Glenn Loury is one of the best interviewers ever. The way he prefaces a question by restating in his own words the interviewee's position to make sure he understands enhances my own understanding of the position.
Sounds like one of the main points from James Lindsays and Peter Boghossians book How to have Impossible Conversations, where they say you should be able to repeat your oppositions argument back better than they could before saying your side. Steel-Man-ing instead of Straw-Man-ing
I do this with people I work and consult with and I learned it a lot from listening to him and some others who use this style of “the last 3 words” questioning. Repeating restating and asking helps to communicate that they have communicated to you correctly and you’re starting each new exchange on a level footing, communication is 90 percent listening the other half is making sure you understood what you heard. Haha. Great communication techniques. Love this style.
This is where Glenn shines, more than the race stuff, which is also good. He is the best interviewer, he knows the best questions to ask, even if they are not in line with his opinions. He is the best. I'm surprised that there was not more discussion of the mismatch between what it takes to be a good professional and what that the schooling system tests. For example a person could be great at school and passing the medical boards but not good at being and MD and vice-versa.
This is such a good conversation that I can hardly stand it. Around 22 minutes in, they start talking about early literacy, parenting styles and mating patterns. Let me tell you: Markovits has totally nailed it. I've been talking about this for years, only to have it cemented when I went into teaching. We have to start talking about this as a country and I need to find Markovits and take this further. We need this info to go public. In the meantime, read books to your kids and make sure poor folk you know, know the skill as well. It's where it all starts. This is so great! Thank you so much Glenn Loury and everyone who made this conversation possible.
So true! I'll add respectfully that Markovits is not originating parenting and development improvements, rather he seems to be advocating structuring government around "enforcing" it. Suzanne, do you think it should be another government program? I do not. Opportunity of choice, perhaps, such as charter schools are one type of (difficult) implementation. See how alternative education advocates have worked so hard to shake off failing schools in favor of chartering, in most districts. I would not want the same default constrictions on my raising of my family. I agree completely with your experienced conclusions about the importance of (in order) marriage, parenting, and early literacy! Thank you.
His argument is the horrifying spectre of Hayek's tyranny of experts who through 'enlightened' value judgments dictate what is 'better' and 'more meaningful' to the human condition.
We actually have this tyranny based on our current system. Take economics for instance. The "experts" who have gotten through the elite meritocratic system we have ultimately get to sit on the Federal Reserve and decide how much unemployment and/or inflation and/or higher interest rates we are allowed to have. These things then affect the lives of everyone else. The tyranny of the "enlightened" is already here.
I am sorry to be harsh, but I am not buying a single word this guy says. He presents a vision of intelligent design economics at every next phrase after he denies he is doing it. This is merely anti-meritocracy apologia that by identifying places that are not following meritocracy seeks to call those very deviations as meritocracy for the petty shock effect of attacking that word. If the deviations from meritocracy are bad then the conclusion should be that we should return to meritocracy, not that we should move away even more from it. And his theory is this reverse temporal post-hoc rationalization of innovation and the displacement of resource allocation ? We don't have to wait further than 31:50 to hear the masterful: "How do you measure that?" "I am asserting it". Ok, so that is the rigor we can expect he applies in his book? All european countries have "SAT equivalent" only entry to college. No interviews, no background checks, no diversity gerrymandering. And he has the gall to say the SAT's are the most gameable component of the education admission process? Instead of the human decided interview process used by elites for decades to exert nepotistic pressures? Training and practicing is gaming the system? This is Lilliputian surrealism that would leave Gulliver's mouth agape. This has to be the worst possible angle to go after elitism, of which the problem is not that it is meritocratic, but instead that it violates meritocracy. Glad to hear his ideas, but we should not be shy in criticizing them. And I will summarize it in the following romanticized form: This is conjecture masturbation that will be used as peer review section filler for further bad ideas.
@@TheEggMan2000 I didn't hear him volunteer to or suggest that he should design and manage society. He is putting his ideas out for discussion. He and Glenn discussed them. Glenn was pleased with the discussion.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that Daniel is saying that all things being equal, we would find equal outcomes and things in our world would be better. To me, that seems to deny reality-human nature. I have four kids, all things are equal in my home and my wife & I treat them the same and they obviously all live within the same social class. And yet, all four kids are very different in thinking, actions, and personality. I think this is the problem with some people’s thinking: discounting human nature. Some people truly do work harder, are stronger, or smarter, etc. We cannot create a perfect utopia. A capitalist society based primarily on meritocracy is the best we humans can offer; outside of that is charity. He says he finds hierarchy objectionable; what other choice do we have? Does he have a publicist? Does he have a boss? That’s hierarchy. And it’s unavoidable. Also, @31:53 is brilliant by Glen: Glen: How do you know that? Daniel: Well, I’m asserting it. And there you go. Don’t assert. Don’t assume. Live in reality my friend and base your arguments on facts instead of assertions. Am I wrong? Help me understand.
The problems that Markovits is targeting (like "hierarchy") do not flow from "human nature"--which I take to mean the forces imposed on us by our biology. Differences in individuals and life outcomes are more of a MATHEMATICAL inevitability, than part of some genetically encoded "nature". The development of a single human being is an orchestration of such incredible complexity that our genes couldn't enforce perfect equality among us even if they wanted to. Regardless, I don't think Markovits is advocating a complete elimination of hierarchy--that would be (mathematically) impossible, and he says as much toward the end. But using the coercive power of the state we CAN solve "coordination problems" and thereby blunt some of the most offensive and damaging iniquities. That one trick is our species claim to fame and what separates us from the lower animals. The capitalist economic system is a machine with a life and interest of its own--a kind of super-organism. Have we domesticated it? Or is it parasitizing us? Or is it a symbiosis? Should we be content to see this economic machine transform us into soulless husks, obedient cogs, in the name of efficiency? Are there higher values to consider than comfort and GDP? Many among us (myself included) would be willing to trade SOME measure of "GDP" in return for greater nourishment of our souls (greater autonomy at work, for example)--but that trade exists as part of a Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. The temptation to "defect" means people like myself inevitably find ourselves facing a choice between obedience to the Beast--or material deprivation. There is no middle ground. Pay a piece of your soul--or die--day after day.
sterlingveil i would agree with you that he doesn’t seem to be saying he’s completely opposed to any and all hierarchy. He even acknowledges how awkward his position is because he himself sits at the top of the academic hierarchy. No system we create or live in will ever be completed hierarchy free. But wouldn’t you agree with me that using government power to coerce people is not always and in every way good? How exactly would that look? Having powerful government authority wielding their power the coerce “equality” or “fairness”? That’s a very dangerous path and very dependent upon who it is in power. That’s also a step towards dictatorship. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely right? Human nature isn’t simply mathematical. That’s a way overly simplistic way you’ve framed it. Humans lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. and the government is put in place to protect against that. I think government has a few jobs: protecting life, liberty, and property. At least in America, government’s main job is that-it protects *the pursuit* of happiness. Government has no business acting as a parent or provider. It’s only there for protection of life, property, and rights, rights that do not come from government, but instead are inalienable. It has no power to give or take away rights-which are inherent-it can only violate those rights. Just my thoughts.
@@williamperry2379 I don't like the way you use the human nature as a way to justify how bad the system is yes human nature has very bad thing but we can't just settle for that we must try to be better as a society
Juan Manuel Peña Barón human nature dictates that our “system” can only be but so “good” however one chooses to define good. “Systems” are made up of flawed humans. Humans are not perfect and therefore there isn’t such a thing as a perfect system. What we presently have isn’t perfect, but it’s likely the best we can humanly do-all else is like I said, charity. And the government should not be involved in charity. That’s not the government’s job. The government’s job is protecting rights/life/property/liberty.
The SAT is unfair because it rewards people who put in effort? Is this a joke? That's true of every test! It's not called "gaming" the test, it's called studying! The fact that the test covers useless info is a good point, but totally unrelated to the meritocracy issue. Regarding Berlin pre-schools: Notice how the approach is NOT to _increase_ the quality of the bottom schools, which is the actual problem, but to _decrease_ the quality of better schools, which solves nothing. What is an "extreme" degree of selectivity? What is a "legitimate" degree of selectivity? I assume he will decide this on behalf of others. After all, he chooses to work at Yale and not the neighboring Gateway Community College that is not a block and a half off campus. This is a classic form of political naivete - the government will control people in exactly the ways I personally find justified, despite those other people not finding it justified, but will not control me in any ways that I don't find justified, even though others do find it justified. Glenn repeatedly ask about stratification. "There's always going to be some, the question is how much." Again, why do self-appointed philosopher kings get to decide on behalf of people whom they know nothing about and who face no consequences (good or bad) for their decisions? The Olympics argument is absurd on its face. I am inspired by athletes who persevere and accomplish great things. They often do so despite all kinds of setbacks. Everyone knows those athletes are all gifted at the Olympics, but to be a true Olympian you also gotta train hard and not give up! It's rather embarrassing to see a grown man say that because he can't participate in the Olympics, that they should be dumbed down to meet his level. Markovits would learn much under Philoctetes.
The SAT must be attacked, and in a dishonest way: otherwise many will notice that Asians (racially, of any nationality) on average score over 110+ points above white students. Cultural bias in tests, and elitism, tend to be made a mockery of if newcomers, and children of immigrants from non-Western societies, do so well. Better to disregard the test entirely, after denouncing its 'elite bias', than face very uncomfortable cultural questions: questions that don't reflect well on any of the 3 largest demographics in the United States.
Also, a 200k household income in an area like the San Francisco Bay Area, or lots of areas in Southern California, is not elite. At all. A 250k suburban home in Columbus, Ohio, or in Houston, will be the equivalent of 2000k here. Many expensive metropolitan areas are also immigrant rich, and are not dominated in the least bit by long standing elites. Asian immigrants tend to cluster in metropolitan areas with high costs of living as lots of native Americans -- that's what they are -- decamp to other states with low costs of living. Is someone with 10 times the median US household income elite, no matter where they live? Probably. Telling me that two working parents, in an incredibly expensive area, make 2.5 or 3 times the median household income in the US, does not scream elite to me.
@@markbrownner6565 That's true but doesn't account for much. Fuajianese Chinese immigrants in New York have consistently scored very well on standardized admissions tests despite being very poor. Ditto for immigrants from many other nations. Cultural emphasis on education easily overcomes wealth discrepancies.
I love these episodes that aren’t explicitly centered around the most recent racial flashpoint. All Glenn’s episodes are fantastic but this one was a real banger IMO
I work in finance. I can tell you from experience that nepotism is rife, espcially with respect to hot jobs in investment banking, sales of all kinds. These jobs do not require special skills. What they require can be taught quickly. But...to get in...you have to be from a target school...a euphemism for discriminatory hiring of the upper classes at the expense of other highly qualified persons.
Well that just sounds like the biological imperatives of favoring those that remind you of yourself. Really hammers home that the systems of capitalism don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in competition with competing "interests", like evolution.
This professor is a a social justice warrior/ CRT adherent. He also decries hierarchies while sitting at the top of the academic hierarchy himself (yale professor)
@@Individual_Lives_Matter That's why CRT is so dangerous. On the surface they present as wanting a more equal just moral society yet the ideogy in practice does the opposite. And the fact that most people are good, and want others to be treated as they want to be treated themselves, makes them fall pray to CRTs falsehoods and indoctrination.
I think Professor Markovits answered the economist’s questions reasonably well. Intervention at very early stage requires resource allocation, and remember that resources are scarce, economically speaking. True, technology and innovations operate in a social context. Outcomes are purely of utilitarian nature. That doesn’t make Professor Markovits ‘a social justice warrior’.
@James Nicholl people out of their depths respond with word salad CRT, post-modern, socialist boogieman here, there everywhere. They couldn't describe what CRT or post-modernism actually is if their lives depended on it.
You don't get it. He's not saying that all ways of knowing are equal. He's saying that a society that puts all its productive eggs in with a highly specialized technologists with big fancy machines might not always get the best solution. You can run a car on a computerized engine in a way that's more efficient but you have to take it to a specialist every time it breaks down, or you can have a more traditional mechanical engine with simple parts that you can work on yourself. Which would you rather have? This is the problem that is being presented. He's saying sometimes the highly technical specialized solution isn't the best idea in the long term.
The way I understand the argument made by the guest the problem is the excessive reward for competence not the value of a meritocracy. I’ve not heard a good argument for not having the most capable person at any particular position at every level.
I think he’s saying there can be more value in having many less skilled workers rather than having a few highly skilled workers. The point is we’re not focusing on producing a small group of elites, we’re producing a broad array of competent workers. For instance, if I’m hiring garbage collectors, I’ll hire the most competent applicants, but is there any such thing as an “elite” garbage collector?
@@matthewkilbride1669 He should practice what he preaches. He should resign from his professorship at yale and let several less meritorious professors take his place.
My thoughts exactly. Even in the system in which he describes it would still be meritocratic. He talks about how there should be an army of personal trainers instead of a select few heart surgeons so that people exercise and therefor don't need the heart surgeon (a pipe dream but whatever). You would still want to select the personal trainers in a meritocratic way, the personal trainer who is hyper knowledgeable and charismatic/motivating should get better raises and should be hired over their mediocre colleague.
The german lawyer argument is circular. He claims the the lack of elite education produces a more leveled legal field but the oposite is more likely to be true. The fact that the legal system is the way it is doesn’t provide incentive for superior candidate to choose the legal profession. If you remove the reward for superior performance then why would anyone strive to exceed the standard. It is a formula for widespread mediocracy.
