Does social class explain the race-crime link? I'm getting tired of these so-called experts who say that the relationship between race and street crime is explained by social class as if that has ever been demonstrated by research. It hasn't. I'm quite familiar with the data and the impact of race, especially on violence, is much stronger than class. The amazing dilemma is that very few studies have examined this question directly. Everyone repeats the mantra, but no one bothers to actually check it out. Well, the General Social Survey has a way of calling bullshit on all the squishy talk.

Using logistic regression, I examined data on 7,477 black and white Americans. The dependent variable is whether you have been arrested or not. When race alone is included in the model, its coefficient is .432, and it is significant at the .001 level. If conventional wisdom is correct, this coefficient should be reduced to zero when parents' class is included. I used father's completed years of school as a measure of this. When it is included in the model along with race, its coefficient is -.026 (significant at the .01 level). (Do not compare the coefficients since the measures are in different metrics, but trust me, race is more powerful).

So does race drop to zero with class thrown in? Absolutely not--in fact, it increases to .461. Class explains nothing.

Americanness according to the World Values Survey: Readers and I listed in an earlier post those values that we thought of as elements of "Americanness," but what do the data tell us? I looked at responses of representative samples of people from countries all around the globe to more than 300 hundred questions from the World Values Survey. Sample sizes range from around a dozen to about 50 countries, and I included the question in the list below if America ranked in either the top 3 or the bottom 3:


Top 3

Belongs to a religious organization
Belongs to an educational, cultural, art, or music organization
Belongs to an organization that does youth work
Belongs to a women's group
Does voluntary work for a religious organization
Does voluntary work for educational, cultural, art, or music organization
Does unpaid work for an environmental group
Does voluntary work for a group that does youth work
Does voluntary work for a women's group
Does voluntary work for organization concerned with health
Does voluntary work out of compassion for those in need
Does voluntary work to give something back

Felt proud in the past few weeks because of a compliment about behavior
Feel like you have control over how your life turns out
People are poor out of laziness and lack of will power
Proud of work
I work because I have to; I wouldn't if I didn't have to
The owners should run the business or appoint managers
If boss and I disagree, I should follow the boss

Believes in the soul
Believes in the devil
Believes in hell
Believes there is a personal God
Partner shares religious, moral, social, and sexual attitudes
Faithfulness is important for a successful marriage
It is important that children learn religious faith at home

Personal freedom is more important than equality
Has confidence in the political system
Proud of my country because of scientific achievements
Proud of country
Trusts neighboring countries


Bottom 3

Does voluntary work because of extra time and wanted to do something worthwhile
Does volunteer work to meet people

Doesn't want Jews for neighbors

When jobs are scarce, people should be forced to retire
When jobs are scare, preference should be given to own nationality over immigrants

A child need both a mother and a father
A woman needs a child to be fulfilled

Government ownership of business and industry should be increased
The state should take more responsibility to ensure that everyone is provided for
Success is a matter of luck and connections
If an unjust law were passed, I could do nothing about it



Okay, let's attempt a description of what makes the U.S. distinctive in terms values. Americans value volunteer work, and they do it out of compassion and because they want to return the favor done for them.

Americans feels thay have control over their lives, and they can change things. If someone is poor, it's his own fault.

Americans are very proud of their work, but strangely wouldn't do it if they didn't need to make a living. They believe in top-down business organization.

They identify with a religion, they are theists, and they believe religion is important for children.

The country is feminist.

Americans are very proud of their country; they believe in personal freedom over equality; they have faith in the political system; and they trust neighboring countries. They are tolerant and pro-immigration. They are anti-socialist.

Let's reduce that to a list like the one before:


Americanness based on the World Values Survey

belief in volunteerism
belief in free will
hierarchical at work
religious
feminist
homogamous
patriotic
freedom-loving
trusting
tolerant
anti-socialist

Keep in mind that, according to these data, the United States is somewhere in the middle on more than 80% of the questions asked. These questions cover just about anything you can think of on politics/government, religion, family, work--all the stuff sociologists are interested in.

The next step is to see if immigrants to the U.S. are likely to change these values. Any guesses which country I'll look at next?

Cowshit, YES! When you think about it, isn't it funny that so many people these days want their tomatoes grown in cowshit? When I was a boy, I used to drive a John Deere with a manure spreader on the back, up and down the fields that belonged to my cow milker boss. That spreader would throw the stuff everywhere, and I got a kick out of telling people that I threw cowshit for a living (kind of like a politician, come to think of it).

I can see the protesters with their signs: "Chemicals, NO! Cowshit, YES!"

"Americanness": On July 5th, Peter Beinhart and Jonah Goldberg debated immigration on their "What's Your Problem" web TV show, but I was interested in their raising the question of what is "Americanness." This seems to me to be a very important topic that people are starting to talking more about. Off the top of my head, I'd say a values list would include the following:

freedom (minimum limitations)
individualism
self-reliance
practicality
technology
work ethic
competition
materialism
religiosity
can-doism
optimism
self-determination
belief in progress
belief in enlightened self-interest
cultural egalitarianism
tolerance
nuclear over extended family

I'm focusing more on cultural than political values. Other ideas? Am I wrong on any of these? If I can get a list together, I can look at the data to see if the values are currently held, and I can look to see what kinds of immigrants support such values, and which do not.

One part of America I don't love: In the past I could say that I love my country, but I can no longer do that. The best I can say is that I love parts of it. Let me give an example why.

I watched a documentary yesterday called "Gay Sex in the 70s." It recounted with graphic footage how homosexuals after Stonewall and before AIDS first hit in 1981 had sex like bonobo chimps, without the discretion. Now I get disgusted when I hear wild tales of casual heterosexual sex, but add to that a type of sex that makes your stomach turn, and add to that that guys are doing it in massive orgies in very public places (like Central Park or on an abandoned pier) and I must confess there are parts of America that I loathe. Someone in the documentary said this kind of sex has not been witnessed in the Western world since the days of Rome, and I'm not pleased that it was America that brought it back.

Now gay sex alone is just gross to me, but when it is combined with libertinism, irresponsibility, obsessiveness, audacity, and radical politics, I'm looking to join a group that advocates that homosexuals be banished to some island. And I don't mean Manhattan. I mean some place that is not America, because I don't want to be associated with it. One fortunate thing that has come out of the tragic AIDS epidemic is that gay men have been forced to grow up. They're less obnoxious now than in the 70s.

Thirty percent of really liberal people have a history of mental illness: The 4th makes me think of politics, and politics makes me think of liberals, and it occurs to me that I haven't taken a jab at them in months. Using General Social Survey data, I did a cross-tabulation of political orientation and a history of mental illness. Here are the results:


Percent having had a mental illness

Extremely liberal 30.0
Liberal 11.5
Slightly liberal 12.1
Moderate 4.7
Slightly conservative 7.8
Conservative 5.6
Extremely conservative 5.1

Hmmm. I seem to vaguely recall a whole body of scholarship claiming that conservatism is a symptom of mental illness. It looks like the "liberalism is a mental disorder" rants by Michael Savage are closer to the truth.

Liberal scholars neglected the obvious way to see if there was a connection between political orientation and mental problems: ask people their political orientation and ask them if they have had a mental problem.

One possible link is being neurotic: I can see the Woody Allen type on the couch, riddled with a long list of insecurities, anxieties, and feelings of guilt. Government serves as Dominatrix, pleasing masochistic tendencies through high taxation, affirmative action, and the like. Maybe mentally ill people just want their SSI checks increased. Whatever the case, psychiatric disorders are common among really liberal people.

But let me anticipate comments by liberals passing through: only liberals are sufficiently self-aware to admit they are sick.

Atheists are the most faithful to their spouses? In a number of previous posts, I showed that atheists and confident believers have the best behavior, while the uncertain fare the worst. (There have been one or two exceptions.) Cheating on your spouse shows the same pattern. The numbers below are the percent of married people who cheated on their partner in the past year, according to General Social Survey data:


Percent cheating on spouse in past year by belief in God:

Do not believe 2.5
No way to find out 4.0
Some higher power 3.6
Sometimes believe 4.0
Believes but has doubts 3.9
Knows 3.1

Keep in mind that these differences are small, but these results conform to the emerging picture that people with confident beliefs, whatever they are, act in more constructive ways. Data from the GSS are demonstrating that atheists, as a group, are not maladjusted like religious folks believe.

Jewish attitudes: I don't have time for a long post, so I'll skip the intro and the discussion and simply give you the meat. As usual, the percentages are calculated from General Social Survey data, a nationally representative sample of Americans.

Update: I've added more questions and have included numbers for "elites." An elite is someone with occupational prestige score in the top 10 percent. Warning: the sample sizes for elite Jews are dangerously low.

