Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

outlookzen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#101

Post by calibas »

aidenn0 wrote: post #99
calibas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If morals aren't relative, which ones are correct? To me, moral relativism means that I understand other people have different morals than mine and I have to respect that. It's not some excuse to toss morals out the window.

If Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible with respect to gravity, which one is correct? The fact that we don't know something does not then imply that that the actual truth is subjective. The less you know the more humble you need to be, but different views do not always justify respect. To use my previous analogy: If a random person shows up to a physicist claiming to have invented anti-gravity,…

Are we talking about moral relativism, or whether actual truth is subjective? Morals are personal/cultural values, I can't imagine equating them to "actual truth".

I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have different ideas of what's fair is conclusive proof.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#102

Post by aidenn0 »

calibas wrote: post #101
aidenn0 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible with respect to gravity, which one is correct? The fact that we don't know something does not then imply that that the actual truth is subjective. The less you know the more humble you need to be, but different views do not always justify respect. To use my previous analogy: If a random person shows up to a physicist claiming to have invented anti-gravity,…

Are we talking about moral relativism, or whether actual truth is subjective? Morals are personal/cultural values, I can't imagine equating them to "actual truth". I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have different ideas of what's fair is conclusive proof.

> Morals are personal/cultural values

This phrase is something I completely disagree with. Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values.

> I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have different ideas of what's fair is conclusive proof.

I missed that subtlety , I thought you meant the general discussion of whether meritocracies are good depends on personal values. That stronger statement (that I now see you didn't make) is what I was disagreeing with.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#103

Post by crististm »

jariel wrote: post #100
crististm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there! If you pay attention to the ratio of pro vs against meritocracy rants in this page you will find some interesting (anec)data. Make your own conclusions!

We don't need 'anecdotes' we have tons of data. Higher IQ, better academic results correlates with better jobs. That's a very crude, but broad measure of meritocracy. But it's even easier than that: show me people earning $180K developing software who are 'complete idiots'. They don't exist. People who earn more are generally smarter, more conscientious, credentialed. It's basically a ridiculous argument to imply tha…

I am actually in agreement with you and the meritocracy.

My observation is that a disproportionate amount of the comments were from people that do not like meritocracy and are irrationally and hysterically going to argue with you missing the point. They will not be converted.

The ones who would know better seem to steer off clear from engaging with incompetent mobs; you will not find them here to have a sane discussion.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#104

Post by crististm »

username90 wrote: post #68
crististm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there! If you pay attention to the ratio of pro vs against meritocracy rants in this page you will find some interesting (anec)data. Make your own conclusions!

By definition the average person will have mediocre merit so it makes sense that most people are biased against meritocracy.

I don't agree with this definition and its conclusions.

I am average in a domain but I want competent people around me. I am not against them earning more.

What I see is that some people will consider that any type of competence signaled through usual means (e.g. better pay) is in fact corruption and the reason they earn less. You will find many of those people commenting on this post.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#105

Post by crististm »

spacekitcat wrote: post #80
username90 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who think that white men will hire more minorities and women if they focused less on merit are naive.

Striving to build an environment where effort is made to attribute credit where it's due and to strive for equality of outcome for all is what we need to do. You're still picking the 'best person for the job' according to your own biases for what constitutes the 'best' (because how else could it work?), but you're also making an effort to ensure that your team/department/company isn't just all white (straight etc) me…

What is the problem with hiring a white person vs a blue person if the white one is better? And vice-versa, hiring the blue one if he is better?

If you want to hire white workers regardless of their competence, then you should start a company.

"Better" means that they have a high probability of doing the job as the employers sees fit. Don't go nitpicking on defining 'better'. If you do, you're not suited for the job of deciding who to hire.

And if you are suggesting that hiring process is biased then you are right - people are not robots.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#106

Post by Kim_Bruning »

jariel wrote: post #100
crististm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there! If you pay attention to the ratio of pro vs against meritocracy rants in this page you will find some interesting (anec)data. Make your own conclusions!

