4 ms·

> It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triang

by p-e-w 3y ago

> It doesn’t seem likely that this will (or can) happen without diversity increasing That sounds like a complete non sequitur to me. Can you explain how Triangles will become richer by living near Squares? Or, to turn it around, how Squares will become poorer by living among Triangles? More importantly, how does this claim relate to the example I gave? There are societies that are much more diverse than others (urban vs. rural). If diversity itself is a positive, cities should be, in some obvious sense, better societies than villages. Are they?

taneq 3y ago
Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)
- krsrhe 3y ago
  [dead]
jrmg 3y ago
Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. That sounds like you agree that diversity isn't the cause of anything. In other words, actively seeking out diversity itself (which is what the authors of the article are arguing for) is worthless. > It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? I do indeed believe that. Can you provide an argument for why it is not morally neutral?
  - jrmg 3y ago
    I think I agree with your first point about actively seeking diversity being worthless in the abstract. In a world of biased people, though, it can be a way to act against unfair bias. Biased people tend to lose their bias when they become friends with people from the groups they are biased against. Actively _avoiding_ diversity, though, which it seems you find to be morally neutral, I find to be morally negative. The shape (or in the real world, e.g. race) of an individual is a superficial attribute. It is extremely unfair to judge someone by it.
Arainach 3y ago
Diverse living conditions help equalize access to opportunity. The suburban schools being richer and having better teachers doesn't matter as much if those benefits aren't going almost exclusively to certain demographics, for instance. The same applies to access to voting booths[1][2], access to healthy grocery stores[3], and so much more. [1]: https://civilrights.org/democracy-diverted/ https://civilrights.org/democracy-diverted/ [2]: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-geo... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482049/
- p-e-w 3y ago
  These things are highly specific to certain places, namely the US. Waiting in line to vote is unthinkable in much of Europe. And private schools with "better teachers" are a fringe phenomenon elsewhere. "Healthy" grocery stores are usually much more expensive, and people can't afford to buy from them just because they live nearby. Of course, if you are ready to suffix the claim "diversity is good" with "...in the United States of America", that's fine. But my impression has been that people are trying to establish that diversity is good in principle. And I simply fail to see what theoretical argument supports that belief.
  - teaearlgraycold 3y ago
    I think the situation in America is that in denser areas we do in fact have a diverse population. But we don’t have as diverse social and professional circles. Other parts of the world might not have any present diversity, so asking for more doesn’t really mean the same thing.
  - drewdevault 3y ago
    This is not unique to the United States. In my home country (the Netherlands), we have an issue with refugees being placed into dedicated camps, encouraging an approach of non-integration. Integrated refugees have better metrics of success, however, and the segregated approach exacerbates numerous problems with the Dutch approach to refugees.

by p-e-w 3y ago

taneq 3y ago

Wait, I thought the triangles were the wealthy ones? /s (Seriously though, was it implied that there was any material difference between the shapes? I thought they just looked different.)

krsrhe 3y ago
[dead]

jrmg 3y ago

Affluence would not equalize _because_ they’re living near each other. Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. If we go by your assumption that the squares are richer or happier, it seems obvious to me that if they are biased to only want shapes like them to live near them it’s likely they also don’t want them to associate with them at work. Associating together is surely necessary if the triangles are to better their lot in life? I suppose you might argue that if squares and triangles are equal in talents, they could eventually form separate but equal societies, even if they did not want to associate. If they’re starting off from different baselines that seems unlikely to me though. It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? To your more specific example: there are so many differences between urban and rural societies that I don’t believe that looking as diversity as the attribute that explains their current states is particularly illuminating, especially if you’re trying to decide which one is ‘better’. I do believe, though, that historical bias has a hand in explaining why even diverse societies like cities are still so stratified on racial lines (so, _not_ diverse).

p-e-w 3y ago
> Living near each other, though, seems to me to be something that would have to evolve alongside a more equal society. That sounds like you agree that diversity isn't the cause of anything. In other words, actively seeking out diversity itself (which is what the authors of the article are arguing for) is worthless. > It also seems to me to carry an assumption that not wanting to associate is at best a morally neutral position, which I don’t believe - but I think you may? I do indeed believe that. Can you provide an argument for why it is not morally neutral?
- jrmg 3y ago
  I think I agree with your first point about actively seeking diversity being worthless in the abstract. In a world of biased people, though, it can be a way to act against unfair bias. Biased people tend to lose their bias when they become friends with people from the groups they are biased against. Actively _avoiding_ diversity, though, which it seems you find to be morally neutral, I find to be morally negative. The shape (or in the real world, e.g. race) of an individual is a superficial attribute. It is extremely unfair to judge someone by it.

Arainach 3y ago

Diverse living conditions help equalize access to opportunity. The suburban schools being richer and having better teachers doesn't matter as much if those benefits aren't going almost exclusively to certain demographics, for instance. The same applies to access to voting booths[1][2], access to healthy grocery stores[3], and so much more. [1]: https://civilrights.org/democracy-diverted/ https://civilrights.org/democracy-diverted/ [2]: https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-geo... [3]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482049/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482049/

p-e-w 3y ago
These things are highly specific to certain places, namely the US. Waiting in line to vote is unthinkable in much of Europe. And private schools with "better teachers" are a fringe phenomenon elsewhere. "Healthy" grocery stores are usually much more expensive, and people can't afford to buy from them just because they live nearby. Of course, if you are ready to suffix the claim "diversity is good" with "...in the United States of America", that's fine. But my impression has been that people are trying to establish that diversity is good in principle. And I simply fail to see what theoretical argument supports that belief.
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  I think the situation in America is that in denser areas we do in fact have a diverse population. But we don’t have as diverse social and professional circles. Other parts of the world might not have any present diversity, so asking for more doesn’t really mean the same thing.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  This is not unique to the United States. In my home country (the Netherlands), we have an issue with refugees being placed into dedicated camps, encouraging an approach of non-integration. Integrated refugees have better metrics of success, however, and the segregated approach exacerbates numerous problems with the Dutch approach to refugees.