Who's In Your Inner Circle?

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. Look up at the sky in most places in the world, and you will see flocks of birds. Look carefully, and you'll see these flocks are usually made up of the same kind of birds. Pigeons flap around with other pigeons, crows with crows, starlings congregate with well, lots and lots of other starlings.

Somewhere along the way, someone coined a memorable phrase, birds of a feather flock together. Sociologists have noticed that this phenomenon is not restricted to birds, humans tend to do the same thing. Except, because we are complex creatures, the things that draw us together are not just physical similarities, but cultural constructions such as social class, shared interests, and common cuisines. We think nothing of the fact that music lovers hang out with other music lovers, or that book readers congregate in book clubs, and that gardeners form their own societies.

The internet has made it possible for people with all manner of niche interests to discover others who are exactly like them. When we do think about this at all, we usually say, it's a wonderful thing. Well, it is, and it isn't. This week on Hidden Brain, the unintended consequences of enjoying the company of others who are just like us.

The next time you attend a wedding, take a close look at the couples around you. The couple getting married, sure, but all the other couples too. How many couples do you think have both members vote for the same political party, or belong to the same race, or speak the same language? The answer is obvious.

Most people married to each other have similar backgrounds. They are usually of the same race or ethnicity. They might even have attended the same schools, or work in similar professions. This hasn't always been the case.

The old trope on television was the business executive or law firm partner, invariably a man, who ran off with his secretary. The new reality is that law firm partners tend to marry other highly paid lawyers. Doctors get hitched to other medical professionals, especially in well-to-do communities. It's vanishingly rare for people to marry others from stock-ly different backgrounds.

Matches that span significant educational divides, where one person has gone to say graduate school, while the other hasn't finished high school, are extremely rare. At Stanford University, Luigi Pistafari studies the consequences of such matching. He uses the usual tools of the economist, models, math, and data. But besides being an economist, Luigi is also a Jane Austen fan.

The most important novel of Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice, is kind of centered around the fact that the Bennett family wants to have all the daughters be married to people from hopefully higher social classes. You might remember the story. It centers around one of the Bennett daughters, Elizabeth, and her unlikely relationship with Mr. Darcy, a very wealthy bachelor.

His name is Darcy, and he has a minor, great estate and publisher. Their romance is unlikely, because Elizabeth is supposed to be well beneath Mr. Darcy's social class. When the seemingly mismatched lovers finally overcome many hurdles and get together, we are left with a treacle conclusion that love conquers all.

I've been a selfish being all my life. As a child, I was given good principles, which left to follow them in Pride and Conceit. Such I might still have been but for you. Here is the love of yourself.

As a Jane Austen fan, Luigi loves the story. But as an economist, he doesn't buy the plot. It's the kind of the comical aspect of it that is interesting. Together with the fact that it seems from watching the movies that the Bennett's actually a lower social class, or in fact, they were probably themselves in the top 10% of the time.

The three or four girls are, I remember, how many sisters were, they were illiterate, and they could have servants in their house. Already tells you that the Bennett family actually is not poor. But given the enormous amount of wealth in equality, there was at that time it looks as if they were kind of in lower ranks of society, but in fact they were pretty high up. Luigi says that if you think about Pride and Prejudice through the lens of an economist, in fact, if you think of love and marriage through the lens of an economist, you start to see things differently.

You start to see lots and lots of what sociologists call homophily, birds of a feather flocking together. We economists tend to think in terms of markets. So here I'm referring to what we call the marriage market. So the marriage market homophily means someone marrying someone similar to themselves.

So that could be cast in terms of wealth. It can be cast in terms of levels of education. It can be cast in terms of income. People from relatively high social classes try to marry someone from the very top of the distribution of social classes.

That would be Mr. Darcy, for example, in the novel. So the research in economics is a form of homophily. We call it a softening mating.

A sortative mating is what you see when doctors pair up with other doctors, or lawyers marry other lawyers. It goes back to that idea we discussed that most people tend to choose partners who are similar to themselves, in background, in education, in wealth. Several powerful forces drive a sortative mating. Think about how and where people tend to meet romantic partners.

On dating apps, you can filter potential matches based on education, professional background, age and physical appearance. And the places where people are most likely to meet potential partners in real life, those tend to be school and work. Situations where you are overwhelmingly likely to find others with similar interests and educational backgrounds. There are ill-fictions, what we call fictions, costs of actually exploring the universe of potential mates that you can have.

