In the last post, General Social Survey data indicated that researcher Paul Dolan was wrong in claiming that single, childless women are happier than married women with kids. In the old days, I would have focused, at least some, on the Durkheimian idea that social roles shape characteristics like one's level of happiness. I was trained as a sociologist, and it has been my instinct to see social forces as important.
Years of study have convinced me that it is time to focus more on biological forces. The correlation between marriage and well-being need not be causal: people who are genetically happy might simply select themselves into marriage. In fact, the correlations between marriage and a host of positives--greater financial success, mental and physical health, lower mortality, less risky behavior, less crime, and longer longevity--might be due to common genes which cause the correlations.
A study by Johnson et al. (2004) supports this idea. Analyzing data on a sample of over 7,000 adults that included more than 2,500 twin pairs, they found that certain heritable traits predict marriage, and that much of the link between being married and being happy is due to genes.
Specifically, they found the following traits for married versus single women: married women are more affectionate, nervous, careful, and traditional, and they feel like they are treated fairly by others. On the flip side, single women are less sociable, more risk-taking; they're calmer, more modern, and they think they are treated unjustly by others.
The profile of married men versus single men is very different: married men are cheerful, active, persistent, decisive, persuasive, aggressive, and traditional. They are less prone to fantasy, and they think that people treat them fairly. Single men tend to be the opposite: They are sullen, indecisive, undisciplined, passive, modern, prone to fantasy, and they feel they are treated unfairly.
All of these traits are strongly influenced by genes. According to the study, the heritability of being married is about .7, meaning that 70% of whether or not people are married is due to variation in genes.
So it looks like married people, especially men, tend to be happier because of their personalities. Affectionate, sociable women seek out marriage, and so do cheerful men who have the traits that lead to career success. Married women seem drawn to comfort, security, and affection. Men, in general, appear to be drawn to marriage, and the success-bound ones achieve it.
Single men and women are more modern, so they probably see marriage as less desirable, less expected, and both tend to be disagreeable. Single men might be less happy because they are less successful, and single women are more alienated, which is associated with sadness and mental health issues. In addition, single women are risk-takers, and seem less drawn to the security and comfort of a permanent union.
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Sunday, May 26, 2019
Are never-married, childless women happier than married moms?
A piece in the Guardian reported that women are happiest if they stay single and childless, according to research done by London School of Economics professor Paul Dolan.
Dolan is wrong. The graph below displays 2000-2018 data from the General Social Survey (sample size = 12,254). The bars indicates mean happiness (1 = not too happy, 2, = pretty happy, 3 = very happy).
Childless, never-married women are less happy than married women at all nine levels of family size. A married women with eight or more kids is happier than a single, childless woman. The difference between between the latter and married women as a whole is close to half a standard deviation, a good-sized gap.
Dolan claims married women only say they are happy when they are interviewed with their husband in the room. I compared women who were interviewed in person with those who completed a self-adminstered questionnaire. The results were the same for both groups.
Dolan is wrong. The graph below displays 2000-2018 data from the General Social Survey (sample size = 12,254). The bars indicates mean happiness (1 = not too happy, 2, = pretty happy, 3 = very happy).
Childless, never-married women are less happy than married women at all nine levels of family size. A married women with eight or more kids is happier than a single, childless woman. The difference between between the latter and married women as a whole is close to half a standard deviation, a good-sized gap.
Dolan claims married women only say they are happy when they are interviewed with their husband in the room. I compared women who were interviewed in person with those who completed a self-adminstered questionnaire. The results were the same for both groups.
Thursday, May 23, 2019
A recent paper claims that human traits are basically produced by genes and luck
Authors of a paper published earlier this year in Behavior Genetics have made arguments similar to those of HBD writers Greg Cochran and JayMan: psychological traits are basically the result of 1) genes, and 2) noise.
Years ago, behavioral geneticists discovered that the environments shared by siblings have little impact on how you turn out. By contrast, the environment you experience that is unique to you appeared to be about as important as genes -- both of them explaining roughly half of the story.
The authors, two Russians from St. Petersburg University (they're Russians, so they must be evil) explain that research trying to identify specific factors from the unique environment that are important has been mostly unsuccessful. Factors like illnesses and accidents typically explain less than 3% of the examined traits.
In addition, genetic research (mostly experiments on animals) has shown that traits depend a great deal on stochasticity--a fancy term for randomness, or "luck." For instance, ultraviolet rays increase genetic mutation rates in organisms, but exactly which genes will be affected is a stochastic process. Random genetic errors that occur in the early stages of embryonic development will be more consequential; in this case, all the descendants of the initial mutant cell will also be mutant.
Complex organic systems like the human body or brain are especially likely to be shaped by random events. For example, in female embryos, one of the two X-chromosomes is inactivated as a Barr body. Each cell will make a random 'decision' which X-chromosome (the paternal or maternal) gets inactivated, and the 'decision' is maintained in subsequent cell divisions. As a result, the female becomes mosaic. In heterozygous females with the EDA mutation, you get ectodermal dysplasia which leads to an absence of perspiratory glands. Depending on what X-chromosome is active, some skin areas are defective in sweating, while other areas are normal. The mosaicism is random. Even identical twins raised in very similar environments will differ significantly.
Another human example is the growth of synapses in the developing brain. While the number and locations of these connections are under some genetic control, research has demonstrated a significant stochastic component. So again, identical twins raised the same will end up with brain wirings that are somewhat different, this is simply due to random differences in development, and it can cause behavioral differences.
These authors do not mean that these random factors are actually causal factors that simply have not been identified yet. They are claiming that pure randomness is simply a key part of our development, and the hard determinist view is simply incorrect.
