The Value of Diversity

[Lark]

Depends on the diversity. I don't particularly care for hateful, destructive types of diversity. I'm sure most libertarians are law and order types; we like neat lawns and clean streets.

Sounds more like conservatism to me, anyway, good to hear from you Tellenbach, hope you've not burnt the cakes this week

 

[Coriolis]

Depends on the diversity. I don't particularly care for hateful, destructive types of diversity. I'm sure most libertarians are law and order types; we like neat lawns and clean streets.

Wow. Every "law and order" platform I have seen has included substantial inroads on individual freedom without any due process. Even I am more of a libertarian than that. (Actually, there are quite significant libertarian streaks in my outlook, which is where I often part company with both liberals and traditional conservatives.)

 

[Tellenbach]

Every "law and order" platform I have seen has included substantial inroads on individual freedom without any due process.

Think Star Trek type of social unit, aboard a starship. As with diversity, there is good "law and order" and bad "law and order".

 

[LightSun]

I would prefer we all be left to our own values, which are just a step away from our beliefs; but have a shared set of commonly accepted behavior.

Coriolis wrote, (1) "...prefer we all be left to our own values, which are just a step away from our beliefs..."

Right, every individual is unique based on their own nature nurture paradigm. Nature or genetics has instilled in us a set of character traits, temperament and personality even from the womb. Nurture are our experiential life lessons. Because no two people have an exact matrix code of a single individual changing behavior is tantamount to changing one's DNA and experiential life lessons. It is simply not doable. If we could establish a society where critical thinking, empathy, communication and active listening skills was implemented, it would go a long way toward tolerance of people's divergent beliefs.

(2) "...shared set of commonly accepted behavior."

My simple code of conduct is to do no harm psychologically, emotionally, sexually, physically and verbally. This is to take charge of our thoughts and emotions and don't react outward blaming life or others. You are really projecting and your verbal tirade is full of cognitive fallacies and distortions in thought. A harder code of discipline is not to repay a negative with a negative. A person can choose whatever he or she believes or chooses not to believe provided they do no harm to another.

 

[LightSun]

A shared set of commonly accepted behavior? Respectfully, and yet again..."that's not diversity."

Perhaps it's not diverse. As an interrelated species we should educate a modicum of ethical standards. My simple code of conduct is to do no harm psychologically, emotionally, sexually, physically and verbally.
This is to take charge of our thoughts and emotions and don't react outward blaming life or others. You are really projecting and your verbal tirade is full of cognitive fallacies and distortions in thought. A harder code of discipline is not to repay a negative with a negative. A person can choose whatever he or she believes or chooses not to believe provided they do no harm to another.

 

[Lark]

Wow. Every "law and order" platform I have seen has included substantial inroads on individual freedom without any due process. Even I am more of a libertarian than that. (Actually, there are quite significant libertarian streaks in my outlook, which is where I often part company with both liberals and traditional conservatives.)

THE WORKERS!!

COMRADE!!

In all seriousness, you can be a civil libertarian without being the sort of markets and old money uber alas that most (free market) libertarians profess (go on [MENTION=20113]Tellenbach[/MENTION], tell me I'm wrong )

 

[Lark]

Think Star Trek type of social unit, aboard a starship. As with diversity, there is good "law and order" and bad "law and order".

That is of course very true, there's good and bad examples of most.

I wouldnt say that (free market) libertarianism is the federation though, they dont use money and everyone seems to create and destroy property with their replicators without any sort of exchange being involved, its definitely post-capitalist, its got none of the trappings of socialism either (which ironically, is the sort of transcendent order that I think is actually a qualification for true socialism, like people participate in the economy without being dutiful, loyal, believing capitalists).

The Borg dont have any system of government and they all seem to conform very well to the time honoured and well established pattern private ownership. Given how they adopt new races or anyone they find into their ranks they've got a working version of perpetual indentured labour going on too, ie slavery.

