Americans Believe Diversity is Our Strength

Americans more likely to say growing diversity makes their country a better place to liveSurveys from the Pew Research Center show that Americans are much more positive about diversity than Europeans. Remarkably only 7% of Americans think that diversity makes America a worse place to live–the next closest on that score is Spain where more than three times as many people think diversity makes Spain a worse place to live.

Liberals are more positive about diversity than conservatives but close to a majority of American conservatives (47%) think that diversity makes America better–which would make American conservatives more positive about diversity than most European liberals.

Optimism about diversity is one of America’s most admirable qualities.

Diversity can reduce trust and a society that combines distrust and a powerful central government threatens to oscillate between civil war and authoritarianism. Under limited government, however, a little distrust can not only be managed it’s a positive. If America were more homogenous, for example, we would have abandoned freedom of speech and religion a long time ago. It’s precisely because we can’t agree on what to say that we let everyone say what they want.

Hat tip: Cardiff Garcia.


Optimism about diversity is one of America’s most admirable qualities.

That is a strong statement that needs some proof. Even a reason to believe it might be true. Because America has not been very diverse until recently - and places that are diverse are terrible places to live.

Diversity can reduce trust and a society that combines distrust and a powerful central government threatens to oscillate between civil war and authoritarianism.

So diversity only has downsides. Apart from the cheap suburban mall Somali food. Why then is it a good thing?

Under limited government, however, a little distrust can not only be managed it’s a positive.

As if limited government has been an option for anyone since the Sixties. What the US has is a winner-take's-all system where the "all" is growing all the time. People are driven out of their jobs if they donate legally to a political campaign. Some states are slowly working to prohibit Christianity. The stakes are growing higher all the time as the state becomes less and less limited.

If America were more homogenous, for example, we would have abandoned freedom of speech and religion a long time ago. It’s precisely because we can’t agree on what to say that we let everyone say what they want.

How does this follow? What is the logic? Is there any reason to think that George Washington was secretly pushing to limit freedom of speech? America has abandoned freedom of speech - look at Brendan Eich - and it is coming close to abandoning freedom of religion. Precisely because the insane hatreds of part of the population for the rest of the population is a direct result of diversity. America was much more free when it was much more homogeneous.

Diversity has no up side at all. Except for cheap suburban mall food courts.

'Except for cheap suburban mall food courts.'

If only we had kept the Italians out before pizza became established in cheap suburban mall food courts, right?

Well yes. The Italians brought some nice food with them. They also brought corruption, organized crime and drugs. Not to mention an utterly dysfunctional political culture that means that great cities that thrived under WASP control have become bankrupt, crime ridden sinks. Although in fairness it is not just the Italians' fault. It took a rainbow village coalition.

It turns out the Know Nothings were not entirely wrong.

Italians highest IQ in the West a myth?

Northern Italy has the highest standard of living in the world. Southern Italy on the other hand...

And where did Italian immigrants come from?

If we're counting the Ashkenazim, then it's them and it's not even close.

"Northern Italy has the highest standard of living in the world." K.

So the the people from Southern Italy had low IQs and were actually actually a net negative for the US? Please make the case.

Northern Italy has the highest standard of living in the world.

No, it has an ordinary European standard of living. Southern Italy is less affluent but still normal range for a European country.

They also brought corruption, organized crime and drugs. Not to mention an utterly dysfunctional political culture that means that great cities that thrived under WASP control have become bankrupt, crime ridden sinks.

Just to point out machine politics antedated Italian immigration and Italians haven't been demographically important bar in a few east coast cities and in Upstate New York.

It's hard to tell about this stuff actually because of the difference between settlers and immigrants in their er... settlement patterns.

In the US, it seems that the settlers, the English, and to a lesser extent Scandinavian and German people, tend to live in poorer parts of the US, because they spread out and settled the whole country, back when agricultural land was the big thing, and there was no particular incentive for them to concentrate in cities.

By contrast later migrating Italians and Irish, who weren't settlers, are clustered in the rich, urban areas (the "great cities that thrived under WASP control" as SMFS chooses to put it).

See -

There's a similar thing happening in England at the moment. The economy is hugely centralized to London and this is where migrants go. While where natives are distributed was much more laid down by the settlement patterns of the agricultural economy, just over one and a half thousand years ago, and the pre-globalisation industrial economy, about two hundred years ago.

So migrants have good outcomes generally (education and income) but that's really to a large extent the product of their geographic patterns (the "London effect"), and the difference within the London region between English and migrants, particularly 2nd gen, is still fairly apparent (to add migrants and their descendants who settled in the 1950s and 1960s in poor Northern towns where industry has gone bust are among the most deprived people in the country).

Across the West, migrants could be argued to be good because they tend increase the urban population, and the urban area is where wealth generation happens and where people tend to prosper by conventional metrics (wealth, education). If not in self assessed happiness, fertility or mental health.

At the same time migration could also be argued to be worse than getting people from rural parts of the country to simply move to the urban centers (because within the urban centers, natives like "Old Stock" English Americans or English in England tend to do better). But could we actually manufacture migrations to the cities of the West by rural natives? I dunno. Should we? Again, dodgy on libertarian grounds, (and there's that urban fertility sink thing going on).

Of course, that comment is wildly racist. So much for intellect.

Is your point that we should keep out anyone not likely to have outcomes as good as descendants of Italian immigrants?

Because I'm tired of getting cucked by swarthy Italians and their sausages!

At least you aren't a pathological middle-aged woman whose avocation is impersonating people on the internet.

Nope. I'm a successful northern Virginia patent attorney who works hard, earns a good salary, has a big McMansion, and whose wife sleeps with the pool boy just like every upstanding American.

A woman? I don't think so:

"America was much more free when it was much more homogeneous."
Before the Emancipation Proclamation or before ending racial segregation? Or under Adams' Sedition Act? And even where there was no legal segregation, well...
But I guess we have worse problems now, with gay cakes and not being able to sell raw milk...
"Some states are slowly working to prohibit Christianity."
Some? I thought winners took all... Interesting enough, if there were real discrimination, as it happened in the past, we would be told that "states rights" are the vaccine for "a winners-take--all" government and all that.

"Because America has not been very diverse until recently – and places that are diverse are terrible places to live."

The existence of slaves in America is obviously a recent event. It happened because Obama was elected president and his wife had ancestors who were slaves. Plus the new Smithsonian invented American slave history just this month.

And gays and trans never existed until Obama invented them by executive order.

