Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Diversity is strength! It's also... unhappiness and mistrust

Happiness quotients, by race, computed by taking the percentages of GSS participants who self-describe as "very happy" and subtracting from them the percentages who say they're "not too happy", presented in both table and graph formats. The higher the score, the happier the group. For contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 15,414):

RaceHQ
Whites23.5
Asians17.9
Blacks8.4
American Indians7.3
Hispanics5.7


We can speculate about causation until we're blue in the face but it doesn't change the conclusion that a whiter America would be a happier America. A country for Ice People would be only modestly less sunny, while a Sun People society would be quite frigid indeed.

Blue people are happiest of all
A whiter America would also be a more trusting America. The following table and subsequent graph show the percentages of people, by race, who say that "generally speaking, most people can be trusted". Again for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward (n = 11,715):

Race%Trusting
Whites39.6
Asians34.5
American Indians16.2
Blacks16.1
Hispanics14.6


Among many other things, a modern economy requires a high-trust society. As social trust continues to decline across the West, so will the the standard-of-living and quality-of-life the West enjoys.

There's a way for the Occident to avoid this fate. It starts with more Orban and less Obama, more Trump and no more Merkel.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2,3,4-10,15-16), TRUST(1-2), HAPPY(1,3), YEAR(2000-2014)

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Diversity is code name for white genocide...

Feryl said...

Regionally speaking, blacks are quite common in the (relatively) high trust areas of the South and urban Northeast/Midwest (yes, I realize that immigrants and blacks in these areas create low-trust islands). Yet low(er) IQ people prone to various social and mental pathologies (like blacks and Indians) invariably become joyless and paranoid regardless of the positive surroundings of white/Asian culture.

On the other hand, Hispanics are much more common Out West, where people of all races tend to report less overt religiosity, have more distant relations with family, and are more insecure about dealing with authority and government. Adjusting for pop. levels, mass murders and serial killers seem to be much more common Out West. One thing notable about Appalachia and the Deep South is just how few (white) serial killers it's produced. There's definitely a settlement gradient at work. The East Coast, The South (absent Texas and Florida which aren't truly Southern), and Appalachia don't have many white serial killers. The Midwest, Texas, and Florida produce a fair amount. Then the Mountain and Pacific states produce a ton of 'em.

If we give Hispanics time to settle down and stop flooding America with invaders, they should eventually be more well-adjusted than blacks, particularly Hispanics in the East. And of course, the most dysfunctional ones will probably be deported under Trump.

Oh, and white Americans are now having Dinkin's regret over Obama. Dinkins was such a ineffectual doofus that highly Leftist New Yorker's at least subconsciously don't ever want another black mayor. We're now going to have a similar phobia regarding the presidency; it's only due to the highly partisan climate that a decent amount of Leftists stick up for Obama.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Diversity decreases trust--that's an important finding from Putnam's work.

Separately, non-whiteness decreases trust--that's even less PC and even less well known, but even more important in understanding our civilizational vulnerabilities. WEIRDOs (western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic, outbred) societies are the global exception, not the global rule. Trying to force non-WEIRDOs to fit in a WEIRDO society is a recipe of disaster all around.

Feryl,

Right, IQ and trust positively correlate, both between races and within them. I'm going to take a look at trust by region in the US among whites. It's a blunt instrument but I suspect the East+Midwest/Mountain+West divide will show up.

Re: Hispanics, foreign-born blacks are more trusting and happier than native-born blacks are, but the opposite is the case for Hispanics, exactly what would be predicted based on your assessment.

Re: Obama, more schadenfreude watching that play out. He still retains a sort of demigod status among SWPLs and leftists in general even though he's left his party in shambles, fostered an atmosphere where it's hard to see the 2020 Democrat who'll conceivably be able to win both the Dem primaries and the general, and his signature 'accomplishment' is a widely-hated, unsustainable disaster. From my social media feeds, the top two contenders are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, who'll be 78 and 77, respectively! Elizabeth Warren doesn't seem to be taken seriously. Septuagenarians are the only white choices--it's all non-white after that.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Oh, and white Americans are now having Dinkin's regret over Obama. Dinkins was such a ineffectual doofus that highly Leftist New Yorker's at least subconsciously don't ever want another black mayor. We're now going to have a similar phobia regarding the presidency; it's only due to the highly partisan climate that a decent amount of Leftists stick up for Obama.

This is just temporary. Rest assured that the deification is already underway and his numerous, numerous mistakes will get smoothed over or just memoryholed entirely. I do agree that it is unlikely that we will see another black president. Hispanics will become a stronger racial bloc within the Democratic party and they will always vote for one of their own before someone of another race. So it will come down to black turnout vs. hispanic turnout.

The question will be what will the (dwindling number of) white liberals side with. My guess is that they will side with the blacks because they are higher on the progressive stack. However I could see them go for pet issue white candidates like the first openly gay candidate or the first transgendered candidate instead. So future Democrat primaries will be a bunch of people voting for their own kind. This is a good thing because the interparty strife will ensure Republican victories.

This is why I was never a big believer in the idea of one party rule, even with amnesty. The coalition of the fringes only works if they are fringes. If they move past that point, they are at each other's throats and will ensure that they won't be able to get it together enough to unify, ensuring that the GOP will continue to win for many more election cycles to come, assuming Trump Republicans/paleoconservatism continue to run the party after 2024.

