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

[Jaskalas]

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

I think at a high level, yes, diversity is good. However, there are counter weights and pressures applied to diverse systems. Systemic segregation and cultural alienation, such as what we face even today, those aspects cause real problems for social cohesion. In another general sense, biodiversity is a strength to be held onto, and the same goes for genetic diversity. We are all human, and should do our best to become a cohesive group that doesn't nuke the planet or shoot each other for petty !@#$.

If you want to know why biodiversity is good, there's the simple scientific answer that diverse lifeforms are stronger, they survive better. On a human level it helps us overcome segregation, it lets us appeal to a broader audience. Through the thousands of years we couldn't travel the globe we became a diverse species. We wouldn't be honoring human rights, nor the tenets of our free society, if we shunned people simply because of where they were born.

As anger leads to violence, segregation leads to bigotry. We are better, less violent, people without those failings. Even if we still face challenges and still find it difficult to overcome targeted violence today. Perhaps the answer is not to shrink back from one another just because Chicago and other major cities have racially charged violence. What kind of society would we live in if we sat back and let our primal tendencies prevail? If we abandoned those in need? A society that has failed its people, that failed its principles, that let violence and bigotry run amok. That's not a society I want to live in.

The only positive way forward, is together.

 

[pmv]

Boulder Colorado is an enclave of extreme homogeneity, and an outpost for liberal thinking.... they keep out minorities by keeping the housing prices very high using zoning laws such as height restrictions and co-op restrictions and high taxes, ex our 2 cent per oz. sugar tax. the city has proposed a per employee tax as well, so the more people you provide high paying jobs too, the more taxes you pay to the city. They forgot to exempt kombucha from the sugar tax though! haha.

Is this a sneaky conservative attack? Not giving it a 'like' in case it is. Trouble is, it has truth to it all the same. The awkward fact is that many liberal areas and organisations are not all that diverse at all, particularly in terms of income and class.

 

[pmv]

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.

Well, it denies us the fishephant, which seems like a negative to me!

Also, this seems quite a technical argument - Though I agree that genetic diversity in animal populations has many,many advantages, I wonder if a biologist could point to cases where really excessive speciesification(?) did turn out to be a bad thing?

Edit - yeah, there are two forms of diversity in tension - diversity in terms of number of species, and diversity in terms of genetic variability _within_ species.

 

[pmv]

Why would you need rules about ideas? Actions sure, but ideas?

Well, you need rules in two distinct senses.

Firstly there's what Fereyabend was concerned with (and explicity denied), that you need an agreed set of rules of logic and reason, aka 'the scientific method' to decide between competing claims to truth. How else to pick between homeopathy and 'orthodox' medicine?

Secondly there's the more mundane level invoked by your mention of a 'market'. Markets require government and laws to operate. And that applies to a market of 'ideas' as much as to one of material goods. Those ideas don't exist in an abstract form, they take material form, they are conveyed via print and radio and TV and all the rest. Those things and the use of them are governed by vast tomes of law. At its most basic, I'm not allowed to go spread my ideas by taking over my local (right-wing) talk radio station and broadcasting them. I'd be stopped by state violence if I tried. That's one of the rules. So the market of ideas has trouble including the case where one of the ideas involved is a rejection of that rule.

 

[pmv]

The analogy is fine for anyone with the brains to understand it. That sadly leaves you out. It was offered as a counterpoint to a moron that suggested that diversity is automatically good and of course it used an example that was bad. You really need to have that explained to you? I can use monosyllabic words if you think that would help.

Mixing lion and basset hound does not turn the lion into a greater predator.
Adding kids of a different race might improve a playgroup, adding a wolverine would ruin things.
Bacteria and viruses diversify themselves often to the detriment of humanity.

Pick any analogy you want. Diversity for diversity sake is not good or bad. It stands as much chance of creating a new virus as it does of combating an existing one. It can strengthen a bloodline or weaken one. It can make a social group stronger or tear one apart. Whether its good or bad is 100% decided on a case by case basis and its impact can only be judged AFTER it's happened. It's not any more to be desired than it is to be feared. It just is. Change can be good, it can be bad and that shouldn't need to be pointed out to anyone.

Oh dear. This was an interesting discussion till the conservatives turned up, with their specialty of projecting their failings onto their opponents. Your analogy doesn't make any sense. I say that even though I sort of get your point, it remains a rubbish analogy. Presumably because you aren't very good at analogies.

Edit - and one of the biggest problems with your analogy is that it immediately suggests the better analogy that I gave, which actually implies the opposite conclusion.

