Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or...
by intended on Friday January 31, 2025 @11:51AM
(#42889276)
Do note that I was instigating a point. (is it instigating?)
The point of my question to the poster was whether they had been part of any such processes.
I do appreciate the point on merit, and have a richer view of it than I may have let on.
Re:NSF starts vetting all grants to comply with executive or...
by ANewFormation on Friday January 31, 2025 @11:40AM
(#42889185)
Merit is somewhat paradoxically only partially about ability. If it turns out the most testably intelligent person chooses to spend his life flipping burgers and smoking weed then he has no more merit than the most testably dumb person who chose similarly.
In other words a perfect meritocracy isn't Gattaca. It's just a place where your rise isn't going to be directly constrained by things outside of your control, like in Gattaca - being directly rejected because of one's DNA.
In a meritocracy a fool who finds and excels at a niche can thrive, while a genius who doesn't exert himself can languish.
Just thought I would recommend some reading about this: "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?" by Michael Sandel.
Basically, think about what the longer-term, overarching effects on society would be in a perfectly-meritocratic society. It likely wouldn't be all unicorns and rainbows.
Here's a review about it: https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2020/08/montage-michael-sand...
May not change your mind, but we should always try to expand it :)