6 ms·

I am an Indian (मैं भारतीय हूं‌) but as long as there are people who put token diversity over true meritocracy, there will never be hope for the downtrodden. T

I am an Indian (मैं भारतीय हूं‌) but as long as there are people who put token diversity over true meritocracy, there will never be hope for the downtrodden. This entire thing is such a farce.

ganeshkrishnan 9y ago
Funny I thought the same. This is tech not a political rally
pcblues 9y ago
Why would the downtrodden benefit from a true meritocracy?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- threeseed 9y ago
  A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top. Of course this is naive thinking. We live in a world that harshly discriminates based on gender, race, socio economic background, wealth etc. And its human nature that if you don't see people like you rising to the top that you will think there are legitimate reasons and potentially just give up.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    My impression is that there's less actual discrimination, and more cases of people using accusations of discrimination as a weapon to compensate for lack of merit.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    > A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top. And that would be good why? See, every time there is a top there will be losers. Personally I think that's unavoidable but we could work a little harder to flatten out the landscape so that the various lotteries matter less.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      I'd say the issue you point out is orthogonal. In an area we need more smarter and skilled people, meritocracy should be the goal. But I'm with you on reducing the real-world consequences of those "lotteries" - in particular the consequences to those who lose in them.
  - jl6 9y ago
    A true meritocracy might be even harsher, because those at the bottom would still be downtrodden, but this time they would deserve it.
threeseed 9y ago
The concept of a meritocracy on issues like this is what most people think naturally makes sense. Except that study after study, and evidence after evidence has shown that over the long run it's a flawed strategy. That's why companies push for diversity on boards and in leadership positions because (a) it encourages people minorities/women/etc to strive for those positions and because (b) homogenous viewpoints are destructive.
- PrimHelios 9y ago
  If you're pushing to have unqualified people on your board simply because they're women, your company will die. Aside from that, why strive if I know I have a good chance of getting a position even without any kind of merit? Fucking hell, I want to be seen as more than just a disabled trans woman, I want people to look at the shit I've done and say "Wow, she's really awesome, let's hire her/accept her into our college", not "Wow, she's super oppressed! We can get grants if we do nice things for her!". Hiring me/accepting me based on "diversity" is the most patronizing thing you can fucking do. I don't need your help because I'm a minority, and viewing me as just a trans person instead of viewing me as a normal candidate is breaking me down to nothing but my identity, and that's transphobic as fuck.
  - threeseed 9y ago
    a) I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. b) Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today. And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of the board and encouraging more diverse people to join the SLTs. c) Not sure what that rant at the end has to do with anything.
    - voice_of_reason 9y ago
      Your virtue signaling feat has apparently failed
      - kybernetikos 9y ago
wand3r 9y ago
Well Indians are over represented in tech so you're views don't matter. Double because you're male. But yes, rather rediculous. Totally agree. It's like survelience and terrorism. Just a stupid excuse to gain Goodwill w/ some groups and avoid a different problem they don't want to deal with. Hope you weren't offended, I just wanted to make a point. Of course your views matter
- TokenDiversity 9y ago
  No I got you, you're saying majority is an automatic disqualification which is ridiculous but happens today nevertheless.
  - hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
    The interesting thing is that this change really happened in the past 10 or 15 years or so. That is, the phrase "under-represented minority" is relatively new, and basically came about because someone decided Indians and East Asians "don't count" anymore when it comes to diversity because we've got too many of them. I consider myself liberal, but I feel this business of grading everyone by their race and sex is the exact antithesis of liberal ideals. What happened to MLK's ideas of not being judged by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character? Yes, I understand that things like subconscious bias and privilege can complicate this ideal, but at the end of the day, we shouldn't be surprised that anyone gets angry when they are told "Sorry, we don't want anymore of your race/sex, we've already got too many of your kind."
- catenthusiast 9y ago
  *your
  - huffmsa 9y ago
    No, it's you're. Conjugation of "you are". As in > No I get you, YOU ARE saying.
    - 9y ago
keerthiko 9y ago
What is needed isn't a "true" meritocracy -- evaluating merit of output independent of all other factors--, but affirmative action, to uplift and improve the overall quality. This action by ElectronConf is an attempt at affirmative action, but winds up being the opposite. Affirmative action is where you reach out, support and encourage those that represent the diversity you want. Meanwhile this (as communicated here) is just throwing up their hands and waiting for the diversity issue to resolve itself, at the cost of coming off really unfair to the people currently represented. Really weird.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

