Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 24 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 6/28/19

Meritocracy Mythologizing

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   1 comment
Author 9
Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson
Become a Fan
  (141 fans)
- Advertisement -

You'd think a publisher with this many names could check for glaring errors in its books: "Currency, Crown Publishing Group, Penguin Random House LLC." And you'd be right. So this isn't an error. It's a lie accepted as a desirable myth:

"Today it's widely accepted that meritocracy and aristocracy have become one and the same. The lords of the universe are not sitting on trust funds. . . . [M]ost of the new lords achieved perfect or near-perfect scores on their SATs at age sixteen or seventeen. . . . We now live in a world where the highest-IQ people earn the greatest financial rewards."

The author is Rich Karlgaard. The book is an otherwise perfectly reasonable one called Late Bloomers. Its topic is the United States, so the word "world" quoted above should not be taken literally. The book is chock full of criticism of how SATs are used. But the statements quoted above are not satirical. They are meant quite straightforwardly, and they are false. They are presented without any footnotes or citations. So, here are some:

As Karlgaard is the publisher of Forbes, let's start there with "Why The Secret To Getting Rich Isn't Being Smart." An excerpt:

- Advertisement -

"'The higher your IQ, the greater the probability you will earn more than average.' Like many people, I have believed this common money script to be true. It seems to make sense that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to succeed financially. Many of us assume there must be a correlation between higher incomes and high cognitive abilities as measured by IQ tests. I was surprised, however, to learn that this is not the case. A study published in November 2016 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that a high level of innate intelligence is no indicator of financial success. A December 2016 article in Bloomberg cited one of the co-authors of the study, economist James Heckman. When he asks how much of the difference between people's incomes can be tied to their IQs, most people guess between 25% and 50%. The actual number is about one or two percent."

Copyrighted Image? DMCA

Smart Enough to Inherit Wal-Mart Profits.

- Advertisement -

A study claims that 45% of billionaires are among the smartest 1 percent, but all it means is that they attended elite universities, with no indication of whether they were admitted based on merit. We know from Forbes that young people in the United States are heavily limited to the educations attained by their parents. And 45% is not "most" of anything. As far as I know, nobody knows the SAT scores of most billionaires, much less the SAT scores of most 1 percenters in wealth. We do know that being born into the family profiting from Wal-Mart requires little ability of any sort. We also know that most of the 33 million people in the top 1 percent of intelligence in the United States, by whatever measure of intelligence, cannot possibly be in the group of 263 people who make up 45% of U.S. billionaires or even in the 585 total U.S. billionaires. And if 45% of billionaires supposedly being of top intelligence is a high mark, the implication is that something less that 45% of the top 1% in wealth are among the top 1% in smarts. This means that the majority of the wealthiest are NOT the smartest, and vice versa.

The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty, to cite Karlgaard's alma mater, ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21. In particular on economic mobility, "When compared to 24 middle-income and high-income countries, the U.S. ranks 16th in the amount of intergenerational earnings mobility." So it's not true that "meritocracy and aristocracy have become one and the same." It's also not true that they are becoming the same, since the trend is in the other direction.

What Karlgaard means to say and to some extent the rest of his book actually helps to explain this is that a tiny handful of super smart and wealthy people can give the false impression of a meritocracy, as long as you avoid the larger picture. This is the same deception as imagining that the United States has better policies because its president is of a different race or sex or sexual orientation or political party. This is tokenism. This is not thinking. And yet I'm willing to bet that some of the smartest of the smarties are willing to fall for it.


- Advertisement -

Well Said 1   Interesting 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

David Swanson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at and and works for the online (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments

Kenneth Morris

Become a Fan
Author 506896

(Member since Oct 15, 2016), 2 fans, 7 articles, 235 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit

  New Content

I find this line of thinking interesting and important, but caution against following it uncritically. To sustain the core argument that merit doesn't account for life success very well, merit is subdivided into different components and then each component (chiefly IQ) is shown not to account well for life success. But isn't merit itself an aggregated construct to begin with? If we combine several of its components (and don't just use IQ) we find that actually merit does account for a fair amount of life success. What we may really have is therefore mainly a critique of the overuse of IQ scores.

Moreover, I suspect that the relationship between IQ and life success is misunderstood and therefore incorrectly measured. My guess is that the relationship isn't linear but is curva-linear. Specifically, I conjecture that higher IQs are correlated with greater life success up to a point (probably about one or two standard deviations above the mean) but past this point the correlation is negative. If I'm right, simply noting the linear relationship between IQ and life success is going to show a misleadingly low correlation.

Not least, the big winner in all this research is personality. That explains most of the differences in life outcomes. But I fail to see why this should make us happy. Yes, to some extent personalities can be changed, but I'm not sure by how much (and IQs can be changed too). I have often noticed in life how enormously competent people with abrasive personalities fail while marginally competent conscientious extroverts succeed. It has also seemed to me that the more jobs have come to involve pushing papers as opposed to making things, the more personality counts for job success.

True, a winning personality isn't going to earn anyone entry into the wealthy 1%. Entry into that realm rarely bears much relationship to merit, however it is measured. But in the vast middle ranks, my impression is that personality is the single most important factor--and I worry about this.

Submitted on Saturday, Jun 29, 2019 at 9:58:39 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)

Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment