Elite white hostility toward whites: I've heard a number of journalists today suggest that most white Mississippian Democrats voted for Hillary yesterday because they hate blacks. Comparing the state to Georgia, Chris Matthews said that whites in metropolitan places like Atlanta are "too busy to hate."

These attitudes reveal the hostility that elites have for ordinary whites. I haven't heard anyone in the MSM claim that some whites are voting for Obama because he is black, and certainly not that doing so deserves brownie points. The conventional intepretation is that they have overcome their bigotry, and are voting simply for the real person, whoever that is.

So, if whites favor blacks, they're not really favoring them. They're just finally becoming decent. If, on the other hand, a white person votes against Obama, it is assumed that it is done out of hate. An elite white gains extra status for being simpleminded and cynical about race issues. "I'm so morally superior, I even brainlessly trash fellow whites."

The elite never feels the impulse to explore it any further: maybe the white person voted for Hillary because he knows enough to realize that an elite black man is likely to be very liberal, very concerned about blacks, and very unconcerned about whites qua whites. When a white woman asked Willie Brown, the then mayor of San Francisco, about how affirmative action hurts her children, he angrily responded, "I don't give a damn about your children."

The white voter may feel no ill will whatsover, but has decided that a man like Obama is a bad bet--he probably will not represent my interests. It's the same logic as racial profiling: I don't have all day to learn about this man's true character, but his race is an indicator. And a black man's politics can be predicted much, much better than his tendency to break the law.

In America, who is white? The General Social Survey has asked people over the years where their ancestors came from, and they routinely ask respondents what race do they consider themselves to be--white, black, or other. You might expect that no Japanese, East Indian, or American Indian would answer anything but "other", but you'd be wrong. Look at how individuals from different groups see themselves racially:


Percent who see themselves as a particular race

Chinese
White 7.5
Black 3.2
Other 89.3

Japanese
White 18.9
Black 3.3
Other 77.9

Greeks
White 99.4
Black 0.6
Other 0.0

Mexicans
White 54.0
Black 0.2
Other 45.8

Filipinos
White 17.5
Black 0.0
Other 82.5

Puerto Ricans
White 54.8
Black 9.5
Other 35.7

Spanish
White 77.0
Black 1.5
Other 21.5

West Indies
White 5.6
Black 94.4
Other 0.0

American Indian
White 68.4
Black 18.4
Other 13.2

India
White 16.9
Black 16.3
Other 66.9

African
White 1.0
Black 98.8
Other 0.2

Arabic
White 73.8
Black 7.1
Other 19.0

American only
White 37.5
Black 59.7
Other 2.8

Jews
White 98.0
Black 1.2
Other 0.8

Clearly, many people are describing the color of their skin; that is what they understand "race" to mean. But I suspect that another factor is how you see yourself with respect to Americans descended from Europeans. If you identify with them, you are more likely to say you are white.

If people were merely describing their skin pigmentation, I would have expected more Greeks, Arabs, American Indians, and Mexicans to report "other." I'm sure many "American Indians" are whites who are so proud of their small amount of Indian ancestry, they claim it as their ethnicity.

Notice how almost no one whose ancestors were from Africa thinks of himself as white, and how quite of few blacks think of themselves as "Americans only", with no connection to Africa whatsoever.

Most important for this blog, most Mexican Americans see themselves as white, which is a positive sign that they identify with white Americans and want to integrate with them.


Update: I added American Jews to the bottom of the list. There is no indication that some in this group want to distance themselves from whites by saying their race is "other."

Does a strong ethnic identity make one happier? Racial activists argue that a person of color needs to develop a deep connection to his people in order to have a sense of rootedness, self-esteem, and even mental health. A belief in the importance of group identification is seen in this year's primaries. I keep hearing journalists say how women and blacks are finally really swept up in a presidential election, as if having one's own run for office is the only thing meaningful about politics.

I've never really bought the idea--for minorities, women, or white men for that matter--but it could be true, so let's look at the data. Using General Social Survey data, I calculated the percent of people who report being very happy:


Percent who are very happy

English/Welsh 36.9
German 33.5
Filipino 32.3
Jewish 32.1

All Americans 31.9

American Indian 30.9
Chinese 30.6
East Indian 30.1
Mexican 27.5
Japanese 26.0
Puerto Rican 23.5
Arabic 22.9
Black 22.2
West Indian 18.2

American minority groups are the most group conscious, and yet they are the least happy. By contrast, people of English and German ancestry identify with with their ethnic groups less than anyone, but they are at the top of the happiness list. A skeptic might argue that their unhappiness is due to poverty, but Chinese, East Indians, and Japanese are wealthy groups but still have below-average numbers.

By the way, all Americans from NW Europe are above average: this mirrors quite closely the patterns observed globally.

Who do Hispanic men want to date most? Racial dating preferences is a popular topic on this blog, and I thought of a way to study it more systematically. I pretended I was a woman looking for a date on Yahoo Personals, and did a search of Hispanic males ages 20 to 32 in the LA area. I had enough time to look at 100 profiles. The men were asked to list the races of their ideal women. The choices are listed below. They could also answer "no preference." Here are the percent interested in each group:


Percent of Hispanic men interested in a given race/ethnicity

Hispanic 99
White 85
Asian 70
Pacific Islander 65
Interracial 61
Middle Eastern 60
Native American 60
Other 58
Black 55
East Indian 52

So, Hispanic men are clearly interested in their own women first. From all the blonde women I've seen in soaps, drawings, and tattoos, I suspected they might prefer whites. Caucasian women are second on the list, with Asians a distant third. On the bottom of the list, Blacks are probably there because of racial differences, while East Indians are perhaps seen as culturally as well as racially different. Why aren't they more interested in Native Americans? Is it their traditionally low social status, or is it something else? My sense of objective beauty would put East Indians higher (although there is great variety) and Pacific Islanders lower.

I'll do Asian men next.

A rule to live by: WWHO: Did you read the story about Harvard setting aside gym hours for Muslim women only? Now, a principled administrator would have looked at how other religions on campus were treated and would have concluded that it is not fair to give preferential treatment to one religion. You might respond that the ethics of a liberal require that we favor the little guys, and Islam is a small group in America. My answer is that Pentecostals are a small group too, but we can imagine Harvard's response to a request for special treatement from them.

I think I might have the answer to crack the mystery of elite ethics. Really, it's so simple even a toddler could grasp it. It could be called the "WWHO rule" (pronounced "who"). WWHO means What Would Hitler Oppose. If Hitler is against it, it must be the right way to go. If a Muslim girl comes to you and asks for the gym several hours a week all for herself, well obviously Der Fuhrer would snarl a "NO!" at her, so it must be a good policy.

The rule really applies to everything. Racial issues are obvious: mass non-white immigration is a must since that would drive the NSDAP nuts. And social issues are clear too: Gay marriage must be right because Herr Hitler loathed homosexuality (except for when he was a male prostitute in Vienna, they say). But the rule even works in the area of taste. Jazz is the greatest music ever since the Nazis hated it. Even science must conform to this principle: biological sources of behavior must be false since You-Know-Who would like that idea.

The Golden Rule or the old "What Would Jesus Do" might work for the hicks, but WWHO is the only way to go for the truly enlightened.

Turn the dummy voters away: Call me elitist, but after watching the primaries thus far, the least America could do is have a minimum IQ requirement in order to vote.

Looking at General Social Survey data, I am troubled about the number of dumb people who vote. In 2004, 27.3% of voters had IQs under 92: 27.4% of those who voted for Kerry, and 27.0% of those who voted for Bush.

The votes of those people carried almost SIX times the weight of American voters with IQs over 125 who were only 4.9% of the total. (5.8% of Bush voters were 125+; 4.1% of Kerry's).

Of course, the smart ones voted for the same two yahoos the dumb ones voted for, but at least they knew a few things about the candidates. I'm proud to say that I didn't vote for either one of them, and I ain't opting for Tweedledee or Tweedledum or Tweedledebbie this time around either.

Black and white IQs are moderately correlated across regions: General Social Survey (GSS) data show that mean IQ increases for whites in America as we move north. The same is true for blacks: the lowest average is in the East South Central region (ESC), while the highest is West North Central (WNC). I wanted to look at the relationship more closely, so I calculated the Pearson correlation for black and white mean IQs across the nine GSS divisions. It turned out to be .473. The correlation is lowered by the fact that, while whites in the Intermountain West are smarter than average, for some reason blacks are not.

Could it be that smarter southern blacks migrated to the west coast (blacks are above average there) while their duller counterparts got no farther than service jobs in Nevada? (I doubt that blacks are more than 1 or 2 percent, except for places like Vegas and Phoenix).

