3 ms·

He got the job because he is friends with powerful people. He is friends with powerful people because he worked hard to be in situations with opportunity and pr

He got the job because he is friends with powerful people. He is friends with powerful people because he worked hard to be in situations with opportunity and proved himself repeatedly by delivering extraordinary results. The only reason his race is coming into play is that people realize that this self selection of white men will continue as long as the decision makers are white and chose to hire people from their own limited social circle, peer group, college, previous employer etc. It's human nature to hire people you trust, and trust people you know. Therefore, we as a society, if we want a true meritocracy should make the funnel as big as possible by having decision makers that reflect the broad demographics of society such that this human tendency to reach out to people known to us doesn't self select a limited pool of candidates. Your argument that choosing Michael is unmeritocratic isn't supported. Just because race was a factor, reasonable in light of the goals, doesn't mean that all of the factors that show Michael is an extraordinary candidate suddenly disappear. Trying to position this situation as though it does makes race the ONLY relevant factor. That is an unfound, shallow interpretation of the facts. Seriously, when you make this kind of argument in public in 2020, it just looks silly and lacking in credibility. If you want a meritocracy, focus on getting opportunity to the biggest number of people in the world.

mellosouls 6y ago
While your comments on race being a reasonable factor are fair enough, you seem rather blind to the absurdity of another upper middle class ivy League democrat from a very elite clique being shuffled into another senior tech position on "my turn" basis being considered meritocratic. Let's not be too rose-tinted here...
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  I am not blind to it. I specifically mention it repeatedly in this thread. But I am calling out how that isn’t slung at most white executives with the frequency or strength of conviction that is directed at minorities. There is a baseline assumption that certain people must have the baseline competence to warrant getting an opportunity it just so happens the baseline fits things that white men have had greater access to in the past elite education, prestigious work experience, social networks of friends and allies among other markers. I am glad Michael had elements of those so he can ply a role in progress. I hope he uses that position to help others of all demographic backgrounds. I trust he will. What’s your solution then? Easy to question the balance of my argument and not actually propose a constructive solution.
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    This is a complicated issue and I don't claim to have a solution, and its not a requirement that I provide one when countering other comments. I'm just pointing out there are no easy answers and this doesn't seem anything more than a token change to me that shouldn't have needed another black guy being killed to motivate it.
luckylion 6y ago
> He got the job because he is friends with powerful people. > The only reason his race is coming into play is that people realize that this self selection of white men will continue as long as the decision makers are white and chose to hire people from their own limited social circle, peer group, college, previous employer etc. It feels like you need to make up your mind whether he has been hired because he's part of "the circle" or whether that circle is the evil white patriarchy that excludes people like him and Ellen Pao.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. Increasing representation won’t happen if we ignore human nature to hire people we know. Alexis knows Michael, he trust him from a shared history of working together. Unfortunately, there have not been as many minorities in the settings where these types of relationships are formed. But steps like this will increase that over time. So yes. I am clear. 1. People hire friends and people they have a history with. 2. Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. 3. The funnel of qualified people will be smaller if we lean into that reality. 4. Increasing the diversity of decision makers at all levels will instead leverage that tendency to broaden the funnel and provide opportunities to more people thus strengthening meritocracy.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. I mean, yes, sure, but really not if you're reducing everything into very simple explanations like "it's the white heterosexual men". You can't claim "well, things are complex" when your explanation runs head first into the wall, your explanation claimed that they are not, that they are simple: that was the explanation. It's a problem when this explanation falls apart on the very example it was used to explain. > Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. Yeah, but not because of race, but because of class. Yale graduates will know more Yale graduates than mechanics. Race is probably somewhere on the list, but I'm quite sure that whatever they study, their political opinions/worldview and taste in music come before that, because that's what creates their social circles. This "we think the same, we talk the same, we have the same worldview, we grew up in similar environments, we're interested in the same stuff, we are in the same income-percent, but our skin tone is different, we are so diverse" thing just doesn't compute for me.
jimbob45 6y ago
>I’m quitting >Hire a white guy to replace me If the roles were swapped, everyone would (rightfully) say he only got the job for being white. If your argument is that blacks don’t get jobs because a strict majority of whites harbor secretly racist attitudes and don’t hire blacks for non-meritocratic reasons, I’d say there’s no evidence to support that theory. In fact, Affirmative Action has made the opposite true. Above all, blacks remain 11% of the population and even less than that in many areas. Only 1/10 workers should be black, in most (but not all) ideal scenarios.
- digitaltrees 6y ago
  But roles are reversed all the time which is my entire point. No one questions a white Ivy League educated board members qualifications because there is a baseline assumption that they must be qualified. Yet there is evidence that implicit bias plays a role in putting them there in the first place. There is no evidence of racial bias except a ton of psychological research showing most people having elevated stress responses around people of different races, a ton is sociological research showing the lingering effects of past policies like Jim Crow, red lining, highway placement in large cities that decimated black businesses districts... on and on and on. It’s naive to say all these clear effects exist, and there is a clear causal explanation in racial discrimination, but there is no evidence. The evidence is in the effects. Do me a favor make duplicate copies of your resume with two different names. One a typical English/Anglo name and one of any other culture. Let me know if you get equal responses. I’ll bet you $10,000 you won’t get equal responses. My dad did this in business school, and when he saw the results, he changed our family name.

