A common argument made by race deniers is that since there is more variation within races than between them, race does not exist. Let's see how silly this seems if applied to something else.
Let's grab a random example of an obvious difference between men and women: height. The General Social Survey asked 2,632 people how tall they were in inches. The between-group variance is 8.04, while the within-group variance is 8.77. This means that women differ with each other in terms of height more than the sexes differ. Same for men. By the logic of the race deniers, sex is not a real thing.
Of course, these days many liberals believe that sex is not a biological reality, but they're daffier than Uncle Jaffey.
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Thursday, February 20, 2020
What's the profile of a person who believes astrology is scientific? (Answer: the exact opposite of me)
Clearly, anyone who believes that astrology is scientific doesn't understand what science is, but how common is this belief, and what's the statistical profile of a believer?
The General Social Survey asked respondents the question with answers varying from "very scientific" to "not scientific" at all (sample size = 5,548). 36.6% of people said astrology was at least sort of scientific. That's a lot of dummies.
Here are the factors that predict belief (standardized OLS coefficients):
Predictors of thinking that astrology is scientific
Female .09
Black .13
Other race .04
Age -.07
IQ -.17
Educational level -.11
Church attendance -.04
Political conservatism -.04
All of the coefficients are statistically significant at the p < .01 level (or higher, two-tailed test). So the profile looks like this: female, black (vs. white), other race (vs. white), young, unintelligent, uneducated, non-churchgoer, and liberal. The coefficients indicate the strength of the prediction: IQ is the best predictor of thinking astrology is not scientific.
The General Social Survey asked respondents the question with answers varying from "very scientific" to "not scientific" at all (sample size = 5,548). 36.6% of people said astrology was at least sort of scientific. That's a lot of dummies.
Here are the factors that predict belief (standardized OLS coefficients):
Predictors of thinking that astrology is scientific
Female .09
Black .13
Other race .04
Age -.07
IQ -.17
Educational level -.11
Church attendance -.04
Political conservatism -.04
All of the coefficients are statistically significant at the p < .01 level (or higher, two-tailed test). So the profile looks like this: female, black (vs. white), other race (vs. white), young, unintelligent, uneducated, non-churchgoer, and liberal. The coefficients indicate the strength of the prediction: IQ is the best predictor of thinking astrology is not scientific.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
Who has happier marriages--the religious or irreligious?
I haven't annoyed my irreligious friends in a while, and the only person who reads this blog that I don't want to be annoyed occasionally is me.
A common type of contemporary thinking goes like this: The more slowly, deliberately, and freely people decide to get married, the happier their marriage will be. Following this line, highly religious people should have the most miserable marriages because they marry younger. They might feel more pressure from family to get married and might want to avoid the temptations experienced all too often as singles.
The General Social Survey asked respondents how often they attend religious services and how happy their marriages are (if they are married). The sample size is 11,543:
The pattern is clear: satisfaction with one's marriage rises with church attendance, especially among more frequent churchgoers.
In recent years, I've been shifting away some from the conservative sociologist's view that traditional institutions (e.g., church, marriage) improve people's lives toward the naturist view that people with certain genetically-influenced traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness) select themselves into traditional institutions. There could be some truth to both views.
Marriage and religion are universal practices, and as NN Taleb instructs us, institutions that have been around forever are probably doing something for us whether we understand it fully or not.
A common type of contemporary thinking goes like this: The more slowly, deliberately, and freely people decide to get married, the happier their marriage will be. Following this line, highly religious people should have the most miserable marriages because they marry younger. They might feel more pressure from family to get married and might want to avoid the temptations experienced all too often as singles.
The General Social Survey asked respondents how often they attend religious services and how happy their marriages are (if they are married). The sample size is 11,543:
The pattern is clear: satisfaction with one's marriage rises with church attendance, especially among more frequent churchgoers.
In recent years, I've been shifting away some from the conservative sociologist's view that traditional institutions (e.g., church, marriage) improve people's lives toward the naturist view that people with certain genetically-influenced traits (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness) select themselves into traditional institutions. There could be some truth to both views.
Marriage and religion are universal practices, and as NN Taleb instructs us, institutions that have been around forever are probably doing something for us whether we understand it fully or not.
Sunday, February 16, 2020
The BIGGEST sex differences
A study by John Archer reviewed meta-analyses on psychological sex differences, so we're talking about hundreds of studies. I will highlight the largest differences; those with means that are at least eight-tenths of a standard deviation apart. For the non-stats people among us, that is a very big gap.
Largest sexually dimorphic psychological traits (difference in sd units)
Homicide 2.54
Rape 2.32
Mate choice--Age difference 2.00
Violent computer-game use 1.41
Occupational interests 1.39
Systemizing 1.21
Pain tolerance 1.17
Fear in real-world situations -1.16
Violent crime 1.11
Engineering interests 1.11
Partner homicide 1.06
People-things distinction -.93
Empathy -.91
Weapons use .88
Sexual v. emotional jealousy .87
Revenge .83
Among the traits that Archer included, there is no bigger difference between the sexes than violence. Men are the violent sex and love it much more than women (i.e., violent video game use).
Male superiority in visuospatial ability is talked about a lot, and there is a difference, but it is not large enough to make the list. Interest is where the big gap exists. Men are much more likely to have an interest in engineering, making systems, and working with things over people.
While I've admired my wife's ability to suffer the pains of childbirth repeatedly, experimental research indicates that men can tolerate pain much better than women. Women are much more fearful of being harmed in real-world situations. This might figure into male willingness to get his ass kicked in a fight.
Women are the empathetic sex. They are much less likely to desire revenge. They get jealous about their man having romantic attachments, while men are much more concerned about sexual betrayal. Women desire older, resource-possessing men, while men desire younger women who have lots of reproductive potential.
These sex differences are what evolutionary theory would predict: men compete with each other, sometimes violently and vengefully, for access to mates.
There must have been benefits for women to be more sensitive to the feelings of others--effective childcare comes to mind--and men must have benefitted from a greater orientation to the analysis of systems. Strategic thinking for hunting and war?
UPDATE: Archer neglects to include perhaps the largest psychological sex difference: males are overwhelming attracted to females, while females are overwhelmingly attracted to males. The exceptions are noise. And the evolutionary reason is obvious.
Largest sexually dimorphic psychological traits (difference in sd units)
Homicide 2.54
Rape 2.32
Mate choice--Age difference 2.00
Violent computer-game use 1.41
Occupational interests 1.39
Systemizing 1.21
Pain tolerance 1.17
Fear in real-world situations -1.16
Violent crime 1.11
Engineering interests 1.11
Partner homicide 1.06
People-things distinction -.93
Empathy -.91
Weapons use .88
Sexual v. emotional jealousy .87
Revenge .83
Among the traits that Archer included, there is no bigger difference between the sexes than violence. Men are the violent sex and love it much more than women (i.e., violent video game use).
Male superiority in visuospatial ability is talked about a lot, and there is a difference, but it is not large enough to make the list. Interest is where the big gap exists. Men are much more likely to have an interest in engineering, making systems, and working with things over people.
While I've admired my wife's ability to suffer the pains of childbirth repeatedly, experimental research indicates that men can tolerate pain much better than women. Women are much more fearful of being harmed in real-world situations. This might figure into male willingness to get his ass kicked in a fight.
Women are the empathetic sex. They are much less likely to desire revenge. They get jealous about their man having romantic attachments, while men are much more concerned about sexual betrayal. Women desire older, resource-possessing men, while men desire younger women who have lots of reproductive potential.
These sex differences are what evolutionary theory would predict: men compete with each other, sometimes violently and vengefully, for access to mates.
There must have been benefits for women to be more sensitive to the feelings of others--effective childcare comes to mind--and men must have benefitted from a greater orientation to the analysis of systems. Strategic thinking for hunting and war?
UPDATE: Archer neglects to include perhaps the largest psychological sex difference: males are overwhelming attracted to females, while females are overwhelmingly attracted to males. The exceptions are noise. And the evolutionary reason is obvious.
Friday, February 07, 2020
Is the black-white IQ gap caused by income inequality?
Some liberal researchers contend that the black/white IQ gap is due to income inequality. If that is true, then changes in the IQ gap over the past few decades should parallel changes in income disparities.
Here are graphs for males and females generated from General Social Survey data (sample size = 25,589). (For many analyses, it is appropriate to use median income, but we are interested in inequality so the mean makes more sense).
Mean individual income (constant $)--males
Mean IQ--males
For men, the black-white gap in income grew over the past five decades. The gap in constant dollars is $12,300 in the 1970s and $18,400 in the 2010s. This kind of widening should lead to a larger IQ gap, but the IQ difference shrunk from 10.6 to 8.2 points over the same period.
Mean individual income (constant $)--females
Mean IQ--females
We see the same widening income gap for women from $1,300 in the 1970s to $5,900 in the 2010s. Over the same period, the IQ gap dropped from 11.6 to 8.6 points.
Once again, the trends contradict the liberal prediction.
Now, you might respond that GSS data do indicate a narrowing of the racial IQ gap over the past five decades, and indeed they do. We don't know for sure why that is--it might be due to the horrible black high schools in the South getting better in the last few decades (perhaps vocabularies can be improved a little with decent schools)--but the point of this post is that it does not look like the difference in black and white IQs is due to the fact that whites make more money.
UPDATE: Sean Last posted this Pew graph which shows a widening in the black-white income gap:
Here are graphs for males and females generated from General Social Survey data (sample size = 25,589). (For many analyses, it is appropriate to use median income, but we are interested in inequality so the mean makes more sense).
Mean individual income (constant $)--males
Mean IQ--males
For men, the black-white gap in income grew over the past five decades. The gap in constant dollars is $12,300 in the 1970s and $18,400 in the 2010s. This kind of widening should lead to a larger IQ gap, but the IQ difference shrunk from 10.6 to 8.2 points over the same period.
Mean individual income (constant $)--females
Mean IQ--females
We see the same widening income gap for women from $1,300 in the 1970s to $5,900 in the 2010s. Over the same period, the IQ gap dropped from 11.6 to 8.6 points.
Once again, the trends contradict the liberal prediction.
Now, you might respond that GSS data do indicate a narrowing of the racial IQ gap over the past five decades, and indeed they do. We don't know for sure why that is--it might be due to the horrible black high schools in the South getting better in the last few decades (perhaps vocabularies can be improved a little with decent schools)--but the point of this post is that it does not look like the difference in black and white IQs is due to the fact that whites make more money.
UPDATE: Sean Last posted this Pew graph which shows a widening in the black-white income gap:
Tuesday, February 04, 2020
An analogy that might offend
I'm surprised I've never run across this analogy for homosexuality that now occurs to me. Imagine a group of people who are, what we could call, alternative eaters.
For whatever reason, these folks prefer to consume food either through their nostrils or their anuses.
And imagine that sensitive individuals didn't want to exclude any of variety of preference. It's not fair that the anus eaters get all the attention, so we develop an inclusive acronym. We call anus eaters A's, and those who prefer nostril eating N's. If they enjoy both methods, we'll call them AN's.
Some like both mouth eating and anus eating, so we call them MA's. Those who like mouth eating and nostril eating, we'll call MN's. A few enjoy all three methods, so we call them Tri's or T. Those who are trying to figure out which methods they prefer, we will call I's for investigating. For all others, we'll indicate a plus sign. That leaves us with the acronym of ANANMAMNTI+.
And don't get me started on the people who like alternative excretion.
For whatever reason, these folks prefer to consume food either through their nostrils or their anuses.
And imagine that sensitive individuals didn't want to exclude any of variety of preference. It's not fair that the anus eaters get all the attention, so we develop an inclusive acronym. We call anus eaters A's, and those who prefer nostril eating N's. If they enjoy both methods, we'll call them AN's.
Some like both mouth eating and anus eating, so we call them MA's. Those who like mouth eating and nostril eating, we'll call MN's. A few enjoy all three methods, so we call them Tri's or T. Those who are trying to figure out which methods they prefer, we will call I's for investigating. For all others, we'll indicate a plus sign. That leaves us with the acronym of ANANMAMNTI+.
And don't get me started on the people who like alternative excretion.