Clearly, 'diversity', considered as some abstract absolute quality, both increases the chance of good things and of bad things. That seems banally obvious. Hence it can't be endorsed or condemned in the abstract, you can only consider specific cases. The specific case in your analogy was a silly one that never arises.

 

[herm0016]

Is this a sneaky conservative attack? Not giving it a 'like' in case it is. Trouble is, it has truth to it all the same. The awkward fact is that many liberal areas and organisations are not all that diverse at all, particularly in terms of income and class.

Heh? No attack. Just truth. A counterpoint if you will. People tend to look outside to judge others for their own behavior.

 

[pcgeek11]

I think the main thing I've learned reading through this thread is that we have some really bigoted members here on p&n. All hail the mighty whitey.

You sound pretty bigoted yourself with that statement.

 

[mect]

You sound pretty bigoted yourself with that statement.

Yep, because discriminating against bigots is bigoted.

 

[Meghan54]

Yep, because discriminating against bigots is bigoted.

Hey, quit broadcasting the conservative playbook.

 

[realibrad]

If this was a good thing, we'd be pushing for more republicans.

That can't be, did you think that through at all? Swap Republican with Democrat and you still get homogeneous outcomes...

 

[realibrad]

Well, you need rules in two distinct senses.

Firstly there's what Fereyabend was concerned with (and explicity denied), that you need an agreed set of rules of logic and reason, aka 'the scientific method' to decide between competing claims to truth. How else to pick between homeopathy and 'orthodox' medicine?

Secondly there's the more mundane level invoked by your mention of a 'market'. Markets require government and laws to operate. And that applies to a market of 'ideas' as much as to one of material goods. Those ideas don't exist in an abstract form, they take material form, they are conveyed via print and radio and TV and all the rest. Those things and the use of them are governed by vast tomes of law. At its most basic, I'm not allowed to go spread my ideas by taking over my local (right-wing) talk radio station and broadcasting them. I'd be stopped by state violence if I tried. That's one of the rules. So the market of ideas has trouble including the case where one of the ideas involved is a rejection of that rule.

First, you still don't need rules as the benefits of "good" ideas will lead to better outcomes. Rules may form in an emergent way, but based on beneficial outcomes. That is the foundation of evolution.

Second, markets do not require governance to work. Maybe you mean to say to help? If markets required government then poor nations would not have any markets, yet they do.

I will say that government can make markets more efficient.

 

[purbeast0]

I don't know if stronger is the right adjective, but certainly much more fun, interesting and enjoyable. From food, to music, to art and cultural traditions it provides experiences that a closed off culture normally wouldn't have. My wife and I bailed on small town midwest for that exact reason. Boring foods, boring and stale traditions, and just overall closed minded and boring people. We wanted our kids to grow up in a more diverse area. Now Lexington, KY isn't NYC by any stretch of the imagination, but my kids are getting introduced to foreign languages starting in kindergarten and the schools here are only 60-70% caucasion compared to the 99.9% that my wife and I had. There is a lot of experience and perspective gained from that. I don't want my kids growing up fearing people of a different color or country and being scared of eating something that isn't from McDonalds or Wendy's.

It's funny hearing you say Lexington is diverse. My friend who grew up around here (DC Metro area) moved there with his wife a few years ago and it's funny to hear him talk about how white and non-diverse it is there. He says all he sees is white people every where. He was back over the holidays and said how great it was to walk into a store and see races other than white. I guess it's somewhat relative.

He's as white as they come for the record, a ginger.

 

[pmv]

First, you still don't need rules as the benefits of "good" ideas will lead to better outcomes. Rules may form in an emergent way, but based on beneficial outcomes. That is the foundation of evolution.

But how do you define 'better'? The definition of 'better' itself depends on ideas, different people may have different ideas about what constitutes 'better outcomes', so that seems circular to me. Or are you just defining 'better' to mean 'those with the most power'? So if the fascists win, then fascism is 'better'? Again, seems an entirely circular argument.

Second, markets do not require governance to work. Maybe you mean to say to help? If markets required government then poor nations would not have any markets, yet they do.

I will say that government can make markets more efficient.

How well do markets work in countries that are in chaos or run by fascist or communist regimes? Markets _clearly_ require governance to work. Most poor nations do have governments. They have agreed rules under which the markets operate, at least. When those rules break down, the markets do likewise.

