It's Mother Jones, so it screams "tight is BAD!", but still an interesting study.
Here's a link to the publication of the study. LINK (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/15/1317937111.full.pdf)
QuoteForget Red State, Blue State: Is Your State "Tight" or "Loose"?
A new theory about the cultures of different regions could go a long way toward explaining why the United States is so polarized.
—Chris Mooney on Mon. July 7, 2014 6:00 AM PDT
It is obvious to anyone who has traveled around the United States that cultural assumptions, behaviors, and norms vary widely. We all know, for instance, that the South is more politically conservative than the Northeast. And we at least vaguely assume that this is rooted in different outlooks on life.
But why do these different outlooks exist, and correspond so closely to different regions? In a paper recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (and discussed more here), psychologists Jesse R. Harrington and Michele J. Gelfand of the University of Maryland propose a sweeping theory to explain this phenomenon. Call it the theory of "tightness-looseness": The researchers show, through analysis of anything from numbers of police per capita to the availability of booze, that some US states are far more "tight"—meaning that they "have many strongly enforced rules and little tolerance for deviance." Others, meanwhile, are more "loose," meaning that they "have few strongly enforced rules and greater tolerance for deviance."
The 10 tightest states? Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, South Carolina, and North Carolina. The 10 loosest, meanwhile, are California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Vermont. (Notice a pattern here?)
Harrington and Gelfand measure a state's tightness or looseness based on indicators such as the legality of corporal punishment in schools, the general severity of legal sentences, access to alcohol and availability of civil unions, level of religiosity, and the percent of the population that is foreign. But really, that's just the beginning of their analysis. After identifying which states are "tighter" and which are more "loose," the researchers then trace these different outlooks to a range of ecological or historical factors in the states' pasts (and in many cases, lingering into their presents). For as the authors write, tighter societies generally have had to deal with "a greater number of ecological and historical threats, including fewer natural resources, more natural disasters, a greater incidence of territorial threat, higher population density, and greater pathogen prevalence."
That applies nicely to the United States. The "tight" states, it turns out, have higher death rates from heat, storms, floods, and lightning. (Not to mention tornadoes.) They also have higher rates of death from influenza and pneumonia, and higher rates of HIV and a number of other diseases. They have higher child and infant mortality. And then there's external threat: The South, in the Civil War, was defending its own terrain and its own way of life. Indeed, the researchers show a very strong correlation between the percentage of slave-owning families that a state had in the year 1860, and its "tightness" measurement today.
It makes psychological sense, of course, that regions facing more threats would be much more inward-looking and tougher on deviants, because basically, they had to buckle down. They didn't have the luxury of flowery art, creativity, and substance abuse.
Still not done, Harrington and Gelfand also show that their index of states "tightness" and "looseness" maps nicely on to prior analyses of the differing personalities of people living in different US states. Citizens of "tight" states tend to be more "conscientious," prizing order and structure in their lives. Citizens of "loose" states tend to be more "open," wanting to try new things and have new experiences.
Other major distinguishing factors between "tight" and "loose" states:
*Tight states have higher incarceration rates and higher execution rates.
*Tight states have "lower circulation of pornographic magazines."
*Tight states have "more charges of employment discrimination per capita."
*Tight states produce fewer patents per capita, and have far fewer "fine artists" (including "painters, illustrators, writers").
Most striking of all, the authors found "a negative and linear relationship between tightness and happiness" among citizens. Put more simply: People in loose states are happier.
In sum: It's a very interesting theory, and one with quite a scope. Or as the authors put it: "tightness-looseness can account for the divergence of substance abuse and discrimination rates between states such as Hawaii and Ohio, reliably predicts the psychological differences...between Colorado and Alabama, helps to explain the contrasts in creativity and social organization between Vermont and North Dakota, and provides some understanding concerning the dissimilarity in insularity and resistance toward immigration between Arizona and New York."
In these days of extreme political dysfunction, America itself is in increasing need of an explanation. Now, maybe, we have one.
Tiiight, fool! :cool:
Is being black considered "deviant"?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2014, 11:51:43 AM
Is being black considered "deviant"?
Being loose certainly is. -_-
I live in London which is not so much loose as untied.
Dorset on the other hand is tight :wub:
See? I'm not a totalitarian, I'm just tight.
This reminds me of Van Wilder's talk about tighty white's verss boxers.
Norway's both loose and tight, depending on what issue and where you live.
This particular area's fairly mellow and loose in most ways. Except that you're not supposed to be a success.
