Tag Archives: perceptions

Social profiling of McMansion owners?

Posted on by

The mayor of an Australian town suggests that some residents are profiled because they live in McMansions:

HILLS Mayor Greg Burnett challenged Prime Minister Julia Gillard last week to meet struggling families and businesses from the Hills.

The mayor set the challenge on the Ben Fordham show on 2GB last Wednesday in response to the Prime Minister’s suggestion that Sydney’s north shore was out of touch.

“It’s social profiling and it’s similar to comments made regarding our area when they talk about McMansions and our levels of income,” he said.

“We have the highest proportion of families with mortgages than anywhere in the country and parents working 70 to 80 hours per week.

As I’ve suggested before, there isn’t really an acceptable quick comeback if someone accuses you of living in a McMansion. Such claims tend to put the owner in a defensive position. It is common to hear people make comments about McMansion owners, not only because of their perceived wealth but because of their bad architectural taste, their disinterest in community life (particularly in teardown situations), and how their purchases help feed into large social problems like sprawl and consuming too much.

The most support McMansion owners get tends to come in more wealthy communities with a critical mass of larger and more expensive houses. It is in these places where teardowns are not always seen negatively and property rights are more important in public discourse and regulations. These communities often have zoning that at least allows, if not encourages, the construction of McMansions. But from the outside, these communities can be viewed as exclusive as it requires a decent amount of money to live there and some communities actively work to keep certain housing and people (anything that might harm property values) out.

However, it might be going too far to suggest that McMansion owners are deserving of pity. After all, these tough economic times mean that there are plenty of people experiencing financial difficulties. These days, McMansions (and there owners) are a favorite whipping boy. See this example from a comment about a Atlanta Journal Constitution story about debt:

It’s because everyone wanted the McMansion ($300K). Then you had to have the Cadallic Escalade (40K)…to impress the neighbors.

And there were numerous housewifes who LOVE to shop and don’t work…

There is not much support for McMansion owners today…

What is the future of Facebook if half of Americans think it is a fad?

Posted on by

A new survey reveals some controversy in how long Americans think Facebook will last:

Half of Americans think Facebook is a passing fad, according to the results of a new Associated Press-CNBC poll. And, in the run-up to the social network’s initial public offering of stock, half of Americans also say the social network’s expected asking price is too high…

The public overall is similarly divided on the company’s future. Just under half of adults (46 percent) predict a short timeline for Facebook, while 43 percent say it has staying power.

I’m not sure why we should think that average Americans should be experts on the value of Facebook’s IPO but the questions about the staying power of Facebook are pretty fascinating. I wonder what exactly it means that people call Facebook a fad: does that mean it is too popular (this could go along with the idea that Facebook is overvalued) or that it will someday disappear (maybe replaced, maybe simply fades away)? These are two very different options: Facebook’s membership numbers will probably level off at some point but that is very different than suggesting Facebook may not be around in ten years.

To me, these figures suggest several things:

1. The IPO could be a very important turning point for Facebook, perhaps akin of a transition from young adulthood to becoming a mature company. Will the company continue to grow or is this the beginning of the end (particularly in public perceptions)?

2. There is still room for Facebook to become more integrated into the daily life of people, particularly older Americans. Perhaps the number of users can’t increase all that much but the time one spends on Facebook can.

3. Facebook still needs to show a certain segment of the population that it is “worthwhile” and not just a “fad. “I’m not sure exactly what this would look like. It could include giving Facebook more functions so that more online activity, like shopping (though respondents to this survey are not very favorable about the idea of giving Facebook this data), takes place through Facebook. Or perhaps it includes convincing people that the social interaction on Facebook is now how normal social interaction takes place.

On the whole, this means that there is a lot for Facebook still to do.

When do Americans think midlife begins?

Posted on by

A new sociological study examines when Americans think midlife begins:

The topic intrigued the 41-year-old associate professor of sociology at Florida State’s Pepper Institute on Aging and Public Policy (who views herself as middle-age, by the way) because “there are so few clear markers of its boundaries, unlike adulthood or old age.” Few studies have examined people’s views of middle age compared to young adulthood or old age.

