better talent (or had head-start in learning) than other students in the class, they could - if they wished to distribute the benefits of their talents - spend time in helping/tutoring their classmates understand things better. This is is also a way of distributing benefits of talent (and respect): it does not always have to be about distributing marks or prizes. *he's spoken in the past about the nuance between "entitlement to earned rewards" and "moral desert" of rewards.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

building a system without the rewards of freedom and merit would be insane.

[@kfbuffalo]

Meritocracy is a wonderful utopian concept of fairness, but we have to acknowledge and address the bias/unconscious bias piece in terms of how we "evaluate" competence, best, most deserving, etc. It's not the same for all. The way behaviors land depends on who is exhibiting the behavior and who is witnessing the behavior (as well as the existing power structures and how that impacts what is "valued"). Human beings are not, by nature...objective and that creates inequity in what and who is considered "most qualified" , "most deserving" or "ideal".

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Success is not an accident is it? Nope.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

Do you support affirmative action policies?

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Wrong. Sports teams are the pinnacle of meritocracy

[@engledelaffety4380]

Being poor is very expensive.

[@christofeles63]

Isn’t it rather absurd for Sandel to argue that China or any society is not a meritocracy since he does not believe meritocracy exists? Is he saying only a system that equalized outcomes would count as meritocratic? A morally contingent outcome is still meritocratic, just not in the way Sandel’s absolutist egalitarianism envisions. For Sandel there is no good-enough social justice, there is only perfect justice and abject failure. Sandel can’t favor selection of any kind as the solution to unfair advantage. Earlier selection won’t make meritocracy fairer, for what makes anything fair or just in Sandel’s view is where people wind up. The whole aspirational apparatus itself would need to be cancelled, as individual’s differ not just in innate/acquired cognitive ability, but in their (and their family’s) level of ambition/drive/self-discipline, etc. The point of abolishing the family is to nullify the exclusive preference of parents for their off-spring. Given that only the abolition of the family (as the means of canceling out the advantages of culture) would cancel morally contingent disparate starting points, the logical conclusion ought to be obvious: the idea of a perfectly just meritocracy is unattainable. Its realization would require more than radical social reform, it would entail uprooting the most basic institution for the transmission of tradition and socialization known to man-a transformation of human nature, of the way-of-the-human-animal per se. Complete social justice, as with any species of moral purity-is finally inhuman. To expect perfection-the realization of utopia-is to misunderstand what it means to be a moral being in Kant’s sense-namely,a non-angelic being who would have no need of morality (or of seeing the ‘rose in the cross’). So while I grant that making the world comfortable for those who fail to attain is a compassionate aspiration, I fear that the means of doing so-disabusing the successful of their smugness and privilege-is anything but. Is it a prudent trade-off to spare the underachievers their bitterness and make the world safe for their invidious comparisons by measures that would simultaneously dis-incentivize vast segments of the population?

[@hmshector42]

My question on meritocracy is the failure rate down the ladder what we would expect to counter-balance the success rate up?

[@myhappytime7792]

Both of debaters are humanitarian and advocates of common good. And I agree that there should be less meritocracy. When talented people are grateful, they will be motivated to appreciate this precious gift from the world and thus will strive to improve the society as a whole.

[@myhappytime7792]

@Phil Messenger you read it correctly

[@naomiwood1970]

Changed my perspective on everything

[@karleells8603]

hopefully you dont believe a word sandel says. hes 100% wrong

[@youkt2997]

@@karleells8603 Why?

[@karleells8603]

@@youkt2997 our entire wester culture is built on merit. to call merit tyrannical is just plain ridiculous.

[@NaffiAxx]

@@karleells8603 leftist hate western culture they think backwards they think up is down and down is up, they don't believe in hard work, they want everything handed to them just because they breath.

[@Ruru12211]

@@karleells8603 that's an appeal to tradition. Also, meritocracy is relatively recent, for thousands of years before capitalism came along "western culture" was about fealty to God and King, nothing to do with merit.

[@Ken_Churchill]

Meritocracy doesn't work for everyone, but it is the least corruptible system.

[@standalby6949]

Direct democracy is about the best system we could have

[@user-wl1uz5sb9f]

@@standalby6949 direct democracy sounds like a good idea at first but it is always corrupted by populists

[@brashlybold8805]

@@standalby6949 Direct democracy would be a nightmare. In 90% of cases its better to have a mixed system where the public can vote on some policy bills but keep their own public bias out of serious issues like foreign trade. The only people who would advocate for a direct democracy are those who live within a current corrupt system of social democracy. Meritocracy isn't great like the guy defending it in the video says (obviously neoliberals will argue in favour of democracy because it suits their biases well) but its certainly a step up from anachronistic Feudalism and bloodline monarchies.

[@sadiesins5442]

the merit of being born into a family with wealth who can network to other families with wealth to ensure you get the best paying career ever... We're a social, xenophobic species that rewards those who look, act, and signal to come from the upper class. Meritocracy doesn't overcome this, but instead rationalizes the choices we make when reinforcing these biases. Code switching isn't a "merit" that shows inequality can be overcome, but just another example of how everything we do involves overcoming inequality to be allowed to have our merits valued equally. If the ruling class is rich, how can anyone claim that merit isn't more than an illusionary carrot waved at the lower class to ensure corruption in the system of wealth distribution remains?