Gustavo Perez As I see it, the argument is that the system is so constructed that a “superior candidate” is not necessary for success. It’s not a horse race or a basketball game. The process is inquisitive, rather than adversarial. If the point is to arrive at the truth rather than beat an opponent, and the judge has more authority, then there is the possibility of a more collaborative approach. The reward for superior performance is more than good enough pay, self-respect, the high esteem of one’s peers and clients, etc. Also, good health care, 6 weeks vacation, healthy middle class, etc.
The goal of the justice system isn't to produce the most brilliant lawyers its justice. What produces more justice a system where the person with deeper pockets can mount a better defense/argument or a system that puts people more or less on equal footing in terms regardless of how much money they have.
@Nick Smith You're right, I think Germans have a better sense of the importance of caring for the whole than Americans do. This is why they have a healthy middle class whereas ours is crumbling. It seems always to be about balancing the needs of the individual and that of the collective. And I think, systemically, it's an empirical question: Which society is healthier, the people overall more content, experiencing what they regard as freedom, enough security, prosperity? At present, I think Germany is winning this competition. I think it makes sense to be open to what is happening, what's working given current conditions. Societies are always in flux and their needs change...One could even make a case for monarchy, with the right king ... Caesar always has to be paid, no matter the system.
Gustavo Perez That is an odd way to frame it. I’m not even sure what that means, in practice. I live in Germany, and I don’t see the lowest common denominator being pursued anywhere, quite the contrary. Pursuing excellence is always a personal choice, as is contributing to the common good. When that motivation is part of one’s pursuit of excellence then everyone benefits.
Especially when they inevitably proclaim "racism is a public health crisis" and institute mandatory DEI trainings. Not to change the topic too much, but that's where this is going.
In the same way I would prefer that some guilty people go free to avoid incarcerating the innocent, I'm OK with some "meritocratic" corruption to avoid suppressing the gifted and driven.
He's just smart enough to be dangerous and just stupid enough to not understand how dangerous he is. He doesn't understand that rent-seeking and wealth creation are two different things.
@James Nicholl Well, if you call me names and threaten me with imprisonment, I am sure I will agree with you. Bad ideas have consequences. The man is in a position of authority. I think you are too ignorant of history to express a reasoned opinion.
@@alexcipriani6003 How could he be correct? There is no such thing as meritocracy, remember? So it is impossible for someone to be correct. This type of bullshit is self-refuting.
@@classiqueliberal8576 are you serious or you just haven’t listened to his arguments? The system we think of as meritocratic it is not actually that meritocratic since most people taking part in it have had a lot of scaffolding built around them by their rich parents. What I refer to as being correct is the focus on competition rather than learning and knowledge in colleges
If you set a rate for nursery schools, don't you just lower the possible quality of the nursery schools? Like if you said that the max price of any car is 35,000; any car above that will just not be made.
@@sunbro6998 A good question. It seems to me that many people are attracted to the proposition of limits in a misguided desire for fairness and equity. I would not put limits on achievement and the quest for the best. This is my takeaway from the video's unusually civil argument and I lean toward Lowry's position although Markovits' concerns are valid. It is a complicated issue and I cannot say that I posses the knowledge and wisdom for a satisfying answer.
It's one thing to talk about "what's possible" regarding one's own life but when it comes to society....it's clear he has a completely different attitude to knowledge than hayek or hume.
He was upfront about everything he believes in or is inclined to support. He may or may not be a wolf, still, but he’s not wearing any sheep‘s clothing.
Markovits justifies his theory by thinking everyone's goal is to rise to the top of the hierarchy. And that at the top it is not a fair, meritocratic process. That's not most people's goal. Most people want to live a comfortable life. The idea that they can't get into Yale or can't get a top job at a top firm is so disconnected from what most people want it is almost laughable.
I can't recall right now whether Markovits cites any real data to back the theory up, but his argument is less about the excess wealth that's denied to most people, and is more about the higher social status that first-rate students have bestowed upon them by attending and/or graduating from one or another prestigious institution. And ditto with them being hired or promoted in a highly respected line of work thereafter. The fact that so many are excluded from enjoying this social status "breeds resentment" according to Markovits. Even if he cites some reliable stats suggesting there's something to this story, I will continue to doubt it at the macro level, for multiple reasons, chief among them being that he himself says meritocracy "harms the winners too". But then what becomes of the resentment narrative? Is it rational or irrational to covet or feel aggrieved over one's spot in the positional arms race, when the winners, too, don't _really_ win? Clearly it must be irrational. So the problem is cultural. Markovits' work on this, properly understood, should be filed under Cultural Criticism. Not Economics, not even distributive justice. But instead of speaking directly to the losers/non-winners and warning them about the farcical nature of the prize, he addresses elites in a Hail Mary attempt to have them embark on a mission to restructure the many non-cultural domains of society. Very odd.
@@jonschlinkert He makes some interesting observations and compelling arguments, even if you want to reject his overall takeaway. I scrolled through this comment section after leaving that comment, and it's pretty clear that most of the critical and dismissive commenters didn't pay close attention to the specifics of what he proposes. So many went into auto-pilot mode, and at worst into _"muh Western Civ"_ mode; as if the object of their criticism is a radical egalitarian who refuses to budge and needs to be lectured about the basics of human nature. Give me a break. This reflects negatively on the audience Glenn has cultivated on here, as Markovits couldn't have been more clear that (to simplify) Country A and Country B are the only realistic choices, and that both countries are and will remain hierarchical and competitive to one _or another_ degree. There is no hypothetical _Egalitarian Country C_ to usher in, and rightly so. Two things stick out at the moment: The world-of-difference between 1956 and 2012 in the pro-volleyball finalist case. Needless to say, professional volleyball wasn't a non-competitive affair in 1956, and those norms are what Markovits said he favors over the 2012 norms. Disagreement on this one isn't a matter of wrong/right. Rather, it comes down to one's preference vs. dispreference for extravagance in major league sports, and how a society with a majoritarian preference for some such extravagance ends up weighting enjoyment of that versus the downsides of it which he took care to go over and I won't repeat here. Another worthwhile observation had to do with the difference between adversarial vs. inquisitorial judicial systems and legal theories, with Markovits arguing in favor of Germany's inquisitorial model, for reasons he went over, none of which were even glossed by the scathing commenters on here. I suspect that if Glenn took the time to read these comments, he'd be at least a little embarrassed that this is the caliber of viewer his content attracts on here. But it's not just Markovits who's more impressed with inquisitorial model; it's the great majority of other rich countries that chose to adopt it over the adversarial model. A macro-scale fact worth revisiting.
@@No_Avail thank you for articulating what i have been thinking for months regarding the comments left on Dr. Loury's discussions here. It's a bit sad; it's as if half the audience has precisely the same sort of "group think" or rigidity that he is regularly speaking out against.
"US workplaces used to provide massive amounts of workplace training for their employees, now they provide effectively none." That uh, that's a weird statement to anyone who has held a job outside of academia. I imagine the relatively small company I work for isn't the only one in the country that not only provides training but has been making an emphasis on doing it better.
Depending on your field, it's often mandatory to have trainings, even. Though I could say maybe trade schools should make a comeback over expecting a degree for everything, and/or instead of putting off all the cost on workplaces.
Well I work for a large pharmaceutical factory and the training there is nothing to write home about. It's not the kind of thing that's gonna prepare a person to move up in their job or move on in their career. It's very bare bones and meant to satisfy the FDA.
Employers will provide training that brings value to back to their company. Not sure why that's hard to people on tbe Left to figure out. When employers pay/help with your education and then require you to stay for a certain amount of time, I think it makes it obvious. Then you have the extreme Bernie/AOC position of Free College without any responsibility on the side of the student or increased chance of value to industry.
@@xxcrysad3000xx100% agree w/ what you're saying. From my perspective, what we've done in the U.S. is the following: we don't want higher taxes that could cover the cost of college (which is what Canada, the UK, Germany, France do) so we reduce those support opportunities. Then, we turn to our immigrant visa programs to fill-up holes in our economy that require college training (the same training that we, as Americans, don't support collectively). And, in the long-run, you have our students (and the parents) carrying around massive debt and being asked to compete in a more and more globally competitive market against students who have practically no student debt (see countries mentioned previously) which all leads to American students on average becoming less competitive due to the higher price tag of debt. And I''m not sure why Americans today say that covering the cost of college as a society is radical.....it's called investing in the future and was practiced when the boomers went to college up through at least the early 90s. People who graduated then almost faint when they hear about college now.
@Bob Charles every government that has inacted universal healthcare has controlled costs much better than the libertarian free for all of private insurance without a single payer like we have in the US. You will reject this FACT Bob Charles, because your fragile little conservative worldview can't accept that the lowest hanging fruit that shields it is empty and barren and not up to the task, but it's still the reality.
Right off the bat - Markovitz calling it a meritocracy, but the problem he's describing is that it _isn't_ a meritocracy anymore. And later he says "let the elite graduate schools do their thing" - so planned economy for the poor, but meritocracy/freedom for the rich and elites?
@James Nicholl It depends on what you mean by "Jordan Peterson". In all seriousness, I would say that higher education is a counter-meritocratic force as it stands. Regardless of the profession you choose, most of your required course material is useless and only serves as a jobs program for the instructors and administrators. You can say it's there to make you "well-rounded", but that's crap. The effect is a racket where businesses can get you to pay 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars to get trained instead of paying YOU to get trained. And in many cases, it even fails at that! It's a symbol of status way more than it is a symbol of ability. A good education is free. If you're good enough and know where to look, you can find so much for free online. The only thing that a college degree will tell you about a person is that they have a college degree.
@James Nicholl I would agree that all of those things may be useful or at least desirable to the employer. Obliviousness to corporate influence - Some percentage of people may not want to work for companies like Nestle if they know what they do. Obedience - This one is the most obvious. Should your boss/employer be able to tell you what to do? Yes. Does this mean you shouldn't question whether what you're doing is ethical because you're "just doing your job"? No. A good boss takes constructive feedback into consideration. Compliance culture is dangerous and corporations should fear it. Willingness to perform drudgery for social status - I'm guessing you mean a willingness to be miserable in exchange for external metrics like job title and an attractive salary. I would say I don't like this culture either. There's a difference between trading short-term gratification for long-term gain or a sense of duty; versus doing something less fulfilling because of arbitrarily better pay. 100K vs 200K salary wouldn't make sense to me if I'd like the job significantly less. Money is not linearly correlated with happiness. Another "slavemaker" is debt. If people were taught how to avoid it rather than encouraged to get into it, we'd be a lot happier as a society and there'd be fewer cases of people making 100K a year and yet feeling squeezed. This is not a case against employers preferring competence, but a case against the miseducation of the citizenry in ways that disempower people across many tax brackets, like the millionaires who slept with Harvey to get ahead, or abdicated their duty to notify the authorities that he was a dangerous rapist. Personal responsibility isn't at odds with any of what I'm saying. I guess what I'm saying is that meritocracy should be a two-way street - pick the most competent, worthy employer and avoid compromising situations that rob you of such a choice whenever possible.
if this guy wants to live a beige life in a beige house in a beige world, or taupe if that's not excessively creative have at it but leave the rest of us alone.
Hierarchy is a product of pre-existing structures built in to the human being. Instinctual, evolved biological understanding. As in the way a young child absorbs language, the child doesn't start with a blank slate, there is an inbuilt ability. Its like a computer that has no data to work with but it has a set of protocols. There is an operating system that comes built in to humans.
part of hierarchy in a meritocratic society is what people are born with. That component, is not distributed fairly. It's a lottery. There is nothing just or fair about a genetic lottery, especially not one where the outcomes have a material impact on ones outcomes in life. Therefore the proper response to this unjust reality of nature, is to intervene and make sure that people are not allowed to fall too far. If someone does not produce enough to afford life saving medical treatment, society ought to pay. It ought to pay if that society does not buy into the notion that the sum total of the worth of a man is what he produces. There is still plenty of room for people to earn and get more in life, a nicer car, bigger house, a view of the ocean, by contributing more. But the most decent societies try to engineer a higher floor to make the consequences of rolling snake eyes in the stats of life less severe. Note to the conservative fools, this DOES NOT mean everyone is equal, it means not winning the genetic lottery does not mean your life is so stacked for more misery.
@penguins inadiorama No, we don't. Within a century, a sliver of time against the hundred thousand plus year backdrop of existence of home sapiens, we will have enough knowledge to engage in human enhancement. Lineage and who your fucking parents were will no longer be so heavy on destiny when it comes to outcomes. We will be able to engineer and select for smarter healthier offspring and offer it to anyone who wants it. We don't need to harm anyone or try to get people to stop having kids. None of that will matter when anyone can stack the decks and distribute the genetic lottery more evenly.
@penguins inadiorama No we don't, all of the stuff I mentioned will be completely voluntary. You want your kids to be more resistant to Alzheimers, you can choose it. Or not. As for resources, we live in a world of plenty, feeding everyone we have is a solved problem, and over time we can continue to use more energy while producing less pollution and waste. This is a knowledge problem not a carrying capacity problem, we are nowhere near the limit of the latter. We just don't know enough yet.
