The Magic Third

[charlesTBear]

That’s pretty fascinating.
Makes sense too.

I gotta find my group!

[Darker_Void_Scientist]

I say, "you should stay an outsider." Unless, you desire to be an insider.

[TheXIANARCHANGEL]

How does that change when the people don't categorize themselves by skin color? Does that phenomenon still take place?

Sounds like it reflects an underlying property of group dynamics... so if the classifications change to some other schema of group dynamics... what happens to the observed pattern?

[grischad]

i immediately went "interesting", because when i try to socialize (as an adult) i do find it much HARDER to "break" into group of 3 or 4 or 5 than groups of 2.
when you try to break into a group of 3 or 4 they might entertain you for a second but they'll promptly go back to their own discussion on which i can't meaningfully contribute without honestly feeling like a clown. whereas with 2 people it's like a group is formed instantly.

[DetectiveStablerSVU]

Go watch Malcom's debate with matt taibi and Douglas Murray. You'll never trust Malcom's intelligence or honesty ever again. I used to be a big fan since Tipping Point.

[potoker]

Yeah its because in american culture the dominant charactristic is white, and people try to say its because its of the amounts as blacks make up 14 percent of american people.

The thing that breaks this theory is asian and indians. These 2 groups are at less then 10 percent of the overall population but they are the top 2 groups in the US in pay and in contributions.

The answer is family backing, fathers in the household and their culture. In those 2 cultures they place importance on learning and scoring high in tests. They are forced almost to the point of abuse in some cases to be smart and get good jobs and marry a good girl or boy.

Their culture is 100 percent the reason why they are more successful and have high rates of contributions.

[syrelian]

This absolutely isn't about group dynamics, its about the veracity of small scale statistics, the smaller your sample, the more chaotic it will be, which means a smaller proportion of one group over another in a study will trend towards less stable and more extreme results because you can't build a real average or mean value of that data, testing 10 of one group and 100 of the other, the 100 is gonna give you overall more consistent and level data than the 10 would
You will be much more likely to get extremes, up or down, on your measured stat with the smaller group
Sample size matters because statistics and probabilities are estimates of chaos, and you need to see a broad enough amount of chaos to assess the trends within it to a usable accuracy
This issue comes up a lot with medical stats, its super easy to muster a sample group of relatively healthy folks(at least by your relevant stats) as a control group, but often quite difficult to get a good number of people suffering whatever ailment you seek to draw info from, so a lot of medical studies have really shaky numbers due to inability to gather a meaningful sample size

[EarthScienceEnjoyer]

this says nothing. and honestly feels like a major oversimplification. id like to read what metrics were actually used