5 ms·

If you get any sniff of non-meritocracy - run!

isoprophlex 5y ago
Meritocracy is a lie, a device to help rationalize the advancement of in-groups over other less privileged groups. An analogy: as a parent you should probably not reward purely on naked results; you should stimulate and reward effort instead. The first option just reinforces existing traits; the second empowers actual self-improvement. Not saying this is always easy or clear-cut. I understand the wish for getting rewarded for actual merit instead of politics, but meritocratic company or government policy is too short sighted and eventually harmful. Maybe I'm a cynic but I believe the first order approach to "best performers win" is flawed, a cognitive error: The just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. [wikipedia]
- tomp 5y ago
  Meritocracy is an ideal that is almost by definition unachievable. Like freedom, equality, etc. It’s a very worthy ideal.
  - iso1631 5y ago
    Meritocracy means those who have lucky breaks early in life (schooling, opportunities, etc) earn compound interest on those choices. If you could give everyone a "merit metric", and you had two options, one scoring 45 and one scoring 50, you'd chose the one scoring 50, without realising the the adversity the one scoring 45 has endured to get that far means they'll be operating at 55 or 60 in a year with the right environment, but the one that coasted at 50 for the last 10 years will continue to coast at 50. Someone whose parents coached them in IT skilled for 14 hours a week for 10 years could have a higher "merit" score than someone that picked up 90% of the skills working on their own in 2 weeks, but would likely not be as good a hire
    - tomp 5y ago
      Sounds almost like you’re saying that it’s more meritocratic to hire for potential rather than actual/current skill. As I said, meritocracy is an ideal to strive towards.
      - waynesonfire 5y ago
        There is a great documentary on Amazon called Rickover: The Birth of Nuclear Power People on the show attribute the success of the team he built because he hired for potential. His quote was something to the effect of that all good people already have jobs.
  - tonyedgecombe 5y ago
    Did you know the term was coined in a satirical book about a dystopian society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
    - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
      It should also be noted that the author directly says "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit." in a quote that appears on the same Wikipedia page. There's more to that quote of course but the dismissive "meritocracy was coined satirically" soundbite erases the sensible arguments and warnings that the book tries to make.
- aperson_hello 5y ago
  Yep - luck matters way more than effort. Effort is the catalyst, luck gets you there. Which gets to an interesting point: If an organization values the effort you put into failure, it's a company you very much want to work for!
  - maerF0x0 5y ago
    I tend to think of luck like a multiplier. Luck is a random # between -1 and 10 . Reward = Effort * Luck . YMMV
- wreath 5y ago
  How do I justify my career advancement as a non-privileged (according to woke standards) person w/o luck and the effort I put it to capitalize on that luck?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- chongli 5y ago
  That’s only if you see positions in society as rewards. Then it’s easy to get upset about wealthy and privileged people lining their pockets and filling their board seats with friends and family. If, on the other hand, you see positions as responsibilities then it’s much more straightforward to evaluate a meritocracy. On the one hand, we could be outraged that the king put his favourite nephew in charge of the army. On the other hand, we ask: is the nephew actually a capable commander? During peace time we can quibble over wealth and privilege but during a war I want the best commander to lead and protect us. This characterization naturally extends to plenty of less urgent, but no less important positions. Do you care about how wealthy and privileged your heart surgeon is? Or only how skilled they are?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Almost everyone I've ever heard says that merit and talent don't count would rather argue politics and social issues than about which algo would best fit our scale out plans over the next quarter. I don't care about your position in life or your take on socialism vs capitalism. I want to do my work and go home, where I can choose to participate in politics, social activism, or play CoD on my own time.
bell-cot 5y ago
What is advertised as Meritocracy is too-often more of a Metric-gamingocracy. Or is a place where management doesn't much care about "the bottom 90%".

Meritocracy is a lie, a device to help rationalize the advancement of in-groups over other less privileged groups. An analogy: as a parent you should probably not reward purely on naked results; you should stimulate and reward effort instead. The first option just reinforces existing traits; the second empowers actual self-improvement. Not saying this is always easy or clear-cut. I understand the wish for getting rewarded for actual merit instead of politics, but meritocratic company or government policy is too short sighted and eventually harmful. Maybe I'm a cynic but I believe the first order approach to "best performers win" is flawed, a cognitive error: The just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. [wikipedia]

tomp 5y ago
Meritocracy is an ideal that is almost by definition unachievable. Like freedom, equality, etc. It’s a very worthy ideal.
- iso1631 5y ago
  Meritocracy means those who have lucky breaks early in life (schooling, opportunities, etc) earn compound interest on those choices. If you could give everyone a "merit metric", and you had two options, one scoring 45 and one scoring 50, you'd chose the one scoring 50, without realising the the adversity the one scoring 45 has endured to get that far means they'll be operating at 55 or 60 in a year with the right environment, but the one that coasted at 50 for the last 10 years will continue to coast at 50. Someone whose parents coached them in IT skilled for 14 hours a week for 10 years could have a higher "merit" score than someone that picked up 90% of the skills working on their own in 2 weeks, but would likely not be as good a hire
  - tomp 5y ago
    Sounds almost like you’re saying that it’s more meritocratic to hire for potential rather than actual/current skill. As I said, meritocracy is an ideal to strive towards.
    - waynesonfire 5y ago
      There is a great documentary on Amazon called Rickover: The Birth of Nuclear Power People on the show attribute the success of the team he built because he hired for potential. His quote was something to the effect of that all good people already have jobs.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Did you know the term was coined in a satirical book about a dystopian society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
  - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
    It should also be noted that the author directly says "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit." in a quote that appears on the same Wikipedia page. There's more to that quote of course but the dismissive "meritocracy was coined satirically" soundbite erases the sensible arguments and warnings that the book tries to make.
aperson_hello 5y ago
Yep - luck matters way more than effort. Effort is the catalyst, luck gets you there. Which gets to an interesting point: If an organization values the effort you put into failure, it's a company you very much want to work for!
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I tend to think of luck like a multiplier. Luck is a random # between -1 and 10 . Reward = Effort * Luck . YMMV
wreath 5y ago
How do I justify my career advancement as a non-privileged (according to woke standards) person w/o luck and the effort I put it to capitalize on that luck?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
chongli 5y ago
That’s only if you see positions in society as rewards. Then it’s easy to get upset about wealthy and privileged people lining their pockets and filling their board seats with friends and family. If, on the other hand, you see positions as responsibilities then it’s much more straightforward to evaluate a meritocracy. On the one hand, we could be outraged that the king put his favourite nephew in charge of the army. On the other hand, we ask: is the nephew actually a capable commander? During peace time we can quibble over wealth and privilege but during a war I want the best commander to lead and protect us. This characterization naturally extends to plenty of less urgent, but no less important positions. Do you care about how wealthy and privileged your heart surgeon is? Or only how skilled they are?
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Almost everyone I've ever heard says that merit and talent don't count would rather argue politics and social issues than about which algo would best fit our scale out plans over the next quarter. I don't care about your position in life or your take on socialism vs capitalism. I want to do my work and go home, where I can choose to participate in politics, social activism, or play CoD on my own time.

bell-cot 5y ago

What is advertised as Meritocracy is too-often more of a Metric-gamingocracy. Or is a place where management doesn't much care about "the bottom 90%".