Prior evolutionary theory provided reason to suspect that measures of development and reproduction would be correlated with antisocial behaviors in human and non-human species. Behavioral genetics has revealed that most quantitative traits are heritable, suggesting that these phenotypic correlations may share genetic etiologies. We use GWAS data to estimate the genetic correlations between various measures of reproductive development (N= 52,776 - 318,863) and antisocial behavior (N= 31,968). Our genetic correlation analyses demonstrate that alleles associated with higher reproductive output (number of children ever born, rg=0.50, p=.0065) were positively correlated with alleles associated with antisocial behavior, whereas alleles associated with more delayed reproductive onset (age of first birth, rg=-.64, p=.0008) were negatively associated with alleles linked to antisocial behavior. Ultimately, these findings coalesce with evolutionary theories suggesting that increased antisocial behaviors may partly represent a faster life history approach, which may be significantly calibrated by genes.Okay, long sentences with no conjugal visits.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Genes for crime are correlated with genes for having lots of babies
Wow (from BioRxiv):
Gays demanded marriage, not because they were dying to be married, but to make a point
The General Social Survey (GSS) has collected enough data to begin to give us a sense about the degree to which homosexuals have embraced marriage since the opportunity has opened up. Here are marital status trends for gay men by decade:
The red line represents married people. The percent of gay men who are married in this decade is only slightly higher than previous decades. (I assume that married gays from earlier decades were either married to a woman or called their relationship with a man "marriage."). The next graph is lesbians:
Lesbian marriage has decreased (red line). Again, I'm sure lesbians were married to men in previous decades or called their same-sex relationships "marriage," but their move away from heterosexual marriage has not been replaced by lesbian marriage.
Maybe we need more time to see the trends more clearly, but what we GSS data suggest is that homosexuals did not fight gay marriage because they were dying for participation in the practice, but because they wanted the law to reflect the view that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality. They were just making a point.
The red line represents married people. The percent of gay men who are married in this decade is only slightly higher than previous decades. (I assume that married gays from earlier decades were either married to a woman or called their relationship with a man "marriage."). The next graph is lesbians:
Lesbian marriage has decreased (red line). Again, I'm sure lesbians were married to men in previous decades or called their same-sex relationships "marriage," but their move away from heterosexual marriage has not been replaced by lesbian marriage.
Maybe we need more time to see the trends more clearly, but what we GSS data suggest is that homosexuals did not fight gay marriage because they were dying for participation in the practice, but because they wanted the law to reflect the view that homosexuality is as good as heterosexuality. They were just making a point.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
Meta-analysis: Do nuts make you fat?
Nuts are supposed to be good for you (I recently posted on a meta-analysis that found that walnuts lower total and bad cholesterol and triglycerides), but they are high in calories. Do they make you fat and bushy like a well-fed squirrel?
A new meta-analysis of thirteen randomized clinical studies (741 people) looked at the issue. It found that nut consumption did not affect body mass index (BMI), weight, percent body fat, or waist circumference. So if you like this kind of food and think it's beneficial, go nuts.
A new meta-analysis of thirteen randomized clinical studies (741 people) looked at the issue. It found that nut consumption did not affect body mass index (BMI), weight, percent body fat, or waist circumference. So if you like this kind of food and think it's beneficial, go nuts.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
People are abandoning white status, almost as if it were a handicap
What are the trends in identifying oneself as white? Using GSS data, I made some charts:
Here are trends for all respondents. The percent saying they are white has dropped from almost 90% in the 70s to slightly more than 50% in this decade.
Next, let's look at trends by country of origin or ethnicity.
We see a pattern similar to Mex-Ams: a 70s to 00s drop, then a reversal. Next, Puerto Ricans:
The chart above is for those who say their ethnicity is American Indian. The percent indicating their race is white fell from 77% in the 70s to 60% now. This next chart is for people saying they are of Mexican ancestry.
For this group, you see a huge 1970s-2000s drop from nearly 100% white to one-third. The trend then reversed over the next decade. Next, Asian Indians:
There is a 1970s-2000s drop from 40% to 10%. Notice how the percent saying they're "black" also fell. One clear trend with these group is more people embracing the "other race" category. Here are Arabs:
We see a pattern similar to Mex-Ams: a 70s to 00s drop, then a reversal. Next, Puerto Ricans:
Typical pattern: Big drop 70s-90s, then a plateau. People from Spain:
Even these folks are now more likely to say they are not white. And other Spanish:
Same kind of pattern. Now, it's certainly the case that some recent immigrants have been genetically less white than older immigrants, and some people are marrying within race (rather than marrying whites and having mixed kids) now that they have larger concentrations in the country, but these trends also suggest that there has been a move away from white identification that has flattened (or even reversed) in the last few years.
The movement away from claiming white status is inconsistent with the notion that whiteness carries with it all sorts of benefits; rather, it suggests that a white status is disadvantageous.
Monday, August 27, 2018
How many homosexuals are there, really?
I ran across this study that estimates the sexual orientations of American adults. Contrary to what some people claim, the overwhelming majority of men and women are straight (or mostly straight). The author sees a continuum where I see a huge category with other little categories, especially for men.
Whether measured in terms of identity, attraction, or behavior, only 1 or 2% of women are lesbian, and 2 or 3% of men are gay. Bisexuality among women is a little more common -- about 5% -- but only around 2% for men. And from what I've seen of other data, bisexuals tend to be hypersexual, so their attractions seem less mysterious from an evolutionary point of view.
Long story short, when these people are called a sexual minority, minority is right.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
People run from whiteness
How often do Americans who have some white ancestry choose to say they are white--and nothing else--in order to take advantage of supposed "white privilege." Evidently next to nobody.
This new study analyzed the genetic ancestry of more than 100k Northern Californians. They also asked participants to self-identify their race/ethnicity. Six possible ancestries were identified. There are a lot of mixed-race people California: About 17% had ancestries from multiple continents.
The group that self-identified as white had almost no ancestry from anywhere other than Europe: .3% from Africa, .4% from East Asia, .9% Native American, 0.0% Pacific Islander, and 4.0% South Asian.
People who identified as some other single race were very often mixed. For example, 91% of blacks have some European ancestry; for Native Americans and Latinos both, it's 99.9%. For Pacific Islanders, it's 57.6%.
Why didn't any of these mixed people claim to be white? Certainly there had to be some who could pass.
The simple answer is that people have no desire to be white, even if they can legitimately identify as such.
People are running away from white, not toward it. And since when do people run from privilege?
This new study analyzed the genetic ancestry of more than 100k Northern Californians. They also asked participants to self-identify their race/ethnicity. Six possible ancestries were identified. There are a lot of mixed-race people California: About 17% had ancestries from multiple continents.
The group that self-identified as white had almost no ancestry from anywhere other than Europe: .3% from Africa, .4% from East Asia, .9% Native American, 0.0% Pacific Islander, and 4.0% South Asian.
People who identified as some other single race were very often mixed. For example, 91% of blacks have some European ancestry; for Native Americans and Latinos both, it's 99.9%. For Pacific Islanders, it's 57.6%.
Why didn't any of these mixed people claim to be white? Certainly there had to be some who could pass.
The simple answer is that people have no desire to be white, even if they can legitimately identify as such.
People are running away from white, not toward it. And since when do people run from privilege?
Want Americans to identify as Americans? Being white helps
The US will function more effectively if its inhabitants define themselves as one people, as Americans.
The General Social Survey asked 1,450 participants: "When you think of social and political issues, do you think of yourself mainly as a member of a particular ethnic, racial, or nationality group or do you think of yourself mainly as just an American?"
Here are the percentages by race of immigrants who responded, "Just an American."
Percent of immigrants who say they are just Americans
Whites 76.8
Blacks 36.4
Other Non-Whites 57.1
Even when all people compared are born in other countries, whites are more than twice as likely as blacks to say their identity is American. While not as severe as blacks, a majority of other non-whites also do not feel they are simply American.
What happens when people are born here?
Percent of people born in US who say they are just Americans
Whites 96.0
Blacks 68.3
Other non-whites 74.2
Being born here makes almost all whites define themselves as Americans, and while native-born non-whites feel more American than non-white immigrants, there is still a large segment that has ethnic loyalties.
It looks like the "melting pot" idea works best for whites. White immigrants moved here and sooner or later melted into Americans. This doesn't seem to be working so well for non-whites. Many black families have been here for centuries, and Natives have been her for millennia, but the melt for them is still far from complete.
A similar dynamic seems to be happening to recent non-white immigrants. Some melting happens, but not like it has been for whites.
Is this difference due to the fact that immigrants were expected to assimilate when most whites emigrated? And now that most immigrants are non-white, US elites encourage people to hold on to their ethnic identity? Maybe, but recent white immigrants don't seem follow the liberal desire for them to hold on to their roots.
Maybe non-whites are simply more clannish than whites.
Maybe non-whites are simply more clannish than whites.
Liberals would say it's due to discrimination, but 95% of Americans of Irish descent identify as American only, and they weren't received with a big wet kiss. America has gotten more and more welcoming, yet it's the New Immigrants who are more reluctant to let the ethnic loyalties go.
Whatever the case, Americans are on a course to be less and less on the same page about where to take the country. And that's putting it nicely.
Saturday, August 25, 2018
Senator McCain might be saying it's not so bad to be black
US Senator John McCain is near the end. Last year he was struck with an aggressive brain tumor, a glioblastoma, that carries with it a strong likelihood of not surviving for very long.
As a documented in a recent post, whites face more than twice the risk of developing a glioblastoma (as well as other types of brain cancer) compared to all minority groups, and the risk for men is significantly higher than for women.
Nature does not seem to be cooperating with the liberal claim that minorities and women always get the short end of the stick due to "white supremacy."
The theory much more consistent with the data is that evolution has produced group differences which sometimes advantage one group, sometimes another. Social conditions might magnify biological differences, but differences are rooted in genes.
After bouts of skin cancer and now this awful, deadly brain cancer, Senator McCain might be saying it's not so bad to be black.
As a documented in a recent post, whites face more than twice the risk of developing a glioblastoma (as well as other types of brain cancer) compared to all minority groups, and the risk for men is significantly higher than for women.
Nature does not seem to be cooperating with the liberal claim that minorities and women always get the short end of the stick due to "white supremacy."
The theory much more consistent with the data is that evolution has produced group differences which sometimes advantage one group, sometimes another. Social conditions might magnify biological differences, but differences are rooted in genes.
After bouts of skin cancer and now this awful, deadly brain cancer, Senator McCain might be saying it's not so bad to be black.
Friday, August 24, 2018
To people thinking about moving to America: Shouldn't you worry about your kids ending up in prison?
Research universally shows that the offspring of immigrants are much more criminal than their parents. If I were contemplating a move to the United States and had kids, I might think twice.
America ranks number one in the world in locking up criminals. The incarceration rate is 655 inmates per 100,000 population. Even though rates have dropped a bit in recent years, on any given day, roughly 2 million adults are either in jail or prison.
Compare our imprisonment rate with that of the countries that send the most immigrants to the US each year:
Imprisonment rate for top 10 immigration countries (ranked in terms of numbers of immigrants)
1. Mexico 165
2. India 33
3. China 118
4. Philippines 172
5. El Salvador 610
6. Vietnam 122
7. Cuba 510
8. Dominican Republic 244
9. South Korea 109
10. Guatemala 136
Only El Salvador and Cuba are even in the same universe with the US. How often do we see immigrant kids join a gang and end up with a long stretch in prison? The chances of this are much higher than back home.
Of course, the risk of becoming a criminal is much higher for some groups than others, but how many parents worry that if they move to the United States, their child could end up in prison? I moved specifically to lower the risk of my kids getting into drugs (few white kids end up in gangs).
The bigger income you will earn in America comes with an increased risk that a child's life will be ruined by prison. Even when he gets out, he may never get a decent job for the rest of his life. Parents need to think about this.
America ranks number one in the world in locking up criminals. The incarceration rate is 655 inmates per 100,000 population. Even though rates have dropped a bit in recent years, on any given day, roughly 2 million adults are either in jail or prison.
Compare our imprisonment rate with that of the countries that send the most immigrants to the US each year:
Imprisonment rate for top 10 immigration countries (ranked in terms of numbers of immigrants)
1. Mexico 165
2. India 33
3. China 118
4. Philippines 172
5. El Salvador 610
6. Vietnam 122
7. Cuba 510
8. Dominican Republic 244
9. South Korea 109
10. Guatemala 136
Only El Salvador and Cuba are even in the same universe with the US. How often do we see immigrant kids join a gang and end up with a long stretch in prison? The chances of this are much higher than back home.
Of course, the risk of becoming a criminal is much higher for some groups than others, but how many parents worry that if they move to the United States, their child could end up in prison? I moved specifically to lower the risk of my kids getting into drugs (few white kids end up in gangs).
The bigger income you will earn in America comes with an increased risk that a child's life will be ruined by prison. Even when he gets out, he may never get a decent job for the rest of his life. Parents need to think about this.
Thursday, August 23, 2018
What to tell people if they don't believe IQ is genetic
This is what you tell them: Research shows that the correlation of IQ test scores between two identical twins (100% the same genes) raised apart is just as strong as the correlation between the IQ score of the test you just took and the score of the test you took previously. The twins are as similar as you are with yourself.
Wednesday, August 22, 2018
Meta-analysis: Fruits, not vegetables, lower triglycerides
Don't make the mistake of assuming this is a health blog when you see two health posts in a row. I do have the goal of reporting the results of new, interesting meta-analyses. If you focus on one study, you can find whatever results you'd like, but dozens of studies, especially large, random clinical trials? That's more convincing. Facebook should give me a fantastic reputation score. No Fake News here.
This new meta-analysis is not great, but its five cross-sectional and two intervention studies are worth mentioning. Both types of studies find that greater intake of vegetables does not lower triglycerides--the major form of fat stored by the body, which my doctor keeps telling me is way high in my blood. (Turns out, I have a bad gene.)
On the other hand, the more servings of fruit you eat per day, the lower your triglycerides. Two trials is not nearly enough, but, still, the results are interesting.
The authors do not have much of an explanation of how fruit helps, but they do describe an animal trial that found that high fruit fiber intake lowered triglyceride levels in the following order: pomegranate > apple > strawberry > guava > papaya > mandarin and orange.
This new meta-analysis is not great, but its five cross-sectional and two intervention studies are worth mentioning. Both types of studies find that greater intake of vegetables does not lower triglycerides--the major form of fat stored by the body, which my doctor keeps telling me is way high in my blood. (Turns out, I have a bad gene.)
On the other hand, the more servings of fruit you eat per day, the lower your triglycerides. Two trials is not nearly enough, but, still, the results are interesting.
The authors do not have much of an explanation of how fruit helps, but they do describe an animal trial that found that high fruit fiber intake lowered triglyceride levels in the following order: pomegranate > apple > strawberry > guava > papaya > mandarin and orange.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Does it matter how much carbs you eat?
This new meta-analysis (more than 430,000 participants) addresses the question, Does it matter whether you eat a lot of carbs?
The researchers found a U-shaped curve: people were most likely to die if their diets were carb-heavy, or if they ate mostly fats and proteins. The subjects with the lowest odds of dying ate 50-55% of their calories in carb form.
The source of the macronutrients also matters. Mortality goes up if you eat fewer carbs but more of the fats and proteins come from animals; the risk falls as the fats/proteins are plant-based.
So, the story here is pretty conventional: carbs are good at moderate levels, while more fats and proteins ought to come from plants.
Typical of even medical research, the authors do not stress the possibility that people with genes that make you live to a ripe old age also eat more plant-based food. We know from research that high conscientiousness, which is highly influenced by genes, is associated with a long life. Good genes might: 1) motivate you to closely follow medical advice, and 2) extend your life. What you eat might not make any difference.
If that possibility sounds depressing because you can't switch out your bad genes, well I ain't here to make you feel good.
UPDATE: I should let you know that my diet ranges from minimal carbs to low carbs depending on my level of discipline (lots of carbs makes me feel lousy, and I put on weight), so I have no bias in favor of the results of this study.
The researchers found a U-shaped curve: people were most likely to die if their diets were carb-heavy, or if they ate mostly fats and proteins. The subjects with the lowest odds of dying ate 50-55% of their calories in carb form.
The source of the macronutrients also matters. Mortality goes up if you eat fewer carbs but more of the fats and proteins come from animals; the risk falls as the fats/proteins are plant-based.
So, the story here is pretty conventional: carbs are good at moderate levels, while more fats and proteins ought to come from plants.
Typical of even medical research, the authors do not stress the possibility that people with genes that make you live to a ripe old age also eat more plant-based food. We know from research that high conscientiousness, which is highly influenced by genes, is associated with a long life. Good genes might: 1) motivate you to closely follow medical advice, and 2) extend your life. What you eat might not make any difference.
If that possibility sounds depressing because you can't switch out your bad genes, well I ain't here to make you feel good.
UPDATE: I should let you know that my diet ranges from minimal carbs to low carbs depending on my level of discipline (lots of carbs makes me feel lousy, and I put on weight), so I have no bias in favor of the results of this study.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Pointing out this obvious difference makes me a sexist
Here is a table based on Li, Kung, and Hines (2017). Look at how there is almost no overlap between the masculine/feminine activities of 4 year old boys and girls.
But pointing that out makes me a sexist.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Bishop Morlino: Almost all Church sexual abuse is homosexual
A Wisconsin bishop on the latest Catholic child abuse scandal:
The bishop was particularly candid in his assessment of the cause of [sexual abuse] problems: “In the specific situations at hand, we are talking about deviant sexual — almost exclusively homosexual — acts by clerics. We’re also talking about homosexual propositions and abuses against seminarians and young priests by powerful priests, bishops, and cardinals.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Experiment: Emphasizing multiculturalism convinces people that race is real and biological
A study of Rutgers undergraduates revealed an interesting dynamic. To promote equality, many psychologists claim that teaching people multiculturalism -- emphasizing ethnic differences -- is more effective than focusing on color-blind messages. In this study, students exposed to multicultural rather than color-blind information were more likely to report "essentialist" opinions; that racial differences are real, biological, and unchanging.
This makes sense. If we emphasize that racial groups are different in important ways, it's not surprising when people assume the differences are natural. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to develop the view that differences are somehow real and a big deal, but are nothing more than social constructions. Evolution had produced a brain that assumes that what you see is what you get. And it's basically correct.
So if this study is valid, multiculturalism is ironically helping those of us who want to convince the public that group differences are partly biological. Liberals, I thank you.
This makes sense. If we emphasize that racial groups are different in important ways, it's not surprising when people assume the differences are natural. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to develop the view that differences are somehow real and a big deal, but are nothing more than social constructions. Evolution had produced a brain that assumes that what you see is what you get. And it's basically correct.
So if this study is valid, multiculturalism is ironically helping those of us who want to convince the public that group differences are partly biological. Liberals, I thank you.
Thursday, August 16, 2018
Libertarians do not have high IQs
I used General Social Survey data in an attempt to identify libertarians (sample size is around 1,000). If respondents answered yes to "Wealthy people pay way too much taxes" and "Marijuana should be legalized," I categorized them as a libertarian.
Next, based on a vocabulary quiz, I calculated IQ for people born in the US (tests may be biased against those for whom English is a second language). I set the mean at 97. (It's typically set at 100 for a white sample, but the US is over 30% non-white).
The data indicated that, according to my measure, 14% of Americans are libertarians. The mean IQ for this group is 96.2. The mean for everyone else is 96.3. For some reason, the people who asked and answered these two questions were a little lower than the 97 average. The takeaway, however, is that there is no evidence here that libertarians are smarter than others. I'm sure many of these people don't have a developed libertarian ideology: they simple want people to be able to do what they want, and they don't like high taxes even for wealthy people. I bet that ideological libertarians would have a higher than average IQ.
Next, based on a vocabulary quiz, I calculated IQ for people born in the US (tests may be biased against those for whom English is a second language). I set the mean at 97. (It's typically set at 100 for a white sample, but the US is over 30% non-white).
The data indicated that, according to my measure, 14% of Americans are libertarians. The mean IQ for this group is 96.2. The mean for everyone else is 96.3. For some reason, the people who asked and answered these two questions were a little lower than the 97 average. The takeaway, however, is that there is no evidence here that libertarians are smarter than others. I'm sure many of these people don't have a developed libertarian ideology: they simple want people to be able to do what they want, and they don't like high taxes even for wealthy people. I bet that ideological libertarians would have a higher than average IQ.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Liberals are the ULTIMATE scapegoaters
Liberals like to explain Trump like this: He has succeeded by blaming white people's problems on non-whites.
In other words, the President is a big-time scapegoater. Like Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's troubles, Trump supposedly appeals to our basest instincts.
Let's side aside the fact that Trump has consistently criticized NON-AMERICANS, not non-whites. Cheating, lying sons of bitches that liberals are, they always turn everything into an opportunity to call us (subhuman) racists.
But the truth is that Leftists are the supreme scapegoaters of ALL TIME. They set the example going back more than 200 years.
Like the Nazi who sees a Jew behind every social problem, liberals claim that EVERY injustice is the fault of rich people. All paths lead to the FAT CATS. They are evil incarnate.
And if the Left gets the opportunity, they will holocaust anyone who even seems well-off. My wife's Ukrainian great grandfather was sent to Siberia because he owned two horses and had six kids. Naturally he was a filthy rich, evil kulak.
Nazi hatred for Jews has got nothing on Leftist hatred of successful people.
We can go to Nietzsche to get an explanation of their psychology. He calls it ressentiment. Capitalism has kicked socialist ass for two centuries, so the losers transform their sense of inferiority into hatred of their betters. And so they wound their enemy with lies. If they get power, they imprison and murder them.
And because so many of us are tempted by this hatred of the rich, we have let them get away with their malignant scapegoating.
Of course, the Left's latest move has been to replace the wealthy with whites as the demonic source of all suffering. But that's another post.
In other words, the President is a big-time scapegoater. Like Hitler blaming Jews for Germany's troubles, Trump supposedly appeals to our basest instincts.
Let's side aside the fact that Trump has consistently criticized NON-AMERICANS, not non-whites. Cheating, lying sons of bitches that liberals are, they always turn everything into an opportunity to call us (subhuman) racists.
But the truth is that Leftists are the supreme scapegoaters of ALL TIME. They set the example going back more than 200 years.
Like the Nazi who sees a Jew behind every social problem, liberals claim that EVERY injustice is the fault of rich people. All paths lead to the FAT CATS. They are evil incarnate.
And if the Left gets the opportunity, they will holocaust anyone who even seems well-off. My wife's Ukrainian great grandfather was sent to Siberia because he owned two horses and had six kids. Naturally he was a filthy rich, evil kulak.
Nazi hatred for Jews has got nothing on Leftist hatred of successful people.
We can go to Nietzsche to get an explanation of their psychology. He calls it ressentiment. Capitalism has kicked socialist ass for two centuries, so the losers transform their sense of inferiority into hatred of their betters. And so they wound their enemy with lies. If they get power, they imprison and murder them.
And because so many of us are tempted by this hatred of the rich, we have let them get away with their malignant scapegoating.
Of course, the Left's latest move has been to replace the wealthy with whites as the demonic source of all suffering. But that's another post.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Men have bigger brains than women, and the gap is HUGE!
This meta-analysis synthesized the results of 126 studies that used various measures to compare the brains of males and females. The results are amazing. Males not only have larger brains than females, on average: the difference is huge! Depending on how the brain is measured, the difference is between 1 and more than 3 standard deviations. The average guy has a brain that is more than 50 milliliters larger than the average female.
Male and female brain volumes are different in almost 30 areas of the brain. And it's not just size: male grey matter is denser in 7 areas.
The most important region for the difference is the limbic system, which is an emotional center. The big male advantage is on the left side of the limbic. Females are larger in the language areas of the right hemisphere.
I was surprised to read that sex differences were not located in areas of the brain in charge of spatial tasks since men have an advantage here, nor did the researchers find a difference in the corpus callosum, the region that connects the two sides of the brain. Women are said to have better integrated hemispheres, but this region does not appear to be larger in females.
The authors did not go into sex differences in behavior that might stem from brain differences, although they did mention the language difference. Women might get their advantage over men in verbal fluency from larger language areas in the brain.
The large limbic system in men suggests males and females will differ emotionally. Perhaps the larger, more dense limbic system enables greater integration with the frontal lobes which are in charge of rational thought. Men might be better at disengaging the feeling-thinking connection, giving them an advantage at a detached, systematizing style of thinking. Women are much better than men at empathizing--a more personal, less abstract style of thinking. These differences produce many men who are good at, say, engineering, and many women who have excellent interpersonal skills.
The brain differences emerge in young children, although there aren't enough studies to show this definitively. So how boys and girls are brought up probably has little to do with the gender gap. Vive la difference!
Male and female brain volumes are different in almost 30 areas of the brain. And it's not just size: male grey matter is denser in 7 areas.
The most important region for the difference is the limbic system, which is an emotional center. The big male advantage is on the left side of the limbic. Females are larger in the language areas of the right hemisphere.
I was surprised to read that sex differences were not located in areas of the brain in charge of spatial tasks since men have an advantage here, nor did the researchers find a difference in the corpus callosum, the region that connects the two sides of the brain. Women are said to have better integrated hemispheres, but this region does not appear to be larger in females.
The authors did not go into sex differences in behavior that might stem from brain differences, although they did mention the language difference. Women might get their advantage over men in verbal fluency from larger language areas in the brain.
The large limbic system in men suggests males and females will differ emotionally. Perhaps the larger, more dense limbic system enables greater integration with the frontal lobes which are in charge of rational thought. Men might be better at disengaging the feeling-thinking connection, giving them an advantage at a detached, systematizing style of thinking. Women are much better than men at empathizing--a more personal, less abstract style of thinking. These differences produce many men who are good at, say, engineering, and many women who have excellent interpersonal skills.
The brain differences emerge in young children, although there aren't enough studies to show this definitively. So how boys and girls are brought up probably has little to do with the gender gap. Vive la difference!
Wednesday, August 08, 2018
Blacks are becoming white
When African slaves were first brought to America, they were of course 100% sub-Saharan African. Fast forward to the present day, and gene studies estimate the blacks are, on average, about 20% white.
Black-white interbreeding is common today, and since any mixed raced kids are considered black, white genes flow into the black population today, and they will continue to flow. For how long, I don't know.
If it lasts for hundreds of years, blacks could actually become more than 50% white. They'll be more white than black. This seems to already be the case with Hispanics (more white than American Indian, on average).
Those people who claim that racial mixing will solve the race problem are probably wrong. Many of the most radical blacks or Hispanics are half white or more. Malcolm X, no white lover he, had a lot of white ancestry. Of course, this is the case for Obama, too.
If past trends continue, blacks and whites will be closer and closer genetically, but the conflict will continue.
Black-white interbreeding is common today, and since any mixed raced kids are considered black, white genes flow into the black population today, and they will continue to flow. For how long, I don't know.
If it lasts for hundreds of years, blacks could actually become more than 50% white. They'll be more white than black. This seems to already be the case with Hispanics (more white than American Indian, on average).
Those people who claim that racial mixing will solve the race problem are probably wrong. Many of the most radical blacks or Hispanics are half white or more. Malcolm X, no white lover he, had a lot of white ancestry. Of course, this is the case for Obama, too.
If past trends continue, blacks and whites will be closer and closer genetically, but the conflict will continue.
Monday, August 06, 2018
Which race hates whites the most?
Sarah Jeong's anti-white tweets raise a question: Which race hates whites the most?
The American General Social Survey (GSS) asked 15,822 people, "In general, how closely do you feel to whites? Answers ranged on a 9-point scale from "not close at all" (which received a score of 1) to "very close" (scored as a 9). Let's assume that people who answer 1 to 3 do not like whites.
People were also asked which country their family originally came from. Here are the percentages who do not like whites by ethnic group:
Percent not liking whites
Black 11.7
Mexican 9.3
Asian Indian 8.7
All non-whites 8.0
Puerto Rican 7.6
Chinese 7.3
Arab 6.1
American Indian 2.8
Japanese 2.1
Whites 2.0
Filipinos 0.0
The GSS does not identify Koreans--Ms. Jeong's ethnic group--but Asians differ. Chinese American have the most haters, while Filipinos like whites better than whites like themselves. Japanese Americans also have a low percentage.
While blacks and Mex-Ams have the most haters of any racial groups, racism isn't limited to poor minorities. Asian Indians are right behind these two groups.
American Indians have low numbers, but many of these folks are whites like Elizabeth Warren who like to cling to some supposed Indian ancestry. If we limit Indians to those who also say they are non-white, the number goes up to 6.9%.
Overall, I see these numbers as encouraging. Even among blacks, the vast majority do not dislike whites as a race of people.
UPDATE: I neglected to include Jews. Of the 272 Jewish Americans who were asked the question, 2.2% answered 1 through 3--not much different than other whites.
UPDATE: I neglected to include Jews. Of the 272 Jewish Americans who were asked the question, 2.2% answered 1 through 3--not much different than other whites.
Saturday, August 04, 2018
Meta-analysis: More cops, less crime
The American Left seems to believe that police don't reduce crime, they commit it.
This meta-analysis of 12 qualifying studies reports that increasing the number of sworn officers in a police force indeed reduces crime.
The impact differs depending on the type of crime. Most crime is done no one is looking, so police patrol might not be so relevant for crimes like rape.
Police presence seems most effective for car theft or assaults. Since cars are often stolen while parked in a public place, more patrolling might make a difference.
Assaults also happen frequently in public places like bars. The typical scenario is when one young drinking guy insults another young drinking guy, and mutual combat begins. Lots of cops around might make people think twice about starting a public brawl.
Keep in mind that the study found the impact of police force size to be fairly small. It helps, but not that much.
This meta-analysis of 12 qualifying studies reports that increasing the number of sworn officers in a police force indeed reduces crime.
The impact differs depending on the type of crime. Most crime is done no one is looking, so police patrol might not be so relevant for crimes like rape.
Police presence seems most effective for car theft or assaults. Since cars are often stolen while parked in a public place, more patrolling might make a difference.
Assaults also happen frequently in public places like bars. The typical scenario is when one young drinking guy insults another young drinking guy, and mutual combat begins. Lots of cops around might make people think twice about starting a public brawl.
Keep in mind that the study found the impact of police force size to be fairly small. It helps, but not that much.
Friday, August 03, 2018
Meta-analysis of 58 studies: "Oppressed" Hispanics live longer than White Americans
This meta-analysis of 58 studies documented the "Hispanic Paradox": Latinos are generally healthier and live longer than whites and blacks. To be specific, their rate of dying is 18% lower than that of other Americans.
This kind of finding keeps sociologists up at night because racism by whites is supposed to destroy brown lives, and yet Hispanics outlive whites, and what do people care about more than being alive?
The obvious candidate explanation is that genes are the reason Hispanics live so long, and the authors do manage to write two or three words about the possibility.
Sociologists are also very troubled to find that women live so much longer than men since male oppression, they tell us, absolutely crushes the female soul. And right on time, feminists dream up a million reasons why the sex difference is NOT biological. God forbid we actually develop explanations that fit the data.
The study also reports that Asians live even longer than Hispanics. But how can any minority overcome the Evil White Man? Not only are Asians non-white, many are non-Christian. And many are immigrants. And we all know Trump's Deplorables--the power structure of this country (ha!)--despise anyone who is not white, Christian, and American.
So, again, how is it possible that Asian Americans are so healthy? How is it that they are so much more educated than the White Devil, and make so much more money than him? Maybe because liberals are 100% delusional, and genes explain these patterns.
This kind of finding keeps sociologists up at night because racism by whites is supposed to destroy brown lives, and yet Hispanics outlive whites, and what do people care about more than being alive?
The obvious candidate explanation is that genes are the reason Hispanics live so long, and the authors do manage to write two or three words about the possibility.
Sociologists are also very troubled to find that women live so much longer than men since male oppression, they tell us, absolutely crushes the female soul. And right on time, feminists dream up a million reasons why the sex difference is NOT biological. God forbid we actually develop explanations that fit the data.
The study also reports that Asians live even longer than Hispanics. But how can any minority overcome the Evil White Man? Not only are Asians non-white, many are non-Christian. And many are immigrants. And we all know Trump's Deplorables--the power structure of this country (ha!)--despise anyone who is not white, Christian, and American.
So, again, how is it possible that Asian Americans are so healthy? How is it that they are so much more educated than the White Devil, and make so much more money than him? Maybe because liberals are 100% delusional, and genes explain these patterns.
Sunday, July 29, 2018
What to say if someone tells you America hasn't done enough to stigmatize racists
If someone complains that America has not done enough to stigmatize racism, you tell them this:
Jeffrey Dahmer killed, mutilated and ate many victims, and nine of them were black. When prosecutors asked him if he had something against blacks, he answered, "Whoa, whoa, slow down! Yes, I killed, mutilated, and ate a lot of black guys, but I did it because I LIKED them. I may be a lot of things, including a cannibal, but I am NOT, I repeat, NOT A RACIST!!!" (True story, I just paraphrase.)
Jeffrey Dahmer killed, mutilated and ate many victims, and nine of them were black. When prosecutors asked him if he had something against blacks, he answered, "Whoa, whoa, slow down! Yes, I killed, mutilated, and ate a lot of black guys, but I did it because I LIKED them. I may be a lot of things, including a cannibal, but I am NOT, I repeat, NOT A RACIST!!!" (True story, I just paraphrase.)
Saturday, July 28, 2018
Meta-analysis: Iodine supplementation raises IQ
Studies have shown that individuals with a moderate to severe iodine deficiency have an average IQ that is 13.5 points lower than others.
These studies, however, were only based on correlations or were quasi-experimental designs. This meta-analysis located two random clinical studies that administered iodine supplementation to children who lived in areas (one study was in Albania, the other in New Zealand) with mild to moderate iodine deficiency.
Here is the impact on IQ:
If we focus on the adjusted numbers, children who received the iodine supplement scored more than 1/2 standard deviation (sd) higher on perceptual reasoning (a moderate improvement) and more than a 1/4 of an sd higher on the global cognitive index (a noteworthy improvement).
Two studies of less than 500 kids is not bad, but it would be nice to see more studies of this type and the experimental effects on kids when you give pregnant moms the iodine supplement.
This type of research gets little attention from liberals because: 1) it recognizes the reality of intelligence, 2) it is biologically oriented, and 3) it is the type of intervention that is way too easy, inexpensive, and sensible.
These studies, however, were only based on correlations or were quasi-experimental designs. This meta-analysis located two random clinical studies that administered iodine supplementation to children who lived in areas (one study was in Albania, the other in New Zealand) with mild to moderate iodine deficiency.
Here is the impact on IQ:
If we focus on the adjusted numbers, children who received the iodine supplement scored more than 1/2 standard deviation (sd) higher on perceptual reasoning (a moderate improvement) and more than a 1/4 of an sd higher on the global cognitive index (a noteworthy improvement).
Two studies of less than 500 kids is not bad, but it would be nice to see more studies of this type and the experimental effects on kids when you give pregnant moms the iodine supplement.
This type of research gets little attention from liberals because: 1) it recognizes the reality of intelligence, 2) it is biologically oriented, and 3) it is the type of intervention that is way too easy, inexpensive, and sensible.
Friday, July 27, 2018
A black in 2018 is a person, not some grand symbol of America's sins
Watching Roseanne's interview on Hannity got me thinking about how elite Americans think about blacks. When they think of Valerie Jarrett, they don't think of one person with a particular biography. They think of this enormous black organism that lives now and suffered the wounds of slavery and Jim Crow in the past. Blacks born in, say, 1980, are regarded with reverence, as if they are Holocaust survivors, as if they were whipped many times by their owner.
Ordinary Americans like myself look at someone like Jarrett and simply see a person. A person who has had a good life and should be regarded as anyone else. She doesn't live in a system where she is a second-class citizen. She's not some grand symbol of America's sins, she's just Valerie. She should be judged just like anyone else.
Ordinary Americans like myself look at someone like Jarrett and simply see a person. A person who has had a good life and should be regarded as anyone else. She doesn't live in a system where she is a second-class citizen. She's not some grand symbol of America's sins, she's just Valerie. She should be judged just like anyone else.
Thursday, July 26, 2018
UNIVERSAL finding: 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants are MUCH more criminal than parents/grandparents
I ran across an interesting study that looks at immigration and crime. In typical fashion, it doesn't do a good job of looking specifically at illegal aliens because the government does not keep good stats on this population.
The author reviews 125 studies from many countries. He cites the well-known finding that immigrants overall have lower crime rates than native-borns. He fails to stress that this is not the case in Europe. Immigrants are more criminal there. He does acknowledge that not all immigrant groups are the same: some have high rates of criminality, some don't.
He does a decent job of explaining why immigrants sometimes have lower crime levels: 1) they are typically older than the most crime-prone age group (15-24); 2) they are sometimes better educated; 3) they are typically employed here; and 4) their foreignness makes them self-conscious. I would add that being in a foreign country makes a person more fearful, and fearful people try to stay out trouble. Immigrants are much more fearful of police than natives.
But then we get to the headline of this review. ALL research indicates that second- and third-generation immigrants are much MORE criminal that their parents and grandparents. This is a universal finding. The author chalks it up to social factors like not being able to mainstream, etc.
You should consider a genetic perspective to make sense of these research findings. You've got to be a risk-taker to leave your home country and start a new life in a new place, especially if the move is very difficult. You have to be the type of person who sees a distant goal, typically more money, and will do whatever the hell it takes to get it. So immigrants have more of these traits than the average compatriot they leave behind.
But the children of the immigrants for genetic reasons tend to turn out not much different than the typical person from the Old Country. And so it goes for future generations.
Americans need to take the long view. When a person, legal or illegal, moves to our country, we don't get an individual, we get a family line. That person might leave 100 descendants over the next few decades. What kind of population do you get?
For example, first-generation Mexican immigrants probably have been risk takers and goal-oriented, but many years and tens of millions of people later, you have a population that is comparatively poor, prone to gang formation and crime, allergic to education, and that votes Democrat. And neither the free market nor all the social programs in the world will change that brute reality.
The author reviews 125 studies from many countries. He cites the well-known finding that immigrants overall have lower crime rates than native-borns. He fails to stress that this is not the case in Europe. Immigrants are more criminal there. He does acknowledge that not all immigrant groups are the same: some have high rates of criminality, some don't.
He does a decent job of explaining why immigrants sometimes have lower crime levels: 1) they are typically older than the most crime-prone age group (15-24); 2) they are sometimes better educated; 3) they are typically employed here; and 4) their foreignness makes them self-conscious. I would add that being in a foreign country makes a person more fearful, and fearful people try to stay out trouble. Immigrants are much more fearful of police than natives.
But then we get to the headline of this review. ALL research indicates that second- and third-generation immigrants are much MORE criminal that their parents and grandparents. This is a universal finding. The author chalks it up to social factors like not being able to mainstream, etc.
You should consider a genetic perspective to make sense of these research findings. You've got to be a risk-taker to leave your home country and start a new life in a new place, especially if the move is very difficult. You have to be the type of person who sees a distant goal, typically more money, and will do whatever the hell it takes to get it. So immigrants have more of these traits than the average compatriot they leave behind.
But the children of the immigrants for genetic reasons tend to turn out not much different than the typical person from the Old Country. And so it goes for future generations.
Americans need to take the long view. When a person, legal or illegal, moves to our country, we don't get an individual, we get a family line. That person might leave 100 descendants over the next few decades. What kind of population do you get?
For example, first-generation Mexican immigrants probably have been risk takers and goal-oriented, but many years and tens of millions of people later, you have a population that is comparatively poor, prone to gang formation and crime, allergic to education, and that votes Democrat. And neither the free market nor all the social programs in the world will change that brute reality.
Wednesday, July 25, 2018
The American Journal of Public Health twists data to make cops look racist
This new study by the prestigious American Journal of Public Health reports that the rate that US males are killed by police is 1.9 to 2.4 per 100,000 population for blacks, 0.8 to 1.2 for Hispanics, and 0.6 and 0.7 for whites. The authors then stress that we need to reduce this racial disparity in killings by police.
The authors conveniently leave out the fact that people who get shot by law enforcement are the ones: 1) who interact with the police the most, and 2) who resist the police the most. These two facts explain the higher numbers among blacks and Hispanics. But why explain that when you have an opportunity to portray cops as racist?
The authors conveniently leave out the fact that people who get shot by law enforcement are the ones: 1) who interact with the police the most, and 2) who resist the police the most. These two facts explain the higher numbers among blacks and Hispanics. But why explain that when you have an opportunity to portray cops as racist?
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
You would think a continent this size could produce at least one First World country.
Does perceived racial discrimination screw up teenage victims?
This new meta-analysis of 214 studies and more than 90,000 participants found that adolescents who perceive more racial discrimination tend to be more depressed, distressed, aggressive, sexually risky, drug abusing, and they have more deviant friends. They have poorer self-esteem, lower academic motivation and achievement. In other words, they are the problem kids.
Of course, all these liberal researchers assume that racial discrimination is driving victims to negative behavior. It's more likely that disagreeable, cynical, suspicious, and hostile people interpret ambiguous interactions as racist, buy into the message that their society is oppressive, and at the same time they have more emotional and behavior problems than trusting, agreeable people.
This is a huge analysis conducted by researchers who seem very concerned with the well-being of adolescents. All racial groups are studied here... except whites. The possibility of white teens suffering from racial mistreatment doesn't seem worth even looking into. Not in 214 studies. Whites are the oppressors, after all.
Of course, the reader who is paying attention may accuse me of being suspicious and cynical for suggesting that anti-white discrimination exists. Well, I never claimed to be a sweetheart.
Of course, all these liberal researchers assume that racial discrimination is driving victims to negative behavior. It's more likely that disagreeable, cynical, suspicious, and hostile people interpret ambiguous interactions as racist, buy into the message that their society is oppressive, and at the same time they have more emotional and behavior problems than trusting, agreeable people.
This is a huge analysis conducted by researchers who seem very concerned with the well-being of adolescents. All racial groups are studied here... except whites. The possibility of white teens suffering from racial mistreatment doesn't seem worth even looking into. Not in 214 studies. Whites are the oppressors, after all.
Of course, the reader who is paying attention may accuse me of being suspicious and cynical for suggesting that anti-white discrimination exists. Well, I never claimed to be a sweetheart.
Sunday, July 22, 2018
Which oil for cooking is the healthiest? A meta-analysis of 54 trials
This new meta-analysis of 54 randomized studies looked to see which oils improve your cholesterol the best.
The authors found that you can bring down your bad cholesterol (LDL) by eating the following oils instead of butter: safflower, sunflower, canola, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, coconut, and even beef fat. All these were better than butter for total cholesterol, and safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean oil beat lard for total cholesterol.
Compared to lard, safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean did better on LDL. And sunflower was better than olive and palm oil.
For raising the good cholesterol (HDL), safflower turns out to be the loser. Sunflower, olive, palm, coconut and even beef fat are improvements. Sunflower, olive and beef fat are better than soybean. Coconut and palm beat soybean as well as corn oil. The researchers, however, say there's evidence that high HDL might not reduce your cardiovascular disease risk, so LDL seems to be more important.
For triacyglycerols--fat levels--sunflower, soybean, and palm oil are superior to butter, while safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, and palm are better than beef fat.
Maybe you didn't need all that, but the big depressing news is that butter--which I love--stinks, and it looks like sunflower oil is the grand champion. I don't see it around as much as other oils, but according to experimental research, it seems to be the healthiest choice.
Myself, I like it when science contradicts the cool people who tell me I need to eat olive and coconut oil 24/7.
UPDATE: The Russians like sunflower oil, but I swear I did not post this research because they have something on me.
The authors found that you can bring down your bad cholesterol (LDL) by eating the following oils instead of butter: safflower, sunflower, canola, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, coconut, and even beef fat. All these were better than butter for total cholesterol, and safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean oil beat lard for total cholesterol.
Compared to lard, safflower, sunflower, canola, corn, and soybean did better on LDL. And sunflower was better than olive and palm oil.
For raising the good cholesterol (HDL), safflower turns out to be the loser. Sunflower, olive, palm, coconut and even beef fat are improvements. Sunflower, olive and beef fat are better than soybean. Coconut and palm beat soybean as well as corn oil. The researchers, however, say there's evidence that high HDL might not reduce your cardiovascular disease risk, so LDL seems to be more important.
For triacyglycerols--fat levels--sunflower, soybean, and palm oil are superior to butter, while safflower, sunflower, corn, soybean, and palm are better than beef fat.
Maybe you didn't need all that, but the big depressing news is that butter--which I love--stinks, and it looks like sunflower oil is the grand champion. I don't see it around as much as other oils, but according to experimental research, it seems to be the healthiest choice.
Myself, I like it when science contradicts the cool people who tell me I need to eat olive and coconut oil 24/7.
UPDATE: The Russians like sunflower oil, but I swear I did not post this research because they have something on me.
Friday, July 20, 2018
New study: High rate of underweight black newborns due to genes, not racism
A new study finds that several gene variants in African-Americans help explains why they have underweight newborns twice as often as whites. For example, two of the DNA points (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) that affect birth weight vary a great deal by race; for one point, 69% of pure Africans carry the weight-lowering version, while only 2% of Europeans have it. For the other point, it was 91% for Africans and 23% for Europeans.
Now the race-deniers tell us that blacks and whites don't differ on genes, but do these percentages seem the same to you?
Next question, why would Africans frequently have genes that make their babies smaller--a trait that predicts health problems down the road?
The honest answer is, I don't know. But this does remind me of Phil Rushton's theory that blacks and whites have different "evolutionary strategies"; that evolutionary pressures have shifted blacks toward a more "quantitative" approach to reproduction, whereas whites and East Asians are shifted toward "quality" offspring--fewer of them, but greater investment in each one. Baby-enlarging genes have supposedly been selected for among whites and Asians.
Whatever the explanation, this study shows strong evidence that black newborns tend to be smaller, not because of some social disadvantage imposed by racist whites, but because of genes and evolutionary differences.
Now the race-deniers tell us that blacks and whites don't differ on genes, but do these percentages seem the same to you?
Next question, why would Africans frequently have genes that make their babies smaller--a trait that predicts health problems down the road?
The honest answer is, I don't know. But this does remind me of Phil Rushton's theory that blacks and whites have different "evolutionary strategies"; that evolutionary pressures have shifted blacks toward a more "quantitative" approach to reproduction, whereas whites and East Asians are shifted toward "quality" offspring--fewer of them, but greater investment in each one. Baby-enlarging genes have supposedly been selected for among whites and Asians.
Whatever the explanation, this study shows strong evidence that black newborns tend to be smaller, not because of some social disadvantage imposed by racist whites, but because of genes and evolutionary differences.
Monday, July 16, 2018
Meta-analysis of clinical trials: Eat walnuts
I am always looking for easy eating choices that are good for you. This new meta-analysis of 26 clinical trials looked to see if walnuts make a difference. The authors found that daily consumption of walnuts significantly lowered total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol--the "bad" stuff that clogs arteries. It also reduced triglycerides or fats in the blood. HDL, the "good" cholesterol, remained unchanged.
The researchers found that subjects who ate enough walnuts so that it was 10-24% of their daily energy intake got more benefit than those at the 5% level. So for someone about my size--5' 10", 180 pounds--you should probably eat roughly 2 ounces per day.
Of course, all of this assumes that conventional medicine is right about cholesterol and triglycerides.
The researchers found that subjects who ate enough walnuts so that it was 10-24% of their daily energy intake got more benefit than those at the 5% level. So for someone about my size--5' 10", 180 pounds--you should probably eat roughly 2 ounces per day.
Of course, all of this assumes that conventional medicine is right about cholesterol and triglycerides.
Friday, July 13, 2018
Consciousness explained naturally? Doubt it
From Amazon's description of a new book on consciousness:
How can the seemingly immaterial experience of consciousness be explained by the material neurons of the brain? There seems to be an unbridgeable gap between understanding the brain as an objectively observed biological organ and accounting for the subjective experiences that come from the brain (and life processes). In this book, Todd Feinberg and Jon Mallatt attempt to demystify consciousness―to naturalize it, by explaining that the subjective, experiencing aspects of consciousness are created by natural brain processes that evolved in natural ways. Although subjective experience is unique in nature, they argue, it is not necessarily mysterious. We need not invoke the unknown or unknowable to explain its creation.I haven't read the book (it's not out yet), and maybe I can find the time, but call me a big skeptic. My experience from the inside IS immaterial and is categorically separate from the material universe as understood by science. I assume these authors will more or less argue that my subjective experience is some sort of trick generated by my brain. This is simply absurd. I THINK the material world is real, but like the philosophers tell us, for all I know some demon is causing me to hallucinate the world. But I KNOW with utter certainty that I am really experiencing stuff right now. If that is to be doubted, all bets are off.
A new book will tell you who you really are
I'm excited to read this new book by leading behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin. From the book description:
This just shows that people, even those at the top of society, form their opinions based on what they want to believe, not based on the data. For years I didn't want to believe the genetic research, but it's simply too compelling.
A century of genetic research shows that DNA differences inherited from our parents are the consistent life-long sources of our psychological individuality―the blueprint that makes us who we are. This, says Plomin, is a game-changer. It calls for a radical rethinking of what makes us who were are. Plomin has been working on these issues for almost fifty years, conducting longitudinal studies of twins and adoptees. He reports that genetics explains more of the psychological differences among people than all other factors combined. Genetics accounts for fifty percent of psychological differences―not just mental health and school achievement, but all psychological traits, from personality to intellectual abilities. Nature defeats nurture by a landslide.The science should have flipped our understanding of human nature by now, but cultural elites are so allergic to reality, educated Americans still understand people to be a product of their upbringing. If a kid is a drug addict and white, they blame the parents. If he's black, they blame an unjust society. If public opinion reflected the science, people would say, "Poor bastard--he's got bad genes." Sure, there are other factors, and choices matter, but genes are the 800 pound gorilla.
This just shows that people, even those at the top of society, form their opinions based on what they want to believe, not based on the data. For years I didn't want to believe the genetic research, but it's simply too compelling.
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
How to be right about people
If you want to be right about people, taking biology and evolution seriously is a big help.
A few years ago, researchers started telling us how the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin make us more loving and caring toward others; that biologically, we have this kumbaya side to our nature.
I was skeptical because I know that human genes, like those of all animals, have been selected over deep history to produce people who care about themselves and their families at the expense of others. We're not put together to sacrifice for all humanity like we would for a daughter.
So I was not surprised to learn from more recent research that, yes, oxytocin and vasopressin make us more nurturing, but only towards the ingroup; you know, friends and family. Towards outsiders, the hormones cause us to feel more, shall we say, ill-disposed.
It's almost as if you have two kinds of people: 1) those who are selfish and don't care about groups, and 2) those who love and sacrifice for the ingroup, and dislike the outgroup. And the true humanitarian--the man who would lay his life down for a stranger as quickly as he would his mother--is a rare specimen, indeed.
A few years ago, researchers started telling us how the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin make us more loving and caring toward others; that biologically, we have this kumbaya side to our nature.
I was skeptical because I know that human genes, like those of all animals, have been selected over deep history to produce people who care about themselves and their families at the expense of others. We're not put together to sacrifice for all humanity like we would for a daughter.
So I was not surprised to learn from more recent research that, yes, oxytocin and vasopressin make us more nurturing, but only towards the ingroup; you know, friends and family. Towards outsiders, the hormones cause us to feel more, shall we say, ill-disposed.
It's almost as if you have two kinds of people: 1) those who are selfish and don't care about groups, and 2) those who love and sacrifice for the ingroup, and dislike the outgroup. And the true humanitarian--the man who would lay his life down for a stranger as quickly as he would his mother--is a rare specimen, indeed.
New study finds hundreds of genes that affect IQ
Gene studies of intelligence these days are mind-blowing. There's a new one practically every week. This new one is a meta-analysis of 14 studies of whites that totals 270,000 individuals.
The researchers examine the link between 9.2 million gene variants and IQ. Turns out that it's difficult to detect the impact of a single gene because most traits--and intelligence is no exception--are caused by hundreds if not thousands of genes. The authors found that between 139 and 1,016 genes influence IQ, depending how strict the method used. Collectively, all the single points that varied (single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) and were found to matter explained around 20% of the variation in intelligence. That number will likely go up as studies get more powerful.
Further analysis revealed that the relevant genes are linked to how the brain develops and functions: neurogenesis, neuron differentiation, regulation of nervous system development, regulation of synapse structure and activity. Being smart simply means you've got a brain that works really well.
The authors also found that the genes that explain IQ also increase longevity and lower one's risk of Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and ADHD. The picture emerging is that some people are lucky and have genes that lead to a wide range of healthy outcomes, while the unlucky ones might suffer from a range of problems. The only exception reported in the study was autism: IQ genes were linked to more autism.
A bi-directional relationship was found for IQ and educational attainment; while IQ led to more schooling, more school also boosted IQ.
Since our culture creates unrealistic expectations by telling us, "You can be whatever you want," one goal of this blog is to inject a little adulthood with Clint Eastwood's, "A man must know his limitations." There is wisdom in the view that you do have some say in your life, but where you end up is partly beyond your control. At the risk of sounding like a liberal, go easy on yourself and others.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
What causes a person to climb the ladder of success?
Here's the abstract from a new genome-wide association study on social mobility. Sounds about right to me:
A summary genetic measure, called a “polygenic score,” derived from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of education can modestly predict a person’s educational and economic success. This prediction could signal a biological mechanism: Education-linked genetics could encode characteristics that help people get ahead in life. Alternatively, prediction could reflect social history: People from well-off families might stay well-off for social reasons, and these families might also look alike genetically.
A key test to distinguish biological mechanism from social history is if people with higher education polygenic scores tend to climb the social ladder beyond their parents’ position. Upward mobility would indicate education-linked genetics encodes characteristics that foster success.
We tested if education-linked polygenic scores predicted social mobility in >20,000 individuals in five longitudinal studies in the United States, Britain, and New Zealand. Participants with higher polygenic scores achieved more education and career success and accumulated more wealth. However, they also tended to come from better-off families.
In the key test, participants with higher polygenic scores tended to be upwardly mobile compared with their parents. Moreover, in sibling-difference analysis, the sibling with the higher polygenic score was more upwardly mobile.
Thus, education GWAS discoveries are not mere correlates of privilege; they influence social mobility within a life. Additional analyses revealed that a mother’s polygenic score predicted her child’s attainment over and above the child’s own polygenic score, suggesting parents’ genetics can also affect their children’s attainment through environmental pathways. Education GWAS discoveries affect socioeconomic attainment through influence on individuals’ family-of-origin environments and their social mobility.
Monday, July 09, 2018
Natural selection led to racial differences in susceptibility to disease, Part II
In Part I, I introduced the idea that blacks and whites differ in how their immune systems react to pathogens, and this is due, in part, to evolution having affected relevant genes.
Here in Part II, I lay out the research evidence summarized in this study. Compared to whites, the immune systems of blacks have a stronger gene response to immune stimulation, especially the genes related to the activation of inflammatory responses. Blacks often have higher frequencies of alleles (i.e., one variety of a gene) associated with stronger proinflammatory responses to infection.
Two studies illustrate this. One tested how macrophages (i.e., a type of large white blood cell) responded to two different types of infections, and the other on monocyte (i.e., another large white blood cell) response to several pathogens such as the human seasonal influenza A virus. On average, 21% of the relevant genes appeared to show different expression between whites and blacks, and 16% of the genes reacting to immune stimulation showed that blacks had a more intense response.
Differences in genes that regulate other genes explain much of the racial difference in immune response. One variant is found in 67% of whites but only 4% of blacks. The authors found that this one difference explained from 27 to 91% of the black-white difference in immune response to various infections.
While the authors write that we have not studied very much the extent to which positive selection has contributed to racial differences in immune response, they cite at least seven studies that report signs that evolutionary pressures have caused the racial differences. Some of the relevant diseases include malaria, African trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), celiac disease, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic sclerosis.
The researchers suggest the possibility that there is an "evolutionary conflict between mounting a strong inflammatory response to effectively fight pathogens and avoiding the detrimental consequences of acute and chronic inflammation, which can lead to tissue damage and the development of autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases."
We have recently learned that 2% of the ancestry of humans outside of Africa is Neanderthal. This may help explain the black-white differences in immune response. Higher levels of Neanderthal admixture can be detected in immune system genes in Europeans and Asians. Regulatory gene variants from Neanderthals have been found to affect the immune responses of Europeans, especially the responses to viruses.
All these racial differences in genes and immune systems are really weird since "race experts" tell us that this race stuff is just an hallucination dreamed up by evil white people.
Here in Part II, I lay out the research evidence summarized in this study. Compared to whites, the immune systems of blacks have a stronger gene response to immune stimulation, especially the genes related to the activation of inflammatory responses. Blacks often have higher frequencies of alleles (i.e., one variety of a gene) associated with stronger proinflammatory responses to infection.
Two studies illustrate this. One tested how macrophages (i.e., a type of large white blood cell) responded to two different types of infections, and the other on monocyte (i.e., another large white blood cell) response to several pathogens such as the human seasonal influenza A virus. On average, 21% of the relevant genes appeared to show different expression between whites and blacks, and 16% of the genes reacting to immune stimulation showed that blacks had a more intense response.
Differences in genes that regulate other genes explain much of the racial difference in immune response. One variant is found in 67% of whites but only 4% of blacks. The authors found that this one difference explained from 27 to 91% of the black-white difference in immune response to various infections.
While the authors write that we have not studied very much the extent to which positive selection has contributed to racial differences in immune response, they cite at least seven studies that report signs that evolutionary pressures have caused the racial differences. Some of the relevant diseases include malaria, African trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness), celiac disease, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, and systemic sclerosis.
The researchers suggest the possibility that there is an "evolutionary conflict between mounting a strong inflammatory response to effectively fight pathogens and avoiding the detrimental consequences of acute and chronic inflammation, which can lead to tissue damage and the development of autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases."
We have recently learned that 2% of the ancestry of humans outside of Africa is Neanderthal. This may help explain the black-white differences in immune response. Higher levels of Neanderthal admixture can be detected in immune system genes in Europeans and Asians. Regulatory gene variants from Neanderthals have been found to affect the immune responses of Europeans, especially the responses to viruses.
All these racial differences in genes and immune systems are really weird since "race experts" tell us that this race stuff is just an hallucination dreamed up by evil white people.
Saturday, July 07, 2018
Natural selection led to racial differences in susceptibility to disease, Part I
Here's a figure from a new study that reviews research on racial differences in immune system response. Notice how the regions with the highest abundance of pathogens (disease-causing microorganisms) are the northern half of South America, central sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and southeast Asia.
The graph also traces important moves humans have made over the past 65,000 years, and the right panel shows that people with European ancestry suffer from high rates of death from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, while those with SSA ancestry experience a high incidence of mortality from cardiovascular disease, surgical complications, meningitis, diabetes, septicemia (blood poisoning), kidney inflammation, perinatal death, asthma, childbirth, and HIV.
In the next post, I'll summarize the evidence presented in the study that immune system genes show signs of evolutionary adaptation to the different pathogen environments that races have lived in.
The graph also traces important moves humans have made over the past 65,000 years, and the right panel shows that people with European ancestry suffer from high rates of death from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, while those with SSA ancestry experience a high incidence of mortality from cardiovascular disease, surgical complications, meningitis, diabetes, septicemia (blood poisoning), kidney inflammation, perinatal death, asthma, childbirth, and HIV.
In the next post, I'll summarize the evidence presented in the study that immune system genes show signs of evolutionary adaptation to the different pathogen environments that races have lived in.
Friday, July 06, 2018
Another benefit of white male privilege: High rates of brain cancer!
Liberals instruct us that white male privilege is all-powerful and pervasive. Then they compare black and white statistical differences to support their contention. Of course, they are very selective since blacks and other so-called oppressed groups come out ahead all the time.
Take, for instance, brain cancer. This new study of the US between 2000 and 2014 (almost 250k cancer patients were identified) reported that the incidence of glioblastomas--the most common (and very deadly) type of brain cancer--is around 1.5 times higher in men than women. The chart below shows that whites face more than twice the risk of getting a glioblastoma compared to all minority racial groups. (Even Hispanics who identify as white have a significantly lower rate.)
Not only do whites suffer from higher rates of brain cancer, the study concluded they are significantly less likely to survive for 1 or 5 years, so there is no evidence that whites get health care biased in their favor.
If oppression by whites produces these kinds of results for minorities, please God turn me brown!
Take, for instance, brain cancer. This new study of the US between 2000 and 2014 (almost 250k cancer patients were identified) reported that the incidence of glioblastomas--the most common (and very deadly) type of brain cancer--is around 1.5 times higher in men than women. The chart below shows that whites face more than twice the risk of getting a glioblastoma compared to all minority racial groups. (Even Hispanics who identify as white have a significantly lower rate.)
Not only do whites suffer from higher rates of brain cancer, the study concluded they are significantly less likely to survive for 1 or 5 years, so there is no evidence that whites get health care biased in their favor.
If oppression by whites produces these kinds of results for minorities, please God turn me brown!
Thursday, July 05, 2018
Testosterone makes men prefer high-status goods
Here's a new study on the impact of testosterone (T). In a placebo-controlled experiment of 243 men, giving a dose of T increases preference for status brands over brands of similar perceived quality but lower status. T also makes men have more positive attitudes toward high-status goods, but does not affect how they feel about power-enhancing or high-quality goods.
Interesting how T makes us like status, not power. I guess the difference is that power is not necessarily socially-approved, but status is.
This study did not include women, but it appears that T makes men more concerned with rising in the social hierarchy, and we signal our position through status goods. This has gotten to be a more subtle game as elites have embraced the t-shirts and shabby jeans of the working man, but our nature cannot escape hierarchy.
Interesting how T makes us like status, not power. I guess the difference is that power is not necessarily socially-approved, but status is.
This study did not include women, but it appears that T makes men more concerned with rising in the social hierarchy, and we signal our position through status goods. This has gotten to be a more subtle game as elites have embraced the t-shirts and shabby jeans of the working man, but our nature cannot escape hierarchy.
Monday, July 02, 2018
Saturday, June 30, 2018
How personality is related to sexuality
This new, large meta-analysis of 761 effects sizes with a sample of over 400k people looks at the relationship between personality traits sand sexuality.
People who score high on neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative emotions like anxiety) are less sexually satisfied (r = .18) and have more symptoms of sexual dysfunction (r = .16).
Extraverts engage in more sexual activity (r = .17) and risky sexual behavior (r = .18) and have less sexual dysfunction (r = −.17).
People who are open to experience are more likely to be homosexual (r = .16) and to have liberal attitudes toward sex (r = .19).
Highly agreeable and conscientious (i.e., self-disciplined) people are less sexually aggressive (r = −.20; r = −.14) and are less like to be unfaithful (r+ = .18; r+ = .17).
So, if you're looking for a trustworthy partner who enjoys sex, your best bet is to find a person who is even-keeled, cooperative, and diligent.
By the way, these traits are highly influenced by genes, so don't assume you can change someone into a desirable partner. A major theme among people who take genes seriously is, what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG).
People who score high on neuroticism (the tendency to experience negative emotions like anxiety) are less sexually satisfied (r = .18) and have more symptoms of sexual dysfunction (r = .16).
Extraverts engage in more sexual activity (r = .17) and risky sexual behavior (r = .18) and have less sexual dysfunction (r = −.17).
People who are open to experience are more likely to be homosexual (r = .16) and to have liberal attitudes toward sex (r = .19).
Highly agreeable and conscientious (i.e., self-disciplined) people are less sexually aggressive (r = −.20; r = −.14) and are less like to be unfaithful (r+ = .18; r+ = .17).
So, if you're looking for a trustworthy partner who enjoys sex, your best bet is to find a person who is even-keeled, cooperative, and diligent.
By the way, these traits are highly influenced by genes, so don't assume you can change someone into a desirable partner. A major theme among people who take genes seriously is, what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG).
Thursday, June 28, 2018
Details on wolves and coyotes
We saw in the recent post that a statistic, the fixation index, that measures the genetic distance between two populations indicates that Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans are as far apart as wolves and coyotes.
This is a useful comparison because, while it is hard for humans to look at race without bias, who cares about wolves and coyotes?
I looked at Walker's Carnivores of the World to see what is says about these two species. Notice how I used the term species. Canis latrans (coyotes) and Canis lupus (gray wolves). The simple fact that blacks and whites are different as two (closely related) species is stunning. Coyotes and wolves interbreed, but biologists consider them separate species. But let's get specific.
First of all, the two species are obviously similar. Many of the major traits one would think of for one species is true for the other: carnivorous, keen sense of smell, cooperative hunting, etc. The two species live out their lives in very similar ways. So do blacks and whites.
But the two species are for from identical. Wolves are much larger: head and body length are 1,000 to 1,600 mm compared with coyotes at 750-1,000 mm. Wolves' tails are 350 to 560 mm, while those of coyotes are 300-400 mm. Coyotes have a narrower build, proportionally longer ears, and a much narrower snout. At birth, coyotes average 250 grams; for wolves, it's 450 grams. Coyotes appear to reach sexual maturity earlier than wolves, and their maximum longevity is 1.5 years shorter (14.5 vs. 16 years).
You might counter that perhaps they differ physically, but the real question is behavior, and the two behave the same. Not so. Wolves are more social. They run in significantly larger packs, they engage in cooperative hunting more often and on a larger scale, and they target much bigger game. While coyotes focus on rabbits and rodents, wolves don't focus on anything smaller than a beaver. They take down deer, moose, wapiti, caribou, bison, muskox, mountain sheep, etc.
Coyotes focus much more on scavenging. They are more likely to hunt alone or in pairs, and will even partner up with a badger. The coyote uses his superior nose to sniff out a rodent, while the badger uses his superior claws to dig up the meal they split. Coyotes can prey on sheep, but wolves also go after larger animals that are important to humans: cattle and reindeer.
The home range of wolves is much larger: the book reports a maximum of 13,000 sq km for wolves, but only 80 km for coyotes. Wolves need much more space: They can't get more dense than one wolf per 26 sq km while coyotes get as high as 2 per sq km.
You might counter again that behavioral differences in animals may be influenced by genes, but humans are controlled by culture. Over the years, I've read a number of studies on the heritability of animal behavior. It's often been of rodents--not known for their rich culture. I was stunned to learn that human conduct is influenced by genes just as much as that of animals. Heritabilities for animal behavior typically run from .2 to .4. Studies often give heritabilities for humans higher than that.
To see who we are more clearly, we have got to look at ourselves like we look at coyotes and wolves; as animals, plain and simple.
UPDATE: To clarify, I suspect that the environment is not as important for animal behavior as the heritability studies suggest. For both human and animal studies, anything not genetic gets thrown into the environment component, but it likely contains a lot of measurement error, random noise, and other factors that probably cannot be changed like the term "environment" suggests.
This is a useful comparison because, while it is hard for humans to look at race without bias, who cares about wolves and coyotes?
I looked at Walker's Carnivores of the World to see what is says about these two species. Notice how I used the term species. Canis latrans (coyotes) and Canis lupus (gray wolves). The simple fact that blacks and whites are different as two (closely related) species is stunning. Coyotes and wolves interbreed, but biologists consider them separate species. But let's get specific.
First of all, the two species are obviously similar. Many of the major traits one would think of for one species is true for the other: carnivorous, keen sense of smell, cooperative hunting, etc. The two species live out their lives in very similar ways. So do blacks and whites.
But the two species are for from identical. Wolves are much larger: head and body length are 1,000 to 1,600 mm compared with coyotes at 750-1,000 mm. Wolves' tails are 350 to 560 mm, while those of coyotes are 300-400 mm. Coyotes have a narrower build, proportionally longer ears, and a much narrower snout. At birth, coyotes average 250 grams; for wolves, it's 450 grams. Coyotes appear to reach sexual maturity earlier than wolves, and their maximum longevity is 1.5 years shorter (14.5 vs. 16 years).
You might counter that perhaps they differ physically, but the real question is behavior, and the two behave the same. Not so. Wolves are more social. They run in significantly larger packs, they engage in cooperative hunting more often and on a larger scale, and they target much bigger game. While coyotes focus on rabbits and rodents, wolves don't focus on anything smaller than a beaver. They take down deer, moose, wapiti, caribou, bison, muskox, mountain sheep, etc.
Coyotes focus much more on scavenging. They are more likely to hunt alone or in pairs, and will even partner up with a badger. The coyote uses his superior nose to sniff out a rodent, while the badger uses his superior claws to dig up the meal they split. Coyotes can prey on sheep, but wolves also go after larger animals that are important to humans: cattle and reindeer.
The home range of wolves is much larger: the book reports a maximum of 13,000 sq km for wolves, but only 80 km for coyotes. Wolves need much more space: They can't get more dense than one wolf per 26 sq km while coyotes get as high as 2 per sq km.
You might counter again that behavioral differences in animals may be influenced by genes, but humans are controlled by culture. Over the years, I've read a number of studies on the heritability of animal behavior. It's often been of rodents--not known for their rich culture. I was stunned to learn that human conduct is influenced by genes just as much as that of animals. Heritabilities for animal behavior typically run from .2 to .4. Studies often give heritabilities for humans higher than that.
To see who we are more clearly, we have got to look at ourselves like we look at coyotes and wolves; as animals, plain and simple.
UPDATE: To clarify, I suspect that the environment is not as important for animal behavior as the heritability studies suggest. For both human and animal studies, anything not genetic gets thrown into the environment component, but it likely contains a lot of measurement error, random noise, and other factors that probably cannot be changed like the term "environment" suggests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
-
Via a reader at iSteve, it looks like this might be the vocabulary test used by the General Social Survey. (Someone please tell me if I'...
-
In the comments in the last post , some readers contended that Jews are not ethnocentric. Using the same question I used in the comments se... -
Here's the second set I promised. A reader suggested that the first set tends to be older, and it is among younger blacks where you see ...
