Bullet points on survey

The survey allowed me to many things but the main skills used or developed were as follows.

• I worked collaboratively with others to develop a set of questions. 
• I helped advise other students on how to best ask questions in order to produce usable data (pros and cons of a 1-10 scale, or yes/no answers)
• I developed multiple respondent requirements in order to have multiple different subsets.
• I personally handled all data using excel and google sheets, testing and using multiple graph types in order to best visually present my data. 
• Further developed my research skills in order to tie previous literature on the subject with my own study
• Worked independently with little oversight, therefore relying on myself for almost all problem solving.

My survey applied to the in class concepts

My survey was initially linked to the Psychology of exit, a concept we have discussed and presented on in class. Further,within exit is the study of how Maslows Hierarchy of Needs is applied to understanding the reason(s) for a person or family to exit. Thirdly, is the the application of Humans as Political Animals, through the study of people in the destination that migrants travel to. This application is a slight stretch when looked at on face value, but when you look into the data of my study, it is clear that people in migrant destinations see migrants and migration as disruptive. Therefore, it is easy then to ask why, and how they see migration as disruptive, which then creates a "locals" vs "newcomers" dynamic, which is very "in group and out group" oriented. So it is suffice to say that my study does indeed involve many aspects of the concepts we learned in class.

Research Summary

My research focused on how people in a destination area, respond to migrants based on the reasoning of the migrant. I asked a total of 20 people around the Bay Area their views, by way of paper survey. My study had a few unique subsets based on age, and self identified gender. Each subset was critical to helping form the conclusions I drew from the survey. One of the most interesting things that my study revealed, is that most respondents, saw threats to safety as an overall much better reason than economics.
This bias can be seen throughout history, as  James N Gregory writes “Poor people crossing state lines would have a clear set of rights in the aftermath of the Dust Bowl migration.” Key to understanding the response towards Dust Bowl migrants was the fact, that they were not just poor but starving. Which begs the question if the impact of The Dust Bowl on American culture may have influenced the respondents of the survey. Considering that America is now 10 years removed from the start of its worst economic downturn since the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, an avenue of further study could focus on the experience of economic migrants of the  “The Great Recession.”

Survey write up

Do we care why they left?

Introduction: Migration is at its base a very regular human behaviour. The word migration simply means the movement of animals to a more hospitable environment.  Despite its basic instinctual origins, it is and in many ways has always been greatly misunderstood, becoming a point of intense controversy in America during many different periods. Such controversial migrations like The Great Migration of African Americans, from 1915-1960 or The Dust Bowl Migration 1931-1939. While humankind's early gatherer-hunter migrations make for much better examples for the definition, the causation of the aforementioned modern migrations could be seen as less clear. The lack of understanding of migrants reasoning, could be a reason migrants face such intense social stigma. Which points to a lack of understanding about not only migration-but also immigration. The distinction between the two is crucial to the understanding of this paper, because within the parameters of this class, migration means the movement of people within America's national borders. In the next sections, we look into how survey respondents acceptance or lack thereof, towards migrants is shaped by the reasoning of the migrant themselves, ie what  caused them to leave their place of origin. This question is the source of the papers title Do We Care Why They Left, asking if someone is anti-migrant are they anti migrant regardless of reasons? Or if someone is pro migrant, is there any reason they would oppose migration? 

Review Of Literature

Migration: “seasonal movement of animals from one region to another.”

The internal migrations I found relevant to scope and questions of the survey were The Great Migration, when over 6 million (Wilkerson) African Americans left the south and southwest. Along with The Dust Bowl Migration, a migration caused by ecological disaster during which 300-400,000 (Gregory) people from Oklahoma, Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri left their homes, and moved to California's Central Valley.

