I'm astonished (in a good way) to see a perspective this radical represented on HN. Considering how the discussions of sexism usually go--i.e., a circle jerk in which we all congratulate ourselves for having slain the dragon of "political correctness"--I can't imagine it will be received well... but in any case, major kudos to the author and submitter.
You keep using that word "meritocracy"
11–20 of 100 posts
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#12"If we met the utopian ideal we toss around in blog posts, we’d still have lots of middle-aged women in this field. We’d have black people. We’d have Asian people – not a smattering, but a majority, cause the world is mostly Asian people." Just had to pick up on this, purely because it's symptomatic of another form of blindness. We DO have Asian people. Go and look in Asia. There aren't many Asian programmers in comp…
> We DO have Asian people. Go and look in Asia. Middle-aged women, on the other hand. Since the article he's responding to is about sexism, that seems a little more salient.
>he's responding
She.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#13You can have a meritocracy, and still have an unfair demographic skew.
Given a black box in which the inputs are infants and the outputs are people applying for software jobs, if the black-box is unfair, then even if you have a perfect evaluation function in your interviewing process, you will be skewed to the input of the black box.
All that being said, of course we have an imperfect evaluation function. And it is almost certainly imperfect in ways that favor white males. However, given the pool of applicants, I think the bigger factor is the black box.
As an example, the ratio of men to women at my company is similar to the ratio of men to women in my college computer science classes.
If you shift the black box back a bit and you have inputs being babies and outputs being high-school graduates, you will see a huge skew still, and this is part of the reason for affirmative action at the HS level.
I propose that it is easier to give unfair advantages to minorities at the college level than it is to fix the unfair disadvantages before that level. This is why I support affirmative action.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#14"If we met the utopian ideal we toss around in blog posts, we’d still have lots of middle-aged women in this field. We’d have black people. We’d have Asian people – not a smattering, but a majority, cause the world is mostly Asian people." Just had to pick up on this, purely because it's symptomatic of another form of blindness. We DO have Asian people. Go and look in Asia. There aren't many Asian programmers in comp…
It's also worth noting that female developers seem much more common in asian countries too.
Better than the US, but not as much as you would think. Diversity hires in my office (in China for an American company) mean female, not even the various ethnic minorities that are a more than a bit underrepresented (I haven't met a Tibetan or Uighur programmer yet, but then we aren't out in West China).
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#15The inflammatory and rambly tone will likely cause a lot of people to miss what I think is actually a point worth considering: > A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to others like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their rules. It's analogous to IQ tests having cultural biases, but people's cla…
It seems to me that in a truly meritocratic and also capitalistic society, the market would decide what the metric is, because public opinion of what constitutes "merit" will be aligned with what produces success in the market.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#16Even if the word has its origins in satire, a characteristic feature of human language is that it changes over time. The word “meritocracy” has been repurposed, and is now a legitimate ideal. The problem with the word is twofold: first, thinking that you live in a meritocratic society when you don’t, and second, thinking that merit is objectively measurable. The author does touch on both points, but I think it benefits from reframing.
Fact is, “programming” means a lot of different things to different people, and most of it is easy enough that anyone could do it if they wanted to, and were given the opportunity to learn. The last point is key, because most people don’t get the chance to learn about programming, whether it’s not offered them, or they simply don’t see it as the last word in career choices. If you’d rather take photographs or make sushi, you don’t need to be a programmer. If you’re from a poor country where there aren’t any computers available, you’ve got other things on your mind.
I strive to be at the top of my field; I’m sure many on HN feel the same way. But people with that desire form a vanishingly small fraction of the already small fraction of people who program. And people who will succeed in that accomplishment form an infinitesimally small proportion of that.
Just have perspective.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#17The inflammatory and rambly tone will likely cause a lot of people to miss what I think is actually a point worth considering: > A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to others like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their rules. It's analogous to IQ tests having cultural biases, but people's cla…
> It's analogous to IQ tests having cultural biases, but people's claiming they measure intelligence objectively.
No contradiction there. IQ tests clearly aren't completely unbiased and perfectly objective, but they don't have to live up to that impossible standard. Humans have a general intelligence factor G, and an IQ test can approximate it reasonably well. As far as I know IQ tests are the best and most objective way we have of measuring G.
If we can't even call our most objective tools objective, then we're quickly entering the territory of total relativism.
The idea that the outcome of IQ tests is mostly determined by cultural biases, which is what you suggest, seems extremely unlikely. Cultural aspects will make some demographics score better than other demographics, but smart people within a demographic will surely still outperform their peers. So I'm very skeptical about your claims.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#18I had issues with the way the article made the following argument: 1) If computer programming was a meritocracy, we'd only have the best computer programmers in the field. 2) Most computer programmers are white males. 3) Most people are not white males. 4) Ergo, computer programming is not a meritocracy. I trust most people saw the logical flaw - the author is assuming that the ability to program is currently evenly…
2) Most computer programmers are white
Maybe in the USA, but in that context this is not surprising, as 72% of the USA is white. (The male part is a separate discussion) Do you have proof that when considering the entire world, most computer programmers are still white?
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#19The great irony is that many people trumpeting the value of meritocracy are otherwise very well-acquainted with Hayekian arguments and public choice.
Having a true meritocracy is impossible if you take public choice and Hayek seriously. We don't have all the knowledge necessary to set up a truly objective and universal system for sifting the chaft from the wheat, or even an idea of how to frame that knowledge. And even if we did have that ability, the people and institutions that the meritocracy is embedded in would twist that meritocracy and pervert its original aims.
It's obvious when stated, but if you suggest that patriarchy or white supremacy might be undermining some imagined meritocracy, you're some kind of bitter idiot who is just looking for reason to complain.
Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"
#20Those who despise meritocracy simply lack, well, intelligence to understand it.
Merit is not about IQ, merit is about knowledge and experience in a field.
A cook can't build a bridge, a carpenter can't rule a kingdom, a ballet dancer can't run wall street, an altar boy can't run the vatican.
We can't know it all, so we specialize, and the more we specialize the more valuable we are in that particular field. So if you want to know about quantum mechanics you ask Stephen Hawking not Emeril Lagasse, but if you want to know about beef stew you know who's the right man. Now guess who would be the perfect fit for the Newton's Chair and who for the Food Network's primetime show?
That's meritocracy, it's not about IQ, it's about merits, you earn them, you can't take them or buy them, you just fucking earn them with sweat and tears.