6 ms·
Only with an absurd definition of "merit". Yes, if you define "merit" as including particular genes in your DNA, then you can get away with Pike's attitude and
by zigzigzag 10y ago
Only with an absurd definition of "merit".
Yes, if you define "merit" as including particular genes in your DNA, then you can get away with Pike's attitude and still claim to be merit-based.
But hello, reality check, Pike is advocating for something that is not only immoral but also explicitly illegal. The law says that people should be assessed on their skill at the job and not selected due to their gender. Like, whether they write good code or not. The industry has a lot of different ways of measuring merit that are gender neutral - Pike is saying ignore those ways and promote bad coders over good, "just because" they're women.
- tptacek 10y agoNo part of this engages with my comment. You can't convincingly dismiss the entire class of arguments about how "merit" is evaluated as facially absurd, unless your definition of "merit" is "whatever produces the set of circumstances we're currently living in now". Arguments of that form have a name; they're called "the just-world fallacy".
- ygaf 10y ago>No part of this engages with my comment. He was contriving to engage with it; you should be less brief/concise with your talk about priors and premises in this thread.
- tptacek 10y agoIf you understood it as responsive to my comment, can you explain to me how it was? I'd like to understand it better.
- ygaf 10y agoWell, in the absence of your followup post, your second line about priors could just be interpreted as 'redefine merit to include being female'. Of course that isn't what you meant about changing priors, and I'll be honest, I've been drinking but be more user-friendly :)