Humanities desk
< September 9	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 10

International borders and social mobility

Which international border has the greatest difference between the levels of social mobility between the countries on either side?

I’m open to gauging social mobility by whatever metric gives the ability to evaluate the greatest number of borders. I’d like something a bit less crude than GDP, but if that’s all there is I’ll take it. HDI might work? The Global Social Mobility Index would be ideal, but only covers 82 countries.

Optional follow-up questions:

Which borders have a greater difference in social mobility than the US/Mexico border?
What level of security is in operation at such borders?
What levels of annual legal and illegal migration are seen at such borders?

Thanks for your help! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked doesn't have data on social mobility for North Korea, but I would guess that the North Korea-South Korea border would have the greatest difference between the two countries involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among the adjacent pairs of countries covered by the list at Global Social Mobility Index, Spain–Morocco, China–Pakistan and Israel–Egypt would have larger differences than US–Mexico. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So do Norway-Russia and Finland-Russia, although those differences are not as large as those mentioned by Fut.Perf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The North/South Korean border must be near the top of the list. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already mentioned that, just three posts above yours. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's maritime borders might also be worth considering, and I think there is plenty of data. Asylum in Australia would be one starting point. And for another source, perhaps the World Bank report on intergenerational social mobility (you can get a pdf from here [1] might be another way in. At a quick glance, the maps at the end show data on some of the countries that are blank on the map in the article you linked, so it might fill in some gaps. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's only shared maritime border in the usual sense is with Papua New Guinea -- see "Top Western islands"... AnonMoos (talk)

Is there any law preventing Australian citizens in good standing from simply leaving the country? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, yes. Many of us cannot even leave our suburbs, let alone our cities or states, or the country. There are exceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An easily overlooked border is that between France and Suriname. I don't know the social mobility index value for Suriname, but its GDP per capita is comparable to that of Colombia. --Lambiam 23:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this type of fallacy, almost like a strawman?

Some example, person 1, believe A is happening and/or B is true. Based at that the fact that "A is happening" and "B is true", he believe that X, Y and Z must be done or made legal.

Person 2 (that dont believe A is happening or B is true) is arguing against this guy and say "doing X, Y and Z is stupid/evil....." (at this world where A is not happening and B is not true).

So person 2 attack person 1 arguments that X, Y and Z must be done, from the point of view of a world where A is not happening and B is not true.

This is not exactly a strawman because person 2 say person 1 believe X, Y and Z must be done, a thing person 1 really said. But he implies person 1 believe thing X, Y and Z must be done at a world where A is not happening and B is not true.2804:7F2:594:C5BD:1CEC:4E9B:AAB6:95D6 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that what you describe is a reasoning error or "fallacy" -- there's a dispute over premises, which naturally transfers to what is inferred from the premises. There is a fallacy of Denying the antecedent... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this. Disputing the premises upon which the other party bases his argument is not only not a fallacy, it's good argumentation, and can be tactically far more powerful than attacking the other party's argument directly because the failure to provide any justification for those bases suggests that the other party lacks a justification or failed to realize a justification might be needed. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a sneaky tactic if the second party actually agrees with the other party's premises, but conceals this in order to undermine the argument by mounting an attack on the basis of the argument rather than the argument itself. In legal disputes before a court, and particularly in jurisdictions where the rule applies that an unrebutted allegation may be viewed as a concession (see e.g. Rule 56(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), this is common practice. --Lambiam 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User 199.66.69.67, person 2 is not disputing the premise, he just keeps saying that doing X, Y and Z is evil/stupid. The problem/fallacy is that he keeps doing that in a way that shows that he is saying that doing X, Y and Z is evil or stupid, under a world where his premises (and not the person 1 premises) are right premises.

Imagine person 1 and 2 are stranded at the sea and person 1 thinks he needs to drink seawater to not die from dehydration, person 2 believes that drinking sea water brings you closer to dehydration. Person 2, instead of trying to prove that drinking sea water is not a ok thing like person 1 believes, start to talk about how at a world where drinking water makes you more dehydrated, drinking it would be a pretty stupid idea and that person 1 is stupid for wanting to drink the water. The thing that is happening here, is that person 2 is not really attacking the person 1 argument/conclusion, because this argument implies some premise and if you change the premise of course a new conclusion is necessar So person 2 is saying person 1 conclusion is stupid under his premise while acting like he is saying its wrong under person 1 premise.

So he is not really saying person 1 said something else he didnt, and attacked that, like what would happen under strawman fallacy (he says person 1 said drinking sea water is what they should do and that was really what person 1 said) , but he implies the person 1 conclusion is a conclusion to person 2 premises and attack that.2804:7F2:594:C5BD:C0E4:31BD:6CAC:12EA (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2804:7F2:594:C5BD:C0E4:31BD:6CAC:12EA -- Insofar as I follow your explanation, Person 2 disputes Person 1's premises, but doesn't directly talk about the premises, but instead talks about things which can be deduced from the premises (or the consequences of the premises). That seems to me more like a rhetorical strategy than a logical fallcy... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]