Monday, September 16, 2019

What about liking rap? Is it a racial or an IQ thing?

As a follow-up to my last post on IQ, race, and classical music, let's see if a fondness for rap music is more about race or intelligence.  I'll use the same statistical technique as last time (OLS regression) with General Social Survey (GSS) data (sample size = 926):

Liking Rap Music (standardized OLS regression coefficients)

IQ   -0.08*
Black   0.21***
Other non-whites   0.09**

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Smarter people are less likely to enjoy rap, and non-whites, especially blacks, are more likely than whites to be fans regardless of intelligence.

While we found in the previous post that smart people like classical music regardless of race, here we see that a taste for rap is quite racial.  It is best predicted by race: blacks (and other nonwhites) like it, whites do not. 

Saturday, September 14, 2019

Liking classical music: Is it a racial or an IQ thing?

It gives me hope that every time I turn the dial to a rock 'n' roll station, my boys complain and insist I put on some classical music.  I tell them Led Zeppelin IS classical music, but they'll have none of it.

What predicts best a fondness for classical music: race or intelligence?

The General Social Survey (GSS) asked people how much they like classical music with answer-choices ranging from "like very much" to "dislike very much." With race and IQ as predictors, I used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to generate estimates.  Here are the standardized coefficients (sample size = 916):

Standardized OLS coefficients
IQ   0.31***
Black   0.02
Other non-whites   0.02

***p < .001

The only predictor that matters is IQ:  smart people are much more likely to enjoy classical music than dull ones.  Blacks tend to not like this type of music (results not shown here), but once you adjust for IQ, the race effect disappears.  In other words, the reason why fewer blacks are classic music fans is completely due to lower intelligence.  Other races do not differ from whites (results not shown), even before you adjust for IQ.

So, taste in music is more an IQ than a race thing.  This might be true of many preferences among Americans.

 UPDATE: Immigration and dysgenic trends in fertility are gradually lowering the mean IQ in the United States, so at this rate, we will see falling interest in great music. Bring on the Ranchera!

Thursday, September 12, 2019

Which races are the most generous? It might surprise you.

It's the 10th anniversary of 10,000 Year Explosion, a fantastic book by Gregory Cochran and the late Henry Harpending.  You MUST read it if you haven't.  I command you.

The book is chock full of provocative hypotheses about humans.  Let's test just one of them with General Social Survey (GSS) data.  The authors explain that hunter-gatherers routinely share resources, in part because it is difficult for mobile people to hold on to things.  It's also advantageous to cement positive ties and to make others feel obligated to you by being generous with them.

By contrast, farming selects for people who are good at holding on to possessions: seed grain, breeding stock, land, etc. A farmer who gives away everything will starve.

So Cochran and Harpending predict that ethnic groups lacking deep histories of agriculture will tend to be quicker to share with others. In the US context, this would be American Indians and blacks.

The GSS asked respondents: "People help other people in ways besides giving money, time, or other things to organized groups. Sometimes people help needy people directly. During the past 12 months, did you or members of your family or household give money, food, or clothing to any of the following types of people: The homeless or street-people."

Here are the percentages who answered yes:

Percent giving to the homeless in the past year

American Indian  55.4
Blacks  45.7
Irish  44.0
East Asian  41.7

Total sample 40.2

Mexican  39.4
Italian  37.7
French  37.0
Russian  36.8
German  34.2
English/Welsh  33.1
Scottish  30.4
Asian Indian  28.6
Norwegian  20.0

Even though American Indians and blacks are poor groups, they are more likely to give to the homeless.  Groups with long agricultural histories are less likely to give, even if they are wealthy like Asian Indians.

And if you argue that giving to the homeless is largely an urban thing, American Indians tend to live in rural areas but are at the top of the list, while urban Asian Indians are at the bottom.

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

Are Muslims in America assimilating or not?

Since today is the anniversary of 9/11, let's take a moment to see how well Muslims are assimilating in American society.  The General Social Survey (GSS) asked respondents, "Consider a person who believes that Blacks are genetically inferior. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community claiming that Blacks are inferior, should he be allowed to speak, or not?"

In my view, a core value of the American system is free speech.  If you don't believe in allowing people to state controversial opinions in public, you're not much of an American.

Here are the percentages in favor of free speech by religion.  Many American Muslims are blacks--I excluded them since we would expect many of them to oppose free speech for people with messages that make blacks look bad:

Of all religions, Muslims are the least supportive of free speech.

Have attitudes among Muslims improved or worsened over time?  I divided the data into two periods: 1) pre-2010 and 2) this decade:

Unfortunately, support for allowing someone with controversial racial views to speak in public has fallen among Muslims in this decade from 50.0% to 31.8%.  Not good.

Another study showing that you can tell someone's IQ by looking at his brain (especially if he is a she)

I recently reported on researchers who were able to explain 95% of the variation in general intelligence based on the morphology of the brain.  Just amazing.  Now I run across another new study--they keep pouring out--conducted by Chinese researchers that found very strong correlations between the functional connectivity of various regions of the brain and intelligence.

They mapped out thousands of nodes and the connections between nodes and found that eight connections were important for males, and 13 different connections that were crucial for predicting female IQ.  Smart women have differently wired brains than smart men.  Smart women benefitted from efficient overall brain connectivity, while smart men tended to have better wiring in specific regions of the brains.

The connections identified for women predicted female IQ more powerfully than "male" connections predicted male IQ.  They explained 72% of the variation in intelligence for women and 46% for men.  You really can predict someone's IQ by looking at the brain, but you've got to look at different networks depending on whether it's a man or woman.  SEX DIFFERENCES MATTER!

Sunday, September 08, 2019

If you want a large family, this type of woman is your best bet

Using the General Social Survey (GSS) data, I looked to see which factors best predict that a woman will decide to have a large family.

I thought women from the South would have more kids, but they didn't differ from Northerners, and while conservative women have larger families, the impact is not large. IQ also predicts fewer children, but the effect is small.

I found that: 1) ideal family size, 2) church attendance, and 3) educational level, in particular, are the strongest predictors of the total number of offspring.

