Does agricultural history of racial groups predict self-discipline?

Let me show you a typical move by a liberal researcher (redundant).  Imagine you want to show that blacks face bias when applying for a job.  A liberal propagandist will simply cite a statistic that blacks get turned down more often than whites as proof of discrimination. 

The researcher knows that anyone with two brain cells will counter that, "There might be reasons other than bias that blacks are less likely to get the job. They might be less likely to have preferred qualifications like a college degree."

So the researcher does a statistical analysis that adjusts for education. When the racial effect persists, the analyst concludes that it is due to discrimination.  An obvious problem with this approach is that it is assumed that race is a measure of bias. You assume what you're trying to demonstrate.

Having said that, I'm going to do exactly what the progressives do, only with my own preferred theory.

I wrote recently how Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending theorize that groups that have deeper histories of agriculture will differ in personality traits. They argue that success at farming requires the ability to plan for the long-term and the discipline to carry out the plan. If you eat your seed grain, you will have nothing to plant in the spring.

Length of agricultural goes like this from longest to shortest: Middle Eastern, Chinese/Europe, sub-Saharan African, and Native American. So the level of planning and discipline--called "conscientiousness" by personality researchers--should follow the same pattern.  We don't have an adequate number of Middle Easterners in the General Social Survey sample, so let's include Jews to represent this group. We also add Hindus as another group with a long agricultural history.

The dependent variable in the regression model is years of education and the predictors include IQ plus dummies for all these ethnic groups.  The idea behind the model is that one's education is determined by his IQ and his level conscientiousness. Once we adjust for IQ, if the ethnic dummies are still significantly related to education, this reflects conscientiousness.  I chose blacks to be the reference group since they are a large group with a shorter (and more isolated) agricultural history, and so they should be toward the low end of conscientiousness.

Here are the results (sample size = 8,898):

Years of education (standardized OLS regression coefficients)
IQ   0.43***
Jewish   0.06****
East Asian  0.03***
Hindu   0.02
White  0.01
Hispanic   -0.02*
Native American   -0.07***
Other race  -0.02

The results are dominated by IQ.  It's a powerful predictor (contrary to what N.N. Taleb says. He would say IQ-like tests get you into the school, so it's circular, but the test doesn't finish your degree for you).  Jews and East Asians finish more years of education than what is predicted by their IQs. Hispanics and especially Native Americans complete less schooling than their IQ's predict.

Following my approach, the data suggest that Jews and East Asians have high levels of consciousness, while Native Americans and Hispanics (who are part Native American) are significantly less conscientious than blacks--the reference group.
 

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.

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.

Data: Which ethnic groups know the most science?

You might assume that a person's knowledge of basic science is merely the result of education or IQ.  But when I calculate Pearson correlations with a 10 question quiz on basic science (e.g., "Who determines the sex of the child -- the mother or the father?") the education/science and IQ/science correlations are of moderate size (.37 and .41, respectively).  Some people simply take to science better than others. I like to call this Sci-Q.

I was curious about how this knowledge differs by race and ethnicity. The numbers displayed below are the mean for any group with 10 or more respondents (GSS data, total sample size = 3,737):

Mean Scientific Knowledge Score

Yugoslav  8.20
Scottish  7.82
Swedish  7.87
Japanese  7.77
Russian  7.55
English/Welsh  7.54
Swiss  7.48
Chinese   7.45
Norwegian  7.42
Polish  7.42
Hungarian  7.41
Austrian  7.40
Lithuanian  7.40
Jewish  7.38
Danish  7.30
French  7.25
Czech  7.22
Irish  7.22
French Canadian  7.17
Greek  7.15
Asian  Indian  7.14
Netherlands  7.11
German  7.10
Italian  7.10
Finnish  7.08

US Total  6.92

Spanish  6.89
Arab  6.88
Portuguese 6.71
American Indian  6.49
Filipino  6.12
Mexican  5.88
Puerto Rican  5.88
Black  5.86
West Indian  5.77

GSS data has the old category of one's family coming from Yugoslavia.  These people are in first place with a very high mean of 8.20.  We can see that Eastern Europeans, in general, tend to do well, as do Northern Europeans and Northeast Asians. 

On the low end, you see blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and Arabs.

The gap between the highest and lowest groups is almost 1.4 standard deviations -- a huge difference. 

America's future depends on having lots of people who "take to science."  We need high-scoring groups to grow--through their having larger families and/or moving to the United States.

Data: Which ethnic group has the most beautiful women?

