Best man for the job

[OzyWho]

Imagine a room full of middle-aged white men, each from a different college. True, they are all from either Oxford University or Cambridge University, but they are each from a different college nonetheless, wearing their respective college's neckties and stuff.

A movement comes about. A movement to force more diversity in the group.

This group of middle-aged white men are all.. let's say confused.. about the idea. Because "quite frankly, you couldn't find a more diverse lot than us."

I can't help but feel like they got a point.

We must promote the best man for the job, regardless of their sex.

Opinions?


Who knows the reference btw?

[Oberon]

I agree in the general case but there are some questions that you have to ask: are they all from the same profession or field of study and are their fields of study relevant to whatever it is they have to do? Also I agree with the quote 100% but just as the men pointed out they may already be quite diverse.

[Oberon]

Oh wait they’re from different colleges. I missed that. Over here we call them faculties so that confused me 😂

[OzyWho]

Oh wait they’re from different colleges. I missed that. Over here we call them faculties so that confused me ��

Sounds like you've a similar system as we.

This system that Oxbridge operates is called "collegiate university", University of Paris being the oldest with this system.

Yet what possible alternatives are there to collegiate universities? I can't for the life of me find any list or answer on the web, try as I may.

[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.

[OzyWho]

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.

Love this post.

[oops_ur_dead]

Love this post.

Thanks man, I really try.

[Voss]

but

muh white people

[yzb25]

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?

[OzyWho]

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

You have 1 free article left this month.
Create an account to read 2 more.


I guess you've to wait a month or register, if you can't view this one.

[DJarJar]

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

seems like each time you open a new inprivate window you'll get 1 article for free

[OzyWho]

Are we confident that diversity is achieved better by race and sex, rather than by individuals?

Here - https://youtu.be/QCPDByRb4no - Jordan Peterson claims to have studied differences between people and that individual differences far outweigh the group differences.
It makes sense, yet @oops_ur_dead showed that companies go for that 'diversity by looks' so to speak.

[oops_ur_dead]

Are we confident that diversity is achieved better by race and sex, rather than by individuals?

Here - https://youtu.be/QCPDByRb4no - Jordan Peterson claims to have studied differences between people and that individual differences far outweigh the group differences.
It makes sense, yet @oops_ur_dead showed that companies go for that 'diversity by looks' so to speak.

He's 100% right about everything he said in this video, though his political bias and attempts to bait are pretty obnoxious.

Individual differences are very obviously larger than intergroup differences. I don't think anyone really denies that. However, social context and associations are very important and an aspect he completely ignores, which makes sense because he's a psychologist.

A black person who grew up in inner city Detroit has a very unique frame of view on how certain groups of people live that other people would find it difficult if not impossible to develop without that type of experience. Women in the workforce have a very different perspective on what they consider to be harassment or sexual abuse, which is why it's such a autist incel thing to say stuff like "someone staring at your tits isn't harassment it's a complement xD xD"

To the original point of your video and how it relates to diversity hiring, Peterson actually brought up something exactly to my point in this video. If you make a bet on a woman vs a man in agreeableness you'll find the woman is more agreeable than the man 60% of the time. A company hiring people might do much better than the 60% if they optimize for the exact person with the best suited traits for the job. But there's two issues with this:

1) The company has to know what they're looking for, which can be extremely difficult. If a company hires that inner city black guy from before in sales he might propose ideas that greatly improve the company's performance to inner city customers, something the company may not have been looking for because they weren't even aware of this segment. The company is not going to have a perfect plan or a perfect perspective on what they need, diversity hiring is a way of collecting a wider range of ideas and experiences together to not only perform a job better but to figure out what the job even is in the first place.

2) Even if the company knows exactly what they need and they're correct about it, they need to be able to identify these differences well and in a cost and time effective manner. To Peterson's example, if you had a bunch of men and women and you had an hour to group them by agreeableness, you'd be better off doing so by just doing it across gender lines, maybe with some simple questioning, rather than thoroughly interviewing each individual person and giving them surveys. Same goes for hiring. There's no guarantee there even is a good way to figure out whether someone is brilliant at marketing towards inner city black customers, so you do it based on race and one's cultural background and hope for the best. Maybe the white guy was actually going to be better. But 75% of the time, they aren't, so you just do the best you can do.

[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.

[Helz]

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.

[OzyWho]

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

Less now than in the past though imo. Companies get more educated as time goes on.

Try telling a boss 50 years ago that cancelling a meeting can be pro-productivity.

[Oberon]

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

As an introvert, that sounds horrifying.

[Oberon]

Well I’m not sure I trust those studies. Lets take gender diversity as an example. If you have a company of all men, but half of them are more feminine - is that diverse? Would they have the same viewpoints as women? But let’s take yet another example. What if you have a company filled with half transgender men and actual men. Is that diverse? Does diversity come from having a vagina?

