[d0lph]

> However, believing that a 90 degree angle is perfect doesn’t have much impact on the job performance of a senior polygon and there are lots of other questions that don’t predict job performance.

So, I think this is not a meritocracy if polygons are being promoted based on non merit related qualities. It feels like they're attacking Meritocracy as being institutionalized, but then claiming that there are other biases not merit related. Ultimately, it's almost like they're defending meritocracy, saying it's not fair that an equally skilled man would be preferred over a woman based on gender.

I am fascinated by this, does anyone know what alternate system is proposed? In their article they make a few merit based judgements of who should be promoted.

Also this seems bit much: > "Successful venture capitalists claim that they have “pattern matching” powers. The evidence for this is that they have been successful." [...] "I am saying that this is a terrible argument. It has the same intellectual rigor of a casino lounge lizard explaining their magical rabbit’s foot. “I haven’t lost yet!”"

[TristanKromer]

I probably wasn't clear there.

It's not that the concept of meritocracy is inherently bad. It's just that it's impossible to implement unless all people are perfect, have an exact understanding of what "merit" is, have perfect information etc.

So I'm disagreeing with the idea that Silicon Valley (or Google) is a meritocracy and that the "level playing field" that some people use as an argument against diversity initiatives is actually inherently biased.

Also, I'm not saying all diversity initiatives are great. I know pretty much zero about what makes one initiative better or worse.