5 ms·

Missing the point. Meritocracy is not something to aspire to. In practice it masks and reinforces power structures, increasing inequality: > The main finding i

Missing the point. Meritocracy is not something to aspire to. In practice it masks and reinforces power structures, increasing inequality: > The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward. From: http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/4/543.short Which was recognized by Chris Wanstrath when they removed it: > @defunkt: We thought ‘meritocracy’ was a neat way to think of open source but now see the problems with it. Words matter. We’re getting a new rug. https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800 https://twitter.com/defunkt/status/426104782894284800

Aqueous 12y ago
The problem wasn't the meritocracy it was the failing to live up to it. Meritocracy is absolutely something we should aspire to. In these examples the men who were paying other men more were simply not being meritocratic - if they were, then they would have hired/given raises to just as many equally qualified women as they did men. That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job of being meritocratic.
- gruntmaster9000 12y ago
  The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to just completely abandon the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy. Worth reading, Selenda Deckelmann of Postgres: http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fails/ http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fa... and everything else here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
- rodgerd 12y ago
  "The problem with marxism is the failing to live up to it." This is how you sound.
  - nailer 12y ago
    That's not actually an unreasonable line of thinking.
    - rodgerd 12y ago
      Sure it is. If a theory keeps failing in the real world, it's time to modify or discard the theory.
      - nailer 12y ago
        Either that, or modify the implementation There's been a lot of failed Marxist societies, but some implementations, the Kibbutz for example, has been relatively successful. One could also argue that HN and startup culture is an example of workers seizing the means of production.
- dreamfactory2 12y ago
  Have you actually read the linked article by the man who invented the term? It's not about meritocracy done badly, it's about it being a destabilizing force when done well.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    Yes, and I think that he's mistaken. The meritocrats - the 'beneficiaries of nepotism' in the article - aren't actually where they are (wholly) because of merit. It's because they were born into a social structure where they were already beneficiaries of wealth and privilege, and were able to accrue various 'merit badges' because of this wealth and privilege. But this isn't actually meritocracy. What I'm saying is that the system that the author claims to be meritocratic actually isn't - if it were, starting with our early childhood education system, it would be promoting people based on talent and aptitude and not keeping them down because they were born into the wrong class. And this is what I'm saying actually constitutes meritocracy. Do I think we should be advancing people simply because they are poor? I do not. Similarly I do not think we should be advancing people simply because they are already rich. I think we should be giving those who have been historically denied these opportunities the same opportunities to advance as we do to everyone else, elevating them rather than diminishing others. That to me would represent an actual 'meritocracy', not the false version that the coiner of the term is criticizing.
    - dreamfactory2 12y ago
      You do realise the author coined the term 'meritocracy' in the first place and therefore gets to decide what it constitutes? I think you have the wrong end of the stick in any case as he contrasts it with class and nepotism and finds it an even worse form of government. I suspect his definition isn't far off yours or mine: "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." That's precisely why his critique of the arrogance and complacency this elitism leads to is interesting and not so easily dismissed. He thinks that a system where "every selection of one is a rejection of many" is overall a net loss.
- b0nz 12y ago
  How do you know that there were as many qualified female candidates for the job? How do you know that the women that you think were underpaid were producing the same quality of work as the men in similar roles? You don't. You assume it because it fits your worldview.
  - Aqueous 12y ago
    I'm choosing to believe the study, the abstract of which says: "The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward." The fact of the matter is I don't, which is more, not less, of a reason to be skeptical that the concept of meritocracy is bad because it causes a paradoxical outcome.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - b0nz 12y ago
      I appreciate your well thought out reply. I honestly haven't read the study, but I'm skeptical about how its authors reached their conclusion. How are they determining that the male and female job candidates are equally qualified? Are statisticians experts on hiring software engineers or sys admins? Were they directly involved in the hiring process of a group of tech workers? Do they have access to said workers skill assessments? I think anyone could pick a bunch of tech companies which describe themselves as meritocracies and determine that they hire men more frequently than they do women. I think you would find that to be the norm in any tech company, regardless of how they describe themselves. There are more men in tech. Duh.
- b0nz 12y ago
  How do you know that there were as many qualified female candidates for the job? How do you know that the women that you think were underpaid were producing the same quality of work as the men in similar roles? You don't. You assume it because it fits your worldview.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Aqueous 12y ago

