The question on everybody’s lips is, if Joe Biden doesn’t run, could Kamala Harris win in 2024? In this essay, I look at diversity as an issue and attempt to argue that it requires a far broader definition than the narrow definition of race and gender which is commonly a given, with diversity and inclusion initiatives. I am heavily indebted to Quillette on this subject, with their thought provoking article: What Is Diversity? And Why Is It Valuable?
I won’t reference it, but there is pretty good evidence that a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks. This may shock some defenders of meritocracy, but it probably won’t surprise those with a more than passing familiarity with the dismal science, economics. Heterogenous economics always trumps homogeneity in almost every area other than when we look at high levels of social trust and social capital which occurs in culturally homogenous communities and countries.
It’s about the strength of individuality. Take any group of people with a varying degree of abilities, and the broader the total range of their abilities, the more likely they are to succeed, providing we are not selecting for an extremely narrow and specific type of task, like some of the more theoretical STEM fields. Plus, homogeneity lends itself to intellectual uniformity, which in turn leads to that thing which can be truly catastrophic and that all senior managers dread- groupthink- the anathema of a situation where everyone in the room endorses a terrible idea, because they all think the same way, or simply because they don’t want people from their own social class and group to feel uncomfortable.
But when one delves into the literature of diversity and performance it becomes clear that, in the modern sense, diversity is too narrowly construed. Whilst variations in gender and race can be valuable, it is just as important to consider variations by age, social class, viewpoint, culture and life experience. A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.
Another aspect of diversity which is seldom discussed is the extent to which selecting for one arbitrary group characteristic can necessarily select for another, as a second order effect. It has long been known that several of the core Democratic constituencies tend towards a higher degree of social conservatism. African Americans and Latinos are more likely to be religious and centre discussions on the importance of family within their own communities (although in some instances they are likely to avoid the topic with white liberals and in public more broadly).
Especially in situations where normal viewpoint diversity across the political spectrum is lacking, this reintroduction of viewpoint diversity by other means can be incredibly valuable. In a business setting or a political one, having someone who is socially conservative in the room can be incredibly valuable. Given a choice between an investment in authentic high-end wood windows and doors, and PVC windows, many investors may favour the former. But if you have a Black Guy or a Latina in the room, they are more likely to say ‘It costs how much?’ or ‘and the cheaper PVC ones are more difficult to break into, huh…’ Another example would be defund the police movements. It tends to surprise white liberals that even after George Floyd, the majority of African Americans still want roughly roughly the same levels of policing. What will be of less surprise is that the vast majority do support police reform.
The greater social conservatism of Latinos and African Americans stems from class distinctions, or along socio-economic. It’s because they are not as likely to be as W.E.I.R.D. as white people- which is an acronym for Western, Educated and from Industrial, Rich and Democratic countries. Moral Foundations are also incredible important in this sense, because much of the division between socially conservative and Left-liberal is to be found in socio-economic background, and especially in terms of parental education level and peer group socialisation.
And there’s the rub- because especially in certain academic fields there is an extent to which particular subjects select for people further up the socio-economic spectrum. If you come from a middle or upper middle economic background, you are far more likely to want to train or educate in a field which is personally fulfilling, rather than financial rewarding, and if you were born into lower or lower middle economic circumstances you are going to want to study a subject which provides a well-remunerated career. So social conservatives (regardless of political affiliation) within African American and Latino communities are far more likely to select for engineering, the law, medicine, business and other more lucrative fields, whilst their wealthier counterparts are going to want to study social science, psychology and political science.
This is crucial, because it removes the natural viewpoint diversity or heterodoxy which arises from class diversity as a second order effect. It likely helps account for many of the replication crises we are seeing in psychology or the social sciences. Similarly it robs Democrats of the ability to correct for many of the blind spots which they possess, politically. A focus on equity or inequality may play well on a college campus or in socially elite circles, but if you were going to pitch a concept which plays well to anyone who isn’t in the top 33% of household income it would probably be better to focus on fairness rather than equity, a rigged system and poverty- or especially on how to provide people with access to economic opportunity.