Now let’s say maybe we trust the study and say yeah companies that are more diverse make more money. But that does not mean they make money because they are diverse. Because then you have to ask yourself the question - how does diversity increase profit? I’ve been in diverse friendships or university groups before and I did not witness any of the said benefits of diversity. The only difference I could see that could be attributed to external variation between different groups of people was in prior education. And again lets put an example forward. Lets say you have a company of white men but half of them were raised in Africa to black families. Is that diverse?

[oops_ur_dead]

Well I’m not sure I trust those studies. Lets take gender diversity as an example. If you have a company of all men, but half of them are more feminine - is that diverse? Would they have the same viewpoints as women? But let’s take yet another example. What if you have a company filled with half transgender men and actual men. Is that diverse? Does diversity come from having a vagina?

Now let’s say maybe we trust the study and say yeah companies that are more diverse make more money. But that does not mean they make money because they are diverse. Because then you have to ask yourself the question - how does diversity increase profit? I’ve been in diverse friendships or university groups before and I did not witness any of the said benefits of diversity. The only difference I could see that could be attributed to external variation between different groups of people was in prior education. And again lets put an example forward. Lets say you have a company of white men but half of them were raised in Africa to black families. Is that diverse?

I mean it's easy to counter any argument with "I disagree, therefore those studies are invalid" lmao. You can read the studies yourself and figure out how they did everything, and what their definitions of "diverse" are, and then feel free to refute the claims.

As for your second point: dude, you really need to learn to read what people post before you respond to them. The mechanisms behind how diversity lead to increased profitability are explained in every single article and study I posted. Go back and read them before making knee-jerk responses.

[Oberon]

To be clear, I’m not saying diversity is bad. I’m saying that pursuing diversity at the cost of everything else is. My own circle of friends is very diverse but not one second did I pursue friendships with them because of their ethnicity or race lol.

[oops_ur_dead]

To be clear, I’m not saying diversity is bad. I’m saying that pursuing diversity at the cost of everything else is. My own circle of friends is very diverse but not one second did I pursue friendships with them because of their ethnicity or race lol.

And yet it's clear that pursuing diversity for a company doesn't have a "cost", rather the opposite. Why else do you think investment firms specifically target companies with diverse boards nowadays?

Your group of friends does not have the same goals as a company seeking profit.

[OzyWho]

@oops_ur_dead
Ftr, the original reference was politics based. From this show: https://youtu.be/x_KRk4q3Y44
I'm curious if what you said you'd say also goes for governments?

[S-FM Magoroth]

I too only trust studies that agree with my set of beliefs.

A group of people with the same set of life experiences have less tools to address problems that might arise when running a company. It has nothing to do with biological body parts.

[Oberon]

I too only trust studies that agree with my set of beliefs.

A group of people with the same set of life experiences have less tools to address problems that might arise when running a company. It has nothing to do with biological body parts.

Ignoring your pointless ad hominem, growing up in two different countries, while it can offer a different perspective on things, very often personality and education have a far greater impact than ethnic background in determening perspective and viewpoints. After all, nobody in their right mind would argue a black biologist working at NASA or whatever has more in common with a black railroad worker than with a white biologist.

[OzyWho]

After all, nobody in their right mind would argue a black biologist working at NASA or whatever has more in common with a black railroad worker than with a white biologist.

I wouldn't argue with this.
Now the question is - do the studies? I'm thinking nobody besides oops is gonna read those to ever answer that. ��

[Voss]

I wouldn't argue with this.
Now the question is - do the studies? I'm thinking nobody besides oops is gonna read those to ever answer that. ��

At least oops is disciplined enough to find, read, and talk about outside sources. All we're doing here is spouting our uneducated beliefs while purposefully ignoring ready to consume research. I'll include myself in the "uneducated" group here because I also did not read those citations.

[Voss]

Ignoring your pointless ad hominem, growing up in two different countries, while it can offer a different perspective on things, very often personality and education have a far greater impact than ethnic background in determening perspective and viewpoints. After all, nobody in their right mind would argue a black biologist working at NASA or whatever has more in common with a black railroad worker than with a white biologist.

Ethnic background doesn't play an insignificant effect on one's personality and education.

And actually, it would depend on the definition of "more in common" is. Nerding out over bio problems? more in common with the white NASA worker. How the black railroad worker handles human relationships.....? Debatable in my book. I'm in neither of those categories so I wouldn't know. And neither would you.

[Oberon]

Ethnic background doesn't play an insignificant effect on one's personality and education.

And actually, it would depend on the definition of "more in common" is. Nerding out over bio problems? more in common with the white NASA worker. How the black railroad worker handles human relationships.....? Debatable in my book. I'm in neither of those categories so I wouldn't know. And neither would you.

I suppose this is true but this is more about HR and not about what a company actually produces. If we’re talking about marketing or dealing with people I can see the argument being made that a black guy would be better suited talking to blacks than a white guy, a white guy ect. Now of course there’s also other facets along which people differ other than race such as economics. Maybe a self-made black man understands the poor but brilliant whites better than the white guy from a well to do family.

[Oberon]

I too only trust studies that agree with my set of beliefs.

A group of people with the same set of life experiences have less tools to address problems that might arise when running a company. It has nothing to do with biological body parts.

