Who Do You Think You Are?
It is an easy enough question, but is it a simple answer? At least for me, I don't think it is very easy to answer, because it depends on which aspects I am looking at. Sometimes I think I am a good person, sometimes not. Sometimes a success, sometimes an abject failure. Sometimes I feel I am valuable to others, often times, not. There are many sides to me.
Is diversity valuable?
No.
Diversity is not valuable. Unless....
We first define what is diversity.
diversity
/dʌɪˈvəːsɪti,dɪˈvəːsɪti/
noun
noun: diversity
- the state of being diverse; variety.
"there was considerable diversity in the style of the reports"
a range of different things.
"newspapers were obliged to allow a diversity of views to be printed"- the practice or quality of including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds and of different genders, sexual orientations, etc.
"equality and diversity should be supported for their own sake"
The first definition is valuable. The second is not.
Diversity of thought and experience is valuable, because it allows for multiple perspectives to be included into the development of a solution to a problem of some sort. It includes not just thought diversity, but also skill diversity, where a number of potential approaches can be fronted and distilled into a better fix. The second definition of inclusion based on social, ethnic, gender and sexual orientation is largely useless, because none of those things inherently bring in diversity of skill or thought into the solution. They are labels, with no practical application.
Yet it is this second definition that is used when "diversity" is considered in the workplace or society, under the assumption that the colour of someone's skin or who they desire, automatically makes them valuable to the community, or less valuable as the case may be. What it is actually doing is creating the conditions that are diametrically opposed to what most people think it is doing. Where rather than being inclusionary, it is excluding valuable diversity in favour of assumed difference.
A high-level mathematician that is gay, isn't valuable to society because they are gay, they are valuable because they are able to do mathematics. Another gay person interested in math doesn't need a gay role model in math to be good at math, they just have to work at being a mathematician, regardless of their sexual orientation. This is the same for any skill. But excluding a gay mathematician because they are gay, is equally idiotic, because finding the best solution requires including the best thoughts and skills.
What do you bring to the conversation?
If you think that because you are gay, straight, black, yellow, blue, short, tall or have scaly skin, you are valuable to the conversation, you are mistaken. Yes, these things could affect your experiences in life to bring different perspectives, but it is not a given that you learned anything of value to others, or if you are actually willing and able to bring that experience to the table to add value to the conversation. In terms of a community, we are only as valuable as what we are able to build within the community. If you can build nothing, what value do you have?
Build comes in many diverse forms, but if we look at it from the old tribal perspective, there were the hunters, the gatherers, the builders, the teachers, and the healthcare providers. A diverse set of roles, each with different skill requirements to be good at the position and each part of a greater whole. In order for the tribe to function, all these roles and skills would need to work together for the common good of the tribe. And in order to advance, each role would have to learn from its diverse experiences and bring the value back to the tribe, to discuss and build outward.
Looking at modern culture though, where is the common good for the tribe? and this creates a problem, because we are increasingly foregoing tribal good of humanity to satisfy personal desire. I suspect that not many of us spend much time thinking about the value we bring even our local community, let alone the global tribe. Yet, we probably "feel" that we are valuable in some way, that our life matters in the greater context of the world. At least to the people around us. This is a big assumption.
So, who do you think you are?
Are you a value creator? A hunter, gatherer, builder, teacher, healthcare provider? What is your role in society and what diversity of thought or skill do you bring to the discussion? How are you improving the community around you and what are you doing in the world that is larger than you?
Or do you think you are valuable because of a superficial label?
Superficial
/ˌsuːpəˈfɪʃl/
adjective
- existing or occurring at or on the surface.
- appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely.
Rather than superficial diversity, perhaps we should focus our attention on gathering people of substance.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
Interesting and thought provoking post. First of all, I think I am a builder. I have been a software engineer for over twenty years and part of that time my title was solution developer. I am now a solution architect. I built many applications and some from over twenty years ago are still in use which amazes me...
In terms of diversity I am not included in that program in America because I am white and male. The fact that I have an accent and come from a different part of the world would have potentially indicated that I would be more likely to bring a diversity of thought than those who grew up here but we're of African American background.
Yes, it sucked that I didn't get those diversity scholarships or hiring quotas, but long term it didn't matter as I got everything based on merit and being special and protected handicapped those who were part of the diversity and inclusion programs...
I think we should aim for a balance where everyone's special talents are praised without letting societal labels take the spotlight.
Hmm, you are right. Life has taught many of us many things. Like you said, we can't say because of other beliefs, choices, faith, and status. we decided to judge them even when we needed their help on a subject matter.
Knowledge is profitable, no matter who is wielding it. It is just that the personality of the person knowledgeable also matters.
If it is a subject matter who free them to mentor, but their personalty must be overlooked.
Who we are on the inside and on the outside matters to how we deal with issues around us, and it will determine how far we will go in life.
Your post made me want to evaluate my own contributions. Who am I? Am I creating value, or just existing? I really need to give this perspective a thought. Thanks for bringing it up.
Interesting perspective! I agree that true diversity goes beyond labels — it’s about bringing together different ways of thinking and problem-solving. When diverse skills and experiences merge, innovation naturally follows.
This is what is driving our (USA) current pushback on DEI. It has been largely exclusionary in an effort to be inclusive. And it has largely resulted in less diversity of thought, which is the actual benefit sought.
In a related tangent, there is some advantage in having unity of purpose, which is what unites the hunter and the gatherer. Diversity of thinking might improve how they go about doing what they do best. But unity in purpose is what keeps the whole working together. Too much diversity of thought can result in pursuing fruitless purpose. There should to be a balance. Or, at the very least, time for that diversity to find its place within the village culture. Too much diversity too fast can be overly disruptive.
I think science is a great example in that it is largely indifferent to a person’s background. So long as they can produce repeatable results by other scientists, the knowledge is assimilated. Yet, science requires a certain degree of rigor and indoctrination into how to discover new things. It’s diverse, yet rigid.
That's all very true on the theoretical level. On the practical lovely unfortunately, it's not even close. The superficial diversity has a huge effect, to both directions. DEI on one side, racism and such on the other, leading to a huge loss of potential. Taking away many resources. It's a good addition to one if your other posts. What if we weren't so focused on superficial diversity, and would use both the potential as well as the resources towards something that creates real value to humankind?