Search:

[QUOTE=Oberon;941188]Something he doesn't have, French people don't have education[/QUOTE]

[IMG]https://gif-free.com/uploads/posts/2017-06/1498574938_delicious-baguette-of-ben-horn.gif[/IMG]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Something he doesn't have, French people don't have education

[QUOTE=S-FM punchy;940827]mrmpht. I think the best person for the job is a BIG philly cheese steak.[/QUOTE]

yes.

Originally Posted by S-FM punchy

mrmpht. I think the best person for the job is a BIG philly cheese steak.

yes.

[QUOTE=blinkskater;940740]I will argue against this marshmellow man. Can you clarify what you mean by elementary education?[/QUOTE]

Strictly speaking, elementary school education, so reading, writing, etc. (which means you can't just take people from random third world countries and say "hey they have other cultures, so it's good!"). More broadly speaking, some education in the field the business is working in (or in administration, although sometimes administatives make you wonder...), or some experience at least, is [I]probably[/I] necessary to lead a business. Note that by "business", I'm talking about the kind of businesses that are big enough to want to have multiple people with culture diversity, i.e. relatively big and complex entities.

Originally Posted by blinkskater

I will argue against this marshmellow man. Can you clarify what you mean by elementary education?

Strictly speaking, elementary school education, so reading, writing, etc. (which means you can't just take people from random third world countries and say "hey they have other cultures, so it's good!"). More broadly speaking, some education in the field the business is working in (or in administration, although sometimes administatives make you wonder...), or some experience at least, is probably necessary to lead a business. Note that by "business", I'm talking about the kind of businesses that are big enough to want to have multiple people with culture diversity, i.e. relatively big and complex entities.

Disclaimer: THIS HAS STRICTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM, AS I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED. THIS IS STRICTLY ABOUT ECONOMICS. FOR THE SOCIAL ASPECT, SEE MY FIRST POST, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD. Calling people racist for disagreeing on a simple economic debate is completely dumb and off-topic.
[QUOTE=Oberon;918509]I disagree, it’s not insignificant. If someone makes a study with 10,000 people purporting to show the benefits of crystal balls on health or whatever the fuck I will literally not give a shit. I could care less if people put the ‘scientific study’ sticker on it; if it’s unreasonable, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it or why - it’s still unreasonable.[/QUOTE]

It's true that some "scientific studies" are bogus. That doesn't make personal experience outweigh a statistical accumulation of data when it comes to seeing a tendency, though... if the sources are trustable (I'd say [URL="https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation"]Harvard Business Review[/URL] is) and if their conclusions are backed by other sources (they are; I made my own research, and realized I ended up reading the articles Oops had already linked), then you at least have to consider them lol. If your reasoning about "it seems unreasonable due to my personal experience, therefore it's necessarily fake, no matter the study" was correct, quantum physics would be to dismiss completely. After all, you can absolutely measure both speed and location of objects around, so how could objects possibly be made of things that do not have that property?

[QUOTE=Oberon;918509]As it stands nobody in this fucking thread has bothered or even tried to explain a causal relationship coupd be between diversity and profit in such a way that diversity -> profit. The five points the authors of the study we investigated were called into question and quite frankly just as I suspected the conclusions they drew look more like their own opinions. You cannot build science on the basis of an opinion! Honestly if there were anything remotely conclusive that proved causality oops would’ve mentioned it - the fact that he didn’t when challenged is evidence enough for me.[/QUOTE]

I kinda implied it, but didn't clearly express it, I guess.
It's logical that a culturally diverse team would perform better than an homogeneous one: multiple cultures imply multiple views, which lead to multiple reasonings; this is what the Harvard study is talking about when it says "thinking outside the box". It prevents intellectual inbreeding.

[QUOTE=Oberon;918509]To continue the line of thought I originally went on, when someone claims something fucking stupid such as culture > personality/education (which in my view basically goes back to the fucking tabula rasa argument), I can dismiss it out of hand with my personal experience because of how fucking obviously stupid it is. I have not witnessed any cultural factora trumping personality virtually ever and I seriously doubt whether anyone else here has. This reminds me of the dumb shit people in Romania believe in such as the idea that life experience > education. An incredibly anti-intellectual idea and maybe not even that surprising in a second world country like Romania, but to hear something like that from the so-called first world... disheartening.[/QUOTE]

It's quite obvious someone without an elementary education won't be fit to lead a business, no matter what his culture may be xD. I don't think anybody was arguing against that.

