4 ms·

Ignoring for a minute that you're the one that inexplicably brought post-modernism into the discussion (and even more inexplicably tie it to anti-empiricism)...

Ignoring for a minute that you're the one that inexplicably brought post-modernism into the discussion (and even more inexplicably tie it to anti-empiricism)... What empirically shows diversity is bad? Empirically speaking, certain groups are underrepresented in hard science. Empirically speaking, intelligence differences between those groups is somewhere between highly disputed and nonexistent. Therefore, a well-managed company would seek to exploit that arbitrage opportunity. edit: Empirically, good working environments improve business results. Most decent people see the benefit in a diverse workforce in furthering that goal. And it would be beneficial if it just weeded out the types of personalities that are strongly averse to diversity.

FD3SA 12y ago
Empirically speaking, certain groups are underrepresented in hard science. And this is wrong, why? Post-modernism is at the heart of the entire "equalist" movement precisely because it ignores the scientific process of modernism. It begins with an a-priori assumption: racial and sexual representation in all disciplines must be in proportion to the population. If the representations are even slightly off, there is discrimination, racism and sexism. Proponents of this line of thought then look for statistics and conjure up conspiracy theories to explain these deviations from their own asserted optimum. This line of thought is absurd to anyone with basic training in scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, scientific literacy is a rarity in the modern world which was built by it.
- waps 12y ago
  > This line of thought is absurd to anyone with basic training in scientific reasoning. Not at all. You're only giving part of the story ... racial/sexual imbalances -> racism -> laws -> money transfers into specific (small) ethnic groups. (and lots of things that come down to money transfers) So how exactly is this line of thinking absurd ? It provides a clear advantage to minorities to fight for these kinds of "absurdities".
Torgo 12y ago
>What empirically shows diversity is bad? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and... Lower trust, lower cooperation, lower confidence in government, fewer friends, lower reported happiness.

FD3SA 12y ago

Empirically speaking, certain groups are underrepresented in hard science. And this is wrong, why? Post-modernism is at the heart of the entire "equalist" movement precisely because it ignores the scientific process of modernism. It begins with an a-priori assumption: racial and sexual representation in all disciplines must be in proportion to the population. If the representations are even slightly off, there is discrimination, racism and sexism. Proponents of this line of thought then look for statistics and conjure up conspiracy theories to explain these deviations from their own asserted optimum. This line of thought is absurd to anyone with basic training in scientific reasoning. Unfortunately, scientific literacy is a rarity in the modern world which was built by it.

waps 12y ago
> This line of thought is absurd to anyone with basic training in scientific reasoning. Not at all. You're only giving part of the story ... racial/sexual imbalances -> racism -> laws -> money transfers into specific (small) ethnic groups. (and lots of things that come down to money transfers) So how exactly is this line of thinking absurd ? It provides a clear advantage to minorities to fight for these kinds of "absurdities".

Torgo 12y ago

>What empirically shows diversity is bad? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and... Lower trust, lower cooperation, lower confidence in government, fewer friends, lower reported happiness.