Which ethnic group is the most beautiful?  General Social Survey interviewers -- predominately middle-aged white women -- were asked to rate the physical attractiveness of female participants (US residents) with a range from 'very unattractive' (1) to 'very attractive' (5). Here are the means for various groups (with at least ten participants, N = 1,152):

Mean Physical Attractiveness

Spanish  3.93
Puerto Rican  3.76
Muslim  3.64
East Asian  3.57
Mexican  3.56
Italian  3.55
Asian Indian  3.55
Jewish  3.48
Russian  3.47
French  3.43

Total Sample  3.42

German  3.38
Irish  3.38
Czech  3.36
English/Welsh  3.35
Black  3.34
Dutch  3.27
Polish  3.25
American Indian  3.23
French Canadian  3.23
Scottish  3.16
Swedish  2.92

Asians and and darker Caucasian and Hispanic groups have high means, while fairer whites (e.g., Swedish!), American Indians, and blacks have low means.  The gap between the highest group (Spanish) and the lowest (Swedish!) is over one standard deviation -- a huge difference.

This is somewhat consistent with my judgment -- I would give Spaniards a high score and blacks and American Indians low scores -- but north European women seem at least as beautiful to me as southern Europeans. I would give Greek women (with only four cases, too small include here), for example, a low score.  Eastern European women are beautiful, but Czech, Polish, and Russian women don't do very well here.

I thought ratings by interviewers would be more valid than self-ratings, but now I'm not so sure.  The tastes of middle-aged white women don't line up very well with this middle-aged white dude.

I imagine that many of these survey workers are liberals. Perhaps they penalize fair whites because they're too white.

UPDATE:  I discussed this with my wife, and we wondered if intrasexual competition is influencing the ratings. With the Barbie-type being the traditional American ideal, perhaps interviewers penalize fairer white women. It is weird that these interviewers are giving low scores to the women most likely to match the supposed cultural ideal.  (My wife says she is inclined to unfollow blondes who are just too perfect.)

Data: Are there racial differences in honesty?

Jussie Smollett is just the most recent case of the common phenomenon of minorities orchestrating a hate hoax. This raises the more general question whether racial/ethnic/religious groups differ in how much they value honesty.  General Social Survey respondents (all living in America) were asked how much they prioritize various qualities in children.  One of the qualities is honesty.  Answers ranged from "most desirable" (5) to "least desirable (1)." 

I calculated means for various groups (N = 6,279):

Mean Honesty Score

Filipino  4.28
Japanese  4.25
Finnish  4.21
Portuguese  4.19
Dutch  4.15
Swiss  4.15
French Canadian  4.14
English/Welsh  4.12
Irish  4.12
Scotland  4.12
German  4.10
Chinese  4.08
Czech  4.08
French  4.08
Asian Indian  4.08 

Total Sample  4.08

Danish  4.06
Norwegian  4.05
Italian  4.02
Austrian  4.00
Lithuanian  3.97
Swedish  3.95
American Indian  3.92
Belgian  3.92
Polish  3.92
Spanish  3.92
Jewish  3.90
Hungarian  3.87
Russian  3.79
Romanian  3.79
Black  3.78
Mexican  3.76
West Indian  3.65
Greek  3.47

Certain minorities -- Jews, blacks, Mex-Ams, and West Indians -- have low honesty scores. The difference between the most honest (Filipinos) and least honest (Greeks) is close to one standard deviation, a very large difference.

There is a tendency for southern and eastern Europeans to value honesty less, while northwestern Europeans and Asians tend to have higher means (though there are exceptions).  (I didn't have enough cases of Muslims or Arabs to calculate estimates.)

Data: Do immigrants make America dirtier?

Pacific Life pulled its ads from Fox News after Tucker Carlson said immigrants make America dirtier. In my experience, black and Hispanic communities tend to be dirtier than white neighborhoods (although I lived in a clean middle-class, predominantly black neighborhood), but is this the case for immigrants? 

I don't have data for neighborhoods, but General Social Survey interviewers rated people's homes during interviews. Ratings ranged from very clean (1) to dirty (5).  The mean for people born in the country is 1.93; for immigrants, it's 1.86. So immigrants' homes are slightly cleaner.

Tucker might have had a white/immigrant comparison in mind. The white mean is 1.88 -- a number similar to immigrants.

Let's look at a dirtiness ranking among selected ethnic groups in the US:

Mean household dirtiness (N = 3,657)

Black  2.17
American Indian  2.17
Mexican  2.04
Irish  1.91
Swedish  1.91
Chinese  1.90
Filipino  1.90
India  1.90
German  1.87
Polish  1.85
English/Welsh  1.85
Puerto Rican  1.82
Italian  1.73
Russian  1.71
Greek  1.65

Blacks, American Indians, and to a lesser extent, Mexican Americans have the highest dirtiness ratings which is consistent with my experience of neighborhoods.  Greeks are the cleanest.  It seems to me that cleanliness is a measure of conscientiousness. Jews seem conscientious, so let's look at religion, too, and see if the numbers match my thinking.

