Among whites, liking your own race is associated with liking blacks

SDA 3.3: Tables GSS 1972-2008 Cumulative Dataset

Oct 24, 2009 (Sat 05:07 AM PDT)

Variables Role Name Label Range MD Dataset Row COLDTOBLACKS 1-3 2 Column COLDTOWHITES 1-3 2 Filter RACE(1) RACE OF RESPONDENT(=WHITE) 1-3 0 1

Frequency Distribution Cells contain: -Column percent -Row percent -N of cases COLDTOWHITES 1 warm 2 neutral 3 cold ROW TOTAL COLDTOBLACKS 1: warm 73.0 95.6 1,199 7.9 2.6 33 22.0 1.8 22 58.0 100.0 1,254 2: neutral 16.5 41.3 271 86.9 55.5 364 21.0 3.2 21 30.3 100.0 656 3: cold 10.5 68.7 173 5.3 8.7 22 57.0 22.6 57 11.7 100.0 252 COL TOTAL 100.0 76.0 1,643 100.0 19.4 419 100.0 4.6 100 100.0 100.0 2,162 Means 1.38 1.97 2.35 1.54 Std Devs .67 .36 .82 .69

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Summary Statistics Eta* = .43 Gamma = .71 Chisq(P) = 1,008.34 (p= 0.00) R = .42 Tau-b = .46 Chisq(LR) = 906.95 (p= 0.00) Somers' d* = .56 Tau-c = .32 df = 4 *Row variable treated as the dependent variable.

Allocation of cases Valid cases 2,162 Cases excluded by filter 9,720 Cases with invalid codes on row or column variable 41,161 Total cases 53,043

Datasets 1 /html/D3/GSS08 2 /html/Npubvars/GSS08

CSM, UC Berkeley

White General Social Survey respondents were asked how warmly they felt toward 1) other whites and 2) blacks. The cross-tab above shows the results.

The finding that really jumps out at you is that if you answer warm about one race, you are very likely to answer warm about the other. There is a strong tendency among whites to either like everyone or to dislike everyone.

Let's call those who dislike both blacks and whites Misanthropists, and those who like both Philanthropists. We'll call those who are neutral towards everyone Neutralists. To keep things simple, we'll label a white person a SWPL (pronounced "swipple") if they give a warmer answer for blacks than for whites. Racialists will be those who give whites a higher score than blacks.

It is clear from the table that the majority of whites are Philanthropists--55 percent to be exact. (Taking the cell totals, I get: 1199/2162 = .55. I calculate subsequent percentages the same way). Seventeen percent are Neutralists, and only three percent are Misanthropists.

Four percent of whites are SWPLs, and 22 percent are Racialists.

It is interesting that the observed pattern contradicts the image of whites who like their race. We're told that Caucasians who are pro-white hate non-whites, but the vast majority of whites who feel warmly towards other whites feel the same way about blacks. Philanthropists are by far the largest category. And even if we look at Racialists, a majority of them like whites and are neutral toward blacks (271 out of 466). Only 11 percent of whites who feel warmly about others in their race say they have cool feelings about blacks.

Sex differences in personality: The article I cited in the post on race differences in personality also examined sex differences. The aim of the study was to see if personality assessments used by employers are biased against minorities. Since they found that non-whites came out ahead on most traits, then of course there is nothing to worry about.

But I digress. Here are the results by gender:



Compared to men, women are less adjusted and sociable. They score lower on intellect and stress tolerance, and have less clerical potential.



Women are less influential, less relaxed, less emotionally controlled, less active, less innovative, less competitive, less data rational, and they are less methodical.




Women are less work-oriented but are more perfectionistic.

Most of the differences I list are small. The gaps on "active" and "data rational" are larger.

Many of these differences seem plausible, but give me a second to flex my brain to figure out why the gaps would be more valid for sex than for race....

Ow, that hurt. My guess is this: cultural differences and differing reference groups might cause racial groups to score themselves higher or lower on self-assessments. Males and females belong to the same culture, so that factor is eliminated. On the other hand, I imagine that men tend to compare themselves to other men when self-assessing, and women with other women. If I'm right, then we still have a reference group problem.