[@lozzybozzy234]

Well we can't know because attempts at it are always corrupted.

[@MrGavintron]

Adrian summed it up very well toward the end. Michael's arguement effectively boils down to: meritocracy's not perfect, so we should just throw it out.

[@advocate1563]

Excellent summary. Felt that this discourse was not a good use of my ears.

[@snaphaan5049]

Nope. I think a someone else summed it up way better. Sandel just wants the world to acknowledge that meritocracy has irreparable flaws, those who couldn't move up the meritocratic ladder shouldn't be considered inferior. He does not want to get rid of it. That's what Adrian tried to infer. Watch more of Sandel's lectures ;)

[@tomq9644]

Michael Sandel kinda philosophically slams Adrian Wooldridge in this. I guess Sandel is a professional philosopher after all. Maybe he deserves his spot at Harvard after all. Great video, but it wasn’t really a fair fight.

[@TheLincolnrailsplitt]

No really.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Talking against meritocracy while claiming to be a Harvard guy, shows you how dumb academics are

[@iantheroman1016]

​@@ronaldreagan-ik6hzI think it actually shows the civic virtue of a person if they go against a status-quo that directly benefits them. It would be much easier for someone who holds such a prestigious position to pretend that they deserve everything about their position, or as Sandel puts it "The succesful inhale too deeply of their own success, they forget the luck and good fortune that helped them along their way."

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

@@iantheroman1016 luck is where perseverance meets effort. Claiming that merit is tyrannical is utterly insane. Sandell is a progressive fool.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

@@iantheroman1016 per the largest study of American millionaires ever conducted- 90% of American millionaires are self made- not inherited. Sandell is 100% wrong. He’s just another progressive professor destroying America by spreading misinformation

[@futures2247]

of course its rubbish because no one chooses what resources they end up with in life its random luck where you are born, into which family, what political situation, how tall, short, good looking you are what motivation energy and intelligence you have etc - its all luck all the way down - if our current world was reduced to a small island with 100 people and all were sat around a table eating together every night we'd soon change things because the cruelty would be visible to all close up and personal.

[@smithavempaty9136]

Prof. Sandel, mobility should be measured amongst those who used their merit/intellect from the bottom quarter to obtain a well paying job...not amongst the full set of those at the bottom quarter of people who may not have positioned to compete in this knowledge economies. Even 2 kids from the same families, will have vastly different economic outcomes should one go into engineering vs the other taking political science/humanities as their major. Simply attributing success to the social status of a family, historical previldge of wealth or family values of placing education above all...don't fully explain why some move up and some don't.

[@emilianosintarias7337]

But he is measuring that full set against the full set at the top, so he includes lazy or unlucky rich kids too. Also, your own example helps make his case, that engineers may be more in demand or more valued even in a decent society, rather than just a chaotic finance driven one is a fact. But the idea that they should inhabit an entirely different social class ? that seems undesirable for a variety of reasons. Finally there is the implicit point that getting or staying rich and powerful itself may be a skill, one that runs in families, and we have to question if we want that.

[@YJPRiddle]

Also, success is surely at least somewhat related to certain characteristics and values that can evolve within cultures and families. If a family transmits these values to their children, that's a good thing. The children then may be more likely to succeed. But there's nothing pernicious in this, nothing unfair. And as every family wants the best for their children, there's nothing inherently wrong with those successful families supporting their children's success, so long as they dont use cronyism or bribery.

[@karleells8603]

AMen. you nailed it. So many of sandels claims are made on the backs of partial truths. No one Accidently succeeds in life.

[@insaneweasel1]

@@YJPRiddle exactly. Sandel is a perfect example of a pseudo academic, someone who's not all that logical, but was given the opportunity to follow up words and brainwash weak-minded people.

[@tayzk5929]

@@karleells8603 Everyone, wether they succeed or fail, are doing so accidentally in that they don't themselves fundamentally choose any part of what makes them who they are. They don't choose their genetics or environment, and their "choices" when they make them are all based on factors outside of their control.

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

Definitely not to be thought in a way of a myth can be problematic when used for gatekeeping

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

@Ronald Reagan Depends on how you look at it

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

@Ronald Reagan Of course, the very same situation of skills inequality becomes some kind of measure to keep the gate shut and inaccessible to some people

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

@Ronald Reagan Think you got me wrong buddy Do you realise no matter how highly intelligent and qualified, there are other criterias of gatekeeping/merit systems that can still be used against you just to get someone else ahead of you?

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

@Ronald Reagan This simply implies that you have never experienced it. Not your fault. You just happen not to have experienced it yet

[@gabofelenthwane5311]

@Ronald Reagan No, they are not failing. They are trying to bring back humanity to unjust bureaucratic systems. It's something that cannot be achieved overnight

[@brandonkim76]

I don’t deny on Wooldridge’s argument at all. However I want my children to live in Sandel’s world.