And so, given that you don't have a lot of time to do this, you tend to marry people you encounter or you meet with in places where you spend most of your time. So, it could be the workplace, it could be the place where you went to college. And indeed, we observed a lot of the matches actually occurring happening through these new channels. There was a lot of people who, you know, end up meeting the person they marry at work or in college.

This is a very common, common occurrence. On a recent visit to Chicago, I heard that 50% of University of Chicago undergrads end up marrying someone else from the same school. Now, that number seems improbably high, but the fact remains, homophily is a real thing in the marriage market. What striking Luigi says is how movies and popular culture celebrate a world that is very different than reality.

He cites a famous movie from 1990. The modern Cinderella story is, you know, kind of pretty woman, the more you reach a gear in the engineer Roberts. Hey, sugar, are you looking for a date? No, I want to find Beverly Hills.

Give me directions. Sure. The mind box. Ridiculous.

Precious, one up to ten. All right, okay. All right, you win. I lose.

So, the story of a very wealthy man meeting almost randomly the very poor girl, and then eventually, essentially marrying, I think, that's what the movie suggested. So, that is an example that I use to show that the probability of that happening in the data is extremely low. What do we do is not zero. But of course, we call it a Cinderella story precisely because it's unusual.

Yeah, it's sort of, you know, underdog stories. We all love fellow dog stories, but that doesn't make them very real. So, they're very unusual, they're rare occurrences, so unusual and rare that we make movies about. How did you come to be studying a sort of meeting?

Why were you drawn to this topic? What interests you in it? I studied wealth inequality and why wealth inequality or wealth concentration is rising over the last 20 to 30 years. And one thing that is often cited as an element that may have contributed to a rising wealth concentration is the marriage market.

So, you know, people with wealth, many other people with wealth kind of exacerbate the extent of wealth inequality or wealth concentration that you see in society. Some time ago, Luigi spotted some very unusual data that allowed him to quantify the extent of a sort of meeting in society. The data came from Norway. Why Norway?

Well, in most countries, it's hard to find precise data on the socio-economic backgrounds of people. Most of us don't broadcast our bank balances, and the ones who tell us how rich they are are often narcissists who might be lying. But in Norway, banks directly report to the government about how much citizens have in their accounts. And then the other thing that is important is that Norway has a wealth tax, like the US, like many other countries.

So, the tax authority collects very detailed information on, you know, the assets you own, they pretty much all the assets you own. So, it could be housing, it could be the value of your stock. Market portfolio could be the bonds, it could be value of private business, et cetera. So, we have a very exhausting information on the assets that people own and also the debt that they have.

Luigi and his colleagues collected 11 years worth of tax data. It included the income and assets of over 5 million people, the rich, the poor, and everyone in between. Next, they look at marriage records. So, what we did, first of all, was to look at the wealth of the assets that people have years before they get married.

And one advantage of this data is that you observe people before they enter their formal marriage relationship. So, you know, eventually, if you've got a married ex, you know, how much income a wealth that an ex person has before the marriage is observed. What did you find first in terms of who was marrying whom in Norway? So, we find that, you know, if you rank people according to the wealth they have before marriage, then someone who has a wealth of 100 will tend to marry with a hyperbiti, someone with a wealth of 100.

And similarly, someone at the bottom will tend to marry someone who is similar to them. In that sense, we find strong evidence of a sort of meeting. I just want to spend a moment talking about sort of how this actually unfolds in real life. I mean, it's possible that people in Norway are actually asking one another, how much money do you have in your bank balance?

And basically saying, okay, you're on my list, you're off my list. But I suspect it doesn't happen at that level where someone's saying, show me your bank balance and I'm going to decide whether to offer my hand in marriage or ask for your hand in marriage. I don't think it happens at that level. How is this happening if those conversations are not transparent and on the surface?

How is this matching actually taking place? Do you think Luigi? It seems to say you make this comment because I know that that's happened. You have a lot of information.

Because in Norway, tax records are actually public. Oh, I see. They're not just shared with the government. They're actually public.

Yeah. So if you have an internet access to the internet, you have a social security number, registered with the Norwegian tax authority. You can go on the web, enter the main other person you're kind of looking for. And that would speak out to information about assets, the income, the taxes they pay, the other born, where they leave and so forth.

