The World’s Most and Least Racially-Tolerant Countries

A map of the world’s most and least racially-tolerant countries. Read the methodology of the study, and its conclusion, here. The analysis was as follows:

• Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant. People in the survey were most likely to embrace a racially diverse neighbor in the United Kingdom and its Anglo former colonies (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and in Latin America. The only real exceptions were oil-rich Venezuela, where income inequality sometimes breaks along racial lines, and the Dominican Republic, perhaps because of its adjacency to troubled Haiti. Scandinavian countries also scored high.

• India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Hong Kong by far the least tolerant.In only three of 81 surveyed countries, more than 40 percent of respondents said they would not want a neighbor of a different race. This included 43.5 percent of Indians, 51.4 percent of Jordanians and an astonishingly high 71.8 percent of Hong Kongers and 71.7 percent of Bangladeshis.

• Wide, interesting variation across Europe. Immigration and national identity are big, touchy issues in much of Europe, where racial make-ups are changing. Though you might expect the richer, better-educated Western European nations to be more tolerant than those in Eastern Europe, that’s not exactly the case. France appeared to be one of the least racially tolerant countries on the continent, with 22.7 percent saying they didn’t want a neighbor of another race. Former Soviet states such as Belarus and Latvia scored as more tolerant than much of Europe. Many in the Balkans, perhaps after years of ethnicity-tinged wars, expressed lower racial tolerance.

• The Middle East not so tolerant. Immigration is also a big issue in this region, particularly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which often absorb economic migrants from poorer neighbors.

• Racial tolerance low in diverse Asian countries. Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where many racial groups often jockey for influence and have complicated histories with one another, showed more skepticism of diversity. This was also true, to a lesser extent, in China and Kyrgyzstan. There were similar trends in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.

• South Korea, not very tolerant, is an outlier. Although the country is rich, well-educated, peaceful and ethnically homogenous – all trends that appear to coincide with racial tolerance – more than one in three South Koreans said they do not want a neighbor of a different race. This may have to do with Korea’s particular view of its own racial-national identity as unique – studied by scholars such as B.R. Myers – and with the influx of Southeast Asian neighbors and the nation’s long-held tensions with Japan.

• Pakistan, remarkably tolerant, also an outlier. Although the country has a number of factors that coincide with racial intolerance – sectarian violence, its location in the least-tolerant region of the world, low economic and human development indices – only 6.5 percent of Pakistanis objected to a neighbor of a different race. This would appear to suggest Pakistanis are more racially tolerant than even the Germans or the Dutch.

Note that there are many caveats to keep in mind: for example, different societies have different perceptions of race (certain social, religious, and sectarian groups may be perceived unfavorably as distinct races) or may have no concept of race at all. Similarly, there is a difference between actually liking someone of a certain race, and being willing to live near them. Many national surveys from these countries will reveal strong racist attitudes in conjunction with a begrudging ability to tolerate said races.

Procrastination, Laziness, And Modern Society

While procrastination, like most human behaviors, is certainly nothing new, there is something seemingly “modern” about it. In a fast-paced and complex society in which people are doing far more than the bare minimum to get by, holding off on our various responsibilities definitely stands out: there are tests to study for, jobs to work, errands to run, things to pay, and so on.

People have always been busy of course, as day-to-day survival obviously takes work. But nowadays we’re bombarded with a lot more than gathering food or firewood. Modern civilization is complex, and even recreational and leisurely activities are daunting in their variety and sense of necessity.

To be sure, I’m not lamenting the fact that we have more opportunities than ever for entertainment, comfort, and the like — for the most part, that’s a good thing. Nor am I suggesting that we go back to the seemingly simpler times of tribal, hunter-gatherer existence. It’s just that every era brings with it new challenges and concerns, and every progressive development, no matter how positive in many respects, has certain caveats.

For example, there’s been much discussion about the so-called “tyranny of choice,” in which our minds our overwhelmed by the sheer amount of options and stimuli available, and subsequently we become more tired, indecisive, stressed out, and even depressed.

