Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under

Wait, I can go one better. Candidate A) has a large number of elegant projects. Candidate B) is a ninja with a large number of high profile assassinations under his belt. Obviously the question of "objectively better" comes with an implicit "for the role in question". People opposed to using "objective" or "meritocracy" as labels are arguing for more nuance in understanding the needs and biases of people and teams. That sounds pretty but it's totally vacuous - it doesn't give me any information on how the decision process would be altered.