 Professor James Gregory of The University of Washington has devoted himself to studying both migrations, publishing much of the accessible data on both, and thus has written a book on each. However selections from Gregory’s book on the Dust Bowl American Exodus: The Dust Bowl Migration and Okie Culture in California, were the primary Gregory works used. In it Gregory not only delves into the variety of “push factors” that drove the migrants, but their experiences once they reached their destinations. The push factors of the dust bowl migrants play into Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, especially physiological and safety based “needs.” A quote from Gregory on how “Some were completely out of funds and food” (Gregory)  highlights just how extremely desperate some Dust Bowl migrants were. A quote and fact that influenced question #1. The backlash they faced was also severe, Gregory further showcases how California was extremely unwelcoming to the poor newcomers. “In 1936, the Los Angeles police department established a border patrol, dubbed the ‘Bum Blockade,’ at major road and rail crossings for the purpose of turning back would-be visitors who lacked obvious means of support.” Showcasing the need to ask about approval based on economics as well.

The Great Migration, was the other mass movement of people, this time of mostly African Americans. Who were exiting their situation due to the social, economic, and legal constraints of Jim Crow. The Smithsonian article by Isabel Wilkerson further points out how much economic mobility played a role in the decision to leave the south. Farm workers in the South often made less than $1 a day, compared to cities, where factory workers made as much as 4 times that in a single day. (Wilkerson)  These economics heavily influenced the creation of question #2.

In conclusion, both sources served as resources for official statistics, and background on internal migration within the United States. However hearing about direct experience, and interaction with members of both Migrations informed the ideas behind this survey as well.

Methods

Participants: 20 total people, 15 of whom are under age 30, with a gender split of 8 women and 7 men. All respondents for the survey were anonymous, the only personal information collected from each respondent, was self reported age and self identified gender. I intentionally attempted to survey an equal number of people identifying as men or women, with at minimum 7 respondents of both groups. Another intentional group, were the 5 respondents over age 30. This age outlier was created by my research team in order to create a unique subset of people outside of a higher education setting. 

Questions: Respondents were presented with a paper survey form, containing five questions, and a space to leave comments. Three out of five questions, asked the respondent on a scale of 1-10 how much they approved of migration based on a 3 different reasons. The fourth 1-10 question asked respondents how well they understood migration. The fifth question asked the respondents to list  “What kind(s) of people come to mind when the word migrant is used?” Which allowed respondents the freedom to share how they felt, beyond the constraints of academic questions or a simple scale.

Data Analysis: The purpose of the scaled 1-10 questions were to accumulate statistically viable answers, that could be used for comparison between various different subsets. Firstly, the universal data set containing all respondents answers was analysed for the mean for each question, and possible outliers. After, the data was then similarly analysed according to the different subsets, in order to compare and contrast, based on age,gender, and a combination of both creating 5 viable data sets to interpret. These subsets are: People under 30, People over 30, men, women, and all respondents. It was crucial to have different subsets whose statistical data could be compared and presented. 

Results

Approval: The results of the survey did show there was a significant difference in empathy or approval towards migrants based on their reasons for migrating. The results are presented in averages for each subset. Q1 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10 how much do you empathize with, or approve of migration when the primary cause is a threat to safety?(1 do not approve-10 strongly approve) (All: 9.6, F: 9.82, M: 9.8, M&F(30+):9.8, M&F(-30):9.56). While Q3 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10, how much do you empathize with, or approve of migration when the primary cause is economic mobility? (1 do not approve-10 strongly approve) (All:8.45, F:8.4, M:8.5, M&F(30+):9.2, M&F(-30):8.2)

Disruption: Another interesting result of the survey was despite the overall approval of migrants regardless of the two situations presented, migration and migrants are seen as disruptive to their destination. Q2 asked respondents: On a scale of 1-10 how disruptive is migration to the destination (1 does not disrupt-greatly disrupts)(All:5.8,F:5.7,M:5.9,M&F(30+):5.6, M&F(-30):5.87)

All respondent answers to Q2

Understanding: Respondents of the survey showed confidence in their understanding of migration, as Q4 asked: On a scale of 1-10, how well do you understand this form of exit? (1 do not understand-10 completely understand) (All:8.5, F:8.2, M:8.7, M&F(30+):9.2, M&F(-30):8.27)

Word Association: The final question asked respondents to What kind(s) of people come to mind when the word migrant is used? Respondents had a variety of answers, however most of the answers inferred that the respondent had confused immigration with migration. 