Saturday, February 01, 2020
Why I write about human biodiversity
We HBD-ers are in an unfair situation. I'll explain it with an analogy. My wife is a beautiful woman, but let's imagine she's ugly as sin. And let's add she would make a good Jerry Springer guest.
Now, imagine we're at a dinner party, and all the attractive people there make her feel inadequate. So she gets upset with me and starts yelling about how I am never willing to pay for high-quality cosmetics, gym memberships, or expensive cosmetic surgery. I'm very embarrassed that she is making a scene in public, but she has just slandered me, so I proceed to explain to everyone that I have paid for attractive clothing, cosmetics, gym memberships, and plastic surgery, but the simple truth is that my wife is ugly, and nothing will change that. And how does the crowd react? Do they chide her for making false, nasty accusations in front of everyone? No, the crowd turns on me and thinks I'm an asshole for saying out loud that my wife is ugly.
People who report the facts about human diversity get the same kind of treatment. Liberals denounce whites publicly all the time for keeping minorities poor and dysfunctional. When we explain that the causes of minority problems are internal--for example, that they are due to lower intelligence--and that they don't have much to do with us, the crowd doesn't see the accusers as really nasty and unfair; instead, they turn on us as being insulting and abusive. And for the Left, being rude reveals that one is filled with hate.
I know that many HBD advocates preach truth first, middle, and last. I have another view. If my wife were ugly, I wouldn't say it even though it's true. I would be diplomatic. I would only speak of it if I really needed to--perhaps if she were packing her bags to devote her life to becoming a Hollywood starlet. You speak unpleasant truths if you need to defend yourself, or it's the only way to help; if it's really necessary. And you don't go on about it.
The only reason I go on about HBD issues all the time is because the Left is destroying our society with its lying, irrational race obsession. I'm trying to help. I'll shut up when they do.
Now, imagine we're at a dinner party, and all the attractive people there make her feel inadequate. So she gets upset with me and starts yelling about how I am never willing to pay for high-quality cosmetics, gym memberships, or expensive cosmetic surgery. I'm very embarrassed that she is making a scene in public, but she has just slandered me, so I proceed to explain to everyone that I have paid for attractive clothing, cosmetics, gym memberships, and plastic surgery, but the simple truth is that my wife is ugly, and nothing will change that. And how does the crowd react? Do they chide her for making false, nasty accusations in front of everyone? No, the crowd turns on me and thinks I'm an asshole for saying out loud that my wife is ugly.
People who report the facts about human diversity get the same kind of treatment. Liberals denounce whites publicly all the time for keeping minorities poor and dysfunctional. When we explain that the causes of minority problems are internal--for example, that they are due to lower intelligence--and that they don't have much to do with us, the crowd doesn't see the accusers as really nasty and unfair; instead, they turn on us as being insulting and abusive. And for the Left, being rude reveals that one is filled with hate.
I know that many HBD advocates preach truth first, middle, and last. I have another view. If my wife were ugly, I wouldn't say it even though it's true. I would be diplomatic. I would only speak of it if I really needed to--perhaps if she were packing her bags to devote her life to becoming a Hollywood starlet. You speak unpleasant truths if you need to defend yourself, or it's the only way to help; if it's really necessary. And you don't go on about it.
The only reason I go on about HBD issues all the time is because the Left is destroying our society with its lying, irrational race obsession. I'm trying to help. I'll shut up when they do.
Friday, January 31, 2020
"If you can judge a wise man by the color of his skin, then, mister, you're a better man than I."
I often listen to classic rock radio stations. Once in awhile I hear "Livin' on the Edge" by Aerosmith, and think about why they inserted the following lyrics: "If you can judge a wise man by the color of his skin, then, mister, you're a better man than I." The song came out in 1993, so this was prior to the Bell Curve brouhaha. Rushton was publishing articles on the issue, but I doubt Rock-n-Rollers would know anything about that. Too busy snorting coke and screwing groupies. Maybe the band was simply responding to the stereotype that blacks are unintelligent.
So, are they right about choosing wise men? In one way, I would answer yes. All races are made up of mostly unwise people. If you have two random people, one black and one white, and you guess the white one is the wise one, you're likely to be wrong. Chances are, they're both ordinary.
On the other hand in choosing the white guy, you'd be less likely to be wrong. If we were to set the cutoff for wiseness at an IQ of 115, for example, there is a 16% chance you'd be right with the white guy, but you've only got a 2.5% probability with the black guy. In other words, you're 6.4 times more likely to guess right by betting on the white person.
The Left calls us racists, but the truth seems to be that they are the people who think in absolutes and categories, and we're the guys who didn't sleep through stats class and so know a little something about probability.
So, are they right about choosing wise men? In one way, I would answer yes. All races are made up of mostly unwise people. If you have two random people, one black and one white, and you guess the white one is the wise one, you're likely to be wrong. Chances are, they're both ordinary.
On the other hand in choosing the white guy, you'd be less likely to be wrong. If we were to set the cutoff for wiseness at an IQ of 115, for example, there is a 16% chance you'd be right with the white guy, but you've only got a 2.5% probability with the black guy. In other words, you're 6.4 times more likely to guess right by betting on the white person.
The Left calls us racists, but the truth seems to be that they are the people who think in absolutes and categories, and we're the guys who didn't sleep through stats class and so know a little something about probability.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Which sex is more likely to reject evolution, and why?
Research indicates that men have more general knowledge than women, and--important for this blog--men know more about science. People like Richard Lynn see this as evidence that men have, on average, higher levels of general intelligence. The idea is that smart people seek out and absorb more information than others.
Perhaps this is relevant to the issue of belief in evolution. Understanding science better, are men more likely than women to accept the theory of evolution?
The General Social Survey asked participants if they believe that man descended from other species. In a sample of 6,375, 59.1% of men and 48.2% of women answered yes. That's roughly an 11 percentage point difference.
Now, let's see if superior knowledge of science helps explain the gender gap. We'll use logistic regression. Here is the relationship between gender and acceptance of evolution
Belief in evolution--logistic regression coefficients
Male .44***
***p < .001, two-tailed test
Men are significantly more likely to accept Darwin. Now let's see how much the coefficient shrinks when scores on a science quiz are added:
Male .38***
Science Quiz .42***
So some of the gender gap is due to superior male knowledge of science. How about religion? Women are more religious than men, and there is a tension between religious belief and acceptance of evolution.
Male .14**
Science Quiz .27**
Belief in God -.62***
Church attendance -.18***
**p < .01, two-tailed test
The gap closes even more: Women are less likely to accept evolution, in part, because they are more religious than men.
My last hypothesis goes beyond the sex difference in religiosity--perhaps men are more likely than women to accept ideas that are unpleasant. Most people are not thrilled to think that life has no objective meaning or purpose, or that they have a monkey for a grandfather.
The question was asked if the respondent agreed with this: "Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself."
Let's add this variable to the model:
Male -.05
Science Quiz .15
Belief in God -.62***
Church attendance -.14***
Meaning subjective .32***
Gender and even science knowledge drop to non-significance when the meaning variable is added. The gender gap in belief in evolution seems to be explained by men's harsher, more secular worldview.
Perhaps this is relevant to the issue of belief in evolution. Understanding science better, are men more likely than women to accept the theory of evolution?
The General Social Survey asked participants if they believe that man descended from other species. In a sample of 6,375, 59.1% of men and 48.2% of women answered yes. That's roughly an 11 percentage point difference.
Now, let's see if superior knowledge of science helps explain the gender gap. We'll use logistic regression. Here is the relationship between gender and acceptance of evolution
Belief in evolution--logistic regression coefficients
Male .44***
***p < .001, two-tailed test
Men are significantly more likely to accept Darwin. Now let's see how much the coefficient shrinks when scores on a science quiz are added:
Male .38***
Science Quiz .42***
So some of the gender gap is due to superior male knowledge of science. How about religion? Women are more religious than men, and there is a tension between religious belief and acceptance of evolution.
Male .14**
Science Quiz .27**
Belief in God -.62***
Church attendance -.18***
**p < .01, two-tailed test
The gap closes even more: Women are less likely to accept evolution, in part, because they are more religious than men.
My last hypothesis goes beyond the sex difference in religiosity--perhaps men are more likely than women to accept ideas that are unpleasant. Most people are not thrilled to think that life has no objective meaning or purpose, or that they have a monkey for a grandfather.
The question was asked if the respondent agreed with this: "Life is only meaningful if you provide the meaning yourself."
Let's add this variable to the model:
Male -.05
Science Quiz .15
Belief in God -.62***
Church attendance -.14***
Meaning subjective .32***
Gender and even science knowledge drop to non-significance when the meaning variable is added. The gender gap in belief in evolution seems to be explained by men's harsher, more secular worldview.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Which religious group is most likely to reject evolution?
The Left dislikes evangelicals as much as they dislike anybody, and one of the reasons they don't like them is because they tend to reject the theory of evolution--which is ironic since the Left rejects the implications of evolution for human nature. But what about Muslims? Don't they reject evolution as well? The Left is usually silent about Muslim fundamentalism.
How many American Muslims don't believe that humans descended from earlier species of animals? General Social Survey (GSS) respondents were asked this question. Here are the percent who answered no listed by religion (sample size = 6,353):
Percent who don't believe humans descended from animals
Muslims 65.6
Christians 65.5
Protestants 63.6
Catholics 36.2
Orthodox Christians 32.1
Jewish 20.1
No religion 19.8
Buddhists 4.5
Hindus 3.2
Muslims are at the top of the list. Compare them to Buddhists and Hindus. An enormous difference.
If fundamentalism is an impediment to a pro-science culture, why isn't it a problem when it's found among Muslims? For the Christian fundamentalists always you have with you, but inviting the growing Muslim world to move to the US is a choice.
UPDATE: My 12-year-old son informs me that Hindus naturally accept evolution because they believe in a God that is an elephant.
How many American Muslims don't believe that humans descended from earlier species of animals? General Social Survey (GSS) respondents were asked this question. Here are the percent who answered no listed by religion (sample size = 6,353):
Percent who don't believe humans descended from animals
Muslims 65.6
Christians 65.5
Protestants 63.6
Catholics 36.2
Orthodox Christians 32.1
Jewish 20.1
No religion 19.8
Buddhists 4.5
Hindus 3.2
Muslims are at the top of the list. Compare them to Buddhists and Hindus. An enormous difference.
If fundamentalism is an impediment to a pro-science culture, why isn't it a problem when it's found among Muslims? For the Christian fundamentalists always you have with you, but inviting the growing Muslim world to move to the US is a choice.
UPDATE: My 12-year-old son informs me that Hindus naturally accept evolution because they believe in a God that is an elephant.
Sunday, January 19, 2020
What is the profile of a scientifically knowledgeable person?
Scientific progress is crucial for the problems we humans face, but what types of people know science the best?
The General Social Survey (GSS) asked respondents 12 basic science questions. A random example is, does the father determine the sex of the child? One problem with the list of questions is that they are a bit too easy; the mean number correct is 9.5.
Shown below are OLS standardized coefficient for a number of factors I thought might predict scores on this science quiz (sample size = 203):
Standardized OLS regression coefficients
Male .09
Age .01
Black -.19**
Other race .00
Years of education .32***
Believe in God -.19**
Church attendance -.07
Political conservatism -.06
**p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
According to the results, basic scientific knowledge is predicted significantly by being white; having more education; and being skeptical about the existence of God. The other variables are not predictive.
But you might be thinking, hey, this is a HBD blog--where's IQ? Well, I wanted to throw it in last to see how it changes things:
Standardized OLS regression coefficients--IQ added to model
IQ .35***
Male .20
Age -.10
Black .08
Other race .04
Years of education .08
Believe in God -.33**
Church attendance -.04
Political conservatism -.01
**p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
Education and being black drop to non-significance when IQ is added to the equation. In other words, the reason why more education people know more science is because they are smarter, not because they were exposed to more information than less educated people, and blacks score lower because they are, on average, less intelligent.
By contrast, skepticism about God strongly predicts scientific knowledge even after taking IQ into account. This suggests that, at least under current conditions, skeptics take to science more than believers, even after controlling for differences in IQ.