They don't touch the political implications of all this, but I'll jump in. To summarize, it's only a little bit of a simplification to say that we may be the product of genes and random events. Genetic research is also telling us that hundreds or thousands of genes influence a trait, but each only a trivial bit, so simple pathways for intervention and improvement might be hard to find. And you can't control randomness, so there seem to be fewer and fewer possibilities for government to step in and effectively address social problems -- at least in ways acceptable to liberals. The old-time conservative who contended that human nature is tragically flawed and that one must resign oneself to human limitation seems more and more like a prescient, wise person.
Years ago, behavioral geneticists discovered that the environments shared by siblings have little impact on how you turn out. By contrast, the environment you experience that is unique to you appeared to be about as important as genes -- both of them explaining roughly half of the story.
The authors, two Russians from St. Petersburg University (they're Russians, so they must be evil) explain that research trying to identify specific factors from the unique environment that are important has been mostly unsuccessful. Factors like illnesses and accidents typically explain less than 3% of the examined traits.
In addition, genetic research (mostly experiments on animals) has shown that traits depend a great deal on stochasticity--a fancy term for randomness, or "luck." For instance, ultraviolet rays increase genetic mutation rates in organisms, but exactly which genes will be affected is a stochastic process. Random genetic errors that occur in the early stages of embryonic development will be more consequential; in this case, all the descendants of the initial mutant cell will also be mutant.
Complex organic systems like the human body or brain are especially likely to be shaped by random events. For example, in female embryos, one of the two X-chromosomes is inactivated as a Barr body. Each cell will make a random 'decision' which X-chromosome (the paternal or maternal) gets inactivated, and the 'decision' is maintained in subsequent cell divisions. As a result, the female becomes mosaic. In heterozygous females with the EDA mutation, you get ectodermal dysplasia which leads to an absence of perspiratory glands. Depending on what X-chromosome is active, some skin areas are defective in sweating, while other areas are normal. The mosaicism is random. Even identical twins raised in very similar environments will differ significantly.
Another human example is the growth of synapses in the developing brain. While the number and locations of these connections are under some genetic control, research has demonstrated a significant stochastic component. So again, identical twins raised the same will end up with brain wirings that are somewhat different, this is simply due to random differences in development, and it can cause behavioral differences.
These authors do not mean that these random factors are actually causal factors that simply have not been identified yet. They are claiming that pure randomness is simply a key part of our development, and the hard determinist view is simply incorrect.
They don't touch the political implications of all this, but I'll jump in. To summarize, it's only a little bit of a simplification to say that we may be the product of genes and random events. Genetic research is also telling us that hundreds or thousands of genes influence a trait, but each only a trivial bit, so simple pathways for intervention and improvement might be hard to find. And you can't control randomness, so there seem to be fewer and fewer possibilities for government to step in and effectively address social problems -- at least in ways acceptable to liberals. The old-time conservative who contended that human nature is tragically flawed and that one must resign oneself to human limitation seems more and more like a prescient, wise person.
Friday, May 17, 2019
How are we doing on mixing the races?
One of the strongest findings in sociology is that people follow the principle of homophily--they naturally associate with people like themselves. It goes without saying that sociologists never take the next logical step and conclude that this universal tendency is rooted in biology; that it is very resistant to change; that it's counterproductive to swim against a very strong tide. The typical view of a sociologist when it comes to a social universal is, "Yes, we see it everywhere, so naturally, we should get rid of it!"
Nowhere is this truer than in the case of race. Around the entire globe, people of the same race tend to gravitate to each other, so in America, we're bound and determined to see the day when a random white person has all non-white buddies.
So how are we doing on this? I looked at a question given in the General Social Survey where participants were asked to list friends (sample size = 1,300). I assume that the first person mentioned is a close friend, if not the closest friend. When the respondent is white, how often was the first friend mentioned black? Two percent of the time. Black respondents first mentioned a white friend 11.2% of the time.
If making friends were truly random, the distribution of friends would match the racial distribution of the population. (We'll set aside the goal of preferring friends from other races.) For example, 13% of the first friends mentioned by whites should be black since blacks are 13% of the population. But when I do the math that takes into account the size of the black and white populations, blacks are 37.1 times more likely to say their first-mentioned friend is black rather than white. A white is 9.3 times more likely to mention a white person. I doubt the numbers were much different in 1960.
For all America's efforts, biology seems to be stronger than sociology.
Nowhere is this truer than in the case of race. Around the entire globe, people of the same race tend to gravitate to each other, so in America, we're bound and determined to see the day when a random white person has all non-white buddies.
So how are we doing on this? I looked at a question given in the General Social Survey where participants were asked to list friends (sample size = 1,300). I assume that the first person mentioned is a close friend, if not the closest friend. When the respondent is white, how often was the first friend mentioned black? Two percent of the time. Black respondents first mentioned a white friend 11.2% of the time.
If making friends were truly random, the distribution of friends would match the racial distribution of the population. (We'll set aside the goal of preferring friends from other races.) For example, 13% of the first friends mentioned by whites should be black since blacks are 13% of the population. But when I do the math that takes into account the size of the black and white populations, blacks are 37.1 times more likely to say their first-mentioned friend is black rather than white. A white is 9.3 times more likely to mention a white person. I doubt the numbers were much different in 1960.
For all America's efforts, biology seems to be stronger than sociology.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Which explains how prestigious your job is--intersectional theory or HBD?
On Twitter, Steve Sailer writes, "The pattern that gay black males tend to assimilate into white corporate culture better than do straight black males deserves more social science attention than it has received. It's hard to notice if you are Woke and believe in the conventional wisdom about Patriarchy, etc."
