The still-coherent culture that is the United States

From Marianne Bertrand and Emir Kamenica at NBER:

The results overall refute the hypothesis of growing cultural divides.  With few exceptions, the extent of cultural distance has been broadly constant over time.

The data also show that:

1. From to 1995, the time use behavior of women and men converged a good deal, but not since then.

2. Differences in social attitudes by political ideology and income have increased since the 1970s.  The rich and the poor have diverged the most in terms of their attitudes toward law enforcement.

3. Whites and non-whites “have converged somewhat on social attitudes but have diverged in consumer behavior.”

4. “Nevertheless, our headline result is that for all other demographic divisions and cultural dimensions, cultural distance has been broadly constant over time.”  For instance, the media consumption gap between rich and poor has not been growing.

5. “The brand most predictive of top income in 1992 is Grey Poupon Dijon mustard. By 2004, the brand most indicative of the rich is Land O’Lakes butter, followed by Kikkoman soy sauce. By the end of the sample, ownership of Apple products (iPhone and iPad) tops the list. Knowing whether someone owns an iPad in 2016 allows us to guess correctly whether the person is in the top or bottom income quartile 69 percent of the time. Across all years in our data, no individual brand is as predictive of being high-income as owning an Apple iPhone in 2016.”

6. Voting and “trusting people” are among the “social attitudes” that best predict being rich.

7. Education is matched about as tightly to social attitudes now as it was in 1976.

8. “By 2016, watching Love It or List It and Property Brothers, both HGTV shows, were the most indicative of being educated.” [TC: yikes!]

9. Since the 1990s, there has been no divergence in the TV shows watched by liberals and conservatives.  Note that in 2001, the three TV shows that best predicted ideology were The Academy Awards, Will and Grace, and Friends, all liberal.  Nowadays it’s Fox shows, all conservative.

10. Liberals are more likely to drink alcohol, conservatives are more likely to go fishing.

11. Maybe this is the most important result: since 1976 there has not been much divergence between liberal and conservative attitudes toward civil liberties or law enforcement.  The divergence on government spending is noticeable but not enormous (see p.39).  the divergence on “Marriage, Sex, Abortion” is quite large.  In another words, the true polarization is happening across gender issues, as I’ve argued numerous times in the past.

12. Here are related important results on the cultural divide.  When will MSM articles catch up to the data?

Comments

"since 1976 there has not been much divergence between liberal and conservative attitudes toward civil liberties or law enforcement... In another words, the true polarization is happening across gender issues"

Is it overly naive of me to think that polarization around "gender issues" is probably less damaging to a nation's social fabric than polarization around civil liberties and law enforcement? Is this good news!?

I do not know. Americans hate each other because the other side is "oppressing women", "destroying marriage", "persecuting Christianity", "sending America back to the 16th Century". How good is it to the society's fabric?

Is American *not* polarizing around civil liberties and law and order? Perhaps their questions are not subtle enough to notice the difference? I expect that no one is much in favor of police brutality. Everyone is in favor of due process of the law - in theory. But how those abstract principles are applied in reality is likely to be very divisive. As we have seen with Hands Up and Black Lives Matter. Both sides argue using the same language, but in reality the Left has argued for a lack of due process and a weakening of the rule of law. They just do not put it that way. In the same way that heavy-handed political censorship and repression has come to American universities, but they do so in the name of Free Speech and civil liberties. You could ask either side on campus about Free Speech and they would all say they are for it. They probably believe it too.

I suspect they're using the wrong sampling frames. The thing is, roughly 3/4 of the population pays little attention to public affairs and doesn't have much emotional investment. I suspect If you select the 25% who do, the divergence would be pretty clear.

It's a reasonable inference the problem the professoriate, the educational apparat, and their auxilliaries in the bar and the media have with free speech is derived from their own self-understanding vis a vis the rest of the population, which replicates in their mind the social relations of a school. Deliberation and the free speech which goes with it are for peers. The opposition are not 'peers', but a disruptive juvenile delinquent element. Democratic procedures which yield results congenial to the opposition are invalid (because only peers run the school) and are thus properly annulled by the judiciary (i.e. the deans).

As for law enforcement, the problem liberals have with that is that police officers doing their jobs don't pay much attention to the status hierarchies contrived by gentry liberals or those contrived by rude blacks. Ditto any prosecutors and judges doing their job. This can apply in the case of black police officers doing their job. Three of the six innocents the rampaging Marilyn Mosby tried to send to prison were black officers, including the hapless paddy-wagon driver she slapped with an absurd charge of 'depraved heart murder'.

