4 ms·

So then a meritocracy is the solution -- and putting measures in place to ensure that irrelevant information is withheld from decision makers is proven (at leas

by stray 11y ago

So then a meritocracy is the solution -- and putting measures in place to ensure that irrelevant information is withheld from decision makers is proven (at least in orchestras) to result in more equitable outcomes.

DanBC 11y ago
A true meritocracy is hard to achieve, and it's only a partial solution to a narrow part of the problem. An orchestra putting up screens only fixes the problem for people who manage to get to audition; you still need to fix the conservatories, and the schools, so that you get enough people to get to audition. And then once a person's got in you need to recognise that some people are going to work less hours - women may have children; someone with caring responsibilities may need to attend hospital with their loved one; someone with a disability may need to attend treatment for themselves. Some people see this as merit (time off means less merit), others see it as irrelevant information. Sure, if you can achieve meritocracy it's probably a good thing. But you need to be aware that very often when people say "this is a meritocracy" they mean "we are subject to cognitive bias, but don't recognise that, and haven't taken any steps to address it".
- johnvic 11y ago
  You seem to be making the same mistake than people who say democracy isn't the best system and yet you fail to understand that is the best system we have so far. A meritocracy in tech would be the same case, its not perfect but it would be far better than the current system were talented but socially unskilled coders from any group are at a disadvantage.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Maybe. But I think you're not realising that when people say "meritocracy" they almost always use that to say their hiring practices do not exclude people who aren't young white men with not disability, when in fact trivial examination of their practices reveal plenty of exclusion. People claim their system is a meritocracy when it clearly isn't, and so now the term is poisoned.

by stray 11y ago

DanBC 11y ago

A true meritocracy is hard to achieve, and it's only a partial solution to a narrow part of the problem. An orchestra putting up screens only fixes the problem for people who manage to get to audition; you still need to fix the conservatories, and the schools, so that you get enough people to get to audition. And then once a person's got in you need to recognise that some people are going to work less hours - women may have children; someone with caring responsibilities may need to attend hospital with their loved one; someone with a disability may need to attend treatment for themselves. Some people see this as merit (time off means less merit), others see it as irrelevant information. Sure, if you can achieve meritocracy it's probably a good thing. But you need to be aware that very often when people say "this is a meritocracy" they mean "we are subject to cognitive bias, but don't recognise that, and haven't taken any steps to address it".

johnvic 11y ago
You seem to be making the same mistake than people who say democracy isn't the best system and yet you fail to understand that is the best system we have so far. A meritocracy in tech would be the same case, its not perfect but it would be far better than the current system were talented but socially unskilled coders from any group are at a disadvantage.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Maybe. But I think you're not realising that when people say "meritocracy" they almost always use that to say their hiring practices do not exclude people who aren't young white men with not disability, when in fact trivial examination of their practices reveal plenty of exclusion. People claim their system is a meritocracy when it clearly isn't, and so now the term is poisoned.