Honestly the fact that people are having the reactions that they are to what I'm saying and especially paragraphs like this: "I too only trust studies that agree with my set of beliefs." (who said anything about belief?) makes me think that this has very little to do with science and everything to do with ideology. I would honestly doubt that there is anyone on this thread that is even genuinely surprised at this. Clearly this issue is ideological and has in actuality very little do with anything people are purporting it to hold (such as profitability or whatever). For if there weren't a study linking diversity and profitability, I would honestly doubt that any person on this forum would even try to link them together or argue that profitability is the reason for why diversity is important. Oops and aamirus touched on the real reason several times when they engaged in blatant discredit of those who are against 'diversity' by painting them as racists or whatever who hate black people (lol).

It really makes me wonder. If people aren't arguing the real point of diversity, and are instead arguing for tangents as to why diversity is 'good', are they really arguing their point at all? Maybe what I'm saying is unclear. But the real reason, I think, why people are arguing for diversity has nothing to do with profit. That's just a counter-argument for the 'so-called bigots' who in their view do not care about profit anyways (which in itself is an admission that they do not actually believe the people they are debating are racists, because racists don't care about profit - if they did, they would be putting a candidate's natural talent/education/ability/whatever the fuck above their irrelevant personal attributes). As such, arguing for diversity from a profit perspective is actually an indication that the person has no real argument for the real reason they want diversity - "old white men who don't want to hire black people". Need I say more? It's quite literally in this thread lol

[oops_ur_dead]

Like clockwork.

I think I've said everything I need to say about the topic, anyone that will ever be willing to change their mind can draw their own conclusions.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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.

[OzyWho]

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,

I love this part. It addresses a completely different reason for going for diversity than what Oops was talking about.
Loving the diversity in this discussion so far.

Giving 10k/year to every black person to "create" equality does not actually establish equality equity

fixed

[DJarJar]

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.

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

[oops_ur_dead]

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

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.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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.

[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.

[Oberon]

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.

I’m pretty sure that if anything if the emphasis were put on meritocracy and not on diversity you’d have lots of Ashkenazim and Asians in major managerial positions and positions of influence, moreso than whites, but whatever. :P

[oops_ur_dead]

I’m pretty sure that if anything if the emphasis were put on meritocracy and not on diversity you’d have lots of Ashkenazim and Asians in major managerial positions and positions of influence, moreso than whites, but whatever. :P

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who argue that companies should be meritocracies above all would take offence to that as well.

I also definitely don't think that there are many companies at all that aim for both meritocracies or optimal business strategy. I think in reality, most gravitate more towards being old boys' clubs.

[oops_ur_dead]

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.

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.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

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.

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.

[OzyWho]

Social media is so influential that it's powers sometimes feel like they could rival those of law.

If there's a moral driven movement against a companies lack of diversity, chances are that the company will submit. That's an alternative motivation for a company. MM's idea is valid.

Then there's the case of what this thread was originally referring to (in the YT link I posted earlier) - a newly elected UK government's policy attempts to put up a quota in the civil service to have x% of women present in it. Politics to win future votes. US politicians might as well attempt something similar sometime.

[DJarJar]

US politicians might as well attempt something similar sometime.

This is a big part of their campaign strategy already. They usually have different messages they send out to different demographics which they've identified will respond better to that message

[Oberon]

Actually I agree that ethnicity determines talent. For example the French are great at surrendering, Romanians at electing people who are in JAIL, (and just generally being retarded), Latvians make great potatoes, and Southerners are great at shagging their sisters. @Marshmallow Marshall @OzyWho

[OzyWho]

Actually I agree that ethnicity determines talent. For example the French are great at surrendering, Romanians at electing people who are in JAIL, (and just generally being retarded), Latvians make great potatoes, and Southerners are great at shagging their sisters. @Marshmallow Marshall @OzyWho

I like potatoes.

No joke, I once told my grandparents "you know, in other parts of the world - they actually eat other things than potatoes".
Their response was, I kid you not, "what do you mean? what other things?" in a tone that basically said "what else is there besides potatoes? wtf you talking about?"
Sadly I couldn't give any answers.
Though I know that Asians love rice, so go me!

[Oberon]

I like potatoes.

No joke, I once told my grandparents "you know, in other parts of the world - they actually eat other things than potatoes".
Their response was, I kid you not, "what do you mean? what other things?" in a tone that basically said "what else is there besides potatoes? wtf you talking about?"
Sadly I couldn't give any answers.
Though I know that Asians love rice, so go me!

😂😂

[Oberon]

After all, can anyone conceive of a Frenchman triumphing over someone else in battle? Preposterous! Such an idea is heresy.

[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.

[Helz]

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.

[DJarJar]

@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. You're basically just getting into the same cycle here with who would be best at a job. I'm just saying you two can have at it if you like but it's probably a waste of both your times!

[S-FM Magoroth]

@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. You're basically just getting into the same cycle here with who would be best at a job. I'm just saying you two can have at it if you like but it's probably a waste of both your times!

I said what now?