Friday, December 31, 2010

And on what issue is the gap between Democrats and Republicans widest?

++Addition2++I was thinking of a comment Jason Malloy made on a post of Razib's a few years ago rather than something from Inductivist.

In the comments, an anonymous reader presents an alternative table measuring partisan differences in terms of standard deviations. Rather than comparing popular support in each party, it compares underlying attitudes towards each of the issues examined.


Following up on the previous post in which we looked at the size of political divides on a host of issues, the same process is repeated here, based on partisan self-identification rather than political orientation. For consistency, the items are measured in a way that affirmation of the statement represents what is putatively thought to be the Democratic position. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward:

Gov't should definitely provide healthcare for the sick66.563.036.230.3
Same-sex marriage should be legalized46.134.922.124.0
Military spending is too high35.028.711.923.1
Taxes on the rich are too low56.245.934.421.8
Outlaw capital punishment for murderers40.131.319.820.3
Gov't has an obligation to help blacks specifically26.014.57.518.5
Abortion should be legal in all circumstances47.636.331.016.6
Man evolved from other animals57.650.741.516.1
Homosexual relations are morally acceptable39.130.723.215.9
Police permits should be required for gun ownership86.482.972.314.1
Marijuana usage should be legalized40.835.826.913.9
Affirmative action for blacks does not hurt whites39.333.927.411.9
Attend religious services less than once a month54.962.144.810.1
Have never been married26.828.517.29.6
No belief in or uncertainty over the existence of God40.
Prayer in public schools should be banned43.740.136.86.9
Assisted suicide allowed for those with terminal illnesses61.760.556.75.0
Immigrants pose no threat to English language69.567.665.73.8
Hispanic immigration should not be decreased57.454.754.52.9
Science does more good than harm60.348.163.7(3.4)

Even though the healthcare question was only asked in 2006, the political divide existed prior to the passage of Obamacare. I suspect the gap is even wider today.

Same-sex marriage is again shown to be among the day's most polarizing issues. As an aside, you will rarely hear major media sources referring to it as such, however, because the word is usually reserved for describing populist issues pushed by the right that the left doesn't like, such as tougher immigration enforcement. Consequently, it has negative connotations, and nothing relating to homosexuality is allowed to be negative. Taxation, defense spending, and capital punishment are also starkly defined by partisanship.

Most noticeable is that Democrat-Republican divides (averaging 13.5 points) are narrower than liberal-conservative divides (averaging 20.8 points) are. Specifically, as a group, liberals are considerably further to the left than Democrats are. The biggest differences show up on the gay issues, drug legalization, abortion, school prayer, assisted suicide and personal belief in God. Clearly there are many white Democrats (and a slew of NAMs) who, despite being in partisan alignment with SWPLs, are nonetheless the wrong kind of white people.

The levels of support among conservatives and Republicans are virtually identical on almost everything, the only marginal exceptions being on defense spending (conservatives are more likely to want to cut it than Republicans) and the legal right to assisted suicide (Republicans are slightly more inclined to the idea than are conservatives). But even on these two things, the conservative-Republican gap is not even half of what it is among liberals and Democrats on the issues listed above.

Despite the perceptions that Republicans and especially conservatives stand in opposition to scientific progress because of skepticism over evolution or lack of support for government funding of embryonic stem cell research, luddites are no more prevalent on the right than they are on the left. I recall Inductivist having shown that, excepting the aforementioned "hot button" issues, those on the right are as scientifically literate as those on the left, though I'm frustratingly unable to find that post at the moment (please point me to it in the comments if you're aware of what I'm recalling).


Tuesday, December 28, 2010

On what issue is the gap between liberals and conservatives widest?

When reading about politics outside of the US, I have to be wary of the presumption that descriptors such as "liberal" or "conservative" have the same connotations there as they do here. It's a two way street, of course, so the following may be of use to readers outside America.

But it also has utility for those in the states. I was recently in a discussion where the topic of what issue most starkly divided liberals from conservatives came up. I guessed that it was either abortion or taxes, but had to admit to being uncertain. Without any false modesty, as it turns out.

