Hacker News Reader

I think, I have to clear up a little bit!

First, I had no message in relation to empowering/networking or the like!

I told the little anecdote with this in mind: if someone found the thesis work of my former girlfriend (now spouse), and investigated its production method, and would correctly conclude that it was typeset in junks on a Berthold ads 3000 typesetting system, then pasted up on film on a lighttable, than blown up with a reproduction camera and then contact printed on A3 photopaper - the investigator might be tempted to dismiss the diagnosis, as the effort and costs are absolutely ludicrous in relation to the importance of the work. I just showed how such an obvious discrepancy can have a very plausible explanation.

For the "justice" part: my gf asked the teacher for permission to have the work typeset by her boyfriend and the teacher consented, making clear, that only text content and quality of the practical work (the colorized photographs) would be considered for grading, not the outer form as this would put her "out of competition". This was also outlined in the written assessment. In addition, every 3rd party involvement had to be declared in the preposition. It was also only possible, because the thesis subject was of artistic nature, where no strict rules for outer form existed.

Thank you for your anecdote, I thought it was a fun read. I am saddened that the most common response of many HNers is to turn every interesting story into a pessimistic lamentation of society. We need more glass-half-full people around here to balance things out.

Yes, it’s empowering.

You seem to be under the impression that it is somehow unfair that people don’t have to do everything themselves, and can leverage their social networks to achieve more than they could on their own.

I suppose it is unfair to those who, by disability or temperament, don’t build social networks. But so what? Those people are no worse off than they would be in a world where everyone is a shut-in.

And don’t bring socioeconomics into it; social access to a specific typesetting machine might be less likely at lower income, but access to e.g. machine shops is more likely, and arguably more valuable.

Yes, it is empowering that people can achieve more by working as a team with their friends and family than they could on their own. Like any good thing, there are downsides, and we should be wary of nepotism in zero sum things like hiring, but gp’s typesetter was going to sit idle had they not used it. This is an empowering story.

> And don’t bring socioeconomics into it;

In 2003, right before a few new nations entered the European Union, the EU had set up several websites, where people from the new, soon to be, member nations could inform themselfes about each of the current EU member states.

The document describing Germany mentioned, under the chapter "Employment", that 80% of all jobs in Germany get distributed via social connections. Now I am still in shock and it may be, that this includes the employment office, but the chances to get a good job, as either an immigrant or a socially marginalized person, is low.

So, bringing socioeconomics into play is totally acceptable.

I do not think one should reject any social privileges one has, but one also should respect, that this is not the case for everybody and do something about it.

It sounds good to say "we should do something about it," but that ignores the fact that there will always be inequality.

Steve J. and Steve W. knew each other. They knew some other people. They used their social connections to found Apple. As a result of that, bears in the jungles of Darkest Peru can now typeset Dennis Ritchie's thesis in full-color on a supercomputer that fits under their hat next to their marmalade sandwich.

Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing in the name of some airy-fairy equity ideology to make people "feel good" isn't the progress some think it is.

I said: > I do not think one should reject any social privileges one has

to which you replied: > Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing

If you reread my comment, you may find, that I mentioned explicetly, not to put barriers on "this sort of thing" but instead respecting the fact, that some people just have no chance to enter a group, without the group taking additional steps in finding them.

It sounds good to say "we should do something about it," but that ignores the fact that there will always be inequality.

Steve J. and Steve W. knew each other. They knew some other people. They used their social connections to found Apple. As a result of that, 20 people a year jump to their death in Taiwan alone.

Putting barriers up to prevent this sort of thing in the name of some airy-fairy equity ideology to make people "stay alive" isn't the progress some think it is.

In other words 20% of jobs were distributed via the much less efficient and risky approach of job adds, formal applications, HR scanning CVs for buzzwords and credentials, lengthy interview vetting process, etc.

I agree with OP. It is empowering that you can achieve more when working with people you know well and trust.

You mention that this makes it harder for immigrants. Of course it does. Immigration is disruptive to once life. It only makes sense to migrate, if the prospects at the new place are much better, despite effectively loosing access to your existing network at home. Of course it will take time, to re-build such a network.

I've moved within a Canadian province (about 750km) and it was pretty disruptive.

Friends and family are far, kids are challenging without that village, nobody knows you from around, etc. Like you say, though, the new place looked much better than the old one.

Couldn't imagine doing it from half a planet away.

How is that at all surprising in a time of less globalism and internet penetration?

People in small town of course know each other and use word of mouth to find candidates, for example.

What were they supposed to do, put on an advert on the national newspapers for every vacancy in the country?

Thank you & I'm glad to be called out on that. Yes in a just meritocratic world, everyone gets the same opportunities subject to their ability to provision them or ability to learn same. And as an introvert I certainly feel the pain that when it comes to attracting resources that sometimes appear unmerited, my perception is that extroverts & the socially-connected seem to own this game hands-down.

To use parent comment's example, there are many times I wish I could 'professionalize' or increase the perceived production value of something I've put together of a natively raw-looking technical bent (think duck tape & kite string applied to whatever prototype-y technical problem is at hand). In a world where presentation is everything, I might lack the resources to provision that pricey production value (worth not forgetting that as consumers our perceptions update over time on what signals high production value, creating exactly such a market for production value resources). So given an unjust world, when one really needs to make their splash, they manage to network their way to getting asymmetric support for their offering. Is the system unjust? Yes I agree that it is & merits ongoing broad-based effort to even the playing-field. Are consumers (of anything) ever going to stop updating their (our) perceptions of what constitutes high production value? Unlikely, seems like a natural human cost-reducing trait to find signal in noise.

