4 ms·

Capitalist, so called "meritocratic", system doesn't actually value education or knowledge, it values ability to convince other people about being educated or h

by js8 9y ago

Capitalist, so called "meritocratic", system doesn't actually value education or knowledge, it values ability to convince other people about being educated or having knowledge. There is of course nothing wrong with doing one thing for years. Japanese built a successful, innovative economy just around that. It's just another form of self-deception. You have 1 year in 20 different skills, therefore sure you must be more productive than the human that has 20 years in one skill. Guess what - likely not.

manigandham 9y ago
> ...it values ability to convince other people about being educated or having knowledge. This is just life in general.
- js8 9y ago
  Yes, you're right. I actually thought about adding a paragraph that it is still in many ways the best system. I think the most valuable thing about capitalism (well, depends on exact definition, maybe better would be talking about Western societies/democracies/free markets/whatever) is that it breaks down the monopolistic hierarchical social structure that exists in most societies and replaces it, at least, with a variety of such structures.
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago
  No. Different western societies attribute quite different values to having knowledge VS having formal education VS becoming wealthy. Even more so throughout history.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Ok..? The point is whether you actually have X or can convince someone that you have X. In most cases, convincing is enough, as that means you effectively have X in regards to the person doing the judgement.
legulere 9y ago
Not all skills can be indefinitely refined and often having more than one skill can make you better in some jobs. For instance programmers often complain about managers without programming skills.
- js8 9y ago
  Yes, there is a balance in skills. But I disagree about the skill. Every skill can be refined infinitely. It can seem obvious that if somebody is expert programmer in one narrow application, he reached his "peak". It is however less obvious that a product manager of the same thing has reached the very same peak, yet the product obviously needs the work of both. There is an interesting dichotomy in thinking, which again points to the social status game. People who we deem to have low social status (e.g. blue collar workers) we relegate to this taylorist idea that they must be super-specialized, otherwise they are useless. On the other hand, people who we think should have high social status (e.g. managers) we categorize that they need to be flexible and have broad (rather than deep) skill set, and indeed, we consider being deep a disadvantage. But in reality, both sides benefit from the mix of skills, both sides often have the mix of skills (especially the productive people), and it has not much to do with their actual day-to-day jobs.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  I'm on 13 straight years in the same C# code base and I still learn things about the fine details of the platform (CLR, the language). My peers that switch from ruby to js like they change underwear can't fathom how I can be doing the same thing for years - and I can't fathom how you can be programming in a platform where you - for example - don't know the time and memoryt complexity of every call you make, and sort of "see" the underlying code under your high level abstractions. So I think the question is how refined you want your skill to be in that long tail of refinement approaching 100% but never getting there.
  - marktangotango 9y ago
    Sorry but it's really rare for someone to spend that kind of time on app and not be laughably out of date. I walk into engagements all the time and solve trivial performance issues and bugs that have befuddled the old hands for years, because they just haven't seen any variety or fought any hard bugs. Maybe you're the exception.
golergka 9y ago
> Capitalist, so called "meritocratic" And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that mythical 'capitalsim'. Do you have any knowledge, for example, of how were promotions and salary raises distributed on a typical soviet factory? Edit: since HN' genius anti-spam system prevents me from posting new comments after a couple of downvotes, I will use this comment to reply instead. (If you're annoyed at this, welcome to the club). > You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better. Let's put aside the argument that "USSR wasn't communist/socialist" (which is bullshit, but for different reasons). Let's imagine that USSR was, actually, something else - because it sure as hell wasn't capitalism. From that, we can infer that the same problem with promotion and corruption happened in vastly different economic and social systems, and, therefore, is not specific nor especially connected to the idea of capitalism. > I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not. Being a user makes you related to HN in a sense that you make up HN community - which is exactly what I was referring to. > In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more equal They certainly were - that's exactly what I hate about them and why I embrace capitalism instead.
- Asooka 9y ago
  A typical soviet factory was a completely different beast. Yes, "real socialism hasn't been tried" is a tired trope, but it's true. Soviet factories ran on promotions by corruption. How loyal are you to the party doctrine? Upper-vice-chief-inspector-of-the-inspecting-of-buttons loyal or just button-maker loyal? You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better.
- js8 9y ago
  > And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that mythical 'capitalsim'. I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not. Can't speak for Soviet, but I can somewhat speak for communist Czechoslovakia. In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more equal. I like to say that whatever was good about communist regime (you would find couple things) was mostly copied from the West in the 50s and 60s. For example, research institutions where there was a big freedom to spend time on research, without being constrained too much by grants and academic performance. (Actually the similar thing was true in the industry, because of the essentially lifetime employment.) Some used it to do good research, some used it to slack off, sure. But it certainly provided somewhat an option to spent a lifetime in one field only, if we return to the topic of the article.