ganeshkrishnan 9y ago

Funny I thought the same. This is tech not a political rally

pcblues 9y ago

Why would the downtrodden benefit from a true meritocracy?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
threeseed 9y ago
A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top. Of course this is naive thinking. We live in a world that harshly discriminates based on gender, race, socio economic background, wealth etc. And its human nature that if you don't see people like you rising to the top that you will think there are legitimate reasons and potentially just give up.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  My impression is that there's less actual discrimination, and more cases of people using accusations of discrimination as a weapon to compensate for lack of merit.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > A true meritocracy would mean anyone with intelligence, talent and creativity would rise to the top. And that would be good why? See, every time there is a top there will be losers. Personally I think that's unavoidable but we could work a little harder to flatten out the landscape so that the various lotteries matter less.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    I'd say the issue you point out is orthogonal. In an area we need more smarter and skilled people, meritocracy should be the goal. But I'm with you on reducing the real-world consequences of those "lotteries" - in particular the consequences to those who lose in them.
- jl6 9y ago
  A true meritocracy might be even harsher, because those at the bottom would still be downtrodden, but this time they would deserve it.

threeseed 9y ago

The concept of a meritocracy on issues like this is what most people think naturally makes sense. Except that study after study, and evidence after evidence has shown that over the long run it's a flawed strategy. That's why companies push for diversity on boards and in leadership positions because (a) it encourages people minorities/women/etc to strive for those positions and because (b) homogenous viewpoints are destructive.

PrimHelios 9y ago
If you're pushing to have unqualified people on your board simply because they're women, your company will die. Aside from that, why strive if I know I have a good chance of getting a position even without any kind of merit? Fucking hell, I want to be seen as more than just a disabled trans woman, I want people to look at the shit I've done and say "Wow, she's really awesome, let's hire her/accept her into our college", not "Wow, she's super oppressed! We can get grants if we do nice things for her!". Hiring me/accepting me based on "diversity" is the most patronizing thing you can fucking do. I don't need your help because I'm a minority, and viewing me as just a trans person instead of viewing me as a normal candidate is breaking me down to nothing but my identity, and that's transphobic as fuck.
- threeseed 9y ago
  a) I never said anything about advocating for unqualified people. b) Almost all Fortune 1000+ companies are doing this today. And it's been conclusively shown to be improving the quality and strength of the board and encouraging more diverse people to join the SLTs. c) Not sure what that rant at the end has to do with anything.
  - voice_of_reason 9y ago
    Your virtue signaling feat has apparently failed
    - kybernetikos 9y ago

wand3r 9y ago

Well Indians are over represented in tech so you're views don't matter. Double because you're male. But yes, rather rediculous. Totally agree. It's like survelience and terrorism. Just a stupid excuse to gain Goodwill w/ some groups and avoid a different problem they don't want to deal with. Hope you weren't offended, I just wanted to make a point. Of course your views matter

TokenDiversity 9y ago
No I got you, you're saying majority is an automatic disqualification which is ridiculous but happens today nevertheless.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  The interesting thing is that this change really happened in the past 10 or 15 years or so. That is, the phrase "under-represented minority" is relatively new, and basically came about because someone decided Indians and East Asians "don't count" anymore when it comes to diversity because we've got too many of them. I consider myself liberal, but I feel this business of grading everyone by their race and sex is the exact antithesis of liberal ideals. What happened to MLK's ideas of not being judged by the color of your skin, but by the content of your character? Yes, I understand that things like subconscious bias and privilege can complicate this ideal, but at the end of the day, we shouldn't be surprised that anyone gets angry when they are told "Sorry, we don't want anymore of your race/sex, we've already got too many of your kind."
catenthusiast 9y ago
*your
- huffmsa 9y ago
  No, it's you're. Conjugation of "you are". As in > No I get you, YOU ARE saying.
  - 9y ago

keerthiko 9y ago

What is needed isn't a "true" meritocracy -- evaluating merit of output independent of all other factors--, but affirmative action, to uplift and improve the overall quality. This action by ElectronConf is an attempt at affirmative action, but winds up being the opposite. Affirmative action is where you reach out, support and encourage those that represent the diversity you want. Meanwhile this (as communicated here) is just throwing up their hands and waiting for the diversity issue to resolve itself, at the cost of coming off really unfair to the people currently represented. Really weird.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]