Questões de Concurso Militar ITA 2021 para Vestibular - 1ª Fase
Foram encontradas 70 questões
Q1901448
Português
Leia atentamente, à esquerda, a primeira estrofe de “Morte do leiteiro”, da seção “NA PRAÇA DE
CONVITES”. Em seguida, assinale a alternativa CORRETA.
Há pouco leite no país, é preciso entregá-lo cedo. Há muita sede no país, é preciso entregá-lo cedo. Há no país uma legenda, que ladrão se mata com tiro.
Há pouco leite no país, é preciso entregá-lo cedo. Há muita sede no país, é preciso entregá-lo cedo. Há no país uma legenda, que ladrão se mata com tiro.
Q1901449
Português
Assinale a alternativa que confirma a seguinte afirmação: a poética de Drummond mantém uma
relação ambígua com a memória, com traços de esperança, embora sem saudosismo ou idealização.
Q1901450
Português
Para apresentar a sua Antologia poética, Carlos Drummond de Andrade escreveu: “Algumas
poesias caberiam talvez em outra seção que não a escolhida, ou em mais de uma. A razão da escolha está
na tônica da composição, ou no engano do autor.” (“Informação – NOTA DA PRIMEIRA EDIÇÃO”). Diante do
trecho citado, é possível afirmar que
Q1901451
Português
A respeito da obra de Carlos Drummond de Andrade, é incorreto afirmar que
Q1901452
Português
Leia atentamente, à esquerda, os versos destacados de “Amar”, da seção “AMAR-AMARO”. Em
seguida, assinale, à direita, a alternativa CORRETA.
Este o nosso destino: amor sem conta, distribuído pelas coisas pérfidas ou nulas, doação ilimitada a uma completa ingratidão, e na concha vazia do amor a procura medrosa, paciente, de mais e mais amor.
Este o nosso destino: amor sem conta, distribuído pelas coisas pérfidas ou nulas, doação ilimitada a uma completa ingratidão, e na concha vazia do amor a procura medrosa, paciente, de mais e mais amor.
Q1901453
Português
Leia atentamente o trecho, à esquerda, do conto “A mão no ombro” e, em seguida, assinale, à
direita, a alternativa CORRETA.
Deixou cair a folha seca, enfurnou as mãos nos bolsos e seguiu pisando com a mesma prudência da estátua. Contornou o tufo de begônias, vacilou entre os dois ciprestes (mas o que significava essa estátua?) e enveredou por uma alameda que lhe pareceu menos sombria. Um jardim inocente.
Deixou cair a folha seca, enfurnou as mãos nos bolsos e seguiu pisando com a mesma prudência da estátua. Contornou o tufo de begônias, vacilou entre os dois ciprestes (mas o que significava essa estátua?) e enveredou por uma alameda que lhe pareceu menos sombria. Um jardim inocente.
Q1901454
Português
Relações amorosas desgastadas são uma constante nos contos de Lygia Fagundes Telles.
Assinale a alternativa que não ilustra essa afirmação.
Q1901455
Português
Leia atentamente, à esquerda, o trecho destacado do conto “Noturno amarelo” e, em seguida,
assinale a alternativa CORRETA, à direita.
Tudo então aconteceu muito rápido. Ou foi lento? Vi o Avô dirigir-se para a porta que ficava no fundo da sala, pegar a chave que estava no chão, abrir a porta, deixar a chave no mesmo lugar e sair fechando a porta atrás de si. Foi a vez da Avó, que passou por mim com sua bengala e seu lorgnon, me fez um aceno e deixando a chave no mesmo lugar, seguiu o Avô. Vi Eduarda de longe, ajudando o noivo a vestir a capa, Mas onde foram todos? perguntei e ela não ouviu ou não entendeu.
Tudo então aconteceu muito rápido. Ou foi lento? Vi o Avô dirigir-se para a porta que ficava no fundo da sala, pegar a chave que estava no chão, abrir a porta, deixar a chave no mesmo lugar e sair fechando a porta atrás de si. Foi a vez da Avó, que passou por mim com sua bengala e seu lorgnon, me fez um aceno e deixando a chave no mesmo lugar, seguiu o Avô. Vi Eduarda de longe, ajudando o noivo a vestir a capa, Mas onde foram todos? perguntei e ela não ouviu ou não entendeu.
Q1901456
Português
Assinale a alternativa CORRETA acerca do conto “Herbarium”.
