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.
Last edited by Helz; February 1st, 2021 at 12:42 PM.
I suppose thatís true but itís just something that shows companies that are more diverse make more money. It does not explain why diversity Ďdrives changeí as they put it, merely asserts it. This is the problem. I donít want to repeat the clichťd Ďcorrelation does not equal causationí but itís literally true. If they conclude that diversity CAUSES an increase in profit then they need to come up with a really good reason as to why it would do that. It might not be wrong either depending on where it causes an increase in profit; if itís an HR thing I could see it contributing. On the other hand if theyíre just related but a bit more distantly and not in a causal way then you could put it down to a number of factors, such as companies seeking to become more diverse bc of marketing, or bc of seeing that companies that are diverse make more money, kinda like a self fulfilling prophesy. On the other hand it could be completely coincidental: companies that make lots of money can afford to sacrifice competitiveness, and they became diverse after they started making more money. I think this is especially true for IT companies, which make lots of money AND are known for being diverse.
I think talking about intelligence or genetic differences between groups are two separate conversations entirely. I really donít want to get into either of these two topics because we could write pages upon pages about them and still not be done with them. Iím sticking to cultural differences, although even if you look at cultural differences, people within the same culture differ significantly amongst themselves to begin with in terms of ability, innate intelligence, personality, ect. I would honestly not believe that between-group differences matter more than within-group differences. It opens you up to the idea that maybe certain groups are better than others if thatís the case and Iím fairly certain the people who are Ďfor diversityí do not want to hear that claim even though it is directly logically derived from it. After all, if ethnicity matters more or as much as natural ability, you can always claim certain ethnicities are better than others, and whatís to stop ppl from saying wthnicity X should not do job Y because they suck at it? And no for the record I do not agree with this train of thought of at all, it is absolutely unequivocally horrid and should never be considered for even half a second. The only way to deal with that is to look at whatís in peopleís heads and not at what language they speak.
Then @oops please explain the observed effect. It is not enough to observe that companies that make more money are more diverse. I can observe that the speedometer of a car goes up when it goes faster and conclude that the speedometer causes the increase in speed and I would be dead wrong. If you believe that diversity increases profit, i.e. that it causes an increase in profit, I challenge you to explain it. Maybe I didnít read it the articles and they did explain it; if so Iím giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong and argue that instead diversity does CAUSE an increase in profit.
Therefore I assume the links must have observations in them.
My question is, how can you deny observations?
In science, usually, observations stay the same and it's the conclusions that change over time.
Fmpov you're not arguing against a conclusion but a observation.
Doesn't really matter to me if you don't change your mind.
It is quite telling though that you explicitly refuse to acknowledge evidence contrary to your viewpoint and instead continue making empirically false statements.
Here's another clever paper for you to ignore, where they specifically address the causal relationship between hiring women and improvement in performance of venture capital firms:
I agree with points two and five. One, three and four are exactly the ones I have problem with. Basically 60% of their conclusion is wrong. This is from their article.
1) I can agree with this if they're using the word 'diversity' to refer to equality: of course that opening up your business for talented people and ignoring their group membership raises profits. If you're a bigot and you hire the dumber straight guy over the bright gay guy then of course your profit will suffer lol, that's a no-brainer. IF on the other hand they're referring to actual 'diversity' (i.e. preferring minority groups or whatever just because), they are literally committing the same mistake as the bigot who didn't hire the gay guy just because and their profit WILL suffer just as much lol.
2) I've seen statistics related to women and decision making and I can trust this. I'm not so sure about minority groups being key consumer decision makers; after all, women are not exactly a minority group lol. And there's a very obvious argument for why women make consumer decisions: men want sex. It's so fucking simple even a fool could understand it. No issue with it and I could see an argument for 'diversity' helping profit here.
3) I highly doubt this is the case. Even assuming ppl aren't bigoted racists (which for some reason... this study does assume, so how the fuck did they come to this conclusion), inevitably cultural differences will flare up and a misunderstanding will ensue. For example in Japan, I believe, it is considered polite to barf at the dinner table bc it's a sign you liked the meal. Likewise in Indonesia it's actually rude to compliment cooking bc it implies the food could've been bad (lol). To give an example that is a bit more useful, Dutch people are very direct and English people are NOT. Ppl not used to Dutch directness can find some of the shit Dutch ppl say quite rude; aside from that Dutch and especially German people are not particularly friendly; they're polite but it's quite hard to make friends with a Dutch person, and they're fairly intraverted - they're not particularly keen on talking to strangers, compared to say Spanish people. In short, it makes no sense to draw the conclusion they did.
