quote:To be fair, the numbers suggest there is plenty of racial self-selection in black Americans' friend networks too. But focusing solely on black-white relations, there's a pretty big difference between having only one member of a given race in your friend network, and having eight of them.
In fact, PRRI's data show that a full 75 percent of whites have "entirely white social networks without any minority presence." The same holds true for slightly less than two thirds of black Americans.
quote:In a 100-friend scenario, the average white person has 91 white friends; one each of black, Latino, Asian, mixed race, and other races; and three friends of unknown race. The average black person, on the other hand, has 83 black friends, eight white friends, two Latino friends, zero Asian friends, three mixed race friends, one other race friend, and four friends of unknown race.
Doesn't break out Asians which would be useful.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I'm white. I have one Jamaican friend. Do I get a cookie?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I do not have a Jamaican friend, and I didn't go out of my way to move in next to Jamaican neighbors.
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
Growing up in the Chicago area, my friends were of White, Black, Latino, Arab, Indian, Chinese, and Korean descent that I can think of off the top of my head. there were probably other races/ethnicities in there as well that I don't know simply becuz as a topic it never came up. We went to school together, we were on sports teams together, we did the musicals, variety shows, and dance shows together. It just wasn't an issue. But it was also probably a function of where I lived.
Now I live in the Salt Lake City area (which is something like 90% white), and while my neighbors are Latino, and my nieces are mixed-race.... can't say that I have any "current" friends of a different race anymore. There just aren't all that many people of other races around for me to develop such friendships with.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I love the moronic implied causality in this piece...
Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live? Isn't it more likely that people will group together based on a common culture, that if there's a large number of disparate groups they'll integrate where they're most similar?
But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I love the moronic implied causality in this piece...
Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live? Isn't it more likely that people will group together based on a common culture, that if there's a large number of disparate groups they'll integrate where they're most similar?
But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Do you have cataloged instances of Black Flight? Because it's a pretty common phenomenon amongst whites. And it happens long before 30-40% of the neighborhood stops being white.
Thing is, it's not that whites are notable for racism. Racism penetrates every single ethnicity. What matters is how white people are expressing racism and how do we stop that. Because it's unarguably damaging to society for racism to prevail or be fostered.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I love the moronic implied causality in this piece...
Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live? Isn't it more likely that people will group together based on a common culture, that if there's a large number of disparate groups they'll integrate where they're most similar?
But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Wow dude. Please quote the part that says it's "all because the whites are racist" as opposed to your subtle analysis.
In reality, the article does a good job mentioning the factors you are pretending they didn't mention in favor of "whites are bad mmkay".
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I love the moronic implied causality in this piece...
Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live? Isn't it more likely that people will group together based on a common culture, that if there's a large number of disparate groups they'll integrate where they're most similar?
But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Read me. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live?
You thought that's the reason why they got clustered where they usually are still now?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Seriously scifibum? The graphic and title are trolling for readers. Black people have ethnic friends, but white people don't.
It may be sensationalism to catch readers. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live?
You thought that's the reason why they got clustered where they usually are still now?
Some people are still clustered from another time. But 3/4 of people have moved in the last five years.
But, yeah. Look at San Diego and Tucson. There are parts of town that are 99% Hispanic. There are parts of town that are 95% white. And there are multicultural areas. - I will only look in the white or multicultural areas. - A person of color might have a similar view.
Is it because I'm a racist? Or is it that I want to shop at Target and have an English speaker cut my hair?
<shrug>
Side note: I did live in a predominantly Hispanic area of San Diego. It gets somewhat annoying when nobody in food service can speak English, when nobody at a hair salon can do a "white haircut".
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Seriously scifibum? The graphic and title are trolling for readers. Black people have ethnic friends, but white people don't.
It may be sensationalism to catch readers. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
You're drawing the wrong conclusions from it. It's not about blacks having more black friends than whites do, that's obvious and perfectly normal. The point is that blacks have more WHITE friends than whites have black friends.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well yes, there are roughly 6 white people for every black person in the US (72.4% vs 12.6%), so if each white person had as many black friends as black people had white, that would be... statistically improbable? You'd basically need a small group of black people with an insanely high number of white friends mixed with a large group of black people with *no* white friends to make it work.
I think the point is more about the lack of friendship between races in general. In an ideal, evenly distributed population, 12 out of 100 white friends would be black and 72 out of 100 black friends would be white. That's obviously not happening.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Seriously scifibum? The graphic and title are trolling for readers. Black people have ethnic friends, but white people don't.
It may be sensationalism to catch readers. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
The title is a fact. Sure, they are trying to get attention. But it's a fact supported by research. Why are you acting like this fact is an accusation against you? You're inferring something that isn't there.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Based on that, white people should have 12.6% black friends, not 1%.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Based on that, white people should have 12.6% black friends, not 1%.
Yes, and black people should have 72% white friends.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No, I'm inferring that they're dissing (can I still use that term?) white people as racists to get people to read the article.
Oh, wait, white people might not be that racist? There might be more to the article than that? Imagine that.
The Washington Post should be more responsible. It isn't Buzzfeed.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Interesting. I just did the math on myself. If I eliminate family members, I have 85 "friends" on facebook. 11 of those are minorities (mostly black but a couple of asians thrown in). That comes out to 12.9%.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I don't diagree with the point that there's a massive problem with race relations, just pointing out that "The point is that blacks have more WHITE friends than whites have black friends." is obviously *not* the point, and indeed, anything other than that would be illogical for hopefully obvious reasons.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: No, I'm inferring that they're dissing (can I still use that term?) white people as racists to get people to read the article.
