Ray:
Thanks for the resources to investigate. This will take a bit of time.
However, at what point do you say "I don't have the time to duplicate or
generate my own
research to derive a model similar to 11 Nations"? We can not all be
experts in everything. At
some point we must depend on others to have done a "reasonably"
objective job of creating
their model.
I don't know of a formal rubric / algorithm / process by which one
critiques scholarly works
from outside the field. I am sure such tools exist. It looks like you
are showing one below.
I wonder if there is such a process taught in Library Science? Do such
folks need to critique
books as they are published as to the efficacy of adding them to the
local collection?
StephT
On 11/11/2013 11:40 AM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
I would analyze this using the algorithm I learned from my history teacher in
high school - Social, Political, Economic, Moral, Emotional - drawing on openly
available information from the World-Wide Web. In some ways, this is a big
data exercise, albeit drawing from previous big data sources.
Social -
I would start with http://aschmann.net/AmEng/#SmallMapUnitedStates, overlay
that with this -
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg
-
and this -
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html .
The latter two are overly simplistic, like all big data projects, lumping together
disparate groups under one label. A major example is New Mexico - the Wikimedia article
recognizes the Spanish distinction for many counties in New Mexico, but the NYT
(typically racially insensitive) lumps all Hispanics together under the "Latin
America" origin. However, they do seem to show what people believe is their
cultural heritage.
This article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_United_States -
provides a reasonable summary of immigration to the United States. I haven't
yet found a good article about migration within the United States. That is
also important in understanding the resultant cultures.
Political -
I would use a selection of red/blue/other maps starting at the local level up
to state level. If I was being pedantic, I'd go on to analyze the actual votes
of elected officials with respect to party platforms - there are groups who
monitor voting records whose information might be useful. The point being to
show the past and current political atmospheres of the various regions. I
suspect this would find a lot of contradictions - places where the local
politicians are one variety while the national-level are another. This
reflects the changing political atmosphere - voters understand that politicians
in DC gain power with longevity and are reluctant to change even when political
views are not a match.
Economic -
Per-state GDP information plus industry type information plus growth/decline of
both. General categories of industry are also useful - extractive versus
manufacturing, for example. Government spending at all levels is important -
New Mexico is shaped by the Federal spending in this state. That reminds me of
another factor - the percentage of property rights owned by the government
(land, water, mineral, air, et cetera).
Moral -
Crime statistics, trends, criminal/victim demographics, religiosity (numbers of
churches, numbers of churchgoers, church/sect/cult), marriage/divorce rates,
maybe throw some modern-day Kinsey reports into the mix to account for marital
fidelity and extreme deviancy. Opinion poll results about moral issues would
be a major source.
Emotional -
Music -
http://martinprosperity.org/papers/Geography%20of%20Music%20Preferences%20formatted.pdf
Literature is another emotional indicator. I would look at various electronic
media emotional content analysis, but I fear that does not adequately reflect
the total population. Hobbies are a possible emotional indicator - how much
people in a region indulge in hobbies vs not having time or energy or interest
for them, possibly the type of hobby.
The trick is to collect all of this data and then analyze for various
geographic areas, both historical and current, to determine where these change
significantly enough to show a different culture. The analysis should start
with the smallest feasible geographic units and slowly build up if it isn't
stable at that level. If enough variables, maybe 10 out of 100, are different
from one county to the next - they are different enough to be marked as such.
The sub-nations or regions are collections of geographic regions that fit
within a fuzzy filter of themselves. I'd expect that some of the data would
not vary enough to be a major input to this process, while others (language)
have much greater variance. That would lend itself to weighting by variability
of the indicator. Another part of the analysis might look at the variability
of indicators in a region - if that's possible - so that cultures that tolerate
more variability would stand out.
Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [email protected]
SIPR: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder)
JWICS: [email protected] (send NIPR reminder)
On Nov 9, 2013, at 9:37 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Ray -
I agree that (especially with Woodard's attempt to address the Tea Party directly) his
biases do show, but I would still contend that while "tainted" by that, his
general structure is far from invalidated.
Can you provide an alternative geo-political structuring or modifications to
his that you believe are more accurate (or even align with your own biases
better)?
I'm much less interested in the conclusions that Woodard draws from his
framework than the reframing of the conversation it implies. I'm very tired
of the traditional Blue/Grey, Rural/Urban, Coastal/Heartland, North/South,
East/West divisions.... they have their place but do not suffice to explain a
lot and seem to serve mainly to keep us high-centered.
- Steve
PS Response to StephenT in progress...
The concept is tainted by the cultural biases of the author.
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2013 10:27 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [FRIAM] 11 American Nations
An alternative view to the (I can't help but hear it in Dr. Suess'
cadence) Red-State Blue-State version of Murrica. I don't agree with
it in detail but in sweeping generalizations (5.5x less general than
red/blue?) it captures what I know our cultural "melting pot" to be
crufted into:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
