Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 16 of 60 (299738)
03-31-2006 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by melatonin
03-30-2006 7:55 PM


So athiests may be the most distrusted minority in the states.
While the title of the report says "distrusted" that is not what the article says they actually measured, despite some over the top commentary by Edgell. Lets look again...
From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.”
First off the bat I'd like to know more about how this study was conducted. A telephone sampling of 2000 households is hardly the basis for drawing conclusions about America at large. It would be interesting to know the geographic-demographic groups that were involved.
Second that religious people would not view atheists as "sharing their vision of American society" is not synonymous with active distrust. I can name many people that would not share my vision for america, but that does not mean I distrust them. It simply means they don't see them as sharing the same goals... and that makes sense doesn't it?
Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.
That would also make sense and not have anything to do with distrust, but rather common understanding and goals. It would be nicer to have your children marry people you have something in common with, right? I am sort of surprised that race would not have been a factor, but then again maybe that is disguised by the fact that they interviewed people of different races. I wonder if they asked if they would be willing to allow their children to marry a person of a different race, rather than any specified race.
I also wonder at their list of minority groups. I'm not saying they weren't broad enough, but I do wonder. Did it include satanists. pagans, polygamists, swingers, hippies, gang members, pedophiles, the poor, drug addicts, native americans, transgendered, handicapped?
There are a lot of minority groups out there, and it could be that the researcher's own biases played into the creation of a list.
And that atheists were rated lower does not suggest others would have been given some better treatment, especially if the test forced one to choose a ranking system, rather than allowing for there to be ties. I really need to see more to speak on this point.
offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years
Cough cough cough... Say what? What increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years? There has been growing division, intolerance, and bigotry over the last 30 years. Some limited and tenuous freedoms have been won for gays, but that is it. Actual sexual and communicative freedoms have been lost, and divisions along lines secular and religious in nature have deepened. I'd like to see the evidence for her assertion that things have become more tolerant since the beginning of the "culture war".
The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation”with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.
That makes sense.
To my mind this is just another shot in the "culture war", which is better defused than engaged in. I totally get that atheism is in the minority. I get that there is bigotry (covert and overt) against atheists. But that is not the same as our being the "last" or the "most" distrusted minority. We certainly aren't the most riled against in the media, nor the most oppressed via legislation.
And we aren't free from discrimination either. I'd be interested in seeing what atheists chose as the least "sharing in their vision of america" and "willing to allow their children to marry". This article and the researchers' commentary create the illusion that atheists don't play the same game as others and might not have hardened any of their (our) stances.
Melatonin, you've always been good at scrounging up data, so if you can find the original study that would be supercool.
Thought this may be a place for holmes and crash to continue their discussion.
I don't know if this would be the best place. Even if we were the most distrusted minority, that is not the same as "last" which is the only thing I had disputed with crash, and he has ultimately admitted as having been an hyperbolic statement.
His own citation showed atheism among a vast array of other belief systems which can and have been oppressed (even today) regarding parental rights. My own citations backed that up, and showed a case outside of parental rights as well. The fact is that, preferences aside, atheists are probably the least oppressed minority in this nation with regard to personal freedom and communication. Atheism (or lack of religion) has been an issue from before this nation started, and will likely always remain an issue of some kind for some group.
I'm just glad it is not hampered the way other groups are.
This message has been edited by holmes, 03-31-2006 11:14 AM

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by melatonin, posted 03-30-2006 7:55 PM melatonin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 8:59 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 19 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 9:10 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 25 by EZscience, posted 03-31-2006 2:27 PM Silent H has not replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6230 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 17 of 60 (299755)
03-31-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
03-31-2006 5:11 AM


I do have access to the journal, but they are still at the february issue and have no 'in press' articles. I will post a link to it when available.
I prefer proper experimentation myself rather than these more phenomenological type studies. If we know anything in psychology, it's that what people say/do and what underlies behaviour is rather different (e.g. Nisbett studies in the late 70's).
What I would say is that if we see this this as a simple in-group/out-group distinction (i.e. godly vrs godless), then members of in-groups generally have lower feelings of trustworthiness of out-group members.
Trustworthiness is determined by an assessment of future intentions, therefore if there are different goals and values, there is a good chance of mistrust. Especially if the out-group is seen negatively and therefore 'labelled' with a negative emotion (emotions tend to infuse judgements - so, if you like an individual/group you will tend to trust them, and vice versa). Thus trust has been shown to be mediated by group membership, reputation, stereotypes (and of course personal disposition).
I don't like the methodology myself and maybe they have not really explicitly assessed 'trust' as I would like to test it (but I guess it's sociology rather than psychology). Polls such as this do have numerous issues regarding how the issue is framed. It would be interesting to actually run a proper controlled experiment, maybe using the prisoners dilema (or something similar).
And I agree that there are other minorities that attract prejudice and have little protection in society.
This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-31-2006 09:06 AM
This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-31-2006 10:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 5:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 10:44 AM melatonin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 18 of 60 (299757)
03-31-2006 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
03-31-2006 4:49 AM