Let's test this kind of idea with General Social Survey (GSS) data. Based on intersectionality theory--experiencing more discrimination with each additional minority status--job prestige rankings should look something like this:
Top Tier--Zero Strikes Against
Straight white male
Second Tier--One Strike Against
Straight white female
Gay white male
Straight black male
Third Tier--Two Strikes Against
White lesbian
Straight black female
Gay black male
Fourth Tier--Three Strikes Against
Black lesbian
By contrast, biological theory would focus on traits that are important for high-status jobs, and the obvious candidate is intelligence and the glaring racial gap in IQ. So this view would predict that the big divide will be race, with whites above average in job prestige and blacks below average. The other demographics shouldn't matter much.
And what are the facts? According to GSS data for 19,901 respondents:
Mean occupational prestige
Gay white male 47.1
White lesbian 46.2
Straight white male 45.2
Straight white female 44.5
Total Sample 44.2
Black straight female 40.9
Black gay male 40.7
Black lesbian 39.8
Black straight male 39.2
As predicted, the major divide is race. All whites are above average, and all blacks are below. If intersectional theory were true, black lesbians would be on the bottom, and straight white males would occupy the top position. Neither is the case. Biological theory would predict no disadvantage for homosexuals--in fact, I reported in a previous analysis that they have above-average IQs--and indeed they do well.
And relevant to Steve's point about black males, homosexuals do better than straights, which contradicts the claim that it's all about intersectional discrimination.
Biology explains more than sociology.
Let's test this kind of idea with General Social Survey (GSS) data. Based on intersectionality theory--experiencing more discrimination with each additional minority status--job prestige rankings should look something like this:
Top Tier--Zero Strikes Against
Straight white male
Second Tier--One Strike Against
Straight white female
Gay white male
Straight black male
Third Tier--Two Strikes Against
White lesbian
Straight black female
Gay black male
Fourth Tier--Three Strikes Against
Black lesbian
By contrast, biological theory would focus on traits that are important for high-status jobs, and the obvious candidate is intelligence and the glaring racial gap in IQ. So this view would predict that the big divide will be race, with whites above average in job prestige and blacks below average. The other demographics shouldn't matter much.
And what are the facts? According to GSS data for 19,901 respondents:
Mean occupational prestige
Gay white male 47.1
White lesbian 46.2
Straight white male 45.2
Straight white female 44.5
Total Sample 44.2
Black straight female 40.9
Black gay male 40.7
Black lesbian 39.8
Black straight male 39.2
As predicted, the major divide is race. All whites are above average, and all blacks are below. If intersectional theory were true, black lesbians would be on the bottom, and straight white males would occupy the top position. Neither is the case. Biological theory would predict no disadvantage for homosexuals--in fact, I reported in a previous analysis that they have above-average IQs--and indeed they do well.
And relevant to Steve's point about black males, homosexuals do better than straights, which contradicts the claim that it's all about intersectional discrimination.
Biology explains more than sociology.
Thursday, May 09, 2019
Is gay liberation leading to gay genocide?
Look at this graph (GSS data) which shows the mean number of children that gay men ages 40-64 have for the past four decades:
In the 80s, the average gay man had two kids. By the 90s, the number had dropped to .81, and in this decade, it's down to .58. In other words, a gay man 40 years wasn't that different than a straight guy in terms of offspring. Now, he has less than 30% the family size of a heterosexual.
While Greg Cochran is right that the heritability of homosexuality is not high, there seems to be some genetic influence, so it's ironic that gay liberation is leading to fewer people with genes that raise the odds of homosexuality. That implies fewer and fewer gay men in the future. Strange, but I don't hear anyone accusing liberals of secretly pushing for the slow genocide of homosexuals.
In the 80s, the average gay man had two kids. By the 90s, the number had dropped to .81, and in this decade, it's down to .58. In other words, a gay man 40 years wasn't that different than a straight guy in terms of offspring. Now, he has less than 30% the family size of a heterosexual.
While Greg Cochran is right that the heritability of homosexuality is not high, there seems to be some genetic influence, so it's ironic that gay liberation is leading to fewer people with genes that raise the odds of homosexuality. That implies fewer and fewer gay men in the future. Strange, but I don't hear anyone accusing liberals of secretly pushing for the slow genocide of homosexuals.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Data: Dot Indians are the most industrious Americans. Feather Indians, the least. Hispanics are in the middle.
Sociologists assume that a man lacking a job is the fault of the economic system. He would take any job if it were simply available. Common sense and behavioral genetic research contradict this. Industriousness is largely caused by genes, and people vary a great deal in this trait. Some people cannot take it easy, and some cannot not take it easy. I've talked to many people over the years who refuse to take jobs that are not acceptable to them. That's the reality in America. Sure, you might have a small percentage with REAL health problems, but those are the exceptions.
So I'm going to use full-time work as a measure of industriousness. I'm interested in racial and ethnic differences. Men and women still differ in employment, so let's focus on just the men. Here are the percentages of American men ages 30-64 who are employed full-time listed by ethnic group:
Percent employed full-time
Asian Indian 85.0
Jewish 84.0
Dutch 84.7
Portuguese 82.6
Japan 82.2
Russian 81.8
Spanish 81.8
Greek 81.6
Romanian 80.0
Polish 79.3
German 79.1
Mexican 78.7
Italian 78.6
West Indian 78.6
Danish 78.5
Norwegian 77.6
Austrian 77.5
Scottish 77.5
Chinese 76.9
Hispanic 76.9
US Total 75.7
Irish 75.7
English/Welsh 75.4
Czech 74.8
Swedish 75.3
French Canadian 75.1
Belgium 75.0
Arab 74.7
Hungarian 73.5
French 72.9
Filipinos 71.4
Muslim 71.2
Puerto Rican 68.6
Black 67.4
Lithuanian 67.4
Finnish 66.7
American Indian 55.6
Looks about right. For a moment, let's compare the top group with the lowest. If it were true that discrimination determines who works, why would Asian Indians surpass every single white group? Wouldn't a bigot choose the lamest white person over a South Asian? While American Indians are also non-whites, at least most of them are Christians. Wouldn't a bigot choose a Christian over a heathen Hindu? American Indians have a tragic history, and whites feel bad about that. They were here long before Europeans. Wouldn't an employer choose a Real Red American over an immigrant invader, just off the boat?
