Diversity may help prevent Binge Drinking

[wdlove]

A Harvard study finds that binge drinking occurs mainly among young, male, white Americans. The study was done at the School of Public Health. Thjey found that with a diversity of minorites and older students that the tendency toward binge drinking decreased. Most risky behavior occurs with binge drinking.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/2597408/detail.html

[gwangung]

Originally posted by wdlove
A Harvard study finds that binge drinking occurs mainly among young, male, white Americans. The study was done at the School of Public Health. Thjey found that with a diversity of minorites and older students that the tendency toward binge drinking decreased. Most risky behavior occurs with binge drinking.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/education/2597408/detail.html

See! Affirmative action helps white males, too!

[Stelliform]

That is the weirdest statistic yet....

I am starting to wonder if there is a statistical coincidence here. Like only bigoted white males binge drink... :) just a thought.

[rainman::|:|]

yes, this certainly is an odd statistic. to some degree it makes sense, as the American approach to drinking is flawed-- people have to wait until 21, when they're out on their own, rather than learning to drink responsibly at an early age with parents... so i could definitely see how other cultures might be a lot more responsible with drinking. but that doesn't explain other american races, unless you want to apply the same theory to socioeconomic groups... but i don't know if i want to be the one to say that black/latino/etc start drinking earlier than white males...

pnw

[iJon]

haha i would agree with that after the halloween party last night, woohoo for the white americans.

iJon

[Phil Of Mac]

Suppose I released a study that said that young black men use illegal drugs more often. What's the freaking point?

If young white men engage in binge drinking, then adding more people to the population who are not young white men will decrease the level of binge drinking by diluting the level of binge drinkers, i.e., young white men.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Suppose I released a study that said that young black men use illegal drugs more often. What's the freaking point?

If young white men engage in binge drinking, then adding more people to the population who are not young white men will decrease the level of binge drinking by diluting the level of binge drinkers, i.e., young white men.

You didn't read the article, did you? It quite clearly states that those who drank heavily in high school were less likely to drink heavily in college when the campus population was diverse.

That quite clearly means that its not merely the dilution of white students on campus that affects the figures but the fact that diversity lowers the bingeing (sp?).

This is good news! Thanks for the link wdlove. Anything that retards the growth of such an individually and collectively destructive activity such as this is always welcome news.

BTW, PoM, what is the rate of alcoholism at WAZZU? The last I knew it was a pretty white bread kind of place. My guess is that it is pretty high. Care to confirm or deny it?

[Phil Of Mac]

WSU is both ethnically diverse and known for drinking.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
WSU is both ethnically diverse and known for drinking.

At 12% Link (http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/FactsAboutWSU.html) WSU is less diverse than the general US population Link (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762156.html) . Given that a significant segment of the under 18s are non-white, that would indicate that WSU is way out of balance when it comes to diversity on campus.

[Phil Of Mac]

Okay, WSU isn't as diverse as the rest of the population, but it's certainly more diverse than my home town.

In any case, racial diversity is unimportant, just as race in general is unimportant, at least if you mean race qua race. I will not deny that by necessity, certain racial minorities within the United States formed their own cultures, but that is not the same as their race, and it is an important distinction to be made.

What is far more important is diversity of ideas and diversity of cultures. Race? I thought we'd moved beyond that by now.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
In any case, racial diversity is unimportant, just as race in general is unimportant, at least if you mean race qua race. I will not deny that by necessity, certain racial minorities within the United States formed their own cultures, but that is not the same as their race, and it is an important distinction to be made.

What is far more important is diversity of ideas and diversity of cultures. Race? I thought we'd moved beyond that by now.

As far as I'm concerned, race is a word that has no meaning so we are in agreeance on that. There are cultures, there are languages, nationalities, hair color, eye color, skin color, religions, etc, etc, but race is a meaningless word.