Percent agreeing

Americans should follow the decisions of international organizations (strongly agree)
Elite Jews 22.0
All elite Americans 6.0
Jews 6.5
All Americans 4.7

Stay out of international affairs
Elite Jews 9.1
All elite Americans 17.0
Jews 14.0
All Americans 32.3

Get out of the UN
Elite Jews 2.9
All elite Americans 6.8
Jews 10.9
All Americans 15.7

Extremely proud to be American
Elite Jews 38.5
All elite Americans 37.7
Jews 48.7
All Americans 47.1

Identify mainly with ethnic group instead of just being an American
Jews 6.2
All Americans 5.5

Ethnicity is important to a sense of who you are
Jews 65.0
All Americans 58.4

Minorities must adapt to the culture (strongly agree)
Elite Jews 12.5
All elite Americans 14.0
Jews 10.4
All Americans 15.2

Feel very warm toward whites
Elite Jews 25.0
All elite Americans 33.0
Jews 47.8
All Americans 34.8

English should be the official language
Elite Jews 77.8
All elite Americans 75.9
Jews 66.7
All Americans 62.7

Immigrants improve American society
Elite Jews 100.0
All elite Americans 69.0
Jews 90.6
All Americans 57.0

Immigration should be decreased
Jews 38.0
All Americans 55.1

Immigration makes Americans lose jobs
Elite Jews 55.5
All elite Americans 48.5
Jews 45.7
All Americans 60.0

Immigration will affect American unity (very likely)
Jews 21.9
All Americans 28.4

The ethnic changes to be seen in the next 25 years are a good thing
Elite Jews 22.9
All elite Americans 30.0
Jews 36.1
All Americans 25.9

Like Israel very much
Elite Jews 39.4
All elite Americans 9.3
Jews 60.8
All Americans 11.7

I bet you've got some boring, run-of-the-mill hero like Superman, right? Mine is Lou Frickin' Dobbs. Check out his interview with 60 Minutes.

Mex-Ams are tied to their group almost as much as blacks: The General Social Survey asked a large sample of Americans if their ethnic group was important to who they are. Here is the percent of each group that answered "very important":

Black 66.7
Mexican 58.3
American Indian 41.5
Jews 35.4
Polish 27.3
Italian 24.9
Scottish 23.5
German 23.5
Irish 22.9
English/Welsh 22.2
French 16.7

Mex-Ams are almost as ethnocentric as blacks! And they totally outdo American Indians and Jews. Hundreds of years in America hasn't fully assimilated blacks and Indians: how long will it take Mexicans who receive fresh blood from the Old Country every day, and when they do assimilate, it's often toward black ghetto norms?

The first cloture vote to consider the Amnesty Bill without a hearing is likely to happen tonight. I just e-mailed 20 Senators at this website.

Which of you ladies can do more than I just did?

Gay men on their knees: In a previous post on violent victimization, I displayed data showing that gay men are like women and lesbians are like men. Let's look at another characteristic--religiosity. Going to church is more of a woman's thing (unless you're a leader). According to the General Social Survey, the following percent of people attend religious services at least once a month:


Percent attending church at least once per month

Straight women 51.4
Straight men 41.7
Gay men 38.5
Lesbians 32.4

Lesbians end up being the most "masculine" of the bunch. You might respond that lesbians don't attend church because most religions condemn homosexuality, and there is certainly some truth to that, but then why do so many gay guys go? They go almost as much as straight men.

I won't list percentages of church membership, since the only significant differences are that more gay men and lesbians belong to no church, and compared to straight women, fewer lesbians are Catholic. Maybe lesbians drop out because they feel the Catholic Church is more patriarchal. Or maybe more Catholic women refuse to identify themselves as lesbian.

I'm surprised by the high numbers for gay men. They attend church a lot, although I'm sure some people make them feel uncomfortable there. Evidently, they're a pretty motivated, religious group. That's news to me (the stereotype is that a church is the last place you'd find a gay guy on his knees) but I shouldn't be surprised when I think of all those gay Catholic priests.

I am SO excited about our future crop of cultural leaders! Brett Dennen is one of the newer folk/pop musicians that I listen to on my "Coffeehouse" Internet radio station (I wince at the word "coffeehouse"). He's quite talented, but I think he would sell his mother if he could buy a pill that would turn him black. He reserves his admiration for Mumia Abu-Jamal types: Malcolm X probably wouldn't qualify since he didn't kill enough white people. Here's one of Dennen's choice lyrics from "There is So Much More":

"...I wondered how so many could be in so much pain,
While others don't seem to feel a thing,
Then I curse my whiteness and I get so damned depressed,
In a world of suffering why should I be so blessed..."

Don't worry too much, Brett: with young people like you, we white folks will be suffering soon enough.

Swiss Americans are the most bloodthirsty? Gun control advocates sometimes portray hunters as violent-prone and maybe a bit deranged. One way to test this is to see if there is a association between hunting and criminal violence. Well, according to the General Social Survey, there isn't one. American men were asked if they hunt:


Percent of men who hunt

Swiss 50.0
Finns 48.6
Dutch 41.7
American Indians 39.1
Germans 37.8
Norwegians 36.8
French 35.7
Swedes 33.6
Austrians 32.7
Czechs 31.0
English/Welsh 30.1
Scots 30.0
Irish 29.0
French Canadians 27.9
Poles 22.3
Mexicans 22.1
Italians 20.3
Danes 19.3
Blacks 14.7
Spain 13.7
Puerto Ricans 5.2
Russians 5.0
Chinese 2.2

Other data I've presented show that blacks and Mexicans have the highest rates of criminal violence, but they have low rates of hunting. Some low-violence groups are not into hunting (e.g., Chinese) but it looks like the activity has a lot to do with tradition and perhaps living in less populated areas. Thinking of Europe, it's more of a northern thing and more of a western thing--just the opposite of the pattern of violent crime.

Mormons and illegal immigration: I wrote in an earlier post about how pro-Hispanic Mormons are because of their religious belief that Amerindians are a special people. Over at Gene Expression, Razib links to a map which shows that there is only one state in the Union that had two Republican senators vote for the amnesty bill: Utah.

I imagine that Idaho relies more on illegals to do agricultural work than Utah, yet both Republican senators from the Potato State managed to vote against the bill. Friendly message to Mormon folks: you don't have to bring Mexicans here to turn them into converts. Mexico is a bit dry in parts, but they have enough water for baptisms down there.

Are homosexuals attacked more than straights? Stories like that of Matthew Shepard are used to teach Americans that homophobia is rampant, and that it is often manifested in hate crimes. Homosexuals are attacked, we are told, because they are hated. If this is true, gay men and lesbians should have higher rates of being attacked than straights, since they face more than the usual number of reasons for being victims of violence. So what does the General Social Survey say?


Percent ever punched or beaten up

Straight men 56.0
Gay men 47.1
Staight women 27.4
Gay women 57.9

Now, you might look at the numbers for lesbians and conclude that homophobia is rampant since their rates of violent victimization are more than double that of straight women. But such an interpretation doesn't hold up, because if it were true, gay men would be assaulted more than straight guys.

This pattern of numbers is consistent with the fact that most violence is mutual combat that starts with verbal aggression and escalates. Victims often provoke violence, and straight women and gay men are less aggressive than their counterparts. If homosexuals are attacked, chances are it is motivated by the same kinds of things that cause attacks against heterosexuals: you tell some guy that his girlfriend is an ugly slut, and you get punched in the face.

According to the GSS, Mex-Ams have the highest rate of assault: In previous posts that relied on survey data, I showed that Mexican-Americans have high rates of street crime, even higher than blacks in some respects. (For example, the risk of gang membership is probably higher). Well, some folks don't believe me, so let's come at it another way. Research has documented that most criminal violence is intra-ethnic, so victim rates parallel those of assailants. General Social Survey respondents were asked if they have been the victim of a personal assault in the past year. I limited the analysis to groups with a least 50 sampled people. Here are the percent who answered yes:


Percent assaulted in the past year

Mexican 5.6
Blacks 4.8
Italian 4.6
German 3.3
American Indian 3.3

USA 2.7

Irish 2.1
Scots 1.3
English/Welsh 0.7

These numbers square with with my other posts: rates are highest among Mex-Ams and blacks, above average for Italians (and southern Europeans in general), and low for those from northern Europe. These numbers also square with global patterns. Latin America has, overall, high rates of violent crime.

Keep in mind that some of the white numbers might be inflated because other data indicate that black-on-white attacks are more likely than the reverse.

There is no such thing as racial profiling: My students are a pretty PC bunch, so once in a while I have to provoke them. I asked in class the other day, what would people think of the statement that there is no such thing as racial profiling. A Mexican-American students raises his hand and tells me he knows it happens because one time he was just walking into some store, and all of a sudden some cop slams him up to the ground. Then the officer tells him it was a mistake--they were searching for a suspect who looked like him.

So I asked the student if the cop would have done the same thing if he were an elderly Latino woman. He said no, and I replied, why not--she's Latino. He guessed that the police were looking for a young male Mexican. I jokingly said they were going around slamming 5 year old Hispanic boys? More seriously, I said, oh so this is case of age profiling, or maybe a case of gender profiling.

