The following is a discussion to generate a hypothesis and is preliminary and draft. This article does not represent a final or settled conclusion by any means. Comment are welcome. This article may be revised substantially over time. Comparisons among groups or within groups or countries at different points in time are comparisons of frequency distributions.
Vanishing American has an article today, “If America had a front porch … ” on the disappearance of the front porch as a combined neighborhood watch, family and extended family gathering spot, and a place to socialize with the neighborhood. This was done in by air-conditioning and diversity.
Of course in those days we kids could play outdoors until late in the evening, and we were safe; there were always neighbors keeping an eye on things. It was sort of like the neighborhood block watch although we had no concept of that back then; it was just neighbors being neighborly and everybody looking out for each other.
And often the extended family spent time together, so that aunts, uncles, cousins, and various shirttail relatives were coming and going; it made for a household with a lot of activity and excitement.
Vanishing American also points out that some builders and communities are trying to revive front porches in houses. I join VA in calling for this. VA points out enclosed back yards are a step backward from a front porch. Let me also add a plug for the 360 covered porch, or wrap-around porch. A wide wrap-around covered porch is inviting and friendly.
There’s just no getting around the fact that, as political scientist Robert Putnam in his now-famous study found, ‘diversity’, meaning an aggregation of many dissimilar peoples, breaks down social cohesion.
Putnam found that diversity creates distrust even within groups. Or did he? Is what Putnam found that third world immigrants are untrustworthy and are distrusted by both first worlders and other 3rd worlders? Aren’t third worlders distrusted at home when they are uniform as much here?
If we think about European immigrant communities in 1900 in America, were they as distrustful among themselves as 3rd world immigrants are today? Isn’t crime higher now? Weren’t the extended front porches that VA talks about present in urban immigrant communities in 1900 ?
If diversity creates distrust, why wasn’t that discovered in 1900 instead of 2000? Putnam studied the effect of 3rd world immigration into the first world c. 2000. He didn’t study diversity. Putnam proved that 3rd world immigration breaks down the first world and destroys it.
Third world immigration breaks down the community bonds in the first world and prevents first world communities from staying whole and resisting the invasion. This is how we could restate the Putnam conclusions.
Putnam weighted years to disclose his results. Was that because he found the above conclusions and then had to discover a way to spin it? Putnam said his conclusions were racist or implied it. Aren’t the above the real “racist” conclusions that Putnam came to? Didn’t Putnam then have to invent a phrase to cover up what he really found? It took Putnam several years to develop the formulation, diversity creates distrust even within own groups.
But this was really a restatement of his original “racist” finding that third world people are untrustworthy, are distrusted by their own, are distrusted by first worlders, and eventually, in even small percentages, destroy the network of trust and reliance on the competence and good will of strangers that keeps a large modern first world country going at a high level of competence and reliability?
What happens from third world immigration? Cities are unsafe to live in for the first world community. That breaks down the ability of first worlders to socially network. This is what interrupts America’s Front Porch as VA has told us. Was it air conditioning that did us in or was it third world immigration, not first world immigration c. 1900?
Putnam has been criticized for the lag between his initial study and his publication of his article. In 2006, Putnam was quoted in the Financial Times as saying he had delayed publishing the article until he could “develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity” (quote from John Lloyd of Financial Times) 
What proposals did he present? None. Wasn’t it a way to spin the results so they were different than the stark: Third world people are untrustworthy as a matter of fact. Third world people destroy social trust and cohesion for everyone because you can’t rely on competence and honesty from strangers and those you know alike. Third world people never created a first world community because they are incompetent and untrustworthy, and they are bringing that to destroy the first world.
Aren’t those the real Putnam original “racist” conclusions? Isn’t that the plain facts? We have had diversity in America in the 19th century, but that is looked back to with fondness as a time of community, trust, safe for kids to play, and the Golden Age of Front Porches.
If it was just how you build a house, the World Bank could build front porches in the third world. Putnam found it wasn’t the houses, it was the people inside them. That was the “racist” conclusion he had to wait years to figure out how to restate. Putnam’s conclusion that diversity creates distrust is false as VA’s article shows. The Golden Age of Front Porch America includes the 19th century era of diversity. That is the Golden Age of Trust we look back to today.
Putnam lied just like his study said he would. Third world immigration promotes distrust for the simple reason that everyone lies about it because telling the truth about it is “racist”.
Diversity creates distrust. Therefore distrust diversity. This is how Putnam spinned it. But its really distrust third world people here and there. That is the real original racist conclusion Putnam came to. He knows the history of America that Vanishing American points out. It wasn’t 19th century diversity that created the modern distrust and apathy, it was third world immigration.
No doubt others have pointed this out, and I will try to add links as I find them. This article is a hypothesis and not an assertion of a conclusion. Comments are welcome.
