This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"  (Read 14257 times)

Lynn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2022, 11:23:25 AM »
The Putnam study was clear: diversity destroys trust and cohesion.  Robert Putnam originally set out to prove the opposite, with lots of platitudes and posturing that genetics doesn't exist and "muh values".  What he found is everything you're talking about only exists because of racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity.  When any area has multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural divisions then social cohesion and trust diminishes, both ingroup and outgroup.  Disrupting "the good of the group" exists only within an enclave.  Inevitably, the group is your natural kinship.  The "good group" is the group you belong to.  Anyone with a pair of eyes can tell you're not Japanese when someone waves a magic wand over "muh citizen" from Africa or India and calls them Japanese.  Chain migration is merely a symptom, and there are other symptoms like this:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

Just reading the interview on NPR, he points to various groups that seem to maintain cohesion, such as through church or being in the army, but that it has fallen away in general. It is easy to see that is a problem of the brand of multiculturalism of the last 30 odd years and not necessarily based on what existed prior - the 'salad bowl' vs the melting pot. So are you saying that it never existed at all in the United States?

As for cohesion in Japan, while a face in the crowd might stand out, so long as they are surrounded by others that accept them, they are sufficiently 'validated' because some portion of the group demonstrates acceptance, while at the same time, is expected to conform. That's why relationships are critical in Asia and especially true in Japan.

Considering how quickly anyone is fired, censored, and ostracized for going against the Official Narrative™, it's no small wonder he's still reciting the Litanies of Leftism.  After all, he didn't want to publish his work because it proved the Religion of Diversity is a false god.  The fact that he's on NPR at all is because he's not telling them their cult is destructive.  He didn't get invited to reveal his studies but to downplay them.

Okay, but that's not an answer. Was there some sort of overarching shared morality in the USA or not? That seemingly parallels the American notion of the melting pot and acceptance of an overarching set of French democratic values. You can see this in how they treat religion in schools. Rather than cherry pick, they ban all, as an alternative to the American 'let everyone do whatever they want.'
Lynn Fredricks
Entrepreneurial Hat Collector

AtomicPope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • For a Brighter tomorrow...
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2022, 09:31:57 PM »
The Putnam study was clear: diversity destroys trust and cohesion.  Robert Putnam originally set out to prove the opposite, with lots of platitudes and posturing that genetics doesn't exist and "muh values".  What he found is everything you're talking about only exists because of racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity.  When any area has multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural divisions then social cohesion and trust diminishes, both ingroup and outgroup.  Disrupting "the good of the group" exists only within an enclave.  Inevitably, the group is your natural kinship.  The "good group" is the group you belong to.  Anyone with a pair of eyes can tell you're not Japanese when someone waves a magic wand over "muh citizen" from Africa or India and calls them Japanese.  Chain migration is merely a symptom, and there are other symptoms like this:

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663

Just reading the interview on NPR, he points to various groups that seem to maintain cohesion, such as through church or being in the army, but that it has fallen away in general. It is easy to see that is a problem of the brand of multiculturalism of the last 30 odd years and not necessarily based on what existed prior - the 'salad bowl' vs the melting pot. So are you saying that it never existed at all in the United States?

As for cohesion in Japan, while a face in the crowd might stand out, so long as they are surrounded by others that accept them, they are sufficiently 'validated' because some portion of the group demonstrates acceptance, while at the same time, is expected to conform. That's why relationships are critical in Asia and especially true in Japan.

Considering how quickly anyone is fired, censored, and ostracized for going against the Official Narrative™, it's no small wonder he's still reciting the Litanies of Leftism.  After all, he didn't want to publish his work because it proved the Religion of Diversity is a false god.  The fact that he's on NPR at all is because he's not telling them their cult is destructive.  He didn't get invited to reveal his studies but to downplay them.

Okay, but that's not an answer. Was there some sort of overarching shared morality in the USA or not? That seemingly parallels the American notion of the melting pot and acceptance of an overarching set of French democratic values. You can see this in how they treat religion in schools. Rather than cherry pick, they ban all, as an alternative to the American 'let everyone do whatever they want.'

