Posts Tagged ‘distrust’

Distrust Of Diversity Is Not Limited To Any One Group

Friday, May 19th, 2017

Amerika has long taken the position that the problem is diversity itself and not any of the groups involved. No matter who those groups are, so long as there is diversity, the situation unravels.

We see occasional confirmation of this in the news, such as a striking statement from the UK:

He told the jury that fellow Pakistanis would regard him as having “infested” their community by sleeping with a white girl. “It’s not just them who are racist. We are racist too”.

…Ahmed blamed the white community for allowing teenage girls to go around unsupervised, so that at a young age they were “trained” in both sex and drinking.

He is right on both counts. Every group distrusts every other group because conquest is the way of nature. And, the seemingly permanent mental stupor of white people compels them to be oblivious not just to the problem of diversity, but all other illnesses of modernity, which they seem to view as insoluble and therefore necessary to accept and ignore.

Diversity Sabotages Community

Friday, October 16th, 2015


Democracy = diversity. More accurately, diversity is a form of democracy that we might call the democratization of race. First, the individual is equal; then, that transcends cultural norms. Finally, it transcends genetic norms.

There is only one problem: in the process, it destroys the civilization around it. As the thesis of Dr. Eitan Adres from the School of Political Sciences at the University of Haifa, reveals, diversity — in addition to genetic and cultural genocide — also destroys any sense of social trust and work toward shared goals. In other words, diversity makes citizens into sociopaths:

The findings showed that the more people consider themselves to adhere to the values of globalization, consumerism, and individualism, and the more they regard themselves as “citizens of the world” exposed to globalization, the less likely they are to contribute to public goods and the more likely they are to seek to be “free riders” on the contributions of others.

This finding was particularly apparent in the first experiment, when the participants were divided into groups and received 100 tokens each. The participants were asked to choose an amount from their 100 tokens to be pooled in a communal pot. The total amount donated would be doubled and this doubled amount would be distributed evenly among all participants, no matter how much each one contributed. Thus each individual received the equal portion of the communal pot together with the tokens they did not contribute to the pot. The collective interest in this situation is that each participant will contribute all their tokens to the collective pot. The individual interest is not to contribute anything, and to add the money shared from the pot to the 100 tokens. The study found that 30 percent of German participants and 25 percent of the Australians preferred to keep all their tokens to themselves. By contrast, only 3.6 percent of the Columbians and 12 percent of the Israelis chose to do so.

When societies are united by culture, and its genetic antecedent and consequence, heritage/race/ethnicity, people have an interest in working together — and a trust that other people are on the same page. This identity enables them to see each other as part of the same biological entity, like a species within an ecosystem, and thus bound up in the same interests. Under that system, social trust is high and so participation in social commons such as civilization-building is possible. In addition, the individual has a high degree of trust in other people, as the less locked-down societies of even a generation ago displayed.

The Adres study is compatible with what Robert Putnam found in his landmark study, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century”, which found that diversity decreases trust and the tendency to interact with social commons or other people, even among members of the same race:

New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.

Other researchers have found similar results. Neal and Neal found that diversity destroys a sense of community, following what one might expect with a loss of trust and loss of the sense of shared purpose and values:

Using agent-based modeling to simulate neighborhoods and neighborhood social network formation, we explore whether the community-diversity dialectic emerges from two principles of relationship formation: homophily and proximity. The model suggests that when people form relationships with similar and nearby others, the contexts that offer opportunities to develop a respect for diversity are different from the contexts that foster a sense of community.

Looking more closely at this relationship, a study from Denmark finds that diversity lowers distrust in local areas, although the effect dissipates in a larger society where other factors influence distrust.

The results show that ethnic diversity in the micro-context affects trust negatively, while the effect vanishes in larger contextual units. This supports the conjecture that interethnic exposure underlies the negative relationship between ethnic diversity in residential contexts and social trust.

The researchers found that localized diversity affects localized distrust, and remote diversity fades into the background of generalized distrust which has multiple causes, including disintegration of social order and general alienation. In other words, where people are most vulnerable — near their homes, shopping and work — is where they stop caring when their society becomes diverse.