Disclaimer: THIS HAS STRICTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH RACISM, AS I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED. THIS IS STRICTLY ABOUT ECONOMICS. FOR THE SOCIAL ASPECT, SEE MY FIRST POST, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD. Calling people racist for disagreeing on a simple economic debate is completely dumb and off-topic.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I disagree, it’s not insignificant. If someone makes a study with 10,000 people purporting to show the benefits of crystal balls on health or whatever the fuck I will literally not give a shit. I could care less if people put the ‘scientific study’ sticker on it; if it’s unreasonable, it doesn’t matter who’s saying it or why - it’s still unreasonable.

It's true that some "scientific studies" are bogus. That doesn't make personal experience outweigh a statistical accumulation of data when it comes to seeing a tendency, though... if the sources are trustable (I'd say Harvard Business Review is) and if their conclusions are backed by other sources (they are; I made my own research, and realized I ended up reading the articles Oops had already linked), then you at least have to consider them lol. If your reasoning about "it seems unreasonable due to my personal experience, therefore it's necessarily fake, no matter the study" was correct, quantum physics would be to dismiss completely. After all, you can absolutely measure both speed and location of objects around, so how could objects possibly be made of things that do not have that property?

Originally Posted by Oberon

As it stands nobody in this fucking thread has bothered or even tried to explain a causal relationship coupd be between diversity and profit in such a way that diversity -> profit. The five points the authors of the study we investigated were called into question and quite frankly just as I suspected the conclusions they drew look more like their own opinions. You cannot build science on the basis of an opinion! Honestly if there were anything remotely conclusive that proved causality oops would’ve mentioned it - the fact that he didn’t when challenged is evidence enough for me.

I kinda implied it, but didn't clearly express it, I guess.
It's logical that a culturally diverse team would perform better than an homogeneous one: multiple cultures imply multiple views, which lead to multiple reasonings; this is what the Harvard study is talking about when it says "thinking outside the box". It prevents intellectual inbreeding.

Originally Posted by Oberon

To continue the line of thought I originally went on, when someone claims something fucking stupid such as culture > personality/education (which in my view basically goes back to the fucking tabula rasa argument), I can dismiss it out of hand with my personal experience because of how fucking obviously stupid it is. I have not witnessed any cultural factora trumping personality virtually ever and I seriously doubt whether anyone else here has. This reminds me of the dumb shit people in Romania believe in such as the idea that life experience > education. An incredibly anti-intellectual idea and maybe not even that surprising in a second world country like Romania, but to hear something like that from the so-called first world... disheartening.

It's quite obvious someone without an elementary education won't be fit to lead a business, no matter what his culture may be xD. I don't think anybody was arguing against that.

I thought again about what I said about cultures, and I realized I was totally wrong. I confused [I]culture[/I] and [I]ethnicity[/I]. Ethnicities are equal, cultures are not (to take a non-controversial example, I'll just take [URL="https://www.history.com/news/8-reasons-it-wasnt-easy-being-spartan"]Spartans with their kids[/URL]; people back then may have been pretty rough, but the Spartan culture was definetly more "hardcore" here. People in Mauritania forcing their daughters to become super fat "to be beautiful" is another example of what I'd call "inferior culture").

That being said...
[QUOTE=Oberon;918344]If an individual’s culture doesn’t have that great of an effect on their own capabilities to begin with, how could it possibly have an effect on a group’s performance? People are dumber when working together, not smarter. I’ve been in multicultural teams before and I can tell you what you’re saying is simply not true lol. I’ve never noticed culture influencing success in any significant way. The only thing I’ve noticed is that ppl from Eastern bloc countries, India and Korea tend to score much better in mathematical tests than ppl educated in the West, and people educated in the West tend to write much better essays. There. That’s literally it.[/QUOTE]
Not to be mean, but your personal experience is completely insignificant because of the sample's size. The studies Oops linked are much more pertaining to the topic. Plus, while a team of students may not always be amazing lol, a team at the head of a company likely is, because everyone there wants the same thing and wants it hard: profit. You can't really have someone letting others do all the work, like what happens in a student group, for example.


Also, you guys post way too much lol, this is longer to read and analyze than an FM game

I thought again about what I said about cultures, and I realized I was totally wrong. I confused culture and ethnicity. Ethnicities are equal, cultures are not (to take a non-controversial example, I'll just take Spartans with their kids; people back then may have been pretty rough, but the Spartan culture was definetly more "hardcore" here. People in Mauritania forcing their daughters to become super fat "to be beautiful" is another example of what I'd call "inferior culture").

