Diversity, Minorities, and Social Trust

mbig said:

You, know, I put alot of effort/meat in my posts.. only to have crap one-liners like yours blight the board in 'response.'
You quote my whole post only to make a single sentence unbacked quip.
NK IQ is extrapolated from the countries that surround it (the same race), and perhaps from earlier in the 20th C testing.
IQ doesn't change that much in a generation or two.
Not that the anachronistic current situation of NK is of any value to the question at hand. It's a diversion/distraction/one-off.

Click to expand...

It's an extrapolation and, given that several generations have grown up with severe nutritional deficits due to famine, and its neighbors didn't, it's useless.

If North Korea is an average, one would expect half of its neighbors to be above, and half to be below it on the chart. NK's neighbors, China, Japan and South Korea are beneath North Korea on the chart.

IOW, it's useless and cannot be accurately calculated.

Tanngrisnir said:

It's an extrapolation and, given that several generations have grown up with severe nutritional deficits due to famine, and its neighbors didn't, it's useless.

If North Korea is an average, one would expect half of its neighbors to be above, and half to be below it on the chart. NK's neighbors, China, Japan and South Korea are beneath North Korea on the chart.

IOW, it's useless and cannot be accurately calculated.

Click to expand...

Severe malnutrition can lower IQ of the generation that is suffering, but not the long term IQ, or stabilized IQ of the Race, which doesn't change except over very long periods.
Well fed NK scientists are making missiles and Nukes.
Try that in the Congo.

NK, AGAIN, is anachronistic, and Useless/a Diversion from the point of this discussion.
bye

mbig said:

Severe malnutrition can lower IQ of the generation that is suffering, but not the long term IQ, or stabilized IQ of the Race, which doesn't change except over very long periods.
Well fed NK scientists are making missiles and Nukes.
Try that in the Congo.

NK, AGAIN, is anachronistic, and Useless/a Diversion from the point of this discussion.
bye

Click to expand...

Since you think it's "anachronistic, and Useless to the point of this discussion" then you shouldn't have replied to what I posted and, yes, it was quite relevant to the discussion.

Cya.

Tanngrisnir said:

Since you think it's "anachronistic, and Useless to the point of this discussion" then you shouldn't have replied to what I posted and, yes, it was quite relevant to the discussion.
Cya.

Click to expand...

I had to reply to point out you threw in Inapt comparison/Monkey wrench/"anachronism" into the discussion.
Even then it took 3 extra posts for you to understand it.
This page is now in good part Blighted with the silly NK exception/diversion you kept pushing.
b-bye

Meanwhile, if someone/anyone else would like to respond the the gist of my meaty #23, that would be constructive.

EDIT
Below is yet more no content last-word trolling that has pretty much wasted this page of the string.

mbig said:

I had to reply to point out you threw in Inapt comparison/Monkey wrench/"anachronism" into the discussion.
Even then it took 3 extra posts for you to understand it. Doh!
This page is now in good part Blighted with the silly NK exception/diversion you kept pushing.
b-bye

Meanwhile, if someone would like toi respond the the gist of my #22, that would be constructive.

Click to expand...

You keep saying goodby, and yet you keep coming back.

Whatever you have to tell yourself, I suppose, but the fact remains that my posts were relevant to the topic no matter how much that upsets you.

phattonez said:

I wanted to post this in an academic forum to, hopefully, get a more academic response to this study. This is based on the Robert Putnam analysis of diversity where he found that diverse communities actually have less social trust that homogeneous communities. This obviously caused quite an uproar, and another group reexamined the data and came to a different conclusion. They state that it's only whites who see lower social trust when diversity increases, while other groups don't see a similar drop. I looked at their paper and found while that may be true, they miss other, more important implications.

Here I quote my post from another thread:

Click to expand...

Aren't you indirectly measuring how effective racial stereotypes are though as opposed to anything inherently connected to demographics themselves?

backpacker said:

Aren't you indirectly measuring how effective racial stereotypes are though as opposed to anything inherently connected to demographics themselves?

Click to expand...

Care to elaborate? Why would such a study, especially of how races view themselves, not tell us about characteristics of race (though not independent of other variables, notably education and wealth).