Q1901457
Português
Leia atentamente o trecho destacado do conto “Seminário dos ratos”, no qual o Chefe das
Relações Públicas dirige-se ao Secretário do Bem-Estar Público e Privado. Em seguida, assinale a alternativa
CORRETA.
— Bueno, ontem à noite ele sofreu um pequeno acidente, Vossa Excelência sabe como anda o nosso trânsito! Teve que engessar um braço. Só pode chegar amanhã, já providenciei o jatinho — acrescentou o jovem com energia. — Na retaguarda fica toda uma equipe armada para a cobertura. Nosso Assessor vai pingando o noticiário por telefone, criando suspense até o encerramento, quando virão todos num jato especial, fotógrafos, canais de televisão, correspondentes estrangeiros, uma apoteose. Finis coronat opus, o fim coroa a obra!
— Bueno, ontem à noite ele sofreu um pequeno acidente, Vossa Excelência sabe como anda o nosso trânsito! Teve que engessar um braço. Só pode chegar amanhã, já providenciei o jatinho — acrescentou o jovem com energia. — Na retaguarda fica toda uma equipe armada para a cobertura. Nosso Assessor vai pingando o noticiário por telefone, criando suspense até o encerramento, quando virão todos num jato especial, fotógrafos, canais de televisão, correspondentes estrangeiros, uma apoteose. Finis coronat opus, o fim coroa a obra!
Q1901458
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Stupidity permeates our perception and practice of politics. We frequently accuse politicians,
bureaucrats, journalists, voters, “elites,” and “the masses” for their stupidities. In fact, it is not
only “populist politicians,” “sensational journalism,” and “uneducated voters” who are accused of
stupidity. Similar accusations can be, and in fact have been, made concerning those who criticize
them as well. It seems that stupidity is ubiquitous, unable to be contained within or attributed to
one specific political position, personal trait, or even ignorance and erroneous reasoning.
Undertaking a theoretical investigation of stupidity, Nabutaka Otobe challenges the assumption
that stupidity can be avoided. The author argues that the very ubiquity of stupidity implies its
unavoidability — that we cannot contain it in such domains as error, ignorance, or “post-truth.”
What we witness is rather that one’s reasoning can be sound, evidence-based, and stupid. In
revealing this unavoidability, he contends that stupidity is an ineluctable problem not only of
politics, but also of thinking. We become stupid because we think: it is impossible to distinguish a
priori stupid thought from upright, righteous thought. Moreover, the failure to address the
unavoidability of stupidity leads political theory to the failure to acknowledge the productive
moments that experiences of stupidity harbor within. Such productive moments constitute the
potential of stupidity — that radical new ideas can emerge out of our seemingly banal and stupid
thinking in our daily political activity.
Fonte: https://www.routledge.com/. Publicado em 12/10/2020. Acesso em 20/08/2021.
De acordo com o texto, não é correto afirmar que
Q1901459
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Stupidity permeates our perception and practice of politics. We frequently accuse politicians,
bureaucrats, journalists, voters, “elites,” and “the masses” for their stupidities. In fact, it is not
only “populist politicians,” “sensational journalism,” and “uneducated voters” who are accused of
stupidity. Similar accusations can be, and in fact have been, made concerning those who criticize
them as well. It seems that stupidity is ubiquitous, unable to be contained within or attributed to
one specific political position, personal trait, or even ignorance and erroneous reasoning.
Undertaking a theoretical investigation of stupidity, Nabutaka Otobe challenges the assumption
that stupidity can be avoided. The author argues that the very ubiquity of stupidity implies its
unavoidability — that we cannot contain it in such domains as error, ignorance, or “post-truth.”
What we witness is rather that one’s reasoning can be sound, evidence-based, and stupid. In
revealing this unavoidability, he contends that stupidity is an ineluctable problem not only of
politics, but also of thinking. We become stupid because we think: it is impossible to distinguish a
priori stupid thought from upright, righteous thought. Moreover, the failure to address the
unavoidability of stupidity leads political theory to the failure to acknowledge the productive
moments that experiences of stupidity harbor within. Such productive moments constitute the
potential of stupidity — that radical new ideas can emerge out of our seemingly banal and stupid
thinking in our daily political activity.
Fonte: https://www.routledge.com/. Publicado em 12/10/2020. Acesso em 20/08/2021.
O termo “moreover”, destacado em itálico no excerto do segundo parágrafo, “Moreover, the
failure to address the unavoidability of stupidity leads political theory to the failure”, pode ser substituído,
sem prejuízo de significado, por
Q1901460
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Jaap Wagelaar was my all-time favorite secondary school teacher. He gave me a 10/10 for my
oral Dutch literature exam, taught psychoanalysis during grammar class, astounded pupils with
odd puppet show performances during lunch breaks and sadly ended his career with a burn-out.