[@tayzk5929]

If you truly wanted your children to live in Sandel's world, you would deny Wooldridge's argument.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

sandels world claims merit is tyrannical. Sandels world will raise weak minds.

[@SANGATLAHLEMAHKESADARAN]

negara maju yg fenomenal yg jg menganggap persaingan tak sehat para penguasa dan dinastinya🤔dinegara berkembang 🤔🇲🇨INDONESIAmy country PERSAINGAN bukan absolut tapi DOMINASIdanMANIPULASI .KARENA PARA PEMEGANG KEKUASAAAN DAN PEMILIK USAHA BESAR tidak menspesifikan ciri standar yang benar2 murni baik dari SEGI AKADEMIK maupun BAKAT yg mumpuni dan permainanya masih lah permainan kotor zaman dulu yg di upgrade diera sekarang karena yg dibutuhkan PARA PENGUASA DAN PENGUSAHA BESAR ADALAH LOYALITAS(menjilat kedalam sampek kemaluan para penguasa)itulah yg dibutuhkan mungkin masih menganut ARISTOKRASI KLASIK🤔🇲🇨🇲🇨🇲🇨 INDONESIA JAWA TIMUR KEDIRI jln perintis kemerdekaan no 15🤔

[@emacias89]

I dont agree so mich with the China example about them being mpre meritocratic in this modern age. Isnt china competing with the US because of their production stronghold. This appears to lie more along the lines unmeritocratic society where opportunity is offered more at for lower classes?

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Ibram kinde? Lol. What a fool to even mention that guys name.

[@kimvaughn9838]

This is the worst argument on this top. Both keep arthe same thing. This isn't a debate.

[@auralangst6177]

The people who promote "meritocracy" are those born into privilege, or those yet to discover others' privilege.. And, by privilege, I mean both financial and psychological privilege.. I have a very high IQ, but was raised in an abusive household, so I focused my mind on trying to escape abuse and stay alive, rather than deciding which of the world's problems I intended to solve..

[@YJPRiddle]

Anything other than a meritocracy is to tilt the scales in someone's favor. Maybe you want thing tilted to your advantage? But why should anyone else allow that, and how can you assert that as fair philosophy? I'm sorry for your, or anyone's, difficult circumstances... but that doesn't mean others should be handicapped in deference to it... and by granting special privileges to some, you're ipso facto disadvantaging others. Do you really think disadvantaging those who are better (i.e. better for a certain task or job, as a true meritocracy would adjudge) is a moral system. A high IQ does not guarantee success. The uni-bomber, Ted Kazinski, was a genious. It takes other traits as well, including hard, sustained, purposefully goal-directed work, and yes, psychological and emotional stability. Yes, we should help those who need help, however, even in the ideal society, there's no way to totally redress all cosmic injustices.

[@karleells8603]

oh my god. no one rises to the top because of privilege. people rise to the top because of their effort. Do you think every child of an NFL player will also just rise to be in the NFL when they become of age regardless of any lack of effort? Your comments are worthlessly wrong and Michael Sandel is an idiot.

[@JSeydl1788]

@@YJPRiddle I think the point is rather that there is nothing just about the current distribution of wealth and income in the economy. You're treating it as just, and therefore you think if we try to intervene with a little redistribution, that would be unjust. But I believe you have it wrong, for all the reasons Sandel argues: even a high degree of effort is morally arbitrary.

[@moimeme6533]

Yes TY for raising that point …exactly, psychology if not mental health in general is yet another dimension in this equation , also could be viewed as a variable inextricably linked with the socioeconomic factors discussed herein IMO.

[@vincentdenboer1451]

A bit disappointed with the outcome of the debate. Even though Mr. Sandal made very valid points, from what I've understood there was no response to the idea merit consists of different components and therefore does not link 100% to the deservingness as it is represented throughout the rest of the debate. Also, I would've loved a more complete response to what the alternative is seeing he appears to see meritocracy as 100% broken.

[@lilyghassemzadeh]

I believe that "being psychologically healthy" has to be the only criterion for choosing the ruling class.

[@alrisan71]

¿choosing a ruling class? no thanks!! :-)

[@essentialist1079]

Skill is the ultimate meritocracy. If you have a real skill - an ability to do something that satisfies a real need that some people have - then you will almost certainly find people who are willing to pay you for that skill, and by that means, you will prosper. It's not a matter of morals, ethics, etc., but a simple matter of appealing to others' self-interest.

[@MarkoKraguljac]

Most people can develop highly sought skill of cleaning toilets for money, yet they do not, even though most of us are capable. You are talking about "skill" as if it is a living plant, yet without roots and floating in the air. I know it makes you feel better thinking in such truncated and simplified way. We all do it, its easier and reassuring in the face of terrifying social reality we just glimpse.

[@essentialist1079]

@@MarkoKraguljac Cleaning toilets doesn't involve much skill and isn't very sought after on average (though you'd probably be surprised, and maybe a little envious, of the pay and quality of life that toilet cleaners in some of the posher holiday parts of the US enjoy today). Skill is a very general term and it means different things in different times and places. I am a little terrified about my own skills becoming obsolete. What I'm not terrified of is my general ability to acquire a new skill in the face of changing demands. Such a terror wouldn't serve me, but also doesn't seem realistic, given the plasticity of the human mind and the overall very intelligent, flexible, adaptable and intuitive nature of all humans including myself. People who think machines can replace humans are somehow managing to ignore the fact that practically all machines depend on humans for their survival.

