Low southern Italian IQ?

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

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

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


Mean IQ--whites only

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

*significantly different from the white average


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

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

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

Religiosity and patriotism

MIDUS Study participants were asked two questions: 1) how important is religion in your life; and 2) how closely do you identify as an American.  Answers are summarized in the chart (sample size = 3,619). 

You can see that religiosity and patriotism tend to go together. This is consistent with a study cited in Who Are We that found that religious countries are more patriotic. Evangelical efforts to convert non-observant Hispanics might help assimilate them.

Worldwide Anti-Semitism by Religion

As a follow-up to the last post, I was curious about the global level of anti-Semitism in various religions. The World Values Survey asked people about not wanting a Jew for a neighbor in 55 different countries (N =  93,967).  The percentage who answered that they did not want a Jewish neighbor is listed below by religion:


Percent not wanting a Jewish neighbor

Shia 96.2
Sunni 65.5
Hindu 50.5
Muslim 35.2
Buddhist 31.2
Christian 27.5
Independent African Church 22.8
Evangelical 22.0

World 17.9

Orthodox 17.6
Roman Catholic 14.7
Protestant 9.6
Jews 9.0
Free Church/Non-denominational 5.9
Baptist 4.6
Anglican 0.0

It won't surprise anyone that Muslims are at the top of the list.  It is striking that almost all Shias and two-thirds of Sunnis feel this way--it is very widespread, to say the least. 

But Hindus and Buddhists are not the first people to come to mind when contemplating anti-Semites. Half of Hindus--what is that, like a bazillion people--don't want a Jew living next door. 

I'm glad to say that my fellow Christians, especially mainline and Protestant, tend toward the bottom of the list. They're not angels, but hey, 9 percent of Jews don't want to live by Jews.  My Jewish neighbors have been great, except for one the guy who kept inviting elders over to plan something. 


UPDATE: Evidently, Hitler is hot in India. (H/T HBD Books).

Immigrants and Anti-Semitism

World Values Survey participants were asked if they would like to have a Jew for a neighbor. Here are the percentages saying no listed by country:


Percent not wanting a Jewish neighbor

Iraq 83.4
Turkey 61.9
India 52.5
South Korea 40.9
Nigeria 35.3
Japan 28.1
Bosnia and Herzegovina 28.0
Slovenia 27.5
Venezuela 26.0
Mexico 25.9
Romania 25.6
Moldova 25.0
South Africa 24.4
Bulgaria 24.2
Uganda 22.2
Poland 21.6
Lithuania 20.4
Kyrgyzstan 20.4
Bangladesh 20.4
Macedonia 20.0
Slovakia 19.9
Zimbabwe 19.3
Greece 18.7
Croatia 18.2
Malta 17.3
Albania 17.0
Egypt 16.5

World 16.4

Portugal 15.4
Spain 14.3
Belgium 13.0
Italy 12.9
Chile 12.8
Estonia 12.0
Russia 11.2
Northern Ireland 10.5
Ukraine 10.4
Uruguay 10.4
Czech Republic 10.4
Hungary 10.3
Austria 9.7
Belarus 9.5
Norway 8.9
Ireland 8.8
Luxembourg 8.3
German 7.3
Finland 7.2
Great Britain 6.8
Latvia 6.8
USA 6.6
Argentina 6.4
Iceland 5.5
Canada 4.6
Sweden 3.9
Denmark 2.8
Netherlands 2.6


Muslims, Asians (including Indians), and Mexicans are toward the top of the list. Asians and Mexicans are currently the largest immigrant groups. So why do 91 percent of American Jews think that immigrants improve the country by bringing new ideas and culture?  Is the belief that Jews make bad neighbors one of those fresh, new ideas?  Now I don't know if immigrants carry the same attitudes as the average person from the sending country, but I don't see why they wouldn't. By the way, the Chinese were not asked the Jewish neighbor question, but in another analysis, I showed that Chinese immigrants have an above-average anti-Israel attitude. (Mexican immigrants had the worst score.)    

Do you want a Muslim for a neighbor?

Participants in the World Values Survey were asked: "On this list are various groups of people. Could you please sort out any that you would not like to have as neighbors? Muslims."

When I lived in California, my Pakistani neighbor had a bunch of photos in the back of his car he had taken of local government buildings. My wife noticed them and called the police. I never heard if it came to anything. I do know he was arrested at least once for beating his wife. Not a pleasant man. On the other hand, I shared a house with some college students, two of whom were a Muslim couple of Indian ancestry. They were cool, and the wife was hot (but boring). 