So Barrett and graduate student Erica Toothman combed through two waves of nationally representative data collected in the United States in 1995-1996 and 2004-2006 that examined how various factors influence people’s views of the timing of middle age…

Here are some key findings:

• Both women and men view the start and end of middle age as occurring earlier for women than for men, consistent with the argument that a “double standard of aging” exists that disadvantages women.
• Younger adults tend to see middle age as occurring at younger ages than do older adults. In other words, as people grow older, they tend to see this life stage as occurring later.
• People who are more socioeconomically disadvantaged or belong to racial or ethnic minority groups tend to view this stage as occurring earlier than do their peers.
• Others likely to view middle age as occurring earlier include those in poor health, those who began families young, those who are divorced, and those without living parents…

According to Barrett’s research, most people think of middle age as beginning at 44 and ending at 60.

This seems particularly interesting in a youth-obsessed culture. Acknowledging that one might be in midlife means that one also has to acknowledge that their youth is over. Does this bring along ideas about not being as important in society and needing to step aside or to help the younger generation? A range from 44 to 60 is quite narrow – this means that only roughly 16 out of the 80 expected years of life are in the middle.

While Barrett there are few markers that signify midlife, I can think of at least two common markers of midlife in American culture today.

1. Having children. This often signifies something about responsibility and now needing to take care of another person.

2. Reaching milestone birthdays like a 30th or 40th. Just go check out the “humorous” cards available for these milestones to see what popular perceptions are about these days.

Overall, this research seems to be part of a larger push among sociologists to look for the cultural markers of certain life periods. For example, there has been a lot of discussion and research about the boundaries between being a teenager and adult, giving rise to talk of a new liminal period called “emerging adulthood.” These markers and life periods will certainly change as society changes.

Sociologist argues that there aren’t as many high-paying high-tech jobs as people think

Posted on by

While commentators suggest that college students should pursue high-tech careers, a sociologist argues that there aren’t as many jobs in this sector as people think:

Finally, it is a big mistake to think that the tech sector is a panacea for the jobs crisis. University of Michigan professor of business and sociology Gerald Davis has examined the data and found that the job-producing high-tech’s potential is consistently overplayed.

“Although the handful of teen billionaires who manage to cash in on the latest app may suggest otherwise, surprisingly few people actually work in the high-visibility success stories of the tech economy,” Davis writes in an article to be presented at the American Sociological Association meeting. “The combined global workforces of Google (32,467), Apple (63,300), Facebook (3000), Microsoft (90,000), Cisco (71,825), and Amazon.com (56,200) — 316,792 as of the end of 2011 — are smaller than the U.S. workforce of [grocery chain] Kroger (339,000). Notably, a recent survey of college graduates under 40 found than one in five listed Google as their most preferred employer, followed by Apple and Facebook. They might as well have chosen the NBA as Facebook, given the firm’s minuscule employment, and Apple’s recent surge in net jobs is almost entirely attributable to the roll-out of its retail stores, where most of its current employees work. The Computer and Electronic Products industry has seen a loss of 750,000 jobs since 2000 as production has been almost universally offshored. But even the Information Services sector, which includes telecommunications, broadcasting, publishing and data processing, shed over one million jobs during the same period.”

It sounds like aspirations and the number of available jobs don’t line up. Some could argue that there are plenty of smaller high-tech firms and start-ups along with plenty of opportunities for entrepreneurship but I’m guessing plenty of young adults would want to work for established (and cool!) companies.

Others have argued that people in or going to college should look at what jobs are going to popular in the future, presumably to avoid industries that are losing jobs. But what commentator would discourage young people from going into the high-tech sector even though they would quickly recommend steering clear of liberal arts degrees?

NATO blunder or deep-seated Chicago wish to be recognized as the capital of Illinois

Posted on by

I know a lot of people were having fun at NATO’s expense yesterday after it made several errors in a video ahead of the upcoming summit in Chicago. One of them was particularly interesting:

A video about Chicago posted Thursday on the website of NATO’s in-house television news network, Natochannel.tv, could leave leaders fumbling the facts at the international water cooler.