Over at Secular Right, John Derbyshire writes that his book Prime Obsession is being translated into Russian and that it only seems fitting that he get a name like a character in a Russian novel. John Jovanovich Derbishky, or something like that.

Then I wondered what kind of Russian name would best describe me. My first thought was Prince Myshkin--the protagonist from Dostoyevsky's The Idiot. (Hat tip to Mel Brooks).

But then I thought of a name even closer to the real me: Count Jerkoff.

Race differences in personality: I found an interesting British study (Journal of Occup. and Organizational Psych. 2002. 75, 255-76) that examined racial differences in personality. The sample included university students: 324 whites, 56 blacks (Caribbean, African and other), 47 Asians/Indians (Pakistani, Bengladeshi, Indian), and 30 Chinese. Three personality tests were used. They are all self-reports:



Let's just hit the larger differences. Compared to whites, blacks have more managerial potential and are: less sociable, more prudent, and more service-oriented. Compared to whites, Chinese folks have more clerical and managerial potential and are more ambitious, prudent, service-oriented, and geared toward school success. Compared to whites, Asians have more managerial potential and are more ambitious, prudent, and oriented toward school success.






Compared to whites, black are more indecisive, relaxed, emotionally controlled, and more likely to give socially desirable answers. Chinese are more influential, emotionally controlled, active, data rational, achieving, methodical, and are less decisive, relaxed and sociable. Asians are more influential, empathic, innovative, data rational, achieving, and methodical.







Compared to whites, blacks are warmer but have less stamina. Chinese people are more competitive, limelight-seeking, and have less stamina. Asians are more risk-taking.

Some of the results for Chinese and Asian students seem plausible, but many black-white differences don't square with other types of data; in fact, they seem just the opposite. I'd like to see personalities assessed by others--perhaps by spouses, close friends, or experts, with a mixed-race population as the reference group. Or measurement through experimental manipulation would be interesting. Keep in mind that the sample is university students, so the range of personalities is restricted. Also--it would be nice to know how many students are immigrants.

UPDATE: In connection with this post, it is interesting that black Americans rate themselves as the smartest in self-assessments of intelligence, while Asian Americans rate themselves as least intelligent.

Attitudes of Jews towards other ethnic and racial groups: In a recent post, I showed that of all the different American groups non-whites have the coolest feelings toward Jews. Now let's turn it around and see who Jews like the least.

Some might think the answer is obvious: Jews are white, so of course they like their own group the best. But others will say, the answer is obvious: Jews compete against whites and consider non-whites to be allies in the struggle. Or, much anti-Semitic persecution has come from whites--not blacks, Hispanics, or Asians--so it makes sense that Jews would dislike whites.

The GSS asked 46 American Jews how coolly they felt toward certain groups. Here are the means:


Mean coolness score

Whites 2.28
Blacks 2.89
Hispanics 3.16
Asians 3.07


The pattern mirrors what we saw in the earlier post. Of all the different ethnic groups, it is minorities that like Jews the least, and here we see that Jews like them less than they like whites. Race seems to trump any grievances Jews might have towards other whites.

I detect the implicit racial identification that I was writing about earlier. Whites, including Jews, feel affection for their own race. Non-whites don't like Jews as much as whites do. Why? Perhaps because they are a different race. As the black comedian Chris Rock said, "I don't hate Jews. I hate all white people."

Racist sports cabal: Sportswriter Doug Farrar, along with Rush Limbaugh, must meet regularly in a smoke-filled room to plot schemes to undermine black achievement on the football field. Farrar claims that, after his performance yesterday, it is clear that Donovan McNabb is a dumb quarterback.

