Which is the most ideologically diverse American city?

The question is complicated by the fact that a big part of the modern Republican ideology is a hatred of cities and an anti intellectualism. Which, by the way, is historically a very dangerous ideology and led to things like the Khmer Rouge's genocide.

> The proper conclusion may be that intellectual bubbles are a useful means of moving forward.

Read the last sentence. Unless I misinterpret this grossly, the author is making fun of demands for "ideological diversity", i.e. lack of conservative/Republican mindshare, a la maybe Jonathan Haidt.

Kind of stupid without a definition of ideological diversity.

Cowen uses "ideological diversity" as a stand-in for Democratic/Republican balance. Which is one kind of diversity, and you would likely find the most balanced distribution of opinion on such questions as "is Mueller biased against Trump?" and "is Paul Ryan's tax plan good?" in the cities mentioned.

But here's a couple other questions that are likely more balanced in e.g. San Francisco than the cities mentioned: Are microstate monarchies the ideal form of government? Did the Constitution establish white supremacy? Should Keystone XL be blocked? Does trans ideology unnecessarily essentialize binary genders? Should we establish a generous universal basic income? Will blockchains lead to utopia on Earth? Should blockchain enthusiasts be sent to the gulag already?

Cowen enjoys occasionally getting under his elite coastal readership's skin, but this is pretty weak tea.

As long as we are defining this qualitatively, I nominate Charlottesville VA. Yeah, it's much smaller, but the community feel means people are actually interacting across ideaological lines, not just sharing municipal services.

The point of diversity of opinion is that you have a challenge against the ideas of yourself and of others. If everybody around you agrees with what you say then you may never be thoughtful about your positions and can get away with being wrong.

In academia a paper is written by a human who desperately wants to be right and publish it (because they are self interested of course) and the peer review process is there to challenge the methodology so that the truth can emerge.

It's like if you had two sets of scientists who had opposing viewpoints but could only use objective measure to justify their own side, when placed in opposition to one another their biases will more likely produce a truth.

It's also important to note that being able to analyze data and have knowledge of statistics is not enough. For a hypothetical example if you are a modern American progressive you might have a set of opinions which you identify with like a raised minimum wage, progressive tax, etc. You really want to be consistent in your beliefs so you seek out data which CAN justify your position. Like that minimum wage does not reduce employment or something. You search for any evidence that justifies it naturally and maybe do some shallow research on the opposition but deep down you know what side you are on. You have used data and statistics to justify your positions, but that is not enough to say whether you are actually right or not.

On the other hand, the anti vaxxer which try to figure out if they MUST reject that vaccines cause autism and maybe they find one thing that says there is a reason to doubt and that is sufficient.

In each case exposure to a formidable argument from the opposite side can really challenge their opinion. (Not that minimum wage is as simple as vaccines)

If you have hard evidence against something like anti vaxers then you can do away with their argument scientifically, but if you characterize all conservatives/liberals in that way, they you are lacking exposure to real, formidable arguments against your own positions. Because there are certain issues where both sides have objective measure which justify their own side.