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. 

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.

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.

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.


Thursday, September 13, 2018

Who is a real American?

General Social Survey participants were asked the following: "When you think of social and political issues, do you think of yourself mainly as a member of a particular ethnic, racial, or nationality group or do you think of yourself mainly as just an American?" 

I consider this to be a key indicator of assimilation. If you think of yourself as something other than American when considering issues important to the country, you are not fully an American. You are at least partly something else. 

So what predicts identifying as something else?  I conducted a logistic regression analysis in order to answer this question. This technique tells you what matters after you have adjusted for the influence of other variables. Here are the coefficients for variables that might matter:

Factors predicting ethnocentricity

Age   -.02**
Male    .02
Nonwhite   2.21***
Education   .12**
Church attendance   .06
Liberalism   .07
City size   .00
Immigrant   1.38***

Some of these are expected: immigrants and non-whites are less American. These are the strongest predictors in the models. But some factors might be a bit surprising. Older people are less ethnocentric. Gender doesn't matter. Education (the 3rd strongest effect) encourages ethnocentricity. It is the opposite of an assimilator. Church attendance is unimportant. So are liberalism and the size of the place where you live. 

So the picture that emerges for the "partial American" is a young, educated, non-white immigrant. Not surprising. And the profile of a real American is a less educated, older, white native. God bless 'em.

UPDATE: I looked at region of the country, but nothing jumped out. 

Monday, September 10, 2018

CDC data: White men enjoy their privilege right up to the moment they kill themselves at 10 times the rate of black women

Observe my skills as I handle the progressive concepts of "white male privilege"  and "intersectional theory" at the same time.

On the subject of suicide, these ideas imply that whites and men should suffer lower rates, and white men especially so.  America society, with its bone crushing oppression of minority women, we should see particularly high suicide rates among black women.

I constructed a graph from 2000-2016 on all US suicides (CDC data), breaking the rates out by race and gender:

Intersectional theory insists we focus on combinations of status in order to see how oppression is multiplied. It certainly is: white men kill themselves at more than 10 times the rate of black women. More generally, white suicide is more common than in any minority group.

Seriously, how do we explain the huge black-white gap? My guess is genetically-based personality. When one experiences frustrations, whites are more likely to look inside and perceive inadequacies. Blacks are more inclined to blame others, and if one feels like pointing a gun, it gets pointed at another, not at oneself.  Liberal Americans then make the situation worse by encouraging black other-blaming.

So why the gender difference? Are men more self-blaming?  No, women are, and they actually attempt suicide more than men, but the one thing men are good at is getting the job done, by whatever means necessary.

Study: "There are no atheists in foxholes"

A new study from NBER gives empirical support to the saying that, "There are no atheists in foxholes":
Learning to cope with man’s mortality is central to the teachings of the world’s major religions. However, very little is known about the impact of life-and-death trauma on religiosity. This study exploits a natural experiment in military deployments to estimate the causal effect of traumatic shocks on religiosity. We find that combat assignment is associated with a substantial increase in the probability that a serviceman subsequently attends religious services regularly and engages in private prayer. Combat-induced increases in religiosity are largest for enlisted servicemen, those under age 25, and servicemen wounded in combat. The physical and psychological burdens of war, as well as the presence of military chaplains in combat zones, emerge as possible mechanisms.

Sunday, September 09, 2018

Meta-analysis: Higher rates of psychotic symptoms among ethnic minorities and immigrants

A new meta-analysis of 24 studies found that ethnic minorities are at higher risk than members of the majority to have psychotic experiences (odds ratio = 1.4) and symptoms (odds ratio = 1.4). The risk was highest for minorities from the Maghreb (Northwest Africa) and the Middle East (odds ratio = 3.3) living in Europe, and Hispanics (odds ratio = 2.0)  and blacks (odds ratio = 1.9) in the United States. The authors also reported a heightened risk of delusional symptoms among immigrants (odds ratio = 1.5).

Of course, the researchers suggest discrimination is the cause of these manifestations of mental illness, but whether it's due to social or biological causes (or both) why don't we have folks stay in their home countries? It's better for us, and it might be better for them.

Saturday, September 08, 2018

American Indians are Christians (or nothing), not "Native American spiritualists"

The amount of BS from liberals is so overwhelming, it's hard to take.

Whenever the topic is American Indians, "Native American spirituality" is sure to come up. The stereotype is of a people deeply devoted to the spiritual traditions of their forefathers. When I hear this, I say to myself, "I bet not even 10% of Indians say their religion is Native American." Turns out I was right. Using GSS data, here is a graph of over 300 Americans who say they are non-white American Indians (AIs). (I exclude the Elizabeth Warren types.) I split the sample in half (1970-99 and 2000-16) to see if there are any trends.

