The Tendency to Form Social Circles with People of Similar Values and Culture

[Ernie]

His original point of frustration was having his own local street taken over by a street observing some festival related to a pagan holiday. It's not like as a Christian he can go and participate in their pagan festival in any meaningful way. (If it were me, I would be finding tracts in Hindi or Tamil or whatever and passing them out to local people, but that's just me.) Most people (about 97%) are not very interested in assimilating to other cultures or learning more about foreign cultures. 3% of people (such as myself) are. It is important we respect the 97% of people who would prefer to only associated with their own kind, often delineated by language, ethnic group, or religious leaning.

Your premise rests on the fact that we need to bow down to the people that want to never have the chance to see or hear from anyone around them who is of a different culture than them. I reject that principle on Christian grounds. It doesn't matter if "97%" of people feel that way. Jesus feels the other way, and it could be "100%" and I still wouldn't care. Let God be true and 100% of men be liars. I. Do. Not. Care. Giving in to the most disgusting, anti-Christian opinions of "the majority" is the ideology of secular liberalism and I reject it outright. let Christ be true and those 97% of men be blasphemous God-haters. I don't care.

Paul and the apostles fought HARD to make sure the church didn't give in to this toxic idea in the early church. When Peter started placating them, Paul called him out. Peter stood condemned by giving in to the idea of separating cultures, of the spirit that those "97%" of people carry. Yes, this exists in the world but it must not be tolerated in the church. And that is where the whole conversation stems. If you are right in your interpretation, then the man in question needed to be put through church discipline. The New Testament testifies to it. Let God be true and his Word be trustworthy.

My hunch is that John’s “97%” is a completely made-up number.

I got it from Ernie, on this forum, checked the sources, and it was legitimate.

Could you please list the sources, so I can check them too? I’m curious where the 97% statistic came from.

I can't seem to find the threads where I wrote about this before. I have many times wished I would have documented where I read this but I can't recall the source.

If you do an AI search about this, it will refer to studies by Pew Research and other polls in which people vote based on their own perspectives. According to people's own perspectives, 30-40% of respondents enjoy those of other cultures.

But this is sort of like polling people about church attendance. For a long time, church attendance was based on poll responses. But then some researchers began counting people in the pews, and later some researchers started using cell data, and discovered that actual attendance is often less than half of what is reported by church goers. So not only was the data wrong for decades, but too many Christians are also not being honest with themselves and others about their church attendance.

So it is with people who claim to enjoy diversity, people of other cultures, and people with different values. Many claim to enjoy this, but in reality, they don't make those with different values and cultures part of their social circle, nor do they join other social circles unfamiliar to them.

Also, the polls are based on folks who complete such polls, which tend to be those in more homogenized cultures.

The 3% / 97% ratio also takes into account the large demographics around the world that are very monolithic. We spent a few weeks in China several years ago, and in one city of 13 million, where we stayed for a week, it was several days until we saw someone that was not Chinese. One third of the people in the city were glad to stare at us, and the other two thirds barely paid any attention to us. Very, very few had any interest in drawing us into their social circle.

Here at Penn State, a school with about 50,000 students and scholars, there is the same dynamic. The university advertises itself as a top international welcoming/ cross-cultural environment. If you walk the sidewalks throughout the campus, there are all sorts of signs and banners about being a welcoming place for international students and other cultures.
But based on what we observe at the campus ministry I direct, and based on the conversations we have with students, the environment is not at all what is advertised. International students attend American student activities, and they are not drawn into the social circles. Americans with much lower credentials get accepted for positions that internationals with higher credentials are much better suited for. Most international students never get invited to an American home or invited to American social functions. Most of the Christian organizations either don't make international students feel welcome, or else they separate the Americans and the internationals into separate functions.
There are about 3-5 of us small Christian organizations that are truly multi-cultural.

My observations the last 20 years jive with what I read about the 97% / 3%. Many people are glad to have some association with people of other cultures and values, but very few will actually gravitate toward social circles of people who think and act differently from themselves.

So yes, I still agree with JohnH on the figures, even though I don't agree with him about how we should cater to the 97%.

