In a recent article in The Economist, it describes how America's political landscape is shifting to an increasingly bipolar picture. In other words, if you're liberal, you want to live near other liberals. The same can be said for conservatives.
This article rings particularly true to me after having just read chapter six in Tim Harford's The Logic of Life (and yeah, I'm probably gonna mention this book a lot in the coming weeks, so get used to it). In this chapter, entitled "In the Neighborhood," Harford explains Thomas Schelling's model of self-segregation. Schelling's model demonstrates that a small preference for one's neighbors to be similar (in his original model, he used race) could lead to total segregation.
Schelling's model is also useful in telling the story of the current geopolitical shift in America. If Americans are displaying a preference for their neighbors' political views, then we would expect them (over time) to begin segregating themselves: liberals move to more liberal neighborhoods and conservatives move to more conservative neighborhoods. As you can see, all else equal, the movement is self-sustaining. If you have a preference for not being a minority in a liberal neighborhood (as a conservative), then rationally you would move to a conservative neighborhood where more people share your political views. This has two effects: 1) the neighborhood you left becomes more liberal, causing more conservatives to leave, and 2) the neighborhood you moved to becomes more conservative, pushing out liberals that don't want to be the minority.
I find it interesting that the original article did not even mention Schelling's model, especially considering he won the Nobel Prize in Economics only three short years ago. What the article does mention, however, is that this pattern of behavior leads to extremism. By separating ourselves from those who disagree with us, we reinforce only our own beliefs. I have to say that this is a very familiar story. College is a great example of this.
If a student could go choose any college of their liking (assume tuition, friends, etc. are not a factor), they will often choose a school where they feel like they are most likely to fit in. In doing this, they are separating themselves into like-minded schools and reducing the variety of students at any given school. Schools will be "segregated." I know that this personally happened to me. I attended a small liberal arts college where many of the other students shared many of my own beliefs.
Too often we join communities where people are similar to us, only to hear our own thoughts repeated back to us, increasing our certainty that we are right. Of course, there is nothing wrong with finding others like us. After all, these are the people we are most likely to get along with. But we must be careful not to insulate ourselves from thoughts and ideas that differ from our own. It is in these situations, where our beliefs are challenged, that we learn and grow. Either we can open up and consider that maybe the issue is not as simple as we thought, or we strengthen our resolve by hearing the opposing side's best arguments and exposing their weaknesses. Either way, it is best that we do not always surround ourselves with those who simply chorus, "Here! Here!"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

5 comments:
On the other side, having been a liberal and spending most of my last five years in very conservative states, such as Oklahoma and Utah, it can be incredibly tiring to be a minority (heck, being Asian as well only amplifies it). I find myself yearning to move out, only demonstrating the model in real life.
I suppose my question would be, is it really that wrong to surround yourself with people like you? It can be very tiring to be a minority, especially if you've been one your entire life. Sometimes, you get tired.
Yeah, it's interesting. One commentator who was a conservative living in Manhattan said a very similar thing. They had said that it was incredibly frustrating being constantly bombarded by liberalism, and that they could see such a scenario causing someone to become even more extreme in their views instead of tempering their politics.
I'd say that either way, it is tiring to be surrounded by a majority that is different than you (could be politically, religiously, ethnically, etc.) On the other hand, I also personally find it annoying when everyone agrees with me because I know that I am not being challenged. If I'm not being challenged then I will not be forced to reexamine my beliefs, and my opinion is likely to remain the same, even if it is a very sheltered (and even "incorrect") opinion.
I guess I just wish there could be a happy balance. :)
I think I want to clarify what I meant by having one's beliefs go unopposed. Basically, if everyone says there favorite kind of pizza is pepperoni, then nobody feels compelled to say why. This is the critical point. If no one has to explain why they like pepperoni, then those that haven't developed a proper reason (maybe it's the only pizza they have ever had) will never be forced to defend their choice.
If we are not challenged to defend our opinion, then we will be less informed than we would otherwise be. It makes perfect sense: who among us researches the opposing argument as diligently as our own? Therefore, we cannot be as knowledgeable about the other side's reasoning as our own. It is only in "conflict" with the opposing side that we will learn their most effective arguments and truly have our own beliefs tested in the process. This process either strengthens our resolve, or makes us consider something we never thought of before. Either way, we find out what we truly believe in.
I can sympathize with that comment. Environmentalists in Utah overall can be very stupid and very extreme. The environmentalists in Seattle are much more moderate and reasonable. I would hypothesize that the environmentalists in Utah feel like they have to compensate for the rabid conservatism they face every day and so tend to be a little extreme (and very bitter, and very angry).
In reality, Provo, Utah will be one of the most homogeneous populations you can find in the United States (except for maybe Amish country) and I know that you can find people who are of the minority. If people actively sought out to spend time and rub shoulders with those who they know have opposite ideas of them, they could continue to refine their beliefs and thoughts without having to live in a hostile community.
Basically, you profit off of other peoples' living in hostile communities.
Though if you reach out with an olive branch to minorities in your area, you might be able to foster communication and growth on both sides.
I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comments, Ted. I totally agree with your description of how minorities feel. Even in a small setting, I know that I tend to get more defensive than usual if I'm facing a group of people who disagree with me. If, however, I'm in the majority, it is much easier to be calm because there are others who support your opinion. I think it's natural to feel "ganged up on" when facing such a situation. It's interesting to see that this seems to play out on a larger scale as well.
Taking this a step further, I wonder if this could explain why there is so much "minority" crime and violence in this country? In those communities where there is little ethnic variety, and one group tends to dominate, it seems that there is more racial conflict and violence than in communities where a balance of ethnicities exists.
If being a minority does makes it more likely that one overreacts, then there is a greater chance that one of those reactions will be violent. Although this is just a preliminary theory, I'd like to test it against some data...
Post a Comment