 

[LightSun]

How? "Flip-flopping" at least suggests inconsistency, even capriciousness, with nothing rooted in deeper principles. Regardless of one's political leanings, that doesn't sound like good governance. Also, do you see no connection between personal morals and the policy decisions an elected official would make or support?


Ah, the dreaded "what if"? Of course it is readily answered simply by saying, "What if travel does indeed promote open-mindedness?" As someone who has travelled a great deal, I can say travel usually at least leads to greater awareness, to dispelling ignorance. Once you know more about something outside your own culture or experience, you can see better how it fits into your worldview, or perhaps leads you to modify that view. You have something to work with other than hearsay and prejudice. You don't have to adopt or even approve of these other ways to understand them better and even learn from them. [MENTION=7280]Lark[/MENTION]'s comments above are on the mark as well.


Sometimes proof of concept is all that is needed, or a few counterexamples to disprove an absolute.

Coriolis wrote, (1) "What if travel does indeed promote open-mindedness?" and "...someone...has traveled...great deal, I can say travel usually at least leads to greater awareness, to dispelling ignorance." and
"...know more about something outside your own culture or experience, you can see better how it fits into your worldview, or perhaps leads you to modify that view."

Coriolis when I joined the army it was a world and eye opening experience for me. I travelled throughout Europe and came to greatly appreciate the subtelies of divergent culture. Furthuremore I found it enriching.

(3) "...have something to work with other than hearsay and prejudice...don't have to adopt or even approve of these other ways to understand them better and even learn from them."

That is right. Fear of the unknown and different can keep us in a prejudiced sate. With immersion into other cultures and seeing them as human beings foremost one can begin to apprecite their humanity.

 

[Tellenbach]

I wouldnt say that (free market) libertarianism is the federation though, they dont use money and everyone seems to create and destroy property with their replicators without any sort of exchange being involved, its definitely post-capitalist, its got none of the trappings of socialism either

If such a society is possible, it's only possible through capitalism. Capitalists do a much better job at creating new technology than socialists. Also, such a society would only be possible if irrational, emotional ideologies like leftist nonsense are eliminated. This is why Vulcans were much more advanced than humans.

 

[anticlimatic]

Diversity in the leftist sense- skin tone, ethic backgrounds- is fairly superficial and irrelevant in the context of anything that actually matters, like progress or innovation. I imagine diversity quotas would have the same effect on bolstering productivity as mandating that everyone wear a different color shirt to the job. When this superficial diversity overrides or has a competing interest with deeper diversity of thought and perspective, it actually becomes a problem, and not just a superficial irrelevance.

 

[LightSun]

This is where we disagree. I find it always better to have knowledge, especially on matters where we are about to take action or render a judgment. Much of prejudice and fear is based in ignorance and the assumptions we make in the absence of accurate information. As your example in another post about India illustrates, no culture is perfect. If someone visits India, as you wrote, "looking for calmness and a different perception of time", they may very well be disillusioned by the poverty and other social problems there. Someone who goes there out of some western moral crusade "to improve the lot of folks in the third world" may be taken down a peg or two by those elements of wisdom you reference. Better to visit India - or anywhere else - without any agenda broader than just to understand the place, the culture, and the people better. I find invariably in such situations, alongside the sometimes stark differences I see from what I know, I also see the threads of our common humanity.


Sadly, I do see quite a few claims that cultural exchange is always harmful, and (not the same but related) that we never gain by it. The counterexamples are numerous and obvious. I would label this as regress, except that I cannot rule out that prior apparent efforts to embrace diversity were not mere lip service.

Via Litvyak
Sure, I agree, interacting with other cultures leads to epistemic improvement, at least in a negative sense, i.e. it dispels myth. It's just that I don't accept the premise that gaining knowledge is necessarily beneficial.

Via Coriolis
(1) "...where we disagree. I find it always better to have knowledge, especially on matters where we are about to take action or render a judgment."