Score one for social justice that Adolph Limbaugh won't be able to buy the Rams. Now, we need to find Farrar another line of work--perhaps shoe shine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feelings toward Jews: GSS respondents (Americans) were asked how warmly and favorably do they feel toward Jews on a scale from 0 to 100, 100 being the warmest. Here are the means by ethnic group (with Jews removed):


Mean warmth toward Jews (N =3,499)

Czech 66.6
Italian 64.5
Irish 63.7
Polish 63.6
English/Welsh 63.4
Scottish 62.9
Dutch 62.5
German 62.3
Danish 61.9

All Americans 61.6

Norwegian 60.5
Swedish 59.5
Black 59.5
French 58.2
Puerto Rican 57.4
Japanese 56.8
Spain 56.4
Mexican 54.3*
Amerindian 53.8
Greek 53.1
Russian 52.3
Asian Indian 52.2*
Swiss 51.9
Chinese 42.6*
Arab 34.2

* p < .05, two-tail test, compared with all Americans


While many Jews seem to feel an affection for racial minorities, the favor is not generally returned. Immigrants from Mexico, India, China, and Arabic countries are moving the country in a more anti-Jewish direction.

Retards and mental cases: It looks like Rush Limbaugh won't be able to buy the Rams because he claimed a few years back that Donovan McNabb was being given too much credit by black-boosting sports journalists. (We can see now that the media definitely does NOT root for high-profile blacks).

I've learned from Steve Sailer that sports is PC times ten, especially among journalists (I don't follow sports) but folks don't want to do business with Limbaugh for that?! It turns out that these macho sports guys are actually little girls on the inside.

Race mania is so unbelievable, white nationalists (WNs) are going to be able to persuade people that the races need to be separated because when whites live anywhere in the vicinity of blacks, they turn into instant retards. And while we're at it, WNs will also convince folks that blacks need to be ruled by other blacks so they don't develop a blame-the-white-guy mental disorder.

According to Rasmussen, over 60% of Americans oppose proposals to charge overweight people more for their health insurance.

In an related story, the CDC reports that over 60% of Americans are overweight.

Mexicans weigh in on illegal immigration: A Zogby study Of 1,004 Mexican nationals conducted last month reported the following:

• Fifty-six percent of people in Mexico thought giving legal status to illegal immigrants in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would go to the United States illegally. Just 17 percent thought it would make Mexicans less likely to go. The rest were unsure or thought it would make no difference.

• Of Mexicans with a member of their immediate household in the United States,65 percent said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.

• Two-thirds of Mexicans know someone living in the United States; one-third said an immediate member of their household was living in the United States.

• Interest in going to the United States remains strong even in the current recession, with 36 percent of Mexicans (39 million people) saying they would move to the United States if they could. At present, 12 to 13 million Mexico-born people live in the United States.

• A new Pew Research Center poll also found that about one-third of Mexicans would go to the United States if they could.

• An overwhelming majority (69 percent) of people in Mexico thought that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans should be to Mexico. Just 20 percent said it should be to the United States. The rest were unsure.

• Also, 69 percent of people in Mexico felt that the Mexican government should represent the interests of Mexican-Americans (Mexico- and U.S.-born) in the United States.

• A plurality, 39 percent, of Mexicans thought that in the last year fewer people they know had gone to the United States as illegal immigrants compared to previous years. Only 27 percent thought more had gone. The rest thought it had stayed the same or were unsure.

• A plurality, 40 percent, also thought that in the last year more of the illegal immigrants they know had returned to Mexico compared to previous years. Only 25 percent thought the number returning had fallen. The rest thought it had stayed the same or were unsure.

• Both the bad economy and increased immigration enforcement were cited as reasons fewer people were going to America as illegal immigrants and more were coming back to Mexico.

Okay, let's summarize. Mexicans believe amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration, and those who are the best informed (i.e., people who have family here) are more likely to feel that way. So amnesty is not going to fix a problem, it's going to grow the problen, which is probably what advocates want anyway. We get more Democrats. More people in need of government social services. It's a win-win.

Family and social networks between the two countries are thick. You'd think it was the same country. Some people would like it to be.

Most Mexicans also have no respect for American sovereignty, integrity or interests. America is simply the world's boarding house. Its ATM. There are no Americans, just Mexicans and other nationalities fattening their savings accounts. How would Mexicans like it if we snuck millions of immigrants into their country and expected them to be loyal to us and for our government to not consider them Mexicans, and to defend their interests against the interests of Mexico?

America is the woman you think you can "enter," cheat on, slap around, call a whore, and she'll beg for more. Masochistic. Low self-esteem. Maybe it's no accident that baby girls are sometimes named "America"--never boys.

Almost 40 million Mexicans wish they were here--even when things are so bad. Fortunately, the recession seems to have slowed illegal movement. Thank God for small favors.

Illegal immigration is the fire at the door: Recently, there was an interesting discussion over at OneSTDV concerning policies that HBD-ers should advocate.

Let me add that of all our concerns, nothing currently touches illegal immigration in importance. (In Europe, it's Islamification). Everyone's political efforts should be focused on this issue.

HBD priorities should be set in terms of an issue's: 1) practicality, and 2) immediacy. Blocking amnesty is practical. Many Americans are already fired up about it, the country is currently in no position to be handing out its precious jobs to foreigners, and health care reform is going to make it harder to get some kind of amnesty legislation passed because illegals will become legal residents eligible for whatever health care benefits are available to the rest of us.

The villains here are employers. We need to join forces with those on the left who are concerned with worker exploitation, and we should direct our anti-amnesty ire against the companies that are driving the problem. Those who hire illegals should get prison sentences in my opinion. When the jobs dry up, folks will pack their own suitcases and head home.

Not only can we make real gains here, but the problem is immediate and must be dealt with now. If the millions of illegals end up here, the country gets them and their descendants from now until the sun burns out. And they will make every effort to get their relatives over here, and the cycle will continue forever.

Much of the HBD discussion is connected in one way or another to differential reproduction. While all of that is very important, it's important on a scale of centuries. We're talking about evolutionary processes here, and they are slow by definition. As John Derbyshire writes in his new book We are Doomed (everyone buy a copy--it rocks) we might not make it to 2022, forget about the population composition in 2200. Thinking about feminism, the family, eugenics, and all that is needed, but illegal immigration is the fire at the door.

Diversity ruined journalism: Older-guy insiders are always a pleasure to read and listen to because they don't give a damn anymore and enjoy actually telling the truth.

Bernie Goldberg admitted on the O'Reilly Factor tonight that diversity ruined journalism. It was dominated in the old days by white men who had a code of skepticism and were after the who, what, when, where, why, and how of a story.

As minorities and women moved into the profession, anything remotely resembling objectivity disappeared. It wasn't clear if he was saying these demographic groups are simply more liberal, or that they, on average, lack the ability to be objective, but he puts the blame squarely on diversity.

God bless grumpy old men for getting past the lies.

IQ and negative emotionality: The GSS asked respondents four questions: How many days out of the past week were you: 1) angry, 2) anxious and tense, 3) sad, and 4) fearful that something would happen to you? Answers were all intercorrelated. I converted them to z scores and summed them to create an index of negative emotionality (also called neuroticism). The alpha coefficient is .68.

Here are the mean scores for smart people (those scoring 9 or 10 on the vocabulary quiz) and for everyone else:


Mean negative emotionality (N = 935)

Smart group .62
Everyone else -.11


The difference between the two groups is significant at the 95% confidence level. The gap is 26% of one standard deviation which indicates a small difference.

The results seem right, but I am not sure why smart people are more neurotic. Perhaps a reader steeped in the science has an idea.

It does seem like there is a calmness that comes with not thinking about things much.