The following table shows the differences among self-described liberals, moderates, and conservatives on several different political issues, as well as a few broad lifestyle measures. The fifth column shows the difference between liberals and conservatives by subtracting the percentage of conservatives in agreement from the percentages of liberals in agreement. For consistency, the items are measured in a way that affirmation of the statement represents what is conventionally thought to be the liberal position. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward:

Same-sex marriage should be legalized61.836.919.941.9
Homosexual relations are morally acceptable51.632.318.633.0
Abortion should be legal in all circumstances57.340.427.330.0
Gov't should definitely provide healthcare for the sick69.
Man evolved from other animals66.251.739.227.0
No belief in or uncertainty over existence of God53.435.728.225.2
Military spending is too high42.421.917.425.0
Marijuana usage should be legalized50.335.125.724.6
Taxes on the rich are too low55.652.533.022.6
Attend religious services less than once a month63.856.441.822.0
Assisted suicide allowed for those with terminal illnesses72.560.851.121.4
Outlaw capital punishment for murderers44.029.722.721.3
Prayer in public schools should be banned54.237.834.220.0
Gov't has an obligation to help blacks specifically28.415.910.318.1
Have never been married34.122.918.315.8
Police permits should be required for gun ownership86.982.073.813.1
Affirmative action for blacks does not hurt whites40.
Immigrants pose no threat to English language71.368.662.09.3
Hispanic immigration should not be decreased63.
Science does more good than harm62.657.161.01.6

Same-sex marriage (and gay issues in general) trumps abortion in divisiveness. That gay marriage, abortion, defense spending, evolution, healthcare spending, and belief in God are the most polarizing issues in contemporary US society while affirmative action, immigration restrictionism, and government largess for blacks are far less firmly associated with political orientation is discouraging (though not surprising) from my particular vantage point, as someone who identifies in the vernacular as a conservative (and an "empirical paleoconservative" in situations where such phraseology won't be met with annoyance and/or confusion). The things I, alongside many others in the Steveosphere, find most important are not the things mainstream conservatives differ from the left on the most.

On theism, military spending, prayer in public schools, and affirmative action, moderates and conservatives are well aligned, while on the taxing of the rich, moderates and liberals are on the same page. Liberals are significantly less likely to believe in God or have ever been married than moderates or conservatives. On everything else (excepting the last two, for which political orientation has little relevance), moderates fall roughly halfway between liberals and conservatives.

Parenthetically, the GSS is weak on items relating to immigration. A question much preferable to the vague and loaded one about English being threatened by immigrants (xenophobes always feel threatened by the "other"!) would be one that simply asks whether immigration to the US should be increased or decreased, but such a question has not been asked. The closest we get is a set of questions posed in 2000 asking alternatively whether Hispanic, Asian, and European immigration should be increased, left the same, or decreased. While sentiment is generally restrictionist regarding immigration into the US (especially illegal immigration), whenever immigrants are defined anymore specifically than simply being aspiring immigrants, that restrictionism shows itself to be pretty thin. Immigration has nothing to do with biology or even culture, it's about the rule of law!


Saturday, December 25, 2010

Gays to lose the Darwinian struggle?

Does the understanding that homosexuality is innate--which is generally the consensus among those for whom so much else is inconsistently believed to be shaped by the socio-cultural environment--threaten the sustainability of gayness in the same way the intellectual primacy of evolution is threatened by Darwinists losing the Darwinian struggle? I am not aware of data to address the possibility empirically, but reading about Oscar Wilde's two children made me wonder.

If the germ theory of homosexuality is accurate, then the question is irrelevant. But if sexual preference is genetic in origin (which is admittedly not an idea easily comprehended), does the increasing tolerance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle, morally on par with heterosexuality (or even superior to it) mean fewer homosexuals will stay in the closet and "live a lie" in pursuing the American dream, including a wife and, more importantly, children?

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Tolerance of free speech over time

In the early seventies, the GSS began tracking responses to questions about whether or not controversial characters should be allowed to speak publicly to advocate in favor of their eponymous interests. Since 1976, the survey has consistently queried respondents on five of them; atheists, homosexuals, militarists, communists, and racists. I wondered how public sentiment towards allowing members of these groups to push their messages in public had shifted over the course of the last four decades. The following graph shows as much:

The general trend overall has been that the majority, always in favor of free speech, has become even larger, the notable exception being for racists, for whom support has mostly moved along horizontally. As polite society declares both irrational racism and measured racialism (which are unfortunately mostly perceived to be synonymous phrases--both invoking images of tattooed, shouting neo-Nazis, not Jared Taylor) to be anathema, this isn't especially surprising.