So how do we explain the moderately strong relationship between black and white IQs? Is there some kind of environmental factor that lowers intelligence in the south? If so, what would it be? (I'm sure Agnostic could help us out here). Or is it migration--more ambitious blacks and whites heading north to pursue better opportunities? (But how many low IQ blacks have been attracted to northern states with generous welfare programs?)

The differences are by no means trivial. The New England/ESC gap for whites is 8 points--more than half a standard deviation. For blacks, the IQ difference between the WNC and ESC regions is also about 8 points. The gap is so wide, ESC whites surpass WNC blacks by only 1 IQ point. (Keep in mind that the IQ test is based on vocabulary, and the GSS overall black-white gap for this kind of test is only 10 IQ points.)

Has the South converged with the rest of the country on racial attitudes? Fifty years ago, there was a clear divide between the North and the South on the question of race relations. Since then, has the North converted white southerners to its way of thinking?

The General Social Survey first ask Americans in 1972 if they were in favor of a law against black-white marriages. I averaged the answers for almost 10,000 people for the 1970s and then this decade, and did it by region of the country. Listed below are the nine regions, the estimates for the 70s, and the estimates for this decade.


Percent in favor of a law against black-white marriages--1970s and 2000s

New England 19.0--> 7.4
Mid-Atlantic 27.7--> 8.5
East North Central 31.6--> 9.9
West North Central 37.1--> 13.4
South Atlantic 54.3--> 14.5
East South Central 57.3--> 32.2
West South Central 42.2--> 11.3
Mountain 30.4--> 4.8
Pacific 22.0--> 5.3

Support for this type of law dropped significantly all over the country during this period, especially in the South Atlantic and West South Central divisions. This reflects both the dramatic change in racial attitudes among whites along with the growing feeling that other people should have the right to do whatever they would like, even if I don't personally like it.

The East South Central region (ESC) is the outlier here. While the two other southern divisions are very similar to the rest of the country, the ESC's level of support is still more than double any other area. (By the way, this region includes MS, AL, TN, KY.) The ESC has remained distinctive, indeed.

And notice how the numbers are not perfectly predicted by the politics of the region. Outside of the South, the Mountain States are the most conservative, yet they are the least in favor of anti-miscegenation laws. This ties in with my earlier post that argued that naivete, rather than experience, can encourage non-traditional racial attitudes.

The real con artists: Spengler recently wrote a column arguing that the lives of Barack "Inkblot" Obama's wife and mother reveal his true character--an anti-American huckster. America loves a conman, he says, pointing to our Elmer Gantry types.

Spengler then recommended watching Nightmare Alley (available online to subscribers at Netflix.com) as a classic example of the American BS artist. I did watch it, and recommend it as well, but no so much for the story of the swindling psychic, but for a message that shows real wisdom for a movie made in the 1940s: the hucksters par excellence are psychoanalysts.

Elite ethno-religious group: I run across bloggers all the time who are extremely interested in a small but very elite ethno-religious group. Even though they are a tiny sliver of the total American population, they are found in disproportionate numbers in the highest echelons of society.

Always interested in precision, I wanted to see what the General Social Survey (GSS) had to say about this group. Compared to all whites, they are three times as likely to be in the highest income bracket. They are four times as likely to hold the single-most prestigious job (according to the GSS) in America--an MD. Their rate of earning graduate degrees is 3 times that of the average.

More than 80% believe that America should take an active role in world affairs. Almost 90% believe we should stay in the UN. More than 80% believe that immigration improves American society, and almost 60% feel that we should either increase or maintain current levels of immigration.

For decades, this group has worked relentlessly to undermine traditional America with its liberal agenda: immigration rights, human rights, anti-racism and anti-Semitism, homosexual rights, affirmative action, economic justice, and feminism.

Oh, by the way, the group is the Episcopal Church of America. (Okay, maybe I cheated a bit on the "ethno" part, but it is true that the ancestors of half of the current members were from Great Britain (GSS)).

Senior seminar class: For a number of years now, I have taught a senior seminar class where students summarize research articles of their choice. They are assigned a specific area of research, but within that topic they can bring in what they like. As an undergraduate and graduate student, I was bombarded by instructors with equal doses of race, class, and gender, but the discipline has reached a point where my students overwhelmingly bring in articles on race. Part of the reason for this is that most of my students are racially conscious blacks and Hispanics, and race is one of their favorites topics. They feel like they are "keepin' it real" by lecturing the teacher and the handful of white students in the class. But the students are not the main reason why my class is dominated by discussions of race. Many students are lazy and just grab the first interesting study they find, and there are SO many articles on race now, this is what they often find.

I'm sure that some of my drive-through readers think that something is wrong with this Ron Guhname guy because he analyzes so much data on race. If I there is anything to this charge, I respond in the same way the monster would: if you don't like me, blame Dr. Frankenstein. I simply think a lot about what my experience at the university has taught me to be interested in. My professors and now my students are obsessed with race, so what do you expect from me?

Ordinary white society has been trying really hard for decades to forget about racial distinctions, but elites and their only-too-willing minority constituencies won't let them forget. Well, even squishy whites can only take so much "you're the problem" before fighting back. Race hustlers have overplayed their hand, and I suspect that the recent furor over amnesty for illegals is a sign of things to come.

Young people are not getting beyond race: People keep saying that young people are so excited to vote for Obama because they don't care about race. I say, huh? If something doesn't matter, then it can't explain behavior. But what they seem to mean is that older people do care about race--in other words, that they're racists--and their prejudice is preventing them from voting for the candidate. This appears to be a mainstream perception, but actually it reveals a hostile view of America since the General Social Survey (GSS) shows that even more than a decade ago--1996 to be exact--93% of all Americans were willing to vote for a black president. They stopped asking the question, the number was getting so high.

So, has race become less important to young whites? GSS respondents were asked how they felt about blacks. Answer choices ranged from several degrees of cool, to neutral, to a number of degrees of warm. If race doesn't matter, we should observe more neutrals over time. This is obvious vis-a-vis cool attitudes, but it might be less clear with respect to warmth. If someone says he loves blacks, then race is important to him--he has warm feelings specific to a certain race.

Let's compare 1996 and 2006--the oldest and newest years available:

Percent neutral--ages 18-25

1996 44.2
2006 42.1

There is no evidence here that, compared to the past, race is less significant to young whites. We can see a shift, however, toward more people with warm feelings:


Percent with warm feelings--ages 18-25

1996 29.0
2006 42.8

Now, it's not difficult to argue that more warmth is a good thing. Bertrand Russell wrote that love benefits both parties, while hate profits neither. But the point here is that, according to these data, a majority a decade ago did not even claim to be colorblind, and this number has not changed.

If these attitudes predict behavior, then many young people might be voting for Obama because they like him for the color of his skin, not because they have gotten beyond race.

Jews hate opera more than all other white religious groups: Below I list the percent of whites from various religions who really dislike opera, according to the General Social Survey. I was surprised to see that a high-status group--Jews--hate it more than anyone, even more than the much less intelligent Southern Baptists:

Percent who dislike opera very much

Jews 34.4

Southern Baptists 32.8

Baptists--unspecified 32.1

Catholics 17.5

United Methodist 13.6

Episcopalian 9.7

No religion 7.8

To be more precise, fewer Jews are neutral on opera since they are also overrepresented among those who really like it (15.6% versus 4.8% for all Americans).

One would expect an elite group to have a particular fondness for this type of music (in a previous post, I showed that the mean IQ of opera fans was higher than for any other genre) so why are Jews so polarized? Would more folks like it, but visions of Hitler enraptured while listening to Ride of the Valkyries ruin it for them?

This reminds me of the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry gets into an argument with another Jew because Larry likes Wagner, but the other guy thinks only a self-hating Jew would listen to that stuff.

Region, Religion, and IQ

Agnostic asked about the regional distribution of various Protestant groups, which is an interesting question, so I found a nice map shown above. It matches the IQ gradient very nicely: smart Lutherans in the north, average-intelligence Methodists in center, and lower-IQ Baptists in the south. You can't see it on the map, but the GSS estimates below show that (smart) Episcopalians are concentrated only in New England. I have listed below the percent of all white Protestants that are in a particular region if it is a recognizable category, and if it is at least 10% of the total:

Percent of all white Protestants in the region

New England

1. Episcopalian 14.2

Mid-Atlantic

1. Lutheran 12.5

East North Central

1. Lutheran 11.7

2. United Methodist 10.3

3. Methodist--no specification 10.2

West North Central

1. Lutheran 12.3

South Atlantic

1. Baptist--no specification 20.5

2. Southern Baptist 16.0

3. United Methodist 10.0

4. Methodist--no specification 10.0

East South Central

1. Southern Baptist 23.5

2. Baptist--no specification 21.0

West South Central

1. Southern Baptist 21.2

2. Baptist--no specification 18.3

Mountain States

none

Pacific

none

Looking at the numbers, my first observation is that, throughout the country, most groups are small and varied. Not many are even 10% of all Protestants in the region. There is extreme fragmentation here. Presbyterians didn't reach 10% in any region--8.9% in the Mid-Atlantic states was as numerous as they got. And the West is worse than every place else. Mormons, of course, are concentrated in the Intermountain West. The GSS does not isolate this group; they are probably a big chunk of the 36.8% listed as "other." My guess is that they might be 10% of the whole region.

It might be worth mentioning that Catholics are concentrated the most in New England and the Middle Atlantic, and are thinnest in the East South Central region (the map doesn't show this very clearly).

So the pattern is consistent with Razib's comment about SES (and highly correlated IQ) and religious preference, and it also lines up nicely with Albion's Seed.

Odd religions and IQ: The discussion of Mormonism connected to Romney's run for President confirmed what I had observed before: lots of people assume that members of small, odd religions must be dumb. How else could you believe that stuff? Well, data have a way of disconfirming as well as confirming stereotypes.

The General Social Survey, unfortunately, throws together many of these smalls sects into the generic "Protestant" category, so I will have to use the question about which religion you were raised in, on the assumption that most people do not switch. For some reason, they give a more specific breakdown with this question. Shown below are mean IQs for whites, and I've included some mainline churches for the sake of comparison:


Mean IQ for whites

Episcopalian 109.9
Lutheran 107.4
Mormon 105.7
Presbyterian 102.3
United Methodists 101.8
Southern Baptists 98.0
Assembly of God 94.5
Pentecostal 92.2

Episcopalians at the top is a real shocker, and other mainstream churches are also above average. But people who didn't know better might surprised to find that, in terms of intelligence, Mormons are very much like these other groups. They are not similar to Pentecostals or members of the Assembly of God, as the numbers above indicate. You can see a bit of a North-South contrast here, and Mormons are northerners. They are heavily English and Scandanavian.

While you can find exceptions, evangelicals and fundamentalists don't believe in things that, to a mainline Protestant, are completely from another planet, yet these groups tend to have below-average IQs. Mormons, with beliefs that make some people really flip out, are a relatively smart group. There simply is no strong correlation between the perceived strangeness of beliefs and IQ. I'm sure many people think it's crazy to circumcise infant boys, but in case you haven't heard, Jews are smart as hell. (Keep in mind that samples are smaller than they should be for the small churches. Also--while a skeptic can claim that many of the smart folks have left the odd churches of their childhood, research shows that most Americans don't switch, and a child's IQ is positively correlated with that of his parents.)

Forty percent of Americans want to stay out of world affairs--highest number in 35 years

Since 1973, the General Social Survey (GSS) has asked Americans the following question: "Do you think it will be best for the future of this country if we take an active part in world affairs, or if we stay out of world affairs?" Now, granted this is not an ideal measure of interventionism, but let's see where it takes us, anyway. GSS people were lame and didn't ask the question between 1995 and 2005--only sociologists would take five years to get around to asking an important post-9/11 question.

Support for involvement in world affairs has never been lower--39.2% of Americans in 2006 said we should stay out. We have to go back to 1982 to find a similar number (perhaps Americans were reacting to Iran during that period).

If you're a paleo like me, that's good news, but the bad news is that we are still a minority. Other surveys show that a clear majority of Americans want the troops to come home soon from Iraq, but that doesn't mean that most people want us to pull back the empire in general.

Iraq is a total mess, and yet I am amazed over how many moderates and conservatives have embraced John 'Make it a Hunderd' McCain. In a discussion the other day with a friend who is a huge McCain supporter, I asked him what do I get for the $9000 I have to pay in taxes for Iraq, and why do we need all these bases all over the planet? He answered, "Did you watch Spiderman?" I nodded yes, and he spoke as if quoting the Bible, "With great power, comes great responsibility."

So, my prediction is that the person who will win over our current generation of voters in November is the candidate who quotes the most comic books.

Are jocks conservative? Honestly, I haven't followed sports much since I was a kid, but I have a lot of respect for it since, at least when it is functioning as it should, sports teaches conservative values: self-discipline, work ethic, competitiveness, merit, personal responsibility, rejection of excuses, etc.

So, this makes me wonder if athletes are, as a group, politically conservative. Off the top of my head, I can think of more famous Republican athletes--Gerald Ford, Jack Kemp, J.C. Watts, Steve Largent--but then there is Bill Bradley on the other side.

The General Social Survey asked 1,210 white Americans two questions: whom they voted for in 2000, and how well the term "athletic" describes them. Below, I compare those who said "very well" and "not at all":


Percent who voted for Bush in 2000

Athletic men 63.5
Unathletic men 46.7

Athletic women 62.5
Unathletic women 54.9

The difference is more striking for the men--I'm getting a mental image of the wimpy liberal guy here--but athletic women are also more likely to vote Republican. There weren't enough blacks to analyze, but based on the few cases, it looks like the percent of them that votes Democrat falls into the 80-90 percent range if they're athletes. Evidently, there is some connection between sports culture and conservatism.

More on racial idealism: Agnostic made a good suggestion to look at General Social Survey data to see if white Democrats in the mountain states are more racially idealistic than in other regions because of inexperience. Just raise a question about data, and I come-a-runnin'.

The best I could do was a question about how warm do you feel toward blacks. Answers ranged from very warm (1) to very cool (9). I calculated the means for each of the nine divisions of the country for whites who voted for Gore in 2000. I subtracted the means from 9 so that high scores would indicate the most warmth toward blacks (N=1,442).


Mean score of warmth toward blacks

Pacific 5.94
Mountain 5.65
New England 5.63
East North Central 5.61

All white Gore voters 5.56

West North Central 5.51
Middle Atlantic 5.41
East South Central 5.25
West South Central 5.22
South Atlantic 5.18

These results, overall, support the idea that white Democrats are most positive toward blacks in regions with few blacks. The South is cool, while New England, the Mountain states, and the Pacific region are warmest. The West North Central (WNC) region (SD, ND, MN, IA, MO, NE, KS), however, doesn't have many blacks but is moderately cool.

The warmest states also tended to vote for Obama, with exceptions like Massachusetts. California is also warm but voted for Hillary, but Hispanic Democrats explain that. The Middle Atlantic states are cool, and have been likely to vote for Hillary. And of course, the cool South has voted for Hillary, except in states with many black voters. So, overall, the idea that white Democrats voted for Obama because of idealistic feelings towards blacks holds up, with the WNC region being an exception.

People ain't never gonna be colorblind: I posed the question a few days ago, why Obama has done so well in places like Idaho and Alaska, and the best answer I found was Sailer's view that a white person in states with few blacks gets to feel like he has a hip black friend by voting for Barack. Growing up in that kind of a state, I would describe the person as racially green; someone who, for lack of experience, is filled with the kind of racial idealism that people across the North had in the 60s. The support Obama is getting from young voters can be explained in the same way.

But these primaries are just more data points supporting the idea the people just can't be colorblind. Blacks across the country voted for Obama because he's black; race-fatigued southern and northeastern whites cast ballots against him because he's black; Hispanics everywhere voted against him because of his color; and idealist whites from Minnesota to Alaska thought of all the good it will do to vote for a black man.

The question is, is there anyone out there that voted for him, and didn't see race? I don't think so.

Whether genes has much to do with it or not, race has always been a potent social reality, and it will continue to be one.

The Flynn Effect among Mexican Americans: Using General Social Survey data, I calculated the mean IQs for each of the past four decades for people of Mexican ancestry who were born in the United States. Here are the numbers:


Mean IQ

70s 85.2
80s 84.4
90s 91.8
00s 95.1

The 1990s saw more than a 7 point increase over the previous decade, and the gains continued into the 21st century. Let's compare them to white Americans:


Mean IQ

70s 99.1
80s 99.2
90s 100.5
00s 101.3

I'm not sure why increases are seen for the groups--the white gain might be explained, in part, by increases in mean age (vocabularies expand a bit with age)--but higher IQs indicate that people will thrive, so this is a good sign for Mexican Americans. (Keep in mind that the analysis concerns people born here, so immigrants, legal and illegal, are excluded.)

