Why are Canada and the US so socially different?

[Broomstick]

I'd be willing to say climate and/or latitude is one factor among many, with higher latitudes tending to favor certain things but not to the degree that they would overwhelm other factors. In other words, you can argue tendencies but not determinators.

[Simon_Jester]

Note that outside of Egypt, there is virtually no civilization in Africa that can be considered pioneer of civilization for almost all of recorded history - with too good environment to survive as hunter/gatherer, need to expend effort and thinking on farming (and consequently, need to develop trade, specialized crafts, accounting, etc) disappears as there is no longer any advantage in doing so, it even becomes disadvantage. So, being in warm spot doesn't give you examples to the contrary, not even North's "only" 500 years of domination.

This doesn't make a lot of sense, you're missing some critical points.

1) What do you mean "with too good environment to survive as hunter-gatherer, need... disappears..." OH. I see, sorry, that sentence didn't make sense at first, because of the way the punctuation worked. I understand now. But that leads to...

1A) You missing facts about African history. Sub-Saharan Africa may not have been one of the first regions of the world to civilize, but it did so, and did so in ancient times. Most of Africa was not occupied by hunter-gatherers when Europeans 'discovered' the place in the 1400s and 1500s (and 1800s, because it took that long for them to reach the interior). It was occupied by Iron Age civilized societies, not so different from what you might have found in Europe a few centuries earlier, if you make allowances for climate, resources, and geography. Only the most inhospitable terrain in Africa was full of hunter-gatherers: jungles and deserts. Which leads into...

1B) You are missing facts about African climate and geography. There are huge parts of sub-Saharan Africa which are not suitable for intense agriculture using pre-industrial technology. There are jungles which cannot be cleared without heavy machinery. There are deserts (and, for that matter, savannas) which cannot be adequately watered for farming. Like the steppes of Asia, these areas did remain occupied by hunter-gatherers and pastoral herdsmen... but not because they were 'too good' to create an incentive to civilize. On the contrary, they were land so marginal that you couldn't safely farm there, and were forced to scrape a marginal living out of herds of cattle and gathering whatever the hell grows in the Kalahari Desert.

1C) Incidentally, the reason there were hunter-gatherers there and (mostly) only there is that they were driven into those regions by more violent and successful farming cultures- the pygmies and Bushmen of the continent were forced onto land no one else wanted or could use. Just like in Europe, nomadic groups like the Lapps were pushed out onto the extreme frozen margins of the north. There's a fair amount of anthropological evidence on this.


2) Come to think of it, that's a fundamental contradiction. Land "too good" to create an incentive to civilize means people remain as hunter-gatherers. But when we find hunter-gatherers in real life, it's usually in inhospitable terrain that's very cold, very hot, very overgrown and rugged, or otherwise totally unsuited for farming. Or we find it in 'post-apocalyptic' environments where there used to be a populous civilization that was destroyed by disease outbreaks or ecological disasters (i.e. Easter Island, or the Americas after Columbus when European disases killed 90%+ of the population in about 50-100 years).

Whereas the kind of very fertile place that it would be easy to survive in by hunting and gathering... there we see civilizations emerge spontaneously, or spread into such territory very quickly, and any hunter-gatherers who happen to live there are violently brushed aside.

How do we square these ideas with each other? People who live in 'warm' places can afford to be too lazy to civilize because 'life is easy'... but it's only in hellish deserts and jungles where life is hard that they don't civilize.


3) That takes us back to "heat/cold influences religious views." As Murazor points out during his own analysis, take data with grain of salt. There are almost NO countries except for European or Europe-derived ones to be found at high latitudes. If we assert that religious tolerance comes in large part from a logic-promoting climate, what we're really asserting is that the cold climate caused Europeans to be more logical than anyone else in the world, and then the habit spread.

That invites questions about whether European culture really is, on average, more logical than that of other regions. And about why the Lapps and Inuit aren't super-geniuses.

So before we say climate accounts for much of the variance, we need to figure out a way to see whether there are any confounding variables we need to strip out of the variance.

[Memnon]

So before we say climate accounts for much of the variance, we need to figure out a way to see whether there are any confounding variables we need to strip out of the variance.

Well, that's the nice thing about how simple the ANOVA is. It doesn't try to pin a causation down, it just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a lot to do with whether people think religion is important. In order to get more specific than that, I'd need much better data -- more resolution, probably more power on some of those countries, and so on. Probably different variables, too. I didn't use climate because having a simple 'climate axis' doesn't make any sense, since average temperature can mean a lot of things. And there's absolutely no accounting for the historical religion structure at all. That said, I think that what it does show is that religion is certainly associated with latitude.

Also, if we're talking about recorded history, we have cotton knots from Peru, various writings from China, pictographs from the Indus valley, and so on going back far enough that any kind of statement that says they were behind Africa for most of recorded history is simply silly.

[Welf]

Well, that's the nice thing about how simple the ANOVA is. It doesn't try to pin a causation down, it just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a lot to do with whether people think religion is important.

No. It just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a statistical relation with weather people think religion, as they define it in their various cultures, is important.

[Memnon]

Well, that's the nice thing about how simple the ANOVA is. It doesn't try to pin a causation down, it just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a lot to do with whether people think religion is important.

No. It just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a statistical relation with weather people think religion, as they define it in their various cultures, is important.

That's what I said.

[Simon_Jester]

That's what I said.

Not quite.

Well, that's the nice thing about how simple the ANOVA is. It doesn't try to pin a causation down, it just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a lot to do with whether people think religion is important...

No. It just says that population-weighted centroid latitude has a statistical relation with weather people think religion, as they define it in their various cultures, is important.

Let population-weighted centroid latitude be A. Let whether people think religion is important be B.

Your version comes a bit closer to implying causality. "A has a lot to do with B" is a causal statement: A might not be causing B, but there's causation in there somewhere.

Welf's version doesn't say there's causation involved at all. Also, Welf's version uses a different version of B, call it "B-prime:" "whether people think religion, as they define it in their various cultures, is important." That's a tricky bit; witness Welf's comments about the idea of Maoism as a religion for an example.

It's subtle, but there are some differences.

Also, if we're talking about recorded history, we have cotton knots from Peru, various writings from China, pictographs from the Indus valley, and so on going back far enough that any kind of statement that says they were behind Africa for most of recorded history is simply silly.

...What?

I don't see the relevance of this. My own point is simply that the state of technology in African civilization was unremarkable by global standards until the beginning of the modern era. It wasn't a primeval wilderness full of Stone Age hunter-gatherers; the only parts of the continent full of hunter-gatherers by 1000-1500 AD were the ones not suited to cultivation or herding.

So this idea Irbis has that a super-hospitable 'warm' climate somehow turned Africa into a 'lazy' continent where civilizing was a disadvantage... it's gibberish. The climate wasn't super-hospitable, and the continent wasn't 'lazy' in its progress. It's just wrong, in pretty much every detail.

That's where I'm coming from. Sub-Saharan Africa was not unusually advanced or unusually primitive for most of world history. It was neither among the first nor among the last places to develop civilization and technology, so any argument that a warm climate made it especially primitive seems ill-founded. Especially when the most primitive places in Africa were the least hospitable ones, the ones no farmer could make a living in.

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's where I'm coming from. Sub-Saharan Africa was not unusually advanced or unusually primitive for most of world history. It was neither among the first nor among the last places to develop civilization and technology, so any argument that a warm climate made it especially primitive seems ill-founded. Especially when the most primitive places in Africa were the least hospitable ones, the ones no farmer could make a living in.

In fact, many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa had quite sophisticated cultures. Great Zimbabwe, certain Bantu groups in East Africa, the Serer, and the Nok are all very early examples. Later, Somalia and the Ethopian highlands were home to advanced civilizations. During the earliest periods of European (post-antiquity) exploration, the Swahili, Urewe, the Sakalava/Merina peoples of Madagascar, and the various Lake Plateau civilizations were all considered fairly advanced, even by the Europeans exploring them. It was primarily Arab expansion and the slave trade that overtook them. (In fact, one of the primary reasons the British began colonizing Africa extensively in the 19th century was as a means to STOP the slave trade and preserve the various African civilizations. It would not be until later that the vast mineral resources of the continent would be fully discovered and exploited; imperialism was originally humanitarian, though still tinged with racism.)

[Memnon]

Your version comes a bit closer to implying causality. "A has a lot to do with B" is a causal statement: A might not be causing B, but there's causation in there somewhere.

Welf's version doesn't say there's causation involved at all. Also, Welf's version uses a different version of B, call it "B-prime:" "whether people think religion, as they define it in their various cultures, is important." That's a tricky bit; witness Welf's comments about the idea of Maoism as a religion for an example.

It's subtle, but there are some differences.

