🐱 My brain is racist. Does that mean I am?

CatParty


The “racist” label, applied to any person, place or thing, cuts deep. But what if we understood the moniker not as a scarlet letter of disgrace, but a brain default that we all share? And, more important, a default that we can overcome?

How? The only way our brains know how: Recognize and respond. Every action may well be followed by a reaction, but it must be preceded by recognition. Recognition sparks self-awareness. Self-awareness ignites good leadership.

To wit, there are two primary reasons my brain defaults to racist thinking. (For clarity, I’m invoking Ibram Kendi’s description that, “A racist idea is any idea that suggests that one racial group is inferior to — or superior to — another racial group in any way.”)

Reason No. 1: My life choices have been informed by a bounty of opportunities, experiences and privileges. Many I sought or earned, and many I did not. Some simply exist because I am white. For instance, not once has the color of my skin presented a potential barrier to a loan or job. Never has anyone asked what country I’m from or how I wear my hair. My skin color never warrants a second look.

Not having to weigh any one of those factors in the more than 2,000 choices I — and everyone — makes every waking hour impacts my deeds and decisions. As a result, the very neural pathways that make me me have formed largely without my conscious awareness of, let alone questioning, what it means to be white. I think therefore I am. And what I am is continuously shaped and reshaped by both my reflexive and reflectivethoughts and actions. These thoughts and actions create my brain’s default settings. Repetition strengthens them.

How do these same default settings lead to racist thinking? I feel better not having to be the spokesperson for every fair-skinned woman in the office; not having to mollify white colleagues who feel guilty about their own or others’ unintentional slights. In other words, I feel better off in my whiteness. In most dictionaries, “superior” is synonymous with “better.” Do these feelings make me racist? Not necessarily, but they root me in a racist system, and therefore I am capable of racist thoughts and ideas. These thoughts afford me the privilege of having privilege. To paraphrase Peggy McIntosh, noted author and white privilege theorist, I have accepted a career’s worth of promotions without worrying that peers suspect I got them because of my race.

Does this mean I’m a bad leader — or person? No, but it means I’m human. To be human is to be sentient but also capable of change. To change, however, I must first willingly recognize the ways in which my brain has been molded and influenced by my race.

Reason No. 2: Everything we perceive enters the brain as a sensation, keeping our brains constantly guessing using already existing contexts. Its emotion control center, the amygdala, receives these incoming sensations far beneath conscious awareness and dictates — multiple times per second — whether we have the luxury to pause and ponder, or should react and defend. The brain accomplishes this feat, in part, by recognizing (or not) the familiar. Our brains crave patterns and predictability like our bodies crave food.

Myriad studies have substantiated a stronger amygdala (i.e., emotional) response when white people are shown pictures of Black faces. This automatic vigilance response kicks in whenever we perceive the unfamiliar. Since all human beings divide our world into ingroups and outgroups, the same skin color offers the kind of quick and easy shortcut to familiarity that the brain gloms onto for assurance, especially if stress or uncertainty weighs on our coping mechanisms. This study of ingroup and outgroup bias earned Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize for the research he conducted with his colleague, Amos Tversky.

Let’s say two resumes cross my desk. One belongs to Sandy, a white woman referred by a trusted colleague, and the other belongs to a Black man, Lee, from a different industry. My brain will likely try to convince me to focus on the more familiar person. The person who “feels” right. The rationale of “fit” might even spring to mind. Is this racist? If I am convincing myself that someone is “better” than someone else without the proper due diligence — then I suggest it is racist. Can I do something about this potentially racist notion? Absolutely. But first, I must recognize my brain’s default settings at work. Only then can I respond most effectively.

The wonderful thing about my racist brain is that I am its boss. I possess the power to recognize when my default settings might be leading me astray, and to respond accordingly. As Kendi says, racist labels are not “permanent tattoos”: “No one becomes a racist or antiracist. We can only strive to be one or the other.”

So, even if my brain tries to convince me that Sandy is a better “fit” for the job, I can counteract these protective measures. I can make sure that she truly meets an objective set of job criteria. I can dig more deeply into Lee’s previous experience to ascertain whether he could be more of an asset to the organization.

The same study that found increased amygdala response among white people when shown pictures of Black faces showed no amygdala increase (i.e., more objectivity) when subjects were asked whether those same Black faces liked vegetables.