I'll present two women to illustrate.  The first woman says that seven children is the ideal family size. She attends church more than once a week, and she went no further than high school. The data predict that she will have 3.7 children.

The second woman says zero kids is the ideal size for a family.  She never goes to church, and she has 20 years of education.  The model based on the data predicts she will have .56 kids.  The first woman is predicted to have 6.6 more children than the second woman.

Again, the most powerful predictor by far is education.  It's even more predictive than what a woman says about ideal family size.

UPDATE:  Looking at older data, I found a predictor even more powerful than education: age at marriage.  Women who are younger when they get married have significantly more kids.

Saturday, September 07, 2019

Blockbuster study on the black-white gap in intelligence

This new study on ancestry and cognitive ability by Jordan Lasker and team blew my mind.  If NN Taleb is right that IQ research is crap, then all other social science is complete shit.  Ever since I read Arthur Jensen's g Factor in 1998, I've been damned impressed by the quality of general intelligence research. I believe George Bernard Shaw said that Das Kapital made a man out of him. g Factor made a man out of me.

Jensen and Phil Rushton, vilified forever by Leftists, predicted that between 50 and 80% of the black-white gap in general intelligence was due to genetic differences. The Lefties predicted that genes explain none of the gap.

Lasker et al's study examined thousands of SNPs (DNA points) for thousands of blacks, whites, and biracials, and found that percent European ancestry explains 50-70% of the racial gap. Jensen and Rushton win, the feel-good researchers lose.

The Lefties also argued that skin color is a measure of how much a person is discriminated against, and discrimination explains the racial gap in IQ. Jensen and Rushton predicted that discrimination would not be an important cause of the difference.

Lasker and team found that skin color (discrimination) explained very little of the racial gap. Again, Jensen/Rushton emerge as the real scientists--the people whose predictions come true.

This study has moved my view on the racial gap from "probably mostly genetic" to "almost certainly mostly genetic."

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

Does prenatal testosterone determine sexual orientation? A look at racial differences

The conventional wisdom is that sexual orientation, at least for men, is genetic, but the heritability estimates are actually rather weak.

Some researchers have theorized that homosexuality is caused by prenatal exposure to testosterone (T).  Baby boys develop into gay men if they are exposed to insufficient levels of T during a critical period of development, and baby girls develop into lesbians if they were exposed to high prenatal levels. The level of T isn't the only factor: individuals also differ in terms of how sensitive they are to T.

If such a theory were true, we should see racial differences in sexual orientation because blacks tend to be more sensitive to T than whites. Their androgen receptors genes located on the X chromosome tend to be more responsive to androgens. We should see a lower prevalence of black gay men and a higher percent of black lesbians.

The General Social Survey asks about sexual orientation.  Here are the responses by race (sample size = 26,227):

Percent homosexual
Men  3.8 
Women  2.2

Men  3.0 
Women  2.3

These numbers fail to support the theory for both men and women.  There should be more white gay men, but there are fewer.  There should be more black lesbians, but their prevalence is very similar to that of white women. 

How do black and white males differ in a way that would lead to more black gay men?  I'm not sure.  Greg Cochran theorizes that homosexuality is caused by some unidentified prenatal infection, and it might be the case that blacks live in conditions conducive to more infections.

Monday, August 26, 2019

Study: You can tell if someone is smart and male or female by looking at their brain

A recent, amazing study looked at how strongly the morphology of the brain (as measured by structural brain MRI scans) predicts IQ and the sex of the research subject.  The graph below shows the results from two different data sets.  "Morphometricity" on the y-axis is defined as the proportion of the variation of the trait that is explained by variation in brain morphology.

The morphology of the brain explains NINETY-FIVE percent of the variation in IQ.  In other words, intelligence is very strongly predicted by the "architecture" of the brain.  And gender?  Morphology explains NINETY-THREE percent of the variation in sex, or whether the subject is male or female.

In a table not show here, brain morphology only explains 55% of ADHD, 50% of schizophrenia, 38% of autism, and 20% of Parkinson's. 

Now, if gender and IQ are merely social constructions and are not biologically meaning, why are they so closely related to brain morphology, even more closely related than several brain diseases?  People who push the biology-doesn't-really-matter-for-IQ-and-gender view are idiots and liars. 

Saturday, August 24, 2019

You've got two kinds of people (or perhaps four)

Richard Lynn's new book Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality makes a convincing case that blacks and American Indians score high on exploitativeness (my term) while Asians tend to be the opposite--let's call this "fairness."  Whites are closer to Asians, while Hispanics are what you would expect as a hybrid of white and Native American.

People who accept human biodiversity (HBD) tend to focus on general intelligence, and for good reason: it is very important for individuals, societies, and for all of humanity.  But let me also stress the importance of this exploitativeness-fairness continuum.  Your life will be better if you deal with people who are smart and fair rather than cunning and exploitative.

So this leads to a typology of four kinds of people: 1) smart-fair, 2) smart-exploitative, 3) dumb-fair, and 4) dumb-exploitative.  I don't know about you, but I've known plenty of examples of each, but the situation tends to actually get simpler in the aggregate because at this level smart and fair tend to go together.  Asians as a group not only score low on psychopathy, they are also highly intelligent.  Blacks tend to be exploitative and unintelligent.  So at the macrolevel, there is a tendency toward two types: more contributive and less contributive people.

You might counter that history shows lots of Asian exploitativeness. The Rape of Nanking, etc., etc.  Humans treat each other horribly all the time, but my contention is that the average traits of people have an important impact on the quality of a society.  A key reason why Japan is a better country than Nigeria is that it has a higher prevalence of intelligent, fair people.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Occam's Razor demands the simplest explanation: races are internally different

Richard Lynn's new book Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality describes hundreds of studies conducted around the world. One American study that strikes me is a simple one of racial differences in doing one's homework that is described on page 61.

The mean number of hours studied per week by high school seniors looks like this: Asians, 3.9; whites, 3.4; Hispanics and blacks, 2.0.  Asian teens study roughly twice as much as other minorities.

