# I don't think anyone really wants to live in a true meritocracy **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 19, 2019, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472 "2019-09-19T01:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![KneadToKnow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kneadtoknow/32/3999_2.png) [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2019, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/41 "2019-09-19T21:49:57Z")
**Machine Elf** , thanks for those links. I now know that I need never offer to pick up my brother-in-law’s dinner tab again. ---
**Author:** ![EdelweissPirate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8491ac/32.png) [@EdelweissPirate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdelweissPirate)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/42 "2019-09-20T00:57:13Z")
Robert Sapolsky has written extensively (and exceedingly well) about social rank and the physiological cost of maintaining or improving it. _A Primate’s Memoir_ is the one you want: [http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/reviews/010401.01nixont.html](http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/reviews/010401.01nixont.html) From the link above: > [@The New York Times](#): > > But the adventures that Sapolsky recreates in ‘‘A Primate’s Memoir’’ are undergirded by a serious scientific intent: a study of male stress. Years of baboon observation prompt him to challenge the prevailing view that ‘‘testosterone plus aggression equals social dominance.’’ Instead, he deduces that in a stable hierarchy, low-ranking males – the ones who fight most frequently over status – exhibit higher testosterone levels (and are more prone to stress-related disease) than the dominant baboons. Moreover, regardless of rank, the lowest stress hormone levels among males appear among those that engage regularly in social grooming and other nonaggressive contact with troop members. > > Ultimately, Sapolsky finds he has to factor in something as quirky as personality. Take the case of Nick: stressed-out, mid-ranking, type-A Nick. One day, trying to make a move up the hierarchy, Nick picks a fight with Reuben, who quickly signals defeat by sticking his bottom in the air. Nick pretends to play by the rules, which dictate that he saunter over for a victorious but noninjurious sniff. Instead, he gives Reuben a nasty bite across his peacefully raised buttocks. Sapolsky the scientist and Sapolsky the layman concur: Nick is one mean sucker. So Nick is a petty, backstabbing jerk who achieved a Pyrrhic victory, unseating someone ranked higher but revealing himself to be an asshole in the process. I’m no musician, but surely every orchestra has a Nick or three. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/43 "2019-09-20T16:18:57Z")
Every year I got a statutory raise based on inflation plus, usually, a merit increase based on the chair’s estimate. Sounds ripe for corruption and abuse, right? Well, all the chairs I had took the job seriously and really really tried to be fair. Certainly, there were no complaints. The one time I got screwed with no merit increase was when two of the department’s stars had outside offers and the chair divided all the merit pay between them hoping to convince them to stay. The both left (predictably) and that money was permanently lost to the department. And of course, this meant my salary was permanently depressed by that amount (somewhere between $500 and $1000 a year) for the rest of my career. That said, the possibility of a continual challenge does not seem healthy. Perhaps a challenge should be allowed once a year. I just don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/44 "2019-09-20T16:36:19Z")
> [@bump](#): > > That actually has all Texas public employees- from university presidents to county dog-catchers and municipal meter-maids. Everything’s bigger in Texas - even the databases. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/45 "2019-09-20T17:04:31Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Fair enough. Why are your feelings affected by what other people make? Why do you even think about it? Because we are social animals, and we have an innate sense of fairness. This is true whether it involves someone else receiving more pay for the same work, or the same pay for less work; it is, quite literally, natural for us to become angry at those responsible for implementing such unfairness. We are not the only species that exhibits this trait. You will likely find [this capuchin monkey experiment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le-74R9C6Bc&feature=youtu.be&t=804) to be enlightening (and hilarious). ---
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/46 "2019-09-20T17:29:53Z")
Good article on the problems with meritocracy in higher education. [Is Meritocracy Hurting Higher Education?](https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190911-meritocracy-forum?key=mi0Bff1vaLHL09_no2Emg5xekU2RjibC1ZcfY6HlMfPZw6ykp1odUVJb5LfbgOhtNHFoR0lRalR5dXM5MnF1UjNpVU5tMWJHdk1uRExnazNja3V5N1F5Smw0aw) ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/47 "2019-09-20T18:12:11Z")
I favor a meritocracy, but am cognizant that a huge incentive is working toward making things a little easier for your kids. It’s not fair, but I do it too. I think there should be limits to what “a little easier” means in the interest of society. Nobody should be born without enough money to accomplish anything, and nobody should be born with so much money that they don’t have to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Caldazar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Caldazar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Caldazar)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2019, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472/48 "2019-09-20T18:43:58Z")
I do not believe that strict meritocracies are socially stable. Yes, you want the social structure to conform generally to a meritocracy so that the group members are motivated to contribute to the group effort. But within the social framework, if some members are mostly “winning” and others are mostly “losing” due to various disparities, the “losers” will stop engaging. This may result in a breakdown of the social structure. For example, if you have very young children, you sometimes play games with them. If the game has any element of skill at all, as the adult, you will typically win. But despite this, sometimes you let the child win anyway because losing is no fun, and if they lose all the time, they’ll stop playing. Gambling can be thought of in this context as well. Even in games of skill such as poker, most people lose at gambling. But the losers don’t lose all the time; the outcome variance is high enough that the overall losers do win occasionally. This variance from a strict meritocracy of skill sustains the games. In the context of the workplace example, I don’t think a strict meritocracy is necessarily desirable. You want people to feel like they are being rewarded for their output, true. But as was alluded, you may also want a feeling of stability and reliability of employment. Or maybe you want to be free to pursue calculated risks at times without fear that any immediate failure will result in your dismissal. And certainly, you want to acknowledge that people are inherently fallible and can make mistakes at any time. It’s debatable whether allowing some members of the group to occasionally coast on their prior accomplishments is beneficial or not; I assume it would be highly dependent on the situation at hand and exactly how much coasting is being done. But I don’t think you can assume that deviations from a strict meritocracy are necessarily bad; such deviations could have a positive social benefit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-dont-think-anyone-really-wants-to-live-in-a-true-meritocracy/840472.md?page=2)