Few students and fellow teachers understood him. But since I trusted his judgment like nobody
else’s, I once asked him why Piet Paaltjens and Gerard Reve, both canonized Dutch literary
figures, albeit of very divergent genres, could occasionally be kind or ironic but were more often
rather cynical, cold and heartless. The response he gave has stuck with me ever since: cynical
people are in fact the most emotional ones. Because of their sentimentality they are unable to
handle injustice and feel forced to build up a self-protective screen against painful emotions called
cynicism. Irony is mild, harmless and green. Sarcasm is biting and represents an orange traffic
light. And the color of cynicism is deep red, with the shape of a grim scar that hides a hurt soul.
They are all equally beautiful.
These words again came to my mind when thinking back on the dozens of ironic, sarcastic and
cynical memes about underperforming politicians and policy scandals disseminated over the past year. Who has not seen the image of Donald Trump walking through a desolate, scorched forest
mumbling to himself: ‘My work here is almost done’? Who has not read the scathing reports of
Flemish Ministers Bart Somers and Hilde Crevits escaping from a window aided by an
unidentified third person after a meeting of the Council of Ministers to avoid critical journalists
with the defense that they urgently needed to go on holiday and windows are faster than doors?
Who has not come across the video announcement for a fictitious thriller called Angstra
Zeneca with Dutch Health Minister Hugo de Jonge exclaiming ‘ik heb er zo’n kankerbende van
gemaakt’ (I have made it all a cancerous mess) with a grimace stretching from ear to ear? And
who has missed the most recent true story tragicomedy played by Charles Michel, male President
of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, female President of the European
Commission, who had jointly been invited by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss
the position of women in Turkey? Unfortunately, they were only offered one chair for two people,
which was symbolically occupied by Michel who left Von der Leyen standing awkwardly for a
while. She ended up settling for a place on the comfortable sofa reserved for second rank guests.
It was damned easy to get addicted to these countless videos, photos, images and written
parodies. Oh, did we have fun with them! Some were ironic, some sarcastic and others cynical,
but they jointly sketch a disconcerting image of the quality and reputation of key politicians in
liberal Western democracies.
Fonte: https://www.eur.nl/en/news/. Publicado em 16/04/2021. Acesso em 29/08/21. Adaptado.
O termo “albeit”, destacado em itálico no excerto do primeiro parágrafo, “both canonized
Dutch literary figures albeit of very divergent genres”, tem sentido equivalente a
Q1901461
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Jaap Wagelaar was my all-time favorite secondary school teacher. He gave me a 10/10 for my
oral Dutch literature exam, taught psychoanalysis during grammar class, astounded pupils with
odd puppet show performances during lunch breaks and sadly ended his career with a burn-out.
Few students and fellow teachers understood him. But since I trusted his judgment like nobody
else’s, I once asked him why Piet Paaltjens and Gerard Reve, both canonized Dutch literary
figures, albeit of very divergent genres, could occasionally be kind or ironic but were more often
rather cynical, cold and heartless. The response he gave has stuck with me ever since: cynical
people are in fact the most emotional ones. Because of their sentimentality they are unable to
handle injustice and feel forced to build up a self-protective screen against painful emotions called
cynicism. Irony is mild, harmless and green. Sarcasm is biting and represents an orange traffic
light. And the color of cynicism is deep red, with the shape of a grim scar that hides a hurt soul.
They are all equally beautiful.
These words again came to my mind when thinking back on the dozens of ironic, sarcastic and
cynical memes about underperforming politicians and policy scandals disseminated over the past year. Who has not seen the image of Donald Trump walking through a desolate, scorched forest
mumbling to himself: ‘My work here is almost done’? Who has not read the scathing reports of
Flemish Ministers Bart Somers and Hilde Crevits escaping from a window aided by an
unidentified third person after a meeting of the Council of Ministers to avoid critical journalists
with the defense that they urgently needed to go on holiday and windows are faster than doors?
Who has not come across the video announcement for a fictitious thriller called Angstra
Zeneca with Dutch Health Minister Hugo de Jonge exclaiming ‘ik heb er zo’n kankerbende van
gemaakt’ (I have made it all a cancerous mess) with a grimace stretching from ear to ear? And
who has missed the most recent true story tragicomedy played by Charles Michel, male President
of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, female President of the European
Commission, who had jointly been invited by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to discuss
the position of women in Turkey? Unfortunately, they were only offered one chair for two people,
which was symbolically occupied by Michel who left Von der Leyen standing awkwardly for a
while. She ended up settling for a place on the comfortable sofa reserved for second rank guests.
