The genders are definitely equal in certain contexts. I said that there’s no guarantee that the balance will be perfectly equal across all contexts, if we accept that we’re not identical.
If you know that guarantee, I’m fine to check out the issuer.
Not a direct quote, but just the same really:
In any case the point stands, you started and continued with the pondering, not much about countering the papers and reports. Looking back, you just pointed at research that shows the difficulties when management is not really in favor of change. It is a bit like the big Republican racket of getting elected to show that they where right, that government is bad so they will get elected to ensure that. And so it goes for companies that keep finding excuses to continue to give preferential treatment to straight cis white men.
You did notice what Republicans in Congress got in the latest negotiations for funding? (yes, it was related to what we are talking here)
I don’t know that, if someone said, “Let’s look at the details.” That what they secretly meant was, “I bet that research doesn’t really exist, ha-HAH!”
I’d generally take it to mean that they were curious to look at the details. That’s the plain and obvious reading, no?
Via your posts, you’ve tertiarilly referenced probably several dozen papers. Over time, we might be able to go through all of those and find the ones that seem well executed and relatively definitive. But it’s infeasible to try and address all of them, all at the same time. It’s too easy to bounce around and avoid direct questions and, even if we assume that everyone would behave well, it would still just be confusing.
You introduced them. It’s your pick which to attack first.
Let’s remember that you declared that you wanted to see years of evidence on this. In general, logic says that more evidence coming out is good. hanging on to defeating one… is what many who want to delay change usually do.
And, well, already we did see what took place when I pointed at the evidence:
Then, later, I pointed at this one that showed that after a decade others do encounter similar results (And Discord is complaining that I posted this link already, so yes, the point I made later is a valid one, you are demanding what I already posted.):
Diversity Matters Even More is the fourth report in a McKinsey series investigating the business case for diversity, following Why Diversity Matters (2015), Delivering Through Diversity (2018), and Diversity Wins (2020). For almost a decade through our Diversity Matters series of reports, McKinsey has delivered a comprehensive global perspective on the relationship between leadership diversity and company performance. This year, the business case is the strongest it has been since we’ve been tracking and, for the first time in some areas, equitable representation is in sight. Further, a striking new finding is that leadership diversity is also convincingly associated with holistic growth ambitions, greater social impact, and more satisfied workforces.
For this report, the fourth edition of Diversity Matters, we drew on our largest dataset yet—spanning 1,265 companies, 23 countries, and six global regions, and multiple company interviews. We also extended our research and interview focus beyond the relationship between diversity and financial performance, for the first time exploring the holistic impact of diversity on communities, workforces, and the environment.
The business case for gender diversity on executive teams[1] has more than doubled over the past decade. Each of our reports—2015, 2018, 2020, and now 2023—has found a steady upward trend, tracking ever greater representation of women on executive teams. At each time point we have assessed the data, the likelihood of financial outperformance gap has grown: Our 2015 report found top-quartile companies had a 15 percent greater likelihood of financial outperformance versus their bottom-quartile peers; this year, that figure hits 39 percent (Exhibit 1).
This is starting to be reminiscent of climate change denial.
There are numerous studies all of which point in the direction that a diversity of viewpoints improves performance. This is the consensus view of social scientists, and also simply makes intuitive sense, for reasons like @Voyager’s anecdote.
To then say well unless I check each of these studies methodology individually and even then will probably need a bunch more studies before I can really draw a conclusion, suggests an ideological motive to reject the findings.
I’m rather curious about this book, “Quotes, Statements, and Declarations of Sage Rat”.
It’s one thing if it’s all just things I didn’t say (you’re free to search the thread for any such quote or statement), but I’m not even getting royalties?
The latest nitpicking on things like his “quotes” (and the last one was not, and yet, he complained about not knowing how many years of research on this has taken place, being told is never enough) is also one thing I do see coming from many deniers.
Before this thread I was not really sure about what was meant by equity. I spent 40 years running truck repair shops and hiring all the mechanics. I would get a lot of applicants where it was obvious they lacked language and social skills. I always took that into consideration and would very often hire them and work with them a bit more than I normally would. In most cases it paid off with very loyal hardworking employees.
Again, you’re free to find where I actually said this. Should I involve the mods?
I haven’t said otherwise so…?
So, I noted that that was not a quote, but a paraphrase, and you want to discuss this instead of the evidence? O well.
I was referring to the File Drawer Problem (publication bias).
Saying “I’d like to see replication of results to rule out the potential of publication bias” is not equivalent to “No one tracks this stuff. We have no history of information.” And I’m a bit skeptical that you genuinely misread it as such.
Well, it was not, care to check the reports and papers now?
That is not better, change what I said then to: replication was made, tracking that is not hard.
From the quoted McKinsey & Company report:
The business case for gender diversity on executive teams[1] has more than doubled over the past decade. Each of our reports—2015, 2018, 2020, and now 2023—has found a steady upward trend, tracking ever greater representation of women on executive teams. At each time point we have assessed the data, the likelihood of financial outperformance gap has grown: Our 2015 report found top-quartile companies had a 15 percent greater likelihood of financial outperformance versus their bottom-quartile peers; this year, that figure hits 39 percent (Exhibit 1).
YES, THAT’S WHAT I WANT TO DO.
Jesus fuck, man. How many times and how explicitly do I have to ask you to just link to an actual fucking study so that we can run through the details?
And then…
More avoidance.
So, then first study referenced in the first link and then we continue on chronologically? Second study in first link, third in first, first in second, etc.?
I thought that you’d prefer to find some champion studies that you felt to be unimpeachable. That feels less tedious to me, but I’m easy.
Well, the McKinsey & Company report is unimpeachable until someone does no?
Maybe we can take the discussion related to the studies here. So we can avoid getting the thread off track.
What a sorry position for a poster to take here. Lump people in a single category based upon your own biases, instead of what they post.
Done with you.
Totally