> I expect that no one is much in favor of policy brutality

During the campaign, Trump explicitly called for more police brutality, to an audience of police officers on Long Island: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/29/nyregion/trump-police-too-nice.html

Yes, the Left wants to rein in trigger-happy cops and put a stop to egregious police abuses. That's an example of weakening the rule of law. Wow! You should write for the Onion.

This is the problem - you assume that the Right wants police to be trigger happy. As it turns out, if you actually asked people, the chances that anyone would say the police do not shoot enough innocent people would be about zero. They are not asking the right questions.

As to the substance (well, "substance") of the rest, no one is talking about police being trigger-happy or any police abuses at all. What cases were caused by police being trigger-happy? Jury after jury has found the police acted properly - and I suspect you or I would do the same in their shoes. The BLM movement was outraged about Trayvon Martin where Zimmerman acted entirely properly. That fact did not quell the outrage. The Left really does want young Black men to have the right to pound the head of someone with a Jewish name into the concrete without consequence. They really do want to reverse the burden of proof. They really do want to weaken the rule of law.

So what "abuses" of police power do you think is a problem? I expect you cannot name any either. You are just hiding behind meaningless phrases.

Re: The BLM movement was outraged about Trayvon Martin where Zimmerman acted entirely properly.

First off Zimmerman was not a cop. Secondly he certainly did not act properly. Picture yourself walking down a sidewalk doing nothing more sinister than chatting on your phone. A big car comes up behind you, slows down and follow you. You duck into an alley to get away from it, and the car stops and a guy gets out and follows you on foot.
Would that not freak you out? Might you not fear for your safety, and maybe respond violently if the guy catches up to you without offering any explanation of what he doing?
The proper behavior for Zimmerman would have been to report his suspicions, reasonable or not, to the police and then go his way. Or maybe come around the block again just to be sure everything was OK. He was part of a neighborhood watch, not a neighborhood vigilante group. If he had done what I suggest, Trayvon Martin would be alive, Zimmerman would have remained an anonymous schlub, and no one else would have taken any injury. Why would that not be the desired outcome here? Well, unless you're just the type who wants to see black males gunned down.

I don't think you and I live in the same reality.

TC: In another words, the true polarization is happening across gender issues, as I’ve argued numerous times in the past.

Links to: The symbols emanating from the White House reflect this vision. The Trump cabinet and advisory teams have been well-stocked with traditional white men in business suits. There doesn’t appear to have been much deliberate attempt to pursue gender balance.

The view from Britain would be that this matters precisely f**k all. In the sense of "Oh Trump is a very masculine leader and so projects a gender normative vision of male:female relations".

Our Millennial women in the UK seem pretty much the same as the US's in their party preferences (very strongly Labour), and putting May at the top of the Tory party - specifically someone who is pretty much the career focused type of woman and couldn't be a clearer signal that career focused women can succeed - has done *absolutely* nothing to change matters.

Young women in the US and UK, both, on average simply are leftist in a way that really has almost nothing to with any expressed ideas around gender by whichever the right wing party is in each country. Hosts of Hilaries would change matters but naught. Davey-boy Cameron can go out there and endorse gay marriage and it does nothing.

The flip side is that older women simply are conservative, in both countries, in ways that have nothing to do with anything the conservative parties are doing or any ideas they express.

Didn't download the paper because they're asking for cash money.

It's interesting that hip hop got plugged into the highly diagnostic Grey Poupon indicator in 1992 and got stuck there.

'Didn't download the paper because they're asking for cash money.'

Thus demonstrating that the media consumption gap between rich and poor has not been growing, right?

Interesting link.

Ya, hard to comment without reading the paper.

"Across all years in our data, no individual brand is as predictive of being high-income as owning an Apple iPhone in 2016.”

I would have thought that owning a Volvo in the 1970s would have been as predictive.

Individual brand: Rolex wristwatch

Individual item: Thoroughbred racehorse

just look at the state of horror movies in this country. Or gothic.

Maybe what is meant is that an iPhone the most predictive product with a very large market share?

Buying a G6 jet would be predictive of a high income, but Gulfstream doesn't sell as many units as Apple.

Gulfstream sells only around 150 business jets per year. So the correlation with being billionaires might be high, but the correlation with millionaires would be low. Apple has cumulatively sold over 1 billion Iphones.

