3 ms·
I agree that that's what they mean. What I'm not seeing is how the "requisite variety" that control theory talks about, relates to "diversity" in modern usage
by 9q9 7y ago
I agree that that's what they mean.
What I'm not seeing is how the "requisite variety" that control theory talks about, relates to "diversity" in modern usage (which for practical purposes is coeval with the political demand of hiring fewer members of certain demographics).
Let's use a less loaded analogy, intellectual diversity: the Manhattan Project, which needed to adapt to a most complex and adversarial environment (world war), hired a lot of STEM scientists, in particular mathematicians, physicists and chemists, and mostly from a few top universities, in other words, a highly homogeneous group that were educated on the same few core subjects (linear algebra, real and complex anaysis, Newtonian and quantum physics, special and general relativity). I do not believe that the Manhattan Project would have been better by hiring fewer STEM graduates, and more psychologists, historians, yoga teachers and so forth. How would modern management science convince me that I'm wrong?
The heart of the issue is the conflation of "diversity" (a political concept) with control theory's "requisite variety". The two are related, but not the same.
I partly agree that it's cargo-culting, but that's not the whole story: the Melanesians after whom Cargo Cult is modelled, would probably not have tried to fire / doxx / cancel anyone who wasn't on board
with the belief that
building of an airplane runway will by itself bring desirable Western goods.
- jkqwzsoo 7y agoYou’re missing the part where they say that diversity is needed because the target audience is diverse. The goal of the Manhattan project was to deliver a working nuclear weapon. Consequently its hiring practices were in line with this goal. Consequently your example of yoga instructors and psychologists (I’m sure there were psychologists consulting for the Manhattan project, however), is something of a strawman. What was being discussed was the idea that a company or organization that wants to appeal to the populace at large should have a workforce representative of that population at large. I think that’s debatable, but you can imagine that having someone on staff who can say “this is offensive (to my group of people)” can be useful to an organization. In this case, “I find this offensive” would not be a political or cultural message, but an actionable piece of data that says “For our goal of appealing to the populace at large, this statement/product may have lower, or negative, utility in appealing to this part of the population we’d like to like us/like to sell widgets to.”
- _glass 7y agocorrect. the Manhattan project's complexity is generated by a natural, to be distinct from a social problem. and it is not just about offence, but also the inherent complexity of subsidiaries, that can be controlled by having a diverse workforce in the headquarters, that has cultural or organizational knowledge.
- dredmorbius 7y agoThe Manhattan Project was headed by a Jewish polymath intellectual political radical with very strong Communist ties at a time when all of those factors were serious impediments to mainstream acceptance. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer was given the job, and delivered.