And yet, Asian Indians tower over all other groups. Why? Because biology explains better than sociology.
By the way, I'm at a cafe, and seated at the next table over is a Native American. He's super friendly. He's always here, and I'm not sure he's old enough to be retired, but he doesn't seem particularly busy. The Asian Indian guy I always see here is also popular, but he owns a business and uses the cafe to network.
So I'm going to use full-time work as a measure of industriousness. I'm interested in racial and ethnic differences. Men and women still differ in employment, so let's focus on just the men. Here are the percentages of American men ages 30-64 who are employed full-time listed by ethnic group:
Percent employed full-time
Asian Indian 85.0
Jewish 84.0
Dutch 84.7
Portuguese 82.6
Japan 82.2
Russian 81.8
Spanish 81.8
Greek 81.6
Romanian 80.0
Polish 79.3
German 79.1
Mexican 78.7
Italian 78.6
West Indian 78.6
Danish 78.5
Norwegian 77.6
Austrian 77.5
Scottish 77.5
Chinese 76.9
Hispanic 76.9
US Total 75.7
Irish 75.7
English/Welsh 75.4
Czech 74.8
Swedish 75.3
French Canadian 75.1
Belgium 75.0
Arab 74.7
Hungarian 73.5
French 72.9
Filipinos 71.4
Muslim 71.2
Puerto Rican 68.6
Black 67.4
Lithuanian 67.4
Finnish 66.7
American Indian 55.6
Looks about right. For a moment, let's compare the top group with the lowest. If it were true that discrimination determines who works, why would Asian Indians surpass every single white group? Wouldn't a bigot choose the lamest white person over a South Asian? While American Indians are also non-whites, at least most of them are Christians. Wouldn't a bigot choose a Christian over a heathen Hindu? American Indians have a tragic history, and whites feel bad about that. They were here long before Europeans. Wouldn't an employer choose a Real Red American over an immigrant invader, just off the boat?
And yet, Asian Indians tower over all other groups. Why? Because biology explains better than sociology.
By the way, I'm at a cafe, and seated at the next table over is a Native American. He's super friendly. He's always here, and I'm not sure he's old enough to be retired, but he doesn't seem particularly busy. The Asian Indian guy I always see here is also popular, but he owns a business and uses the cafe to network.
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Data: In some cities, 3 out of 10 black men had sex before they were 13 years old
Look at this table from a study of the age at first sexual intercourse among males:
Depending on the city, 12 to 29% of black males have had sex before age 13. This is compared to 2 to 9% of white males. The numbers for Hispanic males are 6 to 17%.
These stats support the view that blacks are shifted toward "fast" life history strategies. Along with shorter life expectancies and less investment in each child, life history theory claims that "fast" individuals mature more quickly and become sexually active at earlier ages. Even though the study does not report figures on Asians, I'm confident they would be the lowest group.
Depending on the city, 12 to 29% of black males have had sex before age 13. This is compared to 2 to 9% of white males. The numbers for Hispanic males are 6 to 17%.
These stats support the view that blacks are shifted toward "fast" life history strategies. Along with shorter life expectancies and less investment in each child, life history theory claims that "fast" individuals mature more quickly and become sexually active at earlier ages. Even though the study does not report figures on Asians, I'm confident they would be the lowest group.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Data: Despite liberation, gay men are less happy than in 1980
The General Social Survey asks participants, "Taken all together, how would you say things are these days - would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" I calculated the mean happiness for gay males over the past four decades. Here is the graph:
In terms of liberation, life has been good for homosexuals since 1980. Approval of homosexual sex by the general public has skyrocketed. When I was an undergraduate, gay marriage was not even on the radar for progressives. Now it is the law of the land. An openly gay man -- Buttigieg -- is a popular Democratic presidential candidate. In my department meeting Wednesday, a colleague boasted that her son now identifies as gay, making us all feel inferior because our kids are straight.
All this progress and liberation has really delivered on gay happiness, right? Actually, mean happiness has dropped in every decade. Homosexual men are less happy than they were at the height of the AIDS epidemic.
This reminds me of female liberation. Women are also less happy. Look at the graph.
Liberation has not delivered.
In terms of liberation, life has been good for homosexuals since 1980. Approval of homosexual sex by the general public has skyrocketed. When I was an undergraduate, gay marriage was not even on the radar for progressives. Now it is the law of the land. An openly gay man -- Buttigieg -- is a popular Democratic presidential candidate. In my department meeting Wednesday, a colleague boasted that her son now identifies as gay, making us all feel inferior because our kids are straight.
All this progress and liberation has really delivered on gay happiness, right? Actually, mean happiness has dropped in every decade. Homosexual men are less happy than they were at the height of the AIDS epidemic.
This reminds me of female liberation. Women are also less happy. Look at the graph.
Liberation has not delivered.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Data: I'm skeptical that the Hispanic crime rate is similar to that of whites
I doubt the Hispanic crime rate is similar to that of whites. Let's put aside police statistics and victim surveys because both depend on someone reporting the crime, and immigrants are notorious for failing to report crimes out of fear of authorities. And arrest data also depend on law enforcement policies.
Criminologists understand that homicide is a good measure of serious violent crime because corpses advertise crimes loudly.
