
You keep using that word "meritocracy" - bretthopper
http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/
======
Lazare
I had issues with the way the article made the following argument:

1) If computer programming was a meritocracy, we'd only have the best computer
programmers in the field.

2) Most computer programmers are white males.

3) Most people are not white males.

4) Ergo, computer programming is not a meritocracy.

I trust most people saw the logical flaw - the author is assuming that the
_ability_ to program is _currently_ evenly distributed. This is not the case.
Pick 20 people at random, off the street in Palo Alto, put a gun to their
head, and tell them they must solve FizzBuzz, in ANY language. FizzBuzz is
famously hard, but it's not _that_ hard; you've got a good chance of getting a
few solutions.

Now do the same thing in Bangui (capital and largest city of the Central
African Republic). Odds are you'll get a lot fewer. Probably none.

This doesn't tell us anything about whether white males are unusually good at
programming; it tells us a lot about the availability of computers and
programming training in the 179th (out of 187) poorest country in the world.

In other words, the central argument of the blog rests on conflating ability
with opportunities. Because a black female from the CAR is every bit as
_capable_ of being a good programmer as a white male from Brooklyn, it follows
that black females _ARE_ just as good as white males, and since there are more
black females than white males in the world, if a tech company has more white
males than black females, it is clear proof of racism and sexism. Except no;
in the world we actually live in, the number of people who have the skills,
background, and experience to work at, e.g., Google is quite small, and
(sadly) mostly male and a mix of white and asian. And yes, that _is_ due to
racism, but it isn't _itself_ racist.

But the article seems unable to make that last step, and as such it renders
the whole thing rather pointless.

~~~
001sky
_If a middle-class white boy who literally never had a job before getting a
sweet internship at some cutting edge technology company can eventually,
through practice, become a passable computer programmer, anyone can do it._

\-- This is not of the form you reference, though

This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition, and thus
representative expression, not one of either innate or even actual ability or
qualification level. Its not "conflating ability with opportunities" anymore
than it is saying "there is learning by doing" and since the "doing is not
evenly distributed"[1], therefore neither is the "learning".[2] Author is in
part arguing that the only "doing" that matters is "branded doing" (ie, doing
it for XYZ company or school), as as that is how the next level of doing is
_rationed_ , and there is therefore a recursive effect. This may or may not be
a great argument, but I think its different than the one you allude to. In
particular the low-threshold state and the (implied) recursive mechanism seem
to have a more interesting dynamic.

______

[1] Or the option, etc.

[2] This depends on (or implies) a certain elemental/relative triviality of
the task.

~~~
mc32
So then, are table tennis, boxing and basketball or gymnastics not
meritocracies either and thus deserving of more representative demographics?
Should those sports seek to find more balance in their professional profiles?
Should leagues try to find and be incentivized to fill their ranks with
underrepresented demographics?

Are industry responsible or is the educational system responsible for
developing interest and providing guidance to the newer generations (in
addition to initiative by the student body)?

~~~
001sky
_Note [2] This depends on (or implies) a certain elemental/relative triviality
of the task._

I think you missed that note [2] above. I'm not necessarily supporting or
defending the position. The point was it was not as simple an argument to
dismiss as was suggested in the Parent. Couple of points to consider, more
generally: (1) Its not clear that the condition of footnote 2 holds, _per-se_
; That being said (2) its also very far from clear that decisions of Merit (in
the context discussed) are ever/always _fully informed_.[#] Ironically, the
further away you get from footnote 2 in some areas, the less informed the key
gatekeepers are.

In other areas that might not be the case. These would be characterized by
non-trivial skill obviously required, easily, cheaply, and repeatedly
observable/measurable by multiple parties, etc. Timed running in 100m, would
be an example of the latter.[##] But this is circumventing the actual argument
by changing the relevant context. So its sort of a valid counter-argument, but
its not quite-central to the point the Author was trying to make.

________

[#] see comment> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4658045>

[##] Still, this might not be the most diverse group if the olympics are your
benchmark. But its non-trivial but highly specialized, and we can presume
uneven native talent distrubution cannot be ruled out.

