> Fearon and Laitin looked at 127 civil wars from 1945 to 1999, most often in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. They found that regardless of how ethnically mixed a country is, the likelihood of a civil war decreases as countries get richer. The richest states are almost impervious to civil strife, no matter how multiethnic they might be — think for instance of Belgium, where Flemings and Walloons show almost no inclination to fight it out. And while the poorest countries have the most civil wars, Fearon and Laitin discovered that, oddly enough, it is actually the more homogeneous ones among them that are most likely to descend into violence.
Even the following paragraph, where another researcher challenges the Fearon and Laitin study and claims mixed groups are more prone to conflict, says that effect diminishes when the single largest group is less than 45% of the population.
(I’ve been looking at the risks of civil war recently because Brexit, on that risk to the UK I have no firm conclusions).
My friend, my entire point was to illustrate that it is not "clear-cut". Far from it. We're in agreement ;)
So it seems to me that people using arguing strategies like you just seem to have done are eroding "trust" in a rational discussion more then anything else. Tactics like these are well below what I personally would classify as honorable discussion.
> Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...
http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says...
One study isn't enough in isolation. Reproduction, vetting, counter-studies, discussion and scientific engagement is what matters on the long run.
> In the short term, he writes, there are clearly challenges, but over the long haul, he argues that diversity has a range of benefits for a society, and that the fragmentation and distrust can be overcome. It’s not an easy process, but in the end it’s “well worth the effort.”
“well worth the effort”. That's pretty subjective. I'm sure many would like to avoid "fragmentation and distrust" in the first place.
> One study isn't enough by itself.
There are many similar studies:
"A higher degree of ethnic diversity is associated with a higher incidence of civil conflict" - https://www.cgdev.org/doc/events/02.09.07/Matuszeski-JMP.pdf
I mean, this stuff is intuitive for anybody with a sense of history.
To be clear I'm not arguing against diversity per se. I raise these points to encourage us (as a society) to discuss - and not emote - these issues honestly.
Intuitive has nothing to do with fact, plenty of factors might heavily influence what one considers "intuitive". For a lot of people the necessity of the death penalty is "intuitive", yet for many societies, it's an absolute no-brainer that such practices are medieval.
So again, unless there is a corpus of studies, all pointing in the same direction, with all the environmental factors completely eliminated using double-blind or other proper scientific methods, we cannot really conclude anything.
Great! So when will we stop parading this nonsensical "diversity is our strength" mantra, or at least stop stigmatizing those that point out - as you have - that we cannot really conclude anything?
It has as much merit - and perhaps less, given the studies - as saying "diversity is not our strength".
You see the issue now?
It's hard. Especially when it feels like people are going out of their way to misinterpret or frame you. But it's worth it.
Studies in soft sciences have even less to do with fact too -- it's mostly the fads of the day presented as fact.
Sure it's intuitive - that so long as "diverse" populations in a society have no power, the majority in power can happily sit and ignore the societal problems said people are facing. Once said populations actually get into a position where they have some degree of power, the majority will do anything they can to keep them down in an attempt to keep their artificially inflated standing in society.
The solution to that is, in my opinion, pretty obviously not to take the view that giving people the power to do something about the structural problems that they face in society is a bad thing.
Discussion also implies trust. People don't have to bring evidence for everything they say, especially when other people can very easily look up relevant information online.
Sounds like you're preaching censorship, both of speech and of research. Is this really the position you want to take?
[1] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-01...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Multiculturalism_Act
You say that like there is some sort of hidden agenda. Personally I think there is nothing even remotely wrong with shaming Thiel for his deeply intolerant views. In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance [0].
It's interesting too in that I think everybody can see that violence inherently breeds violence, yet many remain blind to the fact that intolerance too breeds intolerance. We have two ends of political extremism today. The many things they have in common include the fact that they both are completely intolerant of the other side as they consider the other side completely intolerant. And as the mutual extremism grows, so too does the self righteous intolerance. That's going to end well...
On the contrary, we created an official group tasked with dealing out violence (the police) because it's generally accepted (whether it's true or not) that some violence must be met with violence.
And that blurring supports the point. As police face more regular violence, they themselves tend to become more violent, leading to even more violence against them, and vice versa. In countries where the police face no violence, they often are not even armed. Take for instance Iceland which may have an even greater percent of their population armed than the US (our per capita ownership rate is so high because many gun owners own many guns) - yet their police are unarmed. 2013 was a sad year for Iceland. It was the first year that their police fired a gun at a civilian, ever [1].
It always leads to sort of 'which came first the chicken or the egg' type question, but the point is absolutely clear that intolerance breeds intolerance in much the same way that violence breeds violence. And it's quite sad watching people fall into this. People don't seem to understand that nearly all the evil in this world is and has been done by people who felt they were the 'good guys.' "No no, it's different this time. We really are the good guys! History will prove us right!" Said everybody, ever.
[1] - https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2013/1203/Lots-of-gun...
Considerations about the aggressiveness of the US police force specifically are certainly an important topic, but wholly irrelevant here. I'm not from the US, nor was their brand of policing on my mind when commented.
We could discuss the ethics of imprisonment, and I expect we'd agree. But you certainly can't claim that police's task is to deal out violence - particularly preemptive.
I weep for critical thinking.
I don't know if "dangers" is your word or his, but it's been shown (a priori and a posteriori) that multiculturalism and ethnic diversity erodes trust and causes social strive.
This is opposed to cultural pluralism, where a dominant culture exists and tolerates additional values that don't erode or threaten the dominant culture.
The reason I comment is because I sense once again an attempt to shame Thiel for his views rather than parse them for merit. During last year's election we had a similar form of hysteria in these threads because Thiel dared to exercise his right to donate to a cause he supports.
Really wish this 'shame as an argument' tactic would cease.
Edit to provide evidence of the 'downside of diversity': http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/...