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

31–40 of 100 posts

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#31

Post by mquander »

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 don't get what's radical about the perspective. I think most people would already agree that many demographics get fucked over when it comes to having an opportunity to learn and pursue a career in what they might otherwise wish to. As far as I can tell that is pretty much the only point that the author was making; the rest is just arguing about the semantics of the word "meritocracy."

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#32

Post by 001sky »

natrius wrote: post #27
001sky wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

getting a sweet internship at some cutting edge technology

Author is arguing/implying that overcoming this "gate" was the source of [the example's] later (developed, proven,etc) skill. It might not be a perfect argument, but its there IMHO. I think if you believe it's not a good argument/ point, its best to attack it directly. That is all.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#33

Post by bobfrmaccting »

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…

Could you please NOT use the word 'actionable' ever again? Please?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#34

Post by dschuler »

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…

Most places I've worked at really do want to hire a diverse group of engineers. At one company, one of the managers was asked by his manager to hire e.g. more black women. His response was "you show me one, and I will hire her".

Personally, I'd like more women in the field as well. I wouldn't mind working somewhere where, I don't know, even 1 out of 3 people were women, instead of 1/10. But I think availability has a lot to do with it.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#35

Post by ktizo »

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…

"FizzBuzz is famously hard"

Are we talking about the thing of writing "fizz" for multiples of 3 and "buzz" for multiples of 5 and "fizzbuzz" for both, for the numbers 1 - 100? If that is famously hard, then the definition of hard must have changed massively while I wasn't looking.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#36

Post by btilly »

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…

FizzBuzz is famously hard, but it's not that hard

Every time I see something like this, I cringe inside and wonder at how memes get distorted.

FizzBuzz is not supposed to be hard. In fact it is supposed to be as EASY as you can possibly make an actual programming task. So easy that most programmers would have trouble believing that there are people calling themselves programmers who can't solve it in their sleep. Seriously if you know enough of a programming language to print output, run a loop, take remainders, and write if tests, then you can write FizzBuzz.

Put another way, if you can't write FizzBuzz, then you probably can't write ANY useful program. And your interview can safely stop right there because you failed.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#37

Post by natrius »

001sky wrote: post #32
natrius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition" I don't see that argument in her post.

getting a sweet internship at some cutting edge technology Author is arguing/implying that overcoming this "gate" was the source of [the example's] later (developed, proven,etc) skill. It might not be a perfect argument, but its there IMHO. I think if you believe it's not a good argument/ point, its best to attack it directly. That is all.

I don't think she's saying that. Do white males without programming skills get programming internships at a higher rate? Are there even a significant number of people who take that path?

Hiring is not the problem. Getting underrepresented folks to choose computer science in the first place is.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#38

Post by pron »

sliverstorm wrote: post #15
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…

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.

But doesn't the market favor people of means? The market already has a metric - financial success - but the market cares not for justice. I think all the author is asking is of us to open our eyes, and do our best to further goals we deem worthy, and let the market do what it likes. We're people, we can act on our beliefs. Why should we be slaves to the blind yet unjust market?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#39

Post by adwf »

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.

This is quite an unusual definition. I always thought that a meritocracy was about giving the people best able to do a job the greatest rewards. The article seems to be assuming that all meritocracies are actually corrupt meritocracies, which is a rather sweeping generalisation...

More to the point; a corrupt meritocracy can hardly be distinguished from any other form of power/political structure that has become corrupt (in the sense of rewarding people through crony-ism and other discriminatory practices), so I don't really see any valid argument here other than "corrupt systems are bad, mmkay?".

Post reply on HN