6 ms·

> Without concrete and public metrics of "merit", it becomes a buzzword for reinforcing the biases (conscious or not) of the evaluators. I wish we could have d

by eqdw 9y ago

> Without concrete and public metrics of "merit", it becomes a buzzword for reinforcing the biases (conscious or not) of the evaluators. I wish we could have discussions like this in the wider community without people going knee-jerk against the idea of it, itself. I'd be willing to accept that a lot of companies here are nepotistic. I'd even be willing to accept that they cloak their nepotism in the rhetoric of meritocracy. But I have to draw the line at people opposing the idea itself. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could even hold that position. Don't you want the best people, at least in principle? If people were more nuanced in these things we could hold discussions like "yes, this is a great ideal, but it gets corrupted. The problem is the corruption, not the ideal"

Jare 9y ago
If the idea sounds great and is arguably great on all accounts, but in practice proves to not work, time and time again, perhaps the idea needs to be parked until the environment is fixed. Otherwise, arguing about it becomes a distraction while, in its corrupted form, the idea actively damages the things it should be improving. So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on.
- problems 9y ago
  > So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on. That's a terrible plan because it blanket dismisses a rational and widely accepted idea without explaining why or even forcing you to think about it. How about you at least take the courtesy to explain why you're dismissing something that at face value provides a better solution than what you're suggesting. Even with its problems, you need to explain why your suggested solution is better than meritocracy. I personally at least am yet to see a better alternative to meritocracy, despite its definite problems. In my opinion all proposed alternatives seem to introduce more unfairness and problems of their own.
  - eqdw 9y ago
    +1. Parent comment's argument is not great because, among other things, the exact same argument could be made right back at them. Amongst almost everybody I know, "meritocracy" still means it's dictionary definition. If the definition is contested, I don't understand why other peoples' definitions of it take priority over the official one
  - Jare 9y ago
    Ok so apparently my attempt to offer an alternative pov for people who I believed did not grasp the original, is getting me some downvotes. Let me just link to what she has said about meritocracy in the context of her Code of Conduct: http://contributor-covenant.org/ http://contributor-covenant.org/ "Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance. Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with "merit" are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people. (For more critical analysis of meritocracy, refer to this entry on the Geek Feminism wiki.) An easy way to begin addressing this problem is to be overt in our openness, welcoming all people to contribute, and pledging in return to value them as human beings and to foster an atmosphere of kindness, cooperation, and understanding." AFAIK the word "merit" doesn't appear at all in the actual Code of Conduct.
    - problems 9y ago
      But what's her alternative proposal - that we say, accept pull requests from someone because of their race or sex without critiquing at all? Based on the way she responded to some stuff in this job... maybe that's actually what she wants, but it's not what I want and it sounds like a terrible idea in general. Meritocracy is still the best we have. It may be flawed, yes, but there exists no superior alternative. It's likely possible to get away with a few minor tweaks - but there doesn't seem to be anyone looking into what exactly those could be, instead they shit on the concept without providing any viable alternative. It seems like many of the things she and others mention are not necessarily bias in individuals in the workplace, but "resources, free time, life experiences" - which seem much easier to attack and if done fully I think could help make up for other biases too. I think the best bet honestly is stuff like Black Girls Code where they try to get people up to speed in order to compete successfully by merit.
drewrv 9y ago
Your comment reminds me of a story I heard on NPR a while back, about an effort to reclaim the word "jihad". Basically, jihad is a concept of struggling or striving for something worthwhile but most Americans only hear the word coming from the mouths of horrible people. http://www.wnyc.org/story/268598-struggle-reclaim-word-jihad/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/268598-struggle-reclaim-word-jihad... I think the word meritocracy is in a similar situation. It's an interesting and useful concept, but the word tends to get thrown around by people you probably don't want to get associated with or confused with, so if you want to be heard and understood maybe try a different word.
kybernetikos 9y ago
> Don't you want the best people, at least in principle? Maybe not. In many situations you want the best team, and the best team is not necessarily the team that has the most top flight individual contributors. The best teams I've been on seem stronger than the sum of their individual members, and I've definitely been on teams I rate less highly that had some very strong individual contributors. Along these lines, I found this article interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak...
- ralfd 9y ago
  A bombshell last week was that an influential study didnt replicate: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417714422?journalCode=asra http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417714422...
- eqdw 9y ago
  Word games. "Best people" can mean the best team. I mean like honestly, if you don't care _in principle_ about the quality of your staff, how are you deciding who to hire?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Then define "Best". The problem is, you can't come up with an objective metric for it.
    - jdbernard 9y ago
      I can't create a comprehensive definition for it, but I can identify many components that are objective and purely technical in nature: * Able to clearly communicate technical concepts. Evidenced by seeing displaying in wiring logical ordering of thought, separation of complex pieces into smaller, less complicated, and clearly delineated pieces, effective and actuate command of technical vocabulary. * Able to code. Evidenced by watching them code. * Familiarity with the data structures and algorithmic approaches native to the problem domain. Evidenced by discussion around that domain, perhaps a psuedo-code exercise with a relevant problem paired with discussion of design tradeoffs of different approaches. * Understanding of the cross-cutting concerns related to maintainable software: testing, documentation, modularity, etc. Evidenced by Socratic discussion of said topics. "Given this problem common to sustainable software development, what would you do/have you done?" I still believe in the value of meritocracy. Actually pursuing meritocracy solves a lot of the inclusivity problems we think we have. The problem is that people are inherently biased and unless we are purposeful in accounting for these biases it is easy to weave then into any system you design, no matter what the name or started goals. Doesn't change the value of an actual meritocracy. Just highlights one of the challenges of being human.
tomgp 9y ago
Fun fact: The original intent of the word `meritocracy` was satirical so it's connotations were intended to be closer to those of the OP than those which current defenders of the terms ascribe to it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

by eqdw 9y ago

Jare 9y ago

If the idea sounds great and is arguably great on all accounts, but in practice proves to not work, time and time again, perhaps the idea needs to be parked until the environment is fixed. Otherwise, arguing about it becomes a distraction while, in its corrupted form, the idea actively damages the things it should be improving. So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on.

