5 ms·

I still don't see the value in diversity for diversities sake. Having read much from Thomas Sowell on the matter I think most of these terms will lead to much w

by lbj 6y ago

I still don't see the value in diversity for diversities sake. Having read much from Thomas Sowell on the matter I think most of these terms will lead to much worse outcomes than what we have present day.

bitcurious 6y ago
Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity - it allows for a marketplace of ideas and limits blind spots. The first time this really clicked for me was when I dived deeply into the history of the First World War. If I could restate the root cause, it was complete failure by both the British and especially the Germans to envision a point of view different from their own. They each operated like they were sparring with themselves, and shit got out of control. The problem is that it’s now vogue to assume what point of view a person holds bases entirely on their race/gender/etc. P.S. If WWI sounds interesting, I very much recommend the podcast “When Diplomacy Fails.”
- lbj 6y ago
  Do you have any evidence/studies to back up this point of view? Sowell has done quite a bit of research which backs up his conclusions. He has a couple of books on the subject you might be interested in.
  - bitcurious 6y ago
    I don’t have any studies I could point to, but there is the fact that children of immigrants are over represented as founders. I unscientifically attribute that to growing up with two points of view on everything - the old country and the new. It gives you ideas.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Obvious selection bias, if that’s even true.
- malandrew 6y ago
  > Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity Maybe the solution here is to develop a standardized test that measures diversity of viewpoint in a way that is blind to genetics.
  - Avicebron 6y ago
    Hey I agree, once we say "you're genetics give you a diversity of viewpoint" we are typecasting by genetics. Once we say, "you're genetics make you think this way" we are walking right down the path of eugenics....seem's wrong?
OminousWeapons 6y ago
The classic argument in favor of diversity for diversity's sake is that people frame expectations for themselves based on what they see around them. If there are no members of group X in a field, then many people in group X will assume that field is not for them. At a societal level, we miss out if people who would have been highly productive in a field choose not to enter it behind assumptions about inclusion. By injecting members of group X into the field, we can help eliminate those assumptions thereby enticing more qualified people into the field and yielding productivity benefits long term. At an individual corporate level, the value is less clear. I've heard that people do not want to be the only member of group X at a company, so by building a base of members from group X it might make it easier to attract high tier talent who might otherwise pass and work for a competitor. This should be somewhat measurable for a company. This is somewhat tangential, but it's also important to make sure that your user base is appropriately represented in your workforce (eg if you are developing products catering to white males then it probably doesn't make sense to have no white males in your workforce). That's less diversity for diversity's sake and more representation for the sake of accurate product development though.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  That’s always been a really silly assertion backed by a very small number of cherry picked examples. How does anything we buy in the US even work at all, considering it’s all made in China by people of a different culture and race with zero diversity and zero representation of the customer? We shouldn’t accept arguments like this, no matter how uncomfortable the righteous want to make us feel for thinking critically.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    > How does anything we buy in the US even work at all, considering it’s all made in China by people of a different culture and race with zero diversity and zero representation of the customer? Because most products are targeted very widely and are for general purpose use. For general purpose products, my second comment does not apply. What I am saying is that if your product is targeted to a niche group of people who tend to occupy a specific demographic that you aren't in, then it makes sense to have members of that demographic on your team because they can provide you basic data that you might not know. This is to gain a business advantage, not to pacify diversity proponents, and I don't think it is at all a contentious statement. If you were going to start a healthcare startup and no one on your team had a healthcare background, that would probably be concerning. Are you guaranteed to fail without that user input? Not necessarily, but you will likely have to work a lot harder than you would otherwise need to in order to properly understand the space. Similarly, if you were going to start a shampoo company catering towards black women and your team was all white guys, it would probably be a good idea to bring a black woman onboard to help steer product development. > That’s always been a really silly assertion backed by a very small number of cherry picked examples...We shouldn’t accept arguments like this, no matter how uncomfortable the righteous want to make us feel for thinking critically. These are not particularly value adding comments and detract from your argument. Please stick to attacking my argument rather than trying to attack me personally.