~~~
anthonyb
_> I think you missed that note [2] above._

I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters,
particularly when you're discussing things in written form.

~~~
001sky
I'll take this comment at face value as a legitimate critique of my writing.
In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2 =D. That being said, I
just want to point out one thing to the general reader, which is that the
allusion to the footnote was not meant to be pedantic or a put-down.

The above poster responded to a weakness in the OP's argument, and leveled a
valid counter argument. My footnote was there to highlight this same weakness
in the argument. But my footnote wasn't really there as a point of exposition
(either), and in hinting at the weakness it also articulated the weakness in a
way which illustrated a more valid (central) line of attack. That's why I
highlighted it again.

But I could probably have chosen better words in my response.

~~~
anthonyb
It _was_ intended as a general critique.

 _> In general its Clarity, Brevity, Precision = Pick 2_

 _One_ of those would be a good start ;)

Those three actually go hand in hand. I reread your initial post - I'm still
not sure what you're trying to say. You and the post you reference seem to be
saying the same thing.

Footnotes are supposed to be extra bits, not central to your argument, and you
seem to ramble, and have complicated sentence structures, rather than cutting
to the chase.

~~~
001sky
_You and the post you reference seem to be saying the same thing_

\-- Ha ha yes, That is the chase. I was re-phrasing the OP/article argument,
which was mis-understood by the parent comment.

The footnote articulated something else altogether, namely a weakness in the
argument. It was an more-deeply implied (or imlicit) assumption (so I didn't
spell it out), i kept it seperate.

The post you are referring to picked up on this same weakness, but attributed
it to me. Which wasn't the end of the world, but his counter-argument was
lacking to actually critique the original Post/article.

Hope this helps clarify, the general direction.

Its a tough call on when to clarify a weak or potentially flawed argument, and
when to actually argue against it. Here, I thought it added something
interesting (namely, recursive logic), which is worth noting and considering.

Without throwing the whole insight out.

If I was smarter, I could probably do that faster, better, stonger. As Arnie
says, I'll be Baak. =D

------
ianterrell
The inflammatory and rambly tone will likely cause a lot of people to miss
what I think is actually a point worth considering:

> _A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those
> who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to
> others like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their
> rules._

It's analogous to IQ tests having cultural biases, but people's claiming they
measure intelligence objectively. Whoever sets the metric controls the
outcome, and whoever is currently in charge sets the metric.

I'm not sure it's actionable information, but it seems worth remembering.

~~~
adwf
>A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those
who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to others
like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their rules.

This is quite an unusual definition. I always thought that a meritocracy was
about giving the people best able to do a job the greatest rewards. The
article seems to be assuming that all meritocracies are actually _corrupt_
meritocracies, which is a rather sweeping generalisation...

More to the point; a corrupt meritocracy can hardly be distinguished from any
other form of power/political structure that has become corrupt (in the sense
of rewarding people through crony-ism and other discriminatory practices), so
I don't really see any valid argument here other than "corrupt systems are
bad, mmkay?".

~~~
jaggederest
Quoth Wikipedia:

the term [was] originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically
defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort,
its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate
intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-
scoring, and qualifications."

Essentially, the predictions become reality through confirmation bias, rather
than any real measure of ability. This seems relevant to every existing
'meritocracy', such as academic tenure.

~~~
adwf
Perhaps, but unless my personal definition of meritocracy is quite off
(definitely possible), the general perception of a meritocracy - _now_ \- in
the IT/CS terms that are being considered, is that we are talking about raw
practically verifiable ability rather than academic qualifications. Or even
certifications - which are a somewhat distinct category that IMO, are a bit
more subject to corruption. Pay enough and you get the cert...

But I concede the point that the original definition can lead to a serious
bias towards rewarding the certificate of accomplishment itself rather than
any real accomplishments of themself.

~~~
jaggederest
I think that people who might consider IT to be a meritocracy are blind to the
fact that _the things we measure_ are determined by the people with power, and
thus it's a self-perpetuating sort of hierarchy.

~~~
mc32
Doesn't this suggest that way back when Informatics/IT was boring and
unattractive to the great majority but a few 'engineering types' that people
set up in advance a system that would filter out undesirables? I think that's
giving these theoretical gatekeepers more credit than they deserve. People
don't typically plan that far in advance for a day when their profession might
be 'displaced by the other'. (for example Y2K)

I think it's more of a case of engineers filtering out using the tools which
have worked in the past and perhaps not revising them, if they need revising,
but not from some kind of nefarious conspiracy.

