8 ms·

Negative reaction to “meritocracy” is hardly knee-jerk. In fact, the word was coined as criticism of the concept: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/2

Negative reaction to “meritocracy” is hardly knee-jerk. In fact, the word was coined as criticism of the concept: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Aqueous 12y ago
Then the rug is a declaration of values. The US has often failed to live up to its own founding values - should we shred the preamble and the declaration of independence? No - those two documents have shaped US history, mostly because we're more and more trying to live up to them. It just seems awfully silly. The legitimate point here - that there should be more female engineers - seems a) not specific to GitHub and b) to be lost under a shroud of phony outrage over a rug.
- gruntmaster9000 12y ago
  Missing the point. Meritocracy is not something to aspire to. In practice it masks and reinforces power structures, increasing inequality: > The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward. From: http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short Which was recognized by Chris Wanstrath when they removed it: > @defunkt: We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug. https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800 https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    The problem wasn't the meritocracy it was the failing to live up to it. Meritocracy is absolutely something we should aspire to. In these examples the men who were paying other men more were simply not being meritocratic - if they were, then they would have hired/given raises to just as many equally qualified women as they did men. That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job of being meritocratic.
    - gruntmaster9000 12y ago
      The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to just completely abandon the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy. Worth reading, Selenda Deckelmann of Postgres: http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fails/ http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fa... and everything else here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
    - rodgerd 12y ago
      "The problem with marxism is the failing to live up to it." This is how you sound.
      - nailer 12y ago
        That's not actually an unreasonable line of thinking.
        rodgerd 12y ago
        Sure it is. If a theory keeps failing in the real world, it's time to modify or discard the theory.
        nailer 12y ago
        Either that, or modify the implementation There's been a lot of failed Marxist societies, but some implementations, the Kibbutz for example, has been relatively successful. One could also argue that HN and startup culture is an example of workers seizing the means of production.
    - dreamfactory2 12y ago
      Have you actually read the linked article by the man who invented the term? It's not about meritocracy done badly, it's about it being a destabilizing force when done well.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Aqueous 12y ago

Then the rug is a declaration of values. The US has often failed to live up to its own founding values - should we shred the preamble and the declaration of independence? No - those two documents have shaped US history, mostly because we're more and more trying to live up to them. It just seems awfully silly. The legitimate point here - that there should be more female engineers - seems a) not specific to GitHub and b) to be lost under a shroud of phony outrage over a rug.

gruntmaster9000 12y ago
Missing the point. Meritocracy is not something to aspire to. In practice it masks and reinforces power structures, increasing inequality: > The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward. From: http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short Which was recognized by Chris Wanstrath when they removed it: > @defunkt: We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug. https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800 https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800
- Aqueous 12y ago
  The problem wasn't the meritocracy it was the failing to live up to it. Meritocracy is absolutely something we should aspire to. In these examples the men who were paying other men more were simply not being meritocratic - if they were, then they would have hired/given raises to just as many equally qualified women as they did men. That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job of being meritocratic.
  - gruntmaster9000 12y ago
    The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to just completely abandon the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy. Worth reading, Selenda Deckelmann of Postgres: http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fails/ http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fa... and everything else here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    "The problem with marxism is the failing to live up to it." This is how you sound.
    - nailer 12y ago
      That's not actually an unreasonable line of thinking.
      - rodgerd 12y ago
        Sure it is. If a theory keeps failing in the real world, it's time to modify or discard the theory.
        nailer 12y ago
        Either that, or modify the implementation There's been a lot of failed Marxist societies, but some implementations, the Kibbutz for example, has been relatively successful. One could also argue that HN and startup culture is an example of workers seizing the means of production.
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    Have you actually read the linked article by the man who invented the term? It's not about meritocracy done badly, it's about it being a destabilizing force when done well.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]