So at least in this unjust world, parent comment has narrated a very real, very human approach to achieving asymmetric support: meeting people in the real world & getting them to appreciate the intrinsic value of whatever it is you're producing. Does such an approach too often get exploited? Obviously - we have plenty of headlines attesting to that, and need to be vigilant to such practices. Parent comment's story doesn't ring to me like that. Does comment-parent shine light on a pathway for those of us trying to get our little-piece-of-value-addition-to-the-world perceived in the needed context? Yes, I believe it does shine that light.

And this introvert is off to the next networking event.

In a way, I believe the idea of a "just, meritocratic world" masks the actual underlying problem -- that we do not have measures in place to prevent individuals or small groups from gaining grossly disproportionate levels of power in our society. We wouldn't need to keep the natural human inclination of socialising and networking in check if all it ever resulted in was a few nicer looking photo books.

In my interactions outside of professional life, I find such happy coincidences of skills and connections to lead to outcomes that simply enrich everyone, like how this photo album surely pleased the commenter, the gf, the school teachers, etc. Rarely does anything like this hurt anyone. Sure, someone might be a little more popular in a social circle for a time because of some cool thing they made with their cool friends, but these kinds of things are transient and -- in a context of conditions of fairness -- some other person with some other cool new thing will eventually displace them.

In a capitalist world where "cool new things" can lead to concentration of wealth that can be guarded and leveraged to create more, then networking (familial/nepotistic or otherwise) can lead to unfair outcomes. But the idea of a meritocratic system still leads to the same unfair outcomes, just decided on a different and still somewhat arbitrary set of requirements.

Looks, money, contacts, intelligence, knowledge. These are all things that help bring about more/better opportunities for a person. They are all things that some people have more of innately and can be improved with effort. Is life fair that some people start out with more of some of them? No, but life isn't fair. But is the fact that you can focus on improving the above things for yourself and it will help you succeed in life empowering? I would certainly say yes.

Perhaps the message is that you can be that friend for somebody else. After all, being an apprentice typesetter is not exactly being "well-connected and successful".

> The anecdote reinforces the now dominant view that networking is everything and people deserve benefits and opportunities that at a different time might be labeled nepotism or favoritism.

Nothing was mentioned about "deserving". Just reality. I don't understand why you'd see the need to impute - and then immediately criticise - some sort of judgement into a bare statement of fact.

> The message this sends is that I should have more well-connected successful friends. Is this empowering?

We can also view it from another perspective. Even in a fair society where everyone has socioeconomic balanced connections, a situation where someone has access to advanced photography/printing tools at the same time this person's girlfriend needs to produce her thesis could still arise.

Looking at the situation positively, we can say that the empowering aspect is that synergic opportunities can arise unexpectedly, enabling outstanding work to be accomplished.

However, it's true that the society we currently live in is far from fair and balanced.

I don't understand the comment at all, it has nothing to do with nepotism or favoritsm....like at all?

The situation would be different if the typesetter would also be grading the work. Also, an apprentice is not one of the "well-connected successful friends" for most people.

You seem to argue that the taking the opportunity is wrong because others do not have it, by definition since it's a personal, not work-related connection. It could not have been accessed by the others since it's not a generally available opportunity. But you seem to forget that in the end it's really not about producing the most equal thesis but the best possible. It's not a standardised test but a first try at creating meaningful insights. Comparing it with others is important for the grade but that's not what it's about. It could also be ungraded. It's about the work itself. Taking the opportunity is right.

> The anecdote reinforces the now dominant view that networking is everything

this is not even a logical conclusion. The thesis is not about being good very good typeset. You have to write it first.

It is both empowering and negative.[0]

I got the same mentoring early in life. Networking matters. And yeah the system sucks and is a poor meritocracy, if that itself is even the better state of affairs.

Regardless, we live in the system we have and we either work it to our benefit or not.

Meta:

[0] Naysayers, knowledge is power. Prior to said mentoring, I had near completely dismissed networking, believing is was unnecessary and a sign of poor skills and other such ideas. Realizing how things actually do work was literally life changing.

If impacts like that are not signs of empowerment, I do not know what is.

Meritocracy sounds nice, and perhaps is a worthy state of affairs, that is not currently the system we live in. That may be hard news. Was to me.

As always, it sure would be nice and far more productive to read a rebuttal...

The "system" is just the underlying nature, isn't it? Nature is not a pure meritocracy.

It's more efficient to accomplish work when you work with others, provided you complement each other, and it's easier to work with others if you know them well and can trust them.

Having to find new people frequently, learn who they are, what they are capable of, and if they are trustworthy instead of relying on your existing network is not efficient.

A political system in which these fundamental rules of nature are forcefully suppressed, e.g. a pure meritocracy, is a horrible system, in my view. Fortunately, if something is not efficient, it will be replaced by something efficient in the long run.

I don't see nature as a pure meritocracy myself. I have had a large number of people express the desire for "the system" to be a pure, very functional meritocracy, and I myself envisioned it more that way much earlier in life.

As for efficency... Maybe! There are strong arguments either way. I prefer a base network, with fluid edges able to respond with depth and breadth.

Underlying nature... You mean as people?

That's a fluid thing. We do not have to run it like we do, and I feel we shouldn't.

So no. It is a contrived thing. Can be changed, should be.

However, at this moment it is also what we live with, so know it well, work it best we can.

This is how it has always been. This is reality. This is basic human nature. Shaking your fist at the sky and being mad at natural human interactions is silly. Please stop.

The most important thing you can do for your career, for a successful and fulfilled life is to get good at interpersonal relationships. Don't be a weird, anti-social shut-in. Your family, your community, your society are the most important things in life. This is good. This is healthy.