The illegibility and opacity of intra-group status was doing something really important – it created space where everyone could belong. The light of day poisons the magic. It’s a delightful paradox: a group that exists to confer social status will fall apart the minute that relative status within the group is made explicit. There’s real social value in the ambiguity: the more there is, the more people can plausibly join, before it fractures into subgroups.
There is probably a lot to be improved with current evaluation systems, but one always has to be careful with those fences.
I think ranking systems can be very powerful (as would make sense for something I’m claiming to be important), and can be quite bad if done poorly (arguably, current uses of citations are quite poor). Being careful matters a lot.
One consideration to keep in mind though is that there might also be a social function in the informality and vagueness of many evaluation systems.
From Social Capital in Silicon Valley:
There is probably a lot to be improved with current evaluation systems, but one always has to be careful with those fences.
Good points, thanks.
I think ranking systems can be very powerful (as would make sense for something I’m claiming to be important), and can be quite bad if done poorly (arguably, current uses of citations are quite poor). Being careful matters a lot.