That being said...

Originally Posted by Oberon

If an individual’s culture doesn’t have that great of an effect on their own capabilities to begin with, how could it possibly have an effect on a group’s performance? People are dumber when working together, not smarter. I’ve been in multicultural teams before and I can tell you what you’re saying is simply not true lol. I’ve never noticed culture influencing success in any significant way. The only thing I’ve noticed is that ppl from Eastern bloc countries, India and Korea tend to score much better in mathematical tests than ppl educated in the West, and people educated in the West tend to write much better essays. There. That’s literally it.

Not to be mean, but your personal experience is completely insignificant because of the sample's size. The studies Oops linked are much more pertaining to the topic. Plus, while a team of students may not always be amazing lol, a team at the head of a company likely is, because everyone there wants the same thing and wants it hard: profit. You can't really have someone letting others do all the work, like what happens in a student group, for example.


Also, you guys post way too much lol, this is longer to read and analyze than an FM game

[QUOTE=Oberon;918331]Omg. I posted a post on one of the paragraphs in one of the studies and it fucking disappeared bc I accidentally clicked on the countdown button and erased it all -_-. I am too lazy to go back and find it again so I’ll just do it from memory. Basically they state that companies have to look for the right talent but that is obviously incompatible with putting diversity first before everything else virtually by definition. The second thing I had a problem with was the implicit claim in the same paragraph that ethnicity contributes to talent in a manner similar or even greater than natural ability. They don’t even explain how that occurs and it’s nonsensical. Honestly I feel like this is going back to the tabula rasa argument, which I thought was discredited years ago?

I do agree ethnicity (culture!) likely influences talent but it pales in comparison to natural ability.[/QUOTE]

You seem to be missing the point. It's not that an individual's culture influences his talent, but rather that a team's cultural diversity amplifies the "power of teamwork" due to the diversity of views it brings. Saying an individual is more talented in general due to his [I]culture[/I] is... a slippery slope, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Omg. I posted a post on one of the paragraphs in one of the studies and it fucking disappeared bc I accidentally clicked on the countdown button and erased it all . I am too lazy to go back and find it again so I’ll just do it from memory. Basically they state that companies have to look for the right talent but that is obviously incompatible with putting diversity first before everything else virtually by definition. The second thing I had a problem with was the implicit claim in the same paragraph that ethnicity contributes to talent in a manner similar or even greater than natural ability. They don’t even explain how that occurs and it’s nonsensical. Honestly I feel like this is going back to the tabula rasa argument, which I thought was discredited years ago?

I do agree ethnicity (culture!) likely influences talent but it pales in comparison to natural ability.

You seem to be missing the point. It's not that an individual's culture influences his talent, but rather that a team's cultural diversity amplifies the "power of teamwork" due to the diversity of views it brings. Saying an individual is more talented in general due to his culture is... a slippery slope, to say the least.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;918324]Lmao I feel like people don't want to outwardly say "I want to restrict the free market by forcing companies to hire less black people and women and hire more white men" so the only thing left is to deny reality.[/QUOTE]

Duh. This is going off-topic, since nobody ever argued for that lol, as it is obviously ridiculous.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Lmao I feel like people don't want to outwardly say "I want to restrict the free market by forcing companies to hire less black people and women and hire more white men" so the only thing left is to deny reality.

Duh. This is going off-topic, since nobody ever argued for that lol, as it is obviously ridiculous.

[QUOTE=aamirus;918320]Actually the objective according to Oops’ post is to make more money and until someone refutes his sources you might as well close the thread lmao[/QUOTE]
That's a different perspective: he's taking the economic one, while I'm taking the social one. Oops' point is in no way superior or inferior to mine, we're simply talking about two different aspects of the same issue.
[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;918321]The point I've made in this thread is that diversity often can be a goal that companies are incentivized to directly pursue for it's own sake, because it increases profit/innovation. I'm very, very skeptical that companies are promoting diversity for any other reason. Do you think anyone at all, including the shareholders, customers, or whatever, cares whether a company is diverse or the board has x% of women or whatever? Would you even know if a company you're a customer of has any such diversity quotas or policies or whatever? I certainly don't, and it doesn't influence my actions in any way.[/QUOTE]

That is perfectly logical: hiring someone competent who has views that differ from the other team members' views, simply because their culture is different, will necessarily enrich the team's views and will allow it to prevent issues and exploit opportunities more efficiently. Just to clarify, though: this doesn't have to do with [I]ethnicity[/I] or racism, but rather with [I]nationalities[/I], as your studies show. Diversity is nearly always presented as "anti-racism", but this has nothing to do with it.