Oh, wait, white people might not be that racist? There might be more to the article than that? Imagine that.
The Washington Post should be more responsible. It isn't Buzzfeed.
The article doesn't say "white people are racist."
Do you also feel attacked by articles that point out that males make more money than females, on average?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
If you actually read the article, it talks about those statistical issues and isn't trying to use it as an example of racism but as one of many reasons for problems in race relations. Take this paragraph for instance:
quote: The numbers above offer insight into why so many whites have expressed bafflement over protesters' responses to the shooting of Michael Brown. The history between many black communities and the police forces that serve them is long, complicated, often violent and characterized by an extreme imbalance of power. But as Robert Jones notes, most whites are not "socially positioned" to understand this history -- simply because they know few people who've experienced it.
I would agree with this. As a white man that grew up in a nearly all white neighborhood and went to nearly all white schools, these sorts of things baffled me because I never saw it. I couldn't understand why blacks were always complaining about racism because I wasn't seeing the same things they were seeing and experiencing. In the last ten years or so I have acquired several black friends, seen some of the things they have had to endure, talked to them about these issues and come to realize that they have a point. Unfortunately as this article points out, 75% of the white population can't get this perspective because they have so few black friends.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No, it doesn't say that. But it implies it in the title and the graphic.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: No, it doesn't say that. But it implies it in the title and the graphic.
What do you want, a title that explicitly rules out racism as a possible factor in the simple fact being presented?
Note: It's one factor. No doubt about it. The article covers other factors as well, and doesn't really focus on racism as a major factor.
It's an interesting fact, and it relates to important social issues. I don't see any good reason we can't confront that fact directly, instead of having it softened or buried somehow.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
Do you also feel attacked by articles that point out that males make more money than females, on average?
The article implies that it's a matter of choice to have only white friends.
Do people not choose where to live or go to college or work? Do they not choose who to strike up conversations with? Of course people make choices that affect how this works out. Come on.
quote:Do men choose for women to make less money?
Stupid analogy.
It's another fact that often engenders knee jerk defensive reactions. But it's a fact, and it relates to important social issues. It's a fact we should be willing to confront and examine, just like the other fact that you are upset about being confronted with.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I'm not upset about anything. I just think that the title and graphic belong more on a Buzzfeed article than the Washington Post.
My only point is that once reputable news agencies are picking up tricks from internet trolls.
Washington Post Headline: 12 Outrageous Ways You're More Racist than your Friends!!!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
If the actual headline were as blatantly sensational as you are suggesting you wouldn't have to make up a truly sensational headline to try to make your point.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Your first objection was "moronic causality", which as far as I can tell you imagined, since the sorts of causes you mentioned that should have been accounted for were accounted for. You said the article blames the situation entirely on racism, which isn't true.
What headline would you have preferred?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
<splits a hair>
Sigh.
<splits another hair, takes something out of context>
Sigh again.
<puts head between his hands>
Grumble.
<argues for arguing sake>
Over-dramatic sigh.
<rolls eyes>
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Hatrack Thread Ingredients: 10% discussion, 90% argument over misquoted semantics.
Nice complaints. You want fries with that?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Back to the actual discussion, I think that the data in this article misses the real point. Modern migration patterns are affected by a lot of factors. I would argue that socio-economic forces have a lot more impact than race does.
I'd imagine that these numbers skew significantly depending on what part of the country you live in. Growing up in Utah, I'd always figured that racism was practically dead. But in my time in the military, I quickly realized that it wasn't the case.
It's strange. I'd like to see some models or infographics that show how patterns of social change ripple through the populace, based on region. We've seen changing attitudes toward homosexuality and race over the last several decades. But there are still some regions where change happens much slower, if at all.
I do find it odd that some of the most diverse places are also some of the racist holdouts. I've never seen anywhere as racially divided as the American South (Louisiana, Mississippi). Parts of California are pretty bad too.
But I don't think it's about integration only, because Hawaii is actually pretty racially progressive.
I read an article a few years back about how couples only argue about money if they make less than $85 k per year. Couples who exceeded this income threshold were found to be happier. I'd bet money that data would support that the most racist areas in the country are also the poorest. People tend to blame the "other" when they have problems. Tucson and Biloxi are pretty racist, while San Jose and Seattle aren't. Money and criminal subculture might both be pretty big determinants.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Your first objection was "moronic causality", which as far as I can tell you imagined, since the sorts of causes you mentioned that should have been accounted for were accounted for. You said the article blames the situation entirely on racism, which isn't true.
Part of the article does blame it on racism, the graphic and headline. You're misquoting me.
How am I misquoting you?
How does the headline blame racism?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Blacks have ten times as many black friends as white friends. But white Americans have an astonishing 91 times as many white friends as black friends.
The fact that the author was astonished by this fact demonstrates he lacks a grasp of basic statistics. In fact, the quoted friendship statistics for black Americans are much more unlikely/surprising than those for white Americans, given the underlying population (a point Dogbreath made earlier).