Analysis

From the data accumulated over the course of the study, and informed by the literature read, a few conclusions were reached. In this section we will break down the most interesting and clear conclusions to draw from the data. This section will also be the first time question 5 will be discussed at length.

 The first conclusion being that migrants experiencing “threats to safety”  in their place of origin are likely to experience far more empathy and approval compared to economic migrants. This is supported by the fact that the entirety of respondents rated an empathy or approval number average (mean) of 9.6 for migrants exiting due to threats to safety. While economic migrants received an 8.45, which shows economic migrants still elicit a high approval empathy rating overall. Yet there was not a single subset that varied from a pattern that showed more approval/empathy for migrants experiencing threats to safety.  

Given that both kinds of migrants received approval/empathy rating means above 8, the data from Q2 was confusing. Across all subsets respondents showed that migrants somewhat disrupt their destination city/region/state. With all groups rating migrant disruption between 5-6, there was little variation. However this question did have the largest range of data, with the high being an 8 which indicates the respondent believe migrants cause mass disruption and a 2 indicating another respondent believes migrants cause little disruption. Therefore the only conclusion to draw is that people expect some disruption from migrants, even if they approve of the migrants reasons.

Question 4 was an interesting data set, because when interpreted alone, it shows that respondents believed they have a firm grasp on the concept of migration. However when asked in question 5 to name the kinds of people who were migrants. The respondents listed: “refugees” “People seeking safety from Latin American and Middle Eastern countries” and most obviously incorrect “People migrating from Mexico or other countries.” Which implies error within the survey, perhaps a clear definition of migration is needed.

Conclusion/ Directions of Further study

In truth there are some reasonable conclusions to draw from this study. That the respondents considered “threats to safety” a much better reason for exiting, when compared with “economic mobility.” This too can be seen throughout history, as  James N Gregory writes “Poor people crossing state lines would have a clear set of rights in the aftermath of the Dust Bowl migration.” Which begs the question if the impact of The Dust Bowl on American culture may have influenced the respondents of the survey. Considering that America is now 10 years removed from “The Great Recession”, an avenue of further study could focus on the experience of economic migrants of the 2000’s. A field of study that has been explored, but not to my knowledge fully examined in a mass survey format. Further, it is clear some pivotal mistakes were made in the creation of the survey form. Which failed to define migration as internal migration, a mistake that creates a question of validity over the entire survey. However due to time constraints of the semester, it is not reasonable or likely to remedy this situation. A positive to draw from this mistake is the ability to collaborate with my research teammate who was in fact looking into immigration, to see if the similarities held up across our different surveys.

 Bibliography

Gegory N James, "The Dust Bowl Migration" Poverty Stories, Race Stories, Poverty in the United States: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, and Policy, eds. Gwendolyn Mink and Alice O’Connor (Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2004)

Wilkerson, Isabel. “The Long-Lasting Legacy of the Great Migration.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 1 Sept. 2016, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/long-lasting-legacy-great-migration-180960118/.

Stanford Prison Experiment

In the assigned reading on the Stanford prison experiment, conducted by Philip G. Zimbardo, the psychology of both prisoners and prison guards in a prison setting. The subjects were young men of college age, who voluntarily signed up to participate. The experiment was initially supposed to study how labeling, and social expectations affect behavior. While the experiment was supposed to last for two weeks, but was shut down after six days. What the incident did show was how easily "average people" can assume an authoritarian role very easily. Over the course of the study, many guards became increasingly cruel, to the point some "prisoners" became effectively traumatized. This veer towards tyranny and cruel action, based on a relationship of power vs powerlessness calls to mind a quote by John Dalberg-Acton.  "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority." A quote that in my mind summarizes the results of the study perfectly. The guards were just poor college age kids, far from "great men", and thus their corruption was almost guaranteed.

