> 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.