 

[realibrad]

But how do you define 'better'? The definition of 'better' itself depends on ideas, different people may have different ideas about what constitutes 'better outcomes', so that seems circular to me. Or are you just defining 'better' to mean 'those with the most power'? So if the fascists win, then fascism is 'better'? Again, seems an entirely circular argument.

It has nothing to do with power.

It's often subjective which is why I put it in quotes. That said, having someone deciding the rules means people that want to live a life that does not conform would be compelled to conform. This though still concerns action and not ideas. So for your example about medicine, the person would have to decide on choosing between the two knowing the vast differences in outcome. Compelling people does not stop the idea, it just forces the action and helps foster the "bad" ideas. Those that choose non science based medicine are far more likely to suffer bad outcomes. Its why people started going to science based medicine long ago in the west.

I should also add that this is for adults, as I can feel the question of children coming up next.

How well do markets work in countries that are in chaos or run by fascist or communist regimes? Markets _clearly_ require governance to work. Most poor nations do have governments. They have agreed rules under which the markets operate, at least. When those rules break down, the markets do likewise.

You will find that by your very hypothetical that the markets "fail" because of those with power in the government. They have literally broken the market and more "government" will do nothing.

 

[Atreus21]

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.

Then what does diversity mean? It seems to me to mean that we can derive conclusions about people based on appearances or superficialities alone, rather than whether or not they can do the job required of them. Is that not so?

If work team A is made up entirely of black men, and team B is comprised of a sexually and ethnically diverse membership, and they each perform equally well, is Team A worse somehow for having an appearance which we don't find pleasing?

 

[fskimospy]

Then what does diversity mean? It seems to me to mean that we can derive conclusions about people based on appearances or superficialities alone, rather than whether or not they can do the job required of them. Is that not so?

It means that in our current system people regularly do exactly that and so we need systems to combat the racism and sexism that’s already going on.

So good examples of diversity initiatives are things like how when Google found out that lots of resumes of qualified women who could definitely do the job were being screened out by biased people they instituted a policy where female resumes that had been screened out got a second look.

This diversity initiative is simply good corporate governance. You realize a failure in the system and you institute policies to correct it. That way your pool of potential hires includes as many qualified candidates as possible.

 

[vi edit]

It's funny hearing you say Lexington is diverse. My friend who grew up around here (DC Metro area) moved there with his wife a few years ago and it's funny to hear him talk about how white and non-diverse it is there. He says all he sees is white people every where. He was back over the holidays and said how great it was to walk into a store and see races other than white. I guess it's somewhat relative.

He's as white as they come for the record, a ginger.

Yeah in general it's very white at something like 75% but a lot of that is weighted towards older populations. The public schools are pretty diverse. They are 40%-60% (depends on school) white compared to the rest of the state which is running a little short of 80% white as a whole. It's also a university town with a huge teaching hospital and that brings in a pretty diverse crowd. Adding to a bit of the flair is a very friendly LGBT attitude.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, in many arenas diversity ensures survival.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Whether it be race, sex, religion, whatever, what is your opinion on there being an inherent strength with "diversity" and is it something that we should push for as a society? What happens when someone who is in the majority is harmed because of it, does the benefits outweigh the costs?

When talking about immigration for instance you’ll often hear that the US is stronger due to having a very diverse population rather than a homogenized one. Where does that strength come from or is it just a marketing tool? Japan for instance isnt diverse at all but they have a well functioning society and are doing just fine (comparatively) economically. Is their homogenous society a weakness or a strength?

Can you give an example of the bolded? In what sense can majorities be harmed? I'm struggling to think of specifics. I guess they can't make racist jokes anymore without repercussions, but something more substansial?

And how the heck is Japan functioning economically?? Their stock market is barely up for the last three decades, the society is aging, and dying faster than any other, and they don't have enough workers to staff the country or maintain/pay for the benefit and pension systems. They're facing a crisis. Because of? Patriarchal society keeps most women (i.e. half their already shrinking workforce) out of upper levels of the labor market, or out altogether. And no immigration means no foreigners can come fill the labor shortages. Japan is an example of how lack of openess and equality will slowly choke society.

And before you bring up crime levels, there is research showing that cops might be under-reporting crimes to pad their numbers, and convicting (innocent?) people with little evidence for the same reason.

 

[Atreus21]

It means that in our current system people regularly do exactly that and so we need systems to combat the racism and sexism that’s already going on.

So good examples of diversity initiatives are things like how when Google found out that lots of resumes of qualified women who could definitely do the job were being screened out by biased people they instituted a policy where female resumes that had been screened out got a second look.

