Search:

[QUOTE=Oberon;918511]Wanna know what the most diverse part of the world is? Africa! Doesn't work out that well does it?[/QUOTE]

I know it sounds extreme, but I'm halfway towards believing it's in everyone's benefit for a mod to forcefully cap how many posts you can make in these political threads per, say, 48h. You really don't seem to have any control over your own impulses and knowing you said shit like this must feel really embarassing later. Trying to compare an entire continent to a workplace. Jesus. How did you even measure the diversity of Africa compared to, say, Asia? Man, I'm already thinking too hard about this XD.

You [I]need[/I] to at least attempt to improve your impulse control. And I don't say it with a hint of resentment when I say you might benefit from the community putting concrete controls on what you say in these threads. No actual censorship, just some mechanism that implicitly forces you to think before posting by restricting post count or whatever.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Wanna know what the most diverse part of the world is? Africa! Doesn't work out that well does it?

I know it sounds extreme, but I'm halfway towards believing it's in everyone's benefit for a mod to forcefully cap how many posts you can make in these political threads per, say, 48h. You really don't seem to have any control over your own impulses and knowing you said shit like this must feel really embarassing later. Trying to compare an entire continent to a workplace. Jesus. How did you even measure the diversity of Africa compared to, say, Asia? Man, I'm already thinking too hard about this XD.

You need to at least attempt to improve your impulse control. And I don't say it with a hint of resentment when I say you might benefit from the community putting concrete controls on what you say in these threads. No actual censorship, just some mechanism that implicitly forces you to think before posting by restricting post count or whatever.

This also might help with understanding what the p value is -

As oops said, we are interested in the probability you happened to get your data if there [I]isn't[/I] a correlation. The hope is that this will be such a low number that [i]not[/i] accepting a correlation means believing you happened to get very extreme data. the p-value is effectively how extreme we demand the data needs to be. p-value=0.01 means "we needed a less than 1% chance of getting data this extreme to believe in a correlation."

Intuitively, if you are a hopeless researcher and come up with 100 incorrect correlation conjectures, you expect a p value of 0.05 to dismiss approximately 95 of these conjectures when you go collect data. A lower p value will dismiss even more. Even if only 20% of your conjectures are true, most of the research you publish will still be true. (Imagine coming up with 125 conjectures, 20% of which (25) are true. Assume you find a correlation for the 25 correct ones. So you publish 30 results, only 5 of which are wrong. Only 20% of your conjectures are true, yet 83% of your published results are true).

The reason they use such a roundabout method is because it's rather difficult (impossible even) to directly find "the probability a correlation exists". On the other hand, it's normally quite easy to calculate the probability of getting a particular set of data if there is simply no correlation. So we settle for this somewhat vaguer indication of the plausibility of no correlation

If this is wrong feel free to shut me up. I only did a few modules in statistics myself. I partially wrote this as a way of revising LOL

This also might help with understanding what the p value is -

As oops said, we are interested in the probability you happened to get your data if there isn't a correlation. The hope is that this will be such a low number that not accepting a correlation means believing you happened to get very extreme data. the p-value is effectively how extreme we demand the data needs to be. p-value=0.01 means "we needed a less than 1% chance of getting data this extreme to believe in a correlation."

Intuitively, if you are a hopeless researcher and come up with 100 incorrect correlation conjectures, you expect a p value of 0.05 to dismiss approximately 95 of these conjectures when you go collect data. A lower p value will dismiss even more. Even if only 20% of your conjectures are true, most of the research you publish will still be true. (Imagine coming up with 125 conjectures, 20% of which (25) are true. Assume you find a correlation for the 25 correct ones. So you publish 30 results, only 5 of which are wrong. Only 20% of your conjectures are true, yet 83% of your published results are true).