And there were no immigrants that took land from native people or later from natives mixed with Spanish until Obama negotiated with Mexico to stop migrants from South of Mexico, which never existed until Obama was elected.

After all, if you never tolerate reality, reality is not confusingly diverse.

States are working to prohibit Christianity ?? Citation needed. This is a pretty bold and off the wall assertion. I'm sure you have evidence.

We'll be waiting.

As the Little Sisters of the Poor show, even the Federal government is determined to narrow the space that Christians can operate in and drive them out of the public sphere. Some states are insisting that Churches not discriminate against transsexuals. That can only end in one way.

The Federal Government is also persecuting Muslims and Jews. I mean, how many good adulterer stonings have you seen lately? Don't even get me started on Romans not being able to practise crucifixion.

As you cannot be so stupid that you cannot see a difference between banning someone doing harm to someone else and requiring someone to murder a child, I will take this instead as evidence of a lack of empathy driven by ideological extremism. You cannot feel others' pain because you are blinded by your politics.

The Little Sisters do not wish to take part in the murder of children. There is no compelling social need to force them. In the past no one had the slightest problem accommodating their desires not to do so. But because the modern mind cannot accept that someone somewhere differs in opinion from them in the smallest way, they must be forced to participate in child murders. That is pathetic.

"As you cannot be so stupid that you cannot see a difference between banning someone doing harm to someone else and requiring someone to murder a child, "
But God wants us to do it! My worshipping possibilities are being unfairly restricted.
"I will take this instead as evidence of a lack of empathy driven by ideological extremism. You cannot feel others’ pain because you are blinded by your politics."
From the guy who thinks America was a freer country in the good old times of slavery and racial segregation. It couldn't be more hilarious. I feel your pain and so do many other people. There are organizations that help "special people" to function properly in society. I even donate.

1. Little Sisters can sign a form to exempt themselves from the contraception mandate. That's not baby killing, btw.

2. Alternately they can stop taking our tax dollars. 75% of their budget is paid by heathens like me so I say if they want my monet they need to provide contraception coverage to their workers.

Here, just sign a form admitting you're guilty. Its no big deal. You won't be punished. C'mon, its just a form.

Signing a form of course is an action, dude.

2. Alternately they can stop taking our tax dollars. 75% of their budget is paid by heathens like me so I say if they want my monet they need to provide contraception coverage to their workers.

The operate nursing homes you twit, which are financed by Medicaid. So, what must I stock in my grocery store if some Social Security pensioner shops there?

Sorry but no they cannot. They can sign an objection to paying for said baby killing, but it doesn't matter as the law will make them pay for it anyway.

As I said, the shrinking of the public sphere open to the religious. You seem to think that it is fine to force nuns into taking part in the murder of babies because they want to care for the old. And it is not about your money. They would be forced to do so even if 100% of their money came from donations. As long as they employ more than 50 people.

This is puerile politics. There is no public interest in forcing the Sisters to take part in the murder of children.

"Diversity has no up side at all."

Species without genetic diversity die.

Why make an argument you do not believe? Plants do not want to interbreed with the plants that are closest to them. They are likely to be relatives. But plants that are far away are likely to be best adapted to different conditions. Thus there is an optimal interbreeding distance.

Besides, don't you believe that most diversity is within races, not between them?

I think you've walked yourself into a contradiction here. Better keep talking about the plants.

What is the perceived contradiction, Jan?

If most diversity is within races not between them, what exactly is the problem with having other races around?

Jan - What contradiction? I did not say what I believed. The best genetic results are likely to be produced by reproducing with someone who is close but not too close genetically. In northern Europe, for instance, diseases like rickets is on the rise. Partly because Muslims do not allow their daughters to spend time in the sun, but also partly because Black skin evolved *not* to capture sunlight.

Msgking, you think that there may be other reasons besides genetics for objecting to a multicultural society? Hutu and Tutsi are more or less indistinguishable in a genetic sense. But there has been a genocide of Tutsi in Rwandan and a much more successful if widely ignored genocide of Hutu in Burundi.

I think the argument would be that cultural diversity is a negative, and not necessary for genetic reasons, since most genetic diversity is within races. Indeed, there's more than enough genetic diversity within the Anglosphere, so there's no reason to admit immigrants from cultures which didn't invent liberal democracy and industrial capitalism, the foundations of our wealth and freedom.

Last time I had to go to a hospital in the US, you could say the people working there is diverse. All the skin colors, body shapes and age combinations you can imagine and it works great.

Also, the US Army works. Is the US Army less competent due to ethnic/race composition?

Well a less diverse US Army would be one with a lot less "work place shootings". How many American soldiers have been killed by Muslims also in the US Army? It is also clear that desegregation has not worked as intended. Black soldiers are conspicuously not dying and not winning medals for valor in the numbers they should. This is tragic but it means that White and especially Pacific Island soldiers are doing a disproportionate share.

The Armies that have fought well in the 20th century have been ethnically homogeneous - Germany, Japan, even the USSR did not conscript most of their Asian population in World War Two. Compare and contrast the segregated US Army in WW1 and WW2 with the integrated US Army in Vietnam.

The US Army, unlike the US society as a whole, gets to select its members based on a test that closely tracks with IQ. If you are suggesting that the multiethnic, multicultural US would work out better without importing low IQ underclasses from places that can't control their populations, then welcome that what we racists have been saying. Notice, also, how the Army is a lot like.... the Army - discipline, control, harshness, standards. Maybe the US would assimilate its new ethnic/race composition better with a monocultural regimentation and strict hierarchy with enforced obedience. Is that an argument you want to make?

The "horrid" Steve Sailer has also written on how well the Army assimilates its people... aside from the Muslims, that is, and the Black soldiers that gave the unfortunate cave in Japan its name.

PS I hope, for your people's sake, that you will not have an adversary who can actually give you a run for your money, like in WW2. You might have some unpleasant surprises regarding some of your troops and especially their higher leadership.

I thought Alex still taught econ? Don't they worry about revealed preference not stated preference?

The relevant diversity has to do with immigrants from Latin America, Africa, and the Muslim Middle East. How many of his liberal respondents -- despite what they say -- are willing to live in "diverse" areas in which the majority of its residents match the ethnic profiles of these three groups? They probably don't mind living where there are plenty of Chinese and Japanese and Indians and Koreans. They probably do mind living where there are lots of low income Latinos.

In our area, the soccer moms are all for diversity but they pull their kids from the middle school which is diverse because it is zoned to have plenty of Hispanics and blacks -- as opposed to the elementary school and high school which are predominantly white and East Asian.