As KL said. You need your indicator to be sufficiently widespread that it can sort the population into 2 (large) groups.

This will not be the indicator (like G6 Jets) with lowest false-positive rate. It will be the one that maximises information across the system. See ROC curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_operating_characteristic

They didn't mention whether or not liberals are less likely to own guns today than in 1995. Perhaps equal numbers of liberals and conservatives are buying up the 1,000,000 guns sold to civilians each month.

Of course, the truth is that liberals are less likely to own guns today than in 1995, largely because liberals are more likely to be urban and urban gun ownership rates have fallen as people who have lived in urban areas longer abandon hunting as a hobby.

"By 2004, the brand most indicative of the rich is Land O’Lakes butter"

When is the USA going to cease subsidising the dairy industry? [Dairy price supports]

Note too that the rich are presumably positioned to be the most careful about their cholesterol, so I have to wonder if they're somehow using all that fancy butter just for sex.

If you're using butter for sex, I'd advise Danish Creamery, not Land O' Lakes. Don't ask me how I know...

"2. Differences in social attitudes by political ideology and income have increased over the last four decades."

Isn't this the main point that the MSM as well as social media have been observing since 1980? And this paper is making the same observation.
The areas of non-divergence that Tyler keeps wanting to focus on are of secondary interest; these two areas of increased divergence are what all the fuss is about.

I'd also like to see how the attitudes towards race by members of the two major parties have changed over the last 40 or 50 years. Nixon's Southern strategy flipped the South to Republicans and with only a few exceptions such as George W. Bush's governorship in Texas, the Republican party has been the party of whites since then.

I lived in Alabama during the Selma marches and George Wallace's governorship -- but I was only about 6 years old and did not know anything about them until reading about them in school (we'd move away from Alabama by then). But reflecting on what Alabama seems to have been like then, I realized that George Wallace's run for president as a third party candidate in 1968 was merely a dress rehearsal for Donald Trump's run in 2016.

Well Trump was a life-long Democrat until he chose to run. So he had that in common with Wallace.

The party with the biggest change on race has been the Democrats. They have gone from race-baiting Blacks to use against Northern Whites to race-baiting Southern Whites to use against pretty much everyone. They have gone from the party of the KKK to the party of Al Sharpton.

The Republicans remain the party of equality before the law and moderate civil liberties - the party that founded the NAACP. So not much change at all.

You act like the present day GOP resembles the version from decades ago.

As the data show, not all Republicans are racists, but almost all racists are Republicans.

IL GOP nominated a literal neo-nazi for November: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html

Steve King regularly espouses racist views and his party refuses to say anything about it except nobody should retweet Nazis: https://www.vox.com/2018/6/28/17506880/steve-king-twitter-racism-congress-republicans

Here is a detailed breakdown of many different polls on race. The common theme is that self-IDed Republicans always have the more negative attitude toward blacks. Wasn't always like this, as you can see in the data. But that's the way it is these days and it's probably gotten much, much worse since this 2014 analysis. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/are-white-republicans-more-racist-than-white-democrats/

Well Trump may well change the GOP but it has been fairly conservative in the small c sense of not changing much. While the Democrats have moved decisively to the Left, the Republican platform Before Trump wasn't much different from that of Reagan or that of Eisenhower for that matter.

It may well be that the Democrats move to the Left has put off their traditional voting base of White racists. So what? That does not mean the Republicans are a friendly place for racists.

The Democrats elected actual Nazis for generations but that does not seem to bother you. That a freak won a barely contested primary he had no chance of winning proves nothing.

A "more negative attitude" towards Blacks is simply likely to be tribalism. Not racism. The GOP is still not a home to racists and it never has been. Unlike the Democrats who have always been the party of racial resentment.

'That does not mean the Republicans are a friendly place for racists.'

Lee Atwater disagrees, and you can hear that disagreement in his own words - 'The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” ' https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/ But then, what would the man who was chairman of the Republican National Committee know, right? Just because he explained the southern strategy which successfully converted all those racist Democrats into reliable Republican voters doesn't mean anything, apparently.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.”

Attwater may have said that but notice he did not say that about the GOP. Because in 1954 they were not using the N word at all. The Democrats were. And winning the South. As late as Jimmy Carter's first election, Carter used slogans with racial overtones. But Carter wasn't a Republican.

"While the Democrats have moved decisively to the Left"

Only from a relativistic point of view. Republicans have gone so far off the rails that the Overton window is now actually two completely separate windows.

