From your example - how does the military "unify" a diverse group of people? By aligning their thought processes and decision making. That is, by removing that very diversity.

The two words also mean literally the opposite thing. You can be along a spectrum from one to the other, but you can't have both at once.

What a bizarre thought process. Unification towards a common goal isn't homogenisation. Neither is common training or experience.

Talking of bizarre thought processes - how can you unify, and/or receive common training or experience, without losing some form of diversity?

We all love to say how true diversity is diversity of experience. You are literally taking about unified, shared experiences.

I just don't follow your reasoning here. Is it your contention that a new experience deletes or diminishes previous experiences? Or that newly learnt knowledge diminishes that previously learnt?

Surely a new set of common experiences increases the diversity of thought of all the participants? Nothing's lost.

>Surely a new set of common experiences increases the diversity of thought of all the participants?

This statement is absurd on its face. The entire premise of the benefits of diversity (of thought and experience) is predicated on the subjects in question having had unique experiences.

>Is it your contention that a new experience deletes or diminishes previous experiences?

Somewhat, yes. When I went to university, the shared experiences there hugely overshadowed what I had experienced in my prior education.