Absentglare said:

I feel like this isn't terribly surprising. Racism will erode social trust. Diversity exacerbates latent racism. The obvious cure for this is to address racism, rather than seeking to increase homogeneity.

Click to expand...

How does racism affect how blacks view themselves in a homogeneously black communities? Further, at what point do you stop blaming racism and note that perhaps there are differences in behavior, attitudes, etc., between races?

Visbek said:

And if you will pardon my use of academic jargon: Your interpretation is complete and utter bull****.

Click to expand...

I'll ignore this since at least you did write a well thought out post behind this.

You're deliberately mischaracterizing the study, and ignoring its evidence, to meet your own nativist and racist ends. The authors explicitly reject the type of oversimplifications of "trust" and "social capital" that you utilize, and focus on factors like cooperation and solidarity.

Meanwhile, neither the authors nor the evidence shows that the problem is with the minorities in minority-dominant communities. Abascal and Baldassarri re-examined Putnam's data sources, and uncovered what they regard as serious methodological flaws. In doing so, they uncovered that heterogeneity is not the problem. When Putnam saw a short-term drop in trust, it was because when whites move into minority-dominant communities, the whites' levels of trust drops. that the trust level of minorities is stable, and that it is only whites' trust level that drops when they start moving into minority-dominated neighborhoods.

Click to expand...

I disagree for a few reasons (and note I was explicit that I questioned their stated outcomes):
1) Social trust is highest among whites, then Asians, then Hispanics, then blacks. That's straight from the data. Table 3.
2) What was found was not that diversity per se was the cause of a decline in social trust in heterogeneous communities, but rather that this was only true for whites in heterogeneous communities.
3) What this implies to me is not that racism is nativism is exclusive to whites (trust me, it's absolutely not). Rather, it tells me that since whites tend to have the most social trust, it decreases most for them, whereas for other groups it doesn't have much lower to go. The difference in social trust, on a 1 to 3 point scale, between whites (2.21) and Hispanics/Blacks (1.65, 1.59) is massive. More simply, what we see is that whites lose trust in heterogeneous communities, whereas Hispanics and Blacks were already low trust to begin with. Experiencing diversity first hand makes people question a lot of assumptions they had about it when living in their homogeneous white communities.

So I don't see how you can have the conclusion of this experience being exclusive only to whites, when whites are the only ones that had any trust to begin with. Rather, we should be asking how we can increase trust in minority communities, and thus my point about increasing stability of communities, as they imply is a major factor in determining social trust.

As the authors themselves point out:
"Trust, like height, might be determined by pre-existing differences between groups, rather than exposure to diversity. In the United States, blacks and Latinos report lower levels of trust than whites, regardless of the communities where they live. The average homogeneous community (defined as a census tract) in the United States is 84 percent white, whereas the average diverse community is 54 percent white. Together, these patterns indicate that diverse communities do not make people less trusting. Rather, distrust is higher in diverse communities because blacks and Latinos, who are more likely than whites to live in one, are less trusting to begin with.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the point that I'm making.

"If diversity doesn’t reduce trust, what does? According to our analysis, disadvantage accounts for lower levels of trust. If you have a low income, or less schooling, or are unemployed or experiencing housing instability, you are likely to report lower trust. To make matters worse, if your neighbors experience similar disadvantages, this compounds your distrust. Taken together, this suggests that it is not the diversity of a community that undermines trust, but rather the disadvantages that people in diverse communities face.

Click to expand...

Again, they're making the same recommendation that I am. We need to increase trust in these minority communities. I wouldn't characterize it quite as they do, but basically they need more stability to increase trust.

"This is why blacks and Latinos report lower trust than whites: Socioeconomic and neighborhood disadvantages are more common among these groups. We suspect that blacks and Latinos also report lower trust for other reasons, including continuing discrimination, victimization by the police and hostile political rhetoric."[/color]
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/opinion/sunday/dont-blame-diversity-for-distrust.html?_r=0

In other words: The problem is racism. Not diversity.

Click to expand...

This is their bias coming into play. They attribute the cause of unstable communities to racism. I have a big issue with that because it excludes any possibility of self-blame.