I think the point of the article is that campuses that embrace or have been embraced by a diverse group of students have fewer binge drinking problems. That means in my book that they are not all white, middle class kids from the burbs but of all colors, of all socio-economic classes, of all geographic areas of the US and abroad and religions.

There are a number of historically black colleges in the US. I wonder if the study looked at alcoholism on those campuses and how they were dealt with? I'm sure there are campuses in Florida, NY, TX and CA that have large numbers of Hispanic students. Does the premise still stand? It would be very interesting to have a look at the entire study and the campuses that were involved.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Ugg
As far as I'm concerned, race is a word that has no meaning so we are in agreeance on that. There are cultures, there are languages, nationalities, hair color, eye color, skin color, religions, etc, etc, but race is a meaningless word.

I won't go that far. Anthropologically speaking, there is such a thing as race, there are genetic subspecies of man...but it doesn't have social significance. Nationality is more artificial than race anyway.

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I won't go that far. Anthropologically speaking, there is such a thing as race, there are genetic subspecies of man...but it doesn't have social significance. Nationality is more artificial than race anyway.

For sure. There have been studies done that show Africans, on average, have lower IQs than Europeans. That's just how it goes. That's not to say someone from Africa can't be a genius of course.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by johnnowak
For sure. There have been studies done that show Africans, on average, have lower IQs than Europeans. That's just how it goes. That's not to say someone from Africa can't be a genius of course.

Links please! Provocative statements such as yours are frowned upon if they are not backed up with proof.

BTW, there are no subspecies of homo sapiens. Just as the world of canines varies greatly, so does the world of humans. There are obviously regional differences but to claim there are sub-species is going too far.

The claim remains though that diversity on campuses leads to lower drinking rates. I wonder how what else diversity on campuses indicates? Lower crime, sexual assault, higher grades? It would be very, very interesting to find out.

[wdlove]

This just happens to be a good kind of diversity. Anything to promote good health among the young is good. Besides race and socio-economic groups it also mentioned age. Having a mix of an older age group seemed to decrease binge drinking. Maturity does have it positives.

[cr2sh]

After going thru college and binge drinking (more than the average person), I find that after graduation.. I drink a lot less than most of the working stiffs I'm around. The guys who didn't go to college, come back to the hotel every night with a 6pack and they drink it... I rarely have a drink after work.

Its just my own observation, but I think even binge drinking in college serves very much as a "get it out of my system now." So enough of this bad-mouthing binge drinking... I think its a healthy activity. Binge-drinking in moderation, that is. :)

[johnnowak]

Originally posted by Ugg
Links please! Provocative statements such as yours are frowned upon if they are not backed up with proof.

A quick google should get you lots of info. Asians score higher than whites, with blacks scoring the lowest on average. The book "The Bell Curve" talks much of this. The book's validity is up for debate though, and I am no expert in this area, hence I'm just regurgitating. However, it really is irrelevent. In one of the early IQ tests, they found that women tended to outperform men. So they simply changed the questions until men did as well as women. IQ tests are, at least partially, bunk. And no, I'm not the typical person who says that because they got a crap score on their last IQ test. I scored 160+ and I have the Mensa membership to prove it. However, I regularly fall over, mispeak, and generally at like a total ditz, not to mention posting without proper respectful restraint, etc. I'm just really good with patterns and math. It's a mostly meaningless statistic.. unless your job requires good math and pattern matching skills.

[tazo]

I think this is just more bunk and propoganda from they-whose-name-must-never-be-spoken :o

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by tazo
I think this is just more bunk and propoganda from they-whose-name-must-never-be-spoken :o

Valdemort?

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
I won't go that far. Anthropologically speaking, there is such a thing as race, there are genetic subspecies of man...but it doesn't have social significance. Nationality is more artificial than race anyway.

No on both counts. It's Homo sapiens sapiens meaning no subspecies. And, johnnowak, the Bell Curve is not only controversial, it is ridiculed.