This has particularly provide implications in terms of the selection of political candidates. Amongst white liberals, especially suburban moms, Kamala Harris enjoyed enormous support, but amongst African Americans she had far less support than many other candidates in the Democratic primaries. As the presumptive nominee to replace Joe Biden as a presidential candidate Kamala Harris needs to create distance between herself and certain culturally progressive Democratic policies. In particular it appears that Democrats are losing the battle for hearts and minds in relation to CRT in schools, especially amongst Latino and Asian voters.
For Democrats, the message is clear- if they want to retain or regain votes in their core constituencies, they need to cut the cultural progressivism which is so popular in educated cosmopolitan liberal circles, and instead focus on popular areas like the minimum wage, childcare/child tax credits and universal pre-k.
For Republicans the message is equally clear, they need to hammer home of CRT in schools which have evidenced segregation by race. Whilst continuing to support charters, they also need to propose legislation which allows parents the chance to apply to the schools of their choice regardless of whether their local public schools are charters or public, and also bars schools from selecting students on the basis of locality. Instead selection could be based upon all manner of metrics from discipline and attendance, to behaviour and specific academic or non-academic abilities, or any number of other criteria- people further down the socio-economic spectrum care less more about ability and kids being rewarded for hard work by better schools, than the equality of outcome which so may Leftists seem keen to want to enforce. Perhaps the most important emphasis should be upon personal economics- did you and your friends enjoy greater economic opportunity under Trump or Joe Biden. Which parts of the country have grown economically, and which have suffered?
In general, Democrats need to listen less to the top 20% of the socio-economic spectrum who represent their thought leaders, commentariat and policy makers and listen more to the other 80% of Americans. The same is true of Republican but in another way, they need to stop being a party which represents donors and become one which represents people. Of course, the same is true of Democrats these days- especially within the corporate centre-Left- but it is just less readily apparent, given their suite of policy platforms.
Diversity matter, but in America it’s becoming more about socio-economic and the attitudes which emerge by class as a result, than it is about race and gender- at least underneath the patina of conventional politics. Most Americans are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that they have a class system, but the social stratification which has been occurring for the last thirty years, is becoming more ossified by the day.
Diversity is a wonderful thing. The race based discrimination promoted by Democrats is horrific. In this they are consistent with their 200+ years of history. The sad fact is that once they assume complete power, their useful idiots will be thrown overboard as has happened in every other National Socialist regime once power was consolidated.
Tyranny has never been a friend of diversity, nor can it be.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
"equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake"
OK. But where from and why has it become a more socially ordained construct? Has it really achieved this?
For it seems that diversity in a word is not clearly definable. It means something very different to each and all of us and a lot of this depends upon what we gain or lose from the loosely termed definitions of its directive. So we're best perhaps to see it as conducive toward a multicultural globalised world. In this respect it seems about conforming to a set of evolving changes directed long term toward a world society that is somewhat colourless, sexless and classless. If diversity is to be fully accepting of all as one and normalising all differences to a point of not seeing or of not feeling differences then the forward projection seems a goal set in sameness rather than one of loving others for their differences. That is not a fine line difference; that is a gulf.
In a certain context I'm pretty much a lived experience of diversity in that I'm from mixed parents and have a child of mixed race. An Asian wife. I have a business and I'm a self-employed freelancer and I employ and mix with different classes of people. I've spent almost 7 out of my 52 years abroad in adventure travel. But I chose to do all this before such social terms as diversity became specific ideal preferences of individual outcome. In that context I feel free to describe that lived experience as free association without design other than the liberty to explore, accept, evolve and participate. But never because it was specifically expected of people.
There is just this feeling of force in the popularised updated and promulgated version of a word that beforehand used to have a very extended diverse meaning within it. A natural diversity let's say. Now it's an order to accept minorities and sacrifice adaption from tradition to yield a new societal order that is inclusive of opening borders to accommodate and accelerate such a transformation. So in many respects we had a rich diversity in existence before it gave way to a titled and designed construct. It all depends upon context.
