Hitch is unhinged

I've watched a couple of recent Christopher Hitchens debates on religion, and as someone who would like to see belief in God become even more widespread, all I can say is thank God for Hitchens. He acts like a prick on stilts. You could cut the hostility he gives off with a knife. He acts like every religious person that ever lived molested his daughter. He comes off like a rabid dog, and all right-thinking atheists should do what they can to get him committed. He helps the cause like Hitler helped patriotism. Maybe it's the drinking. Look at the photo: does the guy go to the john without booze? He keeps talking about how hateful church people are, but I can't think of a person on a TV talk show that has shown more venom, and I'm not proud to say that I've watched a lot of shows. I was an atheist for about 15 years, and even then I was disgusted with these types who think that the way you talk to believers is to call their mothers whores.

Update: It turns out that Chesterton agrees with me. He wrote that the enemy of religion is not atheism--it's growing indifference. And like Nisbet wrote, aggressive atheism reawakens and reinforces a person's religious values. Hitchens is a friend: the deepening secularization of life is the enemy.

More on class and marriage: A reader outlined some limitations to using occupational prestige as a measure of class. In addition to his points, I was dissatisfied with the gender factor in general: a wife could easily come from a high status family, but might not pursue a prestigious career. Looking at education gets around some of these problems, so here are correlations among the same groups I listed in the earlier post:


Pearson correlation coefficients

Father's educ.--Respondent's educ., .49
Respondent's educ.--Spouse's educ., .62
Father's educ.--Spouse's educ., .44

Now these correlations are definitely stronger than when occupational prestige is used. How far you it make it in school depends a lot on Dad, but getting a successful career is more out of his hands.

It seems to me that the most important reality in all this talk of marriage is the simple principle of "homogamy." At least in the American context, it's not so much that you marry someone whose family is like yours in terms of status--you marry someone very much like yourself. Family is correlated with those characteristics, but modestly. This focus on family status is, I think, more on the minds of elites than ordinary people.

Now Steve's definition seems to focus on parental concern, but in American society, anyway, "concern" looks less like influence and more like hope. I know my working-class parents never cared in the least that I associate with people of a certain status: they only wanted me to hang out with good people. My parents would have been perfectly happy if I married a girl with only a high school degree. As for my sister's spouse, they only cared about character, not status. It makes sense that the higher your position, the more that class is a real issue since the people at the top can only maintain or move down.

Does social class determine marriage? Steve Sailer has put forward the idea that "class is about who your descendants are likely to marry." But just how meaningful is any definition of class is contemporary American society? Below, I present Pearson correlations between your father's occupational prestige when you were 16, yours now, and your spouse's. (It would be nice to look at your spouse's father's occupational prestige, but the GSS doesn't have it):


Pearson correlation coefficients

Father-respondent .31
Spouse-respondent .39
Father-spouse .27

These connections are pretty weak. The one that most directly measures your family's class with that of your spouse's is the last one listed, and it is only .27. If this correlation were not reduced by the influence of controls in a multivariate analysis, then your family's class explains about 10% of your spouse's class.

It is possible that a direct measure of your spouse's father's class might be more highly correlated with your own father's, but it seems doubtful when these numbers show that there isn't much of a correlation between your father's class and your own as an adult. The fluidity and individualism of American society makes the idea of class less meaningful.

Are biracial people less happy? With all this talk about Obama's racial identity and his depression, I was interested in this question. I used General Social Survey data to construct two variables: 1) people who say their ancestors are 1st from Africa and 2nd from some white country, versus all others, and 2) people who say their ancestors are 1st from some white country and 2nd from Africa, versus all others. The former I will call "black-whites" and the latter will be "white-blacks."

By the way, the numbers of these biracial people who put black first is twice as large as those who put white first, and the percent of these folks who said "black" when simply asked their race was 88% for the white-blacks and 93% for the black-whites. Here are the percentages for happiness:


Percent very happy

Unmixed whites 33.2
Unmixed blacks 20.9
Unmixed others 30.1
Black-whites 20.9
White-blacks 24.8

The second answer-choice is "pretty happy", but let's look at the third choice--"not too happy":


Percent not too happy

Unmixed whites 9.2
Unmixed blacks 23.6
Unmixed others 11.9
Black-whites 15.6
White-blacks 23.8

Biracials--both black-whites and white-blacks--have low levels of happiness, but not lower than unmixed blacks. But we can't tell from these numbers if the causes of the similar levels are the same or not.

Players are serial molesters: All you guys out there that get a girl to fall for you so you can get in her pants, you're not cool--you're serial molesters. You use your words, your charms, your promises, your high-pressure tactics, and you leave the girl with a lifetime of heartbreak to get over--all so you can get your jollies, and can feel like a man. But you're not a man--you're a common criminal. And if there is any justice, you'll pay for it someday.

The other poor minorities are least likely to want a black president: What's the relationship between ethnicity and voting for a black candidate? According to the General Social Survey, here are the results:


Percent unwilling to vote for black president

Mexicans 11.6
American Indians 11.4
Poles 10.6
Irish 9.7
Germans 9.7
Italians 9.2
English/Welsh 8.5

USA 7.7

Scots 7.3
Blacks 1.4


Evidently, more Mexicans and Indians are afraid that blacks would hog the minority pie with a one of their own in the White House.

Overall, the vast majority of Americans would vote for a black man, but the numbers are large enough here to affect results. Since Obama is our current possibility, people likely to vote for a Democrat are most relevant. The numbers for whites by political orientation:


Percent unwilling to vote for a black president

Extremely liberal 8.0
Liberal 7.2
Slightly liberal 4.4
Moderate 10.2
Slightly conservative 8.3
Conservative 12.8
Extremely conservative 13.5

The percentages are higher for liberals and and moderates than I would have guessed, and are high enough to influence the primaries and the general election. Does anyone know how many whites are more likely to vote for a candidate because he is black? Not too many, I suspect.

Being Mormon is a larger obstacle, as a recent Gallup poll indicates that 24% would not vote for one. Stupid--I would be more likely to vote for one because they have more sense (their instinct is conservative on most issues) and character than most people. Romney was the charismatic one at the debate last week. And the Gallup poll shows that Americans were slightly more willing to vote for a Mormon 30 years ago. I can't think of another topic where Americans are so unnecessarily ignorant.

Surpassing your father: Reading the other day about how Robert Frost's son killed himself, it made me wonder if, in general, sons of more successful fathers are less happy. Using General Social Survey data, I calculated the educational difference between father and son. Knowing that absolute educational level is correlated with happiness (as well as having an interest in educated people), I limited the range by only looking at sons with at least a bachelor's degree. I also figured that small differences might not matter much, so I compared two groups: sons with 4 years more education than dad versus sons with 4 years less than their father's:


Percent of sons happy with 4 more years of education than father

Very happy 34.6
Pretty happy 57.9
Not too happy 7.4


Percent of sons happy with 4 fewer years of education than father

Very happy 26.5
Pretty happy 57.4
Not too happy 16.2


While the difference is not huge, sons that did not go as far as their fathers are not as happy. This may be due to the expectation that, with all of their advantages, sons will surpass their fathers. If they don't, it must because they failed to apply themselves.

This is an example of how people are harmed by a belief in environmental determinism and by not understanding statistics. When I tell my very best students that their kids may not do as well as them due to regression to the mean, they look at me like I'm crazy and evil. If you think about it, if you were Robert Frost's son, why in the world would you think that you could match or surpass such a freak of nature? Our culture would be much healthier if we acknowledged and made peace with our natural limitations. It's okay to be a regular guy. Thank God for your life and health.

Nervy Burglars II: This e-mail from some Hispanic guy to VDARE.COM has been posted on its website:

"Why don't you publish this article, (Race Forms Ugly Underbelly Of Immigration Debate, by Amber Arellano, Detroit News, April 30, 2007) on VDARE.COM? Hmmm... probably not a welcome point of view. Surprise, surprise.

In the end, Arellano is right. You clowns don't like the fact that we're brown and that we come from Latin America. I am 100% sure that if we were German, Irish or some other "white" European nationality there would be an instant end to the immigration debate.

There are many, many young Hispanic families in this country... lots of kids, lots of enthusiastic hard work and savvy... we are not going anywhere and you can't stop it. Is that what's really bothering you and all your frightened VDARE.COM buddies?

Do yourself a favor…learn some Spanish. I have pretty much mastered the use of the English language. Now it's your turn.

If this guy is trying to persuade me of something, he is succeeding: he is confirming my concern that the rapid increase of Hispanics in this country is a movement of power against me and my family. The only reason that I am not "hablando Espanol" today is that this guy does not have quite enough buddies and organization to impose his desires on me. I wouldn't like it any better if some blue-eyed Russian immigrant told me it's time I starting eat borscht. Don't tell me what to eat in my own gotdamn house. To the extent that I have an influence in the house called America, we're going to eat what I like.

Nervy Burglars: Did you hear about the professional burglars rally that was held all across the country? These people break into people's houses and have obtained fake papers saying they are licensed contractors. Yesterday, they took to the streets in anger because we Americans are not jumping to attention quickly enough when they demand legitimate papers. I'm telling you, we live in Alice's Wonderland.