mellosouls 6y ago

While your comments on race being a reasonable factor are fair enough, you seem rather blind to the absurdity of another upper middle class ivy League democrat from a very elite clique being shuffled into another senior tech position on "my turn" basis being considered meritocratic. Let's not be too rose-tinted here...

digitaltrees 6y ago
I am not blind to it. I specifically mention it repeatedly in this thread. But I am calling out how that isn’t slung at most white executives with the frequency or strength of conviction that is directed at minorities. There is a baseline assumption that certain people must have the baseline competence to warrant getting an opportunity it just so happens the baseline fits things that white men have had greater access to in the past elite education, prestigious work experience, social networks of friends and allies among other markers. I am glad Michael had elements of those so he can ply a role in progress. I hope he uses that position to help others of all demographic backgrounds. I trust he will. What’s your solution then? Easy to question the balance of my argument and not actually propose a constructive solution.
- mellosouls 6y ago
  This is a complicated issue and I don't claim to have a solution, and its not a requirement that I provide one when countering other comments. I'm just pointing out there are no easy answers and this doesn't seem anything more than a token change to me that shouldn't have needed another black guy being killed to motivate it.

luckylion 6y ago

> He got the job because he is friends with powerful people. > The only reason his race is coming into play is that people realize that this self selection of white men will continue as long as the decision makers are white and chose to hire people from their own limited social circle, peer group, college, previous employer etc. It feels like you need to make up your mind whether he has been hired because he's part of "the circle" or whether that circle is the evil white patriarchy that excludes people like him and Ellen Pao.

digitaltrees 6y ago
It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. Increasing representation won’t happen if we ignore human nature to hire people we know. Alexis knows Michael, he trust him from a shared history of working together. Unfortunately, there have not been as many minorities in the settings where these types of relationships are formed. But steps like this will increase that over time. So yes. I am clear. 1. People hire friends and people they have a history with. 2. Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. 3. The funnel of qualified people will be smaller if we lean into that reality. 4. Increasing the diversity of decision makers at all levels will instead leverage that tendency to broaden the funnel and provide opportunities to more people thus strengthening meritocracy.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > It can be both. Humans are complex as are human institutions. I mean, yes, sure, but really not if you're reducing everything into very simple explanations like "it's the white heterosexual men". You can't claim "well, things are complex" when your explanation runs head first into the wall, your explanation claimed that they are not, that they are simple: that was the explanation. It's a problem when this explanation falls apart on the very example it was used to explain. > Many people’s social circle looks more like them than the rest of society. Yeah, but not because of race, but because of class. Yale graduates will know more Yale graduates than mechanics. Race is probably somewhere on the list, but I'm quite sure that whatever they study, their political opinions/worldview and taste in music come before that, because that's what creates their social circles. This "we think the same, we talk the same, we have the same worldview, we grew up in similar environments, we're interested in the same stuff, we are in the same income-percent, but our skin tone is different, we are so diverse" thing just doesn't compute for me.

jimbob45 6y ago

>I’m quitting >Hire a white guy to replace me If the roles were swapped, everyone would (rightfully) say he only got the job for being white. If your argument is that blacks don’t get jobs because a strict majority of whites harbor secretly racist attitudes and don’t hire blacks for non-meritocratic reasons, I’d say there’s no evidence to support that theory. In fact, Affirmative Action has made the opposite true. Above all, blacks remain 11% of the population and even less than that in many areas. Only 1/10 workers should be black, in most (but not all) ideal scenarios.

digitaltrees 6y ago
But roles are reversed all the time which is my entire point. No one questions a white Ivy League educated board members qualifications because there is a baseline assumption that they must be qualified. Yet there is evidence that implicit bias plays a role in putting them there in the first place. There is no evidence of racial bias except a ton of psychological research showing most people having elevated stress responses around people of different races, a ton is sociological research showing the lingering effects of past policies like Jim Crow, red lining, highway placement in large cities that decimated black businesses districts... on and on and on. It’s naive to say all these clear effects exist, and there is a clear causal explanation in racial discrimination, but there is no evidence. The evidence is in the effects. Do me a favor make duplicate copies of your resume with two different names. One a typical English/Anglo name and one of any other culture. Let me know if you get equal responses. I’ll bet you $10,000 you won’t get equal responses. My dad did this in business school, and when he saw the results, he changed our family name.