Then I asked if he would have been grabbed if he were a skinny 7 foot Mexican. He answered probably not, and I told him they must have been profiling a person with medium height and a stocky build (like him). So, evidently, they were "body-size profiling." I asked what he was wearing, and when he said jeans and a white T-shirt, I asked him if they would have targeted him if he was in a limo in a rented tux--he said maybe not. So I told him that maybe they were clothes profiling. Then, I pointed out his tattoos on his arms and suggested that the suspect probably had those too.

They were getting the point, so I summed it up by saying that profiling is always a multi-factor thing, and it is arbitrary and political to call it racial. Not surprisingly, the white students seem to like it when I talk like this, while it chafes blacks and Hispanics.

Correlates of nihilism: In the past, I've posted a number of times on the question of happiness, but I've neglected the arguably more important topic of nihilism. I can safely say that my biggest challenge in life has not been laziness, passivity, or lack of organization--it's been my battle with nihilism. It wasn't a problem in the least when I was a pious boy, but as soon as I became convinced that there was no God, black nihilism started its creep, and it's been like bone cancer ever since.

It doesn't help that I'm inclined to take a distant views of things: "From the vantage point of Alpha Centauri or 100 years from now, I am absolutely nothing." I meet every hassle in life (and they are as omnipresent as advertising) with a "What is the point?" My attempt to develop faith in God--probably the only meaningful thing that could be 100% relied on--has helped, but not as much as I'd like.

Anyway, what are the correlates of nihilism? I did some quick searching in the General Social Survey, and found several items. Respondents were asked if they agree that life serves no purpose. Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5). Fortunately, only 3.4% agreed, either strongly or moderately. I calculated the means for various groups and subtracted if from 5 to give the most nihilistic people the highest scores. The analysis was limited to whites. Here are the most and least nihilistic groups on several different variables:


Nihilism Score

Age
71-90 .72
41-55 .49

Work status
Unemployed .71
Student .40

Occupational prestige
Low (10-30) .68
High (61-90) .41

Individual Income
<$15,000/yr .82
$90,000+ .14

Education
Less than HS education .80
Graduate degree .34

Belief in God
Agnostic .82
Know God exists .43

Religious Attendance
Never .73
More than once a week .39

Religion
None .73
Orthodox .14

Marital Status
Separated .95
Married .50

Number of children
Eight+ .86
Two .46

Health
Fair .75
Excellent .42

Happiness
Not too happy .77
Very happy .43

So let's create a profile: the average nihilist is old; unemployed or has a low-status job; poor and uneducated; agnostic with no religion who never goes to church; is separated with 8 or more children; and is unhappy and in fair health.

The picture that emerges here is of a person whose life is not going well, and who has no religious beliefs to draw on. The nihilist interprets his life as unpleasant, unsuccessful--maybe he feels impotent. The rich guy with the powerful job is more much likely to think life is meaningful. According to these data, few high-income people are nihilists. Money must give a sense of power, success, reward (not that I would know).

Children are clearly not thought of as assets: the "child-rich" person is the most nihilistic. Having a very large family is associated with many other challenges, like poverty, which overwhelm people. A spouse and 2 kids don't overwhelm, and they make a guy feel like he's part of something larger than himself--part of a family.

I excluded all the intermediate categories because I'm short on time, but I will look at this more closely later. I've been inclined to think that these life characteristics lead to nihilism, but that actually contradicts my own experience, where nihilism came first and caused me difficulties. For example, if life is pointless, why kill yourself in order to make a lot of money? My nihilism always pulls me toward hedonism--I just want to be a happy California cow, with his belly full of hay.

Chairman Ann: Coulter is smokin' the last couple weeks, and I ain't talking about the sexiness department. When pundits with large megaphones start sounding like VDARE columnists, the dark clouds begin to dissipate, and little sunbeams start to poke through.

Gay Quiz: I just saw a Google ad on my own blog that invites you take a quiz to find out if you're gay. Here's my are-you-gay quiz:

1) Do men turn you on?
A. yes
B. no

If the answer is "A", you're gay.

While we're on the gay issue, take a look at this 60 Minutes piece on homosexuality. I especially like the research that shows that ordinary people can spot homosexuals by their movements, mannerisms, and voices. I say "in your face" to the PC crowd.

Lesbian leisure: As a follow-up to the post on the leisure activities of homosexual men, let's compare straight women with lesbians:


Percent who have done the activity in the past year

Attending sporting event
Straight women 55.4
Lesbians 33.3

Art museum
Straight women 42.2
Lesbians 37.5

Arts/Crafts
Straight women 51.8
Lesbians 47.5

Car race
Straight women 12.5
Lesbians 0.0

Camping
Straight women 43.4
Lesbians 41.7

Gardening
Straight women 67.0
Lesbians 58.3

Attending dance performance
Straight women 10.0
Lesbians 12.5

Classical music/opera
Straight women 17.4
Lesbians 28.4

Hunting/fishing
Straight women 29.9
Lesbians 25.0

Perform music/dance/theatre
Straight women 10.0
Lesbians 12.5

Playing sports
Straight women 60.7
Lesbians 58.3

See a movie
Straight women 78.2
Lesbians 85.0

Play musical instrument
Straight women 24.3
Lesbians 35.0

The two groups are more similar than I expected, but some of the differences are probably obscured when straight women tag along with the boyfriends or husbands to do more masculine activities like hunting. I'm surprised to see the two groups are roughly the same on playing sports. The number seems high for straights--there are probably a lot of walkers/joggers/gym-attenders in there. As a commentor wrote in the earlier post, differences might be larger if we could look at frequency. I see that lesbians do not fall behind straights in artistic interests--in fact, their numbers are bigger on most items.

Ann's the Man: Yes, I know that Ann Coulter is unpleasant to many and wrong on some issues, but her piece this week on illegal immigration is quite good. Take a look.

And I know some of you Beavises will take advantage of the fact that the words "Ann" and "piece" are found in the same sentence.

What do gays do for fun (other than have sex)?: It bothers me just how much homosexual sexuality is discussed at the expense of other aspects of who they are. I was debating a gay guy on the Internet one time, and when I argued that, in my view, homosexual sex was not equal in value to heterosexual sex, he claimed that I thought he was infererior compared to me. I said no: there is a great deal about us that is not sex. Instead of supporting the view that he was a full human being, he continued argue that sex is absolutely central to who he is. I told him that if he thought of himself as a 6 foot penis rather than a man, well that is his choice, but that is simply a distortion of who he is.

So in that spirit, let's see what gay guys do with their free time other than the yucky stuff I don't like to contemplate. Looking at the General Social Survey, I compared the percent of straight versus gay who have done certain things in the past year. Here are the numbers:


Percent having done the activity in the past year

Attending sports event
Straight 66.5
Gay 54.5

Art museum
Straight 38.6
Gay 60.0

Arts/Crafts
Straight 32.9
Gay 50.0

Car race
Straight 24.5
Gay 9.1

Camping
Straight 54.4
Gay 18.2

Gardening
Straight 56.9
Gays 27.3

Attending dance performance
Straight 16.6
Gay 42.5

Attending classical/opera performance
Straight 16.5
Gay 32.7

Hunting/Fishing
Straight 53.2
Gay 18.2

Performed dance/theatre/music
Straight 11.2
Gay 22.5

Played sports
Straight 71.4
Gay 63.6

Attended movie
Straight 72.9
Gay 72.5

Played musical instrument
Straight 23.5
Gay 30.0

The only thing that really surprised me was gardening. Combine this with camping, hunting, and fishing, and evidently gay guys don't like to get dirty. Gay guys do like playing sports almost as much as straights. (I didn't want to get sexual, but I was stalked by a guy in the showers once). Not surprisingly, homosexuals are more cultured.

Side note: I'm trying to imagine someone not going to a movie for a whole year. Maybe I'm the strange one.

Only stupid people believe Latinos will vote Republican if they get treated nice: Ok, I confess that I sometimes watch Fox. I saw Geraldo sanguinely tell O'Relly that Latinos will vote for you if you "just treat them nice." I'm highly skeptical to say the least.

Nobody treats Hispanics better than Mormons who believe that they are sort of a chosen people of God. (They believe that Jesus visited Amerindian tribes after his resurrection). Roughly half of the Church is Latino, and many who live in Utah are Mormons. So this big huge love fest should mean that most Hispanics in Utah vote Republican, right? Wrong. According to research reported in a Deseret News article:

"In Utah, Hispanics are more likely to vote Democratic than the general population, the majority of which votes Republican. In the BYU exit poll, 49 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and 39 percent as Republican. Some 55 percent voted for Democrat Pete Ashdown, who lost his bid to replace Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch."

So in an state where most people vote Republican, and where Latinos are loved and respected by Republicans, Hispanics are the basically the same as they are any place else: they're Democrats. Nice try Mustache-From-Hell, but us ord'nary Americans ain't as dumb as ya' think.

