zlacker

I wonder if things would be better if there was some mandatory thing like jury duty where you had to go meet and hang out for an hour with a different randomly picked person every a month at some center where they'd have something for you to do so it's not 100% awkward.

I realize that's a terrible idea, but not sure of any way of changing people's attitudes towards each other when they'd rather stick to their little groups and believe the worst about everyone else.

>>sidibe+(OP)
My co-worker who once worked in an Amazon fulfillment center, said that it was the most diverse place in terms of groups represented that he had ever worked. Conversely he said it was the most segregated environment he had ever been in, with different groups strictly regulating their interaction with other groups, say at lunch, to what they were required to do by work. I know it's anecdota, but I still don't know where I can square this information with the interactions and conversations we are having today. Maybe one-on-one interactions are the way to go, no group tribalism going on.

>>sidibe+(OP)
I tend to think people's attitudes come from too much diversity rather than too little.

The most diverse places I've ever been are also the most visibly segregated and racially aware (but not in a good way). Meanwhile, I see the most tolerance for others in homogeneous places.

I wonder if this is borne out in any studies.

>>Press2+62
I've observed that racial stereotypes seem to be borne out more often than not in the urban environments I've lived in, because minorities there tend to be disproportionately poor and uneducated. So I share your skepticism that "diversity" per se is the answer to prejudice. Canada for example is much more white on the whole compared to the US, and far more tolerant on the whole. Ditto with Scandinavia etc.