First of all, most AIs are Christian. There is a trend away from Protestantism and toward Catholicism, Native American, or no religion. But even with the shift, fewer than 10% say their religion is Native--just like I guessed. When it comes to their religious profile, Indians are pretty similar to many other American groups. 
I checked to see if liberalism predicts identifying one's religion as AI (thinking that adopting the old beliefs might be a sign of anti-Americanism) but the two are unrelated. The typical believer of this type is politically moderate. 

Thursday, September 06, 2018

Most abusive Catholic priests are same-sex hebephiles and ephebophiles

This graph was taken from a John Jay College of Criminal Justice study of 1950-2002 sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States. You can see that the typical victim is either a male teen or pre-teen. In family settings, victims are typically female. The media fails to mention that most of the 4% (typical of male adults in charge of kids) of priests who are accused of abuse are mostly same-sex hebephiles (likes kids 11-14) and ephebophiles (likes teens 15-19). (The y-axis is number of victims.)

UPDATE: And for all you smart asses out there, no, hebephile does not mean being a fan of Jewish people.

Wednesday, September 05, 2018

Study finds ZERO evidence of criminal justice bias against blacks

You should follow the research done by these biosocial criminologists. They are doing actual science:

One of the most consistent findings in the criminological literature is that African American males are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated at rates that far exceed those of any other racial or ethnic group. This racial disparity is frequently interpreted as evidence that the criminal justice system is racist and biased against African American males. Much of the existing literature purportedly supporting this interpretation, however, fails to estimate properly specified statistical models that control for a range of individual-level factors. The current study was designed to address this shortcoming by analyzing a sample of African American and White males drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health). Analysis of these data revealed that African American males are significantly more likely to be arrested and incarcerated when compared to White males. This racial disparity, however, was completely accounted for after including covariates for self-reported lifetime violence and IQ.

Tuesday, September 04, 2018

Why are liberal women more likely to say they have been sexually harassed?

A recent analysis by Zach Goldberg addressed an issue I raised years ago: Why do liberal women report more sexual harassment?  Goldberg found support for the view that liberal women are more sexual, and this invites unwanted attention.  Research more generally finds that badly behaved females -- delinquents, drug users, prostitutes -- are targeted for sexual abuse.

Goldberg takes a bivariate approach. Let's do a multivariate analysis, so we can see if promiscuity explains the liberal-harassment link after adjusting for the influence of other factors. Using GSS data on almost 1,500 women, and employing binary logistic regression, we get a significant coefficient of .15; the more liberal you are, the greater your risk of being harassed.

Now let's see if it drops as we enter controls. Young people are more liberal and might be sexually targeted. If we add age to the model, the coefficient drops to .12. Age explains a little bit of the link.

How about education? Educated women are more liberal and might be more sensitive about unwanted attention. When we add years of education, the political orientation coefficient drops to .11. Not much change.

How about living in a large city? City dwellers are more liberal, and perhaps urban men are more aggressive. When we add size of the population, the liberalism slope increases to .12, so city size does not help explain the liberal-harassment association.

How about being single? Single women are more liberal and might draw more attention. When being single is added to the model, the politics coefficient drops back to .11, so marital status doesn't matter much.

Okay, how about number of sex partners in the past year? When added to the equation, the liberalism estimate only drops to .107.  More sexual partners definitely predicts being harassed, but it does not appear to be the reason why liberal women are harassed more.

Since none of the examined variables explain much (age does a little), the answer seems to be something very close to political orientation. My guess is that social interactions are often ambiguous, and liberal women are inclined to interpret more interactions as sexually abusive. They've been indoctrinated to do so.    

Yet another example of how elites do NOT give a shit about ordinary Americans

While I am no expert, I keep on eye on sex research. The latest study to get media attention is the controversial study by Lisa Littman that suggests that peer influence might contribute to the epidemic of troubled girls saying they're actually boys.  

I'm not interested in weighing into the issue: My point is a more general one. This episode merely illustrates what I see every day: Sex researchers are obsessed with studying oddities and simply don't give a shit about what constitutes a healthy sexuality for the 90 plus percent of the population of kids, teens and adults who are typical sexually. The academy, and elites in general, do not give a shit about you. 

Friday, August 31, 2018

You can tell a REAL man if he's got a big... nose.

National Geographic reports on a study of proboscis monkeys:
"Male proboscis monkeys with large noses tend to be bulkier than their small-nosed kin. They also sport bigger testes, up to 1.2 inches wide—upping their chances of fathering a female’s offspring by producing more sperm, crowding out less fertile males if they’re vying for the same female."
This study found that higher levels of umbilical cord testosterone predicted adult nose size in humans. Size matters -- nose size, that is. 