After taco night, my butt is loose.
So many issues are so extremely correlated with blue/red state and between themselves, that it's really hard to figure out the causal link. You can come up with dozens of driving factors, and all would explain the chasm very well.
Like chica cherry cola.
Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 08:19:01 PM
Like chica cherry cola.
And the cola, soda, pop map! :yes:
In Michigan "Deviant behavior" is not showing up to your job on time or not working your full shift. In Florida "Deviant behavior" is shooting up and practicing nude yoga in the middle of a busy street. I'm suspicious of any conclusions drawn from a study that showed the two states have similar levels tolerances for deviant behavior.
;)
Quote from: Savonarola on July 11, 2014, 07:32:50 AM
In Michigan "Deviant behavior" is not showing up to your job on time or not working your full shift. In Florida "Deviant behavior" is shooting up and practicing nude yoga in the middle of a busy street. I'm suspicious of any conclusions drawn from a study that showed the two states have similar levels tolerances for deviant behavior.
;)
Yeah, I think the presumption of homogeneity within states confuses this issue considerably. Ann Arbor, Michigan, is very loose, as is the western part of the state. The Detroit burbs are tight, as is the eastern part of the state. Miami and southern Florida are pretty tight, but, say, Gainseville and (AFAICT) the north are loose.
No place I've ever been enforces its cultural mores more than the city of San Francisco. So, I think their methods may be a bit flawed.
By that I mean, if you live the SF lifestyle, it's great. But if you cannot or don't want to or for whatever reason must deviate from it, it will be:
1: expensive as hell
or
2: a source of constant aggravation
or
3: aggressively taxed, licensed or sanctioned
or
4: outright illegal
San Francisco--the conformity capital of the USA.
Good point Mimsy.
What is the SF lifestyle? Laying around with the Sea Lions?
Funny story--We were in a nice French restaurant in SF one day (waiting for my wife's passport probably), and this pair of guys were sitting next to us. We caught snips of their conversation here and there. Basically, they had worked together before, software engineers, and one of them had lived in SF for a while working at an incubator. The other guy was visiting.
Visitor: "You look more and more hipster every time I see you".
SF Guy: "This place kinda does that to you." "When in Rome, I guess."
Then SF guy ordered calamari fried to a crisp. I believe "ruined" was the term he used. I guess the assimilation was complete enough that he'd order calamari but not enough to cook it properly. :P
Oh, and SF Guy had a full beard with hair all plastered over to one side, highwater pants, etc. He did indeed look very hipster.
:huh:
I had a full beard till I shaved it into a sweet goatee (that is, I concede, getting a little too long). I have: high testosterone.
I guess the thing is that they must not be including enough things in their definitions of tightness and looseness, and they are misapplying a value to either where they ought not.
Texas has no zoning laws. That's the definition of loose.
Is that good or bad? Depends on whether you like booby bars next to elementary schools. Which Texas has.
Need a license to start a business? Tight. Can't drive in the left lane unless you have a passenger? Tight. Can you build a Barbie theme park in your front yard or produce and sell goats' milk out of your garage? Can you buy vodka on a Sunday?
Independent farmers in Maine have recently rebelled over rules about selling their whole milk to the public. Tight.
It seems to me the tightest places tend to be the ones on highest population density. Which makes sense. As the number of people living together increases, so does the friction between them, and the problems that need rules (or customs) to solve.
But then those concentrated places tend to be the most lefty ones. So, I'm confused. Is tightness even bad?
Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 08:01:33 PM
So many issues are so extremely correlated with blue/red state and between themselves, that it's really hard to figure out the causal link. You can come up with dozens of driving factors, and all would explain the chasm very well.
I always think the best is crowded places v open spaces. Which I think was David Brooks'.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2014, 05:58:59 PM
I guess the thing is that they must not be including enough things in their definitions of tightness and looseness, and they are misapplying a value to either where they ought not.
Texas has no zoning laws. That's the definition of loose.
Is that good or bad? Depends on whether you like booby bars next to elementary schools. Which Texas has.
Need a license to start a business? Tight. Can't drive in the left lane unless you have a passenger? Tight. Can you build a Barbie theme park in your front yard or produce and sell goats' milk out of your garage? Can you buy vodka on a Sunday?
Independent farmers in Maine have recently rebelled over rules about selling their whole milk to the public. Tight.
