AP Al quim

[Sunder]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

> Actually 'merit' isn't. Merit is measured in a meritocracy by the efficacy
> of the solution. That's a TECHNICAL measure, not emotional or social.

Yes, but someone somewhere is in charge of making the decision that
something is more or less efficient.  How do you measure merit for
instance for literature?  There can be little technical measures.  Sure,
you can measure grammer and spelling, and use of vocabulary, but you
cannot measure creativity by technical means.
 
> Discrimination is inherently ILLOGICAL (ie emotional), which puts it in
> direct odds with the concept of 'merit'.

Discrimination is simply the chosing of A over B, C, D, and E.  It is not
necessarily emotional.  When someone choses mates, he/she does so by
picking the mate that is most likely to guarantee the sucess of their
offspring.

When someone has discriminating taste, it means that they aren't likely to
eat at McDonalds.  Further, discriminating between food and poison is a
very good thing and has everything to do with logic.  The goal of every
being is to survive and to produce offspring.  It is therefore a good
thing if that being can discriminate between sweet and bitter
flavors.  Sweet flavors are more likely to provide nutrition whereas
bitter flavors may indicate posion.

Merit simply discriminates between those who have done the work, and
therefore are worthy of the reward, and those who haven't.


----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos---------------------------
 + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\
  \|/  :aren't security.  A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\
<--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you   \/|\/
  /|\  :masked killer, but  |don't email them, or put them on a web  \|/
 + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often.
--------_sunder_ at _sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------



> 
> Further, a meritocracy makes judgements about worth based on the solution
> not the source. Source filtering is inherent in discrimination, hence they
> can't be synonymous or layered.
> 
> > D'oh.
> 
> Doh indeed.
> 
> 
>  --
>     ____________________________________________________________________
> 
>              Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
> 
>                                              Bumper Sticker
> 
>        The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
>        Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
>        www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
>                            -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>