Diversity vs Competence

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01 ... ce-crisis/

Complex Systems Won’t Survive the Competence Crisis

...

In the first decades of the twentieth century, the idea that individuals should be systematically evaluated and selected based on their ability rather than wealth, class, or political connections, led to significant changes in selection techniques at all levels of American society. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) revolutionized college admissions by allowing elite universities to find and recruit talented students from beyond the boarding schools of New England. Following the adoption of the SAT, aptitude tests such as Wonderlic (1936), Graduate Record Examination (1936), Army General Classification Test (1941), and Law School Admission Test (1948) swept the United States. Spurred on by the demands of two world wars, this system of institutional management electrified the Tennessee Valley, created the first atom bomb, invented the transistor, and put a man on the moon.

By the 1960s, the systematic selection for competence came into direct conflict with the political imperatives of the civil rights movement. During the period from 1961 to 1972, a series of Supreme Court rulings, executive orders, and laws—most critically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964—put meritocracy and the new political imperative of protected-group diversity on a collision course. Administrative law judges have accepted statistically observable disparities in outcomes between groups as prima facie evidence of illegal discrimination. The result has been clear: any time meritocracy and diversity come into direct conflict, diversity must take priority.

The resulting norms have steadily eroded institutional competency, causing America’s complex systems to fail with increasing regularity. In the language of a systems theorist, by decreasing the competency of the actors within the system, formerly stable systems have begun to experience normal accidents at a rate that is faster than the system can adapt. The prognosis is harsh but clear: either selection for competence will return or America will experience devolution to more primitive forms of civilization and loss of geopolitical power.

...

Americans living today are the inheritors of systems that created the highest standard of living in human history. Rather than protecting the competency that made those systems possible, the modern preference for diversity has attenuated meritocratic evaluation at all levels of American society. Given the damage already done to competence and morale combined with the natural exodus of baby boomers with decades worth of tacit knowledge, the biggest challenge of the coming decades might simply be maintaining the systems we have today.

The path of least resistance will be the devolution of complex systems and the reduction in the quality of life that entails. For the typical resident in a second-tier city in Mexico, Brazil, or South Africa, power outages are not uncommon, tap water is probably not safe to drink, and hospital-associated infections are common and often fatal. Absent a step change in the quality of American governance and a renewed culture of excellence, they prefigure the country’s future.

I used to respect highly university professors, anyone with higher education. Today, what we have are mediocre college professors that have achieved their position due to their belonging to a racial or sexual minority. Their qualifications, in terms of merit, may have nothing to do with their position.

Academia today is just an echo chamber of like-minded Yes men. The only diversity is along sexual or racial lines, not intellectual or philosophical. Thinking differently from others is discriminated against.

I wonder how many people realize that almost all college professors today are expected to complete, every year, a very lengthy examination, with essay questions, designed to root out anyone that thinks differently from the Consensus. Ideological diversity is punished by Excommunication from the University system. You can be demoted or even fired if you do not believe as everyone else does. We see the same in social media, where censorship is the most prevalent influence upon content. Only news, opinions, and essays supporting a predefined agenda are permitted. Any evidence that does not support the foregone conclusion will be discarded or labelled "misinformation."

College professors are evaluated according to whether they are people of color, female, or a minority sexuality. These are considered a protected class, never to be criticized, no matter what they do or say. In fact, they have a blank check to say or do anything that they want.

These people on the Left that are so arrogant as to suppose they are 100% right about everything, all of the time, are not. They may discover that when Chinese troops are marching down their neighborhood streets. That time may not be far off from the present.

There's never been competence. There has been a group of people - white men from a wealthy background and the right family and schooling - with all the power and wealth and near monopoly on what is discussed and how it is discussed. They have been variously capable, but where they have failed, they have failed upwards.

When it was one white man from a wealthy background and the right family and schooling and opinion after another, no one was ever concerned about 'the best person for the job', because 'the best person for the job' was always the white man from a wealthy background and the right family and schooling and opinion. How could it not be? Just look at him!