It seems to me the tightest places tend to be the ones on highest population density. Which makes sense. As the number of people living together increases, so does the friction between them, and the problems that need rules (or customs) to solve.
But then those concentrated places tend to be the most lefty ones. So, I'm confused. Is tightness even bad?
"Harrington and Gelfand measure a state's tightness or looseness based on indicators such as the legality of corporal punishment in schools, the general severity of legal sentences, access to alcohol and availability of civil unions, level of religiosity, and the percent of the population that is foreign."
It isn't just about the presence of any kind of laws.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2014, 06:17:52 PM
"Harrington and Gelfand measure a state's tightness or looseness based on indicators such as the legality of corporal punishment in schools, the general severity of legal sentences, access to alcohol and availability of civil unions, level of religiosity, and the percent of the population that is foreign."
It isn't just about the presence of any kind of laws.
That's pretty much Mimsy's entire point. The authors of the study overlooked aspects of looseness and tightness that didn't fit into their neat little red/blue paradigm.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 11, 2014, 06:05:14 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 08:01:33 PM
So many issues are so extremely correlated with blue/red state and between themselves, that it's really hard to figure out the causal link. You can come up with dozens of driving factors, and all would explain the chasm very well.
I always think the best is crowded places v open spaces. Which I think was David Brooks'.
I agree with that. That kind of correlation seems to be very universal across both cultures and time, and it has the most compelling causation argument.
So the we hate big government types actually love big government. Surprise surprise
Quote from: Tyr on July 11, 2014, 07:03:04 PM
So the we hate big government types actually love big government. Surprise surprise
Only takes one guy to pull the switch on an electric chair.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on July 11, 2014, 04:54:20 PM
Funny story--We were in a nice French restaurant in SF one day (waiting for my wife's passport probably), and this pair of guys were sitting next to us. We caught snips of their conversation here and there. Basically, they had worked together before, software engineers, and one of them had lived in SF for a while working at an incubator. The other guy was visiting.
Visitor: "You look more and more hipster every time I see you".
SF Guy: "This place kinda does that to you." "When in Rome, I guess."
Then SF guy ordered calamari fried to a crisp. I believe "ruined" was the term he used. I guess the assimilation was complete enough that he'd order calamari but not enough to cook it properly. :P
Oh, and SF Guy had a full beard with hair all plastered over to one side, highwater pants, etc. He did indeed look very hipster.
At any rate, here's a bit on SF that seems fairly accurate based on my stint there.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattlynley/23-words-that-have-a-totally-different-meaning-in-san-franci
SF fucking sucks.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 13, 2014, 02:35:05 PM
SF fucking sucks.
From my recollection, SF fucks and sucks. :cool:
Price quote?
Free, you just have to be comfortable with it involving another dude.
MMFs are fun. I assume that's what you mean. :)
I had it clearer before but it seemed to suggest that it was free if you liked getting fucked. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on July 13, 2014, 04:19:15 PM
MMFs are fun. I assume that's what you mean. :)
Gross
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2014, 10:32:33 AM
At any rate, here's a bit on SF that seems fairly accurate based on my stint there.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattlynley/23-words-that-have-a-totally-different-meaning-in-san-franci
I will note that the song "California Love" uses both Cali and Frisco.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 13, 2014, 07:45:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2014, 05:49:53 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 13, 2014, 04:19:15 PM
MMFs are fun. I assume that's what you mean. :)
Gross
Your actual objection is that it's egalitarian.
My actual objection is that it violates the one penis rule.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 13, 2014, 02:35:05 PM
SF fucking sucks.
Bah. Great restaurants, lots of history, decent sports franchises that don't make you retch, awesome funky weather, and you get to watch dozens of people every year kill themselves off a really nice bridge.
History? :unsure:
Sure. Earthquakes, fires, tectonic shifts. Plenty of natural history to be found.
Straight women desperate for dick.
Doubtful. The Bay Area is a huge tech hub.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2014, 09:18:41 PM
Sure. Earthquakes, fires, tectonic shifts. Plenty of natural history to be found.
Lame.
Didn't expect you to be a big "Settlement of the West/Gold Rush" kinda guy.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2014, 09:48:57 PM
Didn't expect you to be a big "Settlement of the West/Gold Rush" kinda guy.
I suppose "a lot of history" must be a very relative thing.
Baltimore actually has nicer history, you can see the shit hole row house Babe Ruth was born in, for example.
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2014, 10:04:44 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2014, 09:48:57 PM
Didn't expect you to be a big "Settlement of the West/Gold Rush" kinda guy.