A simple, practical question about vegetables released the subjects’ perceptions from the clutches of the emotion-centered amygdala and steered them to the prefrontal cortex, its more reason-centric neighbor. Now, apply this finding to the two job candidates, Sandy and Lee, by substituting a sense about their “fit” for whether each candidate likes vegetables. It may sound simplistic, but this small shift pumps the brain’s braking system just enough to disengage any default settings. For example, asking myself to list specific ways Sandy really is more qualified than Lee may be all it takes to check potentially racist thinking. Job criteria become the vegetables that nurture anti-racist thinking.

Do I want to be racist? Of course not. Will my brain continue to push me in certain directions by favoring its default settings? Yes, our fundamentally lazy brains are bent on preserving energy by seeking the path of least resistance. Good leaders recognize this tendency. They respond accordingly. They choose to overcome.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Black communities in a given region may have drastically lower crime rates than average-- what are they doing right?

Black communities in another region may have drastically high crime rates compared to average-- what's the scene in that region? what are they doing wrong?
FTFY

To me, when people twist parts of their comments, what else are they twisting? It's almost like they don't want to lay blame, where the blame needs to lie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antipathy
Not having to weigh any one of those factors in the more than 2,000 choices I — and everyone — makes every waking hour impacts my deeds and decisions. As a result, the very neural pathways that make me me have formed largely without my conscious awareness of, let alone questioning, what it means to be white. I think therefore I am. And what I am is continuously shaped and reshaped by both my reflexive and reflectivethoughts and actions. These thoughts and actions create my brain’s default settings. Repetition strengthens them.

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." -George Orwell, 1984

Myriad studies have substantiated a stronger amygdala (i.e., emotional) response when white people are shown pictures of Black faces. This automatic vigilance response kicks in whenever we perceive the unfamiliar. Since all human beings divide our world into ingroups and outgroups, the same skin color offers the kind of quick and easy shortcut to familiarity that the brain gloms onto for assurance, especially if stress or uncertainty weighs on our coping mechanisms. This study of ingroup and outgroup bias earned Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize for the research he conducted with his colleague, Amos Tversky.

An emotional response? The amygdala is the part of the brain that is triggered by threats, stimulating the release of stress hormones and activating the fight-or-flight response.
 
You two are talking past each other. @Zero Day Defense all he was initially getting at was that it's not an absurd notion that people would be avoidant of those that they subconsciously recognize as a potential threat.
If that's all his point is, he doesn't need to post exhibits from sources transparently trying to bring legitimacy to their racism.

No, you didn't-- you were being pedantic. A "scene" also includes the actions of those in the community. The reason why I use the term "scene" is because most people don't observe a society by its components, but mostly pass through it such that they can't see what's contributing to its present state. Less people in the ghetto think "we have a problem with single motherhood and that's really undermining our society, let's find out what's causing that" than those that think "man, life sucks but it is what it is". That even happens in better communities, because their status quo forces them to adopt a naturally more vigilant and order-conducive way of thinking.

You can't talk about taking responsibility when there's no discussion on what to take responsibility for. You can't just say "stop committing crime" or even work towards it without figuring out the context in which that crime is thriving.

But that's the issue-- people like those who wrote that pamphlet that @Antipathy posted, or those who point to the superficial disparity between the SAT scores of the highest black earners' children and the poorest white earners' children (some of the questions not being asked: what's the distribution of the scores that make this average? what is the quality of the schools they're going to? what is the quality of their communities? how are their domestic situations-- is there a father in the home?) aren't trying to parse the scene in order to find the problems to tackle.

Their arguments are deliberately incomplete and under-ventured because they need you (they're too cowardly) to come to the conclusion that "that's just how these people are", so that they can validate their own mediocrity by exalting themselves above even the most successful black person. They attack strawmen like "poverty causes crime" instead of doing the-- frankly-- immense labor of examining the situation in these communities (like, you can equalize for parental presence and still find disparities in crime, but... does that actually mean that black people are inherently more criminal or does it mean people can still easily be swept in entrenched crime cultures with a whole family only providing some relief, or does it mean that the father actually has to have a strong presence, or...). You can very much ask "what if" questions all day when it comes to addressing root issues, and maybe at some point you need to stop or take a pause to work with what you were able to figure out at some point, but the wignat's intention isn't to get to the root issues-- it's to validate their racism with logical and statistical kayfabe. Same deal with rad-lefts, but right-of-center people can pick that out much better-- maybe because some part of them is attracted to the "forbidden knowledge" schtick that wignats sell.

