6 ms·

Being vulgar not makes it more honest in my book. Also, on one hand he tries to sell cooking as a meritocracy, on the other he says cooking is not for fat and o

by a_imho 8y ago

Being vulgar not makes it more honest in my book. Also, on one hand he tries to sell cooking as a meritocracy, on the other he says cooking is not for fat and old people and btw it is full of nepotism. Sounds dishonest to me.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> Also, on one hand he tries to sell cooking as a meritocracy, on the other he says cooking is not for fat and old people and btw it is full of nepotism. It's completely consistent. From the description, in this job if you're overweight, or slow, or stubborn, or have chronic illness, or otherwise can't handle hard physical work, you're not suitable for the job. "Meritocracy" doesn't mean "judging only by how smart someone is", but "judging by how well one can do the job".
- a_imho 8y ago
  Nepotism by definition can't be consistent with meritocracy. Cooking might be more taxing than sitting in an office, but come on, it is not exactly coal mining either. Sorry, I don't buy into his arguing from authority pov and not just because he sounds like an a hole.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    He didn't mention nepotism anywhere. All he said is that top performers know each other - which is completely normal - and that if you aim towards working with them, then your reputation is crucial - which is also completely normal. None of this isn't compatible with practical meritocracy. Sure, in a perfect meritocracy, you'd be able to input a request for a worker into a computer, and out would come a list of people ranked by aggregate cost-effectiveness. But we're nowhere near that in any industry. In an environment of imperfect and incomplete information, relying on reputation and recommendations from other high performers is a safer strategy than taking risks with random strangers. As for his writing, I didn't find him sounding "like an a hole". To me, he sounds like a normal human being communicating honestly.
    - a_imho 8y ago
      You are basically rewording nepotism so you don't have to call it by name. As for his writing, I didn't find him sounding "like an a hole". To me, he sounds like a normal human being communicating honestly. To each their own I guess, let just agree we disagree.
      - rwmj 8y ago
        Nepotism is about employing friends or relatives because of that friendship or family relationship and not because of any inherent skill. However the fact that top chefs (or programmers, VCs, actors, doctors, academics etc) know each other is nothing to do with that. They know and trust each other first because of their proven skills and track record.
  - rapsey 8y ago
    You need to look up the definition for nepotism
    - a_imho 8y ago
      the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others. You might be right. I'm not a native speaker, but it reads a lot like nepotism to me.
      - mirko22 8y ago
        In that case there is no difference between nepotism and networking. Nepotism is usually used in negative context meaning preferring unskilled family member over skilled person you don’t know. Otherwise any kind of recommendation can be seen as form of nepotism.
        a_imho 8y ago
        Is it not? Obviously there are different shades, but reiterating how the top chefs know each other and how one can hook someone with the rest is imo over the threshold. Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, nevertheless I do think there is an element of making excuses here for a celebrity. Ditto for the meritocracy' with ageism and body discrimination.
        enoch_r 8y ago
        I think you're completely misinterpreting this. > All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others. > Which is to say: if you’re lucky enough to be able to do the above, do not fuck up. Bourdain is specifically saying there is not nepotism--that you must "do right by" a chef (in context, you must be GREAT at your job) in order to get hooked up with others--and the converse, "do not fuck up," because if you do, your bad reputation will now precede you. This is not nepotism--nepotism would be if he said "if you get a chance to work with a great chef, great, you're home free, because now they're your friend and will recommend you to other chefs regardless of how good/bad you are."
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

by a_imho 8y ago

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> Also, on one hand he tries to sell cooking as a meritocracy, on the other he says cooking is not for fat and old people and btw it is full of nepotism. It's completely consistent. From the description, in this job if you're overweight, or slow, or stubborn, or have chronic illness, or otherwise can't handle hard physical work, you're not suitable for the job. "Meritocracy" doesn't mean "judging only by how smart someone is", but "judging by how well one can do the job".

a_imho 8y ago
Nepotism by definition can't be consistent with meritocracy. Cooking might be more taxing than sitting in an office, but come on, it is not exactly coal mining either. Sorry, I don't buy into his arguing from authority pov and not just because he sounds like an a hole.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  He didn't mention nepotism anywhere. All he said is that top performers know each other - which is completely normal - and that if you aim towards working with them, then your reputation is crucial - which is also completely normal. None of this isn't compatible with practical meritocracy. Sure, in a perfect meritocracy, you'd be able to input a request for a worker into a computer, and out would come a list of people ranked by aggregate cost-effectiveness. But we're nowhere near that in any industry. In an environment of imperfect and incomplete information, relying on reputation and recommendations from other high performers is a safer strategy than taking risks with random strangers. As for his writing, I didn't find him sounding "like an a hole". To me, he sounds like a normal human being communicating honestly.
  - a_imho 8y ago
    You are basically rewording nepotism so you don't have to call it by name. As for his writing, I didn't find him sounding "like an a hole". To me, he sounds like a normal human being communicating honestly. To each their own I guess, let just agree we disagree.
    - rwmj 8y ago
      Nepotism is about employing friends or relatives because of that friendship or family relationship and not because of any inherent skill. However the fact that top chefs (or programmers, VCs, actors, doctors, academics etc) know each other is nothing to do with that. They know and trust each other first because of their proven skills and track record.
- rapsey 8y ago
  You need to look up the definition for nepotism
  - a_imho 8y ago
    the practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others. You might be right. I'm not a native speaker, but it reads a lot like nepotism to me.
    - mirko22 8y ago
      In that case there is no difference between nepotism and networking. Nepotism is usually used in negative context meaning preferring unskilled family member over skilled person you don’t know. Otherwise any kind of recommendation can be seen as form of nepotism.
      - a_imho 8y ago
        Is it not? Obviously there are different shades, but reiterating how the top chefs know each other and how one can hook someone with the rest is imo over the threshold. Of course everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, nevertheless I do think there is an element of making excuses here for a celebrity. Ditto for the meritocracy' with ageism and body discrimination.
        enoch_r 8y ago
        I think you're completely misinterpreting this. > All the great chefs know each other. Do right by one and they tend to hook you up with the others. > Which is to say: if you’re lucky enough to be able to do the above, do not fuck up. Bourdain is specifically saying there is not nepotism--that you must "do right by" a chef (in context, you must be GREAT at your job) in order to get hooked up with others--and the converse, "do not fuck up," because if you do, your bad reputation will now precede you. This is not nepotism--nepotism would be if he said "if you get a chance to work with a great chef, great, you're home free, because now they're your friend and will recommend you to other chefs regardless of how good/bad you are."
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]