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

[Atreus21]

Of course not, what gave you such a ridiculous idea? It would be insane to think that sexism isn’t part of it though.



Of course they do. Not sure what your point is here.



1) Now what on earth would make black people less interested in the position where you make the most money, face fewer long term injuries, and are the most famous? Are you saying there’s something inherent in black people that makes them dislike fame, money, and health? If not, what’s the reason? (Hint: racial stereotypes)

2) Black people represent a very large proportion of the professional athlete population however, which is the pool from which all quarterbacks are drawn. This further proves my point.



I think woolfe is right that you fundamentally misunderstand the conversation. This isn’t about people evilly twirling their mustaches to keep black people in their place, it’s about endemic racism in our society that leads to these outcomes.



So to be clear when there were virtually no black quarterbacks that was racism but now that they are just severely under-represented it’s a meritocracy? Seriously?



In part almost certainly. See above.



Answered above as well.



You really, really haven’t. I’ve repeatedly asked you for any plausible theory that would explain the disparity which does not involve race. Your best attempt so far has been that black people don’t want to play the position with the most money, power, and glory, which is facially absurd.



Don’t deflect again. You said you were okay with discrimination if it served a good purpose. Better business performance is a good purpose, no? If so, do you now agree with diversity initiatives?



I sincerely doubt most reasonable people agree with that.

If whites predominate in the quarterback field because of racism against blacks, is the fact that blacks predominate in other positions I mentioned evidence of racism against whites?

 

[Atreus21]

And so the best way to mitigate that trouble is not to discipline employees violating company standards or committing crimes, it is to deny employment to the victims.

Or find her a position in the company that doesn't put her needlessly in harm's way. Not saying it's the best way, but in terms of what this company did it certainly is defensible.

But if there's one position open which involves inclusion in a rough and male-dominated environment, secluded and isolated from society for months on end, and a single attractive female is the sole applicant, you bet I'd leave the position vacant.

 

[fskimospy]

If whites predominate in the quarterback field because of racism against blacks, is the fact that blacks predominate in other positions I mentioned because of racism against whites?

Yes, this has been my point from the beginning. Racial stereotypes affect who plays what position in the NFL. Totally unsurprisingly, those stereotypes prefer white people for the best and highest paid position.

 

[Atreus21]

Yes, this has been my point from the beginning. Racial stereotypes affect who plays what position in the NFL. Totally unsurprisingly, those stereotypes prefer white people for the best and highest paid position.

While simultaneously preferring white people for the worst and lowest paid position, correct?

 

[fskimospy]

Or find her a position in the company that doesn't put her needlessly in harm's way. Not saying it's the best way, but in terms of what this company did it certainly is defensible.

Then once again, you seem to have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing diversity initiatives.

But if there's one position open which involves inclusion in a rough and male-dominated environment, secluded and isolated from society for months on end, and a single attractive female is the sole applicant, you bet I'd leave the position vacant.

You probably shouldn’t so easily admit to illegal activity like that, haha.

I wonder how you would feel if a university has a position and the sole applicant was a southerner. Because everyone knows southerners are dumb they decide not to hire him because they are afraid the other people will make him feel bad for being so stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

While simultaneously preferring white people for the worst and lowest paid position, correct?

Huh? On what planet is the kicker the worst position? That’s an amazing job. You don’t work much, you almost never get hurt, and while pay is low by NFL standards as compared to other jobs it’s still very good. Do you even watch football? I would totally be a kicker.

The worst jobs are easily those of the interior linemen. Your body is destroyed, you are at almost certain risk of brain damage, you’re worked constantly, and pay is middling by NFL standards.

 

[Atreus21]

Then once again, you seem to have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing diversity initiatives.

Why not?

You probably shouldn’t so easily admit to illegal activity like that, haha.

I wonder how you would feel if a university has a position and the sole applicant was a southerner. Because everyone knows southerners are dumb they decide not to hire him because they are afraid the other people will make him feel bad for being so stupid.

I haven't done it, but legal or not it's the right thing to do.

You don't see an obvious difference between the two examples? One's a prejudiced stereotype, the other is betting that men and women won't attract in a sexually-charged environment.

 

[Atreus21]

Huh? On what planet is the kicker the worst position? That’s an amazing job. You don’t work much, you almost never get hurt, and while pay is low by NFL standards as compared to other jobs it’s still very good. Do you even watch football? I would totally be a kicker.

So you complained when I compared black membership in the general population against black membership in the NFL, but now you compare the salaries of NFL kickers with that of the general population. Sigh.

