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

11–20 of 126 posts

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

#11

Post by discreteevent »

dahfizz wrote: post #3
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

If you're fine with a system that rewards those who grew up in middle class and above families and punishes those that don't then I disagree but okay. But don't call that a system based on merit when you're quite transparently admitting it's not. Meritocracies are an inhuman system which, to the extent they can be realized, only happen incidentally. How many of the relatively well to do people on this board subvert t…

They address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. The whole point of a meritocracy is to be the best you can. Giving every advantage to your children that you can afford is the whole point of meritocracy. It's not "fair" but it produces peak performance, like the article says

Agreed and overall the article is very good. It is worth emphasising though that it is unfair and that environment plays a huge role in many people's success. At least some of the aristocrats knew that they were lucky and as a result had some kind of noblesse oblige. Some people at the top of the meritocracy think that because they got there on merit then they deserve as much as they can get.

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

#12

Post by svrtknst »

In my opinion, all talk of meritocracy, when applied, is irrelevant. I mean, it sounds good in principle, but in most applications, there is no simple way of determining the "best" candidate in any given situation.

Yeah, sure, we have some highly specialized environments, such as sports, where we have parameters to select from, but as much as no team has won by selecting players who are good enough, few teams if any have won by just selecting players who are the best in a narrow metric. You need leaders, you need players with specific skill, you need role players, you need people who can inspire etc.

Same when hiring for a job position - Determining who is the "best" candidate is near impossible. The best, according to which metric? Most years spent at uni? In the business? How do you control for biases that have given one candidate undeserved praise and another that has gone unrecognized? How tdo you value social factors, etc?

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

#13

Post by sjg007 »

dahfizz wrote: post #3
frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #2

If you're fine with a system that rewards those who grew up in middle class and above families and punishes those that don't then I disagree but okay. But don't call that a system based on merit when you're quite transparently admitting it's not. Meritocracies are an inhuman system which, to the extent they can be realized, only happen incidentally. How many of the relatively well to do people on this board subvert t…

They address this in the article. Meritocracy doesn't mean dropping your children in the forest and stripping all advantage from them. The whole point of a meritocracy is to be the best you can. Giving every advantage to your children that you can afford is the whole point of meritocracy. It's not "fair" but it produces peak performance, like the article says

Ironically this is not meritocracy.

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

#14

Post by sanxiyn »

Bakary wrote: post #5

The issue of meritocracy often turns semantic. Different realities can be justified with the same word depending on people's conception of justice and efficiency. The other aspect not mentioned is that a society can be meritocratic, but the peak performance that results does not necessarily lead to work that is useful to society in aggregate. I am reminded of Jeff Hammerbacher's infamous quote: "the best minds of my…

I am not sure what is ironic about the last paragraph. The point is that growth and distributioin are orthogonal concerns.

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

#15

Post by svrtknst »

kiba wrote: post #8
spacekitcat wrote: post #4

_

We do live in a meritocracy, which favor those white, middle class, mediocre males you complained about, because they got all the advantage and thus became good about it. But selecting the best had nothing with fairness or ensuring that everyone is educated.

But... favoring a certain class of people _by definition_ means that those people arent necessarily the best equipped. Being favored doesn't just mean reaching the best results due to the best circumstances, it also means being given unfair credit etc.

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

#17

Post by arnvald »

> 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 have a more meaningful impact in the long term, you are optimizing for the future.

For example, candidates who are coming from underrepresented groups can have a huge impact on kids who will find it easier to believe they can repeat such success, because someone who looks like them did it. That can unlock a huge pool of candidates who can outperform others in the future, but who would not be available if we didn't choose the n-th best candidate instead of the best one in the first place.

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

#20

Post by yutopia »

A rather vague post.

> meritocracies work so well … because they produce peak performance

Does the author have any evidence for this? Supposing that this is true, does meritocracy continue to produce optimal performance in the long run? Is the author talking about meritocracy in theory, or meritocracy as practiced? What exactly does the author think should be decided through meritocracy? (College acceptance? Hiring decisions?) Does the author have any concrete recommendations, for any domain?

Post reply on HN