9 ms·

Yay! More pointless division that will improve nothing and probably make things worse. Good work people! Now that she's gone does this mean that GitHub can get

by spikels 13y ago

Yay! More pointless division that will improve nothing and probably make things worse. Good work people! Now that she's gone does this mean that GitHub can get that cool carpet back? http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm=~oyBwPeBjuhShE4 http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug#awesm...

mason240 13y ago
That's unbelievable. I never would have guessed feminists would be actively fighting against meritocracy.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  It's actually "fighting against the idea that we actually live in a meritocracy, because we don't." You may also want to look into the history of 'meritocracy': http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-we-came-to-misunderstand-meritocracy http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-we-came-to-misunderstan...
  - mason240 13y ago
    So I guess we should get rid of the term "equality" as well, right? In all seriousness though, entirely scrapping a noble idea because it isn't yet 100% realized is beyond ridiculous and is an example of why many people can't take modern feminists seriously. You are supposed to work toward realizing goals, not destroying them.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      > So I guess we should get rid of the term "equality" as well, right? No, we should get rid of anyone saying that we currently live under 'equality', because we don't. > entirely scrapping a noble idea because it isn't yet 100% realized It's not that it's 'not yet realized,' it's that it's not actually possible.
      - davidw 13y ago
        But don't we celebrate the idea of equality (in certain contexts at least), meritocracy, democracy, etc... and strive for them as ideals?
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        Women not being harassed at the workplace is an entirely possible goal. Meritocracy is impossible. The very first question that comes into play is "who defines and measures merit?" Consider another failed opportunity at 'meritocracy': eugenics. It was once believed that we could determine some kind of 'genetic quality' and, well, have a meritocracy in human breeding, in a way. Turns out that whole idea is totally broken. At one point in time, people thought IQ was a reasonable way to measure merit. Turns out that it's not. "Women (and others) do not feel unsafe in their work environment" is reasonably quantifiable, and someday, achievable. 'Merit' is not.
        davidw 13y ago
        > "Women (and others) do not feel unsafe in their work environment" is reasonably quantifiable, and someday, achievable. 'Merit' is not. Agreed, but... isn't the 'trying' that counts in terms of the latter? I just don't see the problem in holding up "meritocracy" as something to strive for. I don't think any of us lives in a perfect democracy either, but we are still proud of trying, and think that it's the best way to run things, even if we're painfully aware of the shortcomings.
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        > I just don't see the problem in holding up "meritocracy" as something to strive for. Please read the article I linked in my first comment, which directly explains this. Or this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
        davidw 13y ago
    - spikels 13y ago
      Agree completely. It was a joke that referenced a company value not some guarantee about how the world works. Despite the unfortunate origins of the word meritocracy, the concept is ancient[1] and was always more of a goal than a practical system. What is strange to me it the feminist philosophy has rather recently turned against the concept[2]. As best I can tell this seems to be to discount "merit" as a defense against sexism. I'm fascinated by the ability of political identity to shape understanding. It seems almost impossible to resist arguments that advance our goals or grok those that undermine them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
    - pron 13y ago
      Meritocracy isn't an ideal – it's a joke, and everyone should be fighting it. (Quoting another comment of mine:) Meritocracy is not a desirable state of affairs, because it should be obvious that "merit" is a false currency used to justify what is, rather than work toward what should be. It is the quintessential naturalistic fallacy. By definition, an is-ought fallacy such as Meritocracy can not be an ideal (if you misunderstand meritocracy to mean "everyone gets what they deserve" that cannot be an ideal either, as it would be no different from "a world ruled by God", which is an imagined state rather than an ideal). It amazes me time and again how people can take the term seriously, which only demonstrates how dangerous it is. Such a blatant, perverted joke, a dystopia that some intelligent people mistake for a utopia. Wikipedia says this: "Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" was first coined in the 1950s. It was used by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay, The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group." I still can't fathom how meritocracy can be taken as anything but a negative. I mean, the first question that comes to mind (or, rather, the second after "what is merit") is, "who has merit and why, and who does not?" Once this question is asked, it is immediately apparent that any attempt to paint "meritocracy" in a positive light is ludicrous.
      - facepalm 13y ago
        I don't understand you. Are you saying nobody has merit? That somebody wrote a parody about it doesn't prove anything. It's also not obvious that it would cement a status quo: people can still strive to have merit? And does the concept forbid helping people to acquire skills? You can perhaps say Meritocracy is not the whole story (because of the self-sustaining elites problem), but it could be part of the solution, together with the usual efforts to give everybody a chance.
        KuraFire 13y ago
        Something that actively reinforces the status quo by what it is, is unable to ever be “part of the solution” by its very nature. The very idea of meritocracy reinforces the status quo, by virtue of “merit” generally being defined by the people who have the most privilege and power, and who, additionally, rarely ever recognize the merit of the contributions of people who are Not Like Them. (also, the term was coined as a parody, as a warning; it wasn't just "written about")
  - facepalm 13y ago
    But with what should meritocracy be replaced? At the workplace I mean. I get the issue that the elite has the means to reproduce itself. But should that really be the burden of companies, rather than the state (giving people equal access to education I mean). Even if companies were to train some poor souls into the elite, where should they start? There are so many different disadvantaged people.
    - steveklabnik 13y ago
      You can't replace something that doesn't exist. ;) If your question is "what is the best way to organize a workplace," well, there are a ton of answers. But it's been repeatedly demonstrated that trying to do it based on some kind of 'merit' system leads to gaming the system, and does not actually reflect any sort of 'merit' whatsoever, while the 'fact' that the system is based on merit is used to reinforce those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom.
      - facepalm 13y ago
        For the workplace, I assumed "meritocracy" just means trying to hire the best people, which seems the most common strategy? What else should hiring decisions be based upon? That measurements of merit are flawed is another problem. Does that mean you should never try to determine anybodies skills? What else besides completely random hiring would be possible?
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        No, that's not what 'meritocracy' means. Obviously, you want to hire the best people you can. There is a significant difference between "we try to hire good people" and "we objectively determine who the best people are." And furthermore, there's a huuuuge difference etween "we try to hire good people" and "the people who currently occupy a particular place in the social sphere are there purely because of merit, and those who do not sit in places of power are there because they do not have merit." See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
- crassus 13y ago
  According to social justice logic, if you claim you have a meritocracy and your demographic ratios aren't perfectly balanced, then you must not have a meritocracy. I.E. the perfect equality of all human groups is assumed.
- Crake 13y ago
  You must not have met many feminists. They hate egalitarians much more than they hate misogynists, in my experience.