quote:
It is of interest that the East and West coasts where the largest concentrations of institutes of higher education are located are more accepting.
Not just that, but the US coasts tend to have a much greater ethnic and cultural diversity; just the cities of New York and Los Angeles alone probably represent much of the US's mixing of these elements of society.
Another intellectual disconnect that I find fascinating is the obvious mistake these people are making about who is morally bankrupt in the US.
I mean, if they just thought for a minute...
1) They believe that the us is in a moral decline.
2) This has coincided with an increse in Fundamentalist Christianity
3) The politicians who seem to be the most connected with Fundies also seem to be the most corrupt.
4) The corporate robber barons who are shockingly amoral are certainly not Athiests...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 03-31-2006 4:49 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 60 (299761)
03-31-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
03-31-2006 5:11 AM


quote:
A telephone sampling of 2000 households is hardly the basis for drawing conclusions about America at large.
If it is done correctly, 2000 households is a perfectly valid sample size.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 5:11 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 10:36 AM nator has replied
 Message 46 by ramoss, posted 04-01-2006 7:45 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 60 (299787)
03-31-2006 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
03-31-2006 9:10 AM


If it is done correctly, 2000 households is a perfectly valid sample size.
The sentence immediately following the sentence you quoted was intended to get at the point "if it is done correctly". I thought the article's mentioning of numbers was pointless, without any discussion of methodology. 2000 households where? When? That was what I was intending to criticize. And the fact that it was a telephone survey did not help.
That said, I actually do not believe 2000 is enough of a sample size to properly draw conclusions about a population of over 400 million spread in reality over the entire world.
I realize statisticians may argue otherwise, but I don't believe there has ever been solid attempts to substantiate such claims. I think what can be said is that if done properly (and it seems to me telephone sampling contains errors which would negate that claim) 2000 is a valid sample size to give us a plausible sketch of what one will find in America. Some rough generalization... not a photo.

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 9:10 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 11:55 AM Silent H has not replied
 Message 27 by Zhimbo, posted 03-31-2006 2:46 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 21 of 60 (299790)
03-31-2006 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by melatonin
03-31-2006 8:59 AM


I do have access to the journal, but they are still at the february issue and have no 'in press' articles. I will post a link to it when available.
I'll definitely be interested in reading it when available.
Trustworthiness is determined by an assessment of future intentions, therefore if there are different goals and values, there is a good chance of mistrust.
Okay I can see that argument. Then again trust also breaks down based on the situation. I think the two represented were a bit personal and able to be confounded with other factors.
I agree something more controlled (perhaps the prisoner's dilemma) would get a more accurate result.

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 8:59 AM melatonin has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 60 (299808)
03-31-2006 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
03-31-2006 10:36 AM


quote:
The sentence immediately following the sentence you quoted was intended to get at the point "if it is done correctly". I thought the article's mentioning of numbers was pointless, without any discussion of methodology. 2000 households where? When? That was what I was intending to criticize. And the fact that it was a telephone survey did not help.
Do you really believe that a the authors of a published study from a major university's sociology department are going to be ignorant of these things?
Why not reserve judgement and criticize the actual paper instead of criticizing strawmen of your own construction?
quote:
That said, I actually do not believe 2000 is enough of a sample size to properly draw conclusions about a population of over 400 million spread in reality over the entire world.
So, you are an expert statictician now, as well?
Goodness, if you were to publish your revolutionary statistical theory it would turn the field on it's head.
I strongly encourage you to do so.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-31-2006 12:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 10:36 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-31-2006 1:32 PM nator has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 23 of 60 (299821)
03-31-2006 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
03-31-2006 11:55 AM


the thing that bothers me is that i can't find the actual paper. she's probably only presented it at conference. i even looked on the mosaic project website and it hasn't been updated since 2003. she doesn't have it on her cv either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 11:55 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 2:02 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6230 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 24 of 60 (299823)
03-31-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by macaroniandcheese
03-31-2006 1:32 PM