I suppose "a lot of history" must be a very relative thing.
I suppose so. So there. Nyah
3.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 13, 2014, 10:57:30 PM
Baltimore actually has nicer history, you can see the shit hole row house Babe Ruth was born in, for example.
Lulz, and Frednecksburg chips in.
We do have a ACW battleground and associated park sir.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 13, 2014, 11:15:25 PM
We do have a ACW battleground and associated park sir.
Otto, you live in Fredrickburg VA? Have your ever heard of a family called the "Miners"? A General Miner built a house in Jefferson City in the mid 19th century, before the civil war. I found a reference to his home in an old map, and found a brief description of him a 19th century lawyer's memoirs. The account said he had come from Fredricksburg and became a lawmaker in Jefferson City. The map I found was pretty neat, it showed the fortifications around Jefferson City during the Civil War.
You might mean the family of John Minor, I know a little bit about him (time for shame: I'm associated w/the Fredericksburg Historic Foundation), primarily in that his massive mansion and estate, Hazel Hill, was a very prominent FBurg landmark up until the mid-19th century. All I know about Minor himself is he was a Revolutionary War soldier who was later a Brig. General in the Virginia militia in the War of 1812, and that he served in the State legislature. He's buried here also, and if you ever walk the cemetery his is a very prominent and easily noticed grave.
Hazel Hill would probably be one of the old mansions involved in the various tours if it stood to this day, but it was destroyed in the Battle of Fredericksburg, rebuilt, and then torn down again for reasons that are unclear.
Quote from: garbon on July 13, 2014, 09:16:37 PM
History? :unsure:
Read all about it:
http://www.amazon.com/El-Presidio-San-Francisco-1776-1846/dp/0870622390
Though I guess I should note it is only 230 pages long.
Does it tell you who shot who in the Embarcadero in August 1879?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 14, 2014, 08:58:39 AM
You might mean the family of John Minor, I know a little bit about him (time for shame: I'm associated w/the Fredericksburg Historic Foundation), primarily in that his massive mansion and estate, Hazel Hill, was a very prominent FBurg landmark up until the mid-19th century. All I know about Minor himself is he was a Revolutionary War soldier who was later a Brig. General in the Virginia militia in the War of 1812, and that he served in the State legislature. He's buried here also, and if you ever walk the cemetery his is a very prominent and easily noticed grave.
Hazel Hill would probably be one of the old mansions involved in the various tours if it stood to this day, but it was destroyed in the Battle of Fredericksburg, rebuilt, and then torn down again for reasons that are unclear.
Thanks, I had seen it written "Minor" and "Miner". This is what I found about him.
http://books.google.com/books?id=JqosAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA335&lpg=PA335&dq=%22general+minor%22+Jefferson+City&source=bl&ots=d_5gwHBu-_&sig=bNU9qFLIHKtnGxBQnF2saDfaAOE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zuPDU-qhH4adyATwuoCQDA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22general%20minor%22%20Jefferson%20City&f=false
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 13, 2014, 09:15:03 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 13, 2014, 02:35:05 PM
SF fucking sucks.
Bah. Great restaurants, lots of history, decent sports franchises that don't make you retch, awesome funky weather, and you get to watch dozens of people every year kill themselves off a really nice bridge.
They are raising money for a suicide net on the Golden Gate. Seriously.
Is suicide prevention a bad thing?
I don't think anyone is going to decide not to kill themselves because they hear that there is a net on the Golden Gate bridge.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
I don't think anyone is going to decide not to kill themselves because they hear that there is a net on the Golden Gate bridge.
The first article I found said something like they had research that showed suicides in general were down in areas where bridges got nets. Didn't pay enough attention to see if that claim had any validity.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
I don't think anyone is going to decide not to kill themselves because they hear that there is a net on the Golden Gate bridge.
Even if that's true, if they still go for an alternative method that's less deadly (I would imagine that pretty much any other method except maybe by gun is), that's still a win.
Quote from: DGuller on July 14, 2014, 05:05:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 04:45:25 PM
I don't think anyone is going to decide not to kill themselves because they hear that there is a net on the Golden Gate bridge.
Even if that's true, if they still go for an alternative method that's less deadly (I would imagine that pretty much any other method except maybe by gun is), that's still a win.
Apparently for people who are contemplating suicide the means of doing the act plays a big role in their decision. Also there are hundreds of people who are prevented from killing themselves by jumping off the bridge. A very small percentage of those people later go on to kill themselves through other means. So, once again, we can all be thankful Grumbler is not in a position of authority.
