4 ms·

>A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to others like

by adwf 14y ago

>A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to others like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their rules. This is quite an unusual definition. I always thought that a meritocracy was about giving the people best able to do a job the greatest rewards. The article seems to be assuming that all meritocracies are actually corrupt meritocracies, which is a rather sweeping generalisation... More to the point; a corrupt meritocracy can hardly be distinguished from any other form of power/political structure that has become corrupt (in the sense of rewarding people through crony-ism and other discriminatory practices), so I don't really see any valid argument here other than "corrupt systems are bad, mmkay?".

jaggederest 14y ago
Quoth Wikipedia: the term [was] originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications." Essentially, the predictions become reality through confirmation bias, rather than any real measure of ability. This seems relevant to every existing 'meritocracy', such as academic tenure.
- adwf 14y ago
  Perhaps, but unless my personal definition of meritocracy is quite off (definitely possible), the general perception of a meritocracy - now - in the IT/CS terms that are being considered, is that we are talking about raw practically verifiable ability rather than academic qualifications. Or even certifications - which are a somewhat distinct category that IMO, are a bit more subject to corruption. Pay enough and you get the cert... But I concede the point that the original definition can lead to a serious bias towards rewarding the certificate of accomplishment itself rather than any real accomplishments of themself.
  - jaggederest 14y ago
    I think that people who might consider IT to be a meritocracy are blind to the fact that the things we measure are determined by the people with power, and thus it's a self-perpetuating sort of hierarchy.
    - mc32 14y ago
      Doesn't this suggest that way back when Informatics/IT was boring and unattractive to the great majority but a few 'engineering types' that people set up in advance a system that would filter out undesirables? I think that's giving these theoretical gatekeepers more credit than they deserve. People don't typically plan that far in advance for a day when their profession might be 'displaced by the other'. (for example Y2K) I think it's more of a case of engineers filtering out using the tools which have worked in the past and perhaps not revising them, if they need revising, but not from some kind of nefarious conspiracy.
anthonyb 14y ago
You're dancing around the point of the article, which is that what most people here consider a programming/technical meritocracy is a corrupt meritocracy. Most people who can program, can do so because of their background, not because of some innate quality.
- adwf 14y ago
  I'll have to give up here. My personal experience is therefore colliding with forum experience, and my anecdotal evidence should never be given too much sway if so. It's a tricky dilemma trying to work out whether background affects peoples ability to learn rather than their ability to do. An -innate- quality wasn't what I was trying to get at in saying that some people are better at their jobs than others, but I can certainly see the implications. I'll have to think about it... If it helps, my background is from a UK perspective, so a lot of the biases may not be all that similar cross-culture.

by adwf 14y ago

jaggederest 14y ago

Quoth Wikipedia: the term [was] originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications." Essentially, the predictions become reality through confirmation bias, rather than any real measure of ability. This seems relevant to every existing 'meritocracy', such as academic tenure.

adwf 14y ago
Perhaps, but unless my personal definition of meritocracy is quite off (definitely possible), the general perception of a meritocracy - now - in the IT/CS terms that are being considered, is that we are talking about raw practically verifiable ability rather than academic qualifications. Or even certifications - which are a somewhat distinct category that IMO, are a bit more subject to corruption. Pay enough and you get the cert... But I concede the point that the original definition can lead to a serious bias towards rewarding the certificate of accomplishment itself rather than any real accomplishments of themself.
- jaggederest 14y ago
  I think that people who might consider IT to be a meritocracy are blind to the fact that the things we measure are determined by the people with power, and thus it's a self-perpetuating sort of hierarchy.
  - mc32 14y ago
    Doesn't this suggest that way back when Informatics/IT was boring and unattractive to the great majority but a few 'engineering types' that people set up in advance a system that would filter out undesirables? I think that's giving these theoretical gatekeepers more credit than they deserve. People don't typically plan that far in advance for a day when their profession might be 'displaced by the other'. (for example Y2K) I think it's more of a case of engineers filtering out using the tools which have worked in the past and perhaps not revising them, if they need revising, but not from some kind of nefarious conspiracy.

anthonyb 14y ago

You're dancing around the point of the article, which is that what most people here consider a programming/technical meritocracy is a corrupt meritocracy. Most people who can program, can do so because of their background, not because of some innate quality.

adwf 14y ago
I'll have to give up here. My personal experience is therefore colliding with forum experience, and my anecdotal evidence should never be given too much sway if so. It's a tricky dilemma trying to work out whether background affects peoples ability to learn rather than their ability to do. An -innate- quality wasn't what I was trying to get at in saying that some people are better at their jobs than others, but I can certainly see the implications. I'll have to think about it... If it helps, my background is from a UK perspective, so a lot of the biases may not be all that similar cross-culture.