I agree with Praxis that one of the wonderful things about the Gospel is that it breaks down cultural walls. And that folks who are naturally dispositioned toward the 97%, can become more like the 3%. And that because of Jesus, people can become best friends with people who are very different culturally. (But as the Apostle Peter found out, this is easier said than done. One might get a revelation from the Lord and joyfully act upon it. But years later one might find themselves reverting to their natural inclinations.)

[Szdfan]

His original point of frustration was having his own local street taken over by a street observing some festival related to a pagan holiday. It's not like as a Christian he can go and participate in their pagan festival in any meaningful way. (If it were me, I would be finding tracts in Hindi or Tamil or whatever and passing them out to local people, but that's just me.) Most people (about 97%) are not very interested in assimilating to other cultures or learning more about foreign cultures. 3% of people (such as myself) are. It is important we respect the 97% of people who would prefer to only associated with their own kind, often delineated by language, ethnic group, or religious leaning.

Your premise rests on the fact that we need to bow down to the people that want to never have the chance to see or hear from anyone around them who is of a different culture than them. I reject that principle on Christian grounds. It doesn't matter if "97%" of people feel that way. Jesus feels the other way, and it could be "100%" and I still wouldn't care. Let God be true and 100% of men be liars. I. Do. Not. Care. Giving in to the most disgusting, anti-Christian opinions of "the majority" is the ideology of secular liberalism and I reject it outright. let Christ be true and those 97% of men be blasphemous God-haters. I don't care.

Paul and the apostles fought HARD to make sure the church didn't give in to this toxic idea in the early church. When Peter started placating them, Paul called him out. Peter stood condemned by giving in to the idea of separating cultures, of the spirit that those "97%" of people carry. Yes, this exists in the world but it must not be tolerated in the church. And that is where the whole conversation stems. If you are right in your interpretation, then the man in question needed to be put through church discipline. The New Testament testifies to it. Let God be true and his Word be trustworthy.

I got it from Ernie, on this forum, checked the sources, and it was legitimate.

Could you please list the sources, so I can check them too? I’m curious where the 97% statistic came from.

I can't seem to find the threads where I wrote about this before. I have many times wished I would have documented where I read this but I can't recall the source.

If you do an AI search about this, it will refer to studies by Pew Research and other polls in which people vote based on their own perspectives. According to people's own perspectives, 30-40% of respondents enjoy those of other cultures.

But this is sort of like polling people about church attendance. For a long time, church attendance was based on poll responses. But then some researchers began counting people in the pews, and later some researchers started using cell data, and discovered that actual attendance is often less than half of what is reported by church goers. So not only was the data wrong for decades, but too many Christians are also not being honest with themselves and others about their church attendance.

So it is with people who claim to enjoy diversity, people of other cultures, and people with different values. Many claim to enjoy this, but in reality, they don't make those with different values and cultures part of their social circle, nor do they join other social circles unfamiliar to them.

Also, the polls are based on folks who complete such polls, which tend to be those in more homogenized cultures.

The 3% / 97% ratio also takes into account the large demographics around the world that are very monolithic. We spent a few weeks in China several years ago, and in one city of 13 million, where we stayed for a week, it was several days until we saw someone that was not Chinese. One third of the people in the city were glad to stare at us, and the other two thirds barely paid any attention to us. Very, very few had any interest in drawing us into their social circle.

Here at Penn State, a school with about 50,000 students and scholars, there is the same dynamic. The university advertises itself as a top international welcoming/ cross-cultural environment. If you walk the sidewalks throughout the campus, there are all sorts of signs and banners about being a welcoming place for international students and other cultures.
But based on what we observe at the campus ministry I direct, and based on the conversations we have with students, the environment is not at all what is advertised. International students attend American student activities, and they are not drawn into the social circles. Americans with much lower credentials get accepted for positions that internationals with higher credentials are much better suited for. Most international students never get invited to an American home or invited to American social functions. Most of the Christian organizations either don't make international students feel welcome, or else they separate the Americans and the internationals into separate functions.
There are about 3-5 of us small Christian organizations that are truly multi-cultural.

My observations the last 20 years jive with what I read about the 97% / 3%. Many people are glad to have some association with people of other cultures and values, but very few will actually gravitate toward social circles of people who think and act differently from themselves.

