You keep using that word "meritocracy"(garann.com)
garann.com
You keep using that word "meritocracy"
http://www.garann.com/dev/2012/you-keep-using-that-word/
22 comments
FizzBuzz is famously hard, but it's not that hard
Every time I see something like this, I cringe inside and wonder at how memes get distorted.
FizzBuzz is not supposed to be hard. In fact it is supposed to be as EASY as you can possibly make an actual programming task. So easy that most programmers would have trouble believing that there are people calling themselves programmers who can't solve it in their sleep. Seriously if you know enough of a programming language to print output, run a loop, take remainders, and write if tests, then you can write FizzBuzz.
Put another way, if you can't write FizzBuzz, then you probably can't write ANY useful program. And your interview can safely stop right there because you failed.
Every time I see something like this, I cringe inside and wonder at how memes get distorted.
FizzBuzz is not supposed to be hard. In fact it is supposed to be as EASY as you can possibly make an actual programming task. So easy that most programmers would have trouble believing that there are people calling themselves programmers who can't solve it in their sleep. Seriously if you know enough of a programming language to print output, run a loop, take remainders, and write if tests, then you can write FizzBuzz.
Put another way, if you can't write FizzBuzz, then you probably can't write ANY useful program. And your interview can safely stop right there because you failed.
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.
-- 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.
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)?
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)?
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.
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.
> 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.
I think you need to edit your posts more carefully. Clarity matters, particularly when you're discussing things in written form.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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
-- 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
[deleted]
[deleted]
"This is an argument about barriers to skill acquisition"
I don't see that argument in her post.
I don't see that argument in her post.
getting a sweet internship at some cutting edge technology
Author is arguing/implying that overcoming this "gate" was the source of [the example's] later (developed, proven,etc) skill. It might not be a perfect argument, but its there IMHO. I think if you believe it's not a good argument/ point, its best to attack it directly. That is all.
Author is arguing/implying that overcoming this "gate" was the source of [the example's] later (developed, proven,etc) skill. It might not be a perfect argument, but its there IMHO. I think if you believe it's not a good argument/ point, its best to attack it directly. That is all.
I don't think she's saying that. Do white males without programming skills get programming internships at a higher rate? Are there even a significant number of people who take that path?
Hiring is not the problem. Getting underrepresented folks to choose computer science in the first place is.
Hiring is not the problem. Getting underrepresented folks to choose computer science in the first place is.
Now I think you are attacking the point directly. I can't speak for the author but it seems to me that the person does believe this. viz "it’s a pretty fucking easy job..." etc [1]
___________
[1] The whole context is as follows:
If there’s one thing I’ve learned after thirty-three years of being alive, it’s that if you see middle-class white boys flocking in droves to a particular career path, it’s a pretty fucking easy job and you should try and get yourself one like that.
I guess that’s a little mean. Sorry, middle-class white boys. I’m not calling you dumb. I’m calling you soft.
___________
[1] The whole context is as follows:
If there’s one thing I’ve learned after thirty-three years of being alive, it’s that if you see middle-class white boys flocking in droves to a particular career path, it’s a pretty fucking easy job and you should try and get yourself one like that.
I guess that’s a little mean. Sorry, middle-class white boys. I’m not calling you dumb. I’m calling you soft.
... trust most people saw the logical flaw - the author is assuming that the ability to program is currently evenly distributed.
I don't see anything from the author which can be construed as the statement, "ability, is at present, evenly distributed." If you withdraw that stipulation, what you have is:
4. Ergo, opportunities to become a computer programmer [e.g. education] are not distributed according to merit [e.g. by identifying and cultivating potential in individuals.]
Which is entirely defensible as a conclusion.
I don't see anything from the author which can be construed as the statement, "ability, is at present, evenly distributed." If you withdraw that stipulation, what you have is:
4. Ergo, opportunities to become a computer programmer [e.g. education] are not distributed according to merit [e.g. by identifying and cultivating potential in individuals.]
Which is entirely defensible as a conclusion.
