Comment by blululu | Hacker News Reader

Comment by blululu | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>What person from an underrepresented group wants to be chosen just because of their group status? Isn't that highly patronizing for someone who likely had worked hard to get to where they got? Do you want to be "pretty great for a xxxxx person!" or just "one of the best".

For comparison, consider the case of people who get their jobs via nepotism. The people who are hired for nepotism are seldom concerned with the fact that they were chosen because of who their parents were. In many cases these people are reasonably qualified and do just fine in spite of the fact that they were given the job because of their family's status.

When there is a preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely, choosing the best means choosing between a number of comparably good alternatives (to within the large uncertainty of the measurement). In certain cases there are very meritocratic scenarios where I think your statement holds, but when there is a surplus of talent for a role and quantifying success is very imprecise, I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense. Given that many hedge funds are basically glorified ETFs that average to the market, I'm not if there is much difference between reasonably qualified candidates for these jobs.

I think your nepotism example and "preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely" are nice arguments and give me something to think about, thanks.

But when you say "I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense"... you are really saying that instead of trying for meritocracy, they should just use skin color?

How do you feel about the idea of blind auditions for orchestras (auditions where the candidate cannot be seen, only heard)? These were originally done to eliminate the possibility of discrimination.

I think orchestras could also qualify for "preponderance of talent and success is hard to quantify precisely"... should they eliminate blind auditions so they can choose performers based on skin color+gender?

Well I'm not really advocating for choosing people based on skin color or gender per se. Rather that in a cases where there is an surplus of talent for the role we should consider making a choice based upon serving the interests of society more broadly. Sometimes this will fall along racial lines. For example, having doctors of color to serve communities of color has demonstrable positive health outcomes for society more broadly.

In the case of managing portfolios, I think that there are compelling reasons from a risk management perspective to cultivate different perspectives (a room full of Bulls will get burned in a downturn). Increasing the number of people from working class backgrounds, genders with different spending priorities, or races with different community ties can potentially add a lot of important perspectives to a financial portfolio.

Blind Auditions in orchestras are an interesting idea. People are actually much better and judging sound quality of violins than they are judging the quality of stock options, so it is easier to definitively state that someone is the 'best' Violinist in a group.

> we should consider making a choice based upon serving the interests of society more broadly. Sometimes this will fall along racial lines.

This line kind of contradicts this line:

> Well I'm not really advocating for choosing people based on skin color or gender per se.

>But when you say "I'm not sure if meritocracy makes sense"... you are really saying that instead of trying for meritocracy, they should just use skin color?

I'm not GP but that doesn't seem like a charitable rendering of their argument. Its the stupidest possible rendering of their statement.

I'm not sure we want to use nepotism as the standard to meet.

> The people who are hired for nepotism are seldom concerned with the fact that they were chosen because of who their parents were.

Nepotism is personal and hidden. It isn't a rule everyone knows about, but something done on an individual level. If people could spot nepotism as easily as they could spot race and knew about confirmed corporate nepotism as easily as they knew about diversity initiatives, it would carry a greater stigma.

People see the race question on the job application. I have never seen a form ask about family members.

>I have never seen a form ask about family members.

You haven't? Because I definitely have seen it. I'm not sure it's universal, and I know people do go to work for companies where their relatives work, but it's something that is asked on applications I've filled out, and as far as I know, is perfectly legitimate to factor into decisions.

Furthermore, race, that I can remember, always has a disclaimer that it's kept separate without identifying the person and used for reporting on diversity. And you can decline to select an answer too.

My view is that if there is a bar set that is reasonable and results in competent people being hired, then how people are selected within that set doesn't matter that much. Maybe with the caveat that I wouldn't want everyone to use the same preferences such that every employer would exclude me.

I don't see why I should be threatened by either nepotism or affirmative action. If I'm at a disadvantage, then I can take pride in having to work a little harder. Conversely, people give you more credit if they are aware you are disadvantaged, even if it's unspoken and unofficial.

>as far as I know, is perfectly legitimate to factor into decisions

I mean, to prevent nepotism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com