Buddhist  2.13
None  2.10
Protestant  1.91
Catholic  1.84
Hindu  1.84
Muslim  1.76
Jews  1.68

Jews come in the cleanest. Buddhists and people with no religion are the dirtiest.  Religious people do tend to be more conscientious.  Keep in mind the differences are not large.  The gap between Greeks and blacks/American Indians is only one-half of a standard deviation.

It's possible that people differ somewhat in terms of indoor and outdoor behavior.  I'm messy in my house but freak out if I drop a gum wrapper in a public place.

Data: Which ethnic groups think art should aim for beauty?

Americans participating in the General Social Survey were asked by interviewers: "Please tell me which statement is closest to your opinion: 1. Art works should celebrate what is most beautiful about the world and the human spirit 2. Art works should freely express the artist's deepest thoughts and emotions, good or bad."

Here are the percent who agreed with the beauty option, listed by ethnic background (at least 25 respondents):

Percent agreeing that art should aim for beauty (N = 1,389)

Mexican  59.7

American only  51.7

Black  48.7

American Indian  43.1

German  38.2

Scottish  37.5

Whites  37.0

Irish  33.9

Italian  35.4

English  30.7

French  30.0

Polish  29.6

Jewish  0.0

There is a tendency for smarter groups to favor the "expression" school of art.  Look how zero Jews (n = 25) prefer beauty. (This reminds me of the anti-Semitic belief that Jews are responsible for ugly art.)  I suspect that more intelligent individuals are influenced by the elite view that beauty is old-fashioned. 

I stand proudly with my less enlightened brothers. Who cares about an artist's "deepest thoughts and emotions"?  Confessions by Jeffrey Dahmer would be fascinating, but it's not art.  Now, if it's Nabokov putting sublime language into the mouth of a hebephile, that's art because the words are beautiful. 

Beauty takes many unexpected forms, some of them very dark, so don't think that I am arguing for the Thomas Kinkade school of art.  His paintings are beautiful like Smarties are delicious.  I'm sure those of us who favor beauty would often disagree about what is beautiful.   

    

 

Racial/ethnic differences in homosexuality

A reader suggests that homosexuality might be more accepted in the Hispanic community because of a higher prevalence. While working as a teacher, he noticed quite a few effeminate Latino boys.

The GSS asks repondents about the gender of their sexual partners. I calculated for each major racial/ethnic group the percent who are gay or bisexual (i.e., the percent whose sexual partners are exclusively same-sex or who are of both sexes). I combined these two categories to boost sample size.

Percent gay or bisexual

Males (sample size = 7,753)
Whites 3.4
Blacks 4.4
Mex-Ams 4.5

Females (sample size = 8,694)
Whites 2.7
Blacks 3.0
Mex-Ams 1.8

Mex-Ams do have an apparently higher level of male homosexuality, but there are no statistically significant differences among any groups at the 95 percent confidence level. (The sample sizes for minority homosexuals are small.)

The black/Mex-Am female difference is statistically significant at the 90 percent confidence level. Lesbianism seems to rise with the independence/dominance of the females of a racial/ethnic group.

Mexican Americans are least politically active

GSS respondents were asked if they have ever attended a political meeting or rally. Here are those who answered yes by ethnicity (sample size = 1,146):


Percent ever attending political meeting or rally


Jewish 52.7
Asian Indian 45.5
English/Welsh 44.6
German 37.9
Irish Protestant 36.6
Irish Catholic 34.4


All Americans 33.6


Scottish 32.1
Amerindian 27.9
Black 25.4
Muslim 25.0
Italian 15.0
Mexican 14.9

Jews and Asian Indians--two smart and economically successful groups--are the most politically active, while Italian and Mexican Americans are at the bottom. Historically, these two groups have been apathetic about politics. Notice how American Muslims are low on the list. Currently, they don't seem to be very political.

Low southern Italian IQ?

Richard Lynn's paper on southern Italian IQ has generated criticism. He finds that the north-south gap is large and attributes low southern IQ to admixture from the Middle East and North Africa. 

I don't have any data that bear directly on the question--and, no, I don't want anyone to put Nancy Pelosi forward as evidence--but we can see how Italian Americans stack up to other white Americans, and it is true that most Italian immigrants have come from southern Italy.