This. What people do, not what they say, is the clearest evidence of what they think about diversity.

That is a strong statement that needs some proof.

Not really; it's a value statement. Not something you can necessarily prove. It either means Tabarrok personally considers an admirable trait, or that "most people" consider it to be an admirable trait. It might be possible to prove the latter, i.e. poll people and ask them the "meta" question of whether they think the U.S. embrace of diversity is "admirable" or not. But what you're asking him to prove is that diversity has positive effects. That's not the claim he made in that sentence. He only claimed that the U.S. embrace of diversity is "admirable".

Because America has not been very diverse until recently.

Speaking of things that require proof...

So diversity only has downsides.

He didn't say that; you're putting words in his mouth. It's not a benefit of diversity per se, but one positive thing that has the side-effect of increasing diversity: reverse brain drain into the U.S. And I'm not entirely certain there aren't also per se advantages. Growing up, I was friends with a number of "first and a half" generation (i.e. some were born here to immigrant parents, some were born abroad but immigrated here as small children) Indian and Chinese kids. I know stuff about Indian culture now that I would not otherwise have known. I grew to appreciate Indian food (at a time and place where there were no Indian restaurants) by eating my friend's mom's home cooking. Is that a huge plus for America? No, not really. But it broadened my experience in a way it wouldn't otherwise have been broadened in the absence of "diversity".

Is there any reason to think that George Washington was secretly pushing to limit freedom of speech?

One could point to the various state-level "anti-blasphemy" laws that existed at that time.

America has abandoned freedom of speech – look at Brendan Eich

Sorry, Eich's situation does not represent the abandonment of constitutionally protected free speech.

It is not phrased as a value statement but even if it is a value statement, it is still a statement. And that statement requires defending. If AT wants to say that this is his opinion, then that would be fine. He does not. America has not been particularly diverse. This is a statement of fact.

Why do you think that the brain drain into the US has had positive effects? Or at least one that outweighed the negative effects? There were refugees who built the atomic bomb for use against America's enemies. But then there were also refugees, mainly from the same immigration community, who worked hard to make sure the Soviets got the bomb to use against America. Hard to judge whether that was a net positive effect.

Eich's situation exactly shows what I said it did - a move away from freedom of speech by the broad majority of American society. Charles Lindburgh did pay a price for siding with the Nazis but not a great one. When Communists suffered a lesser penalty than Eich has in the 50s, mainstream America felt outraged. America has become increasingly less tolerant. We now have a Presidential candidate who openly campaigns on a platform of banning criticism of her.

It is not phrased as a value statement but even if it is a value statement, it is still a statement. And that statement requires defending.

You asked for proof not defense. And you seemed to be asking for proof that diversity is a positive force. But in the bit you quoted he didn't say that diversity is a positive force. He said, "Optimism about diversity is one of America’s most admirable qualities." There are two ways to parse that:

1. "I personally admire America's optimism about diversity because I consider it a trait worthy of admiration", or

2. "Most people, if polled, would consider America's optimism about diversity to be an admirable trait, ergo I can objectively describe it as 'admirable'."

If #1 then what does "proof" mean? If two, then "proof" would be something like poll results showing that most of those polled consider "optimism about diversity" to be an "admirable" trait. Not readily available.

America has not been particularly diverse. This is a statement of fact.

Define diverse. During what period of history? Diverse relative to whom? Etc. There's a lot of nuance.

Why do you think that the brain drain into the US has had positive effects?

Mostly because it stands to reason that injecting a bunch of highly capable, highly educated, genetically blessed people into the American workforce will improve the productivity of that workforce and, by extension, the overall strength of the U.S. economy. I want the future Googles and Apples of the world started in the U.S. and not abroad.

Eich’s situation exactly shows what I said it did – a move away from freedom of speech by the broad majority of American society.

No it doesn't. When you use the words "freedom of speech" it typically implies constitutionally protected free speech. Eich's treatment shows no degradation in American's support for that. It does show Americans' unwillingness to protect those with unpopular views from facing consequences in the public sphere.

America has become increasingly less tolerant.

Agreed. But that's not the same as "a move away from freedom of speech".

buddyglass October 7, 2016 at 11:11 am

Proof as a noun. Not as a verb.

It is true that the Jewish immigration to the US produced the atomic bomb. But as I said it also gave the US people who were determined to give the bomb to the Soviets so the Soviets could murder millions of Americans by vaporizing New York. That is a trade off. As it turned out, New York is still very much with us but that does not mean the risk was not real.

Google and Apple were not started by immigrants. Apart from Brin I suppose. The flood of NAM immigrants has contributed nothing to the West as a whole at all. No start ups I know of.

Actually the Eich case is what is it. My words mean just what I said and no more. If you infer things that I did not imply, that is not my problem. We seem to be in agreement about Eich. Had he been a card carrying Communist in the 1950s he would have got better treatment.

I'll offer a couple of quibbles. Lindbergh was certainly a Germanophile isolationist and antagonistic to the Jews (though mortified by Kristallnacht). It's de trop to say he 'sided with the Nazis' and he immediately enlisted after Pearl Harbor (and the America First Committee dissolved that same week). It's also wrong to say 'mainstream America' was outraged when Communists were shunted out of their jobs. Edward R. Murrow was outraged, but the controversies over McCarthyism did not much engage the general public, who remained concerned with economic issues and local affairs as always. What's changed is elite culture, professor culture, and media culture. The bias at the time in these venues would have been in favor (unenergetically) of James Kutcher or Jessica Mitford. The media's concern over Eich's situation was nil.

"food courts"

You're doing it wrong.

Perhaps you're new here. But the entire point of an economy is to provide economists with interesting things to eat and then write about.

I don't think Tyler is really big on food courts. I think his recommendation was strip malls:

"You can't be trusted because you like the food" is an interesting argument though.

Places that are diverse are not bad places to live. My small city is extremely diverse, and it's a great place to live and raise children. I teach high school in a nearby town that is almost as diverse, and it too is a great place to live--not only subjectively, but also in terms of various objectives measures, like school quality, low crime, low traffic fatalities, many good restaurants, high life expectancy, etc. Where I live, at least, diversity is working out great.

Would've been interesting if they'd asked specific followups that phrased the question in a different way - "Do you believe the nation becoming on average less White and less Christian makes it a worse or better place to live?", "Do you believe a White minority America would be a better place to live?".