Academic apologists work full-time concocting reasons for the racial gaps we see, but how do we blame homework differences on malevolent, discriminatory whites?  Homework is done at home with no whites looking over your shoulder. The schools provide even poor minority kids with books and materials for assignments. Parents and kids simply decide how much time gets devoted to studying.

You might respond that minority kids are given less homework because of the "bigotry of low expectations." But why do Asians do more than whites?  If you answer that schools are just following stereotypes, so schools with lots of Asian students assign more homework, it simply starts to seem like schools might respond to what students are like, or hardworking families select schools with higher expectations.

It just becomes absurd to pin these racial gaps on anything at all bad that whites do.  Again and again,  we see that whites are mediocre.  What sort of white supremacist country sorts whites into the undistinguished middle?  I want a better brand of supremacy!

After reading Lynn's descriptions on more than 700 studies from dozens of countries, Occam's Razor demands the simplest explanation: the races are internally different.
Sexual Vitality Summit

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Has more "play choking" in porn led to more strangulation homicides?

Mass shootings always get people talking about the causes of violence, but these are rare acts that in some ways are atypical.  For one thing, most homicide involves a single victim, and the perp typically has a specific beef with the victim.  Mass shooters often shoot "symbolic" victims: more or less random members of a class of people they have a grievance against.

Women are usually murdered by a man they have they have a current or former relationship with. With the rise in recent years of "play choking" in pornographic scenes, I thought I could test the psychologists' hypothesis that witnessing images of acted-out violence, even play violence, can put ideas into the heads of people, especially violent-prone individuals, that increase the risk of homicide.

The CDC has a great website that allows you to generate trends on specific causes of mortality.  I was able to make a chart of the rates of homicide by choking among female victims since 1999.

Over this period, this type of homicide has fallen from 3.3 to 1.8 deaths per 1 million females, so the pornography hypothesis is not supported.  While the rate has flattened over the past several years--the years where play choking has gotten more popular--there is no increase as the hypothesis would predict.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

One reason why sociology is evil

Following Jeffrey Epstein's death, we have learned where he found his justification for raping teenage girls. He explained to an interviewer that, "criminalizing sex with teenage girls was a cultural aberration, and that at times in history it was perfectly acceptable.” “He pointed out that homosexuality had long been considered a crime and was still punishable by death in some parts of the world.”

Various social science disciplines, especially cultural anthropology and sociology, enlighten every freshman with the brilliant insight that the world's 7.7 billion people don't agree on every point of right and wrong, and today's norms can vary from those of past societies.  This truth is banal and harmless enough, but then these "scientists" pull a fast only and imply that since values have varied, there is NO objective morality. The values and rules we live by are just arbitrary and were simply invented willy-nilly by someone in the past.  They are mere conventions, so when your mom tells you sex with underage girls is wrong, you can say that many cultures have not had a problem with it, and rules against it are merely prejudice and superstition.  This technique makes it very easy to follow your desires, whatever they may be.

Of course, these social scientists are either fools or liars.  The question of objective morality--whether there is right and wrong independent of what people think--is not answered by the fact that cultures have varied on what is moral. Objective morality might exist, and like a bullseye, has been missed by various degrees by various cultures.  But since the one cardinal rule for social thinkers is that "all cultures are equal," then it becomes impossible for some groups to be better shots than others.

These are questions for philosophers, not dumbass sociologists.  Social scientists pose as if they are value-neutral, or at least they used to, but they constantly smuggle in their "anything goes" value systems, although "systems" give their thinking too much credit. And they are too obtuse to see how their bad philosophy helps the Epsteins of the world commit their crimes.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

How does gay promiscuity compare with that of lesbians?

Looking at sexual orientation, gender, and variety of sex partners is a good way to show how men and women really are very different. (The need to document this shows the crazy times we live in.)

According to evolutionary theory, since men can pass on their genes with minimal commitment, they have evolved the tendency to desire non-committal sex with a variety of partners.  Since having children is such a tremendous investment for women, they have been selected to be much choosier about sexual partners.  It's not typically hard for a women to get sex, but it can be a challenge to find partners who have the willingness and ability to provide resources to the offspring, or at least who have high-quality genes to pass on to one's children. 

If you're paying attention, you can see that a conflict arises: men who want many partners, and women who want few.  So many men are not able to get what they want.  But what about gay men?  There is no sexual conflict for them: just a bunch of guys who want novelty.

The General Social Survey (GSS) asked adults about: 1) sexual orientation, and 2) the number of male and female sex partners since age 18 (sample size = 23,579). Let's look at the numbers for male partners first:

Gay men average 43 male partners--much more than any other group. Coming in at a distant second is male bisexuals with close to 15 men.  Female bisexuals have a mean of roughly 12 male partners, and straight women report an average of 5.5.  The average for lesbians is a little over two men.

Now for the number of female sex partners since 18: 

The category with the most women partners is bisexual men with a mean of almost 20.  Next is straight men with almost 16 1/2.  Lesbians average close to eight female partners, and the mean for female bisexuals is around 5.  The mean for gay men is 2.6 women.

If we add together partners of either gender, the ranking for the total number of sex partners since 18 looks like this: #1) gay men, #2) bisexual men, #3) bisexual women, #4) straight men, #5) lesbians and #6) straight women.

So, sexual minorities have the most partners, but gay men and lesbians stick out; gay men because their numbers are so much higher, and lesbians because their numbers are atypically low.  Compared to lesbians, gays have around 4 1/2 times the number of partners.

This is consistent with evolutionary theory: men like sexual variety much more than women, and they show this most clearly when they are pursuing partners who also like variety; namely, other men.  Lesbians are not like other sexual minorities in that they do not pursue variety much. Why? Because they are women dealing with female partners.   

Monday, August 05, 2019

Who has sex more often--straights, gays, or bi-sexuals?

