5 ms·

>The destruction of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any u

>The destruction of meritocracy. Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness. That being said, the "nihilistic" attitude of DEI towards meritocracy is as unsatisfactory as that "naive" attitude of pretending it exists. The right attitude is to recognise that the concept is meaningless in a society of staggering (and rising) inequality, and take steps to correct that.

Dalewyn 4y ago
Why does the process matter? The question is whether <candidate> can do his job right here right now. If he can: Great. If he can't: Tough shit.
- andrepd 4y ago
  As is usually the case, things are not so simple. Say you are deciding who gets into a college. To simplify say you have only one metric, GPA/test scores. What do you do? - You might have a student from a wealthy family, comfortable upbringing, two loving parents invested in his well-being and education, with money to spend on extracurriculars, and a nice school with all the trimmings. He has 3.8/4 GPA. - You might have another student from a lower-class family, with, say, trouble at home, parents shouting, no money for extracurriculars like music or sport, studying in a shitty dilapidated school. He has 3.5/4 GPA. Whom do you choose? It's definitely not so simple! In fact, remember that you are choosing people to come to college: an environment where they will all have equal access to resources, including professors, study materials, facilities, etc. I argue that you should choose the student which is more likely to make the most out of those resources. In this situation, wouldn't a better predictor of success in higher education be, instead of overall GPA, the difference in GPA compared to students in the same cohort? Wouldn't that be (a) a better measure of "merit" and (b) a better practical investment in someone who is more likely to excel and make the best out of the resources/opportunity invested? Just an example to illustrate that one dismissive sentence cannot possible solve this issue.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >Whom do you choose? The guy who performs better. >I argue that you should choose the student which is more likely to make the most out of those resources. ... the difference in GPA compared to students in the same cohort? The entire point of equality is that we are all one cohort: Regardless your race, gender, background, or creed you will be treated the same as the next guy in line; and there is only one line. To treat otherwise is discrimination.
    - gadders 4y ago
      It totally is discrimination, but it's discrimination based on facts. What we have now is even if the first student is from an ethnic minority, and the second is from an ethnic majority, the ethnic minority student would be preferred.
      - cuteboy19 4y ago
        Unless you're asian in which case the white student would be preferred
    - andrepd 4y ago
      > The guy who performs better. Did you read what I wrote? > The entire point of equality is that we are all one cohort Well but we aren't. One of the strongest predictors of academic performance is parental income. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist is not a satisfactory answer.
      - Dalewyn 4y ago
        >Did you read what I wrote? I did. If you aren't rewarding effort, skill, and talent there is no incentive to be successful. You pick the 3.8 GPA, aka the guy who performs better. >Well but we aren't. One of the strongest predictors of academic performance is parental income. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist is not a satisfactory answer. If the objective is to further equality, then the answer is to treat everyone the same with no arbitrary separators because that is the entire point of equality. With regards to university admissions, the performance measure in question is one's GPA or whatever objective measure the university wants to use. Income brackets can become a consideration if we are discussing financial assistance programs, but that is tangent to admission. Any program that favors people of a certain race or gender, either minority or otherwise, is literally racist and/or sexist and should not be tolerated.
goatlover 4y ago
That's bullshit. Meritocracy means some people are better equipped for task, job or position, and therefore they should be preferred, since they will likely perform better. It doesn't matter how they came to be better at the skill, which often does involve lots of hard work and taking chances where others don't. What matter is that they are better. If you don't like the distribution of who's at the top, then you can address that elsewhere, such as providing more educational opportunities, or promoting qualities like hard work, appropriate risk-taking and persistence across the board.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  You are making a completely arbitrary definition of meritocracy and missing the whole context.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    So what is the definition? It's not best person for the position?
    - goodpoint 4y ago
      It's very complex and there are contradictory definition. Who is the best person? The one who put most effort in the past? Had better outcomes? Or shows more promise for future outcomes? And how do you define and measure outcomes? Not to mention the second half: is it acceptable to reward merit with 10x salaries? 100x? So it's extremely complex and a politically charged topic.
- andrepd 4y ago
  > That's bullshit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Meritocracy: "the notion of a political system in which economic goods and/or political power are vested in individual people based on talent, effort, and achievement, rather than wealth or social class", as per wikipedia. > If you don't like the distribution of who's at the top, then you can address that elsewhere, such as providing more educational opportunities, or promoting qualities like hard work Isn't this exactly what I said?
fleddr 4y ago
"Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness." Depends on what you mean by starting point. If my neighbor is genetically advantaged from the start to perform in a particular task then that may be "unfair", it's still best to let that person win. Dragging down top performers is the worst we can do nor should we boost non-performers in artificial ways. If the unequal starting point is socio-economic, say a genius going to waste because they have no access to education, then I agree that this is bad. The solution is accessible/affordable schooling. Importantly though, that gives access, not outcomes. You still need to pass the test and prove (and improve) your capability.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Okay, how do you combat the fact that the kid from the shitty home is going to do worse on that test no matter what, despite any potential ability they may have if they are given the proper resources? Any system that does not manage that issue cannot be a meritocracy, because people who would be the best WILL be passed over for someone who had a luckier start.
  - polski-g 4y ago
    > how do you combat the fact that ... Why must this be "combatted" at all?
  - goatlover 4y ago
    I disagree that it's a fact that the kid from a shitty home is going to do worse on a test no matter what, since plenty of people have led successful lives and gotten good educations coming from a shitty homes. Environment isn't deterministic like that. The individual has a say in the matter of how well they will do on the test.
    - andrepd 4y ago
      Well to use an analogy it's possible for a competitor starting 200m from the finish line to beat one starting 50m from the finish line. Is it a fair race? Most people would think no. It's not about determinism at all, and pointing to people born in shitty situations who managed through luck and hard-work to overcome those difficulties does not mean everything is all-right, that is just silly.
AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
>Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness. That makes no sense. Ranking people by their merit in some dimensions doesn't stop being useful even if their merit would be different if they had been born into different circumstances. I'm reminded of the saying "if things were different then things would be different." Well, things aren't different, and it's useful to use merit to judge who would be best to do a job.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Why does the process matter? The question is whether <candidate> can do his job right here right now. If he can: Great. If he can't: Tough shit.

