Really. What you think and what you do, how you were raised and how you were educated -- these often matter far more than age and gender -- though not always. Age and gender do also matter a bit. The consequence of being a naturally evolved being, is that such beings are inherently messy. Natural selection isn't fettered by dealing with too many details. The full parallel processing bandwidth of reality itself is the engine that runs the natural fitness function. It's certainly not limited by the particular moral/political wishes of Homo sapiens. (Also, our particular moral/political wishes, while they arose from evolution, should not be modeled on something so inhumanly amoral as evolution.)
But as far as being generators of value, it's mental factors which matter the most by far. This is why people should be judged by the content of their character.
> What you think and what you do, how you were raised and how you were educated -- these often matter far more than age and gender
But age and gender have huge effects on what you think and what you do, how you were raised and how you were educated.
To name just one example: because of Title IX, women who went to school in the U.S. prior to 1972 (tens of millions of people) had fewer opportunities in various sports, clubs, committees, activities, and even academic programs, than women to attended school in, say, the 1990s. These differences during childhood have produced differences in the careers, personalities, mindsets, and expectations of women of different generations.
This is just one specific difference in childhood that plausibly leads to different adult outcomes based on age and gender.
I haven't seen you provide any specifics. Instead what I see is vague pablum that reduces to "all people are different and each individual is unique." While that is true to some extent, by itself, that sentiment does not acknowledge or engage with the very real differences that people alive today experienced during their lives, based on their age, gender, race, ethnic background, nationality, etc.
> This is why people should be judged by the content of their character.
See, the problem is that you come out of a particular narrow formative experience too, which has affected your ability to neutrally judge the content of a person's character. You're not alone; it's true of everyone.
That's why looking at measurable diversity is important. The accusation that it's racist is beside the point; everything about human society in 2018 is affected by age, gender, race, etc. Intentionally and consistently considering diversity is how we consciously address and compensate for what would otherwise be hidden or unconscious bias and rejection.
You are right that mental factors matter most. But different mentalities are impossible to measure directly, and impossible to intuitively understand, because we are each limited by our circumstances. We know that different mentalities arise from different circumstances, so we must consciously consider a diversity of circumstances.
Instead what I see is vague pablum that reduces to "all people are different and each individual is unique."
I think that's a fantastic starting point!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." -- Thomas Jefferson
Reworded for the 21st century: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all are created equal; that they are endowed from their being with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
We know that different mentalities arise from different circumstances, so we must consciously consider a diversity of circumstances.
So why not just directly measure viewpoint diversity and strive for that, then? Also, a diversity of circumstances is not absolutely equivalent to a diversity of race. To pretend otherwise is also racist.
I think it's fantastic too, in that a) it would be great if the world worked that way, and b) it's a fantasy that the world really does work that way right now.
What you take as a starting point, I see as a distant goal that will take a lot of hard and uncomfortable work to reach.
> So why not just directly measure viewpoint diversity and strive for that, then?
By all means, go for it. If you can figure out how to do that you will become a very successful person.
> Also, a diversity of circumstances is not absolutely equivalent to a diversity of race.
Of course not, but in 2018, without any diversity of race in a collection of people, you will not achieve a diversity of circumstances that is representative of America.
a) it would be great if the world worked that way, and b) it's a fantasy that the world really does work that way right now.
It's not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot closer than it used to be. That quip from Blazing Saddles isn't a lie, you know. People used to want to work with Black people before they'd work with the Irish. Irish peasants were even poorer than contemporaneous American slaves! Now where has that attitude gone?
What you take as a starting point, I see as a distant goal that will take a lot of hard and uncomfortable work to reach.
By "starting point" I mean as a foundational principle. I certainly wouldn't disagree that humanity has far to go. We're not going to get there with an authoritarian attitude like, "The beatings will continue, until morale improves." The 21st century version is, "The toxic groupthink and mass-guilt by race will continue until attitudes around race improve!"
By all means, go for it. If you can figure out how to do that you will become a very successful person.
How about through a calm human analysis of internal message boards, accompanied by a policy of not firing people for reasonable opinions?
>Of course not, but in 2018, without any diversity of race in a collection of people, you will not achieve a diversity of circumstances that is representative of America.
Why does the population of every organization need to be a precise statistical match based solely on the average racial and sexual makeup of a country?
It seems like your argument against hiring people with diverse mindsets is that it's not easy to do; so we should resort to just looking at their skin color, their genitals, or the year they were born?
This may seem like a loaded question but I am genuinely curious and not sure how to ask it "properly": what is the "known difference" between someone who has lighter skin than someone who has darker skin? Or the known difference between sexes (other than genitalia, obviously)?
On a side note I want to say thank you for keeping this discussion open, honest, and civil -- conversations on this subject rarely are.
Really, not age or gender?