He opens by stating that US diversity is a given -- it's not going anywhere -- so we need to find ways to turn diversity into a positive. That's a weak opening if you're trying to demonstrate that diversity is inherently a strength.
Next, Adams claims that it depends: diversity can be beneficial or harmful. Again, this is a lame argument if your point is to prove that diversity is a strength.
Adams argues that minorities know minority issues better than billionaires, and so are in a better position to know how a business should operate among minorities. In other words, diversity is needed to deal with the knowledge gap caused by diversity.
Next, Adams goes back to his original point that we don't have a choice about being a diverse society; it's a given. We have to deal with it. I'm becoming repetitive, but this, as before, is lame if you're attempting to prove diversity is a strength.
Adams compares the US to an organism that benefits from more sensors: We all see things from a different angle, so multiple inputs creates a more accurate picture. Few people, even educated people like Adams, realize there is tremendous diversity of this sort in even the smallest ethnic group. Heck, there is tremendous diversity in a single family. To illustrate, the variation in personality is almost as wide in a family as in a population. Is it your experience that families are overly agreeable? That members see all issues in the same way? I suspect your family is like mine: 6 people, 7 opinions.
Adam then argues that the US needs to standardize our language so diverse people can understand each other. In other words, we need to reduce diversity so we can tap into the advantages diversity offers.
Last, Adams cites the example of his start-up company WhenHub. He explains that the genius who has made the business a success is an Asian Indian immigrant. In other words, his company is a success because this partner is high IQ, like Adams. High IQ people working together is an example of homogeneity, not diversity. If Adams had hired a retard to complement his intelligence, that is diversity with respect to IQ.
Lame.
Adams, like everyone else in occupying ownership positions in Computerdom* is suffering from confusion between technical genius and rent-seeking genius. I talk about this and the consequences for freedom of speech in this video about the network effect.
ReplyDelete*This intellectual failure extends beyond Computerdom to the writings of Gregory Clark about the evolution of "intelligence" and "individualism". Civilizations tend to shift the cost of protecting property rights onto economic activity as the age, and this, in turn, tends to select for rent-seeking which is only a particular application/kind of intelligence.