After I read this it struck me that you may value a much smaller space of diversity than I do. And that you probably value the very particular kinds of diversity (race, gender,some types of culture) much more or even perhaps to the exclusion of others (non-neurotypical, ideological and especially values).
There is a fascinating question that I’ve asked many times in many different venues, and never received anything approaching a coherent answer. Namely, among all the possible criteria for categorizing people, which particular ones are supposed to have moral, political, and ideological relevance? In the Western world nowadays, there exists a near-consensus that when it comes to certain ways of categorizing humans, we should be concerned if significant inequality and lack of political and other representation is correlated with these categories, we should condemn discrimination on the basis of them, and we should value diversity as measured by them. But what exact principle determines which categories should be assigned such value, and which not?
I am sure that a complete and accurate answer to this question would open a floodgate of insight about the modern society. Yet out of all difficult questions I’ve ever discussed, this seems to be the hardest one to open a rational discussion about; the amount of sanctimoniousness and/or logical incoherence in the answers one typically gets is just staggering. One exception are several discussions I’ve read on Overcoming Bias, which at least asked the right questions, but unfortunately only scratched the surface in answering them.
I’ve spent some time thinking about this, and my conclusion is that, at least personally, what I value about diversity is the variety of worldviews that it leads to.
This does result in some rather interesting issues, though. For example, one of the major factors in the difference in worldview between dark-skinned Americans and light-skinned Americans is the existence of racism, both overt and institutional. Thus, if I consider diversity to be very valuable, it seems that I should support racism. I don’t, though—instead, I consider that the relevant preferences of dark-skinned Americans take precedence over my own preference for diversity. (Similarly, left-handed peoples’ preference for non-abusive writing education appropriately took precedence over the cultural preference for everyone to write with their right hands, and left-handedness is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer a significant source of diversity of worldview.)
That assumes coherence in the relevant group’s preference, though, which isn’t always the case. For example, among people with disabilities, there are two common views that are, given limited resources, significantly conflicting: The view that disabilities should be cured and that people with disabilities should strive to be (or appear to be) as normal as possible, and the view that disabilities should be accepted and that people with disabilities should be free to focus on personal goals rather than being expected to devote a significant amount of effort to mitigating or hiding their disabilities. In such cases, I support the preference that’s more like the latter, though I do prefer to leave the option open for people with the first preference to pursue that on a personal level (meaning I’d support the preference ‘I’d prefer to have my disability cured’, but not ‘I’d prefer for my young teen’s disability to be treated even though they object’, and I’m still thinking about the grey area in the middle where such things as ‘I’d prefer for my baby’s disability to be cured, given that it won’t be able to be cured when they’re older if it’s not cured now, and given that if it’s not cured I’m likely to be obligated to take care of them for the rest of my life’ exist).
I think that’s coherent, anyway, as far as it goes. I’m sure there are issues I haven’t addressed, though.
With your first example, I think you’re on to an important politically incorrect truth, namely that the existence of diverse worldviews requires a certain degree of separation, and “diversity” in the sense of every place and institution containing a representative mix of people can exist only if a uniform worldview is imposed on all of them.
Let me illustrate using a mundane and non-ideological example. I once read a story about a neighborhood populated mostly by blue-collar folks with a strong do-it-yourself ethos, many of whom liked to work on their cars in their driveways. At some point, however, the real estate trends led to an increasing number of white collar yuppie types moving in from a nearby fancier neighborhood, for whom this was a ghastly and disreputable sight. Eventually, they managed to pass a local ordinance banning mechanical work in front yards, to the great chagrin of the older residents.
Therefore, when these two sorts of people lived in separate places, there was on the whole a diversity of worldview with regards to this particular issue, but when they got mixed together, this led to a conflict situation that could only end up with one or another view being imposed on everyone. And since people’s worldviews manifest themselves in all kinds of ways that necessarily create conflict in case of differences, this clearly has implications that give the present notion of “diversity” at least a slight Orwellian whiff.
Yet out of all difficult questions I’ve ever discussed, this seems to be the hardest one to open a rational discussion about; the amount of sanctimoniousness and/or logical incoherence in the answers one typically gets is just staggering.
My experience is similar. Even people that are usually extremely rational go loopy.
One exception are several discussions I’ve read on Overcoming Bias, which at least asked the right questions, but unfortunately only scratched the surface in answering them.
I seem to recall one post there that specifically targeted the issue. But you did ask “what basis should” while Robin was just asserting a controversial is.
But you did ask “what basis should” while Robin was just asserting a controversial is.
I probably didn’t word my above comment very well. I am also asking only for an accurate description of the controversial “is.”
The fact is that nearly all people attach great moral importance to these issues, and what I’d like (at least for start) is for them to state the “shoulds” they believe in clearly, comprehensively, and coherently, and to explain the exact principles with which they justify these “shoulds.” My above stated questions should be understood in these terms.
