Inductivist

In the latest issue of American Sociological Review--the flagship journal of U.S. sociology--Andres Villareal finds that even after a number of factors are taken into account (i.e., gender, age, indigeneity, educational level, region, and rurality) darker skinned Mexicans--in Mexico--are poorer than their paler counterparts. The poverty gap is roughly as large as the American black-white difference. Even though the main ethnic division in Mexico is between indigenous people and mestizos, and skin tone variation among mestizos is not socially emphasized, Villareal concludes that the results are strong evidence for intense discrimination based on color. 

Keep in mind that this research has appeared in the best quantitative sociology journal in the United States; perhaps in the world. The author is interested in discrimination, but treats skin tone variation as his measure of discrimination. Why not measure discrimination directly? At least ask respondents concerning perceived instances of mistreatment. Is that too difficult to ask about? Why doesn't he save himself a lot of work, skip the data collection and analysis, and simply write a speculative paper asserting discrimination?

The relationship between skin tone and poverty could be explained in many different ways. If I claimed that the link is explained by genes associated both with economic success and skin color, my assertion would be just as plausible as his. But it goes without saying that he wouldn't admit (and doesn't mention in the paper) that a genetic explanation is possible since it is morally out of bounds. This trick of not measuring what you are studying and ruling out other explanations as unacceptable has been used in a thousand similar studies. Instead of relying on data, a whole discipline is based on moralistic faith. If we're going to defund NPR, let's do the same to sociology.     

It's hard to believe two bordering countries could be so different: I promised to look at the World Values Survey to see in which ways Mexico is a distinctive country, and to compare its profile with that of the United States. Following the same method as I did with the U.S., I list below those questions where Mexicans ranked in the top 3 or bottom three among samples of countries. More than 300 questions were asked:


Top 3

Believes life has no meaning
Would take political action by occupying a building or factory
Proud of country's scientific achievements
Country is run by a few big interests


Bottom 3

Currently married
Partner shares moral, social, political attitudes
Trusts TV newscasters
Trusts government
Claiming govenment benefits one is not entitled to is never justified
Avoiding fare on public transportation is never justified
Cheating on taxes is never justified
Buying stolen goods is never justified
Taking someone's car for a joyride is never justified
Using marijuana or hashish is never justified
Keeping money you found is never justified
Accepting a bribe is never justified
Failing to report hitting someone's car is never justified
Threatening workers who will not join a strike is never justified
Assassinations are never justified
Throwing litter in public is never justified
Drinking and driving is never justified


Okay, let's create a profile from this.


Profile of Mexico according to the World Values Survey

Nihilistic
Willing to take violent political action (e.g, occupying buildings, assassinations)
Believes country is run by a few big interests
Weak on marriage
Heterogamous
Distrusts government
Embraces corrupt, dishonest, reckless, and criminal behavior
Accepts littering

I don't know about you, but I'm not impressed. According to the World Values Survey, the United States and Mexico do not share a single distinctive value. In fact, they are polar opposites in at least two respects: Americans trust government, and husbands and wives are very similar to each other.

As Mexican immigrants continue to pour into the country, there is every reason to believe that America is going to become more corrupt, more antisocial, dirtier, more nihilistic, more politically extreme, and contrary to what the rosy Republicans tell us, Americans will have weaker, not stronger families.