4 ms·
I'm not voicing agreement with your parent comment, but for a better understanding more data is needed than just broad correlations. Without additional informat
by ve55 8y ago
I'm not voicing agreement with your parent comment, but for a better understanding more data is needed than just broad correlations. Without additional information you cannot accurately pinpoint where causalities begin and end as well as why and how they exist to begin with.
As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes.
- praptak 8y ago> As long as people perceive a stimulus in a certain way (even if they have no rational reason to), it will have an effect that cannot easily be removed. The decisions that a CEO makes are important, but how others perceive them are also important to the very end, not just in the hiring or promotions processes. Yup, this is plausible. It's also compatible with what the author says: “I want people to realize that we don’t live in a meritocracy, that we are judged by different standards. A quality that could be an asset in one group could be a liability in another.” Unless of course you define meritocracy to include being on the right side of people's biases. The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition.
- starbeast 8y ago>The problem with this definition is that it is close to making every promotion decision meritocratic by definition. This is pretty close to what Michael Young was warning about when he coined the term in his 1958 satire, 'The Rise of the Meritocracy'. Here's an article by him on the subject - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment