From Meritocracy to Diversity: Complex Systems Won’t Survive the Competence Crisis.

 invite response                
2023 Jun 5, 2:15pm   10,115 views  144 comments

by Al_Sharpton_for_President   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

At a casual glance, the recent cascades of American disasters might seem unrelated. In a span of fewer than six months in 2017, three U.S. Naval warships experienced three separate collisions resulting in 17 deaths. A year later, powerlines owned by PG&E started a wildfire that killed 85 people. The pipeline carrying almost half of the East Coast’s gasoline shut down due to a ransomware attack. Almost half a million intermodal containers sat on cargo ships unable to dock at Los Angeles ports. A train carrying thousands of tons of hazardous and flammable chemicals derailed near East Palestine, Ohio. Air Traffic Control cleared a FedEx plane to land on a runway occupied by a Southwest plane preparing to take off. Eye drops contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria killed four and blinded fourteen.

While disasters like these are often front-page news, the broader connection between the disasters barely elicits any mention. America must be understood as a system of interwoven systems; the healthcare system sends a bill to a patient using the postal system, and that patient uses the mobile phone system to pay the bill with a credit card issued by the banking system. All these systems must be assumed to work for anyone to make even simple decisions. But the failure of one system has cascading consequences for all of the adjacent systems. As a consequence of escalating rates of failure, America’s complex systems are slowly collapsing.

The core issue is that changing political mores have established the systematic promotion of the unqualified and sidelining of the competent. This has continually weakened our society’s ability to manage modern systems. At its inception, it represented a break from the trend of the 1920s to the 1960s, when the direct meritocratic evaluation of competence became the norm across vast swaths of American society.

In the first decades of the twentieth century, the idea that individuals should be systematically evaluated and selected based on their ability rather than wealth, class, or political connections, led to significant changes in selection techniques at all levels of American society. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) revolutionized college admissions by allowing elite universities to find and recruit talented students from beyond the boarding schools of New England. Following the adoption of the SAT, aptitude tests such as Wonderlic (1936), Graduate Record Examination (1936), Army General Classification Test (1941), and Law School Admission Test (1948) swept the United States. Spurred on by the demands of two world wars, this system of institutional management electrified the Tennessee Valley, created the first atom bomb, invented the transistor, and put a man on the moon.

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.

The resulting norms have steadily eroded institutional competency, causing America’s complex systems to fail with increasing regularity. In the language of a systems theorist, by decreasing the competency of the actors within the system, formerly stable systems have begun to experience normal accidents at a rate that is faster than the system can adapt. The prognosis is harsh but clear: either selection for competence will return or America will experience devolution to more primitive forms of civilization and loss of geopolitical power.

From Meritocracy to Diversity

The first domino to fall as Civil Rights-era policies took effect was the quantitative evaluation of competency by employers using straightforward cognitive batteries. While some tests are still legally used in hiring today, several high-profile enforcement actions against employers caused a wholesale change in the tools customarily usable by employers to screen for ability.

After the early 1970s, employers responded by shifting from directly testing for ability to using the next best thing: a degree from a highly-selective university. By pushing the selection challenge to the college admissions offices, selective employers did two things: they reduced their risk of lawsuits and they turned the U.S. college application process into a high-stakes war of all against all. Admission to Harvard would be a golden ticket to join the professional managerial class, while mere admission to a state school could mean a struggle to remain in the middle class.

This outsourcing did not stave off the ideological change for long. Within the system of political imperatives now dominant in all major U.S. organizations, diversity must be prioritized even if there is a price in competency. The definition of diversity varies by industry and geography. In elite universities, diversity means black, indigenous, or Hispanic. In California, Indian women are diverse but Indian men are not. When selecting corporate board members, diversity means “anyone who is not a straight white man.” The legally protected and politically enforced nature of this imperative renders an open dialogue nearly impossible.

However diversity itself is defined, most policy on the matter is based on a simple premise: since all groups are identical in talent, any unbiased process must produce the same group proportions as the general population, and therefore, processes that produce disproportionate outcomes must be biased. Prestigious journals like Harvard Business Review are the first to summarize and parrot these views, which then flow down to reporting by mass media organizations like Bloomberg Businessweek. Soon, it joins McKinsey’s “best practices” list and becomes instantiated in corporate policies.

Unlike accounting policies, which emanate from the Financial Accounting Standards Board and are then implemented by Chief Financial Officers, the diversity push emanates inside of organizations from multiple power centers, each of which joins in for independent reasons. CEOs push diversity policies primarily to please board members and increase their status. Human Resources (HR) professionals push diversity policies primarily to avoid anti-discrimination lawsuits. Business development teams push diversity to win additional business from diversity-sensitive clients (e.g. government agencies). Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), such as the Black Googler Network, push diversity to help their in-group in hiring and promotion decisions.

Diversity in Theory and Practice

In police academies around the country, new recruits are taught to apply an escalation of force algorithm with non-compliant subjects: “Ask, Tell, Make.” The idea behind “Ask, Tell, Make” is to apply the least amount of force necessary to achieve the desired level of compliance. This is the means by which police power, which is ultimately backed by significant coercive force, can maintain an appearance of voluntary compliance and soft-handedness. Similarly, the power centers inside U.S. institutions apply a variant of “Ask, Tell, Make” to achieve diversity in their respective organizations.

The first tactics for implementing diversity imperatives are the “Ask” tactics. These simply ask all the members of the organization to end bias. At this stage, the policies seem so reasonable and fair that there will rarely be much pushback. Best practices such as slating guidelines are a common tool at this stage. Slating guidelines require that every hiring process must include a certain number and type of diverse candidates for every job opening. Structured interviews are another best practice that requires interviewers to stick with a script to minimize the chance of uncovering commonalities between the interviewer and interviewee that might introduce bias. Often HR will become involved in the hiring process, specifically asking the hiring manager to defend their choice not to hire a diverse candidate. Because the wrong answer could result in shaming, loss of advancement opportunities, or even termination, the hiring manager can often be persuaded to prioritize diversity over competence.

Within specialized professional services companies, senior-level recruiting will occasionally result in a resume collection where not a single diverse candidate meets the minimum specifications of the job. This is a terrible outcome for the hiring manager as it attracts negative attention from HR. At this point, firms will often retain an executive search agency that focuses on exclusively diverse candidates. When that does not result in sufficient diversity, roles will often have their requirements diluted to increase the pool of diverse candidates.

For example, within hedge funds, the ideal entry-level candidate might be an experienced former investment banker who went to a top MBA program. This preferred pedigree sets a minimum bar for both competence and work ethic. This first-pass filter enormously winnows the field of underrepresented candidates. To relax requirements for diversity’s sake, this will be diluted in various ways. First, the work experience might be stripped. Next, the role gets offered to MBA interns. Finally, fresh undergraduates are hired into the analyst role. Dilution works not just because of the larger field of candidates it allows for but also because the Harvard Admission Office of 2019 is even more focused on certain kinds of diversity than the Harvard Admission Office of 2011 was.

This dilution is not costless; fewer data points result in a wider range of outcomes and increase the risk of a bad hire. All bad hires are costly but bad hires that are diverse are even worse. The risk of a wrongful termination lawsuit either draws out the termination process for diverse hires or results in the firm adjusting by giving them harmless busy work until they leave of their own volition—either way, a terrible outcome for the organizations which hired them.

If these “Ask” tactics do not achieve enough diversity, the next step in the escalation is to attach carrots and sticks to directly tell decision-makers to increase the diversity of the organization. This is the point at which the goals of diversity and competence truly begin displaying significant tension between each other. The first step is the implementation of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) linked to diversity for all managers. Diversity KPIs are a tool to embarrass leaders and teams that are not meeting their diversity targets. Given that most organizations are hierarchical and pyramidal, combined with the fact that America was much whiter 50 years ago than it was today, it is unsurprising that senior leadership teams are less diverse than America as a whole—and, more pertinently, than their own junior teams.

The combination of a pyramid-shaped org chart and a senior leadership team where white men often make up 80 percent or more of the team means that the imposition of an aggressive KPI sends a message to the layer below them: no white man in middle management will likely ever see a promotion as long as they remain in the organization. This is never expressed verbally. Rather, those overlooked figure it out as they are passed over continually for less competent but more diverse colleagues. The result is demoralization, disengagement, and over time, departure.

While all the aforementioned techniques fall into the broad category of affirmative action, they primarily result in slightly tilting the scale toward diverse candidates. The next step is simply holding different groups to different standards. Within academia, the recently filed Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College lawsuit leveraged data to show the extent to which Harvard penalizes Asian and white applicants to help black and Hispanic applicants. The UC System, despite formally being forbidden from practicing affirmative action by Proposition 209, uses a tool called “comprehensive admission” to accomplish the same goal.

The latest technique, which was recently brought to light, shows UC admissions offices using the applicants’ high schools as a proxy for race to achieve their desired goal. Heavily Asian high schools such as Arcadia—which is 68 percent Asian—saw their UC-San Diego acceptance rate cut from 37 percent to 13 percent while the 99-percent-Hispanic Garfield High School saw its UC-San Diego acceptance rate rise from 29 percent to 65 percent.

The preference for diversity at the college faculty level is similarly strong. Jessica Nordell’s End of Bias: A Beginning heralded MIT’s efforts to increase the gender diversity of its engineering department: “When applications came in, the Dean of Engineering personally reviewed every one from a woman. If departments turned down a good candidate, they had to explain why.”

When this was not enough, MIT increased its gender diversity by simply offering jobs to previously rejected female candidates. While no university will admit to letting standards slip for the sake of diversity, no one has offered a serious argument why the new processes produce higher or even equivalent quality faculty as opposed to simply more diverse faculty. The extreme preference for diversity in academia today explains much of the phenomenon of professors identifying with a minor fraction of their ancestry or even making it up entirely.

During COVID-19, the difficulty of in-person testing and online proctoring created a new mechanism to push diversity at the expense of competency: the gradual but systematic elimination of standardized tests as a barrier to admission to universities and graduate schools. Today, the majority of U.S. colleges have either stopped requiring SAT/ACT scores, no longer require them for students in the top 10 percent of their class, or will no longer consider them. Several elite law schools, including Harvard Law School, no longer require the LSAT as of 2023. With thousands of unqualified law students headed to a bar exam that they are unlikely to pass, the National Conference of Bar Examiners is already planning to dilute the bar exam under the “NextGen” plan. Specifically, “eliminat[ing] any aspects of our exams that could contribute to performance disparities” will almost definitionally reduce the degree to which the exam tests for competency.

Similarly, standards used to select doctors have also been weakened to promote diversity. Programs such as the City College of New York’s BS/MD program have eliminated the MCAT requirement. With the SAT now optional, new candidates can go straight from high school to the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam in medical school without having gone through any rigorous standardized test whose score can be compared across schools. Step 1 scores were historically the most significant factor in the National Residency Matching Program, which pairs soon-to-be doctors with their future residency training programs. Because Step 1 scores serve as a barrier to increasing diversity, they have been made pass/fail. A handful of doctors are speaking out about the dangers of picking doctors based on factors other than competency but most either explicitly prefer diversity or else stay silent, concerned about the career-ending repercussions of pointing out the obvious.

When even carrot and stick incentives and the removal of standards do not achieve enough diversity, the end game is to simply make decision-makers comply. “Make” has two preferred implementations: one is widely discussed and the other is, for obvious reasons, never disclosed publicly. The first method of implementation is the application of quotas. Quotas or set-asides require the reservation of admissions slots, jobs, contracts, board seats, or other scarce goods for women and members of favored minority groups. Government contracts and supplier agreements are explicitly awarded to firms that have acronyms such as SB, WBE, MBE, DBE, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, HUB, and 8(a).

Within large employers and government contractors, quotas are used for both hiring and promotions, requiring specific percentages of hiring or promotions to be reserved for favored groups. During the summer of 2020, the CEO of Wells Fargo, was publicly shamed after his memo blaming the underrepresentation of black senior leaders on a “very limited pool” of black talent was leaked to Reuters. Less than a month later, the bank publicly pledged to reserve 12 percent of leadership positions for black candidates and began tying executive compensation to reaching diversity goals. In 2022, Goldman Sachs extended quotas to the capital markets by adopting a policy to avoid underwriting IPOs of firms without at least two board members that are not straight white men.

When diversity still refuses to rise to acceptable levels, the remaining solution is the direct exclusion of non-diverse candidates. While public support for anti-discrimination laws and equal opportunity laws is high, public support for affirmative action and quotas is decidedly mixed. Hardline views such as those expressed in author Ijeoma Oluo’s Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America—namely that “any white man in a position of power perpetuates a system of white male domination”—are still considered extreme, even within U.S. progressive circles.

As such, when explicit exclusion is used to eliminate groups like white men from selection processes, it is done subtly. Managers are told to sequester all the resumes from “non-diverse” candidates—that is, white males. These resumes are discarded and the candidates are sent emails politely telling them that “other candidates were a better fit.” While some so-called “reverse discrimination” lawsuits have been filed, most of these policies go unreported. The reasons are straightforward; even in 2023, screening out all white men is not de jure legal. Moreover, any member of the professional managerial class who witnesses and reports discrimination against white men will never work in their field again.

Even anonymous whistleblowing is likely to be rare. To imagine why, suppose incontrovertible evidence was produced that one’s employer was explicitly excluding white male candidates, and a lawsuit was filed. The employer’s reputation and the reputation of all the employees there, including the white men still working there, would be tarnished. That said, we can expect to see more lawsuits from men who feel they have little to lose.

This “Ask, Tell, Make” framework, under various descriptions, is the method by which individuals with a vested interest in more diversity push their organizations toward their preferred outcome. Force begins requesting modest changes to recruiting to make it “more fair.” Force ends with the heavy-handed application of quotas and even exclusion. The American system is not a monolith, however, which means that the strength of the push and its effects on competency is not distributed evenly.

Competency Is Declining From the Core Outwards

Think of the American system as a series of concentric rings with the government at the center. Directly surrounding that are the organizations that receive government funds, then the nonprofits that influence and are subject to policy, and finally business at the periphery. Since the era of the Manhattan Project and the Space Race, the state capacity of the federal government has been declining almost monotonically.

While this has occurred for a multitude of reasons, the steel girders supporting the competency of the federal government were the first to be exposed to the saltwater of the Civil Rights Act and related executive orders. Government agencies, which are in charge of overseeing all the other systems, have seen the quality of their human capital decline tremendously since the 1960s. While the damage to an agency like the Department of Agriculture may have long-term deadly consequences, the most immediate danger is at safety-critical agencies like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The Air Traffic Control (ATC) system used in the U.S. relies on an intricate dance of visual or radar observation, transponders, and radio communication, all with the incredible challenge of keeping thousands of simultaneously moving planes from ever crashing into each other. Since air controlling is one of the only jobs that pays more than $100,000 per year and does not require a college diploma, it has been a popular career choice for individuals without a degree who nonetheless have an exceptionally good memory, attention span, visuospatial awareness, and logical skills. The Air Traffic Selection and Training (AT-SAT) Exam, a standardized test of those critical skills, was historically the primary barrier to entry for air controllers. As a consequence of the AT-SAT, as well as a preference for veterans with former air controller experience, 83 percent of air controllers in the U.S. were white men as of 2014.

That year, the FAA added a Biographical Questionnaire (BQ) to the screening process to tilt the applicant pool toward diverse candidates. Facing pushback in the courts from well-qualified candidates who were screened out, the FAA quietly backed away from the BQ and adopted a new exam, the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA). While the ATSA includes some questions similar to those of the BQ, it restored the test’s focus on core air traffic skills. The importance of highly-skilled air controllers was made clear in the most deadly air disaster in history, the 1977 Tenerife incident. Two planes, one taking off and one taxiing, collided on the runway due to confusion between the captain of KLM 4805 and the Tenerife ATC. The crash, which killed 583 people, resulted in sweeping changes in aviation safety culture.

Recently, the tremendous U.S. record for air safety established since the 1970s has been fraying at the edges. The first three months of 2023 saw nine near-miss incidents at U.S. airports, one with two planes coming within 100 feet of colliding. This terrifying uptick from years prior resulted in the FAA and NTSB convening safety summits in March and May, respectively. Whether they dared to discuss root causes seems unlikely.

Given the sheer size of the U.S. military in both manpower and budget dollars, it should not come as a surprise that the diversity push has also affected the readiness of this institution. Following three completely avoidable collisions of U.S. Navy warships in 2017 and a fire in 2020 that resulted in the scuttling of USS Bonhomme Richard, a $750 million amphibious assault craft, two retired marines conducted off-the-record interviews with 77 current and retired Navy officers. One recurring theme was the prioritization of diversity training over ship handling and warfighting preparedness. Many of them openly admit that, given current issues, the U.S. would likely lose an open naval engagement with China. Instead of taking the criticism to heart, the Navy commissioned “Task Force One Navy,” which recommended deemphasizing or eliminating meritocratic tests like the Officer Aptitude Rating to boost diversity. Absent an existential challenge, U.S. military preparedness is likely to continue to degrade.

The decline in the capacity of government contractors is likewise obvious, with the largest contractors being the most directly impacted. The five largest contractors—Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon Company, and Northrop Grumman—will all struggle to maintain competency in the coming years.

Boeing, one of only two firms globally capable of mass-producing large airliners, has a particularly striking crisis unfolding in its institutional culture. Shortly after releasing the 737 MAX, 346 people died in two nearly identical 737 MAX crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia. The cause of the crashes was a complex interaction between design choices, cost-cutting led by MBAs, FAA issues, the MCAS flight-control system, a faulty sensor, and pilot training. Meanwhile, on the defense side of the business, Boeing’s new fuel tanker, the KC-46A Pegasus is years behind on deliveries due to serious technical flaws with the fueling system along with multiple cases of Foreign Object Debris left inside the plane during construction: tools, a red plastic cap, and in one case, even trash. Between the issues at ATC and Boeing, damage to the U.S.’s phenomenal aviation safety record seems almost inevitable.

After government contractors, the next-most-affected class of institutions are nonprofit organizations. They are entrapped by the government whose policies they are subject to and trying to influence, the opinions of their donor base, and lack of any profit motive. The lifeblood of nonprofits is access to capital, either directly in the form of government grants or through donations that are deemed tax-deductible. Accessing federal monies means being subject to the full weight of U.S. diversity rules and regulations. Nonprofits are generally governed by boards whose members tend to overlap with the list of major donors. Because advocacy for diversity and board memberships are both high-status positions, unsurprisingly board members tend to voice favorable opinions of diversity, and those opinions flow downstream to the organizations they oversee.

Nonprofits—including universities, charities, and foundations—exist in an overlapping ecosystem with journalism, with individuals tending to freely circulate between the four. The activities of nonprofits are bound up in the same discourses shaped by current news and academic research, with all four reflecting the same general ideological consensus. Finally, lacking the profit motive, the decision-making processes of nonprofits are influenced by what will affect the status of the individuals within those organizations rather than what will affect profits. Within nonprofits, the cost of incompetent staffers is borne by “stakeholders,” rather than any one individual.

While all businesses subject to federal law must prioritize diversity over competency at some level, the problem is worse at publicly-traded corporations for reasons both obvious and subtle. The obvious reason is that larger companies present larger targets for EEOC actions and discrimination lawsuits with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake. Corporations have logically responded by hiring large teams of HR professionals to preempt such lawsuits. Over the past several decades, HR has evolved from simply overseeing onboarding to involvement in every aspect of hiring, promotions, and firings, seeing them all through a political and regulatory lens.

The more subtle reason for pressure within publicly-traded companies is that they require ongoing relationships with a spiderweb of banks, credit ratings agencies, proxy advisory services, and most importantly, investors. Given that the loss of access to capital is an immediate death sentence for most businesses, the CEOs of publicly-traded companies tend to push diversity over competency even when the decline in firm performance is clear. CEOs would likely rather trade a small drag on profits margins than a potentially career-ending scandal from pushing back.

Whereas publicly-traded corporations nearly uniformly push diversity, privately-held businesses vary tremendously based on the views of their owners. Partnerships such as the Big Four accounting firms and top-tier management consultancies are high-status. High-status firms must regularly proclaim extensive support for diversity. While the firms tend to be highly selective, partnerships whose leadership is overwhelmingly white and male have generally capitulated to the zeitgeist and are cutting standards to hit targets. Firms often manage around this by hiring for diversity and then putting diversity hires into roles where they are the least likely to damage the firm or the brand. Somewhat counterintuitively, firms with diverse founders are often highly meritocratic, as the structure harnesses the founder’s desire to make money and shields them from criticism on diversity issues.

The most notable example of a diverse meritocracy is Vista Equity Partners, the large private equity firm founded by Robert F. Smith, America’s wealthiest black man. Robert F. Smith is one of the most vocal advocates for and philanthropists to historically black U.S. colleges and universities. It would be reasonable to expect Vista to prioritize diversity over competency in its portfolio companies. However, Vista has instead been profiled for giving all portfolio company management teams the Criteria Cognitive Aptitude Test and ruthlessly culling low-performers. Given the amount of value to be created by promoting the best people into leadership roles of their portfolio companies, one might imagine this to be low-hanging fruit for the rest of private equity, yet Vista is an outlier. Why Vista can apply the CCAT without a public outcry is obvious.

The other firms that tend to still focus on competency are those that are small and private. Such firms have two key advantages: they fall below the fifteen-employee threshold for the most onerous EEOC rules and the owner can usually directly observe the performance of everyone inside the organization. Within small firms, underperformance is usually obvious. Tech startups, being both small and private, would seem to have the right structure to prioritize competency.

The American System Is Cracking

Promoting diversity over competency does not simply affect new hires and promotion decisions. It also affects the people already working inside of America’s systems. Morale and competency inside U.S. organizations are declining. Those who understand that the new system makes it hard or impossible for them to advance are demoralized, affecting their performance. Even individuals poised to benefit from diversity preferences notice that better people are being passed over and the average quality of their team is declining. High performers want to be on a high-performing team. When the priorities of their organizations shift away from performance, high performers respond negatively.

This effect was likely seen in a recent paper by McDonald, Keeves, and Westphal. The paper points out that white male senior leaders reduce their engagement following the appointment of a minority CEO. While it is possible that author Ijeoma Oluo is correct, and that white men have so much unconscious bias raging inside of them that the appointment of a diverse CEO sends them into a tailspin of resentment, there is another more plausible explanation. When boards choose diverse CEOs to make a political statement, high performers who see an organization shifting away from valuing honest performance respond by disengaging.

Some demoralized employees—like James Damore in his now-famous essay, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber”—will directly push back against pro-diversity arguments. Like James, they will be fired. Older, demoralized workers, especially those who are mere years from retirement, are unlikely to point out the decline in competency and risk it costing them their jobs. Those who have a large enough nest egg may simply retire to avoid having to deal with the indignity of having to attend another Inclusive Leadership seminar.

As older men with tacit knowledge either retire or are pushed out, the burden of maintaining America’s complex systems will fall on the young. Lower-performing young men angry at the toxic mix of affirmative action (hurting their chances of admission to a “good school”) and credentialism (limiting the “good jobs” to graduates of “good schools”) are turning their backs on college and white-collar work altogether.

This is the continuation of a trend that began over a decade ago. High-performing young men will either collaborate, coast, or downshift by leaving high-status employment altogether. Collaborators will embrace “allyship” to attempt to bolster their chances of getting promoted. Coasters realize that they need to work just slightly harder than the worst individual on their team. Their shirking is likely to go unnoticed and they are unlikely to feel enough emotional connection to the organization to raise alarm when critical mistakes are being made. The combination of new employees hired for diversity, not competence, and the declining engagement of the highly competent sets the stage for failures of increasing frequency and magnitude.