But to go back to the original point, what does this have to do with procrastination? Well, all these demands have raised the bar of what society expects from us, such that (in America at least) a strong work ethic is seen as a paramount quality. One’s social and personal worth is dependent on one’s socioeconomic status, and that in turn is still widely seen as deriving from hard work and personal responsibility. Those who are regarded as lazy procrastinators are anticipated to be failures in life; conversely, “failures” —  e.g. those who are poor or fail to conform to the standards of our materialistic consumer society — have their shortcomings attributed to laziness.

Now, setting aside the complex and systemic reasons why hard work no longer seems to promote upward mobility like it once did, something needs to be set straight: procrastination is not laziness, and the strong desire to put a pause on life and relax is not evidence of self-entitlement, poor work ethic, or some sort of moral decay. There are good reasons to be “lazy” and deep psychological and social motivations that need to be considered…starting with understanding the distinction between procrastination and laziness.

David Cain of Thought Catalog wrote an excellent piece that explains this phenomenon perfectly. While I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, the following excerpt is what stood out most for me:

It turns out procrastination is not typically a function of laziness, apathy or work ethic as it is often regarded to be. It’s a neurotic self-defense behavior that develops to protect a person’s sense of self-worth.

You see, procrastinators tend to be people who have, for whatever reason, developed to perceive an unusually strong association between their performance and their value as a person. This makes failure or criticism disproportionately painful, which leads naturally to hesitancy when it comes to the prospect of doing anything that reflects their ability — which is pretty much everything.

But in real life, you can’t avoid doing things. We have to earn a living, do our taxes, have difficult conversations sometimes. Human life requires confronting uncertainty and risk, so pressure mounts. Procrastination gives a person a temporary hit of relief from this pressure of “having to do” things, which is a self-rewarding behavior. So it continues and becomes the normal way to respond to these pressures.

Certainly, the above reasons don’t apply to every case, nor should we excuse genuine laziness. There are many other theories and explanations regarding the psychology origins of procrastination  But this is something to consider, and it definitely applies to a large number of people (if not everyone at some point).

Ultimately, the difference between laziness and procrastination seems to come down to the motivations and thought processes that guide the former: procrastinators tend to be artists, writers, or others who feel they have better things to do with their time — things that, unfortunately, don’t provide an income and/or may not be respectable. The same reasoning may apply to, say, athletes or the vocationally-inclined, who have no interest in academic pursuits — in grades, tests, and industrial-style education — but who excel at doing what they love, even if it’s central to their overall curriculum (if measured at all).

For those who fear the next step — particularly those with anxiety — procrastination can be their only respite. In this fast-paced world, I can see the temptation for people to, in essence, put a pause on life. Society has changed so much and so quickly, even within the short lifetimes of the young. It can be overwhelming to conform to these social norms that nobody individually seems to like or choose, yet everyone feels pressured to follow (this in turn leads to a whole other sociological tangent about the nature of society and such).

I’m anticipating that people will react to skepticism at this argument, namely that it gives an excuse to laziness. But I think it’s important to see the distinction as far as the reasons, and to consider what the implications are.

There is a lot of evidence that sleeplessness, stress, and depression are growing problems in our society; that young people, especially, are in for a raw deal as far as longer work hours, lower pay, and higher costs of living; and that people with relatively more idle times on their hands are starting to reach existential crises much earlier in life (anecdotally-speaking, I’ve seen a number of teenagers already begin questioning the purpose of their lives, acknowledge the primacy of death, and muse about other hard “adult” concerns — although I’m told this may not be anything new, just more noticeable).

With these trends, one has to wonder whether procrastination will become some sort of widespread characteristic of modern society. Will the stresses and pressures of civilization lead more and of us to shut down, pursue escapism, and otherwise come into conflict with the wider world around us? What do you think?

I’d weigh in further but, ironically, I’m procrastinating at work as we speak by writing this post…

America’s Most Secular and Religious Cities

The Barna Group is an Evangelical Christian polling organization that focuses on the state of Christianity in the United States. Most of its research consists of determining the demographic and ideological makeup of American Christians. According to its official mission statement:

The ultimate aim of the firm is to partner with Christian ministries and individuals to be a catalyst in moral and spiritual transformation in the United States. It accomplishes these outcomes by providing vision, information, evaluation and resources through a network of intimate partnerships.

