5 ms·

> I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles

> I want to remind them we dont live in a meritocratic society The reason I love the sciences is that in general, people are more meritocratic in those circles compared to others. I've found especially in scientific academia that people are far more meritocratic compared to other disciplines. This also applies at science/engineering companies. No, not at all levels (the more business-y you get, the less of a meritocracy it becomes). But usually team-leads, senior engineers, etc. rise because of merit. Always exceptions, but in general. Much more than as an accounting firm where you rise because you know somebody who knows somebody. Unfortunately, as time goes on, I've seen academic circles in sci&eng, and especially tech companies (and silicone valley in general) become much more interested in stay relevant, keeping up with social trends and movements, and appearing progressive. You see this with all the FAANG companies calmoring to be the first to speak out against some injustice or another, or be the first to take a stand on Their Platform(TM). And with this, the meritocracy has slowly declined. You don't rise in a company because you're a skilled engineer - you can rise because you're a token minority. Or because you're the most outspoken on a social injustice and can see a way for your company to solve it (sorry, profit from it). You can be rewarded because you were the first (insert random minority here) to solve a problem or do something that plenty of other people had already done. Rather than celebrating scientific advancement, we're now celebrating the type of people making that advancement. What next, the first black woman to clone a GitHub repo? Let's name the GitHub HQ after that.

tartoran 6y ago
People who come to surface are either genial or narcisistic prize seekers. A lot of white people worth mentioning were forgotten because others trampled on them. Don’t be so sure it’s so meritocratic, thats just a myth
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Most Nobel prize winners to date have been white. Would you say the majority of them sought out the prize? I've read about many of them, and most seem to have just had a great discovery that was awarded on merit. There will always be outliers that do things for the awards, but it's not a generialisation I've seen in the sciences. Should we start giving more Nobel prizes to black people just because of the color of their skin, or should we continue giving the Nobel prize to objectively high achievers?
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    a lot of Nobel Prizes in the sciences just go to the high-profile Professors that lead projects, and not to the grad students that do most of the labour.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    Just how do you think the Nobel committee decides which work to look at? I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.
larcrimacida 6y ago
You sound like a man who thinks they diserve recognition yourself and seem to be jealous. Check out your ego, you might become a more beautiful person if you shed some of it
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Not at all. I have achieved very little in my life, and will mostly likely spend my life reading about the great achievements of others. I enjoyed my time at university seeing the success of others and helping where I could, and I enjoy my quiet job where I can come home and forget about it and spend time with family. You made a very big assumption about me, based purely on my preference for working environment and social environment. There is nothing jealous about wanting to see people rewarded based on merit.
- rumanator 6y ago
  The parent poster presented a series of arguments, and in your response you made nothing but ad hominem atacks. That adds nothing to the discussion, and only serves as a display in pettiness. If you have nothing of value to add then please consider not adding anything at all.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
As an actual scientist, no, science is not particularly meritocratic or objective. The current scientific world is highly catered towards people that can afford to devote their 20s and 30s to a low-paying job. Because of in-group dynamics, it also maintains the existing population make-up, which is predominantly white or Asian.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  Just because you need to sacrifice your prime years in order to succeed, doesn't mean the system isn't meritorious. What isn't meritorious about needing to work hard even if you're talented? Nobody gets a free ride. If you mean that gifted people should have their livelihood subsidised by the state, then sure, I'm open to exploring merit based scholarships, and society investing more in the sciences and so on. But nobody gets a prize in science without actually putting in the work and achieving something. Though, admittedly we are seeing that less and less. Society in general is becoming less meritorious (participation awards, etc).
  - Ar-Curunir 6y ago
    The problem is that, in a world where white folks have access to a better social safety net, on average they can afford to sacrifice their 20s and 30s in this pursuit, where others might not have that luxury. Anyway, I won't waste my time further debating what's obvious gaslighting.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      This is simply not true. Most people can’t afford education but they still take loans and pursue it, even if they have no aptitude for science. It is indeed gaslighting to talk about “safety nets” when there is a student loan crisis in the country.
      - jjeaff 6y ago
        I believe they are referring to the safety net provided by relative white wealth. Median net worth for white families in America is 10x that of black families. Which means they are much more likely to be able to get support from home or even a home to move back to if things get tough. It's a lot easier to take the economic risk of a post-grad or post-doc program when you know there is a family with means to fall back on. Excessive student loans are not a serious issue relative to what many in poverty face. If you don't make enough money to pay your student loans, then you can defer them indefinitely. Or just not pay them. It might keep you from getting rich. But it's not going to keep you from eating.