------
beatpanda
Terribly, terribly sorry for the meta-comment, but I have to say, it's been
_thrilling_ lately to watch the intersection of two bubbles that are usually
totally isolated — the "social justice" community and the "hacker" community —
and to see the naivetes of both groups exposed, especially because both groups
are composed of people who usually take themselves and their own intelligence
_very_ seriously.

I work as a programmer, but my social circle is mostly semi-luddite radicals
and hippies. Somebody got chocolate in my peanut butter.

 _Why_ this is happening is intensely interesting to me. Programmers have
emerged as a highly visible priveleged social group, whose actions have huge
and often unexamined social consequences. One example is the rising cost of
living in San Francisco.

For a group that isn't used to considering itself "priveleged" in the usual
sense, it must be disorienting to suddenly be scrutinized in this way. I
wonder what the response from "hackers" will look like over the long term.

~~~
Crake
Honestly, I'd really rather the crazy social justice warriors stay on their
infernally poorly constructed home base of tumblr. I find them really
annoying.

(Surf around for 20 minutes there and you'll see what I mean. Age is a "social
construct"? Come on. And no, you are not "transabled" or "transethnic" or
whatever's in style this week.)

I do agree that the rise of programmers as they become rich and enter a new
social group has created a very interesting class of people that I believe
merits further study. Still, denigrating the efforts of intelligent people who
have impacted society in a positive way just doesn't seem like sound strategy
to me if you're trying to raise awareness of something.

~~~
beatpanda
HAHA! THERE IT IS! I've "surfed around" those discussions IRL, and believe me,
the ignorance comes on strong from _both_ directions.

(By "there it is" I'm talking about the assumption that "the social justice
community" is mainly represented by a handful of Tumblogs, and dismissing
decades upon decades of serious academic research as "poorly constructed",
although you might have just been dissing Tumblr. Not to insult you, it's just
a lack of knowledge on both sides.)

~~~
Crake
Yeah, I've gotten an earful of it IRL too, though. I'm liberal and hang with a
mostly liberal crowd, so any liberal extremism usually comes from direct
interaction (and/or horrifying stuff from the hellhole known as tumblr) and I
just watch the conservative craziness on the news.

I don't deny that there is some relevance of gender studies to reality, but
now it seems that "privilege" and "trigger warnings" are being thrown around
as insults so much that they've lost all of their meaning. As someone who
would benefit from those words _not_ being diluted to the point of absurdity,
I wish that the crazy tumblerites would kindly shut up and not presume to
speak for people like me.

I 100% do not condone phrases like "die cis scum." Hatred towards cis people
is just as gross as hatred towards GLBT persons. Just because you're GLBT
doesn't make it ok to start hating on other people for their gender/sexual
orientation. The goal is to get discrimination based on these things to stop,
not just reverse the polarity. :/

------
kolektiv
"If we met the utopian ideal we toss around in blog posts, we’d still have
lots of middle-aged women in this field. We’d have black people. We’d have
Asian people – not a smattering, but a majority, cause the world is mostly
Asian people."

Just had to pick up on this, purely because it's symptomatic of another form
of blindness. We DO have Asian people. Go and look in Asia. There aren't many
Asian programmers in companies in my current town because the demographic is
not a small scale mirror of the world demographic. I wouldn't expect to find
even 8% white guys in a programming office in Manila.

That's not to ignore the fact that certain sections of populations are, for
whatever reason, dramatically underrepresented in companies in various
prominent countries, but throwing around random meaningless soundbites like
that doesn't help anyone's argument.

~~~
jiggy2011
It's also worth noting that female developers seem much more common in asian
countries too.

~~~
sopooneo
That is new information for me. Anyone have any insight on why it would be the
case?

~~~
jiggy2011
I can't find any information to back it up so it's possible I'm wrong. I've
noticed this most specifically with Indians though.

If you look at Indian outsourcing shops that employ programmers there do tend
to be more females than you would find in an equivalent western company.

If I had to hazard a guess I think the "nerdy" stigma attached to CS is more
of a western thing. Whereas in a growing economy a woman who can go out and
compete with men is perhaps viewed as more empowered somehow?