It'll be in the april issue of the american sociological review. They don't even have march available online yet, so should be a month or so.
You could e-mail her for the manuscript.
edited due to silly error
This message has been edited by melatonin, 03-31-2006 03:23 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-31-2006 1:32 PM macaroniandcheese has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 2:41 PM melatonin has replied

  
EZscience
Member (Idle past 5175 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 25 of 60 (299826)
03-31-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Silent H
03-31-2006 5:11 AM


Distrust of atheists
Without disputing your reasoning on this, I can tell you from plenty of personal experience that will soon feel that distrust if you make any public statement of your atheism in this country.
People with conviction about their belief in their god are far more offended by those who believe in NO god than those who simply believe in a different one. This is because they see it is a direct assault on, or denial of, what they view as their moral compass, as opposed to simply an alternate belief system which is far more acceptable to them.
This brings us to the next step in their reasoning that pretty much follows the line of, 'without a comparable belief structure and fear of some god you have no ability to distinguish right from wrong and therefore you must be a deeply evil and untrustworthy person'.
The contrast between the US and Europe is a contrast between a religious society and secular one. Only small pockets of a truly secular society seemingly persist in the US at a time when the rest of the developed world is (wisely) headed in that direction.
This message has been edited by EZscience, 03-31-2006 01:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 5:11 AM Silent H has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 60 (299827)
03-31-2006 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by melatonin
03-31-2006 2:02 PM


quote:
It'll be in the april issue of the american psychological review.
I think it's actually in the American Sociological Review.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 2:02 PM melatonin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 2:57 PM nator has not replied

  
Zhimbo
Member (Idle past 6033 days)
Posts: 571
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 07-28-2001


Message 27 of 60 (299828)
03-31-2006 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
03-31-2006 10:36 AM


I realize statisticians may argue otherwise, but I don't believe there has ever been solid attempts to substantiate such claims
Uhhhhh...other than fundamental probability theory?
While proper sampling is a tricky real-world problem (and I would assume that this group would take appropriate and accepted measures to help ensure this), the theory of proper sample sizes is as well worked out as you get. It *really* doesn't matter that the sample may be a small proportion of the total, it reallly does only depend on the raw sample size.
Given that we only have a press release, we really don't have anything to go on regarding the sampling procedure.
This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 03-31-2006 02:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 10:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Silent H, posted 03-31-2006 6:15 PM Zhimbo has not replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6230 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 28 of 60 (299830)
03-31-2006 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nator
03-31-2006 2:41 PM


Thanks for correcting me Schraf, my bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 03-31-2006 2:41 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-31-2006 3:02 PM melatonin has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 29 of 60 (299831)
03-31-2006 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by melatonin
03-31-2006 2:57 PM


ah. i tried jstoring it and was disappointed. that would explain why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by melatonin, posted 03-31-2006 2:57 PM melatonin has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 30 of 60 (299911)
03-31-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Zhimbo
03-31-2006 2:46 PM


other than fundamental probability theory?
I suggested that no one has ever tried to substantiate that small samples are capable of reflecting accurately a population which is vast and widespread. Its a very practical issue I am raising here.
Lets use a 2000 into 400 million across the NA hemisphere example. The numbers of people and large amount of space allows for a vast number of cultural and subcultural pockets with their own dynamics. The greater number of samples from any specific area represents that area better, but means one sacrifices full representation of another area. And of course that also sacrifices the total number of areas one can sample at all.
Like I said, it can get one a sketch, a very rough outline, but not a very accurate picture. And that's when its done right. When I was learning it, this was known as a potential problem. I've heard statisticians claim it is not, but not seen evidence advanced to support their claims. If there has been some work to show small sampling works on those scales, I'm open to info.
Given that we only have a press release, we really don't have anything to go on regarding the sampling procedure.
I agree and I mentioned that twice in my OP. I have given some certain criticisms (mainly of the article) and many potential criticisms which really need the study to determine if they stand.

holmes
"Some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." (Lovecraft)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Zhimbo, posted 03-31-2006 2:46 PM Zhimbo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by nwr, posted 03-31-2006 6:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024