They aren't interested in helping anyone else-- white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or whoever else, since they know that the only logical course of action from their malformed conclusions that they made you labor to find is "otherize", "deport", "secede", or anything of those natures. But, none of those things are even remotely feasible, they probably never will be, and there's still a variety of solutions to be tried that they never even considered because the first thing on their agenda is actually to distract themselves from and hide their own shortcomings by sublimating themselves into a concept of "race".
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
If that's all his point is, he doesn't need to post exhibits from sources transparently trying to bring legitimacy to their racism.


No, you didn't-- you were being pedantic. A "scene" also includes the actions of those in the community. The reason why I use the term "scene" is because most people don't observe a society by its components, but mostly pass through it such that they can't see what's contributing to its present state. Less people in the ghetto think "we have a problem with single motherhood and that's really undermining our society, let's find out what's causing that" than those that think "man, life sucks but it is what it is". That even happens in better communities, because their status quo forces them to adopt a naturally more vigilant and order-conducive way of thinking.

You can't talk about taking responsibility when there's no discussion on what to take responsibility for. You can't just say "stop committing crime" or even work towards it without figuring out the context in which that crime is thriving.

But that's the issue-- people like those who wrote that pamphlet that @Antipathy posted, or those who point to the superficial disparity between the SAT scores of the highest black earners' children and the poorest white earners' children (some of the questions not being asked: what's the distribution of the scores that make this average? what is the quality of the schools they're going to? what is the quality of their communities? how are their domestic situations-- is there a father in the home?) aren't trying to parse the scene in order to find the problems to tackle.

Their arguments are deliberately incomplete and under-ventured because they need you (they're too cowardly) to come to the conclusion that "that's just how these people are", so that they can validate their own mediocrity by exalting themselves above even the most successful black person. They attack strawmen like "poverty causes crime" instead of doing the-- frankly-- immense labor of examining the situation in these communities (like, you can equalize for parental presence and still find disparities in crime, but... does that actually mean that black people are inherently more criminal or does it mean people can still easily be swept in entrenched crime cultures with a whole family only providing some relief, or does it mean that the father actually has to have a strong presence, or...). You can very much ask "what if" questions all day when it comes to addressing root issues, and maybe at some point you need to stop or take a pause to work with what you were able to figure out at some point, but the wignat's intention isn't to get to the root issues-- it's to validate their racism with logical and statistical kayfabe. Same deal with rad-lefts, but right-of-center people can pick that out much better-- maybe because some part of them is attracted to the "forbidden knowledge" schtick that wignats sell.

They aren't interested in helping anyone else-- white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or whoever else, since they know that the only logical course of action from their malformed conclusions that they made you labor to find is "otherize", "deport", "secede", or anything of those natures. But, none of those things are even remotely feasible, they probably never will be, and there's still a variety of solutions to be tried that they never even considered because the first thing on their agenda is actually to distract themselves from and hide their own shortcomings by sublimating themselves into a concept of "race".
And if these communities seemingly universally across the country, regardless of income, seem to have similar issues, surely there must be some problems here. If there aren't fathers in the home, regardless of income level for blacks, why is that? If there aren't X and Y and Z things, then why is that exactly, and why does it only and overwhelmingly seem to affect blacks at similar levels both nationally in the USA and internationally across Europe too? Why is it that, even when correcting as best as possible for family, there's still a gap?
AdoptionStudy.png
If these are disproportionately "bad" communities, or if these problems disproportionately affect blacks, why? Why do these things happen? Why is this a pattern so intuitive and obvious that it's become a joke?
 
And if these communities seemingly universally across the country, regardless of income, seem to have similar issues, surely there must be some problems here. If there aren't fathers in the home, regardless of income level for blacks, why is that? If there aren't X and Y and Z things, then why is that exactly, and why does it only and overwhelmingly seem to affect blacks at similar levels both nationally in the USA and internationally across Europe too?
1) That's the point, not all of them have the same issues. Have you ever talked to suburban blacks and compared their persons to city blacks? Did you know that Northern blacks sympathized with Malcolm X more while Southern blacks sympathized with MLK more? Did you know that Northern blacks, post-Civil War, were wary of Southern blacks coming north because they knew their rough customs (which were actually much more Southern than they were black, hint hint) would make them look bad in front of their white neighbors?

