13 ms·

I just finished reading "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Jonathan Haidt which has an interesting discussion of what "diversity" means and this post reminded me of

by 100k 17y ago

I just finished reading "The Happiness Hypothesis" by Jonathan Haidt which has an interesting discussion of what "diversity" means and this post reminded me of that. Haidt argues there's two kinds of diversity: demographic and moral. People who want demographic diversity are arguing for he inclusion of previously excluded groups. Moral diversity is a lack of consensus on normal norms and values, and Haidt argues no one can coherently want moral diversity (e.g., if you are pro-life, how can you want there to be a diversity of views on abortion with none dominating?) In his article Patrick touches on this I think. Some people want Silicon Valley to be more demographically diverse for reasons of justice; but they would not feel comfortable if that diversity led to moral diversity. People want to associate with others who think and believe like themselves.

blahedo 17y ago
...if you are pro-life, how can you want there to be a diversity of views on abortion with none dominating? I don't think it's incoherent to recognise that I don't always have all the answers, and that I need occasional or frequent reminding that I might be wrong---which will presumably not come unless there's someone who disagrees with me. Furthermore, thoughtful people change their minds on things (which is why accusations like "flip-flopper" are so ludicrous), and if I agree with everyone now, what will happen when I change my mind on something later? I, at least, really do value moral diversity as well as demographic diversity.
- 100k 17y ago
  First off, I doubt you would say that about anything you feel very strongly about, otherwise what is the point of holding that belief? To expand a little bit, Haidt argues that too much moral diversity leads to anomie, in which the condition in a society with no clear rules, standards or norms. This is the case of when there is "too much" individualism, and it is very difficult to achieve happiness without a coherent social structure. "In an anomic society, people can do as they please; but without any clear standards of respected social institutions to enforce those standards, it is harder for people to find things they want to do. Anomie breeds feelings of rootlessness and anxiety and leads to an increase in amoral and antisocial behavior." Though he is a liberal, one of his points in the book is that the relentless pursuit of individualism without regard to shared values leads to unsatisfying lives.
  - blahedo 17y ago
    Dude, please respond to what I said, not to what you think I must have meant. It is not incoherent to acknowledge that one's beliefs, even one's very strongly-held beliefs, might be wrong. Yes, I think that I'm right, I'm pretty darn sure I'm right, but what if I'm not? And I'd never find out unless I, at least sometimes, let people who disagree with me try to convince me they're right.
    - 100k 17y ago
      Sure, that makes sense. That's not what I'm saying about anomie though. Do you want to live in a world where your strongly held beliefs are dominant (not exclusive, but dominant) or in one where you are in the minority? Haidt is saying a person would not want to be in the minority. They may _believe_ in a minority moral opinion but their goal is for that moral opinion to become a majority opinion, not for it to languish forever.

by 100k 17y ago

blahedo 17y ago

...if you are pro-life, how can you want there to be a diversity of views on abortion with none dominating? I don't think it's incoherent to recognise that I don't always have all the answers, and that I need occasional or frequent reminding that I might be wrong---which will presumably not come unless there's someone who disagrees with me. Furthermore, thoughtful people change their minds on things (which is why accusations like "flip-flopper" are so ludicrous), and if I agree with everyone now, what will happen when I change my mind on something later? I, at least, really do value moral diversity as well as demographic diversity.

100k 17y ago
First off, I doubt you would say that about anything you feel very strongly about, otherwise what is the point of holding that belief? To expand a little bit, Haidt argues that too much moral diversity leads to anomie, in which the condition in a society with no clear rules, standards or norms. This is the case of when there is "too much" individualism, and it is very difficult to achieve happiness without a coherent social structure. "In an anomic society, people can do as they please; but without any clear standards of respected social institutions to enforce those standards, it is harder for people to find things they want to do. Anomie breeds feelings of rootlessness and anxiety and leads to an increase in amoral and antisocial behavior." Though he is a liberal, one of his points in the book is that the relentless pursuit of individualism without regard to shared values leads to unsatisfying lives.
- blahedo 17y ago
  Dude, please respond to what I said, not to what you think I must have meant. It is not incoherent to acknowledge that one's beliefs, even one's very strongly-held beliefs, might be wrong. Yes, I think that I'm right, I'm pretty darn sure I'm right, but what if I'm not? And I'd never find out unless I, at least sometimes, let people who disagree with me try to convince me they're right.
  - 100k 17y ago
    Sure, that makes sense. That's not what I'm saying about anomie though. Do you want to live in a world where your strongly held beliefs are dominant (not exclusive, but dominant) or in one where you are in the minority? Haidt is saying a person would not want to be in the minority. They may _believe_ in a minority moral opinion but their goal is for that moral opinion to become a majority opinion, not for it to languish forever.