With the folding of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War, military juntas and communist dictatorships became history's vanquished. As the perceived threats they posed receded, tolerance for their ideas increased. In 2008, the most recent year in which the GSS has published data, a sixth speaker has been added. Only 41.5% of respondents say that an imam preaching hatred of the US should be allowed to speak. I suspect that tension between the West and the Muslim world is only going to grow in the foreseeable future, but if we do find the will to push most of them out while simultaneously losing interest in their sand holes, the number opposing such speech would probably decline as well.

It would be interesting to see the same trends measured over time for other western European countries. As effectively as the PC forces smother unapproved discourse in the US, I suspect public sentiment would be considerably less tolerant of the various speakers considered on the other side of the Atlantic than it is here.


Saturday, December 18, 2010

Political orientation and intelligence among non-whites in US

It's been noted that among whites, self-described liberals are slightly more intelligent than conservatives are (both have considerably higher IQs than moderates do). Non-whites are more leftist than whites are, of course, and when the population of the US as a whole is considered, conservatives actually have a slight IQ edge. Parenthetically, if you're looking to have a little fun at the expense of a SWPL, discuss this with him and then watch him squirm.

Do the same trends emerge among non-whites when it comes to IQ and political orientations? The following tables show IQ scores, converted from wordsum scores on the assumption that the mean white wordsum score represents an IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, by race and political orientation. For contemporary relevance, data are from 2000 onward:

Blacks (n = 479)

Hispanics (n = 247)

Asians (n = 140)

Conservative NAM IQs are a bit more modest than moderate and liberal NAM IQs are. The opposite is true regarding Asians. While the differences are too marginal to put much stake in, this generally meshes with my personal observations. I am surprised to see how moderate scores are not conspicuously lower than liberals and conservatives among non-whites like they are among whites, however. I'm not sure why this is the case.

Relative to actual measures of intelligence, Asian wordsum scores are low and should not be considered an accurate measure of IQ in comparison to non-Asians. East Asians (and in the case of the GSS, we are primarily talking about East and Southeast Asians rather than Indians) perform worse on verbal tests of intelligence than whites do, but more than compensate for that in mathematical and visuo-spatial testing. The GSS wordsum test is one based entirely on vocabulary and consequently puts Asians at a disadvantage. Still, for intra-Asian comparisons, wordsum is presumably a reasonable proxy measure to use in gauging differences in intelligence.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(2)(4-10)(15-16), WORDSUM, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), YEAR(2000-2008)

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Women who get around while unmarried get around once married

In continuing to document who is marriage material and who is not, well, life's about trade offs, right? The following table shows the number of men a woman has had sex with since the age of 18 and whether or not she has ever cheated on her husband while married. The table starts at 2, since someone who has been married and is either a virgin or only had sex with one man hasn't cheated (as is always the case, a few respondents or data transcribers muffed up somewhere though, responding that they were married, never had sex, but had still somehow managed to have sex with someone other than a spouse while married):

Men bedded

Not surprisingly, women with high sex drives who got around a lot before they married are more likely to continue getting around after taking their vows. The same applies in non-marital relationships. If your girl has a lot of sexual history (and likes to talk about it), don't go in desiring any kind of serious or long-term relationship. You're in pump and dump territory.

This is another one of those posts where pointing to the blog's tagline is sufficient.

GSS variables used: SEX(2), EVSTRAY(2), NUMMEN(2)(3)(4)(5)(6-10)(11-20)(21-350)

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Change in voter turnout from 2008 to 2010

It's commonly reported that the turnout for US midterm elections differs from presidential elections. I've always assumed this to be the case without thinking about it in anything more than a general sense. Because any type of restraint on voter participation--whether it is a legal restriction like being incarcerated at voting time or just one of volition like bad weather or a hip black friend not being up for election, is good for those on the right--I figured numbers for whites, the affluent, and older folks would drop off less than they would for minorities, the poor, and the young.

