Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Stress as Plan C

Via Heartiste, recent research on female fertility found the following:
In a study that followed more than 400 women just as they were starting to try to get pregnant, the researchers found that women with the highest levels of the stress indicator alpha-amylase in their saliva were 29% less likely to get pregnant than women with the lowest levels.

They also found that women with the highest levels of alpha-amylase were more than twice as likely to meet the clinical definition of infertility--meaning they did not get pregnant even after a full year of trying.

Alpha-amylase is associated with our fight or flight response, but it can still be chronic, said Lynch.

"When you think 'fight or flight' you think acute response, but what most people don't know is that if you are chronically stressed, your body will learn to keep that system hyperactive," she said. "It has learned you are under attack constantly."

The researchers still do not understand exactly why stress affects a woman's ability to become pregnant, but this study did rule out some possibilities. For example, they found women with high levels of alpha-amylase had the same amount of sex as some of their less-stressed counterparts. "It's not that stressed out women have less intercourse," she said.
I'll check my audacity enough to admit that I'm not certain I understand either, but I'll hazard a seemingly obvious though politically incorrect guess: Reproductive fitness.

There are countless stress triggers in contemporary western society that don't have obvious parallels with pre-industrial human history, but the biological consequences of excessive stress haven't changed much. If a woman is hand-to-mouth and even that existence is precarious, it's probably not an optimal time for her to stretch her meager resources--biological, psychological, material, and otherwise--by additionally becoming responsible for her own delicate genetic future at the current moment.

Female reproductive investment is substantially larger than male reproductive investment is. And not just in terms of time and energy spent, but also in terms of opportunity cost--in becoming pregnant, women give up nearly a year of their reproductive lives, while men give up fifteen minutes of theirs, which are decades longer to being with. Waiting for the sources of the stress to dissipate is, genetically, often the better bet for women. Let me go out on a limb here, since I'm not able to verify this empirically, and presume that stress--or a lack thereof--has more influence on female fertility than it does on male fertility (though it seems plausible that it also has the potential to effect the latter).

Political correctness makes us collectively dumber. A corollary to that is the assertion that factoring human biodiversity into our thought processes makes us more insightful.

A Fish Called

Selma Amal Alamuddin.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Do you have a double-digit IQ?

Linda Gottfredson's single-shot, casual conversational question for assessing if a person has a 3-digit IQ:
How much do you like classical music?
The assumption is that a 3-digit IQ is a prerequisite to enjoying classical, though it need not be sufficient for liking it. Not caring for it does not necessarily indicate a double-digit IQ.

Going in the other direction, I offer this corollary for detecting double-digit IQs:
Do you enjoy scratch-off lottery tickets?
The presumption is, similarly, that only a person with a double-digit IQ will enjoy betting for such low stakes paired with such unfavorable odds. This haughty 3-digiter finds it about as attractive a proposition as playing a game of Candy Land in which everyone else draws two cards per turn while I only get to draw one. Give me chess, please, or at least Monopoly.

That's not to say Homer Simpson represents the entire left half of the bell curve, however. Not all people of modest intelligence are going to find scratch-offs fun:

Unfortunately the GSS doesn't query respondents about their attitudes about playing games of chance. Back in the mid-nineties, though, it did ask respondents to express their (dis)agreement with the statement: "The really good things that happen to me are mostly luck". The following table shows the percentages of respondents, by intelligence*, who either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed":

IQ category%NoLuck
Really smarts87.3
Pretty smarts87.2
Pretty dumbs72.9
Real dumbs62.4

One might object that those of modest intelligence are indeed assessing things accurately when they report that, relative to their more intelligent neighbors, luck is more often a an explanation for fortune smiling upon them than their own deliberate efforts are.

Perhaps. To the extent this is the case, allow me to offer some friendly advice to scratch-off players: Switch to big game drawings like Powerball or Mega Millions. Yes, the odds are that over the long run you'll come out in the red, but unlike regular purchases of scratch-off tickets, the law of large numbers doesn't quite guarantee it. And if by heaven's graces you turn out to be as lucky as a goof-off, you'll really be able to ride high on the hog for awhile (for awhile, anyway)!

GSS variables used: MOSTLUCK, WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), BORN(1)

* Respondents are broken up into five categories that roughly form a normal distribution; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 12%)

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

White life; birth-to-death by state

An adept commenter pointed me in the right direction, allowing for the creation of a non-Hispanic white (hereafter simply "white") vitality index by state based on CDC data (the site's interface takes a bit to get the hang of, but the filtering capabilities and consequent exacting outputs are great). It gives an indication of the increase (or contraction) of the nation's native white population.

