What does this mean for me? You will always be able to play your favorite games on Kongregate. However, certain site features may suddenly stop working and leave you with a severely degraded experience.
What should I do? We strongly urge all our users to upgrade to modern browsers for a better experience and improved security.
We suggest you install the latest version of one of these browsers:
Kongregate is a community-driven browser games portal with an open platform for all web games.
Get your games in front of thousands of users while monetizing through ads and virtual goods.
Learn more »
A meritocracy, according to Wikipedia, is “is the implementation of advancement based upon intellectual talent. Often, advancement is determined by demonstrated achievement in the field where it is implemented.” Couldn’t have said things better myself.
I would assume that, given a meritocracy, in the long term, society would evolve into a higher plane of existence. Given the loose ends of spectral differentiation across the agenda of free speech and free action, there have been numerous deficits in productivity and drawbacks in other areas as well. Of course, this would be a moot topic and would be considered a grey position in various respects, but I think that, systematizing government in ways capable of adjusting the orientation of society to the accommodation of more advanced principles, we could drive forward in a minute what would otherwise, by the same yardstick, yield a much greater quantity of effort in regards to qualitative accomplishment.
In the foreseeable future, meritocracy could revolutionize the ways people approach the interface of society at large; altering our ways of commerce, travel and even communication. If status was based on intellectual achievement, then things would be the way they always should have.
Here, I am not expressively sympathizing with the intellectuals in admonishing the weak-minded and intellectually inferior. Rather, I am suggesting that occupation and heritable character be determined by the measure of personal capability, under guise of reasonable privileges. Everybody has the same rights; the rite of passage from thereon is dependent on one’s mental potential.
Government would be approved and run by the highly intelligent and staff would be assigned in proportion to their intellectual credentials, in which case logical facilitation would be carried out and the iron reign of the tyrant demagogue would be demolished for the accessibility of a more operational unit. As history has positively attested to, by virtue of a large band of testimonials, intelligence is the most significant predictor of future success in the world of compromise.
The rungs of the societal ladder would be organized in a similar way, but the methodology of conscription would be more actively conscientious of role fulfillment by criteria of one’s talents
My questions are as follows: would you support such a government? Why or why not?
As long as the “lowest” classes are not left to starve or do nothing. If they are then its no better than now, and possibly much worse.
Also the defination of merit needs to be clarified. If your system would defend bankers and reward absurd bonuses for even doing your job so so at best, then its doomed to fail.
Who would actually judge merits and how would people be held culpable if they failed?
Merit is simply latent potential in terms of intellectual exceptionality. To draw an image of what I mean, a valid form of merit would be phonemic awareness with another being spatial recognition. Both throw the concept of unquestionable equality itself into the murky pits of questioning. Merits are what you are capable of doing, under normal conditions. Meritocracy is a matter of projecting one’s capabilities into the most suitable microculture and brewing an atmosphere for self-promotion by objective mechanics of standardization. IQ tests, in example, would be an optimal way to decide how a person should be placed in society and what they should be allowed to do. A person with mental retardation would perchance qualify for merely a job consisting of manual labour whereas a person with greater intelligence would qualify for positions requiring higher limits of mental capacity – the capability to learn and thereafter adapt through successive experimentation.
Being a mechanic of objective standardization, merit is not something one would simply judge in terms of favourable preferences alone, but would be expounded on the basis of an underlying philosophy the semblance of which would not censor the integrity of the proposed circumstances. In regulating the prioritization of the peoples, one need espouse and foster a reference of universality which all can agree on and hearken to. As previously stipulated, unbiased assessments are the way to follow through with the establishment of a meritocracy.
As with all other systems, many would find ways to game the system. In the case of a meritocracy, it would rapidly devolve into an “old boys club”, a pseudo-aristocracy into which the poor and disadvantaged struggle to climb. Such a system is too vulnerable to the overvaluation of “networking”.
Intelligence is too rare for this system to function as more than – as Redem points out – an aristocracy. Only the top 2% would be in charge, so to speak. Everyone else would fall below that, in a system where their ability to progress is governed by factors entirely beyond their control.
Practial intelligence and emotional intelligence are not covered, so these individuals will also be at a disadvantage. As Darkruler says; you are judging merit by a small subset of intelligence only – IQ.
> *Originally posted by **[KoD2](/forums/9/topics/309656?page=1#posts-6546335):***
> Easily elitistic…
> proficiently productive…
> Manic manipulative…
> pityless peasants…
Maybe. You sound like Dr. Suess or something.
> *Originally posted by **[simeng](/forums/9/topics/309656?page=1#posts-6546199):***
> Couldn’t have said things better myself.
No, but I’m sure you would have tried.
> *Originally posted by **[Darkruler2005](/forums/9/topics/309656?page=1#posts-6547637):***
> Given the subject nature of measuring of intelligence and the subjectivity of those who measure, this system seems more focused on the “smart” than on the really intelligent.
With this statement, do you mean those with true wisdom and common sense, as opposed to accumulated degrees and technical knowledge?