That's crap. I didn't use any technical terms, so how are you to know that I'm saying there's a causal link? Like I said, the ANOVA doesn't account for history. And it's clear that if we had data from a few hundred years earlier on there would likely be no relationship at all due to most countries being rather religious. I said that my meaning was the same as Welf's because it certainly was. The 'a lot' was only referring to the size of the variance "explained" (I shouldn't have to explain that ANOVA variance explained isn't truly explained, but I will just in case someone misinterprets me again: it merely says that the two factors are merely related in a way that isn't the null hypothesis of two uniform distributions crossed with each other).

Also, if we're talking about recorded history, we have cotton knots from Peru, various writings from China, pictographs from the Indus valley, and so on going back far enough that any kind of statement that says they were behind Africa for most of recorded history is simply silly.

...What?

I was referring to the idea that Egypt was certainly not as much of a pioneer as Irbis said it was. Unless Irbis didn't mean more than 50% when he said 'much'.

[Simon_Jester]

Memnon that's my point, you used informal words in a way that implies something. Maybe you didn't mean to say it- that doesn't mean what you did say is identical to what someone else said. There is still a difference. Even if it doesn't seem significant to you because (like I often do) you think in terms of what you meant to say, not how it looks to someone else.

[Welf]

That's crap. I didn't use any technical terms, so how are you to know that I'm saying there's a causal link? Like I said, the ANOVA doesn't account for history. And it's clear that if we had data from a few hundred years earlier on there would likely be no relationship at all due to most countries being rather religious. I said that my meaning was the same as Welf's because it certainly was. The 'a lot' was only referring to the size of the variance "explained" (I shouldn't have to explain that ANOVA variance explained isn't truly explained, but I will just in case someone misinterprets me again: it merely says that the two factors are merely related in a way that isn't the null hypothesis of two uniform distributions crossed with each other).

And that is not correct. The data only say that there's a relation between a proxy and another proxy. The original question was if climate and religiousness is connected. And there's no data on that available.

First Proxy: country's centroid; that's a reasonable first proxy. But there are some very large countries with different climate zones, and several factors like the Gulf stream that make this shaky. Which you explained.

Second proxy, which you seemed not to understand: You use the answer to the question "Is religion important in your daily life?" as indicator for religiousness. But that is a proxy, and not a direct measure of it.
A few problems:
How is religiousness defined?
Does it mean that you are member of a religious community? Because then I'm religious, since I'm a member of the catholic church. Even if I'm an atheist.
Does it mean to understand and follow a religious code? Because than you run into trouble. According to this survey about the USA, atheists know more about religion than self-identified religious people. I'm not saying this survey is 100% correct - can't judge that - but it shows an issue.
And in extension that, there a lot of people who spend a lot of time in religious communities; take part in festivals, meetings, travels and much more. And don't pay more than lip service to the spiritual ideas behind it. Without even realizing it. Think of the classic example of Christian conservative who believes in death penalty and use of military force in foreign olicy; and that in the name of the forgiving Jesus.
Or does religiousness mean a believe in spiritual or higher powers? Then you run into the problem that some people don't consider themselves as religious, even if they believe in stuff like spirits, ghosts, tarot, and more. A problem you will face in Europe.

Also there's the problem that what people say and what they think is not the same. In some countries it's not healthy to say you don't think religion is an important part of your life. And not (only) because the government is particularly religious, but because that's the code word that separates between followers and opponents. People learn pretty quickly what it is healthy to say and what not. And to a point where the inner censor is always active or they start to believe their own lies to lie better.

So we did not the say the same and did not mean the same.

[Channel72]

The correlation between hotter climates and religiosity is interesting, but very inconclusive. I tend to think that conservatism/religiosity is more a result of rural/sub-rural environments rather than anything to do with climate per se. The most liberal states in the US are places where most of the population is centered in large cities, like New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois. Most of the Northeast US is very densely populated, which might account for the fact that these places tend to be more liberal. Conservative states like Texas and Georgia certainly also have large cities, like Dallas and Atlanta respectively, but most of the population lives in a sub-urban or rural environment in these places. The Federal Highway act along with cheap gasoline has also helped to sustain sub-urban sprawl and rural residencies, which could help explain the conservative-leaning of the US as a whole.

In Western Europe, most of the population tends to be clustered around major cities - there's much less sub-urban sprawl and rural inhabitants. I don't know what the ratio of urban to rural residents in Canada is, but I'd imagine that the majority of Canadians live in metropolitan areas like Montreal, Vancouver or Quebec City.

