The designer was probably taught by mathphobes.
What does the overlap of the columns on some of those graphs indicate? Some sort of statistical uncertainty? Or just crappy design?
For the "If you went to a protest, what would your sign say" question, I'm surprised at how high "make English the country's official language" ranked.
I think we should make Anglo-Saxon the official language.
4: Royal Wessex standard or go home.
5: Mohawk, as above.
I feel like the basic counter-intuitive result ("white people report feeling angry more often than people of color") makes me think there's a problem with their methodology. Their explanation seems plausible:
A NOTE ABOUT TERMINOLOGY: Anger--the intensity and frequency with which it is felt--can be a challenge to measure, but for these purposes we kept it simple: We measured and compared anger primarily according to the frequency with which respondents report hearing or reading something that makes them angry. Those who report feeling angry a few times a day are considered angrier than those who report feeling angry once a day, who are angrier than those who get angry once a week, and so forth.
But looking at the results I suspect that part of what it's measuring is that different people have a different threshold for what they would describe as "feeling angry" and that white men are allowed to be angry in our culture and, therefore, describe themselves as feeling angry more frequently.
Were there no takers for "less lust by less protein?"
Based on Facebook, I don't think that finding white men being more angry than anybody else is counter-intuitive.
On a related note, I think Matthew Yglesias makes a good point today.
To me, part of the story here is that we used to have a national politics that was pretty starkly divided along racial and gender lines but where most of the really high profile figures in the argument were all white men. So, like, the "liberal" role on Crossfire or an op-ed page would be mostly white men and liberal magazines had staffs full of white men. But that representational mix is changing a lot these days, and it turns out that women and non-white people perceive there to be a lot more gender and race bias than is perceived by white men. So now you have white male liberals feeling that "liberals" (who are mostly not white men) are systematically over-diagnosing bias issues. Then you get counter complaints about mansplaining (or what have you) and then resentment about ad hominem arguments.
Unfortunately, the question of "exactly how much racism is out there" and "exactly how much complaining about racism is out there" are both hard to measure. So it is difficult for me to devise a scientific proof that racism is under-diagnosed rather than over-diagnosed. But we do have survey data which shows that, in general, white Americans think anti-white discrimination is a bigger problem than anti-black discrimination. My view is that white Americans are mistaken about this, and that the big macro fact about race and racism in America is that white Americans are excessively defensive and unperceptive about racial issues.
I think we should make Anglo-Saxon the official language.
Gardena go home!
I feel like the basic counter-intuitive result ("white people report feeling angry more often than people of color")
How is this remotely counterintuitive?
How is this remotely counterintuitive?
Perhaps it isn't. I believe that people of color have more day-to-day experiences of being slighted or hassled in ways that would make me angry. But, as I said, I don't think that's what the survey is measuring -- and it probably isn't what the survey should be measuring.
But that background belief does affect how I interpret the results.
12: I think it's a certain mode of white attempt at empathy ("you must be SO ANGRY at us, I don't know how you bear it") - wasn't there a story like this with a white woman doing aerobics or yoga and being all discombobulated at the presence of a black woman because of all the feelings she was imputing to her without exchanging a word?
For the "If you went to a protest, what would your sign say" question, I'm surprised at how high "make English the country's official language" ranked.
So many options!
I SAMUEL VIII 4-18
DOWN WITH THIS SORT OF THING
GIVE US BACK OUR ELEVEN DAYS
YOU HAVE TOO MANY ORPHREYS ON YOUR CHASUBLE
COMMUNISM = SOVIET POWER + ELECTRIFICATION
TEN THOUSAND YEARS!
TO DELHI! TO LONDON!
FEAR GOD AND DREADNOUGHT
Misinterpretation: question 1 is absolutely not "how often do you get angry". It's "About how often do you hear or read something in the news that makes you angry?"
So, if you never listen to or read the news, the answer's zero. What's the news-audience demographic like? Judging by the ads they run, "older, maler and whiter".
Were there no takers for "less lust by less protein?"
Worst pickup line ever, Barry.
I think it's a certain mode of white attempt at empathy . . . wasn't there a story like this with a white woman doing aerobics or yoga and being all discombobulated at the presence of a black woman . . .
Wait, are you ascribing that position to me?
question 1 is absolutely not "how often do you get angry". It's "About how often do you hear or read something in the news that makes you angry?"
I saw that, and I only skimmed the article, but I just assumed that wasn't the only question that they asked about how often people got angry. I could resolve this by looking at the questionnaire, of course.
15: FOUR LEGS GOOD! TWO LEGS BAD!
I can't help but wonder how much of the white people being angry more frequently has to do with the demographics of who watches a lot of Fox News, which seems designed to pick out a certain group of people, show them something, and then encourage them as loudly as possible to descend into incoherent screaming rage about it. For someone who buys into Fox News generally and watches it for two or three hours in a usual day I would be surprised if they weren't experiencing rage about stuff at least once per hour.
I suppose the same would be true of people who watch that much but are in contact with reality too, but that can't be a very large demographic.
16 Tell it to Stanley Green.
The Father Ted one wins.
