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

51–60 of 100 posts

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#51

Post by Alex3917 »

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.

If the vast majority of people applying for programming jobs can't solve it, then it qualifies as hard by definition.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#52

Post by butterfi »

evincarofautumn wrote: post #16

Even if the word has its origins in satire, a characteristic feature of human language is that it changes over time . The word “meritocracy” has been repurposed, and is now a legitimate ideal. The problem with the word is twofold: first, thinking that you live in a meritocratic society when you don’t, and second, thinking that merit is objectively measurable. The author does touch on both points, but I think it benef…

There is truthiness to what you say, thank you for embiggening the conversation.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#53

Post by adwf »

jaggederest wrote: post #46
adwf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 meritocr…

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 get the cert...

But I concede the point that the original definition can lead to a serious bias towards rewarding the certificate of accomplishment itself rather than any real accomplishments of themself.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#54

Post by Crake »

I guess that’s a little mean. Sorry, middle-class white boys. I’m not calling you dumb. I’m calling you soft.

That's really inflammatory. I'd be pretty mad if that were directed at me, not inspired to consider the guy's point (if he even had one).

I, for one, am grateful for all the magnificent things that hacker culture has brought to society. My life would be much more difficult without them. And actually, one of the things I love most about hacker culture is how open access it is. You do need a computer, but you don't need a $200,000 degree. Compare the cost of a computer and maybe some overdue library fines (minimum needs for becoming a proficient coder--maybe along with some coffee funds) vs. becoming a doctor. A lot of people can't afford 8+ years of expensive education, but a desktop or laptop is much more likely to be within reach.

I like the word meritocracy, even if the roots are satirical. As a society, we should help the people who are most suited and most interested in a certain thing become the people best trained in and responsible for working in that field. Anything else is just poor and inefficient allocation of labor capital. Do you want someone who could be a genius physicist working at target? Do you want your starbucks cashier to be performing open heart surgery on you?

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#55

Post by ynniv »

kome wrote: post #42
ynniv wrote: post #21

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…

> 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 original definition"), but not about selection based on observable skill or success (what everyone is talking about lately).

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#56

Post by jessedhillon »

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.g. by identifying and cultivating potential in individuals.]

Which is entirely defensible as a conclusion.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#57

Post by [deleted] »

Maascamp wrote: post #44
ynniv wrote: post #21

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…

The question is, who and what defines merit in a meritocracy? The article claims that those already in power do and thus it is they that control who gets to move up the ladder.

[deleted]

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#58

Post by Crake »

beatpanda wrote: post #41

Terribly, terribly sorry for the meta-comment, but I have to say, it's been thrilling lately to watch the intersection of two bubbles that are usually totally isolated — the "social justice" community and the "hacker" community — and to see the naivetes of both groups exposed, especially because both groups are composed of people who usually take themselves and their own intelligence very seriously. I work as a progr…

Honestly, I'd really rather the crazy social justice warriors stay on their infernally poorly constructed home base of tumblr. I find them really annoying.

(Surf around for 20 minutes there and you'll see what I mean. Age is a "social construct"? Come on. And no, you are not "transabled" or "transethnic" or whatever's in style this week.)

I do agree that the rise of programmers as they become rich and enter a new social group has created a very interesting class of people that I believe merits further study. Still, denigrating the efforts of intelligent people who have impacted society in a positive way just doesn't seem like sound strategy to me if you're trying to raise awareness of something.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#59

Post by imgabe »

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 example, if it did happen to be the case that 50% of programmers were women and 50% of the general population were women, you could say there was no gender bias. But, I don't think that forcing a 50% ratio of women is the right way to go about eliminating the gender bias in the programming profession. It's also possible that there could be no bias, but the proportions would still not be equivalent to those in the general population for other, unrelated, reasons.

I'm not trying to pretend that such biases don't exist. I know they do. It's important that we go about eliminating them. It's also important that we do so by eliminating their causes, not by trying to artificially create scenarios that are coincident with a solution.

It's like, a symptom of the measles is having red dots all over your skin, and the proposed solution here is to cover them up with makeup.

Re: You keep using that word "meritocracy"

#60

Post by beatpanda »

Crake wrote: post #58
beatpanda wrote: post #41

Terribly, terribly sorry for the meta-comment, but I have to say, it's been thrilling lately to watch the intersection of two bubbles that are usually totally isolated — the "social justice" community and the "hacker" community — and to see the naivetes of both groups exposed, especially because both groups are composed of people who usually take themselves and their own intelligence very seriously. I work as a progr…

Honestly, I'd really rather the crazy social justice warriors stay on their infernally poorly constructed home base of tumblr. I find them really annoying. (Surf around for 20 minutes there and you'll see what I mean. Age is a "social construct"? Come on. And no, you are not "transabled" or "transethnic" or whatever's in style this week.) I do agree that the rise of programmers as they become rich and enter a new soc…

HAHA! THERE IT IS! I've "surfed around" those discussions IRL, and believe me, the ignorance comes on strong from both directions.

(By "there it is" I'm talking about the assumption that "the social justice community" is mainly represented by a handful of Tumblogs, and dismissing decades upon decades of serious academic research as "poorly constructed", although you might have just been dissing Tumblr. Not to insult you, it's just a lack of knowledge on both sides.)

Post reply on HN