------
sowhatquestion
I'm astonished (in a good way) to see a perspective this radical represented
on HN. Considering how the discussions of sexism usually go--i.e., a circle
jerk in which we all congratulate ourselves for having slain the dragon of
"political correctness"--I can't imagine it will be received well... but in
any case, major kudos to the author and submitter.

~~~
mquander
I don't get what's radical about the perspective. I think most people would
already agree that many demographics get fucked over when it comes to having
an opportunity to learn and pursue a career in what they might otherwise wish
to. As far as I can tell that is pretty much the only point that the author
was making; the rest is just arguing about the semantics of the word
"meritocracy."

------
scarmig
The great irony is that many people trumpeting the value of meritocracy are
otherwise very well-acquainted with Hayekian arguments and public choice.

Having a true meritocracy is impossible if you take public choice and Hayek
seriously. We don't have all the knowledge necessary to set up a truly
objective and universal system for sifting the chaft from the wheat, or even
an idea of how to frame that knowledge. And even if we did have that ability,
the people and institutions that the meritocracy is embedded in would twist
that meritocracy and pervert its original aims.

It's obvious when stated, but if you suggest that patriarchy or white
supremacy might be undermining some imagined meritocracy, you're some kind of
bitter idiot who is just looking for reason to complain.

------
aidenn0
You can have a meritocracy, and still have an unfair demographic skew.

Given a black box in which the inputs are infants and the outputs are people
applying for software jobs, if the black-box is unfair, then even if you have
a perfect evaluation function in your interviewing process, you will be skewed
to the input of the black box.

All that being said, of course we have an imperfect evaluation function. And
it is almost certainly imperfect in ways that favor white males. However,
given the pool of applicants, I think the bigger factor is the black box.

As an example, the ratio of men to women at my company is similar to the ratio
of men to women in my college computer science classes.

If you shift the black box back a bit and you have inputs being babies and
outputs being high-school graduates, you will see a huge skew still, and this
is part of the reason for affirmative action at the HS level.

I propose that it is easier to give unfair advantages to minorities at the
college level than it is to fix the unfair disadvantages before that level.
This is why I support affirmative action.

~~~
Crake
_I propose that it is easier to give unfair advantages to minorities at the
college level than it is to fix the unfair disadvantages before that level.
This is why I support affirmative action._

This is interesting, because it really does get down to the core of the
argument: how do we improve the academic success of minorities?

Unfortunately, letting someone who can't do calculus into, say, Stanford, is
not going to fix the fact that they will be WAY behind their peers. The
psychological damage from this alone is tremendous. In fact, I believe there
are some interesting studies done on this "mismatch" phenomenon, since racial
minorities actually have a higher interest level in STEM careers, but are put
at a disadvantage and become less likely to graduate as one due to being AA-ed
into a student body where their capabilities are WAY below the mean of their
classmates. This leads to an extremely high dropout rate which could have been
avoided if they'd gone to a school that better suited their abilities.
Instead, thanks to AA, the dropout rate for minorities in STEM departments is
ridiculously high, and talented people who maybe just needed a less intense
curriculum to adjust to instead end up becoming history or gender or racial
studies majors or whatever major you can 4.0 in just for having a pulse.

Personally, whether it's harder or easier to do it at the pre-college level, I
think it far wiser to leave the college admissions race-blind (to prevent
discrimination) and focus on fixing the broken infrastructure that is failing
our socioeconomically disadvantaged students.

That kid going to Stanford will do much better if he has AP calculus available
at his high school, instead of just getting AA-ed in with an inferior skillset
(which may or may not be their fault). We want people to be able to succeed,
not set them up for failure. As a bonus, most people are fine with the idea of
giving others an equal shot, but not so fine with the idea of race based
discrimination. AA makes other groups resentful and suspicious of the AA-ed
party, but helping people have equal access to preparation for college? Who's
going to argue against that?

