I'm predisposed to agree with the diagnosis that incompetence is ruining a lot of things, but the article boils down to "diversity hiring is destroying society" and seems to attribute a lot of the decline to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Just in case anybody's wondering what they would get from this article.
> By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course. Administrative law judges have accepted statistically observable disparities in outcomes between groups as prima facie evidence of illegal discrimination. The result has been clear: any time meritocracy and diversity come into direct conflict, diversity must take priority.
TL;DR "the California PG&E wildfires and today's JavaScript vulnerability are all the fault of Woke Politics." Saved you a click.
A more fundamental reason is that society is no longer interested in pushing forward at all cost. It's the arrival at an economical and technological equilibrium where people are comfortable enough, along with the end of the belief in progress as an ideology, or way to salvation somewhere during the 20th century. If you look closely, a certain kind of relaxation has replaced a quest for efficiency everywhere. Is that disappointing? Is that actually bad? Do you think there might be a rude awakening?
Consider: It was this scifi-fueled dream of an amazing high-tech, high-competency future that also implied machines doing the labour, and an enlightened future relieving people of all kinds of unpleasantries like boring work, therefore prevented them from attaining high competency. The fictional starship captain, navigating the galaxy and studying alien artifacts was always saving planets full of humans in desolate mental state...
My own interpretation of the business cycle is that growth cause externalities that stop growth. Sometimes you get time periods like the 1970s where efforts to control externalities themselves would cause more problems than they solved, at least some of the time. (e.g. see the trash 1974 model year of automobiles where they hadn’t figured out how to make emission controls work.)
I’d credit the success of Reagan in the 1980s at managing inflation to a quiet policy of degrowth the Republicans could get away with because everybody thinks they are “pro business”. As hostile as Reagan’s rhetoric was towards environmentalism note we got new clean air and clean water acts in the 1980s but that all got put in pause under Clinton where irresponsible monetary expansion restarted.
> along with the end of the belief in progress as an ideology, or way to salvation somewhere during the 20th century.
That 20th century belief in technological progress as a "way to salvation" killed itself with smog and rivers so polluted they'd catch on fire, among other things.
Thank you for summarizing (I actually read the whole article before seeing your reply and might have posted similar thoughts). I get the appeal of romanticizing our past as a country, looking back at the post-war era, especially the space race with a nostalgia that makes us imagine it was a world where the most competent were at the helm. But it just wasn't so, and still isn't.
Many don't understand that the Civil Rights Act describes the systematic LACK of a meritocracy. It defines the ways in which merit has been ignored (gender, race, class, etc) and demands that merit be the criteria for success -- and absent the ability for an institution to decide on the merits it provides a (surely imperfect) framework to force them to do so. The necessity of the CRA then and now, is the evidence of absence of a system driven on merit.
I want my country to keep striving for a system of merit but we've got nearly as much distance to close on it now as we did then.
>Many don't understand that the Civil Rights Act describes the systematic LACK of a meritocracy. It defines the ways in which merit has been ignored (gender, race, class, etc) and demands that merit be the criteria for success
The word "meritocracy" was invented for a book about how it's a bad idea that can't work, so I'd recommend not trying to have one. "Merit" doesn't work because of Goodhart's law.
I also feel like you'd never hire junior engineers or interns if you were optimizing for it, and then you're either Netflix or you don't have any senior engineers.
FWiW Michael Young, Baron Young of Dartington, the author of the 1958 book The Rise of the Meritocracy popularised the term which rapidly lost the negative connotations he put upon it.
He didn't invent the term though, he lifted it from an earlier essay by another British sociologist Alan Fox who apparently coined it two years earlier in a 1956 essay.
Everything has become organized around measurable things and short-term optimization. "Disparate impact" is just one example of this principle. It's easy to measure demographic representation, and it's easy to tear down the apparent barriers standing in the way of proportionality in one narrow area. Whereas, it's very hard to address every systemic and localized cause leading up to a number of different disparities.
Environmentalism played out a similar way. It's easy to measure a factory's direct pollution. It's easy to require the factory to install scrubbers, or drive it out of business by forcing it to account for externalities. It's hard to address all of the economic, social, and other factors that led to polluting factories in the first place, and that will keep its former employees jobless afterward. Moreover, it's hard to ensure that the restrictions apply globally instead of just within one or some countries' borders, which can undermine the entire purpose of the measures, even though the zoomed-in metrics still look good.
So too do we see with publically traded corporations and other investment-heavy enterprises: everything is about the stock price or other simple valuation, because that makes the investors happy. Running once venerable companies into the ground, turning merges and acquisitions into the core business, spreading systemic risk at alarming levels, and even collapsing the entire economy don't show up on balance sheets or stock reports as such and can't easily get addressed by shareholders.
And yet now and again "data-driven" becomes the organizing principle of yet another sector of society. It's very difficult to attack the idea directly, because it seems to be very "scientific" and "empirical". But anecdote and observation are still empirically useful, and they often tell us early on that optimizing for certain metrics isn't the right thing to do. But once the incentives are aligned that way, even competent people give up and join the bandwagon.
This may sound like I'm against data or even against empiricism, but that's not what I'm trying to say. A lot of high-level decisions are made by cargo-culting empiricism. If I need to choose a material that's corrosion resistant, obviously having a measure of corrosion resistance and finding the material that minimizes it makes sense. But if the part made out of that material undergoes significant shear stress, then I need to consider that as well, which probably won't be optimized by the same material. When you zoom out to the finished product, the intersection of all the concerns involved may even arrive at a point where making the part
easily replaceable is more practical than making it as corrosion-resistant as possible. No piece of data by itself can make that judgment call.
> By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course. Administrative law judges have accepted statistically observable disparities in outcomes between groups as prima facie evidence of illegal discrimination. The result has been clear: any time meritocracy and diversity come into direct conflict, diversity must take priority.
TL;DR "the California PG&E wildfires and today's JavaScript vulnerability are all the fault of Woke Politics." Saved you a click.