http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/do-you-live-in-a-bubble-a-quiz-2/
So I took this quiz a while ago, saw it on Facebook. This article says this guy, Charles Murray, decided your bubble is related to your socio-economic place in MURRICA. The higher you score, the less out of touch you are with culture, and probably the more blue collar you are. The lower your score, the higher your income bracket and ignorance of standard American culture. Scores are out of 100. I scored 37, which translates to Upper Middle Class. For the record, "upper middle class" does not have a defined income bracket in this quiz at any point, while poverty is defined (and deep poverty further defined), and I have been living in deep poverty for the last 6 years at least.
I find this quiz to be very biased, and worse it draws more lines and creates more sides among the lower economic classes, and is based on what appears to be an elitist's view of stereotypical blue-collar tropes.
Example 1: Have you ever made it through an entire episode of Ellen Degeneres, Dr. Phil, or Wendy Williams? Do you watch any of these regularly?
Example 2: Do you regularly buy domestic mass marketed beer to stock your own fridge? (Coors, Budweiser, Miller, and Busch are those listed).
Example 3: Have you ever lived for at least a year in the United States at a family income that was close to or below the poverty line?
Graduate school doesn't count. Living unemployed with your family after college doesn't count.
Example 4: Did you ever letter in anything that wasn't chess club or the debating team?
See, I just think (and I am fully aware that this is my opinion and nothing more) this is bullshit. It bothers me that I'm being called an elitist rich (from my point of view) snob by some dude who interconnects "culture" with "money". Or something.
What do you all think?
I think I scored a 23* and you should get off my property before I call the cops.
*Really, I did.
I think Charles Murray exists to give academic cover to the GOP, and is kinda racist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29#The_Bell_Curve).
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2016, 02:55:17 AM
I think Charles Murray exists to give academic cover to the GOP, and is kinda racist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29#The_Bell_Curve).
Oh, is he one of those Arthur Jensen tards? :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on April 07, 2016, 03:23:01 AM
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2016, 02:55:17 AM
I think Charles Murray exists to give academic cover to the GOP, and is kinda racist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29#The_Bell_Curve).
Oh, is he one of those Arthur Jensen tards? :lulz:
The APA basically called him such, in their review of The Bell Curve:
QuoteThere is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation...It is sometimes suggested that the Black/White differential in psychometric intelligence is partly due to genetic differences (Jensen, 1972). There is not much direct evidence on this point, but what little there is fails to support the genetic hypothesis.
QuoteThe differential between the mean intelligence test scores of Blacks and Whites (about one standard deviation, although it may be diminishing) does not result from any obvious biases in test construction and administration, nor does it simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. Explanations based on factors of caste and culture may be appropriate, but so far have little direct empirical support. There is certainly no such support for a genetic interpretation. At present, no one knows what causes this differential.
I scored 69.
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: Cain on April 07, 2016, 02:55:17 AM
I think Charles Murray exists to give academic cover to the GOP, and is kinda racist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_%28political_scientist%29#The_Bell_Curve).
That's shitty of him.
Also, apparently has a thing against single mothers (http://www.blacksacademy.net/content/3254.html).
QuoteIllegitimate children are more likely to be born to women of lower social class. He claims that illegitimate children "run wild" because they lack father role-models. He claims that the underclass is responsible for rising crime - property crime and violent crime.
I got 38
Got a 58 (Neener neener boo boo, stick ur head in doo-doo, I'm more down to eaerth than u ^^^)
Pretty sure I've locked down my title of "Emperor Privilege".
61, but I thought this test was about as stupid as a test can be.
Yeah, kinda had a "You were a 90s kid (Or in this case, low income bracket kid) if you knew who this was lmaaaaoooo" feel to it.
"If you don't know who this is, ask your nearest poor 30 year old lmaooo"
3 seems like it defines poor.
Most poor folks I know don't drink standard mass market beer, they drink the generic versions. Same lack of taste, but costs less.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 17, 2016, 07:14:31 AM
3 seems like it defines poor.
