3 ms·

It is to Morgan Freeman, as he explained to Mike Wallace: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n "You

by lsb 17y ago

It is to Morgan Freeman, as he explained to Mike Wallace: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1131418n "You're going to relegate my history to a month? What about White History Month? Black History is American History. I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man."

natrius 17y ago
That makes sense in the context of history, but not in the broader scope of our social interactions. As long as outward appearances are significantly predictive of one's culture, humans aren't going to just disregard that predictive value unless they're making an effort to do so. I doubt that there are many people who are purely racist and judge people solely on their skin color. However, when you combine skin color with other outward indicators of class, you have a fairly valuable predictor of behavior.
- najirama 17y ago
  Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length. To show this, one need only think about the consequences of skin color actually being an indicator of class. Given a random sampling among a race, if skin color was an accurate indicator of class, you should be able to predict the same class (other than middle class) for each sample, and ultimately be right more than you were wrong. But you can't: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf Furthermore, I posit that class isn't even a predictor of behavior in the macro-sense. That is, across all classes the proportion of people who behave foolishly, is a constant. The difference money makes is in the degree of associated risk with the behaviors that occur, not in the number of occurrences of the behaviors themselves.
  - natrius 17y ago
    In America, skin color is a good predictor of class. The barometer isn't being right more than you're wrong; it's being more accurate than assuming everyone earns the average income. You will be able to make a more accurate guess of an American's income if you know their race. When you add in clothing, hair and accent, it'd be pretty difficult to misidentify someone's class, or more importantly, culture. Identifying members of subcultures with criminal tendencies is a skill that anyone who has walked around in a city late at night has put to use. Class isn't a great predictor of behavior, but culture is. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that people with lower incomes commit violent crime, for instance, at a higher rate than the rest of society. All other things being equal, the better the risk to reward ratio of an action, the more likely someone is to take it.
    - najirama 17y ago
      A "good" predictor must be useful, correct? Well, then how can it be useful if it is wrong more than it is right....? Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior. Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious). Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.
      - natrius 17y ago
        "And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does" That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy. "Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now." I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race. "God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?" If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English. I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
  - Mz 17y ago
    Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length. Actually, long fingernails on a woman are typically used to signal "I don't do manual labor" and is very much intended as a class indicator. It's part of the appeal of long nails. As I understand it, there is lots of historical precedent across a number of cultures for this.
    - najirama 17y ago
      Even if I were to allow that the discussion be gender-biased, I'm afraid this wouldn't be accurate... The very poor tend to have poor grooming habits, both in frequency and quality. As such, access to nail clippers is extremely limited... Further, the nature of living in extreme poverty forbids the biting of one's nails; you would be shocked at the amount of dirt and grime that gathers there after just a few days without access to a bathroom or running water.
      - Mz 17y ago
        I am aware that it is not entirely gender-based. However, a quick google turns up this: http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/ http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/ Fingernails became shorter and the colours less intense during the 1980's when women became more interested in their work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999dec28.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999d... Thorsten Veblen wrote in his classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class" (1899). "It not only shows that the wearer is able to consume a relatively large value, but it argues at the same time that he consumes without producing." Like the constrictive corset of Veblen's time, long nails today signal which women are too rich and too feminine (wouldn't want the little darling to break a nail) to perform manual labor.
        najirama 17y ago
        Both of those links engender the proposition that fingernail length is indeed NOT a good indicator of class. The class status of women as a whole rose significantly in the 80's as women's pay relative to men's rose from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1343793600&en=8941c5442f49a9a4&ei=5088 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1...
dkarl 17y ago
How quickly a beachhead can become a ghetto.

by lsb 17y ago

natrius 17y ago

That makes sense in the context of history, but not in the broader scope of our social interactions. As long as outward appearances are significantly predictive of one's culture, humans aren't going to just disregard that predictive value unless they're making an effort to do so. I doubt that there are many people who are purely racist and judge people solely on their skin color. However, when you combine skin color with other outward indicators of class, you have a fairly valuable predictor of behavior.