So you have to pay pretty. If you want. I mean, the interesting thing is that the government at some point realized that this was a little bit between truth, even by Norwegian standards. And they changed the rules.

And the rules is now, yes, you can still search, but the person you search will know who's searching for then. So this discourages immediately a lot of the searches. Your neighbor, your colleague and so on, something like that. Of course, what happens in Norway doesn't happen in most places.

But Luigi says you don't need to access someone's detailed financial information to glean how wealthy they are. So you can infer how wealthy someone is by the kind of the drive or the kind of causes that they wear or things of that sort. So all the type of education they have, what they can afford, where they go on vacation, etc. So there's a lot of signals that display wealth that comes from the things that you spend your money on.

One of the other things that you found in your paper fascinatingly was not just wealthy people pulling their wealth together, but what happens to that wealth afterwards? Can you talk about what you found, Luigi? We find that people are really good at generating high returns for their assets, tend to marry people who are very good at making a high return from their assets. There seems to be a certain meeting or returns on top of a certain meeting wealth.

Can I just ask you to try and speculate on what could be driving that? Because let's say I show up at a date with a very fancy car and my date shows up at the date and driving a very fancy car, we can both inform the other person's wealthy. But how would the world know that my date actually has a high rate of return on his or her investment? And how would my date figure that out about me?

If you date someone, you typically don't marry a person after going out one night. Yes, they're at the shotgun, they're just some bigots. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about normal people.

So normal people kind of date sometimes go happy for a long time. So they learn a lot about what the other person does with his money before they actually merge the wealth. And I use the example of Lady Mary in Tantanabe. Lady Mary at some point has to marry because it's a society where she would marry some of the rich guy, a certain meeting on wealth is guaranteed.

So the question is, she has two potential suitors. So one is a guy who is really good at managing his estate, and the other one is someone who is an aristocrat. He's very wealthy, but he wastes his money in different ways. And so the question that we ask laterical is, okay, should she marry the guy who is not very good at managing his wealth?

And the answer is, and this is something that we provide evidence for, the answer which kind of person should she pick is, well, depends on who's going to end up managing the resources of the family after the family's formed. So in those families, where of course there's a lot of wealth, you have greater incentives to have efficiency. So to have the portfolio being managed by someone who's really good, and to start with. What Luigi is saying is that when wealthy people marry other wealthy people, the shared family wealth is invariably managed by the person with a better head for money.

Maybe someone with an entrepreneurial streak or a sophisticated investor. A sort of mating ensures that with each generation, wealth not only merges with wealth, but that wealth accumulation accelerates on top of wealth. And this has profound consequences. When you merge your wealth, you have immediately a scale effect.

You have accelerating forms of wealth inequality. So this is an explosive form of wealth acceleration. That's exactly what people have seen. If you look at work by economies like Emmanuel's and Gabriel Zucman, that is exactly one of the findings they have for the United States.

So in the last 30 years, the degree of concentration of wealth distribution has been accelerating at a very fast rate. I'm wondering, besides your academic work and your research, do you see the effects of a sort of mating around you, Luigi? Do you notice that in your social circle? I mean, I feel like as I read this paper, I started to think about the people who might know.

And it's remarkable how similar so many of the couples are who might know. You know, this is whether they're older or younger. People tend to come from the same background. Is that the same for you?

Oh, yeah. So, I mean, we have extreme cases like professors in the department, married to other professors. So that's an extreme form of sort of mating on education. And in fact, they have students working on that.

I think it's very rare for people who get to the top of the distribution of education to be married with someone from high school degree or high school dropout. If you look around you and you find some examples, you know, that these are very rare exceptions. So yeah, certainly mating is everywhere. When we talk about wealth inequality, we typically think of systemic causes, the housing market, student debt, the tax system.

We rarely think about how our own decisions, decisions that are very personal involving whom we love and whom we marry, could accelerate inequality. When we come back, if our personal connections can exacerbate the problem of inequality, surprising new research suggests personal connections might also be the answer to the problem. You're listening to Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta.

This is Hidden Brain. I'm Shankar Vedanta. When two people with similar interests, backgrounds, and temperaments get together romantically, we're often inclined to say that the couple, is made for each other. What is harder to see are the downstream effects of what is known as a sortative mating.

Our tendency to connect with others like ourselves can greatly exacerbate inequality over time. This may be one reason why research by the Harvard economist Raj Shady and his colleagues has found that where you are born can shape your outcomes in life. If you are born in a poor neighborhood and hang out with other people who are poor, it's a lot harder to climb the socioeconomic ladder than if you are a rich person born into a wealthy community. Here is Raj from our episode some years ago called Zip Code Destiny.

So think about upward mobility in the context of the classic, rags to riches kind of notion. Suppose you're a kid growing up in a low-income family, say the bottom fifth of the income distribution, what are your odds of reaching the top fifth of the income distribution, making that leap from the bottom to the top? So it turns out if you look at the US as a whole, that number is 7.5% of kids who start out in a relatively low-income family will end up reaching the top fifth on average. That doesn't paint a very positive picture of economic mobility in the United States.

Recently, however, new research suggests a way out of the trap. To understand what it is, I want to take you back to the early 1980s and the story of a man named Matthew Jackson. So this was actually in late high school and in the first couple of years in college, I was working in warehouses in Chicago, mostly unloading. Trucks was one of the few jobs that you could get without a connection.

I needed the money to help pay for college. It certainly wasn't a glamorous job. It was what you would expect. So it was a warehouse that sold catalog stuff and we would ship televisions, household wares, diapers, food products, all kinds of things were coming in these trucks.

Our job was to sit there for hours and wait until a truck came and get the truck unloaded in half an hour and then wait for the next one. It was hard work physically, but mentally it was just extremely boring. Matthew's managers had, shall we say, a less than trusting attitude to what him and his fellow blue-collar workers. We had lied detector tests that we were given every couple of weeks because I think the main thing that the company actually worried about was losing.

They lost a lot of money to employ theft. So it's easy for somebody unloading a truck to just unload something to the side and get away with it. It would be a big bag falling off the truck. It was clearly a position that changed my perspective on work and what I wanted to do with my life.

Matthew loved academics and wanted to do work that he found stimulating, but that turned out to be really hard to find. And so when it came to college, it came for a private university that was a lot more money needed than we could afford. And so I worked during high school. I worked these trucking jobs and actually on weekends I would work a night watchman shift at a local medical center.

That was the best job I've ever had at that time, which was going at midnight and then stay there until 8am and just walk around the building making sure nobody was breaking in. So it was jobs like that that were available without connections. And so they were jobs that paid and helped save money for universities. That must have been pretty deadly boring as well, right?

Walking around from midnight to 8 o'clock in the morning to make sure no one is breaking into a building. Yeah, the worst was a day where you did a shift of unloading trucks and then went to the medical center overnight. And by the next morning you just completely went down. It was tough.

Like many people without connections, Matthew didn't have a way of breaking into the kind of job he knew he would be good at. But that changed one day after he got to college. He was having a chat with his undergraduate advisor Hugo Sonnstein about his summer plans. So I was having a talk with Hugo one day in his office and he said, well what are you going to do this summer?

And I said, well I'll go back to Chicago and run the trucks. He said, no, no, no, no. We're going to get you a job that you'll actually learn something from. And he literally picked up the phone while he was in his office and called a friend of his in Chicago, a gay man, Burkhardt, who had been a friend of his from his years at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

And said, you know, I've got this undergraduate. He needs some work. He lives in Chicago. Gailen was working at Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Gailen said, yeah, we can figure out something.

When Matthew returned to Chicago, he started working at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. All of a sudden he realized that his math skills could be put to use in the field of economics. The summer job proved to be transformative. You know, it was just an incredible change in terms of the kind of work I was doing.

And I was actually doing research for them, which eventually became a paper that I wrote and played into the research I did as a PhD student. So it was really life changing in many ways. That chance, conversation with his advisor changed the trajectory of Matthew's life. He went on to become a respected economist, eventually finding his way to Stanford University.

I think it's easy for us to underestimate how much our trajectory in life is determined by the connections that we have in terms of friends and family and how critical those are, you know, because it's not like every day these matter, but occasionally they matter, and then they matter in a very big way. So, you know, without that connection, it's possible that I wouldn't have done that work in the summers and I wouldn't have had that experience and it wouldn't have opened my eyes to really, you know, it put me on a different road. And without that, I probably would have gone back and worked in the warehouse another summer and then, you know, who knows what would have happened after that. But those kinds of connections, you know, they're infrequent in terms of the changes that they make, but they can be big changes at those points in time.