The "at present" stipulation doesn't really change anything. The author is claiming that the ability to program is evenly distributed, but the plain truth of the matter is that more white English-speaking males in their 20s can program than can <fill in demographic here>. Which is because of, yes, racism, sexism, inequality, and a host of other societal ills, but it dosn't change the fact that Joe's House of Discount Programming in Des Moines Iowa gets a lot of resumes from people that look like us here on HN, and very few resumes from middle-aged black women who speak Swahili.
The HR department at Joe's House of Discount Programming may well be biased, but you can't conclude that from the evidence presented. More broadly, you cannot tar the programming profession as racist and sexist because we don't hire people who don't actually exist (even if, yes, the reason those people don't exist is because of racism and sexism and all the rest).
The HR department at Joe's House of Discount Programming may well be biased, but you can't conclude that from the evidence presented. More broadly, you cannot tar the programming profession as racist and sexist because we don't hire people who don't actually exist (even if, yes, the reason those people don't exist is because of racism and sexism and all the rest).
Um, you don't think that calling the given situation meritorious would be racist/sexist?
1. Construct a system to deliver engineering educations. For whatever reason, white males are overrepresented in this system.
2. Place those engineers at top engineering firms and startups, where they succeed.
3. Conclude that the system rewards effort and ability fairly, and therefore the current beneficiaries are the best and most deserving.
Step #3 is ignorant and stupid.
To cast this another way, this would be like going back to a pre-Jackie Robinson period of baseball history, or the pre-integration period in basketball history, and concluding that the best baseball players in the world are white.
Yes, in a very literal sense that is true, if you define basketball players as only those people who can right now play basketball professionally, in a system which is accessible only to a small subset of the population. Even if there were people playing amateur or street ball, who had great raw potential, without being able to enter programs where they could hone and refine their skill they would be inferior in many ways to the pros. And a person who would hew to that literal rendering would be considered myopic, shallow and intellectually dishonest.
Similarly, to say that the current crop of engineering talent represents the most deserving talent in the world is a backhand to all the people who are excluded from participating in the system to begin with.
So yes, you can't say "programming is a racist institution because it doesn't hire people who don't exist." You can, however, say that programming is a racist institution because it benefits from a lopsided system of selection, and then arrogantly declares that the selection system is fair, that those selected received no undue benefit in their selection, and therefore those selected are the best.
1. Construct a system to deliver engineering educations. For whatever reason, white males are overrepresented in this system.
2. Place those engineers at top engineering firms and startups, where they succeed.
3. Conclude that the system rewards effort and ability fairly, and therefore the current beneficiaries are the best and most deserving.
Step #3 is ignorant and stupid.
To cast this another way, this would be like going back to a pre-Jackie Robinson period of baseball history, or the pre-integration period in basketball history, and concluding that the best baseball players in the world are white.
Yes, in a very literal sense that is true, if you define basketball players as only those people who can right now play basketball professionally, in a system which is accessible only to a small subset of the population. Even if there were people playing amateur or street ball, who had great raw potential, without being able to enter programs where they could hone and refine their skill they would be inferior in many ways to the pros. And a person who would hew to that literal rendering would be considered myopic, shallow and intellectually dishonest.
Similarly, to say that the current crop of engineering talent represents the most deserving talent in the world is a backhand to all the people who are excluded from participating in the system to begin with.
So yes, you can't say "programming is a racist institution because it doesn't hire people who don't exist." You can, however, say that programming is a racist institution because it benefits from a lopsided system of selection, and then arrogantly declares that the selection system is fair, that those selected received no undue benefit in their selection, and therefore those selected are the best.
I think you're missing the point, which is not calling you racist, but opening your eyes to the fact that much of what you have achieved (and I don't mean you specifically, but the class of people the article adresses) is not a direct result of your effort but largely due to privilege. Thus, as a person of privilege you should use whatever political power you have - and you have quite a lot of it - to help rectify the situation, or, at least be constantly aware of it.
Merit does not require effort. I haven't heard anyone claiming that their ability to program is a measure of their worth as a human being. It is, however, a measure of one's usefulness to a development team.
Ok, but isn't it in the interest of all software employers to use their political power to create more capable developers? This is simple economics; I'm not even touching ethics or justice here. And isn't it the immediate interest of current developers to maintain their value by blocking others from entering this profession? Sometimes we adhere to hidden interests without even realizing. Let us first open our eyes to how society works and how we may, inadvertantly, keep others down.