Genes for crime are correlated with genes for having lots of babies

Wow (from BioRxiv):
Prior evolutionary theory provided reason to suspect that measures of development and reproduction would be correlated with antisocial behaviors in human and non-human species. Behavioral genetics has revealed that most quantitative traits are heritable, suggesting that these phenotypic correlations may share genetic etiologies. We use GWAS data to estimate the genetic correlations between various measures of reproductive development (N= 52,776 - 318,863) and antisocial behavior (N= 31,968). Our genetic correlation analyses demonstrate that alleles associated with higher reproductive output (number of children ever born, rg=0.50, p=.0065) were positively correlated with alleles associated with antisocial behavior, whereas alleles associated with more delayed reproductive onset (age of first birth, rg=-.64, p=.0008) were negatively associated with alleles linked to antisocial behavior. Ultimately, these findings coalesce with evolutionary theories suggesting that increased antisocial behaviors may partly represent a faster life history approach, which may be significantly calibrated by genes.
Okay, long sentences with no conjugal visits.

Gays demanded marriage, not because they were dying to be married, but to make a point

The General Social Survey (GSS) has collected enough data to begin to give us a sense about the degree to which homosexuals have embraced marriage since the opportunity has opened up. Here are marital status trends for gay men by decade:

The red line represents married people. The percent of gay men who are married in this decade is only slightly higher than previous decades. (I assume that married gays from earlier decades were either married to a woman or called their relationship with a man "marriage."). The next graph is lesbians:

Lesbian marriage has decreased (red line). Again, I'm sure lesbians were married to men in previous decades or called their same-sex relationships "marriage," but their move away from heterosexual marriage has not been replaced by lesbian marriage.

Maybe we need more time to see the trends more clearly, but what we GSS data suggest is that homosexuals did not fight gay marriage because they were dying for participation in the practice, but because they wanted the law to reflect the view that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality. They were just making a point.

Thursday, August 30, 2018

Meta-analysis: Do nuts make you fat?

Nuts are supposed to be good for you (I recently posted on a meta-analysis that found that walnuts lower total and bad cholesterol and triglycerides), but they are high in calories. Do they make you fat and bushy like a well-fed squirrel?

A new meta-analysis of thirteen randomized clinical studies (741 people) looked at the issue. It found that nut consumption did not affect body mass index (BMI), weight, percent body fat, or waist circumference. So if you like this kind of food and think it's beneficial, go nuts. 

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

People are abandoning white status, almost as if it were a handicap

What are the trends in identifying oneself as white? Using GSS data, I made some charts:

Here are trends for all respondents. The percent saying they are white has dropped from almost 90% in the 70s to slightly more than 50% in this decade.

Next, let's look at trends by country of origin or ethnicity.

The chart above is for those who say their ethnicity is American Indian. The percent indicating their race is white fell from 77% in the 70s to 60% now. This next chart is for people saying they are of Mexican ancestry. 

For this group, you see a huge 1970s-2000s drop from nearly 100% white to one-third. The trend then reversed over the next decade.  Next, Asian Indians:

There is a 1970s-2000s drop from 40% to 10%. Notice how the percent saying they're "black" also fell. One clear trend with these group is more people embracing the "other race" category.  Here are Arabs: 

We see a pattern similar to Mex-Ams: a 70s to 00s drop, then a reversal. Next, Puerto Ricans:

Typical pattern: Big drop 70s-90s, then a plateau. People from Spain: 

Even these folks are now more likely to say they are not white. And other Spanish:

Same kind of pattern. Now, it's certainly the case that some recent immigrants have been genetically less white than older immigrants, and some people are marrying within race (rather than marrying whites and having mixed kids) now that they have larger concentrations in the country, but these trends also suggest that there has been a move away from white identification that has flattened (or even reversed) in the last few years. 

The movement away from claiming white status is inconsistent with the notion that whiteness carries with it all sorts of benefits; rather, it suggests that a white status is disadvantageous. 

Monday, August 27, 2018

How many homosexuals are there, really?

I ran across this study that estimates the sexual orientations of American adults.  Contrary to what some people claim, the overwhelming majority of men and women are straight (or mostly straight). The author sees a continuum where I see a huge category with other little categories, especially for men.

Whether measured in terms of identity, attraction, or behavior, only 1 or 2% of women are lesbian, and 2 or 3% of men are gay. Bisexuality among women is a little more common -- about 5% -- but only around 2% for men. And from what I've seen of other data, bisexuals tend to be hypersexual, so their attractions seem less mysterious from an evolutionary point of view.

Long story short, when these people are called a sexual minority, minority is right.

Sunday, August 26, 2018

People run from whiteness

How often do Americans who have some white ancestry choose to say they are white--and nothing else--in order to take advantage of supposed "white privilege." Evidently next to nobody.