For those that are interested in Anthropology, here is a link to Anthropology and Education Quarterly and a review of a book by one of the giants of the field, Ashley Montagu. His book is an update of his work that demolished the idea of race to include new books, like the Bell Curve. The title of his book is Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race.

http://www.aaanet.org/cae/aeq/br/montagu.htm GRANT JEWELL RICH
University of Chicago

The appearance of the new edition of Ashley Montagu’s volume on race offers both cause for celebration and reason for reflection. Based on a work first published in 1942, at a time when the Nazis were using pseudoscientific racial theories to justify their atrocities, this updated 1997 edition appears in a world in which deadly ethnic conflict continues to persist in such places as Bosnia and Rwanda. Fortunately, Montagu’s work represents action research at its best; this single volume includes discussion of most of the important research that refutes racist claims, and yet the book remains accessible to the general reader. In addition, Montagu reveals himself to be a patient teacher, one who is willing to repeat lessons he first taught us over fifty years ago. “Man’s most dangerous myth,” race, he warns, is persistent and frightening, and the germ of a solution to the issue may reside not in ignorance or through ignoring what may be distasteful but through “enlightened action” (p. 463). The current volume offers a giant leap toward this enlightenment.

Perhaps Montagu’s understanding of racial myths is rooted in his own experience as a Jew growing up in East London—and as an immigrant later on in the United States. Or perhaps his wisdom stems from the experience and erudition accumulated over his 94 years. At any rate, a public intellectual in the best sense of the term, Montague is a veritable walking encyclopedia of the vast literature (past and present) on the subject of race. (When I visited with him recently, he regaled me with stories of his teachers, the anthropologists Malinowski and Boas and the statisticians R. A. Fisher, Spearman, and Pearson.)

Over the 23 chapters and four appendixes, Montagu attacks common misconceptions. Notably, he aims to refute the erroneous belief that there is a “genetic linkage” between the physical appearance (phenotype) of the individual, the intelligence of the individual, and the “ability of the group to which the individual belongs to achieve a high civilization” (p. 31). For instance, he demolishes J. Phillipe Rushton’s perverse claim that an inverse correlation exists between brain size and race and penis size and race (Race, Evolution, and Behavior: A Life History Perspective, New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1995). Other myths countered by Montagu include the myth that intermarriage leads to degeneration, the myth that blacks and whites have different body odors, the myth that the Jews are a “race,” and the myth that there is equal educational opportunity for Native Americans denied access to their cultural heritage.

Like a nasty virus, racial arguments tend to appear seasonally; and just when one thinks one is vaccinated, the virus strikes again in a slightly different and potentially more powerful form. For instance, the repulsive notion that there is an African American–Caucasian intelligence difference and that it is rooted in genetic factors has surfaced repeatedly. It emerged in a 1952 work by Frank C. J. McGurk (“On White and Negro Test Performance and Socioeconomic Factors,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48[3]:448–450), in Arthur Jensen’s 1969 monograph (“How Much Can We Boost IQ Scores and Scholastic Achievement?” Harvard Educational Review 39:1–123), and most recently in the 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray that sold 500,000 copies, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: Free Press). Montagu attacks the absurdity from both ends, and having already argued earlier that the concept “race” is a fallacy, he proceeds first to demolish the notion that IQ tests reflect intelligence and then to offer evidence that indeed intelligence test scores of blacks from some states are superior to the scores of whites from other states. Such data indicate that, far from genetic differences, environmental factors are at the heart of the disparity. These data, presented in an appendix, more or less recap a 1945 Montagu paper based on World War I–era test scores, yet the essence of so many of the arguments and data remains remarkably contemporary and relevant to present-day educational policy.

