Mar 21, 2022·edited Mar 21, 2022Liked by Erik Torenberg
strong read. i recently read that 90%+ of our evolutionary history was in hunter-gatherer tribes, and these tribes of 25-40 are egalitarian — ostensibly leaderless, and the most skilled hunters are not allocated more food. if you take this deep egalitarian assumption as true, how might we evolve meritocracy to fit into our human software?
By egalitarian, anthropologists such as Boehm are referring to hierarchies of who can tell other what to do. Among nomadic foragers (emphasis on nomadic) the norm is egalitarian hierarchy. No man can tell another what to do (for the record this may not apply to women).
It is true that the most skilled hunters tend to share their food. Food spoils quickly among nomadic foragers. What good hunters get is much more valuable. They get prestige as a valuable member of the tribe. This status is converted to the ability to select partners and to be selected favorably by others as partners (by other men or by potential mates). Elite prestige members of the band (whether due to hunting, bravery, wisdom, honesty, generosity, looks, story telling, or whatever) are converted to is superior reproductive success. Prestigious men have more babies and grandkids.
To answer your question, I would suggest that successful modern societies already do a smashingly good job of converting meritocracy to fit into our human software. Scientists compete for status by discovering things for the benefit of humanity. Entrepreneurs compete for wealth by creating products and services that benefit billions across the globe. Athletes, artists and musicians do the same, in their own ways.
Perhaps the amount of people (Dunbar's Circles) changes the ideology that grows from it? I don't know if those tribes with 15 people vs 50 people vs 150 people vs 500 people might have different belief systems, perhaps meritocracy and egalitarian follows this axis? But if so where does autocracy fit within this gradient?
Very much enjoyed this post (and others). Appreciate all your links out to further readings.
Something I rarely see addressed in the meritocracy debates is: On what terms should we judge the "merit" of an aspiring meritocrat?
The always implied measure is, I think, that a meritocracy is morally superior to an "aristocracy of land and inheritance" because and only because it (presumably!) does a superior job nurturing the health and well-being of its sponsoring society.
Are our modern American meritocrats (Ivy League strivers, Silicon Valley disruptors, hedge fund billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc) actually delivering more genuine human flourishing than the alternative regimes? Maybe they are! But, again, I rarely see meritocrats acknowledge that, ultimately, enriching one's state rather than enriching oneself is the entire rationale behind the purported superiority of meritocracy. Instead, the discussion of "merit" usually devolves to discussion of ancillary things like SAT scores, credentials, and of course money -- which conveniently substitutes the supposed correlates of a desired outcome for the outcome itself. Yes, Zuckerberg crushed the SATs, went to Harvard, and founded a Silicon Valley juggernaut on his way to becoming one of the fifty most wealthy people in the U.S. The modern American meritocracy has been very, very good for Mark and his peers. Has that specific meritocracy been commensurately good for America? Are there alternative regimes with different incentive structures where America does marginally better and Zuckerberg does marginally worse than the one we have? Wouldn't such a regime be more meritocratic than this one?
On what terms should we judge the "merit" of an aspiring meritocrat?
strong read. i recently read that 90%+ of our evolutionary history was in hunter-gatherer tribes, and these tribes of 25-40 are egalitarian — ostensibly leaderless, and the most skilled hunters are not allocated more food. if you take this deep egalitarian assumption as true, how might we evolve meritocracy to fit into our human software?
By egalitarian, anthropologists such as Boehm are referring to hierarchies of who can tell other what to do. Among nomadic foragers (emphasis on nomadic) the norm is egalitarian hierarchy. No man can tell another what to do (for the record this may not apply to women).
It is true that the most skilled hunters tend to share their food. Food spoils quickly among nomadic foragers. What good hunters get is much more valuable. They get prestige as a valuable member of the tribe. This status is converted to the ability to select partners and to be selected favorably by others as partners (by other men or by potential mates). Elite prestige members of the band (whether due to hunting, bravery, wisdom, honesty, generosity, looks, story telling, or whatever) are converted to is superior reproductive success. Prestigious men have more babies and grandkids.
To answer your question, I would suggest that successful modern societies already do a smashingly good job of converting meritocracy to fit into our human software. Scientists compete for status by discovering things for the benefit of humanity. Entrepreneurs compete for wealth by creating products and services that benefit billions across the globe. Athletes, artists and musicians do the same, in their own ways.
Perhaps the amount of people (Dunbar's Circles) changes the ideology that grows from it? I don't know if those tribes with 15 people vs 50 people vs 150 people vs 500 people might have different belief systems, perhaps meritocracy and egalitarian follows this axis? But if so where does autocracy fit within this gradient?
Very much enjoyed this post (and others). Appreciate all your links out to further readings.
Something I rarely see addressed in the meritocracy debates is: On what terms should we judge the "merit" of an aspiring meritocrat?
The always implied measure is, I think, that a meritocracy is morally superior to an "aristocracy of land and inheritance" because and only because it (presumably!) does a superior job nurturing the health and well-being of its sponsoring society.
Are our modern American meritocrats (Ivy League strivers, Silicon Valley disruptors, hedge fund billionaires, Fortune 500 CEOs, etc) actually delivering more genuine human flourishing than the alternative regimes? Maybe they are! But, again, I rarely see meritocrats acknowledge that, ultimately, enriching one's state rather than enriching oneself is the entire rationale behind the purported superiority of meritocracy. Instead, the discussion of "merit" usually devolves to discussion of ancillary things like SAT scores, credentials, and of course money -- which conveniently substitutes the supposed correlates of a desired outcome for the outcome itself. Yes, Zuckerberg crushed the SATs, went to Harvard, and founded a Silicon Valley juggernaut on his way to becoming one of the fifty most wealthy people in the U.S. The modern American meritocracy has been very, very good for Mark and his peers. Has that specific meritocracy been commensurately good for America? Are there alternative regimes with different incentive structures where America does marginally better and Zuckerberg does marginally worse than the one we have? Wouldn't such a regime be more meritocratic than this one?
On what terms should we judge the "merit" of an aspiring meritocrat?