patrick.net

Diversity has benefits, like crop rotation or a garden. The author notes that engineering benefits from bringing together people from different backgrounds, and culture can also. The issue though comes down to what those contexts have in common: planning and a shared goal.

Instead, politics devolves too often into trench warfare between two rival patronage networks, each hurling insults at the other, and words like "conservative" or "liberal" or "diversity" can lose meaning and become almost incoherent. Most people would rather agree than think, so they join a team.

If you live in a NATO country and import millions of Muslims who believe they have a sacred obligation to kill you, especially while you are bombing their country and financing the militias that drove them out of their homes, and they know that and blame you for it, then you are likely to end up with less trust. When some of those people begin to take revenge by bombing the cities that have welcomed them, trust gets replaced by mass surveillance, which results in even less trust.

(If AI ever achieves Total Information Awareness, including mind reading, it will probably suspect everybody all the time. The thoughts of countless motorists stuck in traffic jams might easily be mistaken for those of a terrorist or serial killer. Yet, when the traffic clears, most motorists return to normal.)

The success of diversity depends on shared goals. If the ultimate goals are antithetical, e.g. Islam vs Enlightenment, problems result and trust declines. If you don't acknowledge that and plan for it, then trust declines sooner.

Is this Patrick or Thunderlips ?

resistance says

Diversity harms societies, lowers mutual trust

What about after it's not really diverse anymore ?

Eventually everyone is one of us.

Or you become one of them. Thanks for remaking the point.

Those that don't make the team end up in the Lime pit.

I don't need no stinkin' diversity.
Anyone that is different from me should commit suicide.

How far do you have to put your head up your ass to come up with this?

IOW there should be no comparative advantage. This reminds me of 1984 or one of those dystopian books

curious2 says

Diversity has benefits, like crop rotation or a garden. The author notes that engineering benefits from bringing together people from different backgrounds, and culture can also. The issue though comes down to what those contexts have in common: planning and a shared goal.

i agree that diversity has potential benefits, but also real, large, and inevitable costs like the lowering of trust described in the original post.

it is frustrating that it is absolutely forbidden to even mention the costs of diversity when speaking in the PC world.

curious2 says

The success of diversity depends on shared goals. If the ultimate goals are antithetical, e.g. Islam vs Enlightenment, problems result and trust declines. If you don't acknowledge that and plan for it, then trust declines sooner.

also very true. shared values and goals (a religion, in other words) are the cure for the harm diversity causes. the closest thing we have to a shared religion is the US constitution, but it is rather weak in its emotional hold on people compared to organically grown religions, which literally promise heaven rather than merely peace and prosperity on earth.

Diversity as its name implies is a close relative of "divisive" or divisiveness, division is you please, will always guarantee disharmony when our differences are amplified in preferance to our commonalities. As David Horowitz explains in his current book The Black Book of the American Left: Culture Wars Vol. V, PC is what used to be referred to as the "party line" in Communist countries "where deviations from the general party line have led to severe punishment." So far it hasn't led to outright death in this country but when the college president suggested the reason more women weren't in the sciences was because they were not by nature attracted to such disciplines in great numbers he had to be eliminated by firing.