"As the data show, not all Republicans are racists, but almost all racists are Republicans."

That could only be true if you do not count anti-white people as racists. I'll be honest that the Charlotsville types freak me out more, but I'm damned well sure they couldn't pull off a million man march.

As the data show, not all Republicans are racists, but almost all racists are Republicans.

If you define 'racist' as a set of attitudes which can only apply to Republicans, yes you will get that result.

I don't see Dems knocking themselves out to live near black people. Their credo is, Let's You and Him Have Diversity. Watch what people do, not how they respond to a pollster

I have a brother who emotes endlessly about the wonders of ethnic diversity and the evils of racist Rethuglicans who hate black people and mexicans. He votes Democrat. Democrats are all lovely people.

He lives in the monocultural enclave of Palo Alto; 2% black and 6% Hispanic. Which is Kosovan levels of ethnic cleansing even for California. But it's ok; 21% of his neighbours are East Asian Google engineers, and a black guy empties his bin, so he's totally cool with other ethnicities and cultures. This is true because he goes to different countries on holiday and eats food in their restaurants.

He has moved twice - in both cases away from "colourful" neighbourhoods with the "wrong sort" of schools where his wife worked in an ER with "too much gang violence". That was as far as his goodthink could carry him; he would visibly stutter with intellectual incontinence when trying to pronounce the words "ghetto" and "crime" and "gangs" and "black". The photobook on his $2000 table talks about food from all over the world and has pictures of real black people. He may order Lebanese tonight.

You're barking fucking mad.

Nixon's Southern strategy flipped the South to Republicans and with only a few exceptions such as George W. Bush's governorship in Texas, the Republican party has been the party of whites since then.

No, it didn't. The Democratic Party's position in federal elections began to erode in the peripheral South around about 1952. It took more than four decades for the corps of Dixiecrats in Congress to be replaced by Republicans on the one hand and vaguely liberal Democrats on the other and establishing pre-eminence in state and local government took more time still.

As for Nixon's contribution to this, the South split 3 ways in 1968, with George Wallace taking the Deep South and Hubert Humphrey taking Texas and some Border states. The only states Nixon won that Eisenhower hadn't were North and South Carolina. The term 'Southern Strategy' is an incantation ignorant and dishonest Democrats use to advance the notion that something illegitimate has happened when Republican win elections. Nixon's practical measures peculiar to the Southern states in 1968 consisted of TV advertisements with Roy Acuff singing country-and-western style campaign songs ("This time this time with leadership from Richard M. Nixon") and a series of radio advertisements featuring talks by Strom Thurmond.

Actually, Republicans generally win Cubans and have respectable showings among Texas chicanos. Black bloc voting for the Democratic Party is their own choice, not a delict of white people. The white population is actually the most variegated in their voting patters of all the coarse racial categories in this country.

As noted above, you can hear a former chairman of the Republican National Committee talk about the southern strategy i nhis own words - https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

Back in the good old days, when you did not have to worry about politically correct to keep your job helping Republicans get elected in the South.

You hear a dog whistle because you're a dog.

It's often misstated that Nixon originated the Southern Strategy in 1968. No, because that year it would have been useless with Wallace in the race. The Southern Strategy dates from the midterms of 1970 when the GOP having noticed both Wallace's southern success and also how Goldwater had won the segregationist vote in 1964 (without deliberately trying to) decided to very deliberately seek southern votes from the racist vote block. This also included appealing to northern white ethnics who often had some fierce anti-black opinions too. I tis worth noting that in order to appeal to the northern working class Nixon also moderated the traditional GOP stance (pro-Capital) on labor issues, though that did not last in the party.

very deliberately seek southern votes from the racist vote block.

I have news for you, JonFraz: Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Hubert Humphrey were without a doubt pleased with every vote they received in the Southern United States. They didn't promise defenders of segregation a blessed thing, and neither did Richard Nixon. You can see samples of Nixon's 1968 television commercials archived at The Living Room Candidate and read the shooting scripts printed in Joe McGinnis The Selling of the President, 1968. There's nothing embarrassing in there, in spite of McGinnis contempt for Nixon's staff.

The 'Southern Strategy' discourse is hooey.

Well Trump was a life-long Democrat until he chose to run.

No, he wasn't. He was an enrolled Republican from 1969 to 1985, then switched between Republican, Democrat and non-partisan several times over the succeeding 30 years.