The problem wasn't the meritocracy it was the failing to live up to it. Meritocracy is absolutely something we should aspire to. In these examples the men who were paying other men more were simply not being meritocratic - if they were, then they would have hired/given raises to just as many equally qualified women as they did men. That calling something a meritocracy when it isn't may have a paradoxical effect may be true. But I'm not sure it warrants getting rid of meritocracy as the guiding principle of an organization. We should just be doing a better job of being meritocratic.

gruntmaster9000 12y ago
The point is we can’t be truly meritocratic. It’s a utopic ideal that doesn’t hold up in the real world. Those who are deciding what merit is are the ones who already have power. Also, there are many barriers to entry before supposed meritocratic judging can even take place. The goal isn’t to just completely abandon the idea of judging people based on their accomplishments, but to recognize that the supposed ideal of meritocracy is a harmful fantasy. Worth reading, Selenda Deckelmann of Postgres: http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fails/ http://www.chesnok.com/daily/2011/03/30/where-meritocracy-fa... and everything else here: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy
rodgerd 12y ago
"The problem with marxism is the failing to live up to it." This is how you sound.
- nailer 12y ago
  That's not actually an unreasonable line of thinking.
  - rodgerd 12y ago
    Sure it is. If a theory keeps failing in the real world, it's time to modify or discard the theory.
    - nailer 12y ago
      Either that, or modify the implementation There's been a lot of failed Marxist societies, but some implementations, the Kibbutz for example, has been relatively successful. One could also argue that HN and startup culture is an example of workers seizing the means of production.
dreamfactory2 12y ago
Have you actually read the linked article by the man who invented the term? It's not about meritocracy done badly, it's about it being a destabilizing force when done well.
- Aqueous 12y ago
  Yes, and I think that he's mistaken. The meritocrats - the 'beneficiaries of nepotism' in the article - aren't actually where they are (wholly) because of merit. It's because they were born into a social structure where they were already beneficiaries of wealth and privilege, and were able to accrue various 'merit badges' because of this wealth and privilege. But this isn't actually meritocracy. What I'm saying is that the system that the author claims to be meritocratic actually isn't - if it were, starting with our early childhood education system, it would be promoting people based on talent and aptitude and not keeping them down because they were born into the wrong class. And this is what I'm saying actually constitutes meritocracy. Do I think we should be advancing people simply because they are poor? I do not. Similarly I do not think we should be advancing people simply because they are already rich. I think we should be giving those who have been historically denied these opportunities the same opportunities to advance as we do to everyone else, elevating them rather than diminishing others. That to me would represent an actual 'meritocracy', not the false version that the coiner of the term is criticizing.
  - dreamfactory2 12y ago
    You do realise the author coined the term 'meritocracy' in the first place and therefore gets to decide what it constitutes? I think you have the wrong end of the stick in any case as he contrasts it with class and nepotism and finds it an even worse form of government. I suspect his definition isn't far off yours or mine: "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." That's precisely why his critique of the arrogance and complacency this elitism leads to is interesting and not so easily dismissed. He thinks that a system where "every selection of one is a rejection of many" is overall a net loss.
b0nz 12y ago
How do you know that there were as many qualified female candidates for the job? How do you know that the women that you think were underpaid were producing the same quality of work as the men in similar roles? You don't. You assume it because it fits your worldview.
- Aqueous 12y ago
  I'm choosing to believe the study, the abstract of which says: "The main finding is consistent across the three studies: when an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward." The fact of the matter is I don't, which is more, not less, of a reason to be skeptical that the concept of meritocracy is bad because it causes a paradoxical outcome.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - b0nz 12y ago
    I appreciate your well thought out reply. I honestly haven't read the study, but I'm skeptical about how its authors reached their conclusion. How are they determining that the male and female job candidates are equally qualified? Are statisticians experts on hiring software engineers or sys admins? Were they directly involved in the hiring process of a group of tech workers? Do they have access to said workers skill assessments? I think anyone could pick a bunch of tech companies which describe themselves as meritocracies and determine that they hire men more frequently than they do women. I think you would find that to be the norm in any tech company, regardless of how they describe themselves. There are more men in tech. Duh.
b0nz 12y ago
How do you know that there were as many qualified female candidates for the job? How do you know that the women that you think were underpaid were producing the same quality of work as the men in similar roles? You don't. You assume it because it fits your worldview.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]