Oh lord. So now we're going to debate what the worst position is on an NFL team.

The worst jobs are easily those of the interior linemen. Your body is destroyed, you are at almost certain risk of brain damage, you’re worked constantly, and pay is middling by NFL standards.

Offensive or defensive linemen? Offensive linemen are majority white. Defensive linemen are majority black.

This endemic racism seems to have very particular tastes in what colors go where.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Process mapping has exactly zero to do with ethnic diversity. Wtf.

By the way I don’t think that you ever acknowledged that you didn’t read and/or understand my initial cited empirical evidence for the benefits of ethnic diversity. Do you have a cogent rebuttal yet?

I didn't acknowledge it because it wasn't a point worth acknowledging and you are being persistently stubborn about it.

A process is like any other system. Also, you can use processes to model just about any system. Markets. Manufacturing. Even subjective interactions within a closed system.

Diverse ways of doing things in a production system is actually highly inefficient. That is simply a statement of fact.

 

[fskimospy]

Why not?

Because you're perfectly willing to excuse discrimination based on sex so long as you perceive it to serve a business purpose. Google and others perceive it to serve a business purpose, so who are you to tell them otherwise? What do you know about their business that they don't?

I haven't done it, but legal or not it's the right thing to do.

You don't see an obvious difference between the two examples? One's a prejudiced stereotype, the other is betting that men and women won't attract in a sexually-charged environment.

I see no difference between the two as you are assuming that sole woman will either act unprofessionally (stereotype) or will be the victim of a crime (wrong target then).

 

[fskimospy]

Oh lord. So now we're going to debate what the worst position is on an NFL team.

Offensive or defensive linemen? Offensive linemen are majority white. Defensive linemen are majority black.

This endemic racism seems to have very particular tastes in what colors go where.

Offensive linemen are majority white because of the center position which is, you guessed it, another one of those positions that is perceived to be for 'smart' people. As should be pretty obvious to you by now, the endemic racism is awfully consistent.

I'm still waiting for a single explanation as to why these disparities exist if not for racial stereotypes. So far all you've been able to provide is that black people don't like the positions where you make the most money, don't get injured as often, and get the most fame. Have you been able to come up with any others?

Also, any luck finding a single solitary aspect of US life that you think minorities suffer from due to racism? Even one? I mean don't you live in New Orleans? That should provide you with several dozen examples just by looking out your front door.

 

[Atreus21]

Because you're perfectly willing to excuse discrimination based on sex so long as you perceive it to serve a business purpose. Google and others perceive it to serve a business purpose, so who are you to tell them otherwise? What do you know about their business that they don't?

In the abstract, I don't understand a business purpose that says "less of color A is good, more of color B is bad" if we profess at the same time that racism is a bad thing, or that "less of sex A is good, more of sex B is bad" if we profess at the same time that sexism is a bad thing.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

I see no difference between the two as you are assuming that sole woman will either act unprofessionally (stereotype) or will be the victim of a crime (wrong target then).

I assume that the highest professional standards, and the most capable adherents to them, are no match in the face of human nature in that environment.

As I said earlier, if you knew the nature of a man like Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Clinton, would you not think twice before hiring for his assistant a young attractive woman?

 

[fskimospy]

I didn't acknowledge it because it wasn't a point worth acknowledging and you are being persistently stubborn about it.

The fact that you completely mischaracterized a study to the point that it was obvious you had not made even a cursory attempt to read the thing you were criticizing is not a point worth acknowledging?

Good to know where your standards are.

A process is like any other system. Also, you can use processes to model just about any system. Markets. Manufacturing. Even subjective interactions within a closed system.

Diverse ways of doing things in a production system is actually highly inefficient. That is simply a statement of fact.

This is /facepalm worthy. Within a single production system having multiple ways of doing things is not efficient. Within a market, having multiple ways of doing things is highly efficient. This was in fact the point of the study I provided you that you didn't read. It's that competition between competing ways of producing things that is at the root of why capitalism is effective and why communism doesn't work. The gains from diversity usually aren't that the Black Team is making widgets one way and the White Team is making them another, it's that both bring different perspectives which allows you to collectively find the best widget maker you can.

 

[Grooveriding]

Its what you call a softball, allowing you to easily hit it. Also, in the 2 sentence post I wrong, there was a question in there. I see that you responded to the softball, but you did not respond to the question. I can understand if you just wanted to signal that you like "diversity" but its actually quite a complex conversation. So if you dont mind, can you expand upon the question that I asked you in the first of only two sentences?