Using GSS data, I set the white native-born American mean to 100 and calculated mean IQs (based on a vocabulary test) for each country of origin (sample size = 12,522). I also omitted Jewish Americans since their high scores can affect results.


Mean IQ--whites only

Lithuania 105.2
Austria 105.1*
England/Wales 103.8*
Denmark 103.7*
Czechoslovakia 103.7
Russia 103.4*
Scotland 103.3*
Norway 102.7*
Yugoslavia 102.7
Switzerland 102.4
Sweden 102.2
Hungary 101.5
Finland 101.1
Greece 100.6
Ireland 100.9
Italy 100.8
France 100.5
Poland 100.4
Germany 99.8
Belgium 99.2
Other Canada 99.2
French Canada 98.7*
Portugal 97.9
Spain 97.6
Netherlands 97.2*
Africa 95.9
Amerindian 95.1*
Puerto Rico 94.2*
American only 91.9*
Mexico 89.5*

*significantly different from the white average


Italian Americans are basically in the middle. There are two southern European countries with below-average numbers--Portugal and Spain (many of these may be Latin Americans who identify with Spain)--but such is not the case with Italians or Greeks. 

Once again, this doesn't really tell us much about southern Italians. Long-distance immigration tends to select for more intelligent people, and many Italian immigrants, perhaps a significant percentage of them unsuccessful and less intelligent, returned home. We can say that even if Lynn were right, Americans of Italian descent are not out of the mainstream. 

By the way, see how low the average is for white Mexican Americans. From what I've seen in GSS and ADD Health data, Mex-Ams who describe themselves as white are not much smarter than those who say they are not white.

Race, ethnicity, and IQ according to ADD Health

The ADD Health Study gave teenagers a five minute vocabulary test and converted scores into a measure of IQ. (As a reader pointed out in an earlier post, vocabulary accurately captures general intelligence). Here are mean IQ scores for all kids who were born in the United States (non-Hispanic whites are set at 100, and the standard deviation is 15):

Jews are heads and shoulders above other groups. Jews and blacks, in fact, are 1 1/2 standard deviations apart--an enormous difference. Except for Koreans, all Asian groups score lower than whites, and Filipinos are toward the bottom of the list. All Hispanic groups have lower averages. Mexican Americans are nine points lower than whites.

Race, ethnicity, gender and sexual effort

MIDUS Study participants were asked: "Using a 0 to 10 scale where 0 means 'no thought or effort' and 10 means 'very much thought and effort,' how much thought and effort do you put into the sexual aspect of your life these days?" I calculated the mean scores by race/ethnicity and sex:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* significant higher than all American males combined
 
 
Mexican Americans and blacks exert the most sexual effort, and Amerindian males the least. The gap between Mex-Ams and Amerindians is almost three-quarters of a standard deviation (sd)--a large difference.
 
Among women--possibly of greater interest to this audience--Polish Americans put the most thought and effort into sex, while Mexican Americans devote the least. The gap between these groups is one-third of an sd--a moderate difference. 
 
Among ethnic groups, Mexican men and women have the biggest effort gap--makes me wonder if there is some conflict there. Jewish men and women, by contrast, have similar means. You wouldn't think there was much compatibility there from what Jewish men tell me. 
 
The overall gender gap is about a third of an sd--a moderate difference. It's no surprise that men put more effort into sex even among a sample of largely middle-aged people.  
 
I can't resist an anecdote. Recently, an elderly Mexican-American student came to my office and showed me a name and e-mail address of a young female student written on his notebook. I recognized the girl as another student who is doing poorly in my class. It was obvious that she gave him the info because she needs help, but he insisted that she was interested in cybersex. I asked him if she had said something; he said no, he just knew. I told him she isn't doing well in class and just needs some help from someone who is doing better. I told him not to bring up sex with this girl, but he didn't believe me and left. The guy must be 70. Isn't it funny that even at death's door, men still think women want them?    
 
 

Race, ethnicity, gender and harm avoidance

A harm avoidance score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants based on the following items: does not or would not enjoy participating in dangerous adventures or activities (e.g., skydiving); being in some natural disaster (e.g., forest fire); being caught in a sudden and dangerous emergency (e.g., a hold up); deliberately risking serious bodily injury; (e.g., riding a runaway horse). Instead prefers safer activities and experiences even if they are tedious or aggravating.  Here are the mean scores by race/ethnicity and sex (N = 3,739):

Mean harm avoidance score

For females, the gap between Norwegian Americans (the highest) and Mexican Americans (the lowest) is eight-tenths of a standard deviation--a large difference. For males, the black-Mexican gap is four-tenths of an sd--a moderate difference.  Mexican Americans are less danger-averse than other groups. It's interesting too that of all males, blacks score the highest on harm avoidance.

