6 ms·

It won't be, because different groups answer questions differently. One famous result (http://web.pdx.edu/~mev/pdf/PS471_Readings_2012/Lizotte_Sidman.pdf http:/

It won't be, because different groups answer questions differently. One famous result (http://web.pdx.edu/~mev/pdf/PS471_Readings_2012/Lizotte_Sidman.pdf http://web.pdx.edu/~mev/pdf/PS471_Readings_2012/Lizotte_Sidm...) is that woman hold themselves to a higher threshold of certainty before claiming to know something. An interesting solution would be to score differently based on known biases; but that would be a can of worms in itself. Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. There is no such thing in the real world.

burtonator 8y ago
> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. There is no such thing in the real world. That's absolutely untrue.. you really discredit yourself when you say provably false things like this.
- RobLach 8y ago
  I assume you’ve read the essay the term comes from https://www.worldcat.org/title/rise-of-the-meritocracy/oclc/1039633960?loc= https://www.worldcat.org/title/rise-of-the-meritocracy/oclc/... If not; it’s pretty fun.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- zorpner 8y ago
  ...you really discredit yourself when you say provably false things like this. Likewise. And look, I've offered just as much proof as you did.
deathanatos 8y ago
> It won't be, because different groups answer questions differently. And the common currently practices don't control for that any better. The parent's idea (blind or double-blind screening of candidates) seems like it would, to me, be inherently better if we can figure out how to deal with the logistical complexities it adds. (E.g., how does on-site work? Are there on-sites?) If anything, it would be interesting to weigh against current practices of a few phones screens and a on-site. (It doesn't seem worse that the world I'm living in, where I'm at the bottom rung doing my damndest to make sure I'm not part of the problem by treating people equally, while at the same time I see some employers offering hiring bonuses for "diversity hires".) The query in the paper allows the candidate to say "they don't know"; if you force their hand in answering by removing that option, they should be again on equal footing, no? Additionally, I've also read about mathematical means of recording uncertainty in answers and weighting score with that. (That is, correct answer to which you were more certain net more points, incorrect answers to which you were uncertain lose less points than incorrect answers to which you were more certain.) The end result you're trying to get at is which person is giving better answers and certainties. > Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. Sure, people can twist things into something they're not, but that doesn't inherently make the original thing wrong or evil.
- elmepo 8y ago
  The issue is that developing a Meritocracy requires that you first solve bigotry. It's arguably fine in theory, but it presupposes what is (at least in my mind) impossible. It's literally where we get the name "Meritocracy" from. The book "The rise of the Meritocracy" was a satire, not a manual.
- snotrockets 8y ago
  > I'm not part of the problem by treating people equally, If you (think) treat people equally, you are part of the problem. When one group is more vocal than the other, you have to amplify the other group. If not, you're just keeping the current bias in place.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Gibbon1 8y ago
> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. There is no such thing in the real world. I remember an essay by a black female engineer. She said what helped her were three things, her dad had a union job, disability payments from the uncle who came home from Korea with no legs. These meant they could fake a middle class lifestyle. And her mother teaching her how to dress and talk like a white person. Seriously a lot of 'Meritocracy' is nothing more than soft affinity fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud
- ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
  Seems like that's conflating actual meritocracy with an exploited/fake form of meritocracy. Actual meritocracies are rare, but that doesn't mean we should redefine "meritocracy" to be the the distorted (and more common) version of it.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    Please provide an example of an actual meritocracy so we can educate you that it does not exist.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - snotrockets 8y ago
    Just like every example of a communist regime wasn't true communist, and hence failed!
ericb 8y ago
> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. I don't understand this point of view. It sounds like, by calling it a lie, your real complaint is the ways attempts at meritocracy have fallen short of being an actual meritocracy. That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? If this is not how you feel, what is the word for the appropriate assignment strategy that we should be strive to use to decide who gets jobs and promotions?
- hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
  > That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? I would actually say no, at least when it comes to when arguments for a meritocracy are used as arguments against redistribution of wealth from the more "meritocratic" to the less. Consider, as a thought experiment, if instead of features like intelligence, communication skills, self-confidence, etc., that our economic system instead only valued basketball skills as the means for distributing wealth. That system would be a meritocracy: great basketball players with tons of talent and effort would be really wealthy and successful, while talentless or lazy basketball players would be poor. I think this is a good thought experiment because of some of the things it highlights. Perhaps most importantly, all short people are pretty much destined to be forever poor in this meritocratic system. If you are short, what value would you see in abiding by this system at all if tall, great basketball players took all the gains? What about if instead great basketball players could be wealthy and successful, but they still had to pay a very large amount of taxes to ensure that short people didn't starve (or revolt). While a (true) meritocracy may be ideal for how jobs are to be distributed, if it is also how wealth is distributed it means that it is also, by and large, a lottery of DNA. How is that any more "fair" than an aristocracy?
  - someone454 8y ago
    Spud Webb was short, but a helluva player.
  - ericb 8y ago
    I'm not sure that "fairness" is exactly the right ideal if our goal is the most health and wealth for the most people? I want my doctor to be really great--to be in that job because he is the best at it. I don't want someone placed there by a truly random lottery, and I do want the guy who won the intelligence DNA drawing to be the one I talk to. I also want wealth to motivate people to get into that job, as it is so tough to gain that knowledge, I don't know if there will be enough people without a financial reward.

burtonator 8y ago

> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. There is no such thing in the real world. That's absolutely untrue.. you really discredit yourself when you say provably false things like this.

