We've had a couple of recent discussions on questions of diversity and inclusiveness, and they've gotten a little… involved.

Well, a friend shared this spectacular visualization with me, and I thought it would be a useful illustration of several unintuitive aspects of the diversity question, wonderfully abstracted from any real-world group identities. Some of you may have come across it before. For those who haven't, even if you think you're well versed on the issue, it's quite illuminating.

Enjoy.

That's an interesting experiment; thank you for sharing it. ^_^

I do think--albeit intuitively--that it perhaps oversimplifies the matter in some cases, especially in its argument for "positive action" rather than simple removal of biases. Nevertheless, I think that it does provide a rather good demonstration of how great an effect even a small bias can provide.

That's an interesting experiment; thank you for sharing it.

My pleasure.

I do think--albeit intuitively--that it perhaps oversimplifies the matter in some cases, especially in its argument for "positive action" rather than simple removal of biases.

I would argue that that's the point. We think that simply removing biases should lead to change, but his system demonstrates that, mathematically, it doesn't alter the status quo a whit. That's provocative, and is bound to be what people challenge—because they feel challenged?—the most.

only with understanding can we all walk as one.

I would argue that that's the point. We think that simply removing biases should lead to change, but his system demonstrates that, mathematically, it doesn't alter the status quo a whit. That's provocative, and is bound to be what people challenge—because they feel challenged?—the most.

Hmm... On the other hand, I'm inclined to suspect that some of the complexity that's omitted might change that outcome--people aren't as mathematically simple as the model suggests, and there are at least some outside forces that can "stir" communities together at least a little, I feel. Don't misunderstand me, I'm generally in favour of (at least some forms of) proactive approaches to change; I'm just not convinced that this particular argument holds quite as well as it claims.

I would argue that that's the point. We think that simply removing biases should lead to change, but his system demonstrates that, mathematically, it doesn't alter the status quo a whit. That's provocative, and is bound to be what people challenge—because they feel challenged?—the most.

It demonstrates that, in a system where only a single bias is the motivation for change, that removing the bias doesn't alter the status quo. We all live in a system where there is practically innumerable motivations for change, so there's really little to no correlation between the two.

Interesting, though not sure if it shows more than a mathematical (and simplified) description of a rather trivial observation.

That said.. to make it even more interesting, a slight modification could be attempted.

Make 33 percent of every shape unhappy whenever there are 33 percent or more of another shape among his neighbors. Also make this a "hidden" property that you don't know about until that shape becomes unhappy, while the other 67 percent have the same weight as in the later example on the page (demand diversity).

Now make the simulation randomly move people around that are unhappy (without remembering any statistics, just randomly move unhappy people). Would a steady state be reached at all, and how would it look?

Hmm... On the other hand, I'm inclined to suspect that some of the complexity that's omitted might change that outcome--people aren't as mathematically simple as the model suggests, and there are at least some outside forces that can "stir" communities together at least a little, I feel. Don't misunderstand me, I'm generally in favour of (at least some forms of) proactive approaches to change; I'm just not convinced that this particular argument holds quite as well as it claims.

It demonstrates that, in a system where only a single bias is the motivation for change, that removing the bias doesn't alter the status quo. We all live in a system where there is practically innumerable motivations for change, so there's really little to no correlation between the two.

You both make the same argument, but you both gloss over the fact that our communities are, and remain, highly segregated, and that "white flight" remains a very real, present phenomenon. Sure, it's a simplified model, but if its correlations are that strong, perhaps the other "outside forces" that you imagine (which we should enumerate and discussion, if you're up to it) aren't as impactful as you might think?

I freely admit my biases here: my own life and experiences incline me toward believing that the status quo is not just a random outcome of unrelated constraints, that intent and reaction are factors. If you have even a simplified mathematical model that argues otherwise, I'd love to see it.

Honestly, I'm somewhat sleep-deprived at the moment, and not terribly confident of my thoughts, so I'm going to keep this post fairly brief; I may return to attempt a more robust argument--or to retract my position, if further thought leads me to believe that I'm mistaken here--should I be better-rested in the near future. ^^;;

You both make the same argument, but you both gloss over the fact that our communities are, and remain, highly segregated, and that "white flight" remains a very real, present phenomenon. Sure, it's a simplified model, but if its correlations are that strong, perhaps the other "outside forces" that you imagine (which we should enumerate and discussion, if you're up to it) aren't as impactful as you might think?

My argument isn't that the "outside forces" that I suggested should be enough to overcome bias on their own, but rather that such forces might--albeit perhaps slowly--result in at least some degree of desegregation if all bias were removed. (Looking back, I do think that I expressed that poorly--my apologies!) Indeed, the demonstration indicates that a system with no bias at all should remain just as it was (which makes sense), and thus the case of "white flight" presumably reflects the presence of motivating factors.

(One thing does occur to me: In the context of this discussion, what do we consider to be a "bias"? My assumption is that we're talking about negative prejudice--racism, sexism, etc.--and not things like a preference for living near family, or a desire for work, or even things like a desire for desegregation.)

... the status quo is not just a random outcome of unrelated constraints, that intent and reaction are factors.

I don't actually dispute this point; in fact, I think that I agree. My disagreement is with the argument, not the conclusion.

I don't get it ... does this somehow prove "shape-ism" ? Am I a "shape-ist"?

.