It was damned easy to get addicted to these countless videos, photos, images and written
parodies. Oh, did we have fun with them! Some were ironic, some sarcastic and others cynical,
but they jointly sketch a disconcerting image of the quality and reputation of key politicians in
liberal Western democracies.
Fonte: https://www.eur.nl/en/news/. Publicado em 16/04/2021. Acesso em 29/08/21. Adaptado.
Em um encontro para discutir a posição da mulher, o anfitrião
Q1901462
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
In a new survey of North American Indian languages, Marianne Mithun gives an admirably clear
statement of what is lost as each language ceases to be used. “Speakers of these languages and
their descendants are acutely aware of what it can mean to lose a language,” she begins – and this
is perfectly true, although these speakers must have taken the decision themselves not to teach
the language to their children. It happens all too often – people regret that their language and
culture are being lost but at the same time decide not to saddle their own children with the chore
of preserving them.
When a language disappears [Mithun continues] the most intimate aspects of culture can
disappear as well: fundamental ways of organizing experience into concepts, of relating ideas to
each other, of interacting to people. The more conscious genres of verbal art are usually lost as
well: traditional ritual, oratory, myth, legends, and even humor. Speakers commonly remark that
when they speak a different language, they say different things and even think different thoughts.
These are very interesting assertions. They slip by in a book on anthropological linguistics, where
in a book on linguistic theory they would be highly contentious. Is it true that “fundamental ways
of organizing experience into concepts [and] of relating ideas to each other” are specific to
individual languages and are therefore likely to be lost when a language ceases to be used? Is it
true that when speakers speak a different language, they “say different things and even think
different thoughts”? Again, the extent to which thought depends on language is very
controversial. These questions must be now faced, because only when we have reached an opinion on them will we be able to accept or reject Marianne Mithun’s conclusion: “The loss of a language
represents a definitive separation of a people from its heritage. It also represents an irreparable
loss for us all, the loss of opportunities to glimpse alternative ways of making sense of the human
experience.”
Fonte: Dalby, Andrew. Language in danger. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003, p. 252; 285.
Adaptado.
De acordo com a linguista Marianne Mithun
Q1901463
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
In a new survey of North American Indian languages, Marianne Mithun gives an admirably clear
statement of what is lost as each language ceases to be used. “Speakers of these languages and
their descendants are acutely aware of what it can mean to lose a language,” she begins – and this
is perfectly true, although these speakers must have taken the decision themselves not to teach
the language to their children. It happens all too often – people regret that their language and
culture are being lost but at the same time decide not to saddle their own children with the chore
of preserving them.
When a language disappears [Mithun continues] the most intimate aspects of culture can
disappear as well: fundamental ways of organizing experience into concepts, of relating ideas to
each other, of interacting to people. The more conscious genres of verbal art are usually lost as
well: traditional ritual, oratory, myth, legends, and even humor. Speakers commonly remark that
when they speak a different language, they say different things and even think different thoughts.
These are very interesting assertions. They slip by in a book on anthropological linguistics, where
in a book on linguistic theory they would be highly contentious. Is it true that “fundamental ways
of organizing experience into concepts [and] of relating ideas to each other” are specific to
individual languages and are therefore likely to be lost when a language ceases to be used? Is it
true that when speakers speak a different language, they “say different things and even think
different thoughts”? Again, the extent to which thought depends on language is very
controversial. These questions must be now faced, because only when we have reached an opinion on them will we be able to accept or reject Marianne Mithun’s conclusion: “The loss of a language
represents a definitive separation of a people from its heritage. It also represents an irreparable
loss for us all, the loss of opportunities to glimpse alternative ways of making sense of the human
experience.”
Fonte: Dalby, Andrew. Language in danger. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003, p. 252; 285.
Adaptado.
O termo “must”, destacado em itálico no excerto do segundo parágrafo, “These questions must
be now faced”, pode ser substituído, sem alteração de significado, por
Q1901464
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
In a new survey of North American Indian languages, Marianne Mithun gives an admirably clear
statement of what is lost as each language ceases to be used. “Speakers of these languages and
their descendants are acutely aware of what it can mean to lose a language,” she begins – and this
is perfectly true, although these speakers must have taken the decision themselves not to teach
the language to their children. It happens all too often – people regret that their language and
culture are being lost but at the same time decide not to saddle their own children with the chore
of preserving them.