The gender gap is largest for Norwegians and smallest for Mex-Ams. Mex-Am women are real outliers here:  they are less danger-averse than most male groups.

Estimates of heritability range from 0.2 to 0.6. 

The overall gender gap is over one-half of a standard deviation. I'll repeat my point from the last post: The person who steps forward to slay the Jabberwocky is probably going to be a dude. Ok--maybe a Mexican chick.

Race, ethnicity, sex, and social potency

A social potency score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants (all Americans) based on the following items: is forceful and decisive; is persuasive and likes to influence others; enjoys leadership roles; enjoys being noticed, being the center of attention. Here are the means by race/ethnicity and sex (N = 3,735):

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*significantly higher than men of English ancestry
**significantly higher than women of English ancestry
 
The mean for Jewish men is sixth-tenths of a standard deviation (sd) higher than the mean for English men--a fairly large difference.  The Jewish-English gap for women is smaller--a third of an sd.
 
The gender gap is largest for Mexican Americans, and smallest for Norwegian Americans.
 
The total male-female gap is about one-third of standard deviation.  According to this study, the heritability for social potency is 55%.   
 
In the new movie, little Alice slays the Jabberwocky (instead of a boy as in the original poem) and then steps into her father's shoes as an international business visionary. The story line is precisely where it belongs: in a fantasy.     

Differences in traditionalism

As a follow-up to the last post, here are the mean traditionalism scores by race/ethnicity (sample size = 3,725):

Mean traditionalism score

Amerindian 9.11
Black 9.00
Norwegian 8.65
Asian Indian 8.64
German 8.52
French 8.46
Scottish 8.44
Mexican 8.43
Irish 8.34
English 8.14
Polish 8.06
Italian 7.88
Swedish 7.66
Jewish 6.88

The gap between Amerindians and Jews is one full standard deviation--a very large difference.

Heritability for traditionalism is about .6.

More on aggression

An aggression score was calculated for MIDUS respondents based on the following items: is physically aggressive; enjoys upsetting and frightening others; enjoys scenes of violence; victimizes others for own advantage; will retaliate; is vindictive. Here are the means by ethnicity (sample size = 3,392):

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* significantly higher than English-American women
 
With the exception of Italian-American women compared to their English-American counterparts, none of the groups are significantly different. The Italian-English female gap is one-third of a standard deviation--a moderate difference.  If we ignore the significance issue, the English-Swedish male gap is about as large. Overall, there does not appear to be wide variation among whites (or across races as shown in the last post).
 
It is interesting that, like Chinese Americans in the last analysis, the 11 Asian Indians in the sample have a very high mean--7.82. It's significantly higher than the mean for all Americans. It's 1.5 standard deviations higher than the English-American mean--an enormous difference. (The Chinese mean for males from the last post is also roughly 1.5 sds above the mean for their English counterparts).  

Race and speaking up

MIDUS respondents were asked if they agreed with this: "I am not afraid to voice my opinions, even when they are in opposition to the opinions of most people." Here are the means by race/ethnicity:


Mean "speaking up" score


Black 4.87
Amerindian 4.67
Hispanic 4.63
White 4.55*
Asian 3.67


* significantly lower than blacks at 95% confidence level


The gap between blacks and Asians is eight-tenths of a standard deviation--a large difference.  Blacks on top and Asians on the bottom is consistent with my experience in the classroom.

Race and parental alcohol abuse

The MIDUS study asked 2,556 people if either of their parents drank so much that is caused  problems. Here are the estimates by race/ethnicity:

Percent
Mexican American 56.2
Amerindian 38.1
Black 28.7*
White 25.1*
Asian 14.3 

* significantly less than Mexican Americans at the 95% confidence level

The parents of Mex-Ams are four times as likely to have a drinking problem as Asian Americans.

Race, ethnicity, and jail

Participants in the Midlife Development in the United States Study (2004-06) were asked if they were ever in jail (N = 2,167). I calculated the percentages by ethnic background:

Percent
Black 11.9
Amerindian 11.4
Hispanic 10.0
Irish 7.5
Russian 5.9
German 5.4
Polish 5.2
English 4.9
French 4.5
Italian 4.2
Jewish 3.3
Norwegian 2.5
Swedish 2.5
Scottish 2.3

GSS data indicates more Italian arrests, but the ranking is otherwise similar--NAMs on top, and Jews and Scandinavians on the bottom. The gap is wide: 5 times as many blacks as Americans of Scottish descent report having been in jail.