3 ms·

The view that “cultural groups have largely coalesced around race in this country, but that's the reality” is precisely the question. Is that the best and most

The view that “cultural groups have largely coalesced around race in this country, but that's the reality” is precisely the question. Is that the best and most effective proxy for population segmentation and policy-making? Many would argue that it isn’t. Regardless, what we can say with certainty is that it isn’t evaluated. I’m not arguing against diversity nor skin-color prejudice in America, I’m raising the question of how we best define diversity and associated ramifications.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
Definitely a big question, and I don't know much about sociology so don't have any data. I will say though that using race as a signal for diversity has a few advantages. First it's a relatively objective metric that can't really be faked. Income also falls into that category, but my experience is that I grew up in a pretty diverse area, my schools growing up had about equal numbers of white, black, latino, and asian people, all from widely different economic groups. And the social groups were much, much more along racial lines than economic ones. Even leaving my home that was my experience in university and after. I'm not going to try to get into diagnosing why that is, it's just something I've consistently noticed, and it leads me to believe that racial groups do have their own unique cultural perspective that transcends income. In the end it's tough for me to see any good diversity metrics beyond income and race, and it seems to me they are both valid and not necessarily related. If you value diversity you should probably aim to have both economic and racial diversity. I've also noticed that many of the people claiming that race is a bad diversity metric have minimal experience interacting with different racial groups which leads me to believe it is largely from a place of ignorance or even bad faith.
- vjulian 4y ago
  While I hold a US passport and live in the US, I can’t claim a background that is solidly from the US. In my experience in the US, location matters and general culture varies (surprisingly) widely. I would find it hard to believe that a skin-color segmentation is effective across the entire population. In my limited experience not in sociology but in running consumer segmentations as a management consultant years back, the idea of a single, best segmentation for all the USA does seem suspect. My personal experience in the US is relatively low in socioeconomic diversity but high in skin-color diversity (lots of educated, well to do people from all over the world who all think more or less similarly). “Race” or specifically European-ancestry versus former slaves is the main, historical dichotomy in the US. But well-to-do “Asians”, various people from the continent of Asia, people from other continents, and mixing tends to dilute the historical dichotomy. But the mindset persists. To me it seems as though skin-color diversity feels good to certain (perhaps many) Americans, but it isn’t necessarily logical. (Editing for typos)

HDThoreaun 4y ago

Definitely a big question, and I don't know much about sociology so don't have any data. I will say though that using race as a signal for diversity has a few advantages. First it's a relatively objective metric that can't really be faked. Income also falls into that category, but my experience is that I grew up in a pretty diverse area, my schools growing up had about equal numbers of white, black, latino, and asian people, all from widely different economic groups. And the social groups were much, much more along racial lines than economic ones. Even leaving my home that was my experience in university and after. I'm not going to try to get into diagnosing why that is, it's just something I've consistently noticed, and it leads me to believe that racial groups do have their own unique cultural perspective that transcends income. In the end it's tough for me to see any good diversity metrics beyond income and race, and it seems to me they are both valid and not necessarily related. If you value diversity you should probably aim to have both economic and racial diversity. I've also noticed that many of the people claiming that race is a bad diversity metric have minimal experience interacting with different racial groups which leads me to believe it is largely from a place of ignorance or even bad faith.

vjulian 4y ago
While I hold a US passport and live in the US, I can’t claim a background that is solidly from the US. In my experience in the US, location matters and general culture varies (surprisingly) widely. I would find it hard to believe that a skin-color segmentation is effective across the entire population. In my limited experience not in sociology but in running consumer segmentations as a management consultant years back, the idea of a single, best segmentation for all the USA does seem suspect. My personal experience in the US is relatively low in socioeconomic diversity but high in skin-color diversity (lots of educated, well to do people from all over the world who all think more or less similarly). “Race” or specifically European-ancestry versus former slaves is the main, historical dichotomy in the US. But well-to-do “Asians”, various people from the continent of Asia, people from other continents, and mixing tends to dilute the historical dichotomy. But the mindset persists. To me it seems as though skin-color diversity feels good to certain (perhaps many) Americans, but it isn’t necessarily logical. (Editing for typos)