4 ms·
The question troubles me much more than the answer. Whether for a job position or college application acceptance,why is it ok to practice anything short of pur
by badrabbit 9y ago
The question troubles me much more than the answer.
Whether for a job position or college application acceptance,why is it ok to practice anything short of pure meritocracy?
When a person attends a school or works at a company,why is that person seen as an ambassador and representative of a larger group as opposed to an individual representing himself or herself?
If a person can demonstrate their ability to meet or exceed the demands of a job or their ability to succeed academically at the school of choice,why consider anything else? In case of multiple good candidates,pick the one that is most compatible with the company or school or whichever candidate scores best on additional testing.
I don't care what $somegroup tend to be good at or bad at. I am not hiring a group,I am hiring an individual.
If a person,irrespective of gender, can test better than other candidates,they should get a job.
I assure you fully,I do not speak as a member of some "priviledged group", quite the contrary. However, I despise artificial equality.
The argument of the emancipation and civil rights movement both were founded on the fact that all people are created equal. It means people should not be artificially stopped from participating in public activities and opportunities because they are somehow thought of as "naturally inferior".
Test everyone equally (their merit for the opportunity and character as individuals) and do not artificially add or deduct points based on their membership to some group.
If you treat,(for example) a woman in a special way - only because of her gender, you are being a sexist. The end does not justify the means,it does not matter if in the end that woman is better off(in your opinion). You are still being a sexist.
The focus shouldn't be on measuring a certain group's representation at a company or school. The focus should be in enforcing strict meritocracy and auditing for any controls that might inhibit any individual from succeeding or progressing because of their membership to a group.
Lastly,for downvotes' sake - a person's political affiliation or social views are frequently used to artificially " keep out" individuals out of silicon valley companies. In my opinion that is unjust and should be corrected. For example, a software engineer's political views,national origin,ethnicity,gender,what sports team he likes or if he voted for $politician is irrelevant to being a good software engineer. If he or she demonstrates their superior technical ability and ability to get along with your team,hire them.
Look back at history and see how much evil could have been avoided if people did what was right-but-inconvenient. Nothing good ever comes out of injustice.
- racer-v 9y agoWhat was the question?
- jrs95 9y agoPeople are doing what feels good and what makes them look good. Social incentives have been highly politicized, so in many environments the sort of behavior you're talking about is seen as the highest virtue. Meritocracy or traditional liberal values are no longer the priority.
- spamizbad 9y agoWas meritocracy ever the priority? To my knowledge, at least the idyllic way this site sees it, meritocracy has never been in practice. It's merely been an ideal "strived" for, the same way a Christian may strive to live free of sin. What likely happened: We came the realization that what we consider "merit" is highly subjective and may not even correlate with better outcomes. Once that sank in, all bets were off.
- jrs95 9y agoIt was definitely never achieved, but at least people gave a shit about it. Thats no longer the case, and it's not in the mainstream monoculture that people seem to be convinced is somehow anti-establishment.
- fromthesky 9y agoThe principle of meritocracy is not an ethical program to reward the most meritorious (and hence deserving) people. The 17th-century liberal conception of meritocracy is to assign the most capable people to positions where they can have the most effect - as opposed to the ancien regime system where administrative duties were allocated on a hereditary basis. So I don't think "merit" in this sense is totally subjective - it's just a representation of our best estimate of who can do the best job in any given function.
- torstenvl 9y agoBecause not everyone views the world the same way that you do; some people discriminate, and some even do so in hiring and other contexts where it's unlawful. Only thing is, that is enormously hard to tell in any particular case, especially when (as in hiring) the decision is not well-documented. Statistical analysis is helpful in those circumstances. But you can't do that unless you check what happens by random chance in your control group.