Diversity, Minorities, and Social Trust

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:

phattonez said:

Blacks and Hispanics report lower levels of generalized trust and trust in neighbors; in the case of blacks, distrust extends to both in-group and outgroup members.

Click to expand...

This is part of their discussion on how they controlled for variables. In other words, what Putnam described as increasing diversity leading to lower social trust was actually rather a higher concentration of blacks and Hispanics who generally have lower trust. That is, it's not diversity, but rather higher proportions of non-whites that decrease social trust. It's astounding, and it's a conclusion that the authors won't state explicitly because they know that they would get killed. However, the conclusion is obvious based on the way that they present the data.

However, they also note other variables that affect social trust: home ownership, education, and economic success. This leads to very important conclusions, at least based on my reading of the material:
1) Integration of minorities wrecks social trust.
2) More stable communities improve social trust.
3) Therefore, we ought to limit moving and migration, inter- and intra-nationally.

This would likely increase social trust across the board, I would assume most likely for minorities since as the authors state, they tend to live in less stable communities.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...st_AJS2015.pdf

In short, we find that individual and contextual indicators ofracial/ethnic differences, residential stability, and economic well-being arethe strongest predictors of trust and cooperation, thus swinging the pendulumof the determinants of trust away from ethnic diversity and toward wellstudiedeconomic and social indicators.

Click to expand...

Meanwhile, our policy of integration has, for the last 50 years, destroyed many communities across the nation, to no obvious benefit. Diversity is NOT our strength.

Click to expand...

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...

One time out of boredom I looked up if there was any correlation between the diversity of a country and it's average IQ and crimes rates and found out that they do correlate somewhat.

For example, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world are in Africa. In Africa you'll find some of the lowest average IQ. Japan and Scandinavia are relatively ethnically homogeneous and are pretty much crime free with extremely high average IQs.

Which isn't to say diversity or homogeneity is the lone contributor to these stats. Could be a multitude of things.

'Boo' diversity! :2mad: People oughta stick wit der own kind!

Seriously?

Koke said:

One time out of boredom I looked up if there was any correlation between the diversity of a country and it's average IQ and crimes rates and found out that they do correlate somewhat.


For example, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world are in Africa. In Africa you'll find some of the lowest average IQ. Japan and Scandinavia are relatively ethnically homogeneous and are pretty much crime free with extremely high average IQs.


Which isn't to say diversity or homogeneity is the lone contributor to these stats. Could be a multitude of things.

Click to expand...

Who told you this, the IQ?

Koke said:

One time out of boredom I looked up if there was any correlation between the diversity of a country and it's average IQ and crimes rates and found out that they do correlate somewhat.

For example, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world are in Africa. In Africa you'll find some of the lowest average IQ. Japan and Scandinavia are relatively ethnically homogeneous and are pretty much crime free with extremely high average IQs.

Which isn't to say diversity or homogeneity is the lone contributor to these stats. Could be a multitude of things.

Click to expand...

Huh. North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

Tanngrisnir said:

Huh. North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

We can barely compare IQs within local and very similar socioeconomic and political groups. Even then it's greatly flawed. It's largely relative and extremely subject to context. International or Universal IQ tests don't exist and comparisons only serve bigotry.

ecofarm said:

We can barely compare IQs within local and very similar socioeconomic and political groups. Even then it's greatly flawed. International or Universal IQ tests don't exist and comparisons only serve bigotry.

Click to expand...

Exactly. IQ is an utterly meaningless metric.

Tanngrisnir said:

Huh. North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

don't know what your implying.

North Korea's average IQ is quite high

Tanngrisnir said:

Exactly. IQ is an utterly meaningless metric.

Click to expand...

Relative and within very homogeneous groups (socioeco, political, ethnic, etc) it'll correlate with expectations (yeah, he seemed smart). Otherwise an academic exercise in the factors causing the test to not return the same bell curve.

Koke said:

don't know what your implying.

North Korea's average IQ is quite high

Click to expand...

Citation?

ecofarm said:

Citation?

