Jump to content
Science Forums

The pitfalls of diversity


HydrogenBond

Recommended Posts

I grew up during the hippie era, when the walls of discrimination started to fall. This was the love generation. At that time, the dividing line of the youth shifted from racial and ethnic discrimination to what was called the generation gap. The young people were trying to do the opposite of the previous generation and embraced all the diversity, with each aspect part of one family.

 

In more modern times, the integration process was reversed due to misguided compassion. The idea of ethic pride, may make some people feel warm and fuzzy, but it creates inherent pitfalls for many people.

 

I would like to explain these pitfalls with an example. Say one was an Amish and are conditioned to have ethic pride. Although this is warm and fuzzy, this can become a pitfall to one's future in the main stream. In the Amish culture, they don't have much use for modern technology, so if one wanted to become a computer scientist, and even they have natural ability, one's early training in that culture, would not fully prepare them for their future. Instead it would create an early disadvantage. In other cultures that embrace technology, the children get to play with technology early and are already two steps ahead. The Amish pride means he has start two steps behind and play catch up.

 

This situation is no different than being brought up to play the piano from youth. We compare this to a child who wants to play, but does not have the opportunity until later in life since he has to have pride in a situation that doesn't do music.

 

One case in point are the afro-americans. African culture, at its root, is tribal; the hood is a tribal unit. If we look at the state of the countries within Africa, these tribal roots tend to lead to third and fourth world countries since tribes don't merge. Even if a young black person is brilliant, too much ethnic attachment can lead to social disadvantages, within a culture that is geared for the first world. It is similar to the Amish student who would like to build computers, but doesn't have the chance to even play with technology until age 21. His odds for success go down, even if he is a brilliant young person. He has to work twice as hard just to play catch up.

 

Back in the hippie years, the youth formed its own culture, that was geared toward social change. This equipped all the integrated ethnicities with the same stuff. They went out and helped with change. Liberals separated this evolving unity back into retro diversity because it felt nice. Many of these culture makes it harder for talented people; Amish computer scientist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I believe in diversity but in a far different way than other people. I believe intelligence is an utterly humongous factor in people's effectiveness in almost every vocation. However I don't believe that obtaining knowledge is the meaning of life. Thus I often picture the most intelligent people using their abilities to provide a paradise for a large number of blissfully ignorant stupid people.

 

It deeply disturbs me when those occupations associated with creating that paradise are staffed with people using any non-objective reasoning like "Affirmative Action". The truth is similar reasoning is used all the time to select people for occupations. Playing favorites is the universal standard in our society, when it should be meritocracy. Who is the most effective should be the only hiring criteria for any job that matters. Then it wouldn't matter that the brilliant worker of one race didn't know the cultural standards to better have friendly discussions with the boss of a different race.

 

Instead in our society we empower the ignorant idea that "People skills" are more important than effectiveness. This opens the door for people hire or promote anyone they want for prejudicial or racist reasons. Of course it's easier to see the abilities of someone you often spend time identifying with. And it's easier to identify with people you have more in common with. The only thing that should really matter is, are they bringing results.

 

When favorites are played, efficiency suffers. The economy as a whole suffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However I don't believe that obtaining knowledge is the meaning of life. Thus I often picture the most intelligent people using their abilities to provide a paradise for a large number of blissfully ignorant stupid people.

 

My personal view currently is that life itself is only meaning of life, and to remind this is not anything to underestimate. Mind and thinking are just tools helping us to live lives. But if one thinks that life is not the meaning..then we can create whatever "artificial" meanings of life on top of life itself .. but these should not be mixed with life and its meaning itself. There have been arguments that human have meaning to it´s life because it can think more efficiently compared to other animals but what "superlative meaning" "more effective thinking" would give for life compred to life itself? The problem with creating artificial meanings for life on top of life itself is that it ends up to the fact that you also create meaningless when you create additional meanings. Let´s say your life meaning is sports or scientific work, if you loose mobility or you loose your intelligent skills life become´s meaningless...due artificial life meaning creation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The Latin term E pluribus unum means from the many, one. All the best of cultural diversity (pluribus) was originally place within a single melting pot (unum). This created a more versatile soup of cultural eduction, which can lead to more options in life, since the soup reflects the best of the best.

 

For example, not all cultures are known for their cooking. Or rather, there are some that have the most good meals such as Italian, Chinese and French. E pluribus unum means all these are part of your cultural options, so one can eat the objective best, and not eat only the subjective best based on cultural bias.

 

Diversity is similar to the Henry Ford assembly line (specialization) mentality. Each group is told to be happy at their position in the assembly line of culture. The melting pot of E pluribus Unum is more like the versatile workers, who know something about all the jobs in the line, and can therefore move about the line. These tend to the be the one's who are promoted to managers since they can relate to all the jobs.

 

Here is another analogy. We have two professors, one is a specialist in history and the other in physics. Both are very good at what they know. However, they can't really communicate to each other, efficiently, at their high levels of expertise. They might still be able to communicate well with neutral topics. But being teachers and professors who love their specialty, their instinct is to teach the other, making each big ego feel smaller being near the other expert.

 

Say we had a professor who had a double major in both history and physics, he can move back and forth at the highest level with each, as well as become a bridge between the two specialists.

 

Diversity restricts by default. At the same time, not all places in the assembly line of cultural diversity are the best jobs on the line. The utility worker (unum) is not stuck anywhere on the line, but gets to move about, making life wide open.

 

The democrats were the ones who set up the assembly line by removing the ingredients from the melting pot. This was due to the short term nature of emotional thinking. Say we had a new guy who comes to the assembly line. If we move him about the many jobs in the line, that can be stressful in the short term, since he will be awkward and needs to move up many learning curves. But in the long term, he might become the line foreman.

 

If we think short term, we may "feel" sorry for his immediate discomfort and try to place him where he is comfortable. This will win the battle, but in the long term, he may be stuck in that one place in the line. Once you become pigeon holed the pressure is not just at management but also from fellow workers who feel betrayed if you leave the line. Now if someone the assembly line of cultural diversity wishes to move, it is much harder from above and below.

Edited by HydrogenBond
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...