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:

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.   

Americans are more restrictionist than South Koreans

A reader asserted that Europeans and especially East Asians are more skeptical about immigration than Americans. Using World Values Survey data, I put together a table of percentages (they total 100 across the rows). Each country has at least 1,000 cases.

The percent wanting strict limits is a good column to focus on. The only countries with a higher share in this column are New Zealand and Japan. Finland is about the same as the U.S. America is more conservative than eight out of nine European countries and one out of two Asian countries. Believe it or not, the U.S. is more restrictionist than South Korea. No country in the list has a higher percentage of prohibitionists than the United States.

Next, I'll limit the analysis to elites.

More on the immigration attitudes of Americans

In the recent post on attitudes toward immigration, a reader suggested that I compare the U.S. with developed countries only. Once again, here are the attitudes of Americans:

Immigration policy--percent

Let anyone come 6.8
As long as jobs are available 36.6
Strict limits 48.9
Prohibit people from coming 7.6

Here is the distribution for eleven developed countries:

Let anyone come 6.9
As long as jobs are available 49.7 
Strict limits 40.5
Prohibit people from coming 2.9

Basically one-half of people from the developed world favor immigration as long as jobs are available, while almost half of Americans want strict limits. It doesn't matter whether we include poor countries or not: the American people are more conservative than the rest of the world on the immigration issue.

Immigration: The U.S. vs. the rest of the world

Compared to the rest of the world, American citizens must be much more pro-immigrant, right, because our immigration policy is so liberal.

The World Values Survey asked thousands of respondents from all over the world about the right immigration policy for their country. Here is the distribution for the full sample (sample size = 68,171):

Immigration policy--percent

Let anyone come 13.1
As long as jobs are available 38.6
Strict limits 37.7
Prohibit people from coming 10.6

And here are the responses from Americans:

Let anyone come 6.8
As long as jobs are available 36.6
Strict limits 48.9
Prohibit people from coming 7.6

While the modal category for the world is "as long as jobs are available," it is "strict limits" for Americans. Americans are more conservative than the rest of the world on this issue, but our policies are much more permissive. It's a government of elites, by elites, for elites.   

There is no Silent but Sensible HBD Majority

Steve Sailer wonders if there is a Silent but Sensible Majority out there when it comes to HBD-related issues like racial differences in academic performance. The GSS convinces me that the answer is definitely no.

Beginning in 1977, survey particpants were asked: "On the average, blacks have worse jobs, income, and housing than white people. Do you think these differences are because most blacks have less in-born ability to learn?"
 
Here are the percentages who answered yes by year:
 

There were quite a few race realists in the 70s, but the number has dropped to around 10 percent. Things have only gotten worse post-Bell Curve (1994).
 
Yes, but it's educated opinion that really matters. Perhaps they have more sense (the graphs shows 4-year college grads or higher):
 

Educated people didn't believe blacks differ innately three decades ago; even fewer do now.
 
Verdict: public opinion doesn't follow the data in the least. It is irrational; it follows fads.

Punish the employers: In contrast to elites, the ordinary folks have got it about right on illegal immigration:

U.S. voters want aggressive action to restrict illegal immigration, but they don’t think immigrants should bear the brunt of the enforcement efforts on their own. Most say the federal government and those hiring illegal immigrants also need to be brought into the discussion.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% say the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally. Only 27% disagree, and 17% are not sure.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly believe that federal policies encourage illegal immigration. Thirty-two percent (32%) of Democrats agree, but 41% do not.

The view that the federal government is enticing people to violate the law is consistent with earlier surveys. Among voters who are angry about immigration, 83% are angry at the federal government. Only 12% direct their anger at the immigrants.

Voters want the laws of the land enforced but not just against illegal immigrants.

The new survey finds that 64% believe law enforcement officers should sometimes conduct surprise raids at places where immigrants gather to find work. An even larger number (71%) say those who do the hiring also should be arrested.

Earlier surveys have shown that voters overwhelmingly believe that those who employ illegal immigrants should be punished.