If we had been studying the effects of democracy for centuries, we would have likely found similar results. The more people are granularized and taken outside of a social context and made into equal people, the more they see themselves as independent actors working against a hostile world. In so doing, they abandon the thought of society as any kind of shared endeavor and start to see it like a shopping mall: a place they pay for where they can make certain demands, but someone else is responsible for upkeep. In addition, this increases criminality as they see themselves as victims of this condition and “revenge” themselves upon society with inaction, petty thefts and sabotage of their own performance, as looking out over a sea of cube slaves can show us every day.

Our civilization is just beginning to awaken to the horror that diversity and before it, democracy, has wrought upon us. Where we once could trust in society to have our interests at hand, it is now a combination of boss, taxman and competing individual that threatens our well-being. As a result, we do not act to keep it up but engage in “game playing” behavior against it, trying to get the best of it and emerge with some kind of profit. This sort of social disorder will grind its citizens against one another until no society remains.

While democracy sounds good on paper, what equality does is divide individuals by creating a fallacy that we must rely on and enforce on each other, while recognizing the natural difference between people gives us each a place. Egalitarians confused the medieval idea of equal before the law, or that rich men do not get to buy their way out of breaking laws where the poor cannot, with the notion that all people must be made equal by law and subsidy. Even equal before the law is suspect, as someone with a lifetime of good deeds deserves a break in a case where someone with a lifetime of bad deeds should be viewed with suspicion, because equality of that sort severs us from the context of our existence and the history by which our neighbors know us and judge us. Nature provides a model here, which is that people associate with those they trust and do whatever they can to exclude others; our concept of equality clashes with that, but in trying to banish that evil, we create a greater one.

Danish study finds diversity creates distrust closest to home

Sunday, June 21st, 2015


A recent study from Denmark assesses, much as Robert Putnam did, the impact of diversity and consequent raised levels of distrust on society. As if trying to soften the blow, this study limits impact to very immediate experience:

The results show that ethnic diversity in the micro-context affects trust negatively, while the effect vanishes in larger contextual units. This supports the conjecture that interethnic exposure underlies the negative relationship between ethnic diversity in residential contexts and social trust.

However, what they actually found was that localized diversity affects localized distrust, and remote diversity fades into the background of generalized distrust which has multiple causes, including disintegration of social order and general alienation. This is a deft sleight of hand but it features the classic salient attribute of liberal studies, which is misattribution of an existing problem, in this case allowing general unease of society to explain away the loss of trust and general anxiety caused by diversity. It allows diversity to fade into the cloud of negatives created by other social factors and then magically assumes that for this reason, diversity cannot have an effect. Here’s the setup to the argument:

Evidence from trust games in experimental economics shows lower levels of initial trust when the trustee has a different ethnic background than that of the truster (Fershtman and Gneezy 2001). Similarly, studies using cardiovascular or skin conductance responses show higher levels of perceived threat and fear in encounters with opponents of a different ethnic background than the subject (Mendes et al. 2002; Olsson et al. 2005). Socially learned prejudice probably explains part of this tendency (Stanley et. al. 2011), but recent studies also point to its evolutionary roots. These studies show that humans are better at inferring other humans’ thoughts, intentions and feelings if the object belongs to their own ethnic group as opposed to other ethnic groups (Adams et al. 2010). The ability to infer the other’s intentions is a crucial component in building trust in specific others, and it is also likely to increase empathy (Chaio and Mathur 2010), which feeds back and increases trust in specific others further (Barraza and Zak 2009). Importantly, positive experiences with and trust in specific others affect evaluations of the generalized other positively and thus spill over to social trust (Freitag and Traunmüller 2009 ; Glanville and Paxton 2007).

Based on the above, a likely explanation for a negative relationship between residential e xposure to ethnic diversity and social trust originates in the general disposition to evaluate individuals with different ethnic background as less trustworthy. This disposition exists regardless of the level of ethnic diversity in the residential setting. However, being more heavily exposed to people of different ethnic background leads to lower levels of social trust because ethnic background functions as a social cue about the trustworthiness of specific others, which in turn affect the overall assessmen t of the generalized other. The crux of this argument is thus that an evolved and/or learned negative out-group bias affects social trust negatively in the face of residential exposure to people of different ethnic background because more diverse contexts provide cues that lead residents to believe that the generalized other is less trustworthy.

Not surprisingly, they found in inability to measure in larger contexts, where the diversity question itself became statistically inseparable from other forms of social decay:

In other words, in the micro-context, where interethnic exposure is captured more accurately, ethnic diversity has a negative impact on trust, whereas this effect is diluted in contexts of higher aggregation, where exposure is arguably measured more crudely. This supports the notion that interethnic exposure is the mechanism accounting for the negative impact of ethnic diversity on trust.