And also questions about specific nationalities - "Would an America with an increasing percentage of people from a Latin American ethnic background and a decreasing percentage of people from a White American background be a better or worse place to live?".

See if they then got different results, and if there's a framing issue going on.

Revealed preference time!

Where do the east coast liberals live and what are the demographics of their neighborhoods? What are the demographics of the schools they send their kids to ?

Oh yeah. Whoops

This is how we get stupidity like Trump. Diversity is great, as long as someone else bears the costs. Just like every other program in America. It's great, as long as someone else is cutting the check.

Indeed, revealed preferences show things that ideologically loaded questions don't.

Though even without revealed preferences in living alongside other groups and just stated preference there is still some difference -

That may be some countries being more honest. I think on the other hand though, it could also be because the actual preferences are very remote from the rhetoric.

Differences in how actually willing people are to live alongside people of a different racial or ethnic or religious group don't align perfectly with how reactive different nations are when faced with the proposition that their country would be a better place with a lower percentage of their own people in it.

I'd imagine some Europeans might tend to be sympathetic to migrants wishing to make a better life for themselves, if there weren't too many, and accepting of their right to live alongside them, but to at the same time be deeply skeptical that as cultures they have anything to offer, and mindful of concerns about their own children and grandchildren becoming an ethnic minority in 30-50 years.

Um, I'm an East Coast liberal, so I live on the East Coast. Actually in zip 10023, so consider me a maximal EC liberal.

School demographics? My daughter gets up at 6am to take two buses to get to her high school. Demographics: 54% hispanic, 21% black, 18% asian, 5% white.

"Revealed preference time!"

Most would welcome blacks/Mexicans whatever moving into their upper middle class areas.

As best I can determine, Alex lives in Centreville, which is below the U.S. average in black and Hispanic residents, and well above average in Asian residents. There's good diversity and bad diversity, and Alex has the good kind. Other people get the bad kind; tough luck for them.

I am an east coast liberal, and I live in a diverse neighborhood and send my kids to diverse schools. My son goes to a high school that is about 50% non-white, and it is great. I don't know if I'm representative, but my experience is that being an east coast liberal in a diverse city is great for me and my wife and my kids. I feel lucky!

Did they break out the results by ethnicity of the responder?

And also questions about specific nationalities

This. I suspect that most those who oppose "diversity" are understanding "diversity" to mean "more brown people, poor people, gay people, and people who don't speak English". If you asked something like, "If the rate of white English-speaking Dutch persons immigrating to the U.S. were to increase ten-fold, would that be a positive or negative thing?" I suspect many of the "anti-diversity" camp would answer "positive" or "neutral". And yet more white Dutch would represent an increase in "cultural" diversity. (If not "racial" diversity.)

And as has been seen in the UK after the leave vote, it is quite possible that Europe has a considerably different view of what 'diversity' means. Most Americans would not consider Poles or Czechs worth murdering due to their 'diversity' polluting a once great nation.

In other words, though the Spanish may be more tolerant of the British than the other way round, in American terms, this would seem to be a meaningless distinction.

Though as Steve Sailer loves to point out, one can see at least Benjamin Franklin had a modern Europen attitude to 'diversity' and resulting tolerance of it, not an American one - 'And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who, with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we, in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? Why increase the Sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.'

It's true, most Europeans would love to murder some Poles or Czechs. And no question Spaniards love Brits. But this isn't what this discussion is about, sadly.

Diversity is not the problem, the way Americans deal with it is. American system has become sclerotic, decadent and corrupt to its very core.

Still better than Brazil ;)

It is a completly different situation. Brazil faces the challenges posed by the sequels of Portuguese exploration (while the Franklins were pioneering printing and Americans were building an industry, Brazilian presses were outlawed and destroyed and the industry forbidden by the colonial power) and the period of semi-anarchy after the life-or-death struggle against the Paraguayan aggressor in the late 1800s and the anti-Brazilian rebellions in the South from 1893 to 1930. Soon or late, however, Brazil shall rise again.

There wouldn't be a Brazil without the Portuguese. You're still better off than some of your neighbors. Maybe if the people running Argentina and Uruguay had been deciding the future of what would later be Brazil (including its importation of slaves), you would have a reasonable claim.

So what? There wouldn't an America without English colonization, yet the Declaration of Independence is a long cry of "unfair". Brazil was submitted to much unfairer conditions by the Portuguese oppressor. Besides Portuguese colonial oppression, Brazil had to fight wars against most of our neighbours -- we had to effect regime change in Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay -- including the elimination of 50 to 90% of Paraguayan male population because they don't know when stop-- , we had to fight border wars against the Bolivians and we had to fight the French based in French Guyana . Not to mention that, in the colonial times, outr forefathers had to fight wars against the Portuguese's enemies, we had the Dutch invasion in the Northeast and the Spanish aggression in the South. America never had to fight for its survival against merciless enemies. Add to it a terrible climate in the Northeast (where until recently people died like animals every 10 yers due to lenght draughts-- which helps to explain the popularity of former president Lula and jis social programs there-- people hate dying or seeing their children dying) and in the North. Unlike the Argentinians and the so-called Uruguayans (the so-called Uruguay is merely the former Empire of Brazil's rebelled province of Cisplatine), we had to take our territory from pestilence, hunger, hostile natives inch by inch, each Brazilian death paving the way for the advance.
Few peoples have suffered so much persecution as we Brazilians.

" the life-or-death struggle against the Paraguayan aggressor in the late 1800s "

Is this parody?

The Paraguayan aggressor atacked Brazil in 1864, murdering outnumbered Brazilian soldiers in A coward and non-provoked attack after Brazil soent years helping Paraguay and arming it. Brazil spent six years in a life-or-death struggle against the aggressor in the jungles of Paraguay until obtaining tge final victory. Despite the terrible burden of a war we never wanted, our forefathers' determination never faltered. Many families left their children their in servive of the then-Empire of Brazil. Famously, a Brazilian matron (mother of the first Brazilian president), when hearing about the idea of peace talks with the aggressor, said she would rather have all her sons (seven) buried in Paraguay than see any of them again thanks to a dishonorable peace. "Come back with your shield - or on it", as the Spartan mothers used to say.

Not to mention the US crushing Brazil in the Great Southern War of 1891. Care to sing a few bars of "Benjy's Boat to Brazil" with me?

It never happened!

I understand this wish to erase such embarrassing history.

It is a lie! It never happened!

You need to focus on the now and the future, Thiago, and not get so upset about unfortunate incidents of history.

