The Meaning of Meritocracy

[Mastikator]

Right now Indentured Serfs and free citizens have identical specialist output under Slaver Guilds + Meritocracy.

Easy enough to check even before you un-pause



Yeah that's the common justification. But then why can I make these chimpanzees Residents if I want? Why can we declare them our Rival? It seems like my empire knows the xenos are actually just as competent as its own citizens, it just wants to be hostile to the xenos for reasons which the empire itself knows are not valid, since it could choose to treat them differently.

IMHO the game needs Xenophobes as enemies (and as a distinct play style) so I'm not trying to change this, but it's just not something that makes sense to me.

Xenophobia is based on emotional thinking (fear and disgust in particular) and conspiratorial thinking. Xenophobes invent their own reality, their actions will always seem contradictory if you don't understand how they think.
Folding Ideas on YouTube made a documentary called "In Search Of Flat Earth", you should check it out if you want to be able to grok it.

Of course, just because a xenophobe will invent their own reality where meritocracy + xenophobia makes sense doesn't mean it should in the game. The game has to have the same mechanics and flavor text no matter what is going on inside the player's head. We can have our own perspective and opinions, but facts and logic is something we must share with everyone. Trying to live in your own reality is delusion

 

[Strangedane]

Xenophobia is based on emotional thinking (fear and disgust in particular) and conspiratorial thinking. Xenophobes invent their own reality, their actions will always seem contradictory if you don't understand how they think.
Folding Ideas on YouTube made a documentary called "In Search Of Flat Earth", you should check it out if you want to be able to grok it.

Of course, just because a xenophobe will invent their own reality where meritocracy + xenophobia makes sense doesn't mean it should in the game. The game has to have the same mechanics and flavor text no matter what is going on inside the player's head. We can have our own perspective and opinions, but facts and logic is something we must share with everyone. Trying to live in your own reality is delusion

I somewhat agree.

The fact however is that xenophobes and necrophages DO have access to meritocracy.
We can discuss wether they should have, and maybe we should, but the facts of the game makes non-equal opportunity meritocracy a thing.

As I see it though, meritocracy would fit better for dictatorships than democracies.
How does a glorified popularity contest in any way shape or form add up to a meritocracy?

 

[Tamwin5]

I somewhat agree.

The fact however is that xenophobes and necrophages DO have access to meritocracy.
We can discuss wether they should have, and maybe we should, but the facts of the game makes non-equal opportunity meritocracy a thing.

As I see it though, meritocracy would fit better for dictatorships than democracies.
How does a glorified popularity contest in any way shape or form add up to a meritocracy?

Because not everyone is human, with human mindsets, behaviors, and instincts. Remember, we are making alien empires. A democracy could easily function where every citizen makes their own judgement of which candidate is best suited to the job.

 

[Bezborg]

I somewhat agree.

The fact however is that xenophobes and necrophages DO have access to meritocracy.
We can discuss wether they should have, and maybe we should, but the facts of the game makes non-equal opportunity meritocracy a thing.

As I see it though, meritocracy would fit better for dictatorships than democracies.
How does a glorified popularity contest in any way shape or form add up to a meritocracy?

A racist/exclusionist democracy that values expertise and merit but only amongst themselves, however they might define the concept of "our own", as opposed to "the other"... is history not rife with precedents?

 

[HFY]

A racist/exclusionist democracy that values expertise and merit but only amongst themselves, however they might define the concept of "our own", as opposed to "the other"... is history not rife with precedents?

In history, usually the fear of "the other" is invoked by Authoritarians to inspire obedience, and all too often so "our own" don't notice that the Authoritarian is robbing them.

What are the historical examples of fervent Xenophobia and Egalitarianism at the same time?

 

[Bezborg]

In history, usually the fear of "the other" is invoked by Authoritarians to inspire obedience, and all too often so "our own" don't notice that the Authoritarian is robbing them.

What are the historical examples of fervent Xenophobia and Egalitarianism at the same time?

Well if we're not taking into account fanatic egalitarianism or literal egalitarianism... but rather philosophical and legal egalitarianism ("all citizens are subject to law")... The Roman Republic? Or the pre-civil war United States?

Actually there's a lot of examples of democratic and (nominally) egalitarian societies having exclusions from citizenship.

Let's not forget, "democracy" means rule of the people, but without exceptions it's rule of the *citizens*. Actual holders of rights, not "humans as such". And there you have many exclusionary elements, throughout history.

