5 ms·
> the "dangers" of multiculturalism, gender and ethnic diversity I don't know if "dangers" is your word or his, but it's been shown (a priori and a posteriori)
by factsaresacred 9y ago
> the "dangers" of multiculturalism, gender and ethnic diversity
I don't know if "dangers" is your word or his, but it's been shown (a priori and a posteriori) that multiculturalism and ethnic diversity erodes trust and causes social strive.
This is opposed to cultural pluralism, where a dominant culture exists and tolerates additional values that don't erode or threaten the dominant culture.
The reason I comment is because I sense once again an attempt to shame Thiel for his views rather than parse them for merit. During last year's election we had a similar form of hysteria in these threads because Thiel dared to exercise his right to donate to a cause he supports.
Really wish this 'shame as an argument' tactic would cease.
Edit to provide evidence of the 'downside of diversity': http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
- sdoering 9y agoAnd your unquoted "proof" is gathered exactly how? You state something as a standing fact without giving us the ability to check the stated facts (and underlying methodologies) ourselves. So it seems to me that people using arguing strategies like you just seem to have done are eroding "trust" in a rational discussion more then anything else. Tactics like these are well below what I personally would classify as honorable discussion.
- factsaresacred 9y agoCalm down. I'll happily provide proof, I simply didn't want to overload my initial response with quotes and links: > Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. "The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist. http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
- VeejayRampay 9y agoYou should consider reading about the rest of the research on the matter, or the words of Putnam himself: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357 http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says... One study isn't enough in isolation. Reproduction, vetting, counter-studies, discussion and scientific engagement is what matters on the long run.
- factsaresacred 9y agoI have read that. He concedes the study is valid and the problems real and difficult. Then he adds his own opinion that nevertheless it's worth it. > In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.” “well worth the effort”. That's pretty subjective. I'm sure many would like to avoid "fragmentation and distrust" in the first place. > One study isn't enough by itself. There are many similar studies: "A higher degree of ethnic diversity is associated with a higher incidence of civil conflict" - https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/02.09.07/Matuszeski-JMP.pdf https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/02.09.07/Matuszeski-JMP.pdf I mean, this stuff is intuitive for anybody with a sense of history. To be clear I'm not arguing against diversity per se. I raise these points to encourage us (as a society) to discuss - and not emote - these issues honestly.
- VeejayRampay 9y ago> I mean, this stuff is intuitive for anybody with a sense of history Intuitive has nothing to do with fact, plenty of factors might heavily influence what one considers "intuitive". For a lot of people the necessity of the death penalty is "intuitive", yet for many societies, it's an absolute no-brainer that such practices are medieval. So again, unless there is a corpus of studies, all pointing in the same direction, with all the environmental factors completely eliminated using double-blind or other proper scientific methods, we cannot really conclude anything.
- coldtea 9y ago>And your unquoted "proof" is gathered exactly how? You state something as a standing fact without giving us the ability to check the stated facts (and underlying methodologies) ourselves. Discussion also implies trust. People don't have to bring evidence for everything they say, especially when other people can very easily look up relevant information online.
- omginternets 9y agoThis whole comment thread is (ironically) a succinct illustration of the original point: it's difficult to evaluate claims about "multiculturalism" on merit, because people get touchy.
- burnte 9y agoIt's not my word, I think being exposed to other cultures and people is important and beneficial.
- asymmetric 9y agoGot some references to back up your argument?
- factsaresacred 9y agoYes. Updated my comment.
- rb666 9y agoAny credible source for your bold statements? Otherwise we can conclude the Russian trolls have also infested HN.
- factsaresacred 9y ago"Everybody that disagrees with me is a Russian troll". I weep for critical thinking.
- te_chris 9y agoAnd we all weep for your woeful efforts to present thinly-veiled bigotry as fact.
- curtisblaine 9y agoThe poster did provide references on this thread an hour ago.