3 does define poor, but you get penalized if you, essentially, MADE yourself poor by getting edumacated, or got a little edumacated and couldn't find a job, thus being unable to pay bills that let you live on your own. Because that kind of poverty doesn't count. Because reasons.
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on April 17, 2016, 09:40:15 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 17, 2016, 07:14:31 AM
3 seems like it defines poor.
3 does define poor, but you get penalized if you, essentially, MADE yourself poor by getting edumacated, or got a little edumacated and couldn't find a job, thus being unable to pay bills that let you live on your own. Because that kind of poverty doesn't count. Because reasons.
However, I don't think this is about "penalties", and I don't think it's about the "kind" of poor one happens to be. Even if you've gone to college and made yourself poor that way, you're still going to experience the world as someone who can't pay their bills and perhaps drink cheap beer, regardless of "reasons".
However, think of this test as designed by a Hoover Institute academic to paint everyone as "out of touch rich coastal elitists who listen to fancy music and watch documentaries on Netflix" except REAL MURICANS who vote Republican while drinking cheap beer, driving their pickup truck around.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 17, 2016, 12:48:29 PM
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
CRT TV's are all over Ohio too, because you can get them used for cheap.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 17, 2016, 12:48:29 PM
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
You mean those TVs that have a rounded screen and have that high pitched buzz? I got one of those.
Quote from: LMNO on April 17, 2016, 02:34:55 PM
Quote from: Choppas an' Sluggas on April 17, 2016, 09:40:15 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on April 17, 2016, 07:14:31 AM
3 seems like it defines poor.
3 does define poor, but you get penalized if you, essentially, MADE yourself poor by getting edumacated, or got a little edumacated and couldn't find a job, thus being unable to pay bills that let you live on your own. Because that kind of poverty doesn't count. Because reasons.
However, I don't think this is about "penalties", and I don't think it's about the "kind" of poor one happens to be. Even if you've gone to college and made yourself poor that way, you're still going to experience the world as someone who can't pay their bills and perhaps drink cheap beer, regardless of "reasons".
Well, yes. I might be interpreting things incorrectly, but "Have you ever lived in poverty, being in massive debt after grad school doesn't count and neither does living with your family after college" strikes me as "You're not REALLY poor." And that, among other questions and explanation of questions that exhibit a certain bias that I can't put my finger on to name, is what I take issue with.
Really, I guess at this point I'm just bitching since the subject doesn't seem to be interesting and it feels better to vent.
Quote from: Cain on April 17, 2016, 02:45:54 PM
However, think of this test as designed by a Hoover Institute academic to paint everyone as "out of touch rich coastal elitists who listen to fancy music and watch documentaries on Netflix" except REAL MURICANS who vote Republican while drinking cheap beer, driving their pickup truck around.
-snort- That's basically it.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 18, 2016, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 17, 2016, 12:48:29 PM
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
CRT TV's are all over Ohio too, because you can get them used for cheap.
I had a giant CRT TV until the last time I moved, so 2015. Damn thing weighed about 40 Kilograms and was an utter fucker to move due to the general shape.
It was wonderful. In the 15+ years I had it, it never failed, fucked up or could possibly have been stolen easily. It wasn't even worth stealing, it was worth fuck all. My favourite thing about it is that it was fucking FREE to begin with because some other lazy bastard didn't want to bother hauling it away to the tip. At the time I acquired it, you would have struggled to find anything similar in shops over here.
What I'm saying is this test has absolutely no accounting for taste.
Quote from: Pergamos on April 18, 2016, 06:22:34 AM
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on April 17, 2016, 12:48:29 PM
So, not directly related to this particular test, but on the subject of bubbles: went to see Midnight Special (which I highly recommend) with The Man From Texas and I had to ask him afterwards about when the movie is supposed to be set, because look at all these landlines and old CRT TVs, but they're saying dates like 2011. He had to explain to me that in the poor-but-not-Hunger-Games-poor parts of the south this is still completely normal. Of course, this was news to me because where I live poor-but-not-starving folks have garbage cellphones and itty bitty HD sets or no TV at all.