The CDC has a neat website for analyzing mortality data. I looked at homicide rates for 2017, the most recent year available. Here are the rates per 100,000 in the specific population:
Homicide Rate
Black 23.0
American Indian 9.7
Hispanic 5.3
White 2.8
Asian 1.7
Not surprisingly, blacks are at the top with a rate that is 13 1/2 times the Asian rate. American Indians are second with a rate that is 5.7 times that of Asians. This reminds me of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending's hypothesis (if I remember correctly) that Native Americans never got pacified by centuries of the state weeding out the most violent. Henry and Peter Frost published a paper three years ago that found that the English proclivity to execute criminals with abandon resulted in a country with a homicide rate that is a tiny fraction of what it was a 1,000 years ago.
Criminologists excuse black violence by blaming criminogenic urban environments. If living in a big city is the key to violence, why are rural Indians so murderous? Genes explain better than sociology.
When it comes to homicide, Hispanics resemble their racial reality: they are somewhere between American Indians and whites. Looking at Latin America, I'm pretty sure crime is a more serious problem for Hispanics than it is for whites.
Criminologists understand that homicide is a good measure of serious violent crime because corpses advertise crimes loudly.
The CDC has a neat website for analyzing mortality data. I looked at homicide rates for 2017, the most recent year available. Here are the rates per 100,000 in the specific population:
Homicide Rate
Black 23.0
American Indian 9.7
Hispanic 5.3
White 2.8
Asian 1.7
Not surprisingly, blacks are at the top with a rate that is 13 1/2 times the Asian rate. American Indians are second with a rate that is 5.7 times that of Asians. This reminds me of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending's hypothesis (if I remember correctly) that Native Americans never got pacified by centuries of the state weeding out the most violent. Henry and Peter Frost published a paper three years ago that found that the English proclivity to execute criminals with abandon resulted in a country with a homicide rate that is a tiny fraction of what it was a 1,000 years ago.
Criminologists excuse black violence by blaming criminogenic urban environments. If living in a big city is the key to violence, why are rural Indians so murderous? Genes explain better than sociology.
When it comes to homicide, Hispanics resemble their racial reality: they are somewhere between American Indians and whites. Looking at Latin America, I'm pretty sure crime is a more serious problem for Hispanics than it is for whites.
Sunday, April 14, 2019
Data: If Taleb is right that IQ is a BS measure, why do higher scorers have big brains? And why the perfect racial rankings?
A 2015 meta-analysis of 88 studies found that the correlation between human brain volume and intelligence is .24, a small-to-moderate size relationship. In new research that re-analyzed the data from the 2015 study, the authors showed that the strength of the link depends on how well IQ is measured and the degree to which studies include a full range of values for brain volume and IQ (For example, if only college students are included, many lower IQ people will be excluded, and this will shrink the correlation.)
Based on their analysis, the researchers estimated that the true brain volume/IQ correlation is around .40 -- a fairly strong correlation.
Keep in mind that many researchers have reported racial differences in brain volume that match up with IQ differences. Rushton and Ankney (2009) summarized the research. For example, Beals et al. (1984) measured the endocranial volumes of close to 20,000 skulls from around the world. The Asian-black gap was reported to be a roughly 150 cubic centimeter advantage for Asians.
If IQ is BS measure like Nassim Taleb says, why do high scorers have big brains?
Based on their analysis, the researchers estimated that the true brain volume/IQ correlation is around .40 -- a fairly strong correlation.
Keep in mind that many researchers have reported racial differences in brain volume that match up with IQ differences. Rushton and Ankney (2009) summarized the research. For example, Beals et al. (1984) measured the endocranial volumes of close to 20,000 skulls from around the world. The Asian-black gap was reported to be a roughly 150 cubic centimeter advantage for Asians.
If IQ is BS measure like Nassim Taleb says, why do high scorers have big brains?
Friday, April 12, 2019
Sociologists like to crow about the immigration-low crime connection, but it undercuts their own theories
For the past few decades, conservatives have been linking illegal immigration to crime. In response, a whole new literature appeared among liberal researchers showing that more immigration results in less crime. In usual liberal fashion, they treat illegal immigration as the same thing as legal or overall immigration.
But let's not get into that literature -- that's a discussion for another day. I'm interested in the fact that social scientists have spent a great deal of energy for more than a century concocting excuses for why poor minorities -- immigrants or native-borns -- are so heavily involved in crime. The list is long: 1) low crime neighborhoods require years of committed investment in institutions charged with socializing youths, and migrant neighborhoods lack to residential stability, resources, and population homogeneity needed to build effective institutions; 2) migrants tend to come in with low human, social, and cultural capital which makes a criminal career more attractive; 3) due to America's xenophobia, migrants are blocked from opportunities to become integrated into mainstream society with its middle-class jobs and middle-class values; 4) the youthful migrant is torn between Old Country traditions of his parents and the lower-class American values of his native-born peers. Such alienation leads to crime. And the list goes on and on.
But for these sociologists, refuting conservative claims takes priority over consistency. After a century of predicting lots of immigrant crime, now they're scrambling to explain why immigrants are better behaved than the rest of us, and, of course, everyone knows that they always have been better than us.
After a century of telling us that communities must be slowly built up into an ecosystem of strong institutions that effectively control the behavior of adolescents, now they tell us that people who just crossed the Rio Grande and found some shack to live in instantly create stronger communities than groups who have lived in a neighborhood for generations.
The kid whose parents come from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador enjoys a rich, healthy culture that actually frowns on crime, unlike mainstream American culture. Being forced into barrios and excluded from white society is a good thing because these Hispanic communities are tight-knit, while mainstream society is atomistic and dog-eat-dog. These researchers are hilarious. They truly suck at predicting the future, but they are very skilled at concocting explanations after the fact.
Friday, April 05, 2019
Data: What is the average IQ of your healthcare providers?