Whether or not you get your foot in the door or not, you know, is really so vital and it really depends on our networks. So, another element of the story that jumps out of me is that Hugo and Gailin went to school together. And of course, they didn't go to school together in order that one day Hugo would introduce you to Gailin. They didn't plan, you know, 25 years ahead.

So, this was a chance, the fact that they were going to school together was probably driven by chance as much as anything else, but that chance encountered that they had ended up playing a pivotal role in your life. Yes, yeah, and I think, you know, that's one thing that is important to understand about our networks is that, you know, they're not necessarily optimized in the sense that, you know, connections that I make give me information that can help my students and can help my colleagues. And, you know, when I'm thinking about, oh, should I go to this conference and I can learn something new, I'm usually thinking about this for myself. I'm not thinking, oh, maybe I'll learn this thing, which I can actually tell so and so about.

And so, you know, the full value of these kinds of interactions and the importance of reaching out, the value of that to the greater society isn't something that's necessarily governing people's choices when they're deciding, oh, should I go and do this or should I go and meet this person? Or is it makes sense to call this person and, you know, do I follow us through this friendship and so forth? So, there's a lot of things that we do that aren't optimizing on that. And, you know, these serendipitous relationships matter a lot and can have a lot of consequences, but they're not something that's fully accounted for when we form our relationships.

And so that means that somehow we're all under forming and under, you know, broadening our networks and enriching ourselves. What Matthew was pointing out is that social networks have ripple effects. I may think that my choice of friendship influences only me and my friends, but in fact, those choices can profoundly shape the lives of other people down the road. When we come back, if our friendships and dramatic attachments can unintentionally be the source of division and inequality, Matthew's research has found that there can also be drivers of connection and opportunity.

You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. Some of the biggest problems in the world today are the result of mismanagement and corruption. But there are also many serious problems that stem from the internal architecture and predispositions of a human mind.

One of those powerful predispositions is that we gravitate toward people who are similar to us in some way. It's a phenomenon known as homophily. At Stanford University, Matthew Jackson says this happens so regularly in daily life that most of us don't even realize we do it. If you walk into a conference or a room or a meeting where there's people that you don't know, one of your natural tendencies is to start trying to find common ground.

Oh, you know, you ask people questions and then once you find something in common, you really zero in on that, right? If you find that you both came from the same state or hometown or that you both went to the same school at some point or that you both know somebody in common, those become points where you feel much more comfortable because now you've got something to talk about and something in common. It helps you understand the other person. It helps you understand their perspective.

It reduces uncertainty. Psychologically, it's just much more comfortable to be in a situation where you understand the other person and you know what their background is and their viewpoint, then meeting somebody who you don't really understand at all and might have very different perspectives than you. That's a harder kind of situation to be in. And so we naturally tend to those things, even though that's not necessarily the best thing in our long-term interest.

So I want you to talk a little bit about that, which is that these forces are in some ways such natural forces of feeling saying, I want to be comfortable around other people and someone who basically shares my outlook or likes the same sports team or comes from the same geographic background or has the same racial background or income background. I feel more comfortable around this person and so I'm going to spend time with them. That very natural thing ends up playing this really consequential role when multiplied across an entire society. Can you talk about how this homophily essentially ends up segregating groups of people and sealing off aspects of society or access to income ability for people who are especially poor?

Yeah, so I think one thing that's pretty amazing in the US is that there's a lot of heterogeneity. Different parts of the country have very different mobility patterns. You're much more likely to advance if you live in, say, the upper Midwest than if you live in the Deep South. There are places where you see connections across class lines, but there's a lot where you don't.

There's a huge amount of homophily by economic class. And that tends to be in areas where you have very low mobility. When you look at it in terms of how predictive our parents' income of children's income, the US doesn't do so well. The chance that you look like your parents is fairly high.

And that means that, for some reasons, children, their future is heavily determined by the conditions that they're born into and the situations that they're born into. And at a fundamental level, there's something about that that that rankles, doesn't it? Which is that I think many of us imagine that we should not be constrained by the circumstances of our birth, by the accident of birth. We think that should not determine what happens in terms of the outcomes in life.

But really what you're saying is accidents of birth are playing an enormous role in the likelihood of people's economic and social success in a country like the United States. Yes, definitely. And in fact, I think when we think about the philosophy of it and the moral aspects of it, when people object to inequality, a lot of what we're objecting to is unequal opportunities. Because it's saying you were just born into circumstances no matter how hard you worked, you were going to be behind.