andrepd 4y ago
As is usually the case, things are not so simple. Say you are deciding who gets into a college. To simplify say you have only one metric, GPA/test scores. What do you do? - You might have a student from a wealthy family, comfortable upbringing, two loving parents invested in his well-being and education, with money to spend on extracurriculars, and a nice school with all the trimmings. He has 3.8/4 GPA. - You might have another student from a lower-class family, with, say, trouble at home, parents shouting, no money for extracurriculars like music or sport, studying in a shitty dilapidated school. He has 3.5/4 GPA. Whom do you choose? It's definitely not so simple! In fact, remember that you are choosing people to come to college: an environment where they will all have equal access to resources, including professors, study materials, facilities, etc. I argue that you should choose the student which is more likely to make the most out of those resources. In this situation, wouldn't a better predictor of success in higher education be, instead of overall GPA, the difference in GPA compared to students in the same cohort? Wouldn't that be (a) a better measure of "merit" and (b) a better practical investment in someone who is more likely to excel and make the best out of the resources/opportunity invested? Just an example to illustrate that one dismissive sentence cannot possible solve this issue.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >Whom do you choose? The guy who performs better. >I argue that you should choose the student which is more likely to make the most out of those resources. ... the difference in GPA compared to students in the same cohort? The entire point of equality is that we are all one cohort: Regardless your race, gender, background, or creed you will be treated the same as the next guy in line; and there is only one line. To treat otherwise is discrimination.
  - gadders 4y ago
    It totally is discrimination, but it's discrimination based on facts. What we have now is even if the first student is from an ethnic minority, and the second is from an ethnic majority, the ethnic minority student would be preferred.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      Unless you're asian in which case the white student would be preferred
  - andrepd 4y ago
    > The guy who performs better. Did you read what I wrote? > The entire point of equality is that we are all one cohort Well but we aren't. One of the strongest predictors of academic performance is parental income. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist is not a satisfactory answer.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      >Did you read what I wrote? I did. If you aren't rewarding effort, skill, and talent there is no incentive to be successful. You pick the 3.8 GPA, aka the guy who performs better. >Well but we aren't. One of the strongest predictors of academic performance is parental income. Burying your head in the sand and pretending the problem doesn't exist is not a satisfactory answer. If the objective is to further equality, then the answer is to treat everyone the same with no arbitrary separators because that is the entire point of equality. With regards to university admissions, the performance measure in question is one's GPA or whatever objective measure the university wants to use. Income brackets can become a consideration if we are discussing financial assistance programs, but that is tangent to admission. Any program that favors people of a certain race or gender, either minority or otherwise, is literally racist and/or sexist and should not be tolerated.