I get annoyed when a low IQ kid gets my fast food order wrong, but no biggie. It's a different story when my child is sick and needs medical treatment.
What is the mean IQ of health care workers? To get a sufficiently large sample (GSS, no immigrants), I included the following jobs: physicians, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists other health diagnosing practitioners, registered nurses, pharmacists, dietitians, physical therapists, speech therapists, and other therapists.
For the whole group, I get a mean of 104.8. Not good. For occupations with at least 10 survey respondents:
Mean IQ
Physicians 114.5
Dentists 108.4
Registered nurses 104.6
Pharmacists 108.2
Dieticians 90.9
Physical therapists 110.6
Speech therapists 104.6
Other therapists 109.4
All of these numbers are discouraging. Don't take advice from a dietician.
What about race? We can only look at the overall mean for all healthcare providers. For whites, it's 105.9; for blacks, 96.1; and for other races, it's 99.2. A little bit scary.
And gender? 109.9 for men, and 103.5 for women.
Tuesday, April 02, 2019
Data: Compared to dumb people, are smart individuals more interested in politics?
I've always assumed that smart people are fascinated by politics. One complaint I have of social scientists is that they're so obsessed with politics, they can't conduct fair research. (But I can hear you saying, "You said SMART people.") Anyway, is my assumption correct? Is it different for men and women?
The General Social Survey asked respondents: "How interested would you say you personally are in politics?" Answers ranged from 'very interested' to 'not at all interested.' I measure IQ with a 10 question vocabulary quiz (sample size = 1,141):
Look at how those scoring a perfect score on the test are much more interested in politics than any other group. To get precise, the correlation between the two variables is .20 -- a moderate relationship.
Now for the women (sample size = 1,507):
I separated by sex because I suspected that the rise in interest as one moves up the IQ scale might be sharper for men. My experience is that smart women are more interested in politics than less intelligent women, but I see more intensity among men.
The female pattern is similar to that for men. The correlation is slightly weaker -- .18. The gender gap is pretty visible at the highest IQ level: 16.8% of these women have little or no interest, compared to only 5.4% of the men.
The General Social Survey asked respondents: "How interested would you say you personally are in politics?" Answers ranged from 'very interested' to 'not at all interested.' I measure IQ with a 10 question vocabulary quiz (sample size = 1,141):
Look at how those scoring a perfect score on the test are much more interested in politics than any other group. To get precise, the correlation between the two variables is .20 -- a moderate relationship.
Now for the women (sample size = 1,507):
The female pattern is similar to that for men. The correlation is slightly weaker -- .18. The gender gap is pretty visible at the highest IQ level: 16.8% of these women have little or no interest, compared to only 5.4% of the men.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Data: What predicts believing that the environment is more important than genes?
In the last post, we looked at ethnic differences in whether the environment or genes are thought to be more important for a variety of traits. Now let's see which factors predict choosing nurture over nature.
Using GSS data, I estimated linear regression models (OLS) with each of the four questions as dependent variables, plus a scale of all four of them summed. I included all demographic predictors I could think of, including: sex, age, race, southern region, immigrant vs. native-born, educational level, income, church attendance, number of children, and political orientation. I list below the significant effects (beta weights are shown):
Obesity
Black -.15
Education .10
So blacks, compared to whites, and less educated people think environment is less important. Race is the more powerful predictor.
Alcohol Abuse
Female -.08
Education .07
Females and the less educated think genes are more important for alcohol abuse.
Altruism
Female -.06
Black -.06
Women and blacks are shifted toward seeing genes as important for altruism.
Athleticism
Education .06
South -.07
For athletic ability, Southerners and the less educated tend to see genes as being more important.
Nurture over nature scale
Black -.11
Education .11
When the scores for all four questions are added together to make a scale, blacks and the less education are shifted toward genes having the most impact.
Not surprisingly, people exposed to more education tend to believe in the power of the environment. After years of getting the same message from liberal teachers, what do you expect? It is a surprise, though, that blacks, after adjusting for education, give higher estimates to the power of genes.
UPDATE: It might surprise you that political orientation (liberal vs. conservative) is unrelated to one's view of the importance of genes.
UPDATE II: I wonder if the race difference comes from the fact that blacks are more fatalistic than whites, and people tend to assume (wrongly in my view) that genes imply determinism but environment does not. Whites might embrace nurturism because it sounds compatible with the idea that we can take control of our lives and improve things.
Using GSS data, I estimated linear regression models (OLS) with each of the four questions as dependent variables, plus a scale of all four of them summed. I included all demographic predictors I could think of, including: sex, age, race, southern region, immigrant vs. native-born, educational level, income, church attendance, number of children, and political orientation. I list below the significant effects (beta weights are shown):
Obesity
Black -.15
Education .10
So blacks, compared to whites, and less educated people think environment is less important. Race is the more powerful predictor.
Alcohol Abuse
Female -.08
Education .07
Females and the less educated think genes are more important for alcohol abuse.
Altruism
Female -.06
Black -.06
Women and blacks are shifted toward seeing genes as important for altruism.
Athleticism
Education .06
South -.07
For athletic ability, Southerners and the less educated tend to see genes as being more important.
Nurture over nature scale
Black -.11
Education .11
When the scores for all four questions are added together to make a scale, blacks and the less education are shifted toward genes having the most impact.
Not surprisingly, people exposed to more education tend to believe in the power of the environment. After years of getting the same message from liberal teachers, what do you expect? It is a surprise, though, that blacks, after adjusting for education, give higher estimates to the power of genes.
UPDATE: It might surprise you that political orientation (liberal vs. conservative) is unrelated to one's view of the importance of genes.
UPDATE II: I wonder if the race difference comes from the fact that blacks are more fatalistic than whites, and people tend to assume (wrongly in my view) that genes imply determinism but environment does not. Whites might embrace nurturism because it sounds compatible with the idea that we can take control of our lives and improve things.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Data: Do Americans think genes or environment are more important?
Do Americans think people act like they do because of environment or genes? The General Social Survey gave respondents four scenarios:
1) Carol is a substantially overweight White woman. She has lost weight in the past but always gains it back again.
2) David is an Asian man who drinks enough alcohol to become drunk several times a week. Often he can't remember what happened during these drinking episodes.
3) Felicia is a very kind Hispanic woman. She never has anything bad to say about anybody, and can be counted on to help others.
4) George is a Black man who's a good all-around athlete. He was on the high school varsity swim team and still works out five times a week.
Respondents were asked to estimate the influences of environment versus genes for each scenario. Answers ranged from 100% genes (scored as a 1) to 100% environment (scored as a 21). 50/50 would be scored as an 11.
I summed the scores for these four questions, and list the means for ethnic groups below (sample size = 1,842):
Mean environmentalism score
Asian Indians 56.7
Scottish 54.9
Czech 52.6
Italy 52.1
Filipinos 50.9
American Indians 50.9
Norwegians 50.9
Russians 50.4
Chinese 50.2
Polish 50.1
English/Welsh 49.9
Jewish 49.4
Irish 49.3
All Americans 49.3
German 49.0
Dutch 47.9
Swedish 47.3
Mexican 47.1
Puerto Ricans 46.3
Danish 46.1
Blacks 45.2
French 44.2
Spanish 43.9
The mean score for all Americans indicates that the average person thinks the traits described are 55% due to environmental influences, and 45% due to genes. This is not far from the truth as indicated by genetic research. Americans seem to be ignoring their environment-is-all social science teachers. On the other hand, I'm sure by "environment" most people are thinking of experiences which siblings share -- families, schools, etc -- but research clearly shows that these factors are not important.
The highest scoring group, Asian Indians, thinks the traits are roughly 65% environment. The lowest group, people of Spanish descent, put the estimate at about 50/50. Hispanics, in general, tend to think genes are more important than other groups. This tendency is also true for blacks, but other non-whites -- Chinese, Filipinos, Asian Indians, and American Indians -- think the environment is more important. It's surprising that several poor minority groups think genes are so important. The gap between Asian Indians and the Spanish is eight-tenths of a standard deviation -- a large difference.
1) Carol is a substantially overweight White woman. She has lost weight in the past but always gains it back again.
2) David is an Asian man who drinks enough alcohol to become drunk several times a week. Often he can't remember what happened during these drinking episodes.
3) Felicia is a very kind Hispanic woman. She never has anything bad to say about anybody, and can be counted on to help others.
4) George is a Black man who's a good all-around athlete. He was on the high school varsity swim team and still works out five times a week.
Respondents were asked to estimate the influences of environment versus genes for each scenario. Answers ranged from 100% genes (scored as a 1) to 100% environment (scored as a 21). 50/50 would be scored as an 11.
I summed the scores for these four questions, and list the means for ethnic groups below (sample size = 1,842):
Mean environmentalism score
Asian Indians 56.7
Scottish 54.9
Czech 52.6
Italy 52.1
Filipinos 50.9
American Indians 50.9
Norwegians 50.9
Russians 50.4
Chinese 50.2
Polish 50.1
English/Welsh 49.9
Jewish 49.4
Irish 49.3
All Americans 49.3
German 49.0
Dutch 47.9
Swedish 47.3
Mexican 47.1
Puerto Ricans 46.3
Danish 46.1
Blacks 45.2
French 44.2
Spanish 43.9
The mean score for all Americans indicates that the average person thinks the traits described are 55% due to environmental influences, and 45% due to genes. This is not far from the truth as indicated by genetic research. Americans seem to be ignoring their environment-is-all social science teachers. On the other hand, I'm sure by "environment" most people are thinking of experiences which siblings share -- families, schools, etc -- but research clearly shows that these factors are not important.
The highest scoring group, Asian Indians, thinks the traits are roughly 65% environment. The lowest group, people of Spanish descent, put the estimate at about 50/50. Hispanics, in general, tend to think genes are more important than other groups. This tendency is also true for blacks, but other non-whites -- Chinese, Filipinos, Asian Indians, and American Indians -- think the environment is more important. It's surprising that several poor minority groups think genes are so important. The gap between Asian Indians and the Spanish is eight-tenths of a standard deviation -- a large difference.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Data: What are the best predictors of voting for Trump?
It's always exciting for nerds like me when new GSS data arrives. 2018 is now available. They asked respondents whether they voted for Clinton or Trump. I used logistic regression to determine what predicts voting for Trump (sample size = 904):
Voted for Trump
Male .57
Southern region .33
Black -3.78
Other race -1.30
Education -.11
Income .01
Church attendance .16
The coefficients are not standardized, so they can only tell you the direction of the relationships, not the magnitudes. I included age and IQ, but neither one was significantly related to vote choice. Keep in mind that the relationships are net of the influences of the other factors included in the model, so, for example, age might predict voting for Trump because older people are whiter, wealthier, less educated and more religious, not because they grew up in an earlier era.
So here are the characteristics of people voting for Trump: male, Southern, white, less educated, higher income, with more church attendance. No surprises there. And what mattered the most in order from most to least predictive: 1) white, 2) church attendance, 3) male, 4) education, 5) income, and 6) southern residence. Trump owes the election to religious, white males, like myself. You're welcome.
I didn't have data on the impact of Russian colluders.