It's fairly simple. An example is there is no evidence supporting that people of one race are more competent or better overall than those of another. If you shun diversity, purely on human advancement terms, you are locking yourself out of a majority of human resources. Our achievements are the product of an amalgamation of minds, a collective, it's asinine to avoid the majority of that collective because you have been scared, propagandized and terrorized into fearing them. That is the major reason.

On the social level it is toxic. The world continues to become more homogeneous. There will come a point where, for example, there will be next to no one with blonde hair left (barring a future ability to curate embryos' genetics) . This may seem like a silly example, but to racists like Trump, it is significant. To a sane person this is just the reality of dominant genetic traits over time eroding traits like blonde hair or blue eyes that they override. There is clear social value in overcoming tribal instincts based around falsehoods like those that relate to racism or sexual discrimination, as this is - in my opinion - fairly soundly proven to be toxic to society and has led to numerous instances of genocide. Racism and bigotry are predominantly passed from parents to children or developed via a hole of ignorance, that hole being lack of exposure to anything different, allowing racist/bigoted narratives to more easily take hold in a person. There is solid value in stopping this continued social cancer from developing. And I believe we are seeing that value. I was a 20 year old man just over 20 years ago, and now just 2 decades later I see significant progress having been made in equality. It's a continual process and one I am highly optimistic will get us to the point where this bullshit is a thing of the past. But for that process to continue, we all have to continue to call out bullshit like the premise of this thread.

I view 'diversity' as taking people on their value, with their appearance, race, sexual orientation, sex as not influencing that value estimation. To simplify, not discriminating or judging people based on things that are not their choices, and thus, are no reflection on their abilities or the quality of their character. If we are fishing for do I think there should be diversity in the workplace for the sake of it, I don't. It should be based on the best candidate for the job. The reality though, is that we know this is not always the case and there have certainly been attempts to rectify this with systems that I don't think are the best way to approach it, by mandating hiring certain demographics for example. Diversity in the workplace should be achieved by stamping out the cancer that has infected the minds of the racists and bigots toward those metrics that are not a choice, but just a consequence of the RNG behind our genetics at birth.

I understand there are people who like to argue about sexual preference or things like transgenderism, as choices, I have my opinion on those areas and I do not see them as being a choice. While there is not concrete absolute science to support my opinion, there is some - whereas on the bigot's side I predominately see ignorance, hate and religious fanaticism as fueling those judgments.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Or find her a position in the company that doesn't put her needlessly in harm's way. Not saying it's the best way, but in terms of what this company did it certainly is defensible.

But if there's one position open which involves inclusion in a rough and male-dominated environment, secluded and isolated from society for months on end, and a single attractive female is the sole applicant, you bet I'd leave the position vacant.

I disagree with this. You'd be effectively harming the female applicant for something that she didn't do and simply because she's female. I understand the concern about sexual dynamics in the workplace and agree it does have a tendency to cause issues, but ultimately that's life and something that needs to be worked through. Women shouldn't be shut out of opportunities just because they're women.

 

[fskimospy]

In the abstract, I don't understand a business purpose that says "less of color A is good, more of color B is bad" if we profess at the same time that racism is a bad thing, or that "less of sex A is good, more of sex B is bad" if we profess at the same time that sexism is a bad thing.

I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Yet that's exactly what you're trying to do. As for my examples, Google says that having a more diverse workforce makes teams more creative and better at solving problems. If your diversity is so low that you can't effectively staff teams diversely then it is common business sense that less of one sex and more of another is desirable. This would also be true if Google happened to be overwhelmingly female.

You've destroyed your own argument in this thread.

I assume that the highest professional standards, and the most capable adherents to them, are no match in the face of human nature in that environment.

As I said earlier, if you knew the nature of a man like Harvey Weinstein, or Bill Clinton, would you not think twice before hiring for his assistant a young attractive woman?

This is more sexism on your part, only related to men as the average man is not a sex criminal like Harvey Weinstein.

 

[Atreus21]

Offensive linemen are majority white because of the center position which is, you guessed it, another one of those positions that is perceived to be for 'smart' people. As should be pretty obvious to you by now, the endemic racism is awfully consistent.

...perceived by whom? I'm beginning to think that where whites predominate, you immediately ascribe "smartness" to the position. Are tight-ends also smart just because the position is majority white?

And what about the other positions on the O-line?

I'm still waiting for a single explanation as to why these disparities exist if not for racial stereotypes. So far all you've been able to provide is that black people don't like the positions where you make the most money, don't get injured as often, and get the most fame. Have you been able to come up with any others?

