[newnewnew]

Notice that if any other group is proportionately overrepresented in a population, it can still be "meritocratic". It is only if there are too many white men, and only white men, that a group can no longer be considered meritocratic.

Meanwhile, people tend to forget that half of successful startup founders are immigrants, including large portions from China and India. Most tech companies I've seen are not very white. If Silicon Valley is a good old boys network, the good old boys have done a terrible job at exclusion.

[freefrancisco]

Also, apparently women from other countries didn't get the memo that the tech industry is sexist, and they come in droves to Silicon Valley to kick ass and chew bubble gum.

[wonderzombie]

The plural of anecdote is not data, let alone the singular.

[21echoes]

> Notice that if any other group is proportionately overrepresented in a population, it can still be "meritocratic".

false. a meritocratic system will very closely match the demographics of the population at large, because no given demographic is inherently better at a given task[1].

> It is only if there are too many white men, and only white men, that a group can no longer be considered meritocratic.

it's no coincidence that most un-meritocratic systems are overrun with white men-- white men are, historically, a priviledged group. so, of course, if a system values privilege over merit, one will see more white men. is that really that hard to understand?

[1] there are, of course, some small differences in average ability among different populations, but in most every case this is not the overriding factor leading to population imbalances in a given field.

[newnewnew]

You realize that it is trivially easy to falsify your worldview by glancing at, say, Asian American SAT statistics? Measured ability varies widely across population groups, and not always in white guys' favor. Otherwise, every profession from the NBA to electrical engineering would be perfectly balanced like a college recruiter's pamphlet.

Your statement is just a statement of faith, contradicting all available evidence.

[williamcotton]

The burden of proof doesn't rest on the person arguing against your borderline phrenological explanations of intelligence.

And yes, faith in humanity IS needed for an enlightened thinker.

The meaning and purpose of life will never be proven. There is plenty of room for faith in our world of rationalism.

You need more art in your life! The world is more than just a bunch of metrics in a spreadsheet to fret and argue about.

We should be skeptical of superstitions, but not skeptical of love, truth, and beauty! Don't misinterpret the quest of the Enlightenment! To listen to love and to live!

[SilasX]

How is "different genes have different impact on different mental tasks" anything like a phrenological explanation?

[girvo]

Because it makes it easy to keep his faux-outrage going.

[williamcotton]

Don't project your misery on to me my friend, it is wasted breathe! I've got the fire of life on my tongue and your motivations are but wisps of faint discontent. In the raging flames of passion all you can see are your own fallacies.

(get it, the play on "faux outrage"? faux/fallacies, outrage/raging flames? sorry to ruin the poem for you, but you know, part of the problem here is that too few people on this forum have ever learned how to read/listen/see...)