Liberal morality

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

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

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

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

Humans are messed up

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

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

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

Black attitudes on race relations

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

Percent agreeing

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

Select the most competent 90.6

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

Build good relations 52.2

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

Emphasize common culture 75.1

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

Help regardless of color 93.1

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

Promote racial harmony 68.1

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

Treat Blacks and Whites the same 62.7

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

Work together with whites? 83.7

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

Live and work together 98.7

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

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 19.2

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

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 18.4

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

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

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 62.2

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

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 84.3

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

Agree (strongly or somewhat) 75.1

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

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

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

Belief in God and MPQ Traits

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

Mean MPQ scores

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

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

Achievement
No religious preference 12.18
Atheist 12.61 
Agnostic 12.35
Others 12.25

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*significantly different from "Others" group


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

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

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

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

The depravity of men

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

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

The GSS samples a disproportionate number of females

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

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

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

Calling for the murder of Republicans

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

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

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

Retards voted for Obama

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

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

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

Only 25 percent of very religious Hispanics are Republicans

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

Belief in God and drug use

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

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

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

Religiosity and illegal drug use

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

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

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

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

*significantly less than the "never attends" group


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

Sexual orientation and sexual satisfaction

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

Mean sex life rating:

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

*significantly lower than straight males

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

Lesbians and the Big Five

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

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

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

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

Gay men and the Big 5

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

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

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

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

Predictors of getting cheated on

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

Logistic regression coefficients

Men (sample size = 717)

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

*statistically significant

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

Women (sample size = 850)

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

*statistically significant

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

The wussification of America II

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

The wussification of America

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

Atheists who believe God created nature?

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

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

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

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

Jews and Big 5 traits

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

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion
Jewish .03*
Self-esteem .40*

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

Agreeableness
Jewish .02
Self-esteem .17*

Conscientiousness
Jewish .01
Self-esteem .37*

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

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

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

Episcopalians, self-esteem, and Big Five personality traits

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

Standardized OLS regression coefficients

Extraversion
Episcopalian .00
Self-esteem .41*

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

Conscientiousness
Episcopalian .00 
Self-esteem .37*

Agreeableness
Episcopalian -.02
Self-esteem .17*

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

*statistically significant

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

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