[pessimizer]

>a preference that one's neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture "up to some limit"

A common term for that is racism. Are you saying that segregation can spring from racism? I'm not sure that anyone was confused about that.

[vdaniuk]

Literally the next line is qualifying and clarifying the previous statement:

"That means that segregation may occur even with communities that consist mostly of non-racist individuals or individual with very low level of racism."

I'm not sure that anyone could be confused about that if they aren't emotionally invested in the discussion. And I am not interested in debating things on emotional grounds.

If you reallywant more information on Shelling segregation model, it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFl3Cfw12bo. This is a 10 minute lecture from Coursera mooc.

[pessimizer]

> Literally the next line is qualifying and clarifying the previous statement

Exactly. What I'm reading here is that "a preference that one's neighbors be of the same color, or even a preference for a mixture 'up to some limit'" is not racism, but can lead to total segregation. I can't see where you're reading something different.

It would have been more interesting for you to clarify that for me, rather than psychologically diagnosing me over the internet.

Is merely having a preference for the race of one's neighbors considered racism in this model, or are those people counted as the non-racist portion of the "communities that consist mostly of non-racist individuals"?

What's a "low level of racism"? Is that what racial preferences are categorized as?

Schelling may be clear about some of these things, but you're not. If I'm getting it wrong, it's because you're doing him a disservice, not because of whatever you're projecting onto me.

-----

edit: You weren't doing him a disservice, and my interpretation was not wrong. The model is of groups with different preferences of racial balance, and shows that segregation can happen even when only a minority prefer total segregation. The point: in his model, all actors maintain racial preferences, and a 1:1 ratio is considered the opposite of segregation.

-----

from posts responding to the study on metafilter:

"not that this isn't interesting, but it doesn't take away the 'racist' part - it's not an 'inevitable result of mathematics' unless everyone starts out with a desire for a minimum racial representation. Why would they desire that? Do you seek a neighborhood where 'at least two of my neighbors have brown hair'? Or 'at least two of my neighbors are left-handed'?"

http://www.metafilter.com/52878/Dr-Schellings-neighborhood#1...

or

"It only works when people have a desire to stick to 'their own kind', so racial segregation would only happen if people viewed being around other members of their race as a positive, rather then a neutral.

"You don't see people segregated by hair color, or blood type, or any other genetic trait even when those traits have more effect on the genome? So why would skin color be different, unless there was an underlying sense of 'otherness' caused by skin color.

"Without that underlying sense of otherness, no amount of mathematical mumbo jumbo would cause segregation.

"(by the way, his mathematical models are very naïve, he's basically talking about simple thermodynamics applied to society. If we add 'heat' to cause things to re-randomize slightly and continuously that 'heat' can over come the 'desire' and keep things un-segregated, even if there were a slight desire to keep things segregated)"

http://www.metafilter.com/52878/Dr-Schellings-neighborhood#1...