4 ms·

This is just what humans are like. I say this a lot but I still don't understand how people are so naive about this kind of thing. You're not going to find anyw

This is just what humans are like. I say this a lot but I still don't understand how people are so naive about this kind of thing. You're not going to find anywhere that isn't like this eventually. We not only don't live in a meritocracy but meritocracy itself is impossible. It's just idealism that disregards nature (unless you redefine it to some meaningless vague Darwinianism.)

yobbo 3y ago
Rather, "meritocracy" is a theatre that provides perfect alibi for nepotism. Referring to someone's CV is not in principle different from referral by a person. It's just another document that has been curated by people, for the same purpose.
- briandear 3y ago
  So how should we hire?
  - yobbo 3y ago
    If the position is such that it doesn't matter who is hired (meaning: there is usually no measurable difference in outcome for people in the role, and all candidates have basic qualifications), then nepotism isn't necessarily wrong, in my view. It creates a level of loyalty that true meritocracy does not, for example. I believe this is the mechanism for a lot of hiring through "networks". What I object to, in these cases, is pretending that the various versions of "basket weaving" are relevant merits, and that there is actual meritocracy. When the position is such that there are specific requirements; those abilities/skills can be tested with interviews etc, like how it works in most recruitment for professionals. This is my general perspective. There might be certain cases I'd have a different opinion.
chmod600 3y ago
In healthier environments results are better. For instance, if a qualified person applies to a useful and growing company, they are going to be treated with respect and offered good pay.
- guerrilla 3y ago
  That's why I said eventually. And for every one of those, there's a few hundred where that isn't the case. What matters is what happens on average and the reality is it's probably much more like a bellcurve where your cases are outliers.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    Move into useful and growing areas, and when they become useless and stagnant, then move somewhere else. Change is the only constant; be on the right side of it. Leaving a toxic environment makes it less toxic for everyone else. Even the worst bosses will respond to the fact that people are walking out the door and nobody is walking in.
    - guerrilla 3y ago
      You've missed the point entirely. We do not live in a meritocracy.

yobbo 3y ago

Rather, "meritocracy" is a theatre that provides perfect alibi for nepotism. Referring to someone's CV is not in principle different from referral by a person. It's just another document that has been curated by people, for the same purpose.

briandear 3y ago
So how should we hire?
- yobbo 3y ago
  If the position is such that it doesn't matter who is hired (meaning: there is usually no measurable difference in outcome for people in the role, and all candidates have basic qualifications), then nepotism isn't necessarily wrong, in my view. It creates a level of loyalty that true meritocracy does not, for example. I believe this is the mechanism for a lot of hiring through "networks". What I object to, in these cases, is pretending that the various versions of "basket weaving" are relevant merits, and that there is actual meritocracy. When the position is such that there are specific requirements; those abilities/skills can be tested with interviews etc, like how it works in most recruitment for professionals. This is my general perspective. There might be certain cases I'd have a different opinion.

chmod600 3y ago

In healthier environments results are better. For instance, if a qualified person applies to a useful and growing company, they are going to be treated with respect and offered good pay.

guerrilla 3y ago
That's why I said eventually. And for every one of those, there's a few hundred where that isn't the case. What matters is what happens on average and the reality is it's probably much more like a bellcurve where your cases are outliers.
- chmod600 3y ago
  Move into useful and growing areas, and when they become useless and stagnant, then move somewhere else. Change is the only constant; be on the right side of it. Leaving a toxic environment makes it less toxic for everyone else. Even the worst bosses will respond to the fact that people are walking out the door and nobody is walking in.
  - guerrilla 3y ago
    You've missed the point entirely. We do not live in a meritocracy.