3 ms·

> why not include a nice chart showing that those 10% companies in the US that don't have a woman director are underperforming? Because most probably they're n

by Udik 6y ago

> why not include a nice chart showing that those 10% companies in the US that don't have a woman director are underperforming? Because most probably they're not, once correlations are excluded. It's annoying that we keep trying to justify what is ethically desirable with made up facts.

happytoexplain 6y ago
This is hostile for no reason. Why "annoying" and "made up facts" rather than simply presenting evidence that they do not perform better, or citing lack of evidence that they do? Hell, even just saying what you think is probably the case without evidence would be a fine way to express yourself. But you felt the need to make it an ideological insult.
- Udik 6y ago
  Well, it would be annoying in general (beyond this specific case, let's assume an instance we agree on) because it confuses an ethical stance with a factual statement. In this case, right with the profitable. Say that tomorrow we find out that more diverse companies perform slightly worse- what do you do? Do you change your opinion on diversity? I guess you don't, because diversity is ethically desirable, whatever its consequences. So wouldn't be more honest to say that we don't really care about the effect on the company's performance? And for the specific case, I think it's very hard to prove that more diverse boards make companies more successful- there are a ton of spurious correlations and confounding factors, plus an understandable desire to obtain one result and not the other. Do you have any good research to point me to?
belval 6y ago
To be clear I agree with you here, why not just be upfront about the fact that they believe in diversity as a component of ethical investments and be done with it. Stuff like: "Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits," Legal & General Investment said when announcing the new policy." will have their detractors running to the "where's the data" response which shouldn't be the point.

by Udik 6y ago

happytoexplain 6y ago

This is hostile for no reason. Why "annoying" and "made up facts" rather than simply presenting evidence that they do not perform better, or citing lack of evidence that they do? Hell, even just saying what you think is probably the case without evidence would be a fine way to express yourself. But you felt the need to make it an ideological insult.

Udik 6y ago
Well, it would be annoying in general (beyond this specific case, let's assume an instance we agree on) because it confuses an ethical stance with a factual statement. In this case, right with the profitable. Say that tomorrow we find out that more diverse companies perform slightly worse- what do you do? Do you change your opinion on diversity? I guess you don't, because diversity is ethically desirable, whatever its consequences. So wouldn't be more honest to say that we don't really care about the effect on the company's performance? And for the specific case, I think it's very hard to prove that more diverse boards make companies more successful- there are a ton of spurious correlations and confounding factors, plus an understandable desire to obtain one result and not the other. Do you have any good research to point me to?

belval 6y ago

To be clear I agree with you here, why not just be upfront about the fact that they believe in diversity as a component of ethical investments and be done with it. Stuff like: "Better diversity "brings economic as well as cultural benefits," Legal & General Investment said when announcing the new policy." will have their detractors running to the "where's the data" response which shouldn't be the point.