You keep using that word "meritocracy" • Hacker News Board

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#81

Post by Crake » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 4:14 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #75

Crake wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. This is interesting, because it really does get down to the core of the argument: how do we improve the academic success of minorities? Unfortunately, letting someone who can't do calculus into, say, Stanford, is not going to f…

The question isn't if the dropout rate of minorities is higher, the question is, do more minorities graduate than if there wasn't AA? If so, then AA is having some positive effect. I'm all for fixing problems at the local level, but the problems are huge. On a micro level, within school districts there are issues of gerrymandering and even absent gerrymandering there is a terrible positive feedback loop where propert…

The question isn't if the dropout rate of minorities is higher, the question is, do more minorities graduate than if there wasn't AA? If so, then AA is having some positive effect.

Actually, this is something that can be studied in the form of California's college system, which banned race based discrimination a while ago. Minority enrollment at selective colleges decreased, but overall enrollment and graduation rates for minorities greatly increased.

Funding schools via property taxes is a TERRIBLE idea and whoever came up with it ought to be shot. Schools should be distributed funds more equally.

I really want to help via mentoring or tutoring someday. Life circumstances won't permit it right now, but I really do believe that helping kids learn algebra when they are young is a critical step for achieving success in science at all of the later stages.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#82

Post by wonderzombie » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 4:23 AM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #59

There's a fallacy at work here that is difficult to point out without being accused of bias, but I'll try anyway. It's that in order for a profession to be considered completely fair with regard to race and gender issues, the makeup of people in that profession must exactly reflect the proportion of people in the general population. I would argue that this is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one. Yes, for…

It's that in order for a profession to be considered completely fair with regard to race and gender issues, the makeup of people in that profession must exactly reflect the proportion of people in the general population.

Hmm. No, I don't think that's quite it. I don't think anybody has any illusions about actually achieving that in the near-term, nor anything so simplistic as pass/fail. It'll probably be asymptotic. And, with respect, what you're talking about is so far from reality — like discussing what we'll do with all that extra food when we've solved world hunger — that it's a bit premature (or optimistic, depending on how cynical you are) to discuss exit conditions.

Maybe once we're pretty well convinced that racism/sexism doesn't play a dominant role in this, we'll be able to study cultural or socioeconomic factors which influence people's choice of career. But any measurement you try to make now about how or why is going to be dominated by existing bias.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#83

Post by jaggederest » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 4:55 AM UTC

adwf wrote: post #53

jaggederest wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoth Wikipedia: the term [was] originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications." Essentially, the predictions become reality through confirmation bias, ra…

Perhaps, but unless my personal definition of meritocracy is quite off (definitely possible), the general perception of a meritocracy - now - in the IT/CS terms that are being considered, is that we are talking about raw practically verifiable ability rather than academic qualifications. Or even certifications - which are a somewhat distinct category that IMO, are a bit more subject to corruption. Pay enough and you…

I think that people who might consider IT to be a meritocracy are blind to the fact that the things we measure are determined by the people with power, and thus it's a self-perpetuating sort of hierarchy.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#84

Post by mc32 » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 6:10 AM UTC

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…

So then, are table tennis, boxing and basketball or gymnastics not meritocracies either and thus deserving of more representative demographics? Should those sports seek to find more balance in their professional profiles? Should leagues try to find and be incentivized to fill their ranks with underrepresented demographics?

Are industry responsible or is the educational system responsible for developing interest and providing guidance to the newer generations (in addition to initiative by the student body)?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#85

Post by 001sky » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 6:29 AM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #84

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…

So then, are table tennis, boxing and basketball or gymnastics not meritocracies either and thus deserving of more representative demographics? Should those sports seek to find more balance in their professional profiles? Should leagues try to find and be incentivized to fill their ranks with underrepresented demographics? Are industry responsible or is the educational system responsible for developing interest and p…

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

I think you missed that note [2] above. I'm not necessarily supporting or defending the position. The point was it was not as simple an argument to dismiss as was suggested in the Parent. Couple of points to consider, more generally: (1) Its not clear that the condition of footnote 2 holds, per-se; That being said (2) its also very far from clear that decisions of Merit (in the context discussed) are ever/always fully informed.[#] Ironically, the further away you get from footnote 2 in some areas, the less informed the key gatekeepers are.

