Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Hillary Joins the Race (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Hillary Joins the Race
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a politician campaigns on one political stance then governs entirely contrary to that once elected, I get angry/disappointed.
When a politician campaigns or governs on one political stance that is, or becomes, widely unpopular, I feel they should change the way they govern. I would respect them even more if they stated plainly that they didn’t agree yet felt it was their job to represent the will of the people, not push their own personal position. (Quit snickering, it could totally happen…)

The title of that link is Martin O'Malley Goes After Hillary Clinton For Leading By 'Polls,' Not 'Principles'. I find this to be close to ideal if true. Representative government should do this and act as a moderating cool head that is more informed than the overall population who could be making requests/demands based upon incomplete information regarding what lead to the situation, what is involved in fulfilling the request and what the repercussions would be. Beyond that, they SHOULD do what we want, even if we change our minds. [Wink]

I know it seems like we just vote for the dictators we like best every 4 years and hope for the best, but they are suppose to “flip flop” for us.

Ok I'm a little dizzy now. [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Being merit based means there may be situations (correctly) in which there is less diversity.

You mean you are asserting that there are some things that certain genders. races. religious affiliations are inherently better at than others to say that they're so linked to merit that purely merit based selection would result in a lack of diversity?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by stilesbn:
In other words that's why you need to purposefully vote for people you might think are unqualified as long as they are black or a woman so that the cycle breaks and in the future you can have qualified women and minorities.

Why would being black or a woman make them unqualified?

It means that you actually make the real effort find _qualified_ people to fill those positions, so that you're not voting for less qualifies people just because they happen to be low hanging fruit due to matching the majority template.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Being merit based means there may be situations (correctly) in which there is less diversity.

You mean you are asserting that there are some things that certain genders. races. religious affiliations are inherently better at than others to say that they're so linked to merit that purely merit based selection would result in a lack of diversity?
No meaning that society tends to push certain types of individuals into certain directions. The cultural pressure means that there are less candidates of a certain gender/race/etc than there otherwise would be. For example there are very few male nurses because the profession is associated with women, not because men are incapable of doing the job.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
If a politician campaigns on one political stance then governs entirely contrary to that once elected, I get angry/disappointed.
When a politician campaigns or governs on one political stance that is, or becomes, widely unpopular, I feel they should change the way they govern. I would respect them even more if they stated plainly that they didn’t agree yet felt it was their job to represent the will of the people, not push their own personal position. (Quit snickering, it could totally happen…)

The title of that link is Martin O'Malley Goes After Hillary Clinton For Leading By 'Polls,' Not 'Principles'. I find this to be close to ideal if true. Representative government should do this and act as a moderating cool head that is more informed than the overall population who could be making requests/demands based upon incomplete information regarding what lead to the situation, what is involved in fulfilling the request and what the repercussions would be. Beyond that, they SHOULD do what we want, even if we change our minds. [Wink]

I know it seems like we just vote for the dictators we like best every 4 years and hope for the best, but they are suppose to “flip flop” for us.

Ok I'm a little dizzy now. [Smile]

The problem with your argument is that she isn't in office yet and isn't governing yet. So if she is changing her positions so wholly and so wildly before taking office, how do you k ow which position she will take if she were to get elected and actually take office?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Being merit based means there may be situations (correctly) in which there is less diversity.

You mean you are asserting that there are some things that certain genders. races. religious affiliations are inherently better at than others to say that they're so linked to merit that purely merit based selection would result in a lack of diversity?
No meaning that society tends to push certain types of individuals into certain directions. The cultural pressure means that there are less candidates of a certain gender/race/etc than there otherwise would be.

In other words, society isn't selecting purely based on merit, but is, in fact, propagating a process that preemptively biases peoples selections based on non-merit based characteristics.

quote:
For example there are very few male nurses because the profession is associated with women, not because men are incapable of doing the job.
That is, indeed, part of the problem, and you can't say that you're selecting purely based on merit if you're implicitly shutting out people who might be better for the job because you're preemptively selecting based on sex. Unless you want to say that all women are inherently better nurses then men, then just by slanting the pool that way, you're implicitly picking lower qualified women over better qualified men. The only way to correct that would be to find high qualified men, and put them into those positions until the association goes away.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The problem with your argument is that she isn't in office yet and isn't governing yet. So if she is changing her positions so wholly and so wildly before taking office, how do you k ow which position she will take if she were to get elected and actually take office?