Hitch is unhinged

I've watched a couple of recent Christopher Hitchens debates on religion, and as someone who would like to see belief in God become even more widespread, all I can say is thank God for Hitchens. He acts like a prick on stilts. You could cut the hostility he gives off with a knife. He acts like every religious person that ever lived molested his daughter. He comes off like a rabid dog, and all right-thinking atheists should do what they can to get him committed. He helps the cause like Hitler helped patriotism. Maybe it's the drinking. Look at the photo: does the guy go to the john without booze? He keeps talking about how hateful church people are, but I can't think of a person on a TV talk show that has shown more venom, and I'm not proud to say that I've watched a lot of shows. I was an atheist for about 15 years, and even then I was disgusted with these types who think that the way you talk to believers is to call their mothers whores.

Update: It turns out that Chesterton agrees with me. He wrote that the enemy of religion is not atheism--it's growing indifference. And like Nisbet wrote, aggressive atheism reawakens and reinforces a person's religious values. Hitchens is a friend: the deepening secularization of life is the enemy.

More on class and marriage: A reader outlined some limitations to using occupational prestige as a measure of class. In addition to his points, I was dissatisfied with the gender factor in general: a wife could easily come from a high status family, but might not pursue a prestigious career. Looking at education gets around some of these problems, so here are correlations among the same groups I listed in the earlier post:


Pearson correlation coefficients

Father's educ.--Respondent's educ., .49
Respondent's educ.--Spouse's educ., .62
Father's educ.--Spouse's educ., .44

Now these correlations are definitely stronger than when occupational prestige is used. How far you it make it in school depends a lot on Dad, but getting a successful career is more out of his hands.

It seems to me that the most important reality in all this talk of marriage is the simple principle of "homogamy." At least in the American context, it's not so much that you marry someone whose family is like yours in terms of status--you marry someone very much like yourself. Family is correlated with those characteristics, but modestly. This focus on family status is, I think, more on the minds of elites than ordinary people.

Now Steve's definition seems to focus on parental concern, but in American society, anyway, "concern" looks less like influence and more like hope. I know my working-class parents never cared in the least that I associate with people of a certain status: they only wanted me to hang out with good people. My parents would have been perfectly happy if I married a girl with only a high school degree. As for my sister's spouse, they only cared about character, not status. It makes sense that the higher your position, the more that class is a real issue since the people at the top can only maintain or move down.

Does social class determine marriage? Steve Sailer has put forward the idea that "class is about who your descendants are likely to marry." But just how meaningful is any definition of class is contemporary American society? Below, I present Pearson correlations between your father's occupational prestige when you were 16, yours now, and your spouse's. (It would be nice to look at your spouse's father's occupational prestige, but the GSS doesn't have it):


Pearson correlation coefficients

Father-respondent .31
Spouse-respondent .39
Father-spouse .27

These connections are pretty weak. The one that most directly measures your family's class with that of your spouse's is the last one listed, and it is only .27. If this correlation were not reduced by the influence of controls in a multivariate analysis, then your family's class explains about 10% of your spouse's class.

It is possible that a direct measure of your spouse's father's class might be more highly correlated with your own father's, but it seems doubtful when these numbers show that there isn't much of a correlation between your father's class and your own as an adult. The fluidity and individualism of American society makes the idea of class less meaningful.

Are biracial people less happy? With all this talk about Obama's racial identity and his depression, I was interested in this question. I used General Social Survey data to construct two variables: 1) people who say their ancestors are 1st from Africa and 2nd from some white country, versus all others, and 2) people who say their ancestors are 1st from some white country and 2nd from Africa, versus all others. The former I will call "black-whites" and the latter will be "white-blacks."

By the way, the numbers of these biracial people who put black first is twice as large as those who put white first, and the percent of these folks who said "black" when simply asked their race was 88% for the white-blacks and 93% for the black-whites. Here are the percentages for happiness:


Percent very happy

Unmixed whites 33.2
Unmixed blacks 20.9
Unmixed others 30.1
Black-whites 20.9
White-blacks 24.8

The second answer-choice is "pretty happy", but let's look at the third choice--"not too happy":


Percent not too happy

Unmixed whites 9.2
Unmixed blacks 23.6
Unmixed others 11.9
Black-whites 15.6
White-blacks 23.8

Biracials--both black-whites and white-blacks--have low levels of happiness, but not lower than unmixed blacks. But we can't tell from these numbers if the causes of the similar levels are the same or not.

Players are serial molesters: All you guys out there that get a girl to fall for you so you can get in her pants, you're not cool--you're serial molesters. You use your words, your charms, your promises, your high-pressure tactics, and you leave the girl with a lifetime of heartbreak to get over--all so you can get your jollies, and can feel like a man. But you're not a man--you're a common criminal. And if there is any justice, you'll pay for it someday.

The other poor minorities are least likely to want a black president: What's the relationship between ethnicity and voting for a black candidate? According to the General Social Survey, here are the results:


Percent unwilling to vote for black president

Mexicans 11.6
American Indians 11.4
Poles 10.6
Irish 9.7
Germans 9.7
Italians 9.2
English/Welsh 8.5

USA 7.7

Scots 7.3
Blacks 1.4


Evidently, more Mexicans and Indians are afraid that blacks would hog the minority pie with a one of their own in the White House.

Overall, the vast majority of Americans would vote for a black man, but the numbers are large enough here to affect results. Since Obama is our current possibility, people likely to vote for a Democrat are most relevant. The numbers for whites by political orientation:


Percent unwilling to vote for a black president

Extremely liberal 8.0
Liberal 7.2
Slightly liberal 4.4
Moderate 10.2
Slightly conservative 8.3
Conservative 12.8
Extremely conservative 13.5

The percentages are higher for liberals and and moderates than I would have guessed, and are high enough to influence the primaries and the general election. Does anyone know how many whites are more likely to vote for a candidate because he is black? Not too many, I suspect.

Being Mormon is a larger obstacle, as a recent Gallup poll indicates that 24% would not vote for one. Stupid--I would be more likely to vote for one because they have more sense (their instinct is conservative on most issues) and character than most people. Romney was the charismatic one at the debate last week. And the Gallup poll shows that Americans were slightly more willing to vote for a Mormon 30 years ago. I can't think of another topic where Americans are so unnecessarily ignorant.

Surpassing your father: Reading the other day about how Robert Frost's son killed himself, it made me wonder if, in general, sons of more successful fathers are less happy. Using General Social Survey data, I calculated the educational difference between father and son. Knowing that absolute educational level is correlated with happiness (as well as having an interest in educated people), I limited the range by only looking at sons with at least a bachelor's degree. I also figured that small differences might not matter much, so I compared two groups: sons with 4 years more education than dad versus sons with 4 years less than their father's:


Percent of sons happy with 4 more years of education than father

Very happy 34.6
Pretty happy 57.9
Not too happy 7.4


Percent of sons happy with 4 fewer years of education than father

Very happy 26.5
Pretty happy 57.4
Not too happy 16.2


While the difference is not huge, sons that did not go as far as their fathers are not as happy. This may be due to the expectation that, with all of their advantages, sons will surpass their fathers. If they don't, it must because they failed to apply themselves.

This is an example of how people are harmed by a belief in environmental determinism and by not understanding statistics. When I tell my very best students that their kids may not do as well as them due to regression to the mean, they look at me like I'm crazy and evil. If you think about it, if you were Robert Frost's son, why in the world would you think that you could match or surpass such a freak of nature? Our culture would be much healthier if we acknowledged and made peace with our natural limitations. It's okay to be a regular guy. Thank God for your life and health.

Nervy Burglars II: This e-mail from some Hispanic guy to VDARE.COM has been posted on its website:

"Why don't you publish this article, (Race Forms Ugly Underbelly Of Immigration Debate, by Amber Arellano, Detroit News, April 30, 2007) on VDARE.COM? Hmmm... probably not a welcome point of view. Surprise, surprise.

In the end, Arellano is right. You clowns don't like the fact that we're brown and that we come from Latin America. I am 100% sure that if we were German, Irish or some other "white" European nationality there would be an instant end to the immigration debate.

There are many, many young Hispanic families in this country... lots of kids, lots of enthusiastic hard work and savvy... we are not going anywhere and you can't stop it. Is that what's really bothering you and all your frightened VDARE.COM buddies?

Do yourself a favor…learn some Spanish. I have pretty much mastered the use of the English language. Now it's your turn.

If this guy is trying to persuade me of something, he is succeeding: he is confirming my concern that the rapid increase of Hispanics in this country is a movement of power against me and my family. The only reason that I am not "hablando Espanol" today is that this guy does not have quite enough buddies and organization to impose his desires on me. I wouldn't like it any better if some blue-eyed Russian immigrant told me it's time I starting eat borscht. Don't tell me what to eat in my own gotdamn house. To the extent that I have an influence in the house called America, we're going to eat what I like.