tartoran 6y ago

People who come to surface are either genial or narcisistic prize seekers. A lot of white people worth mentioning were forgotten because others trampled on them. Don’t be so sure it’s so meritocratic, thats just a myth

Thorentis 6y ago
Most Nobel prize winners to date have been white. Would you say the majority of them sought out the prize? I've read about many of them, and most seem to have just had a great discovery that was awarded on merit. There will always be outliers that do things for the awards, but it's not a generialisation I've seen in the sciences. Should we start giving more Nobel prizes to black people just because of the color of their skin, or should we continue giving the Nobel prize to objectively high achievers?
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  a lot of Nobel Prizes in the sciences just go to the high-profile Professors that lead projects, and not to the grad students that do most of the labour.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Just how do you think the Nobel committee decides which work to look at? I don't think they need to be meeting racial quotas for prizes, but my guess is that there is a lot of work to be done in the system that promotes and nominates candidates and those systems in place that decide who and what gets published.

larcrimacida 6y ago

You sound like a man who thinks they diserve recognition yourself and seem to be jealous. Check out your ego, you might become a more beautiful person if you shed some of it

Thorentis 6y ago
Not at all. I have achieved very little in my life, and will mostly likely spend my life reading about the great achievements of others. I enjoyed my time at university seeing the success of others and helping where I could, and I enjoy my quiet job where I can come home and forget about it and spend time with family. You made a very big assumption about me, based purely on my preference for working environment and social environment. There is nothing jealous about wanting to see people rewarded based on merit.
rumanator 6y ago
The parent poster presented a series of arguments, and in your response you made nothing but ad hominem atacks. That adds nothing to the discussion, and only serves as a display in pettiness. If you have nothing of value to add then please consider not adding anything at all.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

As an actual scientist, no, science is not particularly meritocratic or objective. The current scientific world is highly catered towards people that can afford to devote their 20s and 30s to a low-paying job. Because of in-group dynamics, it also maintains the existing population make-up, which is predominantly white or Asian.

Thorentis 6y ago
Just because you need to sacrifice your prime years in order to succeed, doesn't mean the system isn't meritorious. What isn't meritorious about needing to work hard even if you're talented? Nobody gets a free ride. If you mean that gifted people should have their livelihood subsidised by the state, then sure, I'm open to exploring merit based scholarships, and society investing more in the sciences and so on. But nobody gets a prize in science without actually putting in the work and achieving something. Though, admittedly we are seeing that less and less. Society in general is becoming less meritorious (participation awards, etc).
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  The problem is that, in a world where white folks have access to a better social safety net, on average they can afford to sacrifice their 20s and 30s in this pursuit, where others might not have that luxury. Anyway, I won't waste my time further debating what's obvious gaslighting.
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    This is simply not true. Most people can’t afford education but they still take loans and pursue it, even if they have no aptitude for science. It is indeed gaslighting to talk about “safety nets” when there is a student loan crisis in the country.
    - jjeaff 6y ago
      I believe they are referring to the safety net provided by relative white wealth. Median net worth for white families in America is 10x that of black families. Which means they are much more likely to be able to get support from home or even a home to move back to if things get tough. It's a lot easier to take the economic risk of a post-grad or post-doc program when you know there is a family with means to fall back on. Excessive student loans are not a serious issue relative to what many in poverty face. If you don't make enough money to pay your student loans, then you can defer them indefinitely. Or just not pay them. It might keep you from getting rich. But it's not going to keep you from eating.