by lbj 6y ago

bitcurious 6y ago

Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity - it allows for a marketplace of ideas and limits blind spots. The first time this really clicked for me was when I dived deeply into the history of the First World War. If I could restate the root cause, it was complete failure by both the British and especially the Germans to envision a point of view different from their own. They each operated like they were sparring with themselves, and shit got out of control. The problem is that it’s now vogue to assume what point of view a person holds bases entirely on their race/gender/etc. P.S. If WWI sounds interesting, I very much recommend the podcast “When Diplomacy Fails.”

lbj 6y ago
Do you have any evidence/studies to back up this point of view? Sowell has done quite a bit of research which backs up his conclusions. He has a couple of books on the subject you might be interested in.
- bitcurious 6y ago
  I don’t have any studies I could point to, but there is the fact that children of immigrants are over represented as founders. I unscientifically attribute that to growing up with two points of view on everything - the old country and the new. It gives you ideas.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    Obvious selection bias, if that’s even true.
malandrew 6y ago
> Diversity of viewpoints is essential for long term prosperity Maybe the solution here is to develop a standardized test that measures diversity of viewpoint in a way that is blind to genetics.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  Hey I agree, once we say "you're genetics give you a diversity of viewpoint" we are typecasting by genetics. Once we say, "you're genetics make you think this way" we are walking right down the path of eugenics....seem's wrong?

OminousWeapons 6y ago

The classic argument in favor of diversity for diversity's sake is that people frame expectations for themselves based on what they see around them. If there are no members of group X in a field, then many people in group X will assume that field is not for them. At a societal level, we miss out if people who would have been highly productive in a field choose not to enter it behind assumptions about inclusion. By injecting members of group X into the field, we can help eliminate those assumptions thereby enticing more qualified people into the field and yielding productivity benefits long term. At an individual corporate level, the value is less clear. I've heard that people do not want to be the only member of group X at a company, so by building a base of members from group X it might make it easier to attract high tier talent who might otherwise pass and work for a competitor. This should be somewhat measurable for a company. This is somewhat tangential, but it's also important to make sure that your user base is appropriately represented in your workforce (eg if you are developing products catering to white males then it probably doesn't make sense to have no white males in your workforce). That's less diversity for diversity's sake and more representation for the sake of accurate product development though.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
That’s always been a really silly assertion backed by a very small number of cherry picked examples. How does anything we buy in the US even work at all, considering it’s all made in China by people of a different culture and race with zero diversity and zero representation of the customer? We shouldn’t accept arguments like this, no matter how uncomfortable the righteous want to make us feel for thinking critically.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  > How does anything we buy in the US even work at all, considering it’s all made in China by people of a different culture and race with zero diversity and zero representation of the customer? Because most products are targeted very widely and are for general purpose use. For general purpose products, my second comment does not apply. What I am saying is that if your product is targeted to a niche group of people who tend to occupy a specific demographic that you aren't in, then it makes sense to have members of that demographic on your team because they can provide you basic data that you might not know. This is to gain a business advantage, not to pacify diversity proponents, and I don't think it is at all a contentious statement. If you were going to start a healthcare startup and no one on your team had a healthcare background, that would probably be concerning. Are you guaranteed to fail without that user input? Not necessarily, but you will likely have to work a lot harder than you would otherwise need to in order to properly understand the space. Similarly, if you were going to start a shampoo company catering towards black women and your team was all white guys, it would probably be a good idea to bring a black woman onboard to help steer product development. > That’s always been a really silly assertion backed by a very small number of cherry picked examples...We shouldn’t accept arguments like this, no matter how uncomfortable the righteous want to make us feel for thinking critically. These are not particularly value adding comments and detract from your argument. Please stick to attacking my argument rather than trying to attack me personally.