But I digress. Here are the percentages listed by country who answered that they would not like to have a Muslim neighbor:

Percent not wanting a Muslim neighbor (sample size = 138,846)

Turkey 54.7
Moldova 44.4
South Korea 35.1
Lithuanians 33.5
Romania 32.9
Bulgaria 31.1
Slovenia 30.5
Albania 30.4
Slovakia 29.4
Japan 28.8
Philippines 27.7
Vietnam 27.0
Croatia 26.5
Macedonia 26.2
Belarus 25.8
Finland 24.8
Belgium 24.5
Czech Republic 24.3
Ukraine 24.0
South Africa 23.9
Malta 23.4
Poland 21.8
Estonia 21.4
Greece 20.9
Norway 20.3
Latvia 19.9

World 19.5

Nigeria 19.3
Taiwan 19.1
Hungary 18.3
Mexico 17.9
Germany 17.9
Zimbabwe 17.7
Serbia and Montenegro 16.7
France 16.6
Denmark 15.9
Great Britain 15.5
Northern Ireland 15.4
Austria 15.0
Kyrgyzstan 14.6
Russia 14.5
Uganda 14.2
Luxembourg 14.2
Peru 13.5
Portugal 13.4
Netherlands 13.4
Sweden 13.0
Bosnia and Herzegovina 12.8
Tanzania 12.6
USA 12.4
Spain 12.2
China 12.1
Iceland 11.6
Chile 9.7
Switzerland 8.6
Canada 8.4
Argentina 6.1


There is a lot there. Let me mention only a couple items, and of course others are free to comment.  The most striking fact is that Turkey is the most anti-Muslim!  So crazy--they're almost all Muslims. It looks like the people most familar with Muslims like them least. (I looked more closely at the data and found that others religions were over-sampled. Of the Muslim respondents, 32.4 percent did not want Muslim neighbors.)  Second, some of the anti-Muslim sentiment appears to be good old-fashioned ethnocentrism that is more robust in more traditional countries. For example, Koreans don't hate Muslims; they hate everybody.  Asian countries in general are more anti-Muslim (China is an important exception). Third, Latin Americans are toward the bottom of the list, but it goes without saying that nobody out-tolerates the West. Like Michael Jackson, we're lovers, not fighters (now, anyway).

Nihilism is associated with not knowing there is a God

General Social Survey respondents were asked: "Do you agree or disagree that life does not serve any purpose." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (5) to "strongly disagree" (1). Here are the means by belief in God:


Mean nihilism score (N = 3,708)

Does not believe in God 1.68
There is no way to find out 1.75*
There is some higher power 1.72*
Believes sometimes 1.89*
Believes but doubts 1.62*
Knows there is a God 1.48

*significantly more nihilistic than those who know there is a God


All of the groups except atheists are significantly more nihilistic than those who know there is a God. (The sample size for the atheists is small).  The largest gap, that between knowers and those who believe sometimes, is half of a standard deviation--a fairly large difference.

More on intermarriage

In the last post, reader Jim Bowery correctly pointed out that greater disapproval by older whites compared to younger whites of a relative marrying someone from another race might reflect the tendency for people to become more conservative as they age.

Fortunately, the General Social Survey has longitudinal data. Participants were asked: "What about having a close relative marry a black person? Would you be in very favor of it happening (1), somewhat in favor (2), neither in favor nor opposed to it happening (3), somewhat opposed (4), or very opposed to it happening (5)?

The table displays the mean attitude for different age groups measured at three different times: 1990, 2000, and 2008.

You can see two major patterns. First, as we saw in the last post, measured at any specific time, disapproval is stronger among older whites (just look down the columns). Second, if you look along the rows, you can that that approval grew among most age groups over time. The only expections to this are the two youngest groups over the 2000-2008 period: their level of approval remained stable. 

So approval has generally grown over time, and younger cohorts start out with more approving averages than older cohorts. 

But notice that, compared to Pew's numbers, these estimates do not make whites look so gung-ho about a close relative outmarrying. The average (2.73) of the most liberal group in the table--people who are now in their 30s--is much closer to neutral than "somewhat in favor." Most of the groups are currently between neutral and "somewhat opposed."

It seems to me that asking about favoring or not favoring the marriage is more revealing than asking "if you would be fine with it." (By the way, each cell is at least 100 cases).      

Revolution in racial attitudes has been most dramatic among whites

I copied this graph from Pew's report on trends in interracial marriage.  It's interesting how the greater reluctance among older whites, compared to older blacks and Hispanics, at seeing a relative marry outside their race (or ethnicity) is reversed among young adults. Young whites are more supportive of outmarriage than either young blacks or Hispanics (although the difference is not large). The revolution in racial attitudes has been much more dramatic among whites.  

Beautiful losers

Here's a Gallup table which shows that Congressional voting preferences among Hispanics (and blacks and whites) have not changed since the Arizona illegal immigration law was passed.  And notice the famous 2-to-1 Hispanic preference for Democrats. 

Republican leaders are willing to let Hispanic immigration destroy the long-term prospects of the party, and for what?  So their fellow elites won't think they're bigots. They'll be unemployed, but at least they won't get called names.  

Social status and women in the workplace

General Social Survey participants were asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of a married woman earning money in business or industry if she has a husband capable of supporting her?"

I looked for factors that would predict disapproval of women working (sample size = 6,600):

Logistic regression coefficients (odds)

Age 1.02*
Conservatism 1.03
Female .92
IQ .98*
Education .96*
Job prestige .99*
Church attendance 1.05*

* p < .05, two-tailed

The coefficients are displayed in terms of odds. For example, each year of age raises the odds that one will disapprove of a woman working by a factor of 1.02, or 2 percent. An odds of 1.00 indicates that the factor is unrelated to the outcome variable.

Older, lower status, and religious folks are more likely to disapprove of married women working. Gender and political orientation have no significant effect, so men and women, and conservatives and liberals do not differ in their attitudes.

The listed groups have been slower to give up on the breadwinner model of family life. This is odd for the lower status groups since they could use a second income more than better off groups. Lower- and working-class folks--women as well as men--are more likely to "cling" to traditional notions of manhood (e.g., the leader, the provider) while elites have abandoned such ideas as outdated and misogynistic. 

Most poor, married women work, but they still have the ideal of a strong man who will take care of them. Simpler people are not quite as giddy as the educated class about an androgynous world with female ultimate fighters and men in aprons.       

Homosexuality caused by imprinting?

Evolutionary psychologist Gordon Gallup has an interesting (if controversial) theory about the origin of both homosexuality and homophobia. I'm unconvinced, but what do I know?  He claims that the orientation is caused (at least in part) by early imprinting. He cites a study (Van Wyk and Geist, 1984) that revealed that males are much more likely to become homosexual if their first masturbation experience is in the presence of another male.

Gallup then suggests that man-boy contact is not uncommon. He refers to another study which found that 80 percent of homosexuals admit to having sex with minors (Goode and Troiden 1980) and that homosexual pedophiles average many more victims (150) than heterosexual pedophiles (20) (Abel et al., 1987). Another study (Cameron, 1985) estimated that homosexuals are 90 to 100 times more likely to become sexually involved with their students than are heterosexuals (I know mainstream researchers hate Cameron).  The rate of recidivism among convicted homosexual pedophiles is also approximately twice that of their heterosexual counterparts (American Psychiatric Association 1994).

Gallup then reports on his own study (unpublished) of adult homosexuals. One out of four gay men had their first homosexual experience (which typically occurs during early adolescence) with a stranger who on average was 15.7 years older than they were. Most of the homosexual males in the sample also reported developing a clear sense of their sexual orientation around the time that they had their first homosexual experience.

Early same-sex experiences also happen with peers, according to Gallup (but he leaves out abuse among minors). 

While this theory alone is a shock, he seems to present it in order to set up the question he is more interested in: why homophobia?  Why are many heteros uncomfortable with homosexuality, while homosexuals don't seem to have an aversion to straights? 

More specifically, why do people fear leaving their children with gay men?  He then hypothesizes that, according to evolutionary theory, parents have a keen interest in the future fertility of their children, and will protect them from anything that would undermine their motivation to reproduce.

Gallup claims that people intuit a connection between homosexual contact and a child's sexual orientation. According to his research, people are much less comfortable with scenarios like a homosexual teacher or pediatrician caring for their child than a homosexual fixing their car or performing surgery on them. They are more comfortable with a child being around a homosexual if the child is an adult rather than if he is still a minor. 

I don't buy it (my bias is biological) but I have found that homosexuals are more likely to report sexual contact as children.       


UPDATE: Gene Expression describes twin research that concludes that heritability for homosexuality is roughly 50 percent. Of course, that is only half the story.  