CRT TV's are all over Ohio too, because you can get them used for cheap.
This.
Ohio is a great transition state for those moving through the lower income brackets. You can go from the bottom, to lower-middle class with only a few slight job and housing (location) changes. But if you move out of Ohio, cost of living becomes too much.
This transitional tendency is why you see things like CRT TV's and flat screens in the same neighborhoods. There are other examples of cheap/expensive item combinations, but I'm sick and woke up pretty early for being sick.
QuoteThere are other examples of cheap/expensive item combinations, but I'm sick and woke up pretty early for being sick.
I'd be interested to hear about a few more of these when you recover. The main other comparable thing I can think of in the UK is shitty cars with incredibly expensive wheels/stereos and such. I see quite a few of these here and it's always amazing as if the money spent on additional shite was actually spent on the vehicle itself they'd be driving something that is both considerably safer (By which I mean no visible rust) and probably save quite a chunk in fuel/insurance costs.
I've got something starting to work in my head and I suspect cigarettes also factor into this. I seem to recall a
something that looked at smoking from a financial control viewpoint and it was interesting though I'm not certain of the weight of the argument. The thrust was something like "When you've got fuck all money, choosing to purchase (shitty luxury item, such as smokes, booze, whathaveyou) is a way to provide a feeling of control in a financially fucked situation". A mindset of "I can't afford (Whatever), but at least I can afford (Whatever), even if (Whatever) isn't the best thing to buy". It does explain and justify many decisions made in difficult situations but it still raises a few problems for me.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 18, 2016, 03:35:42 PM
QuoteThere are other examples of cheap/expensive item combinations, but I'm sick and woke up pretty early for being sick.
I'd be interested to hear about a few more of these when you recover. The main other comparable thing I can think of in the UK is shitty cars with incredibly expensive wheels/stereos and such. I see quite a few of these here and it's always amazing as if the money spent on additional shite was actually spent on the vehicle itself they'd be driving something that is both considerably safer (By which I mean no visible rust) and probably save quite a chunk in fuel/insurance costs.
I've got something starting to work in my head and I suspect cigarettes also factor into this. I seem to recall a something that looked at smoking from a financial control viewpoint and it was interesting though I'm not certain of the weight of the argument. The thrust was something like "When you've got fuck all money, choosing to purchase (shitty luxury item, such as smokes, booze, whathaveyou) is a way to provide a feeling of control in a financially fucked situation". A mindset of "I can't afford (Whatever), but at least I can afford (Whatever), even if (Whatever) isn't the best thing to buy". It does explain and justify many decisions made in difficult situations but it still raises a few problems for me.
Shitty cars with expensive stereos are huge here as well, for sure.
Also, I had never thought about the cigarettes like that. That explains so much about my roommate. He consistently put himself in shitty financial situations due to being picky about jobs (and quitting shortly after starting) or wanting expensive stereos for his junker. And he'd always ask me to buy him (or buy, himself) a Black and Mild over food, even if he hadn't eaten all day. You can get a McDonald's cheeseburger for a dollar, and he'd scrounge up that change for a mini-cigar.
His self-loathing is also unprecedented, which probably feeds the mentality you spoke of.
And the other cheap/expensive item combinations include shit like an ADT Security System in a mostly peaceful neighborhood, while also having the shittiest looking Windows and doors you've ever seen. And they weren't even broken. It's like, you can not make that ADT payment and just get better doors and windows.
- Also, outhouses and modern kitchen appliances.
- Total lack of furniture, but a CRT TV and expensive security cameras.
- Super expensive, but limited amounts of hunting gear. Like, the newest and coolest tech bow, but they have 2 pairs of jeans and no camo.
Will list more as I think of them.