There's a statistical tool called the information divergence, that measures how far apart distributions are from each other. It has nice properties for identifying how likely a set of observations are to have been generated from a particular statistical distribution. Broadly, the divergence can be thought of the distance between an observed distribution and an ideal distribution in probability space. Simplifying the distributions shown in the chart to binary counts of "friends of my race/friends not of my race" and computing the divergence to the population-level distributions yields a divergence of 0.12 for the friendships of whites, but 0.61 for blacks. The statistics for black friendships are 5x more surprising than those for white friendships.
Admittedly, the article isn't really about that. And I think the broader point that by having more diverse social networks black people are exposed to more perspectives is valid*. But the framing is not only biased, it's quantifiably wrong.
*I think that, even more than having diverse social ties, simply being a minority almost automatically causes one to be aware of the majority perspective in a non-symmetric way. You're exposed to it in all sorts of ways that aren't captured by the 'friendship' metric (newspapers, school curricula, etc.)
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The fact that the author was astonished by this fact demonstrates he lacks a grasp of basic statistics.
It's not an academic article though, it's talking in simple terms about what is a pretty astonishing disparity even if statistically it makes sense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look, you can either complain about over-dramatics and arguing for arguing's sake, or you can post the way you're posting, Herblay. You can't do both.
Not without being a hypocrite anyway.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Interesting. I just did the math on myself. If I eliminate family members, I have 85 "friends" on Facebook. 11 of those are minorities (mostly black but a couple of asians thrown in). That comes out to 12.9%.
I can't count (really, if I did this again, I'd get slightly different numbers), and I have way more FB friend than you, but here goes:
291 white 4 black 9 hispanic 47 asian (Chinese/Japanese/Korean/Filipino) 18 brown (these are my Indian/Middle Eastern friends, I feel like they have a fundamentally different background from the people from East Asia. Some would check the white box, others the Asian/Pacific Islander box. The angry posts about Ferguson have come from folks with South Asian (i.e. Indian) heritage)
It's such an odd thing to do, as many of my friends are (white) foreign nationals (i.e. come to US themselves, not with their parent), and not all my friends are on Facebook (though being on Facebook not a race thing, really, it's a big data paranoia/misanthrope/I hate stalkers thing), and may of these people are only half of what I put them down as. I suspect I called more than one hispanic person white as well, and only did it if specific heritage came up in conversation.
I grew up in a white town, and now work in a very white city (there are jokes about it), but going to MIT for grad school is what pumps up my percentage to 20. Even so, I'd say there's a lot higher percentage of white people in my "more than just friends on Facebook list" or "haven't talked to in so long it's awkward". The two non-white people I count among the small number of active friends i have moved to the same city I did from MIT.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Your first objection was "moronic causality", which as far as I can tell you imagined, since the sorts of causes you mentioned that should have been accounted for were accounted for. You said the article blames the situation entirely on racism, which isn't true.
Part of the article does blame it on racism, the graphic and headline. You're misquoting me.
How am I misquoting you?
How does the headline blame racism?
I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that.
The name of the article is "Three quarters of whites don’t have any non-white friends" - This sensational bit of data doesn't even show up until three-quarters of the way through the article. - The actual data presented is "PRRI's data show that a full 75 percent of whites have 'entirely white social networks without any minority presence.' The same holds true for slightly less than two-thirds of black Americans." - So there are two bits of data being represented: the results of PRRI's "American Values Survey", and the result of their data-mining social networks. - The article is implying that only 25% of white people have ANY non-white friends. This is a lie. It would only be true if the statistical sample from the social network has a super-high correlation to a natural statistical sample in the real-world. How did they gather the social network data? Did Facebook grant them access to private data? Or was it only public profiles? Was it a statistically relevant sample size? Why would anyone be idiot enough to believe that social networking COULD generate a realistic, natural sample? - So, in the social network data, 75% of whites had no minority contacts and 65% of blacks have only black contacts. Why is the title just about white people? - The content of the title is essentially that most white people have NO minority friends. Is this not an implication that racism is involved? Is it not a blatant misrepresentation of the data?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Look, you can either complain about over-dramatics and arguing for arguing's sake, or you can post the way you're posting, Herblay. You can't do both.
Not without being a hypocrite anyway.
I never claimed NOT to be a hypocrite. But at least my logic is internally consistent. Unlike the article. Or certain other posters.
<crickets>
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Never mind all this anyway. I just looked through some of the other "news" articles in the Washington Post.
They're not Buzzfeed or the Standard Examiner. Yet. But they're leagues away from quality reporting. Meh.
I guess I'll just crawl back to NPR with my tail between my legs.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, you're a hero, man.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that.
Okay.
quote:But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Oh wait.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Meanwhile, you say the title implies something other than what it says, while you claim you didn't say or even imply what you literally said.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism", did I?
I offhandedly commented that the article IMPLIES that whites are racist. In the sensational title.
Do we need to dissect this? - "article blames ... entirely on racism" would mean that I stated that racism is the only cause. I didn't say that. - "because the whites are racist" is taken out of context. I was implying that the title inferred whites were racist. And I didn't say "ALL whites were racist", I said "ALL because the whites are racist". The first would have implied a single causal factor. What I said implied that it might be a single factor among many.
<waits for scifibum to split another hair and misquote me again>
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Hey, you're a hero, man.
No, I'm just not a pedantic internet troll, arguing over nothing.
This site is like a battleground for strawmen.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude, you've been caught like three times in a five paragraph conversation flat-out contradicting yourself or the facts as to what the article says and doesn't say.