And sadly enough, I think companies are actually doing that more as a shield against "scandals" than because their leaders consciously thought about the diversity of views and wanted to promote innovation. This clearly shows when companies speak of [I]gender parity[/I] or of [I]ethnic equality[/I], rather than of [I]national or ideological diversity[/I]. Have you ever seen a company say their team was composed of members of different ideologies? It's not about getting a "bonus" from customers, but rather about not getting flak for being evil and discriminatory.

Originally Posted by aamirus

Actually the objective according to Oops’ post is to make more money and until someone refutes his sources you might as well close the thread lmao

That's a different perspective: he's taking the economic one, while I'm taking the social one. Oops' point is in no way superior or inferior to mine, we're simply talking about two different aspects of the same issue.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

The point I've made in this thread is that diversity often can be a goal that companies are incentivized to directly pursue for it's own sake, because it increases profit/innovation. I'm very, very skeptical that companies are promoting diversity for any other reason. Do you think anyone at all, including the shareholders, customers, or whatever, cares whether a company is diverse or the board has x% of women or whatever? Would you even know if a company you're a customer of has any such diversity quotas or policies or whatever? I certainly don't, and it doesn't influence my actions in any way.

That is perfectly logical: hiring someone competent who has views that differ from the other team members' views, simply because their culture is different, will necessarily enrich the team's views and will allow it to prevent issues and exploit opportunities more efficiently. Just to clarify, though: this doesn't have to do with ethnicity or racism, but rather with nationalities, as your studies show. Diversity is nearly always presented as "anti-racism", but this has nothing to do with it.

And sadly enough, I think companies are actually doing that more as a shield against "scandals" than because their leaders consciously thought about the diversity of views and wanted to promote innovation. This clearly shows when companies speak of gender parity or of ethnic equality, rather than of national or ideological diversity. Have you ever seen a company say their team was composed of members of different ideologies? It's not about getting a "bonus" from customers, but rather about not getting flak for being evil and discriminatory.

Saying that promoting [I]diversity[/I] is an objective in itself is too short-sighted. The actual objective is to promote and ensure [I]equality[/I], because that is the fundamental principle; diversity only is a natural consequence of equality. Therefore, promoting diversity at the expense of equality is a perversion of the ideal, and while it can appear to help pursue the equality ideal on the short-term, it in fact demolishes its foundations, severely hurting it. To take an extreme example, say black people in country X earn 10k/year less than white people (yes, this is oversimplified, but the principle still applies). Giving 10k/year to every black person to "create" equality does not actually establish equality, but causes further inequality to fight inequality. [B]The solution is to fix the causes of inequality, not to force an equality of outcome.[/B] This is the point many, many left-wingers are missing, and it seems to be the cause of most of the ridiculous "new leftist stances" that discredit the Left so much.

To address the thread's topic more specifically, I'll say that to create equality in businesses [I]in general[/I], you have to ensure everyone can get the necessary education to work in businesses (equality of education possibilities), that discrimination based on unreasonable factors (such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) is strictly forbidden and punished, that everyone gets the same salary for the same work, etc. But forcing equality with quotas and the like is fighting inequality with inequality, and considering [I]diversity[/I] as the objective while it is only a consequence of the objective.

Saying that promoting diversity is an objective in itself is too short-sighted. The actual objective is to promote and ensure equality, because that is the fundamental principle; diversity only is a natural consequence of equality. Therefore, promoting diversity at the expense of equality is a perversion of the ideal, and while it can appear to help pursue the equality ideal on the short-term, it in fact demolishes its foundations, severely hurting it. To take an extreme example, say black people in country X earn 10k/year less than white people (yes, this is oversimplified, but the principle still applies). Giving 10k/year to every black person to "create" equality does not actually establish equality, but causes further inequality to fight inequality. The solution is to fix the causes of inequality, not to force an equality of outcome. This is the point many, many left-wingers are missing, and it seems to be the cause of most of the ridiculous "new leftist stances" that discredit the Left so much.

To address the thread's topic more specifically, I'll say that to create equality in businesses in general, you have to ensure everyone can get the necessary education to work in businesses (equality of education possibilities), that discrimination based on unreasonable factors (such as gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.) is strictly forbidden and punished, that everyone gets the same salary for the same work, etc. But forcing equality with quotas and the like is fighting inequality with inequality, and considering diversity as the objective while it is only a consequence of the objective.