Editing Talk:What are the downsides to meritocracy?

The current problems with the reputation system of academia - where if you somehow get a position with famous professor x, then you are way more likely to get a position elsewhere - is understandable in the short-term, but also not long-term oriented. This is probably a major force that results in a boom of innovation when famous intellectuals retire or pass away (just like in politics). Meritocracy seems strongly dependent on luck. Though the hierarchies aren't totally arbitrary especially within domains, our current systems are still very leaky/lossy. The "chosen" mentality without the understanding of how much luck was involved proves to be an unhealthy dissociative. How can we build systems/culture that better account for this "chosen" mentality?

The problem still comes down to how we establish trust and reference points whether it be art, ideas, and/or people. People are more willing to bet on a winning horse with a record than a "dark horse." I'm not saying we can solve this, but maybe we can drastically decrease the cycle time for innovation booms.

Here are a list of issues/constraints that also lead to problems in a supposed meritocracy: 
1) resource and reputation stakes breed conservatism 
2) the wobbliness of the "non-experts go expert shopping" dichotomy. ie. 
3) making a lot of decisions and follow up decisions based on largely incomplete data.
4) nepotism
[[User:Administrator|Administrator]] ([[User talk:Administrator|talk]]) 00:59, 27 January 2023 (CST)

:Those are profound problems we need to contend with. But that with this platform, we have more tools than before for cultivating a healthy psychological culture. Better accounting. Better transparency. More opportunity to be conscious of our choices of how to behave toward one another.
:That is not to dismiss those fears. I am worried on a metaphysical level whether having a group of assholes is absolutely more efficient. I don't believe that is actually true. But I am worried it might be. And I am certain that it is natural for systems to degenerate if they are not protected. Moreover, along with the good side of this tech for helping us be conscious of our actions, it simultaneously makes it possible for us to lose consciousness of those same things--because it automates accounting and transparency.
:That being said, I don't think there is a possible engineering solution to that problem. And further, I wouldn't want there to be one. I think its a fundamental human quality to have the choice to be good or bad. This tech excites me because it gives us new opportunities for expressing goodness. But it terrifies me, because that always goes hand in hand with new opportunities for evil to express itself. Nevertheless, I've got to bet on hope. [[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (CST)



== Suggest merge under Criticisms page ==
https://daogovernanceframework.com/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_DGF_project   [[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 13:02, 27 February 2023 (CST)
<br>

I've added everything in this page there. So this can be a broken stub that is ready for eventual deletion unless it attracts more interest here.[[User:Craig Calcaterra|Craig Calcaterra]] ([[User talk:Craig Calcaterra|talk]]) 04:51, 4 March 2023 (CST)