Given the attitude you're taking, a pedantic internet troll arguing over nothing is *precisely* what you are right now. To an extent that I'm wondering if this entire conversation is some sort of trolling.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Nah it's not trolling. More like back pedaling without actually going back on anything.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: This site is like a battleground for strawmen.
That I actually agree with but I'm as guilty of it as anybody so I roll with it Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Really? Name one time I've contradicted myself. Do it without misquoting me.
Nearly all of my comments had nothing to do with what the article said. They were in regard to what the headline itself implied. Look at my last dissection of scifibum's misquote.
God, I feel like I'm surrounded by third graders. Do you argue just to argue? Or are you exercising some strange OSC-related fantasy? "My name is Demosthenes. I have anchoring bias and cannot change my argument; even though I'm only half-reading this post, I'm well on my way to ruling the interwebs..."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, who are you kidding, man?
I know you know what 'it's all because whites are racist' implies. It doesn't imply the sort of nuanced analysis you're implying. It implies what you flat-out stated. That the article, or the headline, or both, is blaming it "all on racism".
"I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that." & "But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool."
You absolutely, 100% outright stated that the article was blaming the situation entirely on racism. It wasn't even an implication! Heh. I don't know why or even if you do expect people to take this nonsense seriously. I'm not even talking about whether you're right about the article.
But man, if you want to insist you didn't state it was due to racism, I think you skipped the step where you edit that exact statement out of your very first post. Remember, though! When you try and fail to execute these tedious shenanigans, be sure to sneer at everyone else for being childish. It is not in the least bit funny!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Isn't it likely that people of color would pick a mixed race area to live?
You thought that's the reason why they got clustered where they usually are still now?
Some people are still clustered from another time. But 3/4 of people have moved in the last five years.
But, yeah. Look at San Diego and Tucson. There are parts of town that are 99% Hispanic. There are parts of town that are 95% white. And there are multicultural areas. - I will only look in the white or multicultural areas. - A person of color might have a similar view.
Is it because I'm a racist? Or is it that I want to shop at Target and have an English speaker cut my hair?
<shrug>
Side note: I did live in a predominantly Hispanic area of San Diego. It gets somewhat annoying when nobody in food service can speak English, when nobody at a hair salon can do a "white haircut".
You're hedging the question and by extension you're kind of not answering it
Predominantly black areas, for instance, exist where they do now because of discriminatory housing and loan policies that date back to
well
today
but even more blatantly so in the 1980's and prior
Black people live in where 'black people neighborhoods' are today primarily because those neighborhoods were established as black people areas by the real estate and bank interests that kept black homeowners locked there. I like it when it is explained as that it's mostly just a manifestation of that they like to live among 'their own kind' though. It is a telling myopia.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I took your dashes and numbered them, otherwise your post has been otherwise unaltered.
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Your first objection was "moronic causality", which as far as I can tell you imagined, since the sorts of causes you mentioned that should have been accounted for were accounted for. You said the article blames the situation entirely on racism, which isn't true.
Part of the article does blame it on racism, the graphic and headline. You're misquoting me.
How am I misquoting you?
How does the headline blame racism?
I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that.
The name of the article is "Three quarters of whites don’t have any non-white friends" 1. This sensational bit of data doesn't even show up until three-quarters of the way through the article. 2. The actual data presented is "PRRI's data show that a full 75 percent of whites have 'entirely white social networks without any minority presence.' The same holds true for slightly less than two-thirds of black Americans." 3. So there are two bits of data being represented: the results of PRRI's "American Values Survey", and the result of their data-mining social networks. 4. The article is implying that only 25% of white people have ANY non-white friends. This is a lie. It would only be true if the statistical sample from the social network has a super-high correlation to a natural statistical sample in the real-world. How did they gather the social network data? Did Facebook grant them access to private data? Or was it only public profiles? Was it a statistically relevant sample size? Why would anyone be idiot enough to believe that social networking COULD generate a realistic, natural sample? 5. So, in the social network data, 75% of whites had no minority contacts and 65% of blacks have only black contacts. Why is the title just about white people? 6 The content of the title is essentially that most white people have NO minority friends. Is this not an implication that racism is involved? Is it not a blatant misrepresentation of the data?
1. So what? It shows up and is an important point of the article. 2. Not really seeing the problem here. 3. Okay. 4. I assume that mining social networks is a lot easier than asking people to accurately name their friends and the people they know. I couldn't do name everyone. Also, people lie if they know they are supposed to have an answer. Their facebook friendships were not altered in prep for the survey. Mining Facebook in this way totally legal and very easy. Facebook makes money any way it can. It's called "big data" If you are not paying for a service, you are the product. Farmville and those other stupid game apps have access to users' contacts.
I have friends who are not on Facebook, either because they never joined at a certain point in their lives and won't do it now don't care for big data. Or they removed their accounts out of fear of reprisal (teachers). The other people are probably too old to use tech. So sure, there is absolutely bias of who is on Facebook versus the population in general, but I suspect most of it has to do with Facebook's history as a college platform.
Most importantly, is each individual's peer group. If you are a fifty year old lady who just got your Facebook, you are going to tell your friends to join (I have teased my Facebookless friends mercilessly). Many won't, but I don't see as much racial divide. If you had to ask me to name a social network that people of other races instead of Facebook, I would name "weibo", but as far as I know, that's a thing for Chinese people who actually live in China. This study isn't about penpals. It's about Americans with other Americans they know IRL. Black people use Facebook and the internet. A study that says "75% of 20-somethings have no Facebook friends over 75" is a much stupider survey.