Again, because people's interests take them to different positions. That blacks seem to like the more physical positions is a far better explanation, and takes a far less vicious view of people, then the claim that insidious endemic racism conspires to put the most blacks in the worst positions.

Also, any luck finding a single solitary aspect of US life that you think minorities suffer from due to racism? Even one? I mean don't you live in New Orleans? That should provide you with several dozen examples just by looking out your front door.

Tell me: Have you ever been to New Orleans? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, or are you just voicing stereotypes?

 

[yllus]

I think this is a reasonable question to ask - as is almost any question, really. We shouldn't be afraid to focus on our sacred cows.

So, diversity - for background, it might be worth reading some Jane Jacobs. She theorized a few decades back that cities like New York City and Chicago were in part far more resilient to major economic change than (and I'll use obvious examples) cities like Detroit or Pittsburgh because of the ability of a city’s inhabitants to shapeshift innovate out of trouble because of its diversity.

I highly recommend a read of her 1958 article Downtown Is For People, or even better a read of The Death and Life of Great American Cities, but here's the important bit distilled down:

Two core principles emerge from the book’s delightful and free-flowing observational surface.

First, cities are their streets. Streets are not a city’s veins but its neurology, its accumulated intelligence.

Second, urban diversity and density reinforce each other in a virtuous circle. The more people there are on the block, the more kinds of shops and social organizations—clubs, broadly put—they demand; and, the more kinds of shops and clubs there are, the more people come to seek them. You can’t have density without producing diversity, and if you have diversity things get dense.

The two principles make it plain that any move away from the street—to an encastled arts center or to plaza-and-park housing—is destructive to a city’s health. Jacobs’s idea can be summed up simply: If you don’t build it, they will come. (A third is less a principle than an exasperated allergy: she hates cars, and what driving them and parking them does to towns.)​

As I believe someone mentioned early on into this thread, racial and gender diversity leads to needs and thought diversity, which'll save your city/state/nation in hard times and make it grow faster than the rest in good times.

 

[fskimospy]

...perceived by whom? I'm beginning to think that where whites predominate, you immediately ascribe "smartness" to the position. Are tight-ends also smart just because the position is majority white?

How about ESPN?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/14453565/why-centers-smartest-guys-field

Also, common sense. Centers are the ones who direct the rest of the offensive linemen, set the blocking, etc. Do you even watch football? Also, you do understand that these are strong trends, not ironclad laws, right? You are desperately reaching for any way to deny them. If you look at the overall distribution of NFL players white people go to the 'smart' positions and black people go to the 'athlete' positions. This is not by accident.

And what about the other positions on the O-line?

The other positions on the offensive line are relatively evenly split.

https://imgur.com/gallery/XuozZqP

Again, because people's interests take them to different positions. That blacks seem to like the more physical positions is a far better explanation, and takes a far less vicious view of people, then the claim that insidious endemic racism conspires to put the most blacks in the worst positions.

So again, the only explanation you have is that black people like it that way? Come on man, you can't be serious.

Tell me: Have you ever been to New Orleans? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about, or are you just voicing stereotypes?

I have been to New Orleans many, many times. I almost moved there permanently, if you remember.

 

[UglyCasanova]

As for my examples, Google says that having a more diverse workforce makes teams more creative and better at solving problems. If your diversity is so low that you can't effectively staff teams diversely then it is common business sense that less of one sex and more of another is desirable.

And I guess this circles back to what I was asking earlier, you say staff groups "diversely" but I think you are implying that diversity to be specifically race and gender. Should our view of diversity be narrowed down to just those two categories, should those categories dominate over other metrics of diversity? Religion for instance, would it be prudent to make sure your workforce is a healthy mix of Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc and would doing so bring more creativity to the group? Or as I said earlier socioeconomic backgrounds which I think presents the most differences, should an employer or the government seek to maintain a healthy mix of people from high and low class upbringings? Or is there something intrinsically more beneficial about race and sex that makes them more creative?

 

[realibrad]

It's fairly simple. An example is there is no evidence supporting that people of one race are more competent or better overall than those of another. If you shun diversity, purely on human advancement terms, you are locking yourself out of a majority of human resources. Our achievements are the product of an amalgamation of minds, a collective, it's asinine to avoid the majority of that collective because you have been scared, propagandized and terrorized into fearing them. That is the major reason.