We straight people tend to be sexually repressed, right?  Isn't that what we're told by the experts?  That is hardly the case.  The General Social Survey asked American adults how often they've had sex in the past year (sample size = 23,771).  I've listed the modal category for each sex/orientation group, and by modal category I mean the most frequently given answer.  The percent who gave the modal answer is given in parentheses:

Modal category is 2-3 times per week
Straight men (24.0%)
Straight women (25.0%)

Modal category is weekly 
Bisexual women  (20.6%)

Modal category is 2-3 times per month
Gay men (20.6%)
Bisexual men (28.4%)
Lesbians (25.8%)

The pattern is clear here: straight people have sex more often than sexual minorities.  We even have more frequent sex than bisexuals who have double the potential partners!  We don't need to look to them about a healthy sex life. They need to look to us.

Now, you might be skeptical, thinking how gay men seem to have sex like crazy. You know--who's going to put the brake on sex when it's two men involved?!  Well, we're talking here about the frequency of sex, not the number of different partners. If your priority is variety (and perhaps STI's), gay men seem to have the advantage.

Friday, August 02, 2019

Data: Almost one-quarter of black men are exploitative compared to ZERO percentage of Chinese men

 A recent post focused on racial differences in psychopathy, and while people know the obvious connection between being a psychopath and committing crimes, few realize that the correlation between a promiscuous lifestyle and psychopathy is about as strong.  In fact, a lifestyle of casual sex is one criterion for diagnosing psychopathic personality.  Evolutionary psychologists have developed the concept of sociosexuality, which refers to an interest in non-committal sex. The correlation between sociosexuality and psychopathy is roughly 0.4, an impressive number.  It's strong enough that factor analysis would probably reveal one supertrait that underlies psychopathy, criminality, and sociosexuality--a syndrome we could call exploitativeness.

So, are there racial and ethnic differences in sociosexuality or exploitativeness (as indicated by high sociosexuality)?  The General Social Survey does have one item used in sociosexuality inventories--the number of sexual partners since age 18.  Let's pick an arbitrary cutoff--25+ partners--to indicate exploitativeness.  For now, I will focus on men and will limit analysis to ethnic groups with at least 50 respondents (sample size = 10,789):

Percent with 25+ sexual partners since age 18

Black  24.3
Scottish  19.8
Spanish  19.7
Jewish  19.1
American Indian  18.2
Greek  18.2
Italian  16.6
Puerto Rican  15.7
Other Spanish  14.9
Norwegian  14.6
Irish  14.4

Percent for total sample  14.1

Russian  13.9
French  13.5
English/Welsh  12.9
Austrian  11.5
Polish  11.4
German  11.2
French Canadian  10.2
Swedish  10.1
Dutch  9.9
Mexican  8.7
Danish  8.2
Czech  7.8
Asian Indian  4.1
Filipino  3.3
Chinese  0.0

You can see that by selecting a cutoff of 25 partners, this gives us 14.1% of US men being exploitative.  More importantly for this post, we see tremendous diversity in this trait.  Almost one-quarter of black men are exploitative compared to ZERO Chinese men.  Looking at general patterns, Southern Europeans tend to have higher numbers, while Asians fall to the bottom.  These patterns are consistent with numbers presented in Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality.  He found high psychopathy among blacks and American Indians, moderate levels among whites, and low levels among Asians.

Friday, July 26, 2019

All major brain regions are larger in men than women

The Left accuses the Right of being anti-science, but even the least educated conservative knows that men and women are different. While radical feminists keep propagandizing the gullible that gender differences are a myth perpetuated by the Patriarchy (email me the whens and wheres of our next secret meeting), real scientists are documenting the biological realities.

This meta-analysis of 126 studies shows very clearly that from birth to death males have bigger brains than females.  Men, on average, had greater total volumes on all of the following measures: intracranial, cerebrum, gray matter, white matter, cerebellum, and cerebrospinal fluid.  There was no major region that was larger in women. Depending on the study, male brains were between 8 and 13% larger.

The researchers also found significant volume differences in small regions.  Men averaged larger gray matter volumes in 33 areas, and 17 regions in females had more gray matter.  They also looked at gray matter density and reported that six regions in men were denser, while one area had greater density in women.

When regions are larger in males, they tend to be in the left hemisphere.  When areas are larger in women, they tend to be in the right one, so there is evidence of lateralization differences between the sexes.

Differences seem to emerge in regions known to be involved in language and emotion.  This makes sense since women tend to have a verbal advantage, and the sexes differ significantly in certain emotions like empathy.

Why do men have larger brains?  It looks like the studies did not adjust for body size, but even if you argue that male brains are bigger simply because their bodies are bigger, why are many areas larger in women?  Brains are very costly organs: they use a tremendous amount of energy, and big heads can kill mothers during birth.  Bigger brains are there for a reason.

After reading Arthur Jensen, I assumed men and women had identical average IQs, and that men were simply more diverse with a greater number of dullards and geniuses.  In recent years, evidence has emerged that, compared to females, male IQ peaks more slowly, and at a somewhat higher level (about four IQ points).  Researchers like Jensen supposedly missed this by focusing on samples of adolescents rather than fully developed adults.

Perhaps the 10% bigger brain gives men a little more mental horsepower.  It's a hazardous business to speculate why this would be.  Whatever the reason, the difference is real, and the feminists are wrong.

I imagine a skeptic will argue that perhaps the differences are due to environmental factors: male babies are fed and treated better, boys are given more intellectual stimulation, etc.  But why the differentiation where some regions are larger in men, while other areas are larger in women? And while the samples didn't allow a detailed study of age, it looks like the sex differences are in place among neonates.  Differences emerge early in life before many social factors are able to kick in.

UPDATE: Many of the regions with a male advantage are in the limbic system which is associated with aggression and sexual interests.  There are, of course, big sex differences in these traits.

UPDATE 2: As mentioned, areas that have greater volume in women tend to be in the right hemisphere which is associated with a proneness to negative emotions. While women are not more prone to anger than men, they do tend to be more anxious and depressed.

Sunday, July 21, 2019

A note on Lynn's "Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality"

Lance Welton at does a nice job of summarizing Richard Lynn's brand new book Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality

I won't repeat Lance's points, but I see in the comments that some people are claiming that the racial differences are explained in terms of the environment. This, of course, is the standard explanation--the only one you will get in sociology class, if the instructor is honest enough to acknowledge that the group differences indeed exist.

There are two obvious reasons to think the racial gaps (psychopathy running from high to low in this order: black, Native American, Hispanic, white, Asian) are at least partially due to genetic differences: 1) the differences are basically universal–found historically (Lynn cites over 700 studies conducted from the 19th century to now) and all around the world, and 2) psychopathy is highly heritable, similar to general intelligence. Therapists find it practically impossible to treat.

As Arthur Jensen explained, it is reasonable to conclude that if genes explain 70% of the variation in a trait, they likely explain 70% of group differences. The only reason why the commonsense belief that “What You See is What You Get” is not popular today but “People Are Not Themselves But Their Surroundings” is assumed to be true is that we have been propagandized by armies of full-time storytellers for more than a century.

I do take issue with conceptualizing psychopathy as a disorder, as if human nature is naturally good, and antisociality suggests a brain that is not working properly. I’m not criticizing Lynn but psychiatry. Exploitativeness is a regrettable but perfectly healthy and natural supertrait.  Psychiatrists want to turn all problematic behaviors into forms of mental illness, which is just silly. Evolution has designed us to thrive and to be strong, not to be burdened on every side by illness and weakness.  Mainstream behavioral science portrays us--the descendants of nature's winners--as naturally frail.  Complete BS.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Which ethnic groups think astrology is scientific?

It is important for America that we have people who understand and value science.  The General Social Survey asked people residing in the US, "Would you say that astrology is very scientific, sort of scientific, or not at all scientific?"  Anyone who understands science would not say astrology is scientific, even if they otherwise like it. 

Let's look at the percentage who say astrology is very or sort of scientific listed by ethnic group (sample size = 6,873):

Percent who say astrology is scientific

Black  53.1
Mexican  50.6
Asian Indian  47.4
Puerto Rican  46.4
American Indian  45.1
Filipino  42.7
Spanish  41.2
Norwegian  38.5

All Americans  36.3

Chinese  35.5
Italian  35.1
Portuguese  34.3
Arab  32.1
Irish  31.1
French Canadian  30.8
Polish  29.9
French  29.5
Dutch 29.2
German  28.9
Japanese  28.5 
Czech  27.7
Swiss  27.5
Russian  27.0
Greek  25.0
Scottish  24.3
Jewish  23.8
English  23.5
Danish  21.1
Swedish  15.1

Blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians top the list, but some high IQ ethnic groups are toward the top as well; namely, Asian Indians, Norwegians, and Chinese.  Setting aside the Norwegians, there is a tendency for northwestern Europeans to fall to the bottom of the list.  These groups are more skeptical and seem to understand better what it means to be scientific.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Why would an animal programmed to survive and reproduce care so much about right and wrong?

In a recent post, I critiqued Richard Wrangham's theory of why humans are so much less violent than our cousins, the chimpanzees.  In The Goodness Paradox, he also attempts to explain why we have a strong moral sense.  It's strange for an animal designed to outcompete others through survival and greater reproductive success to care so much about abstract concepts of right and wrong.

He hypothesizes that human society changed fundamentally when men developed the language to coordinate control over other members of the group.  While apes sometimes gang up and beat or kill a single, obnoxious ape, they don't plan it out ahead of time.  Men gained a tremendous tool when they began to conspire as a group of five or six against one.  They could discuss the idea, plan a surprise attack, and kill the offender with little danger to themselves.  Sometimes the murder wasn't necessary: A rumor could be floated and the troublemaker might be convinced to change his ways.

Wrangham claims that men expanded their control to all members of the community so that everybody was were in fear of their ability to conduct a surprise attack against them.  Over evolutionary time, humans were selected for their ability to please the men who had this power over them.  Extremely selfish, exploitative people were weeded out.  A person who treated everyone well was unlikely to displease elders, so prosociality became a more and more common trait.  And while I didn't find Wrangham clear on this point, I think moral values gradually developed as a reflection of the prosocial personalities that were becoming common.

According to Wrangham, selection has been more successful at producing people oriented toward having a good reputation and appearing moral rather than creating humans of deep, genuine integrity and principle.  After all, we are still programmed to care about our own reproductive interests.

I would return to my earlier criticism: In 2019, some groups seem to have much higher rates of prosociality than others.  For example, a quick look at the Corruption Perceptions Index reveals that Denmark has very little public corruption compared to Somalia. How does Wrangham help us explain the enormous gulf between the two countries?  He doesn't.  He presents the image of all human groups across the globe being identical in terms of genes that contribute to cooperativeness.  I suppose he would say that evolutionary biology tells the story up until the day before yesterday, but now it's irrelevant: It's all sociology now.  Not credible. 

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Who is more likely to be unfaithful: high- or low-income men?

The liberal instinctively idealizes and sympathizes with the man at the bottom of society (although liberals are becoming so crazy these days, it's getting hard to characterize them coherently.)  By contrast, a certain brand of conservative might be tempted to idealize the successful man: Effort or perhaps good genes get a guy to the top.

Reality seems a little more complicated than that.  Brains and discipline help a person rise, but so can Machiavellianism.  I suspect that successful people tend to be a mixed bag.

Let's test the idea that there is moral virtue in successful people by looking at marital infidelity.  I divided personal income into 5 levels and created graphs for white and black men (sample sizes = 7,959 and 894):

Black Men

White Men

Among black males, you see a spike in cheating among the highest income group.  It's a smaller increase among high-earning white males.

So successful men are a little more likely to be unfaithful. You might attribute this to the greater attractiveness that comes with money or to greater social opportunities, but whatever the case, there is no indication here that successful men are more moral than others.  It's important that we stick to reality and not ideology.

Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Richard Wrangham works hard to explain the violence gap we don't care about

Urban Americans worry quite a bit about violence in their cities.  Many of these places will rack up hundreds of homicides per year.  Urban black men face a pretty decent chance of being murdered.  So it was weird to read Richard Wrangham's new book The Goodness Paradox with its central claim that humans are very peaceful.

How could he have this view?  Well, he has studied chimps for decades.  Contrary to stories told by liberal primatologists in the 1960s, it turns out that chimps are mean bastards.  If you stuffed 200 of them into Boeing 737, by the end of the flight many would be murdered.  The human homicide rate is a tiny fraction of that seen among chimpanzees.

Wrangham then sets out to develop a theory to explain why we are so slow to lose our cool and attack others.  He claims that when our ancestors developed the ability for fairly sophisticated language about 300-500k years ago, men in a group began to handle their antisocial members by plotting to murder them.  Chimps will sometimes gang up on a cantankerous alpha and take him out, but it is spontaneous.  No planning is involved.

Men gained great power over individuals by using premeditated, coalitionary aggression against not only bullies but eventually against all non-conformists.  Over evolutionary time, this selected for humans who were motivated to get along with others and who were particularly interested in pleasing tribal elders--the men who had the power to kill them if they become sufficiently annoyed.

In developing his theory, Wrangham did exactly what I expected from a PC biologist: He avoids discussions of why human groups currently vary so much in their levels of homicide.  Some educated person reading his book wants to know why his neighborhood is so much safer than the black neighborhood on the other side of town. The homicide rate in Colombia, for example, is scores of times higher than in Japan.  Why?  Wrangham is silent on this type of issue.  He makes it sound like humanity has experienced the exact same selection pressures for hundreds of thousands of years, and that we all arrive at 2019 exactly the same in terms of genetic propensity for violence.  He admits that the speed of selection probably increased in more recent millennia, but is silent about what that means.

Wrangham also fails to discuss the scholarship of Greg Cochran, Henry Harpending, and Peter Frost which suggests that pacification of some human groups has happened over the past few thousand years. I guess I would be silent on such topics, too, if I valued my lofty perch at the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University.

Sunday, June 30, 2019

American attitudes toward ideal family size are dysgenic

We know that smart people tend to have fewer kids, but do they also say that smaller families are best? 

General Social Survey participants were asked, "What do you think is the ideal number of children for a family to have?" I focused on people from the last two decades of surveys (2000-2018) who were childbearing age (18-45).  Immigrants and a small percentage of respondents who answered, "as many as people want," were excluded  (sample size = 3,390): 

Mean ideal family size

The top graph shows results for men and women, and the bottom one is for blacks and whites (other non-whites were omitted).

Ideal family size drops a lot as IQ increases, and the pattern is similar for males and females. People with IQs in the low 60s think more than three children is the right size, while the smartest group say the ideal size is a little over two.

Looking at the bottom graph, the drop for blacks is even sharper than for whites.

To the extent that people have the number of children they think is ideal, American attitudes are dysgenic. The wrong people are idealizing large families. With each generation, we're getting genetically dumber. 

Friday, June 28, 2019

Who's more likely to be unfaithful: smart or dumb people?

There is a tendency among people who take IQ seriously to believe that greater morality comes with intelligence.  While smarts enable a person to see more clearly long-term consequences of his actions and to understand moral systems more deeply, I'm skeptical that IQ is related to the emotional component of morality.  I suspect smart people are just as cold-blooded as the unintelligent.

Let's focus on one type of immorality: cheating on your spouse.  The General Social Survey asked adults, "Have you ever had sex with someone other than your husband or wife while you were married?"  Here are the answers by IQ level for whites and blacks (samples = 9,391 and 1,410):



For both groups, the risk of infidelity rises with IQ.  Perhaps smarter people have a greater ability to attract partners.  Perhaps they have more social opportunities, or think they are better at fooling their partners. Whatever the case, this data makes bright people look like jerks. 

Thursday, June 27, 2019

Evidence of Non-White Privilege at American universities

Steve Sailer wrote yesterday that, "A new study from Georgetown University reveals that if the student bodies of the 200 most selective American colleges were enrolled solely on objective SAT or ACT aptitude test scores, their student bodies would increase from 66 percent white under the current subjective system to 75 percent white."  Giving more weight to less objective criteria like essay writing hurts whites and white males the most.

Let's look at General Social Survey (data) to get a sense of the situation for all universities, not just the top schools.

To get a large enough sample size, I looked at the survey years from 2000 to 2018 and ages 25 to 64.  Only Americans born in the US were included since immigrants are disadvantaged on English-language IQ tests (sample size = 8,134).

I chose two cutoffs: I assumed you were not getting enough education if you had an IQ over 110 but did not get a bachelor's degree. I also assumed you did not deserve the bachelor's degree (or higher) you received, and you must have been coddled, if you did not have at least a 100 IQ.

Here are the percentages who did not go far enough broken out by race:

Percent who did not go far enough

Whites      14.5
Blacks        7.4
Other race  7.6

This is one more line of evidence that White Privilege is a myth, and Non-White Privilege is a reality.  The percent of whites who should have gotten a 4-year degree but did not is double that of non-whites.

Percent who went too far

Whites         7.8
Blacks       10.1
Other race   9.8

Whites are supposed to be the group who use their pull to get unqualified children into college and who are favored by professors, etc., but both blacks and other non-whites are more likely to get at least a 4-year degree when they don't have the brains to earn it.  More evidence of non-white privilege.

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

What is the IQ of the average police officer?

Anyone who has thought about it for more than a minute knows that policing is a tough job.  You have to deal with screwed-up people and situations all the time, and there is bureaucratic BS up the ying-yang.  Like a high-paid ER doctor, you have to make life-and-death decisions in a split second, and let's not forget that many people hate you for your efforts, and even want to kill you. Heck, you might go to prison if authorities don't like how you behave on the job.

Good law enforcement requires real ability, but what is the average intelligence of an American police officer?

Using General Social Survey data, I identified 90 law enforcement officers. Their average IQ is 100.2.  If we look at blacks and whites separately, the means are 99.4 and 100.3, respectively.  Female officers averaged 99.0, while the average man was 100.5.

I work with many aspiring police officers, and they seem to be motivated by the excitement and the desire to be the hero rather than the security of a government job and the early retirement. Money does not seem to be a priority (although it never hurts).

To inspire a talented young man to choose policing as a career, society needs to portray officers as something like superheroes, not as the executioners of innocent black men. Ironically, demonizing law enforcement might push away the talented and attract the leftovers who are more likely to use excessive force against minorities.

Thursday, June 20, 2019

Another indicator that Jews tend to be clannish

I showed recently that Americans overwhelming select someone of the same race for a best friend.  Friendship is a good measure of how well groups are mixing, or, on the other hand, how much they cluster.

In this post, let's focus on religion. Does your best friend share your religious affiliation?  I used General Social Survey (GSS) data to answer this question (sample size = 1,932).  Here are the percentages who indicated a religious match between themselves and their best friend:

Percent whose best friend belongs to the same religion

Jews  75.6
Protestants  74.5
Catholics   59.4
None  42.3

Jews emerge as the group that clusters the most.  You might respond that Protestants have basically the same number, but we would expect a high number for a such a large group.  According to the latest GSS, 48.9% of Americans are Protestant, 23.3% are None, 21.2% are Catholic, and 1.7% are Jewish. If Protestants picked their friends at random, their best friend would also be Protestant around half the time. For Jews, a random process would give a Jewish best friend less than 2 percent of the time, and yet the number is over 75%.  This shows an intense level of clustering among Jews.

Friday, June 07, 2019

Smart people are more varied than other people

I showed in an earlier post that, according to the General Social Survey (GSS), the smartest category of people are also the most diverse in terms of income.  Some smart folks are very rich, some are very poor.  They are all over the map.  Nicholas Taleb takes advantage of the wide income dispersion among the intelligent in order to make IQ look like it cannot predict income among smart people and thus is a worthless concept.

If he were biased against the concept of social class like he is against IQ, he could use the same tactic: According to GSS data, the correlation between father's education and offspring income is a paltry .13, and the standard deviation (sd) for people with the most educated dads is $42,000, while it is only $33,000 for those with dads who only finished high school.  For non-nerds who don't know stats, sd is a measure of how spread out the scores are for a sample of people, in this case, individual incomes. 

Turns out, people in the smartest category are diverse on many variables, not just income.  I'll give you the sd for the middle and highest IQ categories to show what I mean.

Standard deviation for average intelligence people and those in the smartest category

Middle IQ  2.4
Top IQ  2.5

Job Prestige
Middle IQ  12.6
Top IQ  14.4

Political Orientation
Middle IQ  1.3
Top IQ  1.6

Church Attendance
Middle IQ  2.7
Top IQ  2.8

Confidence in the Existence of God
Middle IQ  1.3
Top IQ  1.7

In every case, intelligent folks are more diverse than ordinary people.  Compared to the middle, smart people are simply all over the place in terms of education, job prestige, politics (higher scores mean more conservative), church attendance, and belief in God.  Humans beings are so complicated, it's hard to predict which box a person will fall into, and it's even harder when the person is very smart.

This reminds me of the argument that Michael Levin made in Why Race Matters that, because whites are more intelligent, on average, than blacks, they have greater free will, and thus perhaps greater responsibility for their actions.

(You might argue that the sd is higher for smart people simply because their means are higher, thus one can expect the sd's to also be larger. Actually, the means for political orientation, church attendance, and confidence in God are lower for the smart group.)

UPDATE:  I am also reminded of what is said about Jews, a famously smart group:  two Jews, three opinions.

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Single, childless women are less happy, and it's due to genes

In the last post, General Social Survey data indicated that researcher Paul Dolan was wrong in claiming that single, childless women are happier than married women with kids.  In the old days, I would have focused, at least some, on the Durkheimian idea that social roles shape characteristics like one's level of happiness.  I was trained as a sociologist, and it has been my instinct to see social forces as important.

Years of study have convinced me that it is time to focus more on biological forces. The correlation between marriage and well-being need not be causal: people who are genetically happy might simply select themselves into marriage.  In fact, the correlations between marriage and a host of positives--greater financial success, mental and physical health, lower mortality, less risky behavior, less crime, and longer longevity--might be due to common genes which cause the correlations.

A study by Johnson et al. (2004) supports this idea.  Analyzing data on a sample of over 7,000 adults that included more than 2,500 twin pairs, they found that certain heritable traits predict marriage, and that much of the link between being married and being happy is due to genes. 

Specifically, they found the following traits for married versus single women: married women are more affectionate, nervous, careful, and traditional, and they feel like they are treated fairly by others. On the flip side, single women are less sociable, more risk-taking; they're calmer, more modern, and they think they are treated unjustly by others.

The profile of married men versus single men is very different: married men are cheerful, active, persistent, decisive, persuasive, aggressive, and traditional. They are less prone to fantasy, and they think that people treat them fairly.  Single men tend to be the opposite: They are sullen, indecisive, undisciplined, passive, modern, prone to fantasy, and they feel they are treated unfairly. 

All of these traits are strongly influenced by genes. According to the study, the heritability of being married is about .7, meaning that 70% of whether or not people are married is due to variation in genes.

So it looks like married people, especially men, tend to be happier because of their personalities. Affectionate, sociable women seek out marriage, and so do cheerful men who have the traits that lead to career success.  Married women seem drawn to comfort, security, and affection.  Men, in general, appear to be drawn to marriage, and the success-bound ones achieve it.

Single men and women are more modern, so they probably see marriage as less desirable, less expected, and both tend to be disagreeable. Single men might be less happy because they are less successful, and single women are more alienated, which is associated with sadness and mental health issues.  In addition, single women are risk-takers, and seem less drawn to the security and comfort of a permanent union.   

Sunday, May 26, 2019

Are never-married, childless women happier than married moms?

A piece in the Guardian reported that women are happiest if they stay single and childless, according to research done by London School of Economics professor Paul Dolan.

Dolan is wrong. The graph below displays 2000-2018 data from the General Social Survey (sample size = 12,254).  The bars indicates mean happiness (1 = not too happy, 2, = pretty happy, 3 = very happy).


Childless, never-married women are less happy than married women at all nine levels of family size.  A married women with eight or more kids is happier than a single, childless woman.  The difference between between the latter and married women as a whole is close to half a standard deviation, a good-sized gap.

Dolan claims married women only say they are happy when they are interviewed with their husband in the room.  I compared women who were interviewed in person with those who completed a self-adminstered questionnaire.  The results were the same for both groups. 