And that's different than saying, oh, someone's so happy to get lucky or someone so is really talented. Obviously, Michael Jordan can play basketball at a level that other humans can't. And we don't envy him. Well, maybe we envy him, but we don't say, oh, he doesn't deserve what he earned from that.

That's very different from saying somebody was born in a community and never got a chance because of where they started. As they try to figure out how something works or how to fix a problem, scientists sometimes look for what's called positive deviance. Let's say a virus is spreading. You can study people who fall sick to figure out the nature of the pathogen.

But you can also study people who don't fall sick, the positive deviance, and ask what their secret is. If you can figure it out, the insight can help you keep other people from falling sick. In this case, the word deviant is not being used as a pejorative, but as something often accolades. Matthew and other researchers knew from the data that most kids who are born poor don't break into the ranks of the rich.

But a small number do. What was their secret? Matthew's own life had been transformed by a chance conversation, and the fact that his college advisor was friends from his college days with someone who worked at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Matthew had a hunch.

The same thing, on a massive scale, might be connected to differences he was seeing in income mobility. To test this idea, he turned to Facebook. Facebook was really valuable on several dimensions. We were able to look at 84% of the population of the age group we were looking at.

Secondly, we can see all the friendships of these people, and really see who are their high school friends, who are their college friends, who are their work friends. We can classify where their friends' trips are formed, what their networks look like. We can also see a lot of demographics about the people so we can estimate their income level and get information about exactly where they live. So just putting all that information together is something that's pretty rare to have, and it allowed us to see how those social connections actually translate into the economic outcomes.

And when you look at this pattern of friendships, what do you find in terms of homophily? Yeah, so the main thing that pops out in terms of the homophily that we were looking at was take somebody who's below median income and ask what fraction of their friends are above median income. If it was a completely well-mixed random world, 50% of their friends should be above median income. It's just over 38% on average.

If you look at people who are above median income, it's above 70% of their friends are above median income. So there's a huge gap between what fraction of people's friends are above median income depending on whether you're above or below yourself. And so that level of homophily is pretty strong. How did you measure people's income using Facebook data?

So we inferred it. So we have locations on people, and then we have a lot of information about people, what phone they use. If they did go to college, where did they go to college, and so forth. We used 22 variables, I think, in the end, and a machine learning algorithm that could basically estimate them.

And we could put that together with census data. So census data goes down to a block level. So you have a very fine grade of where somebody's located. And the interesting thing about that is that if you're looking in the US and you look down to a block level, you pretty much can nail somebody's income.

So putting that census data together with various variables we could observe with people in the location, we could build a model that said, look, if you tell us these characteristics about a person, we can tell you pretty much what their income level is. So at one level, what you're finding in some ways using this very large sample set is essentially a large-scale replication of something that we've already known in a small scale, which is that people tend to cluster together. People who are poor, tend to spend, have more friends who are poor, and fewer friends who are rich. People who are rich tend to have more friends who are rich, fewer friends who are poor.

But you didn't just stop there. You actually went somewhere further with the study. Walk me through what you did now with all of these connections that you've established that people have or don't have. Yeah.

So the base question that we started with was, what is it that predicts whether somebody who's born into the poor half of the distribution could end up in the top half of the income distribution. And in particular, there's lots of different things about a person's network and community structure that you could imagine would matter. Things that are commonly referred to as social capital. We know financial capital matters.

If you have wealth that helps you. If human capital, if your parents are educated, that's going to help you. But social capital, what is it about your network that matters? Three possibilities jumped out.

One would just be, okay, does the community all know each other? So we can look at that in Facebook data. And you can just look at, okay, if my two friends are the friends with each other, and you can see how tight the knit communities are in terms of that clustering. So that's something we can measure directly.

If poor kids from tight knit communities were the ones who made their way into upper income groups, the solution to improve income ability would be to encourage greater community cohesion. Possibility too, a higher degree of generosity and altruism in the community. If you come from an especially kind place, maybe there are people in groups who can be stepping stones to help the poor kids succeed. The nationwide Facebook data contain the answer about people in different communities.