[Ziggy Stardust]

The correlation between hotter climates and religiosity is interesting, but very inconclusive. I tend to think that conservatism/religiosity is more a result of rural/sub-rural environments rather than anything to do with climate per se. The most liberal states in the US are places where most of the population is centered in large cities, like New York, California, Massachusetts and Illinois. Most of the Northeast US is very densely populated, which might account for the fact that these places tend to be more liberal. Conservative states like Texas and Georgia certainly also have large cities, like Dallas and Atlanta respectively, but most of the population lives in a sub-urban or rural environment in these places. The Federal Highway act along with cheap gasoline has also helped to sustain sub-urban sprawl and rural residencies, which could help explain the conservative-leaning of the US as a whole.

In Western Europe, most of the population tends to be clustered around major cities - there's much less sub-urban sprawl and rural inhabitants. I don't know what the ratio of urban to rural residents in Canada is, but I'd imagine that the majority of Canadians live in metropolitan areas like Montreal, Vancouver or Quebec City.

A confounding factor in this example would be the presence of large universities in most cities, which tends to attract young, liberally-minded people. For example, in Texas, Austin is a pretty liberal city, which has to do with the presence of UT. Because of this, it becomes difficult to say whether the perceived "liberality" of large cities is a factor of population, population density, the university effect, some interaction of these factors, or something else entirely.

[Channel72]

A confounding factor in this example would be the presence of large universities in most cities, which tends to attract young, liberally-minded people. For example, in Texas, Austin is a pretty liberal city, which has to do with the presence of UT. Because of this, it becomes difficult to say whether the perceived "liberality" of large cities is a factor of population, population density, the university effect, some interaction of these factors, or something else entirely.

The presence of Universities is probably an important factor. But I think metropolitan liberalism is mostly a result of the fact that conservatism requires an echo chamber to thrive, which is much more difficult to maintain when you have a large, diverse population - especially when there's a constant influx of new people.

Regardless, the perceived liberalism of large cities is something very ancient and ingrained into the human psyche. Even the old story of Abraham and Lot from the Old Testament is basically a city vs. rural morality lesson, where Lot chooses to live in the wicked city of Sodom, but pious Abraham stays out in the countryside. It's also the reason "Babylon", one of the largest cities of the ancient world, is synonymous with depravity in the Judeo-Christian psyche.

[Channel72]

As a follow-up - is there any major US metropolitan area which is heavily conservative? A few minutes of research into highly conservative states reveals that most of these states have very liberal metropolitan areas, surrounded by a conservative majority out in the suburbs and countryside. For example, even though Utah is a heavily Republican state, Salt Lake City is mostly liberal Democrats. The same applies to a lesser extent to Dallas in Texas, and Atlanta Georgia, which is a Democratic stronghold in a mostly Republican state.

So, basically the percentage of people who live in metropolitan areas seems to be a pretty good indicator of whether any given state is a Red-State or Blue-State. For example, about 90% of the people living in New York state live in the NYC metropolitan area, and the state is solidly blue. In Texas, only about 14 million out of 25.6 million (around 55%) live in major metropolitan areas (and also I imagine that the outlying suburbs of "metropolitan areas" in Texas are less densely populated than the east coast), and Texas is obviously a major red state.

Of course, there's probably some exceptions, but I don't know how significant they are. So I think the best explanation for US conservatism compared with Western Europe and Canada is that the highway infrastructure of the US, along with cheap gasoline, has enabled rural/sub-urban conservative-leaning communities to thrive over the last 50 years.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

In the US, New England is a very obvious exception to the rural/urban dynamic. Vermont is incredibly rural (it might be the most rural in the country, I forget) but is one of the bluest states (2nd highest margin of victory for Obama). Maine is also very rural and very blue, while Connecticut is the second most Republican state in the region despite being adjacent to NYC and having a dense population. It's not entirely reversed, either, as New Hampshire is also rural and fairly red (though it's more libertarian Republican than conservative Republican, I think), and in Maine, the rural 2nd district is less liberal than the suburban 1st.

[Channel72]

Yeah, New England doesn't fit as nicely. Although, even in Maine most people live in the Portland or Bangor metro area. But Vermont is a notable exception.

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is also the question of at what population level/density do you use as the cut-off. I mean, there are parts of Virginia and North Carolina that are quite liberal and aren't very densely populated (though they still may be MORE densely populated than corresponding conservative parts). I am curious as to whether someone has done any thorough research on this subject; I am sure it exists, but I am at work now and don't have time to go scrounging Google Scholar.