You're not actually looking at the individual communities in context and assembling a view from there-- you're looking at averages that suffer a particular incomplete nature because of the natural flattening effect of the average. It's not as though the statistical concept isn't useful, but you're not deriving a whole bell curve out of a simple average. You're also not deriving a conclusive look into a given situation by looking at outliers (e.g. "poorest white case vs. richest black case"-- what about all the inbetween values? are there black communities a bit poorer but with less crime than the poorest white-majority community? how many of those are there?).

You are actively denying the concept of situational diversity in order to justify preconceived notions, and in the process you bury real, tangible, treatable issues.

2) You keep going back to income level. Nobody but you is this fixated on income level. I'm not even suggesting that poverty causes crime. Income level is one of many interrelated factors that define a societal scene.

3) We come back to my primary criticism of you-- you make fallacious arguments rife with statistical abuse, but then push that and the expectation of coming up with an answer onto me.

>130 children
>not all of them are 100% black American

>in just one state
>no controlling for parenting styles
>no discussion of family values
>no discussion of distribution of these children in the states beyond the fact that the study's done in just one state
>no discussion of spending styles (will the parents of these subjects actually feel like they're upper-middle class, or are they prevented from feeling so because they're spendthrifts)
>no consideration that the lives the adopted led prior to their adoption may have had a deleterious effect on their IQ and general mental health
>"obviously this can only be explained by genetics"


I can only imagine you operate from a script.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
1) That's the point, not all of them have the same issues. Have you ever talked to suburban blacks and compared their persons to city blacks? Did you know that Northern blacks sympathized with Malcolm X more while Southern blacks sympathized with MLK more? Did you know that Northern blacks, post-Civil War, were wary of Southern blacks coming north because they knew their rough customs (which were actually much more Southern than they were black, hint hint) would make them look bad in front of their white neighbors?

You're not actually looking at the individual communities in context and assembling a view from there-- you're looking at averages that suffer a particular incomplete nature because of the natural flattening effect of the average. It's not as though the statistical concept isn't useful, but you're not deriving a whole bell curve out of a simple average. You're also not deriving a conclusive look into a given situation by looking at outliers (e.g. "poorest white case vs. richest black case"-- what about all the inbetween values? are there black communities a bit poorer but with less crime than the poorest white-majority community? how many of those are there?).

You are actively denying the concept of situational diversity in order to justify preconceived notions, and in the process you bury real, tangible, treatable issues.

2) You keep going back to income level. Nobody but you is this fixated on income level. I'm not even suggesting that poverty causes crime. Income level is one of many interrelated factors that define a societal scene.

3) We come back to my primary criticism of you-- you make fallacious arguments rife with statistical abuse, but then push that and the expectation of coming up with an answer onto me.


>130 children
>not all of them are 100% black American

>in just one state
>no controlling for parenting styles
>no discussion of family values
>no discussion of distribution of these children in the states beyond the fact that the study's done in just one state
>no discussion of spending styles (will the parents of these subjects actually feel like they're upper-middle class, or are they prevented from feeling so because they're spendthrifts)
>no consideration that the lives the adopted led prior to their adoption may have had a deleterious effect on their IQ and general mental health
>"obviously this can only be explained by genetics"


I can only imagine you operate from a script.
You're now giving me the impossible task of investigating every single black community in the country and then assembling a view from that. Are they all the same? Of course not. Do I have to look at literally every single one and then make a judgement from there? No, that's insane, and looking at national aggregates gives an idea. I know how aggregates can be misleading. If the flattening effect of the average results in a regression to the mean, then my question is why is the mean where it is? If regressing to the mean shows higher crime and lower IQ, then what do you think that entails on the individual level?

As for going to income level, what other control is there? Some magical community shield that seems only to result in black people having these different values, that inexplicably doesn't occur in whites? Or is this another case of "I must look at every single individual case before judging". If it's a black cultural thing, is that not also related to blacks?

As for the third, of course it's not all black kids, it's meant to compare black kids to white kids, and control, at least partially, for income and parenting, because it's a statistical fact that a lot of black kids are from single mother homes. Sure, 130 is a small sample size, but again, this does seem to indicate something. You're telling me to control for every single possible variable, and examine every community individually, which is utter lunacy, all the while failing to explain what could explain things as neatly and uniformly as genetics.