This new study analyzed the genetic ancestry of more than 100k Northern Californians. They also asked participants to self-identify their race/ethnicity. Six possible ancestries were identified. There are a lot of mixed-race people California: About 17% had ancestries from multiple continents.

The group that self-identified as white had almost no ancestry from anywhere other than Europe: .3% from Africa, .4% from East Asia, .9% Native American, 0.0% Pacific Islander, and 4.0% South Asian.

People who identified as some other single race were very often mixed. For example, 91% of blacks have some European ancestry; for Native Americans and Latinos both, it's 99.9%. For Pacific Islanders, it's 57.6%.

Why didn't any of these mixed people claim to be white? Certainly there had to be some who could pass.

The simple answer is that people have no desire to be white, even if they can legitimately identify as such.

People are running away from white, not toward it. And since when do people run from privilege?

Want Americans to identify as Americans? Being white helps

The US will function more effectively if its inhabitants define themselves as one people, as Americans.

The General Social Survey asked 1,450 participants: "When you think of social and political issues, do you think of yourself mainly as a member of a particular ethnic, racial, or nationality group or do you think of yourself mainly as just an American?"

Here are the percentages by race of immigrants who responded, "Just an American."

Percent of immigrants who say they are just Americans
Whites  76.8
Blacks  36.4
Other Non-Whites  57.1

Even when all people compared are born in other countries, whites are more than twice as likely as blacks to say their identity is American. While not as severe as blacks, a majority of other non-whites also do not feel they are simply American. 

What happens when people are born here?

Percent of people born in US who say they are just Americans
Whites  96.0
Blacks  68.3
Other non-whites  74.2

Being born here makes almost all whites define themselves as Americans, and while native-born non-whites feel more American than non-white immigrants, there is still a large segment that has ethnic loyalties. 

It looks like the "melting pot" idea works best for whites. White immigrants moved here and sooner or later melted into Americans. This doesn't seem to be working so well for non-whites. Many black families have been here for centuries, and Natives have been her for millennia, but the melt for them is still far from complete. 

A similar dynamic seems to be happening to recent non-white immigrants. Some melting happens, but not like it has been for whites. 

Is this difference due to the fact that immigrants were expected to assimilate when most whites emigrated? And now that most immigrants are non-white, US elites encourage people to hold on to their ethnic identity? Maybe, but recent white immigrants don't seem follow the liberal desire for them to hold on to their roots.

Maybe non-whites are simply more clannish than whites. 

Liberals would say it's due to discrimination, but 95% of Americans of Irish descent identify as American only, and they weren't received with a big wet kiss. America has gotten more and more welcoming, yet it's the New Immigrants who are more reluctant to let the ethnic loyalties go.       

Whatever the case, Americans are on a course to be less and less on the same page about where to take the country. And that's putting it nicely.    

Saturday, August 25, 2018

Senator McCain might be saying it's not so bad to be black

US Senator John McCain is near the end. Last year he was struck with an aggressive brain tumor, a glioblastoma, that carries with it a strong likelihood of not surviving for very long. 

As a documented in a recent post, whites face more than twice the risk of developing a glioblastoma (as well as other types of brain cancer) compared to all minority groups, and the risk for men is significantly higher than for women. 

Nature does not seem to be cooperating with the liberal claim that minorities and women always get the short end of the stick due to "white supremacy." 

The theory much more consistent with the data is that evolution has produced group differences which sometimes advantage one group, sometimes another. Social conditions might magnify biological differences, but differences are rooted in genes. 

After bouts of skin cancer and now this awful, deadly brain cancer, Senator McCain might be saying it's not so bad to be black.

Friday, August 24, 2018

To people thinking about moving to America: Shouldn't you worry about your kids ending up in prison?

Research universally shows that the offspring of immigrants are much more criminal than their parents. If I were contemplating a move to the United States and had kids, I might think twice.

America ranks number one in the world in locking up criminals. The incarceration rate is 655 inmates per 100,000 population. Even though rates have dropped a bit in recent years, on any given day, roughly 2 million adults are either in jail or prison.

Compare our imprisonment rate with that of the countries that send the most immigrants to the US each year:

Imprisonment rate for top 10 immigration countries (ranked in terms of numbers of immigrants) 

1. Mexico  165
2. India  33
3. China  118
4. Philippines  172
5. El Salvador  610
6. Vietnam  122
7. Cuba  510
8. Dominican Republic  244
9. South Korea  109
10. Guatemala  136

Only El Salvador and Cuba are even in the same universe with the US. How often do we see immigrant kids join a gang and end up with a long stretch in prison? The chances of this are much higher than back home.