 

[HFY]

Well if we're not taking into account fanatic egalitarianism or literal egalitarianism... but rather philosophical and legal egalitarianism ("all citizens are subject to law")... The Roman Republic? Or the pre-civil war United States?

Actually there's a lot of examples of democratic and (nominally) egalitarian societies having exclusions from citizenship.

Let's not forget, "democracy" means rule of the people, but without exceptions it's rule of the *citizens*. Actual holders of rights, not "humans as such". And there you have many exclusionary elements, throughout history.

Pre-CW USA was a Federation of different states, and in those states were a few different nations (with different values). In Stellaris terms, you had Authoritarians (the plantation owners) federated with Materialist Xenophiles (NYC and environs) federated with Spiritualists (New England), the Pennsylvania Quakers and midland brewers (Pacifists), and finally the isolationist Militarists (Appalachia). None of them wanted to be ruled by the others, so they picked democracy as their tool for compromise.

Note that in Stellaris you can be a non-Egalitarian Democracy. You can be a Democracy with Spiritualist + Xenophobe + Militarist, for example (this is one of my custom empires, and is named "Space America").

Democracy isn't limited to Egalitarians -- not in real life, and not in Stellaris. (It's only prohibited for Authoritarians.) Democracy is a tool for compromise, not an ideal in itself.

 

[Strangedane]

Because not everyone is human, with human mindsets, behaviors, and instincts. Remember, we are making alien empires. A democracy could easily function where every citizen makes their own judgement of which candidate is best suited to the job.

Ok, sure, but then we could also have a dictatorial meritocracy, where advancing would require you to be the best candidate at the moment when the position is open, and then you'd keep the position for life.
From my point of view that scenario seems much more realistic, and as such, i think it fits better for dictatorships than democracies.

That is beside the point though.

The entire point was that people kept claiming that meritocracy in stellaris must always be the "pure" form described in the flavourtext, despite game mechanics clearly making it shown, that the flavour text is nothing more than that. Flavour text. To freely be exchanged for whatever sort of flavour, you feel describe your empire best.
Precisely like when we imagine our clonewarrior species is the abandoned tool of some FE, or whatever else cool idea we come up with.

When flavourtext conflicts with mechanics, it is to be handwaved away or modified with headcanon so it fits.

 

[Bezborg]

Pre-CW USA was a Federation of different states, and in those states were a few different nations (with different values). In Stellaris terms, you had Authoritarians (the plantation owners) federated with Materialist Xenophiles (NYC and environs) federated with Spiritualists (New England), the Pennsylvania Quakers and midland brewers (Pacifists), and finally the isolationist Militarists (Appalachia). None of them wanted to be ruled by the others, so they picked democracy as their tool for compromise.

That's a bit simplistic (As if the social structure of the pre-CW US was already developed and societal groups were already coherently defined at the point of establishing democracy), and you're conflating personal/individual ethics with broader class ethics, and in turn conflating those with governmental ethics.

I'd differentiate between all of these, even when talking about Stellaris' simplistic ethics system.

You can look at it through perspectives... Say, in the glory days of the Roman Republic, when the "idealistic foundation" was still strong enough... Say two co-Consuls each had vast slave estates with tens of thousands of slaves.

From their perspective, they live in an egalitarian democratic system, they're both citizens, they live in a community of citizens, and they are at the top of the food chain but they wouldn't see it as an authoritarian political system. Citizens are free, they can stand for office, observe the decencies, have certain rights and mechanisms how to protect these rights...

But the tens of thousands of slaves, who are completely barred from citizenship, will not see Rome as an egalitarian political system.

So let's go back to the beginning of this example and connect it to Stellaris ethics... what is the Roman Republic then, in Stellaris, from that example?

 

[Mastikator]

I somewhat agree.

The fact however is that xenophobes and necrophages DO have access to meritocracy.
We can discuss wether they should have, and maybe we should, but the facts of the game makes non-equal opportunity meritocracy a thing.

As I see it though, meritocracy would fit better for dictatorships than democracies.
How does a glorified popularity contest in any way shape or form add up to a meritocracy?

Candidates offer plans to improve the material conditions of as many people as possible, the one with the best plan to improve the lives of its citizens and the strength of the empire gains the most votes.
The plans are evaluated according to science, which the population is literate in. The population has been taught the scientific method and critical thinking.

