The case against Racism: Diverse teams are superior to homogeneous teams

Studies show diverse groups are superior to homogeneous groups when it comes to innovation.

Scientific evidence that racism really is an inferior ideology, and results in an inferior society.

 

Why am I hearing Crickets from the right wing?


Yeah even dogs that are mixed are more healthy, less likely to have a crazy disease when they get older or have their back legs go out, all kinds of things that mixed dogs are better at than pure breed. I believe mixed everything is the way to go, Communism mixed with Capitalism, colored mixed with white, Jack mixed with Dr. Pepper and so on.

 

From your article:

"Research has shown that social diversity in a group can cause discomfort, rougher interactions, a lack of trust, greater perceived interpersonal conflict, lower communication, less cohesion, more concern about disrespect, and other problems."

So, basically, you cherry picked one thing that diversity apparently helps with: innovation. It's your subjective opinion that this outweighs the negatives that it brings. It's also evidence of your confirmation bias.

 

It only causes discomfort, lower communication etc. obviously if you are a racist bastard who feels uncomfortable around other races.

 

Strange, the article didn't say only "racist bastards" felt that way. Do you have a source for your assertion?

 

Their physical attributes (their race) have nothing to do with it though. It is all about variance in minds. It is probable, indeed almost certain, you could achieve the same result by cobbling together a munch of people with the same physical attributes, so long as they all had a great deal of mental disparity.

 

Why brother and sisters should not marry, way too may left winger loons as it is..

 

So go see how a football team does with only kind of player. It has to be all quarterbacks, or all linebackers, or whatever. How's that gonna work?

 

From the OP: "socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups."

I'm trying to understand how your football analogy makes sense in this context.

 

The source? Basic logic

- - - Updated - - -

The South is known for inbreeding, not the North.

 

Conformity to a single ideal is not an efficient group dynamic. Even the military doesn't use it whenever they can afford not to.

 

That's not a source. Calling your opinion "basic logic" doesn't make it so, despite what you may think about yourself.

 

Too bad that normal, reasonable people have to work so hard to prove the above. But certainly, we live in a world where people's vision is darkened by fear, hatred and those who benefit by stepping on the hearts, minds and lives of others.

Still, be certain they (those who are violent, ruthless, crude and hateful) will be fought back... and in that is the overall hope of mankind.

 

But having taller/shorter, heavier/skinnier, faster/slower players on a sports team doesn't seem like a valid analogy to what the OP is talking about... which, essentially, is "an all white society is inferior, non whites make society better".

 

LoL There's so much fail in this article.

First of all it's not based upon a scientific study but as the author says, "This is not just wishful thinking: it is the conclusion I draw from decades of research from organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers."

So the author cherry picks certain studies and then misrepresents them. For instance the very first one she sources is this one: https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/mygsb/faculty/research/pubfiles/3063/female_representation.pdf

She represents it as claiming that having gender diversity makes the companies more innovative and successful. But that's not what the study says.

The study says, "We find that female representation in top management improves firm performance but only to the extent that a firm’s strategy is focused on innovation, in which context the informational and social benefits of gender diversity and the behaviors associated with women in management are likely to be especially important for managerial task performance."

In other words, in a company that is geared toward providing goods or services specifically for women, then having gender diversity in upper management is beneficial. Well no (*)(*)(*)(*).

She does this with essentially every study she claims backs up her point. In short, she's lying through her teeth because she has an agenda.

 

Nicely done. Much more in-depth than I was willing to go once I saw the author giving the downsides of diversity. I figured Sadistic Savior cherry picked the article and gave his classic "teh science agrees with meeeee!!11!" type response, but I wasn't expecting the author to be doing the same thing.

 

I only skimmed the article once I saw the highly unscientific code word "diversity" invoked. Note that to the leftacademy, "diversity" is code for the disfavored phrase "affirmative action," and only means inclusiveness of leftist core voting blocs in "quota-like" amounts where they are underrepresented for whatever reason. We never hear of appeals for more male teachers or white basketball players in the name of "diversity" somehow. Isn't that an amazing coincidence? "Diversity" doesn't seem to ever include socioeconomic diversity, geographical/national diversity, professional diversity, experiential diversity or other types of possible real diversity, but only and always diversity based on the most superficial of immutable characteristics, race and gender, specifically ALWAYS favoring blacks and women, and of immutable characteristics, only those that comprise leftist core voting blocs. "Let's have more gingers around here for the... diversity" is something you won't ever hear until redheads become a desired voting bloc of the left.

"Diversity" in the way the linked article uses it, is simply shorthand for "quota." Yawn.

 

Not all of them. I am the right wing. I'm a neocon.

 

Than have you noticed all the right wingers like Immortal and Brewskier saying you are wrong and the left wingers like me, Daybreaker and Johnny-C are saying you are right?

On this position, you fall to the left side. I commend you for that.

 

I wish universities would keep this in mind when hiring professors. The diversity of professors' poltical views is minuscule. Same goes for the Press. I wish that the Press would be more diverse....

 

So you think being a comfortable, happy family is more important than innovation, problem solving and progress? Sounds like lazy hippie talk.

 

An assertion is NOT Logic. You come to an assertion AFTER the use of logic. And in political forums such as these, you must prove that your logic is sound.

 

I'm not even convinced by that argument, as TheImmortal has shown problems with the argument the author is making. Quite a bit of innovation took place in the early 20th century (and earlier) when we had much less racial diversity than we have now.

 

Namely, the Industrial Revolution. We've really yet to see so much of significant process made in the past 40-45 years. Best thing is maybe the Computer/Internet, which is already a decade+ old from its infancy.

 

An all-anything society is going to be inferior. It doesn't apply just to race, but to everything. A society where everyone is uniform in religion, or uniform in culture, or uniform in art, or uniform in language, or uniform in anything is going to be inferior. At best, it might be really good at one thing but probably not even that.