Monday, November 12, 2018

Data: Liberals are more dishonest than conservatives

With all the vote counting shenanigans we see going on now, are liberals simply more dishonest people than conservatives? The short answer is, yes.

The General Survey asked participants, "Do you feel it is wrong or not wrong if a taxpayer does not report of all his income in order to pay less income taxes."  Let's compare answers for those who describe themselves as "extreme liberals" with those who are "extreme conservatives."  Percent answering tax cheating is wrong (extreme libs/extreme conservatives, sample size = 2,396) Seriously wrong 10.9/43.7 Wrong 60.0/43.7 A bit wrong 21.8/5.6 Not wrong 7.3/7.0 Conservatives are much more likely to think cheating on one's taxes is seriously wrong (43.7% vs 10.9%), while liberals about 4 times more likely to think it's only a little bit wrong. I'd bet money many liberals feel voter fraud is only a "little bit wrong," and that it's actually righteous if it strikes a blow against Orange-Headed Lucifer. UPDATE: Look at Hollywood, for example. Does anyone disagree that Hollywood has more per capita liars than any city in the world? Okay, maybe Washington, DC does, but both places are crawling with liberals.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

High vs low mating success among never-married men

This graph displays the number of sex partners since age 18 for never-married men ages 30-39.  You can see that this is a very diverse group.  More than 10% have had zero partners ("40 year-old virgins"), and 41% have been with five or fewer.  By contrast, 35% report a dozen or more partners.

If we divide these men into a low (0-5) and high group (12+), the median for the low group is 2, and it's 25 for the high group. That's 12.5 times more women than the low group.

The high group --roughly one-third of never-married men -- looks like it is following the high mating effort strategy that was discussed in the last post, while the low group, with a median of two women, seems to be doing poorly at any strategy.  

Friday, November 09, 2018

Do men with a history of many sex partners avoid marriage?

According to evolutionary theory, there is a tradeoff between mating effort and parental effort. If you put more time and energy into pursuing sexual partners, this is less time and energy to devote to raising children. High mating effort or high parental effort are seen as alternative "strategies."

So, are men with lots of sex partners less likely to be married -- a measure of parental effort? Or is it generally the case that men with many partners follow a combined strategy of marriage plus lots of women? And on the low side, does a man with undesirable traits have few partners and fail to convince a woman to marry him?

The General Social Survey asked men how many sex partners they have had since 18, and they asked about current marital status. Let's focus on men in their 30s. Here are the mean number of partners (I exclude men who say more than 100 because these outliers throw off the mean) by marital status:

Mean number of sex partners since 18 (N = 2,827)

Never Married  14.2
Married  9.0
Widowed  6.6
Separated  14.8
Divorced  17.1

Widowed and married men have had the fewest partners, while never-marrieds and separated/divorced have had the most. Put very roughly, the anti-marriage group has had double the partners compared to the pro-marriage group.

I suppose you could argue that marital status is driving the number of sex partners rather than reverse -- the idea being that marriage reduces promiscuity -- but the average never-married has been with as many women as the typical separated guy. It looks to me like men who are good at getting partners avoid marriage or are weakly attached to it. Many of them do get married, but it's less likely to last. There does seem to be some tradeoff going on here.

Thursday, November 08, 2018

Because of mass immigration, the US is becoming a second-rate country

Anyone who pays any attention to trends in intelligence knows that the average American IQ is falling. We're down to perhaps 97, and if current immigration trends continue, we'll probably be in the mid-90s by mid-century.

What does a country look like when it has around a 95 mean IQ?  Looking at a world table, I see the following: Argentina (93), Bosnia (94), Bulgaria (93), Greece (92), Israel (95), Hungary (97), Italy (97), Kazakhstan (95), Malaysia (92), Poland (95), Portugal (95), Russia (97), Slovakia (96), Slovenia (96), Ukraine (95), and Uruguay (96).