Those incentives are there, but the linked post isn't about that, nor is it a particularly useful starting point for that discussion.
Probably not directly, but that's implied in the word merit, and in the higher pay and better conditions afforded to programmers.
2) Most computer programmers are white
Maybe in the USA, but in that context this is not surprising, as 72% of the USA is white. (The male part is a separate discussion) Do you have proof that when considering the entire world, most computer programmers are still white?
Maybe in the USA, but in that context this is not surprising, as 72% of the USA is white. (The male part is a separate discussion) Do you have proof that when considering the entire world, most computer programmers are still white?
Most places I've worked at really do want to hire a diverse group of engineers. At one company, one of the managers was asked by his manager to hire e.g. more black women. His response was "you show me one, and I will hire her".
Personally, I'd like more women in the field as well. I wouldn't mind working somewhere where, I don't know, even 1 out of 3 people were women, instead of 1/10. But I think availability has a lot to do with it.
Personally, I'd like more women in the field as well. I wouldn't mind working somewhere where, I don't know, even 1 out of 3 people were women, instead of 1/10. But I think availability has a lot to do with it.
"FizzBuzz is famously hard"
Are we talking about the thing of writing "fizz" for multiples of 3 and "buzz" for multiples of 5 and "fizzbuzz" for both, for the numbers 1 - 100? If that is famously hard, then the definition of hard must have changed massively while I wasn't looking.
Are we talking about the thing of writing "fizz" for multiples of 3 and "buzz" for multiples of 5 and "fizzbuzz" for both, for the numbers 1 - 100? If that is famously hard, then the definition of hard must have changed massively while I wasn't looking.
"famously hard" was an example of sarcasm.
A lot of people applying for programming jobs can't solve it. Any programmer, pretty much by definition, can. The lesson is that a lot of people who apply for programming jobs can't program. :)
A lot of people applying for programming jobs can't solve it. Any programmer, pretty much by definition, can. The lesson is that a lot of people who apply for programming jobs can't program. :)
If the vast majority of people applying for programming jobs can't solve it, then it qualifies as hard by definition.
I agree with your analysis. However I've only ever sat in on a few programmer interviews, and was lucky enough to get only the few that had already made it through several screens and were quite sharp. However, if so many people can't do FizzBuzz, that's baffling. If they can't do that, what can they do? I mean that literally. Do they just have knowledge of certain specific frameworks or something? Can anyone shed light on this?
I know this may be derailing the conversation, and it bothers people, I'll not mind deleting this post.
I know this may be derailing the conversation, and it bothers people, I'll not mind deleting this post.
One issue I've had is that if a question is too easy, I start out thinking "this must be a trick question..." and then tie myself up in knots trying to find the (non-existant) catch...
Of course in an interview, one should presumably just say "hey this seems too easy, is this a trick question?" but ...
Of course in an interview, one should presumably just say "hey this seems too easy, is this a trick question?" but ...
That reminds me of when I was first learning to program. I wondered for an embarrasingly long time what the hell 'foo' meant. I knew it must be something really important as it was absolutely everywhere.
It is hard, only in the sense that programming anything is hard, if you don't know how to program. If you can program at all, you can solve it. It definitely wouldn't qualify as 'famously hard'. Things that achieve fame for being hard are usually very very difficult indeed. If anything, in the narrow circles in which it has any fame at all, it is famously easy.
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.
>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.
> It's analogous to IQ tests having cultural biases, but people's claiming they measure intelligence objectively.
No contradiction there. IQ tests clearly aren't completely unbiased and perfectly objective, but they don't have to live up to that impossible standard. Humans have a general intelligence factor G, and an IQ test can approximate it reasonably well. As far as I know IQ tests are the best and most objective way we have of measuring G.
If we can't even call our most objective tools objective, then we're quickly entering the territory of total relativism.
The idea that the outcome of IQ tests is mostly determined by cultural biases, which is what you suggest, seems extremely unlikely. Cultural aspects will make some demographics score better than other demographics, but smart people within a demographic will surely still outperform their peers. So I'm very skeptical about your claims.