najirama 17y ago
Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length. To show this, one need only think about the consequences of skin color actually being an indicator of class. Given a random sampling among a race, if skin color was an accurate indicator of class, you should be able to predict the same class (other than middle class) for each sample, and ultimately be right more than you were wrong. But you can't: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf Furthermore, I posit that class isn't even a predictor of behavior in the macro-sense. That is, across all classes the proportion of people who behave foolishly, is a constant. The difference money makes is in the degree of associated risk with the behaviors that occur, not in the number of occurrences of the behaviors themselves.
- natrius 17y ago
  In America, skin color is a good predictor of class. The barometer isn't being right more than you're wrong; it's being more accurate than assuming everyone earns the average income. You will be able to make a more accurate guess of an American's income if you know their race. When you add in clothing, hair and accent, it'd be pretty difficult to misidentify someone's class, or more importantly, culture. Identifying members of subcultures with criminal tendencies is a skill that anyone who has walked around in a city late at night has put to use. Class isn't a great predictor of behavior, but culture is. Moreover, I think it's safe to assume that people with lower incomes commit violent crime, for instance, at a higher rate than the rest of society. All other things being equal, the better the risk to reward ratio of an action, the more likely someone is to take it.
  - najirama 17y ago
    A "good" predictor must be useful, correct? Well, then how can it be useful if it is wrong more than it is right....? Simply stated, being right more than one is wrong is the same thing as being more accurate than a random assignment (as we approach a large number of "trials") if the outcomes are equally likely. And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does (if we remove 'middle class' as a selection), and class tells you nothing significant about behavior. Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now. Culture is a much, much better indicator of behavior than class, as culture speaks to beliefs and value judgements. As such, they are not interchangable ideas (that is, the propostion that 'Skin color is a good predictor of culture' is not the same as the one you made prior, 'Skin color is a good predictor of class' - but is probably just as fallacious). Clothing and hair (God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?) in isolation are strong enough indicators of culture, that race quite literally adds nothing to their accuracy - the same can be said of 'style of dress' and 'price of car driven,' for class. Race is superfluous.
    - natrius 17y ago
      "And that is the point - race tells you nothing more significant about class then guessing does" That's just mathematically incorrect. Different races have different average incomes. If you guess that average for each person, you'll be more accurate than guessing the overall average for everyone. If you're measuring at such a coarse level as upper/middle/lower class, then sure, that doesn't help. Since we're not relying on race alone, we don't need that kind of accuracy. "Also, you seem to be conflating 'class' and 'culture' now." I don't think culture and class are interchangeable. I think class is an indicator of culture, which I would then use to predict someone's behavior. I probably should've made that clear earlier. In America, any skin color except for white is a pretty good indicator of culture. Racial comedy is fairly large industry that only succeeds because it does a decent job of poking fun at behaviors that correlate with race. "God only knows what you meant by 'accent.' Care to clarify?" If someone speaks the Queen's English, you'll assign different probabilities to behaviors than if they spoke inner-city English. I think race is useful in addition to the other indicators, but neither of us have any data on this, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
- Mz 17y ago
  Skin color isn't any more an indicator of class than shoe size or fingernail length. Actually, long fingernails on a woman are typically used to signal "I don't do manual labor" and is very much intended as a class indicator. It's part of the appeal of long nails. As I understand it, there is lots of historical precedent across a number of cultures for this.
  - najirama 17y ago
    Even if I were to allow that the discussion be gender-biased, I'm afraid this wouldn't be accurate... The very poor tend to have poor grooming habits, both in frequency and quality. As such, access to nail clippers is extremely limited... Further, the nature of living in extreme poverty forbids the biting of one's nails; you would be shocked at the amount of dirt and grime that gathers there after just a few days without access to a bathroom or running water.
    - Mz 17y ago
      I am aware that it is not entirely gender-based. However, a quick google turns up this: http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/ http://www.efingernails.com/fingernails-history/ Fingernails became shorter and the colours less intense during the 1980's when women became more interested in their work. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999dec28.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/feed/a41653-1999d... Thorsten Veblen wrote in his classic "The Theory of the Leisure Class" (1899). "It not only shows that the wearer is able to consume a relatively large value, but it argues at the same time that he consumes without producing." Like the constrictive corset of Veblen's time, long nails today signal which women are too rich and too feminine (wouldn't want the little darling to break a nail) to perform manual labor.
      - najirama 17y ago
        Both of those links engender the proposition that fingernail length is indeed NOT a good indicator of class. The class status of women as a whole rose significantly in the 80's as women's pay relative to men's rose from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1343793600&en=8941c5442f49a9a4&ei=5088 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1...

dkarl 17y ago

How quickly a beachhead can become a ghetto.