[HN Gopher] Schelling's Model of Segregation
___________________________________________________________________
Schelling's Model of Segregation
Author : thunderbong
Score : 36 points
Date : 2022-01-09 16:23 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nifty.stanford.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (nifty.stanford.edu)
| civilized wrote:
| EDIT: given that the model was developed in 1971, I think some of
| the below should be reconsidered. But I will leave it unaltered
| so that the thread discussion continues to make sense.
|
| -----
|
| I don't think it's a very insightful model, because I don't think
| people are segregating because they want some % of their
| neighbors to look like them. And even if they do, I think the
| tendency toward segregation is pretty trivially obvious and
| doesn't require a fancy agent based model to prove, although I'm
| sure it's fun to fiddle with the parameters and see what happens.
|
| Hypotheses I'd look at first: perhaps they want to live near
| their relatives, who look like them, or they might only be able
| to afford a certain neighborhood, which when combined with race-
| class correlations reinforces segregation. Or there could be
| inertia from a past time when explicit preferences existed.
|
| Explicit desire to live near a certain % of same skin color is
| really not the first hypothesis I'd reach for. And even if it
| _is_ true, is it hard to see how segregation would result from
| this?
| DennisP wrote:
| I don't think the point of a model like this is so much "this
| is a full description of how the real world works," but "if you
| make this assumption, then here's how it works out." It's
| interesting when the result isn't what you'd naively expect.
|
| A lot of people did find this particular model interesting. It
| might seem that if segregation is due to preferences, then when
| you see near-complete segregation it's because people preferred
| to almost completely avoid people who don't look like them. But
| actually, a relatively mild preference to just avoid being in
| the minority is sufficient to make neighborhoods almost
| completely segregated. That's true even if everyone actually
| preferred being in mixed neighborhoods (as long as they weren't
| in the minority).
|
| Whether people actually do avoid being in the minority is a
| separate question. But if were get some data saying that's the
| case, then that would be sufficient to explain segregation.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| If the other factors are highly correlated with % of people in
| a group, then this simple segregation model still makes some
| sense.
|
| Say group A has preferences for unmodeled factors that are
| strongly correlated with the % of people living in an area who
| are in group A. Think whole foods nearby, yoga studio, asian
| fusion restaurant. All the stuff in the SF marina neighborhood.
| As long as preferences are the same within the group, then
| these external factors can be represented by the % of people in
| group A.
|
| This doesn't account for price and income though, which are
| obviously important.
| civilized wrote:
| I just think it's fairly obvious that if people prefer to
| live in places that would cause them to be segregated, then
| they will be segregated. Not sure what the model adds to
| this. Its parameters aren't a helpful guide to the underlying
| reality.
| mgraczyk wrote:
| This model gives you numbers. It takes you from the very
| vague: "differences in between-group preferences can cause
| segregation" to something concrete. "X difference in
| between group preference for Y will lead to Z-level
| segregation." And X is surprisingly small for a given Z.
| civilized wrote:
| But there's no way to estimate the particular X in _this_
| model in the real world, and the notion that that X is
| the actual driver is just a bare possibility among
| others, not really argued for or evidenced.
|
| If you made a model where groups have different
| preferences for "amenities" (nearby relatives, parks,
| yoga studios) that would at least represent a more
| plausible hypothesis. Although the parameters would still
| be impossible to estimate.
|
| I get what you're saying though. Broadly speaking it
| might be theoretically interesting to set up various
| quantitative models for the XYZ chain.
| nerdponx wrote:
| It might be an outdated model of segregation? Maybe it explains
| the origins of segregated suburbs in the 1940s, but doesn't
| explain its persistence into the 2020s.
| asiachick wrote:
| I guess it depends on what you mean by "explain". Any small
| tendency is enough to cause segregation. Want to live near
| relatives. Want to live near grocery store that caries your
| ancestors cuisine's ingredients. etc...
| civilized wrote:
| Relatives plus culture seems like more than enough to do
| it, no matter how egalitarian or "antiracist" the local
| politics.
| nine_k wrote:
| Segregation is not limited to places where people choose to
| live.