No contradiction there. IQ tests clearly aren't completely unbiased and perfectly objective, but they don't have to live up to that impossible standard. Humans have a general intelligence factor G, and an IQ test can approximate it reasonably well. As far as I know IQ tests are the best and most objective way we have of measuring G.
If we can't even call our most objective tools objective, then we're quickly entering the territory of total relativism.
The idea that the outcome of IQ tests is mostly determined by cultural biases, which is what you suggest, seems extremely unlikely. Cultural aspects will make some demographics score better than other demographics, but smart people within a demographic will surely still outperform their peers. So I'm very skeptical about your claims.
>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?".
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?".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You're dancing around the point of the article, which is that what most people here consider a programming/technical meritocracy is a corrupt meritocracy. Most people who can program, can do so because of their background, not because of some innate quality.
I'll have to give up here. My personal experience is therefore colliding with forum experience, and my anecdotal evidence should never be given too much sway if so.
It's a tricky dilemma trying to work out whether background affects peoples ability to learn rather than their ability to do. An -innate- quality wasn't what I was trying to get at in saying that some people are better at their jobs than others, but I can certainly see the implications. I'll have to think about it...
If it helps, my background is from a UK perspective, so a lot of the biases may not be all that similar cross-culture.
It's a tricky dilemma trying to work out whether background affects peoples ability to learn rather than their ability to do. An -innate- quality wasn't what I was trying to get at in saying that some people are better at their jobs than others, but I can certainly see the implications. I'll have to think about it...
If it helps, my background is from a UK perspective, so a lot of the biases may not be all that similar cross-culture.
It seems to me that in a truly meritocratic and also capitalistic society, the market would decide what the metric is, because public opinion of what constitutes "merit" will be aligned with what produces success in the market.
But doesn't the market favor people of means? The market already has a metric - financial success - but the market cares not for justice. I think all the author is asking is of us to open our eyes, and do our best to further goals we deem worthy, and let the market do what it likes. We're people, we can act on our beliefs. Why should we be slaves to the blind yet unjust market?
> 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.
If we take this as a definition for 'meritocracy', what do we call situations where there is an objective test of skill that everyone is equally prepared to meet, but not everyone is equally able to meet? Does the author dispute that such a thing can exist? If so, does the dispute lie in the existence of an 'objective test' or in 'equal preparation'?
If we take this as a definition for 'meritocracy', what do we call situations where there is an objective test of skill that everyone is equally prepared to meet, but not everyone is equally able to meet? Does the author dispute that such a thing can exist? If so, does the dispute lie in the existence of an 'objective test' or in 'equal preparation'?
My reading of that is that the author would reject both of those. My personal thoughts (as you can probably tell from my other comments on this thread) are that we are much closer to having an objective test than equal preparation.
Could you please NOT use the word 'actionable' ever again? Please?
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.
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.
I am glad you made this post, because recently I've been having similar thoughts. I don't know if it's just because I visit sites that occupy a singular cluster in webpage-space [1], but it seems like the evidence of increased conflict between the social justice community and the hacker community is popping up everywhere. Is this because the social justice community has finally reached critical mass on the web (a traditional hacker domain) and is speaking up, or did something in one of the communities recently change to trigger this? And is this collision / conflict something that we'll see more of in the future, or will the fervor on each side die down?
Either way, I think the hacker community's long term response will be really interesting. When looking for historical examples, I can really only see one clear path -- the path taken by industries whose employees already consider themselves privileged, namely those in finance and banking. They've had ongoing conflicts with the social justice community for a while now, and we've seen their response. Will the hacker community respond similarly? Hackers seem to value non-conformity and despise credentialism, so I doubt it.
So, I think the long term path of the hacker community will probably be unique. Suppose the hackers recognize that they might be privileged in some ways (e.g. high IQ). Will we see a restored sense of noblesse oblige? I doubt the social justice community let that stand. Maybe the hackers will undergo a cultural transform that satisfies them? Though I'd like to believe this is possible, no examples come to mind that give me any confidence.
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/nl/the_cluster_structure_of_thingspa...
