I'm not reading through the 130 page preprint, but I grabbed this from the conclusion:
>Our results here show that the picture is more complex – when
>reduced to a single estimate, the average (linear) correlation between team diversities and
>team performances is too small to matter substantively. Instead, context matters. While it
>appears that diversity may benefit creative tasks, and that the diversity-performance link may
>be enhanced by a (team) culture that distributes power and values individuality, further
>research on this is needed – further research that measures diversity in line with a clear
>theoretical conceptualization, and that allows for non-linear relationships between diversity
and performance.
so yeah it seems that diversity isn't a benefit when you don't leverage it, and the relationship between diversity and performance isn't linear, which makes sense given that it's hard to quantify.
not a very surprising conclusion in my estimation, but yeah that graph does not communicate that clearly, at least taken out of context.
edit: formatting
Man, I gotta finish writing that publication...
So, this is actually something I was working on for my dissertation and I can speak to at least a subset of this.
Having looked at a bunch of different ways of measuring information/cognitive/expertise diversity (I'm going to gloss over this, but what people often try to talk about when they're discussing interdisciplinarity), there is absolutely a relationship that often gets lost or mixed results when you try to model it as linear.
The remarkably consistent results in my data of N ~1M, is that there's a kind of hill-shaped relationship. Expertise diversity tends to have the greatest benefit at moderate values rather than very high or very low values. One can think of it as needing enough diversity that people can bring different ideas together in useful ways while also sharing enough background to communicate and care about enough of the same things.
Important caveat: this does not speak to demographic diversity like race, gender, age, etc as I don't have that data.
What is cognitive diversity? Hiring a mix of dumb and smart people?
And what is job related diversity? Hiring a welder to manage sales and a HR person to drive the forklift?
In my research, cognitive diversity is different ways of thinking. Like how a mathematician approaches a problem differently than a physicist. In my research, I mostly focus on information and expertise diversity, which are likely related to cognitive diversity, but it wasn't especially important to what I was looking at. I can't guarantee that the authors of the paper in OP are using the same definition, since I haven't read it.
Similarly, I can't tell you what they mean by job-related diversity because I didn't read it, but usually this kind of research is looking at group or team projects. I'll probably read the paper at some point because it seems relevant to my work, but if I were to make a guess, they might have looked at multiple teams trying to solve similar problems and compared how diverse the members' jobs were.
If I were to operationalize it, I might do something very simple, like look only at teams of a set size and count the number of different jobs. If 10 people all have different jobs, that'd be a job-diversity of 10, compared to a job diversity of 1 if they all had the same job.
Definitely better to read the paper for the real answer though
In your research, do you think neurodiversity could relate to cognitive diversity? I assume this is not something you measure but just a question of your personal opinion.
So, there's the simple answer and the complicated answer.
The simple answer is 100% yes. If we use the definition of cognitive diversity that is "diversity in ways of thinking" and neurodivergent as something like "atypical way of thinking," then it's basically true by definition. Any combination of different neurodivergent and/or non-neuroedivergent ways of thinking would necessarily increase cognitive diversity.
The more complicated answer is what I think you're getting at, which are the benefits of neurodiversity as part of cognitive diversity. The answer there is going to be "it depends." It would likely depend on the neurodivergence, the task, the group dynamics, etc. On average, I would guess it follows a similar pattern as information/expertise diversity, but I've got no way of measuring or studying it. It's also not my area of expertise, so I would not be the right person to do that study.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/05/25/diversity-and-performance-in-entrepreneurial-teams/
Here is a published study on the topic that you might find interesting.
Might start calling this a pants plot (I know it's a funnel plot); just because this rendition looks like three pairs of green jeans hung out to dry.
But on some levels I think their meta-analysis ignores the fact that some teams may appear diverse but do not have a culture that enables them to realize the benefits of that diversity.
that's actually one of the conclusions they draw - the diversity-performance link may be increased with a team culture that promotes individuality and a more equal power structure
Which makes sense, since a company that has a very rigid culture will expect everyone to confirm to it, thus losing whatever different approaches more diversity might bring.
