the following prolly doesn’t mean much ’cause, for one thing, the sample size is prolly too small (26 countries) — just think of it as me goofin’ around. (^_^)
however, for your mid-week pleasure, here is the 0.49 correlation (such as is it — see short but sweet intro above) between consanguinity (means taken from hoben, et. al.) and percentage of those who think democratic governments definitely ought to tax the rich to subsidize the poor (% responding “10″):
and here’s a nice picture. x-axis=mean consanguinity rates. y-axis=percent responding *10* to this question. (click on chart for LARGER view.)
previously: a sense of entitlement and a sense of entitlement ii
(note: comments do not require an email. still tired.)
I bet you will get a stronger correlation if you use consanguinity and people answering 8 thru 10.
@olave – “I bet you will get a stronger correlation if you use consanguinity and people answering 8 thru 10.”
could very well be. i was babbling in the comments of the previous post that maybe i should divide the responses between 1-5 and 6-10. maybe i will do that.
Do you have any data on the correlation between ethnic and/or genetic homogeneity and supporting the rich being taxed to help the poor?
@tba – “Do you have any data on the correlation between ethnic and/or genetic homogeneity and supporting the rich being taxed to help the poor?”
no, i don’t. sorry. that sounds, though, like something someone else could’ve posted about before: the audacious epigone and/or the inductivist?