[@shredermn]

@@essentialist1079 I agree with you, you've made a good point. I think part of the problem of this subject has a lot to do whit what you said about skills becoming obsolete, and yes, the human mind has the ability to acquire a new skill in the face of changing demands but that doesn't necessarily mean a meritocracy would be a desirable thing.

[@mysteriouschiu5484]

You are not listening to the debate are you? Once ability to develop such skills, including talent, access to training and ability to work hard are not within once control.

[@giialiinh]

no, luck

[@tmak5665]

More appropriately, meritocracy applies to the competency and effectiveness of the governance members in a society to provide public good and service to the country. They are not just measured by their IQ, talent, test results, privilege and efforts. These may be used as one of initial entry points in the earlier career to be part of governance party members. Meritocracy must be continuously measured and evaluated by the amount of contributions, achievements, positive results one makes to the society as a public good to raise the well beings for all and not just a few percent of the elites for self interest. Otherwise, this would create plutocracy or kakistocracy like some of the advanced developed countries with populism ideology and exceptionalism attitude. Meritocracy is a continuous assessment process as you move up to the governance ladder from the bottom. Level of meritocracy is based on actual and measurable contributions and positive outcomes under the individual leadership and effort which are being developed, monitored and assessed continuously throughout their careers as a public servant. It is much more than just the IQ, talented, test results and effort or hardwork. Hardwork without producing any positive result is incompetent. Meritocracy requires passion, desire, commitment, selfless service attitude and contributions to serve the country for the benefit of all people in the society and the nation. Singapore and China are the only one party systems that are practicing the meritocracy. It is the tradition that was practiced during the Confucius period. That is why there has been such phenomenal growth and development in these two countries in such short perid of time. Management of 1.4 billion people with such positive development results over the past 30 years and lifting 800 milions out of extreme poverty are admirable achievements. Meritocracy is not an ideology but a process or practice to achieve the positive results through systematic, effective and compentent governance and leadership.

[@tayzk5929]

Proponents of Meritocracy should just be honest that it's just a modified version of social darwinism.

[@tayzk5929]

​@@gazesalso645 Yes, genetics + environment, plays 100% role in everything about you and your outcomes. My comment was in response to a comment, not the video. I would like for people who promote things, to be clear about what they're promoting and not obfuscating it.

[@gazesalso645]

@@tayzk5929 hmm not sure that the issue is but my response went to the wrong person. 😅 Let me fix that

[@gazesalso645]

@T Mak what a lot of the discussion was about though is what variables account for one's outputs. Both agree there is luck involved. Depending on where you stand in the debate it may matter a lot or not so much. But it's hard to ignore that luck of your genetics, prenatal health, role models social networks etc. plays a large role in outcomes and hence your own outputs. If this true then what you say has little bearing in making meritocracy distinct from being born into nobility in an aristocracy. Indeed, if by some stroke of luck (say being born of parents who went to university ) you end up on a virtuous cycle of improvement and hence greater outputs you can see how your own outputs would exceed those of someone who, again through luck, was on the receiving end of negative cycle. Now, the rebuttal to the argument is motivation and effort are one's own efforts. But while one could make this argument again it's hard not to see how this is also not a factor of one's makeup and environment.

[@psychicspy]

@@gazesalso645 Luck is for people who can't understand causality.

[@nlight101]