12: It's counter-intuitive if you're approaching things in the abstract: white people (esp. men) have nothing to be angry about, at least compared to everybody else in American society. To anyone actually familiar with American society, it's a no-duh result.
As Bob Dylan didn't say, When you've got everything/ You've got everything to lose.
15- I always thought they needed to be more precise about exactly 2 and 4.
Like Bruce Banner, I'm always angry.
white people (esp. men) have nothing to be angry about
Oh, for fuck's sake, I do not appreciate someone telling I have no right to be angry about that pharmaceutical fuckwad jacking up the price on a orphan drug or buying the record; or American support for the War in Yemen or some cop killing a black kid.
Oh wait, you say, you didn't mean...
That's why I'm always angry. The aggressive attempts at the use of extremely general and abstract language to intimidate and demean are constant and continuous in our discourse.
The headlines are a step in the right direction. But for the most part I want a specific controversy in a particular setting before I start examining interactions, attitudes, and affects. Abstractions are almost always a weapon.
Abstractions are almost always a weapon.
I guess we know where you stand on teaching elementary students ring theory.
26.1 is the wrongest thing ever. Bruce Banner is never angry. Once he gets angry he isn't Bruce Banner anymore.
17: No, I was ascribing that to the linked, probably wrongly.
25: I knew that!
Not trying to pretend to have the slightest knowledge of Arabic -- that was cut and paste out of Google Translate.
28: who are you, Wheaton College?
The attitudes toward BLM visualization is maddening.
The popularity of the "Taxed Enough Already" (ugh) sign among Republicans isn't remotely surprising, but that it showed up among the top three for Democrats makes no sense to me whatsoever.
30.1 I knew you knew that!
30.2 Also would have gone with وطن (nation, homeland) over بلد (country, countryside) but YMMV.
28: It's a quote. Actually:"That.s my secret, Cap...I'm always angry."
I think I need to go read about interpellation.
28 is wrong, and 34 is correct.
34: That's non-canonical.
The Hulk canon is the cartoons that would air on Tuesday afternoons when I was in elementary school as I remember them.
Anger is a response to a slight (says Aristotle, following Homer). So, the canonical angry person is someone who feels 'slighted' all the time -- *not* a genuinely suffering or oppressed person, but a privileged person who sees himself as a hero and can't stand the thought that others might not be sufficiently deferential.
I think FOX News has proved Aristotle right....
Black Lives Matter
Bureau of Land Management
BLM coincidence? Or is it?
I'm interested in what kind of weapon this survey is and on who's behalf it is being wielded.
One thing that struck me was:
Which of the following best describes your opinion of white men in the United States?
They have historically run the country and still do. 38%
They are less powerful than they used to be but still have a lot of control. 46%
They are struggling to keep up, while other groups are moving ahead. 14%
If you change the third one to the stronger 'They are losing ground both relatively and absolutely in terms of power and social control
Which of the following best describes your opinion of white men in the United States?
They have historically run the country and still do. 38%
They are less powerful than they used to be but still have a lot of control. 46%
They are struggling to keep up, while other groups are moving ahead. 14%
If you change the third one to the stronger "They are losing ground both relatively and absolutely in terms of power and social control." they would all three be unequivocally true.
What white man or men is deciding the Oak Cliff Educator of the Year Award?
"Running the country" has almost no meaning for me. I can not even start to comprehend it.
When I think about power I start in the bedroom;move up to the dinner table; from their to the block; then the neighborhood, etc.
I can't even think "white men" as a political category that contains both Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders. I can't think of "women" or "blacks" that way either.
It is used as a political category only for those who want an Other to define themselves against: black men, or white women, and to create internal cohesion.
There are many many other such divisive categories: I encountered "Maoist-Stalinist" this afternoon.
I mentioned interpellation above because this is about ideology, and I was a little curious as to why when "white men are running the country" I felt called out. I ain't running shit, and whatever power I have is used in ways you would approve.
Or not, because Ted Cruz or the Koch brothers are not in this thread, and I am. Ted Cruz is not being addressed by "white men are..." but I am. And maybe I have just massive amounts of power and privilege in this thread and this blog, today, and I suppose there will be those to say indeed I do, and maybe I will look at that.
I think it makes sense to talk about white people running the country as long as these things are true: 1 The overwhelming majority of both the top 1% and the top 20% are white. 2 A substantial share of them make decisions on a basis of white supremacy spoken or unspoken conscious or unconscious.
I get both that that holds white people to a high standard of behavior and can be politically divisive.
I'm not calling out anyone's behavior here. If you are white you have benefited from white privilege but that is not a sin. It is good to be white in this country. It is also true that it is getting less good to be white in this country. It is perfectly normal for white people to be upset about that. I'm not saying it is justified or good, just that it is predictable. I'm not saying anyone here holds that view.
I guess I think the survey is making an effort to get people to see things in racial terms, to make people more racist. Congrats on avoiding that trap. Anyone want to speculate about why?
What Republicans get angriest about:
Congress being dysfunctional (80%);
Well, yeah. How many times do they have to vote to repudiate the Kenyan Usurper before those quislings in Congress will save the country do something? They're more interested in getting invited to Georgetown cocktail parties, so of course nothing is happening.