Actually it is an answer, but you simply can't understand because it doesn't suit your narrative.  Levitt and Gross published their findings on the corruption of academia back in 1995 in the book "Higher Superstition."  Read it if you can.  The information was then used by mathematician Alan Sokal in a scholarly hoax that exposed that academia is full of powerful, connected frauds.  The social sciences are not scientific at all as explained by The Replication Crisis, and as predicted and demostrated by Levitt, Gross, and Sokal the Replication Crisis now affects all of academia.  People like Putnam would rather downplay their findings so a propaganda outlet like NPR will still have him on the air.

Also, the term "melting pot" is literally propaganda from the 1900's and has no basis anywhere else.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2022, 10:11:00 PM »
The Putnam study was clear: diversity destroys trust and cohesion.  Robert Putnam originally set out to prove the opposite, with lots of platitudes and posturing that genetics doesn't exist and "muh values".  What he found is everything you're talking about only exists because of racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity.  When any area has multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural divisions then social cohesion and trust diminishes, both ingroup and outgroup.  Disrupting "the good of the group" exists only within an enclave.  Inevitably, the group is your natural kinship.  The "good group" is the group you belong to.  Anyone with a pair of eyes can tell you're not Japanese when someone waves a magic wand over "muh citizen" from Africa or India and calls them Japanese.
Actually it is an answer, but you simply can't understand because it doesn't suit your narrative.  Levitt and Gross published their findings on the corruption of academia back in 1995 in the book "Higher Superstition."  Read it if you can.  The information was then used by mathematician Alan Sokal in a scholarly hoax that exposed that academia is full of powerful, connected frauds.  The social sciences are not scientific at all as explained by The Replication Crisis, and as predicted and demostrated by Levitt, Gross, and Sokal the Replication Crisis now affects all of academia. People like Putnam would rather downplay their findings so a propaganda outlet like NPR will still have him on the air.

This seems contradictory. In the latter part, you say that social sciences are not at all scientific and are unreliable -- yet in the first part, you claim the Putnam study as definite truth. Just because it fits your political preconceptions, that doesn't mean the Putnam study is any more reliable than other social science.

I don't mean to dismiss it, though. Social sciences have never been reliable - but well-run social science results are still better than raw opinion. I think there may well be something to the effects of cultural and linguistic differences. I'd support further study, since replication of the Putnam study has been mixed. But talk about the problems of ethnic mixing are themselves tainted, because I do not believe that the early 20th century studies were any more objective or reliable than the late 20th and early 21st.

Especially, people are using Japan as an example of a "good" ethno-state that is simply opposed to immigration, whereas pro-white ethnic policy in the U.S. and Europe have a much more negative view. However, I think anyone from Korea or China has a very different impression of Japan's ethnic attitudes. Japan promoted its own superiority, while at the same time demanding that those in its colonies homogenize and accept Japanese identity. Korean children were taught only in Japanese and even forbidden to speak Korean at school. Even today, there are a ton of Korean and mixed-ethnicity descendants who live in Japan but suffer from discrimination and hatred from pure-blood Japanese, despite them being the result of Japanese imperialism.

Most people are quite clear that it's pure bigotry to say "You're not American" to someone simply because they aren't Anglo-Saxon Christian. This is just as true of those who say "You're not Japanese" to people for their mixed Korean ancestry.

AtomicPope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • For a Brighter tomorrow...
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2022, 10:20:16 PM »
The Putnam study was clear: diversity destroys trust and cohesion.  Robert Putnam originally set out to prove the opposite, with lots of platitudes and posturing that genetics doesn't exist and "muh values".  What he found is everything you're talking about only exists because of racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity.  When any area has multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural divisions then social cohesion and trust diminishes, both ingroup and outgroup.  Disrupting "the good of the group" exists only within an enclave.  Inevitably, the group is your natural kinship.  The "good group" is the group you belong to.  Anyone with a pair of eyes can tell you're not Japanese when someone waves a magic wand over "muh citizen" from Africa or India and calls them Japanese.
Actually it is an answer, but you simply can't understand because it doesn't suit your narrative.  Levitt and Gross published their findings on the corruption of academia back in 1995 in the book "Higher Superstition."  Read it if you can.  The information was then used by mathematician Alan Sokal in a scholarly hoax that exposed that academia is full of powerful, connected frauds.  The social sciences are not scientific at all as explained by The Replication Crisis, and as predicted and demostrated by Levitt, Gross, and Sokal the Replication Crisis now affects all of academia. People like Putnam would rather downplay their findings so a propaganda outlet like NPR will still have him on the air.

