Actually, I was noting the East-coast (maybe bi-coastal) biases. Like the New York Times I mentioned in my algorithm email, there is a tendency to gloss over differences that don't appear to be big from the distance of folks like the author. Another example, besides the Hispanic lumping, is that he attributes mixed voting patterns in the Midwest to social moderation rather than conflict between economic and moral interests. Archie Bunker still exists in the Midwest (or at least his descendants) espousing both conservative and liberal views simultaneously. Conservative because he/she (Archie/Archette?) believes in gun rights, religion, and other socially conservative issues but liberal because he/she knows that unions are economically important to their welfare. That, by the way, may be another source of data for the analysis - union membership (possibly down to the individual union) in geographic regions.
The lumping of geographic diversity into 11 sub-nations also ignores niche cultures that have a disproportional effect on their surroundings. Dan Arielly notes in _Predictably_Irrational_ that people tend to make decisions that are more "moral" if they are reminded of the Ten Commandments just before making that decision. Groups like Mennonites, Amish, and Quakers in the Midwest tend to remind their neighbors of traditional values out of proportion to their numbers. Native Americans have a disproportional presence in some professions, including the military and construction. Hispanics in general, but particularly those several generations from immigration or occupation, tend to have a disproportional presence in the military - so much that they make the military's average height slightly shorter and average weight slightly greater. Another example of bi-coastal bias is the concatenation of much of Texas into Greater Appalachia while separating eastern New Mexico from West Texas. I would attribute this to a lack of historical and regional knowledge. In the Tufts magazine article, Woodard states "It was with the Union in the Civil War." That is clearly erroneous - Texas was part of the CSA, as was Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Not only that, Nortenos are centered on the Rio Grande Valley - while eastern New Mexico was partitioned between Nueva Mexico and Tejas, neither really had any use for it. Nowadays, eastern New Mexico is clearly more closely related to west Texas than to the rest of New Mexico. Woodard's map would indicate that Congressional District 2 should be Democratic but it remains staunchly Republican, like it's Texas neighbors. All of these considerations are glossed over by an author who assesses the 11 sub-nations by his own culture and politics. Actually, now that I look at the Tufts article, I realize that Woodard's descriptions have as much bases as a typical astrology breakdown. The description of Yankeedom is laughable if one knows history. The extent of Yankeedom is just as silly - Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and North Dakota have little to do, culturally and ethnically, with New England. Woodard also doesn't know the history of Pennsylvania - William Penn was a Quaker and he welcomed others, but he also welcomed Mennonites and Amish, who eventually outnumbered the Society of Friends. I highly doubt that the entire South was founded by English slave lords from Barbados. Some of the excess English population from Barbados moved to Carolina - but I doubt they were "slave lords". In fact, Carolina's Lord Proprietors included Anthony Ashley Cooper, a patron of John Locke, who was the most involved in early Carolina. This reflects Woodard's prejudice against the South. The whole concept is rife with revisionist history intended to support the areas most friendly to the author's political views while denigrating the areas least friendly to his views. The cultural demography of the US is not that simple - there are contradicting patterns everywhere and cultures are not necessarily adjacent. 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 10, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: > ST - >> >> Ouch. Its uncomfortable when you hold up a description of America....by >> making us look in the mirror. >> Ol' Pogo was right. (We have met the enemy and he is ...). Rant away, my >> good man. > You are welcome ;^)! >> >> You have thought deeper on this than I have. My attraction to the 11 >> Nations Model is its nuances that >> I would not have been able to find - even if I could do the research. > Certainly it was the product of someone who spends their life in such > pursuits. Whether any one of us might align with his biases (I think Ray was > referring to the clear anti-Tea sentiments he very clearly used the model to > support when he said biases). I *hope* some (Ray, ???) who are more > naturally aligned with the Conservatives, more likely to be at least > partially understanding of the Tea-party line would weigh in on the model and > offer alternatives to some of the perspectives it offers. I think it is a > good model and that it reflects much of what is good as well as what is > questionable about the posture of each region.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
============================================================ 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