@penguins inadiorama jesus fucking christ, you are one of those white genocide types? Why do I get all the nuts. Stormfront will be your favorite hero in the boys season 2. I'm not a pessimist. In the long run we are all dead, the heat death of the universe may occur, the distance between stars may grow so large, the only light we see is nothing but an empty void. But that is literally billions upon billions of years off. On the time scales I'll be alive in, and for millions upon millions of years, we essentially have free energy flowing in from the sun, and we can use that energy to do work to live and thrive. This is a universe of plenty, a finite universe maybe, but there is so much room to run and grow it may as well be infinite for the sliver of existence we are talking about when it comes to human civilization. But I doubt you see it that way do you? You bleak hideous creature, mired in death and decay and worries of infestations of the impure tainting your pristine little bubble world. As time moves on, we will continue to be able to use more energy while polluting less, we can have more people with less harmful impacts. Lab grown meat, greater wealth for societies around the globe, more demands for cleaner air and water and environments that come in tow with greater prosperity... at least from the liberals and the left. The right are a bunch of atavists who would have us all crawl back into the ditch of history for some confused notions of cleaner past that never was.
Maybe the SAT has changed since I used to tutor kids in it back in the 90s, but the idea that it can be gamed to get from the 95th percentile to the 99th percentile is very contradictory to my experience. My students who were of average ability would benefit a lot from SAT test prep. They could reasonably expect to go up by 100 to 200 points. But the kids who came in with a 1350 or higher would typically not benefit at all. The test prep is essentially a collection of test taking heuristics which simply don't help the higher tier students, who have no issue getting to the end of the test. In fact they often hindered the highest tier students.
Great interview. Great steel-manning of the author's arguments, Loury is a stellar intellectual. Some good point from Markovits emerge, but ultimately his stance is that of the social engineer that would like to run experiments on society to follow his personal intuitions about what's good. God help us from people with those tendencies ever taking power.
I work for a state university as a staff member. There is zero meritocracy, everyone gets the same raises and bonuses regardless of how hard you work or don't work. What you are left with is work level reflective on the type of person you are and how much work ethic you have. You strive to do the best knowing you will not be rewarded for it.
If I recall correctly, German law students take several exams at the end of their training, the top score of which is 18. This score is said to be impossible. God is said to be able to get a 17. A score of 12 is excellent. Part of the idea seems to be to cut people down to size, not create superstars. There will always be superstars. The question is whether you want to devise a system especially for them or for the larger cohort of normal citizens.
That a hundred or so developing countries have adopted the German, less demanding law regime doesn't mean its better than ours. Many developing countries are incredibly, deeply corrupt, and would love Judges deciding most of what happens, as they can thus control things by anointing crony judges. And less demanding law schools are great for developing countries with zero history of "Western World, demanding academic traditions." I was born in a political-machine-dominated city, Chicago, where they would solemnly agree with this guy, anoint such judges, and in back rooms, high-five each other. This guy is a classic Lefty who has simply focused on this idea of how to simplify College because the only way to expand affirmative action more than they do now, is simply to make college easier. Hey, great! Go for it. Make such colleges. No, this guy wouldn't go for that, He'd want some Fed rule to force all to become more mediocre. "For the people!"
3:20 that is fascinating. After WWII, nearly 100 countries adopted a GERMAN-based legal system? I would like to know where these countries are, because we know countries in Africa, like Namibia, are German-speaking countries because of colonialism and may have adopted a German-based legal system because it was coerced on them in the first place; not because they thought a German legal framework was more just than, say, an American legal frame. They probably simply kept the legal frame work without comparing it to any other legal system to assess whether one frame work or another was better at enabling just legal outcomes and they speak German.
Markovits made more sense as the interview went on, he seemed to be making similar points to Charles Murray in Coming Apart about the economic consequences due to intellectual stratification
I will never understand how people can look at State intervention over the 20th century and somehow conclude that the only problem was the people in the State, instead of State intervention itself.
The problem with getting rid of ACT/SAT is what would be the objective measure for an university to admit a student? Grade doesn't work because we all know about grade inflation, everyone is getting A's these days. recommendation doesn't work because just it could very well be that a good students just rub the teachers the wrong way and couldn't get a good recommendation? so what else is there? As for affirmative action, I am all for giving social economic affirmative action. Looking at family income and net worth, below a certain level against some kind of mean, you get favorable consideration. For example, suppose your ACT score is 30, assume your family income is 200k a year and family net wealth is 2 million, another students who scored 28 on the ACT but the family's income is 50k a year and net worth is 100K. (assume same geological location) then the other may get favorable treatment because although with much less resources, the other guy did very well regardless of race,. My favorite example is Obama's daughters should not get preferential treatment over some poor white student come of rural Virginia who lives with a single mother in a beat up trailer, given roughly equal ACT/SAT score, grades... etc.
If consumers actually paid for their health care -- instead of insurance companies footing the bill -- then wouldn't executives change how they staff their hospital to favor nurse practitioners over elite doctors? That would drastically reduce costs but only marginally reduce quality of care. There's a simpler explanation for the problems he's describing: government laws create these distortions. Perhaps, the elite are the ones lobbying for the government policy. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.
However, it is a foolish employer who hires someone because he or she has a degree rather than the most aptitude for the job. Such employers will be at a competitive disadvantage to those making an effort at hiring employees who will provide the best value to customers.
@@marcopignone9386 Years ago employers were able to employ a variety of tests to measure "aptitude" for a job, but they went by the wayside with equal employment opportunity regulations to prove the validity of these tests and prove they were not discriminatory to protected classes. So degrees became an assumed measure of improved aptitude for a variety of jobs. The education establishment invests heavily in supporting this assumption. I agree that it is a smart employer who is able to look for aptitude vs. educational credentials.
@Craig Jones I suspect that 34 percent number, especially in Germany, includes people who have gotten "degrees" from technical institutes whose curriculum differs from our standard 4 year colleges. German education is focused on educating for skills that are needed in their workforce.
@@Indyday42 Might federal and state licensing pose an even bigger threat? Fields such as software development that are not subject to licensing requirements are adapting quickly. Fields at the mercy of government licensing, on the other hand, are forced to hire those willing and able to spend more and more time jumping through expensive educational hoops to the detriment of those unwilling or unable to afford it. Licenses are requiring more and more accredited education, but not necessarily greater knowledge or ability. Take physical therapy, a highly valuable field today with boomers wanting to continue physical activity. A short while ago, only a bachelors degree was required. Now, it's a doctorate. Meanwhile, the customer is not given the choice of paying less for a therapist with less education who may be just as good or better than the pricier therapist with a PhD.
@@marcopignone9386 I agree with your analysis. You've touched on another driver of over-emphasis on college degrees with your PT example. Professional associations push for increasing educational credentials as a means of raising the market value of their field. Now in Wisconsin, perhaps nationally, a masters degree is required to get your Physical Therapy license.
Excellent interview. I saw Daniel being interviewed about his book recently, and his argument seemed to be little more than meritocracy is bad because the wealthy have learned to game it. This came across as a very dumb argument, as a gameable system is not really measuring merit. Glenn got some meaningful arguments out of him, worthy of discussion. Personally I think he confuses cause and effect too much, but we did hear a meaningful conversation.
250 higher points in sat for top 4 %ile earners is not necessarily due to 'privilege'. Most of it is inherited through parents. Many studies have been done on twins separated at birth, Robert Plomin outlines all the research in his book' blueprint'.
Markovits seems to have a very collectivist mindset - limit the most able of society from what they can achieve and limit the choices of everyone so that the variability in outcomes is limited so we have a better (in his view) society. We can't have great lawyers, great doctors, great accountants, great universities, etc., just slightly below to slightly above average everything so that everyone is on a level playing field. From a strictly US perspective, that's counter to the American ethos of the pursuit of happiness - government shouldn't be in the business of limiting what we can achieve. Such a system would also never bloom the incredible revolutions we've seen in technology over the past half-century. There's a reason the big tech companies are predominantly started out of the US - people were free to pursue excellence to the extent and in the way they see fit. There was also the ability for the smartest people in the country to join together (either in University or in places like Silicon Valley). These could never manifest in Markovits vision of society.
Markowitz is not an awkward messenger. He's the perfect messenger. The only critique that can penetrate the armor of elite institutions must come from within.
Well said. Thank you. It's stunning how people dont see this professor for what he is, social justice warrior and critical theorist. Glenn pushes back beautifully I don't think I could have done do with such aplomb and reserve. Seeing people advocating for this insanity and being taken seriously terrifies me
S T, I fully agree with what you’re saying. Hierarchies are unavoidable wherever you find freedom. Because some people work harder than others. Some are bigger, stronger, faster. Some are smarter, wiser, etc. That’s just the reality. Why on earth would anyone want to give government more power, and have more bureaucrats dictating who does what and when/how for the purposes for making society “better” and more “fair”?
Really interesting and well considered arguments put forward by the guest, although I disagreed with much of it. Part of my issue with his argument was he was attempting to construct a unifying theory that could be applied to all human endeavours, which seemed ludicrous to me. The idea that sports or entertainment should be meddled with to lessen the gaps between the professionals and the dilettantes sounds troubling to me and would require so much government intervention and social engineering to bring it about that it's probably only possible to achieve this in an entirely different type of society that doesn't enjoy the freedoms of societies like ours. However, I do share some of his ideas around medicine. I do believe that the pharmaceutical model that is promoted within medical training is the paradigm through which all illness and disease is viewed, which may be appropriate and effective for treating acute conditions, but is woefully inadequate at addressing and dealing with chronic long term conditions. So having a healthcare system that was driven by prevention in the form of the promotion of adopting healthy lifestyle behaviours and supported by healthcare professionals that had expertise in behavioural change, such as health psychologists and nutritionists, would result in significant societal benefits.
This was very interesting and engaging. Prof Daniel was laying it out and Prof Glenn was absorbing everything. Excellent work of content gentlemen, thank you. The sports breakdown of hierarchy was enlightening
Very interesting conversation. Thanks gentlemen. I've noticed this trend for years in my profession. Graduate degrees have become required to get hired for positions that previously a BA/BS was sufficient. The job has not significantly changed and graduate degrees do not necessarily improve the quality of the work. To me, this has felt like the people with the graduate degrees validating themselves. There is definitely a sense of elitism about it. My other observation is that college has become a means for redistributing wealth upward. We tell kids they have to have a college degree to succeed, but then saddle them with large debts before they've even entered the workforce. I would also argue (in a non-get off my lawn way) that the quality of education has declined over time, so students are not being adequately prepared for jobs. It seems like a big scam put in place by elites.
the interviewer is very good. i've seen a couple of people discuss this book with its author and he does by far the best job i've seen of stirring the discussion
On the US vs German legal system issue, I have been reading about the differences for the last few hours. The US uses a common law system and Germany uses a civil law system. The difference is primarily about the importance of precedent. In our common law system, precedent is a very big deal. Precedent is hard to keep up with and is nuanced... and this explains the elite of the elite issue in American lawyers.Our common law system explains why people like me become so frustrated with Supreme Court decisions given the clear reading of the Constitution. The language in the document matters in our system, but precedent serves to change what the law actually says. In civil law systems, precedent has much lower impact on a decision. The law says what it says by statute and that is it. Lawyers don’t have to understand case law (decisions by courts) as much as statutory law (law passed by legislators). Now, personally, the civil system is very attractive to me on the above point. But then there is Nassim Taleb. I respect the hell out of the guy and he has a Twitter thread speaking to the bottom up aspect of common law (via precedent) vs civil law (which, when thinking about it, is top down)... and the thread seems highly favorable to common law. I share that to give a little bit push back to my ignorance on the issue. Germany also has procedures that I like better than the US. Here’s a comparison of the two systems. socialaw.com/docs/default-source/judge-william-g.-young/judging-in-the-american-legal-system-spring-2015/a-comparison-of-judges-in-germany-and-the-united-states.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Patrick Rubino - I understand your point, but I challenge the premise. Is the Constitution anti-fragile now? The structure of the government (separation of powers) has been largely anti-fragile, but the scope of constitutional government at the federal level has been incredibly fragile. How a farmer, growing his own crops to feed his own animals... came to be viewed as impacting interstate commerce... is a tragedy. So is a city government’s taking of private land... that is then given to a private developer... under the logic that eminent domain applies because the developer’s project will yield greater tax revenue to the city. So are Social Security, Medicare, welfare, minimum wage laws, and the ACA... given the 10th amendment. While I am not sure those things are best done at the federal level, they can be done at the federal level ...legally. What is required is an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal govt power to do them. But my view is a civil law view, I guess....not a common law view. As to your point about civil law leading to a bastardization of the Constitution through legislation, I don’t think so. You can still have 75% majority votes required for Constitutional changes. And if those supermajorities are obtained, you’ve literally changed the Constitution... not bastardized it through interpretation. I feel as if I am speaking with too much authority, though. There has to be nuance that I fail to appreciate. I would value a sincere discussion of the trade offs in the two systems... and not a debate as though there are no flaws in either approach.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Common Law can be more flexible to changing times, and places greater power in the hands of the judicial branch of government. There are other countries in the world which use Common Law, but do not have gross inequality due to the financial cost of legal disputes.
This guy is the exact model of the "intellectual" as described by Thomas Sowell. He advocates policies that increase his impact on society. He wants the future to be one that conforms with his vision. His comments on the gymnast summarized his thought nicely, that being "I know whats best for you".
Thomas Sowell? The guy against minimum wage? Criticising someone for having a vision and being educated doesn't make any sense too me. Everyone has a vision. Sowell has a vision.
Something I don't understand is how hierarchy would be avoided, even in the example given in economic schools. So economic schools are structured differently where you focus on one area and pull several different knowledge bases in to illuminate the issue. So then this sort of person would be valued and rise to the top. I think the problem seems to center around not everyone has the same capacities, interests nor background; so of course each person differs in their abilities and will always differ. Even the same person differs in their abilities over the course of their life. I think the true problem seems to be a hierarchy that is locked and allows no change, because of course different abilities are needed at different times.
