3 ms·

People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo,

People are social animals and the instinct to get everyone's opinions somewhat aligned is universal and mostly beneficial. While it may hamper the next Galileo, it also allows a level of peaceful coexistence that just wouldn't happen if we had to relitigate every moral decision or scientific opinion every day. In this case, society has converged on the opinion that diversity benefits so overwhelming, you don't have to explicitly list them each time but can treat diversity as if it were the end goal itself. But here's a few: - Basic fairness requires us to encourage diversity in order to create a more balanced distribution of power and money (considering the mere presence of women or minorities tends to depress wages across industries and jobs) - Diverse teams are better, especially when creativity or social skills are required (there actually are some studies on this I believe) - Discriminatory hiring practices make it impossible for some people to reach their full potential. When they labor in jobs below their potential, the society as a whole also loses out (remember that for every Einstein, Feynman, Picasso, there was an equally qualified woman who was married off when she was 15 and never had a chance). ...and so on. People react negatively if you challenge diversity because they suspect that you've probably heard the arguments before and have other motives than "opportunity costs" for your recalcitrance.

cyphar 11y ago
Most people don't challenge diversity. They're challenging the self-importance of saying "you, the people who have nothing to do with hiring, are the reason teams are not as diverse as I would like them to be". I have no issue with diversity, I just don't like the people who claim that "white men shouldn't talk about diversity" and that sort of crap. Not to mention that diversity shouldn't be the end goal, it should be getting the best people for the job. Given the fact that talent is essentially uniformly distributed, that should still result in diversity -- it just shouldn't be the parameter you're optimising for. You should always aim to employ people because they're good at what they do, not because you need to fulfil your diversity quota and it just so happens they're good at what they do.
belorn 11y ago
The benefits of diversity is many and there are many more examples I can think of (such as industries that only recruit from 50% of the population has generally problems when demand change). But... as it often is, I don't see the interest for diversity to be consistent by those who claim to be in favor of it. Let me ask you one question: The state is the biggest employer of people. They could have a hiring policy of a minimum 40% men and women per job (sorted by either title, assignment, union membership, or what else attribute one might like). Such policy would have a major effect on several professions with currently sits with a ratio of around 90% and higher. As it stands, only a few professions ever address problems of diversity. Technology is one of those, and it's gender ratio is fairly average compared to the majority. only about 30% (2010 statistics from Sweden) of recognized professions have a balanced gender distribution of minimum 40% men and women. In the remaining 70%, the most extreme had 99.7% women to 0.3% men.

cyphar 11y ago

Most people don't challenge diversity. They're challenging the self-importance of saying "you, the people who have nothing to do with hiring, are the reason teams are not as diverse as I would like them to be". I have no issue with diversity, I just don't like the people who claim that "white men shouldn't talk about diversity" and that sort of crap. Not to mention that diversity shouldn't be the end goal, it should be getting the best people for the job. Given the fact that talent is essentially uniformly distributed, that should still result in diversity -- it just shouldn't be the parameter you're optimising for. You should always aim to employ people because they're good at what they do, not because you need to fulfil your diversity quota and it just so happens they're good at what they do.

belorn 11y ago

The benefits of diversity is many and there are many more examples I can think of (such as industries that only recruit from 50% of the population has generally problems when demand change). But... as it often is, I don't see the interest for diversity to be consistent by those who claim to be in favor of it. Let me ask you one question: The state is the biggest employer of people. They could have a hiring policy of a minimum 40% men and women per job (sorted by either title, assignment, union membership, or what else attribute one might like). Such policy would have a major effect on several professions with currently sits with a ratio of around 90% and higher. As it stands, only a few professions ever address problems of diversity. Technology is one of those, and it's gender ratio is fairly average compared to the majority. only about 30% (2010 statistics from Sweden) of recognized professions have a balanced gender distribution of minimum 40% men and women. In the remaining 70%, the most extreme had 99.7% women to 0.3% men.