If we lived in a true "meritocracy" all positions in society would be determined by test scores that anyone could take...

If we lived in a true "meritocracy" all positions in society would be determined by test scores that anyone could take at any time. But we can't have that can we? You don't want a guy who looks like this to be your boss.

Attached: beta.jpg (720x960, 67K)

What do you mean? I would be honored if our lord was my supervisor

Attached: saintblackops2cel.png (449x600, 612K)

>plays black ops 2
Guaranteed gen z IQ

he wouldn't look that bad with a shaved head and some muscle

>tests are the true measure of merit
who will convince everyone that the tests are good? who will force society to obey the test results? and for those who can do those things, why would they want to?

>at work
>Your new boss comes in
>Hello user! We had a great weekend didn't we? But I'll need those quarterly reports on my desk by 5 along with that project update.

What do?

Attached: hamlossus.png (455x456, 401K)

yeah OP is retarded I bet the autist in his pic can't even tie his fucking shoes lmfao
sage

That's the thing with merit, if he objectively knows more and performs better than you he deserves a job or promotion more. This ignores everything else - race, gender socioeconomic factors etc. You might as well not even have a name in a true merit system so as to not cause bias in people judging the worthy, your only real worth in your job is your performance.

The thing is this naturally would trigger the fuck out of people if it accidentally unearths all the inequalities in society and between countries and races - it totally fucking would. But it really depends how people spin it - you could belong to a group not known for being very talented but if you can show that you really are worthy of something, you will be rewarded.

One can say education already is mostly merit based this the world generally works like this already - you study engineering and you are qualified to become one more than a guy who didn't, etc. Where this breaks down is once you leave education, the workforce can be super biased and arbitrary for non merit reasons and that is where the change would really be.

>determined by test scores that anyone could take at any time.

What is an interview for 200.
Just because it isn't easily quantified, doesn't mean it goes unevaluated.

it would just show that the inequalities in society are richly deserved and actually are smaller than merit dictates due to various collectivist structures

I love black ops 2. One of my favorite CODs

>if he objectively knows more and performs better than you he deserves a job or promotion more.

But he doesn't.
This is why physiognomy is a thing - physical appearance tends to indicate good breeding (or lack thereof), which tends to indicate success.

yes in general true. also there are exceptions but talent and drive shine through, if the person is that smart they figure out how to compensate.

IQ 130+ here. BO2 is objectively the best, fag.

I just want a comfy job where I get overpaid and I don't have to think or work too hard. I would intimidate him into giving me a good review and get raises every year until they have to fire me because I make too much. Then I would seduce his wife to punish him for crossing my path.

Tests aren't only for intelligence.

Leadership would be tested too and this guy wouldn't get a job to lead.

So there is a crossover here where you could have a leader who objectively knows a subject much less than his subordinates. Is this still right? Is he really a strong leader or is he merely good at inspiring confidence even if the company could do better without some of his decisions?

The ideal would be that everyone there is at a minimum standard of knowledge and ability - from these, the leaders come. Strongmen who get insecure at their clear lacking of knowledge and ability can turn to far less justified or productive decisions to maintain their power. We have this all over the place today, why not try to fight stupid moves by unqualified leaders.

the test is how many customers you can attract.
we already live in a meritocracy

A true meritocracy would also take into account physical strength, so if you could beat up your boss you would take his position. So no, he wouldn't.

> thinking a test is a real measure of merit

Employers would rather hire somebody with an IQ of 100 who works hard and is ambitious compared to somebody with an IQ of 130 who is lazy and unambitious... if you think meritocracy = IQ then I would guess you've never had a real job before.

Is radical chadism the final redpill?

Attached: chad & stacey.jpg (800x450, 52K)

ambition is bad because ambitious employees want higher salaries or to start their own business.
they can't stand being under someone's thumb getting no gains
wagecucking is for people who have settled or have no other choice

Radical Chadism is basically what Nietzsche was getting at.

Yeah having a kike and a socialist testing you over your economics knowledge is a sure way to get a meritocracy.

Sure, ambition is bad if you're hiring a fry cook or a warehouse monkey, but for any decent career ambition is rewarded and held in high regard

looking good is a merit

Now that I think about it, Jow Forums really is the ultimate slave morality.