I’m curious as to how the abandonment of the statistical study of causation plays a role in the emphasis on medical technological advancement. Until Judea Pearl’s work that set causation on firm mathematical foundations about 25 years ago, perhaps we simply weren’t confident that we could truly figure out seemingly simple questions of the effects on heart health of “15 minutes of rigorous exercise” vs “60 minutes of moderate exercise”. Ever since I read Pearl’s The Book of Why, I’ve been saying that dietary science may at long last come to some confident conclusions about basic dietary science in the next fifteen years or so.
These discussions are so valuable. I wish I would have came across something similar to these bloggingheads discussions when i was in college in the early 2000s.
Whats most frightening to me is how so few seem to see through this toxicity and that he is teaching LAW at the top law school in the country. His students who buy into this insanity will insert SJW ideology into our laws. Heaven help us.
You are repeatedly using words like 'we choose', 'interest of the society', etc. I am not sure the society is such an agent, which make conscious choices based on its interest. The phenomena emerges from very complex socio-economic dynamics when seldom outcome can be either predicted or even evaluated from such vague perspective as "interest of the society" .
@James Nicholl Relevance of a perspective can be hardly magnified by aggregation, crowd is usually known for its crualty, not insightfulness. And a lone voice can be heard for the power of its message, not the loudness.
@James Nicholl it depends how you measure the power. If in DB of sound pressure or tons of blood - then you are definitely right. But if you follow the history of ideas bringing constructive changes to better, then you always find a very specific name behind it.
@James Nicholl Well, I have suggested to consider any constructive turn in the history and to analyze its sources. Instead you replay by throwing your subjective opinions. Sorry, but that makes conversation boring - and not constructive ;-)
I was actually partially agreeing with the author that our society favoring hyper-excellence instead of very good might be damaging. But once he mentioned his strong support of affirmative action, it made be question the authenticity of the reasons behind his argument. Does he really want people to enjoy their life more instead of being hyper-competitive, or is he really promoting leftist/equality of outcome based ideals?
When was this guy ever pole vaulting? Glenn's response was exactly right: some people call this progress. Yeah, and some people, namely progressives, are actually averse to progress.
@@ubuu7 If by progress you mean finding new ways to extract raw resources on industrial scales, innovating to producing better goods at lower prices, carving civilization out of the untamed wilderness, etc., then yes progressives are the reason we aren't living in mud huts. The problem with this analysis is that those people are almost entirely shunned and vilified by modern 'progressives'. Modern 'progressivism' is a quasi-religious social movement that has nothing to do with material progress. As it pertains to the feces flinging, why do you insist on imperialistically applying your bigoted western standards of decency to what are equally legitimate forms of cultural expression?
Daniel is articulate and his points are subtle. I think his argument works best in the healthcare example, but I disagree with his stance for example on affirmative action. I like that he's a progressive with actual arguments and not just "you're a racist if you disagree" etc.
He had some interesting points, but I lost faith in him when he started to suggest 'Olympic athletes have gotten too good!' because now 'they're doing something he can't imagine himself doing!' He rallies against excellence. His is an ethos of envy.
He makes a good case for better policy in terms of legal treatment - ensuring everyone gets a good, competent defense, not just those who can pay for it. He also made a point about the Olympics which I don't fully agree with - it would be good to avoid terrible destruction to your body for accolades, however, I think there is a desire in the Olympics to truly only be the best of the best, those who have trained the hardest, the longest, etc. I don't think we need to completely do away with meritocracy but we do need to loosen it's grip where it provides cost/price barriers to areas such as justice and health care.
He’s not really arguing against meritocracy, just the things that masquerade as meritocratic, like his own university, Yale, which uses the proxy of legacy to admit students. Virtually all of the highly selective schools don’t use strictly meritocratic metrics to decide who gets admitted. He’s not saying we shouldn’t get back to a strict meritocracy. Rather, his argument is sophistry for justifying what they call holistic admissions, a euphemism for decision criteria that inevitably achieve a particular diversity. Just go back to strict meritocratic metrics. The fact that meritocracy doesn’t mean what it used to doesn’t justify a process that substitutes other metrics like skin color and life experiences.
46:56 Daniel: Take sports, a fascinating example. Women's Olympic vault, 1956 v. 2012. Great bar discussion. What the phø does this have to do with government or academia?
Glenn is right that the good professor’s views are subversive. My sense is that the professor would like to reconstruct society into a more utopian approach and meritocracy is a road block to that happening-so it must go. (The argument that meritocracy is a trap is pretty weak.). One gets a glimpse into just how far he would wish to go in reconstructing society when he compared the 1956 Olympic athletes performance to the 2016 athletes. The later athletes are, to Him, freaks, because they can do things that he could not do, and, as he said, “to what end.” Meritocracy creates differentiations. It recognizes individualism. The professor is really arguing for everyone to be the same.
Fascinating conversation and I love how structured both sides speak. Some people may be annoyed by the amount of prefacing and restating - I think it helps the listener tremendously to follow along. And of course the amiable tone is also welcome.
Astounding to me that the takeaway of so many commenters seems to be that Markovits is against hierarchies as such. "To reject an extreme is not to affirm its opposite." I guess that, even here, many tune in to have their preconceptions affirmed, not challenged. Anyways, Glenn did a great job pushing back and clarifying when necessary, as always.
I think what he’s trying to say is take the medical establishment to begin with, you have to test very high to get into a very of a medical establishment that has professions in it, that you don’t necessarily have to score very high on a exam to dwell in, but from America to Craddock Standpoint, we are letting people into that establishment that could be a brain surgeon or who can be a heart surgeon but down the pipe better off be a nutritionist or a physical therapist or nurse practitioner. And what is the economic effect of that and how is the meritocracy preventing more people from participating in that?
Some famous beneficiaries of affirmative action like Clarence Thomas and Glenn Loury now despise it. Loury was accepted into North Western University with a full scholarship based on his superb performance AND his race. "They were looking for qualified applicants who were "black", he said. It's not unusual for recipients of privilege to later resent it because it impugns their genuine achievement but if their trauma serves to advance policies that deny others the opportunities they themselves enjoyed that is grievance politics and bad public policy.
Both Gentlemen raise valid points. However, the one thing left out in the medicine argument, is how broken the insurance industry is, and how it adversely affects how the medical system/Doctors relate to patients.
I'm somewhat reminded of the argument made by Nassim Nicholas Taleb about how concentrating resources into elite scientific institutions isn't as likely to produce innovation as spreading them around to interested "tinkerers" as was the case with the first scientific revolution. It almost seems as if Markvoitz arrives at the same place albeit from a different trajectory.
This is amazing. Thank you for lifting up these ideas. I'm very inspired by this conversation. Great examples to ground how we could organically shift these systems. What a refreshing, well-related discussion.
He doesn't seem to focussing on this, but something I've heard from a lot of educated professionals is that the training they receive in school often times doesn't match the work they do in the real world. I think there is a good argument to be made that while our system is meritocratic, it isn't really promoting the best people for the job.
That was an interesting assertion he made that since other nations have modeled the German law system they must be better. Seems their system is just simpler or more straightforward. Does that equal better? I don't know about that. Seems there are presumptions, behaviors, and cultural norms that a system is solving for. A simple method in one area can be completely wrong and poorly applied to another.
I'd argue that from a societal perspective a "good" civil law system should be dependable, i.e. give predictable results and cheap. The american system sucks at both of these. Since civil law is also in some sense a zero sum game/ rat race, having a system that sucks up talent that could otherwise do a different more productive job is likely also a net loss for society. By these measures the German system does seem objectively better.
I wonder if this guy has read ‘Harrison Bergeron’ by Vonnegut. The implications of some of the things he says lays a road to a very similar dystopia where all are made equal by force. To me that mindset is... unnerving, I suppose.
The American Medical Association has created a cartel on doctor care in the USA in order to keep prices extremely high and output low for their services. In Mexico you can see a doctor for $3 USD and discuss any health problem without waiting at almost any pharmacy. The rent seekers in the USA would never allow for that kind of thing. I also blame the lawyers for inflicting huge transactional costs upon the healthcare system in order to line their pockets through the exorbinantly expensive monopoly they have captured on civil court system.
Markovits' argument seems not to be that the best talent of the most meritorious should not be applied to tasks. It seems to be that the tasks we select to apply ourselves to are the wrong ones. He may even be insinuating that the task selection is being force fit to the available merit of the workforce irrespective of the merit of the task itself. I don't know how big of a problem this is given that we have always had epochs in history where disruptive new ways of delivering goods, services and value have upended the old order and created new meritocracies. Overall, I didn't see any argument against the most meritorious individuals being applied to tasks.
Markovits had me a bit intrigued until he made his Olympic gymnast comparative argument. Yep, that's where he lost me and I fell back in love with my world of free market extremism that produces the kind of elite performance that makes me marvel at superhuman achievement. I have season tickets for my local Division 1 basketball team, not my local Division 3 team where the players are slower, less skilled, and closer to the average human that Markovits idealizes. I like my Division 1 basketball players to be gods, not the mere mortals Markovits describes. So if Markovits's vision requires becoming more human all too human, I'll pass and thank the heavens for free markets. I want to see super humans compete in the marketplace of ideas and on the basketball court, thank you, not mere mortals like me.
I think this guy is missing a big piece of this whole argument. If someone Chooses to work themselves to the bone, 100 hours a week, never sleeping but as a fruit of that labor produces something that makes life and society better for millions of others, is it moral to hold those people back? Is it right to restrict and cap how hard an individual can push themselves? That seems like it would actually harm society in the long run.
his point that there may be too much emphasis on elite top tier schools sounds right..over a 37 year career in natural resources / engineering / conservation with government & consulting not once did i ever interact with any graduates from those schools.... everyone i met were all graduates of state universities and were well trained and suited for their positions...
Its an interesting point that the very focus of so much elite labor and resource allocation being centered in elite academic institutions is also what makes them so hotly contested and politicized. Were it the case that one's position in the social hierarchy, in terms of status as well as wealth, were not as severely correlated to one's access or membership in these institutions it may be that there would not be such an obsession with affirmative action or other social engineering, as Markovitz puts it.
The system we have makes sense. Why would I want to put in tons of work and time if someone can just get the same outcome. It would take away any striving for excellence. Why work hard if you don’t have to
The deeper argument here is that the bar is a rtificially high, with requirements that aren't genuine, nor substantial. This is what I see in the world of finance every day.
![Why Does Racial Inequality Persist? | Glenn Loury & Adaner Usmani [The Glenn Show]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/oj0U0qPzhlI/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why Does Racial Inequality Persist? | Glenn Loury & Adaner Usmani [The Glenn Show]](/img/tr.png)
Glenn Loury is one of the best interviewers ever. The way he prefaces a question by restating in his own words the interviewee's position to make sure he understands enhances my own understanding of the position.
Yes! I agree!
He is my favourite podcast host. I love how forthright he is.
Sounds like one of the main points from James Lindsays and Peter Boghossians book How to have Impossible Conversations, where they say you should be able to repeat your oppositions argument back better than they could before saying your side. Steel-Man-ing instead of Straw-Man-ing
I do this with people I work and consult with and I learned it a lot from listening to him and some others who use this style of “the last 3 words” questioning. Repeating restating and asking helps to communicate that they have communicated to you correctly and you’re starting each new exchange on a level footing, communication is 90 percent listening the other half is making sure you understood what you heard. Haha. Great communication techniques. Love this style.
This is where Glenn shines, more than the race stuff, which is also good. He is the best interviewer, he knows the best questions to ask, even if they are not in line with his opinions. He is the best.
I'm surprised that there was not more discussion of the mismatch between what it takes to be a good professional and what that the schooling system tests.
For example a person could be great at school and passing the medical boards but not good at being and MD and vice-versa.
I find your example is more the rule.
This is such a good conversation that I can hardly stand it. Around 22 minutes in, they start talking about early literacy, parenting styles and mating patterns. Let me tell you: Markovits has totally nailed it. I've been talking about this for years, only to have it cemented when I went into teaching. We have to start talking about this as a country and I need to find Markovits and take this further. We need this info to go public. In the meantime, read books to your kids and make sure poor folk you know, know the skill as well. It's where it all starts. This is so great! Thank you so much Glenn Loury and everyone who made this conversation possible.
So true! I'll add respectfully that Markovits is not originating parenting and development improvements, rather he seems to be advocating structuring government around "enforcing" it. Suzanne, do you think it should be another government program? I do not. Opportunity of choice, perhaps, such as charter schools are one type of (difficult) implementation.
See how alternative education advocates have worked so hard to shake off failing schools in favor of chartering, in most districts. I would not want the same default constrictions on my raising of my family. I agree completely with your experienced conclusions about the importance of (in order) marriage, parenting, and early literacy! Thank you.
His argument is the horrifying spectre of Hayek's tyranny of experts who through 'enlightened' value judgments dictate what is 'better' and 'more meaningful' to the human condition.
Yes a bit of it does sound to me like an economist playing philosopher king.
We actually have this tyranny based on our current system. Take economics for instance. The "experts" who have gotten through the elite meritocratic system we have ultimately get to sit on the Federal Reserve and decide how much unemployment and/or inflation and/or higher interest rates we are allowed to have. These things then affect the lives of everyone else. The tyranny of the "enlightened" is already here.
@@olewetdog6254 and nothing happens to those elites who make mistakes and screw things up.... and sometimes get brought back to do more harm...
@PissedOffProle hey am liking your handle...
@@olewetdog6254 I don't disagree, but his prescription is exponentially worse.
I am sorry to be harsh, but I am not buying a single word this guy says.
He presents a vision of intelligent design economics at every next phrase after he denies he is doing it.