The modern U.S. is a system of systems interacting together in intricate ways. All these complex systems are simply assumed to work. In February of 2021, cold weather in Texas caused shutdowns at unwinterized natural gas power plants. The failure rippled through the systems with interlocking dependencies. As a result, 246 people died. In straightforward work, declining competency means that things happen more slowly, and products are lower quality or more expensive. In complex systems, declining competency results in catastrophic failures.

To understand why, one must understand the concept of a “normal accident.” In 1984, Charles Perrow, a Yale sociologist, published the book, Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. In this book, Perrow lays out the theory of normal accidents: when you have systems that are both complex and tightly coupled, catastrophic failures are unavoidable and cannot simply be designed around. In this context, a complex system is one that has many components that all need to interact in a specified way to produce the desired outcome. Complex systems often have relationships that are nonlinear and contain feedback loops. Tightly-coupled systems are those whose components need to move together precisely or in a precise sequence.

The 1979 Three Mile Island Accident was used as a case study: a relatively minor blockage of a water filter led to a cascading series of malfunctions that culminated in a partial meltdown. In A Demon of Our Own Design, author Richard Bookstaber added two key contributions to Perrow’s theory: first, that it applies to financial markets, and second, that regulation intended to fix the problem may make it worse.

The biggest shortcoming of the theory is that it takes competency as a given. The idea that competent organizations can devolve to a level where the risk of normal accidents becomes unacceptably high is barely addressed. In other words, rather than being taken as absolutes, complexity and tightness should be understood to be relative to the functionality of the people and systems that are managing them. The U.S. has embraced a novel question: what happens when the men who built the complex systems our society relies on cease contributing and are replaced by people who were chosen for reasons other than competency?

The answer is clear: catastrophic normal accidents will happen with increasing regularity. While each failure is officially seen as a separate issue to be fixed with small patches, the reality is that the whole system is seeing failures at an accelerating rate, which will lead in turn to the failure of other systems. In the case of the Camp Fire that killed 85 people, PG&E fired its CEO, filed Chapter 11, and restructured. The system’s response has been to turn off the electricity and raise wildfire insurance premiums. This has resulted in very little reflection. The more recent coronavirus pandemic was another teachable moment. What started just three years ago with a novel respiratory virus has caused a financial crisis, a bubble, soaring inflation, and now a banking crisis in rapid succession.

Patching the specific failure mode is simultaneously too slow and induces unexpected consequences. Cascading failures overwhelm the capabilities of the system to react. 20 years ago, a software bug caused a poorly-managed local outage that led to a blackout that knocked out power to 55 million people and caused 100 deaths. Utilities were able to restore power to all 55 million people in only four days. It is unclear if they could do the same today. U.S. cities would look very different if they remained without power for even two weeks, especially if other obstructions unfolded. What if emergency supplies sat on trains immobilized by fuel shortages due to the aforementioned pipeline shutdown? The preference for diversity over competency has made our system of systems dangerously fragile.

Americans living today are the inheritors of systems that created the highest standard of living in human history. Rather than protecting the competency that made those systems possible, the modern preference for diversity has attenuated meritocratic evaluation at all levels of American society. Given the damage already done to competence and morale combined with the natural exodus of baby boomers with decades worth of tacit knowledge, the biggest challenge of the coming decades might simply be maintaining the systems we have today.

The path of least resistance will be the devolution of complex systems and the reduction in the quality of life that entails. For the typical resident in a second-tier city in Mexico, Brazil, or South Africa, power outages are not uncommon, tap water is probably not safe to drink, and hospital-associated infections are common and often fatal. Absent a step change in the quality of American governance and a renewed culture of excellence, they prefigure the country’s future.


« First        Comments 73 - 112 of 144       Last »     Search these comments

73   ad   2023 Jun 22, 11:35pm  

Patrick says


U.S. Navy Heard What It Believed Was Titan Implosion Days Ago
Underwater microphones designed to detect enemy submarines first detected Titan tragedy

"Oh yeah, we knew they were dead. Sorry about your days of search and worry."

My guess is the Navy did not want to be premature and told the Coast Guard admiral, and the Coast Guard want to confirm such as visual sight of a debris field.

But the Navy has to play coy to some extent as they likely picked up data than what is being reported to the public. Besides a sonar buoy and undersea microphone field, I suspect they could have had at least one Virginia class sub on station in that area (without trying to compromised opsec).

75   ad   2023 Jun 23, 11:30am  

richwicks says

Jimmy Dore covered the fact the CIA was openly recruiting, but he hasn't put 2 and 2 together to realize what AOC is.

I like Dore cause he likes to shake up the bullshit narrative by the Washington Post, NY Times, Fox News, etc.

What is AOC ? A Democrat-Socialist poser who is a CIA hack ?
76   ad   2023 Jun 23, 11:32am  


Let me ask you all a question..would you rather have a 50 year old white male or some 25 year old, purple-haired as your captain or pilot on a submersible or on any charter boat or watercraft ?

77   Ceffer   2023 Jun 23, 11:48am  

I think it depends on whether you hate the people on the craft or not.
78   ad   2023 Jun 23, 1:34pm  

Ceffer says

I think it depends on whether you hate the people on the craft or not.

OK, so if you hate or loath one of the passengers on the craft, then who do you select to be its captain or pilot ?

81   Ceffer   2023 Jun 23, 4:30pm  

ad says

who do you select to be its captain or pilot ?

85   stereotomy   2023 Jun 23, 6:56pm  

The memes are intense! I haven't laughed this hard since reading Calvin & Hobbs.
87   Booger   2023 Jun 24, 3:12am  

Netflix adding a gay couple and a black 19yr old in the titanic submarine documentary.
90   richwicks   2023 Jun 24, 10:03pm  

ad says

What is AOC ? A Democrat-Socialist poser who is a CIA hack ?

