[rayiner]

That logic is a hot mess. Why do you assume an implicit link between “different groups/identities” and “ideas?” It’s easy to accept your premise that everyone can contribute and that no group/identity is the “best.” But that just gets you to color-blind non-discrimination.

Your second point undoes your first point. “Ideas” can certainly be compared and ranked; there are good ideas and bad ones, ideas that have worked in practice and ideas that don’t work in practice. Defining people by “ideas” widely held by their group is a recipe for discrimination.

[bglazer]

I don’t assume a link between groups and ideas. Its something many people have observed. This is typically called “culture”.

The thing about people and cultures is that they are comprised of many different, often changing, sometimes mutually conflicting ideas. This why ranking people and their cultures is an impossible, asinine idea.

[rayiner]

Okay, let’s be concrete. What’s the “culture” of say Mexican Americans, and how would those differences make a team of Chinese software developers more effective?

Once you actually unpack this diversity idea it unravels. You can’t have it both ways. If you posit that people are basically the same regardless of identity group, then your notion of “diversity” being anything other than neutral makes no sense. But if you posit that people’s group membership makes them substantively different, then you’re inviting analysis of whether those differences are good ones or bad ones.

[bglazer]

I’m not interested in doing a rank ordering of racial groups.

You're setting up a false dichotomy: people are the same and diversity is neutral or some people are better and diversity is bad.

You seem to be assuming that its perfectly knowable which groups are “best”, and that we should therefore assemble teams strictly out of those people. My contention is that this is hubris and instead we should bring together lots of different types of people, then let them figure it out.

[rayiner]

We aren’t talking about “racial groups”—you shifted the conversation to “culture.”

So defend your premise. What is the “culture” of Mexican Americans (or any other group of your choosing) and how does that make a team of Chinese programmers better? That’s the central premise of “diversity”—that individuals from different groups are materially different—so give me one concrete example.

[bglazer]

Edit, sorry i think I misunderstood your post.

Are you asking about how a hypothetical non-Chinese person would improve an all Chinese team?

If so, I don’t presume to know. That would be up to the team members to find the ideas that best help them. This is the fundamental idea, put together different kinds of people and they’ll work out how to exhange cultural ideas in a way that works

[rayiner]

If you don’t know, why are you so confident your idea is right? “Diversity” posits that, for example, an all Chinese team would be improved by adding Mexican people. Feel free to substitute any other groups, if you like. This is an idea you apparently subscribe to, so why can’t you provide a concrete example, and instead speak only in abstractions?

The fundamental problem with your reasoning is that you’re taking on faith the notion that differences are good ones. There is no reason to assume that. If differences between people can be good ones, they can just as easily be bad ones.

[cubefox]

If you optimize for "different kinds of people" you cannot at the same time optimize for academic performance or IQ. You have to choose less capable people just to get more diversity. There is plenty of evidence that intelligence causes success on all kinds of measures, but I have never seen a study about racial/ethnic diversity causing success.