by spikels 13y ago

mason240 13y ago

That's unbelievable. I never would have guessed feminists would be actively fighting against meritocracy.

steveklabnik 13y ago
It's actually "fighting against the idea that we actually live in a meritocracy, because we don't." You may also want to look into the history of 'meritocracy': http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-we-came-to-misunderstand-meritocracy http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/how-we-came-to-misunderstan...
- mason240 13y ago
  So I guess we should get rid of the term "equality" as well, right? In all seriousness though, entirely scrapping a noble idea because it isn't yet 100% realized is beyond ridiculous and is an example of why many people can't take modern feminists seriously. You are supposed to work toward realizing goals, not destroying them.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    > So I guess we should get rid of the term "equality" as well, right? No, we should get rid of anyone saying that we currently live under 'equality', because we don't. > entirely scrapping a noble idea because it isn't yet 100% realized It's not that it's 'not yet realized,' it's that it's not actually possible.
    - davidw 13y ago
      But don't we celebrate the idea of equality (in certain contexts at least), meritocracy, democracy, etc... and strive for them as ideals?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        Women not being harassed at the workplace is an entirely possible goal. Meritocracy is impossible. The very first question that comes into play is "who defines and measures merit?" Consider another failed opportunity at 'meritocracy': eugenics. It was once believed that we could determine some kind of 'genetic quality' and, well, have a meritocracy in human breeding, in a way. Turns out that whole idea is totally broken. At one point in time, people thought IQ was a reasonable way to measure merit. Turns out that it's not. "Women (and others) do not feel unsafe in their work environment" is reasonably quantifiable, and someday, achievable. 'Merit' is not.
        davidw 13y ago
        > "Women (and others) do not feel unsafe in their work environment" is reasonably quantifiable, and someday, achievable. 'Merit' is not. Agreed, but... isn't the 'trying' that counts in terms of the latter? I just don't see the problem in holding up "meritocracy" as something to strive for. I don't think any of us lives in a perfect democracy either, but we are still proud of trying, and think that it's the best way to run things, even if we're painfully aware of the shortcomings.
        steveklabnik 13y ago
        > I just don't see the problem in holding up "meritocracy" as something to strive for. Please read the article I linked in my first comment, which directly explains this. Or this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
        davidw 13y ago
  - spikels 13y ago
    Agree completely. It was a joke that referenced a company value not some guarantee about how the world works. Despite the unfortunate origins of the word meritocracy, the concept is ancient[1] and was always more of a goal than a practical system. What is strange to me it the feminist philosophy has rather recently turned against the concept[2]. As best I can tell this seems to be to discount "merit" as a defense against sexism. I'm fascinated by the ability of political identity to shape understanding. It seems almost impossible to resist arguments that advance our goals or grok those that undermine them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy [2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
  - pron 13y ago
    Meritocracy isn't an ideal – it's a joke, and everyone should be fighting it. (Quoting another comment of mine:) Meritocracy is not a desirable state of affairs, because it should be obvious that "merit" is a false currency used to justify what is, rather than work toward what should be. It is the quintessential naturalistic fallacy. By definition, an is-ought fallacy such as Meritocracy can not be an ideal (if you misunderstand meritocracy to mean "everyone gets what they deserve" that cannot be an ideal either, as it would be no different from "a world ruled by God", which is an imagined state rather than an ideal). It amazes me time and again how people can take the term seriously, which only demonstrates how dangerous it is. Such a blatant, perverted joke, a dystopia that some intelligent people mistake for a utopia. Wikipedia says this: "Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" was first coined in the 1950s. It was used by British politician and sociologist, Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay, The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group." I still can't fathom how meritocracy can be taken as anything but a negative. I mean, the first question that comes to mind (or, rather, the second after "what is merit") is, "who has merit and why, and who does not?" Once this question is asked, it is immediately apparent that any attempt to paint "meritocracy" in a positive light is ludicrous.
    - facepalm 13y ago
      I don't understand you. Are you saying nobody has merit? That somebody wrote a parody about it doesn't prove anything. It's also not obvious that it would cement a status quo: people can still strive to have merit? And does the concept forbid helping people to acquire skills? You can perhaps say Meritocracy is not the whole story (because of the self-sustaining elites problem), but it could be part of the solution, together with the usual efforts to give everybody a chance.
      - KuraFire 13y ago
        Something that actively reinforces the status quo by what it is, is unable to ever be “part of the solution” by its very nature. The very idea of meritocracy reinforces the status quo, by virtue of “merit” generally being defined by the people who have the most privilege and power, and who, additionally, rarely ever recognize the merit of the contributions of people who are Not Like Them. (also, the term was coined as a parody, as a warning; it wasn't just "written about")
- facepalm 13y ago
  But with what should meritocracy be replaced? At the workplace I mean. I get the issue that the elite has the means to reproduce itself. But should that really be the burden of companies, rather than the state (giving people equal access to education I mean). Even if companies were to train some poor souls into the elite, where should they start? There are so many different disadvantaged people.
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    You can't replace something that doesn't exist. ;) If your question is "what is the best way to organize a workplace," well, there are a ton of answers. But it's been repeatedly demonstrated that trying to do it based on some kind of 'merit' system leads to gaming the system, and does not actually reflect any sort of 'merit' whatsoever, while the 'fact' that the system is based on merit is used to reinforce those at the top of the pile at the expense of those at the bottom.
    - facepalm 13y ago
      For the workplace, I assumed "meritocracy" just means trying to hire the best people, which seems the most common strategy? What else should hiring decisions be based upon? That measurements of merit are flawed is another problem. Does that mean you should never try to determine anybodies skills? What else besides completely random hiring would be possible?
      - steveklabnik 13y ago
        No, that's not what 'meritocracy' means. Obviously, you want to hire the best people you can. There is a significant difference between "we try to hire good people" and "we objectively determine who the best people are." And furthermore, there's a huuuuge difference etween "we try to hire good people" and "the people who currently occupy a particular place in the social sphere are there purely because of merit, and those who do not sit in places of power are there because they do not have merit." See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7406566
crassus 13y ago
According to social justice logic, if you claim you have a meritocracy and your demographic ratios aren't perfectly balanced, then you must not have a meritocracy. I.E. the perfect equality of all human groups is assumed.
Crake 13y ago
You must not have met many feminists. They hate egalitarians much more than they hate misogynists, in my experience.