This is merely anti-meritocracy apologia that by identifying places that are not following meritocracy seeks to
call those very deviations as meritocracy for the petty shock effect of attacking that word. If the deviations from meritocracy are bad then the conclusion should be that we should return to meritocracy, not that we should move away even more from it.
And his theory is this reverse temporal post-hoc rationalization of innovation and the displacement of resource allocation
?
We don't have to wait further than 31:50 to hear the masterful: "How do you measure that?" "I am asserting it". Ok, so that is the rigor we can expect he applies in his book?
All european countries have "SAT equivalent" only entry to college. No interviews, no background checks, no diversity gerrymandering. And he has the gall to say the SAT's are the most gameable component of the education admission process? Instead of the human decided interview process used by elites for decades to exert nepotistic pressures? Training and practicing is gaming the system?
This is Lilliputian surrealism that would leave Gulliver's mouth agape.
This has to be the worst possible angle to go after elitism, of which the problem is not that it is meritocratic, but instead that it violates meritocracy.
Glad to hear his ideas, but we should not be shy in criticizing them. And I will summarize it in the following romanticized form:
This is conjecture masturbation that will be used as peer review section filler for further bad ideas.
@elephantrider78 - Glenn doesn't think so.
Let's just let Markovitz and his friends design and manage our society. What can go wrong? ....
@@TheEggMan2000 I didn't hear him volunteer to or suggest that he should design and manage society. He is putting his ideas out for discussion. He and Glenn discussed them. Glenn was pleased with the discussion.
@@holyworrier
I think he does. He pushes back on every idea and hyprocracy with aplomb and reserve
@@holyworrier
So you think he wrote this book without any hope or desire that his ideas will bear fruition?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that Daniel is saying that all things being equal, we would find equal outcomes and things in our world would be better. To me, that seems to deny reality-human nature. I have four kids, all things are equal in my home and my wife & I treat them the same and they obviously all live within the same social class. And yet, all four kids are very different in thinking, actions, and personality.
I think this is the problem with some people’s thinking: discounting human nature. Some people truly do work harder, are stronger, or smarter, etc. We cannot create a perfect utopia. A capitalist society based primarily on meritocracy is the best we humans can offer; outside of that is charity.
He says he finds hierarchy objectionable; what other choice do we have? Does he have a publicist? Does he have a boss? That’s hierarchy. And it’s unavoidable.
Also, @31:53 is brilliant by Glen:
Glen: How do you know that?
Daniel: Well, I’m asserting it.
And there you go. Don’t assert. Don’t assume. Live in reality my friend and base your arguments on facts instead of assertions.
Am I wrong? Help me understand.
The problems that Markovits is targeting (like "hierarchy") do not flow from "human nature"--which I take to mean the forces imposed on us by our biology. Differences in individuals and life outcomes are more of a MATHEMATICAL inevitability, than part of some genetically encoded "nature". The development of a single human being is an orchestration of such incredible complexity that our genes couldn't enforce perfect equality among us even if they wanted to.
Regardless, I don't think Markovits is advocating a complete elimination of hierarchy--that would be (mathematically) impossible, and he says as much toward the end. But using the coercive power of the state we CAN solve "coordination problems" and thereby blunt some of the most offensive and damaging iniquities. That one trick is our species claim to fame and what separates us from the lower animals.
The capitalist economic system is a machine with a life and interest of its own--a kind of super-organism. Have we domesticated it? Or is it parasitizing us? Or is it a symbiosis? Should we be content to see this economic machine transform us into soulless husks, obedient cogs, in the name of efficiency? Are there higher values to consider than comfort and GDP?
Many among us (myself included) would be willing to trade SOME measure of "GDP" in return for greater nourishment of our souls (greater autonomy at work, for example)--but that trade exists as part of a Prisoner's Dilemma writ large. The temptation to "defect" means people like myself inevitably find ourselves facing a choice between obedience to the Beast--or material deprivation. There is no middle ground. Pay a piece of your soul--or die--day after day.
sterlingveil i would agree with you that he doesn’t seem to be saying he’s completely opposed to any and all hierarchy. He even acknowledges how awkward his position is because he himself sits at the top of the academic hierarchy.
No system we create or live in will ever be completed hierarchy free. But wouldn’t you agree with me that using government power to coerce people is not always and in every way good? How exactly would that look? Having powerful government authority wielding their power the coerce “equality” or “fairness”? That’s a very dangerous path and very dependent upon who it is in power. That’s also a step towards dictatorship. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely right?
Human nature isn’t simply mathematical. That’s a way overly simplistic way you’ve framed it. Humans lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc. and the government is put in place to protect against that. I think government has a few jobs: protecting life, liberty, and property. At least in America, government’s main job is that-it protects *the pursuit* of happiness. Government has no business acting as a parent or provider. It’s only there for protection of life, property, and rights, rights that do not come from government, but instead are inalienable. It has no power to give or take away rights-which are inherent-it can only violate those rights.
Just my thoughts.
I think the way America organize his health care system is very bad compared to other first world countries i don't see it as meritocratic
@@williamperry2379 I don't like the way you use the human nature as a way to justify how bad the system is yes human nature has very bad thing but we can't just
settle for that we must try to be better as a society
Juan Manuel Peña Barón human nature dictates that our “system” can only be but so “good” however one chooses to define good.
“Systems” are made up of flawed humans. Humans are not perfect and therefore there isn’t such a thing as a perfect system.
What we presently have isn’t perfect, but it’s likely the best we can humanly do-all else is like I said, charity. And the government should not be involved in charity. That’s not the government’s job. The government’s job is protecting rights/life/property/liberty.
The SAT is unfair because it rewards people who put in effort? Is this a joke? That's true of every test! It's not called "gaming" the test, it's called studying! The fact that the test covers useless info is a good point, but totally unrelated to the meritocracy issue.
Regarding Berlin pre-schools: Notice how the approach is NOT to _increase_ the quality of the bottom schools, which is the actual problem, but to _decrease_ the quality of better schools, which solves nothing.
What is an "extreme" degree of selectivity? What is a "legitimate" degree of selectivity? I assume he will decide this on behalf of others. After all, he chooses to work at Yale and not the neighboring Gateway Community College that is not a block and a half off campus. This is a classic form of political naivete - the government will control people in exactly the ways I personally find justified, despite those other people not finding it justified, but will not control me in any ways that I don't find justified, even though others do find it justified.
Glenn repeatedly ask about stratification. "There's always going to be some, the question is how much." Again, why do self-appointed philosopher kings get to decide on behalf of people whom they know nothing about and who face no consequences (good or bad) for their decisions?
The Olympics argument is absurd on its face. I am inspired by athletes who persevere and accomplish great things. They often do so despite all kinds of setbacks. Everyone knows those athletes are all gifted at the Olympics, but to be a true Olympian you also gotta train hard and not give up! It's rather embarrassing to see a grown man say that because he can't participate in the Olympics, that they should be dumbed down to meet his level.
Markovits would learn much under Philoctetes.
The SAT must be attacked, and in a dishonest way: otherwise many will notice that Asians (racially, of any nationality) on average score over 110+ points above white students. Cultural bias in tests, and elitism, tend to be made a mockery of if newcomers, and children of immigrants from non-Western societies, do so well. Better to disregard the test entirely, after denouncing its 'elite bias', than face very uncomfortable cultural questions: questions that don't reflect well on any of the 3 largest demographics in the United States.
Also, a 200k household income in an area like the San Francisco Bay Area, or lots of
areas in Southern California, is not elite. At all. A 250k suburban home in Columbus, Ohio, or in Houston, will be the equivalent of 2000k here. Many expensive metropolitan areas are also immigrant rich, and are not dominated in the least bit by long standing elites. Asian immigrants tend to cluster in metropolitan areas with high costs of living as lots of native Americans -- that's what they are -- decamp to other states with low costs of living. Is someone with 10 times the median US household income elite, no matter where they live? Probably. Telling me that two working parents, in an incredibly expensive area, make 2.5 or 3 times the median household income in the US, does not scream elite to me.
if your folks have money you can attend special classes to improve your score
@@markbrownner6565 That's true but doesn't account for much. Fuajianese Chinese immigrants in New York have consistently scored very well on standardized admissions tests despite being very poor. Ditto for immigrants from many other nations. Cultural emphasis on education easily overcomes wealth discrepancies.
@@SevenRiderAirForce yes i get that as my 'culture' emphasizes education but the access to help gets you from 95 to 99 %
What a fantastic discussion. Very thoughtful. Rejecting an extreme is not the same as embracing the opposite.
I can't believe I've never heard of Markovits before today. Great stuff.
I love these episodes that aren’t explicitly centered around the most recent racial flashpoint. All Glenn’s episodes are fantastic but this one was a real banger IMO
I work in finance. I can tell you from experience that nepotism is rife, espcially with respect to hot jobs in investment banking, sales of all kinds. These jobs do not require special skills. What they require can be taught quickly. But...to get in...you have to be from a target school...a euphemism for discriminatory hiring of the upper classes at the expense of other highly qualified persons.
Well that just sounds like the biological imperatives of favoring those that remind you of yourself.
Really hammers home that the systems of capitalism don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in competition with competing "interests", like evolution.
This professor is a a social justice warrior/ CRT adherent. He also decries hierarchies while sitting at the top of the academic hierarchy himself (yale professor)
@@Individual_Lives_Matter
That's why CRT is so dangerous.
On the surface they present as wanting a more equal just moral society yet the ideogy in practice does the opposite. And the fact that most people are good, and want others to be treated as they want to be treated themselves, makes them fall pray to CRTs falsehoods and indoctrination.
@James Nicholl
Is your comment directed to me?
I think Professor Markovits answered the economist’s questions reasonably well. Intervention at very early stage requires resource allocation, and remember that resources are scarce, economically speaking. True, technology and innovations operate in a social context. Outcomes are purely of utilitarian nature. That doesn’t make Professor Markovits ‘a social justice warrior’.
@James Nicholl people out of their depths respond with word salad CRT, post-modern, socialist boogieman here, there everywhere. They couldn't describe what CRT or post-modernism actually is if their lives depended on it.
You don't get it. He's not saying that all ways of knowing are equal. He's saying that a society that puts all its productive eggs in with a highly specialized technologists with big fancy machines might not always get the best solution. You can run a car on a computerized engine in a way that's more efficient but you have to take it to a specialist every time it breaks down, or you can have a more traditional mechanical engine with simple parts that you can work on yourself. Which would you rather have? This is the problem that is being presented. He's saying sometimes the highly technical specialized solution isn't the best idea in the long term.
The way I understand the argument made by the guest the problem is the excessive reward for competence not the value of a meritocracy. I’ve not heard a good argument for not having the most capable person at any particular position at every level.
How are you (or the guest), separating competence and meritocracy?
I think he’s saying there can be more value in having many less skilled workers rather than having a few highly skilled workers. The point is we’re not focusing on producing a small group of elites, we’re producing a broad array of competent workers. For instance, if I’m hiring garbage collectors, I’ll hire the most competent applicants, but is there any such thing as an “elite” garbage collector?
@@matthewkilbride1669
*but is there any such thing as an “elite” garbage collector?*
Yes
@@matthewkilbride1669
He should practice what he preaches. He should resign from his professorship at yale and let several less meritorious professors take his place.
My thoughts exactly. Even in the system in which he describes it would still be meritocratic. He talks about how there should be an army of personal trainers instead of a select few heart surgeons so that people exercise and therefor don't need the heart surgeon (a pipe dream but whatever). You would still want to select the personal trainers in a meritocratic way, the personal trainer who is hyper knowledgeable and charismatic/motivating should get better raises and should be hired over their mediocre colleague.
The german lawyer argument is circular. He claims the the lack of elite education produces a more leveled legal field but the oposite is more likely to be true. The fact that the legal system is the way it is doesn’t provide incentive for superior candidate to choose the legal profession. If you remove the reward for superior performance then why would anyone strive to exceed the standard. It is a formula for widespread mediocracy.
Gustavo Perez As I see it, the argument is that the system is so constructed that a “superior candidate” is not necessary for success. It’s not a horse race or a basketball game. The process is inquisitive, rather than adversarial. If the point is to arrive at the truth rather than beat an opponent, and the judge has more authority, then there is the possibility of a more collaborative approach. The reward for superior performance is more than good enough pay, self-respect, the high esteem of one’s peers and clients, etc. Also, good health care, 6 weeks vacation, healthy middle class, etc.
The goal of the justice system isn't to produce the most brilliant lawyers its justice. What produces more justice a system where the person with deeper pockets can mount a better defense/argument or a system that puts people more or less on equal footing in terms regardless of how much money they have.
@Nick Smith You're right, I think Germans have a better sense of the importance of caring for the whole than Americans do. This is why they have a healthy middle class whereas ours is crumbling. It seems always to be about balancing the needs of the individual and that of the collective. And I think, systemically, it's an empirical question: Which society is healthier, the people overall more content, experiencing what they regard as freedom, enough security, prosperity? At present, I think Germany is winning this competition. I think it makes sense to be open to what is happening, what's working given current conditions. Societies are always in flux and their needs change...One could even make a case for monarchy, with the right king ... Caesar always has to be paid, no matter the system.
Los Manzani Pursuing the lowest common denominator may be fair but not necessarily better.
Gustavo Perez That is an odd way to frame it. I’m not even sure what that means, in practice. I live in Germany, and I don’t see the lowest common denominator being pursued anywhere, quite the contrary. Pursuing excellence is always a personal choice, as is contributing to the common good. When that motivation is part of one’s pursuit of excellence then everyone benefits.