So yes, I still agree with JohnH on the figures, even though I don't agree with him about how we should cater to the 97%.

I agree with Praxis that one of the wonderful things about the Gospel is that it breaks down cultural walls. And that folks who are naturally dispositioned toward the 97%, can become more like the 3%. And that because of Jesus, people can become best friends with people who are very different culturally. (But as the Apostle Peter found out, this is easier said than done. One might get a revelation from the Lord and joyfully act upon it. But years later one might find themselves reverting to their natural inclinations.)

Ernie, I appreciate this response and it helps clarify some things. I do want to point out, that at this point, nobody has provided a source that demonstrates that 97% number. Even the Pew polls you mention in passing contradict that number. Would it be fair to say that 97% is based on your own observations?

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Thanks Ernie. I'm really curious about this data set and I hope someone can find something. In particular, the 97% statistic seems much higher than I would guess, from the way it's being used. But there is such a spectrum of "social engagement with other cultures" than I don't know what the exact 97% stat actually means.

"Running into someone from another culture and having a conversation" is a basic for of social engagement which would fit the conversation we were having, and I find it hard to believe 97% of people would dislike that. On the other end of the spectrum, "Having to shift your personal cultural perspective and learn a new language in order to function in society" is a very demanding task that I fully believe 97% of people would be extremely reticent to take on. somewhere in the middle would be "attending a prolonged social gathering (like a dinner) in a foreign cultural context" or "Attending regular (weekly) social gatherings with a group of people from a different cultural context"

But there's a huge spectrum between "Casual social interaction" and "Necessary personal acculturation". I absolutely don't believe there is one stat that represents people's attitudes for every point on this spectrum. I worry that the stat represents people's attitudes somewhat higher up on this spectrum, but it is being used to claim the same percentage of people feel the same way on all points lower on the spectrum.

I also wonder about factors that influence the data.
1) If someone has NEVER had an actual encounter with someone from outside their own culture (like many native Chinese), I believe they would be likely to say they are "unwilling" to engage in things all over that spectrum. I suspect the likeliness they will say "unwilling" significantly drops if they HAVE had cultural experiences outside their own.
2) Another is how many cultures are involved. A campus event that is meant to celebrate Pakistani culture and a campus meetup for international students are two very different things. The former involves one "other" culture, while the latter involves a plurality. Are people more comfortable with the latter or the former? (my guess is that most people would be comfortable with the latter, many would be les comfortable with the former).
3) Another factor is whether the respondent is living in a society of their host culture or not. If an American lives in America, are they more or less comfortable running into a Japanese foreign exchange student? On the other hand, if an American live in Japan, how comfortable are they engaging with the Japanese around them? My gut tells me people are comfortable already when they are nestled in their natural culture, and are more willing and pleased to engage with aliens on occasion. On the other hand, a person outside the "comfort zone" of their own culture might have chronic low-level anxiety and be less comfortable with social interactions with their host culture, and thus strongly prefer little bastions of people who share their alien culture. In other words, the American running into visiting Japanese is happy and comfortable to engage with them, but the American living in Japan will really desire a space to socialize with other Americans.

[Ernie]

Ernie, I appreciate this response and it helps clarify some things. I do want to point out, that at this point, nobody has provided a source that demonstrates that 97% number. Even the Pew polls you mention in passing contradict that number. Would it be fair to say that 97% is based on your own observations?

No, I'm quite sure I read it somewhere. (I don't think it was a poll, but rather in an article or in book.)
But since reading it, I have been on the lookout for this and it seems to match up with what I observe.

[JohnL]

A fascinating thread. I’m following this with interest as we see seeing people from non-mountain communities and cultures moving into our area.

I’ll be in the car.

[Ernie]

Thanks Ernie. I'm really curious about this data set and I hope someone can find something. In particular, the 97% statistic seems much higher than I would guess, from the way it's being used. But there is such a spectrum of "social engagement with other cultures" than I don't know what the exact 97% stat actually means.