 

[HFY]

That's a bit simplistic (As if the social structure of the pre-CW US was already developed and societal groups were already coherently defined at the point of establishing democracy)

1 - Of course it's simplistic, I'm using Stellaris ethics to reference real life. But it's still accurate.
2 - These societal groups DID exist, and did have those (general) ethics, and they had those before the democracy was declared. Not sure why you would think otherwise.

and you're conflating personal/individual ethics with broader class ethics, and in turn conflating those with governmental ethics.

You really think that the individuals who wrote the government ethics (i.e. the Constitution) were somehow not expressing their own ethics in that government?

Their own correspondences seem to align with the values that I've described. Why is that a "conflation" on my part?

Your critiques seem a bit off-base.

 

[Strangedane]

Candidates offer plans to improve the material conditions of as many people as possible, the one with the best plan to improve the lives of its citizens and the strength of the empire gains the most votes.
The plans are evaluated according to science, which the population is literate in. The population has been taught the scientific method and critical thinking.

Ok, sure, but then we could also have a dictatorial meritocracy, where advancing would require you to be the best candidate at the moment when the position is open, and then you'd keep the position for life.
From my point of view that scenario seems much more realistic, and as such, i think it fits better for dictatorships than democracies.
copypastaed from an earlier reply.

And again cutting past the point.

Necrophages have access to meritocracy.
That proves without a doubt that meritocracy in stellaris does not have to be an idealised pure form, despite what the flavourtext says.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

That's a bit simplistic (As if the social structure of the pre-CW US was already developed and societal groups were already coherently defined at the point of establishing democracy), and you're conflating personal/individual ethics with broader class ethics, and in turn conflating those with governmental ethics.

I'd differentiate between all of these, even when talking about Stellaris' simplistic ethics system.

You can look at it through perspectives... Say, in the glory days of the Roman Republic, when the "idealistic foundation" was still strong enough... Say two co-Consuls each had vast slave estates with tens of thousands of slaves.

From their perspective, they live in an egalitarian democratic system, they're both citizens, they live in a community of citizens, and they are at the top of the food chain but they wouldn't see it as an authoritarian political system. Citizens are free, they can stand for office, observe the decencies, have certain rights and mechanisms how to protect these rights...

But the tens of thousands of slaves, who are completely barred from citizenship, will not see Rome as an egalitarian political system.

So let's go back to the beginning of this example and connect it to Stellaris ethics... what is the Roman Republic then, in Stellaris, from that example?

Sounds like oligarchy with aristocratic elite and slaver guilds. Sure the upper echelons view their little corner of society as free, but the society as a whole is not, because there are slaves.

 

[HFY]

Necrophages have access to meritocracy.
That proves without a doubt that meritocracy in stellaris does not have to be an idealised pure form, despite what the flavourtext says.

One could argue that Necrophages are Egalitarian.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to be Elevated into the ruling class (terms and conditions may apply).

 

[Ussnorway]

So, the questions I have are:

- Am I evaluating the terms fairly?

If we assume 'human' as the baseline yes but does that have to apply to Stellaris... I'd say no, unless of course your race is humans

 

[Mastikator]

Ok, sure, but then we could also have a dictatorial meritocracy, where advancing would require you to be the best candidate at the moment when the position is open, and then you'd keep the position for life.
From my point of view that scenario seems much more realistic, and as such, i think it fits better for dictatorships than democracies.
copypastaed from an earlier reply.

And again cutting past the point.

Necrophages have access to meritocracy.
That proves without a doubt that meritocracy in stellaris does not have to be an idealised pure form, despite what the flavourtext says.

No I already covered this, a dictatorship is fundamentally different from a democracy. In a democracy the state serve the people and the heads of state does too. In a dictatorship the people serve the state and the people serve the heads of state. In a dictatorship the rulers of the empire are not candidates that have been advanced at all, they're handpicked by their direct superior to support their superior, all the way up to the supreme ruler who used violence to choose himself. Their primary function is to support their superior, their ability to perform their job is secondary. This is the ideal state of a dictatorship. The ideal dictatorship is one where the dictator reigns supreme, unquestioned and uninterrupted. That is the point of dictatorship, to enable the dictator. (and it is NOT the point of democracy, the point of democracy is to enable the people, the president merely represents the people)
If you flip those two then the dictatorship falls apart and becomes an oligarchy. Any meritocracy where the ability to advance is decided only on your ability to perform your job is by definition not a dictatorship or imperial. Even an idealized dictatorship is anti-meritocratic.

Here's why the rulers and leaders matter: they mechanical benefits with meritocracy which means they must have been the best for their job.

As for necrophages you'll have to explain more why they're relevant to this discussion.