If someone tasked you with the problem of figuring out how mixed social circles are, Facebook is great imperfect way to start to get that answer. "What Facebook says about racial social circles" is, of itself an interesting survey.
5. The white statistic is, to me, the most interesting. Maybe because I'm white. I can see how the title loaded (if you just used black people), but why not lead with your most-exclusive group? Especially if most of your readership is white.
6. Whether the article put on kid gloves and tried not to imply racism is involved in the fact that 75% of white people have no minority Facebook friends, they reason they don't is racism. Not the really really bad stuff that went on fifty years ago, but still racism. The sharply divided housing patterns (someone else dig up the map for me, it's fascinating) we see today are absolutely and categorically an artifact of white flight and a refusal to sell apartments and houses to black families.
Some things heal overnight, others take generations. And yes, not being exposed to black people in neighborhood schools or their fancy jobs (economic disadvantages) means that white people still treat black people differently, as outsiders and acquaintances, not close friends. Even if they have problems with the idea of racism in principle. It's largely subconscious, but has been proven through experiments (beyond the scope of this particular reply, but if you send people the same essay to correct with either a picture a white kid or a black kid, the feedback is drastically difference).
I posted a link to a book you should read on the topic above-- Isabelle Wilkerson's The Warmth of Other Suns. It's a good book, and chronicles the mass migration of southern blacks from the plantations where their ancestors were enslaved to different northern cities at a time when almost no black people lived in the north. Read the book. Seriously. You will understand a lot more about how all of this works. You will also be able to recognize that certain situations (yes, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown) are absolutely the result of racism, including the things that both boys did that contributed to their deaths.
The fact that you keep digging in on this point shows how much you do not know about the entire topic.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're hedging the question and by extension you're kind of not answering it
Predominantly black areas, for instance, exist where they do now because of discriminatory housing and loan policies that date back to
well
today
but even more blatantly so in the 1980's and prior
Black people live in where 'black people neighborhoods' are today primarily because those neighborhoods were established as black people areas by the real estate and bank interests that kept black homeowners locked there. I like it when it is explained as that it's mostly just a manifestation of that they like to live among 'their own kind' though. It is a telling myopia.
You're right, of course, from a historical perspective. There are a lot of reasons housing distribution exists the way it does. Education, job, price, laws, socioeconomic, cultural -- heck, is there a Church's Chicken close by or is it a Popeyes?
But the data shows that 75% of people move every five years. After a lot of these discriminatory practices were abolished. Doesn't this imply that it's a lot more about personal decisions to live in these ethnic centers?
But it's always been that way, hasn't it? Whether it's race or religion. If I'm a Greek Orthodox, and there's a Greek Orthodox neighborhood, I'm highly likely to choose it over other options.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
theamazeeaz: No. I'm by no means an expert on this topic. But I do know statistics.
You make some excellent points. And I'd only really have two replies: - You restate their headline as "75% of white people have no minority Facebook friends". Yes. Succinctly speaking, this is the point I've danced around the whole time. THIS should have been the title. Maybe I'm just an old timer. When it stated "friends", I didn't automatically think "Facebook friends". Thus why I find the headline sensational. - From a statistics perspective, they either got a statistically significant sample or they didn't. If they didn't, their data is meaningless. If they did, it only means what you said -- that 75% of white people have no ethnic Facebook friends. Maybe there are a lot of blacks who aren't on Facebook? Maybe they're too cool to accept nerdy white people Facebook friend requests. But a significant Facebook sample is not equal to a significant real world sample.
If they had added the word "Facebook" to the title, I'd have no grumble at all with the article.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, who are you kidding, man?
I know you know what 'it's all because whites are racist' implies. It doesn't imply the sort of nuanced analysis you're implying. It implies what you flat-out stated. That the article, or the headline, or both, is blaming it "all on racism".
"I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that." & "But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool."
You absolutely, 100% outright stated that the article was blaming the situation entirely on racism. It wasn't even an implication! Heh. I don't know why or even if you do expect people to take this nonsense seriously. I'm not even talking about whether you're right about the article.
But man, if you want to insist you didn't state it was due to racism, I think you skipped the step where you edit that exact statement out of your very first post. Remember, though! When you try and fail to execute these tedious shenanigans, be sure to sneer at everyone else for being childish. It is not in the least bit funny!
I'm not going to call you an idiot. I'm just going to type for a second and make a nuanced analysis of your logic, your intelligence, and probably your upbringing. But you're pretty good at drawing conclusions.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Gosh, Rakeesh, I should have gone back to my actual post.
"I love the moronic implied causality in this piece... But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool."
I downright SAID in the very same post racism was only implied at. Way to pick and choose, man. I thought you'd at least make it difficult to rebut you. You need a dictionary?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:I didn't say that "the article blames the situation entirely on racism". I didn't even imply that.
Okay.
quote:But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Oh wait.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool.
Oh wait.
Please note that this quote was truncated by someone who wanted to mislead you. Specifically before this, I stated that the racist charge was IMPLIED. And there was no implication that it was a sole cause nor the sole point of the article. Go back, read it over. No worries.
So ... I had two statements: - The article blames the situation entirely on racism. (misquote) - The article causally implied that whites are racist. (actual syntax)
There's quite a difference between the literal text of the article and the causal implication of racism in the headline. Headlines often say one thing to get you to read and change tact as soon as it gets to the text.