When a language disappears [Mithun continues] the most intimate aspects of culture can
disappear as well: fundamental ways of organizing experience into concepts, of relating ideas to
each other, of interacting to people. The more conscious genres of verbal art are usually lost as
well: traditional ritual, oratory, myth, legends, and even humor. Speakers commonly remark that
when they speak a different language, they say different things and even think different thoughts.
These are very interesting assertions. They slip by in a book on anthropological linguistics, where
in a book on linguistic theory they would be highly contentious. Is it true that “fundamental ways
of organizing experience into concepts [and] of relating ideas to each other” are specific to
individual languages and are therefore likely to be lost when a language ceases to be used? Is it
true that when speakers speak a different language, they “say different things and even think
different thoughts”? Again, the extent to which thought depends on language is very
controversial. These questions must be now faced, because only when we have reached an opinion on them will we be able to accept or reject Marianne Mithun’s conclusion: “The loss of a language
represents a definitive separation of a people from its heritage. It also represents an irreparable
loss for us all, the loss of opportunities to glimpse alternative ways of making sense of the human
experience.”
Fonte: Dalby, Andrew. Language in danger. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003, p. 252; 285.
Adaptado.
De acordo com o texto, é correto afirmar que com o desaparecimento de uma língua, aspectos
dessa cultura também estão fadados ao desaparecimento, exceto
Q1901465
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum
continually return to the theme that the rewards of life—money, power, jobs, university
admission—should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the
‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually
and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in
which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and
advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. And
most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is
meritocratic. However, although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines
success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in
large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called
‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory
behaviour. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement
meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found
that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater
rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This
preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The ‘even
playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the
kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ‘paradox of meritocracy’
occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral
sincerity. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behaviour
for signs of prejudice.
As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people
belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle
that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
Fonte: https://bigthink.com/. Publicado em 23/03/2019. Acesso em 20/08/2021. Adaptado.
According to the first paragraph, one of the supporting arguments for meritocracy is:
Q1901466
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum
continually return to the theme that the rewards of life—money, power, jobs, university
admission—should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the
‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually
and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in
which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and
advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. And
most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is
meritocratic. However, although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines
success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in
large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called
‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory
behaviour. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement
meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found
that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater
rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This
preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The ‘even
playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the
kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ‘paradox of meritocracy’
occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral
sincerity. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behaviour
for signs of prejudice.
As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people
belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle
that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
Fonte: https://bigthink.com/. Publicado em 23/03/2019. Acesso em 20/08/2021. Adaptado.
According to the third and fourth paragraphs, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and Indiana University found that meritocracy
Q1901467
Inglês
Texto associado
Leia o texto destacado para responder à questão.
Meritocracy has become a leading social ideal. Politicians across the ideological spectrum
continually return to the theme that the rewards of life—money, power, jobs, university
admission—should be distributed according to skill and effort. The most common metaphor is the
‘even playing field’ upon which players can rise to the position that fits their merit. Conceptually
and morally, meritocracy is presented as the opposite of systems such as hereditary aristocracy, in
which one’s social position is determined by the lottery of birth. Under meritocracy, wealth and
advantage are merit’s rightful compensation, not the fortuitous windfall of external events. And
most people don’t just think the world should be run meritocratically, they think it is
meritocratic. However, although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines
success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in
large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called
‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.
Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory
behaviour. The management scholar Emilio Castilla at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
and the sociologist Stephen Benard at Indiana University studied attempts to implement
meritocratic practices, such as performance-based compensation in private companies. They found
that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater
rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This
preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
This is surprising because impartiality is the core of meritocracy’s moral appeal. The ‘even
playing field’ is intended to avoid unfair inequalities based on gender, race and the like. Yet Castilla and Benard found that, ironically, attempts to implement meritocracy leads to just the
kinds of inequalities that it aims to eliminate. They suggest that this ‘paradox of meritocracy’
occurs because explicitly adopting meritocracy as a value convinces subjects of their own moral
sincerity. Satisfied that they are just, they become less inclined to examine their own behaviour
for signs of prejudice.
As with any ideology, part of its draw is that it justifies the status quo, explaining why people
belong where they happen to be in the social order. It is a well-established psychological principle
that people prefer to believe that the world is just.
Fonte: https://bigthink.com/. Publicado em 23/03/2019. Acesso em 20/08/2021. Adaptado.
De acordo com o quarto parágrafo, a meritocracia promove
Conheça nossos planos