The one that is most popular and politically expedient at the time.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, that's a question that should be answered during the campaign. Hopefully, she'd be able to articulate why she held the positions she did and why she changed her mind. That way voters can still anticipate how she would govern without requiring her to rigigdly hold to old beliefs.

yossarian, cynic. [Razz]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
That is, indeed, part of the problem, and you can't say that you're selecting purely based on merit if you're implicitly shutting out people who might be better for the job because you're preemptively selecting based on sex. Unless you want to say that all women are inherently better nurses then men, then just by slanting the pool that way, you're implicitly picking lower qualified women over better qualified men. The only way to correct that would be to find high qualified men, and put them into those positions until the association goes away.

Every individual manager can hire purely based on merit and still end up with an overwhelming number of women in the position because men are self-selecting not to pursue it as a career.

My only real point is that a bunch of local decisions that are not gender based can lead to a strongly gender based outcome.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So if she is changing her positions so wholly and so wildly before taking office, how do you k ow which position she will take if she were to get elected and actually take office?
Perhaps he's saying that he'd rather vote for a person who he trusts to take a position that fits the evidence and information available at the time, rather than someone who is so committed to blind ideology that they're stick to a predictable position regardless of the evidence at hand?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What evidence and information changed in the years between Clinton's positions on gay marriage, immigration, trade, etc?

And media focus and pundit astroturfing isn't a legitimate answer to that.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Every individual manager can hire purely based on merit and still end up with an overwhelming number of women in the position because men are self-selecting not to pursue it as a career.[/qb]
Indeed, so despite the fact that individuals don't perceive that they're feeding back into existing bias, their decisions are actively biased because they're not make an effort to compensate for just such systemic biases.

quote:
My only real point is that a bunch of local decisions that are not gender based can lead to a strongly gender based outcome.
Except, by the very self-selection factor you mentioned, they are gender based, and if no positive effort is made to correct for that gender bias, it will perpetuate itself, despite everyone in the system throwing their hands up and saying "well, it's not my fault". By choosing only to pick from the immediate, self selected pool and not making an effort to find better candidates that selected out because of the bais, they are actively picking lower qualified candidates on the basis of sex, race, what have you, because they're the low hanging fruit.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
What evidence and information changed in the years between Clinton's positions on gay marriage, immigration, trade, etc?

What hasn't? SSM is the easiest one there, the polling on it and the number of states where it's currently legal have changed significantly. For anything else, be specific if you want answers that aren't equally as vague.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should rights and human dignity be subject to polling?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Why should rights and human dignity be subject to polling?

Why can't polling be part of the evidence that helps you understand what should be considered a right/dignity?
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps he's saying that he'd rather vote for a person who he trusts to take a position that fits the evidence and information available at the time, rather than someone who is so committed to blind ideology that they're stick to a predictable position regardless of the evidence at hand?
Pretty much.
quote:
What evidence and information changed in the years between Clinton's positions on gay marriage, immigration, trade, etc?
Public opinion shifted.
quote:
Why should rights and human dignity be subject to polling?
Because we don’t get them all verbatim from a holy book? (most of the time) Humans determine what is humane. Rights must be agreed upon or they have no value.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you saying no one had the positions that guys should be able to marry or that immigration reform was needed back when Clinton held positions opposite to what she does now?

Why not nominate someone who held those positions all along instead of someone who appears to be a slave to fashion?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because I WANT a slave to fashion. It would be cool if I found a candidate who would ram every policy I'm in favor of through and stop every one I'm opposed to. For that to happen though, you piss off enough people who think differently, such that the political pendulum swings back the other direction. Then you get someone ramming through policies you hate and blocking those you like, all while tearing down the work you just got done celebrating.

Someone who waits until a policy is "safe enough to stick" is not always a bad thing. That said, I think they shouldn't be afraid to take a gamble now and then. For instance I think the gamble on ACA worked and it is no longer in danger of a total repeal. It may be modified, but it's gained enough support that it will continue on in one form or another.