She's an actress. She has no genuine beliefs. Everything she says has been scripted for her.
93   ad   2023 Jun 26, 5:33pm  

richwicks says

She's an actress. She has no genuine beliefs. Everything she says has been scripted for her.

I can't believe she is not a Left Wing ideologue. Now Bill Clinton is someone who did not have genuine beliefs and just was a self dealing whore.

My concern the collective culture is not anymore about continuous improvement, Six Sigma, etc. Now it is social justice and Woke.

And that is why we see its effects beyond just reduction of math requirements in public high school. Its hard to reverse course once the mega-scale dysfunction starts.

94   richwicks   2023 Jun 26, 7:29pm  

ad says

I can't believe she is not a Left Wing ideologue. Now Bill Clinton is someone who did not have genuine beliefs and just was a self dealing whore.

Why? Most people don't have any principles. I knew people that were against the Iraq war but we're perfectly fine bombing Libya because supposedly Quaddafi was handing out Viagra. They aren't the LEAST concerned that there's slavery in Libya or the country is in civil war. They have no idea Ukraine was overthrown by the US or that the country is being destroyed.

Stop with this left wing / right wing bs. Neither party has any principles. It's just a team somebody roots for.
95   ad   2023 Jun 26, 10:56pm  

richwicks says

I knew people that were against the Iraq war but we're perfectly fine bombing Libya because supposedly Quaddafi was handing out Viagra.

That is because their cult leaders (Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were involved with the Libya bombing. But I agree as it just shows they thrive in heir own hypocrisy.

These same ones are cheering US spending billions to support Ukraine's war efforts.

96   RWSGFY   2023 Jun 26, 11:06pm  

ad says

richwicks says

I knew people that were against the Iraq war but we're perfectly fine bombing Libya because supposedly Quaddafi was handing out Viagra.

That is because their cult leaders (Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were involved with the Libya bombing. But I agree as it just shows they thrive in heir own hypocrisy.

These same ones are cheering US spending billions to support Ukraine's war efforts.


Nope, people opposing Iraq war should oppose Pukin's aggression for exact same reasons. If they have principles and integrity, that is. And the only way to end this aggresion is peace through superior firepower. As in giving Ukrainians everything they need to
kick that warmonger Stalinist fuck back inside his borders.
97   ad   2023 Jun 26, 11:07pm  

richwicks says

Why? Most people don't have any principles.

98   richwicks   2023 Jun 26, 11:12pm  

ad says

That is because their cult leaders (Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were involved with the Libya bombing. But I agree as it just shows they thrive in heir own hypocrisy.

It just shows they have no principles.

Look, George W. Bush ran on a promise to restore "honor and integrity" to the WhiteHouse and then lied us into a war that killed 800,000 people.

What honor. What integrity.

ad says

These same ones are cheering US spending billions to support Ukraine's war efforts.

I fear that if Mitt Romney were president right now, the "right" would be cheering on the war in Ukraine, and "duh left" would be in violent opposition to it.

I think about 1 out of 10 people actually are CAPABLE of having principles now.

The pandemic bullshit, it just ripped off the blinders and I can never go back. People who I once respected, SERIOUSLY told me shit like "the unvaccinated pose a threat to the vaccinated". I'm hearing the fucking television come right out of their mouth and they don't even know it. They're machines.

I know a guy where he cannot accept the reality the US overthrew Ukraine. It's like.. Dude I thought you could think? He's got to hear it from a "news" source. It's not enough that several "news" sources prints facts, and then you can put it together, and also verify they are facts, a SINGLE author has to state it in one article.
99   richwicks   2023 Jun 26, 11:18pm  


Nope, people opposing Iraq war should oppose Pukin's aggression for exact same reasons.

How? By supporting a fucking war?

I don't care what Russia and Ukraine do, provided my nation isn't part of it but my nation IS a part of it, AGAIN.

Neocons have a 100% track record of complete failure. They're involved with this. They overthrew Ukraine. The CIA, the organization that does MORE damage to this nation than any other I know of, caused this whole problem.

Here's my prediction, the war will go on for years, Russia will own Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, Western Ukraine will be landlocked, possibly it will have portions of it absorbed by Poland, the West will fucking RAPE what is left of Ukraine, strip mining, oil wells, whatever - a bunch of European oligarchs will march right in.

I don't think Ukraine can reasonably survive actually. This is just another fucking smash and grab.


And the only way to end this aggresion is peace through superior firepower. As in giving Ukrainians everything they need to kick that warmonger Stalinist fuck back inside his borders.

Haha - the US isn't even trying. They're sending surplus junk to Ukraine just to get rid of it. There's no serious attempt to support Ukraine so they can actually win. If they wanted to do that, they'd have to start WWIII and they aren't going to do it.

This is for money laundering, they are going to take over natural resources, whatever (little) is left of Ukraine will be fucked in debt forever. I don't know why you can't see our previous wars. Neocons are either traitors and a 5th column, or they're fucking stupid - but I think they are literally traitors.

Why do you think as soon as Russia went into Ukraine, the "Covid pandemic" ended? It took less than a week, we went from "people are dying every day" to "Russia BAAAD!" It's just another grift. You simply don't understand what sort of sociopaths are running all this bullshit, I do.

You have any idea how many people died, supposedly, of covid 2021, 2022 and 2023? Up? Down? Nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares about anything unless the propaganda box tells them to care about it.

How many people dead in Yemen? No idea - our media completely ignores it. What's going on in Libya? How about Syria? What's going on in Afghanistan? We spent 20 years there. Wasn't there a huge deal about women's rights there and so on? Any effort now?
100   Patrick   2023 Jun 29, 1:16pm  


How to Kill the Incompetocracy

Ruling class legitimacy is built on academic prestige. That's a fatal weakness ripe for disruption.

There’s a misconception out there that the source of the ruling class’ legitimacy is the consent of the governed. The idea is that they derive their right to hold power from obeying some form of constitutional contract, which requires them to periodically seek the approval of the masses at the ballot box. The people having approved, they have their mandate and can do as they will (provided they follow the stipulations of the contract under which they gained it).