"Running into someone from another culture and having a conversation" is a basic for of social engagement which would fit the conversation we were having, and I find it hard to believe 97% of people would dislike that. On the other end of the spectrum, "Having to shift your personal cultural perspective and learn a new language in order to function in society" is a very demanding task that I fully believe 97% of people would be extremely reticent to take on.

What you said last is the way I use the percentages.

somewhere in the middle would be "attending a prolonged social gathering (like a dinner) in a foreign cultural context" or "Attending regular (weekly) social gatherings with a group of people from a different cultural context"

I think there would be significant difference in percentages between those who might attend or enjoy a prolonged social gathering and those attending a regular weekly soical gathering.
I have no idea what these percentages would be since it would make a lot of difference whether one lived in an ethnic melting pot environment or in a very monolithic environment. How to measure these on a worldwide scale would be difficult.

But there's a huge spectrum between "Casual social interaction" and "Necessary personal acculturation". I absolutely don't believe there is one stat that represents people's attitudes for every point on this spectrum. I worry that the stat represents people's attitudes somewhat higher up on this spectrum, but it is being used to claim the same percentage of people feel the same way on all points lower on the spectrum.

Good point. I only use the 97/3 to refer to those who are willing to open their hearts, homes and social circles to people of all other cultures. I meet a lot of Christians who are interested in central Asian Muslims and don't really want to spend time with Chinese, or Africans, or even postmodern Americans. I put such folks in the 97% category as they still sort out who they want to be part of their social circle.

I also wonder about factors that influence the data.
1) If someone has NEVER had an actual encounter with someone from outside their own culture (like many native Chinese), I believe they would be likely to say they are "unwilling" to engage in things all over that spectrum. I suspect the likeliness they will say "unwilling" significantly drops if they HAVE had cultural experiences outside their own.

Agreed.

2) Another is how many cultures are involved. A campus event that is meant to celebrate Pakistani culture and a campus meetup for international students are two very different things. The former involves one "other" culture, while the latter involves a plurality. Are people more comfortable with the latter or the former? (my guess is that most people would be comfortable with the latter, many would be les comfortable with the former).

I haven't seen a difference between these two.

3) Another factor is whether the respondent is living in a society of their host culture or not. If an American lives in America, are they more or less comfortable running into a Japanese foreign exchange student? On the other hand, if an American live in Japan, how comfortable are they engaging with the Japanese around them? My gut tells me people are comfortable already when they are nestled in their natural culture, and are more willing and pleased to engage with aliens on occasion. On the other hand, a person outside the "comfort zone" of their own culture might have chronic low-level anxiety and be less comfortable with social interactions with their host culture, and thus strongly prefer little bastions of people who share their alien culture. In other words, the American running into visiting Japanese is happy and comfortable to engage with them, but the American living in Japan will really desire a space to socialize with other Americans.

Good question but I can't speak to this.

[Szdfan]

Ernie, I appreciate this response and it helps clarify some things. I do want to point out, that at this point, nobody has provided a source that demonstrates that 97% number. Even the Pew polls you mention in passing contradict that number. Would it be fair to say that 97% is based on your own observations?

No, I'm quite sure I read it somewhere. (I don't think it was a poll, but rather in an article or in book.)
But since reading it, I have been on the lookout for this and it seems to match up with what I observe.

Thanks, Ernie. That helps clarify how you’re using the 97 % figure. It sounds like you’re using it as a general observation about human tendencies rather than an actual data point, which makes sense since this would be a hard to measure.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

It sounds like what is being said in that stat is essentially "A huge majority of people do not have the disposition it takes to be a truly effective foreign missionary." But the stat was being used in another thread to say "The vast majority of people don't like witnessing the presence of foreign-born people in the neighborhood they live in."

Side note, Ernie: did you read that stat in a book about missionary work? It feels like something that would be talked about in one of the many books in the library there.

[R7ehr]

Side note, Ernie: did you read that stat in a book about missionary work? It feels like something that would be talked about in one of the many books in the library there.

That missionary aspect almost rings a bell in my mind. I seem to faintly and perhaps incorrectly, recall something like that, from something Ernie shared in the past.

[Soloist]

Maybe something from Ravenhill? sounds similar to the quote about to the amount of real Christians in the church being around 2 percent or so...