Given this goal, the Barna Group is considered a reliable and trustworthy source regarding Christianity — after all, since it wants assist fellow Christians in engaging with one another or reaching out to secularists, its imperative to provide only the most accurate information available.

So, I thus far trust its conclusions, including the following study concerning America’s most secular cities. See where yours ranks (my hometown and current residence, Miami, Florida, is pretty high at 20th place).

The group’s criteria for determining irreligion were as follows:

Barna Group tracks the following 15 metrics related to faith, which speak to the lack of Christian identity, belief and practice. Read more of Barna Group’s research on the “Nones,” secularization and post-Christian America.

Post-Christian = meet at least 60% of the following 15 factors (9 or more factors)
Highly Post-Christian = meet at least 80% of the following 15 factors (12 or more factors)

1. do not believe in God
2. identify as atheist or agnostic
3. disagree that faith is important in their lives
4. have not prayed to God (in the last year)
5. have never made a commitment to Jesus
6. disagree the Bible is accurate
7. have not donated money to a church (in the last year)
8. have not attended a Christian church (in the last year)
9. agree that Jesus committed sins
10. do not feel a responsibility to “share their faith”
11. have not read the Bible (in the last week)
12. have not volunteered at church (in the last week)
13. have not attended Sunday school (in the last week)
14. have not attended religious small group (in the last week)
15. do not participate in a house church (in the last year)

Interesting stuff, although perhaps not terribly surprising, as most of the cities are in regions well-known for their secularism (the Northeast and the West Coast). A number of large Southern and Midwestern cities weren’t far behind though.

Meanwhile, the organization provides a list of the country’s most “Bible-minded” cities, based on an interesting metric: not only individuals who report reading the Bible in a typical week and who strongly assert the Bible is accurate in the principles it teaches. After all, many avowed atheists have read the Bible, while many pious Christians haven’t. By measuring both the knowledge and attitude toward the Bible, one can get a rough approximation of religiosity.

Unlike the previous study, this one offers a pretty detailed breakdown:

On trend with much of the New England area, cities within the state of New York were on the lower end of the Bible-minded rankings. As for patterns in the three other most populous states, the research reveals the following.

• Florida: Though in the South, most of the major cities on the peninsula rank near the bottom middle of Bible-minded cities, including West Palm Beach (28%, ranked 53rd out of 96 markets), Tampa-St. Petersburg (27%, rank: 57), Orlando (25%, rank: 64), and Miami (24%, rank: 70). The exceptions to these patterns are in the northern part of the state, including Pensacola / Mobile (45%, rank: 13) and Jacksonville (41%, rank: 20). These two cities are more on trend with other Southern states and likely reflect more of a native Floridian or Southern population and fewer transplants than the Southern Florida cities.

• California: In addition to San Francisco being among the lowest rated, most of the major California cities are in the bottom third of the rankings. The Los Angeles media market represents a pretty normal range for California cities with 24% of the residents being Bible-minded (ranking 68th out of 96 cities,). San Diego (24%, rank: 74), Sacramento (24%, rank: 72), and Fresno / Visalia (25%, rank: 66) were also bunched in the same range. Bakersfield, CA stood out as being among the most Bible-minded cities in the Pacific states (39%, rank: 26).

• Texas: As part of the traditional “Bible belt,” Texas stayed fairly true to trend, with most of it’s major cities ranking in the top half of Bible-minded cities. Dallas / Fort Worth ranked as the top Bible-minded city in Texas (38% Bible-minded, ranking at 27th) over San Antonio (36%, rank: 33), Houston (32%, rank: 39) and Austin (29%, rank: 48). Notable exceptions to the Bible-mindedness of Texas cities were Harlingen / Weslaco / McAllen / Brownsville (28%, rank: 56), Waco (27%, 59), and most significantly El Paso (23%, rank: 80). These exceptions are likely a result of these markets having a higher percentage of Hispanic Catholics, who are less likely to engage the Bible.