References

Abel, G., Becker, J., Mittelman, M., Cunningham-Rathner, J., Rouleau, J., and Murphy, W. Self-reported sex crimes of nonincarcerated paraphiliacs. Journal oflnterpersonal Violence 2:3-25, 1987.


American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC: APA, 1994.


Cameron, P. Homosexual molestation of children: sexual interaction of teacher and pupil. Psychological Reports 57: 1227-1236, 1985.


Gallup, G.G., Jr. Have attitudes toward homosexuals been shaped by natural selection? Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 53-70, 1995.


Goode, E., and Troiden, R.R. Correlates and accompaniments of promiscuous sex among male homosexuals. Psychiatry 43: 51-59, 1980.


Van Wyk, P.H., and Geist, C.S. Psychosocial development of heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior 13: 505-544, 1984.

Hispandering pays every time

The Gallup chart shows that Obama's approval among Hispanics jumped after he condemned Arizona's new immigration law in April, proving the truism that pandering on illegal immigration is crucial to gaining Latino support. 

And while we're at it, the chart also shows the sensitivity among blacks to the President's performance. 

Evolution, theory, and infidelity

The table shows that General Social Survey respondents who accept evolution are less likely to think cheating on your spouse is always wrong, and are more likely to have strayed.

We know that correlation does not prove causation, but it doesn't seem unlikely to me that acceptance of evolution might lead some to justify infidelity.  Arguments like the following are easily concocted: "If bonobos are close cousins, can I really expect myself and others to remain monogamous?"   

This is a potential problem for any theory of humans, even if it is true. A theory doesn't just simply stand outside human society, explaining how things work. Theories are brought into a person's worldview and can affect his behavior.  So theories don't merely explain; they influence.

Religion and wanting to leave home

The ADD Health Study asked teenagers the following: "How much do you feel that you want to leave home?" Answers ranged from "not at all" (1) to "very much" (5).  Here are means listed by religion:

Mean "want to leave home" score (N = 6,361)

Muslim 2.64
Adventist 2.59
None 2.48
Assemblies of God 2.34
Congregational 2.28
Holiness 2.27
Jehovah's Witnesses 2.25
Jewish 2.24
Disciples of Christ 2.24
Lutheran 2.24
United Church of Christ 2.24
Baptist 2.23

All teens 2.22

Mormons 2.22
Pentecostal 2.22
Catholic 2.12
Methodist 2.11
Presbyterian 2.09
Buddhist 2.07
Episcopal 2.05
Eastern Orthodox 1.95
AME 1.78 

There is a lot there, but let me mention two items. First, I looked into this question because I suspected that Muslim kids were less happy at home than other kids, and the data back me up here. The gap between Muslims and kids from the AME church (a black church) is two-thirds of a standard deviation--a large difference. (I'm a bit surprised that blacks teens like home so much).  

Second, teens with no religion rank third on the wanting-to-leave-home scale. You might expect them to be happier since teens want more freedom, and religion can feel like more restriction on top of ordinary parental restrictions. But there it is.  

Still cracks me up

After all this time, Coulter still cracks me up:

The media have been crowing that Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote forever if they support enforcing laws against illegal immigration, such as the Arizona law. To great fanfare, a poll was released last week showing that 67 percent of Hispanics oppose the Arizona law. 

The headline on that poll should have been: "One-Third of Hispanics Support Arizona Immigration Law Despite Frantic Media Campaign to Convince Them It’s a Racist Plot Against Hispanics."

Incidentally, 67 percent of Hispanics also vote Democrat. The exact same percentage of Hispanics who oppose the Arizona law voted for Obama over John McCain -- who was championing amnesty for illegals.

Suck up to Hispanics with insane amnesty proposals; get one out of three Hispanic voters. Do the right thing and defend the country's borders; get one out of three Hispanic voters. ... Promise to make every Tuesday "Ladies' Night"; get one out of three Hispanic voters. Offer them a choice between "Extra Crispy" and "Original Recipe"; get one out of three Hispanic voters.

The need for more discrimination

The MIDUS Study asked participants a series of questions about different types of discrimination that they been victims of over their lifetimes. These were summed to create a liftetime index.

We should expect black folks who experienced more discrimination to have suffered in terms of how much school they completed and what economic level they reached, right?

I correlated that index with completed years of education and a measure of current socioeconomic status for black respondents (N = 136). Recall that this is a sample of middle-aged people.


Correlations wth lifetime discrimination index

Education .17*
Socioeconomic Status .09 

Those who were more often victims of discriminatory acts tended to go further in school. The correlation with the socioeconomic level of one's job is also associated with more discrimination, but the relationship is not statistically significant. 