[PsyArXiv Preprints | The relationship between team diversity and team performance: reconciling promise and reality through a comprehensive meta-analysis registered report (osf.io)](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nscd4)
Love how the post shown looks like its trying to argue against diversity but it single handedly tears down the argument that diversity lowers performance. Short of people coming straight out and saying they dont like people of color the main argument is that diversity "PreVEnTs CoMPAnieS frOm bEiNG aBLe tO hIrE MoRE QuaLIFIeD CaNdIDaTEs bEcAuSe tHeYRe WhITe". Always crazy to me that the go to argument used by old people with pacemakers playing golf and eating potato chips is that it must be equal opportunity legislation and not that people of color can be more qualified for a position than a white man.
I don't know the full context of the post or the study, but this graph doesn't necessarily do what you say it does. I would expect most (hopefully all) of those studies to include metrics affecting performance as controls in the regression, in order to estimate the "pure" effect of diversity on performance. Basically, what the chart is almost certainly saying is that "*All other things equal*, diversity has no effect on performance"
The argument against diversity that you mention is specifically about those other metrics, *not* keeping all else equal. If diversity itself has no effect (as seen in the chart) *and* achieving diversity requires restricting candidate selection in a way that reduces the performance of the average hire, then the argument against enforcing diversity is technically correct
Did you go to the actual "X/twitter" post? I didn't see that in that poster's verbiage, but I just saw the insane data presentation and thought it would be perfect for here. Like "what do the colors of each of the dots even mean?" and "I know what p is, but why the hard jump(s) from 0.1 to "Not significant." Seems like it should be a continuum. The presentation, IMHO, is horrible.
0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 are standard benchmarks for statistical significance. I don't know what the dots' colors mean, but the rest is mostly fine for a meta-study
I don’t get what you’re not getting. Trust me, I know exactly how p value works. Yes, the chances of rejecting the null hypothesis, etc, etc My point which you keep missing is that you still have a finite chance of rejecting the null hypothesis and it isn’t a cliff … I thought I was dealing with people that understand that and I didn’t have to jump through my ass to pre-explain.. writing a full page article before posting an observation. ffs
In research, people generally set a p-value threshold, above which they state the estimate is insignificant. I would argue that 0.1 is actually pretty insignificant already. P-values below 0.01 or 0.05 are more significant but they are showing the gradient. You have to put the “not significant” line somewhere, it’s always going to be arbitrary, and after 0.1 feels more than high enough
As other posters have said, they are measuring non linear data linearly, which leads to poor interpretation of the results.
The pants plot (love that name someone coined it)
Job related diversity (whatever that is) seems to be neutral or positively correlated, so why not do it?
Cognitive diversity the same but less effective. Maybe, maybe don't.
Cultural diversity either very positive, very negative, or nothing. So maybe value would come from the context. WHY are these positive r squared, why are these negative?
>Job related diversity (whatever that is) seems to be neutral or positively correlated, so why not do it?
Yes, that should be the key takeaway here. There's no downside, so at best it's neutral (in which case, hire from across the direction because there's no advantage in monoculture) and maybe even has an upside (in which case, his a diverse group and maybe it will pay dividends, but it won't hurt you).
Either way, seems like the best option is to be diverse because it has no downside and allows for possible opportunities.
Sorry, your submission has been removed due to low comment karma. You must have at least 02 account karma to comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisugly) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This refute both left and right arguments on the topic. Its not hurting nor diversity brings some kind of new perspective to the company. I could say that without study.
that's not exactly in line with the authors' conclusions - they conclude that diversity can have an impact on performance in more flat power structures that value individuality.
I'm not sure exactly how much of an effect or which way, but it's not debunking any link at all between diversity and team performance.