UPDATE: I discovered that fewer people were asked the last science question, so I dropped it to get the sample size up to 1,039--much bigger. Here are results for the final model:
Standardized OLS regression coefficients--IQ added to model
IQ .29***
Male .14**
Age -.02
Black -.12***
Other race -.03
Years of education .22***
Believe in God -.16***
Church attendance -.12***
Political conservatism -.07*
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
We now have the statistical power to see smaller effects. IQ still dominates the model, but now we see that the following traits predict knowledge: male, white, more education, disbelief, not attending church, and liberal political orientation.
After IQ, education is most important, followed by skepticism, gender, race, attendance, and political orientation. Keep in mind that these factors matter even after taking IQ into account. For example, and man whose IQ is the same as a woman's is likely to know more science than she does.
The General Social Survey (GSS) asked respondents 12 basic science questions. A random example is, does the father determine the sex of the child? One problem with the list of questions is that they are a bit too easy; the mean number correct is 9.5.
Shown below are OLS standardized coefficient for a number of factors I thought might predict scores on this science quiz (sample size = 203):
Standardized OLS regression coefficients
Male .09
Age .01
Black -.19**
Other race .00
Years of education .32***
Believe in God -.19**
Church attendance -.07
Political conservatism -.06
**p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
According to the results, basic scientific knowledge is predicted significantly by being white; having more education; and being skeptical about the existence of God. The other variables are not predictive.
But you might be thinking, hey, this is a HBD blog--where's IQ? Well, I wanted to throw it in last to see how it changes things:
Standardized OLS regression coefficients--IQ added to model
IQ .35***
Male .20
Age -.10
Black .08
Other race .04
Years of education .08
Believe in God -.33**
Church attendance -.04
Political conservatism -.01
**p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
Education and being black drop to non-significance when IQ is added to the equation. In other words, the reason why more education people know more science is because they are smarter, not because they were exposed to more information than less educated people, and blacks score lower because they are, on average, less intelligent.
By contrast, skepticism about God strongly predicts scientific knowledge even after taking IQ into account. This suggests that, at least under current conditions, skeptics take to science more than believers, even after controlling for differences in IQ.
UPDATE: I discovered that fewer people were asked the last science question, so I dropped it to get the sample size up to 1,039--much bigger. Here are results for the final model:
Standardized OLS regression coefficients--IQ added to model
IQ .29***
Male .14**
Age -.02
Black -.12***
Other race -.03
Years of education .22***
Believe in God -.16***
Church attendance -.12***
Political conservatism -.07*
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, two-tail test
We now have the statistical power to see smaller effects. IQ still dominates the model, but now we see that the following traits predict knowledge: male, white, more education, disbelief, not attending church, and liberal political orientation.
After IQ, education is most important, followed by skepticism, gender, race, attendance, and political orientation. Keep in mind that these factors matter even after taking IQ into account. For example, and man whose IQ is the same as a woman's is likely to know more science than she does.
Friday, January 17, 2020
Race differences in drug dealing
What are the racial differences for drug sales? Arrest data for 2018 were provided by the FBI:
Percent of Arrests for Marijuana Manufacture/Sales
Black 44
White 52
Asian 2
Native American 1
According to the Census, blacks were 13% of Americans in 2018. The Census lumps Hispanics and whites together: They were 77% of Americans in 2018.
Based on these numbers, the black rate of marijuana sales is 5 times that of whites/Hispanics.
Percent Arrests for Opium or Cocaine Manufacture/Sales
Black 47
White 51
Asian 1
Native American 1
Using the same calculation, the black rate of opium/cocaine sales is 5 1/2 that of whites/Hispanics.
Percent Arrests for Other Dangerous Nonnarcotic Drug Sales
Black 19
White 78
Asian 1
Native American 1<1 font="">
Compared to whites/Hispanics, the rate of other dangerous drug sales by blacks is almost 1 1/2 times higher.
Percent Arrests for Synthetic Narcotic Sales
Black 21
White 78
Asian 1<1 font="">
Native American 1
Finally, the black rate for synthetic narcotic sales is 1.6 times that of whites/Hispanics.
Blacks surpass whites in all types of sales, especially opium, cocaine, and marijuana. Of course, with Asians being only 6% of the country, comparing them with blacks would reveal much larger differences.
Percent of Arrests for Marijuana Manufacture/Sales
Black 44
White 52
Asian 2
Native American 1
According to the Census, blacks were 13% of Americans in 2018. The Census lumps Hispanics and whites together: They were 77% of Americans in 2018.
Based on these numbers, the black rate of marijuana sales is 5 times that of whites/Hispanics.
Percent Arrests for Opium or Cocaine Manufacture/Sales
Black 47
White 51
Asian 1
Native American 1
Using the same calculation, the black rate of opium/cocaine sales is 5 1/2 that of whites/Hispanics.
Percent Arrests for Other Dangerous Nonnarcotic Drug Sales
Black 19
White 78
Asian 1
Native American 1<1 font="">
Compared to whites/Hispanics, the rate of other dangerous drug sales by blacks is almost 1 1/2 times higher.
Percent Arrests for Synthetic Narcotic Sales
Black 21
White 78
Asian 1<1 font="">
Native American 1
Finally, the black rate for synthetic narcotic sales is 1.6 times that of whites/Hispanics.
Blacks surpass whites in all types of sales, especially opium, cocaine, and marijuana. Of course, with Asians being only 6% of the country, comparing them with blacks would reveal much larger differences.
Have white liberals veered left in recent years because they've lost their moderates?
Zach Goldberg has documented how white liberals have done a sharp left turn on racial issues over the past few years, a phenomenon that's called the "Great Awokening." I wondered how much of this is due to more moderate white liberals shifting to a moderate or conservative self-label.
The graph above shows trends in political self-identification among whites, according to General Social Survey (GSS). Let's summarize the trends over the past, say, decade by creating a list:
2010-2108 Trends in Political Self-Identification
1. More extreme liberals
2. More extreme conservatives
3. Fewer moderates
4. Fewer slightly liberal
5. Similar number of liberals
6. Similar number of conservatives
7. Similar number of slightly conservative
Changes have not been dramatic, but overall the extremes have grown at the expense of the middle. A small number of slight liberals have moved, but it is not clear to where. Let's look at a chart where all conservatives are lumped together and the same for all liberals.
First, we see the same shrinkage among moderates. Since 2010, conservatives ticked up a bit as did liberals. So, bottom line, it looks at though liberals really haven't gotten more radicalized because they've lost moderates. Their size is similar to a decade ago; they have simply veered left on racial issues.
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Does the racial gap in fertility shrink in low-cost areas?
When it comes to having kids, it's possible that whites are more sensitive to the cost of living than are blacks or Hispanics. Perhaps the racial differences in fertility are smaller in inexpensive regions. Using General Social Survey (GSS) data, I calculated the mean number of offspring for women ages 40-59 during the years 2010-18. The GSS records the region of the country in which the respondent lives. There are nine regions: I decided to compare the Pacific (west coast) and West South Central (TX, LA, OK, AR) regions since the former is expensive while the latter is more affordable.
Mean number of offspring
Pacific
Hispanic 2.92
Black 2.08
White 1.75
West South Central
Hispanic 2.55
Black 2.27
White 2.11
As expected, Hispanic fertility is highest in both regions, while whites are on the bottom. While black and white women have more kids in the WSC region, Hispanic women in the Pacific have bigger families than Hispanics in the WSC, contrary to expectations.
Look at how the racial gap in the WSC is smaller than in the Pacific region. The Hispanic-white gap in the former is .44 kids, while it is 1.17 in the latter. Comparatively speaking, whites benefit from living in low-cost regions.
Do whites benefit when they move from a high-cost to an inexpensive region? The best I could do to answer this question with GSS data was to use a question about where you lived at age 16. I extended the time span to 2000-2018 to get a large enough sample size and focused on a move from the Pacific to the Mountain region since it was the most common expensive-to-cheap move.
Mean number of offspring--whites
Pacific to Mountain States 2.17
Stayed in Pacific 1.71
You can see that whites who lived in the Pacific region at age 16 but subsequently moved to the Mountain States averaged more kids than those who did not move out of the region. The move to cheaper regions seems to help fertility.
Mean number of offspring
Pacific
Hispanic 2.92
Black 2.08
White 1.75
West South Central
Hispanic 2.55
Black 2.27
White 2.11
As expected, Hispanic fertility is highest in both regions, while whites are on the bottom. While black and white women have more kids in the WSC region, Hispanic women in the Pacific have bigger families than Hispanics in the WSC, contrary to expectations.
Look at how the racial gap in the WSC is smaller than in the Pacific region. The Hispanic-white gap in the former is .44 kids, while it is 1.17 in the latter. Comparatively speaking, whites benefit from living in low-cost regions.
Do whites benefit when they move from a high-cost to an inexpensive region? The best I could do to answer this question with GSS data was to use a question about where you lived at age 16. I extended the time span to 2000-2018 to get a large enough sample size and focused on a move from the Pacific to the Mountain region since it was the most common expensive-to-cheap move.
Mean number of offspring--whites
Pacific to Mountain States 2.17
Stayed in Pacific 1.71
You can see that whites who lived in the Pacific region at age 16 but subsequently moved to the Mountain States averaged more kids than those who did not move out of the region. The move to cheaper regions seems to help fertility.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Are religious people more ethnocentric?
Does loyalty to one group you belong to predict loyalty to other groups? I suspect that religious people are also more likely to value their ethnicity. The General Social Survey (GSS) asked people how important their ethnicity is to them with answers ranging from unimportant (1) to very important (4).
I categorized people as not religious if they attend religious services no more than once per year. All others I lumped into the religious group. The means for thinking ethnicity is important to you are listed below--the means for the religious in parentheses, the means for the irreligious without parentheses (sample size = 2,110)
"My ethnicity is important to me"-- means
American Indian 3.50 (3.50)
Black 3.47 (3.53)
Chinese 3.40 (3.75)
Mexican 3.22 (3.47)
Puerto Rican 3.19 (3.60)
Italian 2.85 (2.72)
Jewish 2.76 (3.26)
Total Sample 2.60 (2.84)
Scottish 2.55 (2.44)
Irish 2.45 (2.60)
German 2.35 (2.50)
Swedish 2.29 (2.67)
Russian 2.25 (2.95)
English/Welsh 2.21 (2.50)
Polish 2.13 (2.67)
For most of the ethnic groups, ethnocentrism is higher for the religious group. The differences are generally not large but look, for example, at how religious Swedes are almost as ethnocentric as secular Jews.
The difference at the extremes is large: the gap between religious Chinese Americans on the high end and the irreligious Poles on the bottom is well over one standard deviation. The typical Chinese person who goes to church says his ethnicity is 'moderately' or 'very important.' Compare that to the average Polish American who is not religious: he says his ethnicity is 'slightly important.'
I categorized people as not religious if they attend religious services no more than once per year. All others I lumped into the religious group. The means for thinking ethnicity is important to you are listed below--the means for the religious in parentheses, the means for the irreligious without parentheses (sample size = 2,110)
"My ethnicity is important to me"-- means
American Indian 3.50 (3.50)
Black 3.47 (3.53)
Chinese 3.40 (3.75)
Mexican 3.22 (3.47)
Puerto Rican 3.19 (3.60)
Italian 2.85 (2.72)
Jewish 2.76 (3.26)
Total Sample 2.60 (2.84)
Scottish 2.55 (2.44)
Irish 2.45 (2.60)
German 2.35 (2.50)
Swedish 2.29 (2.67)
Russian 2.25 (2.95)
English/Welsh 2.21 (2.50)
Polish 2.13 (2.67)
For most of the ethnic groups, ethnocentrism is higher for the religious group. The differences are generally not large but look, for example, at how religious Swedes are almost as ethnocentric as secular Jews.
The difference at the extremes is large: the gap between religious Chinese Americans on the high end and the irreligious Poles on the bottom is well over one standard deviation. The typical Chinese person who goes to church says his ethnicity is 'moderately' or 'very important.' Compare that to the average Polish American who is not religious: he says his ethnicity is 'slightly important.'
Friday, January 10, 2020
Which racial groups think science does more harm than good?
While I am not a science worshipper, I do think it offers answers to many of our problems, at least eventually. Unfortunately, science doesn't happen magically. It requires very talented people and a society with the means and culture to support scientific work.
