Right, but you can't demand more realism for the results you don't like and accept the conclusions for those you do like.
For example, in a more realistic scenario people move for all sorts of reasons: leaving parent's house, changing jobs, marriage and divorce, etc. This stirring may lead to decreased segregation for slight decreases in bias, unlike what this more static model suggests.
Right, but you can't demand more realism for the results you don't like and accept the conclusions for those you do like.
The article is just showing why segregation is possible even if people have a very slight bias towards being near people like them. It doesn't prove this is the reason that any place is segregated, and it doesn't attempt to emulate every possible reason why a place would or would not be segregated.
In fact, at the bottom of the article you can see it says Schelling's model is a convincing demonstration of how innocent-seeming rules can create very undesirable outcomes, but of course real-life situations are more complicated. You might enjoy taking a closer look at real data in reference to Schelling's model. W.A.V. Clark's 1991 paper Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Racial Segregation: A Test of the Schelling Segregation Model has a lot of interesting data in it.
If you want more complete answers, look at that. This article is just demonstrating one concept.
This is not intended to be an accurate model of what actually happens in the real world. It's only supposed to test the hypothesis that minor but widespread individual bias can result in large-scale segregation.
No, it is not. You may want to reread it. Including the part where they explicitly state that the real world is a lot more complex, and where they give references to more in depth treatments.
Comments
Right, but you can't demand more realism for the results you don't like and accept the conclusions for those you do like.
For example, in a more realistic scenario people move for all sorts of reasons: leaving parent's house, changing jobs, marriage and divorce, etc. This stirring may lead to decreased segregation for slight decreases in bias, unlike what this more static model suggests.
Right, but you can't demand more realism for the results you don't like and accept the conclusions for those you do like.
The article is just showing why segregation is possible even if people have a very slight bias towards being near people like them. It doesn't prove this is the reason that any place is segregated, and it doesn't attempt to emulate every possible reason why a place would or would not be segregated.
In fact, at the bottom of the article you can see it says Schelling's model is a convincing demonstration of how innocent-seeming rules can create very undesirable outcomes, but of course real-life situations are more complicated. You might enjoy taking a closer look at real data in reference to Schelling's model. W.A.V. Clark's 1991 paper Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Racial Segregation: A Test of the Schelling Segregation Model has a lot of interesting data in it.
If you want more complete answers, look at that. This article is just demonstrating one concept.
This is not intended to be an accurate model of what actually happens in the real world. It's only supposed to test the hypothesis that minor but widespread individual bias can result in large-scale segregation.
...which is then treated, in the remainder of the text, as though it were an accurate model of what happens in the real world.
No, it is not. You may want to reread it. Including the part where they explicitly state that the real world is a lot more complex, and where they give references to more in depth treatments.