5 ms·

One interesting thing of note about the Schelling segregation model is that you still get segregation/clumping even when the threshold is relatively low: >For

One interesting thing of note about the Schelling segregation model is that you still get segregation/clumping even when the threshold is relatively low: >For the remainder of this explanation, let's assume a threshold t of 30%. This means every agent is fine with being in the minority as long as there are at least 30% of similar agents in adjacent cells. In addition, when the threshold is too high, there's a large amount of churn that happens, due to constantly dissatisfied agents moving around and having "undesirable" agents coming in. I wonder if there has been work on adjusting the Schelling segregation model to give different threshold/"tolerance" values to different types of agents. I also wonder if there have been attempts at applying this model to real-world racial data. Given the several most recent recordings of census data for race, could there be an analysis that concludes, "the arrangement we have is, if assumed to be a Schelling segregation model, most likely to have arisen as a result of a tolerance threshold of X%"?

lotharbot 11y ago
One thing I found fascinating is that, with a sizable majority (I set red to around 80%), the minority actually becomes less stable if you set a moderately low threshold for moving. With a high threshold (like t=67%) you get very rapid clumping as both reds and blues try to move into areas where they're in the majority. But with a low threshold (like t=25%) the few majority people who are isolated move, minorities quickly fill the open spots, and then the only remaining locations for minorities are completely surrounded by the majority (while no more majority members ever move). So the minorities just shuffle around between a bunch of unacceptable locations, none of which give them the 2 minority neighbors they require. Then there's a sudden transition when t gets low enough, at around 16% -- the minority will tolerate having only one similar neighbor as long as there's also an empty spot, and therefore they stabilize very quickly. So when the threshold is high, there's a lot of churn early but then stabilization. When the threshold is low, the tolerant majority stops churning quickly and therefore stops opening up spots the minority finds desirable.

lotharbot 11y ago

One thing I found fascinating is that, with a sizable majority (I set red to around 80%), the minority actually becomes less stable if you set a moderately low threshold for moving. With a high threshold (like t=67%) you get very rapid clumping as both reds and blues try to move into areas where they're in the majority. But with a low threshold (like t=25%) the few majority people who are isolated move, minorities quickly fill the open spots, and then the only remaining locations for minorities are completely surrounded by the majority (while no more majority members ever move). So the minorities just shuffle around between a bunch of unacceptable locations, none of which give them the 2 minority neighbors they require. Then there's a sudden transition when t gets low enough, at around 16% -- the minority will tolerate having only one similar neighbor as long as there's also an empty spot, and therefore they stabilize very quickly. So when the threshold is high, there's a lot of churn early but then stabilization. When the threshold is low, the tolerant majority stops churning quickly and therefore stops opening up spots the minority finds desirable.