|
| Large amounts of (self-)segregation are easy to observe in
| any mixed social setting, such as social networks (within
| them, across them), communities of whatever practice,
| scientific schools, etc.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Good point, and in those contexts the model seems to more
| or less line up with what I personally observe.
| civilized wrote:
| I think this is probably right.
| brent_noorda wrote:
| When the "similar" setting is even a little bigger than the
| minority setting, it is hard to achieve satisfiaction. For
| example, if the minority color is at 10% but satisfaction
| requires 15%, then you can't find satisfaction. This tool shows
| that the absolute fastest way to be satisfied is to not care
| about the color of your neighbor. IE, the way to societal
| happiness is to be color blind.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| And then the relevant question becomes "How does one change
| human behavior and expectations?" That's an extremely non-
| trivial problem.
| uoaei wrote:
| Maybe not color-blind, but universally color-tolerant.
| Breazy wrote:
| notRacistSir wrote:
| seanhunter wrote:
| There's a very elegant explanation of the model by Tim Harford of
| BBC's "More or Less" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjfihtGefxk
| [deleted]
| nine_k wrote:
| The demo also shows a spectacular phase transition.
|
| Make a mix like 10% / 90%, set tolerance to 50%. Even though some
| clusters form, a lot of unsatisfied dots keeps wandering around
| indefinitely, because there are not enough contiguous free areas.
|
| Then change the tolerance to 51%, the smallest amount past 1/2.
| Very-very quickly clusters form and motion stops; the segregation
| is complete and stable.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I'm not sure if this is related or not, but another explanation
| may simply be convenience. If you're an immigrant, you might want
| to live in a place where you can easily buy ingredients to make
| your native cuisine, which implies a mild clustering force. It
| doesn't mean you prefer to be around people of your own ethnicity
| _per se_. Probably more powerfully, you might want to be in a
| place that shares your values, irrespective of ethnicity;
| however, values probably correlate a bit with ethnicity, and thus
| you end up segregating.
|
| With respect to wealth, you probably prefer to live in a place
| that maximizes value/money, which probably means living among
| other people in a similar socioeconomic context (economies of
| scale come into play when you have a lot of people with similar
| socioeconomic statuses in a small area).
|
| So as always, we need to think critically rather than concluding
| "prejudice" at the first sign of disparity.
| zamfi wrote:
| There is another fantastic explanation (an "exploitable
| explanation") by Nicky Case of this same phenomenon here:
| https://ncase.me/polygons/
|
| Interactive, web-based, explained. Highly recommended.
| csense wrote:
| Nicky Case's simulation is great and fun, but I think she
| reaches the wrong conclusion.
|
| Her takeaway is this (in my words, not hers): "Diversity is
| good, therefore we should alter our behavior to increase
| diversity."
|
| My takeaway is the opposite (again, my own words): "Segregated
| communities may arise in a decentralized way through the free
| choices of people optimizing for individual preferences for
| homogeneous communities. Engineering a system to promote
| diversity may cause harm. Such an engineered system must, by
| definition, pressure or force people to make a different choice
| than they freely would."
| crackercrews wrote:
| Nice interactives. The framing seems flawed since all
| preference is referred to as a "bias".
|
| > Small individual bias can lead to large collective bias.
|
| There are many reasons people might want to live near some
| other people who are similar to themselves. Some are purely
| practical, like language and food. It is not clear how much of
| the total preference is rooted in these sorts of practical
| realities as opposed to "bias" that would not exist in an ideal
| world. Referring to all preferences as biases strikes me as
| sloppy.
| civilized wrote:
| > Referring to all preferences as biases strikes me as
| sloppy.
|
| It would be sloppy if it were not deliberate.
|
| I noticed nobody was accused of gentrification in this
| simulation.
| crackercrews wrote:
| I was trying to be generous. Perhaps I overshot.
| civilized wrote:
| It's interesting how the two types in the simulation are said
| to be "happier to live in a diverse environment" but their only
| preference that leads to actual behavior is "when I'm in a 1/3
| minority or less I'm unhappy and have to move".
|
| Further down, when the shapes show their preference for
| neighborhood diversity in actual behavior, you get diverse
| results.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-09 23:01 UTC)