3 ms·

So, if I've understood your point correctly, you're saying that the segregated state is the "easily-reached equilibrium", and that such a state is "unlikely" to

So, if I've understood your point correctly, you're saying that the segregated state is the "easily-reached equilibrium", and that such a state is "unlikely" to come to pass in the real world? That doesn't sound right; I think I'm still misunderstanding you. I agree with the last paragraph of what you've written here: models are always simplistic and they're definitely too hasty in their prescriptions: but I'm having trouble parsing the rest of what you're saying. (Also, unrelated, how the fuck am I submitting too fast when I not only waited an hour but also changed computers and IPs in between comments? Is having a conversation no longer allowed on these fucking threads?)

aetherson 12y ago
Yes, the segregated state is the easily-reached equilibrium (you can tell it's an equilibrium because people stop moving). And, to be clear, it's an equilibrium because people have actually stopped moving -- you could imagine a dynamic state of constant move where at any given time it's still very segregated. And indeed, that is what the data paper that the article links at the bottom (http://smg.media.mit.edu/library/Clark.ResidentialSegregation.pdf http://smg.media.mit.edu/library/Clark.ResidentialSegregatio...) suggests is true: Because in the real world, diversity preferences are not symmetric. That is, "triangles" may want to live with 3+ other "triangles" around them, but "squares" don't also want 3+ other "squares," they want, say, 1+, or indeed they want 3+ "triangles." That prevents the static equilibrium that the simpler model predicts, and means that people keep moving. The dynamic "everyone's always moving" may still be segregated, but the point is, it does not have the same property that the article highlights of "everyone moved to a state they can live with, and now even if they would be comfortable with a more diverse neighborhood, nobody's moving and so no diverse neighborhood ever happens." Because they are still moving. I don't have the expertise necessary to critique the data collection or manipulation of that paper, so perhaps it's wrong, but I'm taking it as provisionally true that they are correct that no equilibrium exists.

aetherson 12y ago

Yes, the segregated state is the easily-reached equilibrium (you can tell it's an equilibrium because people stop moving). And, to be clear, it's an equilibrium because people have actually stopped moving -- you could imagine a dynamic state of constant move where at any given time it's still very segregated. And indeed, that is what the data paper that the article links at the bottom (http://smg.media.mit.edu/library/Clark.ResidentialSegregation.pdf http://smg.media.mit.edu/library/Clark.ResidentialSegregatio...) suggests is true: Because in the real world, diversity preferences are not symmetric. That is, "triangles" may want to live with 3+ other "triangles" around them, but "squares" don't also want 3+ other "squares," they want, say, 1+, or indeed they want 3+ "triangles." That prevents the static equilibrium that the simpler model predicts, and means that people keep moving. The dynamic "everyone's always moving" may still be segregated, but the point is, it does not have the same property that the article highlights of "everyone moved to a state they can live with, and now even if they would be comfortable with a more diverse neighborhood, nobody's moving and so no diverse neighborhood ever happens." Because they are still moving. I don't have the expertise necessary to critique the data collection or manipulation of that paper, so perhaps it's wrong, but I'm taking it as provisionally true that they are correct that no equilibrium exists.