Saturday, September 22, 2018

NEW STUDY: Immigration has hurt British wages

The details give me a headache, but this new study reports that, overall, 1999-2016 immigration in Great Britain has hurt native wages.

As an example of how this works in real life, college students should be thrilled with all these immigrant professors. You can't understand what the hell they're saying in class, and the low salaries drive native-born talent into other fields, but just think of all the additional multicultural services and administrators the cheap professors pay for!

UPDATE: Keep in mind that even among economist researchers, the ratio of progressives to non-progressives is 5:1. All research disciplines are organized to generate liberal-friendly findings. The idea of objectivity is laughable. A rational person can dismiss liberal results as due to bias, and conservative results as a case of the data screaming too loudly to be silenced.

Addiction Summit

Friday, September 21, 2018

Another weak attempt to defend "Diversity is Our Strength"

Recently, I argued that Scott Adams' defense of the view that "diversity is our strength" is as weak as could be.  Now I see that neo-conservative Max Boot has tried the same thing. Both are responses to Tucker Carlson's diversity skepticism.

Since Boot's argument is written, in contrast to Adams' videorecording, it's more carefully done, but it's ends up just as dumb and dishonest.

Of course, Boot's first move is to claim that Tucker merely parrots neo-Nazi talking points. Boot is a classy thinker.

The way these people make "diversity is our strength" seem credible is to cherry-pick their examples and to equivocate: they use various meanings of diversity when it suits them. They use it to mean diversity of opinion when they give of examples of stifling uniformity. Boot relies on this meaning when he cites North Korea as an example.

Of course, Boot is cherry-picking here. These guys never focus on the typical situation. Yes, competition of different opinions can help a country arrive better decisions, but normal countries have more than enough diversity to generate different perspectives. A typical country does not need to import millions of aliens to achieve sufficient diversity. Plus, more to the point, what you need for good decisions is smart people. A very diverse group of dummies is not going to cut it.

Boot conveniently ignores the general tendency: across countries, ethnic heterogeneity correlates with dysfunctional conflict. As a Jew, Boot should be aware of the fact that ethnic heterogeneity predicts genocide.  I don't need to cherry-pick to make my point: Everyone knows it's a general truth.

Next, Boot cites the examples of South Korea and Japan. They are aging and need young immigrants to help pay the bills. Here, "diversity" means cheap labor. He conveniently ignores the cost side of the ledger and the long-term consequences of importing huge, alien populations. Poor immigrants are very costly to welfare states, and, again, the consequences over the long haul are likely to be dysfunctional conflict and a society that ends up worse off.

Boot's next move is to sing the praises of America's genius immigrants. He goes all the way back to Levi Strauss to make his point. Again, equivocation. Diversity here means "geniuses."  He's cherry-picking. According to a study by Jason Richwine, the average IQ of US immigrants is somewhere between 91 and 94.  A person with IQ in the low 90s is suited to do a low-skill job--not to be the next Alexander Graham Bell.

Boot does manage to cite one study that found that public companies with more ethnic and gender diversity have higher profitability. I'll give him credit here -- he's debating in a serious way, for once -- but one study can find anything, and it might be the case that strong, profitable companies can afford the luxury of promoting more diverse leadership. The causal mechanism here seems unlikely: What is it about more minorities and women that would translate into more profit? The only answers that have any credibility are that these people understand minority/female customer desires better, or if "minorities" include large numbers of high IQ individuals (e.g., East Asians, South Asians).

Finally, he argues that diversity strengthens our national security. If the NYPD is made up of Arabic, Pashto, Farsi, and Urdu speakers, we will be safer. In other words, the grave security problems caused by diversity can be addressed a little better with diversity.  Lame.

UPDATE: Boot, like Adams, finishes with the point that diversity in the US is inevitable. This is practically an admission that diversity is a weakness -- a weakness we must live with. Like others, part of this "inevitability" is the tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants who haven't come yet. To the PC-minded, even our future policy choices are inevitabilities. We're somehow paralyzed. There is no way we can change course with respect to mass immigration. So much dishonesty by these people. 

Addiction Summit

Thursday, September 20, 2018

How the Right can keep winning

Steve Sailer writes on Twitter:
As I've been saying for going on 20 years now, if you want America to have a nonracialized political system like, say, New Hampshire's instead of a racialized one like Mississippi's, then cut down on immigration. But Democrats want to win by government electing a new people.
I'm not sure if Democrats are smart enough to have thought this through, but if they have, I suspect their reasoning goes like this: "We have so successfully demonized white solidarity [according to the World Values Survey, criminals are liked more than neo-Nazis in every country surveyed] most whites will accept subjugation over being labelled a Nazi."

