4 ms·

Hmm. I see what you are saying, but it totally discounts the value of diversity of thought. For example, there is an optical illusion where people see the top

Hmm. I see what you are saying, but it totally discounts the value of diversity of thought. For example, there is an optical illusion where people see the top line as shorter: <——> >—-< However, they are the same length. (The illusion is more pronounced with hand drawn lines.) Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why. My point is that if something as simple estimates of a length of line can benefit from diversity of thought, imagine how many other “obvious” yet wrong assumptions people make. And that is why it is valuable to include people of different genders, races, abilities. Just like it is okay to pass on a yet another Python developer, maybe it is okay to pass on yet another person who assumes the top line is shorter. Look, I don’t like the idea of quotas, either. But I also don’t like working at place where everyone is the same.

dhriekeb 3y ago
[flagged]
- aydyn 3y ago
  No, there’s absolutely no proof that racial diversity directly benefits a company. I searched HARD for the evidence. Lots of articles claim it is true but purposely mistake correlation for causation.
  - bpicolo 3y ago
    There are studies that have found more women is a helpful thing in the workplace https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-team-smarter-more-women https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-te...
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    People often cite the 2019 McMinsey report as evidence that racial diversity improves company performance. However, when you dig into the details Asian representation is positively correlated with company performance, but Black and Latin representation is negatively correlated. The Asian positive correlation was so strong that on the whole, lower White representation was positively correlated with company performance. That's the supposed benefit of diversity, but media outlets rarely report on the negative correlation of non Asian minorities. To be clear, I don't at all endorse the idea that Black and Latin representation negatively affects company performance. This is a textbook lesson of "correlation does not imply causation". These disparities are reflective of differences in education outcomes and employment between these groups, not that hiring an otherwise identical Asian is better than an equally qualified Black or Latin candidate.
abduhl 3y ago
The real problem is the assumption race or gender are not only accurate proxies for diversity of thought (they’re not), but that they’re actually better proxies than just looking for diversity of thought directly. You want more people from poor backgrounds so that you can take into account lower socioeconomic viewpoints? Well, the modern DEI answer to that is hire a black person. The correct answer is to hire someone that grew up poor.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  Yes. You make a good point. I would fully support a system that account for diversity of thought directly. That’s hard to do. Your suggestion of means testing applicants is interesting. Do you have others?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Always_Anon 3y ago
>Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why. That was disproven. This is scientific racism/bio-essentialism. Let's not go there, it's an evil path.
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  Ah. I don’t see where it was disproven. The Wikipedia article about it seems to indicate the difference in perception between various populations was further substantiated. My contention nor original researchers, so far as I can tell, claimed the difference was based on race or biology. It looks like they thought it had to do with the presence of rectilinear buildings, thus cultural. Some subsequent research did hypothesize eye pigmentation played a role and that was disproven. However, as far as I can tell, different groups of people have differing abilities to perceive illusions. Moreover, my fundamental point was that culture affects thought, and a variety of thought is valuable. Do you dispute either of those points?
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
The illusion you refer to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion but the "Variations in perception" section mentions the African tribesmen finding that you are using to support your point was contradicted by later research. (This sort of thing is why I distrust many statements asserted as fact without citations by posters on HN; too often they turn out to be incorrect, incomplete, or out of date.)
- Hnrobert42 3y ago
  I appreciate that link. It seems subsequent research did not contradict it. I am open to changing my mind, but in the section about perception, it lists numerous studies that found differences between populations. It does not appear the differences have been definitively explained. I’m not sure how you concluded that either the research or my point were contradicted, but again, I’m open to the being wrong. I often am.

dhriekeb 3y ago

[flagged]

aydyn 3y ago
No, there’s absolutely no proof that racial diversity directly benefits a company. I searched HARD for the evidence. Lots of articles claim it is true but purposely mistake correlation for causation.
- bpicolo 3y ago
  There are studies that have found more women is a helpful thing in the workplace https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-team-smarter-more-women https://hbr.org/2011/06/defend-your-research-what-makes-a-te...
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  People often cite the 2019 McMinsey report as evidence that racial diversity improves company performance. However, when you dig into the details Asian representation is positively correlated with company performance, but Black and Latin representation is negatively correlated. The Asian positive correlation was so strong that on the whole, lower White representation was positively correlated with company performance. That's the supposed benefit of diversity, but media outlets rarely report on the negative correlation of non Asian minorities. To be clear, I don't at all endorse the idea that Black and Latin representation negatively affects company performance. This is a textbook lesson of "correlation does not imply causation". These disparities are reflective of differences in education outcomes and employment between these groups, not that hiring an otherwise identical Asian is better than an equally qualified Black or Latin candidate.

abduhl 3y ago

The real problem is the assumption race or gender are not only accurate proxies for diversity of thought (they’re not), but that they’re actually better proxies than just looking for diversity of thought directly. You want more people from poor backgrounds so that you can take into account lower socioeconomic viewpoints? Well, the modern DEI answer to that is hire a black person. The correct answer is to hire someone that grew up poor.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
Yes. You make a good point. I would fully support a system that account for diversity of thought directly. That’s hard to do. Your suggestion of means testing applicants is interesting. Do you have others?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Always_Anon 3y ago

>Everyone falls for this illusion across all countries and cultures, so much so that folks hypothesized it is affected by our biology. Well, until some anthropologist showed it to some African tribesman. It turns out they were not susceptible to that form of illusion at all. It is unclear why. That was disproven. This is scientific racism/bio-essentialism. Let's not go there, it's an evil path.

Hnrobert42 3y ago
Ah. I don’t see where it was disproven. The Wikipedia article about it seems to indicate the difference in perception between various populations was further substantiated. My contention nor original researchers, so far as I can tell, claimed the difference was based on race or biology. It looks like they thought it had to do with the presence of rectilinear buildings, thus cultural. Some subsequent research did hypothesize eye pigmentation played a role and that was disproven. However, as far as I can tell, different groups of people have differing abilities to perceive illusions. Moreover, my fundamental point was that culture affects thought, and a variety of thought is valuable. Do you dispute either of those points?

ThrowawayR2 3y ago

The illusion you refer to is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion but the "Variations in perception" section mentions the African tribesmen finding that you are using to support your point was contradicted by later research. (This sort of thing is why I distrust many statements asserted as fact without citations by posters on HN; too often they turn out to be incorrect, incomplete, or out of date.)

Hnrobert42 3y ago
I appreciate that link. It seems subsequent research did not contradict it. I am open to changing my mind, but in the section about perception, it lists numerous studies that found differences between populations. It does not appear the differences have been definitively explained. I’m not sure how you concluded that either the research or my point were contradicted, but again, I’m open to the being wrong. I often am.