Thursday, August 9, 2007

Sailer on Putnam's Findings of Increasing Diversity Itself Yielding Negative Results

Since attempted smears are used, where rational arguments were rightly to be expected, what should be suspected? There is no rational argument for increasing diversity as if it were value in itself. Nor is there one for trying to randomize what built up a place, so we get smearing innuendoes instead. As diversity increases in a place, per capita innovation and creativity will tend to decline, not increase. If this were not so, the ancient centers of brilliance could have acumulated any degree of diversity and be still what they once were. Diversity is a marker of randomization as it increases, while merit systems homogenize. The creative and innovative will not congregate in the same degree, but less and less so, as a place randomizes through increasing diversity down and away from higher standards. Look at the places where anything of rare value occurs; they are highly homogenized for being above some standards. Pro-diversity is for increase of entropy; the creation of great new value is negentropic, and necessarily so. As for the motivations of those in power or state pulpits of influence, who wish upon successful peoples a genetic entropy, through increase of diversity, far fetched at great cost; there will be no further discussion of that just now.
From another post: Putnam's Findings That Increasing Diversity Elevates Suspicion, and Tends to Destroy Participatory Democracy...
...May the government still be allowed to get away with decreeing that increasing diversity is a compelling state interest? Do the federal courts have the brazen effrontery to believe that they might just establish pro-diversity as a compelling interest, when this would clearly mean a state interest in increasing division, suspicion, civic disengagement and other dysfunctions of society?

No comments: