Quote Meritocracy Unquote • Hacker News Board

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#121

Post by chrischen » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 5:28 AM UTC

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #114

chrischen wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) If sexual preferences can be genetically predisposed or even predetermined, then sexual preferences can be selected for through evolution as well. This means that if giant butt feathers are destructive towards actual survival, then all the female peacocks sexually selecting for this otherwise useless trait are disadvantaging their offspring and every peacock in on this giant butt feather thing will be disadvantage…

But until that butt-feather-loving predator comes along, the definition of merit continues to be how big a feather you have sticking out of your butt. It is just that the definitions change once in a while. Nothing bad about that, but nothing good either.

Yes the definition is continuously changing.

A meritocratic society must still constantly issue its merit accordingly though.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#122

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 5:57 AM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #119

jacques_chester wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that you're taking what is and then applying the label "meritocracy" to it. But the world itself has no moral content, it's humans who create and apply it. Meritocracy is essentially a statement that people are rewarded according to their merits, whatever those might be. It carries baggage in the form of an unstated moral component riding shotgun. If you ask people whether "meritocracy" is the same as "na…

I'm confused about what we're talking about now. My definition of meritocracy has no moral content either. I'm not saying meritocracy is the same as natural selection. Meritocracy is the system which aligns itself with natural selection. Merit is assigned by humans, and if assigned perfectly well it should align with natural selection. However, humans are error prone and therefore can never create a completely merito…

And now we're back to circular logic.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#123

Post by ucee054 » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 5:28 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #120

ucee054 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, merit is deserving to live tomorrow when conditions change . Your peacock with the giant butt-feathers from the other post is not meritorious but lucky that the butt-feather-eating predator hasn't shown up yet . And your peahen that chooses to mate with the peacock with the giant butt-feathers, rather than the one that can fight off predators, is stupid . Take a look around and you'll see the universe is not rule…

> Your peacock with the giant butt-feathers from the other post is not meritorious but lucky that the butt-feather-eating predator hasn't shown up yet. I never said it was meritorious. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. It's probably going to die off because it doesn't deserve to live, assuming giant butt feathers have no real purpose. > And your peahen that chooses to mate with the peacock with the giant butt-feather…

You need to watch Idiocracy

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#124

Post by Crake » Wed, Apr 03, 2013, 11:16 PM UTC

JoachimSchipper wrote: post #64

CleanedStar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no clue how people who don't understand Marxian political economy can understand things like the huge dot-com bubble in the late 1990s, and then the crash. Or the (sub-prime) real estate bubble. Or how the finance sector is growing, in GDP percentage wise and in power, relative to the economy which produces real commodities. Then again, according to polls (and my experience), the majority of Americans believe…

> Then again, (...) [o]ver 70% [of Americans] believe in "God, Heaven, the resurrection of Christ, survival of the soul after death, miracles, the virgin birth, the devil and hell". If blindness to the way the world really works is so overwhelming with these fantasies, (...) There is a way to phrase this sentiment without alienating quite as many decent people. Try to find it next time. (I, too, am an atheist; but I…

I personally do not really mind "alienating" the "earth is 5,000 years old" crowd by not respecting their complete and total disrespect for science and logic.

If your wife told you that she was pregnant, but it wasn't your kid--would you believe her if she said the sperm just sort of came out of nowhere? Or would you say that it's not how conception (or marital faithfulness) actually works?

(note: that's a general non-specific "your" up there, which does not refer to an actual wife, who if you have one I do not mean to in any way impugn)

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#125

Post by chrischen » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 9:43 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #122

chrischen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused about what we're talking about now. My definition of meritocracy has no moral content either. I'm not saying meritocracy is the same as natural selection. Meritocracy is the system which aligns itself with natural selection. Merit is assigned by humans, and if assigned perfectly well it should align with natural selection. However, humans are error prone and therefore can never create a completely merito…

And now we're back to circular logic.

I'm not using meritocracy to define meritocracy. I'm reframing the definition of meritocracy so that saying "creating" meritocracy is a moot concept because meritocracy is not created.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#126

Post by yuhong » Thu, Apr 04, 2013, 11:51 PM UTC

mindcrime wrote: post #35

rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All the positions above a certain grade need a college degree, and often an advanced degree. And often an advanced degree from a particular set of schools followed by work experience from a particular set of institutions. With the rise of a "professional manager" class, many (most?) companies prefer to recruit their executives not from within, but from places like McKinsey, etc. Now don't get me wrong--these are sm…

And often an advanced degree from a particular set of schools followed by work experience from a particular set of institutions. With the rise of a "professional manager" class, many (most?) companies prefer to recruit their executives not from within, but from places like McKinsey, etc. When I hear this, I can't help but wonder if the poster is taking an overly narrow view of the "world of companies out there that o…

Of course that does not make it any more a good idea.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#127

Post by chrischen » Fri, Apr 05, 2013, 8:30 AM UTC

ucee054 wrote: post #123

chrischen wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your peacock with the giant butt-feathers from the other post is not meritorious but lucky that the butt-feather-eating predator hasn't shown up yet. I never said it was meritorious. In fact, I'm saying the opposite. It's probably going to die off because it doesn't deserve to live, assuming giant butt feathers have no real purpose. > And your peahen that chooses to mate with the peacock with the giant butt-feather…

You need to watch Idiocracy

That's just a movie. Actual evidence has shown that IQs have increased over time.

And if in fact people are getting dumber, then there must be something about that which makes it... preferable, which means you either have to re-evaluate what dumb means or open your mind to the fact that maybe what you or I think is "smart" might not be good or desirable.