This seems contradictory. In the latter part, you say that social sciences are not at all scientific and are unreliable -- yet in the first part, you claim the Putnam study as definite truth. Just because it fits your political preconceptions, that doesn't mean the Putnam study is any more reliable than other social science.

I don't mean to dismiss it, though. Social sciences have never been reliable - but well-run social science results are still better than raw opinion. I think there may well be something to the effects of cultural and linguistic differences. I'd support further study, since replication of the Putnam study has been mixed. But talk about the problems of ethnic mixing are themselves tainted, because I do not believe that the early 20th century studies were any more objective or reliable than the late 20th and early 21st.

Especially, people are using Japan as an example of a "good" ethno-state that is simply opposed to immigration, whereas pro-white ethnic policy in the U.S. and Europe have a much more negative view. However, I think anyone from Korea or China has a very different impression of Japan's ethnic attitudes. Japan promoted its own superiority, while at the same time demanding that those in its colonies homogenize and accept Japanese identity. Korean children were taught only in Japanese and even forbidden to speak Korean at school. Even today, there are a ton of Korean and mixed-ethnicity descendants who live in Japan but suffer from discrimination and hatred from pure-blood Japanese, despite them being the result of Japanese imperialism.

Most people are quite clear that it's pure bigotry to say "You're not American" to someone simply because they aren't Anglo-Saxon Christian. This is just as true of those who say "You're not Japanese" to people for their mixed Korean ancestry.

I know, reading is difficult.  You don't understand "The Replication Crisis" at all.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #49 on: March 23, 2022, 12:41:26 AM »
This seems contradictory. In the latter part, you say that social sciences are not at all scientific and are unreliable -- yet in the first part, you claim the Putnam study as definite truth. Just because it fits your political preconceptions, that doesn't mean the Putnam study is any more reliable than other social science.
I know, reading is difficult.  You don't understand "The Replication Crisis" at all.

Can you clarify what you are trying to say here? What makes the Putnam study reliable in your mind, compared to other social science studies?

What's your background in this? I originally worked as a physicist, but later also went back and got a degree in education. I was quite dismayed at what I considered the slipshod controls and math analysis in education studies, and I knew even physics was subject to its own biases and flaws.

Lynn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #50 on: March 23, 2022, 01:32:58 AM »
Especially, people are using Japan as an example of a "good" ethno-state that is simply opposed to immigration, whereas pro-white ethnic policy in the U.S. and Europe have a much more negative view. However, I think anyone from Korea or China has a very different impression of Japan's ethnic attitudes. Japan promoted its own superiority, while at the same time demanding that those in its colonies homogenize and accept Japanese identity. Korean children were taught only in Japanese and even forbidden to speak Korean at school. Even today, there are a ton of Korean and mixed-ethnicity descendants who live in Japan but suffer from discrimination and hatred from pure-blood Japanese, despite them being the result of Japanese imperialism.

Most people are quite clear that it's pure bigotry to say "You're not American" to someone simply because they aren't Anglo-Saxon Christian. This is just as true of those who say "You're not Japanese" to people for their mixed Korean ancestry.

Zainichi exist is a weird state in Japan. A big part of the 'harmony' of Japan is fitting in, and Zainichi that make a significant effort can compete and live good lives, as demonstrated by Masayoshi Son. I have met a fair number of them in the Japanese tech industry. But there are many that don't make an effort and take a lot of pride in their culture, therefore its taken by those among the biggest assholes as an affront. Some Zainichi and the schools they attend also have very strong bonds with North Korea, and depending on which way the wind is blowing in regards to North Korea, you can foresee an uptick in abuse.

But I think you'll also find that many Japanese 'find a place' for Koreans, especially Zainichi. Unlike in the US where people act like their opponents are just going to disappear if they push hard enough, Japanese know the Zainichi won't.
Lynn Fredricks
Entrepreneurial Hat Collector

