Monday, March 29, 2010

Racial difference in female preference for men with masculine faces

Here's a study that finds that, compared to British women, Jamaican women prefer men with more masculine faces:

In the UK and Japan, both men and women prefer somewhat feminised opposite-sex faces, especially when choosing a long-term partner. Such faces are perceived as more honest, caring, and sensitive; traits that may be associated with successful male parental investment. By contrast, women prefer less feminised faces for short-term relationships and when they are near ovulation. As genetic quality may be associated with facial masculinity, women may trade-off cues between genetic quality and paternal investment in potential partners. No analogous trade-off has been suggested to influence men’s preferences, as both attributions of prosociality and potential cues to biological quality are associated with facial femininity in female faces.
Ecological and cultural factors may influence the balance of trade-offs leading to populational differences in preferences. We predicted that Jamaican women would prefer more masculine faces than British women do because parasite load is higher in Jamaica, medical care less common (historically and currently), and male parental investment less pronounced. Male preferences, however, were predicted to vary less cross-culturally, as no trade-off has been identified in female facial characteristics. We constructed masculinised and feminised digital male and female face stimuli of three populations (Jamaican, Japanese, and British) and presented them to men and women in Jamaica and in Britain. The results demonstrated that Jamaican women preferred more masculine male faces than their British counterparts did. Jamaican men tended to prefer more masculine female faces than did British men did, but this effect was complicated by an interaction suggesting that more feminised faces were preferred within culture.

And from the discussion section:

Cultures will evolve differently in different ecological environments, and preferences for cues to good genes or paternal investment may become selected for at a cultural level following increases in reproductive success that they offer in varying environments, current or historical. In addition, differences in parasite load and/or male parental investment have existed for ample time to generate some genetic differences between populations.

(Populational differences in attractiveness judgements of male and female faces: Comparing British and Jamaican samples. 2004. Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 25, Issue 6, Pages 355-370 I. Penton-Voak, A. Jacobson, R. Trivers.)

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Race, ethnicity, and social closeness

A social closeness score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants (all Americans) based on the following items: is sociable; likes to be with people; takes pleasure in and values close interpersonal ties; is warm and affectionate; and turns to others for comfort and help.

Here are the means for each sex-ethnic combination:

Most female groups score significantly higher than men of English descent. The overall gender gap (not shown) is almost three-tenths of a standard deviation (sd)--a small to moderate difference.

The Mexican American numbers might be anomalous, but the gap between Czech and Mexican women is almost one sd--a very large difference. If we drop Mex-Ams as the lowest, the Czech-Asian female gap is sixth-tenths of an sd--a big difference.

For men, the Mex-Am/Swedish difference is fairly large--more than one-half an sd. If we use Amerindian men as the highest scorers instead, the Amerindian/Swedish gap is close to half an sd.

I detect a bit of a revised Ice/Sun People pattern here with Asians and those of Western European descent as cool and blacks, Amerindians, and Southern and Eastern Europeans as warm. (I don't know about here, but Eastern Europeans don't seem very warm over there.)    

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Race, social class, and traditionalism

A traditionalism score was computed for white MIDUS Study participants based on the following items: endorses high moral standards; endorses religious values and institutions; expresses positive regard for parents; endorses strict child-rearing practices; values conventional propriety and a good reputation; opposes rebelliousness and unrestricted freedom of expression; condemns selfish disregard of others.

The following list displays the means by sex and social class (sample size = 3,976):

Mean traditionalism score 

Low 8.24*
Middle 8.00*
High 7.20

Low 8.82*
Middle 8.21*
High 7.70

*significantly higher than high-status men

Except for high-status women, all categories have significantly higher means than high-status men.  The gap between low- and high-status men is about half of a standard deviation (sd)--a fairly large difference. Same with the gap for low- and high-status women. Lower class folks are definitely more traditional. Notice how women are as well.

Let's look at racial means next:

Mean traditionalism score

White 8.06
Black 8.61
Amerindian 8.57
Asian 6.57
Mexican 8.14


White 8.57*
Black 9.22*
Amerindian 8.50
Asian 7.19
Mexican 8.69

*significantly higher than white males

Sample sizes for minority groups are small, so there are few significant differences. The means for white men and black women are significantly different, however, with a fairly large gap of one-half of an sd. Traditionalism is more pronounced among the socially lower orders.

