It does matter who it comes from because what someone doesn’t say is as useful as what they do say. If his critique of Boeing was more than just “DEI bad” I would be more inclined to take him seriously, but the dude clearly has an agenda and those with agendas tend to omit more information than they communicate
That's not a good counterargument! There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring. That can't be simply dismissed with DH1 [1].
In the first two cases as well, because if you take more time and invest more money for search, in expectation you find more qualified people without optimizing for the DEI tradeoff. We can't compare "DEI + more search" with "no DEI". We have to hold the amount of search constant for an objective comparison.
The comparison is simple: given that you want to hire a fixed number of people and you don’t want to lower the bar (hire based on merit), you can either not invest in DEI or spend extra time/money on getting diverse hires without lowering the bar.
Disagree. You’re assuming that the quality of hires is limitless. In practice it doesn’t work like that. Unless you have a good reason to want the next Einstein or even Jeff Dean, you can hire a more that good enough person with limited time and resources and even a diverse and good enough person if you throw in some extra time and/or resources.
The assumption is that more competent hires do a better job on average. Aerospace is not an easy field, but even in much more simple jobs competence matters.
Yes, more competent hires do a better job. But there is a limit to how much competence you can hire per person. That means there is a limit - or at least severe diminishing returns - to how much more competence money will buy you.
That means you can opt to spend that money on DEI without losing out on competence
What limit? If you optimize for DEI your hires will be less competent on average. Possibly substantially less competent. The difference can mean the difference between life and death.
You’re assuming I agree that all ad hominem arguments are bad. You cannot separate a person, where their beliefs have no sway over their arguments and they are perfectly logical. That’s like physics 101, imagine a perfect sphere kind of thing. I cannot take an argument in good faith when the person is presenting it in bad faith - even if I agree with it (which I sort of do, I think DEI stuff is mostly worthless, I just don’t think it’s why Boeing sucks).
The accusation of "bad faith" is either unsubstantiated or irrelevant or both. It's basically saying "I don't like your arguments, therefore I'm allowed to dismiss them by declaring them to be 'bad faith' arguments."
That neither shows that the "bad faith" accusation is justified nor that the arguments in question are wrong. It's not a counterargument. It's just a mixture of ad hominem and mere contradiction.
To reiterate: "There is a clear reason why DEI hiring is bad: It comes at the cost of merit based hiring." That's the argument. The "bad faith" stuff is irrelevant.
Yes I have. He is clearly against DEI and his entire post was about how DEI is bad and why things are bad. He is ignoring any of the other myriad things that could also be the causes of why Boeing sucks, even though he must be aware of them.
Yes, he is against DEI because he thinks there is evidence DEI is bad. That has nothing to do with bad faith.
And other people here in other threads are also ignoring alternative theories about what went wrong at Boeing, including the DEI theory. Yet you aren't holding that against them, aren't you?