The best way to end discriminating on the basis of race is to _stop
discriminating on the basis of race._

~~~
aidenn0
The question isn't if the dropout rate of minorities is higher, the question
is, do more minorities graduate than if there wasn't AA? If so, then AA is
having some positive effect.

I'm all for fixing problems at the local level, but the problems are huge. On
a micro level, within school districts there are issues of gerrymandering and
even absent gerrymandering there is a terrible positive feedback loop where
properties within the boundaries of good schools increase in value, putting
them out-of-reach of lower income families.

Also, consider the range of things the child of an engineer is exposed to
regularly by the age of 7 to the range of things the child of someone working
60 hours a week in a non-skilled service industry job.

The obviously wrong on so many levels solution would be to shuffle all
children to random parents in. That would give you true equality of
opportunity. Things like big brother/sister and other mentorship programs fix
this in a more sane manner, and I can recommend those to anyone on HN who
wants to make a difference.

~~~
Crake
_The question isn't if the dropout rate of minorities is higher, the question
is, do more minorities graduate than if there wasn't AA? If so, then AA is
having some positive effect._

Actually, this is something that can be studied in the form of California's
college system, which banned race based discrimination a while ago. Minority
enrollment at selective colleges decreased, but overall enrollment and
graduation rates for minorities greatly increased.

Funding schools via property taxes is a TERRIBLE idea and whoever came up with
it ought to be shot. Schools should be distributed funds more equally.

I really want to help via mentoring or tutoring someday. Life circumstances
won't permit it right now, but I really do believe that helping kids learn
algebra when they are young is a critical step for achieving success in
science at all of the later stages.

~~~
aidenn0
It's not just a matter of funding; in the town where I live there are, for
example, around 10 public elementary schools, all funded from the same pool.

There is a $150k premium on houses in the best vs. worst school district; this
means that any time the lines are adjusted, there are huge incentives to draw
them "creatively"

Furthermore, there is de-facto segregation. Schools are either 80%+ latino or
80%+ white/asian. I grew up in Virginia, and if schools were that racially
split there, then there would be forced cross-town busing.

------
evincarofautumn
Even if the word has its origins in satire, a characteristic feature of human
language is that it _changes over time_. The word “meritocracy” has been
repurposed, and is now a legitimate ideal. The _problem_ with the word is
twofold: first, thinking that you live in a meritocratic society when you
don’t, and second, thinking that merit is objectively measurable. The author
does touch on both points, but I think it benefits from reframing.

Fact is, “programming” means a lot of different things to different people,
and most of it is easy enough that anyone could do it if they wanted to, _and_
were given the opportunity to learn. The last point is key, because most
people don’t get the chance to learn about programming, whether it’s not
offered them, or they simply don’t see it as the last word in career choices.
If you’d rather take photographs or make sushi, you don’t need to be a
programmer. If you’re from a poor country where there aren’t any computers
available, you’ve got other things on your mind.

I strive to be at the top of my field; I’m sure many on HN feel the same way.
But people with that desire form a vanishingly small fraction of the already
small fraction of people who program. And people who will _succeed_ in that
accomplishment form an infinitesimally small proportion of that.

Just have perspective.

~~~
butterfi
There is truthiness to what you say, thank you for embiggening the
conversation.

------
Crake
_I guess that’s a little mean. Sorry, middle-class white boys. I’m not calling
you dumb. I’m calling you soft._

That's really inflammatory. I'd be pretty mad if that were directed at me, not
inspired to consider the guy's point (if he even had one).

I, for one, am grateful for all the magnificent things that hacker culture has
brought to society. My life would be much more difficult without them. And
actually, one of the things I love most about hacker culture is how open
access it is. You do need a computer, but you _don't_ need a $200,000 degree.
Compare the cost of a computer and maybe some overdue library fines (minimum
needs for becoming a proficient coder--maybe along with some coffee funds) vs.
becoming a doctor. A lot of people can't afford 8+ years of expensive
education, but a desktop or laptop is much more likely to be within reach.

I like the word meritocracy, even if the roots are satirical. As a society, we
should help the people who are most suited and most interested in a certain
thing become the people best trained in and responsible for working in that
field. Anything else is just poor and inefficient allocation of labor capital.
Do you want someone who could be a genius physicist working at target? Do you
want your starbucks cashier to be performing open heart surgery on you?

------
imgabe
There's a fallacy at work here that is difficult to point out without being
accused of bias, but I'll try anyway. It's that in order for a profession to
be considered completely fair with regard to race and gender issues, the
makeup of people in that profession must exactly reflect the proportion of
people in the general population.