While racists frequently employ “evolutionary” arguments in their work, Montagu reminds us that it makes more sense to assume natural selection has placed a “high premium” on educability for all groups. Indeed, a central lesson in the book is that variability in physical and intellectual traits, when it exists, is usually greater within a population than it is between populations. One area in which genetic arguments have been advanced is the evaluation of Head Start programs; research on these programs reveals that graduates sometimes have IQ scores that increase at first only to decline by the sixth grade. Racist arguments use this information to claim that education programs are doomed to failure—after all, these arguments go, one cannot alter what is innately programmed. Montagu indicates that a more likely explanation of the score increases and decreases is simply that, once the enrichment has stopped, the student is again placed in a deprived environment. So the correct response by educators will be to bolster education programs throughout the school years rather than to eliminate Head Start.

Montagu’s work suggests that what will begin to effect social change is “enlightened action,” not what he defines as tolerance (“recognition of difference which one must suffer—generally, not too gladly” [p. 241]). Such a plan requires teaching the absurdities of Jensen, Rushton, Herrnstein, and Murray, as distasteful as the task may be. The reader will thank Montagu for the updated intellectual armory his work offers to the scientist or educator confronted with a racist argument. Few social science books are read 50 years after publication; this book is one of the few. While we may marvel at Montagu’s mastery, the reader closes the book with the most important question unanswered: Will the book be needed 50 years from now?

[Phil Of Mac]

Okay, I was wrong to use the term "subspecies". But different races do exist, however, they also lack significance on a social or political level. That was my point, after all.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Okay, I was wrong to use the term "subspecies". But different races do exist, however, they also lack significance on a social or political level. That was my point, after all.

Phil,

I think the point is that race only exists as a social category. We, as a society, have created this idea of "race" out of our own prejudices focusing on our perception of the physical attributes of others and using them to create an "other." It is not a scientific category.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
Phil,

I think the point is that race only exists as a social category. We, as a society, have created this idea of "race" out of our own prejudices focusing on our perception of the physical attributes of others and using them to create an "other." It is not a scientific category.

With all due respect, are you blind? There are genetic and physical differences between those of European, East Asian, and African ancestry. They aren't "prejudices" or "stereotypes", they are actual races. And it is useful to consider them as such for various applications. For instance, those of African ancestry are more prone to suffer from sickle-cell anemia due to genetic differences inherent in the race. If one is black, one should keep in mind that he is more prone to suffer from sickle-cell anemia.

Race is insignificant in a social and political context. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
With all due respect, are you blind? There are genetic and physical differences between those of European, East Asian, and African ancestry. They aren't "prejudices" or "stereotypes", they are actual races. And it is useful to consider them as such for various applications. For instance, those of African ancestry are more prone to suffer from sickle-cell anemia due to genetic differences inherent in the race. If one is black, one should keep in mind that he is more prone to suffer from sickle-cell anemia.

Race is insignificant in a social and political context. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

No, I'm not blind. Yes, there are genetic differences between population groups. That does not make the concept of "race" a scientifically valid one. As the review I posted states, "Indeed, a central lesson in the book is that variability in physical and intellectual traits, when it exists, is usually greater within a population than it is between populations." If one is "black" or more correctly having african ancestors, then indeed the likelihood of sickle-cell is greater, but this doesn't translate to taking this trait or the level of melanin or any other trait and constructing a category of a "black race" out of it.

I agree with you that "race" should be insignificant in a social or political context. Unfortunately, we haven't gotten there yet.

[Phil Of Mac]

So how are people to know whether or not they are black, and therefore prone to sickle-cell anemia?

The concept of race is not only valid, it is very useful. For instance: If you are caucasian and want dreadlocks, the best method is "backcombing". If you are black and want dreadlocks, the best method is the "twist" method. If one is caucasian and attempts the "twist" method, he will not get dreadlocks. So it is pretty clear from these two applications, at the very least, that the concept of race is useful. I know it may be "politically correct" to argue it doesn't exist, but the last time political correctness interfered with science, Galileo was forced to recant.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
So how are people to know whether or not they are black, and therefore prone to sickle-cell anemia?