I literally got chills when he said the phrase "Army of public health workers". What a terrifying thought!
Especially when they inevitably proclaim "racism is a public health crisis" and institute mandatory DEI trainings. Not to change the topic too much, but that's where this is going.
@@cecilcharlesofficial Precisely. I'd rather fight the Wehrmacht, ISIS and Red Army combined than an army of bureaucrats.
@@WalkerKlondyke - Health workers aren't bureaucrats.
@@holyworrier an army of them would be, though
@@TheEggMan2000 Got it.
Yes, good question Glenn, "who decides". And who poses the questions?
Someone is already deciding and posing the questions. I'm not so sure that they're all that good at it.
In the same way I would prefer that some guilty people go free to avoid incarcerating the innocent, I'm OK with some "meritocratic" corruption to avoid suppressing the gifted and driven.
He's just smart enough to be dangerous and just stupid enough to not understand how dangerous he is.
He doesn't understand that rent-seeking and wealth creation are two different things.
@James Nicholl I am keenly aware. This man is a danger. A real danger.
@James Nicholl Well, if you call me names and threaten me with imprisonment, I am sure I will agree with you.
Bad ideas have consequences. The man is in a position of authority. I think you are too ignorant of history to express a reasoned opinion.
@@classiqueliberal8576 I actually think he is mostly correct
@@alexcipriani6003 How could he be correct? There is no such thing as meritocracy, remember? So it is impossible for someone to be correct.
This type of bullshit is self-refuting.
@@classiqueliberal8576 are you serious or you just haven’t listened to his arguments? The system we think of as meritocratic it is not actually that meritocratic since most people taking part in it have had a lot of scaffolding built around them by their rich parents. What I refer to as being correct is the focus on competition rather than learning and knowledge in colleges
Glenn Loury is awasome
If you set a rate for nursery schools, don't you just lower the possible quality of the nursery schools? Like if you said that the max price of any car is 35,000; any car above that will just not be made.
Yes! Absolutely. Unfortunately many people are very talented with language and communication, but have poor critical thinking skills.
Those who would limit the price and quality of nursery schools would probably embrace the idea of limiting the price and quality of cars as well.
@@jimenright318 probably. But it used it as a comparison. Why limit potential quality?
@@sunbro6998 A good question. It seems to me that many people are attracted to the proposition of limits in a misguided desire for fairness and equity. I would not put limits on achievement and the quest for the best.
This is my takeaway from the video's unusually civil argument and I lean toward Lowry's position although Markovits' concerns are valid.
It is a complicated issue and I cannot say that I posses the knowledge and wisdom for a satisfying answer.
Liberals are great at feelings, victimhood and marketing of feelings and victimhood
Perfect example of The Vision Of The Annointed.
It's one thing to talk about "what's possible" regarding one's own life but when it comes to society....it's clear he has a completely different attitude to knowledge than hayek or hume.
Exactly. A beautifully profound book, that describes this man perfectly!
The guest uses all the code words of the new social justice movement: abusive system, elite structures, diverting funding, etc.
He was upfront about everything he believes in or is inclined to support. He may or may not be a wolf, still, but he’s not wearing any sheep‘s clothing.
This guy is the king of Mediocracy
Markovits justifies his theory by thinking everyone's goal is to rise to the top of the hierarchy. And that at the top it is not a fair, meritocratic process. That's not most people's goal. Most people want to live a comfortable life. The idea that they can't get into Yale or can't get a top job at a top firm is so disconnected from what most people want it is almost laughable.
Yeah it's more than a little ironic when the moral critique of meritocracy imposes elite values on the public at large.
I can't recall right now whether Markovits cites any real data to back the theory up, but his argument is less about the excess wealth that's denied to most people, and is more about the higher social status that first-rate students have bestowed upon them by attending and/or graduating from one or another prestigious institution. And ditto with them being hired or promoted in a highly respected line of work thereafter. The fact that so many are excluded from enjoying this social status "breeds resentment" according to Markovits.
Even if he cites some reliable stats suggesting there's something to this story, I will continue to doubt it at the macro level, for multiple reasons, chief among them being that he himself says meritocracy "harms the winners too". But then what becomes of the resentment narrative? Is it rational or irrational to covet or feel aggrieved over one's spot in the positional arms race, when the winners, too, don't _really_ win? Clearly it must be irrational. So the problem is cultural. Markovits' work on this, properly understood, should be filed under Cultural Criticism. Not Economics, not even distributive justice.
But instead of speaking directly to the losers/non-winners and warning them about the farcical nature of the prize, he addresses elites in a Hail Mary attempt to have them embark on a mission to restructure the many non-cultural domains of society. Very odd.
There are so many things wrong with his thesis that I don't know where to begin.
@@jonschlinkert He makes some interesting observations and compelling arguments, even if you want to reject his overall takeaway. I scrolled through this comment section after leaving that comment, and it's pretty clear that most of the critical and dismissive commenters didn't pay close attention to the specifics of what he proposes. So many went into auto-pilot mode, and at worst into _"muh Western Civ"_ mode; as if the object of their criticism is a radical egalitarian who refuses to budge and needs to be lectured about the basics of human nature. Give me a break. This reflects negatively on the audience Glenn has cultivated on here, as Markovits couldn't have been more clear that (to simplify) Country A and Country B are the only realistic choices, and that both countries are and will remain hierarchical and competitive to one _or another_ degree. There is no hypothetical _Egalitarian Country C_ to usher in, and rightly so.
Two things stick out at the moment: The world-of-difference between 1956 and 2012 in the pro-volleyball finalist case. Needless to say, professional volleyball wasn't a non-competitive affair in 1956, and those norms are what Markovits said he favors over the 2012 norms. Disagreement on this one isn't a matter of wrong/right. Rather, it comes down to one's preference vs. dispreference for extravagance in major league sports, and how a society with a majoritarian preference for some such extravagance ends up weighting enjoyment of that versus the downsides of it which he took care to go over and I won't repeat here.
Another worthwhile observation had to do with the difference between adversarial vs. inquisitorial judicial systems and legal theories, with Markovits arguing in favor of Germany's inquisitorial model, for reasons he went over, none of which were even glossed by the scathing commenters on here. I suspect that if Glenn took the time to read these comments, he'd be at least a little embarrassed that this is the caliber of viewer his content attracts on here.
But it's not just Markovits who's more impressed with inquisitorial model; it's the great majority of other rich countries that chose to adopt it over the adversarial model. A macro-scale fact worth revisiting.
@@No_Avail thank you for articulating what i have been thinking for months regarding the comments left on Dr. Loury's discussions here. It's a bit sad; it's as if half the audience has precisely the same sort of "group think" or rigidity that he is regularly speaking out against.
"US workplaces used to provide massive amounts of workplace training for their employees, now they provide effectively none." That uh, that's a weird statement to anyone who has held a job outside of academia. I imagine the relatively small company I work for isn't the only one in the country that not only provides training but has been making an emphasis on doing it better.
Depending on your field, it's often mandatory to have trainings, even. Though I could say maybe trade schools should make a comeback over expecting a degree for everything, and/or instead of putting off all the cost on workplaces.
Well I work for a large pharmaceutical factory and the training there is nothing to write home about. It's not the kind of thing that's gonna prepare a person to move up in their job or move on in their career. It's very bare bones and meant to satisfy the FDA.
Employers will provide training that brings value to back to their company. Not sure why that's hard to people on tbe Left to figure out. When employers pay/help with your education and then require you to stay for a certain amount of time, I think it makes it obvious. Then you have the extreme Bernie/AOC position of Free College without any responsibility on the side of the student or increased chance of value to industry.
@@xxcrysad3000xx100% agree w/ what you're saying.
From my perspective, what we've done in the U.S. is the following: we don't want higher taxes that could cover the cost of college (which is what Canada, the UK, Germany, France do) so we reduce those support opportunities. Then, we turn to our immigrant visa programs to fill-up holes in our economy that require college training (the same training that we, as Americans, don't support collectively). And, in the long-run, you have our students (and the parents) carrying around massive debt and being asked to compete in a more and more globally competitive market against students who have practically no student debt (see countries mentioned previously) which all leads to American students on average becoming less competitive due to the higher price tag of debt. And I''m not sure why Americans today say that covering the cost of college as a society is radical.....it's called investing in the future and was practiced when the boomers went to college up through at least the early 90s. People who graduated then almost faint when they hear about college now.
@Bob Charles every government that has inacted universal healthcare has controlled costs much better than the libertarian free for all of private insurance without a single payer like we have in the US. You will reject this FACT Bob Charles, because your fragile little conservative worldview can't accept that the lowest hanging fruit that shields it is empty and barren and not up to the task, but it's still the reality.
Always that pesky "Who decides?" question.
How does a system/country that practices the anti-meritocracy theory compete with a country that practice meritocracy? I predict it looses every-time.
We will just have to break those other counties legs.
@@notsmine9191
Thanks for making me laugh
Name the latest German innovation?
Opinionated Ape The only one I can think of was the ingenious way their car makers figured out how to make diesel engines pass smog tests.
@@mrgustavoperez what a giant scam how are they even a company anymore
Right off the bat - Markovitz calling it a meritocracy, but the problem he's describing is that it _isn't_ a meritocracy anymore. And later he says "let the elite graduate schools do their thing" - so planned economy for the poor, but meritocracy/freedom for the rich and elites?
Faren, you started to address my confusion with your remark. Thanks. What the phö.
@James Nicholl It depends on what you mean by "Jordan Peterson". In all seriousness, I would say that higher education is a counter-meritocratic force as it stands.
Regardless of the profession you choose, most of your required course material is useless and only serves as a jobs program for the instructors and administrators. You can say it's there to make you "well-rounded", but that's crap.
The effect is a racket where businesses can get you to pay 10's to 100's of thousands of dollars to get trained instead of paying YOU to get trained. And in many cases, it even fails at that! It's a symbol of status way more than it is a symbol of ability.
A good education is free. If you're good enough and know where to look, you can find so much for free online. The only thing that a college degree will tell you about a person is that they have a college degree.
@James Nicholl I would agree that all of those things may be useful or at least desirable to the employer.
Obliviousness to corporate influence - Some percentage of people may not want to work for companies like Nestle if they know what they do.
Obedience - This one is the most obvious. Should your boss/employer be able to tell you what to do? Yes. Does this mean you shouldn't question whether what you're doing is ethical because you're "just doing your job"? No. A good boss takes constructive feedback into consideration. Compliance culture is dangerous and corporations should fear it.
Willingness to perform drudgery for social status - I'm guessing you mean a willingness to be miserable in exchange for external metrics like job title and an attractive salary. I would say I don't like this culture either.
There's a difference between trading short-term gratification for long-term gain or a sense of duty; versus doing something less fulfilling because of arbitrarily better pay. 100K vs 200K salary wouldn't make sense to me if I'd like the job significantly less. Money is not linearly correlated with happiness.
Another "slavemaker" is debt. If people were taught how to avoid it rather than encouraged to get into it, we'd be a lot happier as a society and there'd be fewer cases of people making 100K a year and yet feeling squeezed.
This is not a case against employers preferring competence, but a case against the miseducation of the citizenry in ways that disempower people across many tax brackets, like the millionaires who slept with Harvey to get ahead, or abdicated their duty to notify the authorities that he was a dangerous rapist.
Personal responsibility isn't at odds with any of what I'm saying. I guess what I'm saying is that meritocracy should be a two-way street - pick the most competent, worthy employer and avoid compromising situations that rob you of such a choice whenever possible.
if this guy wants to live a beige life in a beige house in a beige world, or taupe if that's not excessively creative have at it but leave the rest of us alone.
you described western europe. Without their beautiful history it would be just a bunch of drunks sitting around waiting to die.
Hierarchy is a product of pre-existing structures built in to the human being. Instinctual, evolved biological understanding. As in the way a young child absorbs language, the child doesn't start with a blank slate, there is an inbuilt ability. Its like a computer that has no data to work with but it has a set of protocols. There is an operating system that comes built in to humans.
part of hierarchy in a meritocratic society is what people are born with. That component, is not distributed fairly. It's a lottery. There is nothing just or fair about a genetic lottery, especially not one where the outcomes have a material impact on ones outcomes in life.
Therefore the proper response to this unjust reality of nature, is to intervene and make sure that people are not allowed to fall too far. If someone does not produce enough to afford life saving medical treatment, society ought to pay. It ought to pay if that society does not buy into the notion that the sum total of the worth of a man is what he produces. There is still plenty of room for people to earn and get more in life, a nicer car, bigger house, a view of the ocean, by contributing more. But the most decent societies try to engineer a higher floor to make the consequences of rolling snake eyes in the stats of life less severe.
Note to the conservative fools, this DOES NOT mean everyone is equal, it means not winning the genetic lottery does not mean your life is so stacked for more misery.
@penguins inadiorama No, we don't. Within a century, a sliver of time against the hundred thousand plus year backdrop of existence of home sapiens, we will have enough knowledge to engage in human enhancement.
Lineage and who your fucking parents were will no longer be so heavy on destiny when it comes to outcomes. We will be able to engineer and select for smarter healthier offspring and offer it to anyone who wants it. We don't need to harm anyone or try to get people to stop having kids. None of that will matter when anyone can stack the decks and distribute the genetic lottery more evenly.
@penguins inadiorama No we don't, all of the stuff I mentioned will be completely voluntary. You want your kids to be more resistant to Alzheimers, you can choose it. Or not.
As for resources, we live in a world of plenty, feeding everyone we have is a solved problem, and over time we can continue to use more energy while producing less pollution and waste. This is a knowledge problem not a carrying capacity problem, we are nowhere near the limit of the latter. We just don't know enough yet.
@penguins inadiorama jesus fucking christ, you are one of those white genocide types?
Why do I get all the nuts. Stormfront will be your favorite hero in the boys season 2.
I'm not a pessimist. In the long run we are all dead, the heat death of the universe may occur, the distance between stars may grow so large, the only light we see is nothing but an empty void. But that is literally billions upon billions of years off. On the time scales I'll be alive in, and for millions upon millions of years, we essentially have free energy flowing in from the sun, and we can use that energy to do work to live and thrive. This is a universe of plenty, a finite universe maybe, but there is so much room to run and grow it may as well be infinite for the sliver of existence we are talking about when it comes to human civilization.
But I doubt you see it that way do you? You bleak hideous creature, mired in death and decay and worries of infestations of the impure tainting your pristine little bubble world.
As time moves on, we will continue to be able to use more energy while polluting less, we can have more people with less harmful impacts. Lab grown meat, greater wealth for societies around the globe, more demands for cleaner air and water and environments that come in tow with greater prosperity... at least from the liberals and the left. The right are a bunch of atavists who would have us all crawl back into the ditch of history for some confused notions of cleaner past that never was.
Efficiency is measurable and can be tied to quantitative goals and outcomes. "fairness" is subjective.
Maybe the SAT has changed since I used to tutor kids in it back in the 90s, but the idea that it can be gamed to get from the 95th percentile to the 99th percentile is very contradictory to my experience. My students who were of average ability would benefit a lot from SAT test prep. They could reasonably expect to go up by 100 to 200 points. But the kids who came in with a 1350 or higher would typically not benefit at all. The test prep is essentially a collection of test taking heuristics which simply don't help the higher tier students, who have no issue getting to the end of the test. In fact they often hindered the highest tier students.
Great interview. Great steel-manning of the author's arguments, Loury is a stellar intellectual. Some good point from Markovits emerge, but ultimately his stance is that of the social engineer that would like to run experiments on society to follow his personal intuitions about what's good. God help us from people with those tendencies ever taking power.
I work for a state university as a staff member. There is zero meritocracy, everyone gets the same raises and bonuses regardless of how hard you work or don't work. What you are left with is work level reflective on the type of person you are and how much work ethic you have. You strive to do the best knowing you will not be rewarded for it.
If I recall correctly, German law students take several exams at the end of their training, the top score of which is 18. This score is said to be impossible. God is said to be able to get a 17. A score of 12 is excellent. Part of the idea seems to be to cut people down to size, not create superstars. There will always be superstars. The question is whether you want to devise a system especially for them or for the larger cohort of normal citizens.
That a hundred or so developing countries have adopted the German, less demanding law regime doesn't mean its better than ours. Many developing countries are incredibly, deeply corrupt, and would love Judges deciding most of what happens, as they can thus control things by anointing crony judges. And less demanding law schools are great for developing countries with zero history of "Western World, demanding academic traditions." I was born in a political-machine-dominated city, Chicago, where they would solemnly agree with this guy, anoint such judges, and in back rooms, high-five each other. This guy is a classic Lefty who has simply focused on this idea of how to simplify College because the only way to expand affirmative action more than they do now, is simply to make college easier. Hey, great! Go for it. Make such colleges. No, this guy wouldn't go for that, He'd want some Fed rule to force all to become more mediocre. "For the people!"
3:20 that is fascinating. After WWII, nearly 100 countries adopted a GERMAN-based legal system? I would like to know where these countries are, because we know countries in Africa, like Namibia, are German-speaking countries because of colonialism and may have adopted a German-based legal system because it was coerced on them in the first place; not because they thought a German legal framework was more just than, say, an American legal frame. They probably simply kept the legal frame work without comparing it to any other legal system to assess whether one frame work or another was better at enabling just legal outcomes and they speak German.
Glenn was pretty polite here but you could tell he wanted to scream "bullsh!t" at various moments in the conversation
I know I did. Good conversation though. Glenn is great at posing the counter arguments for discussion without folks getting defensive.
Markovits made more sense as the interview went on, he seemed to be making similar points to Charles Murray in Coming Apart about the economic consequences due to intellectual stratification
No. You're the one who wanted to scream. "When are you going to prop up my biases? Why do you think I come here?"
I will never understand how people can look at State intervention over the 20th century and somehow conclude that the only problem was the people in the State, instead of State intervention itself.
The problem with getting rid of ACT/SAT is what would be the objective measure for an university to admit a student? Grade doesn't work because we all know about grade inflation, everyone is getting A's these days. recommendation doesn't work because just it could very well be that a good students just rub the teachers the wrong way and couldn't get a good recommendation? so what else is there?
As for affirmative action, I am all for giving social economic affirmative action. Looking at family income and net worth, below a certain level against some kind of mean, you get favorable consideration. For example, suppose your ACT score is 30, assume your family income is 200k a year and family net wealth is 2 million, another students who scored 28 on the ACT but the family's income is 50k a year and net worth is 100K. (assume same geological location) then the other may get favorable treatment because although with much less resources, the other guy did very well regardless of race,.
My favorite example is Obama's daughters should not get preferential treatment over some poor white student come of rural Virginia who lives with a single mother in a beat up trailer, given roughly equal ACT/SAT score, grades... etc.
If consumers actually paid for their health care -- instead of insurance companies footing the bill -- then wouldn't executives change how they staff their hospital to favor nurse practitioners over elite doctors? That would drastically reduce costs but only marginally reduce quality of care. There's a simpler explanation for the problems he's describing: government laws create these distortions. Perhaps, the elite are the ones lobbying for the government policy. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying.
Dennis, "government laws create [...] distortions." My new, succinct motto! Thanks.
The excess of college educated workforce has allowed employers to raise the qualifications of jobs. Why hire a HS grad when I can get a BS or
However, it is a foolish employer who hires someone because he or she has a degree rather than the most aptitude for the job. Such employers will be at a competitive disadvantage to those making an effort at hiring employees who will provide the best value to customers.
@@marcopignone9386 Years ago employers were able to employ a variety of tests to measure "aptitude" for a job, but they went by the wayside with equal employment opportunity regulations to prove the validity of these tests and prove they were not discriminatory to protected classes. So degrees became an assumed measure of improved aptitude for a variety of jobs. The education establishment invests heavily in supporting this assumption. I agree that it is a smart employer who is able to look for aptitude vs. educational credentials.
@Craig Jones I suspect that 34 percent number, especially in Germany, includes people who have gotten "degrees" from technical institutes whose curriculum differs from our standard 4 year colleges. German education is focused on educating for skills that are needed in their workforce.
@@Indyday42 Might federal and state licensing pose an even bigger threat? Fields such as software development that are not subject to licensing requirements are adapting quickly. Fields at the mercy of government licensing, on the other hand, are forced to hire those willing and able to spend more and more time jumping through expensive educational hoops to the detriment of those unwilling or unable to afford it. Licenses are requiring more and more accredited education, but not necessarily greater knowledge or ability. Take physical therapy, a highly valuable field today with boomers wanting to continue physical activity. A short while ago, only a bachelors degree was required. Now, it's a doctorate. Meanwhile, the customer is not given the choice of paying less for a therapist with less education who may be just as good or better than the pricier therapist with a PhD.
@@marcopignone9386 I agree with your analysis. You've touched on another driver of over-emphasis on college degrees with your PT example. Professional associations push for increasing educational credentials as a means of raising the market value of their field. Now in Wisconsin, perhaps nationally, a masters degree is required to get your Physical Therapy license.
The present system of meritocracy is just fine.
Excellent interview. I saw Daniel being interviewed about his book recently, and his argument seemed to be little more than meritocracy is bad because the wealthy have learned to game it. This came across as a very dumb argument, as a gameable system is not really measuring merit. Glenn got some meaningful arguments out of him, worthy of discussion. Personally I think he confuses cause and effect too much, but we did hear a meaningful conversation.
If his argument has merit, then by virtue of his thesis, he is wrong.
250 higher points in sat for top 4 %ile earners is not necessarily due to 'privilege'. Most of it is inherited through parents. Many studies have been done on twins separated at birth, Robert Plomin outlines all the research in his book' blueprint'.
Markovits seems to have a very collectivist mindset - limit the most able of society from what they can achieve and limit the choices of everyone so that the variability in outcomes is limited so we have a better (in his view) society. We can't have great lawyers, great doctors, great accountants, great universities, etc., just slightly below to slightly above average everything so that everyone is on a level playing field.
From a strictly US perspective, that's counter to the American ethos of the pursuit of happiness - government shouldn't be in the business of limiting what we can achieve. Such a system would also never bloom the incredible revolutions we've seen in technology over the past half-century. There's a reason the big tech companies are predominantly started out of the US - people were free to pursue excellence to the extent and in the way they see fit. There was also the ability for the smartest people in the country to join together (either in University or in places like Silicon Valley). These could never manifest in Markovits vision of society.
Respectfully, I believe you've misunderstood his argument.
Markowitz is not an awkward messenger. He's the perfect messenger. The only critique that can penetrate the armor of elite institutions must come from within.
Care to elaborate on what the misunderstanding is?
Well said. Thank you. It's stunning how people dont see this professor for what he is, social justice warrior and critical theorist. Glenn pushes back beautifully I don't think I could have done do with such aplomb and reserve. Seeing people advocating for this insanity and being taken seriously terrifies me
S T, I fully agree with what you’re saying.
Hierarchies are unavoidable wherever you find freedom. Because some people work harder than others. Some are bigger, stronger, faster. Some are smarter, wiser, etc. That’s just the reality. Why on earth would anyone want to give government more power, and have more bureaucrats dictating who does what and when/how for the purposes for making society “better” and more “fair”?
This guy is talking about what really matters in life
Glenn yes. Not the fool of a guest.
Really interesting and well considered arguments put forward by the guest, although I disagreed with much of it. Part of my issue with his argument was he was attempting to construct a unifying theory that could be applied to all human endeavours, which seemed ludicrous to me. The idea that sports or entertainment should be meddled with to lessen the gaps between the professionals and the dilettantes sounds troubling to me and would require so much government intervention and social engineering to bring it about that it's probably only possible to achieve this in an entirely different type of society that doesn't enjoy the freedoms of societies like ours.
However, I do share some of his ideas around medicine. I do believe that the pharmaceutical model that is promoted within medical training is the paradigm through which all illness and disease is viewed, which may be appropriate and effective for treating acute conditions, but is woefully inadequate at addressing and dealing with chronic long term conditions. So having a healthcare system that was driven by prevention in the form of the promotion of adopting healthy lifestyle behaviours and supported by healthcare professionals that had expertise in behavioural change, such as health psychologists and nutritionists, would result in significant societal benefits.
This was very interesting and engaging. Prof Daniel was laying it out and Prof Glenn was absorbing everything. Excellent work of content gentlemen, thank you.
The sports breakdown of hierarchy was enlightening
A profoundly important conversation!!
Very interesting conversation. Thanks gentlemen.
I've noticed this trend for years in my profession. Graduate degrees have become required to get hired for positions that previously a BA/BS was sufficient. The job has not significantly changed and graduate degrees do not necessarily improve the quality of the work. To me, this has felt like the people with the graduate degrees validating themselves. There is definitely a sense of elitism about it.
My other observation is that college has become a means for redistributing wealth upward. We tell kids they have to have a college degree to succeed, but then saddle them with large debts before they've even entered the workforce. I would also argue (in a non-get off my lawn way) that the quality of education has declined over time, so students are not being adequately prepared for jobs. It seems like a big scam put in place by elites.
Very well put
the interviewer is very good. i've seen a couple of people discuss this book with its author and he does by far the best job i've seen of stirring the discussion
On the US vs German legal system issue, I have been reading about the differences for the last few hours.
The US uses a common law system and Germany uses a civil law system. The difference is primarily about the importance of precedent. In our common law system, precedent is a very big deal. Precedent is hard to keep up with and is nuanced... and this explains the elite of the elite issue in American lawyers.Our common law system explains why people like me become so frustrated with Supreme Court decisions given the clear reading of the Constitution. The language in the document matters in our system, but precedent serves to change what the law actually says.
In civil law systems, precedent has much lower impact on a decision. The law says what it says by statute and that is it. Lawyers don’t have to understand case law (decisions by courts) as much as statutory law (law passed by legislators).
Now, personally, the civil system is very attractive to me on the above point.
But then there is Nassim Taleb. I respect the hell out of the guy and he has a Twitter thread speaking to the bottom up aspect of common law (via precedent) vs civil law (which, when thinking about it, is top down)... and the thread seems highly favorable to common law. I share that to give a little bit push back to my ignorance on the issue.
Germany also has procedures that I like better than the US. Here’s a comparison of the two systems. socialaw.com/docs/default-source/judge-william-g.-young/judging-in-the-american-legal-system-spring-2015/a-comparison-of-judges-in-germany-and-the-united-states.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Patrick Rubino - I understand your point, but I challenge the premise. Is the Constitution anti-fragile now? The structure of the government (separation of powers) has been largely anti-fragile, but the scope of constitutional government at the federal level has been incredibly fragile. How a farmer, growing his own crops to feed his own animals... came to be viewed as impacting interstate commerce... is a tragedy. So is a city government’s taking of private land... that is then given to a private developer... under the logic that eminent domain applies because the developer’s project will yield greater tax revenue to the city. So are Social Security, Medicare, welfare, minimum wage laws, and the ACA... given the 10th amendment. While I am not sure those things are best done at the federal level, they can be done at the federal level ...legally. What is required is an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal govt power to do them. But my view is a civil law view, I guess....not a common law view.
