
The Most Diverse Cities Are Often the Most Segregated - ryan_j_naughton
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-most-diverse-cities-are-often-the-most-segregated/
======
mikeash
This doesn't surprise me. People tend to self-segregate. All else being equal,
people will tend to live near other people of similar backgrounds.

Now let's say you're a purple person (fictional race chosen to avoid invoking
any unintended implications) moving into a town that's 50% purple and 50%
green. There are lots of places to live near other purple people. Some of
those places will probably be places you like and can afford. So you'll
naturally join your co-purpleists.

Now let's say you move to a different city that's 5% purple and 95% green.
There's probably only a couple of places where you can live among other
purples. Odds are pretty good that those places don't suit you. You'll be much
more likely to choose to live among the greens.

~~~
unabridged
Here is an agent based simulation that illustrates this concept:

[http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-
segreg...](http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segregation/)

~~~
DanAndersen
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
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.

------
lnanek2
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.

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

~~~
asgard1024
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.

------
vonnik
Robert Putnam's research has also shown some of the complications that come
with diversity:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/full)

He does not support the conservative interpretation of his work that
"diversity is bad":

[http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-
his...](http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-
was-twisted/30357)

~~~
twoodfin
I don't think conservatives believe diversity is "bad", just that it's not
worth stacking the deck in otherwise merit-based processes to produce.

~~~
mikeash
I've seen plenty who think diversity is outright bad. There are plenty more
who think as you say, of course.