Nervy Burglars: Did you hear about the professional burglars rally that was held all across the country? These people break into people's houses and have obtained fake papers saying they are licensed contractors. Yesterday, they took to the streets in anger because we Americans are not jumping to attention quickly enough when they demand legitimate papers. I'm telling you, we live in Alice's Wonderland.

Global church attendance trends: In the last post, I looked at trends in global church attendance over two time periods--1981 and 2001. The problem with the analysis is that two samples included different countries, and it might be that the 2001 sample included more of the developing world which tends to be more religious. I'm very busy right now, but I will update this post with additional countries, as I find the time.

My first choice of countries is China since it is the largest. It was surveyed in 1990 and 2001. The percent never attending religious services declined from 94.1% to 89.6%. The largest growth was in the more frequent attendance categories. Of course the numbers are still low, but hey, this is China.

India: Attendance in India is down bigtime over the same period. The biggest drop was among those going more than once a week from 29.4% to 15.3%. Almost everyone goes, but not so often.

USA: America remain unchanged between 1982 and 1999.

Nigeria: Between 1990 and 2000, the biggest change is more people going more than once a week: from 55.5% to 63.7%. Now that's religious.

Russia: During the 90s, the trend was for those who go never or rarely to begin to go for Christmas and Easter and other holy days: this category rose from 7.9% to 22.6%.

Mexico: From 1990 to 2000, the percent attending weekly went from 31.6% to 42.5%.

God is Not Going Anywhere: I see that Hitchens has a new book out entitled, "God is Not Great," but it seems to me that a much more interesting topic might be called "God is Not Going Anywhere." The argument that religion is terribly harmful seems about as fresh as grandma's fart, and it makes Hitchens sound like his mom made him go to Sunday School when he wanted to be watching girls' boobies at the matinee.

I'll do a more careful analysis later, but for now I looked at the earliest and latest years (1981 and 2001) that the World Values Survey asked a very large sample of people all around the world how often they attend religious services. In 1981, 8.0% went more than once a week. In 2001, the number was 21.0%. Attending for holidays, etc. was also up from 6.3% to 14.7%. The one large drop was the never- or almost never-attending category--down from 29.5% to 17.9%.

HBD Humor

Asian American groups call for CBS to fire New York shock-jocks

SAN FRANCISCO -- Prominent Asian American civil rights groups in the Bay Area are demanding that CBS Radio fire New York shock-jocks Jeff Vandergrift and Dan Lay, who were suspended earlier this week for making a prank phone call to a Chinese restaurant seen as racist and sexist.

Today, the coalition of groups submitted a letter to CBS Radio, calling for the network to improve its guidelines on offensive terms, to communicate periodically with civil rights and community groups and to fire the duo -- who had broadcast on Bay Area airwaves for more than a decade before they went to New York in 2005 -- and their producer at WFNY-FM.

The coalition includes the Asian Law Caucus, Chinese for Affirmative Action of San Francisco and Equal Rights Advocates -- all in San Francisco -- along with Oakland's Organization for Justice & Equality and, in New York, the 80-20 Initiative, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Organization of Chinese Americans.

The station's general manager, Tom Chiusano, has agreed to meet with the coalition, but no date has been set. He had no comment on the groups' petition.

Vandergrift and Lay, who go by the monikers JV and Elvis on their show "The Dog House," placed a six-minute call to a Chinese restaurant in which they requested "shlimp flied lice," used sexually explicit language to proposition a waitress, referred to another employee's body part as a "tiny egg roll" and claimed to know kung fu.

The station suspended the pair without pay until further notice on Monday. [More....]


"Civil rights group" is a code word for American Glavlit. These groups don't even care that they are ruining the income of a Korean woman--the wife of one of the jocks. I expected to see more of this kind of thing, so as I promised, here's Chinese HBD humor I just made up:

Question: Why do Chinese people have slanted eyes?

Answer: To hide the dollar signs.

Play it again, Sam: Every once in a while, I miss Sam Francis' VDARE columns and will go back and read an old one. Today was one of those days, and I found this article: Why Immigrants Kill. He was writing about the Hmong immigrant who shot all those hunters, but his words could apply to Cho:

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren't their people, and their moral and social norms aren't theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

For immigrants on the fringe, the resulting tensions can overflow, and it's not easy even for those not so fringe.

Sociologists write all the time about the evils of alienation, but somehow ignore immigration as an important source of it. The connection is a bit hard to miss since the word "alienation" contains the word "alien" in it.

Anyway, my point is not about immigration and alienation, it's that Francis' writings will shake you up, so you should check him out if you haven't.

The GSS says whites wanting to prohibit marriage between blacks and whites are dumb, but not crazy: The stereotype of a white nationalist (WN) is a inbred hillbilly who's missing some teeth and who missed school after about the 6th grade. But the folks of this persuasion on the Internet I've talked to are generally a smart bunch. My students stare at me in disbelief when I tell them that William Pierce had a PhD in physics. I imagine people who debate on the Internet are the cream of the crop, but I don't know--the dumb stereotype may be the product of hostility. And the image is not just one of low intelligence, but also mental illness. Just yesterday, I talked to a guy who lived in Hayden Lake, Idaho for many years and was on friendly terms with a number of WNs, but he told me that when he moved from there, the WN types were getting pretty psycho.

I couldn't find a perfect question to identify WNs, but the General Social Survey did ask if you are in favor of a law forbidding marriage between blacks and whites. Respondents were also asked if they have ever had a mental illness. Here are the results:


Mean IQ--whites

Against laws prohibiting intermarriage 102.1
For laws prohibiting intermarriage 92.2


Percent having had a mental illness--whites

Against laws prohibiting intermarriage 8.3
For laws prohibiting intermarriage 1.7

Keep in mind that that sample of those in favor of this type of law is small--only 59 people. But going on what we have here, these folks have a low average IQ but are less likely to have experienced some kind of mental health problem.

The university is the last place you'll find free speech: This AP story shows why I have so much contempt for these O'Briens I have to work with at the university:


Professor fired over Va. Tech discussion

An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald. [More...]

HBD Humor: Thinking about the Imus fiasco, I'm upset that a guy could lose his job for a joke, albeit an unfunny and gratuitous one. Over the years, all this race hysteria has made a contrarian like me want to speak louder when others get shut up. So I decided this evening to fight back with what I call HBD Humor. Anytime I hear that about someone getting punished for a joke, I'm going to make up another. Since Imus' joke was about black women, so is my first one:

Question: What's the difference between a black chick's ass and a Union Pacific caboose?

Answer: I mentioned the black chick's ass first.

Are immigrants crazier than the rest of us? Cho Seung-Hui was clearly not right in the head. Is this a common problem among immigrants? Mentally troubled people might escape the messes they've made at home by moving to another country. Or maybe stress from living in an alien culture might send some over the edge.

General Social Survey participants were asked if they have ever suffered from a mental illness. This is the share who said "yes":


Percent having had mental illness

Native-born 7.5
Immigrants 4.5


Keep in mind that the immigrant sample is only 89 people, but these results indicate a comparatively healthy immigrant population. Immigrants, at least those from distant lands, have to be pretty high-functioning to navigate the challenges of a new life. If I find data on the children of immigrants, I'll post the results.

Those hell-raising Finnish-Americans own the most guns: The Virginia Tech. massacre got me thinking about the connection between ethnicity and being into guns. The General Social Survey asked 13,000 Americans about whether they keep a gun in the house. Here are the percent who said "yes" by ethnic group:


Percent with gun in house:

Finns 53.0
Dutch 50.9
American Indians 50.7
Scots 50.6
English/Welsh 50.2
French 49.9
Danes 49.7
Germans 49.2
Swiss 48.4
Norwegians 47.9
Belgians 47.4
Swedes 46.5
Czechs 45.3
Irish 45.2

USA 40.9

French Canadians 39.7
Hungarians 39.3
Austrians 39.0
Yugoslavs 38.1
Poles 32.8
Italians 30.5
Blacks 28.9
Portuguese 28.4
Mexicans 24.5
Japanese 23.8
Lithuanians 24.4
Greeks 23.8
Arabs 21.3
Russians 19.9
Filipinos 14.0
Jews 13.3
Indians 11.7
Chinese 10.0
Puerto Ricans 9.1
West Indians 7.0

It looks like northern and western Europeans have the highest rates, while eastern Europeans and various non-white groups are toward the bottom. This reflects the orientation toward hunting and target shooting. Notice how Amerindians are an exception among non-whites: their rural status and hunting heritage probably explain the pattern. You might expect urban folks to have high possession rates for self-defense purposes, but just the opposite is true. Looks at Jews, for example. I'm sure urban rates of pistol ownership (as opposed to rifles and shotguns) are higher.

On the Virginia Tech. massacre: Pop quiz--name as many female mass murderers as you can in 30 seconds--go....I'm still waiting. The libs are already calling for LaPierre's head on a platter. Funny thing is that women have as much access to guns as men. Did I miss all the stories of the Sally Slaughterers?

I saw two chicks fighting, and it was not a turn-on: Stopping to get gas the other day, I saw two women duking it out--one black, one Hispanic. I never did learn what the issue was, but the poor Mex-Am women's face looked like hamburger, while the black women was untouched and ready for more. Luckily, another man beat me to the scene, because I sized up the black woman and wondered if she could to take me.

Maybe you're thinking to yourself that this Ron guy is a real wuss to think twice about stepping between these two women, but maybe you don't know the facts: a black woman and a white man are in the same ballpark in terms of violence. It wasn't that long ago that adult black women killed at higher rates than white men. The former's rates have come down, perhaps due to high incarceration rates for drugs. But even the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics puts black females only a bit below Joe Six-Pack:


Homicides per 100,000 population

Black men 38.0
White men 5.6
Black women 3.9
White female 0.8

So tell me--which two groups are most similar here: it ain't the women or the men. And it wasn't just size that gave the black girl the advantage. She knew how to fight.

I was so disgusted after I witnessed this. These were not teenagers. They probably have families to take care of. If any foreign tourists had been there, I would have been ashamed. Call me old-fashioned, but it's particularly disturbing to see two women acting like cave men.

Black atheists think cheating on taxes is okay: Today marks the beginning of the second year of this blog. Last April 15th, I showed that, of all American ethnic groups, Puerto Ricans are most likely to think that cheating on your taxes is not wrong. This year let's see if this attitude varies with belief in God. Using the General Social Survey (which I have done about 250 times in the past year), I calculated the mean score for thinking cheating on taxes is wrong. Respondents were given a 1 for "not wrong" and a 4 for "very wrong."


"Cheating on taxes is wrong" mean score--whites

Doesn't believe 3.20
No way to find out 3.05
Some higher power 3.01
Believes sometimes 2.98
Believes but doubts 3.01
Knows God exists 3.23
All whites 3.14


"Cheating on taxes is wrong" mean score--blacks

Doesn't believe 2.11
Now way to find out 2.71
Some higher power 2.92
Believes sometimes 3.11
Believes but doubts 2.82
Knows god exists 3.01
All blacks 2.96


First, there is an overall racial difference. Blacks are probably more likely to see nothing wrong with cheating the system since many of them believe it is designed to victimize them. A common belief among blacks is, "Are you going to be a predator or the prey?"

Black and white atheists are very different. White non-believers are the second-most moral, while black atheists have the lowest mean. This suggests that whites in this category are the principled type and that blacks are the nihilist type.

As I showed in previous post, among whites, atheists and confident believers have the most positive answers. They seem to have unambiguous views in general: being dishonest with taxes is not a little bit wrong, it's very wrong; I'm not kind of happy, I'm happy. Those with squishy views in one area seem to be squashy in another area.

Mexicans have the worst English-speaking abilities of all immigrant groups: Long-term assimilation aside, immigration creates the immediate problem in America of people not being able to communicate with each other. This is not true in all cases: some immigrants speak English better than native-born American do. So which immigrant groups reduce the problem, and which groups add to it?

The General Social Survey's measure of IQ is based on a vocabulary test, and for immigrants it serves as an indication of their English-speaking abilities. The following shows the mean score for each immigrant group:


Mean English-speaking ability (expressed like IQ):

English/Welsh 112.4
Irish 103.0
Scots 102.6

Native-born Americans 99.3

Germans 98.4
Poles 97.4
Indians 95.4
Filipinos 95.3
Spanish 94.4

All immigrants 92.1

Italians 90.0
Africans 90.0
Russians 89.9
Chinese 86.5
Puerto Ricans 80.5
Mexicans 80.3

English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish immigrants speak English better than Americans do. On the other end, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have, by far, the lowest scores, and since they are also large groups, they make a big contribution to the Tower of Babel problem.

Let me give a personal example of the situation: On my way home from teaching night class, there is only one grocery store that is along my route home. All of the sections and the food in the store are labeled in Spanish, and only occasionally do the managers bother to also label items in English. Most of the stock is geared toward Mexican tastes, and even though the store is large, it does not always carry what I am looking for, and it's not like I'm hunting for exotic items. The problem is much worse for whites and blacks who do not understand Spanish like I do. I can't imagine that folks don't complain, but there it is.

Adults schools are an example of how this language problem costs taxpayers. In my city, there are a number of campuses that offer free courses in English to all immigrants. They get to learn the language of success, and I get to pay for it.

Update: Joe Guzzardi writes about his 20 years of experience with immigrants who don't want to learn English at the adult school where he has been a teacher.

Latinos are most likely to drive drunk: Last Thursday, Geraldo and O'Reilly practically started throwing punches over Bill's coverage of a Mexican illegal who killed two people while driving drunk. Mustache-From-Hell claimed that there was no story there, so the only reason to cover it was racial animosity.

Well, USA Today seems to think the Hispanic angle on drunk driving is worth covering:


Anti-drunken-driving efforts aimed at Latinos

"North Carolina is trying to combat a major problem among young Hispanic men drawn to the state by plentiful jobs: drunken-driving rates two to three times as high as those of other groups.

"According to the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, 7.04% of Hispanic drivers involved in crashes in the state in 2005 were suspected of driving while intoxicated. That compares with 2.82% of whites in crashes and 2.29% of African-Americans, according to Eric Rodgman, a researcher at the center. Most of the Hispanics involved in crashes are young men, he says.

"Many of them have left their family, church and social networks behind when they come to the USA to work, and they sometimes drink to combat loneliness, says Antonio Asion, public safety director for El Pueblo, a non-profit Hispanic advocacy group in Raleigh." More...

Old people don't like diversity: The other day, Steve Sailer wrote a VDare piece that included, among other things, the idea that many white college-age students long to get away from their boring surroundings to more ethnically diverse and thus more exciting environments. He then wondered in the comments section if a desire for diversity peaks during that age. Well, the General Social Survey doesn't interview children, but we can look at 18 plus. People were asked about the ethnic changes that will happen in the next 25 years, and their answers ranged from a very good thing (=1) to a very bad thing (=5). (Notice how everyone assumes the changes are inevitable, like they have already happened.) Here are the mean scores by age for whites:


"The growing diversity is bad" mean score--whites

Ages 18-25, 2.87
26-35, 2.91
36-45, 2.99
46-55, 2.95
56-65, 3.07
66-75, 3.25
76-85, 3.17


So, enthusiasm for diversity declines with age, especially from the mid-50s on. But I'm not sure if the correct interpretation here is that getting older turns you into a conservative, or if multi-culti messages have found fertile ground in impressionable youths. I suspect that the experience of having children turns many people's minds to safety issues, and what once looked stimulating now looks scary.

O'Reilly v. Rivera: Did you guys see the shouting match between O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera over illegal immigration? I didn't realize that elites were this passionate about the issue. You gotta see it to believe it. For Rivera, it's racist to express any concern over people being here illegally.

Mexican immigrants are the most anti-Semitic: Surveys show that most Jews are immigration enthusiasts. Critics argue that America is importing a lot of people who are tilting the country in an anti-Semitic direction. But not all immigrant groups are equal. Let's see what light the General Social Survey can shed on this question. People were asked how much they liked Israel with answers ranging from 0 for "like very much" to 9 for "dislike very much." It's not the perfect measure of anti-Semitism, but it's the best I could find with an adequate sample size. Here are the mean scores for immigrants from each country (or region):


Anti-Israel mean score

Mexico 4.55
Africa 4.45
Germany 4.25
China 3.87
Italy 3.87

All Immigrants 3.84

Puerto Rico 3.84
England/Wales 3.58
Spain 3.06


As some people have suggested, Mexicans are anti-Israel, as are Africans. The sample sizes for many countries are too small to list estimates, but Europe, even Eastern Europe, is generally pro-Israel. (Eastern Europeans are probably pro-Israel because many immigrants are Jewish). Japanese and Indian immigrants are anti-Israel, as is the small sample of Arabs. There is a correlation between being a white immigrant and being pro-Israel: white immigrants average 3.73; blacks, 4.20; and others, 3.90.

Those who sometimes believe in God are the least happy: Does believing in God contribute to happiness, unhappiness, or is it neutral? Here are the mean sadness score from the General Social Survey (1=very happy, 2=pretty happy, 3=not too happy):

Mean Sadness Score--Whites

Doesn't believe 1.79
No way to find out 1.88
Some higher power 1.77
Believes sometimes 1.93
Believes but doubts 1.82
Knows God exists 1.73


Mean Sadness Score--Blacks

Doesn't believe 1.86
No way to find out 2.00
Some higher power 2.04
Believes sometimes 2.26
Believes but doubts 2.08
Knows God exists 1.97

These numbers echo my earlier analysis that it isn't so healthy to be squishy on these issues. Emile Durkheim argued that it is a pathological condition to have Socrates' outlook: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

Some might think that atheists would be miserable, but they are the happiest black group, and the third happiest white group. The differences are not large, but they are statistically significant.

