[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-588266-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-588266-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","diverse-identities-are-irrelevant-to-science-by-john-staddon","Diverse Identities are Irrelevant to Science - by John Staddon","","“Diverse Identities are Irrelevant to Science” argues that identity diversity (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) does not meaningfully contribute to scientific progress. It challenges a widely cited PNAS study claiming a “diversity paradox,” pointing to missing evidence, logical and statistical limitations, and the tendency for non-productive guesses to go unpublished. The piece instead emphasizes traits such as persistence, shared goals, and expertise diversity, using examples from major scientific history to support the claim.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/diverse-identities-are-irrelevant-to-science-by-john-staddon/588266/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/diverse-identities-are-irrelevant-to-science-by-john-staddon/588266.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aditya","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-04","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":26},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What is the central claim about identity diversity in science?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The text argues that identity diversity does not contribute to science. It claims that scientific progress is driven by other factors rather than race, gender, or similar identities.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How does the text respond to the Hofstra et al. PNAS “diversity paradox” study?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"It argues the study’s conclusion is undermined by logical problems and by questionable assumptions about what diversity implies for scientific success. It also contends that the “paradox” depends on an unproven claim that diversity always improves science.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What does the text say is more important than innovation or diversity?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"It emphasizes persistence, tolerance for failure, and shared goals. It also suggests that expertise complementarity can help progress, while “bad guesses” are rarely published and therefore do not appear in such datasets.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},588266,1792064873,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":26,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":79,"read_time":123,"preview_page_count":4},962085564549,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","DOI: 10.51845.36.2.8  \nDiverse Identities are Irrelevant to Science  \nby John Staddon  \n“Identity diversity” (race, gender, sexuality, etc.) makes no contribu  \ntion to science. The evidence comes from history, anecdote, and from science itself. Science was invented by avery non-diverse group of mostly white males. From Newton through Maxwell, Helmholtz, and Charles Darwin it was a homogeneity of culture, if not race, that led to the novel set of beliefs and practices we now call science. With a few Asian exceptions, such as Srinivasan Ramanujan, Jagadish Bose, and others, science is a product of a shared European Enlightenment culture.  \nAnecdotes and simple logic also show that a relatively homogeneous group focused on a widely recognized problem, especially a problem in a controversial area, is likely to interact more freely and creatively than a self-consciously “diverse” collection of people, constrained possibly by others’ sensitivities.  \nAnd finally, science. On April 14, 2020, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a widely cited article by B. Hofstra and five co-au-  \nthors, supported by three National Science Foundation grants, a grant from a Dutch science organization and a Stanford University computing facility. The article purports to show the virtues of race and gender diversity for scientific productivity. But it may in fact demonstrate just the opposite.  \nIn summary, the authors write:  \nDiversity breeds innovation, yet underrepresented groups that diversify organizations have less successful careers within them. Does the diversity paradox hold for scientists as well? We study this by utilizing a near-complete population of~1.2 million US doctoral recipients from 1977 to 2015 and following their careers into publishing and faculty positions. [emphases added]  \nSince essentially every Ph.D. dissertation was included in this study, science is defined very broadly indeed.  \nIt is worth noting that a “diversity paradox” exists only if we accept the unsupported claim that diversity always makes for better science. There is no hard data to support this idea and, as pointed out above, some contrary indications. The diversity paradox evaporates if the qualification criteria for minorities  \nare less stringent than for others—as often seems to be the case. If selected minorities are in fact on average less well qualified, the fact that they “have less successful careers” is no surprise. Thereis no “diversity paradox.”  \nThe Hofstra et al. study claims to contradict this conclusion by showing that in science “underrepresented groups”are more innovative than others, so that their lesser career success is because“their novel contributions are discounted.” But before looking at the data, it is pretty obvious that there are logical problems with the whole approach.  \n“Innovation drives scientific progress” the authors proclaim, which is partially correct. Yes, scientific advances are innovative, but that doesn’t mean that all innovation represents a scientific advance (this is called “affirming the consequent,” a basic logical error: a scientific advance is innovative, but an innovation may not be a scientific advance) . What favors discovery is variation: trying out many things in the hope that one of them (a novel one, obviously, but one of many) is correct. The bad guesses don’t count, are rarely published, and are not part of this study’s data set.  \nAn exception is behaviorist B. F. Skinner in his important paper “A case history in scientific method.” The paper describes in entertaining detail the combination of trial, error, and luck that led to his discovery of the Skinner box and schedules of reinforcement and their many applications. Perhaps more familiar is the story of how the double-helix structure of DNA was discovered by  \nWatson and Crick, not by a flash of innovation or a suitably diverse team but by two clever and persistent people trying out lots of possibilities:  \n[It] meant takin","cbCaijpdAVrAxGk6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijpdAVrAxGk6","pdf",54918,"English","# Argument overview\n## Identity diversity and scientific contribution\n## Critique of the Hofstra et al. study\n## Innovation vs. scientific discovery\n## Historical examples and emphasis on persistence","[{\"question\":\"What is the central claim about identity diversity in science?\",\"answer\":\"The text argues that identity diversity does not contribute to science. It claims that scientific progress is driven by other factors rather than race, gender, or similar identities.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the text respond to the Hofstra et al. PNAS “diversity paradox” study?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the study’s conclusion is undermined by logical problems and by questionable assumptions about what diversity implies for scientific success. It also contends that the “paradox” depends on an unproven claim that diversity always improves science.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the text say is more important than innovation or diversity?\",\"answer\":\"It emphasizes persistence, tolerance for failure, and shared goals. It also suggests that expertise complementarity can help progress, while “bad guesses” are rarely published and therefore do not appear in such datasets.\"}]","Diverse Identities are Irrelevant to Science - by John Staddon | PDF"]