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #51 on: March 23, 2022, 05:45:00 PM »
The Putnam study was clear: diversity destroys trust and cohesion.  Robert Putnam originally set out to prove the opposite, with lots of platitudes and posturing that genetics doesn't exist and "muh values".  What he found is everything you're talking about only exists because of racial, ethnic, and cultural homogeneity.  When any area has multiple racial, ethnic, or cultural divisions then social cohesion and trust diminishes, both ingroup and outgroup.  Disrupting "the good of the group" exists only within an enclave.  Inevitably, the group is your natural kinship.  The "good group" is the group you belong to.  Anyone with a pair of eyes can tell you're not Japanese when someone waves a magic wand over "muh citizen" from Africa or India and calls them Japanese.
Actually it is an answer, but you simply can't understand because it doesn't suit your narrative.  Levitt and Gross published their findings on the corruption of academia back in 1995 in the book "Higher Superstition."  Read it if you can.  The information was then used by mathematician Alan Sokal in a scholarly hoax that exposed that academia is full of powerful, connected frauds.  The social sciences are not scientific at all as explained by The Replication Crisis, and as predicted and demostrated by Levitt, Gross, and Sokal the Replication Crisis now affects all of academia. People like Putnam would rather downplay their findings so a propaganda outlet like NPR will still have him on the air.

This seems contradictory. In the latter part, you say that social sciences are not at all scientific and are unreliable -- yet in the first part, you claim the Putnam study as definite truth. Just because it fits your political preconceptions, that doesn't mean the Putnam study is any more reliable than other social science.

I don't mean to dismiss it, though. Social sciences have never been reliable - but well-run social science results are still better than raw opinion. I think there may well be something to the effects of cultural and linguistic differences. I'd support further study, since replication of the Putnam study has been mixed. But talk about the problems of ethnic mixing are themselves tainted, because I do not believe that the early 20th century studies were any more objective or reliable than the late 20th and early 21st.

Especially, people are using Japan as an example of a "good" ethno-state that is simply opposed to immigration, whereas pro-white ethnic policy in the U.S. and Europe have a much more negative view. However, I think anyone from Korea or China has a very different impression of Japan's ethnic attitudes. Japan promoted its own superiority, while at the same time demanding that those in its colonies homogenize and accept Japanese identity. Korean children were taught only in Japanese and even forbidden to speak Korean at school. Even today, there are a ton of Korean and mixed-ethnicity descendants who live in Japan but suffer from discrimination and hatred from pure-blood Japanese, despite them being the result of Japanese imperialism.

Most people are quite clear that it's pure bigotry to say "You're not American" to someone simply because they aren't Anglo-Saxon Christian. This is just as true of those who say "You're not Japanese" to people for their mixed Korean ancestry.

China, where if you're not Han Chinesse you're inferior.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7399
  • Now even more Toxic
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #52 on: March 23, 2022, 05:50:44 PM »
AtomicPope - it seems you're using "genocide" such that if two populations mix and intermarry, then it is "genocide" because the distinct genotypes become mixed, but that's a very non-standard use of the term. In common usage, "genocide" only refers to killing people because of their genetics.

You're all over the place, no wonder you're confused.  The UN definition of genocide is not constrained to "killing people because of their genetics", and with good reason.   Not to mention, talking about Japan's economic decline as if conceptual economics is more important than the existence of actual people is pathological.  It's even more ludicrous considering the current economic decline in many places that don't have Japan's apparent problem of living a long, healthy life.

The U.N. definition is broader than typical usage, but it still doesn't support your usage. The U.N. definition includes things like forced sterilization and internment camps besides killing, but it definitely does *not* include mixing and intermarriage. Here's the U.N. definition:

Quote
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

None of these describe Algerian immigration into France. I personally don't see intermarriage and mingling of genotypes as "genocide", especially since by that definition I'm personally the product of genocide as my parents are different races (Korean and English). And I don't see that Japan is objectively better in any way than more genetically mixed countries. Japan does have a long life expectancy, but I don't think that shows anything more than that one trait. Within the U.S., for example, California and Hawaii have the highest life expectancy of any states. Does that indicate general superiority of those states compared to others?

Both are true of China regarding the Huygur.

Some may even argue that activelly discouraging one group not to repoduce because "Muh Environment!" while importing other groups because of the first group's low birth rate also qualify.

I'm more on Pundit's camp tho. The skin color doesn't matter, the culture does, and in this regard ALL of the EU and the UK are guilty of destroying the western culture while protecting the islamist one.
Quote from: Rhedyn

Here is why this forum tends to be so stupid. Many people here think Joe Biden is "The Left", when he is actually Far Right and every US republican is just an idiot.