Surely headlines will be written about this study as a “refutation” of Putnam, but in fact, it confirms Putnam and points out an additional damning fact: if diversity becomes background noise of social decay like other factors, it has a more negative impact that direct polling can identify. As it is, this study — although all studies must be approached with skepticism as most are statistical forgeries representing what their target audience wishes to believe — provides another interesting scope into how diversity (helps) destroy communities.

Why diversity can never work

Thursday, November 28th, 2013


Our position on this blog and prior statements by our writers has been consistent since 1997: diversity doesn’t work.

This is different from dislike or fear of the elements of diversity, such as “I don’t like black people” or “I think Caucasians are inferior.” It is not a critique of a specific diversity, but diversity itself.

It applies uniformly to diversity of religious, ethnic/racial, cultural, linguistic and even caste distinctions. The rule is that the less variation you have in your society, the healthier and happier it is.

A society which is unified requires the fewest rules, police and government interventions. Culture is a superior method for enforcing values because it does not require enforcers. Ordinary citizens enforce it by ostracizing those who do not meet its standards.

Without that culture, which unifies vital measures as disparate as values system and identity and social pressures, only government can enforce standards. What inevitably results is a Nanny State that makes many rules, sets up lots of detail-fixated bureaucrats, and grows like a cancer, enriching itself.

The problem with diversity is that instead of culture, it chooses anti-culture, or the culture of having no culture. It’s an extension of the idea of freedom, which is that you don’t have any positive goals, but share a negative goal, which is agreeing to have no goals.

A person in a culture afflicted with diversity — known also by its synonyms internationalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism — faces an ugly choice: they can either join the culture of non-culture and give up on their own values, or they can retain their own values and be socially ostracized or treated as a stereotype.

Diversity always leads to the same thing. Society simultaneously widens its tolerance while demanding more government interference to enforce basic rules. This becomes too much, and soon third-world levels of criminality, corruption, low hygiene and disorder descend.

Look at most countries on earth. Most of them are of mixed race, culture and religion. Over time, this became an anti-culture which settled on the lowest common denominator, which means that no one has much in common. People just want to get rich and escape such societies. There is no actual joy.

Some time ago, Robert Putnam came out with a study that was so toxic to prevailing attitudes in academia that he has spent the years since it came out fighting for his career. In it, he revealed that diverse societies increase internal alienation and distrust:

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.

Incorporating different groups means we cannot have a common standard of behavior. This means that we cannot predict society’s response to what we do, and if someone is offended, we lose big.

That translates to “take your toys and go home.” For most people, society has become hostile. As a result, they retreat to gated communities and let the lack of social standards trash public spaces, public expectations, culture and morality.

Total freedom would mean a society with no rules. That means nothing is a crime. Even more, it is means that nothing is shunned. The guy dumping toxic waste in the river may just be expressing his freedom, and if enough other people agree with him, he’s free to do it.

Even more, without cultural standards, people have no identity. Identity helps explain to ourselves and others who we are and what values system we apply. “I don’t pollute, because I’m from this place and I love it,” is a value conveyed only by culture, not government.

Recently, new research came to light which shows the mechanism by which diversity dissolves community (full paper) and replaces it with alienated, atomized individuals:

However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity often run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.

There are two contrasting forces here: the need for homogeneity of values in order to build a community, and the desire for diversity. The two work against each other. The more homogenous a community, the less diverse it is, and the more diverse a community is, the less it really is a community.

When communities break down, what is left is the atomized individual. This person cares for nothing other than their immediate wants and desires. They have zero interest in the society around them except as it will impact them through say, higher taxes or fewer entitlements.

As a result, your chance at having a higher society breaks down. What is left is a group of selfish people held together by an economy and a political system but nothing less. This group actively penalizes civic interest and any behavior except individualistic isolation.

This results in a condition of extreme individualism, or narcissism. In this state, we are incapable of forming bonds with each other. Friendship, romance and citizenship are all means to an end, and there is no faith or pride, thus no long-term thinking.

If you wonder why the greatest civilizations are no longer with us, this is what brought them down. Like the apathy that afflicts large corporations, the entropy of volunteer organizations over time, or the stagnation of a social group, diversity is death.

Recommended Reading