We don't need 'anecdotes' we have tons of data. Higher IQ, better academic results correlates with better jobs. That's a very crude, but broad measure of meritocracy. But it's even easier than that: show me people earning $180K developing software who are 'complete idiots'. They don't exist. People who earn more are generally smarter, more conscientious, credentialed. It's basically a ridiculous argument to imply tha…

Well, policy in large organizations and especially public policy on the scale of nations is a lot like orbital mechanics. You can head off in a particular direction, but you're going to end up somewhere completely different from where a lot of people might intuitively expect.

Since you're looking only at national scale for now: A good measure for people being rewarded based on merit is social mobility. Which countries do you expect to have better social mobility? Countries that have a strong social-democratic element, or countries that are purely capitalist?

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-...

If you ever decide to try to implement strict Meritocracy at a smaller scale when actually locally organizing your own local organizations, please let me know; I'll bring popcorn. ;)

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#107

Post by thefz »

arnvald wrote: post #17

> The reason meritocracies work so well, is not because they are fair, but because they produce peak performance. This is short-sighted. It optimizes for the "local maximum", the "today's maximum". Yes, if today you don't choose the best candidate based purely on their results, you are technically losing, because you could do better. But here's the thing, if you choose a candidate that is not the best, but that can h…

Ask yourself if you want the medic doing surgery on you, or to a less dramatic example the electrician working on your house, to be the best you can buy and you will quickly understand why in reality no one optimizes for the system's efficiency and everyone optimizes for own interest.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#108

Post by calibas »

aidenn0 wrote: post #102
calibas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we talking about moral relativism, or whether actual truth is subjective? Morals are personal/cultural values, I can't imagine equating them to "actual truth". I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have different ideas of what's fair is conclusive proof.

> Morals are personal/cultural values This phrase is something I completely disagree with. Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values. > I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have…

>Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values.

There are plenty of people who believe this, that their morals are absolute, and you can refer to the Spanish Inquisition to see exactly how "evil" that kind of thinking can get. Moral relativists are saints compared to what the Catholics have done in the name of "morality".

All religious fanatics agree that morals are absolute, they just don't agree on what those morals are.

Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases.

To me, "good morals" are trying to understand and empathize with other people, while allowing them their own unique perspective.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#109

Post by aidenn0 »

calibas wrote: post #108
aidenn0 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Morals are personal/cultural values This phrase is something I completely disagree with. Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values. > I'm really not following how this relates to my original comment either, I meant your idea of "fairness" depends on personal values. The fact that people have…

>Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values. There are plenty of people who believe this, that their morals are absolute, and you can refer to the Spanish Inquisition to see exactly how "evil" that kind of thinking can get. Moral relativists are saints compared to what the Catholics have done in…

> Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases.

Actually I completely agree with this. The fact that I have biases and you have biases will cause us to both be wrong. It doesn't mean that we are equally wrong though.

> To me, "good morals" are trying to understand and empathize with other people, while allowing them their own unique perspective.

That's a moral absolutist position.

Re: Meritocracies Are Unfair – and That's the Point

#110

Post by calibas »

aidenn0 wrote: post #109
calibas wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Morals are how one ought to behave, and how one ought to behave can intersect with cultural and personal values, but is not determined by cultural and personal values. There are plenty of people who believe this, that their morals are absolute, and you can refer to the Spanish Inquisition to see exactly how "evil" that kind of thinking can get. Moral relativists are saints compared to what the Catholics have done in…

> Also, and I'm sure you'll disagree, but how you quantify and qualify "merits" is based upon personal/cultural values. If you don't realize this you'll just argue endlessly with people over whose perspective is correct, not realizing you're both just viewing things through your own biases. Actually I completely agree with this. The fact that I have biases and you have biases will cause us to both be wrong. It doesn'…

>That's a moral absolutist position.

It's the exact opposite, because I acknowledged those are simply my morals, they're not some universal truth that everybody else is obliged to follow.

I'm convinced moral absolutism is dangerous and a major driving force behind fanaticism and authoritarianism.

Post reply on HN