[jonbell]

If you know that putting four wheels on a car works better than putting three wheels on a car, that doesn't make you biased against three wheels. It makes you biased towards better results.

We know that "thought diversity" on a team, which can take many forms, has a short term drawback (team gelling doesn't go as fast) and long term advantages (more ideas, better ideas, better resilience, etc etc).

Read up.

[_Algernon_]

Is there any evidence that gender is a primary determinant of "thought diversity"? I'd expect other factors, including age, upbringing, ethnicity, etc. have much more of an impact on diversity. A woman and a man who grew up in the same suburbs, went to the same school, have studied the same, etc. probably have very similar ideas on most topics than two men (or women for that matter) who have completely different upbringing.

If thought diversity is what matters, a much better determinant is probably geographical distribution in upbringing and unique educational paths and unique previous employments (all of which can just as easily be estimated by a resume as gender).

[jonbell]

These are all reasonable questions. Here’s one paper of many that explains why the answer to your question is yes.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w

[computerex]

Diversity is good, but diversity for diversity's sake is not good. I think teams should be made based on merit, and if then the team is also diverse, all the more better. Although important, imo making diversity the most important criteria seems a bit misguided and somewhat idealistic although on paper and in principle it seems to be coming from a good place.

[jonbell]

Fair. This paper found the same thing. Women on teams leads to better results. But “token” members of teams do not. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-022-01389-w