Either way, I think the hacker community's long term response will be really interesting. When looking for historical examples, I can really only see one clear path -- the path taken by industries whose employees already consider themselves privileged, namely those in finance and banking. They've had ongoing conflicts with the social justice community for a while now, and we've seen their response. Will the hacker community respond similarly? Hackers seem to value non-conformity and despise credentialism, so I doubt it.
So, I think the long term path of the hacker community will probably be unique. Suppose the hackers recognize that they might be privileged in some ways (e.g. high IQ). Will we see a restored sense of noblesse oblige? I doubt the social justice community let that stand. Maybe the hackers will undergo a cultural transform that satisfies them? Though I'd like to believe this is possible, no examples come to mind that give me any confidence.
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/nl/the_cluster_structure_of_thingspa...
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.
(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.
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.)
(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.)
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. :/
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. :/
"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.
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.
Look at how many asian computer scientists there are in Seattle and the valley, or even NYC? This just baffles me, because Microsoft (my employer) is very diverse, I would bet that Asians make up a super minority if not a majority of the Redmond office. As for my own office in China, I think we have 1 or 2% Caucasian, maybe less. But to be honest, it doesn't feel that much different from the west coast.
It's also worth noting that female developers seem much more common in asian countries too.
Better than the US, but not as much as you would think. Diversity hires in my office (in China for an American company) mean female, not even the various ethnic minorities that are a more than a bit underrepresented (I haven't met a Tibetan or Uighur programmer yet, but then we aren't out in West China).
That is new information for me. Anyone have any insight on why it would be the case?
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?
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?
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.
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."
I was astonished to see it as well, but mainly because the logic was so poor. How is pretending that the attendance at conferences should reflect the world's population a useful addition to this discussion?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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 don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden the skew in education is the other way - recently girls do better in school than boys. It hasn't changed the men/women ratio in computer science though (it has in fields such as law and medicine though)
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Sweden the skew in education is the other way - recently girls do better in school than boys. It hasn't changed the men/women ratio in computer science though (it has in fields such as law and medicine though)
I was primarily talking about race and socio-economic status. Girls do outperform boys in all subjects up to about age 12, and in many(most?) subjects afterwards. There has been a huge increase in just about all technical subjects at the college level, with Computer Science showing a decline (peak was around the class of 1985)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem sometimes just gets pushed back in time by funneling unprepared high school kids into AP Calc classes. They don't have the algebra for it. I've seen this first-hand and while there are sometimes one or two kids for whom it is a godsend (and it's possible the benefit to them alone justifies having the rest of their classmates in an inappropriate class), the rest of tend to flounder.
AP! AP! AP! the cry goes. How can our kids succeed without the AP classes the suburbs have? But then you are really just renaming trig as "AP Calc" and with very few (but again important) exceptions, no one scores above a one.
AP! AP! AP! the cry goes. How can our kids succeed without the AP classes the suburbs have? But then you are really just renaming trig as "AP Calc" and with very few (but again important) exceptions, no one scores above a one.
Then we go back and make sure they get adequate algebra education. We have to trace the problem back and fix it before the trajectory becomes irreparably set in stone.
Math takes time and lots of practice to learn. Trying to cram it all in at the college level via AA is just Not Going To Work.
As a side note, I really wish we'd had AP Calc at my high school. We only had two english APs, alas. (got 5s on 'em, though)
Math takes time and lots of practice to learn. Trying to cram it all in at the college level via AA is just Not Going To Work.
As a side note, I really wish we'd had AP Calc at my high school. We only had two english APs, alas. (got 5s on 'em, though)
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.
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.
There is truthiness to what you say, thank you for embiggening the conversation.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
> 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!).
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!).
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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... 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.
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... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
meritocracy is not "a system for centralizing authority in the hands of those who already have it".
This rant is without base.
> 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.
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.
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).
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).
Except that the original definition fits the current situation in IT very well.
The question is, who and what defines merit in a meritocracy? The article claims that those already in power do and thus it is they that control who gets to move up the ladder.
[deleted]
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
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
Might be worth changing the submission title ("You keep using that word") to include the word "Meritocracy". It's really opaque right now.
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.
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
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
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.
Sex based differences (and/or similarities) are really fascinating to me. I wish they weren't so politicized.
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.
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.