Is diversity as important as talent?

[ygolo]

There is a statistical notion regarding the wisdom of crowds with a particular mathematical definition.
See:

The Wisdom of Crowds

By Scott E. Page, PhD, University of Michigan How can diverse ways of thinking contribute to the ability of a collection of people to make [...]

www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com

The course, if you go through it all, and not just the wisdom of crowds, shows the diversity bonus in lots of situations (from improving models, to biodiversity, to problem solving, ...) using just straight math, argues to restructure to accommodate this bonus, and expounds on when you can or cannot count on a diversity bonus. It talks specifically about something called cognitive diversity, not identity diversity. However, cognitive diversity is a likely outcome of identity diversity from the sheer complexity of human beings (as again a small argument in the course says).

So what say you? Do you see the deep reasons why diversity is important as talent?

Here is the whole course, BTW:

The Hidden Factor: Why Thinking Differently Is Your Greatest Asset

Learn the strategies that make you a more diverse thinker and position you to break down institutional silos and build robust, effective teams, delivered by a pioneering researcher in his field.

www.wondrium.com

Also available in audiobook format:

The Hidden Factor: Why Thinking Differently Is Your Greatest Asset

Check out this great listen on Audible.com. From technology to business, two (or more) heads often prove to be better than one - but only if those heads are cognitively diverse. Diverse perspectives are a powerful tool for maximizing productivity and enhancing collective performance. Now, in The...

www.audible.com

This is the format I went through it.

 

[prplchknz]

I think neurodiverisity is very important. I wish I could say ethnic diversity isn't that people's talents will show their strengths regardless of their background but the world is a fuck that seems to reward straight white cis men. So even if a black person is more talented than his white counter part competing for the same job the white boy gonna get it.

Back to neurodiversity I think it is in important because it gives you multiple angles to view a problem and will help you figure the best way to solve it.

 

[ygolo]

I think neurodiverisity is very important. I wish I could say ethnic diversity isn't that people's talents will show their strengths regardless of their background but the world is a fuck that seems to reward straight white cis men. So even if a black person is more talented than his white counter part competing for the same job the white boy gonna get it.

Back to neurodiversity I think it is in important because it gives you multiple angles to view a problem and will help you figure the best way to solve it.

I hadn't thought of neurodiversity, but that makes sense too. The professor talks about cognitive diversity, but I believe neurodiversity leads to the same sort of situation.

 

[prplchknz]

I hadn't thought of neurodiversity, but that makes sense too. The professor talks about cognitive diversity, but I believe neurodiversity leads to the same sort of situation.

yeah i went with neurodiversity because being a neurodiverse person it's something i have more interest in than cognitive diversity. That being said take making a film for example you need people with all different skills and talents to pull it off. So couldn't the same principle be applied to math problems and other areas? wouldn't using cognitive diversity possibly help you find the answer/solution faster?

 

[Paisley]

My general sentiment would be:

Talent every time.

 

[Coriolis]

Talent is a tool which, like any other, can be used for good or for ill. Having diversity - of thought, background, personality, lived experience, etc. - is a hedge against the kind of groupthink that can lead to misapplication of even the best talent. Diversity is not a substitute for talent or skill, but helps ensure its constructive and successful application.

 

[ygolo]

@Paisley That is what a lot of people believe, but I think all those misfactors involve large groups of similar people (lacking diversity) or large groups of people not agreed upon regarding the goals of their group. As @Cor Luctis said, diversity is a hedge against group think. There can be also a straight bonus (go through the example of Netflix'x contest for the best model. The best models are actually a diverse group of models combined together). Regarding the original notion, there are whole courses based on The Diversity Prediction Theorem.

 

[Paisley]

@Paisley That is what a lot of people believe, but I think all those misfactors involve large groups of similar people (lacking diversity) or large groups of people not agreed upon regarding the goals of their group. As @Cor Luctis said, diversity is a hedge against group think. There can be also a straight bonus (go through the example of Netflix'x contest for the best model. The best models are actually a diverse group of models combined together). Regarding the original notion, there are whole courses based on The Diversity Prediction Theorem.

I was trying to make everyone laugh. Did you at least find them funny? They're demotivators. Juxtapositions. Making fun of our inherent stupidity.

I found this topic title to be funny, because, being talented is very diverse (your title is also worded incorrectly, it should say "Is diversity as important as talent?"). How are you defining talent and how are you defining diversity? When it comes to creative solutions, 2 heads are better than 1, 5 heads are better than 2, so long as they contrast. Being open to new ideas may be a better determiner to a more successful group, which bears with it humility and a purity of heart towards finding solutions. Intentionality first, cognitive skills second, and diversity third. Put one of each 16 MBTI types together in a room and make them solve something, and see how it compares to a group of ESFP's, of course the party would be more fun over in the ESFP room! lolz. I wonder if there are such MBTI studies? It's obvious that the diverse group, has a higher probability to see counterpoints, and find the best answer. Just try to win Pandemic with 2 players; too hard.

 

[ygolo]

@Paisley I got the juxtapositions, but didn't really find that funny. Maybe my funny bone is a little impaired.

Fixed the title too. I make many typos.

The more talented you are, the more models you have and the more diverse approaches you would bring as an individual, yes. Everything you said after is the point. I guess there is no disagreement or debate, then.