The reason they use such a roundabout method is because it's rather difficult (impossible even) to directly find "the probability a correlation exists". On the other hand, it's normally quite easy to calculate the probability of getting a particular set of data if there is simply no correlation. So we settle for this somewhat vaguer indication of the plausibility of no correlation

If this is wrong feel free to shut me up. I only did a few modules in statistics myself. I partially wrote this as a way of revising LOL

[QUOTE=Oberon;918433]I thought of that as well as a possible explanation but I don’t think that’s causal, merely coincidental.
In any event. As it stands I haven’t seen one good reason as to why diversity of ethnicity -> diversity of (useful) opinion. You can’t just make an experiment or observation and jump to conclusions without explaining them. I want to focus on the crux of the argument which is the idea that ethnicity trumps personality, which for the record I think is a disgusting and dangerous idea that can very easily be manipulated by, guess what, the alt-right and the nazis! Which is funny because the people championing diversity definitely do not want to give the alt-right ammo. And I’m not being sarcastic here.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you dismissing the correlation found in that particular study as a coincidence? How do you determine which studies to believe then? We have several studies here that find a correlation, then we have one whose correlation can only plausibly be a causation. Is the natural conclusion for you that in all the former studies the correlation is caused by something else, and that the latter study's correlation is just a fluke? Or are you suggesting all the correlations are flukes?

Also, calm the fuck down. You're spamming us about "burden of proof", "burden of proof" while presenting your extremely subjective anecdotal experiences at university as something that warrants a reply. What the hell are we supposed to make of that? You're even suggesting people's views here are implicitly aiding neo-nazis and shit. Aamirus was barely even being passive aggressive. How the hell else are we supposed to reply to what you're doing? Also:

[QUOTE=Oberon]You can’t just make an experiment or observation and jump to conclusions without explaining them.[/QUOTE]

[I]bruh[/I]

You need to cap your posts to twice every 24 hours or something. You really go off the rails when you let yourself post too much.

Originally Posted by Oberon

I thought of that as well as a possible explanation but I don’t think that’s causal, merely coincidental.
In any event. As it stands I haven’t seen one good reason as to why diversity of ethnicity -> diversity of (useful) opinion. You can’t just make an experiment or observation and jump to conclusions without explaining them. I want to focus on the crux of the argument which is the idea that ethnicity trumps personality, which for the record I think is a disgusting and dangerous idea that can very easily be manipulated by, guess what, the alt-right and the nazis! Which is funny because the people championing diversity definitely do not want to give the alt-right ammo. And I’m not being sarcastic here.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you dismissing the correlation found in that particular study as a coincidence? How do you determine which studies to believe then? We have several studies here that find a correlation, then we have one whose correlation can only plausibly be a causation. Is the natural conclusion for you that in all the former studies the correlation is caused by something else, and that the latter study's correlation is just a fluke? Or are you suggesting all the correlations are flukes?

Also, calm the fuck down. You're spamming us about "burden of proof", "burden of proof" while presenting your extremely subjective anecdotal experiences at university as something that warrants a reply. What the hell are we supposed to make of that? You're even suggesting people's views here are implicitly aiding neo-nazis and shit. Aamirus was barely even being passive aggressive. How the hell else are we supposed to reply to what you're doing? Also:

Originally Posted by Oberon

You can’t just make an experiment or observation and jump to conclusions without explaining them.

bruh

You need to cap your posts to twice every 24 hours or something. You really go off the rails when you let yourself post too much.

[QUOTE=yzb25;918416]Dude that's so fcking clever holy crap. The correlation causation thing was bothering me too. Mckinsey acknowledged it at the end of their article but didn't really give a satisfying rebuttal. A company with more diverse hiring may simply be more inclined to innovative / profitable thinking in general. I haven't given it a proper read, but that's such a clever way of circumventing that issue. The daughters man... crazy shit.[/QUOTE]

the ppl who wrote that paper were undoubtedly extremely tall individuals. 6'2 at least probs

Originally Posted by yzb25

Dude that's so fcking clever holy crap. The correlation causation thing was bothering me too. Mckinsey acknowledged it at the end of their article but didn't really give a satisfying rebuttal. A company with more diverse hiring may simply be more inclined to innovative / profitable thinking in general. I haven't given it a proper read, but that's such a clever way of circumventing that issue. The daughters man... crazy shit.

the ppl who wrote that paper were undoubtedly extremely tall individuals. 6'2 at least probs

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;918395]They took a pretty cool approach in that paper to establish a causal relationship. First they found out that senior partners at VC firms having more daughters is correlated to them hiring more female employees. Clearly there, the relationship must be causal; there's no way that a partner hiring female employees will cause them to have more daughters, hence we can conclude that senior partners having more daughters leads them to hire more female employees. Then, they found a significant correlation between the number of daughters that senior partners at VC firms have and the firm's performance, which is clearly a one-way causal relationship. Pretty cool stuff.