Global church attendance trends: In the last post, I looked at trends in global church attendance over two time periods--1981 and 2001. The problem with the analysis is that two samples included different countries, and it might be that the 2001 sample included more of the developing world which tends to be more religious. I'm very busy right now, but I will update this post with additional countries, as I find the time.

My first choice of countries is China since it is the largest. It was surveyed in 1990 and 2001. The percent never attending religious services declined from 94.1% to 89.6%. The largest growth was in the more frequent attendance categories. Of course the numbers are still low, but hey, this is China.

India: Attendance in India is down bigtime over the same period. The biggest drop was among those going more than once a week from 29.4% to 15.3%. Almost everyone goes, but not so often.

USA: America remain unchanged between 1982 and 1999.

Nigeria: Between 1990 and 2000, the biggest change is more people going more than once a week: from 55.5% to 63.7%. Now that's religious.

Russia: During the 90s, the trend was for those who go never or rarely to begin to go for Christmas and Easter and other holy days: this category rose from 7.9% to 22.6%.

Mexico: From 1990 to 2000, the percent attending weekly went from 31.6% to 42.5%.

God is Not Going Anywhere: I see that Hitchens has a new book out entitled, "God is Not Great," but it seems to me that a much more interesting topic might be called "God is Not Going Anywhere." The argument that religion is terribly harmful seems about as fresh as grandma's fart, and it makes Hitchens sound like his mom made him go to Sunday School when he wanted to be watching girls' boobies at the matinee.

I'll do a more careful analysis later, but for now I looked at the earliest and latest years (1981 and 2001) that the World Values Survey asked a very large sample of people all around the world how often they attend religious services. In 1981, 8.0% went more than once a week. In 2001, the number was 21.0%. Attending for holidays, etc. was also up from 6.3% to 14.7%. The one large drop was the never- or almost never-attending category--down from 29.5% to 17.9%.

HBD Humor

Asian American groups call for CBS to fire New York shock-jocks

SAN FRANCISCO -- Prominent Asian American civil rights groups in the Bay Area are demanding that CBS Radio fire New York shock-jocks Jeff Vandergrift and Dan Lay, who were suspended earlier this week for making a prank phone call to a Chinese restaurant seen as racist and sexist.

Today, the coalition of groups submitted a letter to CBS Radio, calling for the network to improve its guidelines on offensive terms, to communicate periodically with civil rights and community groups and to fire the duo -- who had broadcast on Bay Area airwaves for more than a decade before they went to New York in 2005 -- and their producer at WFNY-FM.

The coalition includes the Asian Law Caucus, Chinese for Affirmative Action of San Francisco and Equal Rights Advocates -- all in San Francisco -- along with Oakland's Organization for Justice & Equality and, in New York, the 80-20 Initiative, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Organization of Chinese Americans.

The station's general manager, Tom Chiusano, has agreed to meet with the coalition, but no date has been set. He had no comment on the groups' petition.

Vandergrift and Lay, who go by the monikers JV and Elvis on their show "The Dog House," placed a six-minute call to a Chinese restaurant in which they requested "shlimp flied lice," used sexually explicit language to proposition a waitress, referred to another employee's body part as a "tiny egg roll" and claimed to know kung fu.

The station suspended the pair without pay until further notice on Monday. [More....]


"Civil rights group" is a code word for American Glavlit. These groups don't even care that they are ruining the income of a Korean woman--the wife of one of the jocks. I expected to see more of this kind of thing, so as I promised, here's Chinese HBD humor I just made up:

Question: Why do Chinese people have slanted eyes?

Answer: To hide the dollar signs.

Play it again, Sam: Every once in a while, I miss Sam Francis' VDARE columns and will go back and read an old one. Today was one of those days, and I found this article: Why Immigrants Kill. He was writing about the Hmong immigrant who shot all those hunters, but his words could apply to Cho:

The link between immigration and violence is that the aliens lack roots in the society and civilization into which they import themselves. The people they see aren't their people, and their moral and social norms aren't theirs either. Being strangers in a strange land, they feel little obligation to it or its members.

For immigrants on the fringe, the resulting tensions can overflow, and it's not easy even for those not so fringe.

Sociologists write all the time about the evils of alienation, but somehow ignore immigration as an important source of it. The connection is a bit hard to miss since the word "alienation" contains the word "alien" in it.

Anyway, my point is not about immigration and alienation, it's that Francis' writings will shake you up, so you should check him out if you haven't.

The GSS says whites wanting to prohibit marriage between blacks and whites are dumb, but not crazy: The stereotype of a white nationalist (WN) is a inbred hillbilly who's missing some teeth and who missed school after about the 6th grade. But the folks of this persuasion on the Internet I've talked to are generally a smart bunch. My students stare at me in disbelief when I tell them that William Pierce had a PhD in physics. I imagine people who debate on the Internet are the cream of the crop, but I don't know--the dumb stereotype may be the product of hostility. And the image is not just one of low intelligence, but also mental illness. Just yesterday, I talked to a guy who lived in Hayden Lake, Idaho for many years and was on friendly terms with a number of WNs, but he told me that when he moved from there, the WN types were getting pretty psycho.

I couldn't find a perfect question to identify WNs, but the General Social Survey did ask if you are in favor of a law forbidding marriage between blacks and whites. Respondents were also asked if they have ever had a mental illness. Here are the results:


Mean IQ--whites

Against laws prohibiting intermarriage 102.1
For laws prohibiting intermarriage 92.2


Percent having had a mental illness--whites

Against laws prohibiting intermarriage 8.3
For laws prohibiting intermarriage 1.7

Keep in mind that that sample of those in favor of this type of law is small--only 59 people. But going on what we have here, these folks have a low average IQ but are less likely to have experienced some kind of mental health problem.

The university is the last place you'll find free speech: This AP story shows why I have so much contempt for these O'Briens I have to work with at the university:


Professor fired over Va. Tech discussion

An adjunct professor was fired after leading a classroom discussion about the Virginia Tech shootings in which he pointed a marker at some students and said "pow."

The five-minute demonstration at Emmanuel College on Wednesday, two days after a student killed 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus, included a discussion of gun control, whether to respond to violence with violence, and the public's "celebration of victimhood," said the professor, Nicholas Winset.

During the demonstration, Winset pretended to shoot some students. Then one student pretended to shoot Winset to illustrate his point that the gunman might have been stopped had another student or faculty member been armed.

"A classroom is supposed to be a place for academic exploration," Winset, who taught financial accounting, told the Boston Herald. [More...]

HBD Humor: Thinking about the Imus fiasco, I'm upset that a guy could lose his job for a joke, albeit an unfunny and gratuitous one. Over the years, all this race hysteria has made a contrarian like me want to speak louder when others get shut up. So I decided this evening to fight back with what I call HBD Humor. Anytime I hear that about someone getting punished for a joke, I'm going to make up another. Since Imus' joke was about black women, so is my first one:

Question: What's the difference between a black chick's ass and a Union Pacific caboose?

Answer: I mentioned the black chick's ass first.

Are immigrants crazier than the rest of us? Cho Seung-Hui was clearly not right in the head. Is this a common problem among immigrants? Mentally troubled people might escape the messes they've made at home by moving to another country. Or maybe stress from living in an alien culture might send some over the edge.

General Social Survey participants were asked if they have ever suffered from a mental illness. This is the share who said "yes":


Percent having had mental illness

Native-born 7.5
Immigrants 4.5


Keep in mind that the immigrant sample is only 89 people, but these results indicate a comparatively healthy immigrant population. Immigrants, at least those from distant lands, have to be pretty high-functioning to navigate the challenges of a new life. If I find data on the children of immigrants, I'll post the results.

Those hell-raising Finnish-Americans own the most guns: The Virginia Tech. massacre got me thinking about the connection between ethnicity and being into guns. The General Social Survey asked 13,000 Americans about whether they keep a gun in the house. Here are the percent who said "yes" by ethnic group:


Percent with gun in house:

Finns 53.0
Dutch 50.9
American Indians 50.7
Scots 50.6
English/Welsh 50.2
French 49.9
Danes 49.7
Germans 49.2
Swiss 48.4
Norwegians 47.9
Belgians 47.4
Swedes 46.5
Czechs 45.3
Irish 45.2

USA 40.9

French Canadians 39.7
Hungarians 39.3
Austrians 39.0
Yugoslavs 38.1
Poles 32.8
Italians 30.5
Blacks 28.9
Portuguese 28.4
Mexicans 24.5
Japanese 23.8
Lithuanians 24.4
Greeks 23.8
Arabs 21.3
Russians 19.9
Filipinos 14.0
Jews 13.3
Indians 11.7
Chinese 10.0
Puerto Ricans 9.1
West Indians 7.0

It looks like northern and western Europeans have the highest rates, while eastern Europeans and various non-white groups are toward the bottom. This reflects the orientation toward hunting and target shooting. Notice how Amerindians are an exception among non-whites: their rural status and hunting heritage probably explain the pattern. You might expect urban folks to have high possession rates for self-defense purposes, but just the opposite is true. Looks at Jews, for example. I'm sure urban rates of pistol ownership (as opposed to rifles and shotguns) are higher.