I would argue that this is a sufficient condition, but not a necessary one.
Yes, for example, if it did happen to be the case that 50% of programmers were
women and 50% of the general population were women, you could say there was no
gender bias. But, I don't think that forcing a 50% ratio of women is the right
way to go about eliminating the gender bias in the programming profession.
It's also possible that there could be no bias, but the proportions would
still not be equivalent to those in the general population for other,
unrelated, reasons.

I'm not trying to pretend that such biases don't exist. I know they do. It's
important that we go about eliminating them. It's also important that we do so
by eliminating their causes, not by trying to artificially create scenarios
that are coincident with a solution.

It's like, a symptom of the measles is having red dots all over your skin, and
the proposed solution here is to cover them up with makeup.

~~~
wonderzombie
_It's that in order for a profession to be considered completely fair with
regard to race and gender issues, the makeup of people in that profession must
exactly reflect the proportion of people in the general population._

Hmm. No, I don't think that's quite it. I don't think anybody has any
illusions about actually _achieving_ that in the near-term, nor anything so
simplistic as pass/fail. It'll probably be asymptotic. And, with respect, what
you're talking about is so far from reality — like discussing what we'll do
with all that extra food when we've solved world hunger — that it's a bit
premature (or optimistic, depending on how cynical you are) to discuss exit
conditions.

Maybe once we're pretty well convinced that racism/sexism doesn't play a
dominant role in this, we'll be able to study cultural or socioeconomic
factors which influence people's choice of career. But any measurement you try
to make now about how or why is going to be dominated by existing bias.

------
natrius
_"What a meritocracy really protects us from is challenge."_

Are you suggesting that we not choose who to work with by our assessments of
their talent? I think I'll pass. Let us know how your business works out with
that strategy.

This is an absurd misdiagnosis of the cause of underrepresentation in
technology. Every computer science class I've been in has had a similar ratio
of genders and ethnicities as the industry does. It's not that we're not
finding talented female and minority developers; it's that there are so few of
them to begin with. Even if changing the way we evaluate talent were a good
idea, it wouldn't change the makeup of the industry.

------
jsnell
> A meritocracy is a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those
> who already have it, and ensuring that authority is only distributed to
> others like them or those who aren’t but are willing to play by their rules.

So the whole argument seems to be centered around this idea, but it seems
horribly flawed.

Let's assume for the moment that this theory is true. There really is an
implicit homogeneous conspiracy that's in charge of distributing "merit", and
they only give it to people who are "like" the existing members. Even if
that's true, why in the world would you assume that this conspiracy is
defining similarity by skin color or sex?

It's very easy for somebody whose self-identity is defined by a certain
characteristic to assume that others see the world the same way. That since
_I_ define myself primarily by being an X and secondarily by being a Y, others
are treating me primarily as a member of groups X and Y. Which is clearly
absurd since there are so many ways to categorize people, and since people are
perfectly capable of building an identity around each of them. It could well
be religion, sexual orientation, nationality, language, politics, age,
occupation, school, sports team, a hobby, etc. And many of these categories
have fractal complexity.

AFAIK, my sense of identity isn't really tied up in race or gender. So why
would I as an extremely prejudiced gatekeeper of meritocracy make decisions
based on whether somebody is male of female, rather than whether they're a
Java programmer (eew) or a CL hacker (yay!).

------
cantastoria
Once again we see members of the social justice community promoting
"privilege" as the metric for which all achievements should be judged.
Developed an amazing search technology? "Well, they're two straight white
males... big deal". Revolutionized the mobile devices industry? "He's a
straight white male of course it's easy for him". Created the largest social
network on Earth? Pfff...all he had to do was show up.

The fundamental flaw with privilege theory is that there is no way of