And all of this, mind you is you contesting the assertion that, to the layperson with rudimentary knowledge of statistics, or even unconscious knowledge, combined with an evolutionary predisposition to oppose "otherness", there's some manner of unconscious bias towards blacks.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
You're now giving me the impossible task of investigating every single black community in the country and then assembling a view from that.
I'm tasking you with doing more than studying /pol/ memes, considering only 1-3 sociocultural controls, and relying on your interlocutor to conclude your deceptively incomplete arguments, actually.

And, yes, actual contact with black communities would help you better contextualize your findings.
If the flattening effect of the average results in a regression to the mean
This is bonafide gibberish. You don't know what "regression to the mean" is if you don't regard it as anything other than an artifact error caused by that needs to be accounted for in statistics in order to avoid incorrect conclusions. You certainly didn't understand what was meant by "flattening effect", either.

As for going to income level, what other control is there?
...are you being deliberately obtuse?

As for the third, of course it's not all black kids, it's meant to compare black kids to white kids, and control, at least partially, for income and parenting, because it's a statistical fact that a lot of black kids are from single mother homes. Sure, 130 is a small sample size, but again, this does seem to indicate something.
It indicates that more research needs to be done, ideally with more controls, because a sample size of 130 children (not all of whom are black), only serves as a valid sample size for a study that assesses whether black children breathe.

You're telling me to control for every single possible variable, and examine every community individually, which is utter lunacy, all the while failing to explain what could explain things as neatly and uniformly as genetics.
So, because something explains matters in a way that you in particular can understand, it's a more rational answer?

That's like saying that you know you have the right answer for a math question when the values are easy to work with-- you're very much not accounting for your own deficiencies, and especially not the fact that you could have made an error that cascaded to distort your answer more and more as you worked through the problem.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
I'm tasking you with doing more than studying /pol/ memes, considering only 1-3 sociocultural controls, and relying on your interlocutor to conclude your deceptively incomplete arguments, actually.

And, yes, actual contact with black communities would help you better contextualize your findings.

This is bonafide gibberish. You don't know what "regression to the mean" is if you don't regard it as anything other than an artifact error caused by that needs to be accounted for in statistics in order to avoid incorrect conclusions. You certainly didn't understand what was meant by "flattening effect", either.


...are you being deliberately obtuse?


It indicates that more research needs to be done, ideally with more controls, because a sample size of 130 children (not all of whom are black), only serves as a valid sample size for a study that assesses whether black children breathe.


So, because something explains matters in a way that you in particular can understand, it's a more rational answer?

That's like saying that you know you have the right answer for a math question when the values are easy to work with-- you're very much not accounting for your own deficiencies, and especially not the fact that you could have made an error that cascaded to distort your answer more and more as you worked through the problem.
Of course more research needs to be done, more rigorous experiments made, more careful calculations taken into effect. I don't know what you're even arguing about. The effects exist, the question is causation. Are you debating me on there being a genetic component? I did make a bit of a gibberish statement, yeah, but at this point, what. What do I need to prove, outright, to convince you? How is this at all related to my initial post anymore?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
I don't know what you're even arguing about.
The distribution of the crime that the aggregate statistics depict in simplicity, and the circumstances of at least the regions of data points, principally.

Do you get what you're arguing about? You said:


You're telling me to control for every single possible variable, and examine every community individually, which is utter lunacy, all the while failing to explain what could explain things as neatly and uniformly as genetics.
and then before that you said
It's partially cultural, partially economic, partially genetic

and throughout, you've been posting /pol/ memes citing poorly done studies/making crap up (black-on-white violence is greater than black-on-black violence? really?).
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
The distribution of the crime that the aggregate statistics depict in simplicity, and the circumstances of at least the regions of data points.
If taking the average of these data points, which are distributed across the nation, points to a national average, then that average should be considered as a valid data point. I am unaware of how exactly these studies were conducted and should perform a deeper investigation into that, although I am aware that part of these studies are from federal entities and should thus be assumed not to make many if any amateurish mistakes that obfuscate the circumstance of the data points, or had unfair selection of data points.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
If taking the average of these data points, which are distributed across the nation, points to a national average, then that average should be considered as a valid data point.
No. They shouldn't. On its face, because of the sheer multifarious diversity of circumstances from state to state, the average cannot possibly encapsulate that reality in any meaningful way beyond a premise for further, actually conclusive investigation.