goatlover 4y ago

That's bullshit. Meritocracy means some people are better equipped for task, job or position, and therefore they should be preferred, since they will likely perform better. It doesn't matter how they came to be better at the skill, which often does involve lots of hard work and taking chances where others don't. What matter is that they are better. If you don't like the distribution of who's at the top, then you can address that elsewhere, such as providing more educational opportunities, or promoting qualities like hard work, appropriate risk-taking and persistence across the board.

goodpoint 4y ago
You are making a completely arbitrary definition of meritocracy and missing the whole context.
- goatlover 4y ago
  So what is the definition? It's not best person for the position?
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    It's very complex and there are contradictory definition. Who is the best person? The one who put most effort in the past? Had better outcomes? Or shows more promise for future outcomes? And how do you define and measure outcomes? Not to mention the second half: is it acceptable to reward merit with 10x salaries? 100x? So it's extremely complex and a politically charged topic.
andrepd 4y ago
> That's bullshit. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Meritocracy: "the notion of a political system in which economic goods and/or political power are vested in individual people based on talent, effort, and achievement, rather than wealth or social class", as per wikipedia. > If you don't like the distribution of who's at the top, then you can address that elsewhere, such as providing more educational opportunities, or promoting qualities like hard work Isn't this exactly what I said?

fleddr 4y ago

"Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness." Depends on what you mean by starting point. If my neighbor is genetically advantaged from the start to perform in a particular task then that may be "unfair", it's still best to let that person win. Dragging down top performers is the worst we can do nor should we boost non-performers in artificial ways. If the unequal starting point is socio-economic, say a genius going to waste because they have no access to education, then I agree that this is bad. The solution is accessible/affordable schooling. Importantly though, that gives access, not outcomes. You still need to pass the test and prove (and improve) your capability.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Okay, how do you combat the fact that the kid from the shitty home is going to do worse on that test no matter what, despite any potential ability they may have if they are given the proper resources? Any system that does not manage that issue cannot be a meritocracy, because people who would be the best WILL be passed over for someone who had a luckier start.
- polski-g 4y ago
  > how do you combat the fact that ... Why must this be "combatted" at all?
- goatlover 4y ago
  I disagree that it's a fact that the kid from a shitty home is going to do worse on a test no matter what, since plenty of people have led successful lives and gotten good educations coming from a shitty homes. Environment isn't deterministic like that. The individual has a say in the matter of how well they will do on the test.
  - andrepd 4y ago
    Well to use an analogy it's possible for a competitor starting 200m from the finish line to beat one starting 50m from the finish line. Is it a fair race? Most people would think no. It's not about determinism at all, and pointing to people born in shitty situations who managed through luck and hard-work to overcome those difficulties does not mean everything is all-right, that is just silly.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

>Meritocracy is a myth. participants have too much variability on starting points and environment for the concept to have any usefulness. That makes no sense. Ranking people by their merit in some dimensions doesn't stop being useful even if their merit would be different if they had been born into different circumstances. I'm reminded of the saying "if things were different then things would be different." Well, things aren't different, and it's useful to use merit to judge who would be best to do a job.