==Additional Point the Timing Problem
According to Putnam, after diversity, people become more isolated. But when did Americans manifest this isolation? Was it 1850? Was it 1875? Was it 1900? Was it 1925? Was it 1950? Was it 1975? Or was it 2000? Wiki says the following things happen after the diversity happens first:
Putnam Consequence List:
- Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
- Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s own influence.
- Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
- Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
- Less likelihood of working on a community project.
- Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
- Fewer close friends and confidants.
- Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
- More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”.
Now from Financial Times
Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, “the most diverse human habitation in human history”, but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where “diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”.
Norwegian and Swedish immigration happened in the 19th century. Putnam says that the isolation he finds in communities today happened recently in time. Its “lower”. Lower than when? Lower than at the time of Swedish and Norwegian Immigration.
Putnam is saying at time t1, trust was high and people were not isolated. At time t2, people are isolated and don’t trust. But time t1 is some time like 1950 or 1900. That is the time of high trust. But that is after Norwegian and Swedish immigration. So after the diversity caused by Norwegian and Swedish immigration, we had high trust.
Putnam is comparing the trust that was in existence after Norwegian and Swedish immigration to the trust that exists in 2000 after third world immigration. Putnam finds that after NS immigration, trust is high, and after 3rd world immigration, trust is low.
Didn’t Putnam know that? Isn’t his comment about Norwegians and Swedes a deliberate lie? He had to think up these lies and this is why he didn’t publish right away?
The Putnam Consequences List is about the state of America in 2000 and compares that as bad compared to America in 1950 or 1900. But those are times of diversity from European immigration. So the Putnam Consequences List happened after 3rd world immigration and not after European immigration in the 19th century and up to 1920.
Putnam really found there were good immigrants and bad immigrants. Good immigrants are from Europe and came up to 1920. They created the High Trust Era or were consistent with it. The third world immigrants created the Low Trust Era and destroyed the High Trust Era that followed European immigration. That is the real Putnam conclusion that he had to wait for years to think of how to spin it. He came up with diversity causes distrust even within own community. But as the timing analysis shows, Putnam is spinning, and likely he knows it.
We can also compare at points of time. The High Trust Era in the West, if we use 1900, was better than the third world in 1900. But the third world also got worse after colonization ended. So we can look across the planet at a point in time, and we find the first world has more trust in it than the third world, and we can look at the first world and we find as 3rd world immigration happens, we get lower trust, and in the third world, when Europeans stop running things, trust and competence goes down.
We really get the Third World Trust See-Saw. Third world presence or control goes up, trust goes down. This is true whether its de-colonization in the third world, 3rd world colonization of the first world, or at a point in time between first and third world.
Putnam discovered the Third World Trust See-Saw. That is why he wanted to wait to find “proposals”. This is because Putnam realized the other part of the see-saw: Third world presence goes down, trust goes up. This is the conclusion Putnam wanted to suppress. This is why he lied about Norwegians and Swedes. This is why he delayed his publication. Its the second part of the see-saw that Putnam didn’t want to have people pointing out.
==Putnam Consequences List (PCL) is Consequences of 3rd World Presence
The PCL describes third world presence consequences everywhere. Its the situation in the third world. You see the ads on TV. You are shown people in the 3rd world and told only you can make the difference.
The good people in the TV ad tell you that these 3rd world people are apathetic about their own condition, are isolated in their own communities, and don’t care to help each other. This is what the left says. This is what the left believes. Putnam is a leftist, just one who tells more of the truth than is allowed.
The left thinks third world presence leads to social apathy and the inability to take care of themselves or their communities. That is why the left says you have to take ownership in third world communities. The message of the World Bank, the institution of leftism, is the white man’s burden in a post Christian setting.
The left uniformly says that Katrina is the fault, not of those there, but of Europeans. The left says the problems of every third world people are problems that Europeans must take ownership of for them to be solved. Why? Why can’t third world people take ownership of their own survival? Why are we told that its our money that must be donated, because 3rd world people are too apathetic to improve themselves or their lands or communities, whether here or there?
Putnam is controversial not for saying what no one knew, but for saying in a quotable study half of what everyone knows. Third world people are apathetic, don’t take ownership of their communities, and lack altruism and trustworthiness. When they come here they spread that.
The Left really does believe in the see-saw. They want us to give the third worlders money here and there. They are all for the part of the see-saw that says the first worlders have to take ownership of the problems of the third worlders. They don’t want to finish the sentence, because third world people are apathetic, not altruistic, won’t take ownership of their problems, and are not trustworthy in fact or by anyone who knows them.
Comparison among groups or within groups at different points in time, or within countries at different points in time are comparisons of frequency distributions. There is good and bad in every time and every place and even in every person.
