Do you think there is strength in diversity and something that should be sought

[pmv]

A diversified population is bad for the same reasons that walking into a pharmacy and sampling one of everything is bad. Introducing every known chemical into a water supply is a recipe for disaster even if many of them are beneficial. It only takes one pathogen.

And that's the side of the argument the delusional people who think the world is a giant Coke commercial where we're all just a few open borders away from holding hands and singing "I'd like to teach the world to sing..." in a field of daisies refuse to accept. Inclusion is fine, diversity works, but it must be approached with a little common sense. Diversity as a goal is fine, doing it blindly expecting it all to work itself out is a stupid idea.

That's a very weak analogy though. Your analogy skews the argument, as why the hell would anyone ever sample every drug? Is the sampler even actually ill in this analogy? Would it work out any better if they took a million doses of the same drug? It doesn't really make sense as a scenario. Why not say a homogeneous population is bad for the same reason that stocking a pharmacy only with one kind of drug is bad - as you'll be stuck if you develop an illness that drug doesn't treat?

Diversity is not synonymous with open borders in any case. Two different discussions. Like I said already, I do think a very diverse population risks giving more power to those at the top, because its very hard to organise across language and cultural differences, but its a trade off.

 

[fskimospy]

Well, there comes a time when nature tires to not increase diversity. Too much diversity would mean populations would eventually change so much that they could not breed. Further, nature "selects" things that it knows works and tries not to "select" things that fail. Nature has a habit of trying something and when it does not do what is best, drops it. At no point will nature go back and keep at something if it fails as there would be no way for a dead creature to pass on that failed thing.

Nature does value both diversity but also not too much. Its a balance but not a 50/50 split for sure.

What your describing is no problem at all, it's evolution. Species no longer being able to breed with one another is not a problem, it's a natural consequence of the incredible diversity that evolution relies on. I mean do you really think that fish not being able to breed with elephants is a negative? It's a positive as those lines of animals have split so far from one another that it's very unlikely one cause will be able to kill them both. These are big, big advantages.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Diversity for its own sake is a recipe for injustice and prejudice. Men should get what they deserve because of their actions, not because of their appearance, or membership in a group.

Diversity isn't "for it's own sake". Diversity is for EVERYONE's sake. You're pissed because you are losing your white privilege. Too bad so sad.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you saying that eschewing diversity has enabled higher organizational performance? If so, what's your empirical evidence for this?

I am saying there is plenty of empirical evidence of successful organizations that are not diverse. Facebook is not a diverse company yet it dominates social media. Amazon is not a diverse company yet it dominates e-commerce. Toyota is not a diverse company and yet it led the way on quality in a high barrier to entry market. The same for Samsung. The same for BMW. The same for Audi. The same for Ikea. The same for wall street banks. The same for consulting firms. Lack of diversity was not a limiting factor for any of them.

Are you saying all of these companies would somehow be more dominant or successful if they were more diverse?

Most proponents of diversity make the argument that you need a diverse workforce to serve diverse markets. That is not diversity. That is market research, and companies already hire the people they need who have the perspectives or leverage to help them better serve different target markets or demographics. Some get it right, others get it wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

I am saying there is plenty of empirical evidence of successful organizations that are not diverse. Facebook is not a diverse company yet it dominates social media. Amazon is not a diverse company yet it dominates e-commerce. Toyota is not a diverse company and yet it led the way on quality in a high barrier to entry market. The same for Samsung. The same for BMW. The same for Audi. The same for Ikea. The same for wall street banks. The same for consulting firms. Lack of diversity was not a limiting factor for any of them.

Are you saying all of these companies would somehow be more dominant or successful if they were more diverse?

Most proponents of diversity make the argument that you need a diverse workforce to serve diverse markets. That is not diversity. That is market research, and companies already hire the people they need who have the perspectives or leverage to help them better serve different target markets or demographics. Some get it right, others get it wrong.

That is not empirical evidence, that is descriptive statistics. The question is not if an organization can be successful without being diverse, the question is if diversity makes companies more successful, less successful, or makes no difference.

Do you have any empirical evidence that diversity has no effect? There is substantial evidence that says the opposite like what I already cited in this thread.

 

[JimKiler]

No.

Looks like you are right, i thought it was a genetic thing, There must be a outbreak that can apply like Sickle Cell Anemia, if we all had that gene we would have problems.

 

[pcgeek11]

Pushing for diversity just for the sake of diversity doesn't make much sense. Like change just for the sake of change is bad. You should seek the best people for a job without over emphasis on the diversity angle for better results.

 

[Atreus21]

Since diversity appears to be associated with superior business outcomes it most certainly seems like it should be pursued for its own sake. After all, the goal of the business is to perform as well as possible.

If outright racism led to superior business outcomes I wouldn't be in favor of racism. "Diversity" means prejudging people based on their skin color or sex. I'm not in favor of that.

Regardless, the idea that we should have some sort of true meritocracy misses the fact that nobody actually behaves that way in real life as people tend to overvalue those who look and act like them.

So should we value what people look and act like over their merits?

 

[Atreus21]

Diversity isn't "for it's own sake". Diversity is for EVERYONE's sake. You're pissed because you are losing your white privilege. Too bad so sad.

Okay, uh, what are you talking about?

 

[Sunburn74]

There is something you are missing. The diversity in that case only helps those that have the resistance. If you have a long term persistent threat, all organisms that do not pick up that trait will die. Nature is in constant battle between defense.

