Then it's a testing/measurement problem, not a meritocracy problem.
> The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
There is no problem to solve. If you don't choose the best, you choose sub-optimal personal. Also the definition of "inclusiveness" is ridiculous, as it assumes that diversity means hiring different sex or race, but not diversity of thoughts or culture.
In fact, it opposes different ideas, it's exactly the inverse of diversity. It's a thought monoculture.
It IS a meritocracy problem. If you are unable to measure who has the most merit, if you're not concerned with this problem, how can you possibly be having a meritocracy?
Connections and the ability to play politics seem to be much more important for getting to the top. Current systems, managers, etc., are just not setup to evaluate skill from what I've seen, you have to sell yourself, which means "ability to sell yourself" is how the system is stratified, and that's not merit.
So when you say "the best", often what you get is "best at selling self", which is not actually the best.
Then it's a testing/measurement problem, not a meritocracy problem.
> The inclusive meritocracy in the article solves that problem by expanding the definition of skilled, and by investing in a more diverse group of individuals. This results in more (in number) skilled people at the end of the investment.
There is no problem to solve. If you don't choose the best, you choose sub-optimal personal. Also the definition of "inclusiveness" is ridiculous, as it assumes that diversity means hiring different sex or race, but not diversity of thoughts or culture.
In fact, it opposes different ideas, it's exactly the inverse of diversity. It's a thought monoculture.