There were no unfortunate incidents of History because they never happened. They are current anti-Brazzilian propaganda.

If you need to believe this for your mental comfort, I see no problem with that.

Stop lying about Brazil!

There there, Thiago. Have another capirinha. Watch the pretty ladies as they samba in the sun. 1891 was a long time ago, it has nothing to do with us today.

"1891 was a long time ago, it has nothing to do with us today."
Nothing like that happened in 1891. In 1891, Deodoro resigned and was replaced by Floriano Peixoto, who crushed the anti-Brazilian rebellions and repelled the British aggression.

Besides I don't drink. Drinling is antithetical to Brazilian character. My father didn't drink, his father didn't drink.

"Resigned"? LOL funny word to describe his mutilated body being dragged through the streets of Rio by President Benjamin Harrison on horseback.

You are lying and you know that! The Brazilian Navy rebeled against his dismissing the state governors and closing the Congress. Benjamin Harrison never fought Brazil, he is basically an unknown American president.

Once again, I sympathize with your embarrassment. If I were Brazilian I would not enjoy being reminded of the humiliation suffered there in 1891. But again, I think you should just relax about it. The US has been humiliated militarily much more recently (Vietnam) and it doesn't keep me up at night. Everything I have said here is as truthful as what you write about the US.

It is a lie and you know that! There was no such a war! Brazil is probably the only vountry in the world that never waged a war of aggression and never, ever was defeated in a war.




America has become sclerotic and corrupt due to diversity.

No, it hasn't. The American dream has gone sour because the plutocrats are too busy getting richer exporting American jobs and financialiing the economy that they can't care about the suffering of the average American. Non-Whites living in the USA are just a convenient distraction, a scapegoat, if you will, for a desperate populace.

Diversity of what? People as described by racist classification schemes?

A review of social psych lit shows that increasing diversity of personality and communication style can correlate with reduced group performance. However diversity in mental schema correlates with higher rates of innovation.

So the definition of diversity matters. Diversity in race and gender in an organization is a useful proxy for increasing innovation, but not if the viewpoints are otherwise tightly aligned (consider class, religion, politics). And greater innovation is less beneficial if group dynamics otherwise break down.

I'm optimistic about the US overall. What's relatively new is the ability to self construct two competing monocultures of information. I think there are enough people acting as bridges to avoid the worst outcomes. (Will update priors if/when Trump wins.)

Social psychology as a field is too flawed for any study to be taken seriously. At least when it aligns with the prejudices of the educated. We can look at the real world. In the real world, innovation comes from homogeneous social groups. The Blues and Jazz did not become great because Black musicians took to hanging out with European chamber quartets. Nor has Facebook done badly even though it still conspicuously lacks diversity. In Silicon Valley as a whole lacks diversity being mainly White and male (with some Asian males as well).

It would be hard to find an innovative field that has not grown up in a non-diverse area with a non-diverse population. Microsoft has sensibly moved to the least diverse part of the US. An area with Boeing and a lot of aerospace innovation.

Your historical perspective has selection bias. Diverse environments (through the limited lens of race/gender) as a potential seed of innovation is a relatively recent idea. Research started with lab and case studies, and has grown since. Diversity in terms of size of firms, geographic locations of firms, knowledge situated in firms ... these have had more historical support. Estuaries tend to be rich ecosystems.

I started with the oversimplification "more diversity --> bad, more diversity --> good" because partisans typically emphasize one and not the other. If you're interested in a longer take about overselling the benefits of diversity specifically for Silicon Valley, I suggest the HBR article:

"... pushing businesses, in Silicon Valley or elsewhere, to increase diversity for bottom line reasons, arguing that it inherently boosts innovation, won’t do. It’s too simplistic and too often just not true.

Instead, we should rely on science to tell us more about which diversity conditions prove productive and which counterproductive. We should be encouraged that positive attitudes such as allophilia and their positive results do exist and can be measured, monitored, and developed in organizations and other groups."

I am happier to take a longer view. Classical Athens gave the West its philosophical tradition. Apart from a few Persian-ish policemen, it was ethnically and racially homogeneous. The Roman Republic gave us our basic legal and government tradition. Again it was even more ethnically and racially homogeneous. Ancient Jerusalem gave us our religious tradition, tempered by that Greek philosophy. Again small place, homogeneous.

The Renaissance was born in places like Florence. Small. Homogeneous. Culturally rich. The Scientific Revolution was born in what had been the poorest part of Europe and was still extremely homogeneous - Britain. Not to mention the Scottish Enlightenment. As late as the 18th century dangerous cosmopolitanism was represented by Germans like Handel.

The vast sprawling multicultural Empires are interesting to study but they tend to be culturally poor. There is no measurable benefit in diversity. Except for the cheap food in shopping malls.

Philosophy started in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, which were relatively diverse for the time, having regular contact with the near east. Other early developments occurred in Greek colonies on Sicily and the Italian peninsula, all cities with much greater contact with other cultures than the cities on the Greek peninsula.

"Social psychology as a field is too flawed for any study to be taken seriously. At least when it aligns with the prejudices of the educated." I.e. "any study that refutes my racism is evil"

Considering the replication crisis in psychology, and the demonstrated liberal bias of the researchers in this area, and the well-known and scientifically established fact that findings are likely to be biased in favor of the researcher's viewpoint, I think the statement was fair

Most economists are not Marxists, therefore we must not take them seriously if they present studies (much less thought experiments or selections of historical facts) undermining Marxist positions.

There is quite a lot of diversity among economists, although mostly along the libertarian-progressive axis

Economics also does not have as serious a replication crisis as psychology

Well not *evil* per se. The reproduction crisis would be a problem in social psychology ..... if anyone in social psychology cared about the truth. However, for all the genuine racists out there, luckily there is only one robust finding on social psychology - stereotypes are true:

Not quite sure what this has to do with diversity but there you go.

Microsoft has sensibly moved to the least diverse part of the US. An area with Boeing and a lot of aerospace innovation.

Paul Allen and Bill Gates grew up in Seattle. They initially set up business in New Mexico until Allen persuaded Gates that they ought to go home. If they wanted to be in the 'least diverse part of the U.S.', they'd have set up shop in Fargo or Portland, Me.

Boeing moved its corporate centre to Chicago > 10 years ago.

As for 'innovation', forget it-they'll never build another new airplane.

It's all a matter of degree. Some is better than none, but too much has historically proven destructive.

