5 ms·

>After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . . The actual problem is sacrificing meritocracy and excel

>After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . . The actual problem is sacrificing meritocracy and excellence in order to satisfy checklist "diversity".

lillecarl 4y ago
My mom was at an interview where they were talking about how great it was that she was female, she walked out. There's probably a balance between meritocracy(because hiring for these parameters) and hiring based on skill no matter where they're from.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. The world is chaotic, messy and unfair. Meritocracy is a mirage. We are not sacrificing anything by having non homomorphous workforces. Every study on it shows increased economic output, it really is a no brainer
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  No method is perfect but tending towards meritocracy or towards scoring political points with "minorities" yields different results.
- Gareth321 4y ago
  >Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. This is something meritless people say. For those of us who have been working hard our entire lives to be REALLY good at something, we know that merit absolutely makes a huge difference to the value we bring to our jobs, and that value is usually recognised. This isn't to say that society is based entirely on merit. Far from it - though some more than others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for merit; that we shouldn't seek to fill jobs on the basis of merit. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Finally, I would argue against the claim that "every study on it shows increased economic output." There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. A popular topic is women in senior leadership. [There is no clear evidence that this leads to better performance.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804) I think it more likely that economic performance has everything to do with ability and nothing to do with skin colour or genital configuration.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    It may be true that meritocracy mostly pays off at extremely high levels of merit. The organizations doing affirmative-action hires are hand-wringing about the fairest way to pick from a huge pool of middling candidates. I don't think that's necessarily bad--not every job needs to be done by a rock-star, as much as companies hate to admit it, and working-to-live is fine. The people who say they've always had a burning passion for customer service are either Spongebob or lying.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > This is something meritless people say. No. I am a staff engineer under 30 with a degree from an Ivy League. I say it because it simply is true. Let me break down the points I made. 1) Does not exist this is easy to prove. In most industries contacts are a better predictor of success than hours, degrees, or awards. In terms of monetary success, being born rich is the highest predictor of being ahead in life more than any other. The top forbes list is all topped by Americans, born near California between 1950-1990. The statistical chance of the "most worthy" and merit humans being born in such a small time and geographic boundries is 0. 2) has never existed Historically goverment was hereditary, which only maximises the point I am making. But most famous artists were friends of rich people, not the most talented. Even great thinkers were all well off before they did the stuff we value from them. 3) arguably it is good that it doesn't If the world was perfectly meritocratic those above would deserve it, and those below would deserve it too. Treating poor people badly would arguably be ethically correct as they deserve their station. But we inherently know the world is not fair and we could be down at some point therefore meritocracy not being true means ethics and success are divorced and we are all better all for it. > There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. Meta and broad studies don't. Single issue ones with insane variables around, low confidence intervals and admitted low samples do. Like for example studies on Women on leadership positions. Here is a nice write up on meritocracy from someone who has not drank the kool aid https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...
    - jstanley 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

lillecarl 4y ago

My mom was at an interview where they were talking about how great it was that she was female, she walked out. There's probably a balance between meritocracy(because hiring for these parameters) and hiring based on skill no matter where they're from.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. The world is chaotic, messy and unfair. Meritocracy is a mirage. We are not sacrificing anything by having non homomorphous workforces. Every study on it shows increased economic output, it really is a no brainer

jokethrowaway 4y ago
No method is perfect but tending towards meritocracy or towards scoring political points with "minorities" yields different results.
Gareth321 4y ago
>Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. This is something meritless people say. For those of us who have been working hard our entire lives to be REALLY good at something, we know that merit absolutely makes a huge difference to the value we bring to our jobs, and that value is usually recognised. This isn't to say that society is based entirely on merit. Far from it - though some more than others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for merit; that we shouldn't seek to fill jobs on the basis of merit. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Finally, I would argue against the claim that "every study on it shows increased economic output." There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. A popular topic is women in senior leadership. [There is no clear evidence that this leads to better performance.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804) I think it more likely that economic performance has everything to do with ability and nothing to do with skin colour or genital configuration.
- mbg721 4y ago
  It may be true that meritocracy mostly pays off at extremely high levels of merit. The organizations doing affirmative-action hires are hand-wringing about the fairest way to pick from a huge pool of middling candidates. I don't think that's necessarily bad--not every job needs to be done by a rock-star, as much as companies hate to admit it, and working-to-live is fine. The people who say they've always had a burning passion for customer service are either Spongebob or lying.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > This is something meritless people say. No. I am a staff engineer under 30 with a degree from an Ivy League. I say it because it simply is true. Let me break down the points I made. 1) Does not exist this is easy to prove. In most industries contacts are a better predictor of success than hours, degrees, or awards. In terms of monetary success, being born rich is the highest predictor of being ahead in life more than any other. The top forbes list is all topped by Americans, born near California between 1950-1990. The statistical chance of the "most worthy" and merit humans being born in such a small time and geographic boundries is 0. 2) has never existed Historically goverment was hereditary, which only maximises the point I am making. But most famous artists were friends of rich people, not the most talented. Even great thinkers were all well off before they did the stuff we value from them. 3) arguably it is good that it doesn't If the world was perfectly meritocratic those above would deserve it, and those below would deserve it too. Treating poor people badly would arguably be ethically correct as they deserve their station. But we inherently know the world is not fair and we could be down at some point therefore meritocracy not being true means ethics and success are divorced and we are all better all for it. > There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. Meta and broad studies don't. Single issue ones with insane variables around, low confidence intervals and admitted low samples do. Like for example studies on Women on leadership positions. Here is a nice write up on meritocracy from someone who has not drank the kool aid https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilsword-on-a-plate https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...
  - jstanley 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]