FDR sent minority Americans to internment camps and deported a million Mexicans, and yet he's still the greatest hero of the Democratic party. HRC opened her campaign at his memorial. The point being that no one on either side actually cares much at all about policy differences -- they just want to be the ones in power.

"in 2001, the three TV shows that best predicted ideology were The Academy Awards, Will and Grace, and Friends, all liberal."

And, today, some consider Friends to be "problematic". That would seem to be pretty strong evidence that, if there is a divide, it's from the left moving farther left. Were early 21st Century liberals racist?

The modern leftist knock on Friends is that the show has outdated attitudes towards women and is homophobic, not that it‘s racist.

Partly because racial resentment came early to Friends and they caved. People noticed much earlier about Friend's very White world than they did about the homophobia. So the writers of Friends caved in and wrote in a token Asian girl in Julie and a token Black girlfriend. They still did things like put Ross in Black-face when the tanning machine broke down.

But if the show was about anything, it was about how a bunch of upper middle class New York Jewish liberals were not at all comfortable dealing with non-Whites in any way at all. Not even most non-Jewish Whites - it is noticeable that the only identifiably non-Jewish Friend was the brain-dead sexually promiscuous Joey.

I never saw an episode of the show, but it looks like 5 of the 6 actors are gentiles, as were 3 of the 6 characters.

Actors don't write their own parts - as Joey could have told you if you had watched more often - writers do. Three of the six are clearly Jewish. Rachel, Ross and Monica. But then Chandler is clearly Jewish even if they chose not to say so. He has a typically New York Jewish sense of humor for one thing - and I assume Janice was based on one of the writer's ex-girlfriends.

Phoebe is not obviously anything. But if you assume she was not meant to be Jewish that would mean that they had two sexually promiscuous airheads representing the non-Jewish White population of New York. If a southern writer referred to Blacks that way, he would be looking for work.

Ryan Enos published a study on some of the wealthiest - and most pro-Obama - suburbs of Boston in 2014 called “Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes” which showed that by introducing just two Spanish-speakers to a train carrying wealthy White Boston liberals to work, the liberals became noticeably more hostile to immigrants.

Rich people can afford to live far away from illegals. That is why they can pretend to care.

Ok, so were early 21st Century liberals sexists and misogynists?

“By 2016, watching Love It or List It and Property Brothers, both HGTV shows, were the most indicative of being educated.”

Not at all surprising. Today's "educated" are not interested in ideas or ideals but are very concerned about comfort and status.

6. Voting and “trusting people” are among the “social attitudes” that best predict being rich.

I have one simple question for this: what do you think about lawyers? Poor people: lawyers are leeches, ticks, vampires......rich people: expensive but have helped to protect my wealth a couple times.

Re: Poor people: lawyers are leeches, ticks, vampires.

It';s more complicated than that, because poor people can also credit a lawyer with getting their kid off easy on drug charges or themselves off from a DUI and helping them sue their boss or landlord-- and rich people are less than happy when they're on the other side of such lawsuits. Who coined the term "lawfare" after all-- not the poor.

#5 - although the quote is taken out in isolation, I think it's more indicative of people who believe in marketing hype than anything else. Apple is doing no more than Raymond Loewy did eighty years ago.

In a diverse country, the axis is not ideology or wealth, it is identity. Did they do a survey in Spanish in 1992? This time?

Typo in "From to 1995" -- what was the starting year?

Harinam and Henderson refute this notion that everybody's happily aboard the lefty train, pointing out that political moderates frequently misrepresent their political preferences to avoid extremist ire, and these misrepresentations are leading the country in directions most people would prefer we not go.

"A Journey to Abilene

Political polarization encourages preference falsification which in turn reinforces political polarization. This is the reality of our politics. It’s not as though Americans believe every position they express in public. It’s more so that inflexible partisans have pulled us to the fringes of the political spectrum. In fact, fewer Americans (32%) occupy the political center in 2018 compared to 1994 (49%) and 2004 (49%).

Preference falsification artificially inflates political polarization. If our political preferences have been falsified then our differences might not be as pronounced or as authentic as we think them to be.

Nevertheless, group-based conformity is dangerous. Especially when most of us don’t actually agree with the directives of our intransigent overlords. Conformity can lead us down a path that most of us did not want to travel......"
https://quillette.com/2018/07/02/political-moderates-are-lying/

#5. Quartiles seem too coarse a grain here. There's nothing particularly elite about Grey Poupon, or Land'o'Lakes, or even iPhones.
Grey Poupon is just what lower class people *think* is upper class.

