4 ms·

Right. Be careful of making semantic arguments about what words 'really' mean. It isn't very useful for getting to the bottom of what is actually happening. 'M

by sago 12y ago

Right. Be careful of making semantic arguments about what words 'really' mean. It isn't very useful for getting to the bottom of what is actually happening. 'Merit' has its own problems, because it connotes 'deserving', and it is a problem to suggest that a rich, Harvard educated white male deserves a job more than a poor, community college educated black female. So language has baggage. But let's say we're talking about 'imminent capability (as opposed to potential capability) and qualifications', then yes, it is an undeniable short-term optimisation to fill roles with these people. The economic argument to take seriously is that, by doing so we propagate privilege, and that in doing so we miss bringing forward people with high potential capability but low social privilege, who would be, in the long term, a better optimised workforce. And that is irrespective of the moral argument, that an economic optimisation at the cost of the opportunity of all is perhaps too high a price to pay. > Did you really just do that? Yes. There's no problem with being ignorant of things we don't know. Every single article on HN is full of stuff that I'm ignorant of. The things I am ignorant of knows no bounds. The poster I responded to seemed unaware that the things he was bringing up have long histories of being discussed and wrestled with in more sophisticated terms. He seemed to think that discussions of such things were 'stopped' because they were not allowed in some way, where actually they are discussed in very great detail and sophisticated by hundreds perhaps thousands of writers. I think it more likely he is ignorant of that, than racist or sexist, though since he bought up the question of being accused of those things, I thought it wise to include those options.

kbenson 12y ago
It isn't very useful for getting to the bottom of what is actually happening. I disagree. Finding a shared vocabulary can be essential to actual communication. It's far too easy for people to argue a similar or even the same point without that shared reference point. That doesn't really need to be what it "really means" as long as it's meaning in the discussion is well understood. 'Merit' has its own problems, because it connotes 'deserving', and it is a problem to suggest that a rich, Harvard educated white male deserves a job more than a poor, community college educated black female. So language has baggage. That's a problem depending on how you define deserves and what your goal in filling the position is, and even what your eventual goal is (all as an outside observer). Is the goal of getting more participation in certain roles better achieved through artificial insertion of people into those roles, or more focus on earlier stages to make them better fits for those roles so they are naturally chosen at a later stage? That we optimize for imminent capability is obvious. To do otherwise is gambling. Perhaps it could be considered too high a price to pay - if it had not shown over the past few hundred years that it pays great dividends. I think my stance here is that there are other ways to attack the downsides of privilege rather than putting sub-optimal workers in positions. Namely, work to fulfill the potential of those workers that have said potential. I think an argument could be made that the current strategy, which has been in place for at least the last few hundred years in the west, has lead to a higher percentage of people utilizing their talents optimally than ever before, with a higher standard of living for more people than ever before, with a higher survival rate as well. I think it's folly to attack what I see as the fundamental mechanism that's lead to this while there are still other avenues to pursue. There's no problem with being ignorant of things we don't know. The problem is not the being ignorant, the problem is the use of the label ignorant as an argument tactic to cast the opposition's position as unworthy of consideration. Being ignorant has no bearing on whether an argument has merit. You may not want to rehash topics that you think have been well covered before, but in that case, a reference could be included with your statement of your position and where it was informed from, and why you think it's a decided issue (we are far, far from the hard sciences here, so let's not delude ourselves with notions that our opinions are fact). Note: Click on the unique comment link to view that specific comment to reply directly when the topic is hot and reply links are not being shown.
- sago 12y ago
  > I disagree. I suspect you don't, because I agree with your counter-argument. I think language is flexible. It only matters that someone can understand what we mean, because it is the meaning that matters, not the word. Too often discussions end up about what words really mean or should mean. That feels like an argument that is getting somewhere, but it actually does very little intellectual work. It distracts from talking about the actual topic. That's all I meant. > That we optimize for imminent capability is obvious. Not to me. There's nothing gambling about, trying to make it so that potential capability is more accurately correlated to imminent capability. Then both strategies align. As you say work to fulfil everyone's potential. But as long as systemic privilege exists there will be some with more resources and access to capabilities despite lower potential. So we end up employing large numbers of sub-optimal people just because they could afford to become educated / mentored / inspired, and ignoring others with far more potential because they didn't happen to have those benefits. As I said, I'm not totally convinced by the economic argument (or rather I'm not convinced that, if it were false in some way, it would be a good reason to keep privilege unchecked), but that's what the argument is, as I understand it. > Note: Click on the unique comment link You're my hero/ine thank you!
  - kbenson 12y ago
    I suspect you don't, because I agree with your counter-argument. Case in point. Not to me. There's nothing gambling about, trying to make it so that potential capability is more accurately correlated to imminent capability. Then both strategies align. I wasn't stating the choice is obvious, I was stating that I think what we currently do is obvious. The difference is do we hire based on potential capability, which there's no way of knowing for sure, or hire based on imminent capability, which is at least somewhat testable? So we end up employing large numbers of sub-optimal people just because they could afford to become educated / mentored / inspired, and ignoring others with far more potential because they didn't happen to have those benefits. Yes, and my argument is that I'm not convinced that an alternate method at the hiring stage would be beneficial in the long run. I believe we continue to hire those people that are sub-optimal in potential capability yet have higher imminent capability (through privilege, yes). To hire others would in no way guarantee a better outcome, even if you could identify the ones with untapped potential - there's no guarantee that potential could be developed well in many work environments. If done one a wide scale, there would be a necessary drop in societal imminent capability, but the real question is how fast does it recover (if it does), and does it result in a better eventual outcome than another strategy? That other strategy I would propose is to hire as we currently do (mostly based on imminent capability), and leverage the gains we know this gives us into reducing the effects of privilege where possible. I think the United States has practiced this in greater or lesser degrees over the last century, and I think it's worked quite well. I just think changing the formula of who works based on capability is messing far too closely with one of the fundamental levers of capitalism, and there are less radical approaches that can and should be followed through on first.