Exit polling allows for actual quantitative comparisons to be made, and the following table does just that, looking at the change in the absolute number of voters from 2008 to 2010, and, more interestingly, the declines in percentage terms across various demographic categories:

Abs chg
% chg



<$30k 21136642

Less than HS
HS grad
Some college
College grad




Union member
No union member


Gov't do more
Gov't does too much


Unsurprisingly, black numbers dropped the most. Blacks are the most 'racist' group in the US, and there weren't any high profile races across the country involving black candidates. Consequently, more than one in three blacks who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2010 (where the black option existed, though, blacks kept pace with whites--blacks constituted 25% of the electorate in South Carolina in 2008, and did so again in 2010). The "other" figure decreased from 3% to 2% from '08 to '10 according to exit polling data, but that's presumably more an artifact of reporting percentages in whole figures and probably shouldn't be taken seriously.

The drop among those aged 18-24 is the only category, save for the "other" racial classification, precipitous enough for the 2010 total to be less than half of what it was in 2010. Black ops is in, helping the hip black guy push through his political agenda is out. We'll vote for our favorite celebrity, but not for his Congressional allies. How boring! I advocate emulating Hertz and Avis and raising the voting age to 25.

Those of retirement age, in contrast, maintained virtually the exact same numbers as they did in '08. As age increases, the drop in participation steadily decreases. The recent elections were decided by adults.

Among those earning up to $200,000, the decreases are consistent. Only the rich deviated from the overall trend, coming out in relatively greater force than the rest of the population. Deficit spending driving the US economy off the cliff and all that matters to people with money.

The relationship between educational attainment and voting rate changes is, as in the case of age, clear and consistent. Nearly half of those who didn't graduate high school who voted in '08 did not vote in '10. That only applied to one-eighth of those with graduate degrees.

An obvious reason the Democratic party took a shellacking this time around is that liberals and Democrats were less motivated to vote than they were in '08. In contrast, self-described conservatives were out in close to the same numbers both elections.

Not only was the election decided by adults, the adults were far more skeptical of government involvement in society than the kiddos were a couple of years ago. In '08, 60 million voters shared the sentiment that "government should do more". This time, only 32 million voters did. And they were a minority--47 million said "government is doing too much".

I assume California, where several "key" elections took place, is the reason that the decrease in the west is smaller than it is throughout the rest of the country.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Magic: The Gathering and Sabin, Edgar, Umaro, Cyan, Relm, Locke, Gogo, Shadow, Strago, Gau, Celes, Terra, Mog, and Setzer

I've been having fun with custom card creations for vintage RPGs for a few years now. In looking back on what I've come up with in the past and comparing it to this latest addition, it's hard not to notice power creep among my cards over time. It is, no doubt, the result of the same sort of power creep WotC has allowed creatures to enjoy since M:TG's infancy to adolescence, spanning Alpha to 4th Edition. The following three comparisons illustrate this phenomenon well:


The creature progression has been contrasted by an enfeebling of non-permanent spells:


This has been especially detrimental to blue (additionally, compare Time Walk to Time Warp, Counterspell to Cancel, and Brainstorm to Ponder) which rules the vintage world but despite claiming one of the most powerful cards ever printed as its own, is the only color in standard currently unable to fly solo without a heavy dose of brown.

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Black men are athletic, Hispanic women are not

In 2004, the GSS asked a question about self-assessed athleticism (and thanks to Jokah for alerting me to it). Conveniently, this is the same year interviewers were asked to rate respondents as being below average, average, somewhat above average, or considerably above average. Among those deemed to be remarkably thin, 27.5% responded that "athletic" described them well. Among those of normal build, it was 33.3%. For those overweight, 20.2%. And among the obese, 9.5%. So self-perceptions appear to be at least generally in line with reality.

The following table shows the percentages of people, by race and sex, who consider the adjective "athletic" either a good or very good descriptor of themselves:

Black men59.5%
White men39.7%
Hispanic men36.3%
Asian men25.9%
Asian women25.6%
Black women21.8%
White women21.0%
Hispanic women15.1%

Sometimes posts require no bloviating beyond the blog's tagline, and this is one of those posts. Color me loquacious though, because I'd still like to say a few words anyway.

Black men easily come out on top, followed by white guys, with Hispanics closely trailing them. This comes as little surprise to anyone who has played sports with blacks at a competitive level. They move quicker and jump higher, although the perception of black men as physically stronger than white men seems in my experience to be more of a conflation of general athleticism with upper body strength than an accurate reading of reality.

