25 ms·

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious. When the time comes, we'll make decisions bas

When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? All I see is someone saying "don't worry, it's obvious. When the time comes, we'll make decisions based on what we believe to be metrics, but we will back that up with literally nothing." If you wanted me to believe you, you should provide some examples. And, again, I've never received any actual examples of specific binary evaluations for specific actions. And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'if you need everything to be spelled out, you're probably not smart enough'. Good line. Great dodge! But do you see how "we'll know what to do, based on the circumstances and, thus, the more meritorious will be obvious in any given situation" is functionally the same as "the bosses will make whatever decisions in the moment they want, and back it up with whatever they choose to decide is 'merit' for the purposes of their current framing (subject to change for the next situation)"? But if you're completely sold on it, let's start with an easier question than "how do you metric your merit?"; let's just see if you have an answer for how any employee could determine between the two scenarios I described in the previous paragraph? If a boss passes me over even though I did great work and achieved an agreed-upon goal, but I didn't do some other thing (that was never mentioned) - how would I know that, and how could I possibly petition for redress?

mdp2021 2y ago
> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits. > And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'if you need everything to be spelled out, you're probably not smart enough' Err... Noo? It was not what I meant. But, following your example, if somebody could not discriminate after "Please pass me a pen" that which picks an adequate and that who invests time in finding an out-of-context "perfect", and after "Please design our flagship" that which attempts to polish an enviable craft and that who lazily cuts the effort at a potato-head, then there would be a problem of smarts. > But do you see how ... the bosses will Yes I see that we require common sense in the whole of active society. It seems you are depicting a reality in which the judgement from management can be subjective. As if (no detraction from the actual situation meant implied) people accused Greg Davies to give unfair subjective marks at Taskmaster. The solution to such problem would probably not be algorithmic until good AGI, because sophistication of judgement is needed and Expert Systems in the '80s failed in being recognized as useful.
- catapart 2y ago
  i'm happy your meritocracy is working out for you. sorry you can't figure out how to outline one in logical terms because of "worth" reasons, or whatever. maybe in your next meritocracy, you can raise someone to the top who can do that kind of thing for you.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > sorry you can't figure out how to Oh no, I could very probably do. I *do* think, so I see things, and I could express them. But it would take a wasted long time, best spent on other efforts. But if a society needs manuals "how to walk", there is a problem which is not solved with walking manuals - you are not supposed to have that problem. > i'm happy ... is working out for you You should restrain that.
- catapart 2y ago
  just to be clear, for posterity: > Err... Noo? It was not what I meant. Yes it absolutely is what you meant, which is proven by your insisteneces here: > [...]common sense should do? > Yes I see that we require common sense[...] what do you think "common sense" is? would it, maybe, be a certain "level" of "smart" that you think "non stupid" people have? i honestly can't tell if you aren't able to recognize your criteria as biased, or if you're just philosophy trolling but that's when I dip out of the conversation, hence my other reply. again, hope it all works out for you, or whatever!
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    I do not see any bias in stating that the example you provided, about time vs quality priority, has trivially judged instances - trivial judgement operated by so-called "common sense", uneffortful reasoning.

mdp2021 2y ago

> When you say not "worth" expliciting... worth it to whom? To the to-do list - it is (normally) not worth it to the one who should spend the time writing that metrics. It would also then become potentially heavy if those metrics become "red-tape", obligatory bureaucratic process, which consumed time and resources without returning benefits. > And the handwave is always the same as the one you're trotting out now: 'if you need everything to be spelled out, you're probably not smart enough' Err... Noo? It was not what I meant. But, following your example, if somebody could not discriminate after "Please pass me a pen" that which picks an adequate and that who invests time in finding an out-of-context "perfect", and after "Please design our flagship" that which attempts to polish an enviable craft and that who lazily cuts the effort at a potato-head, then there would be a problem of smarts. > But do you see how ... the bosses will Yes I see that we require common sense in the whole of active society. It seems you are depicting a reality in which the judgement from management can be subjective. As if (no detraction from the actual situation meant implied) people accused Greg Davies to give unfair subjective marks at Taskmaster. The solution to such problem would probably not be algorithmic until good AGI, because sophistication of judgement is needed and Expert Systems in the '80s failed in being recognized as useful.

catapart 2y ago
i'm happy your meritocracy is working out for you. sorry you can't figure out how to outline one in logical terms because of "worth" reasons, or whatever. maybe in your next meritocracy, you can raise someone to the top who can do that kind of thing for you.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > sorry you can't figure out how to Oh no, I could very probably do. I *do* think, so I see things, and I could express them. But it would take a wasted long time, best spent on other efforts. But if a society needs manuals "how to walk", there is a problem which is not solved with walking manuals - you are not supposed to have that problem. > i'm happy ... is working out for you You should restrain that.
catapart 2y ago
just to be clear, for posterity: > Err... Noo? It was not what I meant. Yes it absolutely is what you meant, which is proven by your insisteneces here: > [...]common sense should do? > Yes I see that we require common sense[...] what do you think "common sense" is? would it, maybe, be a certain "level" of "smart" that you think "non stupid" people have? i honestly can't tell if you aren't able to recognize your criteria as biased, or if you're just philosophy trolling but that's when I dip out of the conversation, hence my other reply. again, hope it all works out for you, or whatever!
- mdp2021 2y ago
  I do not see any bias in stating that the example you provided, about time vs quality priority, has trivially judged instances - trivial judgement operated by so-called "common sense", uneffortful reasoning.