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #53 on: March 23, 2022, 06:23:42 PM »
   Does Japan have any male swimmers beating the brakes off the female swimmers while winning sweet trophies?  Does it have any men up for the position of Woman of the Year?   Stuff like that makes the USA look like a country full of absolute retards.

AtomicPope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • For a Brighter tomorrow...
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2022, 10:25:57 PM »
This seems contradictory. In the latter part, you say that social sciences are not at all scientific and are unreliable -- yet in the first part, you claim the Putnam study as definite truth. Just because it fits your political preconceptions, that doesn't mean the Putnam study is any more reliable than other social science.
I know, reading is difficult.  You don't understand "The Replication Crisis" at all.

Can you clarify what you are trying to say here? What makes the Putnam study reliable in your mind, compared to other social science studies?

What's your background in this? I originally worked as a physicist, but later also went back and got a degree in education. I was quite dismayed at what I considered the slipshod controls and math analysis in education studies, and I knew even physics was subject to its own biases and flaws.

Just off the top of my head, Putnam's study used sound methodology, very large and diverse sample sizes (over half a million people from a wide range of areas, classes, and age groups), conducted over a quarter of a century (time is necessary to identify and predict social trends, and collect reliable trend data), openly published their data (though reluctantly), and last but not least a big problem with gathering social data is the surveys themselves are often nebulous and therefore unscientific, not the case here as it focused on quantifiable results (what people actually did as opposed to how they felt).  The problem with Putnam is he's still dedicated to his bias.  Just like what happened to Turkheimer after publishing his work on behavioral genetics, after proposing a successful model for predictable behavior that garnered results, Putnam back tracked and downplayed it.  They don't do that because it's incorrect; they do it because their findings are politically incorrect.  What inevitably occurs is they are abandoning the science, thus introducing The Replication Crisis to maintain their social status.

If we're able to look at the data, trends, and methodology, and then apply their findings predictably, we can determine for ourselves whether or not it's valid.  When the scientists abandon their own data in order to conform to a preconceived morality (bias) then that's not science.  When this behavior occurs reliably and predictably, as demonstrated by Levitt, Gross, and Sokal since the 90's (and hilariously replicated by others more recently) throughout an academic community then the entire field can no longer be considered scientific.  These trends started in the humanities (which were never scientific but now they're not even academic as they lack intellectual rigors except to ideological conformity) and slowly spilled over into social sciences and now they're affecting hard sciences.  So I'm not engaging in hyperbole when I say the social sciences are not scientific at all.  I'm speaking to the fact that the moment there is any real science that doesn't conform to the prevailing ideological winds it gets buried along with the careers of the offenders or the actual science gets altered in some way to make it unscientific but more ideologically palatable.

I want to stress that science is not consensus.  The moment anyone claims, "X amount of scientists agree" is the moment they reveal whatever they believe in is not scientific at all.  We have thousands of years of people agreeing on "science" that turned out to be ridiculously false.  More importantly, there are enough malicious cases in history (like the claim that smoking cigarettes was beneficial, or the recent claim that OxyContin is less addictive than other opioids) to cast doubt on those who hide information, malign anyone who questions them, and use consensus and authority as though it were an eternal truth.  Those responses are a big red flag no matter who or where they come from.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2022, 02:00:05 AM »
Can you clarify what you are trying to say here? What makes the Putnam study reliable in your mind, compared to other social science studies?

What's your background in this? I originally worked as a physicist, but later also went back and got a degree in education. I was quite dismayed at what I considered the slipshod controls and math analysis in education studies, and I knew even physics was subject to its own biases and flaws.

Just off the top of my head, Putnam's study used sound methodology, very large and diverse sample sizes (over half a million people from a wide range of areas, classes, and age groups), conducted over a quarter of a century (time is necessary to identify and predict social trends, and collect reliable trend data), openly published their data (though reluctantly), and last but not least a big problem with gathering social data is the surveys themselves are often nebulous and therefore unscientific, not the case here as it focused on quantifiable results (what people actually did as opposed to how they felt).  The problem with Putnam is he's still dedicated to his bias.
If we're able to look at the data, trends, and methodology, and then apply their findings predictably, we can determine for ourselves whether or not it's valid.  When the scientists abandon their own data in order to conform to a preconceived morality (bias) then that's not science.