Striking a good balance of those two makes for a good candidate in my book. Bold enough to take some risks, but shrewd/smart enough to realize they need to please most of the people most of the time.

I'm looking for a representative leader, not a paragon to lead me on the correct path.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
Why would being black or a woman make them unqualified?

It means that you actually make the real effort find _qualified_ people to fill those positions, so that you're not voting for less qualifies people just because they happen to be low hanging fruit due to matching the majority template.

Distributions and reality. Running with the nursing example, 9.6% of all nurses are male. Let's say you want to hire 50 nurses and you want perfect gender parity. 25 males and 25 females. You get 250 applicants. The gender breakdown of your applicants follows the gender breakdown of qualified nurses. so you have 25 male applicants and 225 female applicants. Now lets assume the skills all the applicants follows a normal distribution. That means if you rated your applicants 1-5 with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best you would have for males:

1: 1
2: 6
3: 11
4: 6
5: 1

And for females:

1: 9
2: 54
3: 99
4: 54
5: 9

So to have gender parity you would have to hire all the males and your top 9 females and 16 of the 4 rated females.

So unless men despite their small numbers are all significantly smarter and better employees than all women you are going to have unqualified employees if you force gender parity.

You mentioned that the employer should therefore go out and work harder to find men applicants that are qualified. So let's say the employer hires 25 women and 7 of the men and decides to keep looking for more qualified men. (Isn't making hiring decisions based on gender illegal though? Can you put "Only apply if male" on the job posting?) The employer is now running an understaffed hospital while spending months looking for more men. I suspect by the time those men are found there will have been a large attrition rate among current employees.

I suppose they could make a posting for 100 nurses and only hire 50 of the qualified ones and keep that up for 4-5 years till enough people went through school to hire. But unless you had a way to say "Men only" on the remaining 50 jobs there would be no incentive for men to go through nurse school. You could also pay men much more than women to get them to pick it as a career.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Because I WANT a slave to fashion. It would be cool if I found a candidate who would ram every policy I'm in favor of through and stop every one I'm opposed to. For that to happen though, you piss off enough people who think differently, such that the political pendulum swings back the other direction. Then you get someone ramming through policies you hate and blocking those you like, all while tearing down the work you just got done celebrating.

Someone who waits until a policy is "safe enough to stick" is not always a bad thing. That said, I think they shouldn't be afraid to take a gamble now and then. For instance I think the gamble on ACA worked and it is no longer in danger of a total repeal. It may be modified, but it's gained enough support that it will continue on in one form or another.

Striking a good balance of those two makes for a good candidate in my book. Bold enough to take some risks, but shrewd/smart enough to realize they need to please most of the people most of the time.

I'm looking for a representative leader, not a paragon to lead me on the correct path.

Except the problem with someone else who changes position so radically and so often is that you have no idea what they'll do when they actually get into office. As senatorial candidate Clinton campaigned on a number of things. Despite her party having control of both houses of Congress and the presidency how many of those did she deliver or stick to? Shouldn't that be your standard for gauging her suitability for the presidency?

You say you want a populist slave to fashion but the problem with Hillary is that all the evidence says that is only how she campaigns and that when in actual office she diverges into whatever she wants to do which is different from what you want.

[ April 17, 2015, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are on a good track but the question isn't quite right.

Do you believe a candidate will follow public opinion while campaigning AND governing? Or will they just tell you what you want to hear in order to get elected then follow their own personal agenda?

I would "trust" Clinton as a candidate precisely because of traits others would label less flatteringly. I don't think she's trying to pull a fast one. I think she wants the job and will play it safe with public opinion in order to get it. I find that mutually beneficial for her and our country. I want a Democrat but not one “on a mission” to change the nation quickly.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you completely disregard her run as a senator as indicative of the disparity between how she campaigns and how she governs?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To be perfectly honest, I didn't follow her governing that closely. Care to sell me on something specific?

