A while ago a prominent reformer referred to calls for diversity and inclusive language as "bullshit." Another referenced the inherent tradeoffs one must make between rigor and diversity in science.

Short on why these statements --ethics and equity aside -- are just wrong

FIRST OFF: I think that pragmatics aside diversity is a good thing.. Inherently. For science, society, etc.

Let's shelve that, and ask whether it's a pragmatic good for science. If our ONLY goal is embiggening our science, is focusing on diversity a distraction at best?

1) Devezer ( @zerdeve) and colleagues model the scientific process. Focus on novelty? Replication? Theory tweaking?

Discovery is optimized when diverse strategies coexist...

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216125

2) Zollman ( @KevinZollman takes network epistemology approach. How does info flow through a network? Is it better to have central hubs? Full info flow?

Nah mate, it's good to have transient diversity, again. Don't wanna get stuck on the wrong ideas.

http://www.kevinzollman.com/uploads/5/0/3/6/50361245/zollman_-_transient_diversity.pdf

3) But surely you just gotta have lots of super geniuses and put them together and good things will happen?

Nah bro, individual geniuses are overrated and innovation happens with collective intelligence. Grow that group, let different ideas recombine! https://michael.muthukrishna.com/?smd_process_download=1&download_id=753

4) Of course, you can't just have token diversity in approaches...you gotta actually pay attention to the dissenters. Otherwise per O'Connor & Weatherall ( @cailinmeister) you get polarization, where cliquishness kills progress and stifles science https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13194-018-0213-9?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst&utm_source=ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst&utm_medium=email&utm_content=AA_en_06082018&ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst_20180818

Turns out there are lots of ways to build a scientific community that canalizes along false beliefs. Progress is impeded. False conclusions rule.

Too much conformity, too much polarization, not enough diversity.

Anyways, just working on a draft and seeing the same general conclusion pop up from really quite different sorts of models. And I get worried when I see the conformity and incipient polarization in scientific communities on here.

Cuz all the models are pointing to that being bad