Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quote Meritocracy Unquote

braythwayt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 127 posts

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#91

Post by yummyfajitas »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #86
raganwald wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those at the bottom deserve to be there. I didn't put this in the article, but a few hours later I think this is an interesting point, thank you. If the post's proposition is correct and that "meritocracy" is all about minimal false positives, then we can also agree that there are people at the bottom who are qualified, but that's a cost of setting up a system optimized for minimizing false positives. I know from man…

> This isn't a problem until people start assuming that anyone who wasn't hired is terrible or doesn't deserve to work. This, indeed, is where things get very dicey. Meritocracy tends to converge on winner-takes-all markets, which result in an extreme inequality of outcomes and all the socioeconomic harms that entails.

How does meritocracy converge to winner-take-all?

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#92

Post by crusso »

tokenadult wrote: post #12

A very thoughtful post. I especially like the discussion of the difference between sensitivity and specificity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivity_and_specificity (the post uses other words) or in other words the difference between type I and type II errors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors There are so many interesting ways to think about this. Some of us may have Venn diagrams in our mind…

if only all young learners had full opportunity to develop their abilities

The irony here being that our public education system operates in a way that strictly opposes any sort of "meritocracy". As a result, we completely fail to help young learners develop their abilities... wash, rinse, repeat.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#93

Post by crusso »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #91
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a problem until people start assuming that anyone who wasn't hired is terrible or doesn't deserve to work. This, indeed, is where things get very dicey. Meritocracy tends to converge on winner-takes-all markets, which result in an extreme inequality of outcomes and all the socioeconomic harms that entails.

How does meritocracy converge to winner-take-all?

As a follow-up: if you aren't using some sort of system to push merit to the top of the chain, what system ARE you using? Seniority? Random choice?

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#94

Post by Jare »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #91
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't a problem until people start assuming that anyone who wasn't hired is terrible or doesn't deserve to work. This, indeed, is where things get very dicey. Meritocracy tends to converge on winner-takes-all markets, which result in an extreme inequality of outcomes and all the socioeconomic harms that entails.

How does meritocracy converge to winner-take-all?

Why wouldn't it? In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor.

Physical limits and other regulations even things out but, particularly in computer and digital products and services, physical limitations are less and less important.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#95

Post by return0 »

davekinkead wrote: post #33

Reminds me of a good talk by Alain de Botton highlighting the nasty side of believing we live in a meritocracy whilst ignoring the role of chance. http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_ph...

That's a great talk. Meritocracy doesn't really exist, but it's good to strive for it.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#96

Post by yummyfajitas »

Jare wrote: post #94
yummyfajitas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does meritocracy converge to winner-take-all?

Why wouldn't it? In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor. Physical limits and other regulations even things out but, particularly in computer and digital products and services, physical limitations are less and less important.

In terms of pure merit, NOBODY deserves ANY prize except THE single best competitor.

Could you explain this claim?

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#97

Post by EthanHeilman »

scarmig wrote: post #61
EthanHeilman wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting Rothbard is actually a fascist, like a real fascist of the old school. He just usually dresses his fascism up in the pretty colors of capitalism but he choose not to do so in the following essay in which he: * "dog whistles" racism and sexism, * advocates a police state beyond the rule of law "Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they ar…

I have plenty of issues with Rothbard... but, a fascist? His capitalism is a very different capitalism than what most of us would associate with the word capitalism. Even your quote of requiring police to be liable for their faults isn't something that any police force in the United States is subject to. The key to improving liberty is trying to find allies, not trying to find enemies.

>Even your quote of requiring police to be liable for their faults isn't something that any police force in the United States is subject to.

Police are still subject to the law at least in theory in the US and in actual practice police are charged with crimes on a regular basis. Police in the US are not allowed to be "administer instant punishment". Notice that he is saying "unleash" as in decrease the checks against police abuses. He is writing this directly after the Rodney King beatings in support of the presidential bid of a White Supremacists.

Read his essay, it is a laundry list of fascist polices.

With allies like him you don't need enemies.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#98

Post by DannyBee »

chmike wrote: post #77
raganwald wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those at the bottom deserve to be there. I didn't put this in the article, but a few hours later I think this is an interesting point, thank you. If the post's proposition is correct and that "meritocracy" is all about minimal false positives, then we can also agree that there are people at the bottom who are qualified, but that's a cost of setting up a system optimized for minimizing false positives. I know from man…

I disagree because this predicate doesn't take in account the backpressure of mediocracy. A mediocracy is when mostly incompetent people are dominating and pushing back people with merit to preserve their domination, culture, ... The academic example is Galileo Galilei. US citizen should also look at the history of their own country and the way they handled black people. "If they were at the bottom (slaves) it's beca…

While the Galileo example is interesting, the "black people" one is not. The application of actual force (IE whipping people, beating them, lynching them, etc) is not really something normally applied in business place itself (though there are businesses that seem to apply force to the external environment in order to make their business dominate). For example, I can't think of any business that is having gladiator style fights to the death whose real purpose is to keep the mail room employees killing each other instead of killing the CEO. Nor can I think of a business where the mail room employees are literally being beaten or lynched in an attempt by the CEOs to keep them down.

A better example of your "mediocracy", would, IMHO, be a workplace where the CEO is grooming their child (or execs play favorites, etc) to take over despite the fact that the mail room guy may be a better choice.

However, it's not clear why in this model, after the child takes over, the business wouldn't fail relative to other, better businesses if the child is really that mediocre at it.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#99

Post by nathan_long »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #71
spikels wrote: post #20

This is a strawman argument. Forget about Donald Trump as some model of success. Despite his head start he almost went bankrupt - twice. He is much less respected as a real estate developer in the world of real estate than you think. His success has been in PR and celebrity. There are thousands real estate investors who actually are good at it and started with nothing (e.g. Sam Zell). Don't like "meritocracy" then ho…

Meritocracy would be a much better way to pick our leaders than we do today.

Tell me who judges merit and I'll tell you who runs your government.

Re: Quote Meritocracy Unquote

#100

Post by raganwald »

DannyBee wrote: post #98
chmike wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree because this predicate doesn't take in account the backpressure of mediocracy. A mediocracy is when mostly incompetent people are dominating and pushing back people with merit to preserve their domination, culture, ... The academic example is Galileo Galilei. US citizen should also look at the history of their own country and the way they handled black people. "If they were at the bottom (slaves) it's beca…

While the Galileo example is interesting, the "black people" one is not. The application of actual force (IE whipping people, beating them, lynching them, etc) is not really something normally applied in business place itself (though there are businesses that seem to apply force to the external environment in order to make their business dominate ). For example, I can't think of any business that is having gladiator…

You mean like Microsoft, where Ballmer is the CEO because he and Gates control enough of the stock and the board that is supposed to oversee him?

And where they would absolutely be failing were it not for the "Windows Tax."

Post reply on HN