it's tragic that people think merit-based promotions and hiring actually exist. Meritocracy is flawed and extremely biased -- because people that enforce meritocracy are biased.
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
Who isn't bias? That's what defines an individual personality. If we would remove everybody who expresses some biases you wouldn't have that much choice of people at the end.
The fact that people have bias cannot be the issue in itself, problems occur when they are ignored and not taken in account by systems.
For example a hiring process can take in account biases and have ways to correct for them, for example by avoiding to have one single interviewer having way more weight than another, by doing blind reviews, etc.
No? maybe I misunderstood your comment. Everyone seems to default to "if it's not meritocracy, then what?" or they default to "this meritocracy alternative you're proposing is worse". Well, then, what's better for you? What would you prefer knowing that meritocracy is inherently full of biases?
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
No, I guess I misunderstood yours.There is nothing better than meritocracy, in my view, because meritocracy, which I believe is routinely used successfully in all sorts of domains, ensures the best people are incentivized to do the best work they can, for the benefit of the entire tribe..
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
There are literally studies on this.