In addition, I agree that diversity qua diversity is not the cause of low social trust. Rather, in these minority communities trust is low, and that's reflected in diverse communities. We have to increase trust in these minority communities.

In addition, the communities they occupy are unstable because of discrimination and racism. Not diversity, and not because of any inherent characteristics of those individuals.

Click to expand...

Baseless.

It is beyond disgusting to claim that the authors are afraid to consider your racist point of view because they're afraid of the PC police. And yes, your view is demonstrably racist -- since you are literally using it not just to block all immigration, but suggesting that a detectable drop in trust justifies legally enforced segregation.

I mean, really. Did you even bother to read what you yourself wrote?

So yet again, we see you cherry-picking and twisting studies to meet your pre-existing preferences. Quite sad.

Click to expand...

The first quote that you provide from the paper is exactly the point that I tried to make. So we need to increase social trust in these minority communities. We don't see any improvement in social trust via integration. Rather, the social trust that would have been there without the minorities is wrecked when low trust minorities move in. Integration won't solve the problem. What will solve the problem is increasing social trust in minority communities. You say that's due to racism, I think that's baseless, but the point remains that we need to improve social trust. I say we encourage stability (which in my mind, means encouraging fathers to stick around in the home).

phattonez said:

How does racism affect how blacks view themselves in a homogeneously black communities? Further, at what point do you stop blaming racism and note that perhaps there are differences in behavior, attitudes, etc., between races?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure i understand your question, so please elaborate if i am missing something.

Racism in this country isn't simply a white person problem. Racism isn't simply the "fault" of white people. It is a natural byproduct of the history. In this country, blacks perceive the relative success of whites and the relative failure of blacks. The simple relationship of whites having more money and success, and therefore being featured more as models, actors, etc. these images we perceive shape our view of reality in ways we don't necessarily realize.

Racism affects blacks in that many blacks are implicitly racist against blacks. This is because they, too, are human, and racism isn't really an intentional thing. It's a hidden influence. If we see a black person in a store, we're more likely to suspect that they are going to steal something than if they were white. That's because all the stuff we're exposed to tells us that black people are more likely to engage in such behavior. It's hidden in the archetypes we internalize. He's a thug. He's a nerd. When you visualize a "thug"- what race do they tend to be? How about for "nerd"? These things affect blacks as well as whites, and everything in between.

phattonez said:

I disagree for a few reasons (and note I was explicit that I questioned their stated outcomes):
1) Social trust is highest among whites, then Asians, then Hispanics, then blacks. That's straight from the data. Table 3.
2) What was found was not that diversity per se was the cause of a decline in social trust in heterogeneous communities, but rather that this was only true for whites in heterogeneous communities.
3) What this implies to me is not that racism is nativism is exclusive to whites (trust me, it's absolutely not). Rather, it tells me that since whites tend to have the most social trust, it decreases most for them, whereas for other groups it doesn't have much lower to go.

Click to expand...

Social trust in black and Hispanic communities is not at zero. In fact, it's higher than you recognize. See below.

The difference in social trust, on a 1 to 3 point scale, between whites (2.21) and Hispanics/Blacks (1.65, 1.59) is massive.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on missing the point of the article. They are explaining how you need to look at a spectrum of responses -- not just generalized, but in-group, out-group, other neighbors, and so forth.

For example, on table 3, whites do have higher levels of trust. Translated into the 4-point scale used for most of the rest, "generalized" for blacks is 2.12; all the other group designations were higher (in-group, out-group, Hispanic, white etc). Asians also scored almost as high as whites on everything except the "generalized" condition.

And again, given that minorities are subjected to significant social stresses such as discrimination, residential instability, economic well-being, cultural issues, well-publicized issues with police... it is not a surprise that their self-reported trust levels are lower than whites, many of whom do not face those issues to the same degree.

More simply, what we see is that whites lose trust in heterogeneous communities, whereas Hispanics and Blacks were already low trust to begin with. Experiencing diversity first hand makes people question a lot of assumptions they had about it when living in their homogeneous white communities. So I don't see how you can have the conclusion of this experience being exclusive only to whites, when whites are the only ones that had any trust to begin with.

Click to expand...

egads

1.59 != 0

Rather, we should be asking how we can increase trust in minority communities, and thus my point about increasing stability of communities, as they imply is a major factor in determining social trust.

Click to expand...

I concur that we should look into increasing trust in minority communities.

However, proposing that the best way to do this is via enforced segregation, and total cancellation of immigration? That is not the answer.

This is exactly the point that I'm making.

Click to expand...

Well that's odd, because the words you yourself typed say that:

• Higher proportions of non-whites reduces trust
• The authors are terrified to say that because of the PC police
• Integration wrecks trust
• Integration has destroyed communities
• Therefore, we should limit immigration and enforce ethnic segregation

In contrast, the authors are saying: They are saying "Putnam didn't look at enough detail; it isn't that diversity reduces trust, it is that whites moving into minority-dominant neighborhoods reduces the trust of whites."

That does not even remotely resemble your ludicrous reading of their research.

In fact, I'm confident they would be utterly horrified by your suggestion.

Again, they're making the same recommendation that I am. We need to increase trust in these minority communities. I wouldn't characterize it quite as they do, but basically they need more stability to increase trust.

Click to expand...

Yeah, funny thing? Putting people into ghettos does not increase social trust within a community.

Heck, even the most twisted way of reading the research doesn't support that -- because most blacks and Hispanics already live in fairly homogenous communities, and STILL have lower rates of trust than whites.

I.e. further segregation won't increase trust for those groups. All it will do is save those poor snowflake whites from distrusting their neighbors when they start to gentrify minority neighborhoods.

Absentglare said:

I'm not sure i understand your question, so please elaborate if i am missing something.

Racism in this country isn't simply a white person problem. Racism isn't simply the "fault" of white people. It is a natural byproduct of the history. In this country, blacks perceive the relative success of whites and the relative failure of blacks. The simple relationship of whites having more money and success, and therefore being featured more as models, actors, etc. these images we perceive shape our view of reality in ways we don't necessarily realize.

Racism affects blacks in that many blacks are implicitly racist against blacks. This is because they, too, are human, and racism isn't really an intentional thing. It's a hidden influence. If we see a black person in a store, we're more likely to suspect that they are going to steal something than if they were white. That's because all the stuff we're exposed to tells us that black people are more likely to engage in such behavior. It's hidden in the archetypes we internalize. He's a thug. He's a nerd. When you visualize a "thug"- what race do they tend to be? How about for "nerd"? These things affect blacks as well as whites, and everything in between.

Click to expand...

Is it racism if it's based on reality? Because blacks are far more likely to commit crime than whites.

Visbek said:

Social trust in black and Hispanic communities is not at zero. In fact, it's higher than you recognize. See below.

Congratulations on missing the point of the article. They are explaining how you need to look at a spectrum of responses -- not just generalized, but in-group, out-group, other neighbors, and so forth.

For example, on table 3, whites do have higher levels of trust. Translated into the 4-point scale used for most of the rest, "generalized" for blacks is 2.12; all the other group designations were higher (in-group, out-group, Hispanic, white etc). Asians also scored almost as high as whites on everything except the "generalized" condition.

And again, given that minorities are subjected to significant social stresses such as discrimination, residential instability, economic well-being, cultural issues, well-publicized issues with police... it is not a surprise that their self-reported trust levels are lower than whites, many of whom do not face those issues to the same degree.

Click to expand...

Notice that I didn't really include Asians in any of my responses. That's because Asians don't have the severe economic and educational problems that Hispanics and Blacks have. That's why their trust is higher, though still not as high as whites. If racism really was the cause of all of these problems, then how do we explain Asians?

I concur that we should look into increasing trust in minority communities.

However, proposing that the best way to do this is via enforced segregation, and total cancellation of immigration? That is not the answer.

Click to expand...

Why not? What is the benefit of integration?

Well that's odd, because the words you yourself typed say that:

• Higher proportions of non-whites reduces trust
• The authors are terrified to say that because of the PC police
• Integration wrecks trust
• Integration has destroyed communities
• Therefore, we should limit immigration and enforce ethnic segregation

In contrast, the authors are saying: They are saying "Putnam didn't look at enough detail; it isn't that diversity reduces trust, it is that whites moving into minority-dominant neighborhoods reduces the trust of whites."

That does not even remotely resemble your ludicrous reading of their research.

In fact, I'm confident they would be utterly horrified by your suggestion.

Click to expand...

Of course they would be horrified, but tell me logically why what I'm reading into the data doesn't fit, or where I'm wrong. Of course they have their conclusion, but why is this conclusion not just as logical?

Yeah, funny thing? Putting people into ghettos does not increase social trust within a community.

Heck, even the most twisted way of reading the research doesn't support that -- because most blacks and Hispanics already live in fairly homogenous communities, and STILL have lower rates of trust than whites.

I.e. further segregation won't increase trust for those groups. All it will do is save those poor snowflake whites from distrusting their neighbors when they start to gentrify minority neighborhoods.

Click to expand...

Clearly segregation alone fixes nothing, if you continue the habits of absentee fathers, poor education outcomes, etc.

Maybe instead of the low trust among Hispanics and Blacks, and the decreasing trust of whites when living among them, isn't due to racist white attitudes and internalized racism among Hispanics and Blacks (a dubious concept at best). Maybe, rather, there is an issue with those minority communities that they themselves know and that whites learn when they live near them.

For instance, the increased crime in these communities, and no, it's not caused by poverty.

phattonez said:

This is their bias coming into play. They attribute the cause of unstable communities to racism. I have a big issue with that because it excludes any possibility of self-blame.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure you extensively researched the issue before coming to that conclusion. :roll:

Baseless.

Click to expand...

lol

Yes, I forgot. <SARCASM> We had a black President, so racism doesn't exist, and doesn't have any affect whatsoever on the stability or trust in those communities.</SARCASM>

The first quote that you provide from the paper is exactly the point that I tried to make. So we need to increase social trust in these minority communities. We don't see any improvement in social trust via integration.

Click to expand...

Guess what? We don't see any improvement via segregation, either. Did you not read the part where the authors point out that most communities are already homogenous, and that those which are diversifying are often ones in transition, e.g. gentrification? Or the part where self-reported trust didn't change for those groups based on the diversity of the neighborhood?

Rather, the social trust that would have been there without the minorities is wrecked when low trust minorities move in.

Click to expand...

....no, that's not what the paper is saying.

They are saying that minority self-reported trust levels stay fairly low, including in diverse neighborhoods. It is when whites move into minority neighborhoods that THOSE WHITES lose a degree of trust. And again, that's most likely a short-term effect.

They're also pointing out that previous paradigms for these issues have many issues, and we need to reconsider how we think about factors like "social capital."

What will solve the problem is increasing social trust in minority communities.

Click to expand...

lol

"What will solve the problem of low social trust in minority communities is.... increasing social trust in minority communities!" Brilliant insight there, phattonez....

You say that's due to racism, I think that's baseless, but the point remains that we need to improve social trust. I say we encourage stability (which in my mind, means encouraging fathers to stick around in the home).

Click to expand...

What the.....

Your first post in this thread said nothing about single mothers; rather, you apparently just want to keep minorities in ghettos. (Or keep whites out of ghettos, I suppose.) I guess minorities shouldn't have full property rights, huh? Or do you want to stop whites from buying homes in black neighborhoods?

By the way, Asians have very low rates of single motherhood -- as in, half that of whites. And yet, their levels of social trust are still lower than that of whites. Does that mean that whites and Asians get to live together, in diverse harmony? Oh, wait. No, it means that there probably isn't any sort of correlation between "single motherhood" and "levels of self-reported trust."


I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you just need to drink a cerveza and chill out. And read these papers more thoroughly in the future.

Visbek said:

Yes, I'm sure you extensively researched the issue before coming to that conclusion. :roll:



lol

Yes, I forgot. <SARCASM> We had a black President, so racism doesn't exist, and doesn't have any affect whatsoever on the stability or trust in those communities.</SARCASM>



Guess what? We don't see any improvement via segregation, either. Did you not read the part where the authors point out that most communities are already homogenous, and that those which are diversifying are often ones in transition, e.g. gentrification? Or the part where self-reported trust didn't change for those groups based on the diversity of the neighborhood?

Click to expand...

Which seems to be screaming to me that hey, maybe the problem isn't racism.

....no, that's not what the paper is saying.

They are saying that minority self-reported trust levels stay fairly low, including in diverse neighborhoods. It is when whites move into minority neighborhoods that THOSE WHITES lose a degree of trust. And again, that's most likely a short-term effect.

They're also pointing out that previous paradigms for these issues have many issues, and we need to reconsider how we think about factors like "social capital."

Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying. It's basically that only whites had any trust to begin with, and when they live among minorities, they tend to lose that trust and get more in line with how minorities behave. In other words, they're learning something.

What the.....

Your first post in this thread said nothing about single mothers; rather, you apparently just want to keep minorities in ghettos. (Or keep whites out of ghettos, I suppose.) I guess minorities shouldn't have full property rights, huh? Or do you want to stop whites from buying homes in black neighborhoods?

By the way, Asians have very low rates of single motherhood -- as in, half that of whites. And yet, their levels of social trust are still lower than that of whites. Does that mean that whites and Asians get to live together, in diverse harmony? Oh, wait. No, it means that there probably isn't any sort of correlation between "single motherhood" and "levels of self-reported trust."


I'm sorry, but at this point, I think you just need to drink a cerveza and chill out. And read these papers more thoroughly in the future.

Click to expand...

Rates of single motherhood are low among Asians and whites compared to Hispanics and Blacks. I wonder how much of the lower value in Asians is due to having more immigrants, who tend to be lower trust, whereas if you looked only at native Asians you might see higher trust.

phattonez said:

Is it racism if it's based on reality? Because blacks are far more likely to commit crime than whites.

Click to expand...

A stereotype can do damage whether accurate or not.

Absentglare said:

A stereotype can do damage whether accurate or not.

Click to expand...

What kind of damage it cause? Does it kill people, rape people, rob them, run around destroying property? I mean, what kind of damage are we talking about?

Henrin said:

What kind of damage it cause? Does it kill people, rape people, rob them, run around destroying property? I mean, what kind of damage are we talking about?

Click to expand...

When something hurts 42 million people at the same time, even a little can go a long way.

Absentglare said:

When something hurts 42 million people at the same time, even a little can go a long way.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that answers my question.

Absentglare said:

A stereotype can do damage whether accurate or not.

Click to expand...

So the stereotype that Blacks commit crime causes Blacks to commit crime? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

Henrin said:

I don't see how that answers my question.

Click to expand...

A mortgage underwriter may be less likely to approve an African American. An employer may be less likely to hire an African American. A rental property might charge higher rent for an African American.

Even just the condescending eyes of a protective shopkeeper has a meaningful impact, they internalize those expectations from society.

If i were to look at society and guess what occupations have the highest chance of success for black people, i might guess an athlete or a musician. I would consider both high-risk aspirations, that can have an influence on black people, they might infer that "i'm just not as good at math." Those subtle influences can have huge impact on the scale of 42 million lifetimes.

Absentglare said:

A mortgage underwriter may be less likely to approve an African American. An employer may be less likely to hire an African American. A rental property might charge higher rent for an African American.

Click to expand...

Ceteris paribus? Or is it because they have little education and can't keep a job and have a criminal history?

Even just the condescending eyes of a protective shopkeeper has a meaningful impact, they internalize those expectations from society.

If i were to look at society and guess what occupations have the highest chance of success for black people, i might guess an athlete or a musician. I would consider both high-risk aspirations, that can have an influence on black people, they might infer that "i'm just not as good at math." Those subtle influences can have huge impact on the scale of 42 million lifetimes.

Click to expand...

Lol, come on now, this is ridiculous. You're basically saying that the reason blacks commit crime is because of the stereotype that blacks commit crime. What do you even say to an argument like that?

Koke said:

Read "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" by Richard Lynn.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Any more out-of-left field, non-scientific correlation you have for us?

IQ tests are meaningless. Built solely for the peculiarities of the dominant culture of the given country. What makes you think your IQ model is right for all those tested?