Men are more athletic than women are, except for Asians, where there is gender parity. Asian men are notorious for being bad at sports, tending to small and neither strong nor fast. I'm not aware of that stereotype existing for Asian girls, though I'm not aware of any particular Asian female prowess for athletics, either. The sample sizes for Asians are small (51 men, 49 women), so they should just be taken as suggestive in any case.

The rates of athleticism are even among white and black females, which probably has to do with corpulence among black women, who actually tend to have wider waists than black men do (among all other races, male waist size is larger).

I've played lots of soccer with Mexican men who are serious about the game (although the average Mexican guy doesn't seem to be particularly good at it--in the league games I've played, it's almost always the all white team I'm on against a team of likely illegal immigrants who speak broken English at best, and we always crush them), but the women who are there watching look to be in especially poor shape, with oozing tortilla flabbiness in abundance.

A few months back, a study was released suggesting that exercise may improve brain functioning. The implication that this is a formula for raising test scores and closing the achievement gap (more recess time for NAMs?) is standard blather from those antagonistic towards cognitive realism, but in my own personal experience, it is modestly beneficial. Specifically, my ability to focus is enhanced after I've worked out (unfortunately, I have to balance this with the realization that I simply don't lift as well and am more prone to tweaking in the mornings, especially within the first couple hours of waking up, so I generally do cardio in the morning and lift when I get home in the evenings).

Without any speculation on which way the causality arrow points, if there is an arrow at all, the percentages of people who describe themselves as athletic by intelligence follows. Respondents are divided into five groups forming a roughly normal distribution by wordsum score; Really Smarts (score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Really Dumbs (0-3, 12%). To avoid the confounding factor of race, with blacks potentially skewing the correlation between athleticism and intelligence in an inverse direction, only whites are included. In a similar vein, only those 40 and under are considered, to avoid confounding from the elderly who may have considered themselves athletic in the past but no longer do so and who've also had a lifetime to stumble upon the definitions of various words:

Really smarts34.3%
Pretty smarts33.8%
Pretty dumbs38.4%
Really dumbs44.3%

To the extent that there is a relationship, it does indeed appear to be slightly inverse (although not statistically significant). It is conceivable that people who don't have a lot upstairs are more likely to emphasize their physical abilities. It's also possible that athleticism and intelligence are unrelated. If this is the case, the fact that professional athletes tend to be more intelligent than the population at large (when race is taken into account) is presumably the result of higher IQ leading to better nutrition, more discipline in working out and mastering positions played, etc.

GSS variables used: ATHLETIC, SEX(1)(2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), INTRWGHT

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Winter wights and helio humans

Using the Derb's Ice People/Sun People dichotomy, the following table ranks states by their net frigidity, determined by taking a state's rate of change in Ice People minus its rate change in Sun People, as reported by Pew over the period 2005-2007, due exclusively to internal migration. It is necessary to account for differences in national population size, so the Ice People figures are based largely on white movement (93% white, 7% Asian). For Sun People, it is 55% Hispanic, 45% black*:

Frost factor
1. District of Columbia
2. Alaska
3. Maine
4. Kentucky
5. Montana
6. South Dakota
7. Wyoming
8. Louisiana
9. Arizona
10. Rhode Island
11. Vermont
12. New York
13. New Mexico
14. Texas
15. Illinois
16. Alabama
17. Michigan
18. Colorado
19. Virginia
20. Florida
21. Wisconsin
22. Mississippi
23. Oregon
24. California
25. Idaho
26. New Hampshire
27. North Carolina
28. Ohio
29. Washington
30. West Virginia
31. New Jersey
32. South Carolina
33. Nebraska
34. Massachusetts
35. Georgia
36. Indiana
37. Oklahoma
38. Delaware
39. Maryland
40. Pennsylvania
41. Tennessee
42. Connecticut
43. Utah
44. Kansas
45. Nevada
46. Minnesota
47. Arkansas
48. Missouri
49. Iowa
50. Hawaii
51. North Dakota

The nation's capital is a glacial fortress, with more than 3,000 Ice People moving in each year while 14,000 Sun People leave in search of sunnier settings. Parenthetically, keep in mind that the index is measuring net migration of Ice People relative to that of Sun People. The iciest places like DC, Alaska, and Maine are all losing people through internal migration, but they're losing Sun People faster than they are losing Ice People (or in the case of DC--the starkest example of white people going in one direction and NAMs going in the other--losing more Sun People than they are gaining Ice People), while top destinations like Idaho show up in the middle of the rankings because people of all races are heading there.