The criticism could be raised, though, that having daughters somehow influences a partner's investment habits for the better. It isn't clear how, if at all, they corrected for that. Even if that is the case, it still kinda points to diversity being a good thing if having daughters turns someone into a better investor.[/QUOTE]

Dude that's so fcking clever holy crap. The correlation causation thing was bothering me too. Mckinsey acknowledged it at the end of their article but didn't really give a satisfying rebuttal. A company with more diverse hiring may simply be more inclined to innovative / profitable thinking in general. I haven't given it a proper read, but that's such a clever way of circumventing that issue. The daughters man... crazy shit.

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

They took a pretty cool approach in that paper to establish a causal relationship. First they found out that senior partners at VC firms having more daughters is correlated to them hiring more female employees. Clearly there, the relationship must be causal; there's no way that a partner hiring female employees will cause them to have more daughters, hence we can conclude that senior partners having more daughters leads them to hire more female employees. Then, they found a significant correlation between the number of daughters that senior partners at VC firms have and the firm's performance, which is clearly a one-way causal relationship. Pretty cool stuff.

The criticism could be raised, though, that having daughters somehow influences a partner's investment habits for the better. It isn't clear how, if at all, they corrected for that. Even if that is the case, it still kinda points to diversity being a good thing if having daughters turns someone into a better investor.

Dude that's so fcking clever holy crap. The correlation causation thing was bothering me too. Mckinsey acknowledged it at the end of their article but didn't really give a satisfying rebuttal. A company with more diverse hiring may simply be more inclined to innovative / profitable thinking in general. I haven't given it a proper read, but that's such a clever way of circumventing that issue. The daughters man... crazy shit.

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;918293]Funny thing this argument. If you look at research done by consulting companies and venture capital firms, it's largely and consistently found that companies that have more diverse management perform better.

This shows that diversity drives innovation and innovation revenue:
[url]https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publications/2018/how-diverse-leadership-teams-boost-innovation[/url]

This shows that gender and ethnic diversity drives company profitability:
[url]https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity[/url]

This review shows that companies with a more diverse workforce are more likely to grow in market share and successfully capture new markets:
[url]https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation[/url]

There are also many VC firms that take diversity heavily into account when deciding which companies to invest in. Do you think they actually care about diversity for diversity's sake?

The idea that companies force diversity over merit is misleading and very short-sighted. There's no grand conspiracy to replace muh white people, that's fucking stupid. They just want more profit, and diversity is a proven method of accomplishing that.

Often times the "best man for the job" is whatever makes the board more diverse than another old white dude. Or do you think companies shouldn't be allowed to do what helps them attain the most profitability and success?

Though maybe I'm overthinking a dumb joke.[/QUOTE]

I'm struggling to get around the paywall for the 3rd paper. Am I being dumb?

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

Funny thing this argument. If you look at research done by consulting companies and venture capital firms, it's largely and consistently found that companies that have more diverse management perform better.

This shows that diversity drives innovation and innovation revenue:
https://www.bcg.com/en-us/publicatio...ost-innovation

This shows that gender and ethnic diversity drives company profitability:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-fu...ough-diversity

This review shows that companies with a more diverse workforce are more likely to grow in market share and successfully capture new markets:
https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversit...ive-innovation

There are also many VC firms that take diversity heavily into account when deciding which companies to invest in. Do you think they actually care about diversity for diversity's sake?

The idea that companies force diversity over merit is misleading and very short-sighted. There's no grand conspiracy to replace muh white people, that's fucking stupid. They just want more profit, and diversity is a proven method of accomplishing that.

Often times the "best man for the job" is whatever makes the board more diverse than another old white dude. Or do you think companies shouldn't be allowed to do what helps them attain the most profitability and success?

Though maybe I'm overthinking a dumb joke.

I'm struggling to get around the paywall for the 3rd paper. Am I being dumb?