First, there’s the matter of Illinois’ capital city.

“More than 60 heads of state and government will meet to discuss crucial matters of security and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” a narrator’s voice says as the five-minute video plays panning shots of Chicago. “And so, the leaders of the member nations of the organization created by the 1949 Washington Treaty will meet in the capital of Illinois this time.”

What in the name of Abraham Lincoln? The summit was moved to Springfield?

While the capital of Illinois is indeed Springfield, I wonder if this doesn’t hint at a secret wish of Chicagoans for the city, whose region has roughly 70% of the state’s population, to be the actual capital. As the most populous city as well as the economic powerhouse for the state, why not simply move the government operations there as well? Doesn’t Chicago effectively function as the capital anyway? Now I know official state business takes place in Springfield but think about the power and influence politicians from the Chicago area wield. Think of the economic impact Chicagoland has on the state. Think of the images many Chicago area residents have of those who live “downstate.”

An argument could also be made about the need to move capitals to reflect changing realities. Springfield wasn’t the first capital in Illinois and the earlier capitals were all further south, reflecting where the population of the state was at the time. Indeed, Chicago was a small community into the late 1830s and northeastern Illinois was relatively unsettled compared to the rich farmland further south. Geographically, Springfield made sense. I think you may be able to apply some of this geographic logic to a few other state capitals as well such as Albany compared to New York City and Sacramento compared to Los Angeles or San Francisco. Going even further, Washington D.C. emerged as a new city because of a compromise between different factions (Alexander Hamilton’s wished for the nation’s capital to be a big city, New York City specifically). Imagine what a powerhouse New York City could be in global city rankings if it also had Washington D.C.’s share of governmental influence? (Ironically, the United Nations, the foremost global governance organization, is based in New York City even as the capital of the United States is not.)

Granted, you would expect an organization like NATO to get the capital of Illinois correct. But perhaps their error simply reflects what Chicago leaders think…

Trayvon Martin case: social problems still present in gated communities

Posted on by

An academic expert on “place-based crime prevention” talks about the role the gated community might have had on the Trayvon Martin case:

The answer is, according to Schneider, that there are no easy answers. “It’s hard to make a generalization,” he tells me, pointing out that there are many different types of gated communities catering to all parts of the economic and social spectrum. Some of them are walkable; some are not. Some are racially mixed (as is the Retreat at Twin Lakes), and some are not. Some are relatively affordable — you can find gated trailer parks – and some are filled with McMansions. Many of them are indistinguishable from any other suburban neighborhood. Did the built environment play a role in Martin’s death? Add it to the list of things we can never really know for sure about this terrible case.

As for whether gated communities deliver on one of their main selling points — protection from crime — Schneider says that research to date has been inconclusive. “It’s not a panacea,” he says about erecting gates. “You’re just as likely to be burgled by your next-door neighbor, especially if there are teenagers.” Criminals from outside are also quick to figure out how to get in. “They learn the code from the pizza guy,” says Schneider. “The effects of gating decay over time.”

Gated communities exploded in popularity in the United States during the end of the 20th century, but Schneider points out that they are an old phenomenon. “We used to call them castles,” he says.

Here is the conclusion to this article:

If the case of Trayvon Martin has shown us anything, it’s that a society’s problems — inequity, racism, and fear among them — have no problem getting through the gates.

Even if social problems do end up affecting gated communities, academics tend to argue that people buy into and want to live in these communities because they perceive them to be safer. This supports a classic sociological axiom: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” Realistically, while these communities are said to be “gated,” they are rarely as restrictive as castles could be and are often fairly open to people who want to pass through. I wonder if these communities would be better off to get rid of the gates (in whatever form they take) and simply build their development in a more inaccessible place, such as a location that only has an entrance to a busy road (cuts off pedestrian traffic) or is located in a wealthy or out-of-way area (which limits vehicular traffic).

Why don’t we collect data to see whether we have become more rude or uncivil rather than rely on anecdotes?