Or care to speculate on how she's going to aggressively push an agenda that will infuriate not only the far right but moderates as well?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't care at all what a candidate personally believes -- they are not in office to enforce their convictions on others. It is a good thing if leadership can be swayed by popular movements -- in fact that is the only way we can have democracy in my view. But a candidate must espouse some kind of consistent principles or there is no real leverage by which to sway them and win genuine commitments from them as opposed to campaign promises.

I think Seneca is correct to point to the past evidence to predict future conduct. Hillary and Bill are both markedly lacking in principles. They are both pure careerists and cannot be trusted to do anything except pursue the reptilian goal of political survival.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Hillary and Bill are both markedly lacking in principles. They are both pure careerists and cannot be trusted to do anything except pursue the reptilian goal of political survival.
I can't refute that. I actually kinda like that about them...

I don't believe any politician who tries to convince me they are any different anyway.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
Hillary and Bill are both markedly lacking in principles. They are both pure careerists and cannot be trusted to do anything except pursue the reptilian goal of political survival.
I can't refute that. I actually kinda like that about them...

I don't believe any politician who tries to convince me they are any different anyway.

Except I think you are confusing political survival politics with populist governing. The reason the two aren't the same is bundling and compromising with an extremist legislative minority to get something they care about even if the public doesn't. Bill did this a lot and Clinton even did this as a senator. I will dig up her senatorial campaign promises and her legislative record when I have some time to show the contrast between the two.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can't refute that. I actually kinda like that about them...

I don't believe any politician who tries to convince me they are any different anyway.

That must make things easy for you.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being cynical IS easy. It's being an idealist which is exhausting.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Being merit based means there may be situations (correctly) in which there is less diversity.

You mean you are asserting that there are some things that certain genders. races. religious affiliations are inherently better at than others to say that they're so linked to merit that purely merit based selection would result in a lack of diversity?
I'm saying this:

There are 100% merit-based environments where performance is the main concern, and the primary measurement.

Those environments will sometimes result in a decidedly uniform collection of <insert race,sex here>.

It's not even worth getting into the politically charged discussion around "are <insert human category here> better at <activity> than others?". Merit-based environments prove (or disprove) it out, whether politically correct people want to acknowledge it or not.

BTW much as I wish it was not the case, politics is most definitely not a primarily merit-based environment. I will acknowledge that in areas where merit isn't the primary factor, lack of diversity may have much broader and more problematic factors behind it.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are 100% merit-based environments where performance is the main concern, and the primary measurement.
As a side observation, I am deeply skeptical that it is even theoretically possible for an environment to be anywhere in the vicinity of "100%" merit-based.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also the notion that a 100% merit base environment would result in a uniform distribution of race and sex across the board is wishful thinking.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Depends in part you define "merit," which is an ambiguous term if ever there was one.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Depends in part you define "merit," which is an ambiguous term if ever there was one.

Well whatever the definition is the only thing that could successfully arrive at a uniform distribution of sex and race at the job level/company level/industry level would be to force everyone to match the demographics of the population, regardless of qualifications.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Merit" is often another word for individual or institutional preference. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.

I don't believe that there are innate differences in intellectual capacity between ethnic groups or between men and women. Insofar as there are imbalances, that's an effect of history.

As far as I'm concerned, "merit" in a political candidate is reflective of the system itself. In our system, Hillary is an A+ candidate.

I give the system a D+.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
quote:
There are 100% merit-based environments where performance is the main concern, and the primary measurement.
As a side observation, I am deeply skeptical that it is even theoretically possible for an environment to be anywhere in the vicinity of "100%" merit-based.
I don't disagree, I should have said "primarily merit based" or merit-focused.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Depends in part you define "merit," which is an ambiguous term if ever there was one.

Doesn't need to be. What I mean by it is any environment that has empirically measurable tasks and/or quantifiable objectives.

e.g. I run a high volume aardvark taxidermy shop in which I only hire people who demonstrate they can stuff at least 3 aardvarks per hour. I am an EOE, but you must be able to do at least 3 an hour. If you can do 4, I will hire you (or pay you more) over someone who can only manage 3. That's a merit-based environment.

Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
"Merit" is often another word for individual or institutional preference. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.

I don't believe that there are innate differences in intellectual capacity between ethnic groups or between men and women. Insofar as there are imbalances, that's an effect of history.

