Political Compass #26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.

Great Debates
21

Another “agree” poster checking in…

I didn’t see it simply as a matter of race, as many seemed to. When I see the “different types of people” I thought of the blue and red states. Notherners and southerners. Poor and rich. Young and old. Also, black white and yellow. But, not simply race alone.

Until recently I lived in Lowell, MA. It’s a college town but it also has a very high asian population. It’s a city with both expensive neighborhoods and ghettos.

Within a couple of city blocks around downtown we have the following:

a gay bar called “The Downstairs Cafe”
a college hangout called “The Dubliner”
an asian dance club called “Discotech something”
an upscale italian restaraunt and bar called “Fortunados”
and a biker bar called “The Sports Page”.

Very different people are at these different places. I think that is a good thing. Like the statement says, anyone is and should be free to go to any place that they choose. However, it is best for everyone that these people be kept seperate.

I might be feeling like dressing nice and going out with my SO for a martini. I would go to Fortunado’s which is a nice restaurant. We could have a quiet conversation and pay for high priced drinks. On another night, I might feel like playing pool and listening to the bands at the shady biker bar with my old Fraternity brothers. We would head to the Sports Page.

No offense to anyone, but if I’m going out with my SO for a drink, I don’t want to be surrounded by a bunch of gay men, annoying college students, dancing asian rave noodles, or biker dudes.

People that answered strongly disagree to the question:

How would you feel if a halfway house for troubled teenagers was put in across the street from you in your nieghborhood? Or a motorcycle club? Or a retirement community?

Look around at your neighbors. I bet they are about the same age as you. They probably are the same race as you. They probably make about the same amount of money you do.

22

So long as everyone obeyed the law (including ‘nuisance’ laws such as noise pollution as in the cycle club case) I would not give two hoots. My concern with thetroubled teenagers woudl be if they broke the law, but ‘keeping them to their own’ would do absolutely nothing to prevent this.

Actually, I live in an exceptionally diverse (in all of those criteria) part of Cardiff and I think it is better than a homogenous suburbia.

23

That’s great for you. However, most people disagree (in deed, if not in phrase).

24

You are surely not forwarding an argument ad populum?

25

Actually, no, he’s not.

He’s saying that, despite professing belief in the ideal of a heterogenous culture, most people tend to pick homogenous neighorhoods to live in. In order to do the “argument ad populum” thing, he’d have to be saying that “homogenous neighorhoods are good because that’s what most people pick,” or something along those lines.

26

Would “something along those lines” be ticking Agree to Proposition #26 because that was essentially what “most people do”?

27

Troubled teens: If they leave me alone, no problem. Quite honestly, I’d rather they didn’t BUT it isn’t a matter of people “sticking to their own kind”, it’s that there would be an increased probability of crimes and mischief.

Motorcycle club: They’d have to obey common sense noise restrictions. In reality, a club would no more be allowed in a residential area than a gasoline station, but if the nearest appropriately zoned property was turned into a biker haven, no problem as long as they obey the laws.

Retirement community: No problems foreseen.

Yean, my neighbors are mostly Caucasians, with the exception of one Asian family. And they all have the same income mainly because people buy into neighborhoods based on their income, budget, and the local price of housing. If I could afford to, I’d live in a nicer neighborhood and if I were less well off, I’d live in a not so nice neighborhood.

28

So what? The majority of the world is a shithole, too. All in all I’d rather take the experience of my hometown, with a highly diverse and mixed population and a crime rate that’s the envy of most of the Western world, as being the model to follow.

I also question your definition of “Separate.” Having one crowd at one restaurant and another crowd in the restaurant across the street is not “Separate” in the sense I think the proposition was phrased. You’re still going to encounter those different people on a daily basis - your kids will go to school with their kids, you’ll work with them, shop alongside them, attend baseball games with them. That isn’t separate living.

29

Yes, what Metacom said. I’m not saying it proves anything. However, most people do tend to stick to their own. (Even, IMHO, people who if asked would say that diversity is a good thing.)