The System, which was/is about reproducing the status quo, pretty much ran itself, so 'ability' or 'competence' never came into it.

The only difference now is such rules are being made explicit due to being flipped somewhat. People are being selected not just on their 'competence' but, apparently, how much they are not a white man from a wealthy background etc.

It's the mentality of men who see looking after their kids as 'babysitting', and I have no time for it.

Dirty water, power outages etc are nothing to do with competence and everything to do with who controls resources, funding, corruption, and cutting corners to make more £$£$£$£$£$£$.

No, we are talking about technical competence first and foremost. This is a real thing, not a social construct. You can't build a bridge that lasts a century or run complicated infrastructure with the magical powers of whiteness. You need real learning, experience and innate talent somewhere in the mix. This is what is being sacrificed on the altar of diversity.

While complaints of nepotism of the past no doubt have some justification, what we have now in the West is far worse in terms of results - advanced civilisation itself is at stake.

The other problem is, the backlash against experts.

In Britain anyway, experts have been ridiculed, demoted, excluded until they aren't respected anymore. Apparently no one needs experts, we just need 'to use a bit of common sense' and we'll be fine.

So that's another reason competence is declining: people with 'common sense' whatever that is, are being promoted to high up positions, instead of bona fide experts who have done years of training.

It's being sacrificed on the altar of money. Always is. Start from people not wanting to pay what it costs, to people taking a cut from that, to people low bidding and then subbing the work to others, who then cut corners on materials and techniques, all to get it cheaper.

UK rivers and beaches are not awash in sewage because water companies were forced to hire more black lesbians. Speaking of shitshows and nepotism, look at the PPE cashgrab. Michelle Mone was not paid fat stacks and stuck in the Lords because she's a woman and the Tories were on some diversity kick.

Yeah, it's a pretty weak piece.

The central issue is that it just doesn't support its thesis, that a crisis of preferring "diversity" over competence is making America less effective.

One of the few pieces of evidence it provides to support its thesis is a report published on the behest of Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) and three Republican Representatives (two of whom seem to be Cotton-level nutjobs). I was expecting, based on the author's description of it, that it would try to blame Navy accidents on diversity. Then I read it and... no, it doesn't. "Too much focus on diversity" is not one of the report's conclusions. Across 22 pages, there are three independent references to diversity:

None of this says anything about whether recruiting a more diverse range of sailors is negatively affecting the navy. Frankly, it's hard to see how it could. The obesity crisis has dramatically reduced the proportion of Americans who are qualified to serve in the military. Higher educational levels have simultaneously reduced the number of people inclined to serve. The US military needs everyone it can get - it isn't turning away competent people.

Similarly, why is the US government making more mistakes these days? Well, it isn't just the US government, it's every bloody government on the planet, starting at about the same time. It doesn't make sense to claim that governments the world over nearly all suddenly became less competent in the 1980s because twenty years earlier the US passed the Civil Rights Act. It seems more likely that other factors were in play - I can't say with any confidence what, but I'd suggest competition due to globalisation, declining prestige of civil service work in favour of the private sector, increasing awareness of considerations like human rights, regulatory burden, and the environment, and the ceaseless march of bureaucracy could all be factors. It isn't even an Anglosphere or a Western issue, Japan has arguably had an even greater decline.

The idea that global civilisation is on the brink of collapse because of diversity pushes compromising competence is the sort of idea that only makes sense if it confirms your prior presumptions. The evidence presented just isn't convincing.

For it's intended audience it doesn't need to be factually correct, it just needs to feel emotionally correct.



Exactly.

^Bingo.

Right off the bat, I love the article's assumption / assertion that diversity and competency are at odds often enough that it's causing a catastrophic system-wide failure of an entire civilization.

It almost sounds like it's being implied that:

- some groups are more likely to be competent than others.

- "non-diverse" individuals tend to be more competent than their "diverse" counterparts.

- the difference in competence between "diverse" and "non-diverse" individuals is a vast chasm of quality, so much so that choosing the one over the other is often a choice between prosperity and collapse.

