3 ms·

You make some good points, but I would like to add caveats on the usefulness to think in terms of groups when judging an individual and make the point that grou

You make some good points, but I would like to add caveats on the usefulness to think in terms of groups when judging an individual and make the point that group inferences has severe limitations when making decisions about an individual. There are bigger differences within groups than between them, although there are also large differences between groups. For instance, people of jewish descent have an average IQ that is much higher than any other group. However, if you are trying to find the best person for a cognitively demanding job or to build a relationship with them then it doesn't matter what the average for any group you might perceive them as part of is as you might need an individual that belong to a small subset of any group. That is why we in the west made the essential discovery that we are different amongst so many dimensions that we in the end are a group of one, the individual, and that we should aspire to judge a person as an individual on their merit in any situation. Judging people as individuals goes against some of our basic tendencies as humans. Our natural tendency is to be tribal and to judge individuals for group "guilt". Our judicial and political system is intentionally adversarial to counter this tendency, and that is why we need to fight hard against anyone trying to destroy this process in the name of equity or because they think they deserve special treatment due to their group belongings.

candiodari 8y ago
I am explicitly talking about the generally used definition of diversity, which I believe boils down to what I put in the comment: > "distribution in the winners of competitions is the same as the distribution of participants" (and sometimes even extended to the distribution of the population) Like you say, an individual's performance, like any other individual data point in statistics, can be anything, or anyone in this case. I should probably have mentioned that.
- asabjorn 8y ago
  Makes sense. Yes, only a small subset of people in general have a good understanding of statistics. - People on the radical left without a good understanding of statistics are often outraged by how they misunderstand how statistical should be interpreted - People on the identarian right make outrageous statements the statistics can't support. I try to avoid both misunderstandings by explicitly stating the caveat.

candiodari 8y ago

I am explicitly talking about the generally used definition of diversity, which I believe boils down to what I put in the comment: > "distribution in the winners of competitions is the same as the distribution of participants" (and sometimes even extended to the distribution of the population) Like you say, an individual's performance, like any other individual data point in statistics, can be anything, or anyone in this case. I should probably have mentioned that.

asabjorn 8y ago
Makes sense. Yes, only a small subset of people in general have a good understanding of statistics. - People on the radical left without a good understanding of statistics are often outraged by how they misunderstand how statistical should be interpreted - People on the identarian right make outrageous statements the statistics can't support. I try to avoid both misunderstandings by explicitly stating the caveat.