Huh? Really? Aren't people by default biased towards their ingroups and things familiar to them?

Don't we make movies of the times someone actually got noticed and was able to enrich our society through their merit?

Perhaps I am wrong.

The whole concept of 'got noticed' runs entirely contrary to the notion of merit, to an absurd degree in tech.

One does not hope to get noticed - they strive to excel on their own or by bringing others in to help them.

Your merit is not what you might achieve, but what you do achieve.

Really? We're rational here, which is pretty much meant to be the hallmark of techies.

> The whole concept of 'got noticed' runs entirely contrary to the notion of merit, to an absurd degree in tech. >Your merit is not what you might achieve, but what you do achieve.

Taking it seriously, I can see several situations where these rules do not hold true.

However, that may be me reading in factors you exclude for the purposes of your point.

So let me turn it to you - can you consider circumstances where these statements wouldn't hold true? Or are they absolute in your eyes?

If they are absolute, I would definitely want to understand your defintions, since I can conceive of many obvious cases where these points are violated.

But since they are obvious, I am assuming you haven't overlooked them in the way you envision things.

You haven't addressed what I said. You've identified a problem (let's just assume you are correct about the problem for arguments sake). I've pointed out the problem with current "solution": making decisions about individuals based on their race, sexual orientation or gender seems far from good, but you haven't addressed that.

I guess this derives from what you think the most common form of skill assessment error we are meant to deal with.

Let me ask you this, what is the principle or goal you want to achieve? is it more fairness, or more effective systems, or maybe even better conditions for white american men (and to me, this is ok. Its just what you want to optimize for)

Again you haven't addressed the point I've made.

Ok.

Well here’s what you said:

> Considering a candidates suitability for a role based on their race, gender, or sexual orientation is the opposite merit based selection.

> You haven't addressed what I said. You've identified a problem (let's just assume you are correct about the problem for arguments sake). I've pointed out the problem with current "solution": making decisions about individuals based on their race, sexual orientation or gender seems far from good, but you haven't addressed that.

I didn’t think there was anything to address. I think you defined the ideal we are meant to achieve.

If this is a question on whether things should be fair - yes we are in agreement on principles.

I want a fair system, for everyone.