In other areas that might not be the case. These would be characterized by non-trivial skill obviously required, easily, cheaply, and repeatedly observable/measurable by multiple parties, etc. Timed running in 100m, would be an example of the latter.[##] But this is circumventing the actual argument by changing the relevant context. So its sort of a valid counter-argument, but its not quite-central to the point the Author was trying to make.

________

[#] see comment> http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4658045

[##] Still, this might not be the most diverse group if the olympics are your benchmark. But its non-trivial but highly specialized, and we can presume uneven native talent distrubution cannot be ruled out.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#86

Post by Lazare » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 9:29 AM UTC

ktizo wrote: post #35

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.

"famously hard" was an example of sarcasm.

A lot of people applying for programming jobs can't solve it. Any programmer, pretty much by definition, can. The lesson is that a lot of people who apply for programming jobs can't program. :)

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#87

Post by Lazare » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 9:39 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #56

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…

... trust most people saw the logical flaw - the author is assuming that the ability to program is currently evenly distributed. I don't see anything from the author which can be construed as the statement, "ability, is at present , evenly distributed." If you withdraw that stipulation, what you have is: 4. Ergo, opportunities to become a computer programmer [e.g. education] are not distributed according to merit [e.…

The "at present" stipulation doesn't really change anything. The author is claiming that the ability to program is evenly distributed, but the plain truth of the matter is that more white English-speaking males in their 20s can program than can . Which is because of, yes, racism, sexism, inequality, and a host of other societal ills, but it dosn't change the fact that Joe's House of Discount Programming in Des Moines Iowa gets a lot of resumes from people that look like us here on HN, and very few resumes from middle-aged black women who speak Swahili.

The HR department at Joe's House of Discount Programming may well be biased, but you can't conclude that from the evidence presented. More broadly, you cannot tar the programming profession as racist and sexist because we don't hire people who don't actually exist (even if, yes, the reason those people don't exist is because of racism and sexism and all the rest).

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#88

Post by anthonyb » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 12:11 PM UTC

001sky wrote: post #85

mc32 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then, are table tennis, boxing and basketball or gymnastics not meritocracies either and thus deserving of more representative demographics? Should those sports seek to find more balance in their professional profiles? Should leagues try to find and be incentivized to fill their ranks with underrepresented demographics? Are industry responsible or is the educational system responsible for developing interest and p…

Note [2] This depends on (or implies) a certain elemental/relative triviality of the task. I think you missed that note [2] above. I'm not necessarily supporting or defending the position. The point was it was not as simple an argument to dismiss as was suggested in the Parent. Couple of points to consider, more generally: (1) Its not clear that the condition of footnote 2 holds, per-se ; That being said (2) its also…

> I think you missed that note [2] above.

I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters, particularly when you're discussing things in written form.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#89

Post by anthonyb » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 12:18 PM UTC

natrius wrote: post #30

pron wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Probably not directly, but that's implied in the word merit, and in the higher pay and better conditions afforded to programmers.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#90

Post by anthonyb » Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 12:26 PM UTC

ynniv wrote: post #55

kome wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy Because the very word "meritocracy" was invented to describe an Orwellian society dystopia were "merit" was the only metric for value. He just use the original definition.

It's a niche definition that was long since co-opted to describe how people should be promoted. It now roughly means selection based on some manner of successful execution, as opposed to personality, or personal relation. The problem with using "the original definition", is that the rant is now against something that was not the original conversation. Which is fine if the author wants to rant about cronyism ("the ori…

Except that the original definition fits the current situation in IT very well.