As I happen to believe because I have seen - it. Leadership..the person who gets it.. My son is a physics graduate- was he gifted and talented.. No. He was a child who was labeled because of race. I was asked to put him on speed as they thought he was ..ADHD and how he was doing the begining of his grade at the end of the school year.. My thoughts was..who educated his teacher.. But She recommended he take a pill and move up to the next grade.. My husband said no..repeat and pills.. She felt its going to cause him a self esteem problem..my husband said he already has that because it does not feel good to be behind and moved up because of hurt feelings. I was told he will always be learning challenged. We removed him from the same teacher and never gave him a pill.. What amazed me is..it takes a leader to help promote the repeated. Leadership skills - where by its about we all have the capabilities to be educated. But what is lacking is the leadership to pave the way to inspire the very natural human desire to crave the next step.. Who does not feel amazing being accomplishment or fulfills the goal. But- it only means what we are taught. We can only be taught if we have the environment to learn. The leader" teacher" teaches grit, and inner city and the life challenges- is the callus that is a great callus- its nit who raised you.. Its who was in the classroom? Because my son- the one who will never get out of remedial.. That I was so upset at the "label"we went from a Northside ivy league wanna be- to inner city. And he was a normal child. With normal dreams of wanting to be a super hero.. And we never ever had him lable a remedial human.. But rather inspired- as he saw his parents who believed in him and not the label. He graduated top of his class inducted into the national society- and by virtue of his scholastic academically achieved colleague credits- to get the scholarship to Texas A&M and he dropped out.. Why? He felt out of placed. As he was bothered by the lack of gratitude to the creature comforts that makes it conducive for great accomplishments- as he heard the biggest complaint, the privileged student had - was robotic .. that the conditioned peers he was in company with- - were the grad car they were given.. And we were lucky to get him to and from school. So what am I seeing? An environment not conducive for learning. And the harm was back- as he dropped out. He then worked with a fortune 500 company. Members only club- member centric- and he was military and was battalion commander. He was 22 and took a shot at an essay. "Why he felt he deserved to attend the Naval Academy..?" He made it in- and was successful- he graduated a leader and he is my son. What I love about it..is the only way you will fail in the academy- is because you quit. He.. Inspires others in restaurants he will ask ? So ..you going to be a waitress all your life or do you have a plan? .. He had open heart surgery in his 3rd year. And.. He loves to hear him. Why they feel they "cant" and he explains..using my favorite line I would use- Can't never could do anything- so grab your worms... I love the lectures.. I heard lots ..but- if you make a challenges in life about " means " the means equals "deprived" it will deprive the excitement of taking that step into the unknown.. You don't always need to see the staircase- to take that step.. You need to just take that step. i think we are missing the positive affirmation of you can if you want it bad enough. The only one stopping you is your own feet. It maybe we need to give a little shove and hug.. Inspire before they expire. As we all know too well time passes so fast. Quality of life. Ivy league or Rutgers? An almost Ivy league.. I do nit know what school our president attended- but I promise to look it up and make certain my grandchild does not attend - just joking.. Bottom line its all true.. And for some maybe it means a lot..but that's a building block.. And we need more.i thank you for your lectures.

[@user-yp7nc7dn4m]

الرجاء.لاحاطه.بلاسم.المسجل.بالبطاقه.بنعماره.الحبيب.وشكرا.لكم.سا تنا.لاكارم

[@Michael-jv7uq]

Don't let this anti meritocracy mindset hold you back. I'm a first generation college graduate with a much higher net worth than my parents had before they died (they had nothing). Learn about money. Listen to Dave Ramsey. Get a degree or a trade in a field where there are good jobs. Don't just go to school and rack up debt. There are lots of jobs out there, from engineering to nursing and accounting to plumbing. You can make it to the top 25% if you want to and take the time to learn. You have it better than billions of people alive today and even more billions of people who lived over the last 100,000 years. You can do it!

[@JSeydl1788]

I'm a first generation college grad who as well did better than my parents ever could have imagined for themselves. However, this is a debate where we don't want to anchor on personal anecdotes. Fact is economic mobility appears to be in decline, as inequality has risen. It's a mega problem, and I believe Sandel is right in that meritocratic dogmatism contributes

[@LaoDan13]

some people are so poor, the only thing they have is money! so don't let this money driven mindset hold you back from becoming real rich!

[@thegroove2000]

Fraudocracy. UK.

[@karleells8603]

yes, the lefits idiots are frauds as they lack in any common sense.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Ignorance- you

[@psychicspy]

Systems do not treat people with respect. Only individuals can respect one another.

[@luistirado88]

Yes but systems can be designed in was that reward people according to a varying range of things. And in doing so, they promotes certain qualities (which may be desirable or not) within people.

[@psychicspy]

@@luistirado88 Those with undesirable qualities enter the pipeline. Those with desirable qualities build those pipelines.

[@georginabravo4508]

The Sumerians, the egiptians, the greek and the Romana lived in meritocratic societies. It is not a new social technolog. It is a very well tested technology and we know that today, it doesn’t work any more. It might have played it’s roll in the past, but for a different future, we do have to de-construct it.

[@christofeles63]

Sandel's attempt to link IQ tests with eugenicists is a a guilt-by-association tactic. Unworthy of someone of his intelligence. "Still reflect that eugenic legacy" indeed. Tests don't have to measure innate or congenital ability, but performance. Sandel has to prove that self-application, discipline, industry, etc., are never merited but always the privilege of birth, unearned endowments, happy accidents, etc. This seems absurd, explainable only by his ideological commitment to equality of outcome.

[@insaneweasel1]

I wonder if Michael sandel grades the same way he thinks society should be organized. Does he take points from high scoring students and give them to students who did poorly and didn't study?

[@smithavempaty9136]

Prof. Sandel, we don't revere Einstein or Dirac because they were born into rich families, but because what they had to offer us. It is what you bring to the table and deliver, not your efforts that matter. This is true everywhere. Try working hard and not finishing the job at your sink when washing dishes tonight, and see if your logic will work at an elementary level with your wife

[@andjelatatarovic8309]

I agree, I wonder if he was trying to make a broader but more idealistic point of how we rely on meritocracy but also in a scarcity mindset and so don't get to meritocracy at all.

[@shredermn]

But that isn't the problem. Of course, we recognize Einstein and others like him because of what they accomplished, but it's like Neil deGrasse Tyson explained once: if Isaac Newton had been born in Africa, he might have never been able to accomplish what he did, and maybe the next Einstein is starving in Ethiopia.