 

[MichaelJanuary]

Meritocracy: An individual's social station or personal connections should have no bearing on their profession. The sole basis for advancement in this society is demonstrated ability and talent.

No I already covered this, a dictatorship is fundamentally different from a democracy. In a democracy the state serve the people and the heads of state does too. In a dictatorship the people serve the state and the people serve the heads of state. In a dictatorship the rulers of the empire are not candidates that have been advanced at all, they're handpicked by their direct superior to support their superior, all the way up to the supreme ruler who used violence to choose himself. Their primary function is to support their superior, their ability to perform their job is secondary. This is the ideal state of a dictatorship. The ideal dictatorship is one where the dictator reigns supreme, unquestioned and uninterrupted. That is the point of dictatorship, to enable the dictator. (and it is NOT the point of democracy, the point of democracy is to enable the people, the president merely represents the people)
If you flip those two then the dictatorship falls apart and becomes an oligarchy. Any meritocracy where the ability to advance is decided only on your ability to perform your job is by definition not a dictatorship or imperial. Even an idealized dictatorship is anti-meritocratic.

Here's why the rulers and leaders matter: they mechanical benefits with meritocracy which means they must have been the best for their job.

As for necrophages you'll have to explain more why they're relevant to this discussion.

But your defn does not hold in real life or the game, and in any case is irrelevant.

It does not matter whether the people serve the state, or the state serve the people, as long as the best people are advanced, whether by committee, by appointment, by The Party, or by common consent.

Meritocracy does not define who makes the appointment, or for how long, or how much power that position will hold, only that it based on demonstrated performance. The in-game defn for dictatorships is that successors are APPOINTED. It does not specify on which basis.

 

[Strangedane]

As for necrophages you'll have to explain more why they're relevant to this discussion.

Because you are claiming that meritocracy in stellaris MUST be an idealised form due to the tooltip.

But Necrophages can take meritocracy and exclude all other races, so clearly meritocracy in stellaris is NOT an idealised form.
Even when xenophile. Even when egalitarian.

Your claim about what meritocracy must entail is being proven wrong by game mechanics.
Ed: and also when paired with aristocratic elite that specifies rule by bloodline.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

But Necrophages can take meritocracy and exclude all other races, so clearly meritocracy in stellaris is NOT an idealised form.
Even when xenophile. Even when egalitarian.

Your claim about what meritocracy must entail is being proven wrong by game mechanics.
Ed: and also when paired with aristocratic elite that specifies rule by bloodline.

RE: Aristocratic Elite - that’s probably the closest you’ll get to what you want that makes sense. An Oligarchy with Aristocratic Elite and Meritocracy is a bit of an edge case, but it does make sense - the best rise to the top and hold positions of immense power, however if others rise up who are better, they can take over after a period of time. It wouldn’t work in an imperial context for reasons most have suggested (ie bloodline would be a layer of privilege above the rest of society that would exclude them from the meritocratic process)

As for Necrophage, in theory you’re not actually part of the empire until you’ve been assimilated. Once you’re there however, then if it has a democratic or oligarchic form of government, it makes sense that it could be meritocratic.

I would argue the above two examples are as close as you could get to an authoritarian based meritocratic system. But you could not have a dictatorial or imperial based meritocracy.

 

[Strangedane]

RE: Aristocratic Elite - that’s probably the closest you’ll get to what you want that makes sense. An Oligarchy with Aristocratic Elite and Meritocracy is a bit of an edge case, but it does make sense - the best rise to the top and hold positions of immense power, however if others rise up who are better, they can take over after a period of time. It wouldn’t work in an imperial context for reasons most have suggested (ie bloodline would be a layer of privilege above the rest of society that would exclude them from the meritocratic process)

As for Necrophage, in theory you’re not actually part of the empire until you’ve been assimilated. Once you’re there however, then if it has a democratic or oligarchic form of government, it makes sense that it could be meritocratic.

I would argue the above two examples are as close as you could get to an authoritarian based meritocratic system. But you could not have a dictatorial or imperial based meritocracy.

All I ever wanted was an admission that meritocracy in stellaris is not always an idealised form where equal opportunity must be present for all, despite what the flavour text says.

People seem to be really upset about the game mechanics proving the flavourtext wrong. (or rather proving that it is flavour, not mechanics)

I even said that I was fine with meritocracy being locked to dems and olis, despite the fact that I have an easier time imagining a meritocractic dictatorship than a meritocratic democracy.