This didn’t surprise me. California is a large and diverse state with around 35 million people, and it’s long been split between it’s secular and liberal coastal and southern regions, and its more religious and conservative north and central ones. The influence of its large and typically pious Hispanic community can certainly be felt.

Meanwhile, Florida and Texas are fast-growing traditionally conservative states that are receiving an influx of immigrants and northerners, many of whom are irreligious or non-Christian. Demographically, they’re also fairly young and urban, two features that characterize secularism in the United States. Even among the fast-growing Hispanic communities in these states, there’s been a growth in both irreligion and Evangelical Christianity. This state of transition is reflected in the fact that both of these traditionally conservative states have become “purple” politically, although established Republicans continue to maintain most of the political power.

Here’s more analysis:

Among the nation’s largest 30 cities, 10 of them are in the top half of the Bible-minded market rankings, while 20 of them are in the bottom half. Generally speaking, the more densely populated areas tend to be less Bible oriented. Only three of the most Bible-minded cities are among the largest 30 cities—Charlotte (7th), Nashville, TN (14th) and Raleigh / Durham, NC (22nd). The other 22 top Bible-minded markets have fewer than 1 million households.

Still, among the largest markets there are many more relatively Bible-minded cities, including Dallas / Fort Worth (27th), Atlanta (28th), Indianapolis (32nd), Houston (39th), St. Louis (41st), Cleveland (43rd) and Detroit (46th).

Philadelphia (28%, rank: 52) is among the most Bible-minded cities along the eastern seaboard, ranking slightly higher than the aforementioned Northeastern cities as well as Washington, DC (25%, rank: 63) and Baltimore (26%, rank: 60).

Chicago is the nation’s third largest city, and while it tends to be a bastion of many evangelical organizations, ranks between New York and Los Angeles in terms of Bible-mindedness (23%, rank: 76th). Colorado Springs, CO, which is also home to many Christian organizations, is right in the middle of the pack (29%, rank: 51st). By comparison, Denver is ranked lower (71st) with about one in four individual’s qualifying as Bible-minded (24%).

In the Northwest portion of the country, the cities are all fairly similar, with about a quarter of the population being Bible-minded, including most notably Portland OR (25%, rank: 65th and Seattle, WA (24%, rank: 69th).

I also find the commentary at the very end interesting, as it sounds like something out of a marketing agency (indeed, George Barna, the group’s founder, expressly stated that his aim was to provide “research and marketing expertise as a service to Christian ministry”).

First, the large range of Bible-minded scores—from 52% in the highest markets to 9% in the lowest—shows just how diverse the nation’s population can be, from city to city. The rankings reflect an overall openness or resistance to the Bible, and in some markets half or more of the population claim to be open, while in other areas the proportion that is open to the Bible is more like one in ten adults. These gaps make a significant difference in the tone and tenor of conversations about Christianity, morals, public education, and spirituality, among many other topics.

Second, although there are outliers—cities in which the Bible-minded rankings are significantly above- or below-average—the overall picture that is painted depends on one’s vantage point. The least sanguine way to analyze the results would be to emphasize the lack of Bible-mindedness in America; in 91 out of 96 markets a majority of the residents are not Bible minded.

However, a more optimistic way to view those markets would be to look at those cities with at least one-fifth Bible-mindedness—meaning those areas where at least one out of five adults are open to engaging and esteeming the Bible. Among some researchers, this proportion—20%—is often thought to be something of a social or technological “tipping point” (for example, once one in five people had mobile phones, the momentum toward more people owning mobile phones began to grow exponentially). In this analysis, 83 out of 96 cities in the U.S. have at least 20% of their residents qualifying as Bible-minded. Christian leaders should recognize that most of the major cities in the nation continue to have basis for biblical engagement among a significant share of the population.

As ministry leaders in particular, it’s important to keep both vantage points in tension. Whether you live in a city ranked in the top half of Bible-minded cities or in the bottom half of Bible-minded cities, there are still tens of thousands of people to reach regarding both the message of the Scriptures and their importance. However, no matter what type of city you live in, there is also a significant remnant of Bible-minded individuals. The key is to not merely “preach to those insiders” but instead to equip and empower those who do believe with a strong and relevant message to take out into their communities, vocations and spheres of influence. They are the tipping point and can have great influence on the greater city.