[@evadebruijn]

@@shredermn This. Why is competition in sports so regulated? 'Level playing field'. 'All pigs are born equal, but some are more equal than others'

[@zuha924]

Value is not merit.

[@kwabsofori1902]

Where is the Empiric evidence that shows a causal link between unequal reward and innovation? Didn't Dan Ariely demonstrate that there is no causality between bonuses and creative output(innovation), and if there is one, it is a negative one?

[@zuha924]

wow dude thanks i was searching for someone that studied the argument.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

the average employee that gets a bonus does so through merit. the average employee that gets promotions achieves that through merit. the average millionaire achieves that through merit. are you really this ignorant?

[@YJPRiddle]

Mr. Sandel neglects the aspect of success (on either the sports field or academic tests) which involves work, discipline, resolve, commitment, goal setting and persistence… in short character traits that are NOT just an accident of birth, unconnected to the individual. Even considering just innate attributes, that potential/talent is not evenly distributed among people is not anyone’s fault; Mr. Sandel’s dissatisfaction is thus with Nature (or God, or Reality). It with dubious validity that one proposes a system which is at odds with Reality.

[@karleells8603]

Sandels claims dont for a second hold up to balanced statistics. he uses partial truths to make self described conclusive statemnts.

[@lamashehadeh4601]

54:18 mic drop! Bravo Sandel!

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

nothing sandel says is worthy of a mic drop. anyone that is dumb enough to call merit tyrannical is a true fool

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Sandels ideas are worthless

[@andywilson5677]

I wonder if Adrian realized what he was arguing for when he said we should use standardized tests to select children to be given opportunities from a young age. He is basically asking for discrimination against those that don't perform well on those tests. "Oh, you only have average IQ, well tough luck, you deserve your place below the smart people." This would create a dystopian world like the sci-fi movie Gattaca. I feel like this argument really underestimates just how much nurture has an influence over where you end up in life and puts too much weight on nature. Children of wealthy families don't perform better on tests because they have a higher IQ but because they have huge amounts of resources dedicated to training them (private tutors etc.). Most people can perform well if given the right environment to train in. I think most of what Adrian was saying wasn't really addressing the issue of moral deservingness. Of course we want the most qualified people to be in the right jobs, but that doesn't say anything on whether they deserve the outcomes that follow. I don't think he made a convincing argument by saying that somehow "working hard" meant that you now had moral justification for your success. I think if we accept Michael's argument that we don't deserve the outcomes that happen to us, even if we worked hard, then we would start to create a far better society for everyone.

[@synchronium24]

"I feel like this argument really underestimates just how much nurture has an influence over where you end up in life and puts too much weight on nature. Children of wealthy families don't perform better on tests because they have a higher IQ but because they have huge amounts of resources dedicated to training them (private tutors etc.)." I understand the point you're trying to make, but I have an issue with the framing. IQ is a test score, so performing better on an IQ test is definitionally higher IQ. To correct this and still keep the spirit of your first sentence, I would say that IQ is not solely a measure of nature (which it is sometimes claimed to be).

[@andywilson5677]

@@synchronium24 I agree with what you wrote. When I said tests I wasn't referring to IQ tests but just exams / school performance in general.

[@jk55.]

I'm sad this topic needs debating...

[@cagdasmuldur250]

Why?

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Yes. Merit wins.

[@jake_runs_the_world]

Snadel is so brilliant!

[@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason]

In response to "Snadel is so brilliant!" (before it is edited in response to my snide remark): I'm not sure where you stand, actually, because you appear to be dyslexic. Ba Dum Tsss...

[@jake_runs_the_world]

@@Pet.Wifey.Voice.Of.Reason not even playing along lmao but im actually dyslexic hahah

[@Michael-jv7uq]

Nah he's a good debator. But his sweet honey talk is a pretty dangerous pursuit of a Utopian vision that would likely result in worse outcomes for nearly everybody, excluding those at the top who get to choose how much of other people's undeserved money they will take.

[@arthurwittmann6242]

@@Michael-jv7uq Dissocian of the individual from their characteristics (as in inate skill) is a sliperry slope. If you start with inteligence, what is really stopping us from saying that you can the ability for working hard too is not just random ( i think it's as much as), and therefore one could not be damaged for not "being able" to wor.... after that, you ultimately get to a perfect average (because you dissociated individuals from all characteristics) and I aint paying to see people that are not rewarded nor punished with produce for producing or not (mathematically aint gonna work)

[@karleells8603]

brilliant? to call merit tyrannical? LOL

[@aerofred2002]