Mom's IQ and family size: I analyzed data on more than 2,500 American women to look at the relationship between IQ and completed family size. Here are the mean number of children for women age 40-50 averaged within various decades:


Mean number of children

Low IQ
70s 3.84
80s 3.30
90s 2.49
00s 2.33

Medium IQ
70s 3.44
80s 2.76
90s 2.13
00s 2.03

High IQ
70s 2.96
80s 2.23
90s 1.68
00s 1.74

Not surprisingly, completed fertility has fallen over recent decades, and it has done so across all three IQ groups. Unfortunately, during any given period the smartest women have the fewest kids. There is one bit of encouraging news (highlighted in red): the only reversal in the above table is that high-IQ women ended up with more children in this decade than in the 1990s. Evidently, placing top priority on a career has slipped a little.

Update: I compared the mean number of children had by native-born Americans versus immigrants in this decade and found 1.68 and 2.29, respectively. So, fertility went up among smart women in America only because of the high numbers among immigrants.

Question: Obama has won in states with many blacks, or with few Hispanics, and not in southern states that are mostly white. I get that. But why has he also won in mid-western and western states, but not in the northeast? For example, 80% of Idahoan and 73% of Alaskan Democrats voted for him. What is going on there? Perception that Obama is not a Washington insider, not part of the Establishment? Or racial idealism?

A study conducted in line at the supermarket

In this blog's brief life, the most frequented post by far addressed the question of whether black men prefer white women. My tentative conclusion was that they like light-skinned blacks with European-ish features, but I haven't run across the data to test the idea.

Standing in line at the supermarket last night, I opened the latest issue of Ebony which featured an article on "Who is Dating Who?" [sic]. The magazine also featured other famous couples. I counted 19 couples, and the darkest, most African looking women by a wide margin was Mrs. Barack Obama shown in the top photo. (Evidently, Barry wanted to prove he was black enough when he chose Michelle). She really was an outlier.

Much more common were women like Porschla Coleman who is dating Russell Simmons (shown in the bottom photo). So, my second (unscientific) stab at the same question produces the same results.

This pattern is consistent with my tastes, by the way, only in the reverse direction. Lighter white women can be beautiful, indeed, but beautiful like a painting. It's the darker white women who really stir the blood, as if a little dose of the exotic is necessary. There were few black men with pasty girlfriends. Too much exotic can turn someone off.

"Make it a Hunderd" McCain: Here on YouTube, in case there is any doubt, is John McCain saying that we've been in South Korea and Japan for decades, and it's perfectly fine with him if we stay in Iraq for 100 years.

How is it exactly that this guy is supposedly the most the most electable of the Republican bunch when the vast majority of Americans are turned off to the War, while this guy has a obvious hard-on for it (along with wanting to put troops anywhere around the world where there are bad guys)?

The Dems will successfully use this against him, and will portray him (accurately) as a scary warmonger.

I don't need to pursue reasons to not support McCain since there are people who can say it much better than I; namely, the one and only Pat Buchanan.

It's a culture war: Discovering that income simply does not influence voting among immigrants (at least among non-whites) led me to wonder how much it influences native-born Americans. Put simply, it doesn't matter for them either. Looking at 2000 voting pattern, income had no predictive power once race was controlled. I hunted around for what is predictive--sex, education, marital status, number of children--and everything was weak except for race and a number of indicators of religious orientation: being Christian, religious, or fundamentalist. The simplest way for me to create polar opposites is to use black versus white along with fundamentalist versus no religion:


Percent who voted for Clinton in 1996

Fundamentalist whites 11.6
Blacks with no religion 96.6

Let me say it again: income predicts nothing. Pat Buchanan is right: it's a culture war. It ain't the rich against the poor. Immigrants pick up on this and regardless of income, if they're non-white or irreligious, they generally join up with the--what does O'Reilly call them--secular progressives. Those who loathe what white fundamentalists cherish: traditional Christianity, old-time values, and freedom.

To find a Republican Senator more liberal than McCain, you have to go to the--yuck--Northeast: The American Thinker analyzes numbers from the American Conservative Union to show that there are only three current Republican Senators more liberal than McCain--Collins (R-ME) Snowe (R-ME) and Specter (R-ME).

Two reasons--to start with--to oppose McCain: I plan to link to everything I come across showing that McCain is way too liberal for a conservative to vote for. Robert Novak documents that: 1) McCain thinks Alito is too conservative, and 2) he has told people that the next president may need to raise taxes.

Mitt and Mormonism: FINALLY, an intelligent piece on Mitt Romney and the Mormon Question, by Allan Wall at Vdare.com. Up until now, I've read almost nothing but hysterics and paranoia, even by otherwise thoughtful men like Thomas Fleming. The stupidity on the subject knows no bounds. Prior to this article, the only insightful writing I ran across was Razib's.

Wall expresses my concern that Mormons for doctrinal reasons tend to be soft on illegal and legal immigration, and while Mitt is clearly running to the right of McCain on the issue, his real views are probably influenced by his religious beliefs. Specifically, he is likely to have more-than-usual affection for Hispanics because of the Mormon belief that the indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere are sort of a chosen people. They have joined the Church in very large numbers (more than half of the membership worldwide is Spanish-speaking) and so white Mormons feel a kinship with them.

Race is the most powerful predictor of how immigrants will vote: I've shown in recent posts that neocons are flat wrong when they say that mass immigration is good for conservatism because immigrants move right after assimilating into American society. Non-white immigrants actually move left as they move up, as do those with no religion. The old belief that immigrants are an upwardly mobile bunch, and that people with increasing incomes become Republicans is false: 1) because the majority of folks from the largest immigrant group--Mexicans--as well as many from other groups do not become high-income, and 2) many immigrants are not white and not religious, and my analysis of GSS data has shown that these two groups become hardcore Democrats as their incomes rise.

One question I haven't answered is, which of these factors--income, religiosity, or race--is most important in determining whether immigrants vote for Republicans? Below, I show the results of a multivariate analysis. For race, I created a variable I called "social distance from white" where whites=1, other=2, and black=3.


Voted for Bush in 2000 (OLS standardized coefficients)

distance from whites -.294*
personal income .037
church attendance .171*
N = 129

* p < .05, one-tail test


Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher income immigrants are not more likely to vote Republican. Religious immigrants were more likely to vote for Bush, but the most powerful predictor is being white.

Based on this model, 69 percent of immigrants who are white and attend church more than weekly are predicted to vote for Bush; the percent for black immigrants who never go to church is 16 percent. For other non-whites who never attend church (e.g., Asians, Hispanics) 23 percent are expected to vote Republican.

The obvious implication for conservatives is that if they want to conserve themselves, they should favor one of the following: 1) an end to all immigration, 2) an increase in immigration among people who are white and religious, or 3) a reduction in the numbers of their counterparts (or 2 and 3 together).

High-income immigrants with no religion vote overwhelmingly for Democrats: I wrote in an earlier post that Christian immigrants are more likely to move right and vote Republican as they assimilate, compared to non-Christians. Let's see if data (from the General Social Survey) support me. The survey asked 118 immigrants how they voted in 2000 (that is a small sample size, so fair warning). Here are the results:


Percent who voted for Bush in 2000

Low-income
Christian 50.0
Non-Christian 38.9

High-income
Christian 70.6
Non-Christian 31.6

Christian immigrants start out split and move right as their incomes increase. Non-Christians, by contrast, start out liberal and move left as they move up.

But maybe it's simply religion, and not specifically Christianity:


Percent who voted for Bush in 2000

Low-income
Has a religion 50.0
No religion 35.7

High-income
Has a religion 64.0
No religion 18.2

So, it appears that people who are affiliated with any religion--not just Christians--move right as they assimilate--while immigrants with no religion move left. (This helps explain why Chinese and Japanese immigrants aren't conservative: 44% and 40%, respectively, belong to no church.)

Tying this in with earlier points, as the number of immigrants who are non-white or non-religious grows, Republicans lose support. Improving incomes does not fix the problem; it only gets worse. Upward mobility only moves immigrants to the right if they are white or belong to a church. Other immigrants may become wealthier, but they become even more turned off to Republicans. The idea that people vote with their wallets, and so immigration of the upwardly mobile is a long-term winner for conservatives, is simply false.

Which American ethnic group is most negative toward Jews? You're thinking Germans, right? Wrong! Don't you ever read this blog? If you did, you would know it's... Mexicans!

The General Social Survey asked 1,008 people about the contributions of Jews to American society. Here are the percentages who answered that they have contributed little that is positive:


Percent who say that Jews have contributed little to American society

Mexican 16.2
American Indian 14.0
Blacks 9.1
Italian 8.0

USA 5.8

Scottish 4.4
German 4.0
Irish 3.3
English/Welsh 3.3
Jewish 0.0

This is the second time I have analyzed data showing that Mex-Ams have the most negative attitudes toward Jews, so importing massive numbers of Mexican immigrants is likely to make the sentiment more widespread.