Thursday, May 23, 2019

A recent paper claims that human traits are basically produced by genes and luck

Authors of a paper published earlier this year in Behavior Genetics have made arguments similar to those of  HBD writers Greg Cochran and JayMan: psychological traits are basically the result of 1) genes, and 2) noise. 

Years ago, behavioral geneticists discovered that the environments shared by siblings have little impact on how you turn out. By contrast, the environment you experience that is unique to you appeared to be about as important as genes -- both of them explaining roughly half of the story.   

The authors, two Russians from St. Petersburg University (they're Russians, so they must be evil) explain that research trying to identify specific factors from the unique environment that are important has been mostly unsuccessful.  Factors like illnesses and accidents typically explain less than 3% of the examined traits.

In addition, genetic research (mostly experiments on animals) has shown that traits depend a great deal on stochasticity--a fancy term for randomness, or "luck."  For instance, ultraviolet rays increase genetic mutation rates in organisms, but exactly which genes will be affected is a stochastic process. Random genetic errors that occur in the early stages of embryonic development will be more consequential; in this case, all the descendants of the initial mutant cell will also be mutant. 

Complex organic systems like the human body or brain are especially likely to be shaped by random events. For example, in female embryos, one of the two X-chromosomes is inactivated as a Barr body.  Each cell will make a random 'decision' which X-chromosome (the paternal or maternal) gets inactivated, and the 'decision' is maintained in subsequent cell divisions.  As a result, the female becomes mosaic.  In heterozygous females with the EDA mutation, you get ectodermal dysplasia which leads to an absence of perspiratory glands.  Depending on what X-chromosome is active, some skin areas are defective in sweating, while other areas are normal. The mosaicism is random.  Even identical twins raised in very similar environments will differ significantly.

Another human example is the growth of synapses in the developing brain.  While the number and locations of these connections are under some genetic control, research has demonstrated a significant stochastic component.  So again, identical twins raised the same will end up with brain wirings that are somewhat different, this is simply due to random differences in development, and it can cause behavioral differences.

These authors do not mean that these random factors are actually causal factors that simply have not been identified yet. They are claiming that pure randomness is simply a key part of our development, and the hard determinist view is simply incorrect.

They don't touch the political implications of all this, but I'll jump in.  To summarize, it's only a little bit of a simplification to say that we may be the product of genes and random events.  Genetic research is also telling us that hundreds or thousands of genes influence a trait, but each only a trivial bit, so simple pathways for intervention and improvement might be hard to find.  And you can't control randomness, so there seem to be fewer and fewer possibilities for government to step in and effectively address social problems -- at least in ways acceptable to liberals.  The old-time conservative who contended that human nature is tragically flawed and that one must resign oneself to human limitation seems more and more like a prescient, wise person.     

Friday, May 17, 2019

How are we doing on mixing the races?

One of the strongest findings in sociology is that people follow the principle of homophily--they naturally associate with people like themselves.  It goes without saying that sociologists never take the next logical step and conclude that this universal tendency is rooted in biology; that it is very resistant to change; that it's counterproductive to swim against a very strong tide. The typical view of a sociologist when it comes to a social universal is, "Yes, we see it everywhere, so naturally, we should get rid of it!"

Nowhere is this truer than in the case of race.  Around the entire globe, people of the same race tend to gravitate to each other, so in America, we're bound and determined to see the day when a random white person has all non-white buddies.

So how are we doing on this?  I looked at a question given in the General Social Survey where participants were asked to list friends (sample size = 1,300).  I assume that the first person mentioned is a close friend, if not the closest friend.  When the respondent is white, how often was the first friend mentioned black?  Two percent of the time.  Black respondents first mentioned a white friend 11.2% of the time.

If making friends were truly random, the distribution of friends would match the racial distribution of the population. (We'll set aside the goal of preferring friends from other races.)  For example, 13% of the first friends mentioned by whites should be black since blacks are 13% of the population.  But when I do the math that takes into account the size of the black and white populations, blacks are 37.1 times more likely to say their first-mentioned friend is black rather than white. A white is 9.3 times more likely to mention a white person.  I doubt the numbers were much different in 1960.

For all America's efforts, biology seems to be stronger than sociology.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

Which explains how prestigious your job is--intersectional theory or HBD?

On Twitter, Steve Sailer writes, "The pattern that gay black males tend to assimilate into white corporate culture better than do straight black males deserves more social science attention than it has received.  It's hard to notice if you are Woke and believe in the conventional wisdom about Patriarchy, etc."

Let's test this kind of idea with General Social Survey (GSS) data.  Based on intersectionality theory--experiencing more discrimination with each additional minority status--job prestige rankings should look something like this:

Top Tier--Zero Strikes Against
Straight white male

Second Tier--One Strike Against
Straight white female
Gay white male
Straight black male

Third Tier--Two Strikes Against
White lesbian
Straight black female
Gay black male

Fourth Tier--Three Strikes Against
Black lesbian

By contrast, biological theory would focus on traits that are important for high-status jobs, and the obvious candidate is intelligence and the glaring racial gap in IQ. So this view would predict that the big divide will be race, with whites above average in job prestige and blacks below average. The other demographics shouldn't matter much. 

And what are the facts?  According to GSS data for 19,901 respondents: 

Mean occupational prestige 

Gay white male  47.1
White lesbian  46.2
Straight white male  45.2
Straight white female  44.5

Total Sample  44.2

Black straight female  40.9
Black gay male  40.7
Black lesbian  39.8
Black straight male  39.2

As predicted, the major divide is race.  All whites are above average, and all blacks are below.  If intersectional theory were true, black lesbians would be on the bottom, and straight white males would occupy the top position.  Neither is the case.  Biological theory would predict no disadvantage for homosexuals--in fact, I reported in a previous analysis that they have above-average IQs--and indeed they do well.

And relevant to Steve's point about black males, homosexuals do better than straights, which contradicts the claim that it's all about intersectional discrimination.

Biology explains more than sociology.

What about liking rap? Is it a racial or an IQ thing?

As a follow-up to my last post on IQ, race, and classical music, let's see if a fondness for rap music is more about race or inte...