On the Virginia Tech. massacre: Pop quiz--name as many female mass murderers as you can in 30 seconds--go....I'm still waiting. The libs are already calling for LaPierre's head on a platter. Funny thing is that women have as much access to guns as men. Did I miss all the stories of the Sally Slaughterers?

I saw two chicks fighting, and it was not a turn-on: Stopping to get gas the other day, I saw two women duking it out--one black, one Hispanic. I never did learn what the issue was, but the poor Mex-Am women's face looked like hamburger, while the black women was untouched and ready for more. Luckily, another man beat me to the scene, because I sized up the black woman and wondered if she could to take me.

Maybe you're thinking to yourself that this Ron guy is a real wuss to think twice about stepping between these two women, but maybe you don't know the facts: a black woman and a white man are in the same ballpark in terms of violence. It wasn't that long ago that adult black women killed at higher rates than white men. The former's rates have come down, perhaps due to high incarceration rates for drugs. But even the latest Bureau of Justice Statistics puts black females only a bit below Joe Six-Pack:


Homicides per 100,000 population

Black men 38.0
White men 5.6
Black women 3.9
White female 0.8

So tell me--which two groups are most similar here: it ain't the women or the men. And it wasn't just size that gave the black girl the advantage. She knew how to fight.

I was so disgusted after I witnessed this. These were not teenagers. They probably have families to take care of. If any foreign tourists had been there, I would have been ashamed. Call me old-fashioned, but it's particularly disturbing to see two women acting like cave men.

Black atheists think cheating on taxes is okay: Today marks the beginning of the second year of this blog. Last April 15th, I showed that, of all American ethnic groups, Puerto Ricans are most likely to think that cheating on your taxes is not wrong. This year let's see if this attitude varies with belief in God. Using the General Social Survey (which I have done about 250 times in the past year), I calculated the mean score for thinking cheating on taxes is wrong. Respondents were given a 1 for "not wrong" and a 4 for "very wrong."


"Cheating on taxes is wrong" mean score--whites

Doesn't believe 3.20
No way to find out 3.05
Some higher power 3.01
Believes sometimes 2.98
Believes but doubts 3.01
Knows God exists 3.23
All whites 3.14


"Cheating on taxes is wrong" mean score--blacks

Doesn't believe 2.11
Now way to find out 2.71
Some higher power 2.92
Believes sometimes 3.11
Believes but doubts 2.82
Knows god exists 3.01
All blacks 2.96


First, there is an overall racial difference. Blacks are probably more likely to see nothing wrong with cheating the system since many of them believe it is designed to victimize them. A common belief among blacks is, "Are you going to be a predator or the prey?"

Black and white atheists are very different. White non-believers are the second-most moral, while black atheists have the lowest mean. This suggests that whites in this category are the principled type and that blacks are the nihilist type.

As I showed in previous post, among whites, atheists and confident believers have the most positive answers. They seem to have unambiguous views in general: being dishonest with taxes is not a little bit wrong, it's very wrong; I'm not kind of happy, I'm happy. Those with squishy views in one area seem to be squashy in another area.

Mexicans have the worst English-speaking abilities of all immigrant groups: Long-term assimilation aside, immigration creates the immediate problem in America of people not being able to communicate with each other. This is not true in all cases: some immigrants speak English better than native-born American do. So which immigrant groups reduce the problem, and which groups add to it?

The General Social Survey's measure of IQ is based on a vocabulary test, and for immigrants it serves as an indication of their English-speaking abilities. The following shows the mean score for each immigrant group:


Mean English-speaking ability (expressed like IQ):

English/Welsh 112.4
Irish 103.0
Scots 102.6

Native-born Americans 99.3

Germans 98.4
Poles 97.4
Indians 95.4
Filipinos 95.3
Spanish 94.4

All immigrants 92.1

Italians 90.0
Africans 90.0
Russians 89.9
Chinese 86.5
Puerto Ricans 80.5
Mexicans 80.3

English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish immigrants speak English better than Americans do. On the other end, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans have, by far, the lowest scores, and since they are also large groups, they make a big contribution to the Tower of Babel problem.

Let me give a personal example of the situation: On my way home from teaching night class, there is only one grocery store that is along my route home. All of the sections and the food in the store are labeled in Spanish, and only occasionally do the managers bother to also label items in English. Most of the stock is geared toward Mexican tastes, and even though the store is large, it does not always carry what I am looking for, and it's not like I'm hunting for exotic items. The problem is much worse for whites and blacks who do not understand Spanish like I do. I can't imagine that folks don't complain, but there it is.

Adults schools are an example of how this language problem costs taxpayers. In my city, there are a number of campuses that offer free courses in English to all immigrants. They get to learn the language of success, and I get to pay for it.

Update: Joe Guzzardi writes about his 20 years of experience with immigrants who don't want to learn English at the adult school where he has been a teacher.

Latinos are most likely to drive drunk: Last Thursday, Geraldo and O'Reilly practically started throwing punches over Bill's coverage of a Mexican illegal who killed two people while driving drunk. Mustache-From-Hell claimed that there was no story there, so the only reason to cover it was racial animosity.

Well, USA Today seems to think the Hispanic angle on drunk driving is worth covering:


Anti-drunken-driving efforts aimed at Latinos

"North Carolina is trying to combat a major problem among young Hispanic men drawn to the state by plentiful jobs: drunken-driving rates two to three times as high as those of other groups.

"According to the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, 7.04% of Hispanic drivers involved in crashes in the state in 2005 were suspected of driving while intoxicated. That compares with 2.82% of whites in crashes and 2.29% of African-Americans, according to Eric Rodgman, a researcher at the center. Most of the Hispanics involved in crashes are young men, he says.

"Many of them have left their family, church and social networks behind when they come to the USA to work, and they sometimes drink to combat loneliness, says Antonio Asion, public safety director for El Pueblo, a non-profit Hispanic advocacy group in Raleigh." More...

Old people don't like diversity: The other day, Steve Sailer wrote a VDare piece that included, among other things, the idea that many white college-age students long to get away from their boring surroundings to more ethnically diverse and thus more exciting environments. He then wondered in the comments section if a desire for diversity peaks during that age. Well, the General Social Survey doesn't interview children, but we can look at 18 plus. People were asked about the ethnic changes that will happen in the next 25 years, and their answers ranged from a very good thing (=1) to a very bad thing (=5). (Notice how everyone assumes the changes are inevitable, like they have already happened.) Here are the mean scores by age for whites:


"The growing diversity is bad" mean score--whites

Ages 18-25, 2.87
26-35, 2.91
36-45, 2.99
46-55, 2.95
56-65, 3.07
66-75, 3.25
76-85, 3.17


So, enthusiasm for diversity declines with age, especially from the mid-50s on. But I'm not sure if the correct interpretation here is that getting older turns you into a conservative, or if multi-culti messages have found fertile ground in impressionable youths. I suspect that the experience of having children turns many people's minds to safety issues, and what once looked stimulating now looks scary.

O'Reilly v. Rivera: Did you guys see the shouting match between O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera over illegal immigration? I didn't realize that elites were this passionate about the issue. You gotta see it to believe it. For Rivera, it's racist to express any concern over people being here illegally.

Mexican immigrants are the most anti-Semitic: Surveys show that most Jews are immigration enthusiasts. Critics argue that America is importing a lot of people who are tilting the country in an anti-Semitic direction. But not all immigrant groups are equal. Let's see what light the General Social Survey can shed on this question. People were asked how much they liked Israel with answers ranging from 0 for "like very much" to 9 for "dislike very much." It's not the perfect measure of anti-Semitism, but it's the best I could find with an adequate sample size. Here are the mean scores for immigrants from each country (or region):


Anti-Israel mean score

Mexico 4.55
Africa 4.45
Germany 4.25
China 3.87
Italy 3.87

All Immigrants 3.84

Puerto Rico 3.84
England/Wales 3.58
Spain 3.06


As some people have suggested, Mexicans are anti-Israel, as are Africans. The sample sizes for many countries are too small to list estimates, but Europe, even Eastern Europe, is generally pro-Israel. (Eastern Europeans are probably pro-Israel because many immigrants are Jewish). Japanese and Indian immigrants are anti-Israel, as is the small sample of Arabs. There is a correlation between being a white immigrant and being pro-Israel: white immigrants average 3.73; blacks, 4.20; and others, 3.90.

Those who sometimes believe in God are the least happy: Does believing in God contribute to happiness, unhappiness, or is it neutral? Here are the mean sadness score from the General Social Survey (1=very happy, 2=pretty happy, 3=not too happy):

Mean Sadness Score--Whites

Doesn't believe 1.79
No way to find out 1.88
Some higher power 1.77
Believes sometimes 1.93
Believes but doubts 1.82
Knows God exists 1.73


Mean Sadness Score--Blacks

Doesn't believe 1.86
No way to find out 2.00
Some higher power 2.04
Believes sometimes 2.26
Believes but doubts 2.08
Knows God exists 1.97

These numbers echo my earlier analysis that it isn't so healthy to be squishy on these issues. Emile Durkheim argued that it is a pathological condition to have Socrates' outlook: "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

Some might think that atheists would be miserable, but they are the happiest black group, and the third happiest white group. The differences are not large, but they are statistically significant.