The index is computed by taking a state's annual number of white births, subtracting from it the number of white deaths, dividing that figure by the state's total white population, and multiplying the result four orders of magnitude for ease of comprehension. That is, the larger the number, the higher the births-to-deaths ratio is. Negative values indicate more deaths than births. All data are from 2010:

1. Utah123.4
2. Alaska76.9
3. District of Columbia72.3
4. Hawaii60.2
5. Idaho 57.9
6. Wyoming39.6
7. Colorado38.4
8. South Dakota36.3
9. Nebraska32.9
10. Kansas32.5
11. North Dakota30.9
12. Minnesota29.8
13. Virginia28.9
14. Indiana24.5
15. Washington23.8
16. Montana20.6
17. Iowa20.5
18. Kentucky19.9
19. Texas19.7
20. Missouri18.9
21. Louisiana17.7
22. Georgia16.5
23. Wisconsin14.8
24. North Carolina12.2
25. Illinois12.1
26. New Hampshire11.9
27. Oklahoma11.7
28. Maryland11.3
29. Ohio10.5
30. South Carolina10.4
31. Vermont10.0
32. Michigan8.1
33. New York7.6
34. Tennessee6.6
35. Arkansas6.0
36. Oregon5.6
37. Arizona5.3
38. Mississippi4.1
39. Delaware2.1
40. Massachusetts1.5
41. Nevada(1.0)
42. Alabama(2.4)
43. Maine(4.3)
44. California(6.6)
45. West Virginia(7.8)
46. New Jersey(8.5)
47. Pennsylvania(8.8)
48. Connecticut(12.1)
49. New Mexico(16.9)
50. Rhode Island(23.3)
51. Florida(32.9)

Here is an accompanying visualization showing the states with the most vitality in bright green, through teal, to turquoise, through lighter blue, and finally with the most enervated states a deep blue hue:

Keep in mind this doesn't take into account interstate migration. A lot of blue hairs who can afford to do so opt to move to Florida to live out their golden years. Many stay through the gloam until their suns finally set. Alternatively, an urban spot like DC attracts a lot of relatively young people who will ultimately leave the place for somewhere more bucolic down the road.

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise to see Utah in the #1 spot by a long shot. Mormons are the living embodiment of the classic 1950s American dream. Moribund they most certainly are not.

Generalizing, the upper Midwest, northern mountain, and frontier states are relatively vivacious; the Northeast, Southwest, and--perhaps most surprisingly given that the region is characterized by warm weather, low living costs and modest population densities, religiosity, and political conservatism--the South are relatively feeble.

Parenthetically, the 2010 CDC data shows white births slightly outnumbering white deaths (2.16 million and 1.97 million, respectively). That explains part of the reason that most states have positive white vitality index scores, but it's also an artifact born out of the fact that many of the country's most populous states like California, New Jersey, and Florida are at the bottom of the list.

Friday, April 18, 2014

Trust rusts

The oligarchs would like to bring in foreign tech workers who, in addition to decreasing the cost of the labor they utilize by increasing its supply by their mere presence, are also less demanding and more pliable than their native counterparts are. The oligarchs would also, presumably, like us to trust them and their companies such as Facebook, since so much of their business models rely on users freely sharing information with said companies.

Sadly, the oligarchs face a problem. While the US is still a relatively high trust society--its oligarchs especially so--the countries sending the bulk of new immigrants here are not. It comes as little surprise, then, in answering the GSS question "Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in life?", 34.6% of native-born respondents answered in the affirmative compared to only 24.0% of those who are foreign-born. (Okay, it's not much of a problem--the oligarchs don't care about rising mistrust or increasing social isolation; if you're going to hole up indoors, might as well check out your facebook feed!)

A corollary to diversity as distrust is diversity as a muzzle on free speech. Steve recently pointed to an article in the NYT about censoring trashy politically incorrect campus publications that features the perspectives of multiple "Mexican-American" students.

How does the wider Hispanic 'community' feel? The percentages of respondents, by race, who say racists should be permitted to express their beliefs publicly:

White -- 63.5%
Black -- 53.7%
Asian -- 52.3%
Hispanic -- 47.1%

GSS variables used: TRUST, YEAR(2000-2012), BORN, SPKRAC, RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16)

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Heil Brandenburg

John Derbyshire:
Reviewing a book about eugenics for brought home to me again what a colossal influence on our intellectual culture the Nazis were. What would our public conversation on human-nature topics—race, genetics, the Jews—be like if the Nazis had never existed? Way different, for sure.
What, indeed, would a non-German conversation on Germany be like? The observation provides a nice segue for what I saw when the family was strolling through a local bookstore the other day:

In the history section the two shelves labelled "Germany" had between them a single book that was on a subject not directly related to Germany's involvement in the second great war and/or the role the Nazi party played in getting it there.

