Putnam states that diversity is a valuable asset to all nations. He also states that Scott Page states that diversity produces much better, faster problem solving. This data is only correlational; it does not mean that diversity actually does produce creativity, or better and faster problem solving. How do we know that the immigrants who won such prestigious awards didn’t just win because they themselves were smart or creative enough to come from their own countries? After all, the immigration to a place like America, or anywhere else, is not random. You would have to have at least some grand sum of money to be able to afford to immigrate. How would we also know that it isn’t because of the experiences the individuals had that caused them to become more creative or intellectual than Americans? I feel like there are too many variables that would affect this to ultimately assume that diversity produced creativity and better as well as faster problem solving.

Putnam’s correlational study was interesting to read. One thing that could’ve supplemented this was the actual survey itself. Surveys can be misleading sometimes, especially the questions asked, and sometimes people who are taking the survey might not take it seriously. Surveys however, can have high reliability but low validity. The results that Putnam has now, would they change in the future? Putnam gave the example of how people marry as a result of having the same religion changed into people marrying regardless of religion. In the future, would race also be the same? Would interracial marriage cause people to identify themselves differently?