I don't think that's what I said. I just thought it would have been interesting to make the more general point about hype, bias and rigor. Maybe it's election fatigue, but I seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to any progressives vs conservatives discussions. Sorry if I seemed dismissive. I've been following you on podcasts and in writing …
I don't think that's what I said. I just thought it would have been interesting to make the more general point about hype, bias and rigor. Maybe it's election fatigue, but I seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to any progressives vs conservatives discussions. Sorry if I seemed dismissive. I've been following you on podcasts and in writing for years, and you always seem to have a better, more insightful, detached take on these issues – I hope to read more of them here.
If you use empirical data to argue why moral positions are good (like in the PNAS paper you mention: "[Our results] serve as an important call to continue the diversification of the medical workforce"), then you place the debate on empirical grounds, where, as an honest scientist, you should be open to changing your position in light of new evidence. Most wouldn't – and shouldn't – because the core argument for diversity rests on human dignity and equality, not performance metrics.
"because the core argument for diversity rests on human dignity and equality, not performance metrics."
And the core argument against diversity rests on the same things.
When it comes to basketball, no-one gives a fig for diversity. They seem to be happy for blacks to be "over represented" there. And theere is a reson why we are happy with that, because it can be proven scientifically that the mass of black men are better are basketball than the mass of peoploe from other races. But of course, we don't really resort to science in determining that diversity is not important in basketball. We hust know that the game wouldn't be as good if the players had to look "more like America".
What is important for human dignity is not enforced diversity, which by its very nature will exclude people of talent, but openess to diversity. Equality means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
I don't think that's what I said. I just thought it would have been interesting to make the more general point about hype, bias and rigor. Maybe it's election fatigue, but I seem to have a knee-jerk aversion to any progressives vs conservatives discussions. Sorry if I seemed dismissive. I've been following you on podcasts and in writing for years, and you always seem to have a better, more insightful, detached take on these issues – I hope to read more of them here.
If you use empirical data to argue why moral positions are good (like in the PNAS paper you mention: "[Our results] serve as an important call to continue the diversification of the medical workforce"), then you place the debate on empirical grounds, where, as an honest scientist, you should be open to changing your position in light of new evidence. Most wouldn't – and shouldn't – because the core argument for diversity rests on human dignity and equality, not performance metrics.
"because the core argument for diversity rests on human dignity and equality, not performance metrics."
And the core argument against diversity rests on the same things.
When it comes to basketball, no-one gives a fig for diversity. They seem to be happy for blacks to be "over represented" there. And theere is a reson why we are happy with that, because it can be proven scientifically that the mass of black men are better are basketball than the mass of peoploe from other races. But of course, we don't really resort to science in determining that diversity is not important in basketball. We hust know that the game wouldn't be as good if the players had to look "more like America".
What is important for human dignity is not enforced diversity, which by its very nature will exclude people of talent, but openess to diversity. Equality means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.