Under limited government, however,

Great, maybe one day we can get ourselves one of those.

Is this a surprising outcome? European countries are based on ethnicity. The United States is not. By definition, immigrants make Spain less Spanish. But the US can assimilate immigrants, or at least it has done so in the past. So second generation and later immigrants are just Americans.

But the question includes both different races and different nationalities. So it's not just about assimilation. Living with different nationalities (a.k.a. first-generation immigrants) is easy; it's the second-generation who seem to cause trouble.

That's the same in other countries too. Look at e.g. France: first-generation immigrants work hard, but their offspring are flying out to Syria to join the Islamic State.

" So second generation and later immigrants are just Americans."

How has that been working out lately? Maybe this assumption of natural assimilation is wrong. People in the past, leaving aside racial and cultural similarities, also made efforts towards assimilation. They anglicized their names, they had heir children speak proper English around the house, they more or less cut ties with the homeland or, at least, kept it at arms' length. Today, the alienist disposition is ascendant, and has been for years. Why bother assimilating if you'll be praised, coddled and rewarded for not doing so? Later, the bill comes in, and your kids can't find a proper job without affirmative action, your son gets radicalized and your community turns to crap because you've been consuming social and institutional capital without adding back in. Especially if you've been a conduit for colonization from your homeland.

My experience is that assimilation is still happening, at least as much as I understand it to have happened in the past. I know tons of immigrants from lots of countries, and almost all of them are very interested in having their kids assimilate.

Differences at the margin matter! If your rate of assimilation declines by 10%, that may have a noticeable impact on public life.

Also, what are they assimilating into? The America in which people assimilated 50 years ago is different than the one today. The WASP cultural markers are fading. Immigrants are changing the society as well, much more than before, while being changed less and less by it.Think of the difference between an immigrant child learning US history as it was taught 50 years ago in school, and US history as it is taught today. What will the differences in instilled attitudes be like?

This is a study written to make white guys like Alex Tabarrok feel good about living in their whites-only neighborhoods. "We have lots of diversity", he will respond. "There's the visiting professor from China and there are those nice Indian people down the road. I think they work at the university too."

A white guy talking about the glories of diversity is always a white guy who organizes his life to avoid people like me.

Our little league teams were not all white, and I still think of them as a model for American values. Coaches tried to teach hard work, individual excellence, and teamwork.

In sports and life the best way forward is to build up rather than tear down.

I am an older white guy, and when I walk past younger black guys on Melrose I think they look at me with more suspicion in 2016. Thats sad, and I hope just temporary. The trajectory is still good.

this is such a perfect encapsulation of low status hard left cosmopolitanism in action. Poor enough to still have to interact with diversity but xenophobic enough that is only interaction with black people is visual.

That's one messed up set of assumptions.

Arguably you "thinking they look at me with more suspicion in 2016" is a messed up assumption too, as is the assumption that they are looking at you like that because of your whiteness, rather then some other trait (either correlated with whiteness or totally different)

That's possible. I can admit that. I am only assuming basic knowledge and human nature, that when interest in white nationalism increases, black people will be more suspicious that a white guy is one.

Maybe it is just me though, maybe my knowledge that other old white guys are rejecting diversity shapes the the mental model I assume in others.

They think I might be Sam, right?

What the heck does it matter if you are a white nationalist or not?

"I think they look at me with more suspicion in 2016"

Really? You can tell they are suspicious by looking at them? And an increase from 2015 to boot.

Stop feeling guilty for things you are not responsible for and you won't imagine things.

More for everyone to wave away:

"I doubt very much that there are many Jews who don't feel the change from 2015 to 2016 and very few who don't know where the change is coming from. I doubt Paul Ryan has an anti-Semitic bone in his body. But he's going to campaign with Trump on Saturday, the day before the second presidential debate. That's all I need to know.

I should make clear that I know that Blacks and Hispanic Americans - not to mention American Muslims - have been treated to as much and in many cases far more hostility and racism this year. It is the faintest kind of silver lining to what I've described above that the relative power and influence of many Jews has highlighted for them what our non-white brothers and sisters are experiencing routinely. But that only makes the larger point. When purity and tribalism become the order of the day in a country that is still largely white and Christian, we won't be part of the club."

I organize my life to avoid racists like you no matter what their race and ethnic background.

I wonder how this would look relative to immigrant fraction of population. We may be more positive because our immigration is limited and under control.

Limited and under control for lack of adequate head counts. You have no idea who enters your country and in what numbers, who stays, who votes etc. Also, your media is a joke, but this seems to be the case everywhere in the current year.

Old Dominion University report - 6.4% of noncitizens voted in 2008 and 2.2% of noncitizens voted in 2010.

The report is linked to in this article that provides some more background

Americans have been continuously indoctrinated to believe that "diversity is our strength" in more or less those exact words for the past 50 years. It's amazing this statement doesn't get more support. I'm sure if you break the question into more concrete statements you'll get different answers, and surely the revealed preference of Americans is not for more diversity.

Limited government isn't some exogenous god-given endowment. This concept only has something approaching popular support among certain demographic groups, and changing the composition of the population will change the strength of the government. In the short run, sure, you've reduced support among the dwindling majority for welfare. But what do you think will happen when the groups they distrust actually choose the government?


I suspect that's a few moves ahead of where Alex is prepared to let himself think, though.

Funny how that 7% ends up over-represented in some venues.

You mean like in revealed preferences. Yea that 7% shows up a lot in the choices you and Alex and every open borders extremist make.

That's funny. There are slightly more than 1.0 lower case anons in these pages. I can't recall any of us being for open borders.

Got a link?

Or is this a messed up binding that anyone who for diversity must be against all your values? Anyone who is for diversity must be an enemy?

Breaking News: 58% of US people are hypocrites, compared to Greece's 10% ;)

"If America were more homogenous, for example, we would have abandoned freedom of speech and religion a long time ago."
Did you really think about that before writing it? Those ideas were established when the U.S was much "more homogeneous".

More homogeneous from our current perspective, perhaps, but at the time I'm sure the idea that a land(slave)owner from South Carolina and a businessman from Pennsylvania would sit in the same government seemed like a long shot.

Why? And keep in mind in Tarrobak's ideal world a Somali who cuts the clitoris out of his daughter with a shard of glass would sit in the same government as an all sex is rape feminist.

And as a technical note - FGM is done by other women, pretty much universally.

Well, than FGM is alright then! Women are responsible for it!

