6 ms·

Real diversity. Based on each individual's strengths and experience, not characterized by broad traits like skin color and gender.

by rafale 4y ago

paskozdilar 4y ago
How would you define "real diversity", as opposed to "fake diversity"?
- meowkit 4y ago
  With the following context: "Diversity" as a variable input to some bodies ability to problem solve. "Real" diversity are the dimensions that can vary and affect the above context. Different mental models/modes + patterns of human thought can be used to tackle problems in >diverse< and potentially unique ways. "Fake" diversity are the dimensions that can vary and not affect the above context. Superficial characteristics of a human person will not affect problem solving. "Fake" diversity can be used as a statistical measure for "real" diversity. A man and a women likely have different life experiences, resulting in different mental models ("real" diversity). A black person and a white person will likely have different life experiences, resulting in different mental models. Where this all goes awry is when you optimize for superficial diversity. You end up selecting against diversity of thought/character/non-superficial things over time. This sentence is based on conclusions around game theoretic optimization drawn from SSC Meditations on Moloch (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/).
  - paskozdilar 4y ago
    Based on your definitions, would you agree that real diversity is immeasurable, and that the only way to foster real diversity is to allow "fake" diversity to thrive? Viewing diversity as a means to an end, which is productivity, will never work without a wider context. Humans are ends to themselves, and trying to optimize for "productive" diversity will always backfire. Diversity leads to both beauty and ugliness, productivity and stagnation, [thing-you-like] and [thing-you-don't-like] - you can't have one without the other.
    - jl6 4y ago
      I don’t know if diversity of thought/character/perspective is quantifiably measurable, but I can absolutely detect it by talking to someone for a few minutes.
      - paskozdilar 4y ago
        Perhaps you can. Perhaps your detection rate is close to 100%, too. But still, there's only one of you, so the method isn't scalable.
        Gareth321 4y ago
        I think this is an excellent example of why trying to create KPIs based on diversity is asinine. People should be promoted and hired on the basis of ability. That's it.
defrost 4y ago
Right. After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . .
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- GameOfFrowns 4y ago
  >After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . . The actual problem is sacrificing meritocracy and excellence in order to satisfy checklist "diversity".
  - lillecarl 4y ago
    My mom was at an interview where they were talking about how great it was that she was female, she walked out. There's probably a balance between meritocracy(because hiring for these parameters) and hiring based on skill no matter where they're from.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. The world is chaotic, messy and unfair. Meritocracy is a mirage. We are not sacrificing anything by having non homomorphous workforces. Every study on it shows increased economic output, it really is a no brainer
    - jokethrowaway 4y ago
      No method is perfect but tending towards meritocracy or towards scoring political points with "minorities" yields different results.
    - Gareth321 4y ago
      >Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. This is something meritless people say. For those of us who have been working hard our entire lives to be REALLY good at something, we know that merit absolutely makes a huge difference to the value we bring to our jobs, and that value is usually recognised. This isn't to say that society is based entirely on merit. Far from it - though some more than others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for merit; that we shouldn't seek to fill jobs on the basis of merit. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Finally, I would argue against the claim that "every study on it shows increased economic output." There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. A popular topic is women in senior leadership. [There is no clear evidence that this leads to better performance.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804) I think it more likely that economic performance has everything to do with ability and nothing to do with skin colour or genital configuration.
TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago
If your environment doesn't allow for diversity of such traits, you won't get diversity of experience either.

Real diversity. Based on each individual's strengths and experience, not characterized by broad traits like skin color and gender.

by rafale 4y ago

Real diversity. Based on each individual's strengths and experience, not characterized by broad traits like skin color and gender.

paskozdilar 4y ago

How would you define "real diversity", as opposed to "fake diversity"?

meowkit 4y ago
With the following context: "Diversity" as a variable input to some bodies ability to problem solve. "Real" diversity are the dimensions that can vary and affect the above context. Different mental models/modes + patterns of human thought can be used to tackle problems in >diverse< and potentially unique ways. "Fake" diversity are the dimensions that can vary and not affect the above context. Superficial characteristics of a human person will not affect problem solving. "Fake" diversity can be used as a statistical measure for "real" diversity. A man and a women likely have different life experiences, resulting in different mental models ("real" diversity). A black person and a white person will likely have different life experiences, resulting in different mental models. Where this all goes awry is when you optimize for superficial diversity. You end up selecting against diversity of thought/character/non-superficial things over time. This sentence is based on conclusions around game theoretic optimization drawn from SSC Meditations on Moloch (https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/).
- paskozdilar 4y ago
  Based on your definitions, would you agree that real diversity is immeasurable, and that the only way to foster real diversity is to allow "fake" diversity to thrive? Viewing diversity as a means to an end, which is productivity, will never work without a wider context. Humans are ends to themselves, and trying to optimize for "productive" diversity will always backfire. Diversity leads to both beauty and ugliness, productivity and stagnation, [thing-you-like] and [thing-you-don't-like] - you can't have one without the other.
  - jl6 4y ago
    I don’t know if diversity of thought/character/perspective is quantifiably measurable, but I can absolutely detect it by talking to someone for a few minutes.
    - paskozdilar 4y ago
      Perhaps you can. Perhaps your detection rate is close to 100%, too. But still, there's only one of you, so the method isn't scalable.
      - Gareth321 4y ago
        I think this is an excellent example of why trying to create KPIs based on diversity is asinine. People should be promoted and hired on the basis of ability. That's it.

defrost 4y ago

Right. After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . .

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
GameOfFrowns 4y ago
>After all it's not like a differing genders or skin colours leads to any diversity in experience . . . The actual problem is sacrificing meritocracy and excellence in order to satisfy checklist "diversity".
- lillecarl 4y ago
  My mom was at an interview where they were talking about how great it was that she was female, she walked out. There's probably a balance between meritocracy(because hiring for these parameters) and hiring based on skill no matter where they're from.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. The world is chaotic, messy and unfair. Meritocracy is a mirage. We are not sacrificing anything by having non homomorphous workforces. Every study on it shows increased economic output, it really is a no brainer
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    No method is perfect but tending towards meritocracy or towards scoring political points with "minorities" yields different results.
  - Gareth321 4y ago
    >Meritocracy does not exist, has never existed and arguably it is good that it doesn't. This is something meritless people say. For those of us who have been working hard our entire lives to be REALLY good at something, we know that merit absolutely makes a huge difference to the value we bring to our jobs, and that value is usually recognised. This isn't to say that society is based entirely on merit. Far from it - though some more than others. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for merit; that we shouldn't seek to fill jobs on the basis of merit. Just because something is hard doesn't mean it isn't worth it. Finally, I would argue against the claim that "every study on it shows increased economic output." There are all kinds of studies on diversity, and they point in many directions. A popular topic is women in senior leadership. [There is no clear evidence that this leads to better performance.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2696804) I think it more likely that economic performance has everything to do with ability and nothing to do with skin colour or genital configuration.

TazeTSchnitzel 4y ago

If your environment doesn't allow for diversity of such traits, you won't get diversity of experience either.