Moral of the story: if we want to help blacks move up, we need to discriminate against them more often.

Sensitivity to testosterone and risk of lifecourse-persistent criminality

Studies show that blacks don't have markedly higher levels of testosterone than whites, but recent research suggests that they might be more sensitive to it.

A difference has been found in androgen receptors which vary in the their number of glutamines (an amino acid). The length of the glutamine chain is important in determining a person's sensitivity to testosterone. The shorter the chain, the more sensitive. 

Black men have shorter glutamine chains than white men, and this difference might help explain the higher rate of prostate cancer among blacks.

Having short chains is also linked to ADHD, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder--disorders which are more prevalent among blacks (in symptoms, but not diagnosis).

These disorders strongly predict a lifecourse-persistent pattern of criminality, a pattern also seen more frequently in blacks compared to whites.        

How much does homosexuality reduce number of offspring?

The MIDUS Study is a recent sample (2004-2006) of middle-aged people which makes it useful to measure how many kids gay men and lesbians are having in an era in which homosexuality is widely tolerated. The limitation of the study (in addition to small samples of homosexuals) is that participants were asked to count stepchildren, adopted children, and foster kids in addition to biological children. Anyway, here are the averages for people 40 and over. 

Mean number of children (N = 3,521)

Men
Straight 2.59
Bisexual 1.41
Gay .42

Women
Straight 2.63
Bisexual 1.44
Lesbians 2.10

Straight men have 6 times as many children as gay men, but heterosexual women have only 1.25 times more kids than lesbians. Bisexual men are in between straight and gay men, but bisexual females are the least fertile women. I'll warn once again that non-biological children are throwing off the numbers.    

Sexual orientation, body size, and shape

Using MIDUS data, I lumped together homosexuals and bisexuals, giving me 53 gay men and 45 lesbians. I then calculated waist-to-hip ratios for everyone:

Mean waist-to-hip ratio

Straight men .97
Gay men .95
Straight women .85
Lesbians .88

Compared to gay guys, straight men have more tubular (masculine) bodies, while among women, lesbians have the more straight-up-and-down shape. The differences are statistically significant. The guy gap is only two-tenths of a standard deviation (SD), but the female gap is four-tenths of an SD--a moderate difference. 

Next, I calculated the mean Body Mass Index (BMI) for each group:

Mean Body Mass Index

Straight men 28.35
Gay men 27.21
Straight women 27.53
Lesbians 28.27

Straight men and lesbians have similar numbers and are heavier than their gender counterparts. Gay men and straight women also have similar BMIs (gay men are actually thinner). The differences, however, are not statistically significant.

Finally, let's look at height:

Mean height (inches)

Straight men 70.2
Gay men 69.6
Straight women 64.3 
Lesbians 64.8

For the men, straight guys are 6/10 of an inch taller. Lesbians are half of an inch taller than hetero females, but neither of the differences are significant.

Overall, the numbers suggest that gay men are more feminine than straight men, while lesbians are more masculine than heterosexual women.  

Expected ethnic change divides whites and non-whites

General Social Survey respondents were asked to estimate the percent change in population of various ethnic groups over the next 25 years (e.g., Hispanics, Asians). Then they were asked: "When you think about these changes in the racial and ethnic make-up of the country in the next 25 years, do you think they will be a very good thing for the country (1), a good thing (2), neither good nor bad (3), a bad thing (4), or a very bad thing (5)?"  The numbers are the scores assigned to each answer. Here are the means by the ethnic group the respondent belongs to:

Mean "ethnic change will be bad" score (N = 1,318)

Scottish 3.14
Swedish 3.11
Italian 3.06
German 3.05
Irish 3.04
French 3.04
English/Welsh 3.02

All Americans 2.94

Polish 2.90
Russian 2.83
Jewish 2.81
Amerindian 2.75
Black 2.71
Chinese/Japanese 2.67
Filipinos 2.62
Mexican 2.57
Puerto Rican 2.45
Asian Indian 2.20

I'm not surprised. Whites have higher means, while non-whites tend to think change will be good for the country. The difference between Americans of Scottish descent and Asian Indians is 1.15 standard deviations--a very large difference.

Here are some correlates for whites :

Correlation with "ethnic change is bad" score

Age .13
Education -.19
Church attendance -.01
Conservatism .14 


So older, less educated, and more conservative whites are more likely to think that ethnic change will be bad for the country.