The feminist and the Somali are natural allies and will belong to the same party: They both hate the freedom of women to choose their own male partners. They demand to make the choice for women—for their own good.

Maybe, because as Franklin predicted, if Americans were not careful, Pennsyvalians would be speaking nothing but German in a generation or two. Unless, of course, we kept them out.

The demographic issue might have been kept under control through immigration, but the German language problem was only fixed during WW1, wasn't it?

Immigration flows prior to 1840 amounted to about 0.125% of the extant population and were strongly biased toward sources similar to the population stock they were entering. If we had flows of similar dimension and composition today, we'd have about 400,000 immigrants per year and over 60% would be from Europe.

44% of millennials, the most diverse generation ever with only about 60% white, oppose the first amendment.

Millennials are no more shortsighted than the rest of us (hooray?):

Just another sad milestone in how far America has fallen - Nixon's Silent Majority would probably have been somewhere up around 90% when it came to suppressing the speech of a bunch of long hair draft dodgers and drugged out sex maniacs.

Don't forget about oppressing women, minorities and socialists.

Somehow, people forget who let liberalism come into its current form and win every battle on procedural grounds, despite individual opposition. The old-timers might not have agreed, but they let X, Y and Z have their day in court. Somehow, I don't see the liberal ascendancy reciprocating.

Hahaha. Oh, God, one just can't make this people out.

What's most amazing to me is that (by implication) a sufficient number of (random) Europeans are able to translate the stated English question into their native language so that they can answer it. I wonder which peer reviewed journal this was published in. AT finds this "data" worthy of mention, I find that (unpleasantly) astounding. Of course, leaving aside the enormous gap between what I say and what I do...Garbage in, garbage out. This is garbage.

In the US, acceptance of "diversity" is limited to exotic cuisine, ethnic costumes and dances. When an immigrant wants to marry a thirteen-year old girl or engage in cock fighting or similar diverse activities the acceptance is over.

I wish the same could be said about sleeping with another man's wife but I keep getting cucked by swathy immigrants! Oh I'm such a pathetic CUCK!

Swarthy immigrants won't touch me.

'acceptance of “diversity” is limited to exotic cuisine, ethnic costumes and dances'

Almost as if the Irish, Italians, and a group of identifiable East Europeans did not face rejection by the real Americans of the time for representing the wrong kind of diversity. Most definitely including religious in the case of the first two groups of papists and Jews in the case of the third group.

Strangely, African-Americans have been part of America for more than three centuries, and yet most Americans seem to think that they represent diversity, compared to the wave of East Europeans that showed up after the end of WWI. Or Irish-Americans, who still follow certain customs - like marching with their nation's symbols in parades celebrating their national heritage - without other Americans batting an eye. Though as a pro tip if one is ever in Ireland on March 17 - if you order a beer, it won't be green.

Well, the African-Americans are doing their darndest to reject the cultural mainstream. The names, the behaviors, the memes, the symbols, the fashions and the music, all point to a rejection of generic American culture, to their social and economic detriment and with the connivance of the rest of America.

I'd identify only three novelties of the last 50 years which would be indicative of a rejection: voting patters (which were much less uniform in 1955), naming practices, and rap. The naming practices would be the most salient. You only vote once a year. In 1960, blacks used Biblical names, southern-country names, or off beat but recognizably Indo-European names. The use of Arab names and ersatz Africanisant names is quite jarring and peculiar.

African-Americans have been part of America for more than three centuries, and yet most Americans seem to think that they represent diversity

They have income levels about 1/3 lower than the national mean, are given to remarkably uniform bloc voting, tend to agglutinate residentially (though less than they used to) even when they can afford to live elsewhere, have diglossic speech patterns - alternating between standard English and a structurally differentiated demotic all their own, generally congregate in religious denominations they dominate which have quite distinctive orders of service and aesthetic elements, often cluster in (and sometimes dominate) particular occupations, and have patterns of household formation and amatory dynamics quite distinct from the general population.

Art, you need to get more amatory dynamics yourself. Might lighten you up.

Is he supposed to ask his wife for permission?

"It’s precisely because we can’t agree on what to say that we let everyone say what they want."

As exemplified by speech laws, safe spaces, and PC witch hunts...

People have a positive view of white and asian immigration, and a negative view of NAM immigration. Asking questions about some vague concept like "diversity" is useless. Ask them more specific questions and it all falls apart. Ask them where they choose to live and its really clear what their views are.

Alex's goal trying to destroy social trust in the hopes that it leads to a collapse in governance and social norms remains his most perverse and idiotic desire.

>If America were more homogenous, for example, we would have abandoned freedom of speech and religion a long time ago.

This sounds like it belongs in a freshmen philosophy essay on globalism.

It's also just plain autistic. People speak their mind to people they trust. The free flow of ideas is built on the bedrock assumption that the person speaking them still has your well being in mind, even as they disagree with you. If life is nothing but a competition between interest groups that don't trust each other then controlling speech is just another battleground for the competition.

"If life is nothing but a competition between interest groups that don’t trust each other then controlling speech is just another battleground for the competition."
You mean like Catholics and Protestants in the good old days, North and South, Liberals and Conservatives, Democrats and Republicans (or Federalists and Jeffersonians)? High trust indeed. Seriously, can't you come with a better excuse for racism?

Inter-confessional antagonism was a characteristic of the late 19th century and hasn't been severe in nearly a century.

As for political disputes, they did not make for encompassing antagonisms which invaded social life. Austria in 1960 had Socialist clubs and Catholic clubs for every kind of avocation, something quite bizarre in an American context.

As a youngster, I had vigorous across the table disputes with friends and relations I would never attempt anymore. Outside the realm of ordinary life, consider how collegial was the United States Congress ca. 1970. Part of Congress' dysfunction has been the maintenance of practices in parliamentary rules which were developed when Congress was a different sort of social organism (for example, there was a mean of 1 filibuster a year during the years running from 1920 to 1970). Robert Bork, having been a part of official Washington in two different stints, said that 1981 was the watershed year.

Every kind of forum has some effective limits on the boundaries of discussion. What's been interesting in the last generation is how these have entered realms which are perfectly extraneous to the business of the fora in question. Of what interest is it to anyone in the tech business what Brendan Eich's (quite banal) political contributions are? There have been times and places in the past where there were social penalties for advocating certain things. The social penalties were exacted on oddballs (e,g, that Massachusetts schoolteacher who had carried a Communist Party membership for 14 years) or in societies with intense honor cultures and bad consciences (consider the lot of the abolitionist in the antebellum South).