I'm not reading through the 130 page preprint, but I grabbed this from the conclusion: >Our results here show that the picture is more complex – when >reduced to a single estimate, the average (linear) correlation between team diversities and >team performances is too small to matter substantively. Instead, context matters. While it >appears that diversity may benefit creative tasks, and that the diversity-performance link may >be enhanced by a (team) culture that distributes power and values individuality, further >research on this is needed – further research that measures diversity in line with a clear >theoretical conceptualization, and that allows for non-linear relationships between diversity and performance. so yeah it seems that diversity isn't a benefit when you don't leverage it, and the relationship between diversity and performance isn't linear, which makes sense given that it's hard to quantify. not a very surprising conclusion in my estimation, but yeah that graph does not communicate that clearly, at least taken out of context. edit: formatting
Man, I gotta finish writing that publication... So, this is actually something I was working on for my dissertation and I can speak to at least a subset of this. Having looked at a bunch of different ways of measuring information/cognitive/expertise diversity (I'm going to gloss over this, but what people often try to talk about when they're discussing interdisciplinarity), there is absolutely a relationship that often gets lost or mixed results when you try to model it as linear. The remarkably consistent results in my data of N ~1M, is that there's a kind of hill-shaped relationship. Expertise diversity tends to have the greatest benefit at moderate values rather than very high or very low values. One can think of it as needing enough diversity that people can bring different ideas together in useful ways while also sharing enough background to communicate and care about enough of the same things. Important caveat: this does not speak to demographic diversity like race, gender, age, etc as I don't have that data.
What is cognitive diversity? Hiring a mix of dumb and smart people? And what is job related diversity? Hiring a welder to manage sales and a HR person to drive the forklift?
In my research, cognitive diversity is different ways of thinking. Like how a mathematician approaches a problem differently than a physicist. In my research, I mostly focus on information and expertise diversity, which are likely related to cognitive diversity, but it wasn't especially important to what I was looking at. I can't guarantee that the authors of the paper in OP are using the same definition, since I haven't read it. Similarly, I can't tell you what they mean by job-related diversity because I didn't read it, but usually this kind of research is looking at group or team projects. I'll probably read the paper at some point because it seems relevant to my work, but if I were to make a guess, they might have looked at multiple teams trying to solve similar problems and compared how diverse the members' jobs were. If I were to operationalize it, I might do something very simple, like look only at teams of a set size and count the number of different jobs. If 10 people all have different jobs, that'd be a job-diversity of 10, compared to a job diversity of 1 if they all had the same job. Definitely better to read the paper for the real answer though
In your research, do you think neurodiversity could relate to cognitive diversity? I assume this is not something you measure but just a question of your personal opinion.
So, there's the simple answer and the complicated answer. The simple answer is 100% yes. If we use the definition of cognitive diversity that is "diversity in ways of thinking" and neurodivergent as something like "atypical way of thinking," then it's basically true by definition. Any combination of different neurodivergent and/or non-neuroedivergent ways of thinking would necessarily increase cognitive diversity. The more complicated answer is what I think you're getting at, which are the benefits of neurodiversity as part of cognitive diversity. The answer there is going to be "it depends." It would likely depend on the neurodivergence, the task, the group dynamics, etc. On average, I would guess it follows a similar pattern as information/expertise diversity, but I've got no way of measuring or studying it. It's also not my area of expertise, so I would not be the right person to do that study.
ah yes, the usual further research is needed
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/05/25/diversity-and-performance-in-entrepreneurial-teams/ Here is a published study on the topic that you might find interesting.
Might start calling this a pants plot (I know it's a funnel plot); just because this rendition looks like three pairs of green jeans hung out to dry. But on some levels I think their meta-analysis ignores the fact that some teams may appear diverse but do not have a culture that enables them to realize the benefits of that diversity.
that's actually one of the conclusions they draw - the diversity-performance link may be increased with a team culture that promotes individuality and a more equal power structure
Which makes sense, since a company that has a very rigid culture will expect everyone to confirm to it, thus losing whatever different approaches more diversity might bring.
... So diversity?
Data visualization unclear, just bought green pants for my entire team to improve performance.