Voted for Trump
Male .57
Southern region .33
Black -3.78
Other race -1.30
Education -.11
Income .01
Church attendance .16
The coefficients are not standardized, so they can only tell you the direction of the relationships, not the magnitudes. I included age and IQ, but neither one was significantly related to vote choice. Keep in mind that the relationships are net of the influences of the other factors included in the model, so, for example, age might predict voting for Trump because older people are whiter, wealthier, less educated and more religious, not because they grew up in an earlier era.
So here are the characteristics of people voting for Trump: male, Southern, white, less educated, higher income, with more church attendance. No surprises there. And what mattered the most in order from most to least predictive: 1) white, 2) church attendance, 3) male, 4) education, 5) income, and 6) southern residence. Trump owes the election to religious, white males, like myself. You're welcome.
I didn't have data on the impact of Russian colluders.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Data: How can the LGBT suicide rate be so low in a country that is supposedly so homophobic?
In this new study of over 120,000 suicides, the authors reported that 0.5% of the suicides were LGBT. They also cited an estimate that 4.1% of Americans are sexual minorities. This suggests that they have a much lower rate of suicide than heterosexuals.
The authors speculate that sexual minority status of many suicides go unknown and unrecorded. If LGBT's had the same suicide rate as heteros, only 12% of them had their sexual orientation recorded correctly. I find this hard to believe.
It is safe to say that, according to this data, sexual minorities, like blacks, have a low rate of suicide. How is that possible, in a country that is supposedly so homophobic, supposedly so hateful? The answer is that America is not a hate-filled country. It's an impressively tolerant country.
The authors speculate that sexual minority status of many suicides go unknown and unrecorded. If LGBT's had the same suicide rate as heteros, only 12% of them had their sexual orientation recorded correctly. I find this hard to believe.
It is safe to say that, according to this data, sexual minorities, like blacks, have a low rate of suicide. How is that possible, in a country that is supposedly so homophobic, supposedly so hateful? The answer is that America is not a hate-filled country. It's an impressively tolerant country.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Data: Which explains American social mobility better? Sociology or biology?
I remember the first department party I attended as a PhD student in sociology. I joined a conversation between a young faculty member who specialized in social mobility and a professor who was an international expert on urban sociology. I was stunned when the older guy said to the young guy, "Why do you study American social mobility? There is no such thing."
I had a bigger mouth then, and said, "Could've fooled me. My parents never stepped foot on a college campus. I have one brother working on his JD and another has a BS in business and will probably make double what I end up making." (Turned out to be more like three times as much.) He said something about exceptions and moved on to something else.
So the sociological view is that kids inherit the social class of their fathers because the system is rigged that way. The logic of this theory is that there should really be few exceptions. The genetic view, on the other hand, is that since children get their genes from parents, they will tend to end up where their parents are, but since each child gets a unique combination of genes, and since each child is exposed to unique developmental events, offspring will often depart from the class of their parents by either moving up or moving down. The pure sociological view has no explanation for these departures. An open, fluid, meritocratic America is a fiction, according to these people.
What does the General Social Survey say? You can see below a contingency table of father's and offspring's highest degree earned (sample size = 1,325, ages 30-39, years 2010-16). (I use education because we have data for both generations):
Intergenerational stasis happens to just 50%. This pattern is consistent with a genetic/developmental theory of outcomes. It does not support the opinion of my America-hating professor.
I had a bigger mouth then, and said, "Could've fooled me. My parents never stepped foot on a college campus. I have one brother working on his JD and another has a BS in business and will probably make double what I end up making." (Turned out to be more like three times as much.) He said something about exceptions and moved on to something else.
So the sociological view is that kids inherit the social class of their fathers because the system is rigged that way. The logic of this theory is that there should really be few exceptions. The genetic view, on the other hand, is that since children get their genes from parents, they will tend to end up where their parents are, but since each child gets a unique combination of genes, and since each child is exposed to unique developmental events, offspring will often depart from the class of their parents by either moving up or moving down. The pure sociological view has no explanation for these departures. An open, fluid, meritocratic America is a fiction, according to these people.
What does the General Social Survey say? You can see below a contingency table of father's and offspring's highest degree earned (sample size = 1,325, ages 30-39, years 2010-16). (I use education because we have data for both generations):
As both theories predict, there is a tendency to end up where the old man did, but there are PLENTY of exceptions.Adding up all the cells where the kids went further in school than dad, we get 35% of the total. If we do the same for all offspring that fell short of their father's education, we get 15% of all respondents. Yet we're told you're never supposed to be able to fall in American society where privilege reigns.
Intergenerational stasis happens to just 50%. This pattern is consistent with a genetic/developmental theory of outcomes. It does not support the opinion of my America-hating professor.
Meta-analysis: Religious people do less self-injury
This new meta-analysis synthesizes the results from 16 studies (total sample of 24,767) that examined the relationship between religiosity and non-suicidial self-injury (e.g., small cuts on one's arms). The researchers found a small negative correlation, meaning that more religious people are less likely to intentionally injure themselves.
This result is based on correlations which don't tell us what is causing what. Religious involvement could lower self-injury, or some trait like good mental health could both lead to more church and less hurting oneself.
Since I've come to see biology as so important for explaining behavior, I'm inclined to interpret the MANY ways religiosity predicts good outcomes to mean that people who have positive traits are more likely to value religion. I'm inclined to see religiosity as a marker of positive traits.
This result is based on correlations which don't tell us what is causing what. Religious involvement could lower self-injury, or some trait like good mental health could both lead to more church and less hurting oneself.
Since I've come to see biology as so important for explaining behavior, I'm inclined to interpret the MANY ways religiosity predicts good outcomes to mean that people who have positive traits are more likely to value religion. I'm inclined to see religiosity as a marker of positive traits.
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 ...
-
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'...
-
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... -
Here's the second set I promised. A reader suggested that the first set tends to be older, and it is among younger blacks where you see ...
