Search:

I have a pretty shallow level of education in Statistics but one of the things that research study's depend on is 'Statistical significance' which is a quantified measurement strongly suggesting the results are not by chance. Coloration and Causation have an interesting relationship in that causation is assumed at risk of confounding variables existing in correlated data.
Regardless it doesn't really matter. To the point 'higher diversity = a statistically significant measurement of higher profits' could just be correlated, with the causation being 'different cultural backgrounds and educations,' but it still draws out the point that its profitable to diversify regardless of the semantics you place on the measurement because the data has enough replication and is statistically significant.
This sort of thing is the basis for research study's and anyone with a doctoral degree would be professionally discredited if they contrived their study's (which does happen, Just look up that PHD marine biologist who pushed mermaids were real.) To identify that sort of thing you would have to follow academic journals which can be difficult to access or simply look at multiple independent study's done by different teams drawing the same sorts of conclusions such as Oops has done. Then to discredit the study you gotta go full blown tin-foil hat lizard overlords level or just accept their conclusions are appropriately founded in data.

But TLDR, From what I see the points made in those studys are totally valid and pointing to semantics does not invalidate the statistical significance.

I have a pretty shallow level of education in Statistics but one of the things that research study's depend on is 'Statistical significance' which is a quantified measurement strongly suggesting the results are not by chance. Coloration and Causation have an interesting relationship in that causation is assumed at risk of confounding variables existing in correlated data.
Regardless it doesn't really matter. To the point 'higher diversity = a statistically significant measurement of higher profits' could just be correlated, with the causation being 'different cultural backgrounds and educations,' but it still draws out the point that its profitable to diversify regardless of the semantics you place on the measurement because the data has enough replication and is statistically significant.
This sort of thing is the basis for research study's and anyone with a doctoral degree would be professionally discredited if they contrived their study's (which does happen, Just look up that PHD marine biologist who pushed mermaids were real.) To identify that sort of thing you would have to follow academic journals which can be difficult to access or simply look at multiple independent study's done by different teams drawing the same sorts of conclusions such as Oops has done. Then to discredit the study you gotta go full blown tin-foil hat lizard overlords level or just accept their conclusions are appropriately founded in data.

But TLDR, From what I see the points made in those studys are totally valid and pointing to semantics does not invalidate the statistical significance.

[QUOTE=aamirus;918357][MENTION=45595]Oberon[/MENTION]
[MENTION=2230]oops_ur_dead[/MENTION]

you've basically already had this argument before in previous threads as mag expressed his belief that asians are genetically smarter than whites and whites are genetically smarter than blacks.[/QUOTE]

Not to necro a old conversation but I could totally see an argument for biological inclination to certain intellectual tasks although it hits the brick wall of 'nature vs nurture'. I would point out that being better at something does not mean your not also worse at something else and I really disagree with a lot of the way intelligence is measured. I have a friend most would consider pretty dumb but he runs circles around me effortlessly in many aspects of construction and mechanics. Just because I can fuck with statistics and ramble about nerdy shit doesn't mean I am actually more intelligent than him imo.

Originally Posted by aamirus

@Oberon
@oops_ur_dead

you've basically already had this argument before in previous threads as mag expressed his belief that asians are genetically smarter than whites and whites are genetically smarter than blacks.

Not to necro a old conversation but I could totally see an argument for biological inclination to certain intellectual tasks although it hits the brick wall of 'nature vs nurture'. I would point out that being better at something does not mean your not also worse at something else and I really disagree with a lot of the way intelligence is measured. I have a friend most would consider pretty dumb but he runs circles around me effortlessly in many aspects of construction and mechanics. Just because I can fuck with statistics and ramble about nerdy shit doesn't mean I am actually more intelligent than him imo.

[QUOTE=Oberon;918353]I actually disagree. There is no reason to suspect diversity of ethnicity leads to diversity of thought (which is desirable). The burden of proof is on the people making that claim. You need a solid explanation as to why it would do that.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but that is why Oops gave this link as the 'burden of proof' which is a study that drew the conclusion diversity of ethnicity drives company profitability. He has literally given exactly what you are asking for.

I have also seen the bad end of diversity. When I was in the oil field there was a floorhand who was a black lesbian female. She was an absolutely awful floorhand with no mechanical inclination, had no motivation to troubleshoot or learn, poor work ethic and lacked the physical strength to do the work her position required. Multiple people quit because they just couldn't work with her and I ended up leaving that company because my knees started going out. Theres a super heavy chunk of iron called the 'pipe slips' that when your tripping pipe you gotta pull over and over again (hundreds to thousands of times in a 12 hour shift.) Its actually so heavy its against every company in Americas policy to have a person pull them alone but she simply didnt have the strength to help much and after just 3 hitches working with her my knees started having problems. She is still working for Patterson UTI today because they are terrified to fire her.

I think diversity is very important and can be a huge asset to company's but the way its enforced is a total double standard. Theres actually a large push in construction management to get females in those positions because study's have shown women are better at multitasking in the way that job requires than men. But push to put men in oilfield jobs because they are physically more capable of the work and its discrimination.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I actually disagree. There is no reason to suspect diversity of ethnicity leads to diversity of thought (which is desirable). The burden of proof is on the people making that claim. You need a solid explanation as to why it would do that.

Yeah, but that is why Oops gave this link as the 'burden of proof' which is a study that drew the conclusion diversity of ethnicity drives company profitability. He has literally given exactly what you are asking for.

I have also seen the bad end of diversity. When I was in the oil field there was a floorhand who was a black lesbian female. She was an absolutely awful floorhand with no mechanical inclination, had no motivation to troubleshoot or learn, poor work ethic and lacked the physical strength to do the work her position required. Multiple people quit because they just couldn't work with her and I ended up leaving that company because my knees started going out. Theres a super heavy chunk of iron called the 'pipe slips' that when your tripping pipe you gotta pull over and over again (hundreds to thousands of times in a 12 hour shift.) Its actually so heavy its against every company in Americas policy to have a person pull them alone but she simply didnt have the strength to help much and after just 3 hitches working with her my knees started having problems. She is still working for Patterson UTI today because they are terrified to fire her.

I think diversity is very important and can be a huge asset to company's but the way its enforced is a total double standard. Theres actually a large push in construction management to get females in those positions because study's have shown women are better at multitasking in the way that job requires than men. But push to put men in oilfield jobs because they are physically more capable of the work and its discrimination.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;918294]Also jesus christ, I'd rather hire some diversity than being stuck in a room filled with Cambridge and Oxford students. That sounds absolutely insufferable.[/QUOTE]

One of the most maddening things to me is how extraversion is pushed so hard. Its especially prominent in business degrees these days.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Also jesus christ, I'd rather hire some diversity than being stuck in a room filled with Cambridge and Oxford students. That sounds absolutely insufferable.

One of the most maddening things to me is how extraversion is pushed so hard. Its especially prominent in business degrees these days.