For fun (admittedly nerdy fun), let's see the numbers who answered that Jews have contributed more to America than any other ethnic group:


Percent who say that Jews have contributed the most to American society

Jewish 26.5
English/Welsh 14.6
Blacks 14.1

USA 12.1

Scottish 10.8
Mexican 10.8
German 10.3
Italian 10.0
Irish 9.9
American Indian 6.0

You Jewish folks are patting yourselves on the back here just a little, but not without reason. What do you think respondents were thinking of? Jonas Salk? Einstein? (I'm sure some would think he counts.) Abraham Lincolnowitz? Myself, I was thinking the Marx Brothers (see above).

By the way, these numbers support the idea that people of English descent are philosemitic.

Why upwardly mobile immigrants vote Democrat: I bet you can predict pretty accurately whether someone votes Democrat or not by knowing if he views himself as an outsider. The Democrat Party is the party of outsiders. The most Democratic voting bloc, blacks, see themselves as a marginalized group. Whites who loathe the idea of wearing a suit and tie are usually liberal voters. Many Jews still see themselves as outsiders (but that has a lot more to do with history than current realities). They vote 3 to 1 Democrat.

This is a serious problem when it comes to the issue of immigration. New immigrants are by definition outsiders. Moving to the inside--and I'm talking here about something psychological and not economic and social--is not easy for immigrants, especially if they are not white. As I have shown in recent posts, non-white immigrants move left as they move up economically and socially.

Someone who sees himself as an outsider also perceives himself as weak--the inside is where the power is. He naturally joins up with other self-perceived outsiders to play the role of David against Goliath. He is both insecure and morally superior at the same time. His stance is oppositional: he wants to tear down whatever it is that the giant wants to hold up. That role is a an alluring one, and the psychological payoff is large enough to keep its hold on a person, even after achieving economic success. The role is so appealing, the children of non-white immigrants are likely to adopt it, even though they were born here and may have enjoyed an easy life.

People on the Right, by contrast, have no such insecurities: they belong here and they know it. The guys in suits are not your enemies: you're on the same team. But it is much easier to get to that place psychologically if you are white and Christian.

I say Christian because I can think of two examples where it's not just about race. I mentioned already how many Jews see themselves as outsiders, even though they are white. I showed earlier that Filipino immigrants are one of the only groups to move right as they assimilate. That may very well be due to the fact that they are overwhelmingly Catholic (in addition to being economically successful).

My comments so far have focused on an individualistic orientation, which shows my Western bias. Non-white immigrants are probably more clan-oriented than their European counterparts, so they might simply vote Democrat because they are concerned about the ease with which family members and co-ethnics can move to America in the future, and the Democratic Party is reliably an open borders party. Clan loyalty for these folks trumps economic interest.

You might respond that if non-whites are less individualistic, perhaps that is the reason they move left after immigrating here. There are a couple problems with that idea. It might be able to explain why they arrive here more collectivist than the average American, but why would they move farther left as they assimilate? Second, they might be more clan-oriented than Europeans, but one wouldn't expect them to be more big government than European immigrants who come from countries more liberal than the U.S. And perhaps the most important item is the direction they move after they get here, regardless of their politics when they arrive. Non-whites move left as they move up; Europeans do not. Something about the experience here convinces successful non-whites that the Democrats better represent their interests, while high-income European immigrants do not feel the same way. Successful people from Europe appear to be focused on economic concerns like low taxes, while their non-white counterparts are insecure about their place here in America, and they worry about relatives and co-ethnics who might want to emigrate in the future.

Which American ethnic group is proudest of their country? Probably English-Americans, right? Wrong! It's American Indians! The General Social Survey asked 1,195 people their primary ethnic group, and how proud they are of their country. Here are the percentages who answered "very proud":


Percent who are very proud of America

American Indian 92.2
Irish 87.1
German 83.5

All Americans 78.1

Italian 77.4
Mexican 75.9
English/Welsh 74.2
Jewish 67.7
Black 66.0

Blacks and American Indians have responded very differently to the injustices they have experienced. Not only are they on opposite poles here, blacks overwhelming vote Democrat, while Indians lean right. (In 2004, 50% voted for Bush).

No one can compete with the Indian number, but it is encouraging to see that Mex-Ams are prouder of their country than Americans of English ancestry. Jews are similar to blacks, but do not have the same kind of history here that would explain the low number. It is probably the case that more liberal groups accept the idea that it's unseemly to cheerlead too loudly about one's own country.

White ethnocentrism: I don't know why I didn't run across this article on the psychology of white ethnocentrism by Kevin MacDonald before now. I know he's controversial, but it was thought-provoking.

Do atheists believe in anything? Over at his blog, Steve Sailer quotes the notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens as believing that anyone who thinks that race is real is a racist. Steve then cites a G.K. Chesterton scholar who said that when a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he believes in anything.

Having been both a believer and an atheist, I'm not sure if atheism is a sign that a person is unanchored and thereby vulnerable to kooky ideas, or just indicative of a person with a sharp BS detector.

Let's have the General Social Survey shed some light on the question. In 2006, 1,782 Americans were asked if they believed in God, and if they considered astrology to be scientific. Here are the answers:


Percent who think astrology is somewhat or very scientific

I don't believe in God 28.8
There is no way to know 22.3
There is some higher power 28.9
I believe sometimes 31.5
I believe but have doubts 31.8
I know God exists 34.3

Compared to people of faith, atheists are not more likely to believe in crackpot ideas (at least in the case of astrology). Agnostics, however, seem to have the most acute BS detectors. Some atheists may be the tough-minded type, while others may be the kind who grab onto just about any idea if it irks Mom and Dad (and respectable society).

Hispanic teens are worse (at least with some behaviors) than blacks, Part II: I showed in an earlier analysis that, compared to blacks, Mexican-American teens have higher levels of truancy, marijuana and cocaine use, weapons carrying, bullying, and frequent fighting. I found a similar pattern looking at another national survey--Monitoring the Future. The sample is 3,180 high school seniors:


Percent who received traffic ticket after drinking--past year
Black 4.5
Hispanic 6.5

Percent who received traffic ticket after smoking marijuana--past year
Black 3.7
Hispanic 4.6

Skipped a whole day of school in past month
Black 30.6
Hispanic 35.6

Folks who claim that mass Mexican-American immigration improves our quality of life must never leave their Manhattan penthouses.

Myself, I got bored at Wal-Mart today while waiting for my car's oil to get changed. So I went to the huge magazine and book rack, and could not find one decent magazine to read. Roughly two-thirds of the customers are Latinos, and there was not a single news or political magazine except for one lonely Time review of 2007. There was one book on Che in Spanish, and I studied the language in college, but it is way too much of an effort. In fact, most of the books were in Spanish, and most of the others were self-help books, both religious and psychological. Yuck.

Since there was not a damn thing to read, I decided to count the ratio of Hispanic groups talking Spanish versus those speaking English that passed by. Thirty-four Spanish, eight English. Roughly 4 to 1. Mercifully, I was paged, I retrieved my car, flipped on the radio, and found an acceptable station out of the five that were in English. Don't imagine for a second that I would have found Placido Domingo if I had given the Spanish language stations a chance. I'm sure you wouldn't think that either unless you live in one of those penthouses.

If conservatives want to conserve themselves, they need to be against all immigration--or at least all non-white immigration: My last two post have shown that, contrary to neocon nonsense, immigrants move left as they move into mainstream American society. I have, however, focused on non-white (or mixed raced) immigrants, while white immigrants have been left out of the picture. Below I show the percent of immigrants who voted for Bush in 2000 by race and by various indicators of assimilation:


Percent who voted for Bush

White
Less than high school 44.4
High school 45.0
Junior college 76.5
Bachelors 56.7
Grad school 25.0

Non-white
Less than high school 35.0
High school 43.9
Junior college 33.3
Bachelors 27.3
Grad school 33.3

White
Low-income 50.0
High-income 60.0

Non-white
Low-income 28.1
High-income 37.5

White
Low-prestige job 49.3
High-prestige job 46.9

Non-white
Low-prestige job 31.9
High-prestige job 22.8

The differences are clear. While white immigrants appear to help Republicans to some degree, non-white immigrants, regardless of the ease to which they move to America's mainstream, push the country left. As white immigrants make more money, they become more conservative. So do non-whites, but 38% of high-income non-white immigrants voting for Bush is still a big loss to Republicans.

So the lesson here to conservatives is that if you want to ever win elections in the future, you had better shut down illegal and legal immigration--at least from non-white countries. Or just maintain the status quo, and allow neocons to eventually convince the country that universal health care is actually a conservative idea. Your choice.