It almost sounds like plain ole' bigotry, in the form of "(type a) people are just better than (type b) people", but expressed in the most wordy and roundabout manner possible, so it doesn't look as obvious.

Gotta keep in mind that some of these uppity whites in the Congress and around the white house , used to entertain the idea of Eugenics for lesser individuals or people , Deemed as Such . Oh wait aminute , am thinking they out sourced the Eugenics to Corporate America now ..very possibly . Have seen inside of many nursing homes in my work , and in seems the goal is to slowly a subtley mistreat , abuse or even starve our older generations and whatever knowledge base they have in them. People housed until they die , With the few that might have family left to look in on them, and then the inhouse nursing staff, comes up with excuses for acvudents or oversights in peoples healthcare ( en masse) in those nice nursing home institutions . Then you take healthcare for anyone over 40 ,
It is not geared towards health , is geared towards slow removal of health by only treating peoples symptoms ,not
trying to cure the cause.( It is absolutely NOT cost efficient) for the big medical org, and insurance Companys.
Or even ,all the way down to individual Doctors or nursing facilities.

I work in universities and while I don't dispute there is favoritism and plenty of bias, getting tenureship is extremely difficult and competition for positions is cut throat.

It takes a certain type of person to dedicate their life toward an academic career and the vast majority the children of the wealthy might get a foot in the door to attend university it does not mean they are cut out for a career in academia.

I totally agree with you. The altar of money is just getting more and more demanding too. And I agree about Michelle Mone I can't think why everyone in Britain isn't up in arms about that PPE swindle. Oh I forgot, it's all Tony Blair and Labour's fault. WTF

I suppose they're referring to what used to be called "positive discrimination" where they pick somebody for a job because of their ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc., which would be bound to get in the way of the criterion of competence.

I think that kind of thing is a mistake. But I'm not convinced that it's causing much economic decline. I think one of the effects is to incite racial/ethnic hatred in the people who aren't in these underprivileged groups. When a teacher makes it obvious that he has a pet, the pet gets a lot of flak for it.

If your in control or coordinating political and public offices,And you wish to maintain control of the populace that is supposably serving( controlling those same people) it can be a double edged sword to create diversity in the population. (NOT the kind you understand) it keeps the masses from coming together on important issues,
that would upset the coordinating org. . Maintaining situations of how they want things( profit) Large groups of various race , ethnicities,do not normally interact. So the public is kept in a weak position for all their lives. And Powers that be,hold onto power forever,and it becomes a nepotism of sorts, generationally.

Makes you kinda wonder, When Founding Fathers of USA wrote that constitution of the US, That opening line
that starts the document with the words "WE THE PEOPLE" possibly meant "Us of the Larger Corporate"....
blah blah..blah!
PS: that USA document was written before the Abolition of Slavery,just btw .

One of the more insidious aspects of this stuff is that all of the places you'd normally turn to for evidence are hopelessly compromised; the universities have completely bought in, the media won't air anything critical of diversity as a concept (both because they believe in it and because they're afraid of the activists), social media is hopeless, right wing media has its own issues, and any independent researcher who tackles it is immediately tarred as a bigot. Unless you're willing to entertain some "problematic" sources, you're not going to find anything "convincing", even if you're actually open to being convinced.

it is somewhat despairing that people choose to buy into what is essentially a myth.
Academic performance is integral/mandatory when applying for entry level positions (even teaching assistants or research assistants) in every globally ranked university in the world.

Even when you meet the stringent requirements you are competing against literally thousands of high quality applicants if it's a position in an Ivy league university. But even smaller Australian universities receive hundreds of expressions of interest for advertised positions

Only a fraction of university disciplines (perhaps < 1%) revolve around social/ethnic/political studies (like indigenous studies or African American studies) whereas 99% are non-political and not subject to any form of so called quotas.

if you live in Australia, Please stop relying on Sky news, if you live in the UK, GB news or the US Fox news, Megan Kelly, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro or other intellectual degenerates for your information.