You can see on the Facebook page, are they part of a volunteer organization? Are they part of some NGO or charity? When you look at things like, you know, the kinds of trust or volunteering rates and so forth, those are often associated with how well functioning are sort of the local organizations and the people who are working with each other. So those are things that we often think would help people out in terms of economic mobility.

There was a third possibility to explain why poor people in some places were better able to transform their economic station in life. These places had more connections between rich and poor people. They had bridges between groups that counteracted the effects of homophily. In these places, people were more likely to talk to people who came from different backgrounds than themselves.

Poor people and rich people counted one another as friends or acquaintances. Matthew called this economic connectedness. You can find communities where you have no connectedness but you have very strong clustering or you can find places where people are very civically minded but people don't cluster. So you can find each of these in different combinations across the country.

And in the end, it turns out that the only thing that really was a strong predictor was this economic connectedness of whether or not there were friendships between the poor people and the wealthier people. Matthew was blown away by the strength of the data. I think one of the surprising things to us, at least to me, was how strongly the economic connectedness ended up predicting somebody's mobility. And that means if you're in a community where you have strong economic connectedness, you're very likely to be in a community where the poor have a chance of growing up to have above median income or sort of rising.

And that correlation also was stood all kinds of other things. You could put in whatever variables you think of, how poor is the area, how unequal is the area. And it was urban, rural, what's the percent of white versus black versus Hispanic. You can look at all kinds of different variables.

And none of those really had nearly the same kind of power that this did. So I think one striking thing was how powerful that is as a predictor. So in other words, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I was a poor person in the United States and I wanted to ask myself how can I extricate myself from my economic station and move to a better station in life. And I had to choose between living in a community that was very cohesive where everyone knew one another people in some ways bonded together very tightly or in a community that had very good social service organizations.

Or I lived in a community where I could actually be friends with people who are wealthier than I am. What I'm hearing you saying is that my odds would be the highest of actually changing my social station if I was in that last community. If I had friends from different economic strata. Yeah, overwhelmingly.

So in fact, how well people know each other within your community and whether you have sort of well functioning civic organizations and connections to those are actually sometimes even negatively correlated with the outcome in terms of mobility. And I think part of what's actually happening here is that in those poor communities, then you see more of that cohesiveness because people are helping each other out and you see more volunteering or you might see more volunteer organizations appearing because they're needed. And they provide vital help and informal support and services that you don't have otherwise. So they're still useful in some ways, but they're not helping poor kids grow up to be, you know, to have a chance at being not constrained and end up where their parents were.

How much of a difference does economic connectedness make in a community? Yeah, so the difference in outcome, if you take a typical poor kid and move them and give them the same friendships network that a typical rich kid would have, that predicts a 20% increase in their lifetime income. It's very hard to find any variable that has that kind of magnitude of change in lifetime income. What do you think is actually happening at a granular level here?

When people have these cross SES cross socioeconomic status friendships, what exactly do you think is happening? Are they just getting contacts? Are they getting leads to jobs? What do you think is actually changing their life outcomes?

I think it's, you know, as with many things, it's a combination that matters. You know, there's those vital opportunities that might be rare, but it can matter. You know, it could be 10 years down the line that I have a former high school friend and I'm out of the job and I can call them up and say, oh, you know, I know you work at this bank, could you get me a job there? And they can say yes.

So it could be something like that, but it could also be just the information that we have when we're in high school. And, you know, am I seeing other kids go to college? Did I see what it took for them to go to college? Do I see them actually getting jobs afterwards?

And what do I see them doing? What do I see them doing? What do I envision myself doing? You know, a lot of that is formed by that community.

And I think when you put all these things together, you know, especially at an early age, they just amplify themselves, right? So the more you study, the more you can study, the more chance you have of advancing, the more friends you're going to make who are also taking classes that are, you know, preparatory for going to college and so forth. So it all plays into itself and then it continues throughout your lifetime in terms of those friendships, then giving you opportunities and everything else. I think just, you know, all of us can try to think a little bit about what is it that's limiting our networks, how, you know, what can we do, when are there opportunities for us to step out a little bit from what we know and what we know.

And broaden those horizons and bridge across whatever gap it is that might matter. It's natural to want to spend time with people who I like us. It doesn't make you a bad person to join a book club or a bird watching group and find others who share the same interests, backgrounds and temperaments. But this very human impulse, magnified on the scale of a nation, has the propensity to create sealed economic caste systems where it becomes very hard for people who are poor to change the trajectory of their lives.

