On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Marc Perkel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I agree on interest diversity. Third world view needs representation. I'm from West Virginia, kind of third world if you've ever been there. NGOs, education, Libertarians, genius geeks, and hookers. Hookers are always being discriminated against.

But - I agree with the premise about a broad range of ideas. But I'm not sure that the source of broad range means gender/sexual preferences/ or the frequencies of light reflected off the surface of the skin. Especially since we communicate by email, I have no idea what color anyone is, nor do I care. If we go back 75,000 years we all come from Africa and humans are less genetically diverse than my 3 cats.

One person volunteered he was a white straight guy. This is a tech and policy forum. Color doesn't matter. There a plenty of women here and this list seems if anything slightly female dominate, so gender isn't a problem. As to sexual orientation, I don't see the world in terms of just straight and LGBT as if those were the only two sexual preferences. I like hippy women, geeks, prostitutes, and women from Craigslist. I have no idea if the BDSM community is represented. What about polygamy? Or celebacy?

I think we need a balance of 49ers vs. Ravens fans.

What about diversity of drug use? Or politics? Is America ready for a white president in 2016? Do we have enough Republicans in this group? I tried to find some anarchists but they didn't want to join. What about stupid people? Should policy only be made by people who are smart? Did you know that half of all people are below average?

This group already seems pretty diverse to me.  Are we missing any perspective?

Sorry - sometimes I get on a rant.

On 1/31/2013 6:28 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:

Not sure how it works on Kolob, but "discrimination" has virtually nothing
to do with this.  I think that's a spurious point.

The point is really about capturing the broad range of ideas that may
apply to policy making.  Regardless of individual talent, there may be a
narrow characteristic to the experience of any individual, and including
other individuals with other experience may allow the group as a whole to
"think" of some ideas or implications that it may not imagine without a
diverse group.  Some of those ideas may be the best ones, in the context
of a particular policy deliberation, or may lead to ideas that no single
participant would have thought of without the collective discourse.

I think this diversity is especially important geographically, but other
demographic variation is important too.

It's not about what is valuable to any individual in the opportunity to
participate.  It's about what is valuable to the group in having diverse
participation.  It's about a better group outcome.

If a sports team doesn't have a good diverse balance of athletic roles
(say, a basketball team with all centers and no guards, or vice versa), it
won't compete very well.  Policy teams have similar dynamics.

Dan



On Thu, January 31, 2013 6:12 pm, Marc Perkel wrote:

I'm leaning against the idea of diversity/discrimination in decision
making bodies unless there is a reason to do so. One can not assume that
discrimination exists by default. I don't know if you are talking about
this email group or not but I have no idea what color/gender/or sexual
orientation anyone on this list is. Nor do I care. I see it as a
distinction without a difference.

I myself am a cybernetic artificial life form from the future. I come
from the planet Kolob. We are an androgynous species. We reproduce by
mitosis, which is splitting in half creating 2 individuals. We are
either invisible or appear to be whatever shape we choose to make you
puny humans feel comfortable. We are a telepathic race and share a
singular consciousness. I communicate with you using a subspace
inter-dimentional modem.