Just reminded me of the soccer team I'm on. We're in the co-ed league, which means each team is required to have 3 girls and 3 guys on the field. There's also an all-guy and all-girl league, but if you want to have any kind of mix, you have to obey this standard.
Generally, the girls are worse at soccer in this arena than the guys (for several reasons, including that the soccer styles taught to boys/men focus more on aggressive play and individual skill, which works well on the tiny indoor field, while the girls focus more on teamwork and passing plays.) So the standard keeps teams on a pretty even level - but also forces some co-ed teams to dilute the amount of skill on the field with weaker players.
That's the idea exactly. We may (or may not) get something else that's of greater value in exchange for that requirement, but what we don't get is "a maximally skillful soccer team."
We may (or may not) get something else that's of greater value
And I think that given that men voluntarily join this group knowing their team won't be "maximally skillful" is pretty good evidence that they do believe they're getting something out of it of greater value. Of course, there are also more serious organizations for those who are seeking a maximally skillful team. But it seems pretty apparent that in here, and in plenty of other places, there's no need to "force" diversity. Some will come as a natural course of human desires. But also, in a number of areas, it will not occur naturally, and should not be forced, because I don't really care if it insults some groups, I want the squad of firemen coming to rescue me to be maximally skillful.
Something I didn't say explicitly, and maybe should, is that it doesn't matter who we're "adding" when we add diversity. What I've said above holds just as true for adding women to a largely male organization as does the reverse (or substitute races, or etc.): either pursuing diversity has no effect (if a diverse population is already optimal), or it decreases (as best anyone can tell) the organization's ability to satisfy the rest of its guiding principles.
Comments 4
Generally, the girls are worse at soccer in this arena than the guys (for several reasons, including that the soccer styles taught to boys/men focus more on aggressive play and individual skill, which works well on the tiny indoor field, while the girls focus more on teamwork and passing plays.) So the standard keeps teams on a pretty even level - but also forces some co-ed teams to dilute the amount of skill on the field with weaker players.
Reply
Reply
And I think that given that men voluntarily join this group knowing their team won't be "maximally skillful" is pretty good evidence that they do believe they're getting something out of it of greater value. Of course, there are also more serious organizations for those who are seeking a maximally skillful team. But it seems pretty apparent that in here, and in plenty of other places, there's no need to "force" diversity. Some will come as a natural course of human desires. But also, in a number of areas, it will not occur naturally, and should not be forced, because I don't really care if it insults some groups, I want the squad of firemen coming to rescue me to be maximally skillful.
Reply
Something I didn't say explicitly, and maybe should, is that it doesn't matter who we're "adding" when we add diversity. What I've said above holds just as true for adding women to a largely male organization as does the reverse (or substitute races, or etc.): either pursuing diversity has no effect (if a diverse population is already optimal), or it decreases (as best anyone can tell) the organization's ability to satisfy the rest of its guiding principles.
Reply
Leave a comment