I struggle with this because I naturally prefer a merit based system. However, I now recognize that human beings cannot allow true merit to flourish. The results we see are more like, "not what they're but what they've been made out to look like." Though, there's something about competition that makes everybody try harder. I grew up in a country that had standardized tests. Most countries with the British model of education have this merit system. It's broken down into three phases: primary school (equivalent to elementary and middle school in America), secondary school (high school in America), and HAC (which is still high school but equivalent to community College in the US). And at every phase, there's a national exam that all students take in order to move on to the next level. Those scores determine placement and ability to get into the best schools. But ironically, it was always the same schools that came out on top every year. As an adult, I do recognize the fiction of merit we were sold as children. There's absolutely no way in hell anybody could get perfect scores in those exams. But the kids accepted into top schools achieved exactly that. To give you an idea of the impossibility of the situation, in secondary school (high school) for example, we had six compulsory subjects that every child around the country had to take. Math, English, Biology, Geography, History, and Commerce. In addition, every student had to pick a minimum of two classes, or a maximum of 4 classes to add to their compulsory obligations. The idea behind optional classes was to improve your grade and become well rounded. Optional classes varied depending on school but they mostly included, Chemistry, Physics, Christian Religious Education, Political Science, French, Luganda, Arts and craft, Accounting, etc. Also, the British education system doesn't have the concept of multiple choice. You either know something, or you don't. With that said, imagine the material that's covered over a 4 yr period and being tested on all of it at once. It's bad enough for one elective, but 8 of them, is insane. Ideally, thru this buffet of classes, we all discovered our strengths, weaknesses, and interests. But the merit selection was predicated on achieving perfect scores across the board which now I know is impossible. However, as kids, that's what we strived for. We all dreamed of having our name called out on national radio with such honors. And to Sandel's point, the schools that performed well had found a loophole in the system. They had developed relationships with people on the exam boards who consequently informed them of the general area/topics that would be tested on and tailored/emphasized their curriculum around it. My other example has to do with the ASVAB/military entrance exam. I came across many people in the military who had very impressive scores on their entry exams. However, when it came time to compete for these other tests that were completely foreign to all of us, they were no where to be found. As a matter of fact, some of them straight flanked out. Therefore, it's very hard to define what constitutes merit. This is why sports is the only meritocracy because your jump shot or ability to dunk cannot be faked. Everything else can be gamed. You can engineer somebody's way to an ivy league school by having them eat and breath Kumon every waking minute of their day from birth. Obviously, someone has to be of average intelligence to begin with which most of us are. As Chris Rock said, "in every class, there's 5 smart kids, 5 dumb ones, and the rest are in the middle." However, many people in the middle position themselves as the rare smart ones, and employ gatekeeping tactics to keep out others. But the reality is, everybody in the middle, which is probably 85% of the population, could learn or be taught the same skills.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

so rewarding merit wins -- every time. Thus capitalism that rewards the merit of the individual is the best system.

[@aerofred2002]

@@ronaldreagan-ik6hz We're about to find out with AI. One person, one robot, replacing an entire workforce in middle America. But I agree that certain areas of society should have the best people available. For example, doctors, pilots, and athletes. However, the majority works at places like, Wal-Mart, Post Office, etc..., and it's hard to argue merit there. I believe philosopher John Rawls' argument will be more important than ever especially with the threat of AI replacing people in the workforce.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

@@aerofred2002 its amazing how AI is coming-- largely because of punitive regulations and taxation from progressive left government policies-- YET-- unskilled labor is doing not enough to change their personal skills to. I mean hell, if you stand in front of a train until it his you, is it the trains fault? NO.

[@The-Awakening]

the books in hi ed and the types of teachers need to be put directly into the public schooling system dont just " provide " a " pathway " put em directly on the road!

[@rogersmith8339]

All this seems to be a bit like CRT, being discussed by people who think they are superior to "ordinary people " but have pointless qualifications in useless subjects and are thus less meritorious than people who do a proper days work.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

you can do a proper days work and provide no value or a low value to society-- that simply will not create a high income vs a high value producer in the same society. only those on the left think that a breathing person somehow deserves an equal income to a high value producing person. They dont.

[@christofeles63]

That individuals cannot deserve their accomplishments unless everyone has the same starting point is anything but self-evident. It is in fact impossible to eradicate disparities of endowment. We show up at the starting gate unequally prepared and unequally motivated. But someone always wins, and to tell them they should not feel deserving or take pride in their triumph seems perverse. A win is a win, regardless of what one’s neighbor does or fails to accomplish. Another word for deservingness or merit is entitlement. Sandel is making the claim that no one should feel entitled to their rewards because social outcomes are unequal. There seems to be no self-relation in Sandel's hyper-moral interpersoanl world which is not already mediated by a relation to his fellow human beings; by an obsessive comparing of outcomes. It is never allowed to want to have more or to vanquish the competition. There is no place for pride because no attainment is merited. This may keep us humble--but at what a cost! But in Sandel's eyes there is no cost, as the only thing that matters is obviating invidious comparisons and disparate outcomes. This may reflect a more acute concern with equality, or a more acute sensitivity to envy. The two may be inseparable. The implication of such a greater sensitivity to the destructiveness of envy goes hand in hand with a less confident faith in society's ability to absorb its negative effects. I had intended to avoid ad hominems and considerations of personal motivation, but a man's morality is inseparable from his basic psychological prejudices. This being the case, I have to say I prefer the robust entitlement of Wooldridge to Sandel's fretting about taking up more space than he merits. The former inspires a confidence which Sandel's morbidly scrupulous other-directedness does not.