This is really only a very partial answer, and is relevant only to elected officials. It has nothing to do with the bureaucrats, corporate executives, university presidents, media moguls, and so on that compose the rest of the ruling class – indeed the bulk of it. ...

The Western system of liberal democracy is nominally meritocratic. It is premised on the idea that all men are to be given the opportunity to better themselves, and that being the case, that the best will naturally rise to power. That leads to the first point I want to make here: the source of the ruling class’ legitimacy is not votes, and it is not dollars: it is credentials.

As I’ve written before, the ruling class ultimately derives its assumed right to rule from the prestige of academic institutions. The idea is that the smartest kids are admitted to the best schools, where they’re taught by the top minds in the sciences, philosophy, law, medicine, and the arts. They therefore possess both the highest degree of natural aptitude, and have been provided with the best possible training, meaning that they are naturally the most suited to take society’s reigns. As a result, the most powerful institutions recruit primarily from these top universities, meaning that the top universities are the gatekeepers to power. Once one has obtained a degree from the right school, and as long as one does not rock the boat too much, the doors to the halls of power open, and the money follows.

If it worked properly, it would be quite noble. The problem is, it doesn’t.

What universities really sell isn’t an education: it’s the credential. The more cynical students will note that C’s and D’s get degrees, a frank statement that they can cruise through their undergraduate years doing the bare minimum and squeak out the door with a piece of paper that will be every bit as valuable as the document bestowed upon their more talented and diligent classmates. Sure, employers might ask for their transcripts; but in practice they rarely do.

Credentials are meant to serve a crucial social function. They’re supposed to be a guarantee that a potential employee or professional has mastered the skills for which his services are being retained. When you walk into a doctor’s office, you don’t want to spend three hours grilling him on his knowledge of molecular biology and skeletal anatomy; you want to assume he knows his stuff, so you can get on with the business of figuring out whether or why you’re sick and what to do about it. The credential outsources professional quality control to a third party, making it easier for both of you to conduct business. ...

At some point over the last generation, the ruling class shifted its emphasis from competence to ideological loyalty. Some degree of indoctrination was always a factor, of course, but until recently the idea was to take the smartest recruits you could find, and then make them loyal. That was the purpose of the Rhodes scholarships, for instance. It was widely understood that while you needed your leadership cadre to be team players, it was absolutely crucial that they also be good at what they do. In practice, that meant sacrificing a certain degree of unity of purpose, because smart, ruthless people also tend to be independent-minded and outspoken. Still, whatever amount of friction that was caused by the ruling class sometimes operating at cross-purposes with itself was more than compensated for by the competitive advantages of a truly meritorious elite.

It doesn’t work that way anymore. Now, entrance into the top schools depends far less on grades, which is to say far less on ability, and more far on ideological purity. The ruling class has prioritized loyalty above all else.

This shift in priorities compromises the educational system at a very basic level. Classroom instruction is now much less about teaching students how to think and how to do things, and far more concerned with ensuring they become appropriately enthusiastic about what they’re supposed to feel1. This is true at every level in the system, right on through post-graduate education.

Since those being advanced through the system are being evaluated not on their intellectual ability so much as their emotional docility, the overall level of competence declines. Dull minds have a harder time mastering difficult material; therefore, the rigour of the curriculum is reduced.

The result is the incompetocracy: a ruling class exhibiting near perfect unity of rigidly disciplined ideological purpose, able to move in synch with one another like a school of hungry piranhas, but composed of unimpressive cretins who are individually incapable of doing whatever task is assigned to them.

Look at Biden’s train wreck of a regime. These people all attended the best schools. I wrote that last sentence without actually knowing, I just assumed it was probably true, but sure enough: the new press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, went to a Long Island prep school, and has a master’s degree from Columbia. Despite that, she’s barely able to string enough coherent words together to form a half-convincing deception. The mumbling non-entity of a Secretary of State Antony Blinken is a Harvard man, which is no defense against being regularly humiliated by his international counterparts. Treasury Secretary Yellen attended Brown and got her PhD from Yale, which does nothing at all to stop shortages and inflation from nuking the economy. Attorney-General Merrick Garland has a law degree from Harvard, and presides over a steady dissolution in the rule of law. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is a Rhodes Scholar. And so on and so forth. They’re an impressively credentialed group of people, but the country is rotting like a dead raccoon on the highway.

Look at the total failure of the public health system over the last two years, the absolute pointless nightmare we’ve all lived through, and are still living through.

Look at the WEF, supposed masterminds of reality, who manage to alienate another million people every time one of their august members opens their stupid mouths. They can’t even get their messaging right, and for all that their plans of world domination are transparently evil, those plans are failing in real time. ...

Doctors who don’t know medicine. Teachers who are barely literate. Lawyers who don’t understand basic principles of jurisprudence. Scientists who seem to be ignorant of basic things in their own fields, who get outmaneuvered by schizo anons shitposting their statistical analyses on Twitter.

A generation of diluted educational standards, of premising entry into the ruling class on the basis of ideological purity rather than ability and mastery, has produced a society in which everything is breaking down. ...

We need a new ruling class.

So long as membership into the ruling class is regulated by admission to top universities, however, the ruling class can’t be changed, because the universities are specifically designed to make sure that only the ideologically pure can get through. It’s a cozy relationship they’ve got and none of them have any intention of changing it.

Therefore, we need to break the monopoly of the universities.

Since the universities don’t sell education, but credentials, we need a new system of credentialing. ...

Anyone can learn as much as they want, as rapidly and thoroughly as they want to learn it, and do so for a small fraction of what a university degree costs. The problem is that there’s no proof of work. How does an autodidact reassure a potential employer or customer that they know what they’re doing? On the other hand, there are the university graduates, who possess a credential that both the graduates and their potential customers and employers know is essentially meaningless.

There’s a market opportunity there. Listen up, Peter Thiel: whoever does this right won’t just make a lot of money, they’ll blow a hole below the waterline in the ruling class’ legitimacy.

