3 ms·

> Please provide a quote of the claim you say I’m making without data. As requested, the quote: > Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of

by dolni 3y ago

> Please provide a quote of the claim you say I’m making without data. As requested, the quote: > Companies tend not to have data on the sexual orientation of their employees. Such studies are not possible to do. The studies are absolutely possible to do. Throwing up our hands because companies "tend not to have data on sexual orientation" reads like a cop-out when the comment you responded to was attempting to get at some data around this very issue. > The McKinsey stuff and other stuff is generally publically available data. Is it? I found a report [1], which isn't the one which I previously remember seeing but it'll have to do since that older one evades me now. Look at the footnotes. Several pages say their source is the "McKinsey Diversity Database". I searched for it on Google and DuckDuckGo and it didn't show up for me. Do you have a link to the underlying data for this database? I tried and failed to find one. Lastly, review the authors at the end of the doc. If you put the authors' bios at the top of the report, the conclusion would be surprising to exactly zero people. That doesn't mean their conclusion is invalid, but given that much of their data is tied up in a "diversity database" that I can't find is VERY suspect. [1]: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functions/people%20and%20organizational%20performance/our%20insights/why%20diversity%20matters/diversity%20matters.pdf https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20functio...

jncfhnb 3y ago
You said I was claiming > data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion Your quote does not contain a claim that pretends data is not important so long as I agree with the conclusion. It in fact contains a claim that the data is not possible to acquire. And I think it’s kind of dumb of you to pretend otherwise. You cannot practically do a good study or even surface stats on company performance vs sexual orientation diversity when companies do not collect sexual orientation data. That is not a controversial statement. Observe how I am not making a claim that pretends what that data would say in either direction. I’m not really interested in trying to find this thing. But I don’t feel like you’re reading what I’m saying. It is very likely a real dataset. It’s just not very deep. It’s public info like stock prices, leadership profiles, and published diversity stats. You can find similar datasets if not this one precisely. And if you would again look at what I said originally, it should be expected that there is a relationship. Why? Because the fastest growing companies of the recent past are generally growth stocks based on the coast in naturally more diverse areas. As I already stated it’s probably not causal. I think it’s unnecessary to suggest anything here is “VERY suspect”. That’s unlikely. It’s just not very interesting. Like, they’re showing p values of 0.1 on some pages. Shrug. You’re reframing this discussion, which could have been mild agreement off the top of insufficient evidence to identify a causal effect, to an annoying about whether the exercise is a lying conspiracy or not. I’m just not interested in engaging with that.

by dolni 3y ago

jncfhnb 3y ago

You said I was claiming > data isn't important as long as I agree with the conclusion Your quote does not contain a claim that pretends data is not important so long as I agree with the conclusion. It in fact contains a claim that the data is not possible to acquire. And I think it’s kind of dumb of you to pretend otherwise. You cannot practically do a good study or even surface stats on company performance vs sexual orientation diversity when companies do not collect sexual orientation data. That is not a controversial statement. Observe how I am not making a claim that pretends what that data would say in either direction. I’m not really interested in trying to find this thing. But I don’t feel like you’re reading what I’m saying. It is very likely a real dataset. It’s just not very deep. It’s public info like stock prices, leadership profiles, and published diversity stats. You can find similar datasets if not this one precisely. And if you would again look at what I said originally, it should be expected that there is a relationship. Why? Because the fastest growing companies of the recent past are generally growth stocks based on the coast in naturally more diverse areas. As I already stated it’s probably not causal. I think it’s unnecessary to suggest anything here is “VERY suspect”. That’s unlikely. It’s just not very interesting. Like, they’re showing p values of 0.1 on some pages. Shrug. You’re reframing this discussion, which could have been mild agreement off the top of insufficient evidence to identify a causal effect, to an annoying about whether the exercise is a lying conspiracy or not. I’m just not interested in engaging with that.