Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 3:03:22 pm
homogeneity = unhealthy
diverity = good
Trazal [Rhymes with Igloo]May 2, 2006 3:04:49 pm [NT]
Eck (Linkin Park isa Rollah Coasta)May 2, 2006 3:05:19 pm [NT]
GryxMay 2, 2006 3:06:22 pm
Fuck you, Trazal.
Trazal [Rhymes with Igloo]May 2, 2006 3:08:14 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 3:06:46 pm
*attempts to edit subject line*
hmm, what a useful feature that would be...
hmm, what a useful feature that would be...
Trazal [Rhymes with Igloo]May 2, 2006 3:10:40 pm
It was there before, I am sure you remember what happened..
PnbMay 2, 2006 3:11:00 pm [NT]
QarikMay 2, 2006 3:16:28 pm [NT]
GryxMay 2, 2006 3:07:50 pm [NT]
Silk [Judas was Framed]May 2, 2006 3:08:59 pm
Damn irish.
QarikMay 2, 2006 3:14:52 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 3:22:01 pm
but we must resist it. diversity in thought is what makes us flexible and creative and helps us to overcome challenges that we face. it is an esoteric thing so it is hard for many to see how this is the case, but it's been proven out time and again, especially in the business world.
and not to turn this into a political debate about the administration, but it bears reason to look at the failures of the Bush administration and to recognize that many of the mis-steps it has made were due to everybody agreeing and merging into group-think (the antithesis of diversity of thought). how else could you explain, for example, the Harriet Miers nomination and then withdrawal? Or the decision to invade iraq (as we have seen, much of the dissenting intelligence was probably filtered out before it even reached the president, largely because it was deemed irrelevant to his opinion/agenda. And we are still living the consequences of this.).
and not to turn this into a political debate about the administration, but it bears reason to look at the failures of the Bush administration and to recognize that many of the mis-steps it has made were due to everybody agreeing and merging into group-think (the antithesis of diversity of thought). how else could you explain, for example, the Harriet Miers nomination and then withdrawal? Or the decision to invade iraq (as we have seen, much of the dissenting intelligence was probably filtered out before it even reached the president, largely because it was deemed irrelevant to his opinion/agenda. And we are still living the consequences of this.).
QarikMay 2, 2006 3:15:59 pm
same with homogeneity
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 3:26:59 pm
at least when applied to organizations or groups.
of course "diversity" in something else, like cancer cells, would not be a "good" thing. but within the context of discussing the health of a nation or even a corporation, i do think diversity is good.
of course "diversity" in something else, like cancer cells, would not be a "good" thing. but within the context of discussing the health of a nation or even a corporation, i do think diversity is good.
QarikMay 2, 2006 3:36:29 pm
is "good". Does having different skin colors, genders, etc promote diversity of thought? To an extent yes. To that extent it is "good" for business. But again there is nothing inherently good about having physcially diverse mnake up of people in your business. It is really diversity of thought that helps a business.
Also do you think diversity is "good" for say a bee hive or ant colony? Or even say in factory where you have to keep very tight controls on processes, etc? There is something to be said for homogeneity as well. everyone is on the same page and there is no conflict.
but again there is nothing good or bad about either, they are what they are and are good and bad in different situations.
Take the race problem in the US. It is a huge deal. Of course iy would not exist if we were homogenious.
Also do you think diversity is "good" for say a bee hive or ant colony? Or even say in factory where you have to keep very tight controls on processes, etc? There is something to be said for homogeneity as well. everyone is on the same page and there is no conflict.
but again there is nothing good or bad about either, they are what they are and are good and bad in different situations.
Take the race problem in the US. It is a huge deal. Of course iy would not exist if we were homogenious.
Soth [Muninn and Myrddin]May 2, 2006 3:49:08 pm [NT]
QarikMay 2, 2006 3:51:25 pm [NT]
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 4:58:19 pm
that's what i was trying to get at here
if we are all forced to think the same, we lose part of what made us strong
if we are all forced to think the same, we lose part of what made us strong
Llotnarf [bun-length]May 2, 2006 4:57:39 pm
one's racial makeup can contribute to different thought patterns and perspectives, so it is part of it, but only a part.
what i was reacting to more here wasnt "racial" diversity but cultural and thought diversity. When it was said that we should all speak the same language because it would be easier, i was attempting to point out that thinking the same isnt necessarily a good thing. knowing and thinking in different languages does lead to diversity in thought. there's no way around that.
what i was reacting to more here wasnt "racial" diversity but cultural and thought diversity. When it was said that we should all speak the same language because it would be easier, i was attempting to point out that thinking the same isnt necessarily a good thing. knowing and thinking in different languages does lead to diversity in thought. there's no way around that.
Post Reply