Do immigrant groups move right as their income increases? In the last post, we saw that immigrants as a group move left, not right, as they become more educated, but a skeptic might argue that we need to look at income since education is a liberalizing experience. The problem with income is that that the sample size is smaller--especially for high-income individuals--so I have to merge all the groups from the last analysis (Chinese, Mexican, Filipino, Puerto Rican, West Indian, Asian Indian). Mexicans are perhaps large enough to show separately as well. "Low-income" is defined as a personal income under $50,000; "high-income" is $50,000 plus:


Percent who voted for Bush in 2000

All immigrant groups
low-income 45.5
high-income 30.8

Mexicans
low-income 46.3
high-income 37.5


Focusing on income rather than education doesn't change a thing: money moves them left. Contrary to expectations, poorer, less assimilated folks are not especially liberal. It's more accurate to say they lean Democrat. They become hardcore as they assimilate. Assimilation for immigrants leads them to become politically more and more like blacks.

Let's look at one more indicator that immigrant groups are moving to the social mainstream--job prestige:


Percent who voted for Bush in 2000

All immigrant groups
low-prestige 52.7
high-prestige 30.3

Mexicans
low-prestige 50.0
high-prestige 39.2

Same story. As immigrants move up, they move left and vote Democrat roughly 2 to 1. If conservatives want to survive as a viable political force, they must oppose immigration across the board.

So, what has all the pandering to immigrants gotten the Republican Party? A very clear message: go to hell.

And I'll say it again: neocons are either fools or liars, or both.

Which immigrant groups become more conservative as they assimilate? The General Social Survey aksed 33,197 people living in America their ethnic group, their highest degree earned, and where they fall on the political spectrum. Answers on political views range from:

Extremely liberal=1
Liberal=2
Slightly liberal=3
Moderate=4
Slightly conservative=5
Conservative=6
Extremely conservative=7

I've listed below the mean scores:


Mean conservative score

Chinese
Less than high school 4.12
High school 4.02
Junior college 3.50
Bachelors 3.81
Graduate school 3.93

Mexican
Less than high school 4.03
High school 4.02
Junior college 4.08
Bachelors 3.89
Graduate school 3.57

Filipino
Less than high school 3.14
High school 4.21
Junior college 4.33
Bachelors 4.13
Graduate school 4.40

Puerto Rican
Less than high school 3.74
High school 3.97
Junior college 3.65
Bachelors 3.67
Graduate school 3.20

West Indian
Less than high school 4.31
High school 3.30
Junior college 3.00
Bachelors 4.11
Graduate school 3.67

Asian Indians
Less than high school 4.05
High school 3.73
Junior college 4.14
Bachelors 3.69
Graduate school 3.65

Neocons concede that most immigrants are liberal when they get off the boat, but their upward mobility and Old Country values gradually move them right. Well, looking at the numbers above--data that any yahoo can access--we see a grand total of one immigrant group following the path they predict: Filipinos. One outta six ain't bad, right? And our largest group--Mexicans--beats a path to the left as they become more educated. Neocons are either incompetent analysts, or they secretly want this country to move left, and are simply lying to us.

(I'm sure skeptics will say that I need to analyze income and voting behavior rather than education and orientation. I'll do that next).

What percent of whites claim American Indian as their second race? You hear whites all the time taking pride in their having a American Indian (AI) great grandfather, or whatever. I just saw Wayne Newton on Larry King the other night bragging about how he is a descendant of Pocahontas. (His father was Irish-Powhatan and his mother German-Cherokee.)

The General Social Survey cannot tell us how many whites claim a distant ancestor, but it can tell us how common it is for a white person to see himself as also being AI. More than 8,700 whites were asked by the General Social Survey if they had a second race. Only 3 percent (2.98% to be exact) answered "American Indian." Now, how many AIs say their second race is white? It's 29.1%. But only 2.73%report that their second race is black.

How about blacks claiming to also be AI? Only 5.87%. And the percent of blacks claiming white as a second race? Even fewer: only 2.43%.

Living in America makes you fatter, and not in a good way: People who participated in the National Health Interview Survey were measured for weight and were also asked how many years they had lived in the United States. People gain weight as they age, so I calculated mean pounds for those between the ages of 31 and 35 (N=1,202), and this what I found:


Mean weight in pounds

Men
less than one year in U.S. 164.65
1 to less than 5 years 160.78
5 to less than 10 years 164.36
10 to less than 15 years 165.36
15 years or more 172.56

All American men ages 31-35 181.03

Women
less than one year in U.S. 132.71
1 to less than 5 years 131.99
5 to less than 10 years 133.67
10 to less than 15 years 137.93
15 years or more 139.68

All American women ages 31-35 143.82

It looks like people drop a little in the first few years, but after that they get fatter. But immigrants here even 15 years or more are still several pounds lighter than average. (If you're paying attention, you might be thinking that they remain lighter because they are shorter. I created a new variable by dividing weight by height. The mean score for all American men is 2.57, and 2.23 for women; for immigrants here 15 years or more, it's 2.51 for men and 2.19 for women, so you have a point).

There was a time when gaining a few pounds after reaching America's shores might have been a good thing, but I doubt it is now.

Race and science: The new Will Smith movie, I am Legend, is about a black scientist who is the last man alive after a worldwide epidemic wipes out all humans. It is up to him to discover a cure. This plot reminded me of the popular archetype of the black doctor/scientist. I'm thinking, for example, of Joe Morton who has played this type at least a half-dozen times (including the computer whiz in Terminator II) and of course Bill Cosby's Dr. Huckstable and Dr. Hibbert from the Simpsons. (List others if you'd like). I suppose I can understand pushing this archetype to send a message to young blacks that the absence of this kind of people in your own life does not mean you cannot be one, but it is a bit annoying. I find myself thinking, "Okay, a black scientist--helping the black kids, got it," when I should be getting lost in the story.

But my real interest here is to investigate the question of whether blacks are really interested in science, and if not, is it the Man's fault? Now white racists might be able to deny you good lab equipment at your local school, but they cannot dictate which TV shows you watch. The General Social Survey asked 1,468 Americans if they would hypothetically be interested in watching a TV program on the ozone. Here are the 8 ethnic groups with at least 50 respondents:


Percent who are likely or very likely to watch TV science program

Italian 70.4
Scottish 68.7
German 67.5
Irish 67.4
English/Welsh 67.2
Amerindian 66.2

USA 65.9

Mexican 62.3
Black 51.9

Blacks are at the bottom of the list. No one put them there. As a group, they are simply not as interested in science as other groups. Haven't you ever heard a black comedian making fun of how white people like to do weird things like study bugs? Little E.O. Wilson, spending all day hanging out with ants, must have been retarded or something, right?

People are different. So what. Get over it.

Are Jews altruistic in a particularistic or universalistic way? I have heard both claims. The General Social Survey asked close to 2,700 Americans about their religious affiliation and a number of questions about giving help to strangers. Here are the percentages:


Percent who have done it at least once in the past year

Given directions to a stranger
Protestant 87.1
Catholic 88.3
Jewish 92.7
None 90.4

Offered a seat to a stranger
Protestant 43.9
Catholic 46.0
Jewish 59.5
None 50.4

Carried a stranger's belongings
Protestant 44.4
Catholic 49.2
Jewish 42.9
None 51.2

Allowed a stranger to go ahead in line
Protestant 88.7
Catholic 87.0
Jewish 87.8
None 87.3

Given money to a homeless person
Protestant 62.4
Catholic 65.4
Jewish 70.7
None 70.9

Donated blood
Protestant 15.6
Catholic 17.5
Jewish 11.9
None 16.5

There is no evidence that Jews are much different than anyone else. Where their numbers are a little higher, they probably have the advantage of more opportunities to help because of living in urban areas in high numbers. For an altruistic behavior that requires more effort and is less opportunistic, like giving blood, Jews fall behind a bit.

And notice how people with no religion are just as altruistic as those claiming one--maybe more so.

God versus Darwin: What is the best predictor of belief in evolution? I guessed education, but I was wrong. The General Social Survey asked a representative sample of Americans in 2006 whether the idea that humans evolved from earlier animals is true or false. Only 49.6% said true. Here is the list of predictors I included in a multivariate model, and the standardized OLS coefficients. (I know, I know--my dependent variable should be normally distributed when estimating OLS coefficients, but the technique is robust enough to handle a dichotomous variable that is evenly distributed between the two categories).