RobLach 8y ago
I assume you’ve read the essay the term comes from https://www.worldcat.org/title/rise-of-the-meritocracy/oclc/1039633960?loc= https://www.worldcat.org/title/rise-of-the-meritocracy/oclc/... If not; it’s pretty fun.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
zorpner 8y ago
...you really discredit yourself when you say provably false things like this. Likewise. And look, I've offered just as much proof as you did.

deathanatos 8y ago

> It won't be, because different groups answer questions differently. And the common currently practices don't control for that any better. The parent's idea (blind or double-blind screening of candidates) seems like it would, to me, be inherently better if we can figure out how to deal with the logistical complexities it adds. (E.g., how does on-site work? Are there on-sites?) If anything, it would be interesting to weigh against current practices of a few phones screens and a on-site. (It doesn't seem worse that the world I'm living in, where I'm at the bottom rung doing my damndest to make sure I'm not part of the problem by treating people equally, while at the same time I see some employers offering hiring bonuses for "diversity hires".) The query in the paper allows the candidate to say "they don't know"; if you force their hand in answering by removing that option, they should be again on equal footing, no? Additionally, I've also read about mathematical means of recording uncertainty in answers and weighting score with that. (That is, correct answer to which you were more certain net more points, incorrect answers to which you were uncertain lose less points than incorrect answers to which you were more certain.) The end result you're trying to get at is which person is giving better answers and certainties. > Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. Sure, people can twist things into something they're not, but that doesn't inherently make the original thing wrong or evil.

elmepo 8y ago
The issue is that developing a Meritocracy requires that you first solve bigotry. It's arguably fine in theory, but it presupposes what is (at least in my mind) impossible. It's literally where we get the name "Meritocracy" from. The book "The rise of the Meritocracy" was a satire, not a manual.
snotrockets 8y ago
> I'm not part of the problem by treating people equally, If you (think) treat people equally, you are part of the problem. When one group is more vocal than the other, you have to amplify the other group. If not, you're just keeping the current bias in place.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Gibbon1 8y ago

> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. There is no such thing in the real world. I remember an essay by a black female engineer. She said what helped her were three things, her dad had a union job, disability payments from the uncle who came home from Korea with no legs. These meant they could fake a middle class lifestyle. And her mother teaching her how to dress and talk like a white person. Seriously a lot of 'Meritocracy' is nothing more than soft affinity fraud. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affinity_fraud

ValleyOfTheMtns 8y ago
Seems like that's conflating actual meritocracy with an exploited/fake form of meritocracy. Actual meritocracies are rare, but that doesn't mean we should redefine "meritocracy" to be the the distorted (and more common) version of it.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  Please provide an example of an actual meritocracy so we can educate you that it does not exist.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- snotrockets 8y ago
  Just like every example of a communist regime wasn't true communist, and hence failed!

ericb 8y ago

> Meritocracy is a lie used by the privileged. I don't understand this point of view. It sounds like, by calling it a lie, your real complaint is the ways attempts at meritocracy have fallen short of being an actual meritocracy. That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? If this is not how you feel, what is the word for the appropriate assignment strategy that we should be strive to use to decide who gets jobs and promotions?

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
> That being the case, isn't meritocracy still the correct ideal that we should be doing a better job of striving for? I would actually say no, at least when it comes to when arguments for a meritocracy are used as arguments against redistribution of wealth from the more "meritocratic" to the less. Consider, as a thought experiment, if instead of features like intelligence, communication skills, self-confidence, etc., that our economic system instead only valued basketball skills as the means for distributing wealth. That system would be a meritocracy: great basketball players with tons of talent and effort would be really wealthy and successful, while talentless or lazy basketball players would be poor. I think this is a good thought experiment because of some of the things it highlights. Perhaps most importantly, all short people are pretty much destined to be forever poor in this meritocratic system. If you are short, what value would you see in abiding by this system at all if tall, great basketball players took all the gains? What about if instead great basketball players could be wealthy and successful, but they still had to pay a very large amount of taxes to ensure that short people didn't starve (or revolt). While a (true) meritocracy may be ideal for how jobs are to be distributed, if it is also how wealth is distributed it means that it is also, by and large, a lottery of DNA. How is that any more "fair" than an aristocracy?
- someone454 8y ago
  Spud Webb was short, but a helluva player.
- ericb 8y ago
  I'm not sure that "fairness" is exactly the right ideal if our goal is the most health and wealth for the most people? I want my doctor to be really great--to be in that job because he is the best at it. I don't want someone placed there by a truly random lottery, and I do want the guy who won the intelligence DNA drawing to be the one I talk to. I also want wealth to motivate people to get into that job, as it is so tough to gain that knowledge, I don't know if there will be enough people without a financial reward.