And while Steve points to reduced immigration as a way to a nonracialized political system, mass immigration is likely to continue (I hope I'm wrong), so perhaps the most realistic course for whites is to pursue the "Mississippi Strategy." Advocate conservatism but pursue policies that happen to preserve white interests. Keep the whiteness implicit, incidental. Making it explicit will force many whites to choose subjugation over a Nazi label.  This is how Trump won, and it is the path to future success.

UPDATE: When I say "conservatism," I mean Pat Buchanan's populist, America First version, not the fake neo-con version.

Addiction Summit

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

My son's first stab at un-PC punditry

Indulge me in taking pride in my young boys for a second.

In the car tonight, the boys were telling some politically incorrect jokes, so I told them they were funny, but they need to be careful what they say around teachers and minority students. I told them minority kids can get very angry at that kind of kidding.

The older boy then said, "What's the big deal? I wouldn't care if they joked about me being white." So I asked him what the answer is. He thought for a second and said, "I wouldn't care because I don't see anything bad about being white. People get upset when you make fun of a weakness of theirs. Minority kids must think there is something bad about being a minority. Nobody likes to hear the truth."

Interesting answer.

Addiction Summit

New study: Why women make false accusations of rape

Here is a new study which analyzes the motives for making false allegations of rape: 
The list of motives by Kanin (1994) is the most cited list of motives to file a false allegation of rape. Kanin posited that complainants file a false allegation out of revenge, to produce an alibi or to get sympathy. A new list of motives is proposed in which gain is the predominant factor. In the proposed list, complainants file a false allegation out of material gain, emotional gain, or a disturbed mental state. The list can be subdivided into eight different categories: material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret. To test the validity of the list, a sample of 57 proven false allegations were studied at and provided by the National Unit of the Dutch National Police (NU). The complete files were studied to ensure correct classification by the NU and to identify the motives of the complainants. The results support the overall validity of the list. Complainants were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behavior such as adultery or skipping school. Some complainants, however, reported more than one motive. A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said that they did not know why they filed a false allegation. The results confirm the complexity of motivations for filing false allegations and the difficulties associated with archival studies. In conclusion, the list of Kanin is, based on the current results, valid but insufficient to explain all the different motives of complainants to file a false allegation.

Addiction Summit

Monday, September 17, 2018

Liberals think patriotism is not important for national unity

The General Social Survey asked 1,182 respondents, "How much do you agree of disagree that strong patriotic feelings in America are needed for America to remain united?"  I'm not sure how a country stays united if many of its people dislike it. 

What predicts the view that patriotism is not important for unity? I conducted ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to see which predictors matter after removing the influence of other factors.   

Patriotism unimportant for national unity

Age   -.10**
Female   .03 
Nonwhite   -.04
Immigrant   .07*
Education   .03
Church Attendance   -.08*
Liberalism   .23***
City Size   -.01

Thinking patriotism is not important for national unity is significantly predicted by: youth, being an immigrant, low church attendance, and being a liberal. The effects are standardized, so the larger the number, the stronger the effect. In other words, liberalism is the factor most strongly associated with devaluing patriotism. 

This question seems to tap clear thinking as much as attitudes toward patriotism. To put it starkly, would you expect a group to be unified if half the group adores the group and half hates the group? What binds them together if not identification with the group? 

Huge meta-analysis: Women are as happy as men

Feminists instruct us that men are organized to oppress women everywhere.  Women have incredible talents and ambitions, but these are crushed by male rule.

If this were true, we should see high levels of female dissatisfaction. Gifted individuals who are blocked from success surely cannot be happy about it.

A new meta-analysis of hundred of studies and more than one million people from many countries -- some of them with low levels of gender equality -- reports that there are no significant sex differences in being satisfied with life or one's job.

How can this be?  The truth is that women have it pretty good.  Surveys are not going to detect the handful of women who fantasize about Evil Males and push the lie on others, usually in a classroom somewhere.

Saturday, September 15, 2018

BJS data: If you release a felon, he will go back to crime

This new report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics tells us a lot about criminal recidivism. Here's perhaps the best graph:

See how more than 80% of offenders released from prison are re-arrested within 9 years. Keep in mind that these are only criminals who were caught. I've read studies concluding that the typical serious criminal commits many crimes per arrest. A study found that incarcerated felons estimate that they would commit one felony per week if they were free.