Reading links/ Review of Literature- Preview

Reading Links, Review of the literature.

Here is the preview of the sources I am using for my review of the literature on my subject of (internal) migration within the United States.

The Great Migration
http://depts.washington.edu/moving1/black_migration.shtml

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4559284/

The Dust Bowl Migration
http://faculty.washington.edu/gregoryj/dust%20bowl%20migration.htm

Mapping both movements
http://depts.washington.edu/moving1/map_intro.shtml

The New Nationalism-reaction to the Donkeys presentation

My definition of modern Nationalism after the presentation by "The Donkeys" is as follows. A mixture of classical nationalism: that places a national identity above all, with ethnocentric isolationism: that places requirements to fit into that nationalist ideal, center to that is a majority that feels threatened in the age of globalism.

This could be showcased not only in America, with the rise of white nationalism. It can be seen quite clearly through the lens of Hindu nationalism in India. Which has  ethno-religious implications, by the fact that there are not converts to Hinduism. Only if you are born to a Hindu family are you considered Hindu. Which disqualifies millions of Indian citizens who are ethnic minorities. Further complicating a nation with a complex system of Caste and religious boundaries.

The Identity Politics that were mentioned in the presentation, and articles plays a part in this as well. For that we look at Italy and the rise of Ethno-nationalism led by Matteo Salvini. Taking an approach that could be simplified to "Italy for Italians." Which plays on the identity politics of Italy, by placing an emphasis on ethnic Italians, and aiming considerable hateful rhetoric at all kinds of immigrants. Especially black African migrants, which is likely linked to the history of the Moors in Sicily. They play on the fears of everyday Italians, to demonize migrants who are beyond desperate themselves. Further, migration is used as a talking point and often categorized as a modern effect of globalism. Again this is led by the dominant ethnic majority of the nation.

Here are two cases which serve as examples of my definition of modern nationalism. It could be simplified to: Ethno-Nationalism with extra hate towards migrants, who are seen as a greedy by product of globalism.

We all have "that Facebook friend"

After reading the assigned articles, I kept repeating something in my mind that, I had read in the abstract of the Article: Social media and youth political engagement: Preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth? The phrase said the "[the] principal driver of online political engagement is political interest." Which means that, the only people who are using social media for politics, are the political minds.

This conclusion is not a surprise for anyone that is on Facebook these days. We all have that "friend" that can and will not stop posting political pictures,videos, and yes memes. What the study found, is what most people have experienced firsthand. If you are not politically active, your 7th grade classmates impassioned rant on the 2nd amendment, is not likely to stir your interest. On the contrary, it is likely to make you block or unfollow them. Which is the opposite of any social network or political action.

However, a small positive can be found from the study, is that the "political person" on your social media will likely find others in their network of "friends." Which does help serve as an organizing tool. Evidence of this can be seen from Tunisia during the Arab spring, to the organization of a coordinated, global student walkout in 2019. The writer of this blog can attest to this because,the writer of this blog is indeed "The political person" on many unfortunate souls Facebook.

In my small experience of posting about local elections, I have been contacted by middle school friends interested in local issues. Older relatives, giving advice on policy that was neither asked for, or honestly appreciated. Yet I have also had the unique pleasure of being contacted by an old classmate, that is involved in local politics as well, creating an alliance of two groups of people. So while the idea of social media being binary good or bad, is not really answerable.

It is for better and for worse, a tool used to contact, connect, and create communication. Whether people choose to lock in for that connection and communication is up to the individual. Which in nations, states, regions and towns where voting turn out is decreasing, that can be for the worse.

Learning about crowds from my three year old cousin

While discussing the leBon reading the class as a whole generally settled on two things. That yes, a crowd of people influence each other, in the fashion of "peer pressure" and that the author was talking about another time. A time when gathering in a crowd to hear news, or to watch/protest the news of the day. The fact is, the era he was talking about, was an era where Telegraph was the most widely used information sharing technology of the day. Which means that while his writing is becoming more out of touch with the "modern" crowds, it tells us a lot about historical ones. 