Although I have agreed with the points for quite some time, I wasn't familiar with the mathematical arguments for those points. Sometimes when starting out a field, you spend a lot of time proving the "obvious" just to make sure the formalism and intuition are matching. If you read the first parts of Euclid's Elements, a large part of the theorems are also just proving the obvious (though it turns out that one of the postulates can be easily changed for very different geometry).

We did win pandemic legacy with 3 players. Never tried two.

 

[Mind Maverick]

This isn't always correct, particularly when it comes to making predictions about other people. Most people assess others based on patterns they have repeatedly seen, instead of assessing them as individuals according to their own actions. This repetition is caused by a lack of divergence/outside of the box thinking, as well as social conformity/conditioning; people behave in X ways and others interpret it as Y because they've seen it 100 times before. Studies have shown that this kind of thinking has been linked to creativity. The end result is that when someone who thinks differently, thus behaves differently or comes from unexpected angles, comes along…people will just perceive them inaccurately due to assessing them as though they're the same as everyone else.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I apologize in advance if I overlooked some sort of information that would have changed that response — I skipped the vast majority of what the article said because if I'm honest I didn't have any interest in it. I got bored and skimmed through in an attempt to gather a basic overall gist of it.

 

[Paisley]

@Paisley I got the juxtapositions, but didn't really find that funny. Maybe my funny bone is a little impaired.

Fixed the title too. I make many typos.

The more talented you are, the more models you have and the more diverse approaches you would bring as an individual, yes. Everything you said after is the point. I guess there is no disagreement or debate, then.

Although I have agreed with the points for quite some time, I wasn't familiar with the mathematical arguments for those points. Sometimes when starting out a field, you spend a lot of time proving the "obvious" just to make sure the formalism and intuition are matching. If you read the first parts of Euclid's Elements, a large part of the theorems are also just proving the obvious (though it turns out that one of the postulates can be easily changed for very different geometry).

We did win pandemic legacy with 3 players. Never tried two.

@ygolo, you're enjoyable, that made me laugh; spelling out the obvious answer embedded in your question, and finding no humor in demotivators! What's your MBTI?

I've only ever lost playing Pandemic, even in a 6 player game, but I had a hunch you were the Pandemic type like me! Called it!

 

[EcK]

lol @ thread.
But yeah cognitive diversity is key. A group of self-motivated driven individuals is ideal. If everyone depends on everyone else for everything you just end up with, at best, the output of 1 team member with everyone else being a waste of space on the project, at worst a Frankenstein's monster of a product/project/idea. The most likely outcome is some bland collections of safe sounding bad ideas. So basically you want individuals who can handle projects on their own but will use other people's particular expertise when needed to fill gaps / improve output. But the vision should come from individuals not groups. Group planning always creates shitty outputs.

 

[Paisley]

lol @ thread.
But yeah cognitive diversity is key. A group of self-motivated driven individuals is best if everyone depends on everyone else for everything you just end up with, at best, the output of 1 team member with everyone else being a waste of space on the project, at worst a Frankenstein's monster of a product/project/idea and usually some bland collections of safe sounding bad ideas. So basically you want individuals who can handle projects on their own but will use other people's particular expertise when needed to fill gaps / improve output. But the vision should come from individuals not groups. Group planning always creates shitty outputs.

Yup. On Parks and Recreation, the team has to come up with a mural and they all like their own better than anyone else, so they compromise and use bits of everyone's mural and it looks like the picture on the right, lolz, then Mark Brendanaquits comes in and calls it a camel "a horse designed by a committee", and creates the picture on the left for them. Watch season 2 episode 9 of Parks and Recreation called The Camel, it's such a great exposition of this topic.

Some people's intentions are so unhealthy they are either inert or detrimental towards their role within the group and the group itself, that it doesn't matter how much cognitive diversity they have, they just want to bring everything crumbling to the ground and see Rome burn. A level of moral uprightness and a positive intention towards cooperative output is necessary to even begin any group work, as there has to be some sort of acceptance of the group and from the group to even begin.

As far as modelling, how does this sound:

Healthy Groups are Positive, Interdependent, and Cooperative - balanced and defined roles are used to produce creative solutions in keeping with those roles. Structure.
Unhealthy Groups are Negative, Dependent/Independent, and Uncooperative - One person is doing everything, and/or nobody is doing what they're supposed to. Structureless.

 

[ygolo]

Diversity of aims/goals can lead to chaos, but diversity in tools available to reach the same goals leads to robustness.

For society, I think the seeming diversity of aims is really a stabilizing effect of removing false aims. Everyone want the society to improve weather that is stated aim or not.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

That time they forgot to train facial recognition software on black people.

 

[Paisley]

Diversity of aims/goals can lead to chaos, but diversity in tools available to reach the same goals leads to robustness.

For society, I think the seeming diversity of aims is really a stabilizing effect of removing false aims. Everyone want the society to improve weather that is stated aim or not.

I resonate with that, makes sense. Perhaps even those people whose diverse aim to destroy the group, has a stabilizing and balancing effect on the group in terms of tearing down those things within the group that are negative and at the same time cauterizing those things that keep the group together, all of which is an improvement. Essentially, the negative people only make the positive people stronger.