4 ms·

Interesting point. The idea of a meritocracy is pretty ingrained into the tech world, and that means control over life is internal, not external. But tech is n

Interesting point. The idea of a meritocracy is pretty ingrained into the tech world, and that means control over life is internal, not external. But tech is not a meritocracy. [1] [2] Accepting that you have less control over your life may change some of your outcomes, but I doubt it would completely crush one's spirit. I've accepted that I'll never flap my arms unaided and fly like a bird. I'm not depressed because of that realization. It's a known limitation of my life, and I can live with it, and I won't spend my weekends practicing my flapping and running skills. It actually helps me focus on areas I can affect change... such as building a jetpack. Knowing which things are outside of your control should help you realize what is and is not within your ability to change, and then you can figure out how to make the most success given which variables are mutable or immutable. You mention research about one's perception can affect later economic success; I'd be very interested in a reference. [1] http://istechameritocracy.com http://istechameritocracy.com [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272646267/how-the-meritocracy-myth-affects-women-in-technology http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/02/06/272...

Karunamon 11y ago
But tech is not a meritocracy But it should be, and the issues laid out in your links detail failures to reach that ideal. We can do better. That does not mean we stop trying or abandon the ideal that you should be known for your works above all else.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  Nor did I suggest to stop striving for the ideal. But just like any other institutional problem (racism, sexism, etc), it does no good to simply ignore it while it negatively impacts you. Instead, acknowledging your current situation, and working to make it better, is key.
tomp 11y ago
> But tech is not a meritocracy. Some people say it is, others say it isn't. Neither use a lot of data in their arguments.
- magicalist 11y ago
  Some people say it is, until you ask them if tech interviewing is sane. We can't even find a tech interview process that correlates well with performance and that's just who we let in the door before they even get to rise up as their value merits. Then you add questions of if who is chosen for promotion is sane, if what products a company chooses to focus on is sane, if what products the market chooses to make popular is sane. None of those are optimal in the sense that the "best" thing wins out. Marketing (of a product or self-promotion) and being in the right place at the right time dominate each of those steps. So how on earth would you take that and get a meritocracy out the other end?
  - smm2000 11y ago
    1. I think tech interviews are sane and screen for very specific skills - ability to master topic (everyone asks the same algo questions - there is no excuse not to master them even if you do not use knowledge day to day. It's no different from learning any other domain), ability to perform under pressure and ability to feign enthusiasm (it really suck to work with smb who visibly hates his job). Lack of those skills make person less productive in corporate environment. There is some randomness but overall process works very well. 2. Being good at self-promotion is a merit. Some have it and some not. You could not define merit as just technical skills.
    - magicalist 11y ago
      > There is some randomness but overall process works very well. Not many here would agree with you, on both sides of the table. Whiteboarding skills often do not translate into ability at a job. > Being good at self-promotion is a merit. Some have it and some not. You could not define merit as just technical skills Sure, but you're starting to beg the question. All systems are meritocracies if merit is defined at being successful within that system.
  - tomp 11y ago
    The fact that the people who perform best in interviews aren't also the people who perform best on the job doesn't invalidate meritocracy; it simply means that interview environment/tasks are a poor approximation of job environment/tasks. Non-meritocracy would mean that you don't choose the people who interview the best, but instead choose people you (1) like most, or (2) have a particular skin color, or (3) have perticular interests, etc. The second part of your comment is less relevant, as I think most "tech" people would say that e.g. promotions (management), product development (marketing) and the general market dynamics are highly "non-tech". But in many of these areas, people do try to choose the best - at least as far as marketing is concerned, companies dislike wasting money and choose to promote those people/products that they expect will produce the most profit. Companies' "profit", of course, doesn't correspond to a person's "merit" ("profitcracy"?), but the basic mechanism is the same.

Karunamon 11y ago

But tech is not a meritocracy But it should be, and the issues laid out in your links detail failures to reach that ideal. We can do better. That does not mean we stop trying or abandon the ideal that you should be known for your works above all else.

karmelapple 11y ago
Nor did I suggest to stop striving for the ideal. But just like any other institutional problem (racism, sexism, etc), it does no good to simply ignore it while it negatively impacts you. Instead, acknowledging your current situation, and working to make it better, is key.

tomp 11y ago

> But tech is not a meritocracy. Some people say it is, others say it isn't. Neither use a lot of data in their arguments.

magicalist 11y ago
Some people say it is, until you ask them if tech interviewing is sane. We can't even find a tech interview process that correlates well with performance and that's just who we let in the door before they even get to rise up as their value merits. Then you add questions of if who is chosen for promotion is sane, if what products a company chooses to focus on is sane, if what products the market chooses to make popular is sane. None of those are optimal in the sense that the "best" thing wins out. Marketing (of a product or self-promotion) and being in the right place at the right time dominate each of those steps. So how on earth would you take that and get a meritocracy out the other end?
- smm2000 11y ago
  1. I think tech interviews are sane and screen for very specific skills - ability to master topic (everyone asks the same algo questions - there is no excuse not to master them even if you do not use knowledge day to day. It's no different from learning any other domain), ability to perform under pressure and ability to feign enthusiasm (it really suck to work with smb who visibly hates his job). Lack of those skills make person less productive in corporate environment. There is some randomness but overall process works very well. 2. Being good at self-promotion is a merit. Some have it and some not. You could not define merit as just technical skills.
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > There is some randomness but overall process works very well. Not many here would agree with you, on both sides of the table. Whiteboarding skills often do not translate into ability at a job. > Being good at self-promotion is a merit. Some have it and some not. You could not define merit as just technical skills Sure, but you're starting to beg the question. All systems are meritocracies if merit is defined at being successful within that system.
- tomp 11y ago
  The fact that the people who perform best in interviews aren't also the people who perform best on the job doesn't invalidate meritocracy; it simply means that interview environment/tasks are a poor approximation of job environment/tasks. Non-meritocracy would mean that you don't choose the people who interview the best, but instead choose people you (1) like most, or (2) have a particular skin color, or (3) have perticular interests, etc. The second part of your comment is less relevant, as I think most "tech" people would say that e.g. promotions (management), product development (marketing) and the general market dynamics are highly "non-tech". But in many of these areas, people do try to choose the best - at least as far as marketing is concerned, companies dislike wasting money and choose to promote those people/products that they expect will produce the most profit. Companies' "profit", of course, doesn't correspond to a person's "merit" ("profitcracy"?), but the basic mechanism is the same.