The more breadth and depth of our understanding of ourselves, others and the world we live in so much the better. I am a life long learner. To keep one's head in the sand and not be exposed to divergent cultures and beliefs short changes us. We need more knowledge in order to understand and communicate in mutual respect. LightSun


(2) "...prejudice ...fear ...based in ignorance...assumptions we make in the absence of accurate information." and "I find invariably in such situations, alongside the sometimes stark differences I see from what I know, I also see the threads of our common humanity."


Fear of the unknown and different can keep us in a prejudiced sate. With immersion into other cultures and seeing them as human beings foremost one can begin to appreciate their humanity. lightsun


(4) "...to visit India - or anywhere else - without any agenda broader than just to understand the place, the culture, and the people better."


Keeping an open minded ness one can soak up the new experiences without the filter of prejudices, stereotypes and preconceived notions.


Via Litvyak
"....guess you can disprove claims such as "cultural exchange is always harmful" through historical examples...rarely disputed. Fundamentalists usually claim that "cultural exchange is not beneficial for us...this context" etc., and you can not come up with strong inductive historical arguments in response, for obvious reasons."

Via Coriolis
(5) "...see quite a few claims that cultural exchange is always harmful...we never gain by it. The counterexamples are numerous and obvious...as regress, except that I cannot rule out that prior apparent efforts to embrace diversity were not mere lip service."

Corilois can you give examples where cultural exchange was harmful?

 

[sLiPpY]

Perhaps it's not diverse. As an interrelated species we should educate a modicum of ethical standards. My simple code of conduct is to do no harm psychologically, emotionally, sexually, physically and verbally.
This is to take charge of our thoughts and emotions and don't react outward blaming life or others. You are really projecting and your verbal tirade is full of cognitive fallacies and distortions in thought. A harder code of discipline is not to repay a negative with a negative. A person can choose whatever he or she believes or chooses not to believe provided they do no harm to another.

I appreciate your own admission of not valuing diversity, unless it happens to suit your own definition.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I think a healthy status for a country as large and diverse in ethnicity and belief as the USA is some sort of middle point between monoculturalism and multiculturalism.

Rather than looking to define our American culture by the old world (Christian, European/White, African/Black, et al), we ought to recognize that our culture can never be the purest distillation of any one of the old, and instead seek to recognize, define and appreciate that American culture has been and always will be the unique result/outcome of a recipe/equation that can never reproduce the exact characteristics or homogeneity of any of the individual ingredients prior to their addition.

 

[Litvyak]

The more breadth and depth of our understanding of ourselves, others and the world we live in so much the better. I am a life long learner. To keep one's head in the sand and not be exposed to divergent cultures and beliefs short changes us

This is a) not an argument, but a statement, b) a false dilemma. A number of thinkers from Zapffe to Ligotti and Thacker claim the more we discover about ourselves after a certain point, the more we realise our notions of selfhood, progress and civilization are necessarily and fundamentally wrong. I'm not saying they're right, I'm saying it is not evident that gaining more knowledge on any topic is beneficial from a practical, existential or moral perspective. This does not imply we should "keep our head in the sand", it implies we might have to limit our cognition lest we arrive to a conclusion about cognition being utterly inadequate/impotent, a dangerous cul-de-sac of Enlightenment.

 

[Coriolis]

Corilois can you give examples where cultural exchange was harmful?

The main examples of harmful cultural exchange are when it is one-sided and forcible, as in the attempt to re-educate Native American children to be more like the Christians of European heritage. I wouldn't call that a real exchange, though some elements of culture were transferred to the Native population, and to much lesser extent, the other way.

I appreciate your own admission of not valuing diversity, unless it happens to suit your own definition.

Please do not put words into Lightsun's mouth. He can speak for himself, quite well.