If the goal is survival of the species, diversity is good. If the goal is your personal survival, it's good if you have the trait that that proves beneficial (I of you're a NBA player that was lucky to get tall genes, you think it's great for you to have this genes) or get to enjoy that person who has the traits you like but don't have. But otherwise in the face of an epidemic then it doesn't matter except for the notion that the resistant people may be studied and their mechanisms of resistance are used to develop treatments. Work like that for example is on going with HIV and most of the HIV vaccine trials use mechanisms first identified in people who showed that they were obviously resistant to the disease. In fact the latest HIV drugs also use the same mechanisms as treatment (there is a receptor that if you're born without you cannot get HIV. The latest drugs block that receptor and so mimic innate resistance. If you're curious the few people who were cured of HIV were cured because they received bone marrow transplant from donors who by chance had this resistant variation).

However people don't generally seek diversity and implement such programs for personal/individual gain. Rather they are done on the hypothesis and basis that society or their organization or company or research group and etc will be better off. There's a reason why universities and hospitals try and hire people from other institutions rather than just taking only their own trainees. The idea is that people from other places will bring ideas, cultures, influences, etc to their new institution and improve it or something bring success. I can tell you that personally. Where I work I certainly didn't train there but after arrival left and right I began spotting things that were major issues and implementing solutions. These are problems that have been there for a long time and we're either poorly recognized or lacked political will to solve. It took an outsider to say let's fix it and this is how.

That is the value of diversity. Group think is not good. Again 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded either by immigrants or first generation children of immigrants. That is a startling fact.

 

[snarfbot]

i remember reading about a guy who made investments based on the assumption that companies announcing diversity initiatives would become less profitable. afaik he is doing very well for himself.

anecdotal but seems to support the argument that diversity at least as implemented in present day western society, that is hiring less qualified people in favor of a preferred skin color or sex or sexual orientation, is bad.

 

[fskimospy]

If outright racism led to superior business outcomes I wouldn't be in favor of racism. "Diversity" means prejudging people based on their skin color or sex. I'm not in favor of that.

Diversity does not mean that. Not sure what right wing source told you that but it’s badly wrong.

Regardless, people are already prejudged in their skin color or sex in our system now. Let’s not ignore reality.

So should we value what people look and act like over their merits?

Good question! The fact that people do is what diversity initiatives attempt to correct for, however.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

What is the opposite of diversity ? University.

It's why we have so little diversity in the politics of higher education.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We generally accept diversity of individuals but why do we eschew diversity of thought in many things, politics being foremost? We erect obstructions restricting the marketplace of ideas to allowing two carts, one with and elephant and the other with a donkey painted on them. All others regardless of merit are discarded.

It's too bad, that.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That is not empirical evidence, that is descriptive statistics. The question is not if an organization can be successful without being diverse, the question is if diversity makes companies more successful, less successful, or makes no difference.

Do you have any empirical evidence that diversity has no effect? There is substantial evidence that says the opposite like what I already cited in this thread.

The article you linked talked about diversity as it relates to markets. Obviouly, a company with a diverse portfolio of assets and services is far more adaptive to entering and dominating different markets.

Amazon offers diverse services: e-commerce, Cloud Services, e-presence, mobile platforms, content delivery, groceries. Yet the people creating those diverse services are not diverse themselves.

 

[snarfbot]

Diversity does not mean that. Not sure what right wing source told you that but it’s badly wrong.

Regardless, people are already prejudged in their skin color or sex in our system now. Let’s not ignore reality.



Good question! The fact that people do is what diversity initiatives attempt to correct for, however.

diversity as implemented in western society right now, like at google is exactly that, discrimination.

 

[fskimospy]

The article you linked talked about diversity as it relates to markets. Obviouly, a company with a diverse portfolio of assets and services is far more adaptive to entering and dominating different markets.

Amazon offers diverse services: e-commerce, Cloud Services, e-presence, mobile platforms, content delivery, groceries. Yet the people creating those diverse services are not diverse themselves.

That’s not what the article said, it said financial systems with diverse players performed better at avoiding asset bubbles and priced equities more effectively. Is: they worked better.

Do you have similar evidence that says otherwise?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

diversity as implemented in western society right now, like at google is exactly that, discrimination.

He thinks as long as it's discrimination in his favor it's a good thing.

 

[fskimospy]

diversity as implemented in western society right now, like at google is exactly that, discrimination.

No, it is not.

I for one am really tired of people who have most likely lived their whole lives enjoying the benefits of racial preference in hiring arguing against attempts to correct for that, saying that they are racial preferences in hiring.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What is the opposite of diversity ? University.

It's why we have so little diversity in the politics of higher education.

This is the opposite of diversity

 

[fskimospy]

He thinks as long as it's discrimination in his favor it's a good thing.

You’re projecting again. Remember how you argued that the person who got the third most votes in a primary should get into the general election based solely on their political party? Lol. That shows you only believe in merit based selection it ends up in your favor.

 

[snarfbot]

No, it is not.

I for one am really tired of people who have most likely lived their whole lives enjoying the benefits of racial preference in hiring arguing against attempts to correct for that, saying that they are racial preferences in hiring.

it doesnt matter what you think, or what you are tired of, because preferentially choosing people based on the color of their skin, sex or sexual orientation is the definition of discrimination.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

You’re projecting again. Remember how you argued that the person who got the third most votes in a primary should get into the general election based solely on their political party? Lol. That shows you only believe in merit based selection it ends up in your favor.

Stay on topic.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

This is the opposite of diversity

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/please-read-your-enlightened-cooperation-is-required.2508623/

 

[fskimospy]

Stay on topic.

I am staying on topic, pointing out your hypocrisy. You want affirmative action in elections when republicans lose and then oppose affirmative action in hiring.

I never want to hear you whine about how republicans aren’t in a general election again. If they can’t win on the merits then by your own argument they don’t belong.