| Edward de Bono once talked about how words become loaded with emotional connotations and value judgements to the point where it is hard to argue for or against certain positions. Eg: You can make an argument for or against a mixture of two things in differing ratios, but the moment you use the words "balanced" and "unbalanced" to represent the two states, the it is harder to argue for the "unbalanced" side. Likewise for "core" vs "surface" (de Bono's example) Who would want to argue against balance, 'core', or in this case, "diversity"?(What are you, some kind of bigot?). "Diversity" is automatically assumed to be a positive, before the argument on whether it is desirable begins, and there isn't a value neutral or value positive word that is its opposite. Specifically in this post, there are plenty of value laden words - 'diversity', 'meritocracy' etc put together to slant in a particular direction. Not much solid argument or content there - the power of the argument comes instead from the values attached to the specific words used, which makes it a bit iffy - Martin is a gifted writer and clear thinker - this just isn't one of his better efforts. [Due Disclosure: I know Martin from my days at ThoughtWorks. I respect him immensely and think he is a very impressive person, who has given me a lot of very useful advice on many occasions.] |