Belief in evolution (standardized OLS regression coefficients)

Age -.07
Sex -.08
Race -.01*
Years of education .17
IQ .14
Informed about sci/tech .07
Liberal politics .14
Church attendance -.34

R-squared .29
Number of valid cases 737

* not significant at .05 level, two-tailed test


Except for race (black v. white) all the effects are statistically significant. Men and younger people are more likely to accept evolution, but the tendency is slight. Being more educated, smarter, or saying that you are informed about science and technology is not particularly predictive--at least not more than being liberal.

It turns out that the bigger winner is religiosity--as church attendance increases, so does skepticism about evolution. Seventy-two percent of people who never go to church believe we evolved from earlier animals: the number for those who attend more than weekly is only 13%! God and Darwin may not necessarily be logically incompatible, but there is a clear sociological divide.

Sixteen percent of female veterans are lesbian: Folks with their eyes open can see that gay men are more feminine than straight guys, while lesbians are more masculine than hetero women. Don't believe me? Well, let's test the hypothesis with the military. I bet that the percentage of female veterans who are lesbian is higher than the share of male veterans who are gay. The General Social Survey asked 3,644 Americans about the gender of their sex partners, and if they have served in the military. Here are the percentages who are gay and straight (warning: samples sizes are low for homosexual men and lesbians):


Percent who are homosexual

Male veterans 1.5
Male non-veterans 3.2
Female veterans 15.6
Female non-veterans 0.9

See? I told you so.

Religion appeals to the smart, but not the really smart: It's my impression that the smarter the person, the less religious they tend to be. I figure that smart people read a lot, and as one digs deeper into any religion, it is unlikely to bear careful scrutiny. On the other hand, there are many intelligent people who are very involved in a particular faith, so let's have the data decide. The General Social Survey asked 22,845 people how often they attend church, as well as administering to them a ten word vocabulary test. I calculated mean attendance at each level of questions answered correctly:


Mean church attendance

0: 4.08
1: 3.91
2: 3.90
3: 3.80
4: 3.79
5: 3.84
6: 3.92
7: 3.97
8: 4.01
9: 3.70
10: 3.70
Total: 3.87

A "4" means the respondent attends monthly, "3" is a few times a year, and "5" is 2 or 3 times a month. The two smartest categories go to church the least: even less frequently than the low-IQ folks who would be expected to show less middle-class conformity. I'm not surprised that peak attendance is seen among smart, but not really smart people. (The modal category for vocab is 6 out of 10 correct). Highly intelligent people can be religious, but evidently it is an uphill battle.

India: A survey-based profile

In previous posts, I've drawn characterizations of a number of large countries (United States, China, and Mexico) based on World Values Surveys. Now, I would like to report what I found for India. In 1990, 2,500 Indians were sampled and asked more than 200 questions about their values and beliefs over a broad range of areas: work, family, religion, government, and nation. I list below those questions where Indian responses were in the top three or bottom three among all the countries surveyed (Ten to 50 countries were surveyed, depending on the question. Keep in mind that the sample was tilted toward more-developed countries). This strategy allows us to see in which ways a country is distinctive. There are many questions where Indians were in the middle, which indicates that the country is not much different than a typical country in the sample on many issues:


Top 3
work is very important in my life
I enjoy my work: it is the most important thing in my life
most important aspect of a job is the chance of promotion
there are people in the country who are poor because they are lazy


no previous marriages
spouse has same attitudes toward religion; social attitudes
faithfulness is very important for a successful marriage
same background is very important for a successful marriage
sharing household responsibities is very important for a successful marriage
a preschool child will suffer if mom works
children should be encourage to learn good manners; obedience
approves of abortion if mom is single
approves of women's movement


belongs to a religious denomination
brought up religiously at home
believes in reincarnation

has a lot of confidence in church; armed forces; civil service; political system
proud of country's scientific achievements
proud to be Indian

does not want criminals for neighbors
does not want left-wingers for neighbors
does not want drinkers for neighbors
does not want unstable people for neighbors
does not want foreigners for neighbors
does not want people with AIDS for neighbors
does not want drug addicts for neighbors
does not want homosexuals for neighbors
does not want Jews for neighbors

trust my family
trust my nationality
trust my ethnic group


cheating on taxes; married people cheating; homosexuality; prostitution; divorce; suicide are never justified

we have to accept environmental problems to combat unemployment


Bottom 3

during the past few weeks, I felt pleased about something I accomplished
success is due to luck and connections, not hard work
work should become less important in our lives
self-development should become more important

parents talked about sex
agrees with the idea of sexually freedom
marriage is outdated
approves of single motherhood
being a housewife is just as fulfilling as a paid job
there should be more emphasis on family life

it is proper for churches to speak out on abortion; disarmament; Third World problems; extramarital affairs; unemployment; racial discrimination; euthanasia; and ecology

believes in resurrection

if an unjust law were passed, I could do nothing about it


Summary: Based on the list, India can be characterized as: work-oriented; socially conservative but in favor of reforms for women; moralistic; religious; against politically active religion; not tolerant; trusting of those in power and other Indians; ethnically and nationally proud; and politically self-efficacious.

Censorship at freedom-loving Chronicles

My comment was just deleted from this thread at Chronicles. I was debating Mr. Fleming about Mormonism. In a nutshell, he wrote a series of posts about how dreadful that religion is, and I defended it. He seems to like writing all sorts of nasty things about people and groups, but when I responded in kind, he showed his little-girl sensitivity and deleted my last post. So, in case any of the readers of that thread wander over to this blog, here is my (paraphrased) censored post:

1. Fleming claims I am a liar: I say I'm one faith, when really I'm secretly Mormon. I told him to give me an e-mail address, and I'll have my priest vouch for me. [This outrageous offer really deserves censorship, no?] I then told him his baseless maligning of me and a perfectly respectable religion (Mormonism) reveals a shriveled soul. (Fleming is free to come here and call me anything, and it will, of course, not be deleted).

2. Fleming droned about how prohibiting Catholic and Orthodox members from associating with members of another faith is not superstitious, and proceeded to give me the endless history--what a windy prof--explaining that prohibition. I then responded that, by his way of arguing, only the policies of our faiths can be given historical explanations to show they are understandable and reasonable. Every Mormon practice, however, is wacko, sinister, or stupid.

3. Fleming admitted that he is not a good enough person to pray for people like Mormons to become Christians. I responded, exactly, the truth emerges. I told him that my wife read his comments and suggests that he go to confession.

UPDATE: It now looks like I have been banned from posting at Chronicles--I attempted unsuccesfully to post that my previous comments had been deleted, and could be found here at my blog. The enemies of the Old Right may have a point about there being fascists (and bigots) in our ranks.

My Chronicles link will remain, however, because I don't censor.

UPDATE II: I see that Fleming has also banned the Mormon commentator on this thread. So he can trash them, but then does not allow a response. He's too thick to realize that this approach just convinces Mormons that everyone is out to get them and therefore is proof of the truth of their faith.

Getting a break on a traffic ticket is degrading

As a follow-up to the last post, I looked at the 10,792 men and women who were asked if they ever received a ticket for a traffic violation. Exactly 65.5% of men did, but only 30.0% of women have been ticketed. Now, the God of Equality has written on tablets that men and women are interchangeable, so these numbers do not reflect differences in driving. So law enforcement must be targeting men, but no... wait... the God of the Underdog has written on other tablets that the powerful exploit the powerless, so the cops must somehow be going after women.... I give up--I guess the Gods' ways are mysterious, and we must walk by faith.

Aha! I knew the Gods would show me the way. Men objectify women, and since they see them as sex objects and not human beings, they think giving a woman a break might lead to sex, and so they deny her the dignity of receiving a ticket like any fully human person would get. Yes!

Mex-Ams are the worst drivers: A large sample of Americans (8,517) was asked by the General Social Survey if they had ever been given a traffic ticket. I calculated the percent who answered "yes" for every ethnic group with at least 100 respondents:


Percent who ever received a traffic ticket

Mexican 54.8
English/Welsh 51.3
Scottish 50.9
Norwegian 50.0
Amerindian 49.4
German 49.2
Czech 47.9
Irish 47.0
Italian 46.6

USA 46.3

French 45.5
Jewish 44.9
Russian 43.7
Polish 42.9
Swedish 42.8
Black 38.5
Dutch 37.7

Some of the pattern might be explained by where you live: people of English, German, Scottish, Norwegian, or Amerindian ancestry are disproportionately rural/small town/suburban--areas where people drive a lot. But this does not get Mex-Ams off the hook. They tend to be urban: Seventy-two percent live in more populated areas, compared to 62% of Americans.

And take notice of all those African Americans who are being ticketed for "driving while Black."