Of course, the risk of becoming a criminal is much higher for some groups than others, but how many parents worry that if they move to the United States, their child could end up in prison?  I moved specifically to lower the risk of my kids getting into drugs (few white kids end up in gangs).

The bigger income you will earn in America comes with an increased risk that a child's life will be ruined by prison. Even when he gets out, he may never get a decent job for the rest of his life. Parents need to think about this.  

Thursday, August 23, 2018

What to tell people if they don't believe IQ is genetic

This is what you tell them: Research shows that the correlation of IQ test scores between two identical twins (100% the same genes) raised apart is just as strong as the correlation between the IQ score of the test you just took and the score of the test you took previously. The twins are as similar as you are with yourself.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Meta-analysis: Fruits, not vegetables, lower triglycerides

Don't make the mistake of assuming this is a health blog when you see two health posts in a row.  I do have the goal of reporting the results of new, interesting meta-analyses. If you focus on one study, you can find whatever results you'd like, but dozens of studies, especially large, random clinical trials? That's more convincing. Facebook should give me a fantastic reputation score. No Fake News here.

This new meta-analysis is not great, but its five cross-sectional and two intervention studies are worth mentioning. Both types of studies find that greater intake of vegetables does not lower triglycerides--the major form of fat stored by the body, which my doctor keeps telling me is way high in my blood. (Turns out, I have a bad gene.)

On the other hand, the more servings of fruit you eat per day, the lower your triglycerides. Two trials is not nearly enough, but, still, the results are interesting.

The authors do not have much of an explanation of how fruit helps, but they do describe an animal trial that found that high fruit fiber intake lowered triglyceride levels in the following order: pomegranate > apple > strawberry > guava > papaya > mandarin and orange.

Tuesday, August 21, 2018

Does it matter how much carbs you eat?

This new meta-analysis (more than 430,000 participants) addresses the question, Does it matter whether you eat a lot of carbs?

The researchers found a U-shaped curve: people were most likely to die if their diets were carb-heavy, or if they ate mostly fats and proteins. The subjects with the lowest odds of dying ate 50-55% of their calories in carb form.

The source of the macronutrients also matters. Mortality goes up if you eat fewer carbs but more of the fats and proteins come from animals; the risk falls as the fats/proteins are plant-based.

So, the story here is pretty conventional: carbs are good at moderate levels, while more fats and proteins ought to come from plants.

Typical of even medical research, the authors do not stress the possibility that people with genes that make you live to a ripe old age also eat more plant-based food. We know from research that high conscientiousness, which is highly influenced by genes, is associated with a long life. Good genes might: 1) motivate you to closely follow medical advice, and 2) extend your life. What you eat might not make any difference.

If that possibility sounds depressing because you can't switch out your bad genes, well I ain't here to make you feel good.  

UPDATE: I should let you know that my diet ranges from minimal carbs to low carbs depending on my level of discipline (lots of carbs makes me feel lousy, and I put on weight), so I have no bias in favor of the results of this study.

Monday, August 20, 2018

Pointing out this obvious difference makes me a sexist

Here is a table based on Li, Kung, and Hines (2017). Look at how there is almost no overlap between the masculine/feminine activities of 4 year old boys and girls.
But pointing that out makes me a sexist. 

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Bishop Morlino: Almost all Church sexual abuse is homosexual

A Wisconsin bishop on the latest Catholic child abuse scandal:
The bishop was particularly candid in his assessment of the cause of [sexual abuse] problems: “In the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals.

Friday, August 17, 2018

Experiment: Emphasizing multiculturalism convinces people that race is real and biological

A study of Rutgers undergraduates revealed an interesting dynamic. To promote equality, many psychologists claim that teaching people multiculturalism -- emphasizing ethnic differences -- is more effective than focusing on color-blind messages. In this study, students exposed to multicultural rather than color-blind information were more likely to report "essentialist" opinions; that racial differences are real, biological, and unchanging.

This makes sense. If we emphasize that racial groups are different in important ways, it's not surprising when people assume the differences are natural. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to develop the view that differences are somehow real and a big deal, but are nothing more than social constructions. Evolution had produced a brain that assumes that what you see is what you get. And it's basically correct.

So if this study is valid, multiculturalism is ironically helping those of us who want to convince the public that group differences are partly biological. Liberals, I thank you.  

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Libertarians do not have high IQs

I used General Social Survey data in an attempt to identify libertarians (sample size is around 1,000).  If respondents answered yes to "Wealthy people pay way too much taxes" and "Marijuana should be legalized," I categorized them as a libertarian.

Next, based on a vocabulary quiz, I calculated IQ for people born in the US (tests may be biased against those for whom English is a second language). I set the mean at 97. (It's typically set at 100 for a white sample, but the US is over 30% non-white).

