Most clams are very poor. Oysters can generate wealth through pearls but I am not sure what that has to do with this discussion.
Scientology is a pseudo-religion that depends on attracting wealthy members to sustain itself. That is basically the whole model in summary but it goes much deeper than that. They have very private and elaborate schools to indoctrinate the younger crop for example and those are probably not anything you would want you kids to go to even if you have the money. If that sounds like some kind of insane conspiracy theory, it is because it is. Not all insane conspiracy theories are false.
Wealthy people can pay to become higher ranking members to get to the next ‘level’ and it can cost a whole lot with spiritual promotions along the way. It isn’t a religion for poor people by design. If you don’t believe me, just read the official statements from Scientology. It prides itself on having few poor members.
I realize that all of this is just an aside because I didn’t understand your previous comment or the relevance. I personally understand statistics quite well because I used to teach it at the highest levels and still use it daily. What part of his comments are you disputing specifically? I am sure we can figure it out quite easily.
I can see what he means. It doesn’t matter for the purposes of the infographic just how wealthy Cruise and Travolta are, they are still counted as 2 people (households?) and would weigh the same as 2 other households with 100K income.
Still scientologists shoulda been included - just curious how their distribution would show up.
As for the OP - I am not surprised that Jews show much higher income distribution. They also show much higher education distribution (58% with college degrees, including 28% with post-grad degrees - compared to US average 29% with college degrees, including 10% post-grad degrees).
There is probably causation right there. Want to earn more? Educate yourself.
The best I can tell is that the sites involved are more about demonstrating how to present data using infographics … they are about the design, not about making any point.
But of course how truthful data is presented, and which truthful data is presented, is as potentially chock full of bias as how the data is collected. The fact that an isolated bit of information is truthful data does not necessarily mean that it is not biased.
For example another way of visually presenting the information would make each religion’s bar proportionate to their share of the total population: Jewish 1/10the the size of Evangelical Protestant and Hindu 1/2 of that. That presentation, also accurate, would emphasize that most of those in the higher income groups are Christians. Another could show correlation between education level and religion and income to make a different point. Or actually look at wealth rather than income.
I don’t think this presentation is biased so much. But I agree with lazybratsche: it is not an example of clearly presenting information visually. The original in Pew was easier to read and make sense of.
Again, I see no nefarious intent here, just overdone and poorly done design.
It’s not much of an indicator of the breadth of such knowledge, but I’ve never heard that term either. Searching shows it comes from something L. Ron said himself.
Add me as another one who never heard of “clams” used in that way. Many of us are not up on our derogatory slang I guess. (And yes my little searching pulls up stuff that uses it it that manner only.)
But yes statistically an individual who makes $10 million a year counts the same as someone who makes $100,001 a year. No more.
Yeah, I knew that ‘clam’ was an obscure term when I posted it. I hoped that people would get it from context, but I’m not surprised it went over a few heads. I was trying it out, honestly, but I think it’s both too unclear and too derogatory.
I should have said, “Most Scientologists, especially those working the Org, are poor.”
It wouldn’t be against anyone else, but due to Jewish stereotypes, it could be a way of calling them money-grubbing.
This graph may not be racist, but it will be used by antisemites* to promote this stereotype, I guarantee it.
*After seeing both spellings so often, I finally looked it up and see that, among those who care, the preferred version has no hyphen.The logic, in short, is that anti-Semitic would also be anti-Arabic, and that the original term had no hyphen and doesn’t in any other language.
I’d like to know why the designers chose those particular income brackets. How would choosing different brackets skew the distributions? It would probably be better to choose brackets such that the entire US population can be split into five equal parts of 20% and then see how each group differs from that base line. Also, is this family income or individual? What age groups are considered?
I cannot imagine how anyone could see that as anti-semitic or anti-anything. A poor design choice, yes, and part of the intolerable trend of reducing actual data to pretty pretty pictures for our three-second attention span, but if you see some nefarious motive in that, you probably have one yourself.