Race, ethnicity, and trust: Americans (GSS respondents) were asked if people can be trusted. Here are the percent who answered yes by ethnic/racial group:


Percent trusting (N = 27,313)

Norwegian 56.0
Finnish 54.4
Swiss 53.8
Danish 52.3
Belgian 52.1
English 51.1
Swedish 50.9
Scottish 48.3
Yugoslavian 48.4
Russian 47.6
Jewish 45.7
Irish 45.4
French 45.2
Japanese 44.4
Chinese 44.2
German 44.0
Czech 44.0
Austrian 43.6
Hungarian 42.9
Polish 42.8
Dutch 41.2
French Canadian 40.9
Lithuanian 40.5

All Americans 39.6

Greek 39.3
Italian 38.2
Arab 36.4
Portuguese 34.5
Asian Indian 32.8
Rumanian 31.9
Spain 31.6
Amerindian 26.2
West Indian 26.1
Mexican 24.0
Filipino 21.3
Black 16.7
Puerto Rican 16.2


The pattern is very clear for Americans of differing ancestries: those of northwestern European descent are the most trusting; Asians and central and eastern Europeans are in the middle; southern Europeans, Asian Indians, and Arabs are low; Amerindians, Mexicans, Filipinos, blacks, and Puerto Ricans are the least trusting.

Differences are large. For example, Americans of Norwegian descent are more than three times as trusting as black Americans.

In a recent analysis, I showed that trust in the political process is associated with greater interest in politics, and in the comments TGGP linked to a post by n/a which reveals the same kind of European and American pattern in civic engagement that we see with the trust numbers above.

In the Big Five factors of personality, trust is a subcomponent of the broader personality trait Agreeableness. In a study that removed the heritable component of Agreeableness from Trust, a substantial unique heritability remained: .31, and .50 after reliability was corrected. (Jang et al. 1998. Heritability in facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556-1565.)

Race and anger: GSS respondents were asked three questions about anger: 1) how many days in the past week were you angry at someone; 2) how intense was the anger, and 3) how long did the anger last? The alpha coefficient for the three measures is .53. I converted the scores on each question to z scores and summed them, creating an index.


Mean anger index (N = 1,110)

Blacks .56
Whites .02


Whites are significantly less angry than blacks at the 95% confidence level. The difference between the two means is 25% of one standard deviation.

A study of twins calculated heritabilities for the angry-hostility sub-scale of the NEO: .52 for Canadians, .52 for Germans, and .40 for Japanese (Jang et al. 2001. Covariance structure of neuroticism and agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 295-304.)

Variables: ANGRY, HOWANGRY, ANGRLAST

Incidents of discrimination I have witnessed: I can't resist a note on personal knowledge of discrimination. I know I should stick to data, and I plan to show at some point that the research supposedly documenting how rife the country is with racism is mostly crap. But indulge me.

I've witnessed white people up close and personal for four decades. I have had conversations with hundreds of these folks. Of course, people talk more frankly about race with people of their own group, and I'm the kind of guy that people open up to. I've chatted with employers--the people who actually matter on the question of discrimination. In four decades, I am aware of one objectionable incident, and this was related to me by my wife.

She was working in an office at the time, and her boss had advertised some position. She (the boss) was going through a stack of resumes, saw one with the name "Shanneequa" or something like that, said she had seen enough, and threw the resume in the trash.

The other incident I can recall was not discrimination against a minority, but it is relevant. While in grad school, I was having a conversation with a white security officer. He told me that his career goal was to be a cop. About two years before, he had gone through the long application process, had learned that he had one of the top scores on the written examination, but subsequently found out that he was being dropped because the department needed to make more room for minority officers. The guy told me that as a kid he had never had any problem with blacks, but after losing his chance to go to the academy, he was looking for a white sheet.

Here is my personal experience with discrimination against white men. In my career, I have sat on nine faculty search committees. In every case, our ad strongly encouraged minorities to apply. This is the 21st century's way of telling white men they "need not apply." In three cases, we were told by the dean that she didn't want to see any white men sent up to her. In eight of nine cases, someone other than a white man was chosen, although they were roughly 40% of applicants.

Discrimination against minorities, my ass.

The country's choice: individualism or racialism

This graph shows that support among whites for laws against black-white marriages has dropped from 40% in the early 70s to around 10% in this decade (N = 24,739).




If we focus on young adults (ages 19-29) you can see that the number has dropped to 3% (N = 5,511).

The notion that whites can organize and get laws passed that explicitly advance their collective interests seems completely unrealistic. Over the past four decades, whites have become more libertarian in a non-economic sense, and they have become less racial.

Whites have interests just like everyone else, but the strategy that makes sense is to make use of historical trends. Two imporant trends for whites have been individualism over racialism and a keener sense of fairness. Fine, but these principles should be expected of non-whites too. If white organizations are illegitimate, then so are black and Hispanic organizations. If laws that favor whites are unacceptable, then so are laws that favor non-whites--affirmative action, enhanced penalties for hate crimes, etc.

If liberals push the idea that white racism justifies a double standard, we demonstrate that NAMs do poorly because of factors internal to their communities, and we demonstrate that poor non-whites benefit from our presence while we suffer from theirs.

This same line of argument can be used against mass immigration, legal and illegal. The country has two options: if it aims for minimal racialism and maximal individualism, then it needs to maintain a large white majority, and the borders need to be shut. The second option is a country with no majority group, which is a recipe for a racialist system. The country has to decide what kind of white people it wants. You can't get rid of them. The choice is a between a country with nice white people or a country with not nice white people.

Elites are clearly not historians. They look an ordinary white man and see some squishy wuss in Dockers who is only too happy to give his child's spot in college to some stranger just off the boat; who welcomes the daily trashing of his friends, relatives, and ancestors; who applauds while his town is turned into the New Guadalajara. For forty years, regular white guys have been treated as the playground pussy who will take anything that bullies care to dish out. "Want my lunch money? Fine. Here's my allowance too." But history shows what kids and grown-ups do when they get pushed around.

Interest in politics and actual voting

Reader the Undiscovered Jew wondered if people interested in politics are actually more likely to vote. The connection might seem obvious, but I know folks who follow politics closely yet argue that voting is not rational because one ballot makes no difference.

The graph shows that as interest increases (higher numbers on the x-axis mean greater interest) so do the rates of actual voting.

The types of people interested in politics: I regressed one's level of interest in politics on the following predictors ( GSS data):


Standardized OLS regression coefficients (N = 611)

Male .14*
Age .14*
Size of place -.02
IQ .04
Years of education .17*
Occupational prestige .02
Family income .03
Church attendance .05
Conservatism .03
Trusts Congress .15*

* p < .05, two-tail test


At the bivariate level, interest in politics is positively correlated with IQ, educational level, occupational prestige, and income, but since all these predictors are intercorrelated, only education comes out statistically significant in the multivariate model.

So the picture of a politically interested person that emerges from the data is of an educated older man who has faith in the legislative process. A young uneducated woman who has no faith in the system is likely to be uninterested in politics.

What do these characteristics have in common? My guess would be a person who has developed the perspective of a leader. People who see themselves as responsible for the political system--a system they believe can work--are more interested in its management. Men, the educated, older people--they're more likely to feel part of the group that helps run things.

We saw in the earlier post that Jewish Americans and those of English descent are likely to feel part of that group, while Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans do not. As a reader suggested, it might be an attitude carried over from the old country.

Ethnic groups and interest in politics

In an earlier post, I suggested that the political power of American ethnic groups might be determined, in part, by differences in extraversion (in addition to mean IQ and size). Steve Sailer makes the sensible point that some groups are simply not interested in politics.

The General Social Survey asked Americans their level of interest in politics. Answers ranged from "very interested" to "not interested." The table lists mean scores for each ethnic group.

Americans with Jewish or English backgrounds have the greatest interest, while Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans are bored by politics. This helps explains why Mex-Ams have less political power than one might expect. A person active in the Texas Democratic party told me once that Mex-Ams are not sleeping, they're dead.

Next, I'll use GSS data to create a profile of a politically interested person.

Political party and implicit whiteness: As a follow-up to my last post, I wanted to see how much white Democrats and Republicans differ on this "closeness to race" question (N = 567). Seventy-six percent of those who voted for Bush in 2000 said they feel close or very close to their ethnic group or race. The corresponding number for white Gore voters was 72.3 percent. A trivial difference. Implicit whiteness is not a conservative thing.

Seventy-five percent of whites feel close to their ethnic group or race: GSS respondents were asked: "How close do you feel to your ethnic or racial group?" The answer choices were "very close," "close," "not very close," and "not close at all." I calculated the percent who said "very close" or "close."


Percent who are close or very close to own ethnic/racial group (N = 1,893)

Black 89.9
Puerto Rican 87.5
Jewish 86.8
Mexican 83.6
Italian 81.9
Chinese 81.2
Irish 79.8

All Americans 78.5

All whites 75.5
English/Welsh 73.1
German 72.5
Scottish 71.2

I'm not the least bit surprised that non-whites and Jewish Americans overwhelmingly feel close to their ethnicity, but look at everyone else. Would you have expected over three-quarters of whites to say they feel close to their ethnic group or race? You might not be stunned to see Irish Americans feeling that way about the Irish, but Americans of English, Scottish or German descent feeling close to their race?

I say race because I've shown in a previous analysis that fewer than 5 percent in these groups consider their ethnicity important. As much as I admire England, I would answer the question for myself thinking about the white race. I completely agree with the pretty black girl in my class who said, in response to our discussion of ethnicity among whites, "I don't know anything about English or German or Italian--you're all just white to me."

Evidently, the wording of this question was just right in order to pull out a race-conscious response from whites. "Not very close" or "not close at all" sound like what you would say about an estranged relative. While whites are not race-loyal like blacks, most are not prepared to say they are estranged from their race.

I take this as evidence of the implicit whiteness that Kevin MacDonald talks about. The proper question can tease out an unconscious affection whites feel for their group. Affection by some whites might be ethnic, as in the case of many Jews, but for many it's racial. Only a small percentage think actively and deliberately in terms of race, but if asked to think about it, only SWPL-types feel they must reject their own group.

Extraversion and political influence: Based on IQ, one would expect Jewish Americans and Asian Americans to have a disproportionate political influence on the country. We certainly see this with Jews, but not Asians (correct me if I'm wrong). Based on IQ levels, we would not expect blacks and Hispanics to have much influence, but of the two, Hispanics should be more powerful since they are smarter. The truth, though, is that blacks are the stronger group.

My recent posts might help explain this pattern. Blacks and especially Jews are extraverted groups, Asians and Hispanics are not. American Indians are another introverted group who seem to be practically invisible. Of course, population is a factor with all the groups, and I'm not arguing that groups do not have power on particular issues. I'm thinking more of an overall presence in the political process.

IQ and extraversion might also explain the disproportionate influence of homosexuals. My last post revealed that homosexuals and bisexuals have high extraversion scores, and I showed some time ago that the mean IQ for white gay men is 105.

Extraversion can also help explain differences in cultural influence and media presence.

And let's not forget that broad heritability for extraversion is around .5, suggesting that genetic differences might help explain these patterns.

Homosexuals and bisexuals are more extraverted: Here are mean introversion scores (GSS behavioral measure--self-reported trait not available) for sexual orientation groups:


Mean introversion score (N = 11,642)

Straight women 14.2
Straight men 13.4
Lesbians 13.2
Gay men 12.2
Bisexual men 11.7
Bisexual women 11.0


All groups are significantly more extraverted than straight women (p < .05. two-tail). N's are pretty good. The smallest group is bisexual men at 35. Here are the effect sizes:


Effect Size

Straight men .22
Lesbians .28
Gay men .56
Bisexual men .69
Bisexual women .89

The differences between straight men and lesbians on the one hand and straight women on the other are small, but the straight women/gay men difference is of moderate size. Bisexuals of both sexes are much more extraverted than heterosexual women.

The Extraversion Gap: In an earlier post, I used a behavioral measure to show that Jewish Americans are, on average, more extraverted than Americans of English descent. The finding is reinforced by my other GSS measure of extraversion based on two questions asking if you are: 1) sociable and 2) not reserved. The means are:


Mean extraversion score

English 6.44 (n = 122)
Jewish 7.35 (n = 26)

Since the Jewish sample is so small, the difference falls just short of statistical significance at the .05 level. The effect size is .54 which indicates a half standard deviation gap between the two groups.