On the social level it is toxic. The world continues to become more homogeneous. There will come a point where, for example, there will be next to no one with blonde hair left (barring a future ability to curate embryos' genetics) . This may seem like a silly example, but to racists like Trump, it is significant. To a sane person this is just the reality of dominant genetic traits over time eroding traits like blonde hair or blue eyes that they override. There is clear social value in overcoming tribal instincts based around falsehoods like those that relate to racism or sexual discrimination, as this is - in my opinion - fairly soundly proven to be toxic to society and has led to numerous instances of genocide. Racism and bigotry are predominantly passed from parents to children or developed via a hole of ignorance, that hole being lack of exposure to anything different, allowing racist/bigoted narratives to more easily take hold in a person. There is solid value in stopping this continued social cancer from developing. And I believe we are seeing that value. I was a 20 year old man just over 20 years ago, and now just 2 decades later I see significant progress having been made in equality. It's a continual process and one I am highly optimistic will get us to the point where this bullshit is a thing of the past. But for that process to continue, we all have to continue to call out bullshit like the premise of this thread.

Not sure why any of that had to do with me asking you to define diversity and tell me where that diversity comes from. Perhaps that was meant for someone else?

I view 'diversity' as taking people on their value, with their appearance, race, sexual orientation, sex as not influencing that value estimation. To simplify, not discriminating or judging people based on things that are not their choices, and thus, are no reflection on their abilities or the quality of their character. If we are fishing for do I think there should be diversity in the workplace for the sake of it, I don't. It should be based on the best candidate for the job. The reality though, is that we know this is not always the case and there have certainly been attempts to rectify this with systems that I don't think are the best way to approach it, by mandating hiring certain demographics for example. Diversity in the workplace should be achieved by stamping out the cancer that has infected the minds of the racists and bigots toward those metrics that are not a choice, but just a consequence of the RNG behind our genetics at birth.

You threw me, because you made it seem like you were going to give me an answer, and did not.

I understand there are people who like to argue about sexual preference or things like transgenderism, as choices, I have my opinion on those areas and I do not see them as being a choice. While there is not concrete absolute science to support my opinion, there is some - whereas on the bigot's side I predominately see ignorance, hate and religious fanaticism as fueling those judgments.

Religion sucks for many people and I am no fan. Please though, define what you think diversity is, and where it comes from.

 

[jackstar7]

I’m not saying they are better or worse, only that they are more distinct. If what we are going for is diversity of thought to not fall into groupthink then socioeconomic differences would provide the greatest distinction.

Turns out you are saying that.

 

[fskimospy]

And I guess this circles back to what I was asking earlier, you say staff groups "diversely" but I think you are implying that diversity to be specifically race and gender. Should our view of diversity be narrowed down to just those two categories, should those categories dominate over other metrics of diversity? Religion for instance, would it be prudent to make sure your workforce is a healthy mix of Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc and would doing so bring more creativity to the group? Or as I said earlier socioeconomic backgrounds which I think presents the most differences, should an employer or the government seek to maintain a healthy mix of people from high and low class upbringings? Or is there something intrinsically more beneficial about race and sex that makes them more creative?

No, there is nothing intrinsically beneficial about race and sex that makes them more creative. Generally diversity of perspectives is good all around! If you look at the empirical research though you'll see that ethnicity often acts as a strong proxy for these other things you mention though, so strong sometimes that in the models we make we end up taking out one or the other because they are so strongly correlated that keeping both provides no additional explanatory value. From a business perspective that's a much easier lift than trying to dig into everyone's past to find out their parents' income or finding out what religious principles they adhere to.

 

[yllus]

And I guess this circles back to what I was asking earlier, you say staff groups "diversely" but I think you are implying that diversity to be specifically race and gender. Should our view of diversity be narrowed down to just those two categories, should those categories dominate over other metrics of diversity? Religion for instance, would it be prudent to make sure your workforce is a healthy mix of Christians, atheists, Muslims, etc and would doing so bring more creativity to the group? Or as I said earlier socioeconomic backgrounds which I think presents the most differences, should an employer or the government seek to maintain a healthy mix of people from high and low class upbringings? Or is there something intrinsically more beneficial about race and sex that makes them more creative?

I work in a very male-dominated and male-oriented field, and having female input on high has probably saved us from disaster from a PR perspective four or five times to my knowledge. Nobody else in the room was thinking of the viewpoint things would be seen from except for that person.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I work in a very male-dominated and male-oriented field, and having female input on high has probably saved us from disaster from a PR perspective four or five times to my knowledge. Nobody else in the room was thinking of the viewpoint things would be seen from except for that person.

Was being a female the driving force that enabled the person to form that viewpoint though? And if it were a male in that situation would they have equal chance of recognizing said problem? Maybe not I don't know, but I wonder if we have someone's individual thoughts and accomplishments being boiled down and attributed to their gender and whether that is in reality accurate.