Scientists are definitely affected by preconceptions and bias -- but the problem is that non-scientist readers are also affected by their preconceptions and bias. I certainly include myself in that. This isn't a binary -- all papers are affected by bias to a greater or lesser degree, and all readers are affected by it as well. I saw this very clearly working in science education. Students - even very smart ones - hold onto their preconceptions very strongly, even when presented with evidence that contradicts them. Some people are less biased than others, but I find that bias - even in myself - is more common than I thought growing up.

So, for the Putnam study, I don't have any background in political science. I can read dozens of papers and try to classify them in my mind into valid or invalid, but I don't think that will necessarily make me any more accurate than political scientists, because my classification is also going to be biased by my own preconceptions.

---

That said, I am reading Putnam's work here - though there might be another version of his work that you are reading.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

As I read it, this paper primarily presents data from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which is a single study done in 2000, with a sample size of 30,000. However, you mentioned data collected over 25 years with half a million people. Can you cite the data you're talking about?

AtomicPope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • For a Brighter tomorrow...
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #56 on: March 24, 2022, 02:46:42 AM »
Can you clarify what you are trying to say here? What makes the Putnam study reliable in your mind, compared to other social science studies?

What's your background in this? I originally worked as a physicist, but later also went back and got a degree in education. I was quite dismayed at what I considered the slipshod controls and math analysis in education studies, and I knew even physics was subject to its own biases and flaws.

Just off the top of my head, Putnam's study used sound methodology, very large and diverse sample sizes (over half a million people from a wide range of areas, classes, and age groups), conducted over a quarter of a century (time is necessary to identify and predict social trends, and collect reliable trend data), openly published their data (though reluctantly), and last but not least a big problem with gathering social data is the surveys themselves are often nebulous and therefore unscientific, not the case here as it focused on quantifiable results (what people actually did as opposed to how they felt).  The problem with Putnam is he's still dedicated to his bias.
If we're able to look at the data, trends, and methodology, and then apply their findings predictably, we can determine for ourselves whether or not it's valid.  When the scientists abandon their own data in order to conform to a preconceived morality (bias) then that's not science.

Scientists are definitely affected by preconceptions and bias -- but the problem is that non-scientist readers are also affected by their preconceptions and bias. I certainly include myself in that. This isn't a binary -- all papers are affected by bias to a greater or lesser degree, and all readers are affected by it as well. I saw this very clearly working in science education. Students - even very smart ones - hold onto their preconceptions very strongly, even when presented with evidence that contradicts them. Some people are less biased than others, but I find that bias - even in myself - is more common than I thought growing up.

So, for the Putnam study, I don't have any background in political science. I can read dozens of papers and try to classify them in my mind into valid or invalid, but I don't think that will necessarily make me any more accurate than political scientists, because my classification is also going to be biased by my own preconceptions.

---

That said, I am reading Putnam's work here - though there might be another version of his work that you are reading.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

As I read it, this paper primarily presents data from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which is a single study done in 2000, with a sample size of 30,000. However, you mentioned data collected over 25 years with half a million people. Can you cite the data you're talking about?

You could go to Putnam's personal blog:
http://robertdputnam.com/bowling-alone/

Or his book site:
http://bowlingalone.com/?page_id=7

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11746
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #57 on: March 24, 2022, 05:11:28 PM »
Scientists are definitely affected by preconceptions and bias -- but the problem is that non-scientist readers are also affected by their preconceptions and bias. I certainly include myself in that. This isn't a binary -- all papers are affected by bias to a greater or lesser degree, and all readers are affected by it as well. I saw this very clearly working in science education. Students - even very smart ones - hold onto their preconceptions very strongly, even when presented with evidence that contradicts them. Some people are less biased than others, but I find that bias - even in myself - is more common than I thought growing up.

So, for the Putnam study, I don't have any background in political science. I can read dozens of papers and try to classify them in my mind into valid or invalid, but I don't think that will necessarily make me any more accurate than political scientists, because my classification is also going to be biased by my own preconceptions.

---

That said, I am reading Putnam's work here - though there might be another version of his work that you are reading.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

As I read it, this paper primarily presents data from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which is a single study done in 2000, with a sample size of 30,000. However, you mentioned data collected over 25 years with half a million people. Can you cite the data you're talking about?