Posted on by

NPR ran a story the other day about how American culture is becoming more casual and less polite. This is not an uncommon story: every so often, different news organizations will run something similar, often focusing on the decreasing use of manners like saying “please” and “you’re welcome.” Here is the main problem I have with these articles: what kind of data could we look at to evaluate this argument? These stories tend to rely on experts who provide anecdotal evidence or their own interpretation. In this piece, these are the three experts: “a psychiatrist and blogger,” “a sophomore at the College of Charleston — in the South Carolina city that is often cited as one of the most courteous in the country,” and “etiquette maven Cindy Post Senning, a director of the Emily Post Institute in Burlington, Vt.”

There is one data point cited in this story:

Research backs up Smith’s anecdotal observations. In 2011, some 76 percent of people surveyed by Rasmussen Reports said Americans are becoming more rude and less civil.

Interestingly, this statistic is about perceptions. Perceptions may be more important than reality in many social situations. But I could imagine another scenario about these perceptions: older generations tend to think that younger generations (often their children and grandchildren?) are less mannered and don’t care as much about social etiquette. As this story suggests, perhaps the manners are simply changing – instead of saying “you’re welcome,” younger people give the dreaded “sure.”

There has to be some way to measure this. It would be nice to do this online or in social media but the problem is that face-to-face rules don’t apply there. Perhaps someone has recorded interactions at McDonald’s or Walmart registers? In whatever setting a researcher chooses, you would want to observe a broad range of people to look for patterns by age, occupation, gender, race, education level (though some of this would have to come through survey or interview data with the people being observed).

In my call for data, I am not disagreeing with the idea that traditional manners and civility have decreased. I just want to see data that suggests this rather than anecdotes and observations from a few people.

“Scientists and scientific studies have a minimal effect on public opinion” about global warming

Posted on by

While one might think that scientific data and reports are convincing, a sociologist argues that these matter little in the debate over global warming:

“Scientists and scientific studies have a minimal effect on public opinion,” says Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle, lead author of a new climate attitude study in the Climatic Change journal. “What really drives public opinion on climate change are the ways that political elites describe the science.”…

In the current Climatic Change journal, Brulle and colleagues looked at 74 public opinion surveys from 2002 to 2010, in a bid to figure out the contradiction in opinions between experts and everyone else…

“The science doesn’t matter because the science isn’t the real issue,” Brulle adds. “It’s about politics and money.” All we have with climate change, he suggests, is politicians taking sides in an economic debate over whether we should spend money to address climate change, or not (with one side very strongly opposed), and hiding behind a smokescreen of debate about settled science to avoid making those issues clear.

Brulle is suggesting that instead of debating how much we should respond to global warming (which seems like an interesting debate to have in itself), the debate has turned to the credibility of the actual science. So if conservatives admit that there is warming, then they would have to admit that money needs to be spent on fighting it and they don’t want to do that? There seem to be two issues here: the actual data and then the value judgments about what should be done.

I’ve been seeing reports on Brulle’s findings for several months now. If he is correct, are politicians taking notes about how to change public debates? At the same time, I imagine it is more difficult to make the case for spending money on environmental concerns with such economic issues (see the Keystone pipeline debate).

I wonder if there are other areas where there is something similar going on and scientific studies have little impact. If there is a common view that science is the province of liberals and elitists, how many people will trust what it has to say?

TMQ takes apart “police procedurals” (otherwise known as crime shows)

Posted on by

After some analysis of the Super Bowl, Tuesday Morning Quarterback gets down to his real business of dissecting “police procedurals.” Here are some points I appreciated:

Television is swamped in police dramas. During a recent week, 14 of the 45 Big Three prime-time hours were crime shows. Except they no longer are called that — the genre is now “procedurals.” In theory this means the shows depict police procedure. In practice, being a procedural means a formula. Here it is…[a 15 point formula follows]

On TV, cops exist in constant jeopardy of life and limb. This, though “most police officers retire at the end of a 20- or 25-year career without ever having fired a weapon other than at the practice range.” Despite the bullets ricocheting around them, TV detectives are NEVER frightened. Most are spoiling to charge headlong into obvious danger…

