4 ms·

EDIT: given that the model was developed in 1971, I think some of the below should be reconsidered. But I will leave it unaltered so that the thread discussion

EDIT: given that the model was developed in 1971, I think some of the below should be reconsidered. But I will leave it unaltered so that the thread discussion continues to make sense. ----- I don't think it's a very insightful model, because I don't think people are segregating because they want some % of their neighbors to look like them. And even if they do, I think the tendency toward segregation is pretty trivially obvious and doesn't require a fancy agent based model to prove, although I'm sure it's fun to fiddle with the parameters and see what happens. Hypotheses I'd look at first: perhaps they want to live near their relatives, who look like them, or they might only be able to afford a certain neighborhood, which when combined with race-class correlations reinforces segregation. Or there could be inertia from a past time when explicit preferences existed. Explicit desire to live near a certain % of same skin color is really not the first hypothesis I'd reach for. And even if it is true, is it hard to see how segregation would result from this?

mgraczyk 5y ago
If the other factors are highly correlated with % of people in a group, then this simple segregation model still makes some sense. Say group A has preferences for unmodeled factors that are strongly correlated with the % of people living in an area who are in group A. Think whole foods nearby, yoga studio, asian fusion restaurant. All the stuff in the SF marina neighborhood. As long as preferences are the same within the group, then these external factors can be represented by the % of people in group A. This doesn't account for price and income though, which are obviously important.
- civilized 5y ago
  I just think it's fairly obvious that if people prefer to live in places that would cause them to be segregated, then they will be segregated. Not sure what the model adds to this. Its parameters aren't a helpful guide to the underlying reality.
  - mgraczyk 5y ago
    This model gives you numbers. It takes you from the very vague: "differences in between-group preferences can cause segregation" to something concrete. "X difference in between group preference for Y will lead to Z-level segregation." And X is surprisingly small for a given Z.
    - civilized 5y ago
      But there's no way to estimate the particular X in this model in the real world, and the notion that that X is the actual driver is just a bare possibility among others, not really argued for or evidenced. If you made a model where groups have different preferences for "amenities" (nearby relatives, parks, yoga studios) that would at least represent a more plausible hypothesis. Although the parameters would still be impossible to estimate. I get what you're saying though. Broadly speaking it might be theoretically interesting to set up various quantitative models for the XYZ chain.
nerdponx 5y ago
It might be an outdated model of segregation? Maybe it explains the origins of segregated suburbs in the 1940s, but doesn't explain its persistence into the 2020s.
- civilized 5y ago
  I think this is probably right.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Segregation is not limited to places where people choose to live. Large amounts of (self-)segregation are easy to observe in any mixed social setting, such as social networks (within them, across them), communities of whatever practice, scientific schools, etc.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    Good point, and in those contexts the model seems to more or less line up with what I personally observe.
- asiachick 5y ago
  I guess it depends on what you mean by "explain". Any small tendency is enough to cause segregation. Want to live near relatives. Want to live near grocery store that caries your ancestors cuisine's ingredients. etc...
  - civilized 5y ago
    Relatives plus culture seems like more than enough to do it, no matter how egalitarian or "antiracist" the local politics.
DennisP 5y ago
I don't think the point of a model like this is so much "this is a full description of how the real world works," but "if you make this assumption, then here's how it works out." It's interesting when the result isn't what you'd naively expect. A lot of people did find this particular model interesting. It might seem that if segregation is due to preferences, then when you see near-complete segregation it's because people preferred to almost completely avoid people who don't look like them. But actually, a relatively mild preference to just avoid being in the minority is sufficient to make neighborhoods almost completely segregated. That's true even if everyone actually preferred being in mixed neighborhoods (as long as they weren't in the minority). Whether people actually do avoid being in the minority is a separate question. But if were get some data saying that's the case, then that would be sufficient to explain segregation.

mgraczyk 5y ago

If the other factors are highly correlated with % of people in a group, then this simple segregation model still makes some sense. Say group A has preferences for unmodeled factors that are strongly correlated with the % of people living in an area who are in group A. Think whole foods nearby, yoga studio, asian fusion restaurant. All the stuff in the SF marina neighborhood. As long as preferences are the same within the group, then these external factors can be represented by the % of people in group A. This doesn't account for price and income though, which are obviously important.

civilized 5y ago
I just think it's fairly obvious that if people prefer to live in places that would cause them to be segregated, then they will be segregated. Not sure what the model adds to this. Its parameters aren't a helpful guide to the underlying reality.
- mgraczyk 5y ago
  This model gives you numbers. It takes you from the very vague: "differences in between-group preferences can cause segregation" to something concrete. "X difference in between group preference for Y will lead to Z-level segregation." And X is surprisingly small for a given Z.
  - civilized 5y ago
    But there's no way to estimate the particular X in this model in the real world, and the notion that that X is the actual driver is just a bare possibility among others, not really argued for or evidenced. If you made a model where groups have different preferences for "amenities" (nearby relatives, parks, yoga studios) that would at least represent a more plausible hypothesis. Although the parameters would still be impossible to estimate. I get what you're saying though. Broadly speaking it might be theoretically interesting to set up various quantitative models for the XYZ chain.

nerdponx 5y ago

It might be an outdated model of segregation? Maybe it explains the origins of segregated suburbs in the 1940s, but doesn't explain its persistence into the 2020s.

civilized 5y ago
I think this is probably right.
nine_k 5y ago
Segregation is not limited to places where people choose to live. Large amounts of (self-)segregation are easy to observe in any mixed social setting, such as social networks (within them, across them), communities of whatever practice, scientific schools, etc.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  Good point, and in those contexts the model seems to more or less line up with what I personally observe.
asiachick 5y ago
I guess it depends on what you mean by "explain". Any small tendency is enough to cause segregation. Want to live near relatives. Want to live near grocery store that caries your ancestors cuisine's ingredients. etc...
- civilized 5y ago
  Relatives plus culture seems like more than enough to do it, no matter how egalitarian or "antiracist" the local politics.

DennisP 5y ago

I don't think the point of a model like this is so much "this is a full description of how the real world works," but "if you make this assumption, then here's how it works out." It's interesting when the result isn't what you'd naively expect. A lot of people did find this particular model interesting. It might seem that if segregation is due to preferences, then when you see near-complete segregation it's because people preferred to almost completely avoid people who don't look like them. But actually, a relatively mild preference to just avoid being in the minority is sufficient to make neighborhoods almost completely segregated. That's true even if everyone actually preferred being in mixed neighborhoods (as long as they weren't in the minority). Whether people actually do avoid being in the minority is a separate question. But if were get some data saying that's the case, then that would be sufficient to explain segregation.