by sago 12y ago

kbenson 12y ago

It isn't very useful for getting to the bottom of what is actually happening. I disagree. Finding a shared vocabulary can be essential to actual communication. It's far too easy for people to argue a similar or even the same point without that shared reference point. That doesn't really need to be what it "really means" as long as it's meaning in the discussion is well understood. 'Merit' has its own problems, because it connotes 'deserving', and it is a problem to suggest that a rich, Harvard educated white male deserves a job more than a poor, community college educated black female. So language has baggage. That's a problem depending on how you define deserves and what your goal in filling the position is, and even what your eventual goal is (all as an outside observer). Is the goal of getting more participation in certain roles better achieved through artificial insertion of people into those roles, or more focus on earlier stages to make them better fits for those roles so they are naturally chosen at a later stage? That we optimize for imminent capability is obvious. To do otherwise is gambling. Perhaps it could be considered too high a price to pay - if it had not shown over the past few hundred years that it pays great dividends. I think my stance here is that there are other ways to attack the downsides of privilege rather than putting sub-optimal workers in positions. Namely, work to fulfill the potential of those workers that have said potential. I think an argument could be made that the current strategy, which has been in place for at least the last few hundred years in the west, has lead to a higher percentage of people utilizing their talents optimally than ever before, with a higher standard of living for more people than ever before, with a higher survival rate as well. I think it's folly to attack what I see as the fundamental mechanism that's lead to this while there are still other avenues to pursue. There's no problem with being ignorant of things we don't know. The problem is not the being ignorant, the problem is the use of the label ignorant as an argument tactic to cast the opposition's position as unworthy of consideration. Being ignorant has no bearing on whether an argument has merit. You may not want to rehash topics that you think have been well covered before, but in that case, a reference could be included with your statement of your position and where it was informed from, and why you think it's a decided issue (we are far, far from the hard sciences here, so let's not delude ourselves with notions that our opinions are fact). Note: Click on the unique comment link to view that specific comment to reply directly when the topic is hot and reply links are not being shown.

sago 12y ago
> I disagree. I suspect you don't, because I agree with your counter-argument. I think language is flexible. It only matters that someone can understand what we mean, because it is the meaning that matters, not the word. Too often discussions end up about what words really mean or should mean. That feels like an argument that is getting somewhere, but it actually does very little intellectual work. It distracts from talking about the actual topic. That's all I meant. > That we optimize for imminent capability is obvious. Not to me. There's nothing gambling about, trying to make it so that potential capability is more accurately correlated to imminent capability. Then both strategies align. As you say work to fulfil everyone's potential. But as long as systemic privilege exists there will be some with more resources and access to capabilities despite lower potential. So we end up employing large numbers of sub-optimal people just because they could afford to become educated / mentored / inspired, and ignoring others with far more potential because they didn't happen to have those benefits. As I said, I'm not totally convinced by the economic argument (or rather I'm not convinced that, if it were false in some way, it would be a good reason to keep privilege unchecked), but that's what the argument is, as I understand it. > Note: Click on the unique comment link You're my hero/ine thank you!
- kbenson 12y ago
  I suspect you don't, because I agree with your counter-argument. Case in point. Not to me. There's nothing gambling about, trying to make it so that potential capability is more accurately correlated to imminent capability. Then both strategies align. I wasn't stating the choice is obvious, I was stating that I think what we currently do is obvious. The difference is do we hire based on potential capability, which there's no way of knowing for sure, or hire based on imminent capability, which is at least somewhat testable? So we end up employing large numbers of sub-optimal people just because they could afford to become educated / mentored / inspired, and ignoring others with far more potential because they didn't happen to have those benefits. Yes, and my argument is that I'm not convinced that an alternate method at the hiring stage would be beneficial in the long run. I believe we continue to hire those people that are sub-optimal in potential capability yet have higher imminent capability (through privilege, yes). To hire others would in no way guarantee a better outcome, even if you could identify the ones with untapped potential - there's no guarantee that potential could be developed well in many work environments. If done one a wide scale, there would be a necessary drop in societal imminent capability, but the real question is how fast does it recover (if it does), and does it result in a better eventual outcome than another strategy? That other strategy I would propose is to hire as we currently do (mostly based on imminent capability), and leverage the gains we know this gives us into reducing the effects of privilege where possible. I think the United States has practiced this in greater or lesser degrees over the last century, and I think it's worked quite well. I just think changing the formula of who works based on capability is messing far too closely with one of the fundamental levers of capitalism, and there are less radical approaches that can and should be followed through on first.