4 ms·

Not sure why it claims maximum diversity is ideal. In NYC people often prefer to live in the neighborhood of their ethnicity where there will be many stores wit

by lnanek2 11y ago

Not sure why it claims maximum diversity is ideal. In NYC people often prefer to live in the neighborhood of their ethnicity where there will be many stores with what they like, in their language, and many speakers of their native language among other benefits.

pygy_ 11y ago
Tribalism is like junk food. It feels sweet in the short term, so we tend to cling natrually to it, but in vast amounts, in the long run, it's been showed to cause many problems. /euphemism
bsbechtel 11y ago
There is an implicit assumption in many circles that maximizing diversity is optimal. This assumption is never really questioned, it just is. Diversity has it's benefits, as does congregating with like-minded people, ethnically and otherwise. If diversity was always the ideal, hiring for 'culture fit' wouldn't be such a big theme in startups right now.
baddox 11y ago
I'm not sure why maximum integration is considered ideal either.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  I do consider maximum integration ideal. The more you segregate people, the easier it is to start wars and other violent conflict. Many Americans have no problem with bombing (or droning) Iraqis, for example. There would be more outrage if you droned black people in Baltimore. But even in Baltimore the segregation causes problems. It's just human nature, to create in-groups and have special morality for them, and modern societies should fight it, by intermixing people. Democracy and social equality are good instruments to do so. Ideally on planetary scale, but were not there yet. It can also be seen as a tradeoff. With segregation, you get a more closely knit community in the inside, but less to the outside. Conflicts occur in both scenarios, but there are different ways to dissipate it. Interacting with people you don't know that well dissipates the conflict often and by very little, which may be frustrating and lead to less happiness. Closer-knit community may dissipate conflict to the outside at once, with violent results. So it's really choose your poison situation - be perpetually unhappy in individualism or be happier now but risk a larger war from time to time.

by lnanek2 11y ago

pygy_ 11y ago

Tribalism is like junk food. It feels sweet in the short term, so we tend to cling natrually to it, but in vast amounts, in the long run, it's been showed to cause many problems. /euphemism

bsbechtel 11y ago

There is an implicit assumption in many circles that maximizing diversity is optimal. This assumption is never really questioned, it just is. Diversity has it's benefits, as does congregating with like-minded people, ethnically and otherwise. If diversity was always the ideal, hiring for 'culture fit' wouldn't be such a big theme in startups right now.

baddox 11y ago

I'm not sure why maximum integration is considered ideal either.

asgard1024 11y ago
I do consider maximum integration ideal. The more you segregate people, the easier it is to start wars and other violent conflict. Many Americans have no problem with bombing (or droning) Iraqis, for example. There would be more outrage if you droned black people in Baltimore. But even in Baltimore the segregation causes problems. It's just human nature, to create in-groups and have special morality for them, and modern societies should fight it, by intermixing people. Democracy and social equality are good instruments to do so. Ideally on planetary scale, but were not there yet. It can also be seen as a tradeoff. With segregation, you get a more closely knit community in the inside, but less to the outside. Conflicts occur in both scenarios, but there are different ways to dissipate it. Interacting with people you don't know that well dissipates the conflict often and by very little, which may be frustrating and lead to less happiness. Closer-knit community may dissipate conflict to the outside at once, with violent results. So it's really choose your poison situation - be perpetually unhappy in individualism or be happier now but risk a larger war from time to time.