Intelligence and mental illness: Let's examine the old idea that smart people are more likely to have mental problems. Nietzsche went crazy, right--among others? The GSS asked people if they have ever had a mental illness, and here are their mean IQs:


Mean IQs--Whites

Mental illness 109.9
No mental illness 101.3


Mean IQs--Blacks

Mental Illness 100.1
No mental illness 94.4


For blacks and whites, those reporting having had a mental illness have higher average IQs. Once again, the data presented on this blog have a way of supporting stereotypes. Now, some will inevitably claim that smart people will admit their illness while less intelligent people won't, but you must admit the differences are quite large.

Inequality and Crime

Class differences are bread and butter for sociologists: what would they have to study without it? I found the above chart on the New York Times' website today, which focuses on the recent increase in income inequality, but also shows a gap that has been increasing since 1980. According to sociologists, the growing chasm should lead to Armageddon. Well, it's been more than 25 years, but I'm not sure that American society is less stable now than in the 70s. One indicator of instability--street crime--rose in the 70s and peaked around 1980. It should be peaking now if sociological theory were correct. On the other hand, the number of people incarcerated is MUCH higher now, so perhaps our get-tough policies are keeping a lid on the social chaos.

The Drunken Deist: General Social Survey respondents were asked if they sometimes drink too much. I looked to see if this varies with belief in God and church attendance:

Percent that drink too much

1. I don't believe in God. (34.0)
2. I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out. (40.9)
3. I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. (46.8)
4. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others. (43.6)
5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. (40.9)
6. I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. (27.3)

1. Never attends religious services. (47.3)
2. Less than once a year. (44.1)
3. Once a year. (46.4)
4. Several times a year (38.1)
5. Once a month (39.0)
6. 2-3 times a month (32.8)
7. Nearly every week (28.1)
8. Every week (24.4)
8. More than once a week (12.8)

In terms of beliefs, the confident folks seem to have the least problem with drinking. The atheists and especially the non-doubters have the lowest numbers. The people who are not sure, as well as the group who don't believe in a personal God, are most likely to be drunks. This suggests that having conflicted or vague beliefs, or perhaps a wavering personality, may not be healthy.

The pattern is even clearer with church attendance. The more often you go, the less likely to drink too much.

Switching religions: Which religions best retain their adherents, and when people exit, where do they most often go? As usual, the General Social Survey provides answers when we get curious. Respondents were asked about the religion of their childhood, and about their current choice. Below I list the childhood religion and below that the percent distributions of their current status:


Current Religion (%)--Protestant at 16

Protestant 88.3
Catholic 3.2
Jewish .1
None 6.7
Other 1.1
Buddhist .1
Christian .2
Interdenominational .2


Current Religion (%)--Catholic at 16

Protestant 10.7
Catholic 78.7
Jewish .3
None 8.4
Other 1.1
Christian .4
Interdenominational .2


Current Religion (%)--Jewish at 16

Protestant 3.0
Catholic 1.6
Jewish 84.0
None 10.1
Other .9
Buddhist .3


Current Religion (%)--None at 16

Protestant 36.3
Catholic 7.4
Jewish 1.3
None 51.1
Other 2.4
Buddhist .2
Hindu .1
Other Eastern .2
Muslim .1
Orthodox .1
Christian .9
Interdenominational .2


Current religion (%)--Buddhist at 16

Protestant 13.7
Catholic 7.8
Jewish 2.0
None 17.6
Other 2.0
Buddhist 52.9
Other Eastern 2.0
Christian 2.0


Current religion (%)--Hindu at 16

Protestant 3.8
None 15.4
Hindu 76.9
Muslim 3.8


Current religion (%)--Muslim at 16

Catholic 1.8
None 14.5
Hindu 5.5
Other Eastern 1.8
Muslim 74.5
Christian 1.8


Current religion (%)--Orthodox at 16

Protestant 12.5
Catholic 4.7
None 10.9
Orthodox 71.9


Current religion (%)--Christian at 16

Protestant 18.3
Catholic 2.5
None 18.3
Other 1.7
Buddhist .8
Orthodox .8
Christian 56.7
Interdenominational .8


Current religion (%)--Mormon at 16

Mormon 97
None 3

Current religion (%)--Jehovah's Witness at 16

Jehovah's Witness 50
None 50


Current religion (%)--Seventh-Day Adventist at 16

Seventh-Day Adventist 88
Catholic 6
None 6


Current religion (%)--Pentecostal at 16

Pentecostal 96
None 4


Whew, that was a lot of typing. So what conclusions can we draw here? Well, the percent remaining Protestant exaggerates stability since some are changing from one Protestant denomination to another. On the other hand, even if there is some movement these numbers don't show, it is not usually movement to a completely different religion. (I'm sure most of the movement is from mainline to evangelical). It looks to me like Jews hold onto their own better than any other faith (84%) with Catholics coming in second (79%). Now, you might respond that Mormons are at 97% and some of these other small, new religions seem to have very high rates of retention. The problem is that sample sizes are so small, we simply can't conclude anything with confidence. I do think it's very interesting, however, that Jehovah's Witnesses lose half according to these numbers. If I grew up not celebrating my birthday or Christmas, I might want to make a change too. (Another reason to proceed with caution is that when respondents were asked about their current religion, only Protestant was given as a response choice for all these different groups, so I had to assume, for example, that someone who was a Mormon at 16 and a "Protestant" now had not changed religions. Is that clear as mud?) It's also interesting that among these small, intense religions, if someone does exit the faith, they usually don't replace it with something else. I suspect that being raised in this kind of religion convinces you that all other religions are unattractive.

More than others, Jews become people with no religion--a function of high IQ, I imagine. (The number might be higher for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox, and Christians if we trust the small samples). About half of those raised with no religion join some church, a plurality becoming Protestant. This is probably due to numbers: if people usually convert through the influence of friends and significant others (I wince at the use of that term) and you form these relationships through proximity, well you bump into Protestants more often than anyone else.

There are other interesting patterns here, but this post is getting long, so sniff around if you feel like it, and let me know if you'd like me to look at related questions.

We need the right kind of SOB: According to Derbyshire, Guiliani is just the kind of SOB we need. I'm all for electing an SOB, but the real issue is where one points his SOB-ness. I can see Rudy being a real a-hole (AH) with terrorists, but he is going to turn warm-and-fuzzy on many issues conservatives care about. Guiliani in a sentimental voice: "Undocumented workers make this country better...This is a great nation of immigrants." Said with the sweetness of a househusband: "We don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions." Wearing a dress like when he was on SNL: "Guns are scary...Why would anyone want to carry one for protection? You'll hurt someone with that thing." And wearing chartreuse pants and a black polka-dot shirt: "Homosexuals have the right to love each other too."

More on Mex-Ams: You'd think I made it up. I'm interested in ethnic differences and am concerned about too-rapid Mexican immigration. For a long time, I've long suspected that Mex-Ams are not quite the angels immigration enthusiasts claim they are. Browsing General Social Survey (GSS) questions just now, I wondered about two personality traits that many Americans seem to value: optimism and unselfishness. It turns out that these traits are least frequent among Mex-Ams. Look:


Percent pessimistic

Mexicans 38.0
Blacks 24.5
Italians 23.5
Germans 22.9
American Indians 22.8
Irish 19.4
England/Welsh 13.0
Scots 12.7


Percent selfish

Mexicans 19.5
Germans 17.2
English/Welsh 13.0
Blacks 12.2
Italians 9.8
Irish 9.1
Scots 6.4
American Indians 6.2

These image-breaking stats keep popping up. Mex-Ams are thought to exemplify conservative values--familism and industriousness, for example--but the GSS and other surveys have revealed that this group has many comparatively undesirable characteristics: criminality; gang proliferation; indifference to education; big government and pro-censorship values; indifference to the environment; lack of cleanliness; marital and relationship instability; female infidelity; "race" consciousness and ethnocentrism; school misbehavior--need I continue?

Like an oily used car salesman, the open borders crowd has sold us a lemon. At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, the hustle might continue to dupe, but readers of this blog at least know their getting screwed. I don't know about you, but I don't like to sleep through a good screwing.

Seeing oneself as white faciliates assimilation: I sometimes treat American Hispanic groups as if they are all the same, but some are much more assimilated than others. Educational attainment is a nice indicator of just how far a person has entered the cultural mainstream, so using the American Community Survey I looked at mean educational levels of the different Latino groups. I wish the scores made more sense: a 7 means 12 years of education, a 6 is 11 years, and a 5 is 10 years.


