Does the Audience Hear the Same Message the Speaker Thinks He is Saying?

Many years ago in the book The Bell Curve by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, the authors made a point that struck me but didn’t get much press: welfare/anti-poverty/other do-gooder government programs are typically designed by elite college graduates for a target audience that is . . . not. The elite college graduate designers of government programs seem to assume that the target audience would respond to program features, including incentives, as they, the elite college graduates, would. But, as the book authors pointed out, the target audience usually has a very different background from that of an elite college graduate, lives in very different circumstances from a government employee from an elite college background, has different expectations, and thus may respond to government program incentives in very different ways than the program designers think he or she would. Hence government employees’ surprise when welfare recipients have another child when the welfare program pays a few hundred dollars a month more for more children or a mother kicks the father of her children out of the house when a program pays only if there’s no man in the household, or a trade school student stays in school for years when an education program pays him for the duration of training. The intended beneficiary of the government program may be hearing a message different from the one the designer of the program thinks he is saying.

During the pandemic shutdown of 2020, government authorities said, “Do not go out in public lest you risk infecting other people.” What I (and I think a lot of other mostly men, as suggested by suicide statistics) heard was, “Your very existence is a threat to public health, and your contributions to society are not significant enough to justify taking the risk of having you out in public.” Suicides resulted. My view is that the audience did not hear the same message the speaker thought he was saying.

The British government is currently expanding a campaign to take down tributes (statues, portraits) to historical heroes. This type of campaign has also been undertaken in the United States (and in the U.S. includes facility names). One explanation offered has been the hero’s association with slavery, even if slavery is not the primary reason for which the hero is known. The most recent British effort pertains to Lord Nelson (navy hero), citing his alleged association with slavery. But then the government also took down portraits of William Wilberforce, who was instrumental in restricting the slave trade. So, apparently, the story isn't really about slavery. The story became more about increasing “gender and ethnic diversity” in the tributes presented.

I presume the message in taking down tributes to accomplished historical heroes who are of one ethnic and sex group in favor of recent people of other ethnic and sex groups is supposed to be, “You, too, of any ethnic and sex group can become an honored person.”

But, is that the message the audience will hear?

Or do people of different ethnic and sex groupings hear, “Your ethnic and sex characteristics are more important and more valued for honor than are your achievements”? I anticipate a lot of people will hear the latter and decide to focus more on their immutable sex and race characteristics than on achieving great accomplishments. I see a significant risk that people will hear from the “diversity” advocates a message that their work and efforts are less important than their immutable characteristics of sex and skin color.

Is that the message the promoters of "diversity" want to communicate?

Are the promoters of “diversity” sure that their intended audience is hearing the message they think they are intending?