As Steve Sailer points out, a shift of one standard deviation in the mean of a normal distribution creates a much bigger tail on the low end, and a much smaller tail on the high end. This gives two frequency distributions with still substantial overlap in the middle, but which can give rise to vastly different societies.
Graph of two normals shifted from each other.
Some discussion of overlapping normals, with some color diagrams in places of portions of the overlap is here:
===Fareed Zakaria: Affirmative Action in Brazil
Brazil is introducing new laws for affirmative action in Brazil. This is the first time that people have to identify themselves by race according to a film to be broadcast on PBS Wide Angle.
Wide Angle: “Brazil in Black and White”
== Affirmative Action fills government, schools, hospital staffs with a lower frequency distribution of trustworthy people. Let’s look at one of the Stanford psych diagrams of overlapping normals:
Affirmative action is about people who are in the lower shifted frequency distribution, and people in the lower half of it. Those people fill government, schools, hospitals, etc. under affirmative action. One of the Putnam consequences was lower trust in local government:
- Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
After local government goes to affirmative action measures, its filled with the lower half of the lower distribution. Moreover, the federal government skims the top of affirmative action hiring. So local government gets the bottom. National media gets the top of affirmative action hiring. Local media gets the bottom of affirmative action hiring.
So affirmative action results in the top institutions getting the best affirmative action talent, and the other institutions get the worst. The lower tier institutions get the lower half of the already shifted lower distribution. The result is that inequality of institutions goes up. We then see that transmitted to inequality of incomes going up.
The federal government, Harvard, and Morgan Stanley can all survive affirmative action because they can skim off at least moderately capable people. But the other employers get the dregs of affirmative action. Those institutions are then destroyed. The result is then to destroy the communities and all who hire their graduates. This then pushes down all the institutions and employers that are not in the elite.
The federal government, Harvard and Morgan Stanley embrace affirmative action as a way to disable their competitors. The Putnam study was done 36 years after affirmative action. Affirmative Action is about filtering the dregs of the lower distribution into the second and third tier competition to the elite institutions. It has the consequence of destroying the competence and trustworthiness of the second and third tier institutions.
Schools with teachers who can’t teach and principals who don’t care are fine with the private schools and a few elite public suburban schools that skim off the top of the affirmative action distribution. That leaves other schools with the dregs for teachers and principals. The result is they force out competent people and are left with concentrated untrustworthiness. That’s in the schools. They teach the next generation of affirmative action hires. So its a downward spiral. The result is the opposite of 19th century immigration. Third world immigration with affirmative action means a spiral down of the entire society to the third world level in perhaps 3 more generations.
==Sep 4, 2007
A Putnam Article on his study is available for download for a limited period, possibly to Dec 2007.
Scandinavian Political Studies
Volume 30 Issue 2 Page 137-174, June 2007
To cite this article: Robert D. Putnam (2007)
E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture
Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (2), 137–174.
There is a pdf version
Some may want to start reading the article on page 144, the paragraph that starts, “I now present …” Pages 137 to 144 are interesting, but are not the results of the study so much as results of other studies and literature review. The paper from page 144 onwards is less abstract and uses less social science jargon.
==Comments after reading the article
The comments above were written prior to reading the article. First this article is based on an address given in Sweden. So the Norwegian Swedish example was more giving a little local flavor or joke to his talk. Of course, Freud would say that simply brought out what he was worrying about. The MSM have lifted that joke out of context and so made it seem more than it was in their own PC fight or flight fear bubble.
The paper does not appear to have data published with it, which was one criticism made of Putnam when the news of his work began to disseminate. Some economics journals require or prefer data be made available on-line in a form for others to be able to work with. From reading the paper, there does appear to be some more potential interesting (i..e. non-PC) information to be found from the data when and if it becomes available.
Putnam does, lightly, try to address some of the issues of the who is causing diversity, blacks and Latinos, and doesn’t ignore it completely as the MSM have in reporting on his paper. Putnam tries to control for other variables and does include Latino and black id variables in a multiple-regression. Putnam finds that blacks and Latinos are more likely to distrust others from the regression.
He also finds that South Dakotans (i.e. whites) with no experience of blacks and Latinos are more likely to have inter-racial trust than others, white or black or Latino or Asian. (page 147)
He has the data of trust responses by individuals for white, black, Latino, Asian by their trust of others of those groups. He doesn’t tell us specifically who distrusts which races more. San Francisco and Los Angeles have the lowest inter-racial trust.
Putnam’s multiple regression only lightly deals with the issue that its 3rd world immigration that is the problem. Putnam does partly speak openly that its black and Latino immigrants or groups that are at issue here not just immigration per se. The MSM have given a PC filter to the Putnam article in their reporting.