Element Models of Segregation .


33 views
Uploaded on:
Category: Funny / Jokes
Description
Dynamic Models of Segregation. Thomas C. Shelling Reviewed by Hector Alfaro September 30, 2008. SUMMARY. Goal. Study segregation that results from discriminatory individual behavior. Results useful for any twofold analysis: Black and white Male and female Students and faculty.
Transcripts
Slide 1

Dynamic Models of Segregation Thomas C. Shelling Reviewed by Hector Alfaro September 30, 2008

Slide 2

SUMMARY

Slide 3

Goal Study isolation that outcomes from oppressive individual conduct. Comes about helpful for any twofold examination: Black and white Male and female Students and workforce Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 4

Motivation Segregation might be sorted out or disorderly May happen from Religion Language of correspondence Color Correlations Church  Neighborhoods Difficult to discover coordinated neighborhoods. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 5

Methods Two tests Spatial Proximity Model Bounded-Neighborhood Model Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 6

Spatial Proximity Model Two sorts of people: stars and zeros Dissatisfied people signified by speck over person. Neighborhood definitions shift, with respect to people. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 7

Spatial Proximity Model Results Equilibrium came to. Arbitrary successions yield 5 groupings with 14 individuals 7-8 groupings with 9-10 individuals Order does not make a difference Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 8

Spatial Proximity Model Two-dimensional model Order can fluctuate Top left to base right Center outward Results Segregation happens paying little mind to request Extreme proportions prompt minority shaping vast groups, upsetting dominant part. Expanding neighborhood estimate  builds isolation Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 9

Spatial Proximity Model Integration shows marvels: Requires more intricate examples Minority is apportioned Dead space frames its own particular groups Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 10

Bounded-Neighborhood Model Neighborhoods are characterized. An individual is either in or out. Data is immaculate, however goals not known. Most tolerant white Both fulfilled Median white Least tolerant white Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 11

Bounded-Neighborhood Model Results Only one stable harmony: all white or all dark. Can fluctuate resilience incline for more crossing point Can constrain populace to discover more purposes of harmony. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 12

Bounded-Neighborhood Model Results Can concentrate on combination by translating comes about in an unexpected way. Delivering harmonies requires vast bothers (like changing populace measure) or coordinated activities. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 13

Contributions Can roll out forecasts on improvements to neighborhoods in light of models. Tipping marvel: new minority entering a built up lion\'s share cause prior occupants to empty. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 14

ANALYSIS

Slide 15

Strengths Broad study, comes about apply to any two gatherings one wishes to analyze. Models are anything but difficult to change and results might be effortlessly recreated: changing number of neighbors, fulfilled/disappointed conditions, and so on. Results might be deciphered in an unexpected way: isolation v. coordination.

Slide 16

Strengths Tolerance in limited neighborhood model is a relative measure – characteristic of reality. Results might be controlled to accomplish balance.

Slide 17

Weaknesses Just a model, not in light of investigations of the populace. Maybe excessively wide, makes it inapplicable, making it impossible to genuine living. Spatial vicinity versus limited neighbor demonstrate not so much contrasting one type with it\'s logical counterpart: looking at connections in different neighborhoods versus one neighborhood.

Slide 18

Weaknesses Claim that we can concentrate on incorporation by reinterpreting the outcomes: techniques picked especially to study isolation. Diverse techniques need be utilized to study incorporation. Approaches to achieve balance are not down to earth: huge annoyances nor purposeful activities happen regularly in all actuality.

Slide 19

Weaknesses Schelling concedes no recompense for: Speculative conduct Time slacks Organized activity Misperception Information is not generally consummate Tipping examines obsolete. Models can\'t deal with complex associations. Thomas Schelling (1971). Dynamic models of isolation. Diary of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186.

Slide 20

Comparison to CAS Cellular Automata Directly identified with the straight conveyance show. Conway\'s Game of Life Much like the spatial vicinity demonstrate. General Set of basic guidelines characterized that outcome in complex conduct Emergent examples happen. Stephen Wolfram (1983). Cell Automata. Los Alamos Science, 9, 2-21. Martin Gardner (1970). Scientific Games. The fabulous blends of John Conway\'s new solitaire diversion "life." Scientific American, 223, 120-123, October 1970.

Slide 21

Comparison to CAS Prisoner\'s Dilemma Indirect relationship: collaboration and absconding might be contrasted with resilience of a person. Promote studies could superimpose the result framework into Schelling\'s isolation models. Robert Axelrod (1980). Successful decision in the Prisoner\'s Dilemma. Diary of Conflict Resolution, 24:1, 3-25.

Slide 22

Comparison to CAS Schelling\'s framework shows: Emergence Multiple specialists Simple operators Iteration No adjustment, variety. Examine searching for disorderly individual conduct into aggregate results.

Recommended
View more...