Historically, Crowds gathered to hear news, protest/protect each other, and to witness what was happening. Which leads us to the crowd I observed over the weekend, while celebrating my moms birthday. Being of the Jewish faith, we celebrated the Sabbath by lighting candles, and reciting prayers, as members of my family have done for generations. It is literally a historic practice to light the candles and sing on Friday nights at sundown. As we sung the traditional Friday night prayers, my three year old cousin could be heard "singing along." While she is still just learning English/ "big girl words", she seemed to be getting every 5th word in Hebrew while staying along with the melody, as the adults carried on. After, my brothers and I discussed how we never really read our prayer books growing up,but simply picked up the prayers from the adults in our family. While these facts may have been disappointing to my mother, I found them to be a revelation, and the act of a three year old, learning from a crowd to be very illuminating.

My young Cousin was attaching herself to a crowd, naturally. While this was hardly the only time she had her the prayers (her grandfather is a theological scholar) and repetition has a lot to do with it. Her participation serves as very interesting transition into the second half of this blog assignment, which asked us to look at Aristotle's assertion that man is a political animal. While the interpretation on what he truly meant by that can vary. The interpretation I liked best is that,it is the most natural thing of human kind, to seek each other out, form groups, bonds,& associations for protection and fulfillment. Here my young cousin was filling that natural need to be included, to be a part of the crowd. Which when applying this lesson to  a crowd singing "we shall overcome", one can understand the intense pull to join. Humans like to be in the know, to be involved with the world in which we live, and joining a "crowd" is a just a natural part of that.

I found this article to be very educational, but at times confusing.
While I found this article to be a little more direct.

"To give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”

In the article Looking Back, Looking Forward: ISPP at 40 and Future Directions for Political Psychology author Katherine Reynolds covers a wider range of topics. After reading this, we discussed in class,a few topics, but really dug into the section entitled The Erosion of Scientific Rationalism?

The subsection discusses the perception that the gulf between the scientific community and the general public is growing. Which from studies cited in the article, is proven not to be true. Although, within those same studies is the concerning fact that almost almost 1/4th of the United States does not "trust" science. Further, we applied that to the very controversial topic of Abortion which is incredibly personal, nuanced and convoluted. While not only being an interesting in class conversation, it helped really highlight the concept of motivated reasoning. As most of us did not cite science but only personal experience, or how our values interacted with the issue. Few, if any made arguments based on scientific fact. Which drove home the point of how natural motivated reasoning is.

Motivated reasoning is a term that essentially means "a person’s deference to scientific evidence depends on the specific policy under consideration." Which means that people defer to science/evidence/numbers only when they are in line with their argument, otherwise, they can shrug off evidence. An easier example of this, is the issue of climate change, which most of the scientific community has said is real. Speeches and articles like this Article from the New Yorker that says "sea level is projected to rise more than one foot by 2045, which would put a fifth of Miami underwater at high tide." Lets just say that info has been fact checked, a climate skeptic, should logically change their opinion when presented with this evidence. However this quote from a former New York real estate mogul, highlights the concept of motivated reasoning: "Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!" The quote does not stand up on scientific fact, and stands literally in opposition of evidence, calling it a "hoax". Yet the same man gave the reason of “25,772,342 [undocumented immigrants]” that have come through the Southern border of the United States, as reason to declare a state of emergency. Here we have a clear example of using numbers and evidence when it suits an argument. Which falls perfectly into the definition of motivated reasoning we gave at the beginning of this paragraph.

All of this points to the idea that, feelings, allegiances and emotion, have taken over for evidence in being the barometer of a sound argument. Which while not always a bad thing, can be a dangerous thing when it decides the future and safety of millions. So it can be seen that while scientific rationalism may not be falling out of fashion, motivated reasoning is becoming more fashionable.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to the page.