But isn’t the violence realism? In the world of TV, murder and mayhem are an epidemic. Actually crime is in generation-long cycle of decline. Today, strollers are safer in Central Park after dark than in the 1950s. Last year, Central Park averaged slightly more than one robbery a month, versus two robberies a day a generation ago. Yet on procedurals, crime is getting worse. This plays to preconceived notions about the nation falling apart, especially such notions held by senior citizens, who watch a lot of television.And on procedurals, the police always catch the bad guy. Actually a significant number of homicides are never solved, while most burglaries never even lead to an arrest. Of course, procedurals are just Hollywood nonsense. But procedurals get it wrong both ways: making crime seem more common than it is, but also making crime seem never to pay.

Lots of good material here.

One might say that this doesn’t matter, people clearly know what is entertainment on television and they don’t mistake police shows for what actually happens. But I would argue that this is not the case: most people’s knowledge about police work and crime likely comes from the mass media, particularly depictions on television and in movies. Crime rates are going down yet one wouldn’t know it from its rising popularity on TV. Serial killers are uncommon except on television. Children are rarely abducted except on television. These shows and movies aim to trigger emotional reactions (as TMQ notes, the grisliness of the crimes is often shocking) and fearful responses.

A silly and yet illustrative example from my own life: where I hear news that someone was killed during the day, I have a hard time reconciling this with media images I’ve seen for years that murders tend to take place in stormy situations. While the storms in shows and movies might be more metaphorical than anything else, I have this idea in my head that this is when killing happens. I would guess there is not much data to back this up but this is an idea that has stuck with me even though it was never clearly expressed to me. Violent crime = bad weather.

If we expect citizens to be able to discuss and vote intelligently about important topics like crime and punishment (and have no doubt, we like to punish people), how can this happen if television is painting a heavily slanted story? I wouldn’t suggest that television needs to be completely realistic but at the same time, common images have a cultural power that is difficult to counteract.

Naperville downtown like “Rush street west”?

Posted on by

In response to the stabbing death that happened in downtown Naperville this past weekend, one city councilman suggests the city needs to enforce liquor regulations more closely:

Councilman Doug Krause pointed out that the city has only shut down one bar for one day in the past five years due to a liquor license infraction, and that an ordinance passed last month will allow bars to stop serving food at 9 p.m.

“It’s becoming more of a Rush Street after 10 o’clock at night — it’s like Rush Street west,” Krause said Sunday night. “It’s been increasing over the last eight to 10 years. There are mobs out there.”…

“We had over 6,000 calls for police service in downtown Naperville last year. The problem is an enforcement problem,” Krause said referring to liquor law enforcement.

Councilman Grant Wehrli disagreed with Krause, calling his response a “knee jerk reaction to an event that is still under investigation.”

This sort of reaction is something I was expecting even though Naperville is a relatively safe place.

At the same time, this does lead to a larger issue that I hinted at on Sunday: how Naperville wants to balance being a cultural and entertainment center while also remaining family-friendly. On one side, having a lot of bars in a suburban downtown is not usually considered family-friendly. Particularly on warm summer nights, there are a lot of people who congregate in downtown Naperville late into the evening, including many teenagers and families, to partake of music, shopping, the Riverwalk, and family restaurants and eateries. This sort of violence is not clearly not helpful to maintaining this environment but even public drunkenness is not terribly conducive to this.

On the other hand, having a thriving restaurant and bar district can bring in a lot of tax revenue. Instead of residents going elsewhere (perhaps downtown Chicago even?), they spend their money out in downtown Naperville. Lots of suburban communities would love to have the problem that Naperville has had of not having enough parking spaces for all of the downtown visitors or having the kind of restaurants that exist in most suburbs only in shopping centers. The restaurants and bars help attract other businesses.

So how does a well-respected suburb balance these two interests? One of the worst things that could happen to the downtown is that it is branded “unsafe” and people turn away. At the same time, when there are plenty of people around and there is alcohol involved, it is really hard to stop everything bad from happening.