- VeejayRampay 9y agoThe absolute irony of a post on an account whose handle is "facts are sacred" that just declares that "multiculturalism and ethnic diversity erodes trust and causes social strive" without providing any form of justification, proof, actual study about the subject, without thinking about the pre-existing bias that might exist in society to make that all of that difficult on a daily basis. Weak sauce.
- akhilcacharya 9y agoThis is exactly how ethnic nationalism in America becomes normalized. Reminds me of the kid who protested in Charlottesville explaining that he wasn't a racist, he just really hated mass immigration and the ensuing diversity after 1965 (which was when immigration became accessible to non Europeans..).
- curtisblaine 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
- akhilcacharya 9y agoThis is an actual slippery slope. Proposing drastic cuts to legal immigration would have gotten laughed out of the mainstream Republican party in the Reagan-Bush-Dole-Bush era.
- omginternets 9y ago>This is exactly how ethnic nationalism in America becomes normalized. Sounds like you're preaching censorship, both of speech and of research. Is this really the position you want to take?
- whatyoucantsay 9y agoThe poster did provide references in response to your comment on this thread an hour ago and you responded to it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15711131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15711131
- calcifer 9y ago> I sense once again an attempt to shame Thiel for his views You say that like there is some sort of hidden agenda. Personally I think there is nothing even remotely wrong with shaming Thiel for his deeply intolerant views. In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- stass 9y agoAnd what exactly is intolerant in Thiel's views?
- indubitable 9y agoJust because an individual opines on something doesn't somehow turn it into a sudden irrefutable fact. And that wiki article is completely devoid of examples aside from giving a number of other views on the topic - in which literally every single one disagrees with him. It's no different than arguing that the key to solving violence is violence. Wrapping a layer of specious logic around it makes it no more reasonable a suggestion. It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence, yet many remain blind to the fact that intolerance too breeds intolerance. We have two ends of political extremism today. The many things they have in common include the fact that they both are completely intolerant of the other side as they consider the other side completely intolerant. And as the mutual extremism grows, so too does the self righteous intolerance. That's going to end well...
- icebraining 9y agoIt's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence On the contrary, we created an official group tasked with dealing out violence (the police) because it's generally accepted (whether it's true or not) that some violence must be met with violence.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 9y agoIt is rather less clear-cut than you claim: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13wwln_idealab.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/magazine/13wwln_idealab.ht... > Fearon and Laitin looked at 127 civil wars from 1945 to 1999, most often in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. They found that regardless of how ethnically mixed a country is, the likelihood of a civil war decreases as countries get richer. The richest states are almost impervious to civil strife, no matter how multiethnic they might be — think for instance of Belgium, where Flemings and Walloons show almost no inclination to fight it out. And while the poorest countries have the most civil wars, Fearon and Laitin discovered that, oddly enough, it is actually the more homogeneous ones among them that are most likely to descend into violence. Even the following paragraph, where another researcher challenges the Fearon and Laitin study and claims mixed groups are more prone to conflict, says that effect diminishes when the single largest group is less than 45% of the population. (I’ve been looking at the risks of civil war recently because Brexit, on that risk to the UK I have no firm conclusions).
- factsaresacred 9y ago> It is rather less clear-cut than you claim My friend, my entire point was to illustrate that it is not "clear-cut". Far from it. We're in agreement ;)
- ben_w 9y agoIf you wanted to illustrate that, you should not have written “shown (a priori and a posteriori) that multiculturalism and ethnic diversity erodes trust and causes social strive.”
- curtisblaine 9y agoWell, it has been shown by at least one (reputable) source.
- TorKlingberg 9y agoWhatever the "danger" must be rather small, if you consider the success of multicultural U.S.A.
- aroberge 9y agoCanada would disagree with you. One in five people living in Canada was born in another country [1]. Canada is officially a multicultural country [2]. Yet, there is a lot more trust and a lot less social strife than in the U.S., to use a comparison with the article you quote from the U.S. [1] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.cfm http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Multiculturalism_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Multiculturalism_Act