Intelligence and mental illness: Let's examine the old idea that smart people are more likely to have mental problems. Nietzsche went crazy, right--among others? The GSS asked people if they have ever had a mental illness, and here are their mean IQs:


Mean IQs--Whites

Mental illness 109.9
No mental illness 101.3


Mean IQs--Blacks

Mental Illness 100.1
No mental illness 94.4


For blacks and whites, those reporting having had a mental illness have higher average IQs. Once again, the data presented on this blog have a way of supporting stereotypes. Now, some will inevitably claim that smart people will admit their illness while less intelligent people won't, but you must admit the differences are quite large.

Inequality and Crime

Class differences are bread and butter for sociologists: what would they have to study without it? I found the above chart on the New York Times' website today, which focuses on the recent increase in income inequality, but also shows a gap that has been increasing since 1980. According to sociologists, the growing chasm should lead to Armageddon. Well, it's been more than 25 years, but I'm not sure that American society is less stable now than in the 70s. One indicator of instability--street crime--rose in the 70s and peaked around 1980. It should be peaking now if sociological theory were correct. On the other hand, the number of people incarcerated is MUCH higher now, so perhaps our get-tough policies are keeping a lid on the social chaos.

The Drunken Deist: General Social Survey respondents were asked if they sometimes drink too much. I looked to see if this varies with belief in God and church attendance:

Percent that drink too much

1. I don't believe in God. (34.0)
2. I don't know whether there is a God and I don't believe there is any way to find out. (40.9)
3. I don't believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind. (46.8)
4. I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others. (43.6)
5. While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God. (40.9)
6. I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it. (27.3)

1. Never attends religious services. (47.3)
2. Less than once a year. (44.1)
3. Once a year. (46.4)
4. Several times a year (38.1)
5. Once a month (39.0)
6. 2-3 times a month (32.8)
7. Nearly every week (28.1)
8. Every week (24.4)
8. More than once a week (12.8)

In terms of beliefs, the confident folks seem to have the least problem with drinking. The atheists and especially the non-doubters have the lowest numbers. The people who are not sure, as well as the group who don't believe in a personal God, are most likely to be drunks. This suggests that having conflicted or vague beliefs, or perhaps a wavering personality, may not be healthy.

The pattern is even clearer with church attendance. The more often you go, the less likely to drink too much.

Switching religions: Which religions best retain their adherents, and when people exit, where do they most often go? As usual, the General Social Survey provides answers when we get curious. Respondents were asked about the religion of their childhood, and about their current choice. Below I list the childhood religion and below that the percent distributions of their current status:


Current Religion (%)--Protestant at 16

Protestant 88.3
Catholic 3.2
Jewish .1
None 6.7
Other 1.1
Buddhist .1
Christian .2
Interdenominational .2


Current Religion (%)--Catholic at 16

Protestant 10.7
Catholic 78.7
Jewish .3
None 8.4
Other 1.1
Christian .4
Interdenominational .2


Current Religion (%)--Jewish at 16

Protestant 3.0
Catholic 1.6
Jewish 84.0
None 10.1
Other .9
Buddhist .3


Current Religion (%)--None at 16

Protestant 36.3
Catholic 7.4
Jewish 1.3
None 51.1
Other 2.4
Buddhist .2
Hindu .1
Other Eastern .2
Muslim .1
Orthodox .1
Christian .9
Interdenominational .2


Current religion (%)--Buddhist at 16

Protestant 13.7
Catholic 7.8
Jewish 2.0
None 17.6
Other 2.0
Buddhist 52.9
Other Eastern 2.0
Christian 2.0


Current religion (%)--Hindu at 16

Protestant 3.8
None 15.4
Hindu 76.9
Muslim 3.8


Current religion (%)--Muslim at 16

Catholic 1.8
None 14.5
Hindu 5.5
Other Eastern 1.8
Muslim 74.5
Christian 1.8


Current religion (%)--Orthodox at 16

Protestant 12.5
Catholic 4.7
None 10.9
Orthodox 71.9


Current religion (%)--Christian at 16

Protestant 18.3
Catholic 2.5
None 18.3
Other 1.7
Buddhist .8
Orthodox .8
Christian 56.7
Interdenominational .8


Current religion (%)--Mormon at 16

Mormon 97
None 3

Current religion (%)--Jehovah's Witness at 16

Jehovah's Witness 50
None 50


Current religion (%)--Seventh-Day Adventist at 16

Seventh-Day Adventist 88
Catholic 6
None 6


Current religion (%)--Pentecostal at 16

Pentecostal 96
None 4


Whew, that was a lot of typing. So what conclusions can we draw here? Well, the percent remaining Protestant exaggerates stability since some are changing from one Protestant denomination to another. On the other hand, even if there is some movement these numbers don't show, it is not usually movement to a completely different religion. (I'm sure most of the movement is from mainline to evangelical). It looks to me like Jews hold onto their own better than any other faith (84%) with Catholics coming in second (79%). Now, you might respond that Mormons are at 97% and some of these other small, new religions seem to have very high rates of retention. The problem is that sample sizes are so small, we simply can't conclude anything with confidence. I do think it's very interesting, however, that Jehovah's Witnesses lose half according to these numbers. If I grew up not celebrating my birthday or Christmas, I might want to make a change too. (Another reason to proceed with caution is that when respondents were asked about their current religion, only Protestant was given as a response choice for all these different groups, so I had to assume, for example, that someone who was a Mormon at 16 and a "Protestant" now had not changed religions. Is that clear as mud?) It's also interesting that among these small, intense religions, if someone does exit the faith, they usually don't replace it with something else. I suspect that being raised in this kind of religion convinces you that all other religions are unattractive.

More than others, Jews become people with no religion--a function of high IQ, I imagine. (The number might be higher for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox, and Christians if we trust the small samples). About half of those raised with no religion join some church, a plurality becoming Protestant. This is probably due to numbers: if people usually convert through the influence of friends and significant others (I wince at the use of that term) and you form these relationships through proximity, well you bump into Protestants more often than anyone else.

There are other interesting patterns here, but this post is getting long, so sniff around if you feel like it, and let me know if you'd like me to look at related questions.

We need the right kind of SOB: According to Derbyshire, Guiliani is just the kind of SOB we need. I'm all for electing an SOB, but the real issue is where one points his SOB-ness. I can see Rudy being a real a-hole (AH) with terrorists, but he is going to turn warm-and-fuzzy on many issues conservatives care about. Guiliani in a sentimental voice: "Undocumented workers make this country better...This is a great nation of immigrants." Said with the sweetness of a househusband: "We don't want to return to the days of back-alley abortions." Wearing a dress like when he was on SNL: "Guns are scary...Why would anyone want to carry one for protection? You'll hurt someone with that thing." And wearing chartreuse pants and a black polka-dot shirt: "Homosexuals have the right to love each other too."

More on Mex-Ams: You'd think I made it up. I'm interested in ethnic differences and am concerned about too-rapid Mexican immigration. For a long time, I've long suspected that Mex-Ams are not quite the angels immigration enthusiasts claim they are. Browsing General Social Survey (GSS) questions just now, I wondered about two personality traits that many Americans seem to value: optimism and unselfishness. It turns out that these traits are least frequent among Mex-Ams. Look:


Percent pessimistic

Mexicans 38.0
Blacks 24.5
Italians 23.5
Germans 22.9
American Indians 22.8
Irish 19.4
England/Welsh 13.0
Scots 12.7


Percent selfish

Mexicans 19.5
Germans 17.2
English/Welsh 13.0
Blacks 12.2
Italians 9.8
Irish 9.1
Scots 6.4
American Indians 6.2

These image-breaking stats keep popping up. Mex-Ams are thought to exemplify conservative values--familism and industriousness, for example--but the GSS and other surveys have revealed that this group has many comparatively undesirable characteristics: criminality; gang proliferation; indifference to education; big government and pro-censorship values; indifference to the environment; lack of cleanliness; marital and relationship instability; female infidelity; "race" consciousness and ethnocentrism; school misbehavior--need I continue?

Like an oily used car salesman, the open borders crowd has sold us a lemon. At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, the hustle might continue to dupe, but readers of this blog at least know their getting screwed. I don't know about you, but I don't like to sleep through a good screwing.

Seeing oneself as white faciliates assimilation: I sometimes treat American Hispanic groups as if they are all the same, but some are much more assimilated than others. Educational attainment is a nice indicator of just how far a person has entered the cultural mainstream, so using the American Community Survey I looked at mean educational levels of the different Latino groups. I wish the scores made more sense: a 7 means 12 years of education, a 6 is 11 years, and a 5 is 10 years.


Mean education score (percent white in parentheses)

Argentinean 6.80 (87.9)
Venezuelan 6.77 (74.8)
Chilean 6.63 (78.1)
Peruvian 6.55 (62.1)

Not Hispanic 6.50 (84.1)

Panamanian 6.52 (42.6)
Spaniard 6.41 (81.4)
Bolivian 6.38 (72.5)
South American 6.37 (69.8)
Columbian 6.35 (71.5)
Costa Rican 6.24 (68.5)
Cuban 6.22 (86.9)
Uruguayan 6.11 (86.6)
Ecuadorian 5.98 (57.9)
Nicaraguan 5.88 (65.0)
Central American 5.56 (44.7)
Puerto Rican 5.47 (57.8)
Dominican 5.31 (36.3)
Honduran 5.13 (54.6)
Mexican 4.82 (58.8)
Guatemalan 4.76 (51.4)
Salvadoran 4.76 (52.3)

As you can see, four South American groups are higher than the non-Hispanic average. (Keep in mind that non-Hispanics are older which lowers the mean, and the mean is further reduced by inclusion of blacks). My favorite group, Mexicans, along with two Central American countries, are at the bottom. Caribbean groups are also on the bottom half. Evidently, educational levels tend to be higher among people who've come from more distant Latin American countries.

I suspected that greater numbers of white Hispanics would assimilate, so I calculated the percent in each group that is white (shown in parentheses). Race is self-described, and it is clear that, unlike with some other minority groups, there is a bias to see oneself as white. I take this as a good sign that many Latinos identify with mainstream American society. I calculated the Pearson correlation between mean educational score and percent white: it's .62. This squares with the idea that, in general, being white faciliates assimilation in American society. Or more accurately, seeing oneself as white, rather than being seen as white, facilitates assimilation.

The gang nightmare: VDare.com just posted a piece by Steve Sailer on the growing Hispanic gang problem. Among many items, he describes how California has been exporting gangs to the rest of country. A few months ago I was talking to a professor who had participated in a study of gangs in Denver. Now, Denver would not be the first city to come to mind as a gang capital. Chicago, yes, but when I think of Denver, hip ski bums come to mind. According to the study, FIFTY PERCENT of adolescent male Hispanics belong to a gang. Folks, gangbanging is becoming NORMATIVE behavior for these kids. Estimates put gang members nationwide at close to 1 million, and more than half of that is Latino. Their latest strategy is to spread their crews to Indian reservations. In the past, gangs were basically limited to big cities, but now they've even made it to the reservation--a place most whites can't find with a map. This is a tidal wave, I'm telling you.

In my own classes, Hispanic students clearly feel some kind of weird identification with these gangs. Many seem to be saying: the life is cool, but I don't want to end up dead or in prison (or dead in prison), as if the only reason not to join is the impracticality of it.

I'm sure people passing through this website think that I have some irrational dislike of Latinos, but my criticisms are intellectual. My personal interactions with Hispanics have been 98% positive, but you begin to wonder about policy when your country goes from 100,000 gang members to one million in 20 years, and most of the growth is driven by immigration and Hispanic communities.

Let me say the words again, if you missed it before: FIFTY PERCENT. I'll use Will Ferrell's words from Talledega Nights: "What does that do? Does that blow your mind? That just happened."

Are whites the sicko criminals?

The New York Times reported that Lorenzo Gulyard of Kansas City was convicted today of murdering 6 prostitutes in the 80s. (They don't show his photo, but I found this one).

Black criminality is so conspicuous in American society, people have hunted around to find some kind of terrible behavior that whites specialize in. Serial killings have been a great one to latch onto. For example, I have heard black comedians say something like: "Us black folks might get violent once in a while, but when whites kill, they go apeshit." According to research by Eric Hickey, 20% of American serial killers have been black. That figure is two times their historical share of the U.S. population.

People also push the idea that it's whites who are the child molesters, and they put this all together to say that non-whites commit the cool crimes like gangbanging, while whites commit sicko crimes. But not only is the serial killer stereotype incorrect, so is the one of the white pedophile. While it is true that, according to the oft-quoted 1991 survey of state prisoners, almost 70% of those convicted for violence against children are white males, people conveniently forget that this number corresponds roughly to their share of the total male population. It's a bit of a stretch to say, you guys are the child molesters because you equal the rates of other groups.

IQ and alcoholism: I'm interested in the moral character of smart people, so I took a look at the IQs of drunks, using GSS data. People were asked if they have a drinking problem. Here are their mean IQs.


Mean IQ

Whites
Has a drinking problem 98.3
Does not 103.1

Blacks
Has a drinking problem 86.2
Does not 93.2

For whites and blacks, alcoholics are less intelligent. Ideas about why?

There is a "God Gap"...for whites and Mex-Ams, anyway: Razib links to a survey which reports that the "God Gap" between Democrats and Republicans is not as large as is conventionally thought. The survey fails to discuss differences by race, so let's help them out. I'll cut to the chase and only look at how often people go to church, and how they vote. If they attend religious services at least once a month, I categorized them as religious. The General Social Survey does not have voting behavior more recent than the 2000 presidential race.


Percent religious

Whites
Gore 40.5
Bush 58.8
Nader 21.8

Blacks
Gore 74.0
Bush 75.0

Mexicans
Gore 49.0
Bush 73.8

Church attendence differentiates white voters (especially Nader fans from the rest) and it differentiates Mex-Ams even more. On the other hand, African American Gore voters are just as religious and three blacks who voted for Bush. When I addressed previously the question about what does differentiate black GOP from Democrat voters, the only thing I found was that men are more often Republicans. (I don't present Nader numbers for the two minority groups since sample sizes are too small).

While there are differences here, people like Ann Coulter who say that Democrats are godless exaggerate wildly, even if speaking of whites: two-fifths of whites, one-half of Mexicans, and three-quarters of blacks who voted in 2000 for Gore go to church at least once a month.

The least intelligent region in America: In an earlier post, I used the General Social Survey (GSS) to show that mean IQ is lowest (94.2) in the East South Central Division, which includes Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Now, part of the reason for the low average is that a large number of blacks live in the region: 22% of the total population, according to the GSS. In the table shown below, the black mean in the region is 87.5, almost 10 points lower than for whites. But the white IQ is also below-average (96.1), so the question arises whether this low mean is due to smart people leaving for higher-opportunity regions. Here are the numbers:


Mean IQ--East South Central Division

Total 94.2
White 96.1
Black 87.5
Other 99.4

Whites
Stayers 91.2
Leavers 99.6
Comers 101.4

Blacks
Stayers 87.4
Leavers 89.2
Comers 87.4

It doesn't surprise me that whites who move out are smarter than the stayers, but it is a bit of a surprise that whites who have moved into that part of the country are just as smart as the leavers (in fact a bit smarter) and are almost as numerous (14.1% of the total regional population versus 16.6%). So, basically the leavers and the comers cancel each other out in terms of IQ. Those who move out lower the IQ, only to have it raised to the previous level by those moving in. This, by the way, is the same thing I saw when I looked at New England in the earlier post.

The pattern for blacks is also a surprise. Stayers are about as smart as leavers or comers. So blacks, as a group, don't appear to move because their brains would profit them more in another region.

Smart, white, conservative men to the rescue again: I just can't think of very many political values that I cherish more than free speech. So I decided to run a multiple regression with General Social Survey data to identify folks who are its weakest supporters. For my dependent variable, I chose whether or not you favored allowing a racist to speak in public (1 for yes, 0 for no).

Here are the standardized coefficients, from strongest to weakest:


Standardized Coefficients

IQ .15
Years of education .12
Frequency of church attendance -.11
Being a woman -.07
Politically liberal -.05
Being black -.04
Income .03

So, a free speecher is likely to be smart, educated, non-churchgoing, male, conservative, white, and wealthy. The first three are especially important. Generally, I like churchy people, but I suppose they do have an authoritarian streak. But look how it's the libs who want to shut people up. And I'm not surprised that the mommies want to wash our mouths out with soap for saying bad words.

"The very aim and end of our institutions is just this: that we may think what we like and say what we think."
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

IQ and living in New England: According to the General Social Survey, New England has the highest average IQ. Now, is this due to the intelligence of those born there, or those who have moved in? Let's call those who were born in New England and have stayed there "stayers"; those who were born there and left after age 16 for another region "leavers"; and those who lived in another region at age 16 and later moved to New England "comers." Here are the means of the three groups:


Mean IQ

Stayers, 102.8
Comers, 109.5
Leavers, 107.8

Stayers and comers, 104.3
Stayers and leavers, 104.0

So, both comers and and leavers are smarter than stayers, but they essentially cancel each other out. New England is more intelligent than other regions because their stayers are smarter than the stayers in other regions, plus the smart people they lose are replaced with smart peoplle who move in.

Sailer's true identity revealed: I was reading the post on Steve Sailer's website about how he has been banned by Kmart. At first, I was mad about it, then I began looking at his name, and all of a sudden it was as if God parted the clouds, and a brilliant light shone through. I saw in my mind the letters of his name rearranged into two new words, and they were--don't be afraid--Sielver Saten! Now you might think that this is not spelled right, but isn't that exactly the kind of thing that the Devil would do? But why Silver Satan? Well, silver means second place, so put 2 and 2 together: Steve Sailer is Lucifer's wingman! And, and, he has a beard, right? I'll bet a stack of dollar bills that his hair is not naturally curly: he does that to hide the horns.

Musical taste and IQ by race: Steve Sailer suggested that I display results from the last post broken out by race to see what happens. Here are mean IQs for whites:


Mean IQs--whites

Opera 108.2
Classical 108.2
New Age 107.5
Jazz 107.2
Showtunes 107.0
Blues 106.3
Big Band 105.2
Folk 104.6
Latin 103.3
Oldies 102.3
Contemporary Rock 101.1
Easy Listening 100.2
Reggae 99.7
Heavy Metal 98.5
Bluegrass 98.1
Country 97.1
Gospel 96.0
Rap 93.5

The ranking is similar to what we saw belowe (since whites are by far the largest group). Not surprisingly, the IQs are higher for whites, and they rose the most among genres that are popular among non-whites: Latin, jazz, blues, reggae.

Here are the means for blacks:


Mean IQs--blacks

New Age 113.9
Opera 107.0
Folk 103.5
Latin 97.8
Classical 96.3
Showtunes 96.1
Easy Listening 95.8
Oldies 95.5
Jazz 94.5
Blues 94.2
Bluegrass 94.2
Contemporary Rock 93.2
Gospel 91.9
Big Band 91.4
Reggae 89.7
Country 89.7
Rap 88.2
Heavy Metal 87.6

Caution: sample sizes are extremely small for less popular types of music.

Opera fans are the smartest, rap fans are the dumbest: Following Jason Malloy's comments and analysis, I calculated the mean IQ for people who said they really like the following types of music:


Mean IQs

Opera 108.6
New Age 107.0
Classical 106.5
Showtunes 106.3
Big Band 104.2
Blues 103.8
Jazz 103.7
Folk 103.2
Oldies 101.6
Contemporary Rock 100.6
Easy Listening 99.4
Latin 99.3
Heavy Metal 99.1
Bluegrass 97.9
Reggae 97.2
Country 96.3
Gospel 94.4
Rap 91.1

(For some unknown reason, these numbers are a bit different from Jason's). Surprises: Big band, blues, and showtunes fans come in smarter than jazz fans. Latin is a bit higher than I would have guessed, and bluegrass a bit lower.

IQ and Classical Music: I like to listen to Yahoo's internet radio, but am bothered by the fact that they offer 316 stations, only one of which is a classical station. I can get Tupac Radio, Booty Time, Uber Indie, Outlaw Country, Gay Club Mix, Klezmer, and Salsa Cien Por Ciento, but the greatest artists in the history of the world only rate one station? Tupac gets a whole one for himself: where's my "Beethoven 24/7"?

The country is just not smart enough for Vivaldi. I looked at the General Social Survey, and the IQ threshold seems to be about 125: any lower than this, and not even one-quarter of people really enjoy listening to classical music. Now you might suspect that it's simply a matter of taste and background and that intelligence doesn't have much to do with it. According to the data, the correlation between IQ and liking this kind of music is .30--a noteworthy connection.

Orthodox Sunday: A haunting image keeps returning to my mind that I want to describe. Last Sunday was "Orthodox Sunday" at the Greek Orthodox church. It was a day to commemorate the restoration of icons in 843. There had been a century long conflict in the Byzantine Empire over the use of images in the church. The highlight of the service was to give each child an icon painting to hold, and then they all walked in a line along the outer aisle, and circled the congregation a couple of times. This was the first time I had ever witnessed this, and as I watched the little girls in Sunday dresses showing everyone these very old works of art, I thought to myself that this puts those shit-in-a-can "installations" at the university to shame.

Ethnicity and politics: Wilmot Robertson's argument in The Dispossessed Majority is that American politics is basically a conflict between the white majority and a coalition of white minorities and non-whites. What do General Social Survey data tell us about this?

I limited the sample to roughly the top 10% in terms of occupational prestige in order to focus on the most influential people. Here is the ranking of people who identify themselves as Democrat (strong, not strong, independent--near):


Percent Democrat

Blacks 76.7
Jews 73.6
Mexicans 60.8
Scots 52.5
Danes 51.5
Italians 48.0
East Indians 47.5
Norwegians 46.7

USA 45.6

Irish 44.6
American Indians 42.6
Swedes 39.6
Chinese 37.8
English/Welsh 36.2
Germans 33.4

(Keep in mind that these numbers do not include independents and members of other parties who are liberal). While you can seen a pattern here of blacks, Jews, and Mexicans at the top, and traditional, large white groups at the bottom--English and Germans--the reality is much messier than Robertson's characterization. First, there is a real split in most groups, so ethnicity is frequently not an important factor. Second, Scots, Danes, and Norwegians should not be on the top half of the list, and the Irish, American Indians, and Chinese should not be on the bottom half, if Robertson were right.

Not only are white groups generally split, but many non-white groups are. And one might expect more conformity among high-status members of ethnic groups, but the numbers shown here still generally show a split.

Now, it might be that the numbers would be a little sharper if we looked at actual voting. The sample sizes are too small for the high-status people in each group, but looking at blacks and Jews, 87.7% of elite blacks and 74.1% of elite Jews voted for Gore in 2000. So looking at voting instead of party affiliation shows a higher number for blacks but not for Jews. I would call 88% a rough consensus, but it's harder to say that about 74%, and we can't say it about any of these other groups. There is indeed a connection between ethnicity and politics, but Robertson exaggerates its importance.

Arthur Jensen, evil: Richard Dawkins, naughty

Since 1972, the General Social Survey has asked almost 30,000 Americans if a person who is against church and religion should be allowed to speak in public. In 1972, it was 66.6%, and by 2004--the most recent year available--it was up to 77.5%. It's an encouraging trend, but I'm not sure that it's a reflection of a growing appreciation of free speech as a general principle. Over the years, people have also been asked if a racist should be allowed to speak, and the number has not budged from the 62.0% observed 35 years ago. So it looks like this is simply a matter of more people being comfortable with anti-religion. These numbers also tell us that racism has become more of a taboo than making statements against religion. This is why Arthur Jensen is much more a villain than Richard Dawkins.

Married housekeepers are happier than footloose-and-fancy-free college girls: Of the female professors I work with, none has ever been married except for one who married at about age 40. One recently said that she doesn't even like to be tied to one man. Now, everyone is different, and these women know themselves better than I do, but if they are teaching their female students in general to follow in their footsteps, then they are hurting these girls more than any gender traditionalist could.

Women respondents were asked by the General Social Survey how happy they are, and information was also taken on their marital and job status. I calculated the mean happiness score for each marital/job category (35 categories total). Listed below are the five happiest groups:


Top five mean happiness score

1. Married, retired 1.38*
2. Married, working part-time 1.35
3. Married, keeping house 1.34
4. Married, working full-time 1.34
5. Married, student 1.32

There were seven never-married categories, and not one broke the top 5, not even "never married, student." A married housekeeper in the supposed trap of dependency and domesticity is happier than the totally free college girl.

I suspect that this nobody Andro-American knows more about female psychology than your typical feminist does.

Oh, but I can see it already: someone will write me saying that married women lie about how happy they are. We all know suburban housewives are as phony as a 3 dollar bill, right?

*These numbers are actually 3 - the mean score so that high scores indicate greatest happiness.

IQ and residential mobility: Using General Social Survey data on more than 27,000 whites, I calculated average IQs based on vocabulary tests scores for each region of the country the person lived in when age 16, and by their current region of residence. I wanted to learn more about the residential mobility patterns of smart vs. dumb people. Here I list the top 10 smartest groups, followed by the least intelligent:


Top ten IQs by residential status:

1. MTN-->NE,* 123
2. ESC-->NE, 119
3. WSC-->MA, 118
4. PAC-->NE, 116
5. WSC-->NE, 115
6. SA-->NE, 115
7. WNC-->NE, 115
8. ENC-->NE, 112
9. ESC-->MA, 112
10. WNC-->MA, 111


Bottom ten

1. ESC-->PAC, 94
2. ESC--ESC, 95
3. ESC-->WSC, 96
4. WSC-->ENC, 97
5. PAC-->ESC, 98
6. ENC-->ESC, 98
8. ESC-->ENC, 98
9. SA--SA, 98
10. WSC--WSC, 99

*The first acronym is where you lived when you were 16; the second is where you are now.

NE=New England
MA=Middle Atlantic
ENC=East North Central
WNC=West North Central
SA=South Atlantic
ESC=East South Central
WSC=West South Central
MTN=Mountain
PAC=Pacific

So, the smartest groups moved to New England or the Mid-Atlantic, and were likely to come from regions far from the Northeast and with little concentration of cognitive elites of their own. The least intelligent groups either were born in the South and stayed put there, or either moved from the South or to it. The East South Central region popped up many times among the bottom 10.

Bias against the rich takes another knock: We all know that if your born into a rich family, your future is guaranteed, right? Some Americans go from rags to riches, but Daddy will make sure the opposite never happens. The General Social Survey asked respondents about their occupations and those of their fathers. I looked at the 262 men whose fathers had prestige scores in the top 10%. If the "silver spoon" hypothesis is correct, all these guys should have prestige scores at least as high as Pop's. On the other hand, if the process were purely random, only 10% of the sons would equal Dad's accomplishments. So what do the data tell us? Only 26.4% of these guys equalled or surpassed their childhood status. Basically three-quarters of them were riches to rags (well, not rags usually, but you get the picture).

Of course, a person is not surprised by this if he is familiar with the idea of the regression to the mean, but in our innumerate society, few are. (By the way, "he" was used intentionally in the last sentence).

(And don't think that I'm some richie trying to defend my class: I'm the son of a maintenance man.)

Even more on IQ and crime: The discussion on the relationship between intelligence and illegality has been interesting. One reason, apart from the GSS data, why I'm skeptical about the claim that IQ is a powerful determinant of criminal behavior is that it does not pass my basic test for any theory of crime: is it consistent with the two risk factors we are most certain about--gender and age. Males are much more criminal than females, but they are not more stupid. Youthfulness is one of the best predictors of street crime, but IQ doesn't grow with age, rather it drops off slowly.

I was also interested in calculating the correlation between IQ and thinking that cheating on taxes is wrong (1=not all, 4=very wrong). It turns out to be .11 for whites, consistent with other analyses I have seen: the correlation is reliable but weak.

Weird Al Yankovic: It seems that Weird Al Yankovic has figured out how a white guy can say in an acceptable way what race realists are marginalized for saying: that whites, on average, are smarter than blacks, and that blacks are more likely to be street criminals.


White and Nerdy (a rap song)

You see me mowin' my front lawn
I know they're all thinkin' I'm so
White and nerdy

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Can't you see I'm white and nerdy
Look at me I'm white and nerdy
I wanna roll with the gangstas
But so far they all think I'm too
White and nerdy

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
I'm just too white and nerdy
Really, really white and nerdy

First in my class here at MIT
Got skills, I'm a champion at D&D
M.C. Escher, that's my favorite M.C.
Keep you're 40, I'll just have an Earl Grey tea
My rims never spin, to the contrary
You'll find that they're quite stationary
All of my action figures are cherry
Stephen Hawking's in my library

My MySpace page is all totally pimped out
Got people beggin' for my top eight spaces
Yo, I know pi to a thousand places
Ain't got no grills but I still wear braces
I order all of my sandwiches with mayonnaise
I'm a wiz at Minesweeper, I could play for days
Once you've see my sweet moves, you're gonna stay amazed
My fingers movin' so fast I'll set the place ablaze

There's no killer app I haven't run (run)
At Pascal, well I'm number one (one)
Do vector calculus just for fun
I ain't got a gat, but I got a soldering gun (what?)
Happy Days is my favorite theme song
I could sure kick your butt in a game of ping pong
I'll ace any trivia quiz you bring on
I'm fluent in JavaScript as well as Klingon

Here's the part I sing on...

You see me roll on my Segway
I know in my heart they think I'm
White and nerdy

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Can't you see I'm white and nerdy
Look at me I'm white and nerdy

I'd like to roll with the gangstas
Although it's apparent I'm too
White and nerdy

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
I'm just too white and nerdy
How'd I get so white and nerdy

I been browsin', inspectin' X-Men comics
You know I collect 'em
The pens in my pocket, I must protect them
My ergonomic keyboard never leaves me bored
Shoppin' online for deals on some writable media
I edit Wikipedia
I memorized Holy Grail really well
I can recite it right now and have you R-O-T-F-L-O-L

I got a business doing websites (websites)
When my friends need some code, who do they call?
I do HTML for 'em all
Even made a homepage for my dog, yo
I got myself a fanny pack
They were havin' a sale down at The Gap
Spend my nights with a role of bubble wrap
Pop, pop - hope no one sees me gettin' freaky

I'm nerdy in the extreme
Whiter than sour cream
I was in AV club and glee club
And even the chess team
Only question I ever thought was hard
Was "Do I like Kirk or do I like Picard?"

Spend every weekend at the Renaissance Faire
Got my name on my underwear
They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy

Just because I'm white and nerdy
Just because I'm white and nerdy
All because I'm white and nerdy
Holy cow, I'm white and nerdy

I wanna bowl with the gangstas
But oh well, it's obvious I'm
White and nerdy

Think I'm just too white and nerdy
Think I'm just too white and nerdy
I'm just too white and nerdy
Look at me I'm white and nerdy

More on IQ and crime: In the earlier post, Tex wrote in the comments section that IQ-crime correlation is curvilinear: really smart people and the mentally retarded are the least criminal. Here's the percent ever arrested for each number out of ten answered correctly on the GSS vocab test (for whites only):


Percent ever arrested by vocabulary score

Ten 7.8
Nine 10.0
Eight 9.7
Seven 9.4
Six 10.3
Five 12.9
Four 12.8
Three 12.2
Zero-Two 11.4

We don't see much of drop in arrest among the dullest group (I imagine really slow people were not interviewed) but the smartest group is noticeable less likely to have ever been booked and fingerprinted. What happens if we estimate a logistic regression on the modal category--a score of 5--through the top group? This eliminates the curvilinearity problem (although it does restrict the range). The estimated coefficient is .085, with a p-value of .012. But IQ still explains less than 1% of the variation in arrest. Although it violates assumptions to use Pearson correlations, researchers do it all the time, so for people more familiar with that statistic, it is .04 in this analysis, and also .04 for the full range of IQ. I'm not impressed.

Are cell phones the reason for the 90s crime decline?

Steve Sailer has suggested that the spread of cell phones in the 1990s helps explain the concurrent drop in crime since youths contemplating a life of crime might think twice if witnesses can easily call the police during the commission of a crime. I found this graph which shows steady growth in phone ownership in America during the 1990s, especially after 1992. Robbery, for example, peaked in 1991 and dropped until around 2000, so there is a rough correspondence here. Plus, my impression is that young people--those most likely to be victims and, presumably, witnesses of crime--were the first to jump on the mobile phone craze.

Roughly half of Americans now have a mobile phone, so one could argue that if their availability were important we should have seen a drop that continued until the present day, instead of the observed plateau. But it might be that beyond, say, a 20-25% cell phone prevalence rate, additional phones would not make much difference. Only 4 random people would need to witness a crime for one to have a phone handy. Such a risk might be too high.

Smart people are only slightly less criminal: Plato thought that if people broke the law, they did it out of lack of understanding, since men naturally and rationally pursue happiness, and crime only brings misery. He would have predicted a strong inverse correlation between IQ and criminality, but the General Social Survey disagrees with him. I used logistic regression to estimate the relationship between a person's score on a vocabulary test and whether they have ever been arrested (1 for yes, 2 for no). The coefficient for whites is .052, and it's .054 for blacks. In English, what that means is that IQ explains not even close to one percent of criminality. Maybe Plato wanted to see a virtue in people like himself that just isn't there.

Looking again at southern intelligence: I was watching a 1993 video about juveniles and the death penalty and said to myself, "All these deathrow teens are dumb white Southerners," and it got me curious again about the idea that whites from that part of the country ain't so bright. When I looked at educational levels in an earlier post, the Southeast was low, but the West South Central Division (Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Texas) was not. The General Social Survey (GSS) showed us previously that education and IQ are only moderately correlated, so let's look at the GSS's measure of intelligence--the number of vocabulary words out of 10 answered correctly. I list the divisional means from highest to lowest for whites only:


Mean vocabulary score

New England 6.65
Pacific 6.53
Middle Atlantic 6.52
Mountain 6.48
West North Central 6.33

USA 6.25

East North Central 6.14
South Atlantic 6.07
West South Central 6.00
East South Central 5.42

The stereotype is confirmed: the lowest three divisions are all southern. But the East North Central division (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI) is also below average. The Mountain states in someways feel like the South, but as we saw with data on Mormons, folks in that region are not dumb.

So what's the reason for low Southern averages, especially in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky? A history of inbreeding? And folks from down there, don't get sensitive: we recognize that you have your Faulkners.

Russell Crowe's sexual orientation revealed: With Hollywood overrun with pretty boys, it reassured me to know that at least we had Russell Crowe to remind us that men are skirt-chasin' jerks. Now I read that he will no longer have cheerleaders for his rugby team, the South Sydney Rabbitohs, because his feminist wife doesn't like them. We always knew he was a good actor, but now we know he uses his talents to act straight.

Agnostics are the most intelligent: If you ask me to say the first thing that pops into my head when I am asked about who's the smartest in terms of believing in God, I would answer atheists. But it turns out that I'm wrong. According to the General Social Survey, agnostics are the smartest:


Mean vocabulary score


Whites

Doesn't believe 6.52
No way to find out 7.24
Some higher power 6.96
Believes sometimes 6.02
Believes but doubts 6.42
Knows God exists 6.05


Blacks

Doesn't believe 4.60
No way to find out 4.36
Some higher power 5.65
Believes sometimes 4.47
Believes but doubts 4.98
Knows God exists 4.90

I'm focusing on the white numbers when I draw my conclusions since sample sizes are small for blacks. Atheists don't even come in second: "some higher power" does. Those who know God exists are by far the largest group, but the numbers here tell us that uncertainty (or vagueness, as in "some higher power") increases with IQ. (I, myself, don't believe on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays).

The answer to the male shortage on campus: I seem to be the only person here (at the university) who is concerned about the shortage of male students. Two-thirds of our criminal justice majors are women? Huh? But then it dawned on me how to get more guys in the seats. We need to hire smokin' hot women professors. It's guaranteed to work. No one has ever asked "Where are the male customers?" at Hooters. And if the instructors dress fashionably, it will keep the female students interested too. Genius, but why does nobody ever listen to me?!

China profiled: I'm interested in constructing "personality profiles" of countries around the world, and I chose China as my first project since it is the biggest. I looked at more than 300 questions asked of citizens by the World Values Survey and listed below any where China ranked in the top or bottom 5 (of more than 40 countries). In this manner, we can see in which ways a country is distinctive. Questions covered many topical areas including domestic and international politics, economics, family, religion, lifestyle, and culture.


In the top 5

politics are important
couples should share political values
belongs to political party
government ownership should be increased
confident in armed forces, education, legal system, parliament, and social security

enough wealth can grow for everyone
important to have a strong economy and to maintain order
there should be more focus on technology

willing to fight for country
people can be trusted (probably have Chinese in mind)
have confidence in the military, education, legal system, parliament, social security

job is most important thing in life
more efficient should get more pay
materialism index

percent married
ideal family, 2 or fewer kids
kids need both mom and dad
being a housewife is just as fulfilling
important that kids learn thrift and determination
abortion acceptable for single mom, or if a women wants no more kids, or for a defect


In the bottom 5

to have successful marriage, couples should: share same religion, have good housing, live away from in-laws, have good sex life, and children
kids are hurt if mom works
approves of single moms
children should be taught religious faith, good manners, and obedience

important for work: pleasant people, generous holidays, meeting people, feel achievement, responsibility, interesting work
has a great deal of decision-making freedom
people are poor because they are lazy
competition is harmful
society should de-emphasize the importance of work

families, friends, leisure time, and religion are important
belong to a religious org, do volunteer work for one
belongs to a church
believes in a personal God
prays often
God is important in life
shares parents religious beliefs
has confidence in churches

people should have more say in government
country is run by a few big interests
confident about European community, NATO
trusts neighboring countries
trusts superpowers
wants Muslims for neighbors
society needs to: be more humane, focus on individual development, and focus more on family
approves of human rights movement
identifies first as world citizen
new ideas are usually best

thinks often about death
feels lonely or upset


Let's attempt some generalizations. China places great importance on politics and has faith in the powers that be. The Chinese are patriotic and suspicious of others. A humanitarian ethic is less developed. Work is also central, and people value merit, thrift, competition and determination (sounds like capitalists, no?). China is one of the least religious countries in the world. They value traditional family forms, but think it is good for women to work, and approve of abortion and small families. The people seem sober, practical, materialistic, and moderately contented. (Keep in mind that respondents might at times give answers they think are government-approved.)

The secular creep: Using the General Social Survey, I averaged the percent of Americans who never attend church:


Percent never going to church

Whites
70s: 14.0
80s: 14.8
90s: 17.3
00s: 20.4

Blacks
70s: 6.8
80s: 8.3
90s: 8.9
00s: 10.7

So the increase in church avoidance is up 46% for whites and 57% for blacks over (roughly) 3 decades. One in five whites never attends religious services. America is still one of the most religious countries in the world (with indicators similar to Ireland, Poland, and India) but the drift is in a European direction. I suspect that the trend has less to do with growing disbelief than with diminishing appeal and sense of obligation, and later I'll see what the data say.

More evidence that white NFL players are discriminated against: In the fall of 2005, I did an analysis of NFL stats to assist Steve Sailer who wrote a piece for VDARE about possible discrimination against white players. Using data from Caste Football on the number of white starters and nonstarters, I found that over a three-year period, teams with more white benchwarmers were noticeably more likely to win games. The number of white starters didn't matter much, but each additional 2.2 to 5 white nonstarters (depending on the year) resulted in an extra win. Caste Football’s J.D. Cash has suggested that perhaps white utility players are more likely to master the playbooks for multiple positions, and Steve added that perhaps benching black athletes who often have large egos poisons the atmosphere and lowers team spirit.

In the scientific spirit of replication (and the fact that tomorrow is the Super Bowl) I ran the numbers again for the year that is now coming to an end. Looking at the regular season, we see the same pattern observed in previous years: the percent of white starters does not seem to matter (r=.06) but the correlation between nonstarters and wins is noteworthy: .20. An example based on estimating a regression model will make more intuitive sense: if Jacksonville, who had only 5 white non-starters, were like the Jets who had 15, they would have won an estimated 2 additional games. This may not sound like all that much, but as Sailer wrote, in a game of many complex factors, identifying a factor that might turn an average team into a playoff contending team is a big deal.

Women and job prestige: I'm interested in two questions: which ethnic group has the most prestigious women, and how do they compare to their male counterparts? Using General Social Survey data on Americans of various ethnicities, I first list the mean occupational prestige and then the gap with males:


Mean prestige score for females (female - male in parentheses)

Chinese 51.68 (+1.15)
Jewish 48.89 (-3.94)
Russians 48.01 (-1.26)
Scots 47.37 (+.77)
Indians 47.23 (-10.60)
Danes 46.91 (-.73)
Swedes 46.13 (+.49)
English/Welsh 45.74 (-.89)
Norwegians 45.16 (-.53)
Filipinos 45.04 (+3.93)
Italians 44.61 (-.70)
Czechs 44.55 (-.76)
French 44.51 (+1.27)
Irish 44.10 (-1.09)
Poles 44.09 (-2.66)

All women 43.66 (-.48)

Germans 43.54 (-.58)
Spaniards 43.20 (-1.47)
Puerto Ricans 41.71 (+3.06)
Blacks 41.16 (+2.46)
French Canadians 40.80 (-1.67)
American Indians 40.80 (+.97)
Dutch 40.76 (-.86)
Mexicans 38.62 (-1.18)

Chinese women have the most prestigious jobs by far, and they even exceed Chinese men by 1.15 points. They and Indians are two non-white groups in the top five. The Russian number is elevated some since many Jews are from Russia. Northern and Eastern Europeans have the highest numbers for gentile whites. Four groups--two of them white--are lower than black women.

Women in eight of the 22 groups exceed the men, and males are only ahead a little bit in the overall numbers. The female advantage is large for Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, and blacks.

So, these numbers tells us that prestigious jobs in America are in no way reserved for men--in many cases, women have higher status positions. Nor do non-white women find that they cannot ascend to the highest ranks. Not only do Chinese women surpass all other women, but also the vast majority of men.

More evidence on Sun versus Ice People: In an earlier post, I reported that, according to World Values Survey data, northern Europeans are the happiest, eastern Europeans are the gloomiest, and sub-Saharan Africans are in the middle. This finding runs contrary to the view that blacks are "Sun People" while whites are "Ice People." Some might argue that much of the observed pattern is due to the social conditions of these regions (although conditions are better in E. Europe than SS Africa) but what do we see if we look at ethnic groups who are living in the same general environment (i.e., country)?

The General Social Survey has asked 33,867 Americans how happy have they felt lately. Answers ranged from very happy (1) through pretty happy(2) to not too happy (3). I calculated means for all the ethnic groups and subtracted them from 3 so that higher numbers indicate happier people:


Mean happiness score

Greeks 1.34
Danes 1.30
Belgians 1.29
French Canadians 1.29
Romanians 1.29
English/Welsh 1.28
Swedes 1.27
Scots 1.26
Norwegians 1.25
Dutch 1.25
Irish 1.24
Germans 1.24
France 1.24
Finns 1.23
Filipinos 1.21

USA 1.20

Poles 1.20
Czechs 1.20
Yugoslavs 1.19
Italians 1.19
Japanese 1.18
Hungarians 1.18
Jews 1.17
Indians 1.16
Austrians 1.16
Russians 1.16
American Indians 1.16
Mexicans 1.15
Spaniards 1.15
Chinese 1.13
Lithuanians 1.12
Blacks 1.02
Arabs 1.02
Puerto Ricans 1.00
West Indians .89

The American pattern does not square at all with the Sun/Ice dichotomy: blacks, especially West Indians, are at the bottom of the list, while N. Europeans fall toward the top. And E. Europeans are below average among Americans, as they are when comparing countries. More broadly, whites are happier than non-whites: the only above-average group of color is Filipinos.

I'd be surprised if some racism hunter has not discovered this pattern so he can demonstrate yet another way that the Man keeps the browns down. I am reminded of a Puerto Rican graduate student friend of mine who was conducting research to show that assimilating people of color causes them to become mentally ill.