[@microgiants7592]

Apparently, these gentlemen have never hired or worked in industry. Performance and efficiency creates the raises that we all want, and meritocracy rewards those who provide quality and efficiency. Therefore, the company can win by providing high quality at lower prices. Matching these people to a particular job is difficult, some fail to maintain minimum performance standards, a few excel. Each type of job requires a unique blend of intelligence, skills and ambition. We have decent means to achieve this today so job and person can match the task. Those who perform well should be better paid and promoted if not they tend to underperform because there is no incentive. This discussion was only barely grounded in reality, but then isn't that what academics are for?

[@thomasriedel7583]

He always runs while others walk He acts while other men just talk He looks at this world, and wants it all So he strikes, like Thunderball He knows the meaning of success His needs are more, so he gives less They call him the winner who takes all And he strikes, like Thunderball Any woman he wants, he'll get He will break any heart without regret His days of asking are all gone His fight goes on and on and on But he thinks that the fight is worth it all So he strikes, like Thunderball

[@somefunification]

IQ2 really needs to stop getting financial journalists for debates. They always lose.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

the journalists that always lose are the progressive leftists. they care nothing about truth, and truth rarely comes from progressive bias.

[@lunes-1]

🦁

[@ClementineEcho]

Wooldridge's proposal to comb the population for hidden geniuses is oddly reminiscent of the anime No. 6.

[@user-co5oh8lw7n]

我很喜欢Michael教授 但是感觉专栏作家语言更加简练易懂

[@TheKonecny]

Michael Sandel has truth that is difficult doing evaluate students only throu tests. I think that it is engaged with area of physiology, have courage or not.

[@ThayJimmyThai]

This debate shows a different side of Prof. Sandel whom I've admired and listened to his Justice series repetitively for a month now. As a former Vietnamese "Boat People" refugee, I listened to both esteemed philosophers while reflecting on my life experiences of a struggled immigrant who came to America (after 15 escaped attempts, imprison twice, and witnessed Communist harbor police shot and killed my brother) with no English, no education, and no money... then dedicated 15 years to earn a college degree and 2 Masters, leveraging financial aids and company's tuition assistance, respectively. While I'm favor Dr. Woolridge's position of SUCCESS = Talent (non-deserved factor) + Efforts (deserved factor), I admire Prof. Sandel's recognition of contributions from Luck in Life (e.g.: my brother was shot and my life was spare with 12" apart on a rickety boat) and Family/Social Supports (e.g.: my ESL teacher, PELL/Cal grants, work study program, student loans which I paid off after 2 years of working) that allowed me to rise from a night time janitor to become a VP of a Fortune500 company in 25 years. After achieving the "American Dream" of financially independence, I've founded a 501.c.3 charity and built 106 schools, bridges, and educational projects around the world. My point is when you combine your PASSION of whatever can help you be successful with your COMPASSION to serve the LESS FORTUNATE around you, then you will achieve personal FULFILLMENT and make this world a HAPPIER place for all. Life's happiness is not either or, but rather a combination of many so we can strike for a Middle Way as in Buddhism philosophy.

[@Gar96229]

I’m not debating, I’m just asking, anyone who supports meritocracies, what would you say to those who suffer from intellectual disabilities, or learning disabilities? People who no matter how hard they try, will never succeed? I feel our society doesn’t care about them.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Meritocracy rewards effort in a lot of different ways. its not always intelligence, or raw effort, or talent or appearance, etc. what other system would you suggest other than rewarding the effort of free individuals -- thus merit?

[@psychicspy]

High IQ people are selected for by the environment, which at present is one that rewards people who can push technological advancement. When high IQ people win, everyone wins.

[@Ge0ni]

Thank you for making those ideas available ❤ The definition of meritocracy that Michael Sandel presented in a very clear way (if chances are equal, the winner deserves the winning) was new to me and is different from the one I had intuitively which is more related to the definition he linked to merit and competence (the person more competent at practicing a task deserves to be in charge of that task). I think some of the seemingly opposing views might have come from Adrian Woolridge leaning more on the latter. The first definition requires a consensus for “winner” and “winning” which is subjective in my opinion. Considering the second definition, I think that even from an utilitarian perspective the society “might” become more competent if it succeeds in engaging more of the potent individuals. This might require to leave a local optimum. Questioning the need to evaluate human life on an utilitarian scale was great. I am totally compliant to the idea of viewing “the distribution of talent as a common good” and that wording is great! The model presented by Michael Sandel assuming the definition he gave at the beginning is very well elaborated and convincing for me.

[@EclecticSceptic]

Meritocracy is just a repackaging of what the ancient Greeks called aristocracy, rule of the 'aristoi' or 'betters'.

[@ronaldreagan-ik6hz]

Sandel- wants to give everyone a participation trophy. Lol

[@Michael-jv7uq]

“Kindness is the excuse that social justice warriors use when they want to exercise control over what other people think and say.” ― Jordan B. Peterson

[@tl4340]

What doesn't get addressed is what "merit" is now days versus what it used to be. 50 years ago a doctoral degree or even a college degree meant something. It was certain discriminatory (in a bad sense), but it meant something. Now days a doctoral degree in some grievance studies area means essentially nothing, and that "merit" means very little. Just because you get a faculty job on the coastal cities re-teaching grievance hardly puts you in a place to scorn others.