If you're actually in the top decile, you're probably purchasing locally sourced organic whole grain artisanal mustard. You're probably buying Kerrygold irish butter from the deli section, or some other similar local organic butter. You probably have a Samsung Galaxy S8, because iPhones are and irrationl status good, and you don't get to be in the upper decile by irrationally purchasing status goods. You're probably buying imported Japanese soy sauce , not Kikkoman.

All good points except the iPhone.

Ok, I'm biased. As an old-school computer nerd, I prefer Android for it's linux roots and look down iPhone users for their status conscious decision making. If you want to revolt against the tyranny of Microsoft, you don't do it by buying a product from a vertically intergrated company that exerts even more control over it's user's experience. You go off grid and get a Linux/Android operating system.

Agreed. But you're not sufficiently status orientated. Or you wouldn't post on here.

LOL. Every Apple person I have ever known claims to be 100% all about the tech superiority, but is really 25% tech and 75% signaling. It is rather pitiful.

And it's only perceived "tech superiority". Apple uses the same hardware as everyone else, they just charge 30% more and provide a buggy OS and require proprietary peripherals ($40 for a 3' usb cable! lol!).

Anyone notice this sample is only full time employed. Our labor force participation rate is around 63 percent. The divergence that is occurring as documented by Murray is happening among the non employed part of the population, which is no longer a statistical outlier. Doesn't that make the above study very limited?

Interesting fact to remember when there's handwringing about labor force participation: the historical average since the stat has been tabulated (goes back to 1950) is 62.99%.

Anyone notice this sample is only full time employed. Our labor force participation rate is around 63 percent.

The Employment-to-population ratio is currently 0.60, precisely the median of the last generation and higher than it was in the 1950s. As far as I'm aware, the national ratio has not since 1947 been higher than 0.64.

9. Should read "Fox News shows." I seriously doubt watching "Empire" is indicative of being conservative.

This seems quite consistent with the political science work on polarization. There's policy/ideological polarization, which isn’t increasing (as Tyrone noted last week), but then there's affective polarization (I.e., tribalism and mood affiliation), which is increasing. Basically, we're getting more upset about our non-changing and small ideological differences.

Among the most notable stats (which isn't mentioned) is the rise in the percentage of people who wouldn't marry or date someone of the other major political party.

"8. “By 2016, watching Love It or List It and Property Brothers, both HGTV shows, were the most indicative of being educated.” [TC: yikes!]"

I'd love to see the demographics on this. I don't know any guy who watches any show on HGTV (aka "The Real-Estate Porn Channel"), but virtually all the wives do...

Given that the fraction of degreed women has continued to rise steadily since I was a child, well, connect your own dots.

> Liberals are more likely to drink alcohol, conservatives are more likely to go fishing.

Wait a minute. I may be a coastal elitist now, but I grew up in rural Tennessee and went fishing more times than I can remember. There were definitely trips when we didn't bring back any fish, but there were no trips when full beer cans came back.

Who knew that Cowen was a member of the manosphere? Maybe Cowen is a "red pill" writer, and all of his writings should be read as esoterically talking about the real differences between men and women and their proper relations and places in society.

#10 Tomato Tomahto

For those looking for a free version of the paper, here's a link.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/comingApartOnline.pdf

Emir Kamenica, one of the paper's authors, has posted the paper to his own web page at the The University of Chicago, so it's not a violation of copyright law.

The abstract appears to me to describe a great example of meaningless Social "Science" meta analysis. Why would gender place someone in a different cultural group? "Time use"?? -gosh it's a good thing that leisure time has been stable over the last 4 decades, huh? And of course, so has the nature of work: no difference between someone working on the factory floor in 1976 and working in front of a computer screen in Customer Service in 2018. and on, and on. Garbage in, garbage out.

"7. Education is matched about as tightly to social attitudes now as it was in 1976."

Only now, highly educated people are more liberal than ever while working class people are more conservative than ever.

In general, to the extent that there is a similar social distance, this is not a static phenomena. There have been great shifted in many individual measures that have perhaps offset each other somewhat.

Saw this in a follow up article with link on MotherJones.
It’s not clear to me that the limited data in that article shows what the authors claim. The paper has a paywall. It appears they are using variance or correlation coefficients of differences to state whether those differences have changed or not. It seems to me a number of assumptions arenecessary to get to their conclusions. Was there no better means of assessing ‘cultural distance’ by group?

Comments for this post are closed