It was always an easy call on the Key Bridge when it came to jumpers; by the time we got an officer up there on the report of a stopped vehicle, if they were still on the bridge they weren't jumping. They'd waste 3 hours with the negotiator, but they never went.
Just an abandoned car? They knew they were going to do it the moment they stopped traffic and got out.
"Mr. Smith, this is Lt. Nightstick. We have bad news; apparently your wife took her life after she got out of her car on the Key Bridge."
"Where's the car?"
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
Apparently for people who are contemplating suicide the means of doing the act plays a big role in their decision.
I like Kyle Kinane's approach to a suicide; jumping off a building, but in flippers and a snorkel and landing on the concrete next to a full glass of water. Suicide, or the world's worst stunt? The world would never know.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 14, 2014, 05:59:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
Apparently for people who are contemplating suicide the means of doing the act plays a big role in their decision.
I like Kyle Kinane's approach to a suicide; jumping off a building, but in flippers and a snorkel and landing on the concrete next to a full glass of water. Suicide, or the world's worst stunt? The world would never know.
Performance art. He was very commited.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 01:31:12 PM
Is suicide prevention a bad thing?
Yes. Stop being such a totalitarian.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 14, 2014, 05:50:43 PM
Apparently for people who are contemplating suicide the means of doing the act plays a big role in their decision. Also there are hundreds of people who are prevented from killing themselves by jumping off the bridge. A very small percentage of those people later go on to kill themselves through other means. So, once again, we can all be thankful Grumbler is not in a position of authority.
Makin' shit up as ya please, just like the song says, huh?
I'd be willing to bet that places that don't even have bridges like the Golden Gate have about the same suicide rate as places that do. So, once again, we can all be thankful that cRazy cAnuck isn't a smart enough lawyer to do any actual harm with his little fictions.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:20:42 PM
I'd be willing to bet that places that don't even have bridges like the Golden Gate have about the same suicide rate as places that do.
Well that's a rather vague statement. Clearly suicide rate varies and so yes, there are probably some places that have just as high a suicide rate as SF but I'm not sure what that tells us.
Quote from: garbon on July 14, 2014, 11:44:34 PM
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:20:42 PM
I'd be willing to bet that places that don't even have bridges like the Golden Gate have about the same suicide rate as places that do.
Well that's a rather vague statement. Clearly suicide rate varies and so yes, there are probably some places that have just as high a suicide rate as SF but I'm not sure what that tells us.
I think that it tells us that there is nothing about the bridge that causes people to commit suicide, and so suicide nets (which I think are a good idea, but not because they will lower the suicide rate overall) won't actually prevent suicide in SF, just change its form.
Quote from: grumbler on July 14, 2014, 11:20:42 PM
I'd be willing to bet that places that don't even have bridges like the Golden Gate have about the same suicide rate as places that do. So, once again, we can all be thankful that cRazy cAnuck isn't a smart enough lawyer to do any actual harm with his little fictions.
Holy confounding there. There are so many factors that determine suicide rates, and access to effective suicide methods being just one of them. You'll have to control for all those other factors before you can reach such a conclusion.
Quote from: grumbler on July 15, 2014, 06:28:16 AM
I think that it tells us that there is nothing about the bridge that causes people to commit suicide, and so suicide nets (which I think are a good idea, but not because they will lower the suicide rate overall) won't actually prevent suicide in SF, just change its form.
Again, I think you may be wrong here, on two counts actually. First of all, people rarely try suicide more than once. Therefore, a failed first attempt may be the only attempt. One of the ways to prevent suicides is to make the first attempt really ineffective (one of the reasons why guns are deadly is that they make people very successful on their first suicide attempt, before they can get help). Another reason is that stories about people jumping off the bridge may be contagious, and push marginally stable people to copycat them.
You know, if they add nets that might encourage people to jump for fun.
They could have avoided all the people committing suicide from the Golden Gate Bridge if they just made it lower. Then all the jumpers would have survived the fall, only to be swept out to sea in the icy water to be devoured by sharks.
NOBODY wants to die by sharks.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 07:17:56 AM
You know, if they add nets that might encourage people to jump for fun.
It seems like it would be fair to fine said people. Emergency services ain't cheap.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 07:17:56 AM
You know, if they add nets that might encourage people to jump for fun.
I envision the name of that fad to be: "netting".