As to your point about civil law leading to a bastardization of the Constitution through legislation, I don’t think so. You can still have 75% majority votes required for Constitutional changes. And if those supermajorities are obtained, you’ve literally changed the Constitution... not bastardized it through interpretation.
I feel as if I am speaking with too much authority, though. There has to be nuance that I fail to appreciate. I would value a sincere discussion of the trade offs in the two systems... and not a debate as though there are no flaws in either approach.
@@StrategicWealthLLC Common Law can be more flexible to changing times, and places greater power in the hands of the judicial branch of government. There are other countries in the world which use Common Law, but do not have gross inequality due to the financial cost of legal disputes.
This guy is the exact model of the "intellectual" as described by Thomas Sowell. He advocates policies that increase his impact on society. He wants the future to be one that conforms with his vision. His comments on the gymnast summarized his thought nicely, that being "I know whats best for you".
Thomas Sowell? The guy against minimum wage? Criticising someone for having a vision and being educated doesn't make any sense too me. Everyone has a vision. Sowell has a vision.
"Some people would call it progress" summed up beautifully and simply by Loury.
Something I don't understand is how hierarchy would be avoided, even in the example given in economic schools. So economic schools are structured differently where you focus on one area and pull several different knowledge bases in to illuminate the issue. So then this sort of person would be valued and rise to the top. I think the problem seems to center around not everyone has the same capacities, interests nor background; so of course each person differs in their abilities and will always differ. Even the same person differs in their abilities over the course of their life. I think the true problem seems to be a hierarchy that is locked and allows no change, because of course different abilities are needed at different times.
I’m curious as to how the abandonment of the statistical study of causation plays a role in the emphasis on medical technological advancement. Until Judea Pearl’s work that set causation on firm mathematical foundations about 25 years ago, perhaps we simply weren’t confident that we could truly figure out seemingly simple questions of the effects on heart health of “15 minutes of rigorous exercise” vs “60 minutes of moderate exercise”. Ever since I read Pearl’s The Book of Why, I’ve been saying that dietary science may at long last come to some confident conclusions about basic dietary science in the next fifteen years or so.
These discussions are so valuable. I wish I would have came across something similar to these bloggingheads discussions when i was in college in the early 2000s.
It's all Glenn, baby! On that, I'm with you.
Time to reread Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”.
Yes, absolutely, it's funny but tragic at the same time.
Whats most frightening to me is how so few seem to see through this toxicity and that he is teaching LAW at the top law school in the country. His students who buy into this insanity will insert SJW ideology into our laws. Heaven help us.
Daniel just didn't seem very convincing on a lot of fronts.
Is Daniel lying on the floor?
You are repeatedly using words like 'we choose', 'interest of the society', etc.
I am not sure the society is such an agent, which make conscious choices based on its interest.
The phenomena emerges from very complex socio-economic dynamics when seldom outcome can be either predicted or even evaluated from such vague perspective as "interest of the society" .
Communism with extra steps.
@James Nicholl Relevance of a perspective can be hardly magnified by aggregation, crowd is usually known for its crualty, not insightfulness.
And a lone voice can be heard for the power of its message, not the loudness.
@James Nicholl it depends how you measure the power. If in DB of sound pressure or tons of blood - then you are definitely right.
But if you follow the history of ideas bringing constructive changes to better, then you always find a very specific name behind it.
@James Nicholl Well, I have suggested to consider any constructive turn in the history and to analyze its sources. Instead you replay by throwing your subjective opinions. Sorry, but that makes conversation boring - and not constructive ;-)
I was actually partially agreeing with the author that our society favoring hyper-excellence instead of very good might be damaging. But once he mentioned his strong support of affirmative action, it made be question the authenticity of the reasons behind his argument. Does he really want people to enjoy their life more instead of being hyper-competitive, or is he really promoting leftist/equality of outcome based ideals?
He wants equity of outcome. He is an advocate of critical theory/ critical race theory.
What a total pile of crap. Merit determines everything we do.
When was this guy ever pole vaulting? Glenn's response was exactly right: some people call this progress. Yeah, and some people, namely progressives, are actually averse to progress.
Please, if not for so called progressives conservatives would still be living in mud huts flinging feces at the wall.
You both seem reasonable.
@@ph6589 I'm the most reasonable person in this entire comment section.
@@ubuu7 If by progress you mean finding new ways to extract raw resources on industrial scales, innovating to producing better goods at lower prices, carving civilization out of the untamed wilderness, etc., then yes progressives are the reason we aren't living in mud huts. The problem with this analysis is that those people are almost entirely shunned and vilified by modern 'progressives'. Modern 'progressivism' is a quasi-religious social movement that has nothing to do with material progress. As it pertains to the feces flinging, why do you insist on imperialistically applying your bigoted western standards of decency to what are equally legitimate forms of cultural expression?
Daniel is articulate and his points are subtle. I think his argument works best in the healthcare example, but I disagree with his stance for example on affirmative action. I like that he's a progressive with actual arguments and not just "you're a racist if you disagree" etc.
He had some interesting points, but I lost faith in him when he started to suggest 'Olympic athletes have gotten too good!' because now 'they're doing something he can't imagine himself doing!' He rallies against excellence. His is an ethos of envy.
He makes a good case for better policy in terms of legal treatment - ensuring everyone gets a good, competent defense, not just those who can pay for it.
He also made a point about the Olympics which I don't fully agree with - it would be good to avoid terrible destruction to your body for accolades, however, I think there is a desire in the Olympics to truly only be the best of the best, those who have trained the hardest, the longest, etc.
I don't think we need to completely do away with meritocracy but we do need to loosen it's grip where it provides cost/price barriers to areas such as justice and health care.
He’s not really arguing against meritocracy, just the things that masquerade as meritocratic, like his own university, Yale, which uses the proxy of legacy to admit students. Virtually all of the highly selective schools don’t use strictly meritocratic metrics to decide who gets admitted. He’s not saying we shouldn’t get back to a strict meritocracy. Rather, his argument is sophistry for justifying what they call holistic admissions, a euphemism for decision criteria that inevitably achieve a particular diversity. Just go back to strict meritocratic metrics. The fact that meritocracy doesn’t mean what it used to doesn’t justify a process that substitutes other metrics like skin color and life experiences.
46:56 Daniel: Take sports, a fascinating example.
Women's Olympic vault, 1956 v. 2012. Great bar discussion. What the phø does this have to do with government or academia?
This is incredible! Beautiful display of true good faith discourse.
Glenn is right that the good professor’s views are subversive. My sense is that the professor would like to reconstruct society into a more utopian approach and meritocracy is a road block to that happening-so it must go. (The argument that meritocracy is a trap is pretty weak.). One gets a glimpse into just how far he would wish to go in reconstructing society when he compared the 1956 Olympic athletes performance to the 2016 athletes. The later athletes are, to Him, freaks, because they can do things that he could not do, and, as he said, “to what end.” Meritocracy creates differentiations. It recognizes individualism. The professor is really arguing for everyone to be the same.
Fascinating conversation and I love how structured both sides speak. Some people may be annoyed by the amount of prefacing and restating - I think it helps the listener tremendously to follow along. And of course the amiable tone is also welcome.
Astounding to me that the takeaway of so many commenters seems to be that Markovits is against hierarchies as such. "To reject an extreme is not to affirm its opposite." I guess that, even here, many tune in to have their preconceptions affirmed, not challenged. Anyways, Glenn did a great job pushing back and clarifying when necessary, as always.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter What's your view of the Federal Reserve?
he isnt arguing against meritocracy so much as he is about elitism and the fetishization of prestige
I respectfully disagree. and I am always amazed when I disagree with someone on something I consider obvious.
How does this difference manifest in his policy prescriptions?
Fantastic , this is exactly the kind of sparring partner I’ve been wanting to see Glenn talk with 🙏🙏
I think what he’s trying to say is take the medical establishment to begin with, you have to test very high to get into a very of a medical establishment that has professions in it, that you don’t necessarily have to score very high on a exam to dwell in, but from America to Craddock Standpoint, we are letting people into that establishment that could be a brain surgeon or who can be a heart surgeon but down the pipe better off be a nutritionist or a physical therapist or nurse practitioner. And what is the economic effect of that and how is the meritocracy preventing more people from participating in that?
Your guest advocating for mediocracy. I am an immigrant. My life change because i came here.
Some famous beneficiaries of affirmative action like Clarence Thomas and Glenn Loury now despise it. Loury was accepted into North Western University with a full scholarship based on his superb performance AND his race. "They were looking for qualified applicants who were "black", he said. It's not unusual for recipients of privilege to later resent it because it impugns their genuine achievement but if their trauma serves to advance policies that deny others the opportunities they themselves enjoyed that is grievance politics and bad public policy.
Both Gentlemen raise valid points. However, the one thing left out in the medicine argument, is how broken the insurance industry is, and how it adversely affects how the medical system/Doctors relate to patients.
I'm somewhat reminded of the argument made by Nassim Nicholas Taleb about how concentrating resources into elite scientific institutions isn't as likely to produce innovation as spreading them around to interested "tinkerers" as was the case with the first scientific revolution. It almost seems as if Markvoitz arrives at the same place albeit from a different trajectory.
This is amazing. Thank you for lifting up these ideas. I'm very inspired by this conversation. Great examples to ground how we could organically shift these systems. What a refreshing, well-related discussion.
He doesn't seem to focussing on this, but something I've heard from a lot of educated professionals is that the training they receive in school often times doesn't match the work they do in the real world. I think there is a good argument to be made that while our system is meritocratic, it isn't really promoting the best people for the job.
Glenn, I hope you’re doing well. You sound a little off here. Wishing you all the best
He's not off. He is considering the ideas of his interlocutor.
That was an interesting assertion he made that since other nations have modeled the German law system they must be better.
Seems their system is just simpler or more straightforward. Does that equal better? I don't know about that. Seems there are presumptions, behaviors, and cultural norms that a system is solving for. A simple method in one area can be completely wrong and poorly applied to another.
I'd argue that from a societal perspective a "good" civil law system should be dependable, i.e. give predictable results and cheap. The american system sucks at both of these. Since civil law is also in some sense a zero sum game/ rat race, having a system that sucks up talent that could otherwise do a different more productive job is likely also a net loss for society. By these measures the German system does seem objectively better.
Meritocracy or mediocrity? Pick one.
Well said
I wonder if this guy has read ‘Harrison Bergeron’ by Vonnegut. The implications of some of the things he says lays a road to a very similar dystopia where all are made equal by force. To me that mindset is... unnerving, I suppose.
The American Medical Association has created a cartel on doctor care in the USA in order to keep prices extremely high and output low for their services. In Mexico you can see a doctor for $3 USD and discuss any health problem without waiting at almost any pharmacy. The rent seekers in the USA would never allow for that kind of thing. I also blame the lawyers for inflicting huge transactional costs upon the healthcare system in order to line their pockets through the exorbinantly expensive monopoly they have captured on civil court system.
Markovits' argument seems not to be that the best talent of the most meritorious should not be applied to tasks. It seems to be that the tasks we select to apply ourselves to are the wrong ones. He may even be insinuating that the task selection is being force fit to the available merit of the workforce irrespective of the merit of the task itself. I don't know how big of a problem this is given that we have always had epochs in history where disruptive new ways of delivering goods, services and value have upended the old order and created new meritocracies. Overall, I didn't see any argument against the most meritorious individuals being applied to tasks.
Markovits had me a bit intrigued until he made his Olympic gymnast comparative argument. Yep, that's where he lost me and I fell back in love with my world of free market extremism that produces the kind of elite performance that makes me marvel at superhuman achievement. I have season tickets for my local Division 1 basketball team, not my local Division 3 team where the players are slower, less skilled, and closer to the average human that Markovits idealizes. I like my Division 1 basketball players to be gods, not the mere mortals Markovits describes. So if Markovits's vision requires becoming more human all too human, I'll pass and thank the heavens for free markets. I want to see super humans compete in the marketplace of ideas and on the basketball court, thank you, not mere mortals like me.
I think this guy is missing a big piece of this whole argument. If someone Chooses to work themselves to the bone, 100 hours a week, never sleeping but as a fruit of that labor produces something that makes life and society better for millions of others, is it moral to hold those people back? Is it right to restrict and cap how hard an individual can push themselves? That seems like it would actually harm society in the long run.
The medical argument about preventative low tech care, is a far better argument than the finance one
his point that there may be too much emphasis on elite top tier schools sounds right..over a 37 year career in natural resources / engineering / conservation with government & consulting not once did i ever interact with any graduates from those schools.... everyone i met were all graduates of state universities and were well trained and suited for their positions...
Daniel is biased against lobsters.
Its an interesting point that the very focus of so much elite labor and resource allocation being centered in elite academic institutions is also what makes them so hotly contested and politicized. Were it the case that one's position in the social hierarchy, in terms of status as well as wealth, were not as severely correlated to one's access or membership in these institutions it may be that there would not be such an obsession with affirmative action or other social engineering, as Markovitz puts it.
Yes, let's start with just that one thing. End the tax subsidy for universities. Make them compete, and let's not inflate them.
The system we have makes sense. Why would I want to put in tons of work and time if someone can just get the same outcome. It would take away any striving for excellence. Why work hard if you don’t have to
exceptional!!! MORE pls. Too short. And even possibly include McWh & Coleman as interlocutors.
Lets just lower the bar so everyone is equally mediocre.
The deeper argument here is that the bar is a rtificially high, with requirements that aren't genuine, nor substantial. This is what I see in the world of finance every day.