The current disputes call to mind Nicholas von Hoffman's post-mortem on Richard Nixon's career: "He got the masses but missed the classes". What we have is a professional-managerial set trying to impose its moral fads on everyone else.

Yet, none of it has anything to do with the "human zoo" of races and nationalities we are told is the reason of antagonisms and low trust. The main supporters and opponents of the Sedition Act, abortion, the Red Scare, praying at public schools, etc. are from the same race. It's an inter-class schism, not a racial one.

Whose idea of diversity was used?

You can have plenty of neurodiversity and diversity of opinion in a population that is homogeneous from an ethnic and linguistic perspective. You don't need to turn it into a human zoo with zero chance of harmony except through the strong arm of the state, Singapore style. All those Civil Wars come from somewhere. Hell, Greeks fought Greek immigrants to their cities all the time if you believe Aristotle.

"Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlers have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the Cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarrelled with those who had settled there with them, for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms; and the people of Zancle after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction; and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrants"

Was 'diversity' ever defined 'ere you asked the respondents?

Virtually all of human history is the devolution of multi-ethnic empires into their constituent nations. I'm not sure what exception we've been granted. And don't listen to what people say; look at what they do. Specifically, where do their kids go to school, and how much more will they pay for certain neighbors. Where are they immigrating to and emigrating from.

In my lifetime, the US was around 88% Anglo and European. The idea of bilingual anything didn't come up. Now it's 60% and can't fall fast enough for the Diversicrats, and we have replaced American blacks with Hispanics as the most numerous minority. We are about to add Middle Easterners and North Africans to the preference-rolls.

Has this level of social engineering succeeded anywhere historically?

Unless you're about 75 years old, you've never lived through a time when non-hispanic whites had that kind of advantage, and when they did, ethnic distinctions between people of European ancestry were more salient than they are today.

I'm 52 and believe those were the percentages through the 1960s. I may be incorrect.

Puerto Rican inflows date from about 1940, Cuban inflows from 1959, and Mexican inflows from 1965. There was also an antique Chicano population in the Southwest, although I suspect their self-concept was different from that of Mexicans today. Immigration from the Western Hemisphere was not subject to national origin quotas. The black population has bounced around 12% of the whole since 1860. You also had the huge overhang from the inflow of Italians, Jews, and Slavs during the period running from 1890-1824. The foreign born population did not reach its nadir until 1970. Blacks, hispanics, orientals, and Amerindians made up ~23% of the population in 1980.

This is utter trite. People are generally polite, and will shy away from explicitly saying things like "Black people make America a worse place to live." They certainly think that, just look at how much they are willing to pay to live away from them.

"(...) If America were more homogenous, for example, we would have abandoned freedom of speech and religion a long time ago. It’s precisely because we can’t agree on what to say that we let everyone say what they want."

What kind of nonsense is this? I know Tabbarok is a Jewish open borders advocate, but he's usually a lot more reasonable. Free speech, actual free speech, not "you can say anything you want as long as you don't criticize the government or the ruling ethnic group," seems to be mostly an Anglo-Saxon value, and it's a value we are moving away from as we become North Brazil.

They certainly think that, just look at how much they are willing to pay to live away from them.

The slum neighborhoods and points adjacent where I grew up amount to about 16% of the whole metropolitan settlement. In greater Chicago, it's around 12%. In greater Detroit, perhaps 18%. You're not paying much of a premium avoiding 16% of the housing stock.

This is ridiculous. There is plentt of free speech in Brazil.

Yes, but it's just a side dish for all the homicide and public health disasters.

No, it is not. The plague outbreaks are already under control (despite all doomsayers predicting the new Holocaust at the Olympic Games) and crime has subsided. The rest is simple and mere anti-Brazilian propaganda. Few peoples have been so frequently slandered and outright peraecuted we have been.

Diversity is indeed strengthening for a nation; however, the proper kind of diversity is that which arises naturally and not socially manufactured diversity. The latter results in choosing the first different-looking schmuck who comes along.

I suppose that if you want to signal that you believe something is good, but you can find literally no evidence that the thing is good, and in fact you are so certain that you will never find such evidence that you won't even bother to try to find it.... the next best thing is to cite a poll saying that a lot of other people want to signal that it is good, too!

After all, virtue signaling is our strength.

You idiot, we did abandon free speech and religion a rather long time ago. What's your neck size anyway?

It seems that there is a lot more name calling on this blog lately. I'm disappointed to see this.

You're breaking my heart, cuck.

Have these results been modified by national crabbiness factors? Some respondents will say diversity will make their countries worse while at the same time believing their countries would be even worse without it.

File this under "propaganda works."

I had looked at relationship between diversity and university science research performance. USNews published US university diversity index (excluding international students),

Most university ranking systems have a high dose of subjective fluffy factors like "reputation". I prefered using the Nature Index ranking system which uses the relatively more objective weighted fractional count (WFC) of reputable scientific journal papers output,

The result, WFC15 = +278.24*Div16 -35.0786; n=106; R=0.334; Rsq=0.1115; p=0.0004676

The Rsq is a bit low but it is significant at p=0.0004676. A non-linear fit could be better.

From the scattergram the US universities can roughly be clustered into 3 groups,

For university with Div16 less than 0.3, none of them have WFC greater than 100.

For university with Div16 between 0.3 and 0.6, the ceiling seems to be WFC less than 305.

For university with Div greater than 0.6, the sky seems to be the limit with Harvard at WFC15=772.33 and Div16=0.67

Some sample data


2|Harvard University, United States of America (USA)|858.05|772.33|0.66|0.67

5|Stanford University, United States of America (USA)|477.13|530.83|0.73|0.74

7|Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), United States of America (USA)|508.61|483.62|0.71|0.71

11|University of California Berkeley (UC Berkeley), United States of America (USA)|367.03|357.84|0.68|0.69

14|University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego), United States of America (USA)|336.5|306.13|0.65|0.65

15|University of Michigan (U-M), United States of America (USA)|299.52|304.18|0.43|0.43

17|Yale University, United States of America (USA)|303.87|297.64|0.65|0.66

20|University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), United States of America (USA)|262.77|270.1|0.72|0.71

"Diversity is strength" is highly politicized messaging and propaganda. To the extent that Americans believe it, it's successful propaganda.

Diversity is not the problem. The problem is government that panders to diversity and special interests with the taxpayers' money. It's all about the money.

Diversity, liberty, or equality.

Choose one.

Comments for this post are closed