What perhaps needs to be clarified is that diversity must be considered on many axes. We are all alike in our basic humanity - no diversity there. This gives us a common biology and common human nature. Within that are the usually noted differences: gender, race, culture, sexual orientation, (dis)ability, personality traits, etc. These for the most part are inherited, meaning we have to play the cards we are dealt. Then are the actions or behaviors that we choose to exhbit. These will be a mixture of diverse, reflecting our individuality (vocation, hobbies, tastes, interests, etc.); and common, allowing us to interact productively (e.g. speaking a common language, observing a common set of laws). This distinction has already been addressed.

 

[Lib]

That's society. If you want to live with others, you need to agree on some standards of behavior. Diversity, or perhaps more accurately individuality, can be allowed and even encouraged up to the point that it keeps the next person from expressing their individuality. This requires everyone to compromise a bit. So, we generally agree not to do things like steal, murder, and slander; and to do things like pay our taxes, park in designated spaces, and pick up our trash.

If you are unhappy with this, you can always go off on your own, live as a hermit, and always do things exactly the way you want, but that isn't diversity at all.

Putting individuality in second place for the sake of community's harmony suggests common core values.

 

[Lib]

If such a society is possible, it's only possible through capitalism. Capitalists do a much better job at creating new technology than socialists. Also, such a society would only be possible if irrational, emotional ideologies like leftist nonsense are eliminated. This is why Vulcans were much more advanced than humans.

Quite the opposite. Try to live in a Nordic country where any exposure of emotions is considered a possible mental condition. It's questionable whether random innovations are beneficial to the economy more than the targeted ones.

 

[Coriolis]

Putting individuality in second place for the sake of community's harmony suggests common core values.

The "common core value" I highlighted in my comment was respect for individuality.

Quite the opposite. Try to live in a Nordic country where any exposure of emotions is considered a possible mental condition. It's questionable whether random innovations are beneficial to the economy more than the targeted ones.

Have you lived in a Nordic country and found this to be so? It has not been my experience during my time there. Do not confuse exposure (do you mean expression?) of emotions with allowing them to dictate your actions in unproductive ways, e.g. punching someone you vehemently disagree with.

 

[Lib]

The "common core value" I highlighted in my comment was respect for individuality.


Have you lived in a Nordic country and found this to be so? It has not been my experience during my time there. Do not confuse exposure (do you mean expression?) of emotions with allowing them to dictate your actions in unproductive ways, e.g. punching someone you vehemently disagree with.

Well, you mentioned compromising your individuality because it's how society works (or something in this sense, which I have nothing against). But my point was not this. I tried to say that it is only possible in cases where the core values are the same and there is a common understanding of what proper expression of individuality is. Diversity of ideas is different from diversity of core values.

My information is first hand. Expression of negative emotions (or too much enthusiasm) is not considered a normal behavior, even if you don't go on a personal vendetta. But I'd be interested to hear about your experience since it's always nice to see things from another point of view.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, you mentioned compromising your individuality because it's how society works (or something in this sense, which I have nothing against). But my point was not this. I tried to say that it is only possible in cases where the core values are the same and there is a common understanding of what proper expression of individuality is. Diversity of ideas is different from diversity of core values.

My information is first hand. Expression of negative emotions (or too much enthusiasm) is not considered a normal behavior, even if you don't go on a personal vendetta. But I'd be interested to hear about your experience since it's always nice to see things from another point of view.

In my experience, Americans seem especially expressive, both of negative and positive emotions. Compared with that, I have seen less extreme emotional expression from people in Nordic nations when I have been there. But then I have seen similarly less when in other nations, such as Poland, Czech Republic, Canada, England, France, Netherlands, and especially Germany. So, it isn't so much that Nordic nations stand out as having less expression, but that Americans stand out as having more. By comparison I have seen expression comparable to Americans' in Russia. So, while that may have been your personal experience during your time there, mine was certainly different.

It would be interesting to hear the experiences of some of our members who have lived for longer periods in these different countries as well as in the US. I won't out them, but perhaps some will read this and post.