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

You keep using that word "meritocracy"

garann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#21

Post by ynniv »

I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy to mean the biased notion of evaluated merit that keeps the powerful in power. This whole rant falls apart if you assume an honest desire to promote based on merit, which is often what people mean when they claim to be meritocratic. Granted they don't execute it properly, and aren't fully honest when they say that they value it, but lets get one thing straight:

meritocracy is not "a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it".

This rant is without base.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#22

Post by ktizo »

bithive123 wrote: post #5

While I agree that we fall well short of the utopian ideal (rather than the farcical interpretation) there are plenty of other bureaucratic barriers to meritocracies as well. In my experience even the most dedicated, agile people hit organizational limits on complexity or continuity and ultimately have to settle for sub-par network topologies, software stacks, and yes even coworkers. To the extent that we all underst…

As far as I am aware, meritocracy in the original definition is one which is ruled by people on the basis of their paper qualifications, which leads them to fundamentally believe that they are justified in holding power over others, despite the fact that those qualifications are often a consequence of a lot more than just ability. Part of the warning was that meritocracies can become both tautological and blind to corruption as the bits of paper become the main measure of the right to hold power.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#23

Post by guylhem »

The article seems full of hatred against "white men". A group of people, for some reason, has found it worth its time to do some activity. This group then trains more, invest more time, and compounding interests makes them better.

Other groups see their success and feel like they don't belong. It's human - nothing mean in it.

Why is Christophe Lemaitre one of the only decent white sprinters? Because. Why are boys dropping out more and more while girls study? Because. Why are there mostly asian in advanced classes, so much that some university (by their own words) do now discriminate against them in admissions? Because. Why are there mostly white men in the IT industry?

Well - I guess you can now answer yourself.

There is no conspiracy (except maybe for the universities preferring people from some ethnicities while other people are more qualified) - it's just a bunch of self maintaining tendency.

Something interesting - look at the posts on 9gag to try to get the current untold opinions - apparently some white people are developing an inferiority complex on math and sciences when they have asian classmates. Self exclusion, once again.

So drop the hatred and see the meritocracy. It's all around us.

For the first time in history, with a very low amount of capital and education, a human being can create a profitable company. You should be celebrating such an achievement, not bashing meritocracy.

EDIT: Downvote as much as you want, but I'd be interested to know for which reason exactly Occam razor is not being applied here

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#24

Post by 001sky »

Lazare wrote: post #10

I 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…

If a middle-class white boy who literally never had a job before getting a sweet internship at some cutting edge technology company can eventually, through practice, become a passable computer programmer, anyone can do it.

-- This is not of the form you reference, though

This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition, and thus representative expression, not one of either innate or even actual ability or qualification level. Its not "conflating ability with opportunities" anymore than it is saying "there is learning by doing" and since the "doing is not evenly distributed"[1], therefore neither is the "learning".[2] Author is in part arguing that the only "doing" that matters is "branded doing" (ie, doing it for XYZ company or school), as as that is how the next level of doing is rationed, and there is therefore a recursive effect. This may or may not be a great argument, but I think its different than the one you allude to. In particular the low-threshold state and the (implied) recursive mechanism seem to have a more interesting dynamic.

______

[1] Or the option, etc.

[2] This depends on (or implies) a certain elemental/relative triviality of the task.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#25

Post by derleth »

ianterrell wrote: post #8

The 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…

> 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.

If we take this as a definition for 'meritocracy', what do we call situations where there is an objective test of skill that everyone is equally prepared to meet, but not everyone is equally able to meet? Does the author dispute that such a thing can exist? If so, does the dispute lie in the existence of an 'objective test' or in 'equal preparation'?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#26

Post by natrius »

"What a meritocracy really protects us from is challenge."

Are you suggesting that we not choose who to work with by our assessments of their talent? I think I'll pass. Let us know how your business works out with that strategy.

This is an absurd misdiagnosis of the cause of underrepresentation in technology. Every computer science class I've been in has had a similar ratio of genders and ethnicities as the industry does. It's not that we're not finding talented female and minority developers; it's that there are so few of them to begin with. Even if changing the way we evaluate talent were a good idea, it wouldn't change the makeup of the industry.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#27

Post by natrius »

001sky wrote: post #24
Lazare wrote: post #10

I 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…

If a middle-class white boy who literally never had a job before getting a sweet internship at some cutting edge technology company can eventually, through practice, become a passable computer programmer, anyone can do it. -- This is not of the form you reference, though This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition, and thus representative expression, not one of either innate or even actual ability or qual…

"This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition"

I don't see that argument in her post.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#28

Post by pron »

Lazare wrote: post #10

I 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…

I think you're missing the point, which is not calling you racist, but opening your eyes to the fact that much of what you have achieved (and I don't mean you specifically, but the class of people the article adresses) is not a direct result of your effort but largely due to privilege. Thus, as a person of privilege you should use whatever political power you have - and you have quite a lot of it - to help rectify the situation, or, at least be constantly aware of it.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#29

Post by natrius »

sowhatquestion wrote: post #11

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.

I was astonished to see it as well, but mainly because the logic was so poor. How is pretending that the attendance at conferences should reflect the world's population a useful addition to this discussion?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#30

Post by natrius »

pron wrote: post #28
Lazare wrote: post #10

I 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…

I think you're missing the point, which is not calling you racist, but opening your eyes to the fact that much of what you have achieved (and I don't mean you specifically, but the class of people the article adresses) is not a direct result of your effort but largely due to privilege. Thus, as a person of privilege you should use whatever political power you have - and you have quite a lot of it - to help rectify th…

Merit does not require effort. I haven't heard anyone claiming that their ability to program is a measure of their worth as a human being. It is, however, a measure of one's usefulness to a development team.
Post reply on HN