Americans vary a great deal in their attitudes toward science. The General Social Survey (GSS) asked participants the following: "How much do you agree or disagree that, overall, modern science does more harm than good?" Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5), so higher scores indicate greater belief in science. Here are the means by ethnic group (sample size = 6,226; I included religious affiliation as well):
Mean belief that science is good
Finnish 4.16
Jewish 4.08
Russian 3.99
Japanese 3.95
Lithuanian 3.87
Hungarian 3.86
Buddhist 3.84
Austrian 3.83
Greek 3.83
English/Welsh 3.82
Danish 3.81
Scottish 3.81
Scottish 3.81
Swedish 3.80
Norwegian 3.78
No religion 3.78
Italian 3.76
Irish 3.72
French 3.71
Hindu 3.67
Orthodox Christian 3.65
German 3.64
Swiss 3.64
Asian Indian 3.61
Swiss 3.64
Asian Indian 3.61
Dutch 3.61
Spanish 3.61
Spanish 3.61
Total Sample 3.60
Muslim 3.60
Catholic 3.59
Chinese 3.53
Arab 3.50
Immigrants 3.37
Mexican 3.26
Black 3.20
American Indian 3.00
West Indian 2.82
The pattern is clear: whites groups have much more faith in science than non-whites. Japanese Americans, a smart, successful group, are an exception. Among whites, Finns and Eastern/Central Europeans tend to be the most positive about science. Among religions, Jews come out on top. The gap between Finns at number one and West Indians on the bottom is well over one standard deviation--a very large difference.
I included immigrants as a group: they are toward the bottom of the list. If we want to have a country fully in support of science, our immigration trends are counterproductive.
It looks like some of the explanation for the pattern we see is IQ, but I wouldn't be surprised if non-whites have a tendency to see science as an evil white thing. Think Tuskegee. It's BS, but this might help explain negative attitudes.
Saturday, January 04, 2020
Are the Scots-Irish leading the way toward race consciousness?
I'm thinking that one way to measure an ethnicity's meaningfulness as a group is the extent to which they vote as a bloc. For example, why do blacks, whether wealthy or poor, urban or rural, religious or not, vote overwhelmingly Democratic? Because race is very important for them, and the vast majority see the Democratic party as best serving their interests.
The numbers shown below were calculated like this: 1) Look to see whether more of the ethnic group voted for Hillary or Trump; 2) subtract from that number the percent of all Americans who voted for that candidate; and 3) give a positive sign for those skewed toward Hillary and a negative sign for those skewed toward Trump. I included major racial and ethnic groups, and religions as well since they can also be cohesive groups (General Social Survey, sample size = 1,128).
Voting bloc index
Asian 46.5
White Southern Baptists -45.0
White--American only -43.3
Black 41.3
Puerto Ricans 32.2
Protestant Irish -25.2
Scottish -23.1
Southern Baptist -22.0
Jewish 18.9
Mexican 17.5
Catholic Irish -16.2
German -14.1
Italian -10.9
Whites -9.9
Scandanavian -9.4
English/Welsh -9.2
American Indian 8.4
Slavic (non-Jewish) -8.4
Episcopalian -7.3
Catholic -3.5
United Methodist -2.9
Not surprisingly, non-whites tend to be the most ethnocentric. Asians include people whose families came from China, Japan, and India--they score even higher than blacks.
Hispanics and Jews are in the mid-range, but the striking numbers are for: 1) white Southern Baptists; 2) whites who say their ethnicity is American--Scots-Irish are likely to say this; 3) the Protestant Irish; and 4) Scots. The numbers for white Southern Baptists and for "Americans" are second and third highest on the list (!) and the scores for the other two groups are higher than that of either Jews or Mexicans.
I interpret this as an inchoate sense of identity. For other white groups or religious denominations, there appears to be weaker group cohesiveness. It's higher than zero for all groups, but the Scots-Irish seem to be leading the way on a path toward race consciousness.
The numbers shown below were calculated like this: 1) Look to see whether more of the ethnic group voted for Hillary or Trump; 2) subtract from that number the percent of all Americans who voted for that candidate; and 3) give a positive sign for those skewed toward Hillary and a negative sign for those skewed toward Trump. I included major racial and ethnic groups, and religions as well since they can also be cohesive groups (General Social Survey, sample size = 1,128).
Voting bloc index
Asian 46.5
White Southern Baptists -45.0
White--American only -43.3
Black 41.3
Puerto Ricans 32.2
Protestant Irish -25.2
Scottish -23.1
Southern Baptist -22.0
Jewish 18.9
Mexican 17.5
Catholic Irish -16.2
German -14.1
Italian -10.9
Whites -9.9
Scandanavian -9.4
English/Welsh -9.2
American Indian 8.4
Slavic (non-Jewish) -8.4
Episcopalian -7.3
Catholic -3.5
United Methodist -2.9
Not surprisingly, non-whites tend to be the most ethnocentric. Asians include people whose families came from China, Japan, and India--they score even higher than blacks.
Hispanics and Jews are in the mid-range, but the striking numbers are for: 1) white Southern Baptists; 2) whites who say their ethnicity is American--Scots-Irish are likely to say this; 3) the Protestant Irish; and 4) Scots. The numbers for white Southern Baptists and for "Americans" are second and third highest on the list (!) and the scores for the other two groups are higher than that of either Jews or Mexicans.
I interpret this as an inchoate sense of identity. For other white groups or religious denominations, there appears to be weaker group cohesiveness. It's higher than zero for all groups, but the Scots-Irish seem to be leading the way on a path toward race consciousness.
Friday, January 03, 2020
Which is a stronger predictor of belief in God: lower IQ or feeling like you don't have control over your life?
With the rise of militant, celebrity atheists, quite a bit of attention has been devoted to data that show that atheists tend to be smarter than theists. Race realists are likely to rely on IQ to explain the greater religiosity of blacks and Hispanics.
I can think of another factor that might help explain these patterns: having a sense of control over one's fate, called locus of control by psychologists. As a religious person myself, I see that some people get interested in religion when they feel helpless. They turn to God when there is trouble they can't seem to handle. Many of my irreligious colleagues seem very in charge of their lives; they've got it all under control.
I've also read research that indicates that poor minorities tend to feel that they do not control their life outcomes. This is called an external locus of control. Maybe this sense of vulnerability explains their stronger belief in God.
The General Social Survey asked respondents, "Do you agree or disagree with the following: We each make our own fate." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5).
They were also asked about their confidence in the existence of God with responses ranging from "don't believe" (1) to "know God really exists and have no doubts about it" (6). As a first step, let's use OLS regression analysis to see if race is linked to belief in God and locus of control (sample size = 741):
Confidence in the existence of God (standardized OLS coefficients)
Black .13***
Hispanics did not differ from whites significantly in belief in God, so we'll focus on blacks. They have greater confidence in God's existence.
External locus of control
Black .06**
Compared to non-blacks, blacks are more likely to think they do not make their own fate. Now let's look at race, IQ, and belief.
Confidence in the existence of God
IQ -.16***
As expected, we see IQ is associated with more doubting, but the correlation is weak.
Confidence in the existence of God
Black .10***
IQ -.14***
Recall how the black estimate for belief was .13 when only race was entered into the model. We see that when IQ is added, the black coefficient shrinks but does not disappear. This indicates that some of the greater belief by blacks is explained in terms of lower IQ, but much of the gap remains unexplained. Let's add locus of control:
Confidence in the existence of God
Black .00
IQ -.14***
External locus of control .18***
When external locus of control is added, the race coefficient drops to zero. Much of the reason why blacks are more likely to believe in God is because of a sense of helplessness. And when it comes to predicting belief, an external locus of control is more powerful than IQ.
This is a reminder than while HBD-ers are right to focus on intelligence, there are other consequential traits. Moreover, there is evidence that locus of control, like practically all psychological traits, is genetically influenced. According to this twin study, about 1/3 of the variation of a sense of control over your own life is due to genes.
I can think of another factor that might help explain these patterns: having a sense of control over one's fate, called locus of control by psychologists. As a religious person myself, I see that some people get interested in religion when they feel helpless. They turn to God when there is trouble they can't seem to handle. Many of my irreligious colleagues seem very in charge of their lives; they've got it all under control.
I've also read research that indicates that poor minorities tend to feel that they do not control their life outcomes. This is called an external locus of control. Maybe this sense of vulnerability explains their stronger belief in God.
The General Social Survey asked respondents, "Do you agree or disagree with the following: We each make our own fate." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5).
They were also asked about their confidence in the existence of God with responses ranging from "don't believe" (1) to "know God really exists and have no doubts about it" (6). As a first step, let's use OLS regression analysis to see if race is linked to belief in God and locus of control (sample size = 741):
Confidence in the existence of God (standardized OLS coefficients)
Black .13***
Hispanics did not differ from whites significantly in belief in God, so we'll focus on blacks. They have greater confidence in God's existence.
External locus of control
Black .06**
Compared to non-blacks, blacks are more likely to think they do not make their own fate. Now let's look at race, IQ, and belief.
Confidence in the existence of God
IQ -.16***
As expected, we see IQ is associated with more doubting, but the correlation is weak.
Confidence in the existence of God
Black .10***
IQ -.14***
Recall how the black estimate for belief was .13 when only race was entered into the model. We see that when IQ is added, the black coefficient shrinks but does not disappear. This indicates that some of the greater belief by blacks is explained in terms of lower IQ, but much of the gap remains unexplained. Let's add locus of control:
Confidence in the existence of God
Black .00
IQ -.14***
External locus of control .18***
When external locus of control is added, the race coefficient drops to zero. Much of the reason why blacks are more likely to believe in God is because of a sense of helplessness. And when it comes to predicting belief, an external locus of control is more powerful than IQ.
This is a reminder than while HBD-ers are right to focus on intelligence, there are other consequential traits. Moreover, there is evidence that locus of control, like practically all psychological traits, is genetically influenced. According to this twin study, about 1/3 of the variation of a sense of control over your own life is due to genes.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Who has the higher rate of bias crimes against Jews--whites or blacks?
The mainstream Media finds every opportunity to push the story that hate comes from the Right. Even when Black Hebrew Israelites kill three Jews in a kosher market in Jersey City, it's somehow caused by MAGA-wearing Trump supporters.
Unlike the Media, this blog relies on data. The FBI puts out annual hate crime statistics--2018 is the most recent.
There were 228 anti-Jewish incidents in which the race of a single-race offender is known. In 179 or 79% incidents, the offender was white or Hispanic. (The US government tends to lump us together.) Blacks committed 41 or 18% of the anti-Jewish crimes. The Census tells us that 77% of US residents are white (if Hispanics are included) while blacks are 13% of the population. Based on these numbers, the rate of anti-Jewish incidents for blacks is 1.4 times that of whites. Blacks--not famous for being right-wingers--are significantly more likely to commit bias crimes against Jews.
While I'm at it, look at the total numbers. There were 228 incidents--896 if we include all incidents in 2018, even those where the race of the perpetrator is unknown. According to the Census, the US has 6.9 million Jews, so the annual rate of anti-Semitic incidents is 12.9 per 100,000. To give some context, the annual US homicide rate hovers around 5 per 100,000 total population, so these incidents are not much more common than homicide--a very rare type of crime.
Moreover, of the 372 incidents against Jews where the type of crime was recorded, the most common category by far is intimidation--243 incidents or 65% of all incidents. There were only 24 aggravated assaults and 11 murders. While any attack is serious, the US has roughly 15,000 murders per year. Hate crimes are a minuscule part of the problem.
UPDATE: The hate crime laws were written with evil whites in mind--our elites assume the worst of whites and the best of non-whites--so I suspect that prosecutors are prone to interpret incidents by whites as hate, while incidents committed by blacks are likely to be seen as common crimes.
Unlike the Media, this blog relies on data. The FBI puts out annual hate crime statistics--2018 is the most recent.
There were 228 anti-Jewish incidents in which the race of a single-race offender is known. In 179 or 79% incidents, the offender was white or Hispanic. (The US government tends to lump us together.) Blacks committed 41 or 18% of the anti-Jewish crimes. The Census tells us that 77% of US residents are white (if Hispanics are included) while blacks are 13% of the population. Based on these numbers, the rate of anti-Jewish incidents for blacks is 1.4 times that of whites. Blacks--not famous for being right-wingers--are significantly more likely to commit bias crimes against Jews.
While I'm at it, look at the total numbers. There were 228 incidents--896 if we include all incidents in 2018, even those where the race of the perpetrator is unknown. According to the Census, the US has 6.9 million Jews, so the annual rate of anti-Semitic incidents is 12.9 per 100,000. To give some context, the annual US homicide rate hovers around 5 per 100,000 total population, so these incidents are not much more common than homicide--a very rare type of crime.
Moreover, of the 372 incidents against Jews where the type of crime was recorded, the most common category by far is intimidation--243 incidents or 65% of all incidents. There were only 24 aggravated assaults and 11 murders. While any attack is serious, the US has roughly 15,000 murders per year. Hate crimes are a minuscule part of the problem.
UPDATE: The hate crime laws were written with evil whites in mind--our elites assume the worst of whites and the best of non-whites--so I suspect that prosecutors are prone to interpret incidents by whites as hate, while incidents committed by blacks are likely to be seen as common crimes.
Sunday, December 29, 2019
Among the greatest movie directors, will you find more women or gay men?
Why have almost all of the greatest movie directors been men? Don't women like movies just as much as men?
Feminists, of course, would blame the patriarchy: Men have mysteriously gotten control of the world and will not let the helpless women do fun things like make movies.
But if discrimination has been so pervasive in the film industry, why in the world have we seen so many top homosexual directors? I'm not convinced that men before the 1970s were that dead set against women occupying important positions. Just the other night, I watched an old film titled, "Kansas City Confidential" (1952), and the lead female was studying to take the bar, and none of the male characters cared in the least.
Now, imagine the same story, but the romantic interest is a gay man preparing for the bar. Do we see movies like that for most of the 20th century? Hell no. Off the top of my head, I know that Clark Gable did not want George Cukor--known to be a homosexual--to direct "Gone With the Wind" and was influential in having him replaced by Victor Fleming. While there were plenty of homosexuals in Hollywood, people loathed it. No matter--gay men thrived in Hollywood and Europe as well. Perhaps you doubt this.
I went to the website "They Shoot Movies, Don't They? and looked at their list of the top 250 directors of all time. The ranking is based on such factors as voting by directors and critics. I categorized a director as gay or bisexual if Wikipedia indicated they were. I put together the following list:
Gay Directors (from top 250)
Pedro Almodóvar
Lindsay Anderson
Kenneth Anger
Marcel Carné
Jean Cocteau
George Cukor
Terence Davies
Jacques Demy
Rainer Werner Fassbinder (bisexual)
Robert Hamer
Todd Haynes
Vincente Minnelli (bisexual)
F. W. Murnau
Pier Paolo Pasolini
John Schlesinger
Gus Van Sant
Luchino Visconti
Lana Wachowski (male-to-female transgender)
Lilly Wachowski (male-to-female transgender)
James Whale
I included the transgender Wachowski brothers since transgenders should face discrimination, if it is indeed such a profound problem.
That's 20 gay, bisexual, or transgender directors or 8% of the total. Keep in mind that sexual minorities are less than 8% of men, so they are over-represented among the greatest directors.
How about women?
Female Directors (from top 250)
Kathryn Bigelow
Jane Campion
Claire Denis
Danièle Huillet (co-director with her husband Jean-Marie Straub)
Leni Riefenstahl
Agnes Varda
That's 6 or 2.4% of the total, and let's not forget that if women we're punching at their weight, they would be half of the best directors. Their numbers are abysmal.
You might counter that discrimination was intense through 1970, but things have changed and that is why we see that all top women are from the past few decades. Again, I would argue that if bias was intense prior to 1970 for women, it should be even more so for gay men--a hated minority if I've ever seen one--yet easily half of them worked prior to 1970.
The facts suggest that men are simply better at making movies. If a studio exec wanted to make the best "Little Women" possible in 1933, he needed to hire George Cukor and not give a damn about his "quirks." If a woman would have done it better, I submit that the studio execs would have swallowed hard and given her the job, even in 1933. A lot of money was on the line.
What qualities do men possess that give them such an advantage? Well, I'm no expert on directing, but I know that these are incredibly talented people at the highest percentiles of all relevant traits. These would include: intelligence, leadership, charisma, confidence, decisiveness, technical mastery, visual skills, writing skills (plot, character, dialogue, mood, humor), effective criticism, and ability to deal calmly through all the drama that comes with managing creative types. There is evidence that at the highest levels, men surpass women on these traits. And, by the way, the traits are all rooted in biology.
Feminists, of course, would blame the patriarchy: Men have mysteriously gotten control of the world and will not let the helpless women do fun things like make movies.
But if discrimination has been so pervasive in the film industry, why in the world have we seen so many top homosexual directors? I'm not convinced that men before the 1970s were that dead set against women occupying important positions. Just the other night, I watched an old film titled, "Kansas City Confidential" (1952), and the lead female was studying to take the bar, and none of the male characters cared in the least.
Now, imagine the same story, but the romantic interest is a gay man preparing for the bar. Do we see movies like that for most of the 20th century? Hell no. Off the top of my head, I know that Clark Gable did not want George Cukor--known to be a homosexual--to direct "Gone With the Wind" and was influential in having him replaced by Victor Fleming. While there were plenty of homosexuals in Hollywood, people loathed it. No matter--gay men thrived in Hollywood and Europe as well. Perhaps you doubt this.
I went to the website "They Shoot Movies, Don't They? and looked at their list of the top 250 directors of all time. The ranking is based on such factors as voting by directors and critics. I categorized a director as gay or bisexual if Wikipedia indicated they were. I put together the following list:
Gay Directors (from top 250)
Pedro Almodóvar
Lindsay Anderson
Kenneth Anger
Marcel Carné
Jean Cocteau
George Cukor
Terence Davies
Jacques Demy
Rainer Werner Fassbinder (bisexual)
Robert Hamer
Todd Haynes
Vincente Minnelli (bisexual)
F. W. Murnau
Pier Paolo Pasolini
John Schlesinger
Gus Van Sant
Luchino Visconti
Lana Wachowski (male-to-female transgender)
Lilly Wachowski (male-to-female transgender)
James Whale
I included the transgender Wachowski brothers since transgenders should face discrimination, if it is indeed such a profound problem.
That's 20 gay, bisexual, or transgender directors or 8% of the total. Keep in mind that sexual minorities are less than 8% of men, so they are over-represented among the greatest directors.
How about women?
Female Directors (from top 250)
Kathryn Bigelow
Jane Campion
Claire Denis
Danièle Huillet (co-director with her husband Jean-Marie Straub)
Leni Riefenstahl
Agnes Varda
That's 6 or 2.4% of the total, and let's not forget that if women we're punching at their weight, they would be half of the best directors. Their numbers are abysmal.
You might counter that discrimination was intense through 1970, but things have changed and that is why we see that all top women are from the past few decades. Again, I would argue that if bias was intense prior to 1970 for women, it should be even more so for gay men--a hated minority if I've ever seen one--yet easily half of them worked prior to 1970.
The facts suggest that men are simply better at making movies. If a studio exec wanted to make the best "Little Women" possible in 1933, he needed to hire George Cukor and not give a damn about his "quirks." If a woman would have done it better, I submit that the studio execs would have swallowed hard and given her the job, even in 1933. A lot of money was on the line.
What qualities do men possess that give them such an advantage? Well, I'm no expert on directing, but I know that these are incredibly talented people at the highest percentiles of all relevant traits. These would include: intelligence, leadership, charisma, confidence, decisiveness, technical mastery, visual skills, writing skills (plot, character, dialogue, mood, humor), effective criticism, and ability to deal calmly through all the drama that comes with managing creative types. There is evidence that at the highest levels, men surpass women on these traits. And, by the way, the traits are all rooted in biology.
Saturday, December 28, 2019
Which is more important for education attainment: your IQ or your dad's social class?
While I am convinced that genes are a strong influence over people's lives and that the impact of the parenting is wildly exaggerated, I am open to data on these questions--I call myself Inductivist after all.
This meta-analysis of 15 heritability studies conducted in a variety of countries and decades found that shared environment explained a sizable portion of the variation in educational attainment; to be specific, almost 40%. That's a much higher average than typically seen in heritability studies. The authors also found that shared environment was stronger for women and for people studied prior to 1950, suggesting that factors like family financial support have mattered more for women and for people in the past.
We can use General Social Survey data to answer a related question: Is educational attainment due to IQ or dad's socioeconomic status (SES)? First, let's see how strongly each predicts years of education completed (I limited the analysis to data from 2010-2018, sample size = 947):
Standardized OLS regression coefficients
Model with Father's SES only
Father's SES .37***
Model with Child's IQ only
Child's IQ .45***
IQ is the stronger of the two predictors, but nurturists might argue that father's SES causes child's IQ which, in turn, determines educational attainment. We can address this question by entering both into the model as predictors. By doing so, we can see if the link between IQ and education shrinks to nothing once we've accounted for the influence of dad's SES.
Model with Father's SES and Child's IQ
Father's SES .24***
Child's IQ .44***
When both predictors are entered into the same equation, the father's SES/child education correlation is reduced, but the impact of IQ on schooling is basically unaffected. We can interpret these findings this way: How far you go in school is influenced by your dad's social class (consistent with the meta-analysis), but your own IQ is much more important. The strong correlation between IQ and schooling is not at all due to the tendency of high-status men to both have smart kids and to help them continue in school.
By contrast, part of the reason why father's SES is linked to child's educational level is because high status men have smart kids, and smart people naturally go further educationally. Once you take into account the pathway from dad's status through offspring IQ to completed education, the link between dad's class and child's educational attainment is weakened substantially. In other words, factors beyond the kid's IQ, like family financial support, are not as strong important as they look.
I looked at females only and got the standardized coefficients of .23 (dad's SES) and .43 (child's IQ), so the process works the same for girls as well as boys.
I also looked at mom's SES, and I found very similar results.
***p < .001, two-tailed test
UPDATE: The strong correlation between IQ and years of education reminds me of Taleb's anti-IQ argument: IQ-type tests get you into college, so there is a built-in correlation. There might be a link between test score and which college you get into, but there is no such circularity with how many years of school you complete. Regardless of your test score, you can get admitted to some college.
This meta-analysis of 15 heritability studies conducted in a variety of countries and decades found that shared environment explained a sizable portion of the variation in educational attainment; to be specific, almost 40%. That's a much higher average than typically seen in heritability studies. The authors also found that shared environment was stronger for women and for people studied prior to 1950, suggesting that factors like family financial support have mattered more for women and for people in the past.
We can use General Social Survey data to answer a related question: Is educational attainment due to IQ or dad's socioeconomic status (SES)? First, let's see how strongly each predicts years of education completed (I limited the analysis to data from 2010-2018, sample size = 947):
Standardized OLS regression coefficients
Model with Father's SES only
Father's SES .37***
Model with Child's IQ only
Child's IQ .45***
IQ is the stronger of the two predictors, but nurturists might argue that father's SES causes child's IQ which, in turn, determines educational attainment. We can address this question by entering both into the model as predictors. By doing so, we can see if the link between IQ and education shrinks to nothing once we've accounted for the influence of dad's SES.
Model with Father's SES and Child's IQ
Father's SES .24***
Child's IQ .44***
When both predictors are entered into the same equation, the father's SES/child education correlation is reduced, but the impact of IQ on schooling is basically unaffected. We can interpret these findings this way: How far you go in school is influenced by your dad's social class (consistent with the meta-analysis), but your own IQ is much more important. The strong correlation between IQ and schooling is not at all due to the tendency of high-status men to both have smart kids and to help them continue in school.
By contrast, part of the reason why father's SES is linked to child's educational level is because high status men have smart kids, and smart people naturally go further educationally. Once you take into account the pathway from dad's status through offspring IQ to completed education, the link between dad's class and child's educational attainment is weakened substantially. In other words, factors beyond the kid's IQ, like family financial support, are not as strong important as they look.
I looked at females only and got the standardized coefficients of .23 (dad's SES) and .43 (child's IQ), so the process works the same for girls as well as boys.
I also looked at mom's SES, and I found very similar results.