The concept of race is not only valid, it is very useful. For instance: If you are caucasian and want dreadlocks, the best method is "backcombing". If you are black and want dreadlocks, the best method is the "twist" method. If one is caucasian and attempts the "twist" method, he will not get dreadlocks. So it is pretty clear from these two applications, at the very least, that the concept of race is useful. I know it may be "politically correct" to argue it doesn't exist, but the last time political correctness interfered with science, Galileo was forced to recant.

Phil,

it has nothing to do with PC and everything to do with science and the abuse of science by those who wish to push theories with "race" at its core.

The science of population genetics looks at population groups and gives us many insights about the frequency of different traits in these groups. This is a very important field of study and it looks at the kinds of questions you raise. There is a huge difference between this and racial explanations of traits. For instance, let us look again at the sickle-cell trait you raised. About one in every 400 African Americans has this disease, but it is a trait not common to all who would fall under the racial category of "black." This is a trait that comes from those who have ancestors from central Africa. It does not have the same frequency among other African or Australian aboriginal population groups, but all of these folks are lumped together to form this category of "black." The categories of "race" are defined by skin color, but we could just as well pick any other physical characteristic to make new categories. Why not the blue eyed race, or the race of people who can curl their tongues. We could even try your hair texture method as a defining characteristic of "race," but with the many folks with "kinky" hair I think we will have a hard time separating folks out and still maintain the skin color lines. It all makes no sense from a scientific point of view. Phil, if you want some information on this issue, read Montagu's book. You are much more likely to believe him than me.

It is useful to remember that Galileo was forced to recant his scientific views in the face of the power of the political masters of his time. In this case it is those that would overthrow science and reason that wish to impose the ideas of "race." Let us hope they never again become our political masters.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Sayhey
It is useful to remember that Galileo was forced to recant his scientific views in the face of the power of the political masters of his time. In this case it is those that would overthrow science and reason that wish to impose the ideas of "race." Let us hope they never again become our political masters.

It seems more a political consideration than a scientific one to abolish race to me.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It seems more a political consideration than a scientific one to abolish race to me.

It would be foolish to deny that the idea that science should determine the existence or lack thereof of "race" does not have a political perspective. I think it is a pretty darn good one though.

[johnnowak]

In my opinion, regardless of if certain races are, on average, more apt to excel at certain things, or not, it does not matter; the fact that the individual can fall anywhere in the spectrum regardless of race makes this so.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by johnnowak
In my opinion, regardless of if certain races are, on average, more apt to excel at certain things, or not, it does not matter; the fact that the individual can fall anywhere in the spectrum regardless of race makes this so.

Amen! And you can tell that to Yao Ming!

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by johnnowak
In my opinion, regardless of if certain races are, on average, more apt to excel at certain things, or not, it does not matter; the fact that the individual can fall anywhere in the spectrum regardless of race makes this so.

Just what abilities do you think are tied to "race"? johnnowak, if you are interested in learning how IQ has been misused by folks to perpetuate the idea of racial inequality then I have another book to recommend. It is called The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould. Though it predates The Bell Curve it provides a devastating analyses of the misuse of intelligence tests. Along with Montagu's book that I listed earlier, I think it would give you a better background in this subject.

[Mojo The Monkey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
It seems more a political consideration than a scientific one to abolish race to me.

The idea of race as a social construct goes a lot deeper than I think you understand.

For example, a hundred and sixty years ago in the United States and in Britain, the Irish were not considered "white." Yet, today, Irish-Americans are pillars of "white" America.

A slow social process took place that "promoted" Irish Americans to the status of "white." Eastern and southern Europeans were similarly viewed as "not white" and have slowly gained that status.

In his book "The Wages of Whiteness," David Roediger argues that the continual extension of "whiteness" to groups that had not previously been considered so was part of a policy to divide the working classes of the United States along racial lines so they would not percieve common interests.

Rodeger makes a very compelling argument. I urge you to read it.

[Phil Of Mac]

I understand the power of race as a social construct. In Jamaica, where nearly everyone is of dark skin and African ancestry, my father once encountered a dark-skinned man who swore at him rather incoherently. Another dark-skinned individual responded, "Oh, that's just pidgin English, only the blacks speak that."

