You’re getting downvoted for saying something sorta close to true, but not exactly. I agree strongly with everything you said here, though.
Generally, with any complex human-machine interface, you want to cast as wide of a net for accommodation as possible because there are so many variables that come into play.
Like if you are putting together a basketball team, you probably want a bunch of tall dudes, but you never know how many Muggsy Bogues’s are out there unless you let everyone play.
For a fighter pilot, would you rather have a female with greater ability to distinguish color, or a male that can pull higher g’s? It’s impossible to say what specific traits would lead to the best outcome in all possible engagements.
Even things like colorblindness can be a positive in situations because camouflage can stick out to colorblind people. Some types of deafness comes with immunity to motion sickness.
It’s really the fundamental mistake of thinking “I am a smart person, educated and trained in a specific discipline, and if I apply myself to a field where I’m an outsider, I’ll have a unique perspective that could disrupt the industry”.
There are obviously people who are multidisciplinary, and there are obviously multidisciplinary teams, but you can’t just step into a different discipline as an outside observer and come up with something that isn’t completely full of holes.
People who are good at multidisciplinary collaborations are really good at letting their inexperience show, but that requires a lot of humility. If you drop an MD or a college professor onto a construction site, and have them come up with a list of ways they would improve the process, 19/20 of their suggestions will be obvious garbage to even a new construction worker. The key is to actually bounce those ideas off the people doing the work, and then you get useful stuff. Again, though, that takes humility that is particularly hard to find in academia.