As far as I'm concerned, "merit" in a political candidate is reflective of the system itself. In our system, Hillary is an A+ candidate.

I give the system a D+.

The working definition that I was using in my head was qualifications/education/experience for a job. Though I don't disagree that "merit" carries your definition as well.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by ScottF:
Being merit based means there may be situations (correctly) in which there is less diversity.

You mean you are asserting that there are some things that certain genders. races. religious affiliations are inherently better at than others to say that they're so linked to merit that purely merit based selection would result in a lack of diversity?
I'm saying this:

There are 100% merit-based environments where performance is the main concern, and the primary measurement.


There are not. Ideally there wold be, but, if possible, we're a long way off from the kind of society that would support them. Right now, the best we can do is make a strong effort to correct for some of the curernt overriding bias.

quote:
Those environments will sometimes result in a decidedly uniform collection of <insert race,sex here>.
Only as a result of bias somewhere in the system, unless, again, you want to make the positive assertion that merit in whatever field you're discussing is not evenly distributed; that there is some genetic link between race, sex, or what have you and merit in that field. There will be some statistical noise, sure, but if actual merit does not correlate to race, then a random selection of people with merit will generally match the population at large

quote:
It's not even worth getting into the politically charged discussion around "are <insert human category here> better at <activity> than others?". Merit-based environments prove (or disprove) it out, whether politically correct people want to acknowledge it or not.
That's like saying that unicorns prove that leprechauns exist. As was noted up tread, even if a company is, internally making the best effort to be as merit based as possible, it has to deal with the fact that the pool of candidates it has to select from is not purely merit based- that high merit people have selected out for one reason or another, while lower merit people are readily available. If the company in question doesn't make an effort to find and bring the higher merit people that avoided that market back in, then they will, de facto, be selecting lower merit people over them from the biased applicant pool.

Which leads to this:
quote:
Well whatever the definition is the only thing that could successfully arrive at a uniform distribution of sex and race at the job level/company level/industry level would be to force everyone to match the demographics of the population, regardless of qualifications.
Where you essentially conclude that discrimination is justified because disfavored groups are less apt to have merit, and ignore that the current state, where people are being hired from biased applicant pools is the one where hiring is being conducted regardless of actual qualifications, where a search that focused primarily on qualifications would either dig more deeply into the pool or make an effort to find people not in the pool with better qualifications.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm interested in the discussion about whether a candidate should be a chameleon or should stand for their own principles.

On the one hand if a candidate is a chameleon they can be like a lawyer and represent you no matter what they believe. It's just a job and they'll do it. As an individual this can bite you in the ass since if opinion shifts they will cater to the new idea and not to what you thought they would. On the aggregate this means 'the people' will always be heard, but on an individual basis as a voter it means you don't know who you're voting for. A candidate running 'as a chameleon' (they don't admit to this, but imagine they did) would be able to say something like "I don't care what the people believe, I'm their candidate whatever it is. I am the best one to govern, and I can represent anyone."

On the other hand if a candidate runs 'as a principled person' it means that they are going to sometimes put their personal beliefs above what public opinion may say at a given time. This would mean that fad thinking and short-term expediency wouldn't get undue attention, while also meaning that in some cases a true desire of the people might be ignored too in favor of what the candidate thinks is best. Such a candidate would be suitable to govern a certain kind of populace, but not others, as his traits would only be a good fit if they matched the criteria people were looking for. He might say something like "I might not be right to govern just anyone, but I am the right person to govern YOU. I understand you and you understand me. We share values."

I can see advantages from both types of candidates, but offhand I think the latter version sounds more attractive. That is, assuming the candidate was actually truthful about his beliefs and stuck with them. Personally I'd prefer a principled politician with whom I sometimes disagree than someone who will shift with the wind, but I can see how people like D.W. would prefer the lawyer-type variety who might put public opinion above their own.

[ April 17, 2015, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's also a third and more likely outcome with a "chameleon," that they will change their position to whatever is popular but once they are elected will do whatever pleases themselves and ignore both the rule of law and popular sentiment. That is what I'd forecast from a Clinton presidency based on the previous administration and also from Hillary's own Senate seat.

[ April 17, 2015, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1