problems 9y ago
> So you just say "don't do <<idea>>" and, rather than expand and qualify the statement with a paragraph like the above, you just move on to the actual topic you want to focus on. That's a terrible plan because it blanket dismisses a rational and widely accepted idea without explaining why or even forcing you to think about it. How about you at least take the courtesy to explain why you're dismissing something that at face value provides a better solution than what you're suggesting. Even with its problems, you need to explain why your suggested solution is better than meritocracy. I personally at least am yet to see a better alternative to meritocracy, despite its definite problems. In my opinion all proposed alternatives seem to introduce more unfairness and problems of their own.
- eqdw 9y ago
  +1. Parent comment's argument is not great because, among other things, the exact same argument could be made right back at them. Amongst almost everybody I know, "meritocracy" still means it's dictionary definition. If the definition is contested, I don't understand why other peoples' definitions of it take priority over the official one
- Jare 9y ago
  Ok so apparently my attempt to offer an alternative pov for people who I believed did not grasp the original, is getting me some downvotes. Let me just link to what she has said about meritocracy in the context of her Code of Conduct: http://contributor-covenant.org/ http://contributor-covenant.org/ "Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance. Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with "merit" are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people. (For more critical analysis of meritocracy, refer to this entry on the Geek Feminism wiki.) An easy way to begin addressing this problem is to be overt in our openness, welcoming all people to contribute, and pledging in return to value them as human beings and to foster an atmosphere of kindness, cooperation, and understanding." AFAIK the word "merit" doesn't appear at all in the actual Code of Conduct.
  - problems 9y ago
    But what's her alternative proposal - that we say, accept pull requests from someone because of their race or sex without critiquing at all? Based on the way she responded to some stuff in this job... maybe that's actually what she wants, but it's not what I want and it sounds like a terrible idea in general. Meritocracy is still the best we have. It may be flawed, yes, but there exists no superior alternative. It's likely possible to get away with a few minor tweaks - but there doesn't seem to be anyone looking into what exactly those could be, instead they shit on the concept without providing any viable alternative. It seems like many of the things she and others mention are not necessarily bias in individuals in the workplace, but "resources, free time, life experiences" - which seem much easier to attack and if done fully I think could help make up for other biases too. I think the best bet honestly is stuff like Black Girls Code where they try to get people up to speed in order to compete successfully by merit.

drewrv 9y ago

Your comment reminds me of a story I heard on NPR a while back, about an effort to reclaim the word "jihad". Basically, jihad is a concept of struggling or striving for something worthwhile but most Americans only hear the word coming from the mouths of horrible people. http://www.wnyc.org/story/268598-struggle-reclaim-word-jihad/ http://www.wnyc.org/story/268598-struggle-reclaim-word-jihad... I think the word meritocracy is in a similar situation. It's an interesting and useful concept, but the word tends to get thrown around by people you probably don't want to get associated with or confused with, so if you want to be heard and understood maybe try a different word.

kybernetikos 9y ago

> Don't you want the best people, at least in principle? Maybe not. In many situations you want the best team, and the best team is not necessarily the team that has the most top flight individual contributors. The best teams I've been on seem stronger than the sum of their individual members, and I've definitely been on teams I rate less highly that had some very strong individual contributors. Along these lines, I found this article interesting: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-makes-us-smarter/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-diversity-mak...

ralfd 9y ago
A bombshell last week was that an influential study didnt replicate: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417714422?journalCode=asra http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122417714422...
eqdw 9y ago
Word games. "Best people" can mean the best team. I mean like honestly, if you don't care _in principle_ about the quality of your staff, how are you deciding who to hire?
- s73ver 9y ago
  Then define "Best". The problem is, you can't come up with an objective metric for it.
  - jdbernard 9y ago
    I can't create a comprehensive definition for it, but I can identify many components that are objective and purely technical in nature: * Able to clearly communicate technical concepts. Evidenced by seeing displaying in wiring logical ordering of thought, separation of complex pieces into smaller, less complicated, and clearly delineated pieces, effective and actuate command of technical vocabulary. * Able to code. Evidenced by watching them code. * Familiarity with the data structures and algorithmic approaches native to the problem domain. Evidenced by discussion around that domain, perhaps a psuedo-code exercise with a relevant problem paired with discussion of design tradeoffs of different approaches. * Understanding of the cross-cutting concerns related to maintainable software: testing, documentation, modularity, etc. Evidenced by Socratic discussion of said topics. "Given this problem common to sustainable software development, what would you do/have you done?" I still believe in the value of meritocracy. Actually pursuing meritocracy solves a lot of the inclusivity problems we think we have. The problem is that people are inherently biased and unless we are purposeful in accounting for these biases it is easy to weave then into any system you design, no matter what the name or started goals. Doesn't change the value of an actual meritocracy. Just highlights one of the challenges of being human.

tomgp 9y ago

Fun fact: The original intent of the word `meritocracy` was satirical so it's connotations were intended to be closer to those of the OP than those which current defenders of the terms ascribe to it. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment