Atheists and liberalism

I was curious if atheists might have moved right politically in the past decade. Here are the percentages of atheists who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate minus the percent of the general population who did (GSS data):

Eighties +16.8 (n = 56)
Nineties +20.7 (n = 121)
Last decade +12.3 (n = 191)

Atheists are still more liberal than the overall population, but perhaps a little less so nowadays. On the other hand, I suspect they have gotten more liberal on social issues. Here is the percent who think a women should be able to get an abortion for any reason minus the percent for the total population:

Nineties +34.1 (n = 96)
Last decade +36.0 (n = 103)
This decade +44.7 (n = 41)

Atheists are more socially liberal than generally liberal, and this appears to be on the increase. They have reached the Jewish level of lifestyle liberalism.

Personality traits and academic achievement

One practical use of research on IQ and personality is deciding how much to invest in a child's education. If it is clear he is going to be an average student, public school might be all he needs. If an ordinary school is not going to maximize his potential, spending a lot of money for a better one makes sense. I never attended anything but public schools and was rarely challenged. (Let's not even get into the fact that my mind was conditioned into a naturalistic view of the world from the earliest grades. That's a subject for another post.)

We all know that IQ is highly predictive of academic success, but HBD-ers should not fall into the trap of believing it is everything. Personality traits matter as well.

This new study published in Personality and Individual Differences reports that conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness, and grit (or perserverance) all predict academic achievement. The reasons seems obvious enough except for agreeableness. I suspect that disagreeable students are punished academically for being less cooperative. 

UPDATE: I forgot to list negative emotionality. It lowers academic achievement. Being controlled by anger, depression, and anxiety, I'm sure, impairs function in many areas.

Since I'm already setting off anti-Christian readers, I'll get one more item off my chest. There's a meme floating around which is Internet crankery; the idea that Jesus was not a real person. The belief is based on outdated history from about a century ago. Mainstream historians--many of them non-believers--today agree he was a real person.

Encyclopedia Britannica popped into my head as a random encyclopedia, so I looked up "Jesus Christ." It says, "Jesus, also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth (born c. 6–4 bc, Bethlehem—died c. ad 30, Jerusalem)... He was born a Jew in Bethlehem before the death of Herod the Great in 4 bc, and he died while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea (ad 28–30)."

By contrast, the same encyclopedia uses words like "flourished during early 2nd millenium"  for Abraham or "flourished 14th–13th century bc" for Moses where there might be some question about whether these were actual individuals.

Mex-Am fertility is now driving their growth

Here's a good analysis by Pew which shows that even if the U.S. closed its border today, we would still see amazing growth in the Mexican-American population since their age structure is so young, and since they have so many babies--especially immigrant parents. (They don't mention shorter generations, but that is part of the story as well). (Just last night, I took my wife to the ER for a kidney stone and sat next to a Mex-Am mom with six kids. Don't tell me a little Hispanic women has no power.)

The authors project that, based on current trends, Hispanics will be 29 percent of the total population by mid-century. That is more than double the size of any other ethnic group. Add blacks and Jews, and you're--what--about 45 percent of the country. That means that conservatives will have to get the vote of just about every non-Jewish white person to win elections. Given the white proclivity for self-destruction, good luck with that.

I'm not a moral philosopher, but I can't resist a word concerning the first anonymous comments in the last post. (Thanks for your indulgence. The next post will return to our regularly scheduled un-PC data analysis.)

The model of God as a non-transcendent boss man who capriciously makes up moral rules is clearly incorrect. God is a transcendent being, outside space and time. He does not create morality. It is a necessary part of His essence, His nature. Objective goodness/morality that humans--even atheists--intuit (imperfectly) is in the nature of God.

Physical laws offer a nice analogy. The laws that compel matter and energy to behave in certain ways are in the nature of the universe. Similarly, the moral laws that obligate human behavior are in the nature of God.

My years as an atheist taught me how they think: "Let's fool ourselves and pretend that life has objective meaning, value, and morality."

IQ, SES, and incarceration

This graph is taken from a new study of more than 11,000 people. You can see that, while increasing SES  lowers the risk of incarceration only a little bit, increasing IQ lowers the risk sharply.

So much for the liberal claim that social class is everything.  

Blacks are disproportionately born-again

Think of a born-again Christian, and you probably imagine a white person. According to the GSS, blacks are much more likely to fall into that category. The figures look like this: 34 percent of whites, 62 percent of blacks--well over half--and 38 percent of Hispanics. (Keep in mind that born-agains belong to many different denominations. For example, 28 percent Hispanic Catholics say they had a "turning point in their lives when they committed themselves to Christ.") Blacks are an important reason why evangelicals are not uniformly conservative. The expanding Hispanic populaiton is liberalizing born-agains as well.

Liberal morality

Liberal smugness nauseates me when it doesn't make me laugh. Mocking Michelle Bachman's husband's clinic for treating men for homosexuality is just the latest example. (I'm not defending here the malleability view of some conservative Christians.)  We all know the liberal reasoning: Science has demonstrated that a homosexual orientation is genetic so, therefore, it is normal. The thinking that has gone into this talking point belies typical liberal shallowness.

First, twin studies have estimated the heritability for homosexual orientation to be well under 50 percent. Alcohol abuse, by contrast, is over .5. (If you're offended by my example, simply substitute shyness, negative emotionality or any of a very long list of traits.) To be consistent, liberals should be arguing that alcoholism is even more genetic than homosexuality and therefore should be enthusiastically embraced by society, and the notion of treatment is absurd.

Although they leave their beliefs unexamined, they consider alcoholism to be problematic because of the costs that it imposes on people. (Of course, many progressives still deny that genes are important for just about anything other than homosexual orientation.) Their morality is that sexual behaviors are good if people have a desire to do them, and nobody gets hurt. But that doesn't explain their discomfort with, for example, polygamy, prostitution, or bestiality, so throw in heavy doses of public image work (i.e., propaganda) done by cultural elites, and we have an moral-psychological explanation for why liberals equate biology with goodness in the case of homosexuality.

Liberals are blind to how their view of the goodness of homosexuality is at its base moral, not scientific. (One can very easily make that case that, assuming an evolution-based morality, homosexuality is pathological because it works against reproduction.) Conservative Christians are very open about their values. Liberals, on the other hand, delude themselves into thinking that their beliefs are science. Christians believe in an eternal objective morality. (Flawed humans don't apprehend it fully, but it is there nevertheless.) Progressives look to Hollywood for today's right and wrong. When I was a little boy, gay men were portrayed as villains in movies. Today they are saints and martyrs. Right and wrong change so quickly, I can't keep up. Elites change their minds so often, one begins to think they have no idea what they're talking about.     

Humans are messed up

I learned something about human psychology while watching Casablanca last night on TCM. Who is the most likeable character in that film? It's not clear to me whether it's Bogart's Rick or Claude Rain's Captain Renault. Bogart is, of course, the reluctant hero, but Renault is the charming knave. The idealistic resistance leader, Victor Laszlo, isn't even in the running. There is no preachy hypocrite in the story, but if there were, he would certainly be the villain.

So let's get this straight: We love a man who has no principles and flaunts the fact. We love a man who is cynical about ideals, but who affirms them in the end. At an emotional level, we are indifferent towards a man who has high ideals and lives by them without fail (a person who, by the way, is not found in real life). And we hate anyone who sings the praises of high principles, but who is inconsistent in following them.

I'm sorry, but humans are messed up.  Have we always been this way?

Black attitudes on race relations

The Survey of Chicago African Americans is a random sample of more than 700 people. Respondents were asked a number of questions about race relations.

Percent agreeing

"Is it more important - one, for schools in Black neighborhoods
to hire Black teachers OR two, for these schools to select the
most competent teachers regardless of race?"

Select the most competent 90.6

"Is it more important - one, for Blacks to build good relations
with Whites OR two, for Blacks to build pride and respect
for themselves, even if it means causing tension between Blacks
and Whites?

Build good relations 52.2

"Is it more important - one, to promote Black culture as a
separate culture OR two, to emphasize what Americans have
in common?

Emphasize common culture 75.1

"Is it more important - one, to help those who are worse off,
regardless of their color OR two, to concentrate on helping
Blacks?

Help regardless of color 93.1

"Is it more important - one, to promote racial harmony between
Blacks and Whites OR two, for Blacks to fight for their rights,
even if it means creating tension between Blacks and Whites?"

Promote racial harmony 68.1

"As things now stand, is it more important to - one, treat
Blacks and whites the same OR two, to first overcome the
effects of past discrimination?

Treat Blacks and Whites the same 62.7

"To make real progress in achieving equality, is it better for Blacks - one, to work together with whites OR two, to work together mostly with other Blacks?

Work together with whites? 83.7

"In general, do you think it's better for people of different
races - one, to keep to themselves as much as possible OR
two, to live and work together so they can learn to understand
each other?"

Live and work together 98.7

Blacks should always vote for Black candidates when
they run for an elected office?"

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 19.2

"Blacks are better off living with other Blacks in Black neighborhoods rather than living with whites?"

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 18.4

"Black people should shop in stores owned by other Blacks whenever possible?"
 
Agree (strongly or somewhat) 59.5

"Blacks should have control over the economy
in mostly Black communities?"

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 62.2

"African wise men who lived hundreds of years
ago do not get enough credit for their contributions to
modern science?"

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 84.3

"The Ancient Greek philosophers copied many
ideas from Black philosophers who lived in Egypt?"

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 75.1

 
The numbers indicate that most blacks want to be integrated with whites, but they do not feel that they are respected as much as they should be. They are not equal to whites in business so they are willing to abandon color blindness when it comes to buying from black businesses and having blacks control business in their own neighborhoods.

The large number of blacks who do not feel they get enough credit for their scholarly and scientific achievements reveals their desperation to feel intellectually equal to whites.  Mythical black philosophers are invented who are smarter than those thieving Greeks--Plato and Aristotle. George Washington Carver has not been given his proper place next to Isaac Newton. The psychological hang-up that needs to be treated is not white prejudice but the black inferiority complex.

How about some reality therapy? To all black folks: 1) don't focus so much on the assessment of groups; focus on yourself as an individual; and 2) if you're going to focus on groups, relax--music, singing, dancing, sports and charisma aren't enough? Do you have to be good at everything?

Belief in God and MPQ Traits

The Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) is an alternative to the Big 5. In the analyses that I have conducted, MPQ traits have been more predictive of outcomes than the Big 5. I calculated means for atheists, agnostics, those with no religious preference, and all others (sample size = 3,946). 

Mean MPQ scores

Well-being
No religious preference 8.76
Atheist 9.07
Agnostic 9.13
Others 8.99

Social Potency (likes to take charge)
No religious preference 10.29
Atheist 10.73
Agnostic 10.60
Others 10.20

Achievement
No religious preference 12.18
Atheist 12.61 
Agnostic 12.35
Others 12.25

Social Closeness (likes to be with others)
No religious preference 11.03*
Atheist 10.71*
Agnostic 10.32*
Others 11.94

Reactivity (easily upset)
No religious preference 6.30
Atheist 5.17*
Agnostic 6.62
Others 6.19

Aggression (confrontational)
No religious preference 5.74*
Atheist 5.40
Agnostic 5.53
Others 5.38

Alienation (life is unfair to me)
No religious preference 5.21
Atheist 4.21*
Agnostic 4.72
Others 5.14

Control (plans before acting)
No religious preference 9.45*
Atheist 9.56
Agnostic 9.47
Others 9.79

Traditionalism
No religious preference 6.75*
Atheist 4.88*
Agnostic 5.53*
Others 8.66

Harm avoidance
No religious preference 11.57*
Atheist 9.93*
Agnostic 11.07*
Others 12.13

*significantly different from "Others" group


Compared to people who have a religion, those with no preference are significantly less social, more confrontational, less planful, much less traditional, and more danger-seeking. The image that emerges here is a lone rebel.

Turning to atheists, they are less social, less likely to get upset, less likely to think life is unfair to them, much less traditional, and more danger-seeking. Atheists seem like a milder version of those with no preference: solitary, danger-seeking, anti-traditionals who are not confrontational, who plan ahead, and who don't think the world has given them a raw deal. 

Agnostics are less social, less traditional, and more danger-seeking. All three non-religious categories have three traits is common: they don't like people as well; they really dislike tradition and authority; and they like risk more than others.

I don't see any necessary connection between disbelief and anti-traditionalism--I certainly did not dislike religion or tradition when I was a skeptic--but they are psychologically like oil and water.

The depravity of men

The Casey Anthony trial has revealed the depravity of men. I don't mean the depravity of Man, or the depravity of women. I mean the depravity of men. While watching the coverage, all I could think was, "Okay, so she's a child-killing psychopath; I'd still do her."

(Honestly, I should drop the last letter to get: "The depravity of me.")

The GSS samples a disproportionate number of females

Folks who use General Social Survey (GSS) data should know that, except for the first year of the survey--1972--the sample has always been lopsided toward women. GSS workers knock on doors during the daytime hours and are more likely to find women to interview.

The percent of the sample that is female is typically in the mid-to-high 50s; men are typically in the low-to-mid forties. NORC has evidently made no effort in almost 40 years to get a balanced sample.

Analysts should take this into account, especially when they generate national estimates that differ significantly by gender. For example, if you are estimating the percent of adult Americans who favor the death penalty, your figure will be low since men disproportionately support it but are underrepresented in the sample.  On many political attitudes, the country is a bit more conservative than the GSS indicates.

Calling for the murder of Republicans

Talking about the debt ceiling fight, Chris Matthews just called Republicans terrorists. Let's react to that statement like a liberal would. Americans respond to terrorists by killing them. Matthews has just called for the murder of Republicans.

What do those clever liberals call it--exterminationist language?

And this from a guy who was blaming Palin for the Arizona shooting days after it was clear that she had nothing to do with it.

Retards voted for Obama

It's the 4th: let's do a post that will bring everyone together.

Liberals like to pat themselves on the back for being the smart voters. They seem to think this proves that they are right. While various data analyses by HBD-ers like myself have shown that the claim of having higher IQs is a myth, GSS data indicate that, based on their way of reasoning, conservatives are right.

Of the 19 people surveyed in 2010 with IQs of 70 or lower, 14 or 74 percent voted for Obama. Sixty-one percent of the retarded sample voted for Kerry (n = 67). The most mentally limited Americans vote for liberals.

Only 25 percent of very religious Hispanics are Republicans

According to Gallup numbers, the hope that Evangelicals will gradually turn Hispanics into conservatives turns out to be wishful thinking. Only 25 percent of Hispanics who self-identify as very religious say they are Republicans. Compare that to the 62 percent of very religious whites. It's is probably safe to say that Latinos will never vote like whites.

Belief in God and drug use

TGGP asked about the relationship between belief in God and use of illicit drugs. Based on GSS data:

Percent who have used illegal drugs in the past year (sample size = 885)

Doesn't believe 13.6
No way to find out 9.5
Some higher power 4.7
Believes sometimes 6.7
Believes but doubts 1.8
Knows God exists 2.2
 
Compared to believers, atheists are six times as likely to have used drugs. (There are only 22 atheists in the sample, so the difference is not statistically significant. If we calculate the chi-square for the overall relationship between belief and drug use, it is statistically significant.) 
 

Religiosity and illegal drug use

A typical liberal refrain is that religious folks are just as bad a irreligious people; they're just hypocrites. Even religious types will sometimes say that many of their own behave badly because the church attracts people with problems.

GSS respondents were asked if they had used illegal drugs in the past year. Here are the percentages who answered yes by church attendance:

Percent who used illegal drugs in the past year (sample size = 2,323)

Never attends 8.9
Less than once a year 6.1
Once a year 8.7
Several times a year 5.3
Once a month 1.8*
Two or three times a month 3.3*
Nearly every week 1.5*
Every week 1.0*
More than once a week 1.8*

*significantly less than the "never attends" group


People who never go to church are five times as likely to use illegal drugs as people who attend more than once a week.

Sexual orientation and sexual satisfaction

MIDUS study participants were asked to rate their sex lives from 0 to 10. Here are the means (sample size = 3,729):

Mean sex life rating:

Straight men 5.35
Homosexual men 5.09
Straight women 4.91*
Female bisexuals 4.44
Male bisexuals 4.12
Lesbians 3.50*

*significantly lower than straight males

Straight men are the most satisfied; lesbians are the least. The gap between the highest and lowest groups is sixth-tenths of a standard deviation--a large difference. Women tend to give lower ratings, perhaps because they get less out of sex than men.

Lesbians and the Big Five

Following the method I used in the last post, I estimated the relationship between sexual orientation and the Big Five personality traits for women (sample size = 2,094):

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion .01
Negative emotionality .04*
Conscientiousness -.05*
Agreeableness -.03
Openness to experience .01

Compared to straight women, lesbians are more negatively emotional and less conscientious. Lower agreeableness falls just short of statistical significance.

Gay men and the Big 5

I looked at the relationship between sexual orientation and Big 5 personality traits. I included self-esteem as a control--results are not shown (sample size = 1,724):

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion .02
Negative emotionality .01
Conscientiousness -.01
Agreeableness .05*
Openness to experience .13*

Compared to straight men, gays are more agreeable and open to experience. Lesbians are next...

Predictors of getting cheated on

The MIDUS Study asked respondents if their spouse had ever been unfaithful. I wanted to identify respondent characteristics that predict this.

Logistic regression coefficients

Men (sample size = 717)

Extraversion .12
Negative emotionality -.02
Conscientiousness -.15
Agreeableness .40*
Openness to experience .01
Age -.03*
Social class .00
Religiosity -.27*
BMI .00

*statistically significant

Of the Big 5 personality traits, only being agreeable predicts being cheated on for men. Older men are less likely to have this happen, as are religious men. Body mass index has no predictive power.

Women (sample size = 850)

Extraversion -.11
Negative emotionality .01
Conscientiousness -.44*
Agreeableness -.03
Openness to experience .43*
Age .00
Social class .00
Religiosity -.14*
BMI .01

*statistically significant

For women, conscientiousness lowers the risk of being cheated on, while being open raises one's chances. The only other predictor that matters is religion: religious women are less likely to get cheated on.
 
By the way, my experience with the data is the same as that of Rodney Stark as described in What Americans Really Believe. Compared to each of the Big Five traits, religiosity is a more potent variable. It frequently predicts outcome measures more strongly. Add this to the finding that the heritability of religiosity is .5, and perhaps Stark is right that religiosity should be considered a major personality trait.

The wussification of America II

This graph shows trends in American attitudes toward spanking (GSS data). From 1986 to 2010, the percent disapproving or strongly disapproving (green and yellow) almost doubled from 17 percent to 31 percent. At this rate, we'll soon be joining the other countries that have banned corporal punishment.

The wussification of America

This graph shows the percent of U.S. households that have at least one firearm (GSS data). From 1973 to 2010, the figure has dropped from 48 to 32 percent. Over the period, ownership has fallen by one-third. This is another indicator of the country's move in a liberal direction.

Atheists who believe God created nature?

GSS respondents were asked whether they believed that: 1) nature is sacred because it was created by God; 2) nature is sacred in itself; or 3) nature is important, but not sacred (sample size = 3,505). Of the people who "know that God exists", 54 percent gave answer 1; 18 percent gave answer 2; and 28 percent answered number 3. In other words, most believers think nature is sacred because it is God's creation.

But here's the weird part: 13 percent of the 92 surveyed atheists said that nature is sacred because it was created by God. (Twenty-seven percent answered 2, and 60 percent answered 3). "Atheist" is defined as "not believing in God." Unless the 12 atheists who gave 1 for an answer are retarded (or perhaps there was some other type of miscommunication) they mean something else by "doesn't believe in God." I can imagine people interpreting the statement to mean "I don't follow or agree with God."

According to the GSS, only 2.6  percent of Americans say they do not believe in God. It might be the case that fewer actually do not believe in the existence of God.  

It's interesting too that atheists are less likely to give nature an elevated status. Sixty percent of them say that nature is important but not sacred, compared to 28 percent of believers. Perhaps a more secular term like "cherished" would have elicited more affirmative responses; perhaps atheists are less likely to give anything a really elevated value--I don't know.  

Jews and Big 5 traits

I estimated OLS models for Big Five personality traits with self-esteem and whether or not you are Jewish as predictors (sample size = 3,915--94 Jews):

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion
Jewish .03*
Self-esteem .40*

Negative emotionality
Jewish .04*
Self-esteem -.51*

Agreeableness
Jewish .02
Self-esteem .17*

Conscientiousness
Jewish .01
Self-esteem .37*

Openness to experience
Jewish .03*
Self-esteem .39*

Controlling for self-esteem, Jews are significantly more extraverted, negatively emotional, and open to experience. They are not more conscientious or disagreeable (as I thought they would be).

By the way, Jews do not differ from others in self-esteem.

Episcopalians, self-esteem, and Big Five personality traits

Using MIDUS data, I estimated OLS regression models with Big 5 personality traits as dependent variables and self-esteem and whether or not the respondent is an Episcopalian as predictors (sample = 3,915--93 Episcopalians):

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion
Episcopalian .00
Self-esteem .41*

Negative emotionality
Episcopalian .00
Self-esteem -.51*

Conscientiousness
Episcopalian .00 
Self-esteem .37*

Agreeableness
Episcopalian -.02
Self-esteem .17*

Open to experience
Episcopalian .04*
Self-esteem .39*

*statistically significant

In spite of being an elite religious group, Episcopalians do not differ from others except that they are a little bit more open to experience.

The more interesting finding, perhaps, is that self-esteem is strongly related to all five traits. It is positively associated with desirable traits and inversely related to negative emotionality. People who have more esteem for themselves rate their traits more highly across the board. The correlation between agreeableness and self-esteem is weaker than the others perhaps because, while agreeableness is considered to be a good trait, it also suggests the person is a "yes-man."

Mormons, self-esteem, and conscientiousness

I looked into Dr. Charlton's suggestion in the comments of the last post that self-esteem might boost self-assessment of conscientiousness. Using MIDUS data, I estimated an OLS model with conscientiousness as the dependent variable and self-esteem as a predictor. I also added a Mormon-versus-others dummy variable as a predictor in order to see if greater conscientiousness might emerge for Mormons once the influence of self-esteem is controlled. 

OLS Standardized Regression Coefficients

Mormon -.03
Self-Esteem .37*

*statistically significant

Self-esteem is strongly related to higher conscientiousness scores. Personality researchers may do well to examine if self-assessments are distorted by the level of self-esteem. On the other hand, the result for Mormons remains unchanged: they do not differ from others in conscientiousness even when the influence of self-esteem is controlled.   

Mormons and personality

Personality differences across religious affiliation is interesting. Let's use MIDUS data to look at Mormons (sample size = 3,960, 76 Mormons).

Mean scores

Extraversion
Mormons 2.98
Others 3.10

Negative emotionality
Mormons 2.06
Others 2.09

Agreeableness
Mormons 3.42 
Others 3.45

Conscientiousness
Mormons 3.40
Others 3.49

Open to experience
Mormons 2.86
Others 2.90

There are no significant differences. It turns out that, in terms of personality, Mormons are boringly the same as everyone else. (I hypothesized that they would be more agreeable, more conscientious, and less open to experience. I was wrong on all counts.)

Agnostics and Big 5 personality traits

Readers SFG and HBD Chick suggested that I compare the personality traits of agnostics with non-agnostics (MIDUS data, sample size = 3,960).


Mean scores

Extraversion
Agnostics 2.82*
Others 3.10
Cohen's d .49

Negative emotionality
Agnostics 2.15
Others 2.09

Agreeableness
Agnostics 3.23*
Others 3.45
Cohen's d .44

Conscientiousness
Agnostics 3.36*
Others 3.49
Cohen's d .29

Openness to experience
Agnostics 3.17*
Others 2.90
Cohen's d .50

*Agnostics and others are significantly different

Compared to the general population, agnostics are more introverted, less agreeable, less conscientious, and more open. They are like atheists, only shy and neurotic.

Atheists and the Big 5 personality traits

Using MIDUS Study data, I calculated mean Big 5 personality scores for atheists and others (sample size = 3,960).

Mean scores
Extraversion
Atheists 2.99
Others 3.10

Negative emotionality
Atheists 1.81*
Others 2.10
Cohen's d .46

Agreeableness
Atheists 3.15*
Others 3.45
Cohen's d .60

Conscientiousness
Atheists 3.37
Others 3.49

Openness to experience
Atheists 3.36*
Others 2.90
Cohen's d .85

*atheists and others are significantly different

Cohen's d is a measure of the gap between means. Compared to others, atheists are significantly less neurotic, less agreeable, and more open to experience. The differences for the latter two are large. It is not surprising to observe that atheists are disagreeable and open to new things.

Interest in Mex-Ams

Some readers, I'm sure, think I have some odd interest in Mexican Americans. Well, it's not odd--it's simple math. New from Pew:

31.8 million people is roughly TEN million more people than all Americans who say they are of English ancestry. TEN million more!! (2006-2008 American Community Sample)

Peruvians are fascinating people, but who cares?

Men, women, and childlessness

In the comments of the last post, Dr. Bruce Charlton reminds us of the issue of growing female childless ness. Let's compare men and women on this. I list below the percent of people without any children. I limit the women to those ages 45 to 64, and ages 50 to 69 for men.

Percent childless

1970s
Men 17.3
Women 13.8

1980s
Men 13.4
Women 10.2

1990s
Men 14.3
Women 15.8

2000s
Men 19.0
Women 15.8

2010
Men 16.6
Women 18.8

The percent of women with no kids almost doubled from 10.2 percent in the 1980s to 18.8 percent in 2010. Having no kids has also grown a bit among men. The childless numbers for men and women are pretty close to each other which fails to support the claim that men are much more variable in their fruitfulness than women.

Less variation in family size

Using General Social Survey (GSS) data, I calculated the mean number of offspring for women ages 45 to 64 for each decade since the 1970s. I display these numbers below, along with standard deviations--a measure of variation--and estimates of kurtosis--the degree to which a distribution is flatter or more peaked than a normal distribution:

1970s
Mean 2.77
SD 2.04
Kurtosis .19

1980s
Mean 3.07
SD 2.05
Kurtosis -.09

1990s
Mean 2.54
SD 1.75
Kurtosis .86

2000s
Mean 2.14
SD 1.54
Kurtosis 1.38

2010
Mean 2.05
SD 1.60
Kurtosis 2.35

We all know that family size has shrunk over the past few decades: according to GSS data, from 2.77 children in the 1970s to 2.05 last year. The standard deviations indicate a reduced amount of variation in completed number of offsapring. In the 1970s, SD was 2.04, meaning that if we grabbed two random  women who had completed their families, our best guess is that one mom would have two more kids than the other. Moving forward to the 2000s, SD has dropped to roughly 1.5 which tells us that the two hypothetical moms differ by one and a half kids. In other words, families have become more similar in size. They are more and more converging on the number two.

If the kurtosis number is one or greater, that means that the distribution is more peaked than a normal curve. While there is no problem through the 1990s, one appears in the last decade. What this means in plain English is that a lot of women are having two children, and that puts a skyscraper right in the middle of the bell-shaped curve. In the 1970s, 24 percent of women had two children. By 2010, it was 34 percent.

Why am I interested in this? Well for one thing, reduced variation in family size means that people are contributing a more equal amount of genes to the next generation than in the past. A few decades ago, some people would have zero kids, some would have ten. Of course, we still have diversity, but there is greater convergence on having two offspring. If that convergence became complete (it won't) every woman would have two children and would contribute the same number of genes to the next generation. Since almost all children (not including fetuses) nowadays make it to adulthood (thank God), there is even less differential mortality than differential fertility. It looks like the evolutionary process ain't what it used to be.     

But what about the male contribution, you ask. That's next.

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-American IQ

In a previous post, I used GSS vocabulary data to show a 10 point improvement in IQ among Mexican-Americans over the past four decades.  An increase from 85 and 95 is striking, but I didn't take the time to see if the change is statistically significant.

Setting the white IQ at 100, here are the means by decade for people born in America who are of Mexican descent. Sample sizes are shown in parentheses:

Mean IQ

Seventies 85.4 (12)
Eighties 85.6 (106)
Nineties 91.7* (140)
Two-Thousands 94.1* (182)

*significantly higher than the 80s mean

The means for the Nineties and the Two-Thousands are significantly higher than the Eighties' mean but do not differ significantly from each other. The estimate for the past decade is a bit lower than in my last analysis; this is due to the addition of 2008 data. (The mean for 2010 is 91.6, n = 46.)

A mean in the low nineties is not inconsistent with published studies. The low mean of 85 observed in the 1970s and 80s might be due to a lower average level of education. The average respondent in a GSS survey is in his mid-40s which means that if he participated in a survey in the 70s or 80s, he would have gone to school in the 1930s and 40s.  

Hispanics are natural social... liberals

Some Republicans claim that immigration from the south is a good thing since Hispanics are natural social conservatives. Just the other day Rick Santorum was arguing on Fox that emphasizing social conservatism is an essential way to attract Latino voters.

Such a view is just plain idiotic. I regularly check attitude surveys and cannot remember the last time I saw Hispanics with more socially conservative views than whites. Here is the latest from Pew:

The share of Hispanics who think homosexuality should be accepted is six points higher than the white number. Latinos line-up closely with self-described Democrats. They are almost 30 points away from conservative Republicans.

You might have expected their Catholicism to shift them right. But look at the Catholic estimate: 64 percent feel that homosexuality should be accepted. There is a huge gap between Catholic doctrine and social reality.

Liberals are not smart, but they are geniuses compared to Republican leaders. They know that, chances are, each new Hispanic citizen is a new Democrat. And that ain't gonna change.   

Hispanic women and waist-to-hip ratio

Using MIDUS data, I regressed waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) onto race/ethnicity and body mass index (BMI). (I figured fatter people have higher WHRs.) Here are the results for 1,974 women:

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Hispanic .06*
Black -.02
Asian .01
BMI .32*

*statistically significant relationship with WHR

Fatter women do indeed have fatter waists compared to hips. The three minority groups are all being compared with non-Hispanic whites. Latino women have higher WHRs than their white counterparts. The other two racial groups do not differ from whites.

Consistent with my casual observations, Hispanic women are less curvy. Waist size is more similar to hip size. The curvaceous woman is more of a white thing.

Prenatal testosterone and sexual jealousy

In a new study of 280 people, researchers found that a measure of feminized brain structure (i.e., 2D:4D digit ratio) was associated with less distress at the hypothetical scenario of sexual as opposed to emotional infidelity by an intimate partner. The relationship was observed for men and women together, but not for each group individually. This relationship for the combined groups disappeared when gender was controlled. This supports the conclusion that males's higher level of prenatal testosterone masculinizes their brains making them more focused than females on sexual infidelity.  Men are thought to be more sensitive than women to cues of sexual infidelity to prevent cuckoldry, while females are more sensitive than males to cues of emotional infidelity to prevent loss of parental investment.

The evidence keeps pouring out that gender is not a social construction (as if any reasonable person would think it is).

He is that which is not contingent

I'm traveling and have not had opportunities to post. I wanted to do an amusing post on racial differences in attitudes toward which race is sexually most well-endowed, but technical problems are delaying that a bit.

Allow me instead to talk about something that requires no data and which is far removed from sexual endowment.

In response to the claim that God explains the existence of the universe, atheists like to ask "But who made God?" This question misses the point. The universe and everything in it is contingent: It exists, but it could not exist. In fact, it seems more likely that nothing would exist. Nothing is simpler than something. Anything that is contingent requires a cause for its existing rather than not existing. The contingent universe requires a necessary entity to explain it. By necessary, we mean that which is not contingent; that which does not rely on something else for its existence. We call the entity which causes the contingent universe to be, God. He was not created and could not possibly be created. To ask where He came from is to not understand what He is by definition.  

Thinking that whites are smarter than blacks

The Detroit Area Study asked a sample of 384 blacks and whites whether the word "intelligent" better described blacks or whites. Respondents could also answer "equally descriptive" or "not descriptive of either."

Here are the responses in percentages:

Whites
More descriptive of blacks 0.6
Equally descriptive 54.5
More descriptive of whites 33.4
Descriptive of neither 11.4

Blacks
More descriptive of blacks 19.7
Equally descriptive 68.4
More descriptive of whites 11.8
Descriptive of neither 0.0

It is not surprising that "equally descriptive" is the most popular answer given by both races. Not only is America's culture egalitarian, there is also a tendency to interact with people similar to yourself.  Smart people often find themselves among smart people, and slower folks with people like themselves. Until I lived in Newark, I had only met middle-class blacks, and was stunned by the "differentness" of inner-city African Americans. Whites with little exposure to poor blacks might sincerely believe that IQ averages are the same.

Blacks spend more time with whites than the reverse, so they are more familiar with the other race, which might help explain that there are actually a few (11.8%) who admit that whites are more intelligent.

Of course, it's taboo to publicly claim that whites are smarter, but one-third of whites manage to say this to the interviewer.

Images of God and crime

The sociologist Rodney Stark claims that a religion's image of God has an impact on the conduct of adherents. People will watch their behavior more closely if they see God as a ruler rather than a friend.

GSS respondents were asked how likely it is that 1) a friend, 2) a master, or 3) a king come to mind when thinking of God. Answers ranged from very likely to not likely at all.

I calculated the contigency coefficients and p-values for the relationships between the answers to each of the three questions and whether you have ever been arrested for a crime. The sample is 388 white people. The relationship between arrest and seeing God as a friend is not statistically significant, but it is for both seeing God as a master and as a king. People with this type of image are less likely to have ever been arrested. On the other hand, the strength of the connection is weak. The coefficient (which is like a Pearson correlation) is .12 for master and .17 for king.

In sum, imagining God to be a powerful authority predicts less crime. It is possible that the trend among Christians to see God as a buddy works against improving behavior.  

Jared Taylor on transcending race

Jared Taylor has a new book on white identity. I look forward to reading it.

In the highlights of his ad, he claims that only whites have a desire to transcend race. The Detroit Area Study asked people (sample size = 378): "Generally speaking, do you favor full racial separation, integration in some areas of life, or full integration of the races?"

Sixty-five percent of whites want full integration. So Taylor seems to be right about whites. But what a about blacks? Seventy-two percent want full integration. That doesn't sound like "whites are the only race..." People don't always act as if they want to transcend race, but Taylor also makes claims about aspirations.

Marital decline among women

A reader asked if I could post the graph for marriage trends for women in their 20s. You can see that the percent married has dropped dramatically over the past 40 years. The norm was reversed in a historically short period of time. The rate is higher than for men of the same age, but women experienced a sharp drop in just the last two years: The percent married fell from 26.0 percent in 2008 to 22.5 percent in 2010.

The decline in marriage continues

This graph shows the decline in marriage among men in their 20s. Fifty-nine percent in 1972 were married. That has plunged all the way to 17 percent in 2010. The drop between the two most recent surveys--2008 and 2010--was 2 points.

Fifty-two percent of men in their twenties who are married attend church more than once a month. In the past year, my religious 21 and 22 year old nephews (the latter is on his way to med school) got married to great girls of the same ages. God bless 'em.

UPDATE: Audacious Epigone has reminded me that there are bloggers who doubt the validity of GSS data. Why haven't I seen them expressing their doubts about the data in the comment sections of this post?

Job prestige for teachers

The multi-decade refrain that teachers don't get enough respect is nonsense.

Sociological research has documented that job prestige is largely a function of the level of education and income associated with the particular occupation.

I regressed GSS job prestige on respondent's education and income (sample = 27,972). Next, I calculated the mean income and educational level for American secondary school teachers. Finally, I plugged the means into the equation which yielded an estimated prestige score of 51.9. So based on a model of job prestige, secondary school teachers are expected to have a score of around 52. What score do they actually have? It's 66. That means that people assign greater prestige to teaching than what would be predicted from a model based on educational level and income. Fourteen more points--that is a lot. (As an example, teachers are held in the same esteem as professional athletes (score 65) but they should be looked at like social workers (52)). 

Teachers get much more respect than other people with jobs requiring similar levels of education and producing similar levels of income. The people working these jobs, not teachers, are the ones getting screwed.

Housework and sex frequency

Roissy has claimed that husbands who do more chores at home have sex less often because it is a turn-off to their wives.

The GSS asked respondents how often they have sex, and how many hours of houeswork they do in a typical week. Sex frequency is influenced a great deal by age, so I include it as a control:

Standardized OLS regression coefficients (sample size = 218, married men)

Hours of housework -.05
Age -.45*

*statistically significant

While age exerts a powerful effect on frequency of sexual intercourse, housework is unrelated. (It might have a small negative effect if the sample size were larger).

Wives are less likely to want sex if they are tired or if they are in a bad mood. They are more likely to be in a bad mood if they feel that their husband is not pulling his load. (I'm skeptical of the view that what a woman finds attractive in her man is his exploitation of her). The chance of her wanting sex will be higher if she gets manly vibes from her husband. So the best plan for a husband is to show his wife that he is doing his fair share, but to focus on manly types of work. That means work that is physical or technical. Much of it will be outside. If you don't know how to fix stuff, like a car--you're smart--learn. Avoid any type of work, except for barbecuing, that requires an apron.

The goal for a good marriage is to be traditional but to be just. In Bruce Charlton's words, be a patriarch.

Decline in confidence that God exists

Once every two years the Inductivist gets giddy with excitement when the new GSS comes out. As a first plunge into the new data, let's look at trends in confidence in the existence of God.

The shrinking purple section (if I were a girl, I'd know the precise name for that color) indicates that "knowing that God exists" has been on the decrease over the past decade. On the other hand, I wouldn't make any long-term predictions. Most of the experts sixty years ago predicted the imminent death of religion.

Predictors of closeness to whites among whites

GSS respondents were asked how close do they feel toward whites. Limiting the analysis whites, I regressed the answers onto a list of predictors. Here are the results (sample size = 2,806):

Standardized OLS coefficients

Female .09*
Age -.03*
South -.02
Size of place .02
Education .02
Income .05*
IQ -.07*
Church Attendance .08*
Jewish .01
Conservatism .00

*statistically significant

Much of this surprises me. Being from the South or a small town is unrelated to liking whites. So is years of education or level of conservatism. Jews like whites better than others at the bivariate level, but the relationship becomes non-significant in the multivariate analysis.

What predicts greater closeness to whites is: being female, being younger, having more income, being less intelligent, and more church attendance. The gender finding replicates other research that has found that women have more race affection than men. Who would have guessed that younger people feel more affection for whites than their elders?

Although all of the predictors are weak, gender, religiosity, and IQ are comparatively the strongest. Why am I not surprised that smart people like whites less? IQ exerts an effect while education does not. Interesting.

Race and ethnicity among Hispanics

As a follow-up to the last post, I calculated how warmly Hispanics of three different races (white, black, other) felt towards generic whites, blacks, and Hispanics (sample sizes = at least 200).

Overall, Hispanics are the best liked group (not surprising); blacks are the least liked. This is the same pattern we saw in the last post with all races.  

White Hispanics like Hispanics better than they like whites. They like their Latinness more than their whiteness. People usually like their whatever-elseness more than being white if they have a choice. You distance yourself from whiteness if you can. Whites also like their own race the least (the difference is very big). I suspect that while they describe their race as white, many answer the closeness-to-whites question thinking of whites as "Anglos." 

Black Hispanics like blacks better than Hispanics. They like their blackness more than their Latinness. Black trumps Latino in the race/ethnic hierarchy.

Other-race Hispanics like whites more than blacks, but the means for both are low. They like Hispanics much more than either blacks or whites. The 2.5 point gap between the mean closeness towards blacks and that towards Hispanics is huge. 

Feelings of warmth among races

This table shows the mean scores of how warmly one group feels toward another, based on GSS answers from 1 (very cold) to 9 (very warm). The columns are the judging groups, while the rows are the target groups. "Whites" are "blacks" are non-Hispanic; "Hispanics" are "other race." "Asians" in the judging group are Japanese and Chinese Americans, but are simply Asians in the target group.

Going along the rows, you can see that Asians and Hispanics tend to be the best liked groups. I suppose this puts a tally mark in the plus column on the immigration question. Perhaps Asians and Hispanics tend to be inoffensive? Blacks are the least liked by everyone (except for blacks of course). Must be because whitey taught the others to hate.

Going down the columns, it is not clear who judges the harshest in general. Asian feelings towards blacks are comparatively cool, but they like Hispanics. Whites judge blacks more warmly than others do--white guilt perhaps--but they are comparatively cool on Hispanics and Asians. I see no evidence here that whites have a unique gift for disliking other races. Unless the race is whites--they have the lowest self-directed mean.

He gets made in our image

This new study supports the view that people make over Jesus in their own image (e.g., blacks believing he was black; Nordics believing he looked Nordic):

In two studies, we examined whether (a) conceptions of Jesus would differ between Koreans and Americans, and whether (b) national differences in self-reported personality and well-being are mediated by the cultural norm for personality and well-being. Because there is only one Jesus, different conceptions held by Koreans and Americans are likely to reflect cultural construction processes. In Study 1, we asked Korean and American participants to engage in a free association task with Jesus as a target. Americans associated Jesus with primarily positive connotations (“awesome”) and rarely with negative connotations (“pain”), whereas Koreans associated Jesus with both positive and negative connotations. In Study 2, we asked Korean and American participants to rate Jesus and themselves using personality and well-being scales. Americans rated both Jesus and themselves as more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, open, and happier than did Koreans. Most important, national differences in self-reported agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and happiness were partially mediated by conceptions of Jesus.

Myself, I imagine him with a hilarious, self-deprecating sense of humor and a nagging fear that he's coming down with something.

Parental income and IQ among teens

Here's a new study of a large sample of teens published in Personality and Individual Differences that shows that the IQs of children from wealthy homes are higher, not because of money, but because of their parents' superior genes.

Parental educational level and family income have been related to individual differences in intelligence. However, large and representative samples are hardly available. Here two samples of young and old adolescents totaling 3233 boys and girls completed an intelligence battery comprising abstract, numerical, verbal, mechanical, and spatial reasoning subtests. Parents’ educational levels, family incomes, and adolescents’ general intelligence (g) were simultaneously related using SEM (structural equation modeling) analyses. The main findings show that (1) parental education strongly predicts family differences in income, (2) family income is not related to adolescents’ intelligence, and (3) parents’ education predicts adolescents’ intelligence regardless of family income. Because it is widely acknowledged that personal intelligence is the best predictor of educational differences, the next causal chain is endorsed: brighter parents reach higher levels of education, which allows approaching better occupations, and, therefore, they can create families with higher incomes. Adolescents from more affluent families tend to be brighter because their parents are brighter, not because they enjoy better family environments.

Social class and autism

From a new study on the increasing prevalence of autism:

The prevalence of autism has increased precipitously—roughly 10-fold in the past 40 years—yet no one knows exactly what caused this dramatic rise. Using a large and representative dataset that spans the California birth cohorts from 1992 through 2000, we examine individual and community resources associated with the likelihood of an autism diagnosis over time. This allows us to identify key social factors that have contributed to increased autism prevalence. While individual-level factors, such as birth weight and parental education, have had a fairly constant effect on likelihood of diagnosis over time, we find that community-
level resources drive increased prevalence.

The researchers conclude that the epidemic is the result of a greater probability of being diagnosed, and that until recently, diagnosis depended heavily on having money and living in better-off communities where the focus on autism began. Social class factors have been more important for less severe cases of autism where diagnosis was less obvious. 

Other factors that are associated with a greater risk: higher parental education, low birth weight, being male (of course), being first-born, having older parents, and not being on Medi-Cal.

I find it odd that race and ethnicity were not examined. It's a California sample, you're focusing on social class, and you don't control for race and Hispanicity? Maybe it doesn't matter, but they don't seem to address it. Being on Medi-Cal matters, and it is correlated with NAMishness. And of course there is no mention of the possibility that social class might be associated with genes implicated in autism. Everyone just knows that social class has nothing whatsoever to do with genes. It's the same old story that class reflects privilege and access and nothing more.

Orderliness and stereotyping

This study shows that stereotyping by whites drops if the environment is orderly. The implication for people wanting to increase the comfort level among races is conservative: you need to maintain a clean, safe living space. That means that cops, not graffiti, must seen as cool.

On the other hand, disorderliness may be an accurate and important signal of risk. It doesn't make sense to clean up an environment if it tricks people into being comfortable in an objectively dangerous place.

Another point: In one experiment, whites sat as close to a black confederate as a white one, as long as the scene was clean and orderly. Does this square with the whites-as-natural-haters meme that they would sit just as close to a strange black man as a white one?

H/T Jason Malloy

Social science academics

The academic conference I'm attending is finishing up today. (My sell-out research paper was well-received). After three days of observing academics, it is clear to me that the social sciences attract precisely the wrong kind of people. They are I-want-to-help-and-thus-look-good people. In terms of personality, they are like sheep. Social science needs curmudgeons, but it gets womanly men and ideological women. I've never seen people so desperate to say the right thing. Cults have nothing on these folks.

Taxes and the breadwinner family

It's a good occasion to make a comment about income taxes. I spend much of my time fretting over the state and direction of the country, but I should focus on the bright side: I paid roughly negative $2000 to the federal government this year. And I didn't even have mortgage interest to deduct. How did I do it? By having four children and a wife who doesn't work outside the home. The government paid me! What a sweet deal. What a country. My thanks to all the childless rich people who make this possible. The status quo feels so good, maybe I'm going to have to vote for Obama in 2012.

Religiosity, sex, and contraception among teens

Add Health adolescents were asked if they had ever had sex. Here is the percent who answered yes by church attendance (whites, sample size = 5,555)

Percent who have had sex

Never attends 47.3*
Less than once a month 48.5*
Between once a month and less than weekly 42.4*
Weekly or more  30.8

*significantly more than "weekly or more"

The percentages are significantly higher for those going to church less often or never. But perhaps among kids who have sex, the religious ones fail to use protection.

Percent who used protection the first time

Never attends 66.1
Less than once a month 71.6
Between once a month and less than weekly 68.9
Weekly or more 65.0

The differences among these groups are all statistically non-significant.

Taxing fat cats

I see that the country is returning, once again, to the debate over taxing the rich. Many of the folks who live for this issue are the same ones who couldn't care less about abortion. "Are we, or are we not killing hundreds of thousands of humans every year? Yawn--who cares, what a bore." This is precisely my attitude about taxing fat cats. Really--25 percent, 45 percent--who gives a shit?

Family meals

According to this new study, eating breakfast and dinner more frequently with family members was unrelated to cognitive and behaviorial outcomes for kids from kindergarten to 8th grade. A parents-are-everything model would predict that family meals are important since it is a time when parents can encourage and instruct kids about school and behavior. (It is an opportunity for bonding as well. One of my fat friends associates food with his mom's love.)

My students absolutely refuse to believe that parenting has little effect on a child's IQ and personality. Citing research doesn't matter. The idea is repugnant to them. Americans hate genes.

For those of you who are more open: don't decide to not have kids because work takes up too much of your time. The truth is, you ain't that important. (Your genes are, on the other hand.)

Group solidarity among whites

MIDUS Study participants were asked how closely do they identify with their 1) ethnicity and 2) race; how much do they prefer to be with their own 1) ethnicity and 2) race; how important is it to marry someone of the same 1) ethnicity and 2) race; and how closely do they identify as an American.

I calculated the Pearson correlations for each possible pair of questions for whites only (sample size = 4,075).  All of the 21 correlations are positive, and the average is .30 which indicates a moderate, positive relationship. The strongest correlations are among the ethnicity items (around .60), and also among the race items. The weakest correlations are between the American question and other measures. The vast majority of study participants identify strongly as Americans so the lack of variation reduces the correlations.

Bottom line: whites either tend identify with groups at all levels or no groups at any level. To put it in exaggerated terms, ethnicists are racialists are patriots. Individualists are individualists are individualists.  

Racial identification among whites by ethnic group

MIDUS Study participants (all Americans) were asked how closely do they identify with their race. Answers were scored like this: very closely (4), somewhat closely (3), not very closely (2), not at all (1). I calculated the means for whites by ethnicity:

Mean racial identfication score (sample size = 4,088)

Greek 3.45
Mexican 3.40
Jewish 3.38
Polish 3.32
Dutch 3.29
Hungarian 3.27
Italian 3.26
Russian 3.23
Lebanese 3.20
Swedish 3.20
Irish 3.19

All whites 3.18

English 3.17
German 3.17
Scottish 3.16
French 3.11
Portuguese 3.00
Czech 2.92
Spanish 2.87


Looking at all whites, the typical person is somewhere between identifying somewhat closely and very closely with his race.  The difference between Greek and Spanish Americans is sixth-tenths of a standard deviation--a pretty big gap.

There might be a tendency for the pride among minorities like Greeks, Jews, and Mexicans to spill over into racial identification. Ethnic pride might facilitate racial pride.

Predictors of racial identification among whites

A question in the MIDUS Study shows that fewer than 10 percent of white Americans completely fail to identify with their race. Let's see which factors predict identifying closely with one's race among whites.

Standardized OLS Regression Coefficients (sample size = 3,499)

Age -.03
Female .10*
Education -.03
Church attendance .06*
Extraversion .05*
Agreeableness .04*
Negative emotionality .05*
Conscientiousness .05*
Openness to experience -.06*

* statistically significant

Except for age and education, all of the predictors are significantly related to identifying with one's race. These categories are associated with greater identification: females, churchgoers, those high on extraversion, agreeableness, negative emotionality, conscientiousness, and low on openness to experience. All of the relationships are weak.

Redistributionists vs. anti-redistributionists

TGGP directs us to an excellent GSS study by James Lindgren which shows that redistributionists (liberals) are more racist, angrier, less altruistic, and less happy than anti-redistributrionists (conservatives):

In debates over the roles of law and government in promoting the equality of income or in redistributing the fruits of capitalism, widely different motives are attributed to those who favor or oppose capitalism or income redistribution. According to one view, largely accepted in the academic social psychology literature (Jost et al. 2003), opposition to income redistribution and support for capitalism reflect an orientation toward social dominance, a desire to dominate other groups. According to another view that goes back at least to the nineteenth century origins of Marxism, anti-capitalism and a support for greater legal efforts to redistribute income reflect envy for the property of others and a frustration with one’s lot in a capitalist system.


In this paper I expand and test the social dominance thesis using sixteen nationally representative General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Research Center between 1980 and 2004. Because few questions of interest were asked in most years or of most respondents, the sample sizes used for analyses vary from 535 to 15,743.

I first show that respondents who express traditionally racist views (on segregation, interracial marriage, and inborn racial abilities) tend to support greater income redistribution. Traditional racists also tend to oppose free-market capitalism and its consequences, wanting the government to guarantee jobs for everyone and fix prices, wages, and profits. Next, I report a similar pattern for those who express intolerance for unpopular groups on the fifteen Stouffer tolerance questions (regarding racists, homosexuals, communists, extreme militarists, and atheists). Those who express less tolerance for unpopular groups tend to favor income redistribution and oppose capitalism.

Then I present the results of six full latent variable structural equation models. The latent variables traditional racism (Model 1: r=.27) and intolerance (Model 2: r=.31) predict the latent variable income redistribution. Similarly, the latent variables traditional racism (Model 3: r=.33) and intolerance (Model 4: r=.36) predict anti-capitalism. Controlling for education, income (log), gender, and age (Models 5 and 6), the effects of the racism and intolerance predictors on redistribution and intolerance are reduced, but remain significant. Thus the preference against income redistribution, for example, is not just the result of income or education - rather, the data are consistent with racism and intolerance continuing to play a small, but significant role in explaining the support for income redistribution and anti-capitalism. The data are broadly inconsistent with the standard belief in the social psychology literature that pro-capitalist and anti-redistributionist views are positively associated with racism.

I then explore an alternative hypothesis, showing that, compared to anti-redistributionists, strong redistributionists have about two to three times higher odds of reporting that in the prior seven days they were angry, mad at someone, outraged, sad, lonely, and had trouble shaking the blues. Similarly, anti-redistributionists had about two to four times higher odds of reporting being happy or at ease. Not only do redistributionists report more anger, but they report that their anger lasts longer. When asked about the last time they were angry, strong redistributionists were more than twice as likely as strong opponents of leveling to admit that they responded to their anger by plotting revenge. Last, both redistributionists and anti-capitalists expressed lower overall happiness, less happy marriages, and lower satisfaction with their financial situations and with their jobs or housework.

Further, in the 2002 and 2004 General Social Surveys anti-redistributionists were generally more likely to report altruistic behavior. In particular, those who opposed more government redistribution of income were much more likely to donate money to charities, religious organizations, and political candidates. The one sort of altruistic behavior that the redistributionists were more likely to engage in was giving money to a homeless person on the street.

Evidence from sixteen national representative samples from 1980 through 2004 tends to suggest that Social Dominance Orientation has been in part misconceived. In the United States, segments of the academic community seem to have reversed the relationship between pro-capitalism and income redistribution on the one hand, and racism and intolerance on the other. Those who support capitalism and oppose greater income redistribution tend to be better educated, to have higher family incomes, to be less traditionally racist, and to be less intolerant of unpopular groups. Those who oppose greater redistribution also tend to be more generous in donating to charities and more likely to engage in some other altruistic behavior. The academic assumption that anti-capitalism and opposition to income redistribution reflect an orientation toward social dominance seems unwarranted.

Height and self-esteem

In the recent post on self-esteem, a reader suggested that Asians and Hispanics have lower levels because they are shorter.

Using Add Health data, I calculated the correlation between height and self-esteem for males and females (samples sizes = 3,101 and 3,297). It is .05 and significant for guys and .01 and not signifiicant for girls. Trivial for males, non-existent for females. 

Religion and free speech

GSS respondents were asked if a person who is against churches and religion should be allowed to speak in your community. Here are the percentages who answered yes listed by religious affiliation:

Agrees that anti-religionists should be allowed to speak (sample size = 33,069)

Protestants 65.6
Catholics 73.0*
Eastern Orthodox 91.9*
Christian 76.1*
Nondenominational 84.6*
Jews 83.4*
Muslim 59.3
Hindu 73.9
Buddist 84.7*
No religion 88.7*

A majority in each group, Muslims included, is in favor of free speech. Most groups support it at a higher level than Protestants.  Although not shown, Jews, Orthodox, and those with no religion have significantly higher levels than Muslims.

In results not shown, more religious people (i.e., those who attend services frequently) are less likely to favor allowing the person to speak. This was true of all religions except for Buddhists and Orthodox Christians (three cheers for the Orthodox). The link was by far the strongest for Muslims: religious Muslims are much more likely to favor censorship.

Race and self-esteem

In The Perils of Diversity, Byron Roth challenges the multiculturist argument that minority groups must preserve their cultures to prop up self-esteem by citing research which failed to find group differences.

Let's look at the question with Add Health data. Students were asked how frequently do they feel they are just as good as anyone else. Answers ranged from "never/rarely" (0) to "most/all of the time" (3). Here are means:

Mean self-worth scores

Whites 1.98
Blacks 1.92
Asians 1.73*
Mexican Americans 1.61*

* significantly lower than whites

While blacks and whites--the two groups usually studied--don't differ significantly, Asians and Mexican Americans have lower averages.

Why? This is a sample of adolescents.  Blacks and whites are more likely to be popular. This seems to be due to greater athleticism, extraversion, and more interesting personalities. I also suspect that whites and black males are perceived as more attractive.  Self-esteem seems to be, in part, a reflection of reality. A Mexican American is more likely to have low self-worth because he doesn't compare well to others and lacks traits that are valued. It might be the case that whites and blacks get a self-esteem boost in schools with Mex-Am and Asian students. If I find time, I can test the hypothesis.