***p < .001, two-tailed test
UPDATE: The strong correlation between IQ and years of education reminds me of Taleb's anti-IQ argument: IQ-type tests get you into college, so there is a built-in correlation. There might be a link between test score and which college you get into, but there is no such circularity with how many years of school you complete. Regardless of your test score, you can get admitted to some college.
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
The 2010s were a disaster for social conservatives and eugenicists
Whether you are a social conservative or a eugenicist (let me know if there is a less loaded term), we have experienced an unmitigated disaster in the 2010s. Both camps want healthy married parents having lots of healthy kids that are raised in a safe home. Here are a series of graphs to document trends away from this:
The percent married has dropped from 68% in the 1970s to 44% in the 2010s. And look at the trend in never-marrieds: the rate doubled over the past five decades from 14 to 28%.
The trend is sharper if we only look at young people (ages 18-34). Among this group, the percent married has plummeted from 61% to 30% while the percent never-marrieds jumped from only 30% to 64%. In a word, early marriage is collapsing.
Accompanying the decline in the institution of marriage is fertility among intelligent women. This graph shows the number of kids for women ages 40-59 with IQs of 118 or higher.
We see a collapse in the number of these women having four children, a strong increase in the percentage having two kids, and most disturbingly, a doubling of childless women--from 15 to 31%.
A current priority of elites is to get women as educated as possible so they can have the type of careers that give them maximum autonomy.
The social conservative and the eugenicist, by contrast, know that prioritizing female education kills fertility among intelligent women and renders a society incapable of replacing itself with talented people. Maybe there is no necessary connection between education and fertility, but under current conditions, the link is very strong.
The above graph shows the tremendous growth in four-year and advanced degrees among American women. The number of intelligent women like my mom who finished high school, got married, and had four healthy children has become a rarity.
The success of the gay marriage movement might be the most visible family-related loss that we social conservatives experienced in the past decade. The graph above shows the complete reversal of attitudes among young people (ages 18-34) concerning gay sex. (The General Social Survey doesn't have a question about gay marriage that spans the decades.)
The popularity of same-sex marriage is an important indication that Americans are replacing the belief that an important life purpose is to have a large biological family with the belief that the purpose of life is self-fulfillment and that being married or having one or two kids (biological or not) might work toward fulfillment for some people.
I suspect over the long-term that reproductively-oriented people tend to inherit the earth. Muslims and Africans might eventually displace Western Europeans. More virile people might eventually displace sterile Americans as well.
The percent married has dropped from 68% in the 1970s to 44% in the 2010s. And look at the trend in never-marrieds: the rate doubled over the past five decades from 14 to 28%.
The trend is sharper if we only look at young people (ages 18-34). Among this group, the percent married has plummeted from 61% to 30% while the percent never-marrieds jumped from only 30% to 64%. In a word, early marriage is collapsing.
Accompanying the decline in the institution of marriage is fertility among intelligent women. This graph shows the number of kids for women ages 40-59 with IQs of 118 or higher.
We see a collapse in the number of these women having four children, a strong increase in the percentage having two kids, and most disturbingly, a doubling of childless women--from 15 to 31%.
A current priority of elites is to get women as educated as possible so they can have the type of careers that give them maximum autonomy.
The social conservative and the eugenicist, by contrast, know that prioritizing female education kills fertility among intelligent women and renders a society incapable of replacing itself with talented people. Maybe there is no necessary connection between education and fertility, but under current conditions, the link is very strong.
The above graph shows the tremendous growth in four-year and advanced degrees among American women. The number of intelligent women like my mom who finished high school, got married, and had four healthy children has become a rarity.
The success of the gay marriage movement might be the most visible family-related loss that we social conservatives experienced in the past decade. The graph above shows the complete reversal of attitudes among young people (ages 18-34) concerning gay sex. (The General Social Survey doesn't have a question about gay marriage that spans the decades.)
The popularity of same-sex marriage is an important indication that Americans are replacing the belief that an important life purpose is to have a large biological family with the belief that the purpose of life is self-fulfillment and that being married or having one or two kids (biological or not) might work toward fulfillment for some people.
I suspect over the long-term that reproductively-oriented people tend to inherit the earth. Muslims and Africans might eventually displace Western Europeans. More virile people might eventually displace sterile Americans as well.
Saturday, December 21, 2019
Racial identity as revealed by the GenForward Survey
A reader at Reddit pointed me to this table from GenForward, an online survey of young Americans (ages 18-34). It's associated with the University of Chicago. You can see the question they asked about identity and the results by race:
The results are consistent with my analysis GSS data of adults of all ages, but the identity politics is seen more sharply here among young Americans.
Race is most important for nonwhites. Race (probably some of it ethnicity) is 3rd most important for whites. Religion is not important in any group except for Hispanics, perhaps. It's 5th for whites. Class and gender are important. Sexuality ranks highest among blacks which supports the stereotype of blacks being more obsessed with sex than the rest of us (which is saying a lot).
The one thing that could unite us--American nationality--is one of the least important identities. It reaches its peak--4th--among whites. The future looks like identity politics.
The one type of identity that will probably be considered illegitimate by elites for the foreseeable future is whiteness. Every other interest group will push, but when whites qua whites push, they will likely be crushed by the powers that be. I could be wrong, but I don't see a time when elites will ever see whites as simply another normal interest group.
UPDATE: One problem with the question is that it seems to be designed to emphasize the kinds of identity that are closely linked with politics. While the sample is of young adults, some people will be married and have kids by their early thirties, but 'marriage' or 'parenthood' (or something like 'family' which can be important at any age) are not included. These identities are important to many people, and I suspect the popularity of gender might be linked in people's minds to family roles.
Also--since the question asks about identities that "have the most impact on your life." some liberals whites might be want to choose race since they feel their white privilege is so consequential. I'm thinking of a new Inductivist slogan: "The definition of white privilege (or Jewish or Asian privilege) is the accident of being part of a social network that has more people who have their shit together."
The results are consistent with my analysis GSS data of adults of all ages, but the identity politics is seen more sharply here among young Americans.
Race is most important for nonwhites. Race (probably some of it ethnicity) is 3rd most important for whites. Religion is not important in any group except for Hispanics, perhaps. It's 5th for whites. Class and gender are important. Sexuality ranks highest among blacks which supports the stereotype of blacks being more obsessed with sex than the rest of us (which is saying a lot).
The one thing that could unite us--American nationality--is one of the least important identities. It reaches its peak--4th--among whites. The future looks like identity politics.
The one type of identity that will probably be considered illegitimate by elites for the foreseeable future is whiteness. Every other interest group will push, but when whites qua whites push, they will likely be crushed by the powers that be. I could be wrong, but I don't see a time when elites will ever see whites as simply another normal interest group.
UPDATE: One problem with the question is that it seems to be designed to emphasize the kinds of identity that are closely linked with politics. While the sample is of young adults, some people will be married and have kids by their early thirties, but 'marriage' or 'parenthood' (or something like 'family' which can be important at any age) are not included. These identities are important to many people, and I suspect the popularity of gender might be linked in people's minds to family roles.
Also--since the question asks about identities that "have the most impact on your life." some liberals whites might be want to choose race since they feel their white privilege is so consequential. I'm thinking of a new Inductivist slogan: "The definition of white privilege (or Jewish or Asian privilege) is the accident of being part of a social network that has more people who have their shit together."
What's most important for identity--race or religion?
The view of many human biodiversity (HBD) people is that genes are a critical determinant of human behavior and culture, and the power of genes gets expressed at the individual, family and ethnic/racial levels. The contention that race as a genetic reality is a tremendous social force is, of course, the most controversial.
In a recent piece published at Unz.com, E. Michael Jones challenges this view by arguing that the key distinction among Americans is religion, not race. While some HBD-ers contend that the fundamental conflict is racial, and old-time Marxists would argue that it's class, Jones sees the central struggle between the alliance of Protestants and Catholic versus Jews. He would update his view to include the growing presence of Muslims, but he sees people with no religion as lacking an identity, as being social nobodies, and since nature abhors a vacuum, the irreligious are drawn to identity politics. So it sounds like Jones is acknowledging the growing power of non-religious identities like feminist, gay, racialist, etc.
One way to measure identity is to look at marriage: If religion is really important to you, you will probably marry someone of the same faith. Using General Social Survey data, I looked at the percentage of people who marry inside their group. I include ethnicity (i.e., where your family originally came from) as well as current religious affiliation. Religious denomination is shown in bold.
Percent who married within their own group
Blacks 90.4
American Indian 87.5
Asian Indian 86.4
Protestant 86.3
Southern Baptist 83.6
Lutheran Missouri Synod 82.8
American Lutheran 81.9
Chinese 80.8
Orthodox Christian 80.0
Mexican 79.7
Jewish 79.5
United Methodist 79.1
American Baptist 77.8
Catholic 76.8
United Presbyterian 73.4
Episcopalian 73.2
Japanese 68.8
Puerto Rican 67.6
Filipino 66.7
No religion 42.9
Greek 38.9
German 37.6
Dutch 34.4
English/Welsh 34.0
Russian 32.1
French Canadian 31.5
Spanish 29.8
Irish 27.6
Polish 27.3
Norwegian 21.6
Czech 18.5
Austrian 14.8
Danish 12.5
Scottish 12.5
Swedish 11.7
French 9.4
Swiss 8.3
Keep in mind that many of these people got married a long time ago, so with the recent decline in religiosity, the numbers for religion shown here are probably high.
Having said that, the most endogamous groups tend to be non-whites followed by religious denominations. White ethnicities, even those of a putatively ethnocentric bent (e.g., Greeks, Irish), are the least likely to marry within the group. As sociologists predicted some time ago, white ethnics are simply becoming whites. But the intermarriage rates of whites with Asians and Hispanics (about 60% of inter-racial marriages are between whites and Hispanics or whites and Asians) and the lack of voting as a bloc suggest that white consciousness is pretty weak.
Even though the Protestant endogamous rate is high, I'm skeptical that this is as meaningful as Jones thinks. As a Catholic, he may think they're all the same, but who really identifies as a Protestant? As a Southern Baptist, yes. As a Mormon, yes. There is very little common identity and unity among Protestants. For one thing, there is a major divide between conservative Evangelicals and liberal Christians.
Jones makes a good point that religion is an important source of identity for many Americans, but he overstates the case. Non-whites are growing in number in the US, and for them race is important. As religion declines, people are developing political identities--progressive, feminist, sexual minority, or racialist. Jones says that "Logos is Rising"--that Catholicism is growing. According to the data, "Raza is Rising."
Sunday, December 15, 2019
Are Mexican immigrants less tidy than others?
The debate continues on Twitter about whether Hispanic immigrants tend to litter more.
On a related issue, General Social Survey interviewers rated the homes of respondents in terms of cleanliness from 'very clean' (1) to 'dirty' (5). I calculated the means for those born in the US and those who were not (sample size = 7,062). The mean for native-borns is 1.96, the mean for immigrants is 1.86, so immigrants are not messier, they're cleaner.
What if we look by ethnic group and immigrant status? Let's limit the analysis to groups with at least 100 respondents. I'll put immigrant means in parentheses.
Mean unclean house score
Blacks 2.17 (2.02)
Mexican 2.00 (2.05)
Irish 1.98 (1.60)
Scottish 1.95 (1.89)
German 1.88 (1.68)
English/Welsh 1.84 (1.68)
Polish 1.84 (1.55)
Italian 1.77 (1.89)
Immigrants tend to be cleaner than native-borns. Mexican and Italian immigrants are the exceptions with slightly higher means than their American-born counterparts. On the question of Mexican immigrants, their score is only surpassed by blacks.
UPDATE: As I indicated, the debate actually focuses on Hispanics, not just Mexicans. The mean for all Hispanic immigrants is 1.90. For native-born Latinos, it's 2.03--a mean that is very close to that of Mex-Ams, and is only surpassed by blacks.
On a related issue, General Social Survey interviewers rated the homes of respondents in terms of cleanliness from 'very clean' (1) to 'dirty' (5). I calculated the means for those born in the US and those who were not (sample size = 7,062). The mean for native-borns is 1.96, the mean for immigrants is 1.86, so immigrants are not messier, they're cleaner.
What if we look by ethnic group and immigrant status? Let's limit the analysis to groups with at least 100 respondents. I'll put immigrant means in parentheses.
Mean unclean house score
Blacks 2.17 (2.02)
Mexican 2.00 (2.05)
Irish 1.98 (1.60)
Scottish 1.95 (1.89)
German 1.88 (1.68)
English/Welsh 1.84 (1.68)
Polish 1.84 (1.55)
Italian 1.77 (1.89)
Immigrants tend to be cleaner than native-borns. Mexican and Italian immigrants are the exceptions with slightly higher means than their American-born counterparts. On the question of Mexican immigrants, their score is only surpassed by blacks.
UPDATE: As I indicated, the debate actually focuses on Hispanics, not just Mexicans. The mean for all Hispanic immigrants is 1.90. For native-born Latinos, it's 2.03--a mean that is very close to that of Mex-Ams, and is only surpassed by blacks.
Friday, December 13, 2019
Which city has the most litter?
Call it a peculiarity, but I loathe, hate, and abominate litter. The crying Indian ad campaign must have really worked on me when I was a kid.
The 2015 American Housing Survey asked people from ten cities if they have litter on the streets within half of a black of their residence. Here are the percentages who answered yes:
Percent with litter on their block
Memphis 12.3
New Orleans 10.7
Milwaukee 10.3
Pittsburgh 10.0
Portland 10.0
Cleveland 9.3
All Cities 8.9
Cincinnati 8.6
Denver 7.6
Kansas City 7.2
Raleigh 3.7
Residents of Memphis are 3.3 times more likely to report trash than people in Raleigh. Sorry Elvis, I'll take Raleigh. One difference between the cities is that Memphis has twice the percentage of blacks.
As much as I hate litter, it does serve a social function: it signals there are low-quality people around. Greater risk of getting mugged.
The 2015 American Housing Survey asked people from ten cities if they have litter on the streets within half of a black of their residence. Here are the percentages who answered yes:
Percent with litter on their block
Memphis 12.3
New Orleans 10.7
Milwaukee 10.3
Pittsburgh 10.0
Portland 10.0
Cleveland 9.3
All Cities 8.9
Cincinnati 8.6
Denver 7.6
Kansas City 7.2
Raleigh 3.7
Residents of Memphis are 3.3 times more likely to report trash than people in Raleigh. Sorry Elvis, I'll take Raleigh. One difference between the cities is that Memphis has twice the percentage of blacks.
As much as I hate litter, it does serve a social function: it signals there are low-quality people around. Greater risk of getting mugged.
Thursday, December 12, 2019
Do Hispanics litter more than whites?
Steve Sailer was debating yesterday with some immigration researcher about whether Hispanics litter more than whites. The American Housing Survey asks respondents if there is trash within half a block of their residence (sample size = 21,720). I show below the percentage of people by race who say there is a little or a lot:
Percent with litter within half a block
Blacks 15.9
American Indians 10.2
Hispanics 9.6
Whites 6.2
Asians 5.2
This is a racial/ethnic pattern that pops again and again with respect to all kinds of antisocial behavior: blacks and Native Americans are at the top, Hispanics are higher than whites, and Asians are better than everyone else. On the specific issue of Hispanics vs. whites, the percentage saying yes about trash is 1 1/2 times higher for Hispanics.
Percent with litter within half a block
Blacks 15.9
American Indians 10.2
Hispanics 9.6
Whites 6.2
Asians 5.2
This is a racial/ethnic pattern that pops again and again with respect to all kinds of antisocial behavior: blacks and Native Americans are at the top, Hispanics are higher than whites, and Asians are better than everyone else. On the specific issue of Hispanics vs. whites, the percentage saying yes about trash is 1 1/2 times higher for Hispanics.
Wednesday, December 11, 2019
Who's smarter--Trump or Hillary voters?
This new article from Medium.com concludes that Trump voters are 3-5 points dumber than Clinton voters. Wrong.
The General Social Survey asked respondents whom they voted for in 2016. I'll exclude immigrants since the IQ test is biased against people who aren't good at English (sample size = 891). The mean IQ for Hillary voters is 99.20. For Trump supporters, mean IQ is 99.32--slightly higher.
The General Social Survey asked respondents whom they voted for in 2016. I'll exclude immigrants since the IQ test is biased against people who aren't good at English (sample size = 891). The mean IQ for Hillary voters is 99.20. For Trump supporters, mean IQ is 99.32--slightly higher.
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
Are smart people not athletic?
A commenter on Twitter claimed that we HBD folks have a tacit belief that intelligence and athletic ability are inversely related. I've never read anyone make that hypothesis. If anything, HBD types would probably say that the two tend to run together since they are both reflections of health-promoting genes (or the absence of deleterious mutations).
I suppose this is getting pieced together from certain HBD-emphasized facts: West Africans tend to be fast sprinters, but have low average IQ scores; Jews, on average, are smart but you have to go back 100 years to see them thrive in the NBA. That kind of thing.
I looked at General Social Survey data, and found the following correlations between IQ and self-reported athleticism:
Correlation between IQ and athletic ability (sample size = 1,130)
Total sample .05
Whites .02
Blacks .15
Asians -.09
We see a very weak positive link for the full sample, but it varies by race: It's basically non-existent for whites, noticeably positive for blacks, and negative for Asian Americans. Perhaps smart blacks look at sports as an opportunity for scholarships, while smart Asians see sports as a distraction.
I suppose this is getting pieced together from certain HBD-emphasized facts: West Africans tend to be fast sprinters, but have low average IQ scores; Jews, on average, are smart but you have to go back 100 years to see them thrive in the NBA. That kind of thing.
I looked at General Social Survey data, and found the following correlations between IQ and self-reported athleticism:
Correlation between IQ and athletic ability (sample size = 1,130)
Total sample .05
Whites .02
Blacks .15
Asians -.09
We see a very weak positive link for the full sample, but it varies by race: It's basically non-existent for whites, noticeably positive for blacks, and negative for Asian Americans. Perhaps smart blacks look at sports as an opportunity for scholarships, while smart Asians see sports as a distraction.
Sunday, December 08, 2019
What is the strongest correlation I've ever estimated?
Everyone who does social research knows that correlations about people are typically weak. You suspect that IQ predicts criminality, but then the data tell you the association is a mere .2. This is the rule rather than the exception. People are complicated. You can't reduce their behavior to a single factor. Plus, measurements are far from precise.
But on rare occasion, connections can be strong. The correlation between your education and your spouse's is .6 or .7. The link between number of delinquent friends and one's own involvement in delinquency--about .6. Pretty good.
The largest individual-level correlate I've ever calculated (macrolevel correlations tend to be bigger) deals with sexual attraction: Using data I collected myself on 330 people, the point biserial correlation between being male and level of attraction to females is .82. For women being attracted to men, it's .84. Those are huge numbers.
Another way of describing it is in terms of standard deviations: the gap between male and female attraction toward females is 3.6 standard deviations. The difference between the two sexes on liking males is just as big--3.6 sds. You've probably heard that the black-white IQ gap is big. It is, at ONE standard deviation. The attraction gap is enormous.
Now you might be saying, duh, we would expect men to like women and women to like men.
Well, you might expect that, but then again you don't have a PhD in Gender Studies. Many years after the idiot Kinsey claimed that sexual attraction is a continuum, not categorical, researchers are still making similar claims.
With a continuum, one assumes that males will range from being strongly attracted to females to being strongly attracted to males, but most men will be somewhere in the middle with various levels of attraction for both sexes. The same for women. Most of them will have a mix of attractions. If this were the case, being male would not be a strong predictor of level of attraction to females. But common sense and my data predict the outcome very well: what do you know, men like women! And women like men!
I'm afraid a great deal of social research makes us dumber, not smarter. I'd love to see a great deal of it scrapped.
UPDATE: The latest sex theory I've come across claims that our ancestors were indiscriminate copulators: They would hump anything that moves. So males and females being attracted to each other was not the original system. With its de-privileging heterosexual sex, I predict the theory will be wildly popular.
But on rare occasion, connections can be strong. The correlation between your education and your spouse's is .6 or .7. The link between number of delinquent friends and one's own involvement in delinquency--about .6. Pretty good.
The largest individual-level correlate I've ever calculated (macrolevel correlations tend to be bigger) deals with sexual attraction: Using data I collected myself on 330 people, the point biserial correlation between being male and level of attraction to females is .82. For women being attracted to men, it's .84. Those are huge numbers.
Another way of describing it is in terms of standard deviations: the gap between male and female attraction toward females is 3.6 standard deviations. The difference between the two sexes on liking males is just as big--3.6 sds. You've probably heard that the black-white IQ gap is big. It is, at ONE standard deviation. The attraction gap is enormous.
Now you might be saying, duh, we would expect men to like women and women to like men.
Well, you might expect that, but then again you don't have a PhD in Gender Studies. Many years after the idiot Kinsey claimed that sexual attraction is a continuum, not categorical, researchers are still making similar claims.
With a continuum, one assumes that males will range from being strongly attracted to females to being strongly attracted to males, but most men will be somewhere in the middle with various levels of attraction for both sexes. The same for women. Most of them will have a mix of attractions. If this were the case, being male would not be a strong predictor of level of attraction to females. But common sense and my data predict the outcome very well: what do you know, men like women! And women like men!
I'm afraid a great deal of social research makes us dumber, not smarter. I'd love to see a great deal of it scrapped.
UPDATE: The latest sex theory I've come across claims that our ancestors were indiscriminate copulators: They would hump anything that moves. So males and females being attracted to each other was not the original system. With its de-privileging heterosexual sex, I predict the theory will be wildly popular.
Thursday, December 05, 2019
Do blacks perceive more discrimination in high-black or low-black regions?
I don't know if anyone has put forward the hypothesis in some formal way, but I have run across the idea that while mistreatment by whites is common among blacks generally, it's REALLY bad in areas with few blacks. The reasoning seems to be that whites are very racist everywhere, but concentrations of blacks are able to push back and suppress the discrimination to some extent. By contrast, isolated blacks are more powerless and consequently have it really bad.
The General Social Survey (GSS) asked blacks, "How much discrimination is there that hurts the chances of blacks to get good-paying jobs?" Since there were only 152 respondents, I took the nine regions used by GSS and collapsed them into two: one high-black and one low-black category.
I also divided up the country into North vs. South under the assumption that the South is more racist.
Answers ranged from "a lot of discrimination" (4) to "none at all" (1) so higher numbers indicate greater perceived discrimination. Here are the means:
Mean perceived job discrimination
North High Black 3.56
North Low Black 3.38
South 3.29
The region with the greatest perceived discrimination is made up of parts in the north that have the most blacks. Contrary to the stereotype, there is no evidence here that the South is more racist--it scores the lowest. In the middle are low-black areas in the north. When I say north, I mean the mountain states and the west coast as well as the north proper. (You don't see a low-black southern region because there is no such place in GSS data.)
So GSS data contradict the view that black communities that are small, isolated, and surrounded by many whites have it really bad. Blacks think they have it better when their numbers are small.
My guess would be that perceived discrimination is affected a great deal by exaggeration, a phenomenon that gets magnified among large concentrations of blacks.
UPDATE: This hypothesis of large numbers magnifying the perception of discrimination doesn't work for the South which has many blacks but scores the lowest on discrimination. A reader suggested that progressives encourage blacks to see mistreatment, but some low-black areas contain many liberals: the West Coast, New England, Minnesota. I wonder if the perception of bias depends on how one is treated when applying for a job. Southerners and perhaps many people in low-black areas might have a softer touch than employers in places like Chicago or Detroit. Discrimination is typically an ambiguous thing. People are not going to admit that they're not hiring you because they don't like blacks, so people have to rely on cues. A brusque manner could be interpreted as bias.
The General Social Survey (GSS) asked blacks, "How much discrimination is there that hurts the chances of blacks to get good-paying jobs?" Since there were only 152 respondents, I took the nine regions used by GSS and collapsed them into two: one high-black and one low-black category.
I also divided up the country into North vs. South under the assumption that the South is more racist.
