5 ms·

Diversity in many places seems to be largely focused on the shallowest parts of diversity, could that be because this is one of the easiest things to measure &

Diversity in many places seems to be largely focused on the shallowest parts of diversity, could that be because this is one of the easiest things to measure & tell about a person? I certainly wouldn't be ready to fill out a survey about my political beliefs or my how my childhood was when interviewing.

generic_user 10y ago
Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is. Your just reconfirming your own biases when you assign characteristics to race. Diversity often ends up being a political and ideological filter just as much as a racial filter. The organisation looking to hire a 'Diverse' person already has a set of ideological filters in place to rationalize why they prioritize 'Diversity' and what it means. There not just looking for any divers person but the 'right' kind of diverse person that agrees with there filters. So there is process that leads to ideological and political monoculture as it is now. One of the points that to author is making is that focusing more on other forms of diversity rather the race can increase the intellectual and cultural diversity of your organisation far more the just hiring a group of different skin tones who all have the same believes and politics.
- lutorm 10y ago
  Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is. The problem is that this is not true. If it was, it would be much simpler. Race and ethnicity have a nonzero correlation with other factors like culture and socioeconomic status, which means they are, on average, likely to tell you something about the person. When applied to a given individual they're obviously very flawed predictors, but if they didn't sort of work as a proxy for other characteristics, I don't think it would be talked about as much as it is.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    Companies who want to succeed with new ideas need a diversity of ideas. Free thinkers with broad experience to draw from. And people who are not afraid to disrupt institutional norms. One of the criticism is that the racial diversity PC crowd really have little interest in diversity of ideas, free thinking, or disruption. And most of them come from a very narrow band of upper middle class cultural experience. Its a feeble monoculture with a strict social hierarchy. For all intent and purpose its the opposite of what a innovative diverse group is. If you goal is simply to hire a group of people who meet some subjective 'racial balance' who all think a certain way then your probably building a very weak team.
bobbytherobot 10y ago
It may be shallow, but that same shallowness has been used to keep people at a disadvantage in society. I believe we should be actively un-biasing the negative biases throughout society. What I am describing is affirmative action which many people now see as a dirty word. For me, knowing the history and degree of suppression, it is going to be long active path to undo the effects of it. One last though: if you can't get the shallowest level of diversity, can you really get the deep level of diversity?
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  > For me, knowing the history and degree of suppression, it is going to be long active path to undo the effects of it. Sure, but why do you think that discriminating against innocent third parties is going to help? That just creates increased bitterness and division.
  - bobbytherobot 10y ago
    > discriminating against innocent third parties is going to help I'm not following you on that, would you explain more.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      Affirmative action by definition is discrimination against innocent third parties. The people who are being discriminated against didn't hurt anyone; it's being done as a reaction to discrimination which happened in the increasingly distant past.

generic_user 10y ago

Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is. Your just reconfirming your own biases when you assign characteristics to race. Diversity often ends up being a political and ideological filter just as much as a racial filter. The organisation looking to hire a 'Diverse' person already has a set of ideological filters in place to rationalize why they prioritize 'Diversity' and what it means. There not just looking for any divers person but the 'right' kind of diverse person that agrees with there filters. So there is process that leads to ideological and political monoculture as it is now. One of the points that to author is making is that focusing more on other forms of diversity rather the race can increase the intellectual and cultural diversity of your organisation far more the just hiring a group of different skin tones who all have the same believes and politics.

lutorm 10y ago
Skin color does not tell you anything about who a person is. The problem is that this is not true. If it was, it would be much simpler. Race and ethnicity have a nonzero correlation with other factors like culture and socioeconomic status, which means they are, on average, likely to tell you something about the person. When applied to a given individual they're obviously very flawed predictors, but if they didn't sort of work as a proxy for other characteristics, I don't think it would be talked about as much as it is.
- generic_user 10y ago
  Companies who want to succeed with new ideas need a diversity of ideas. Free thinkers with broad experience to draw from. And people who are not afraid to disrupt institutional norms. One of the criticism is that the racial diversity PC crowd really have little interest in diversity of ideas, free thinking, or disruption. And most of them come from a very narrow band of upper middle class cultural experience. Its a feeble monoculture with a strict social hierarchy. For all intent and purpose its the opposite of what a innovative diverse group is. If you goal is simply to hire a group of people who meet some subjective 'racial balance' who all think a certain way then your probably building a very weak team.

bobbytherobot 10y ago

It may be shallow, but that same shallowness has been used to keep people at a disadvantage in society. I believe we should be actively un-biasing the negative biases throughout society. What I am describing is affirmative action which many people now see as a dirty word. For me, knowing the history and degree of suppression, it is going to be long active path to undo the effects of it. One last though: if you can't get the shallowest level of diversity, can you really get the deep level of diversity?

mzw_mzw 10y ago
> For me, knowing the history and degree of suppression, it is going to be long active path to undo the effects of it. Sure, but why do you think that discriminating against innocent third parties is going to help? That just creates increased bitterness and division.
- bobbytherobot 10y ago
  > discriminating against innocent third parties is going to help I'm not following you on that, would you explain more.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    Affirmative action by definition is discrimination against innocent third parties. The people who are being discriminated against didn't hurt anyone; it's being done as a reaction to discrimination which happened in the increasingly distant past.