Thomas Sowell deals with this in a chapter in Black Rednecks and White Liberals. If someone of European descent were to argue as much he'd no doubt be betraying his Nazi sympathies in the process, much as Pat Buchanan has in questioning the wisdom of American involvement in WWII!

Friday, April 11, 2014

Percentages of births by race at the state level

Although it doesn't get the same sort of international attention that a Germany or a Japan gets for the putative demographic cratering that it presages, non-Hispanic white (subsequently just "white") deaths are now occur more frequently in the US than white births do. Without net white immigration into the country, the US white population would be declining. In a few years' time it will be, despite the net immigration.

It's proved a herculean task to find annual death figures by state and race and, not being descended from anything supernatural, I haven't been up to the task [Lemmus found this; a bit dated and missing some categories though better than I did]. But what should be quite easy to find--the contemporary percentages of births by race by state--doesn't appear to exist anywhere in the virtual world, either.

Until now, that is! Behold, the following table shows the percentages of births by race (all but the "Hispanic" column being non-Hispanic) and by state in 2011, ranked by vibrancy. This gives a good idea of what the adult demographic characteristics of the United States--if they indeed do remain united--will look like at the mid-century mark (figures add up to less than 100% as negligible "others" are not included). The picture is not complete, of course, since internal and external migration are additional relevant factors. Asterisks indicate insufficient data:

1) Hawaii73.826.22.616.054.7
2) New Mexico71.528.51.755.01.7
3) California71.029.05.750.113.1
4) District of Columbia70.429.649.915.14.2
5) Texas64.235.810.848.74.4
6) Nevada56.643.49.937.57.9
7) Arizona54.345.74.539.13.8
8) Florida 53.746.321.927.93.2
9) Maryland53.446.631.314.47.3
10) Georgia53.246.832.214.64.2
11) New Jersey52.647.414.526.711.0
12) New York50.849.215.523.710.0
13) Mississippi^46.953.
14) Alaska46.453.
15) Louisiana 44.955.
16) Illinois44.855.215.922.55.9
17) Delaware43.656.425.612.84.9
18) Virginia43.556.520.412.47.3
19) North Carolina42.857.222.415.53.5
20) Connecticut41.558.512.222.56.0
21) South Carolina41.258.830.18.71.9
22) Alabama38.561.528.67.81.7
23) Rhode Island38.062.08.422.34.7
24) Colorado37.762.34.527.93.6
25) Washington36.263.84.818.49.9
26) Massachusetts36.064.09.617.28.4
27) Oklahoma35.964.18.513.02.8
28) Tennessee31.168.919.79.12.2
29) Arkansas30.869.217.410.51.9
30) Oregon29.470.62.519.35.6
31) Michigan29.170.917.96.83.4
32) Pennsylvania28.771.313.89.94.0
33) Kansas26.973.16.916.03.2
34) Minnesota26.
35) South Dakota24.975.
35) Wisconsin24.975.
37) Nebraska24.475.
38) Ohio23.376.715.64.62.5
39) Missouri23.176.914.05.52.5
40) Indiana22.477.611.18.72.3
41) Utah20.
42) Idaho19.880.2*15.51.8
43) North Dakota18.581.5*3.2*
44) Wyoming17.882.2*11.6*
45) Montana17.682.4*3.7*
46) Iowa16.383.
47) Kentucky16.
48) New Hampshire11.488.6*4.24.0
49) Maine7.492.63.0**
50) West Virginia5.994.13.4**
51) Vermont5.894.2***

^ Perhaps surprisingly, perhaps not; the least racist of the majority-white (aka Racist) states

The accompanying visualization (lifted from here) shows the most vibrant states in a deep blue hue, through lighter shades of blue, to teal, and finally shows the most regressive states in a bright green:

Friendly, conventional America is also intolerably white America. Time heals all wounds, however, and these states are only delaying the inevitable.

No other surprises here. As Steve Sailer says, the stuff that's easiest to predict doesn't get many people excited. The Southwest is our future. Currently, 44% of the nation's population lives in states where white births constitute a minority of total natality, with the four big kahunas--California, Texas, New York, Florida--following the example set by the list's authentic kahuna.

