2) A pre-modern, medievalish society that nevertheless used a lot of selection/testing was China—I am thinking about the famous mandarin exams. Does this seem to have had any positive effect on China compared to other similar societies? I.e. is this even like that it is a big factor in the general outcomes of 2015 West vs. 1515 West? Comparing old China with similar medievalish but not selectionist (but inheritance based) societies would be useful for isolating this factor, right?
The tests became very gameable—people memorized the prefabricated answers and parroted them back on test day.
3) Why exactly does selecting and testing work better than grooming (and breeding) ?
Testing selects for people who actually want to do those jobs. There’s always the rebellious prince who would rather ride his horse/jet/yacht all day than attend committee meetings. Also, there’s always the unexpected death/coup/abdication that ends up giving the throne to the third cousin nobody expected would rule.
Testing selects for people who actually want to do those jobs.
There is something to be said for the old cynical saying that actually wanting to have power is the No. 1 reason to be not trusted with it, and ideal rulers should be very, very reluctant to rule. Of course I want to be treated by a doctor who really wants to be a doctor and did not just inherit the job, but I am not really sure I really want to be ruled by someone who just loves to rule people. Not that I take modern monarchism seriously—I tend to mainly toy with the idea of sortitionism i.e. selecting rulers by random lot, because having people who are at least not worse than the average would be an improvement.
Asimov wrote a tale about a society where every national election was decided by the single vote of one randomly selected citizen. I’d flee such a country were it to exist.
The tests became very gameable—people memorized the prefabricated answers and parroted them back on test day.
Testing selects for people who actually want to do those jobs. There’s always the rebellious prince who would rather ride his horse/jet/yacht all day than attend committee meetings. Also, there’s always the unexpected death/coup/abdication that ends up giving the throne to the third cousin nobody expected would rule.
There is something to be said for the old cynical saying that actually wanting to have power is the No. 1 reason to be not trusted with it, and ideal rulers should be very, very reluctant to rule. Of course I want to be treated by a doctor who really wants to be a doctor and did not just inherit the job, but I am not really sure I really want to be ruled by someone who just loves to rule people. Not that I take modern monarchism seriously—I tend to mainly toy with the idea of sortitionism i.e. selecting rulers by random lot, because having people who are at least not worse than the average would be an improvement.
Asimov wrote a tale about a society where every national election was decided by the single vote of one randomly selected citizen. I’d flee such a country were it to exist.
I fear you may overestimate “the average”.
(I also like the idea of sortition, but I would use it as a way of selecting some of the members of an otherwise somewhat-meritocratic body.)