Originally Posted by NedKelly
Can you link to them?
Because everything I can currently think of that had prioritised diversity in recent years has not been what I’d call “successful”.
Not really, heard it talked about on podcasts and maybe TV programmes. There were several examples of decisions that had been taken that completely cut out parts of the population because there was no one that thought like them in the decision making process.
It's a little bit like the problem AI facial recognition has with identifying non-white faces, because it was trained only to recognise white people. If your source data is not representative then the decision you make will be biased. In the case of a policy making group, their own experiences and prejudices make up part of the source data. It's common sense really.
Originally Posted by jem
I'm not disputing the principle. I just wondered why you think it needed saying in response to my comment. it's obvious that there is value in diversity, generally. however, the value is overrated, compared to competence. if everyone is competent, diversity can be a bonus. putting someone in a position primarily to increase diversity, even if that person is not competent, doesn't necessarily help the team.
so... yeah... it depends
Hence my opening two words
My point being, you could accept some people of lower competency in order to increase the diversity and it would boost the performance of the group as a whole. It's all about getting the balance right of course. The only thing Priti Patel was brining to any party is the view point of a poisonous, bitter and twisted sociopath, something the tory party is not short of.