Thread replies: 18
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: eJwVyMsNwyAMANBdGACwwXyyDQWLpEoKAnKqunvb29N7i3ucYhP7Wn1uSpVj5jaKnKuNVFnW1urJqR9T5naptFbK-8WvNRUGrwHAIhhtDHlr_0UEGiOQcRjAaUWuYCB0rIv18ZGJvUVd6Ed2TFE-exWfL4dKKFM.jpg (9KB, 223x300px) Image search:
[Google]
9KB, 223x300px
Has anyone pointed out the fact that Robert D. Putnam's 2009 work "Still bowling alone? The post 9/11 Split" has been proven utterly wrong?
In it he predicted that...
>the United States may witness a gradual yet inexorable reversal of the civic decline that Bowling Alone chronicled (p. 5)
It's a shame a JEC (Joint Economic Committee) report from May this year proves his predictions wrong almost 10 years later
Things have gotten worse
> Between 1975 and 2011, the share of three- and four-year-olds cared for by a parent during the day declined from 80 percent to somewhere between 24 and 48 percent. But parents are spending no less time with their children overall.
>• Between 1973 and 2016, the percentage of Americans age 18-64 who lived with a relative declined from 92 percent to 79 percent. The decline was driven by a dramatic 21-point drop in the percentage who were living with a spouse, from 71 percent to 50 percent.
>• In 1970, there were 76.5 marriages per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15 and older. As of 2015, that rate had declined by more than half to 32 per thousand.
>• In 1970, 56 percent of American families included at least one child, but by 2016 just 42 percent did. The average family with children had 2.3 children in 1970 but just 1.9 in 2016. Among all families—with or without children—the average number of children per family has dropped from 1.3 to 0.8.
>• Between 1970 and 2016, the share of children being raised by a single parent (or by neither parent) rose from 15 percent to 31 percent.
>• Between 1970 and 2015, births to single mothers rose from 11 percent of all births to 40 percent.
The list goes on, but since Putnam's 1999 work "Bowling Alone" is being referenced a lot I wanted to make sure that the supposed rebuttals and criticisms to it can be accurately addressed.
The JEC report:
https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b5f224ce-98f7-40f6-a814-8602696714d8/what-we-do-together.pdf
>>
More research on ethnic diversity:
http://www.truthjustice.net/politics/diversity-proximity-war-the-reference-list/
>>
>>133817172
Putnam's work is used because it is the largest study on diversity and the results were alarmingly clear on the negative effects of multiculturalism.
Putnam himself is HEAVILY biased in favor of liberal individualism so his prognostications and his book "Bowling Alone" are pretty useless desu. It's his research itself that has value, not so much his interpretation of it.
>>
>>133817592
Ahhh okay, gotchya. Thats a good way to look at it. Its quite odd how much hes fucked himself isnt it?
>>
>>133817172
We focus here more on his study - E Pluribus Unum. Its findings are in line with reality and the main reason his predictions were wrong is because he was sure that diversity is a actually a good thing that will improve societal outcomes.
>>
>>133817713
Interesting, I haven't read any of his works though I've read some other studies on ethnic conflict such as the one from Brown U in 2015. Do you think E pluribus Unum's findings are relevant to today? Can they still make the case that diversity isn't a strength?
>>
>>133817699
>Its quite odd how much hes fucked himself isnt it?
He was hiding his fidnings for quite a while and only when someone threatened to realese them anyway then he published his study. Makes me wonder how many many papers exposing leftists narratives are buried by this disingenuous ideologues.
>Do you think E pluribus Unum's findings are relevant to today?
I'd say that judging by ongoing polarization of US polittics that's certainly the case. Also his study was replicated confirming negative effects of diversity.
>>
>>133818111
Checked.
>Makes me wonder how many many papers exposing leftists narratives are buried by this disingenuous ideologues.
I wouldn't doubt that its a lot of papers.
>his study was replicated confirming negative effects of diversity.
Sauce? When was it replicated?
>>
>>133818469
Here you go.
http://www.eui.eu/Documents/RSCAS/Research/MWG/200708/MWG2008-04-16LanceeDronkers.pdf
I cant't find it right now, but there probably was another one that I've seen.
>>
File: MV5BMTI0NjQ0Nzk4MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTk3NTEzMQ@@._V1_UY317_CR39,0,214,317_AL_.jpg (15KB, 214x317px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 214x317px
>>
>>133817172
>Putnam
Is this the same Putnam that told us TV is evil and its going to make us all stupid and dumb? Fucking NEW MEDIA BAD reactionary Luddite fucks.
t. journalism major
>>
>>133820548
>Putnam that told us TV is evil
Same guy.
>>
>>133820548
Tv does make you stupid. Besides, who in their right mind would listen to a journalist major opinions?
>>
>>133817854
>Can they still make the case that diversity isn't a strength?
When has anyone actually made a good case for diversity being a strength? It's just something that commies started repeating until others started to believe. Now it's taught in elementary school in Canada.
>>
File: 1495427274510.gif (2MB, 270x188px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 270x188px
>>
>>133817172
It's irrelevant anyway. The goal of multicultralism is white genocide. As usual they use faggy language so whites will go along with it.
They don't say "white genocide is our greatest strength" because it wouldn't sell to white women. AKA retards
>>
File: 2f19feb.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
10KB, 200x200px
>>
>>133821331
>Tv does make you stupid
PC too?
Thread posts: 18
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4