Even simpler than that .... diversity is not meant to be there to "make teams work better"
[PsyArXiv Preprints | The relationship between team diversity and team performance: reconciling promise and reality through a comprehensive meta-analysis registered report (osf.io)](https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/nscd4)
Love how the post shown looks like its trying to argue against diversity but it single handedly tears down the argument that diversity lowers performance. Short of people coming straight out and saying they dont like people of color the main argument is that diversity "PreVEnTs CoMPAnieS frOm bEiNG aBLe tO hIrE MoRE QuaLIFIeD CaNdIDaTEs bEcAuSe tHeYRe WhITe". Always crazy to me that the go to argument used by old people with pacemakers playing golf and eating potato chips is that it must be equal opportunity legislation and not that people of color can be more qualified for a position than a white man.
I don't know the full context of the post or the study, but this graph doesn't necessarily do what you say it does. I would expect most (hopefully all) of those studies to include metrics affecting performance as controls in the regression, in order to estimate the "pure" effect of diversity on performance. Basically, what the chart is almost certainly saying is that "*All other things equal*, diversity has no effect on performance" The argument against diversity that you mention is specifically about those other metrics, *not* keeping all else equal. If diversity itself has no effect (as seen in the chart) *and* achieving diversity requires restricting candidate selection in a way that reduces the performance of the average hire, then the argument against enforcing diversity is technically correct
Did you go to the actual "X/twitter" post? I didn't see that in that poster's verbiage, but I just saw the insane data presentation and thought it would be perfect for here. Like "what do the colors of each of the dots even mean?" and "I know what p is, but why the hard jump(s) from 0.1 to "Not significant." Seems like it should be a continuum. The presentation, IMHO, is horrible.
0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 are standard benchmarks for statistical significance. I don't know what the dots' colors mean, but the rest is mostly fine for a meta-study
Yes, but once again the jump from .1 to NS is weird to me in the graph. .11 for instance is still 89% chance right?
That's not how P-values work. https://blog.minitab.com/en/adventures-in-statistics-2/how-to-correctly-interpret-p-values
I don’t get what you’re not getting. Trust me, I know exactly how p value works. Yes, the chances of rejecting the null hypothesis, etc, etc My point which you keep missing is that you still have a finite chance of rejecting the null hypothesis and it isn’t a cliff … I thought I was dealing with people that understand that and I didn’t have to jump through my ass to pre-explain.. writing a full page article before posting an observation. ffs
In research, people generally set a p-value threshold, above which they state the estimate is insignificant. I would argue that 0.1 is actually pretty insignificant already. P-values below 0.01 or 0.05 are more significant but they are showing the gradient. You have to put the “not significant” line somewhere, it’s always going to be arbitrary, and after 0.1 feels more than high enough
No, its just what im getting from the caption they put with it, i could be wrong but thats just how i took it
In fairness, when it comes to Elon’s Twitter, you’re more likely to encounter someone arguing *against* diversity than for it.
the OP of the twitter post frequently takes studies out of context like this.
As other posters have said, they are measuring non linear data linearly, which leads to poor interpretation of the results. The pants plot (love that name someone coined it)
Honey, wake up, new type of graph just dropped: presenting the Smelly Pants graph for all your business needs!
Where the pee splatters when I'm at a urinal that's the wrong height
“What, the curtains?”
Job related diversity (whatever that is) seems to be neutral or positively correlated, so why not do it? Cognitive diversity the same but less effective. Maybe, maybe don't. Cultural diversity either very positive, very negative, or nothing. So maybe value would come from the context. WHY are these positive r squared, why are these negative?
>Job related diversity (whatever that is) seems to be neutral or positively correlated, so why not do it? Yes, that should be the key takeaway here. There's no downside, so at best it's neutral (in which case, hire from across the direction because there's no advantage in monoculture) and maybe even has an upside (in which case, his a diverse group and maybe it will pay dividends, but it won't hurt you). Either way, seems like the best option is to be diverse because it has no downside and allows for possible opportunities.
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been removed due to low comment karma. You must have at least 02 account karma to comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dataisugly) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This refute both left and right arguments on the topic. Its not hurting nor diversity brings some kind of new perspective to the company. I could say that without study.
that's not exactly in line with the authors' conclusions - they conclude that diversity can have an impact on performance in more flat power structures that value individuality. I'm not sure exactly how much of an effect or which way, but it's not debunking any link at all between diversity and team performance.