Meritocracy is like traditional view of objectivity that knowledge exists without the knower. Truth of the matter is, knowledge exists without the knower but it is not independent of the knower.
This is why 14 year olds writing app is a reason for celebration and why encouraging more females is a good thing. By doing so, we allow our work to expand to incorporate the values that those group represent, which is important because our work is user-centric, it doesn't stand by itself. If the work doesn't stand by itself, how can its creators?
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the exact opposite of a meritocracy? If someone makes something awesome, it doesn't really matter if they're 14 year olds, women, men or aliens.
I know at least I'd high five someone who made something cool, regardless of gender/age/other factors.
The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)
I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more.
I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it makes for a wider variance in problems that get solved. It gets tiring to see every startup out there that solves problems for 20 something people who live in San Francisco (who incidentally might be male, asian/white...). This does not however mean that I ascribe to the idea that one should impose quotas or have lower standards for people who don't fit in these demographics.
I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.
I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit
Why? If two candidates are equal in every way, why not favor the one coming from a disadvantaged background? Shouldn't they be more, rather than equally, likely to achieve more given the same future resources?
It's disheartening to watch online communities turn on themselves as they become infected with the cancer of postmodern feminism. It's a bullying, disempowering, dissent-crushing and divisive[1] ideology that erases individual experiences, obsesses over things one cannot control, demonizes nuance, and glorifies experiencing alleged "oppression", as defined in Marxist terms. It's toxic.
Unless things change, the evaporative cooling effect will leave Hacker News a divisive, infighting shell of its former self. Hopefully, a few new, positive communities will have sprouted by then. I'm constantly on the lookout.
[1] Look beneath the surface of any postmodern Marxist, anarchist, or feminist community, and you'll quickly see that dissent is completely non-tolerated, often in comical fashion. "Check your privilege" and similar anti-intellectualisms are internally thrown around like candy over any disagreement, new members are expected to prostrate themselves, and sub-communities are constantly splintering off and reemerging under new "leaders".
The concept of regardless is lost in a meritocracy given the terms of measurement are defined by the the dominant group, which may or may not reflect the required knowledge for the betterment of the system.
For example, if you have a computer science scientist judging the validity of a physics experiment, you are not doing the physicist and physics justice, are you? If your meritocracy supports computer scientists, what chance does the physicist have?
This is why 14 year olds writing app is a reason for celebration and why encouraging more females is a good thing. By doing so, we allow our work to expand to incorporate the values that those group represent, which is important because our work is user-centric, it doesn't stand by itself. If the work doesn't stand by itself, how can its creators?