The data indicated that, according to my measure, 14% of Americans are libertarians. The mean IQ for this group is 96.2. The mean for everyone else is 96.3. For some reason, the people who asked and answered these two questions were a little lower than the 97 average. The takeaway, however, is that there is no evidence here that libertarians are smarter than others.  I'm sure many of these people don't have a developed libertarian ideology: they simple want people to be able to do what they want, and they don't like high taxes even for wealthy people. I bet that ideological libertarians would have a higher than average IQ.

Monday, August 13, 2018

Liberals are the ULTIMATE scapegoaters

Liberals like to explain Trump like this: He has succeeded by blaming white people's problems on non-whites.

In other words, the President is a big-time scapegoater. Like Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's troubles, Trump supposedly appeals to our basest instincts.

Let's side aside the fact that Trump has consistently criticized NON-AMERICANS, not non-whites. Cheating, lying sons of bitches that liberals are, they always turn everything into an opportunity to call us (subhuman) racists.

But the truth is that Leftists are the supreme scapegoaters of ALL TIME. They set the example going back more than 200 years.

Like the Nazi who sees a Jew behind every social problem, liberals claim that EVERY injustice is the fault of rich people. All paths lead to the FAT CATS. They are evil incarnate.

And if the Left gets the opportunity, they will holocaust anyone who even seems well-off. My wife's Ukrainian great grandfather was sent to Siberia because he owned two horses and had six kids. Naturally he was a filthy rich, evil kulak.

Nazi hatred for Jews has got nothing on Leftist hatred of successful people.

We can go to Nietzsche to get an explanation of their psychology. He calls it ressentiment. Capitalism has kicked socialist ass for two centuries, so the losers transform their sense of inferiority into hatred of their betters. And so they wound their enemy with lies. If they get power, they imprison and murder them.

And because so many of us are tempted by this hatred of the rich, we have let them get away with their malignant scapegoating.

Of course, the Left's latest move has been to replace the wealthy with whites as the demonic source of all suffering. But that's another post.

Saturday, August 11, 2018

Men have bigger brains than women, and the gap is HUGE!

This meta-analysis synthesized the results of 126 studies that used various measures to compare the brains of males and females. The results are amazing. Males not only have larger brains than females, on average: the difference is huge! Depending on how the brain is measured, the difference is between 1 and more than 3 standard deviations. The average guy has a brain that is more than 50 milliliters larger than the average female.

Male and female brain volumes are different in almost 30 areas of the brain. And it's not just size: male grey matter is denser in 7 areas.

The most important region for the difference is the limbic system, which is an emotional center. The big male advantage is on the left side of the limbic. Females are larger in the language areas of the right hemisphere.

I was surprised to read that sex differences were not located in areas of the brain in charge of spatial tasks since men have an advantage here, nor did the researchers find a difference in the corpus callosum, the region that connects the two sides of the brain. Women are said to have better integrated hemispheres, but this region does not appear to be larger in females.

The authors did not go into sex differences in behavior that might stem from brain differences, although they did mention the language difference. Women might get their advantage over men in verbal fluency from larger language areas in the brain.

The large limbic system in men suggests males and females will differ emotionally. Perhaps the larger, more dense limbic system enables greater integration with the frontal lobes which are in charge of rational thought. Men might be better at disengaging the feeling-thinking connection, giving them an advantage at a detached, systematizing style of thinking. Women are much better than men at empathizing--a more personal, less abstract style of thinking. These differences produce many men who are good at, say, engineering, and many women who have excellent interpersonal skills.

The brain differences emerge in young children, although there aren't enough studies to show this definitively. So how boys and girls are brought up probably has little to do with the gender gap. Vive la difference!

Wednesday, August 08, 2018

Blacks are becoming white

When African slaves were first brought to America, they were of course 100% sub-Saharan African. Fast forward to the present day, and gene studies estimate the blacks are, on average, about 20% white.

Black-white interbreeding is common today, and since any mixed raced kids are considered black, white genes flow into the black population today, and they will continue to flow. For how long, I don't know.

If it lasts for hundreds of years, blacks could actually become more than 50% white. They'll be more white than black. This seems to already be the case with Hispanics (more white than American Indian, on average).

Those people who claim that racial mixing will solve the race problem are probably wrong. Many of the most radical blacks or Hispanics are half white or more. Malcolm X, no white lover he, had a lot of white ancestry. Of course, this is the case for Obama, too.

If past trends continue, blacks and whites will be closer and closer genetically, but the conflict will continue.

Monday, August 06, 2018

Which race hates whites the most?

Sarah Jeong's anti-white tweets raise a question: Which race hates whites the most? 

