Over the weekend I did a series of Twitter polls on identity. Seeing a survey showing that 74% of blacks but only 15% of whites find race to be central to their identity, I asked if this attitude is good for either group, and found that 83% saw it as bad for both groups.
You have largely replicated the findings from GSS which asked black and whites the question about centrality of own race to personal identity. GSS found a similar ratio, although the absolute numbers were lower (44% and 9% if I remember correctly).
Frankly, I think that this question is a polite way of asking if one is a racist. Obviously, if you see your race as a central feature of your identity, it means you see persons of same race as meaningfully closer to self while distancing your self from persons of other races. Distance from self is a good proxy for the willingness to inflict harm, in this case race-based harm. Of course the raw numbers from a poll are not likely to be useful in assessing the absolute numbers of potentially violent racists in the polled groups but they provide a good idea about the relative numbers of racists.
Yes, sorry if I was unclear, I meant by establishing them as good/bad. It seems like having people think about markers as bad, then asking them if they would adopt them would prompt an instinctual "well I wouldn't use those *bad* markers" response that might not be as pronounced if asked in the other order. Though that might create an opposite bias having people rate markers they already said they would adopt as more good.... Maybe there's no way to win.
I think there's a slight methodological issue in that the ordering of the survey questions first frames certain identity markers as positive or negative, then asks the respondent if they would adopt those markers for themselves. I think the last decade or two on both right and left show that markers pertaining to sex, gender, race, and other immutable characteristics are in fact more prone to adoption as central than people would like to admit, especially right after saying it's on net bad for everyone if they do
In some contexts extended families from clans, which aren't too granular to constitute political coalitions. The blogger known as "hbdchick" has written a lot about how Catholic marriage law prohibiting endogamy reduced the power of clans, resulting in more individualistic cultures characterized by nuclear families west of the "Hajnal line".
If we want to "end the fight" why do you think reparations haven't happened yet?
Robin,1) I find the norms and summary conclusions you describe to be plausible explanations of your paragraph 2 results and maybe also of your paragraph 1 results2) I see them as orthogonal to your paragraph 3 results, because those would be expected pretty much regardless of the reasons why a feature tends to be favored/unfavored as central to identity.3) Your summary conclusions would be more accurate with the following change: “And when it gets too obvious that we are doing the latter, we *point out or* try the excuses that they started it or that they aren’t fighting fair.”4) typos: to simply ourselves --> to simplify ourselves as on clearly --> as clearly
Yes that is a plausible interpretation, under one common definition of "racist".
You have largely replicated the findings from GSS which asked black and whites the question about centrality of own race to personal identity. GSS found a similar ratio, although the absolute numbers were lower (44% and 9% if I remember correctly).
Frankly, I think that this question is a polite way of asking if one is a racist. Obviously, if you see your race as a central feature of your identity, it means you see persons of same race as meaningfully closer to self while distancing your self from persons of other races. Distance from self is a good proxy for the willingness to inflict harm, in this case race-based harm. Of course the raw numbers from a poll are not likely to be useful in assessing the absolute numbers of potentially violent racists in the polled groups but they provide a good idea about the relative numbers of racists.
Yes, sorry if I was unclear, I meant by establishing them as good/bad. It seems like having people think about markers as bad, then asking them if they would adopt them would prompt an instinctual "well I wouldn't use those *bad* markers" response that might not be as pronounced if asked in the other order. Though that might create an opposite bias having people rate markers they already said they would adopt as more good.... Maybe there's no way to win.
One thing about white people is that are not so much in to being white, but some of them are really in to being Irish, Italian or Scottish.
I don't see how I framed identity markers as positive or negative, other than just asking it if they are good or bad.
I think there's a slight methodological issue in that the ordering of the survey questions first frames certain identity markers as positive or negative, then asks the respondent if they would adopt those markers for themselves. I think the last decade or two on both right and left show that markers pertaining to sex, gender, race, and other immutable characteristics are in fact more prone to adoption as central than people would like to admit, especially right after saying it's on net bad for everyone if they do
Yes, as I say in Age of Em, centuries ago most city politics was shifting coalitions of family clans.
In some contexts extended families from clans, which aren't too granular to constitute political coalitions. The blogger known as "hbdchick" has written a lot about how Catholic marriage law prohibiting endogamy reduced the power of clans, resulting in more individualistic cultures characterized by nuclear families west of the "Hajnal line".
If we want to "end the fight" why do you think reparations haven't happened yet?
Thanks for pointing out the typos; fixed. An excuse can be valid, so that case includes the case where they are true.
Robin,1) I find the norms and summary conclusions you describe to be plausible explanations of your paragraph 2 results and maybe also of your paragraph 1 results2) I see them as orthogonal to your paragraph 3 results, because those would be expected pretty much regardless of the reasons why a feature tends to be favored/unfavored as central to identity.3) Your summary conclusions would be more accurate with the following change: “And when it gets too obvious that we are doing the latter, we *point out or* try the excuses that they started it or that they aren’t fighting fair.”4) typos: to simply ourselves --> to simplify ourselves as on clearly --> as clearly