|
|
 Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well, first you have to define the dimension across which you are measuring diversity. You want an example, ok, take something like a five factor personality model and choose one. How about 'Extroversion'. A highly extroverted person will be good at sales. A low extroverted person will make a great accountant. A company's success will be influenced positively by assuring that all useful points on the extroversion spectrum are represented within the staff.
Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's not the kind of diversity TC was talking about. In the context of American history, diversity has a much more specific meaning.
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Diversity is bad if you are measuring it across irrelevant dimensions and enforcing the outcome, either legislatively or socially. So again, if you want a concrete example, look at Justin Trudeau's cabinet. He pledged to make it 50% men, and 50% women. Diversity for diversity's sake. The pool of qualified candidates was 75% men. Therefore, an unequal opportunity was created where a woman in that pool was 3x as likely to get a cabinet position as a man.
I agree that is retarded. Enforced diversity is just as bad as enforced non-diversity, in general.
|
Reply With Quote