Answers ranged from "a lot of discrimination" (4) to "none at all" (1) so higher numbers indicate greater perceived discrimination. Here are the means:
Mean perceived job discrimination
North High Black 3.56
North Low Black 3.38
South 3.29
The region with the greatest perceived discrimination is made up of parts in the north that have the most blacks. Contrary to the stereotype, there is no evidence here that the South is more racist--it scores the lowest. In the middle are low-black areas in the north. When I say north, I mean the mountain states and the west coast as well as the north proper. (You don't see a low-black southern region because there is no such place in GSS data.)
So GSS data contradict the view that black communities that are small, isolated, and surrounded by many whites have it really bad. Blacks think they have it better when their numbers are small.
My guess would be that perceived discrimination is affected a great deal by exaggeration, a phenomenon that gets magnified among large concentrations of blacks.
UPDATE: This hypothesis of large numbers magnifying the perception of discrimination doesn't work for the South which has many blacks but scores the lowest on discrimination. A reader suggested that progressives encourage blacks to see mistreatment, but some low-black areas contain many liberals: the West Coast, New England, Minnesota. I wonder if the perception of bias depends on how one is treated when applying for a job. Southerners and perhaps many people in low-black areas might have a softer touch than employers in places like Chicago or Detroit. Discrimination is typically an ambiguous thing. People are not going to admit that they're not hiring you because they don't like blacks, so people have to rely on cues. A brusque manner could be interpreted as bias.
Monday, November 25, 2019
How much dumber are big families?
We know that dumb people tend to have larger families, so I was curious about how much IQ drops with each additional child. Here's the mean IQ by family size (sample size = 26,388, immigrants excluded):
Mean offspring IQ by number of children
1 101.4
2 101.2
3 100.2
4 98.4
5 97.1
6 95.2
7 94.2
8 93.0
9 91.7
10 90.8
11 89.6
12+ 88.8
If we do an OLS regression, we see that for each additional child, the predicted drop in IQ is 1.13 points. This doesn't mean, of course, that having more kids causes IQs to fall. It simply means that the dumber the couple, the bigger the number of children. As shown in the movie "Idiocracy," smart people see every reason to delay having kids, while the dull ones do what comes naturally.
Mean offspring IQ by number of children
1 101.4
2 101.2
3 100.2
4 98.4
5 97.1
6 95.2
7 94.2
8 93.0
9 91.7
10 90.8
11 89.6
12+ 88.8
If we do an OLS regression, we see that for each additional child, the predicted drop in IQ is 1.13 points. This doesn't mean, of course, that having more kids causes IQs to fall. It simply means that the dumber the couple, the bigger the number of children. As shown in the movie "Idiocracy," smart people see every reason to delay having kids, while the dull ones do what comes naturally.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Do high-income men marry younger wives? What about men with a history of many sex partners?
Evolutionary theory claims that men value physically attractive partners while women desire partners with high status. Normally, we think of status in terms of income, but we can divide men in terms of their sexual success with women. Physical attractiveness is correlated with youth, so I calculated the age difference for married couples. The following is the average number of years that the husband is older than the wife (General Social Survey, sample size = 338):
Mean number of years that the husband is older than the wife by husband's income
Low-income 2.93
Middle-income 2.23
High-income 1.66
This is the opposite of what we predicted: the age gap is smallest for the high-income. Evidently, wealthy men and their wives are more egalitarian, while poor couples are more traditional.
And by number of sex partners since age 18?
Mean number of years that the husband is older than the wife by sex partners since 18
0-3 1.81
4-6 2.86
7-9 2.08
10-19 2.48
20+ 4.54
The mean bounces around for the lower numbers, but the men with 20 or more sexual partners have the youngest wives by far.
Sexually successful men seem to be trading their appeal for more youthful wives, but this does not seem to be the case for men with lots of money.
Mean number of years that the husband is older than the wife by husband's income
Low-income 2.93
Middle-income 2.23
High-income 1.66
This is the opposite of what we predicted: the age gap is smallest for the high-income. Evidently, wealthy men and their wives are more egalitarian, while poor couples are more traditional.
And by number of sex partners since age 18?
Mean number of years that the husband is older than the wife by sex partners since 18
0-3 1.81
4-6 2.86
7-9 2.08
10-19 2.48
20+ 4.54
The mean bounces around for the lower numbers, but the men with 20 or more sexual partners have the youngest wives by far.
Sexually successful men seem to be trading their appeal for more youthful wives, but this does not seem to be the case for men with lots of money.
Friday, November 22, 2019
How often are the highly intelligent found among the poorest people?
In the last post, it was mentioned that high IQ people are VERY diverse in terms of income. Many are not particularly interested in pursuing lots of money. But let's look at the other end: Few people would want to be poor, so does IQ keep one out of poverty?
Using General Social Survey data, I looked to see how many people in the highest IQ category (125+) are found in the lowest 10% of income earners (sample size = 16,626). For men, it's 3.4%. So smart guys have a low rate of poverty, but not all escape it. I imagine these men have serious physical or mental health issues.
For smart women, it's 8.0%. Their rate is lower than average, but not by that much. In addition to the health issues that men might face, some intelligent woman are likely to be stay-at-home moms who don't earn much.
Using General Social Survey data, I looked to see how many people in the highest IQ category (125+) are found in the lowest 10% of income earners (sample size = 16,626). For men, it's 3.4%. So smart guys have a low rate of poverty, but not all escape it. I imagine these men have serious physical or mental health issues.
For smart women, it's 8.0%. Their rate is lower than average, but not by that much. In addition to the health issues that men might face, some intelligent woman are likely to be stay-at-home moms who don't earn much.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Does IQ do a better job of predicting income among younger or older adults?
We know that IQ only has a moderate correlation with income, and it looks like much of this is due to the fact that intelligent people are very diverse in terms of earnings: some are super rich but many aren't very interested in money and pursue other things. I, for example, don't make more than my dad who was a maintenance man and belonged to a union. I could have pursued high-paying business jobs like my brothers, but I was drawn to academics (unfortunately!).
But does the correlation vary with age? Perhaps the earning capacity that comes with IQ becomes more and more evident with the accumulation of years.
Using General Social Survey data, I calculated Pearson correlations between IQ and personal income. Here are the correlations by age group and gender:
Correlation between IQ and income
Men
Ages 18-24 -.03
25-34 .14
35-44 .20
45-54 .26
55-64 .27
Smart men ages 18 to 24 actually make slightly less than their less intelligent counterparts. Smarter guys are more likely to be in college and thus not earning much money. But we can see the correlation grows with older age groups, and it peaks only in the decade before retirement age.
Women
Ages 18-24 .03
25-34 .20
35-44 .20
45-54 .22
55-64 .24
We see the same basic trend with women.
These findings are consistent with individual difference research in general: Traits matter more over the long-term and less in any particular situation.
But does the correlation vary with age? Perhaps the earning capacity that comes with IQ becomes more and more evident with the accumulation of years.
Using General Social Survey data, I calculated Pearson correlations between IQ and personal income. Here are the correlations by age group and gender:
Correlation between IQ and income
Men
Ages 18-24 -.03
25-34 .14
35-44 .20
45-54 .26
55-64 .27
Smart men ages 18 to 24 actually make slightly less than their less intelligent counterparts. Smarter guys are more likely to be in college and thus not earning much money. But we can see the correlation grows with older age groups, and it peaks only in the decade before retirement age.
Women
Ages 18-24 .03
25-34 .20
35-44 .20
45-54 .22
55-64 .24
We see the same basic trend with women.
These findings are consistent with individual difference research in general: Traits matter more over the long-term and less in any particular situation.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
Who's more likely to sex and labor traffic--Americans or immigrants?
Recently, I posted on which races are most likely to engage in sex trafficking. What about immigrants? Compared to Americans, are they more likely to be criminals of this type?
They sure are. Immigrants are 14% of people living in America, but they are 33% of convicted sex traffickers. That's three times the rate of native-borns. Even more striking, immigrants are 69% of those who enslave workers. That's almost 14 times the rate of Americans.
Sex and labor trafficking: work that Americans are unwilling to do.
They sure are. Immigrants are 14% of people living in America, but they are 33% of convicted sex traffickers. That's three times the rate of native-borns. Even more striking, immigrants are 69% of those who enslave workers. That's almost 14 times the rate of Americans.
Sex and labor trafficking: work that Americans are unwilling to do.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
What kind of people think that having kids increases one's social standing?
The General Social Survey (GSS) asked American adults if they agreed with the following: "Having children increases people's social standing in society." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." The answers looked like this (sample size = 1,248):
Percent distribution
Strongly Agree 3.7
Agree 29.4
Neither 30.5
Disagree 31.3
Strongly Disagree 5.0
Answers are pretty normally distributed. People simply disagree on this issue.
I looked at a list of variables to see what predicted agreement--age, sex, race, city size, South v. North, income, education, IQ, church attendance, and political orientation.
The only three variables that matter are sex, income, and education: 39.6% of men agree or strongly agree that children increase one's social standing compared to only 27.7% of women. Perhaps women are more likely to see kids as obstacles to status since conventional status comes from education and work; activities that, for women anyway, conflict with raising children.
43.2% of people who dropped out of school agree or strongly agree that children give status, while only 31.8% of people with advanced educations feel the same.
Income is similar: 34.7% of low-income but only 25.2% of high-income people agree or strongly agree with the statement.
Since there is some tension between energy devoted to kids versus education and work, it looks like people who have earned lots of education and income status tend to devalue children, while the opposite is true for people with little conventional status.
I once discussed this issue with my physician brother-in-law. I told him that the most accomplished people are having the fewest children and that he and I were exceptions with our large families. I added that in an evolutionary sense, all these successful people were losers but didn't realize they were losers. My brother-in-law then responded, "That's right. We've got them right where we want them."
Percent distribution
Strongly Agree 3.7
Agree 29.4
Neither 30.5
Disagree 31.3
Strongly Disagree 5.0
Answers are pretty normally distributed. People simply disagree on this issue.
I looked at a list of variables to see what predicted agreement--age, sex, race, city size, South v. North, income, education, IQ, church attendance, and political orientation.
The only three variables that matter are sex, income, and education: 39.6% of men agree or strongly agree that children increase one's social standing compared to only 27.7% of women. Perhaps women are more likely to see kids as obstacles to status since conventional status comes from education and work; activities that, for women anyway, conflict with raising children.
43.2% of people who dropped out of school agree or strongly agree that children give status, while only 31.8% of people with advanced educations feel the same.
Income is similar: 34.7% of low-income but only 25.2% of high-income people agree or strongly agree with the statement.
Since there is some tension between energy devoted to kids versus education and work, it looks like people who have earned lots of education and income status tend to devalue children, while the opposite is true for people with little conventional status.
I once discussed this issue with my physician brother-in-law. I told him that the most accomplished people are having the fewest children and that he and I were exceptions with our large families. I added that in an evolutionary sense, all these successful people were losers but didn't realize they were losers. My brother-in-law then responded, "That's right. We've got them right where we want them."
Thursday, November 07, 2019
Police officers of which race are most likely to use deadly force?
The Media constantly do stories of white officers who seem trigger happy, especially if the suspect is black. Is such a portrayal accurate?
No. This study analyzes data on 291 officers involved in 106 shootings in New York City. Shooting officers were compared to non-shooting officers at the same scene. The authors found that black officers were 3.1 times more likely to shoot suspects than officers of other races. That's a big difference.
New research has reported that officers with high scores on impulsivity are quicker to pull the trigger than highly-controlled officers. Impulsivity is a major cause of criminality, too, and has been used to explain the black/non-black gap in crime.
No. This study analyzes data on 291 officers involved in 106 shootings in New York City. Shooting officers were compared to non-shooting officers at the same scene. The authors found that black officers were 3.1 times more likely to shoot suspects than officers of other races. That's a big difference.
New research has reported that officers with high scores on impulsivity are quicker to pull the trigger than highly-controlled officers. Impulsivity is a major cause of criminality, too, and has been used to explain the black/non-black gap in crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Are gun owners mentally ill?
Some anti-gun people think owning a gun is a sign of some kind of mental abnormality. According to General Social Survey data, gun owners ...
-
In the comments in the last post , some readers contended that Jews are not ethnocentric. Using the same question I used in the comments se... -
Via a reader at iSteve, it looks like this might be the vocabulary test used by the General Social Survey. (Someone please tell me if I'...
-
I've been distributing a questionnaire to students which, among other things, asks them their religion. Quite a few have answered "...