If a man and woman are equally qualified, and the woman is excluded simply because she is a woman, then that is an inequity and should be corrected. I don't call that a diversity initiative. I call that simple justice, in the same sense that it would be if a manager was repeatedly discriminating against white men in favor of black women, or vice versa. Because that would be racism. (Bear in mind though, that in a scenario with only one job opening and two equally qualified applicants, only one can be chosen. Should the woman be chosen over the man to avoid the appearance of bias?)

What I object to is saying something like, "This guy's a white male, therefore he should be de-prioritized in favor of an ethnic minority." That is racism.

This diversity initiative is simply good corporate governance. You realize a failure in the system and you institute policies to correct it. That way your pool of potential hires includes as many qualified candidates as possible.

For Google, perhaps. Not for other organizations, like the NBA, or the NFL. They are strictly meritocratic, at least in how they choose their players, yet their players are comprised mostly of black men. Is that evidence in itself of some inequity?

Furthermore, some fields necessarily discriminate against people based on their sex, for good reason. I worked for a company that served food to men aboard oil rigs, and they systematically discriminated against hiring young attractive women. That was a lesson they learned the hard way, after such women inevitably came back onshore pregnant.

 

[fskimospy]

If a man and woman are equally qualified, and the woman is excluded simply because she is a woman, then that is an inequity and should be corrected. I don't call that a diversity initiative. I call that simple justice, in the same sense that it would be if a manager was repeatedly discriminating against white men in favor of black women, or vice versa. Because that would be racism.

Well everyone else calls that a diversity initiative, haha. I feel like people often oppose diversity initiatives that they don't understand.

What I object to is saying something like, "This guy's a white male, therefore he should be de-prioritized in favor of an ethnic minority." That is racism. For Google, perhaps. Not for other organizations, like the NBA, or the NFL. They are strictly meritocratic, at least in how they choose their players, yet their players are comprised mostly of black men. Is that evidence in itself of some inequity?

I think it's pretty obvious the NFL has a sexism problem, yes. Are you really going to tell me that until 2015 there isn't a single qualified woman in the entire country to coach on an NFL team? I can't imagine anyone actually believes that.

As for the NFL players being comprised of mostly black men there's definitely some racism going on. For example look at the quarterback position, which is dominated by white people in a league dominated by black people. Basically the 'thinking' positions are dominated by white people while the 'brawn' positions are dominated by black people. If you think that's not the product of racial bias at some point I don't know what to tell you.

Furthermore, some fields necessarily discriminate against people based on their sex, for good reason. I worked for a company that served food to men aboard oil rigs, and they systematically discriminated against hiring young attractive women. That was a lesson they learned the hard way, after such women inevitably came back onshore pregnant.

That is sexism, defined. You are refusing to hire a future female applicant purely on the basis of her sex, assuming that she will violate company policy by getting pregnant. (I assume that's a policy violation or then they REALLY have no leg to stand on).

 

[VRAMdemon]

Yes, in many arenas diversity ensures survival.

This...Diversity IS human strength..

 

[digiram]

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[mect]

This conversation would certainly be more productive if people didn't need to throw in idiotic hyperbole all over the place. No one arguing for diversity is suggesting that it happen at the expense of all else. No one thinks we need to have walruses represented at corporations to increase diversity. No one thinks that unqualified individuals should be hired purely for the sake of diversity. No one thinks bad ideas increase diversity. If you hire someone from a culture that is prejudiced against women, clearly that attitude is not something that is included as a desirable trait from that individual. Instead, you expect that individual to operate within accepted norms of behavior developed by a diverse perspective. The value of diversity is that it brings a diversity of ideas to the table. Those ideas are then able to be evaluated based on their merit from a diverse perspective. Even if you have an individual whose diversity brings only substandard ideas to the table, that is no worse (or at least only marginally worse) than an individual who brings only duplicate good ideas to the table. As a result, the probability that a qualified individual from a diverse background will contribute less than a qualified individual from an already represented background is small. In addition, a diverse population decreases the probability of a majority group repressing a minority population, which in turn leads to under-utilization of talent from the minority population.

 

[pmv]

You will find that by your very hypothetical that the markets "fail" because of those with power in the government. They have literally broken the market and more "government" will do nothing.

Again, you are making a circular argument, by just calling whatever element has sufficient power to disrupt the 'market' a 'government'. The point is there are lots of groups, they disagree about the rules under which a "market of ideas" should operate. That you call one of those groups - the most powerful one, perhaps - a 'government' is just semantics, it doesn't change the problem.