7 ms·

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% realiz

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
        I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The idea that a company (we're not talking politics) hires people based only on them being the best at what they do strikes me as sensible, and, no, not the 'status quo'. Here in Italy it's still "who you know" that counts in many cases, so the idea of trying to be more merit-based strikes me as positive, even if, no, no one should think they're 100% there. I think it's also distracting from the issue at hand, which I think is very real and important.
- Crake 13y ago
  One guy sarcastically suggests getting rid of a term, and you reply by seriously suggesting we get rid of people. Just curious, if you were in charge--how would you choose to "dispose" of these undesirables?
  - steveklabnik 13y ago
    You're mis-reading. That's not what I'm suggesting.
  - knowtheory 13y ago
    This is an incredibly uncharitable reading of what @steveklabnik wrote. His intention is clearly that people should get rid of the claim that we live in an equal society. Not to get rid of people.
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")

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
        I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The idea that a company (we're not talking politics) hires people based only on them being the best at what they do strikes me as sensible, and, no, not the 'status quo'. Here in Italy it's still "who you know" that counts in many cases, so the idea of trying to be more merit-based strikes me as positive, even if, no, no one should think they're 100% there. I think it's also distracting from the issue at hand, which I think is very real and important.
Crake 13y ago
One guy sarcastically suggests getting rid of a term, and you reply by seriously suggesting we get rid of people. Just curious, if you were in charge--how would you choose to "dispose" of these undesirables?
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  You're mis-reading. That's not what I'm suggesting.
- knowtheory 13y ago
  This is an incredibly uncharitable reading of what @steveklabnik wrote. His intention is clearly that people should get rid of the claim that we live in an equal society. Not to get rid of people.

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")