However, I will also say that race as a scientific distinction probably does exist. To be consistent, I would say that, for instance, Arabs are in the "Caucasian" category, while Native Americans are in the "Asian" category--surely not the usual social distinctions, but definitely valid in a purely scientific context.

[1macker1]

Where did this info come from, "The Bell Curve Theory" book? I'd like to see a link too, and unbiased link.
Originally posted by johnnowak
For sure. There have been studies done that show Africans, on average, have lower IQs than Europeans. That's just how it goes. That's not to say someone from Africa can't be a genius of course.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
However, I will also say that race as a scientific distinction probably does exist. To be consistent, I would say that, for instance, Arabs are in the "Caucasian" category, while Native Americans are in the "Asian" category--surely not the usual social distinctions, but definitely valid in a purely scientific context.

Phil,

you are a student at WSU, right? Why don't you go find a Anthropology Professor and ask them about Montegu's book? Or ask them about the "science" behind the concept of "race"? You seem to be an intelligent guy, so a little education on the subject never hurt anyone.

[Phil Of Mac]

Unfortunately, WSU is very highly ranked in the category of "Professors make themselves scarce".

I am not making this up. This is an actual ranking.

[Dros]

Sayhey, your comments on race are very well said (but I'll try to muddle things anyway). Studies of differences between races have shown that there are more differences between members of what we consider a race than between different races. These are differences in the genome sequence.

PoM, you mentioned how race can be useful to know how to dreadlock hair. And that is exactly right, because hair is part of how we socially define a race. But the utility of the race construct should be limited to the things by which we define it.

What the genome sequencing project is telling us is that there are far greater differences between two people living in a similar climate (Africa) aand looking visually the same. They share melanization of the skin, but neuropeptide releases may be different, enzyme kinetics skewed, etc, and these probably affect the mind and body in far greater ways than melanization.

[yamabushi]

I have read extensively on this subject and I agree completely with Sayhey. The term "race" is a misnomer and ideally should not be used to describe the differences between certain groups of human beings.

While I was studying in Japan I noticed that binge drinking appeared to be very popular among Japanese students as well as many working professionals. I would say that it is probably at least as common as in the US.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
Unfortunately, WSU is very highly ranked in the category of "Professors make themselves scarce".

I am not making this up. This is an actual ranking.

LOL, I've never heard of such a ranking! I believe you Phil, but that is an entirely new one to me. Anyway, I've tried to make some suggestions for those who want to know more on the subject.

Dros and yamabushi, you both seem to know a bit about this, perhaps you can persuade some folks that I can't?

[jonapete2001]

I dont get it. what is wrong with binge drinking? I do it every friday and saturday

[Dros]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I dont get it. what is wrong with binge drinking? I do it every friday and saturday

You are in Green Bay and you only binge drink twice a week? You must be considered quite the oddity. :)

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
I dont get it. what is wrong with binge drinking? I do it every friday and saturday

Other than the damage it does to your body, absolutely nothing. ;)

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by Dros
You are in Green Bay and you only binge drink twice a week? You must be considered quite the oddity. :)

By definition, one cannot binge drink all the time.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
By definition, one cannot binge drink all the time.

Of course, you realize in this context binge drinking has a actual definition (or at least, a few):

"Henry Wechsler and his Harvard colleagues published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in which they reported the results of a national survey on college student drinking. For men, "binge drinking" is defined as having 5 or more drinks in a row on a single occasion within the past two weeks, and for women as having 4 or more drinks in a row."

Others use a definition of just drinking to the exclusion of normal activities. Others say for an extended period of time.

So, it would be easy to "binge drink" 7 days a week with the 5 drink definition or the exclusion definition. The extended period would be hard to do more than a few times a week if the extended period lasted more than a day.

I know, I know... you were being funny. I just had to get all technical.