Mean education score (percent white in parentheses)

Argentinean 6.80 (87.9)
Venezuelan 6.77 (74.8)
Chilean 6.63 (78.1)
Peruvian 6.55 (62.1)

Not Hispanic 6.50 (84.1)

Panamanian 6.52 (42.6)
Spaniard 6.41 (81.4)
Bolivian 6.38 (72.5)
South American 6.37 (69.8)
Columbian 6.35 (71.5)
Costa Rican 6.24 (68.5)
Cuban 6.22 (86.9)
Uruguayan 6.11 (86.6)
Ecuadorian 5.98 (57.9)
Nicaraguan 5.88 (65.0)
Central American 5.56 (44.7)
Puerto Rican 5.47 (57.8)
Dominican 5.31 (36.3)
Honduran 5.13 (54.6)
Mexican 4.82 (58.8)
Guatemalan 4.76 (51.4)
Salvadoran 4.76 (52.3)

As you can see, four South American groups are higher than the non-Hispanic average. (Keep in mind that non-Hispanics are older which lowers the mean, and the mean is further reduced by inclusion of blacks). My favorite group, Mexicans, along with two Central American countries, are at the bottom. Caribbean groups are also on the bottom half. Evidently, educational levels tend to be higher among people who've come from more distant Latin American countries.

I suspected that greater numbers of white Hispanics would assimilate, so I calculated the percent in each group that is white (shown in parentheses). Race is self-described, and it is clear that, unlike with some other minority groups, there is a bias to see oneself as white. I take this as a good sign that many Latinos identify with mainstream American society. I calculated the Pearson correlation between mean educational score and percent white: it's .62. This squares with the idea that, in general, being white faciliates assimilation in American society. Or more accurately, seeing oneself as white, rather than being seen as white, facilitates assimilation.

The gang nightmare: VDare.com just posted a piece by Steve Sailer on the growing Hispanic gang problem. Among many items, he describes how California has been exporting gangs to the rest of country. A few months ago I was talking to a professor who had participated in a study of gangs in Denver. Now, Denver would not be the first city to come to mind as a gang capital. Chicago, yes, but when I think of Denver, hip ski bums come to mind. According to the study, FIFTY PERCENT of adolescent male Hispanics belong to a gang. Folks, gangbanging is becoming NORMATIVE behavior for these kids. Estimates put gang members nationwide at close to 1 million, and more than half of that is Latino. Their latest strategy is to spread their crews to Indian reservations. In the past, gangs were basically limited to big cities, but now they've even made it to the reservation--a place most whites can't find with a map. This is a tidal wave, I'm telling you.

In my own classes, Hispanic students clearly feel some kind of weird identification with these gangs. Many seem to be saying: the life is cool, but I don't want to end up dead or in prison (or dead in prison), as if the only reason not to join is the impracticality of it.

I'm sure people passing through this website think that I have some irrational dislike of Latinos, but my criticisms are intellectual. My personal interactions with Hispanics have been 98% positive, but you begin to wonder about policy when your country goes from 100,000 gang members to one million in 20 years, and most of the growth is driven by immigration and Hispanic communities.

Let me say the words again, if you missed it before: FIFTY PERCENT. I'll use Will Ferrell's words from Talledega Nights: "What does that do? Does that blow your mind? That just happened."

Are whites the sicko criminals?

The New York Times reported that Lorenzo Gulyard of Kansas City was convicted today of murdering 6 prostitutes in the 80s. (They don't show his photo, but I found this one).

Black criminality is so conspicuous in American society, people have hunted around to find some kind of terrible behavior that whites specialize in. Serial killings have been a great one to latch onto. For example, I have heard black comedians say something like: "Us black folks might get violent once in a while, but when whites kill, they go apeshit." According to research by Eric Hickey, 20% of American serial killers have been black. That figure is two times their historical share of the U.S. population.

People also push the idea that it's whites who are the child molesters, and they put this all together to say that non-whites commit the cool crimes like gangbanging, while whites commit sicko crimes. But not only is the serial killer stereotype incorrect, so is the one of the white pedophile. While it is true that, according to the oft-quoted 1991 survey of state prisoners, almost 70% of those convicted for violence against children are white males, people conveniently forget that this number corresponds roughly to their share of the total male population. It's a bit of a stretch to say, you guys are the child molesters because you equal the rates of other groups.

IQ and alcoholism: I'm interested in the moral character of smart people, so I took a look at the IQs of drunks, using GSS data. People were asked if they have a drinking problem. Here are their mean IQs.


Mean IQ

Whites
Has a drinking problem 98.3
Does not 103.1

Blacks
Has a drinking problem 86.2
Does not 93.2

For whites and blacks, alcoholics are less intelligent. Ideas about why?

There is a "God Gap"...for whites and Mex-Ams, anyway: Razib links to a survey which reports that the "God Gap" between Democrats and Republicans is not as large as is conventionally thought. The survey fails to discuss differences by race, so let's help them out. I'll cut to the chase and only look at how often people go to church, and how they vote. If they attend religious services at least once a month, I categorized them as religious. The General Social Survey does not have voting behavior more recent than the 2000 presidential race.


Percent religious

Whites
Gore 40.5
Bush 58.8
Nader 21.8

Blacks
Gore 74.0
Bush 75.0

Mexicans
Gore 49.0
Bush 73.8

Church attendence differentiates white voters (especially Nader fans from the rest) and it differentiates Mex-Ams even more. On the other hand, African American Gore voters are just as religious and three blacks who voted for Bush. When I addressed previously the question about what does differentiate black GOP from Democrat voters, the only thing I found was that men are more often Republicans. (I don't present Nader numbers for the two minority groups since sample sizes are too small).

While there are differences here, people like Ann Coulter who say that Democrats are godless exaggerate wildly, even if speaking of whites: two-fifths of whites, one-half of Mexicans, and three-quarters of blacks who voted in 2000 for Gore go to church at least once a month.

The least intelligent region in America: In an earlier post, I used the General Social Survey (GSS) to show that mean IQ is lowest (94.2) in the East South Central Division, which includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Now, part of the reason for the low average is that a large number of blacks live in the region: 22% of the total population, according to the GSS. In the table shown below, the black mean in the region is 87.5, almost 10 points lower than for whites. But the white IQ is also below-average (96.1), so the question arises whether this low mean is due to smart people leaving for higher-opportunity regions. Here are the numbers:


Mean IQ--East South Central Division

Total 94.2
White 96.1
Black 87.5
Other 99.4

Whites
Stayers 91.2
Leavers 99.6
Comers 101.4

Blacks
Stayers 87.4
Leavers 89.2
Comers 87.4

It doesn't surprise me that whites who move out are smarter than the stayers, but it is a bit of a surprise that whites who have moved into that part of the country are just as smart as the leavers (in fact a bit smarter) and are almost as numerous (14.1% of the total regional population versus 16.6%). So, basically the leavers and the comers cancel each other out in terms of IQ. Those who move out lower the IQ, only to have it raised to the previous level by those moving in. This, by the way, is the same thing I saw when I looked at New England in the earlier post.

The pattern for blacks is also a surprise. Stayers are about as smart as leavers or comers. So blacks, as a group, don't appear to move because their brains would profit them more in another region.

Smart, white, conservative men to the rescue again: I just can't think of very many political values that I cherish more than free speech. So I decided to run a multiple regression with General Social Survey data to identify folks who are its weakest supporters. For my dependent variable, I chose whether or not you favored allowing a racist to speak in public (1 for yes, 0 for no).

Here are the standardized coefficients, from strongest to weakest:


Standardized Coefficients

IQ .15
Years of education .12
Frequency of church attendance -.11
Being a woman -.07
Politically liberal -.05
Being black -.04
Income .03

So, a free speecher is likely to be smart, educated, non-churchgoing, male, conservative, white, and wealthy. The first three are especially important. Generally, I like churchy people, but I suppose they do have an authoritarian streak. But look how it's the libs who want to shut people up. And I'm not surprised that the mommies want to wash our mouths out with soap for saying bad words.

"The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think."
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

IQ and living in New England: According to the General Social Survey, New England has the highest average IQ. Now, is this due to the intelligence of those born there, or those who have moved in? Let's call those who were born in New England and have stayed there "stayers"; those who were born there and left after age 16 for another region "leavers"; and those who lived in another region at age 16 and later moved to New England "comers." Here are the means of the three groups:


Mean IQ

Stayers, 102.8
Comers, 109.5
Leavers, 107.8

Stayers and comers, 104.3
Stayers and leavers, 104.0

So, both comers and and leavers are smarter than stayers, but they essentially cancel each other out. New England is more intelligent than other regions because their stayers are smarter than the stayers in other regions, plus the smart people they lose are replaced with smart peoplle who move in.

Sailer's true identity revealed: I was reading the post on Steve Sailer's website about how he has been banned by Kmart. At first, I was mad about it, then I began looking at his name, and all of a sudden it was as if God parted the clouds, and a brilliant light shone through. I saw in my mind the letters of his name rearranged into two new words, and they were--don't be afraid--Sielver Saten! Now you might think that this is not spelled right, but isn't that exactly the kind of thing that the Devil would do? But why Silver Satan? Well, silver means second place, so put 2 and 2 together: Steve Sailer is Lucifer's wingman! And, and, he has a beard, right? I'll bet a stack of dollar bills that his hair is not naturally curly: he does that to hide the horns.