> Fact is all of those things are based on politics, perceptions, and in some cases luck
Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent.
> The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes easier cases.
That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers.
> Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent.
Normal curve as in measuring IQ. Most people on it are in the middle. The people on the extremes are exceptional. Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ. How do you explain that if there is a real meritocracy. Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful?
> That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers.
It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock?
So your point is that reducing humans to a contentious number (IQ) and sorting them thus should immediately translate into their social/financial positions in reality, and if not then it's all politics and isms? That is laughable.
> It's a common practice in medicine or law... to take on cases that they can actually win. Do you live under a rock?
Of course. Common practice for some. But then the hard cases are still there and someone needs to take them, right? And those who do, gain respect. That's merit.
>Plenty of studies show that the correlation between being on the edge on that curve and being extremely successful are tenuous at best, most very successful people have average IQ.
Sources please. That's not my understanding of the literature at all.
>Shouldn't people who are extremely exceptional in terms of their IQ be extremely successful?
People who are extremely meritorious should be extremely successful. High IQ can be a contributing component to being effective, but other aspects would contribute too. You'd naively expect a correlation, though not a strict causal link. Which I believe you do find.
> People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent.
Or just people, who experience(d) a highly competitive environment, where excellent performance doesn't imply advancement, and advancement was often preluded by average performance.
Says you. Even an average talent can identify an excellent talent. People who stand against meritocracy are the people who have never even reached average talent.
> The most competent surgeon may seem the most competent because she only takes easier cases.
That is the kind of trick you think works when you are a child, but actually doesn't work among peers.