Take your pick: it doesn't look good for the US. And we're becoming much more ethnically diverse than many of these countries. Ethnic diversity generates identity politics and ethnic spoils systems, which will only add to the dysfunction.

China with its 105 IQ is smiling.

Friday, November 02, 2018

Pew Study: Jews are the most beloved religious group

This is an interesting graph from a new Pew study. It gives the average warmth score for various religious groups as rated by various religious groups.

In the wake of the Pittsburgh shooting, the main number that jumps out me is that Jews are the most beloved of all groups (not counting warmth towards one's one group). People who dislike Jews are a tiny slice of American society.  Not surprisingly, Muslims are the least liked religion. Black Protestants like them best, probably because many American Muslims are black.

If you thought atheists were the enlightened lovers of humanity, you were wrong. The lowest mean on the graph is the feeling of atheists toward evangelical Christians. There is a good strong streak of hatred among "brights." Evangelicals don't like atheists either, but every educated person knows to expect this from Neanderthals. Atheists also have a strong dislike of Mormons. Every intelligent person knows Mormons are awful, awful people. Agnostic folks are clearly warmer people than atheists.

Jews give high numbers. My impression is that Jews do tend to have warm feelings toward others, or at least they express how one should feel. Who would have thought that one of the highest numbers on the graph (except numbers given for one's own group) is how Jews feel toward Catholics?

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

Study: Whites suffer higher rates of mental illness than blacks

This new study used data on more than 11,000 Americans to test the "Black-White Mental Health Paradox": researchers have found that blacks suffer lower rates of psychiatric illness than whites. 

The researchers looked at 12 disorders for the past year and also over one's whole lifetime:
Results showed overwhelming evidence of the paradox across lifetime and past-year disorders for women and men. In addition, Blacks’ mental health advantage over Whites widened after adjusting for socioeconomic factors.
So the data is clear that rates are higher for whites, and the gap is even wider if you compare high-income blacks and whites, or if you compare low-income blacks and whites.

Researchers call this a paradox, but it's only a paradox if you subscribe to the theory that America is a racist society, and so the trauma of oppression should cause rampant mental illness among blacks.

The greater mental health of blacks is evidence that there are big biological differences between the two races. Whites are biologically more vulnerable to psychiatric disorders.

In this context, liberals have told me that blacks are just really strong people. Who else could survive slavery and Jim Crow? Although they won't admit it -- they tend to be lazy, biased, dishonest thinkers -- they are really saying that blacks have a biological mental health advantage.

As the genetic evidence of racial differences becomes more and more indisputable, I imagine lefties will concede the importance of biology where blacks have an advantage in order to look scientific, but will continue to flip out over biological differences where blacks come up short.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Does a parent's love really improve a child's behavior?

This new study examined 227 pairs of twins:

They found that the twin who experienced stricter or harsher treatment and less emotional warmth from parents had a greater chance of showing aggression and a lack of empathy and moral compass—a set of characteristics known as callous-unemotional traits.
The researchers conclude that the study provides compelling evidence that parenting matters.

They might be right, but the scientific literature indicates parenting has little long-term effect on behavior. Overall the long haul, genes simply dominate. 

The scientists fail to mention that, in their discipline style, parents might be reacting to differences in the twins' behavior. Identical twins turn out different because of accidental events that happen during development. For example, one twin could get fall and get a brain injury which worsens his behavior, and parents might react more harshly and coldly to such behavior. One might ask why would a parent systematically treat one twin different than the other? The obvious answer is that the twins diverge first, and then parents treat them differently second. Parents typically delay punishment until the child seems old enough to understand it.  

One the other hand, if it is true that there are short-term benefits to more parental warmth and more moderate discipline, that is not without value.  I have 6 children and spend a lot of time managing them. If there are techniques that get my kids under better control, that is awesome even if it doesn't change their long-term character.

Data: Liberals are more dishonest than conservatives

With all the vote counting shenanigans we see going on now, are liberals simply more dishonest people than conservatives? The short answer i...