Hey, living in Lowell was great. I liked living in a diverse neighborhood. But, I still agree with the statement because of the reasons I mentioned.

Another good example of this is churches. I don’t have any personal experience because I’ve been an athiest all of my life. However, it’s my understanding that in the south many people attend church. The churches tend to cater to people of the same race and class. For instance the same town might have a black church, a lower middle class white church, an upper class white church, etc. Like I stated, I don’t have any personal experience with this, but I remember reading about it once.

30

Characterised by bigger properties, quiter streets and less crime presumably, Bob, but not more homogeneity?

31

It sounds like you interpreted the question differently than I did. That’s fine, it’s the way the test works. We’ve seen that on most questions, the way that you interpret it is more important than anything else in determining your answer. Niether of us is right or wrong, of course. It’s a gut reaction thing.

Of course if the statement read “people should never go to school, work, or shop alongside people that are different from themselves” I would have checked stongly disagree. But, that’s not the way I read it. The statement said “keep to their own kind”. By going to different places to eat and drink, people are “keeping to thier own kind” IMO.

32

You think it is better that the church congregations were stratified in this manner?

Frequenting different establishments on the basis of what music or services they provide is hardly “people keeping to their own kind”, surely?

33

So, in practice you agree with the statement. It’s just in theory that you do not.

34

Ignore my last post!

Well, it’s a rather strained interpretation and it certainly lumps you with some dubious company but, yes, these different angles are what these threads are all about.

35

Debaser:

Had the question been “People generally stick to their own kind”, I would agree with you and your reasoning would be valid. However, the statement was “People SHOULD…” which is whole different matter. That’s equivlanet to saying “It is generally a mistake to mix with people who are different than you”. I’d also add that this is a political test, and therefore it’s reasonable to assume that one’s answers would be the basis for the formation of a political system. What government policies would you advocate from an affirmative answer to this quesion?

36

This is true, insofar as I also intended us to examine our original gut reaction.

Do you think that Agreement with #26 is really a good ‘gut reaction’ to have?

37

Not really, I’m just being realistic. I’d wager that the majority of neighborhoods have people with similar income levels. I don’t attribute this to “people sticking to their own kind” as much as I would the simple economics of the marketplace. Neighborhoods tend to have rather homogeneous property values that means that people with roughly equivalent incomes will buy them. Those that earn more will usually want a better neighborhood and those that earn less can’t afford to live there. I don’t think market-driven stratification by income levels has much at all to do with ethnic diversity.

38

Well, I don’t see it that the test is stating the equivilent of “It’s a mistake to mix people…” I certainly would strongly disagree with the notion that the government should take any kind of active role in any of this.

I don’t think that because the test is gauging politics that it’s fair to assume every question relates to government policies or action.

If the test states “Steak would make a good dinner tonight” I’m going to say “Strongly Agree” because I like steak. That doesn’t mean that I think the government should mandate people eat steak or that the government should subsidize the cattle industry. I see the test questions as more of a personality type, that they then try and fit into a political peg somehow.

That’s the failing of all these types of tests, really. Someone like me who is an athiest, but also a very fiscal conservative is very hard to get a numeric reading on. My answers kind of cancel eachother out.

39

I don’t see it as a strained interpretation. Or even an “interpretation” at all, really. It’s more of an example. Certainly, the wording of the question “keep to their own kind” can be taken to mean any of the following:

The places that people eat, drink and socialize.
The places that people worship.
The places that people live.

I have brought up all three. If you think my interpretation is strained, then what do you think it means?

Sure. I look at it more like a “to each his own” type of attitude.

40

Well, your fiscal conservatism is surely accurately represented by your fairly positive economic score of 3.62?

Do you feel your positive social (ie. slightly authoritarian) score of 0.31 is inaccurate? I would say ticking Agree to #26 would be, rightly, awarded a step towards authoritarianism by the test.