discerning where someones supposed privilege ends and where their actual
achievements and talent begin. Unless you're gong to simple say "anyone could
of done that and the only reason you were able to was because you're a white
male" or a "dude" or "boy" as this author seems to be fond of calling men
(misandrist much?). In other words we're all equally talented, smart,
motivated and lucky and the only differentiator is race, class and gender.
Which I think most would agree is absurd.

One question I have though is what would be the ideal world for the OP? A
system where everyone's race, class, gender and privilege are considered when
making hiring decisions and then adjusting applicants qualifications
accordingly? Is that really the world we want to live in?

------
Kilimanjaro
Those who despise meritocracy simply lack, well, intelligence to understand
it.

Merit is not about IQ, merit is about knowledge and experience in a field.

A cook can't build a bridge, a carpenter can't rule a kingdom, a ballet dancer
can't run wall street, an altar boy can't run the vatican.

We can't know it all, so we specialize, and the more we specialize the more
valuable we are in that particular field. So if you want to know about quantum
mechanics you ask Stephen Hawking not Emeril Lagasse, but if you want to know
about beef stew you know who's the right man. Now guess who would be the
perfect fit for the Newton's Chair and who for the Food Network's primetime
show?

That's meritocracy, it's not about IQ, it's about merits, you earn them, you
can't take them or buy them, you just fucking earn them with sweat and tears.

------
001sky
The biggest point in this stands out as follows: The gatekeepers of "Merit"
rely on <Hueristics> for selection. They do this precisely because they do not
know actual merit. Cue: Irony. Applications to top-tier selective
Universities, for example, are read for ~20 minutes. The reason they do not
know actual merit, is a fundamental issue: Bounded Rationality.

The costs (in time, money, and brain damage) associated with "factual" merit
testing would be rediculous/uneconomic. We can verify this somewhat
orthogonally, by looking at a couple different similar selection processees.
eg. Job interviews. Same problem, same solution. 20 min resume screens. Next,
we can compare a resource-unconstrained organization: How does it recruit top
1-5%'er? (special forces, test-pilots, and astronauts, etc): long, exhaustive,
actual-failure-mode testing. No 20 minute skims.

If every job or educational credential was allocated in this manner (and you'd
have to assume access to the test and test prep), it would be a more
interesting test of "Merit". As a second best, it would be interesting if
schools actually failed out their weakest students (ie, proving that only the
best had a credential). But that is not how the world works. Merit is, rather,
a politically correct (and practically expedient) heuristic for preferential
treatment. And that is the main point of this post, I believe.

The fair debate, of course, is on the resolution and applicability of filters
under various contexts. And if they are inefficient, are they _remdiably_ so?.
&tc.

------
guylhem
The article seems full of hatred against "white men". A group of people, for
some reason, has found it worth its time to do some activity. This group then
trains more, invest more time, and compounding interests makes them better.

Other groups see their success and feel like they don't belong. It's human -
nothing mean in it.

Why is Christophe Lemaitre one of the only decent white sprinters? Because.
Why are boys dropping out more and more while girls study? Because. Why are
there mostly asian in advanced classes, so much that some university (by their
own words) do now discriminate against them in admissions? Because. Why are
there mostly white men in the IT industry?

Well - I guess you can now answer yourself.

There is no conspiracy (except maybe for the universities preferring people
from some ethnicities while other people are more qualified) - it's just a
bunch of self maintaining tendency.

Something interesting - look at the posts on 9gag to try to get the current
untold opinions - apparently some white people are developing an inferiority
complex on math and sciences when they have asian classmates. Self exclusion,
once again.

So drop the hatred and see the meritocracy. It's all around us.

For the first time in history, with a very low amount of capital and
education, a human being can create a profitable company. You should be
celebrating such an achievement, not bashing meritocracy.

EDIT: Downvote as much as you want, but I'd be interested to know for which
reason exactly Occam razor is not being applied here

~~~
roguecoder
"Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain
that."

All of those social dynamics are explainable. Why are sprinters seldom White?
Because fast people in Western cultures participate in the more-lucrative and
high-status team sports instead. Why are boys dropping out? Well, African-
American boys are punished more harshly for the same behavior, more likely to
be diagnosed as learning-disabled and tracked out of regular classrooms, less
likely to have their father at home due in large part to racist enforcement
and prison terms. White boys aren't dropping out: they are under-performing
because they don't have to work as hard to succeed as girls. Why are there
mostly white men in the IT industry? I recommend this book:
[http://www.amazon.com/The-Computer-Boys-Take-
Over/dp/0262050...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Computer-Boys-Take-
Over/dp/0262050935) It answers your question and it has nothing to do with who
the best programmers are.

If you can't explain something, maybe you should do more research.

~~~
guylhem
The social angle for the IT industry is interesting. There is a dynamic of
power happening- but it's not the whole picture.

The racism based explanation doesn't seems to work - just like for fast
people, where you gave a great example: they self select more lucrative and
higher status alternatives.

Under performing pupils also self select, for failure, but the reason is
different : it's based on their own prejudice and a cultural norm saying XX
people should do YY.

Anyway, in the end people self select in or out - and that's a self
perpetrating tendency based on an initial trend for whatever reason.

"racist" enforcement and society couldn't do that much damage by themselves.
However, cultural norms most certainly could - especially when people believe
them.

IMHO, the simplest explain is the better.

------
bithive123
While I agree that we fall well short of the utopian ideal (rather than the
farcical interpretation) there are plenty of other bureaucratic barriers to
meritocracies as well.

In my experience even the most dedicated, agile people hit organizational
limits on complexity or continuity and ultimately have to settle for sub-par
network topologies, software stacks, and yes even coworkers.

To the extent that we all understand a meritocracy to refer to a system where
things are evaluated on their merits, hopefully all agree that it is a fine
ideal even if the historical meaning (like 'begging the question') is
different.

~~~
ktizo
As far as I am aware, meritocracy in the original definition is one which is
ruled by people on the basis of their paper qualifications, which leads them
to fundamentally believe that they are justified in holding power over others,
despite the fact that those qualifications are often a consequence of a lot
more than just ability. Part of the warning was that meritocracies can become
both tautological and blind to corruption as the bits of paper become the main
measure of the right to hold power.

------
ynniv
I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy to
mean the biased notion of evaluated merit that keeps the powerful in power.
This whole rant falls apart if you assume an honest desire to promote based on
merit, which is often what people mean when they claim to be meritocratic.
Granted they don't execute it properly, and aren't fully honest when they say
that they value it, but lets get one thing straight:

meritocracy is not "a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those
who already have it".

This rant is without base.

~~~
kome
> I'm not sure why this person decided to redefine the essence of meritocracy

Because the very word "meritocracy" was invented to describe an Orwellian
society dystopia were "merit" was the only metric for value. He just use the
original definition.

~~~
ynniv
It's a niche definition that was long since co-opted to describe how people
should be promoted. It now roughly means selection based on some manner of
successful execution, as opposed to personality, or personal relation.

The problem with using "the original definition", is that the rant is now
against something that was not the original conversation. Which is fine if the
author wants to rant about cronyism ("the original definition"), but not about
selection based on observable skill or success (what everyone is talking about
lately).

~~~
anthonyb
Except that the original definition fits the current situation in IT very
well.

------
drcube
_Somebody_ decides how to measure merit and certifies who has it. Then you
have regulatory capture[1].

That's why you have all the white guys deciding who will be doctors, business
executives, lawyers, engineers, etc. And people like people they can relate
to, no individual maliciousness or racism needed. It's inherent in the system.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture>

------
elisee
Might be worth changing the submission title ("You keep using that word") to
include the word "Meritocracy". It's really opaque right now.

------
ktizo
I had this argument with my mum about the word 'meritocracy' a few years ago.
She was convinced that it couldn't have originated in a satire, as otherwise
politicians wouldn't have adopted it because that would just make them look
silly.

------
amplitwist
If the PC police could do Fermi problems, they wouldn't be polluting my news
feed with inane conspiracy theories.

<http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm>

~~~
Crake
Honestly, there are so many studies with conflicting results that I feel like
it's hard to tell to what extent there may or may not be a sex based
difference in math aptitude. However, I feel like we can't throw out the
possibility of it having an effect just because it's politically incorrect.
It's bad science to assume you know the results before even doing the
experiment.

Sex based differences (and/or similarities) are really fascinating to me. I
wish they weren't so politicized.

~~~
amplitwist
There's another article that makes an attempt to disentangle nature and
nurture in the sex gap at <http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math2.htm> . Like
I mentioned earlier, these articles are a few steps above Fermi problems;
there are ways to calculate these things more accurately. However, these
calculations should agree with the estimates, and the estimates indicate a
significant genetic gender gap.