Click to expand...

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

Koke said:

don't know what your implying.

North Korea's average IQ is quite high

Click to expand...

That's just it: it can't be by any objective measure.

I'm not implying anything. I'm coming right out and flatly stating that North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

No implication there whatsoever.

Koke said:

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

Click to expand...

I just did. It doesn't support your claim.

Tanngrisnir said:

That's just it: it can't be by any objective measure.

I'm not implying anything. I'm coming right out and flatly stating that North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

No implication there whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about. North Korea is ethnically homogeneous and has a high average IQ (almost parallel to South Korea)

The only real difference between it and South Korea are backwards government systems that inhibit economic growth.

Tanngrisnir said:

I just did. It doesn't support your claim.

Click to expand...

"communist nations whom they believe have comparatively higher IQs, including China, Vietnam, and North Korea, can be expected to rapidly gain GDP by moving from centrally planned to more capitalist based economic systems, while predicting continued poverty for African nations no matter their economic systems."

...anyway I've got to go for now. Will continue on later

ecofarm said:

'Boo' diversity! :2mad: People oughta stick wit der own kind!

Seriously?






Who told you this, the IQ?

Click to expand...

Could we keep the responses academic?

phattonez said:

Could we keep the responses academic?

Click to expand...

Honest would be better. No wall of text. No reference to obscure and bizarre pieces of ancient texts. Just what's your claim.

Koke said:

I have no idea what you are talking about. North Korea is ethnically homogeneous and has a high average IQ (almost parallel to South Korea)

The only real difference between it and South Korea are backwards government systems that inhibit economic growth.

Click to expand...

No, there is no way to accurately measure the IQ of the NKs.

If you had any clue what you were talking about, you'd know that.

ecofarm said:

Honest would be better. No wall of text. No reference to obscure and bizarre pieces of ancient texts. Just what's your claim.

Click to expand...

My post was very short. What are you talking about? It's a well cited study that I referenced.

How would the conversation have been different, we wonder, if instead of focusing on diversity researchers framed their findings in terms of whites’ negative reaction to nonwhites, as our evidence suggests? Or if they emphasized that homogeneity and social capital may benefit some groups but not others (Portes 1998; Hero 2007; Uslaner 2011)? Why have scholars fallen for the claim that ethnoracial diversity is responsible for the alleged decline in trust? We suspect their communitarian conception of social capital has something to do with it.
http://static1.squarespace.com/stat...calBaldassarri_HeterogeneityTrust_AJS2015.pdf

Click to expand...

The authors basically argue that the lack of trust in a diverse environment stems from whites’ negative reaction to nonwhites. The more diverse the community becomes, the more hostile whites are to minorities because diversity is likely to have negative consequences for in-group members. Social trust is a subjective concept based on how whites feel about minorities.

Perhaps the OP should define social trust and how it's measured, in his own words. Just for fun.

phattonez said:

I wanted to post this in an academic forum to, hopefully, get a more academic response to this study... etc

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

"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.

"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."
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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

phattonez said:

I wanted to post this in an academic forum to, hopefully, get a more academic response to this study. ...

Click to expand...

Koke said:

One time out of boredom I looked up if there was any correlation between the diversity of a country and it's average IQ and crimes rates and found out that they do correlate somewhat.
For example, some of the most "diverse" countries in the world are in Africa. In Africa you'll find some of the lowest average IQ. Japan and Scandinavia are relatively ethnically homogeneous and are pretty much crime free with extremely high average IQs.
Which isn't to say diversity or homogeneity is the lone contributor to these stats. Could be a multitude of things.

Click to expand...

Tanngrisnir said:

Huh. North Korea would tend to indicate that ethnic homogeneousness and IQ don't go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

1. North Korea's IQ is high despite it's current surreal Govt.
https://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html

2. "Diversity," in and of itself, is not as much of an issue as WHO is making the country diverse.
If the average IQ of the people/Race/Ethnic group that is the base of the country is higher than those pouring in: that's Not good for it.
This is generally what's happening in the USA and Europe who are being subject to large immigrations by people's/Races/Ethnicities of Lower IQ.
However, if those immigrants are NE Asians, the IQ and income will go up, crime will go down... regardless of income of the immigrants. Chinatown's are poor, but a Boat load safer than Black and Hispanic neighborhoods of the same income.