I am unaware of how exactly these studies were conducted and should perform a deeper investigation into that, although I am aware that part of these studies are from federal entities
None of the memes you posted showcase data from federal entities. The first pamphlet you posted purports to cite federal entities, but then screws up by suggesting that black-on-white violence rates somehow exceeds black-on-black violence rates.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
No. They shouldn't. On its face, because of the sheer multifarious diversity of circumstances from state to state, the average cannot possibly encapsulate that reality in any meaningful way beyond a premise for further, actually conclusive investigation.


None of the memes you posted showcase data from federal entities. The first pamphlet you posted purports to cite federal entities, but then screws up by suggesting that black-on-white violence rates somehow exceeds black-on-black violence rates.
What factors make state to state comparisons untenable exactly? All states are within the USA and have roughly similar cultures and economic standards all broadly within the category of First World.

As for the second one, I wanted to take a closer look at that. The NCVS does exist, and I went to try and look at the data directly, but I got an error message. I'll put that as inconclusive and try later. Do you have any evidence that the black-on-white violence rate doesn't exceed the black-on-black violence rate? Just because black-on-black violence is the majority of any group attacking blacks doesn't necessarily mean that it's the largest amount of crimes related to blacks.
Screenshot (13).png
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
All states are within the USA and have roughly similar cultures
Are you even American? Do you pay attention to even our election seasons? What are you saying?

As for the second one, I wanted to take a closer look at that. The NCVS does exist
Not the point. The pamphlet is tainted because it cites incorrect data to the point that it comes to an incorrect conclusion (that black-on-white violence is more common than black-on-black violence). It isn't.

1617575505500.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Are you even American? Do you pay attention to even our election seasons? What are you saying?


Not the point. The pamphlet is tainted because it cites incorrect data to the point that it comes to an incorrect conclusion (that black-on-white violence is more common than black-on-black violence). It isn't.

View attachment 2058903
I guess my data was flawed in that aspect, thank you for pointing that out. Overall crime rates are still massively higher for blacks than for whites, but my data was wrong there.

As for state culture, you can subdivide things into Democrat and Republican, yes, but beyond that, while there are differences in state culture, there aren't differences enough to make aggregation of that data implausible, at least in my opinion.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
As for state culture, you can subdivide things into Democrat and Republican, yes, but beyond that, while there are differences in state culture, there aren't differences enough to make aggregation of that data implausible, at least in my opinion.
What is your opinion based on?
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
What is your opinion based on?
Casual observation of online culture, I've also lived in a few different states and been to a few more. Things can be subdivided by class, somewhat by race, but state to state at least in broad strokes things are similar enough.

The people making these statistics (IE, the NCVS) also seem to think that aggregation across state lines is valid and even your data has aggregation across state lines. If we were to take it such that aggregation across state lines is invalid, then all data presented, including your own, is invalid. It also wouldn't explain or debunk (the admittedly unverified) data I posted showing broadly similar things internationally.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
If you call the USA a monoculture you're a fucking moron and everything, I mean EVERYTHING you say should be promptly discarded because you know jack and fucking SHIT about the USA. I had serious culture shock between DIFFERENT CITIES IN THE SAME STATE.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Casual observation of online culture
You're observing online culture, not culture by state.

I've also lived in a few different states and been to a few more. Things can be subdivided by class, somewhat by race, but state to state at least in broad strokes things are similar enough.
I'd wager you didn't have much interface with said cultures, given that it's just about impossible to conceive that states with different demographics, histories, interests and needs would develop "similar enough" cultures-- especially when you can already classify states according to aggregate party allegiance, and said parties at least ostensibly have diametrically opposed value sets. At the very least, you're dealing with culture regions, but the variances of culture and interests necessitating some way to represent said interests in some kind of proportion is an oft-cited defense of the electoral college.

The people making these statistics (IE, the NCVS) also seem to think that aggregation across state lines is valid and even your data has aggregation across state lines.
I used that data in refutation of the statement made in your pamphlet, which purported an aggregate statistic in the first place, in order to make the case that the pamphlet is crap to begin with. I'm of the firm belief that aggregate stats across state lines in a country as expansive and varied as this one is all but useless beyond premising further research.

Indeed, they seem to think that such statistical operation renders the data useful, and I'd be interested in understanding why they think so, since it cannot be so at first blush.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish
Back