“ a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks.”
Maybe that’s why most of the intentionally-constructed famous rock and roll supergroups never panned out.
“ A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.”
This is very true. It’s important for engineers to get the input of the technicians and line workers who have to implement their designs. Some of the biggest engineering failures come from a lack of practical experience.
I'm afraid you'll get pre-K so government can "educate and socialize" your child without parental involvement, but we'll see less choice. Some people seem to think it wise to require two incomes instead of one just to live, while allowing government to raise children instead of parents.
If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen, as if people prefer one size fits none or groupthink to better outcomes.
Now that is controversial - the American class system - but true. Politically though, I would say it all balances out. However, neither party is focusing on the decision makers in America and by playing to the gallery they are not impressing the centre. This is where American elections are won and lost.
Diversity is a wonderful thing. The race based discrimination promoted by Democrats is horrific. In this they are consistent with their 200+ years of history. The sad fact is that once they assume complete power, their useful idiots will be thrown overboard as has happened in every other National Socialist regime once power was consolidated.
Tyranny has never been a friend of diversity, nor can it be.
diversity
/dʌɪˈvəːsɪti,dɪˈvəːsɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the state of being diverse; variety.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
2.
the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
"equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake"
OK. But where from and why has it become a more socially ordained construct? Has it really achieved this?
For it seems that diversity in a word is not clearly definable. It means something very different to each and all of us and a lot of this depends upon what we gain or lose from the loosely termed definitions of its directive. So we're best perhaps to see it as conducive toward a multicultural globalised world. In this respect it seems about conforming to a set of evolving changes directed long term toward a world society that is somewhat colourless, sexless and classless. If diversity is to be fully accepting of all as one and normalising all differences to a point of not seeing or of not feeling differences then the forward projection seems a goal set in sameness rather than one of loving others for their differences. That is not a fine line difference; that is a gulf.
In a certain context I'm pretty much a lived experience of diversity in that I'm from mixed parents and have a child of mixed race. An Asian wife. I have a business and I'm a self-employed freelancer and I employ and mix with different classes of people. I've spent almost 7 out of my 52 years abroad in adventure travel. But I chose to do all this before such social terms as diversity became specific ideal preferences of individual outcome. In that context I feel free to describe that lived experience as free association without design other than the liberty to explore, accept, evolve and participate. But never because it was specifically expected of people.
There is just this feeling of force in the popularised updated and promulgated version of a word that beforehand used to have a very extended diverse meaning within it. A natural diversity let's say. Now it's an order to accept minorities and sacrifice adaption from tradition to yield a new societal order that is inclusive of opening borders to accommodate and accelerate such a transformation. So in many respects we had a rich diversity in existence before it gave way to a titled and designed construct. It all depends upon context.
“ a team of diverse members with above average abilities will outperform a team of high flyers which is not diverse, at most, but not all, problem-solving tasks.”
Maybe that’s why most of the intentionally-constructed famous rock and roll supergroups never panned out.
“ A car mechanic is likely to provide valuable insights into a robotic AI project for the simple reason that he is more likely to possess a working knowledge of electrics and electronics, and have a high aptitude for physical engineering.”
This is very true. It’s important for engineers to get the input of the technicians and line workers who have to implement their designs. Some of the biggest engineering failures come from a lack of practical experience.
I'm afraid you'll get pre-K so government can "educate and socialize" your child without parental involvement, but we'll see less choice. Some people seem to think it wise to require two incomes instead of one just to live, while allowing government to raise children instead of parents.
If diversity improves performance, it is natural that it will take place without any force required to make it happen, as if people prefer one size fits none or groupthink to better outcomes.
Now that is controversial - the American class system - but true. Politically though, I would say it all balances out. However, neither party is focusing on the decision makers in America and by playing to the gallery they are not impressing the centre. This is where American elections are won and lost.