The cultural, economic, and social consequences are, I suppose, debatable (something akin to a Mexico/Brazil hybrid is my guess). The political ramifications, however, are clear. When Texas goes purple and Florida has gone reliably blue, it'll effectively spell the end of Republican executive power. When Texas becomes solidly Democratic sometime over the next couple of decades, not even the faintest GOP dream will go uncrushed save for some sort of miraculous political realignment in the upper Midwest transpiring in the interim. One prerequisite for such an outcome is the Republican party becoming the nation's de facto white party. To those unschooled in the byzantine rules of contemporary cultural Marxism, that might seem like a natural role for the country's putatively conservative party to adopt, even embrace. The party's professional marionettes and their Cathedral handlers know much better than that, though.

The aforementioned disclaimer is important, because this is a glimpse of what the US will look like a generation down the road if all immigration stopped tomorrow. That obviously isn't going to happen. We've already crossed the Rubicon. The most restrictionists are able to hope for is that Caesar's march southward can be slowed down long enough for Pompey's natives to--again, miraculously--spring out of the soil.

Friday, April 04, 2014

Here she stand

Razib offers the nuanced approach of a thoughtful, hyper intelligent politically conservative Asian in reacting to a 'controversial' Stephen Colbert tweet. The relevant background is here, or just watch this five minute exchange between a self-styled Asian millennial activist and a cookie-cutter SWPL:

The exact building attributes of the oppression hierarchy skyscraper don't interest me as much as the hope, however faint or quixotic, that the whole edifice might someday come crashing down.

As the clip above illustrates, the cultural marxism of the Cathedral has now entered its the beginnings of its Protestant phase. There are no longer white saints like Stephen Colbert on the one hand and white sinners like Jason Richwine on the other. Just because the former mocks the latter's racism and the latter putatively embraces it does not mean that one goes to heaven and the other goes to purgatory if he prostrates himself and grovels enough, or, in Richwine's particular case, unapologetically straight to hell. That's the old Catholic model.

In the new reformation, minorities are angels (occupying different rings of Paradise in line with the aforementioned oppression hierarchy skyscraper) and whites--all of them--are fallen beings. When the SWPL host hubristically challenges Suey's argument, she answers his sacrilege by declaring "it's incredibly patronizing for you to paint these questions this way, especially as a white man. I don't expect you to be able to understand what people of color are actually seeing."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone has become, in Suey Park's more snarky contemporary rendition, "I'm glad that white liberals feel like they are less racist because they can joke about people who are more explicitly racist but that actually does nothing to help".

Sola gratia. You see, my child, it is by the grace of the oppressed alone that whites may be saved.

Wednesday, April 02, 2014

Regurgitating giant droppings

Jayman, discussing Gregory Clark's The Son Also Rises:
The pattern that we see is much what one would expect of a lineage over time if, collectively, the additive genetic components of this success factor was largely passed on from one generation to the next. Indeed, it really shouldn’t be any different. The individual variation is caused by a variety of factors, including environmental “luck”, non-additive genetic effects, developmental noise, and spousal genetic contribution (which may help or hinder). But, the key point, when the whole clan is considered at once, all these sources of variance should more or less cancel out. The only thing that breeds true is the additive genetic variance, and, in any large clan, that should pass on fairly uninterrupted from one generation to the next. The whole clan’s short-term generation-to-generation variance can be caused by variation in local circumstances that may help or hinder the entire lineage. That too should, over the generations, cancel out, in good part. The success of the clan over time is then dictated by its evolutionary fitness and it the degree of assortative mating.
Family = Clan = Ethnicity = Race. Jayman could be describing any of these four terms. They are essentially interchangeable, the only thing distinguishing the succeeding term from the one preceding it being size, and saying that the transition points between these terms are hazy and indistinct is a major understatement. A big, related family or group of related families is a clan; a big, related clan or group of related clans is an ethnicity; a big, related ethnicity or group of related ethnicities is a race.

Steve Sailer pithily summed this up nearly two decades ago, describing a race as an extended family with some level of in-breeding present.

From this, we discern things like what La Griffe du Lion calls the fundamental constant of sociology, the implications being, among other things, that if both a white couple with IQs of 115 and a black couple with IQs of 115 each have a child, chances are the child from the white union is going to have a higher IQ than child from the black union. It's far from certain that as much would be the case when only a single white and single black couple are being considered, but take 100 white and 100 black couples as described above, and it's virtually guaranteed that, on average, the collective white litter will have a higher average IQ.

Intelligence is just one aspect of countless other characteristics--seemingly all traits are heritable to some degree--but just this one is often too much for most polite people to handle. The truth is no less evitable in spite of them, of course.

Working from the ground up, so-to-speak, is probably the most socially and politically effective way to spread the HBD word.