4) I don't believe this. The last sentence especially irks me terribly. If diverse groups perform better than experts why the fuck do we even have universities or professions? Just force ppl to mix and to hell with whatever they think, because it's useful, right? Except it's not happening - which in itself is an argument against this way of thinking. I would like to see them produce evidence of this.
5) Obviously a no-brainer. I don't need to explain this. I agree with it.
Not sure if could ask for something more, based on the topic. But I know that in science "assertions based on statistics" studies are the least credible.
That's not to say they're necessarily wrong, but rather that there's a legitimate reason to question such papers.
You've misinterpreted point one. Their greater point is that having diverse teams means the company will be more likely to retain talent from a more diverse pool of people. So if you have a black person who's an absolute genius in their field then the argument is that they would be more likely to work for a more diverse company than a homogeneously (presumably white) company, all other things equal. Hence the company loses out on acquiring great talent due to lack of diversity. That isn't hard to believe for me.
Point three is debatable, sure. Though anecdotally I can say there is more often conflict and resentment when diversity is lacking, especially when it comes to accusations of preferring one's own culture/nationality in hiring and promotions and discrimination due to gender.
The last sentence of point four is a bit unclear, and I can't find the source for it to figure out what they meant. However, it is absolutely the case that diverse groups outperform homogeneous groups in many tasks:
I don't think they were trying to say that simply replacing all the men with women would keep increasing the company's performance. They were saying that just having a more equal number of people would be beneficial.
With 3 I think they're saying that the more diverse a group is, the less likely you're going to ACT like a bigoted racist.
With 4 I'd like to point out something you've probably missed which is that most of these studies are looking at multiple different types of "diversity". Ethnicity, and sex, sure, but also like if they come from different former professions as well. Let's imagine I'm making a video game like Lara Croft Tomb Raider, set in Egypt. Well sure, in general you may just want to hire programmers. With no attempt to increase diversity, you might end up with all your programmers being males who are not very athletic and have never been to egypt. I'd argue the game might be better and more realistic if you at least had some female presence to give an insight on how a female character should behave. And if you had someone with a rock-climbing background or exercise science, they might have insights into the mechanics of how the player model should move about. And maybe it would help to have someone with an Egyptian background to give a better portrayal of Egypt and the people there. An archaeologist or historian type to help with the construction of the tombs? Maybe Lara is bi. Might a bisexual person help with insight into her mindset? Maybe the game is laggy and the code is slow. A mathematician might help your coders with optimizing the number of operations they need to use.
And the point is to generalize this concept - in general the more different insights and backgrounds you can leverage will give you a general boost to all your projects.
I thought you were doing a phd or something like that? In mine at least, we constantly collaborate with professors and students from other disciplines in our research.
Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?
Well yeah I agree that not all diversity is bad of course, but I'm stressing diversity of thought, which different disciplines definitely do come under
But that being said, I won't hire an aeronautics expert to design a nuclear power plant
Not all diversity of thought is useful in every scenario, because most thoughts simply aren't useful for everything, and some thoughts are useless in the general case
I'm doing a bachelor's atm, I'm an undergrad, but yeah, my field of study is itself a mishmash of different academic disciplines
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.
I think diversity of thought helps solve problems that require creativity, but is less useful in the general case
Tbh it's probably true of intelligence in general. The less creativity you require to solve a given problem, the less intelligent you will have to be to solve it
And consequently having access to different perspectives is less necessary
Yes, I am, now that you mention it. At least not in the way that I think it's been described in this thread. Obviously a gay or bi person as you put it would be more likely to understand another gay or bi person and that perspective might prove useful in understanding a gay person or relationship in much the same way a straight person would likely understand a straight relationship better than a gay person would (even though I'm pretty sure most things from one orientation would carry over; are universal).
I've had friends from many different backgrounds and literally not once have I observed any benefit from their different backgrounds except maybe in the way they handle ppl and their attitudes, but that's about it. The only thing that I can think of is that I have a Korean friend who uh... yeah that dude pulls off some shit I would never ever do in my life. For example... uh... when he was in high school he was given a project in the second year of high school that was due towards the end of the fourth year. He didn't start working on it until the last week (no I'm not exagerrating, lmao) and he somehow managed to hand it in and get an eight. He said he slept 8 hours that week in total lol.
Aside from that, I've noticed some differences but they were all from prior education. For example me and my Korean friend were partnered up for something that involved both math and programming. The course was unbelievably shitty so the assignment was really poorly written and hard to understand (e.g. they had some equations describing something and they weren't even consistently using the same symbols for everything... lol). He did the math, and I did the programming. Now that I think about it that was one of the most horrible courses I've ever been through (coincidentally). The professor gave literally no fucks lol
Why do you keep comparing a group of friends to a workplace...