If you took out the term "entirely", I'd have no qualm with the analysis of my argument. And if you changed the headline to "Facebook Friends", I'd have no beef with the article either.
[ August 28, 2014, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But I don't think it's about integration only, because Hawaii is actually pretty racially progressive.
I'm not sure if you're writing this from personal experience (like, you live here) or not, but I can say that Hawaii is far from progressive racially, compared to the rest of the US. At least here on Oahu, there's a lot of racial tension and some racially motivated violence, as well as a great deal of cultural xenophobia. (specifically, a hatred or fear of Americans and American culture, as well as some directed at the Japanese and Australians, who are also frequent visitors/immigrants)
The socioeconomic divide between native Hawaiians and immigrants is very large, more so than between any other racial or cultural groups in the US. The massive tourist industry, subsidized housing for military, and skyrocketing housing prices caused by the two has pretty much forced the entire local population into poverty. There is some farm land on the western side of the island, but for the majority of residents you're either 1. military, 2. a wealthy landowner/retireee, or 3. in the service or tourism industry, where you're literally just making enough to pay rent and groceries. There's almost no industry or agriculture. Almost everyone in the first 2 categories are "foreigners" (or "haoles"), and most of the people in the 3rd category are locals. There are very few natives who still own land, and with properties here often being worth $1 million or more, there's very little chance of any native making enough money to buy property. Almost all property that is bought is by upper middle class or higher people looking to retire in Hawaii/rent vacation houses.
So, if you can imagine living in a land where all the property is owned by cultural and racial foreigners who don't speak your language, and you have to work for these people just to earn enough money to survive (and most of these people *don't* work), you can imagine there being some resentment.
That being said, you may be referring to the lack of black/white racial tension here, which is great. Almost all black people who live here are at least upper middle class or military, and aren't targetting as much as whites are by locals. I can't think of any time I've experienced or even heard of discrimination between whites and blacks here, so there's that I guess.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The fact that the author was astonished by this fact demonstrates he lacks a grasp of basic statistics.
It's not an academic article though, it's talking in simple terms about what is a pretty astonishing disparity even if statistically it makes sense.
But it shouldn't be astonishing. Or if it is, it should be astonishing not because white social circles are surprisingly racially closed, but because black social circles are (based on this data). That's not an academic point (although I grant that I approached it academically in my post); it's simple logic.
None of which is to say the primary point that black people on average have more white friends than vice versa is invalid or uninteresting. The author simply used a frame to introduce the fact that was flawed, and seems unaware of it.
Maybe I'm just used to the numerical literacy of sites like 538, but an analysis that fails to account for basic data where they're easily available, and then draws fundamentally flawed conclusions as a result, seems kind of risible.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: theamazeeaz: No. I'm by no means an expert on this topic. But I do know statistics.
You make some excellent points. And I'd only really have two replies: - You restate their headline as "75% of white people have no minority Facebook friends". Yes. Succinctly speaking, this is the point I've danced around the whole time. THIS should have been the title. Maybe I'm just an old timer. When it stated "friends", I didn't automatically think "Facebook friends". Thus why I find the headline sensational. - From a statistics perspective, they either got a statistically significant sample or they didn't. If they didn't, their data is meaningless. If they did, it only means what you said -- that 75% of white people have no ethnic Facebook friends. Maybe there are a lot of blacks who aren't on Facebook? Maybe they're too cool to accept nerdy white people Facebook friend requests. But a significant Facebook sample is not equal to a significant real world sample.
If they had added the word "Facebook" to the title, I'd have no grumble at all with the article.
I know statistics too.
I realize there will be some bias in some direction when you exclude a subset of the population (non-Facebook users), but I feel that Facebook has penetrated the population thoroughly enough that it's a better metric than you might think.
I googled "percentage of american adults on facebook" and one of those google boxes with the answer comes up. It's 57 of all adults, or 71 precent of those who use the internet. That's a lot of people.
I've used Facebook for nearly a decade (!!). College students will friend nearly everyone they know (and like), and will bump into people, have a 5 minute conversation with a that person, and send a friend request later that day. People usually accept (though Facebook won't tell if you they don't). Old people will friend just the people in their circle (which is also much much smaller than a college student's), and I imagine they will notice if someone denies them, and complain to their face.
If a significantly fewer percentage of black people use Facebook, it's probably more related to not having a computer (poor) or tech literacy.
I clicked the link to learn more about the study, but neither mentions Facebook event once. The survey had people describe 7 close friends then asked their race after. There's no mention of Facebook in the article (unless my ctrl-f missed it).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Guys! I feel like unless any of you have Jamaican neighbors you have no business trying to make the case for other people's understanding of racism as you are too blinded by unchecked privilege.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It mentioned social media friends. It didn't specify Facebook by name.
If they polled people's names, I doubt it was a huge sample. If they went with public profiles, a way to increase the sample size, you're further shrinking the demographic.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Gosh, Rakeesh, I should have gone back to my actual post.
"I love the moronic implied causality in this piece... But no ... it's all because the whites are racist. Cool."
I downright SAID in the very same post racism was only implied at. Way to pick and choose, man. I thought you'd at least make it difficult to rebut you. You need a dictionary?