Other states (Alaska, Maine, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming) known for being cold prior to the Derb's pessimistic prognostications also tend to be relatively more attractive to Ice People than they are to Sun People. Minnesota, already renowned for its sizable Somali population in Minneapolis, is an exception to this cool rule. Whites and Asians steadily moved out over the period while Hispanics and blacks moved in. North Dakota is another exception, and an apparently anomalous one at that. Pew reports that the state's Hispanic population grew by over 8% annually from internal migration alone, which stands out along with Alaska (where the Hispanic population is reported to have declined 11% per year) as being far higher than Hispanic movement elsewhere.

Steve Sailer has noted that Hispanics tend to vote like whites do, shifted to the left several points. They also tend to move to and from the same places (Hispanics already resident in the US, that is--even though there were hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Latin America pouring into California over the period measured, nearly 300,000 Hispanics already living in the US left California during that time). The correlation between the white and Hispanic rates of change through internal migration at the state level is .45. For whites and blacks, there is no relationship whatsoever, while for whites and Asians it is .21 but falls outside of statistical significance at 90% confidence.

Going through the state data, it becomes clear that blacks don't move across state lines much, while Hispanics are quite mobile. The average absolute rate of change for blacks is 1.1%. It is 1.7% for whites, 5.3% for Hispanics, and 5.8% for Asians (although the high Asian figure is probably an artifact of the way the estimates were made, in increments of 1,000--in states like Montana and Wyoming, a movement of 1,000 Asians nearly doubles or halves the population, depending on which way they're heading). In light of this, it is not surprising that black urban culture emphasizes city of origin as an important marker of identification, manifesting itself in clothing, tattoos, and in the world of hip hop.

* Using US Census data, non-Hispanic whites constitute 65.1% of the US population, Asians 4.6%. 65.1/(65.1+4.6) = .934003, hence the 93% figure (index values are rounded after all calculations have been made). Hispanics comprise 15.8%, blacks 12.9%. 15.8/(15.8+12.9) = .550523, hence the 55% Hispanic figure.

Friday, December 03, 2010

Is cheating eugenic?

Randall Parker pointed me to a study finding that those least likely to attend college based on family background, abilities, and peer group tend to gain the most from it relative to those more likely to do so based on the same considerations. After chewing on this, he asked a more general question: Is single motherhood dysgenic or eugenic? If women get knocked up by men out of their league for marriage, their children could benefit as a result.

I'm not aware of a way to measure this directly, but from previously sifting through data on cheating in the GSS, I know that more intelligent people are more likely to cheat than less intelligent people are. I wondered, then, if there was a substantial difference in the relationship between intelligence and cheating for men and women.

If smart men and dumb women tend to cheat, it's conceivable that the consequences are eugenic--dumb men end up raising children that are not theirs with their dumb, unfaithful wives, children who are instead the offspring of smarter cuckolds. And smart men end up not only having children with their smart wives but also other children with other women of lesser intelligence as well. Because men are able to procreate multiple times in a short period of time while women are not, smart men spreading their seed around and dumb women taking the seed of men smarter than they are is eugenic. In contrast, if the pizza delivery guy knocks up the rich, desperate housewife, the result is more dysgenic than if her husband would've done the inseminating.

This makes some enormous assumptions about a couple of aspects of cheating for which I have no evidence: 1) That cheaters do not take measures to separate their creeping fornication from procreation, and 2) That cheaters move up or down the intelligence ladder when they cheat, rather than tending to cheat with people similar to themselves (and their spouses). Further, it doesn't really get at Randall's question, since the GSS only queries about cheating among those who cheated while married--respondents who have never been married are excluded.

As it turns out, there isn't a big difference among men and women when it comes to intelligence and infidelity. The correlation between wordsum score and having cheated is .69 (p=.02) for men and .54 (p=.09) for women. Either both men and women are cheating with those similar to themselves, or both are descending down the intelligence ladder when they fool around. If everything assumed above is accurate, the eugenic effect is marginal at the most.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), SEX(1)(2), WORDSUM