Actually, fraud and paradox
Even if true, who cares about some narrow economic application? It certainly doesn’t broadly apply, as the West’s decline is in direct relation to increasing diversity – never mind the costs in genocidal reduction in majority EGI and Putnam’s findings on societal distrust. And of course, “diversity” never seems to include a true diversity of ideas and opinions.
But, aside from all of that, for all these types of studies, if you scratch the surface, you find they are fraudulent. For example, one of Breezy’s readers comments:
The homogeneous groups were Latino.
The article says:
“To ascertain that we were measuring the effects of diversity, not culture or history, we examined a variety of ethnic and racial groups. In Texas, we included the expected mix of whites, Latinos and African-Americans.”
In the appendix of the study:
“In Texas, we created homogeneous markets by including only participants
that were Latinos. In diverse markets, we included at least one participant of a numerical minority ethnicity.”
So, adding Whites to groups of coloreds can improve performance. Who knew?
But there is a paradox here. Liberals are universalist humanists. They view “all humanity” as their ingroup. Very well. If diversity really enhanced performance, how can this be leveraged to help all humanity? What is diversity from the perspective of humanity?
Answer: the benefits of diversity to humanity would be maximized by having distinct, ethnically/racially homogeneous states, all interacting with each other as part of a diverse tapestry of nations and peoples. Diversity among humanity is maintained by Salterian Universal Nationalism. The type of “diversity” favored by liberals – multiculturalism – leads to a long-term reduction of diversity through biological and cultural panmixia,
Therefore, I look forward to liberals safeguarding diversity by promoting the work of Salter.