Well, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that these are two different claims:
a) claim that the article moronically implied the sole cause was racism
b) claim that the article blamed it all on racism
and that the difference is so crucial that someone must be "misquoting" you or trying to mislead others by paraphrasing the former to the latter.
Right?
I disagree that there's any meaningful difference.
However, if there is a difference, I did not intentionally "misquote" or try to mislead anyone as to what you said.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No, not b). I never said "blamed it all on racism". Just that it was implied in a misleading headline that white people are racist.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Well, if I'm reading you right, you're saying that these are two different claims:
a) claim that the article moronically implied the sole cause was racism
b) claim that the article blamed it all on racism
and that the difference is so crucial that someone must be "misquoting" you or trying to mislead others by paraphrasing the former to the latter.
Right?
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But the data shows that 75% of people move every five years. After a lot of these discriminatory practices were abolished. Doesn't this imply that it's a lot more about personal decisions to live in these ethnic centers? [/QB]
Two years ago when I was looking for a new apartment, I went to a complex, saw an apartment, did the whole rigamarole of asking about applying, security deposit, credit check, etc.
The guy who gave me the tour, the assistant manager of the very large complex, took one look at me (young, white, female) and said, "Oh, you won't have to worry about any of that," very much implying that they weren't going to delve too deeply into my background*. And they didn't, or they would have discovered my shit credit and charged me much more than the minimum security deposit. Do you really think that all the Latinos or Blacks who live in my complex got such consideration?
And in the two years I've lived in my complex, I've noticed changes occurring to drive families (mostly Latino) out and bring in more singles/couples (mostly white). One policy that's fairly vivid in my mind is the flyer from last summer that prohibited people from playing soccer on the grass because it "promoted littering". Baseball and football are fine....
Do you really think that minorities are moving out of my complex willingly? Or are they leaving because they feel unwelcome and/or are being forced out?
*Yeah, I know my leasing office is very shady, unfortunately, I have no proof of any of this, and I desperately needed an apartment at the time, so I wasn't going to walk away.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If they had added the word "Facebook" to the title, I'd have no grumble at all with the article.
So this part was making me think I was crazy. But I'm not crazy. (Shut up other people who live in my head!)
I think you're getting this strange idea that they are talking about Facebook friends from this part (emphasis mine):
quote:In fact, PRRI's data show that a full 75 percent of whites have "entirely white social networks without any minority presence."
They're not talking about Facebook here. Honestly, I have difficulty seeing how someone who read the whole article with enough attention to understand it could think that they were, seeing as how they included this part:
quote:How PRRI calculated the racial breakdowns of friend networks
As part of their American Values Survey, PRRI researchers asked respondents to name up to seven people with whom they regularly discussed important matters. They then asked a battery of demographic questions about these people -- their relationships to their respondents, as well as their gender, religion and, germane for these purposes, their race. They used these numbers to derive average racial breakdowns of the friend networks of the average black, white and Hispanic survey respondent.
As they were not using Facebook friends to determine this, do you now not have a problem with the article?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
No, scifibum, you're still altering my text. Adding the word "all" to the second claim changes the context. A single cause and the sole cause are two different things.
[ August 29, 2014, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Herblay ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
So, the headline still bothers me. - The claim is generalized, that 75% of whites have no minority friends at all. - The actual question asked was for people to name a maximum of 7 people with whom they discussed important matters in the last six months. - 1700 people were polled. based on a population of 330 M, this equates to a confidence level of 99% and a confidence interval of about 3. So, we can safely say with a 99% certainty that somewhere between 72 and 78% of white people had no ethnic friends with whom THEY CLAIMED TO HAVE DISCUSSED IMPORTANT MATTERS IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS.
Okay, this is where it gets stupid: - On average, people only listed 3.4 people. - Family members were more likely to be listed.
So ... let's say you are asked this question. You list the top 3 or 4 people you discuss important matters with, and they're most likely to be family members.
<shakes head>
Unfortunately, as a white man, I don't have any black family members. And if I'm going to list three people and include family, it's what? My brother, sister, and best friend? Maybe my mom?
A more honest headline might be: three quarters of whites don't have a non-white best friend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
herblay there is this very large disconnect between the messages you are actually conveying versus how carefully you think you are arguing/presenting
this is now a repeat trend across multiple subjects from this to tobacco to so much else, and honestly you could do without said trend
you launch out with a pretty unconventionally flawed position and then when people come up and investigate the breeze flowing through the rather large holes in your position, perhaps casually stick an arm through to gauge the diameter of the holes, you respond with a whole bunch of *sigh* way to not get anything about what I'm saying *shakes head* you are intentionally misrepresenting me *sighs and shakes head* this place used to be a place where real substantive debate happened *shakes head and sighs at the same time then folds head into hands and gently weeps, weeps for all of you* *shakes head again* *puts a video on repeat of shrugging and sighing and shaking head and shrugging more for four hours* *sighs* *grumbles* *sighs* *sighs*
we get it ok
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Sam,
I agree. From my perspective: - I say one thing, generally an oblique observation on a topic. Sometimes in jest, other-times an opinion. Example: I think the article headline is misleading. - I get in conversations with several people, often allowing myself to get engaged in cross-talk. - I use logical syntax. For example, 'the article blames is on racism' has a different meaning than 'the article blames it ALL on racism'. - In the cross-talk, I sometimes get careless and misrepresent myself. Other times, people accidentally misquote me. Sometimes, as has occurred several times in this post, people omit context clues or directly change words in my quotes to support their arguments. - It turns into a confusing knot of people attacking, and me defending, a myriad of different, unimportant arguments. - I get sick of the attacks, crap I probably deserve for fighting back, and I get a little snotty.