OTOH, if 10 Million Japanese were dropped in the Congo, that countries IQ and economy would soar, and crime go down.
We're talking NE Asians with the highest IQ (106) in a country of sub-Saharan Blacks with app a 70 IQ.

3. To Koke: sub-Saharan Africa has diversity only among it's races, but they share about the same IQ, (68-75) and ergo governing, economic, academic issues. That's why, despite being Resource Rich (unlike NE Asia), sub-Sahara is an ungovernable and poor rabble, many of whom still live as they did 20,000 years ago: in villages/huts.
IQ is not National as much as Racial, but national doesn't have the taboo that race does.

See the chart above or Lynn's numbers below, and only then does the World make sense:

Race Differences in Intelligence (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race ------------------------------------- Mean I.Q
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105
Europeans --------------------------------100
South-East Asians -------------------------90
Pacific Islanders ----------------------------85
South Asians and North africans------------84
Africans------------------------------------67
Australian aborigines ---------------------- 62

The IQ scores above from Richard Lynn who correlated 620 IQ tests of over 800,000 subjects.
The IQ part alone formerly on the Wikipedia 'Race and IQ' page along with tons of other data, before it was Ravaged by the PC.
ie, a Simpler version of above:


The Wiki page now unrecognizable from just 6 or 7 years ago.. and containing little data, but alot of apologetics.
This is where Wiki fails, when PC/politics is at hand.

And that is the Why the world looks the way it does.
'Diversity' isn't the issue as much as who a society is being 'diversed' with.

mbig said:

1. North Korea's IQ is high despite it's current surreal Govt.
https://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html

2. "Diversity," in and of itself, is not as much of an issue as WHO is making the country diverse.
If the average IQ of the people/Race/Ethnic group that is the base of the country is higher than those pouring in: that's Not good.
This is generally what's happening in the USA and Europe who are being subject to large immigrations by people's/Races/Ethnicities of Lower IQ.

OTOH, if 10 Million Japanese were dropped in the Congo, that countries IQ and economy would soar, and crime go down.
We're talking NE Asians with the highest IQ (106) in a country of sub-Saharan Blacks with app a 70 IQ.

3. To Koke: sub-Saharan Africa has diversity only among it's races, but they share about the same IQ, (68-75) and ergo governing, economic, academic issues. That's why, despite being Resource Rich (unlike NE Asia), sub-Sahara is an ungovernable and poor rabble, many of whom still live as they did 20,000 years ago: in villages/huts.
IQ is not National as much as Racial, but national doesn't have the taboo that race does.

See the chart above or Lynn's numbers and only then does the World make sense:

Race Differences in Intelligence (book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race ------------------------------------- Mean I.Q
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105
Europeans --------------------------------100
South-East Asians -------------------------90
Pacific Islanders ----------------------------85
South Asians and North africans------------84
Africans------------------------------------67
Australian aborigines ---------------------- 62

The IQ scores above from Richard Lynn who correlated 620 IQ tests of over 800,000 subjects.
The IQ part alone formerly on the Wikipedia 'Race and IQ' page along with tons of other data, before it was Ravaged by the PC.
ie, a Simpler version of above:

The Wiki page now unrecognizable from just 6 or 7 years ago.. and containing little data, but alot of apologetics.
This is where Wiki fails, when PC/politics is at hand.

And that is the Why the world looks the way it does.
'Diversity' isn't the issue as much as who a society is being 'diversed' with.

Click to expand...

NK's average IQ is simply not calculable.

Tanngrisnir said:

NK's average IQ is simply not calculable.

Click to expand...

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.


EDIT/Again to below.
Not that the anachronistic current situation of NK is of any value to the question at hand. It's a diversion/distraction/one-off.