This is dangerous junk science and is only having a counterproductive effect on gender relations by cheapening the achievements of women.
The same goes for other minorities who are treated like lesser people who need handouts.
This is the softest of sciences, minimally quantitative, non-experimentally verifiable and therefore subject to massive institutional bias - the same way that proponents of forced equity believe that the institutions they are fighting with have developed their own biases.
Equality of opportunity does not imply equality of outcome. But it doesn't matter - this post will likely be flagged because our own institution is increasingly biased toward certain unacceptable viewpoints - to the degree that we forbid discussion on nearly every popular forum. But you're only emboldening and recruiting extremists when you silence an entire alternative point of view.
Edit: Let me explain further, and justify my use of the word "dangerous." Let's forget for a moment the specific topic at hand. Imagine a field of study which is strongly influencing corporate and, local, state, and federal policy, which is simultaneously immune from criticism because of cultural norms.
That is where all of these pro-diversity and pro-inclusion studies are coming from. I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're wrong - only that systematically, institutionally, this is poor science and possibly leading society down a suboptimal path.
One side of the diversity and inclusion discussion is forbidden. We are forced, top down, to take it as a given that this is how things should be done. I cannot support alternative viewpoints with sources because researchers who would publish anything against the grain would be, in modern parlance, cancelled.
Here's the study [1]. If you want to discuss it, address specifics from it. Right now, you are simply coming in and spouting your personal political opinions in a detached and needlessly argumentative way.
Thank you for linking. Now I can confirm that the study is, frankly, bullshit. Ignoring the ridiculous sample size of 34, the "smells" are totally subjective. In fact one could argue in favor of each of them - this reminds me of open concept cargo culting:
Organizational Silo. Siloed
groups in the community that do
not communicate with each other,
except through one or two of their
respective members;
>1. Organizational Silo. Siloed
groups in the community that do
not communicate with each other,
except through one or two of their
respective members;
If I'm working on team A I don't need to know what literally every person on every other team is doing.
>2. Black Cloud. There is an
excessive information overload due
to the lack of structured
communication. This might lead to
a huge increase of data exchanges
across a community;
What? Lack of communication leads to excessive information? That doesn't even make sense.
>3. Lone Wolf. Unsanctioned or
defiant contributors who work in an
irrespective manner or regardless
of their team;
Where I'm from we call this initiative. I've been rewarded for showing it my entire life. This is not black and white.
>4. Radio Silence. One team member
interposes themselves into every
formal communication across two
or more sub-communities with little
or no flexibility to introduce other
parallel channels.
I don't even understand what this means.
None of the first three points are black and white, as they make them out to be. This is pure ideologically driven data mining playing off the stereotype of women being better communicators. Ironic.
Do you know of any studies on this topic that aren't "junk science", or do you just not like the idea put forward here?
In general it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that women might be better communicators than men in general, but I don't have any hard evidence for or against this.
It's likely going to get flagged because you discard the entire article as junk science without even vaguely addressing the points of the article or study and reverting to the same tired, outdated, and in this case irrelevant to the article, talking points.
I think it is you and not the article who is showing immense bias.
Here's an interesting summary of how usage of woke & SJW terminology dramatically increased in NYT publications since 2010 (alongside its increase in other forms of media).
It's a "divide and conquer" social engineering strategy to get regular people fighting each other based on in-borne traits (via tribalist psychological manipulation -- pervasive in our entertainment & political media currently) rather than teaming up to fight corporate control of politics, media, & the military industrial complex.
The same goes for other minorities who are treated like lesser people who need handouts.
This is the softest of sciences, minimally quantitative, non-experimentally verifiable and therefore subject to massive institutional bias - the same way that proponents of forced equity believe that the institutions they are fighting with have developed their own biases.
Equality of opportunity does not imply equality of outcome. But it doesn't matter - this post will likely be flagged because our own institution is increasingly biased toward certain unacceptable viewpoints - to the degree that we forbid discussion on nearly every popular forum. But you're only emboldening and recruiting extremists when you silence an entire alternative point of view.
Edit: Let me explain further, and justify my use of the word "dangerous." Let's forget for a moment the specific topic at hand. Imagine a field of study which is strongly influencing corporate and, local, state, and federal policy, which is simultaneously immune from criticism because of cultural norms.
That is where all of these pro-diversity and pro-inclusion studies are coming from. I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're wrong - only that systematically, institutionally, this is poor science and possibly leading society down a suboptimal path.
One side of the diversity and inclusion discussion is forbidden. We are forced, top down, to take it as a given that this is how things should be done. I cannot support alternative viewpoints with sources because researchers who would publish anything against the grain would be, in modern parlance, cancelled.