We used to hear a bit about how the 'workforce' is 'shifting' to an emphasis on 'symbolic analysts'.
Is 'the rise of symbolic analysts' an 'absolute presupposition',
along with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers',
or do they 'conflict'?
Isn't a rise of symbolic analysts the rise of one subset of folks, the rise of
a 'meritocracy'?
Is even a 'symbolic analyst' a post of inherently greater 'merit' than other posts?
Because someone can symbolically analyze something, does that imply greater societal worth?
One might, for example, refer to the culture of Wall Street, and the relatively lowly place occupied by the rating agencies and their symbolic analytic employees, as itself a counterexample.
Other 'cultural values' certainly are afoot, on Wall Street, than symbolic analysis.......as a meritocratic criterion.
And if poor societies can produce engineers like lemmings, doesn't that fact itself imply some 'dilution' of the notion of a symbolic analyst as a meritocratic criterion?
Is a 'meritocracy' inconsistent with 'the greatest good for the greatest numbers'?
In a meritocracy, the 'meritorious' prosper more than others, don't they.
Thus: "The greatest good for the most meritorious."
No comments:
Post a Comment