Married women who are very liberal are most likely to cheat or be in an open relationship: The General Social Survey asks participants their marital status and the number of sexual partners one has had in the past year (N=3,330). Here are the numbers for women:


Percent of married women who had more than one sex partner in the past year

Extremely liberal 9.6
Liberal 3.7
Slightly liberal 2.9
Moderate 1.7
Slightly conservative 1.7
Conservative 1.5
Extremely conservative 4.2

One out of ten extremely liberal married women had sex with someone other than their husband. So all you guys out their who like to sleep with married women, you now know where to focus your search. (If your town is short on radicals, the extreme Right seems to be the next best choice.)

More Mexican Americans use drugs than any other group: General Social Survey respondents (N=1839) were asked if they had used illegal drugs in the past year. Here are the percentages who answered yes by their ethnic background:


Percent who used illegal drugs in the past year:

Mexican 9.0
Amerindian 6.7
Scottish 6.6
English/Welsh 6.6
German 6.6

USA 4.8

Irish 3.3
Italian 2.8
Black 1.8

This accords with other survey data which indicate illicit drug use is high for Native Americans and Mex-Ams, moderate for whites, and low for blacks. Something new is that use is lower for whites from Catholic countries.

Question: Can the Holy Trinity legally drive in the carpool lane?

Religion, immigration, and abortion: With 2006 General Social Survey data now being available to the public, we've now got enough cases (when added to earlier years) to analyze small religious groups. Listed below are the percent who think a woman whould have the right to have an abortion for any reason:


Percent in favor of right to an abortion for any reason


Jewish 77.8
Buddhists 71.1
None 66.3
Eastern Orthodox 56.2
Hindus 50.0
Inter-denominational 48.9
Muslims 44.4

USA 40.1

Christian 39.2
Catholic 35.4
Protestant 36.0

These numbers explode the myth that immigrants make the country more socially conservative. Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Christians, and even Muslims have above-average percentages. The table looks like various immigrants with Jews and the non-religious all lined up against native-born Christians. But of course, that's not right since Mexicans and Filipinos are large immigrant groups and are heavily Catholic (Mexicans 73.2%, Filipinos 77.1%). Let's look at the views toward abortion for immigrant groups:


Percent in favor of the right to abortion for any reason

Russians 77.4
English/Welsh 64.3
German 50.8
India 49.2
Polish 47.9
China 47.8
Irish 46.3
Scottish 44.1
Arab 41.7
Africa 37.1
Filipinos 35.0
Spanish 30.9
Italian 29.3
Puerto Ricans 23.5
Mexico 20.6

Those from Catholic countries have below-average numbers, except for Ireland and Poland, which like the rest of Europe (except for Spain and Italy) suck. Let me add that Asian Indians suck and Chinese immigrants suck too. Put Arabs on the suck list, but Africans are okay.

The problem with Mexicans is that, compared to immigrants, those born here move to the left: thirty four percent favor abortion on demand.

Ethnic loyality among Jews: A theme I often run across on the blogosphere is the extent to which Jews think about collective Jewish interests when forming political views. People often confuse four different entities: 1) a relatively small number of famous elites; 2) Jewish elites in general; 3) major Jewish organizations; and 4) Jews as a group. This website is devoted to data, especially survey data, and such an approach lends itself to assessing question #4. In past posts, data have indicated that only a minority of American Jews are what could be termed ethnocentric. The only measures I have seen which demonstrate consensus or something approaching consensus have been Jews' belief in immigration and preference for Democratic political candidates.

One measure of ethnic loyalty available from the General Social Survey is whether or not you think of yourself as mainly an American when considering social and political issues, or as a member of an ethnic group. Almost 1,200 people were asked this. Here are the percentages who answered "mainly just as an American":


Percent who think of themselves as just an American

German 99.2
English/Welsh 97.5
Protestant Irish 97.1
Scottish 95.2
Catholic Irish 94.7
Amerindian 92.2

USA 88.8

Italian 88.2
Jewish 84.1
Mexicans (born in U.S) 83.3
Black 56.5

A commentor at Sailer's blog claimed that American Jews are like Irish Americans, but the data tell us that they are more like Mexicans: most don't form opinions qua minorities, but some do.

Which ethnic group has the classiest tastes? There are all kinds of good music, but you must admit that there are only three kinds that we would call really classy: classical, opera, and jazz. So who likes these types of music the most? The General Social Survey asked almost 1,200 Americans about their musical preferences. Answers ranged from "like it very much" (1) to "dislike it very much" (5). I calculated the means for ethnic groups with at least 30 respondents, and subtracted them from 5 so that higher scores indicate more preference for the music:


Mean classical music score

Scottish 2.77
Jewish 2.65
Polish 2.53
English/Welsh 2.52

USA 2.43

Italian 2.41
Irish 2.32
Dutch 2.39
German 2.32
Black 2.12
Amerindian 1.87



Mean opera score

Polish 1.86
Scots 1.83
Italian 1.74
English/Welsh 1.61
Dutch 1.58
Jewish 1.58

USA 1.57

Black 1.55
German 1.46
Irish 1.41
Amerindian 1.31


Mean jazz score

Black 3.05
Jewish 3.00
Polish 2.63

USA 2.44

English/Welsh 2.41
Irish 2.40
Italian 2.38
German 2.29
Scots 2.24
Amerindian 2.19
Dutch 2.00


Not surprisingly, Blacks like climb to the top of the list for jazz, and Italian Americans move up for opera. But overall, Polish Americans are at the top. Jews aren't too crazy about opera, and people of Scottish descent like classical and opera but not jazz. Amerindians don't dig any of it.

Is it just an unfair stereotype that women have more emotional difficulties than men? The General Social Survey asked 1,410 Americans if, in the past 4 weeks, emotional problems had prevented them from accomplishing as much as they would like. Here are the percentages who said yes:


Percent reporting emotional difficulties

Women 21.8
Men 14.8

That's about 50% more women than men. Skeptics will claim that women are only more likely to report emotional difficulties, but the question is quite specific: it is asking for the type of emotional difficulty that undermines productivity.

I can't speak for all couples, but in my marriage my wife is usually more (negatively) emotional, and I'm the reassuring one.

Having a gun stuck in you face is a common experience

The General Social Survey asked 6,599 men if they had ever been threatened with a gun or shot at. Here are the percentages by ethnic group:


Percent ever threatened with a gun or shot at

American Indian 44.9
Mexican 42.3
Blacks 42.1
French 35.9
Protestant Irish 34.8
Czech 33.3
Russian 32.4
German 32.0
Jewish 31.7

USA 31.5

Catholic Irish 31.4
Scottish 30.0
English/Welsh 29.2
Austrian 27.5
Danish 26.9
Swedish 26.3
Polish 26.0
Italian 24.3
French Canadian 22.7
Dutch 15.5
Asian 12.5

My first reaction is the frequency of this type of victimization: almost 1/3 of all males. I must hang out with the right kind of people because this has never happened to me or anyone I know. (The numbers might be inflated a bit by reports of military experiences). Seconds, NAMs (non-Asian Minorities) inhabit the most violent worlds. Amerindians face a higher risk of victimization than either blacks or Mex-Ams. Whites are in the middle, and Asians (Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino) are not surpisingly at the bottom. These numbers suggest that being a victim is corrrelated with being a perpetrator: assaulted one day, assaulting the next. Even though Asians tend to be urban, they have very low rates of victimization. Why? Well, they don't provoke others, and much of the time they are moving among other Asians--a group whose members rarely point guns at people.

Compared to 1990, twice as many favor marijuana legalization

Since 1973, General Social Survey respondents have been asked if marijuana use should legalized. Looking at the graph, we can see that support has been on the increase since the early 90s. In a graph not shown, about 50 percent of young people (ages 18-30) now favor legalization. The feeling that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as nobody gets hurts has evidently been growing incrementally over the past 2 decades (with a plateauing in recent years).

My faith in the people's wisdom is restored: GSS respondents were asked how scientific is the discipline of sociology. I display the answers below, along with attitudes toward biology for the sake of comparison.


Percent saying sociology is scientific

Very scientific 8.6
Pretty scientific 43.8
Not too scientific 30.3
Not scientific 9.1
Haven't heard of it 8.2


Percent saying biology is scientific

Very scientific 71.7
Pretty scientific 24.6
Not too scientific 2.1
Not scientific 0.8
Haven't heard of it 0.8

I am so pleased to learn that only 9% of people think a discipline that believes that behavior is 100% environmentally produced is "very scientific." Yes, you might find an odd sociologist who accepts that genes and biology matter, but sociology did not convince of him of that.

And I am also tickled to learn that 8 percent of people haven't even heard of sociology! Were it 80%!