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" mentallity 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" mentallity?

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