One very obvious answer is standardized testing. We’ve already got that, of course: SATs at the end of high school, GREs for grad school, LSATs for law school, and so on. Standardized testing could be taken a lot further than it is, however. It could made a lot more granular and precise, to the point where classroom grades become entirely irrelevant.

Instead of having one big test at the end of school, tests could be provided on a subject-by-subject basis: Algebra I, Algebra II, Algebra and Geometry, Single-variable Calculus, Multi-variable Calculus, and so on. Students could take the test whenever they feel ready, after studying the material in whichever fashion they feel most comfortable, whether alone, or with the assistance of a tutor, or at a more traditional school.

Rather than having the tests be written at an appointed time and physical location, the tests could be taken at home, with screen-sharing and cameras ensuring no cheating was taking place. Randomization algorithms – changing the numerical answers to mathematical questions, switching the order of multiple-choice questions, and so on – could be used to ensure that each test was functionally equivalent but unique in its particulars, making cheating yet more difficult. Since the speed with which a student completes the test is easily recorded, and since it is generally the case that mastery correlates with speed on a test, whereas cheating usually slows things down, making speed a factor would also discourage cheating. “Oh, you scored a 95% on Calc II in 75% of the average time,” sounds a lot better than, “Huh, you got a 60% and took 1.3x as long as average.” ...

There’s no reason that such a system should require an expensive, unwieldy government bureaucracy to support. In fact it’s best if it’s done outside of the state. The system would support itself with user fees. Rather than students paying to sit in class, they would pay the standardized testing corporation to take the test. If they want a better grade, they can take the test again; thus providing an incentive to do it right the first time. By building it in the private sector, it can be started more or less immediately, without waiting for anyone’s permission. Furthermore, as a private entity, it can easily be exported around the world, thereby providing an objective evaluation of student ability everywhere.

For employers, it would remove a great deal of ambiguity: rather than shrugging their shoulders and hoping that a diploma from Wherever U meant something, they could review a potential employee’s educational records in detail, gaining immediate knowledge of what they know, how well they know it, and how that compares to other applicants.

Students would be liberated entirely from the requirement to get into a ‘good school’, or even attend school at all. Autodidacts would be on equal footing with Ivy League entrants, since the relevant question would no longer be ‘where did you go to school’, but ‘what do you know and how well do you know it?’ Furthermore, students would no longer have to worry about matching wits with administrators looking to maximize tuition dollars by any means fair or foul when they want to change schools: there would be no questions about whether a credit gained in one subject was really equivalent to the comparable course offered at the new school. The same would apply for qualifications obtained in different countries.

The ultimate result would be that an Ivy League pedigree would no longer be considered sufficient evidence of merit for one to claim legitimacy. ... Erect a parallel system that provides credentialing that is more objective and more accurate, and that prestige, and the legitimacy it confers, will evaporate.
102   Onvacation   2023 Jul 11, 12:00pm  


giving Ukrainians everything they need to
kick that warmonger Stalinist

I don't think it's a good idea to give Zelensky nukes. He'll trade them for blow.
103   Tenpoundbass   2023 Jul 11, 12:15pm  

I wish I could get as much mileage out of responding to tough questions I can't answer or don't want to answer by saying... "I wont speak to that..."

I guess they got to thinking saying "I can't speak because it is under investigation", is getting to be a tougher response to sell. .Since all DOJ investigations seem to be used to cover up crimes, and everyone knows it. So there's less liability in saying "They won't speak to that."
104   ad   2023 Jul 13, 12:06am  



lowering of standards

we should at least have the same standards, and if we are to improve as a society, we should be improving standards such as each year the ACT and SAT should be made more difficult very slightly

105   Blue   2023 Jul 13, 12:30am  

ad says

richwicks says

I knew people that were against the Iraq war but we're perfectly fine bombing Libya because supposedly Quaddafi was handing out Viagra.

That is because their cult leaders (Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton) were involved with the Libya bombing. But I agree as it just shows they thrive in heir own hypocrisy.

These same ones are cheering US spending billions to support Ukraine's war efforts.


That must have been a bad move for Europe. Quaddafi used to act like a firewall in Libya. Once he is gone the Islamic migrants exploded into Europe.
106   stereotomy   2023 Jul 14, 2:50pm  

"It's almost worth the Great Depression to learn how little our big men know."

Will Rogers

Yes it's here again after 90 years . . .
107   HeadSet   2023 Jul 14, 6:52pm  

ad says

we should at least have the same standards, and if we are to improve as a society, we should be improving standards such as each year the ACT and SAT should be made more difficult very slightly

Yes, like they do for sports. New records are continually set.
110   ad   2023 Sep 10, 10:41pm  


Patrick, nice side by side to show the dichotomy between DEI progress and technical achievement.

111   Patrick   2023 Sep 28, 11:28am  


Politico ran a stomach-turning story yesterday headlined, “Chinese hackers nab 60,000 emails in State Department breach.”

image 4.png
Super qualified Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said she has no idea how the Chinese got into all her secret emails.

According to newly-released information, the highly-competent diplomats at the State Department reluctantly admitted yesterday that the meddlesome agency accidentally gave its email and banking information to a displaced Chinese prince who needed some help getting ten million dollars out of the communist country. Apparently, he explained that the secret police were closing in, and he urgently needed to get his family’s fortune out, quick, and he was willing to let the State Department keep ten percent for the help.

Or something like that: “State Department officials said hackers broke into the 10 accounts using a token stolen from a Microsoft engineer.”

Uh huh.

I don’t mean to sound repetitive, but shut it down before things get worse. Please. I’m begging.
112   pudil   2023 Sep 28, 11:48am  

I wonder if AI could be used for testing. Real life isn’t “solve this calculus problem”. It’s figuring out the right approach to solve a problem, learning what you need to know to do the thing, then doing it.

A standardized test can’t test for these things, but perhaps AI could. A sufficiently trained AI could come up with tough yet unique sample problems related to your field, then evaluate your solution.

« First        Comments 73 - 112 of 144       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions