So you make assumptions about peoples' "culture" and "life experiences" based on their ethnicity?

The differences that you posit exist--are these differences necessarily "advantageous" or can the differences be disadvantageous as well?

[This should be read in conjunction with my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43730717]

> So you make assumptions about peoples' "culture" and "life experiences" based on their ethnicity?

When dealing with people, to understand the meaning behind their actions and words, one needs to have some understanding of their perspective (including their intent). Their perspective is informed by their culture and life experience, amongst other things (but life experience is broad, so mentioning anything else is just redundant). Life experience is informed by their ethnicity and the environment in which they exhibit that ethnicity. I don't say "hey this guy looks to be [...], therefore he definitely is/experienced [...]", but if they are clearly not of the ethnic majority, then I know they have experienced things that the ethnic majority has generally not experienced. That's a helpful start to understanding their perspective and relating to them. I also can ask questions to understand them better, and express insight or interest in them if my "guess" is right and if I have some background knowledge (of history/culture) to avoid misteps, at which point they are nearly always much more receptive and expressive, seeing that I am curious and open rather than uncurious and closed.

If one could somehow be "blind" to ethnicity, then it would only be a disadvantage to effective communication and relations, for both sides. (As evidence, one need only observe the general state of discourse online.) No one is that blind though, at least subconsciously.

> The differences that you posit exist--are these differences necessarily "advantageous" or can the differences be disadvantageous as well?

I'm a little uncertain as to what you mean here. Advantageous to the population or to the individual?

In either case, both exist, depending on the goals.

Individual advantages and disadvantages are probably obvious, especially the disadvantages given the amount of discussion they receive and the human propensity to identify personal threats rather than potential gains.

For populations on the otherhand, for basic long-term survival in a competitive landscape, diversity is an unequivocal advantage.

But, populations may have particular goals rather than pure real survival. For instance, they may prioritize maintaining their particular culture or ethos, beliefs and perspectives, and as such they view diversity as a threat because beliefs/perspectives are too easily transformed by the introduction of new beliefs/perspectives. Or simply because they are false goals, hiding the real goal of maintenance of power or maintenance of a subpopulation (usually a power-holding subpopulation experiencing decline). We are now experiencing the effects of that goal, as have many other cultures in the past. Always to ill-effect for the population as a whole in the long-run. And especially detrimental to individuals who are not part of the favored subpopulation.