The attitude of many Americans these days is that we need to lock up violent offenders, not property or drug criminals. A basic finding in criminology is that criminals are generalists: if their last crime was theft, their next crime is about as likely to be violence or drugs as another theft crime. Typically, there is no such thing as a "violent criminal." Offenders do all types of crime. A guy might be in prison for auto theft this time, but it is likely it will be rape or aggravated assault next time.

So the recidivism data tell us this: release an prison inmate, and he is going to back to crime. If you want him to stop, lock him up and keep him locked up. You have to weigh costs: the costs of prison versus to cost of crime. If you're like me -- on the side of victims and don't mind some taxes -- let's lock them up and throw away the key.

And no conjugal visits, and no voting.

UPDATE: The recidivism rates increase with the "hardcoreness" of the group. From mild to severe, the numbers look like this: women 77%, Asians 79%, whites and Hipsanics 81%, men 84%, American Indians 85%, blacks 87%, and those under age 25, 90%.

Friday, September 14, 2018

Is falling testosterone feminizing American men?

Based on 185 studies (43k men), this meta-analysis documents the 1972-2011 drop in total sperm count among men in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. The decline was almost 60%.

The authors do not speculate about causes, but a GQ writer thinks it's due to an increase in plasticizers which are known to disrupt fetal testosterone (T). Perhaps it's due to increasing obesity which lowers T. The authors controlled for increasing age, so that doesn't appear to be the reason.

Anyway, I'm interested in the consequences. Assuming that a sperm count is a proxy for prenatal and adult T, young men strike me as being less masculine than in previous generations. They are certainly not shorter or smaller, but they seem more effeminate. And I'm not talking about dress or tastes. I mean in their faces and in their mannerisms.

According to the General Social Survey, the percent of men reporting they have sex exclusively with other men rose from 2.2% in the 1980s to 3.2% in this decade. This, of course, could be due to a greater willingness to admit the behavior, but there is a theory of homosexuality that claims it is due to inadequate prenatal T.

Subtracting out the 1984-94 gang wars and crack epidemic, the US homicide has declined since the late 1970s. Declining T? I'm just thinking out loud -- I might be crazy -- but it's an interesting idea.

UPDATE: By the way, the GQ author thinks the collapse in sperm count points to the end of the human race.

Scott Adams fails to show that diversity is a strength

Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and Trump analyzer, has attempted to answer Tucker Carlson's question, "How is diversity a strength?"

He opens by stating that US diversity is a given -- it's not going anywhere -- so we need to find ways to turn diversity into a positive. That's a weak opening if you're trying to demonstrate that diversity is inherently a strength.

Next, Adams claims that it depends: diversity can be beneficial or harmful. Again, this is a lame argument if your point is to prove that diversity is a strength.

Adams argues that minorities know minority issues better than billionaires, and so are in a better position to know how a business should operate among minorities. In other words, diversity is needed to deal with the knowledge gap caused by diversity.

Next, Adams goes back to his original point that we don't have a choice about being a diverse society; it's a given. We have to deal with it. I'm becoming repetitive, but this, as before, is lame if you're attempting to prove diversity is a strength.

Adams compares the US to an organism that benefits from more sensors:  We all see things from a different angle, so multiple inputs creates a more accurate picture. Few people, even educated people like Adams, realize there is tremendous diversity of this sort in even the smallest ethnic group. Heck, there is tremendous diversity in a single family. To illustrate, the variation in personality is almost as wide in a family as in a population. Is it your experience that families are overly agreeable? That members see all issues in the same way? I suspect your family is like mine: 6 people, 7 opinions. 

Adam then argues that the US needs to standardize our language so diverse people can understand each other. In other words, we need to reduce diversity so we can tap into the advantages diversity offers.

Last, Adams cites the example of his start-up company WhenHub. He explains that the genius who has made the business a success is an Asian Indian immigrant. In other words, his company is a success because this partner is high IQ, like Adams. High IQ people working together is an example of homogeneity, not diversity. If Adams had hired a retard to complement his intelligence, that is diversity with respect to IQ.


NEW STUDY: Immigration has hurt British wages

The details give me a headache, but this new study reports that, overall, 1999-2016 immigration in Great Britain has hurt native wages. A...