When we reach out to form connections with people in different economic stations, it has the potential to transform our lives, their lives and the lives of strangers in the far future. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Bridget McCarthy, Annie Murphy-Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Quirrell, Ryan Katz, Auden Barnes and Andrew Chatek. Tara Boyle is our executive producer.

I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor. For today's Ensign Hero, we are bringing you a story from our sister show, Mayan Sanquiro. Today's story comes from Sena Kurumi. Some years ago, Sena was living in France, working on a PhD.

One cold winter weekend, she and her friends took a break and spent the day at Disneyland Paris. They stayed as long as they could, until it was finally time to catch the last tram home. One by one, all of Sena's friends got off at their stops until she was the only one left. And I noticed that the tram was super empty, like there were just two people in there, two guys, both of them friends, and I wear the hijab, so I really stand out.

Whenever I go, I do stand out. One of the men was in the front of the tram. The other set a few rows behind Sena. She didn't feel like either of them were being her or her headscarf much attention, so she put on her headphones and looked out the window.

Something like the switch, like the time between music or something, like the small silence. I heard something and it turned and I saw this guy just being very agitated. He was waving his hands and swearing and just pointing in my direction. And I wasn't sure if it was me or the other guy, because I didn't do anything that may trigger him to do that.

So I assumed that he was probably talking to the guy behind me. I took my head's phone off, and that when I heard all those very harmful words that he was saying, that we took the jobs, that we are making Europe and civilized, that we are everything that is wrong with Europe and friends. And that woman, I was like, yes, this is about me, this is definitely about me. I wasn't scared, I was just numb and shocked.

I didn't understand why is this happening. I didn't even cross my mind that I would be in danger, but I was like, why? Why? Why?

Why? What did he do? Why? Just to Sena began to stand, the man who had been sitting behind her rushed to the front of the tram and placed himself between her and the angry man.

A few seconds, he was up front of me and kept pushing the guy to the door of the tram. He kept on saying, you don't touch her, you don't say those words to her. She's just a student, everything that's wrong with Europe is you. Like this phrase, I remember it very clearly, everything that is wrong with Europe is people like you.

Not her. The man defending Sena kept the angry man from getting close to her. At the beginning, he kept pushing him towards the tram wide door, and same time yelling at the driver, stop the tram, this guy needs to get off the next station. Once the tram stopped, he pushed the man off the tram and then stood by the doors to make sure he couldn't get back on.

He stayed there, didn't talk to me, stayed by the door, it was like watching me. This happens a lot when you are veiled and especially in France. When they see you as veiled, they really don't know how to interact with you. They don't know what are your boundaries.

Some assume that's why he didn't come and talk to me. Although it would have not been a problem at all, I probably would have welcomed it. But I'm pretty sure that that's the reason. Sena was too shocked to say anything either.

She and the man stood in silence on the tram until her stop came. When she got out, the man followed and made sure that she got into her building safely. Sena was still in too much shock to turn around and say goodbye. It was the very first time that I encountered something like it in my entire life.

I heard stories. I knew that it happened, but I never assumed that it would happen to me. And at the moment, even what the nice guy did, I didn't register. I was still focused on what the bad guy said.

Why was he attacking me? Why did he do? And then somehow I was like, but wait, I wasn't alone in this. There was another guy who knew that I didn't do anything wrong, that I didn't deserve the hatred and the violence.

And he actually defended me. And then I was like, wait, he had no reason to defend me. He wasn't sharing the same beliefs and the same culture. And yet he was there.

He actually put himself in danger by doing that. He could have gotten hurt. He could have gotten in so much trouble. And he didn't think about that.

Every time Sena experienced Islamophobia after that day, she remembered the man who defended her. His kindness and courage gave her the strength to remain in France. I don't remember it as the day where I was attacked by a stranger. I remember it as the day where I was saved by a stranger.

And that made all the difference. And I'm really grateful to that guy for this. Listen to Sena Kurumi. Some years after the incident, Sena finished her PhD and moved back to her home country of Morocco.

When we spoke to her, she was working as an international management consultant. If you would like to help us build more stories like this, please act now. Visit support.hiddenbrain.org and join the hundreds of other hidden brain listeners who have signed up to help. Again, that's support.hiddenbrain.org.

I'm Shankar Vedantu. See you soon.