Take all that as you will. Personally, I find it disquieting to speak of Christianity as if it were some product to sell, but of course, that’s not surprising given my own secularism.

Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Roles

Though I don’t discuss it on this blog as often as I should, human sexuality is a fascinating topic to me. Indeed, I think it deserves far more attention and open discussion than it receives, and I lament how taboo and misunderstood our sexual natures are (though our society, at least, seems to be increasingly open to talking about these things).

Indeed, as much as many of us don’t care to admit it, sexuality is a central concern in human existence: like all animals, we are sexual by nature, and like all social animals in particular, sexuality is a major component in our identity, relationships, and well-being. We’ve been socially-conditioned to view sex as a debased or even unfortunate aspect of human nature, to the extent that many of us don’t even like to confront our sexuality privately.

Needless to say, all this can have some unhealthy implications and consequences, so I’m pleased to see a well-written article in AlterNet that addresses not only the unfortunate result of our sexual misapprehension, but that also reveals how dated concepts of gender roles only complicate matters further. The article discusses the long-existent (but of course largely undiscussed) disparity between male and female sexual satisfaction — what it curtly calls the “orgasm gap” – in which less than 25% of women actually orgasm from “traditional” intercourse.

Freudian echoes, anatomical mischaracterizations and gender stereotypes are part of the logic naturalizing the orgasm gap, but there is nothing natural about it. We know this because women who sleep with women have many more orgasms than heterosexual women, almost as many as men who sleep with women. Women also have no problem experiencing orgasm through masturbation and the same women who frequently have orgasms during masturbation report many fewer orgasms when they’re with a partner. Men are also not faster to climax than women; it takes women the same amount of time to orgasm during masturbation as it takes men, on average, to have an orgasm through intercourse: four minutes.

Setting aside how surprising a lot of that data must be — given that it’s contrary to everything we learn and understand about the sexual nature of men and women — what accounts for such a seemingly unusual disparity? Well, the article offers an interesting explanation:

Instead of being driven by biology, women’s rate of orgasm relative to men is a function of social forces. For one, we often bifurcate the sexual experience in line with gender norms: men are sexual (they experience desire) and women are sexy (they inspire desire). The focus on men’s internal wants and sensations also draws our attention to his satisfaction. Thus his orgasm, but not necessarily hers, becomes a critical part of what must happen for a sexual encounter to be successful and fulfilling. This is part of why intercourse – a sexual act that is strongly correlated with orgasm for men – is the only act that almost everyone agrees counts as “real sex,” whereas activities that are more likely to produce orgasm in women are considered optional foreplay.

Meanwhile, the idea that women’s primary goal in sex is to deliver a sexy body can focus her attention on how she looks instead of how she feels. This can lead to spectating, being worried about how she looks from her partner’s perspective, which decreases the chance a woman will have an orgasm. It can also lead to active avoidance of orgasm because of worries her face or body might do something unattractive.

I recommend reading the whole piece so as to get detailed understanding of the issue and its proposed solutions. Basically, the takeaway seems to be that we’ve created this artificial notion of what counts as “true sex” at the expense of women and, by extension, men (since one sexually unfulfilled partner can lead to a troubled relationship). Instead of obsessing over what supposedly should be done based on what social norms dictate, we should simply be pragmatic and do what works for both partners. That includes being honest about what works and what doesn’t.

Granted, I think a lot more people are more avant garde about their sexual lives than they’re willing to admit. The problem is that there is this pressure to conform to a certain social norm that a lot (if not most) people privately know is untrue. It’s sad to see relationships suffer because we’re trying to appeal to some arbitrary, dated, and sexist (to men and women) notion of sex that shouldn’t matter in the bedroom anyway.

Regardless, I’ve seen men and women alike feel guilty about not being able to orgasm through traditional intercourse, even though they pull it off just fine through other means. Basically, if it’s not “real sex.” it doesn’t matter whether or not it works — it’s still upsetting to the individuals pride or sense of masculinity/femininity.