by js8 9y ago

manigandham 9y ago

> ...it values ability to convince other people about being educated or having knowledge. This is just life in general.

js8 9y ago
Yes, you're right. I actually thought about adding a paragraph that it is still in many ways the best system. I think the most valuable thing about capitalism (well, depends on exact definition, maybe better would be talking about Western societies/democracies/free markets/whatever) is that it breaks down the monopolistic hierarchical social structure that exists in most societies and replaces it, at least, with a variety of such structures.
eeZah7Ux 9y ago
No. Different western societies attribute quite different values to having knowledge VS having formal education VS becoming wealthy. Even more so throughout history.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Ok..? The point is whether you actually have X or can convince someone that you have X. In most cases, convincing is enough, as that means you effectively have X in regards to the person doing the judgement.

legulere 9y ago

Not all skills can be indefinitely refined and often having more than one skill can make you better in some jobs. For instance programmers often complain about managers without programming skills.

js8 9y ago
Yes, there is a balance in skills. But I disagree about the skill. Every skill can be refined infinitely. It can seem obvious that if somebody is expert programmer in one narrow application, he reached his "peak". It is however less obvious that a product manager of the same thing has reached the very same peak, yet the product obviously needs the work of both. There is an interesting dichotomy in thinking, which again points to the social status game. People who we deem to have low social status (e.g. blue collar workers) we relegate to this taylorist idea that they must be super-specialized, otherwise they are useless. On the other hand, people who we think should have high social status (e.g. managers) we categorize that they need to be flexible and have broad (rather than deep) skill set, and indeed, we consider being deep a disadvantage. But in reality, both sides benefit from the mix of skills, both sides often have the mix of skills (especially the productive people), and it has not much to do with their actual day-to-day jobs.
alkonaut 9y ago
I'm on 13 straight years in the same C# code base and I still learn things about the fine details of the platform (CLR, the language). My peers that switch from ruby to js like they change underwear can't fathom how I can be doing the same thing for years - and I can't fathom how you can be programming in a platform where you - for example - don't know the time and memoryt complexity of every call you make, and sort of "see" the underlying code under your high level abstractions. So I think the question is how refined you want your skill to be in that long tail of refinement approaching 100% but never getting there.
- marktangotango 9y ago
  Sorry but it's really rare for someone to spend that kind of time on app and not be laughably out of date. I walk into engagements all the time and solve trivial performance issues and bugs that have befuddled the old hands for years, because they just haven't seen any variety or fought any hard bugs. Maybe you're the exception.

golergka 9y ago

> Capitalist, so called "meritocratic" And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that mythical 'capitalsim'. Do you have any knowledge, for example, of how were promotions and salary raises distributed on a typical soviet factory? Edit: since HN' genius anti-spam system prevents me from posting new comments after a couple of downvotes, I will use this comment to reply instead. (If you're annoyed at this, welcome to the club). > You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better. Let's put aside the argument that "USSR wasn't communist/socialist" (which is bullshit, but for different reasons). Let's imagine that USSR was, actually, something else - because it sure as hell wasn't capitalism. From that, we can infer that the same problem with promotion and corruption happened in vastly different economic and social systems, and, therefore, is not specific nor especially connected to the idea of capitalism. > I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not. Being a user makes you related to HN in a sense that you make up HN community - which is exactly what I was referring to. > In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more equal They certainly were - that's exactly what I hate about them and why I embrace capitalism instead.

Asooka 9y ago
A typical soviet factory was a completely different beast. Yes, "real socialism hasn't been tried" is a tired trope, but it's true. Soviet factories ran on promotions by corruption. How loyal are you to the party doctrine? Upper-vice-chief-inspector-of-the-inspecting-of-buttons loyal or just button-maker loyal? You shouldn't prop an utterly corrupt system built by perverting an impossible fantasy as proof that we can't do better.
js8 9y ago
> And again, HN continues to connect all the ills of the society to that mythical 'capitalsim'. I am not in any way related to HN (I am just a regular user), but it's a stab at the claim of some that there is "meritocracy", or that these things are somehow valued, when in fact, they are not. Can't speak for Soviet, but I can somewhat speak for communist Czechoslovakia. In many ways, the societies were less meritocratic, and in some ways more equal. I like to say that whatever was good about communist regime (you would find couple things) was mostly copied from the West in the 50s and 60s. For example, research institutions where there was a big freedom to spend time on research, without being constrained too much by grants and academic performance. (Actually the similar thing was true in the industry, because of the essentially lifetime employment.) Some used it to do good research, some used it to slack off, sure. But it certainly provided somewhat an option to spent a lifetime in one field only, if we return to the topic of the article.