> *Originally posted by **[vikaTae](/forums/9/topics/309656?page=1#posts-6547723):***
> Intelligence is too rare for this system to function as more than – as Redem points out – an aristocracy. Only the top 2% would be in charge, so to speak. Everyone else would fall below that, in a system where their ability to progress is governed by factors entirely beyond their control.
As the more intelligent would know what is best for them, does it even matter? arguing for the contrary is foolish. No sensible man, knowing his priorities, would allow a dog to do whatever he pleases. of course, humans have free will, but that doesn’t mean they cannot be subjugated under the press of sovereign authority.
> Practial intelligence and emotional intelligence are not covered, so these individuals will also be at a disadvantage. As Darkruler says; you are judging merit by a small subset of intelligence only – IQ.
Emotional and practical intelligence are not necessary in government – at least not in a non-democratic one (i.e. a meritocracy). The faculties of reasoning as distinguished from other response mechanics are sufficient for all applicable purposes
EDIT: To ensure understanding, please endeavor to clarify the notion of “practical intelligence”. is it merely intellect in execution (creativity) or the capability of worksmanship?
This is a terrible idea. The best politicians are not found in the ranks of political scientists.
I’d suggest you look up the history of the IQ test from when they implemented college testing in the 50s. It was designed to create just such a meritocracy within the confines of US democracy and it was a fiasco.
I do think we would be better served by stratifying and enabling based on ability. Basing this on strict IQ of course would be flawed, we’d have to develop a more suitable methodology – one also relevant to what positions we are screening for.
A functioning Meritocracy did wonders for China which was beginning to drown under the weight of an established self fulfilling noble class. Government positions were given based upon money and family, to the detriment of affairs of office. It was Confucius who insisted that everyone from rural labourer to would be prince should be tested, and that the offices of government should be held by the most capable. There were of course, some problems along the way, but it (along with the later Imperial Examination System) was responsible for much of the success of China.
We too are seeing family dynasties of rich nobles and questionable success. Democracy requires mass communication, and that still requires a great deal of money, we are no longer considering the best and brightest but merely the most convincing of the wealthy elite. It does nothing but damage ourselves.
I certainly feel a degree of meritocracy could be implemented to everyone’s mutual success. The devil is in the details of course.
I would not want this government, for these reasons;
One. Wealth reproduces wealth. Unless children were taken away at childbirth and put through the same set of circumstances, there is no way they’d have equal opportunities.
Two. If every job payed the same, do you honestly think people will stop striving for the more intelligent, harder jobs? I understand this system may have its flaws; one of them being; who would want to be the guy with the “shit” job? Why not reward people who do the “worst” jobs the most. Are we all so shallow that, if we got the same wage, we’d all settle at the job we’re at now? If there was a need for new doctors in this equal pay society, would you personallyl just say no to it because its hard and it places a large amount of responsibility on you? Doctors usually want to be doctors. Game developers want to develop games.
Three. Why do we even need to merit peoples drive for success? Why aren’t we instead addressing why most people have lost it!? In a perfect society, the only thing preventing you from from doing your “dream job” should be lack of job availability. Interviews for jobs should still take place, and the most qualified in each profession would get the placements. If you are good at something, whatever it is, you will be rewarded with your job rank. The people with less prestigious jobs could get cheaper education or something, to encourage competition.
Still, could massively fail.
> *Originally posted by **[simeng](/forums/9/topics/309656?page=1#posts-6549029):***
> Emotional and practical intelligence are not necessary in government – at least not in a non-democratic one (i.e. a meritocracy). The faculties of reasoning as distinguished from other response mechanics are sufficient for all applicable purposes
> EDIT: To ensure understanding, please endeavor to clarify the notion of “practical intelligence”. is it merely intellect in execution (creativity) or the capability of worksmanship?
Emotional intelligence is absolutely critical in governance, as it covers the ability to understand where another is coming from, and the ability to be a wordsmith – to sculpt your words to the situation. This is at the core of political activities, after all. To read people, and to follow through with how to respond. Good networking likewise requires a good measure of EQ, for the same reasons.
Practical intelligence refers to hands-on intelligence. These people who can do anything with their hands, have an instinctive grasp of IT, or electronics, or cars or wood? Practical intelligence geniuses. They have average-at-best IQ, but they don’t need more.
Your society prenalises these types of intelligence. You become punished if you have too much of it, for neither practical intelligence, nor EQ is tested in your system. IQ or ‘book smarts’ is the only one tested. So these people become pidgeonholed by their IQ levels, into jobs they have a disproportionate amount of intelligence for – its just that thei intelligence is of the ‘wrong’ sort.
As ever with intellignce, if your brain specialises in one of the three, the other two suffer accordingly. My own strength is in IQ, so my EQ is average, and Practical is essentially nonexistant. A successful career politician on the other hand, may well have a genius-level EQ level, and an average IQ/average practical.
We need all three aspects ideally, in order to cover all aspects of a functioning socety. There are plenty of problem individuals with a low IQ, low EQ and low practical aplitude, but no merit-based system is going to handle these people well, anyway.