Why wouldn't I be? One would expect that the benefits of diversity be evident in education too. Perhaps even moreso since it stresses certain things more than the workplace does.
In any event. As it stands I havenít seen one good reason as to why diversity of ethnicity -> diversity of (useful) opinion. You canít 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 Iím not being sarcastic here.
what about best boat for the job
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:
bruhOriginally Posted by Oberon
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.
Clearly, all the correlations that one disagrees with are flukes, while all the correlations one agrees with are actual scientific evidence. QED.
I'm not being passive aggressive. I'm clearly not suggesting anyone is a neo-nazi or anything or the sort and made that explicitly clear. What I'm saying is that invariably there is a line of thought that logically follows from the idea of ethnicity > personality that nazis would absolutely LOVE. Which obviously nobody likes so I'm suggesting the idea is not only bad but dangerous.
Well maybe 'coincidental' was the wrong term to use there. It would be the case that people who care about diversity have a different mindset and irrespective of whether a company was diverse or not if people who 'wanted' diversity were in charge it could raise profits. It would not be a causal relationsip but they would related in some manner. Does this make sense?
Dude, everyone here understands your argument, the problem is that it's not supported by any evidence and any research points to the exact opposite. And you refuse to acknowledge that, instead talking about your friend group as if an single anecdotal datapoint of a tangentially related case somehow proves your point.
Literally everyone knows that correlation does not equal causation. But you've also been provided with multiple studies showing a causal relationship and mechanisms through which diversity improves decision making, that you've uniformly ignored, or nitpicked a handful of sentences that have objectionable wording and dismissed the entire case based on that.
I don't think you'll ever change your mind no matter what evidence anyone shows you, because you've already formed your opinion. You should ask yourself if that's what a rational person should do.
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.
Statistical significance is more of a continuum, where the "significance" of a test (often reported as p-value) is the probability of seeing results at least as extreme as what you observed under the assumption that the null hypothesis (defined as the default assumption, that your difference between groups or means or whatever you're measuring is zero) is true.
There's a bunch of reasons why this could be on a continuum. One of the big ones is within-group variance, if you're comparing IQ between two schools for example, your certainty changes depending on how much variation there is in IQ among each group, because any difference you detect becomes less or more certain based on the overall natural variance in IQ. Another source of error is from uneven splits that come up by chance, this comes up frequently in experimental setup. Say you have a group of kids that you split into two groups to test if some experiment you perform impacts their IQ. There's a possibility that when you do the random split at the beginning, the high IQ kids will happen to be in one group while the low IQ kids happen to be in the other. This is especially apparent with small sample sizes.
So you'll never say that something is "significant" to mean the results are not by chance. You'll say something has a significance level of 95%, which means that there's a less than 5% chance of observing results at least as large as your result if there truly is no difference between groups for the metric you're testing. What you define as significant enough to be notable is completely arbitrary, in academia it's usually defined as 95% simply by convention, in industry it can be lower (if you're optimizing a metric with tests to a confidence of 80%, sure you're wrong 20% of the time, but that's still pretty great in terms of the bottom line).
Sorry for geeking out, I hope you appreciate the lecture though.
Last edited by oops_ur_dead; February 2nd, 2021 at 10:56 AM.
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
A p value is the number of random samples that would generate the result if the hypothesis is wrong. Basically say you have a massive bag of 1 million balls of different colors, shapes and sizes. If you wanted to prove that the balls have an average weight lower than say 10 grams, and you picked 1,000 balls at random, the p-value would basically be the proportion of randomly picked groups of 1,000 balls out of all the possible groups you could get, that would Ďproveí your theory IF your theory was wrong.
That's why the cutoff for significance is set to 95% and not 100%; because if it was set to 100%, then you'd throw out a lot of good results (in fact you'd throw out every single result because a p-value of 0 is impossible to obtain in real experimental setups). At some point it was arbitrarily chosen by some scientists that if 1 in 20 results were entirely due to statistical chance, that's a fine compromise, hence why 95% is commonly used.
In companies they'll often use a lower value such as 80% because when the goal is experimenting for maximizing profit, it's okay if you have a lot of "false positives" as long as overall you still have more wins than losses, and a lower criteria for seeing if an experiment was successful allows you to innovate and push out changes more quickly.
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...
Also, you guys post way too much lol, this is longer to read and analyze than an FM game