The heritability of traditionalism, by the way, is estimated to be 60 percent.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Race, social class, and negative emotionality

A stress reaction score was calculated for white MIDUS Study participants based on the following items: is tense and nervous; is sensitive, feels vulnerable; is prone to worry and feel anxious; is irritable and easily upset; has changing moods; can feel miserable without reason; is troubled by feelings of guilt and unworthiness.

I calculated the means by sex and social class (Sample size = 3,988):

Mean stress reaction score

Low 6.61*
Middle 6.18
High 5.98

Low 6.49
Middle 6.09
High 6.06

*significantly higher than high-status men

Low-status men are significantly more neurotic than high-status men. The gap between the two groups is three-tenths of a standard deviation (sd)--a moderate difference. The mean for low-status men is so high, it surpasses that of all female groups. There is a smaller gap between low-status and high-status women which doesn't quite reach statistical significance.

Now let's turn to stress reaction differences by race and sex:

White 6.22
Black 6.03
Amerindian 6.04
Asian 6.57

White 6.14
Black 6.73*
Amerindian 6.59
Asian 7.12

* significantly higher than white women

Of the men, the Asian score stands out (although it is not significantly higher than white men--the Asian sample is only seven guys).  All minority female groups are higher than white women, although blacks are the only group to differ significantly. The black-white female gap is one-quarter of an sd--a small difference.  

This analysis of Add Health data also indicated higher negative emotionality among non-whites. (It also showed a gender gap for whites as well as for non-whites).

According to this study, heritability for negative emotionality is 48 percent, but I can easily see a nurturist explaining the gender/class/race pattern I just reported entirely in terms of oppression. It makes one an emotional wreck.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Social class and social potency

A social potency score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants based on the following items: is forceful and decisive; is persuasive and likes to influence others; enjoys or would enjoy leadership roles; enjoys being noticed, being the center of attention. Here are the means by sex and social class:

Mean social potency score

Males (n = 443)
Low 9.68*
Middle 10.19*
High 10.63*

Females (n = 745)
Low 8.86
Middle 9.69*
High 10.09*

*significantly higher than low-status females

All groups are significantly more socially potent than lower-class women. The mean for high-status men is more than four-tenths of an standard deviation (sd) higher than the mean for low-status men--a moderate difference. And the gap between low- and high-status women is also of moderate size--one-half of an sd.

According to this study, the heritability of social potency is 55 percent.

So folks from higher classes are more dominant than others. Just like the last post about high-status people being more driven, this is no surprise. But to extreme nurturists (i.e., just about every professor I ever had) where you end up in the stratification system has little or nothing to do with innate abilities or personality traits. IQ is only a proxy for parents' social class. People are chameleons who adopt the personality of their social position.   

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Social class and achievement

Much of this blog is a response to egalitarian social scientists. According to them, where people end up in life is due to external circumstances. Many of them chafe even at the idea that beliefs and values make a difference because those are too internal. You blame the victim when you argue that he is poor because he holds counterproductive attitudes. 

It is obvious to anyone except an ideologue that much of our lives is determined from the inside. I often focus on evidence that racial differences can largely be explained by internal factors, and I do that because that's what many of my peers obsess on. I haven't paid much attention to social class since my peers don't. They did 75 years ago when the object of compassion was a white laborer, but he has now been turned into a privileged person. He rides triumphantly on the shoulders of others because of his skin privilege.  

Class differences within races should not be ignored, however, because they are a central part of how members of society are stratified. And, as HBD-ers strongly suspect, the differences are created in significant part by the distribution of internal characteristics. 

Having said that, an achievement score was calculated for white MIDUS Study participants based on the following characteristics:  works hard; drives self; enjoys working hard; welcomes difficult and demanding tasks; persists where others give up; is ambitious; puts work and accomplishment before many other things; sets high standards; is a perfectionist. 

Here are the mean scores listed by sex and one's current social class:

Mean achievement score (sample size = 1,187)

Low 11.07
Middle 12.25*
High 12.46*

Low 11.09
Middle 11.89*
High 12.11*

*significantly higher than low-status men

High- and middle-class women have signficantly higher scores than low-class men. The mean for high-status men is six-tenths of a standard deviation higher than that of low-status men--a fairly large difference.  

Acording to this study, heritability for achievement is .72.

Notice how middle-class men are more driven than high-class women.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Sexual orientation and sexual assault

I showed in earlier analyses that homosexuals have higher rates of early sexual contact and sexual assault victimization than straights. Here's what we find from fresh data (MIDUS Study):

Percent ever sexually assaulted (N = 2,344)

Straight 3.8
Gay 15.8
Bisexual 46.7*

Straight 22.0*
Lesbian 44.4*
Bisexual 50.0*

*significantly higher than straight males

Non-heteros are much more likely to report a sexual assault than their hetero counterparts. The data for the earlier posts referred to childhood and adolescent experiences. MIDUS data shows the same pattern for an adult sample. (Of course, most assaults occur when a person is young). Readers have suggested a number of reasons for this observed pattern, but whatever the explanation, the different risk seems clear.  

Friday, March 19, 2010

Blacks less likely to appraise events as caused by oneself

This study finds that Africans are less likely to appraise events as caused by oneself--a pattern shown by black Americans as well.

Do respondents in different cultures appraise emotion-antecedent events [events that led to a particular emotional reaction] differently? Are similar appraisal profiles associated with the same emotions across cultures? These questions were studied for 7 emotions in 37 countries. Results show rather high convergence across geopolitical regions with respect to emotion specific profiles, suggesting universality of the appraisal mechanism. Empirical profiles corresponded in large measure to theoretical predictions. There were sizable differences between geopolitical regions with respect to general appraisal tendencies. Respondents in Africa tended to appraise events as more immoral, more unfair or unjust, and more externally caused. Respondents in Latin America tended to appraise emotion-antecedent events as less immoral than those in other regions.

(Scherer, K. (1997). The Role of Culture in Emotion-Antecedent Appraisal. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 73(5), 902-922.)

Race, ethnicity, gender and sexual effort

MIDUS Study participants were asked: "Using a 0 to 10 scale where 0 means 'no thought or effort' and 10 means 'very much thought and effort,' how much thought and effort do you put into the sexual aspect of your life these days?" I calculated the mean scores by race/ethnicity and sex:

* significant higher than all American males combined
Mexican Americans and blacks exert the most sexual effort, and Amerindian males the least. The gap between Mex-Ams and Amerindians is almost three-quarters of a standard deviation (sd)--a large difference.
Among women--possibly of greater interest to this audience--Polish Americans put the most thought and effort into sex, while Mexican Americans devote the least. The gap between these groups is one-third of an sd--a moderate difference. 
Among ethnic groups, Mexican men and women have the biggest effort gap--makes me wonder if there is some conflict there. Jewish men and women, by contrast, have similar means. You wouldn't think there was much compatibility there from what Jewish men tell me. 
The overall gender gap is about a third of an sd--a moderate difference. It's no surprise that men put more effort into sex even among a sample of largely middle-aged people.  
I can't resist an anecdote. Recently, an elderly Mexican-American student came to my office and showed me a name and e-mail address of a young female student written on his notebook. I recognized the girl as another student who is doing poorly in my class. It was obvious that she gave him the info because she needs help, but he insisted that she was interested in cybersex. I asked him if she had said something; he said no, he just knew. I told him she isn't doing well in class and just needs some help from someone who is doing better. I told him not to bring up sex with this girl, but he didn't believe me and left. The guy must be 70. Isn't it funny that even at death's door, men still think women want them?    

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Sexual orientation and harm avoidance

I calculated mean harm avoidance scores as described in the last post by sex and sexual orientation. (N = 3,546, whites only)

Mean harm avoidance score

Straight 11.18
Gay 10.97
Bisexual 10.82

Straight 12.74
Lesbian 12.24
Bisexual 11.92

Compared to straight guys, gay and bisexual men have lower harm-avoidance scores (the difference is trivial, however). Lesbians and bisexual women also have lower means than their straight counterparts. The female straight-bisexual gap is about one-third of a standard deviation--a moderate difference. None of the female groups approach the low danger-averse scores of the male groups.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Race, ethnicity, gender and harm avoidance

A harm avoidance score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants based on the following items: does not or would not enjoy participating in dangerous adventures or activities (e.g., skydiving); being in some natural disaster (e.g., forest fire); being caught in a sudden and dangerous emergency (e.g., a hold up); deliberately risking serious bodily injury; (e.g., riding a runaway horse). Instead prefers safer activities and experiences even if they are tedious or aggravating.  Here are the mean scores by race/ethnicity and sex (N = 3,739):

Mean harm avoidance score

For females, the gap between Norwegian Americans (the highest) and Mexican Americans (the lowest) is eight-tenths of a standard deviation--a large difference. For males, the black-Mexican gap is four-tenths of an sd--a moderate difference.  Mexican Americans are less danger-averse than other groups. It's interesting too that of all males, blacks score the highest on harm avoidance.

The gender gap is largest for Norwegians and smallest for Mex-Ams. Mex-Am women are real outliers here:  they are less danger-averse than most male groups.

Estimates of heritability range from 0.2 to 0.6. 

The overall gender gap is over one-half of a standard deviation. I'll repeat my point from the last post: The person who steps forward to slay the Jabberwocky is probably going to be a dude. Ok--maybe a Mexican chick.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Race, ethnicity, sex, and social potency

A social potency score was calculated for MIDUS Study participants (all Americans) based on the following items: is forceful and decisive; is persuasive and likes to influence others; enjoys leadership roles; enjoys being noticed, being the center of attention. Here are the means by race/ethnicity and sex (N = 3,735):

*significantly higher than men of English ancestry
**significantly higher than women of English ancestry
The mean for Jewish men is sixth-tenths of a standard deviation (sd) higher than the mean for English men--a fairly large difference.  The Jewish-English gap for women is smaller--a third of an sd.
The gender gap is largest for Mexican Americans, and smallest for Norwegian Americans.
The total male-female gap is about one-third of standard deviation.  According to this study, the heritability for social potency is 55%.   
In the new movie, little Alice slays the Jabberwocky (instead of a boy as in the original poem) and then steps into her father's shoes as an international business visionary. The story line is precisely where it belongs: in a fantasy.     

Friday, March 12, 2010

Race and sophistication

MIDUS participants were asked: "How well does the following describe you: sophisticated."  Answers ranged from "not at all" (1) to "a lot" (4).  Here are the means by race/ethnicity (sample size = 3,922):

Mean sophistication score
White 1.30
Black 1.74*
Amerindian 1.26
Asian 1.56
Mexican 1.38

*significantly higher than whites

Blacks are half of a standard deviation more sophisticated than whites.

Sexual orientation and social closeness

A social closeness score was calculated for participants in the MIDUS study based on the following items: is sociable; likes to be with people; takes pleasure in and values close interpersonal ties; is warm and affectionate; turns to others for help and comfort. Here are the means by sexual orientation (sample size = 3,850).

Mean social closeness score

Straight 11.45
Gay 11.67
Bisexual 10.79

Straight 12.09*
Lesbian 11.09
Bisexual 11.52

* significantly higher than straight males

The mean for straight females is a bit more than one-quarter of a standard deviation (sd) higher than the mean for straight males--a small difference. If we ignore significance (the lesbian sample is only 23 people) the lesbian mean is four-tenths of an sd lower than the mean for straight women--a moderate difference. Lesbians are less likely to be people people.

This is consistent with my recent finding that, compared to straight women, lesbians are less likely to have emotional intimacy in their sexual relationships.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Race and aggression among children

In a study of 404 eight-year-old boys and girls from Finland (one Finnish- and one Swedish-speaking group) Poland, and Chicago (one white and one black group) blacks were found to be more physically, verbally, and indirectly aggressive (passive-aggressive stuff) than the other groups. This was true for boys and girls, and regardless of whether self- or peer-estimations were used. (The black kids were inner-city).

The racial gap was larger for girls. This is consistent with the analysis of adults in the MIDUS study I described earlier.

According to this study, broad heritability for aggression among adults is around 70%.

(Karin Osterman, Kaj Bjorkqvist, Kirsti M.J. Lagerspetz, Ari Kaukiainen, L. Roweli Huesmann, and Adam Fraczek. 1994. Peer and Self-Estimated Aggression and Victimization in 8-Year-Old Children From Five Ethnic Groups. AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, 20, 411-28.)

Race and well-being

A well-being score was calculated for MIDUS respondents based on the following items: has a cheerful happy disposition; feels good about self; sees a bright future ahead; is an optimist; lives an interesting, exciting life; and enjoys the things he or she is doing. Here are the means by race/ethnicity:

Mean well-being score

White 8.95
Black 9.47*
Amerindian 9.08
Asian 9.50
Mexican 9.06

*significantly higher than whites

The black mean is about three-tenths of a standard deviation higher than the white mean--a small-to-moderate difference. How are these folks so happy in such a terrible country?

According to Tellegen and Lykken, the stable part of happiness is 80% heritable. 

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

Differences in traditionalism

As a follow-up to the last post, here are the mean traditionalism scores by race/ethnicity (sample size = 3,725):

Mean traditionalism score

Amerindian 9.11
Black 9.00
Norwegian 8.65
Asian Indian 8.64
German 8.52
French 8.46
Scottish 8.44
Mexican 8.43
Irish 8.34
English 8.14
Polish 8.06
Italian 7.88
Swedish 7.66
Jewish 6.88

The gap between Amerindians and Jews is one full standard deviation--a very large difference.

Heritability for traditionalism is about .6.

Monday, March 08, 2010

Science at its finest, Part II

I just finished reading The Authoritarians by psychologist Bob Altemeyer. His very scientific research has found that a large segment of white Americans are basically proto-Nazis, and of course they're all on the right. His "Right-Wing Authoritarian" scale strongly taps traditionalism, aggression, and respect for government authority.

I couldn't sleep for nights after hearing his campfire stories of bloody, hook-handed Christian Right Bogeymen. I was also surprised to learn that the RWA scale proves that hardline Russian Communists are actually right-wingers!

Naive person that I am, I would've guessed that aggression and government-worship were prevalent at least among some Democrats; how about American blacks, for example? I don't know about you, but armed Black Panthers and students taking over campus buildings look like fascists to me.

I noticed a couple posts back that blacks score higher than whites on an aggression scale, and I just checked the traditionalism scale among MIDUS respondents: the black mean surpassed that of whites by almost a third of a standard deviation. And does anyone doubt that blacks adore government more than whites? 

Altemeyer devotes many pages warning us of the dire threat of Christian fundamentalists to American democracy. Nuremberg rallies, megachurches on a Sunday morning--what's the difference? But Bobby seems to think that Bible thumpers can only be white. He must have missed the memo. In the MIDUS study, I calculate that 29 percent of whites strongly agree that the Bible is the actual Word of God. Blacks must be about--what--10 percent? Try 66 percent. Blackshirts, black all over.

Legitimate researchers are supposed to identify factors that predict the subject of study. At least that's what I thought that scientists did. But what do I know? I didn't win APA's highest award.

Altemeyer devotes many pages calling us to crusade with righteous fervor against the fascist takeover of the United States, but somehow never identifies race as relevant to the study of authoritarianism. I suppose that wouldn't be objective.

Please download the free book and send it to all your friends. Professor Altemeyer doesn't care about a profit when the issue is the moral salvation of the country. With your help and that of Almighty Science, we will prevail against the Forces of Evil.  

Sunday, March 07, 2010

I think I'm in love. I've just witnessed real class. Kathyrn Bigelow is the first woman to win an Oscar for best director, and not a whiff of Halle Berry hysterics. She goes on and on about how awesome soldiers and EMTs and firefighters are. Not a peep about about I am woman, hear me roar.

More on aggression

An aggression score was calculated for MIDUS respondents based on the following items: is physically aggressive; enjoys upsetting and frightening others; enjoys scenes of violence; victimizes others for own advantage; will retaliate; is vindictive. Here are the means by ethnicity (sample size = 3,392):

* significantly higher than English-American women
With the exception of Italian-American women compared to their English-American counterparts, none of the groups are significantly different. The Italian-English female gap is one-third of a standard deviation--a moderate difference.  If we ignore the significance issue, the English-Swedish male gap is about as large. Overall, there does not appear to be wide variation among whites (or across races as shown in the last post).
It is interesting that, like Chinese Americans in the last analysis, the 11 Asian Indians in the sample have a very high mean--7.82. It's significantly higher than the mean for all Americans. It's 1.5 standard deviations higher than the English-American mean--an enormous difference. (The Chinese mean for males from the last post is also roughly 1.5 sds above the mean for their English counterparts).  

Saturday, March 06, 2010

Race and aggression

An aggression score was calculated for MIDUS respondents based on the following items: is physically aggressive; enjoys upsetting and frightening others; enjoys scenes of violence; victimizes others for own advantage; will retaliate; is vindictive. Here are the means by race/ethnicity (Sample size = 3,392):

Mean aggression scores

Males (n = 1,783)
White 5.72
Black 6.13
Amerindian 5.75
Asian 8.43*
Mexican 5.50

Females (n = 2,209)
White 5.11
Black 5.84*
Amerindian 5.72
Asian 5.74
Mexican 5.61

* significantly higher than white counterpart

The high score for Asian males might be anomalous (there are only 7 respondents) but in an analysis of GSS data, I found that Chinese Americans were most likely to agree with a pro-violence statement. Black men are only two-tenths of a standard deviation above white men--a small difference. On the other hand, the mean for black women is more than four-tenths of a standard deviation above that of white women, a moderate difference. Notice how scores for Amerindian women are similar to their male counterparts, while Mexican American women are higher than the men.

Friday, March 05, 2010

Race and alienation

An alienation score was calculated for MIDUS repondents based on the following items: feels betrayed, deceived; feels exploited; feels mistreated; believes others wish him/her to fail; sees self as target of false rumors; and feels unlucky. Here are the means by race/ethnicity (N = 3,988):

Mean alienation score

White 5.08
Black 6.03*
Amerindian 5.70*
Asian 5.79
Mexican 5.26 

* significantly higher than whites

Blacks are slightly more than half a standard deviation above whites--a moderate difference. In a twin study, the heritability for a MMPI scale of alienation was .61, but the environmental component might be larger for racial minorities.

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Race, gender, and trust

MIDUS respondents were asked if they agreed with this statement: "I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me."  Answers ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Here are the means (N = 3,997):

Mean trust score

White men 5.16
Black men 4.89
White women 5.33 
Black women 4.59*

*significantly lower than white women

The real gap here is between white and black women: it's almost two-thirds of a standard deviation, a large difference. White women, on average, are much more trusting of their friends.

Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Blacks give reasons for black poverty

In the last post, reader sillygirl asked about blacks who believe that their group is poorer due to: 1) not trying hard enough, or 2) being born with less ability to learn. According to sociologists, when whites gives these reasons, they are revealing their anti-black hostility. Presumably few blacks would give these same reasons: how many people would hate their own race?

I calculated percentages from the most recent year of General Social Survey data--2008.  

Percent giving "not trying hard enough" as an answer (N = 1,152) 
Whites 51.7
Blacks 46.4

Percent giving "less inborn ability to learn" as an answer (N = 1,182)
Whites 9.6
Blacks 12.0

Blacks are almost as likely as whites to give the first answer and more likely to give the second! There's a whole lot of self-hatred going on.

Monday, March 01, 2010

Science at its finest

According to a popular textbook on race and ethnicity by Joseph F. Healey, 62% of white Americans are racists, meaning people who harbor hostile feelings toward minority groups. He concludes this based on General Social Survey (GSS) data which indicate that 50% of whites believe that blacks are poorer than other groups because they are not trying hard enough, plus the 12% who feel that blacks are less intelligent. The latter answer is a measure of traditional racism, while the former is the modern, covert type. Both are ways that whites express the hostility they have for minorities.

It's strange that these race scholars choose the "reason for poverty" question as a measure of hostility. Why not use the GSS question that actually inquires abouts one's feelings?

GSS respondents were asked, "In general, how warm or cool do you feel towards African Americans?" Answer-choices range from "very warm" (1) to "very cool" (9).  

The problem with this question is that only 1.2% of whites answered "very cool." That's not nearly enough white racists to warrant calling America a racist country. Well, maybe a 7 or 8 indicates a dislike of blacks too. 2.1% gave a 7 and 0.6% gave an 8, giving a grand total of 3.9%. Heck, let's be generous and say those who gave a middle-of-the-road six are haters too. Add 3% to 3.9%, and you're still left with an uninspiring 6.9% of whites being bigots.  

I can see why sociologists stick with the "reasons for poverty" question. Because they're impartial scientists, I mean.

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 ...