You could go to Putnam's personal blog:
http://robertdputnam.com/bowling-alone/

Or his book site:
http://bowlingalone.com/?page_id=7

Thanks. However, his book was published in 2000, and doesn't seem to say anything about the effects of ethnic diversity. (I haven't read the book yet, but I haven't seen any discussion of that in the Wikipedia or book reviews that I saw.)

His paper in 2006 seems to be the main cited source for the conclusion on diversity. The large data set you mentioned seems to be the Roper Social and Political Trends data -- which is used in the social capital book in 2000, but isn't mentioned in the 2006 paper on diversity. Is there another paper or blog post by Putnam that uses the Roper data set regarding ethnic diversity?

Also, it seems like the version of social capital he uses was disputed even prior to his conclusions about ethnic diversity. This is a 2004 summary paper that contrasts different conceptions of "social capital", for example.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/33/4/682/665556

So in short, like most social science, I take all the conceptions of social capital with a big grain of salt. Maybe it pans out, maybe not.

-----

But to get back to the main point - are immigrants to France like Éric Zemmour can ever really be French. Or as Pundit put it, does skin color matter? And are mono-ethnic societies broadly better?

I have a bunch of extended family who live in Korea, which is a largely mono-ethnic society as Japan largely is. So I have a pretty good idea about what life is like there. In the bigger picture, no, I don't feel like life is better there than in the U.S. They have some things better, and some things worse.

Wrath of God

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 895
  • Fearful Symmetry
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2022, 06:38:05 PM »
I don't think it's about better life per se, but more about higher level of social cohesion and trust. Problem is it's still can be practiced around pathological values.
"Never compromise. Not even in the face of Armageddon.”

"And I will strike down upon thee
With great vengeance and furious anger"


"Molti Nemici, Molto Onore"

AtomicPope

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
  • For a Brighter tomorrow...
Re: France rejects "woke" culture. Claiming it is Americas worst "export"
« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2022, 07:03:45 PM »
Scientists are definitely affected by preconceptions and bias -- but the problem is that non-scientist readers are also affected by their preconceptions and bias. I certainly include myself in that. This isn't a binary -- all papers are affected by bias to a greater or lesser degree, and all readers are affected by it as well. I saw this very clearly working in science education. Students - even very smart ones - hold onto their preconceptions very strongly, even when presented with evidence that contradicts them. Some people are less biased than others, but I find that bias - even in myself - is more common than I thought growing up.

So, for the Putnam study, I don't have any background in political science. I can read dozens of papers and try to classify them in my mind into valid or invalid, but I don't think that will necessarily make me any more accurate than political scientists, because my classification is also going to be biased by my own preconceptions.

---

That said, I am reading Putnam's work here - though there might be another version of his work that you are reading.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

As I read it, this paper primarily presents data from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, which is a single study done in 2000, with a sample size of 30,000. However, you mentioned data collected over 25 years with half a million people. Can you cite the data you're talking about?

You could go to Putnam's personal blog:
http://robertdputnam.com/bowling-alone/

Or his book site:
http://bowlingalone.com/?page_id=7

Thanks. However, his book was published in 2000, and doesn't seem to say anything about the effects of ethnic diversity. (I haven't read the book yet, but I haven't seen any discussion of that in the Wikipedia or book reviews that I saw.)

His paper in 2006 seems to be the main cited source for the conclusion on diversity. The large data set you mentioned seems to be the Roper Social and Political Trends data -- which is used in the social capital book in 2000, but isn't mentioned in the 2006 paper on diversity. Is there another paper or blog post by Putnam that uses the Roper data set regarding ethnic diversity?

Also, it seems like the version of social capital he uses was disputed even prior to his conclusions about ethnic diversity. This is a 2004 summary paper that contrasts different conceptions of "social capital", for example.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/33/4/682/665556

So in short, like most social science, I take all the conceptions of social capital with a big grain of salt. Maybe it pans out, maybe not.

-----

But to get back to the main point - are immigrants to France like Éric Zemmour can ever really be French. Or as Pundit put it, does skin color matter? And are mono-ethnic societies broadly better?

I have a bunch of extended family who live in Korea, which is a largely mono-ethnic society as Japan largely is. So I have a pretty good idea about what life is like there. In the bigger picture, no, I don't feel like life is better there than in the U.S. They have some things better, and some things worse.

To everyone who asks that question I will believe them when they heckle every single non-White organization until they close their doors forever because no one asks that question without making a statement.