Why should I care? I don't know. All this talk about the fact that I think the article headline is misleading? It's stupid, really. Splitting hairs for two pages about an opinion I off-handedly gave. I think some people get a kick out of riling me up. Other people only half-read what's going on and probably get an incorrect impression.
As far as this thread goes, the actual data is kinda interesting but very limited. The article is mildly sensationalist and implies some things that aren't really there. That's about it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: No, scifibum, you're still altering my text. Adding the word "all" to the second claim changes the context. A single cause and the sole cause are two different things.
I was saying "you are saying the second claim is NOT your claim, right?"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
This is exhausting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I feel sort of like I've been trolled but I don't know.
Anyway, I'm glad Herblay made some more substantive comments at one point and I'm sorry for wasting the forum's time trying to make sense of the other ones.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: This is exhausting.
well you remember the smoking settlement thread right
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You're hedging the question and by extension you're kind of not answering it
Predominantly black areas, for instance, exist where they do now because of discriminatory housing and loan policies that date back to
well
today
but even more blatantly so in the 1980's and prior
Black people live in where 'black people neighborhoods' are today primarily because those neighborhoods were established as black people areas by the real estate and bank interests that kept black homeowners locked there. I like it when it is explained as that it's mostly just a manifestation of that they like to live among 'their own kind' though. It is a telling myopia.
You're right, of course, from a historical perspective. There are a lot of reasons housing distribution exists the way it does. Education, job, price, laws, socioeconomic, cultural -- heck, is there a Church's Chicken close by or is it a Popeyes?
But the data shows that 75% of people move every five years. After a lot of these discriminatory practices were abolished. Doesn't this imply that it's a lot more about personal decisions to live in these ethnic centers?
But it's always been that way, hasn't it? Whether it's race or religion. If I'm a Greek Orthodox, and there's a Greek Orthodox neighborhood, I'm highly likely to choose it over other options.
Simply put, you're wrong (mostly).
My knowledge is mostly limited to Af-Am history, so I can't speak to other ethnic enclaves. For example, Dearborn, locally, is a place where Arab-Americans mostly choose to congregate because of an especially differentiated subculture, language, food, where-they-grew-up, etc, and they have nicer neighborhoods within the enclave to move to depending on socioeconomic status...
But the same can't be said of most poor black neighborhoods. Economics traps most of them in place. First they were trapped in inner cities and other places that whites abandoned. Then they were kept from earning a living or earning real equity in their homes because their house values tanked quickly. Even after you lift the legal barriers in place, you have SYSTEMIC barriers that don't simply go away because you've stopped actively supporting oppression.
If you had a really rocky hill, and you spent every day slowly taking those rocks and rolling them down the hill, then one day you stopped, would the rocks all roll back up the hill? Nope. They're down there until someone picks them up and puts them back where they found them.
Most of these inner city folks simply don't have the tools at their disposal to leave where they are.
It sounds like you're using a variant of the "poor people are only poor because they don't want to be rich" argument that the GOP rolled out in the last election.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In 2010, Jacob S. Rugh, then a doctoral candidate at Princeton, and the sociologist Douglas S. Massey published a study of the recent foreclosure crisis. Among its drivers, they found an old foe: segregation. Black home buyers — even after controlling for factors like creditworthiness — were still more likely than white home buyers to be steered toward subprime loans. Decades of racist housing policies by the American government, along with decades of racist housing practices by American businesses, had conspired to concentrate African Americans in the same neighborhoods. As in North Lawndale half a century earlier, these neighborhoods were filled with people who had been cut off from mainstream financial institutions. When subprime lenders went looking for prey, they found black people waiting like ducks in a pen.
“High levels of segregation create a natural market for subprime lending,” Rugh and Massey write, “and cause riskier mortgages, and thus foreclosures, to accumulate disproportionately in racially segregated cities’ minority neighborhoods.”
Plunder in the past made plunder in the present efficient. The banks of America understood this. In 2005, Wells Fargo promoted a series of Wealth Building Strategies seminars. Dubbing itself “the nation’s leading originator of home loans to ethnic minority customers,” the bank enrolled black public figures in an ostensible effort to educate blacks on building “generational wealth.” But the “wealth building” seminars were a front for wealth theft. In 2010, the Justice Department filed a discrimination suit against Wells Fargo alleging that the bank had shunted blacks into predatory loans regardless of their creditworthiness. This was not magic or coincidence or misfortune. It was racism reifying itself. According to The New York Times, affidavits found loan officers referring to their black customers as “mud people” and to their subprime products as “ghetto loans.”
“We just went right after them,” Beth Jacobson, a former Wells Fargo loan officer, told The Times. “Wells Fargo mortgage had an emerging-markets unit that specifically targeted black churches because it figured church leaders had a lot of influence and could convince congregants to take out subprime loans.”
In 2011, Bank of America agreed to pay $355 million to settle charges of discrimination against its Countrywide unit. The following year, Wells Fargo settled its discrimination suit for more than $175 million. But the damage had been done. In 2009, half the properties in Baltimore whose owners had been granted loans by Wells Fargo between 2005 and 2008 were vacant; 71 percent of these properties were in predominantly black neighborhoods.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)