If you are sufficiently curious you could make a post here. People will be somewhat motivated to tone down the hysteria given that you will have pre-emptively shunned it.
Konkvistador:
There is a fascinating question that I’ve asked many times in many different venues, and never received anything approaching a coherent answer. Namely, among all the possible criteria for categorizing people, which particular ones are supposed to have moral, political, and ideological relevance? In the Western world nowadays, there exists a near-consensus that when it comes to certain ways of categorizing humans, we should be concerned if significant inequality and lack of political and other representation is correlated with these categories, we should condemn discrimination on the basis of them, and we should value diversity as measured by them. But what exact principle determines which categories should be assigned such value, and which not?
I am sure that a complete and accurate answer to this question would open a floodgate of insight about the modern society. Yet out of all difficult questions I’ve ever discussed, this seems to be the hardest one to open a rational discussion about; the amount of sanctimoniousness and/or logical incoherence in the answers one typically gets is just staggering. One exception are several discussions I’ve read on Overcoming Bias, which at least asked the right questions, but unfortunately only scratched the surface in answering them.
That’s intriguing. Would you care to mention some of the sorts of diversity which usually aren’t on the radar?
I’ve spent some time thinking about this, and my conclusion is that, at least personally, what I value about diversity is the variety of worldviews that it leads to.
This does result in some rather interesting issues, though. For example, one of the major factors in the difference in worldview between dark-skinned Americans and light-skinned Americans is the existence of racism, both overt and institutional. Thus, if I consider diversity to be very valuable, it seems that I should support racism. I don’t, though—instead, I consider that the relevant preferences of dark-skinned Americans take precedence over my own preference for diversity. (Similarly, left-handed peoples’ preference for non-abusive writing education appropriately took precedence over the cultural preference for everyone to write with their right hands, and left-handedness is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer a significant source of diversity of worldview.)
That assumes coherence in the relevant group’s preference, though, which isn’t always the case. For example, among people with disabilities, there are two common views that are, given limited resources, significantly conflicting: The view that disabilities should be cured and that people with disabilities should strive to be (or appear to be) as normal as possible, and the view that disabilities should be accepted and that people with disabilities should be free to focus on personal goals rather than being expected to devote a significant amount of effort to mitigating or hiding their disabilities. In such cases, I support the preference that’s more like the latter, though I do prefer to leave the option open for people with the first preference to pursue that on a personal level (meaning I’d support the preference ‘I’d prefer to have my disability cured’, but not ‘I’d prefer for my young teen’s disability to be treated even though they object’, and I’m still thinking about the grey area in the middle where such things as ‘I’d prefer for my baby’s disability to be cured, given that it won’t be able to be cured when they’re older if it’s not cured now, and given that if it’s not cured I’m likely to be obligated to take care of them for the rest of my life’ exist).
I think that’s coherent, anyway, as far as it goes. I’m sure there are issues I haven’t addressed, though.
With your first example, I think you’re on to an important politically incorrect truth, namely that the existence of diverse worldviews requires a certain degree of separation, and “diversity” in the sense of every place and institution containing a representative mix of people can exist only if a uniform worldview is imposed on all of them.
Let me illustrate using a mundane and non-ideological example. I once read a story about a neighborhood populated mostly by blue-collar folks with a strong do-it-yourself ethos, many of whom liked to work on their cars in their driveways. At some point, however, the real estate trends led to an increasing number of white collar yuppie types moving in from a nearby fancier neighborhood, for whom this was a ghastly and disreputable sight. Eventually, they managed to pass a local ordinance banning mechanical work in front yards, to the great chagrin of the older residents.
Therefore, when these two sorts of people lived in separate places, there was on the whole a diversity of worldview with regards to this particular issue, but when they got mixed together, this led to a conflict situation that could only end up with one or another view being imposed on everyone. And since people’s worldviews manifest themselves in all kinds of ways that necessarily create conflict in case of differences, this clearly has implications that give the present notion of “diversity” at least a slight Orwellian whiff.
My experience is similar. Even people that are usually extremely rational go loopy.
I seem to recall one post there that specifically targeted the issue. But you did ask “what basis should” while Robin was just asserting a controversial is.
wedrifid:
I probably didn’t word my above comment very well. I am also asking only for an accurate description of the controversial “is.”
The fact is that nearly all people attach great moral importance to these issues, and what I’d like (at least for start) is for them to state the “shoulds” they believe in clearly, comprehensively, and coherently, and to explain the exact principles with which they justify these “shoulds.” My above stated questions should be understood in these terms.
If you are sufficiently curious you could make a post here. People will be somewhat motivated to tone down the hysteria given that you will have pre-emptively shunned it.