 

Video: Wealth Inequality in America

The rise and intensity of socioeconomic inequality in the US seems to be getting more attention, and for good reason — as the following video shows, the problem is far worse and more consequential than most Americans realize.

For those concerned about the reliability of such claims, or looking for additional information, the sources are as follows:

• Mother Jones
• Dan Ariely
• ThinkProgress
• CNN Money

Of course, you’re also free to read my long list of posts on the subject. As you can tell, it’s a topic close to my heart (though honestly, even I didn’t realized how much I’d written about it over the past year).

As always, please share your thoughts and concerns. Even if I don’t get around to responding, rest assured that I do read every comment I receive.

Finnish Students Don’t Do Homework Or Take Tests

I’ve spoken at length about Finland’s education system before (here, here, and here) and I believe it deserves all the attention it can get, especially since much of this success is due to policies that are applicable in the US (if not elsewhere) — professionalizing the teaching industry, promoting smaller class sizes in conjunction with more student-to-teacher interaction, and so on. I think the following image breaks it down rather nicely, but if you want more information and sources, visit the hyperlinks above.

Luck, Privilege, and Responsibility

It’s been calculated that the total number of humans that have ever lived was around 107 billion. By comparison, note that as of 2013, there are a little over 7 billion people alive right now, the highest amount of humans that has ever lived at one time.

To get a grasp of how long it’s taken us to get here, consider that we only hit our first billion around the mid-19th century. So our population has increased seven-fold in a little over 150 years, owing to a convergence of advancements in agriculture, medicine, public health, and sanitation.

But most of these 7 billion people — like most humans that have ever lived at any time — are mired in poverty, disease, insecurity, and tyranny. The overwhelming majority of them will never know any other existence but one of struggle — and incredibly, this is a measure of progress, because for as long as this species has been around, anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of a given population was composed of serfs, peasants, and slaves — people without political or economic power, and thus without the subsequent comforts that such things bring.

It wasn’t even that long ago when only 1 to 5 percent of people in the most industrialized countries managed to obtain secondary education, and this remains the case in many poor countries today.

Therefore, those of us reading this status update represent an incredibly miniscule fraction of our species that is literate, relatively well-off, and most likely to live a long and comfortable life, comparatively-speaking. By a mere accident of birth, we’re exceptionally lucky and exceptionally rare. We know and enjoy things that most humans never had the chance to, and that the overwhelming majority of our species still remains without.

It’s sometimes difficult to grasp my level of privilege, and how fortunate I am, by mere random chance, to have this life. We’re only given one shot at existence, and mine just happened to emerge at the right time and place. I must never forget that. I must never squander the subsequent resources of my privilege. With this advantage, which I am no more deserving of than the billions of other people who live (or have lived) on this Earth, I must do my best to be good and just and beneficial to the world.

Judging Women in Media

I hate the way women in media are judged immediately —  and sometimes almost exclusively — by their appearance. Throughout my life, whether I’m watching a music video, TV show, interview, or movie, there’s always at least one person around me – if not several – who criticizes a female character or public figure for some trivial physical feature.

Is Trust the Key to Sweden’s Success?

Sweden has long been hailed for its near-utopian balance between prosperity, progressive civil liberties, and economic competitiveness. Indeed, it’s one of the few countries in the world that manages to provide a generous, tax-funded welfare system while nonetheless promoting high economic growth and business freedom (a combination of policies that are seen as impossible to many Americans).

Reflection on Atheist Identity

The label “atheist” is so odious and stigmatized that even many atheists themselves shun it (admittedly, myself included sometimes). Interestingly, most national polls report a higher number of people who “don’t believe in God” than people who explicitly identify as “atheists” (usually by a margin of 2 to 1). The position of non-belief is less disquieting to the irreligious than the term used to describe it – the quaint result of generations of demonization, condemnation, and prejudice. The negative connotation of atheism is so pervasive across the public consciousness that not even the godless themselves can shake it off and be at ease with it.