4 ms·

>According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion Surprised to see this acknowledged on Washington Post. >migration dis

>According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion Surprised to see this acknowledged on Washington Post. >migration distance, geography, disease, culture and political institutions. It's a shame that modern anthropology is dead set on downplaying the influence of culture and politics on national success. I think part of the push back against the horrors of WWII has manifested as an overly anti-nationalistic slant among our institutions, at the cost of objectivity in social sciences, among other casualties.

Agamus 4y ago
>>According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion >Surprised to see this acknowledged on Washington Post. Agreed, but it is argued as an aspect of an average: "According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion, but it can also increase growth by promoting specialization and innovation; therefore, regions with an intermediate level of diversity had the highest levels of economic development."
RappingBoomer 4y ago
yeah, it could be said that much of science has been tainted and even crippled by mandatory adherence to certain dogma/narrative talking points
jay_kyburz 4y ago
I assume that diversity here means when you have rival cultures in proximity to each other you are actually at war all the time, and your people are fighting and dying instead of growing in peace and property. You have to spend time making armies instead of houses. Having played a lot of Civ, I can only assume that's what he means.
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  >playing Civ instead of Europa Universalis and thinking you understand geopolitics
dc-programmer 4y ago
Don’t political scientists study those questions? Social capital and trust, rule of law, comparative analysis of institutions are some things I know social scientists study. Anthropologists probably avoid analyzing the causality between culture and national success for the same reasons historians de-emphasize it. It’s an impossible dimension to tease out. Countries don’t exist in cultural silos untethered from history, geography, and foreign relations. If anything the first is the flawed approach. The models that come out of it frequently fail to capture the complexity of reality. And that’s why so many data informed policy interventions fail. And on the topic of applied social science. I don’t think attributing success to culture would even be useful because a culture in one place (or time) can be successful, but would be disastrous in other contexts. On a personal level I would be distrustful of any attempts of the government to optimize culture. Culture is not the domain of Caesar.

Agamus 4y ago

>>According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion >Surprised to see this acknowledged on Washington Post. Agreed, but it is argued as an aspect of an average: "According to Galor, diversity can inhibit economic growth by decreasing social cohesion, but it can also increase growth by promoting specialization and innovation; therefore, regions with an intermediate level of diversity had the highest levels of economic development."

RappingBoomer 4y ago

yeah, it could be said that much of science has been tainted and even crippled by mandatory adherence to certain dogma/narrative talking points

jay_kyburz 4y ago

I assume that diversity here means when you have rival cultures in proximity to each other you are actually at war all the time, and your people are fighting and dying instead of growing in peace and property. You have to spend time making armies instead of houses. Having played a lot of Civ, I can only assume that's what he means.

shrimp_emoji 4y ago
>playing Civ instead of Europa Universalis and thinking you understand geopolitics

dc-programmer 4y ago

Don’t political scientists study those questions? Social capital and trust, rule of law, comparative analysis of institutions are some things I know social scientists study. Anthropologists probably avoid analyzing the causality between culture and national success for the same reasons historians de-emphasize it. It’s an impossible dimension to tease out. Countries don’t exist in cultural silos untethered from history, geography, and foreign relations. If anything the first is the flawed approach. The models that come out of it frequently fail to capture the complexity of reality. And that’s why so many data informed policy interventions fail. And on the topic of applied social science. I don’t think attributing success to culture would even be useful because a culture in one place (or time) can be successful, but would be disastrous in other contexts. On a personal level I would be distrustful of any attempts of the government to optimize culture. Culture is not the domain of Caesar.