Also, if this appears to be off-topic, but still interesting, Feel free to separate it from the current post and make it its own.
Ohioans can be pretty nutty with their finances.
A thread split may be worthwhile, though it does all seem fairly related.
There seems to be more to look at in terms of material consumption choices that are made well into adulthood. You can reasonably expect kids to want the newest X without really understanding the financial implications. It's a little different when an adult makes a clearly unsuitable purchase with total disregard for their actual situation. It's certainly a kind of bubble, denying the circumstances you find yourself in. I would suspect that the level and duration of that denial has a direct relation to their future happiness and prospects in general.
The obvious example that I think of would be the guy having a mid-life crisis so they purchase something stupid. Again, I'd put good money on these purchases having obvious and immediate down-sides and yet the buyer will be convinced it's a prudent move.
QuoteAnd he'd always ask me to buy him (or buy, himself) a Black and Mild over food, even if he hadn't eaten all day. You can get a McDonald's cheeseburger for a dollar, and he'd scrounge up that change for a mini-cigar.
Yeah, that was almost the exact logic/example. "I can't afford to buy food (An essential) but I CAN still afford Smokes (Luxury)." The horrible thing about this is that I would put money I don't even have on the fact that anyone who has been broke and smokes will have done exactly the same thing at some point. Poverty is not exactly conductive to long term planning as you tend to be worrying about how to get through tomorrow/the end of the week/month rather than considering long-term health implications.
Quote from: Junkenstein on April 18, 2016, 04:33:41 PM
A thread split may be worthwhile, though it does all seem fairly related.
There seems to be more to look at in terms of material consumption choices that are made well into adulthood. You can reasonably expect kids to want the newest X without really understanding the financial implications. It's a little different when an adult makes a clearly unsuitable purchase with total disregard for their actual situation. It's certainly a kind of bubble, denying the circumstances you find yourself in. I would suspect that the level and duration of that denial has a direct relation to their future happiness and prospects in general.
The obvious example that I think of would be the guy having a mid-life crisis so they purchase something stupid. Again, I'd put good money on these purchases having obvious and immediate down-sides and yet the buyer will be convinced it's a prudent move.
QuoteAnd he'd always ask me to buy him (or buy, himself) a Black and Mild over food, even if he hadn't eaten all day. You can get a McDonald's cheeseburger for a dollar, and he'd scrounge up that change for a mini-cigar.
Yeah, that was almost the exact logic/example. "I can't afford to buy food (An essential) but I CAN still afford Smokes (Luxury)." The horrible thing about this is that I would put money I don't even have on the fact that anyone who has been broke and smokes will have done exactly the same thing at some point. Poverty is not exactly conductive to long term planning as you tend to be worrying about how to get through tomorrow/the end of the week/month rather than considering long-term health implications.
That would certainly explain Ohioans' odd financial behavior. It's actually kind of hard to find lazy people here. They all tend to work really hard, but they are all in a state of constant worry from paycheck to paycheck. Addictive substances like tobacco and heroin become a huge financial factor as they have incredibly high rates of use in the Tri-State area of Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. These substances act as on the short term stimulating, but harmful financial decisions. Because of cigarettes, and other more bizarre financial mistakes, you can have people here who work their asses off and make 90 thousand a year, but live in affordable housing and live paycheck to paycheck.
Credit scams are a MASSIVE problem in the poor areas of the Tri-state region. My grandmother makes more than my mom and Dad combined, at about 85 thousand a year in nursing without a degree. But she is financially ignorant, and so she falls for credit scams that have her giving most of her paycheck away and forcing her to live paycheck to paycheck while turning off utilities every couple months.
In transitional areas like this, they have lottery and credit scam advertisements ALL OVER THE PLACE. This is to keep financially inconsistent people in a state of ignorance and worry, and in a bubble. Factors like this are the cause of the bizarre financial decisions of Ohioans.
With regard to threadsplit, meh. Have at it.