Kasper wrote:then is this chaos you speak of not also known by the word 'diversity'?
No, diversity can exist mutually exclusively from chaos or social interaction. There may, however, be residual chaos created from misunderstandings that arise via social interaction amongst persons. You might call these misunderstandings "diversity" although they do not in their entirety represent diversity alone.
Fore example,I may misunderstand what you say to me and thus get the wrong impression, I would argue no diversity is necessary in that situation. However, if you try to help me and I don't like the way you look or if we have different social habits that I view as improper or offensive then diversity may contribute to chaos.
Thus diversity represents a wholly exclusive topic that has certain consequences of social interaction (whether those be good or bad) that may or may not contribute to chaos.
It is important to note that the chaos I speak of is basically the set of all non ideal consequences that occur within the existence of an individual, whether those consequences are in fact real or imagined, they contribute to the chaos as a whole. Thus many things could represent a subset of chaos and thus are consequences, that may or may not contribute.
For example, I am a very picky eater. I consider it offensive for someone to make me food without asking me what my likes and dislikes with regard to food are.
In the case of others I know, they would consider that a boon to be given food that is prepared for them, whether they were consulted or not.
Thus I have increased my chaos by making what most would call an imaginary consequence of not accepting randomly prepared food, that may or may not be good.
More information can be gleaned from this, however, for example, because the person who was to feed me may view randomly prepared food as boon, they may be offended by my decision, thus increasing their chaos. Thus social interaction of people who are perfectly able to produce food for themselves have increase the relative tension of their existence, or have increased the chaos, by interacting with regard to food.
Does that help?
Oh, and diversity here may or may not apply. Perhaps the food was beef which I don't eat, thus it may have been a difference in cultural food types and I maybe offended by the food and thus I am offended by the difference in cultures, which may imply diversity. However, since my choice to not eat random food is personal, it is possible that I may like the food and simply abhor the fact that someone made if for me without asking. I don't see diversity in this second situation. It may or may not be a feature or custom of that person to make the food, but either way, my decision was not based one their custom, just my own previous belief.
I'm thinking there may be something wrong with the second example. I think it might lie in how you define diversity. If we are speaking in a general matter of overnighting differences, that might not contribute to the problem. However, if diversity is simply any difference, (including wording of questions, or not thinking in the same manner, which is an inherent quality of humanity) then I suppose it would apply. I think, however, to replace differences (which is more broad) with diversity in this case, results in a less clear definition because diversity has more specific implications that simply differences. Just as discrimination can replace choice. Accept that every choices requires some form of discrimination to be made, apple or oranges, if I choose one it seems to imply a discrimination has been made against the other.
However, (this just came to me) the random case cannot be thrown out either. Thus no diversity (or differences) may exist in a social interactive exchange, however, it is possible anger or other emotions can arise within themselves for not reason at all because it is not acceptable to note chaos without noting that humans can cause it randomly.
For example, I can stand up right now. Do I have to have a reason to stand? No, I just can. If I just stand, randomly, then quite possibly no discrimination has been made between sitting and standing. The same applies for diversity, I can just choose chaos via social interaction because I feel like it or basically for not reason at all. Thus diversity or differences do not apply to the result of chaos via social interaction, but chaos is still possible.
So still no, diversity is simply a subset of consequences that may or may not result in chaos, but chaos can result without the prompting of differences or diversity.
).
and I don't want to write an infinite page essay but I just had to pose this question since it has been annoying me for years (yes years 
) the answer seems to close yet so far away (as if I would ever find it ha-ha) 
. I am trying to take a neutral stand point on this and be objective (some might argue that is impossible 
but lets not go there) basically I am posing it as a problem to ponder.
Not sure what you mean here.