If our decisions are to be based on science and logic
we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument.
An article from Concordia University.
I think there is a mix-up of cause-and-effect. You serve democracy – – tell me if I’m wrong.
Why does Sandra waste my time? this is inconsequential – – until you consider the consequence.
The inability to distinguish between cause and effect
ENABLES the Canadian status quo.
Very Serious Matters perennially receive lip service
In this illustration – – corruption.
I use the example of former Canadian Attorney-General, Jody Wilson-Raybould (I am not talking about racism.)
EXCERPT FROM THE ARTICLE
In those countries, power is enhanced by the complementary nature of two genders contributing. The added value of this complementary factor in business management, for example, has been the subject of several studies. One of them, entitled “Delivering through Diversity,” by American consulting firm McKinsey, suggests that businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better financially. (Why women leaders are excelling during the coronavirus pandemic from Concordia University.)
ASIDE: re McKinsey as reference. Corporate material has self-interest. Who typically climbs ladders in corporatocracy? The sex (male/female) of the climbers is irrelevant. There is abundant documentation of sociopathic, corrupt, propagandist behavior in large numbers of corporations. There is minimal basis for Trust. Researchers undermine their work by quoting self-interested sources. Put “McKinsey” into “search”, top right corner of this blog. )
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
IS there an error in argument, failure to distinguish between cause and effect?
Is it A: “businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better“? (which is used to support the argument that nations led by women are doing better at managing covid)
Could it be B: businesses – – entities, even families – – that are MORE EQUITABLE (impartial, fair, just) perform better?
If B is more accurate, one CAUSE of inferior performance in general in Canada, one that dodges sustained efforts to correct is corruption – – read on.
The status quo is enabled by incorrectly identifying equitable gender balance as causal.
IS IT an effect?
Women (not only women) can advance to achieve parity of opportunity where there is EQUITY and DIVERSITY.
Research shows that the decisions of a monoculture group will usually be inferior. That makes sense to me – – primarily one view, one sensibility reaches the table; people at the table largely agree with each other. Decisions are thereby shielded, whether the group is aware of their bias or not.
Introduce a different view and sensibility. What happens? Not always but likely, no matter how wrong “the gang” is and how right the interloper is, the interloper will be marginalized or edged out of the group. Others around the table don’t really process/hear the different view, or if they do, they rationalize it away. Some will go along to get along. Some will go along with the hope of future reward.
To me, the experience of former Attorney-General Jody Wilson-Raybould, familiar to Canadians, is an instructive example. There was no way for her to do her job in the Canadian political – commercial arena. The consequence was inferior performance of the – – Governing Body in this case. In spite of superior performance by Wilson-Raybould.
SNC-Lavalin is only one of the seriously corrupting influences in Canada. A critical mass of the persons at the table, regardless whether Liberal or Conservative, business person or politician, does not allow new entrants with different views to stray outside the limits. BUT WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENT VIEW DEFENDED BY WILSON-RAYBOULD?
The “diversity” that Wilson-Raybould brought to the table was perpendicular – – straight up – – insistence on the Rule of Law. She was the Attorney-General. A few others around the Cabinet table supported her. They are gone now.
The political-commercial power networks in Canada rationalize wrong behaviour. They are “loyal”; they “have each others’ backs”. The monoculture can make very bad decisions.
Impartiality, fairness, and justice, are impossible without the Rule of Law. Enforcement of laws is a critical component. They cannot be rationalized away.
HOWEVER, the necessary attributes (the Rule of Law – – no one is above the law) are anathema to those around the table, who like their power and their club members. Solidarity fortifies the status quo. Maybe it’s a survival tactic. A critical mass do not want to be ruled by the Laws, all things considered. The Laws are for the commoners, not them. They do not lead by example. In that circumstance the leadership has to come from the ground up, seems to me. There comes a time to say “enough is enough. You’ve gone too far.” Serious corruption, in all its various forms, takes us all down. Look around the planet if you have doubt.
It’s about two-tiered justice and people with money trying to receive a better deal from the political-economic system for their power group. The top guys at SNC Lavalin are not subject to the Rule of Law. Nor are the people to whom they make large contributions.
So, do “Businesses with a more equitable gender balance perform better ?”
NO. It is an EFFECT observed in groups with a strong ethic of
the rule of law.
Or, of a targeted program, for example.
If our decisions are to be based on science and logic
we had better be able to recognize sound versus unsound argument,
most especially amongst those who are custodians of our knowledge base (professors and teachers). They have a sacred trust.
We cannot afford to confuse effect with cause, if we are to progress as we must.
When an EFFECT is paraded as CAUSE we reward the power structure. They receive another free pass.
We refuse to address (research, in the case of the University) the ROOT of the problem:
CORRUPTION in its many forms.
Thank-you Derek for your Comment: Cause and effect are an endless chain. Any one cause creates a result which is the cause of the next result.. Difficult to say which comes first.