The American General Social Survey (GSS) asked 15,822 people, "In general, how closely do you feel to whites? Answers ranged on a 9-point scale from "not close at all" (which received a score of 1) to "very close" (scored as a 9). Let's assume that people who answer 1 to 3 do not like whites. 

People were also asked which country their family originally came from. Here are the percentages who do not like whites by ethnic group:

Percent not liking whites

Black  11.7
Mexican  9.3
Asian Indian  8.7
All non-whites  8.0
Puerto Rican  7.6
Chinese  7.3
Arab  6.1
American Indian  2.8
Japanese  2.1
Whites  2.0
Filipinos  0.0

The GSS does not identify Koreans--Ms. Jeong's ethnic group--but Asians differ. Chinese American have the most haters, while Filipinos like whites better than whites like themselves. Japanese Americans also have a low percentage. 

While blacks and Mex-Ams have the most haters of any racial groups, racism isn't limited to poor minorities. Asian Indians are right behind these two groups. 

American Indians have low numbers, but many of these folks are whites like Elizabeth Warren who like to cling to some supposed Indian ancestry. If we limit Indians to those who also say they are non-white, the number goes up to 6.9%.

Overall, I see these numbers as encouraging. Even among blacks, the vast majority do not dislike whites as a race of people.

UPDATE: I neglected to include Jews. Of the 272 Jewish Americans who were asked the question, 2.2% answered 1 through 3--not much different than other whites. 

Saturday, August 04, 2018

Meta-analysis: More cops, less crime

The American Left seems to believe that police don't reduce crime, they commit it.

This meta-analysis of 12 qualifying studies reports that increasing the number of sworn officers in a police force indeed reduces crime.

The impact differs depending on the type of crime. Most crime is done no one is looking, so police patrol might not be so relevant for crimes like rape.

Police presence seems most effective for car theft or assaults. Since cars are often stolen while parked in a public place, more patrolling might make a difference.

Assaults also happen frequently in public places like bars. The typical scenario is when one young drinking guy insults another young drinking guy, and mutual combat begins. Lots of cops around might make people think twice about starting a public brawl.

Keep in mind that the study found the impact of police force size to be fairly small. It helps, but not that much.

Friday, August 03, 2018

Meta-analysis of 58 studies: "Oppressed" Hispanics live longer than White Americans

This meta-analysis of 58 studies documented the "Hispanic Paradox": Latinos are generally healthier and live longer than whites and blacks. To be specific, their rate of dying is 18% lower than that of other Americans.

This kind of finding keeps sociologists up at night because racism by whites is supposed to destroy brown lives, and yet Hispanics outlive whites, and what do people care about more than being alive?

The obvious candidate explanation is that genes are the reason Hispanics live so long, and the authors do manage to write two or three words about the possibility.

Sociologists are also very troubled to find that women live so much longer than men since male oppression, they tell us, absolutely crushes the female soul. And right on time, feminists dream up a million reasons why the sex difference is NOT biological. God forbid we actually develop explanations that fit the data. 

The study also reports that Asians live even longer than Hispanics. But how can any minority overcome the Evil White Man? Not only are Asians non-white, many are non-Christian. And many are immigrants. And we all know Trump's Deplorables--the power structure of this country (ha!)--despise anyone who is not white, Christian, and American.

So, again, how is it possible that Asian Americans are so healthy? How is it that they are so much more educated than the White Devil, and make so much more money than him? Maybe because liberals are 100% delusional, and genes explain these patterns.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

What to say if someone tells you America hasn't done enough to stigmatize racists

If someone complains that America has not done enough to stigmatize racism, you tell them this:

Jeffrey Dahmer killed, mutilated and ate many victims, and nine of them were black. When prosecutors asked him if he had something against blacks, he answered, "Whoa, whoa, slow down! Yes, I killed, mutilated, and ate a lot of black guys, but I did it because I LIKED them. I may be a lot of things, including a cannibal, but I am NOT, I repeat, NOT A RACIST!!!" (True story, I just paraphrase.)

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Meta-analysis: Iodine supplementation raises IQ

Studies have shown that individuals with a moderate to severe iodine deficiency have an average IQ that is 13.5 points lower than others.

These studies, however, were only based on correlations or were quasi-experimental designs. This meta-analysis located two random clinical studies that administered iodine supplementation to children who lived in areas (one study was in Albania, the other in New Zealand) with mild to moderate iodine deficiency.

Here is the impact on IQ:

If we focus on the adjusted numbers, children who received the iodine supplement scored more than 1/2 standard deviation (sd) higher on perceptual reasoning (a moderate improvement) and more than a 1/4 of an sd higher on the global cognitive index (a noteworthy improvement).

Two studies of less than 500 kids is not bad, but it would be nice to see more studies of this type and the experimental effects on kids when you give pregnant moms the iodine supplement.

