I have to admit that, after listening to a couple of incredibly simplistic and moronic comments from the students, I couldn't bear listening to the entire *debate.*
However, if you should find yourself debating this topic in the future, Bryan, you should ask your opponents if they think that, absent societal and economic constraints, they could shoot 3 pointers as well as Steph Curry, or play tennis as well as Carlos Alcaraz, etc. If they are honest enough to say "no," then you should ask them why they are willing to admit that, in the field of sports, individual merit and ability (and effort, tenacity, etc.) are important, why then do they think these factors are irrelevant in other spheres of life? If they are dishonest enough to say "yes," then I just recommend a deep eye roll.
Hopefully you also raised the issue of "zero sum thinking," which is really the background fallacy to people thinking that this is a very important question. The reality is that we all benefit tremendously from competence and merit. In fact, the amount of the benefit is probably directly and exponentially proportional to the distance between the competent and the incompetent.
One small point. I think it could help in debates like this to ask people to clarify their positions.
For example, a panelist said "meritocracy is a myth" and Bryan objected by saying that it would obviously be worse to assign people randomly to jobs. The panelist then gave the CV experiments as evidence for her claim. And Bryan replied by saying that biases can be justified as heuristics.
Bryan and the panelist were clearly talking past each other here. Bryan took her to mean something like "any degree of meritocracy is bad", while she probably meant "our society isn't 100% meritocratic", given that she cited the CV studies. Of course she's right about this, but then 100% meritocracy is obviously an unreasonably high bar. And of course it's unreasonable to try to express that with the phrase "meritocracy is a myth". But the point is that it would really help to try to get people to clarify what exactly they mean when they throw around phrases like that.
Great debate, Dr. Caplan. Thank you for being the voice of reason. It seems to me that the students who watched your debate also have some crazy ideas about prejudice and discrimination that don't apply. I guess wokeness permeates the world, not just the US.
Our greatest export is visiting our various strains of policy insanity (crippling racial guilt and its feckless expiation through mass immigration in particular) on the entire Western world. God save them from Caplan's "reason."
Not sure how Qatar has the best immigration system when it allows for employers to have legal power over whether a worker can enter the country, whether a worker can change jobs, and whether a worker can leave the country.
Tell that to the workers who had their passports confiscated and received delayed payments (if at all) under The Kafala System.
Basically everything you said was correct, but even the student who already agreed with you about everything thought you weren't putting any effort at all into persuasion. Why bother engaging in a debate then?
I always thought the best proof of meritocracy was US per Capita income by detailed ancestry. Among the top 10-20 groups, probably half or more are non-European (historically marginalized) groups. Indians and Taiwanese usually appear near the top. Among African immigrants, Ghanaians and Nigerians usually outperform native born whites on income. Among Latinos, Argentinians, Chileans and Costa Ricans usually out earn native born whites. Many of these non-European groups are overrepresented at elite universities. Many of these groups have longer life expectancies than native born whites. Discrimination will always exist, but these stats prove there are paths to the top of society if you put in the effort.
I have to admit that, after listening to a couple of incredibly simplistic and moronic comments from the students, I couldn't bear listening to the entire *debate.*
However, if you should find yourself debating this topic in the future, Bryan, you should ask your opponents if they think that, absent societal and economic constraints, they could shoot 3 pointers as well as Steph Curry, or play tennis as well as Carlos Alcaraz, etc. If they are honest enough to say "no," then you should ask them why they are willing to admit that, in the field of sports, individual merit and ability (and effort, tenacity, etc.) are important, why then do they think these factors are irrelevant in other spheres of life? If they are dishonest enough to say "yes," then I just recommend a deep eye roll.
Hopefully you also raised the issue of "zero sum thinking," which is really the background fallacy to people thinking that this is a very important question. The reality is that we all benefit tremendously from competence and merit. In fact, the amount of the benefit is probably directly and exponentially proportional to the distance between the competent and the incompetent.
One small point. I think it could help in debates like this to ask people to clarify their positions.
For example, a panelist said "meritocracy is a myth" and Bryan objected by saying that it would obviously be worse to assign people randomly to jobs. The panelist then gave the CV experiments as evidence for her claim. And Bryan replied by saying that biases can be justified as heuristics.
Bryan and the panelist were clearly talking past each other here. Bryan took her to mean something like "any degree of meritocracy is bad", while she probably meant "our society isn't 100% meritocratic", given that she cited the CV studies. Of course she's right about this, but then 100% meritocracy is obviously an unreasonably high bar. And of course it's unreasonable to try to express that with the phrase "meritocracy is a myth". But the point is that it would really help to try to get people to clarify what exactly they mean when they throw around phrases like that.
Great debate, Dr. Caplan. Thank you for being the voice of reason. It seems to me that the students who watched your debate also have some crazy ideas about prejudice and discrimination that don't apply. I guess wokeness permeates the world, not just the US.
These were likely elite students, so they’re going to be influenced by western wokeness in a way that others might not be.
Our greatest export is visiting our various strains of policy insanity (crippling racial guilt and its feckless expiation through mass immigration in particular) on the entire Western world. God save them from Caplan's "reason."
Huh? I never thought I would see someone accuse Bryan Caplan of "crippling racial guilt." But I guess there's a first for everything.
And *expiation of racial guilt* is not at all his reason for favoring open immigration.
Exactly.
Not sure how Qatar has the best immigration system when it allows for employers to have legal power over whether a worker can enter the country, whether a worker can change jobs, and whether a worker can leave the country.
Tell that to the workers who had their passports confiscated and received delayed payments (if at all) under The Kafala System.
Basically everything you said was correct, but even the student who already agreed with you about everything thought you weren't putting any effort at all into persuasion. Why bother engaging in a debate then?
I always thought the best proof of meritocracy was US per Capita income by detailed ancestry. Among the top 10-20 groups, probably half or more are non-European (historically marginalized) groups. Indians and Taiwanese usually appear near the top. Among African immigrants, Ghanaians and Nigerians usually outperform native born whites on income. Among Latinos, Argentinians, Chileans and Costa Ricans usually out earn native born whites. Many of these non-European groups are overrepresented at elite universities. Many of these groups have longer life expectancies than native born whites. Discrimination will always exist, but these stats prove there are paths to the top of society if you put in the effort.
Today I learned that AlphaGeo is not AlphaGo. That was some clever naming.