This type of research gets little attention from liberals because: 1) it recognizes the reality of intelligence, 2) it is biologically oriented, and 3) it is the type of intervention that is way too easy, inexpensive, and sensible.

Friday, July 27, 2018

A black in 2018 is a person, not some grand symbol of America's sins

Watching Roseanne's interview on Hannity got me thinking about how elite Americans think about blacks. When they think of Valerie Jarrett, they don't think of one person with a particular biography. They think of this enormous black organism that lives now and suffered the wounds of slavery and Jim Crow in the past. Blacks born in, say, 1980, are regarded with reverence, as if they are Holocaust survivors, as if they were whipped many times by their owner.

Ordinary Americans like myself look at someone like Jarrett and simply see a person. A person who has had a good life and should be regarded as anyone else. She doesn't live in a system where she is a second-class citizen. She's not some grand symbol of America's sins, she's just Valerie. She should be judged just like anyone else.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

UNIVERSAL finding: 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are MUCH more criminal than parents/grandparents

I ran across an interesting study that looks at immigration and crime. In typical fashion, it doesn't do a good job of looking specifically at illegal aliens because the government does not keep good stats on this population.

The author reviews 125 studies from many countries. He cites the well-known finding that immigrants overall have lower crime rates than native-borns. He fails to stress that this is not the case in Europe. Immigrants are more criminal there. He does acknowledge that not all immigrant groups are the same: some have high rates of criminality, some don't.

He does a decent job of explaining why immigrants sometimes have lower crime levels: 1) they are typically older than the most crime-prone age group (15-24); 2) they are sometimes better educated; 3) they are typically employed here; and 4) their foreignness makes them self-conscious. I would add that being in a foreign country makes a person more fearful, and fearful people try to stay out trouble. Immigrants are much more fearful of police than natives.

But then we get to the headline of this review. ALL research indicates that second- and third-generation immigrants are much MORE criminal that their parents and grandparents. This is a universal finding. The author chalks it up to social factors like not being able to mainstream, etc.

You should consider a genetic perspective to make sense of these research findings. You've got to be a risk-taker to leave your home country and start a new life in a new place, especially if the move is very difficult. You have to be the type of person who sees a distant goal, typically more money, and will do whatever the hell it takes to get it. So immigrants have more of these traits than the average compatriot they leave behind.

But the children of the immigrants for genetic reasons tend to turn out not much different than the typical person from the Old Country. And so it goes for future generations.

Americans need to take the long view. When a person, legal or illegal, moves to our country, we don't get an individual, we get a family line. That person might leave 100 descendants over the next few decades. What kind of population do you get?

For example, first-generation Mexican immigrants probably have been risk takers and goal-oriented, but many years and tens of millions of people later, you have a population that is comparatively poor, prone to gang formation and crime, allergic to education, and that votes Democrat. And neither the free market nor all the social programs in the world will change that brute reality.

Wednesday, July 25, 2018

The American Journal of Public Health twists data to make cops look racist

This new study by the prestigious American Journal of Public Health reports that the rate that US males are killed by police is 1.9 to 2.4 per 100,000 population for blacks, 0.8 to 1.2 for Hispanics, and 0.6 and 0.7 for whites. The authors then stress that we need to reduce this racial disparity in killings by police.

The authors conveniently leave out the fact that people who get shot by law enforcement are the ones: 1) who interact with the police the most, and 2) who resist the police the most. These two facts explain the higher numbers among blacks and Hispanics. But why explain that when you have an opportunity to portray cops as racist?

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

You would think a continent this size could produce at least one First World country.

Check out this map. You would think a continent this size could produce at least one First World country.

Does perceived racial discrimination screw up teenage victims?

This new meta-analysis of 214 studies and more than 90,000 participants found that adolescents who perceive more racial discrimination tend to be more depressed, distressed, aggressive, sexually risky, drug abusing, and they have more deviant friends. They have poorer self-esteem, lower academic motivation and achievement. In other words, they are the problem kids.

Of course, all these liberal researchers assume that racial discrimination is driving victims to negative behavior. It's more likely that disagreeable, cynical, suspicious, and hostile people interpret ambiguous interactions as racist, buy into the message that their society is oppressive, and at the same time they have more emotional and behavior problems than trusting, agreeable people.

This is a huge analysis conducted by researchers who seem very concerned with the well-being of adolescents. All racial groups are studied here... except whites. The possibility of white teens suffering from racial mistreatment doesn't seem worth even looking into. Not in 214 studies. Whites are the oppressors, after all.

Of course, the reader who is paying attention may accuse me of being suspicious and cynical for suggesting that anti-white discrimination exists. Well, I never claimed to be a sweetheart.  

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 ...