To tie it back, Obama will be deified but the public will grow increasingly tired of his musings on how he'd handle things if he were still President. The DNC will be slow on the uptake, thinking parading him around everywhere will get him to unify the increasingly fragmenting Democrat base. Eventually they will figure it out and they will mothball him and only bring him out for rare occasions in order to keep the legend alive.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

PredictIt doesn't have a market open yet on the 2020 Democrat presidential nominee. I hear a lot about how there won't be another black president in X decades, but I'm skeptical. Blacks own the Democrat nomination process because white Dems simply won't vote en masse against the candidate blacks like.

Hillary figured this out after '08 and beat Sanders the same way Obama beat her. The SWPL favorite won't pull more than two-thirds of the white Dem vote, but whoever the blacks support will be overwhelmingly supported by blacks. Why not Corey Booker? Starry-eyed progressives are dreaming about Elizabeth Warren, she'd be like another Dukakis.

Dan said...

AE, at Freedom ball we were packed in like at a rally. I was next to one mayor Michael Copeland, with whom I chatted for a while. Thought you'd be interested. He bragged about livability rankings.

Also, observed Republican girls are way prettier than Democrats. In their gowns they looked so elegant. On the downside, they don't dance much. Since I was alone for the evening, I had fun by putting my arm firmly around the shoulders of the prettiest young things I could find and telling them that they had to start dancing because these other people don't know how. I'm married and wasn't trying anything but its fun to not give a shit.

But R's the not dancing thing apparently goes all the way to our president. In his case, I suppose he never needed it since he already is on third base to begin with.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

Our 'umble mayor was there? Small world.

Yes, Trump's clearly not at his most graceful when he dances.

The Derb recently mentioned a (iirc) study by economists in Britain showing that those on the right tend be more attractive than those on the left in the US, Britain, and Australia. Not surprising to me (though I'm surprised it wasn't attacked as being racist/validating white beauty standards, blah blah blah)--the right gets more masculine men and more feminine women; the left more feminine men and more masculine women.

Dan said...

One thing which is important to point out is the problem of these masked protesters. Those are ppl planning to commit crimes. Masks are illegal in this situation and should be stopped. Trump should call them the Klan.

Jokah Macpherson said...

Dan,

Interesting to see how the ballroom dancing issue is percolating everywhere. I find it very interesting as a serious dancer of five years and left a few comments over at Lion's blog about it. My armchair theory is that young hot females don't ballroom dance anymore because they don't have to. You're not going to be expected to Viennese waltz at the club so why bother unless you have some kind of initiative to learn it for its own sake.

The weird side effect of this is it is a great way for an AFC like myself who's always subconsciously putting women on a pedestal to smash the aura of superiority around them. In fact, I find myself getting genuinely annoyed when dancing with a chick who can't follow a lead no matter how hot she is.

Feryl said...

" It's a blunt instrument but I suspect the East+Midwest/Mountain+West divide will show up."

Some survey showed that people out West reported greater stress levels. In theory, being smart, healthy, and financially well-heeled should make you happier. Problem is, being away from your home and family as people out West often are is like having part of your foundation missing. I have a hunch too that striver havens in general, but especially the ones out West, breed hyper competiveness and insecurity that can get to you.

Agnostic has pointed out the beginning with the Plains, and increasing as you go further West, people tend to size each other up with ostentatious lifestyle and new agey type attitude striving. Whereas more no-nonsense people back East stick to traditional measures of success and class. It's easier to accept that maybe you aren't ever going to be a 1%er back East, especially if you've got family and the old neighborhoods, fields, farms, and parks to comfort you. Out West, though, trendy products and ideas that insecure and credulous people fall far are more common. So ski-yuppies in the Rockies nervously glance around to make sure they've got the most high-tech equipment. And animal rights hippies wouldn't be caught dead wearing furs. People end up feeling tense and uneasy, what with all the flaky judging that goes on.

Trump's comparatively disappointing performance in the mountain and Pacific states (relative to how these states voted in the last several elections) tells me that Trump's unapologetic disdain for flaky airheads are not what Westerners want to hear. They don't care about his lovely family, or his respect for industry and gritty work. He doesn't care about wasting time with trends, he just wants the best effort and results from everyone.

Back East, it's like people intuitively grasp how these places were settled and built by quite a few generations at this point. Out West, there is if anything disdain for man's work. It's known for it's landscape and recreation. Outside of a handful of cities, mostly on the far West Coast, what is there to experience to experience out West except nature? To cite Agnostic again, he's pointed how few moderately sized classic American towns there are out West, even in by now quite populated Colorado. It's mostly just ugly and confusing post 1980 suburbs.

Remember Midwestern movies like Breaking Away and Hoosiers? You can't evoke that kind of atmosphere in the Mountain states (too little history and sense of community) or the Pacific (too many airheads).

Feryl said...

"PredictIt doesn't have a market open yet on the 2020 Democrat presidential nominee. I hear a lot about how there won't be another black president in X decades, but I'm skeptical. Blacks own the Democrat nomination process because white Dems simply won't vote en masse against the candidate blacks like."

It's the damn primaries. Blacks so dominate the reg. Dem rolls that it's impossible to win the Dem primary unless you appeal to the heavily black Dem base. Bernie was persona non-grata in much of the East and South. I think he took Michigan due to many white voters hating the Clintons in the heart of NAFTA betrayed us territory, but that's based on a hunch (I don't remember what the theory was at the time). Other than that, he did pretty bad in the states with a lot of blacks. BTW, if Trump barely eked out a victory in the state containing Detroit (*coughAfricacough*), that means we've got a lot of work to do in terms of spreading greater race realism among Upper Midwestern whites. But we've at least gotten a head start with the Trump era. The idea that these areas somehow became white nationalist overnight is laughable. The Upper Midwest votes primarily on economic issues, and many whites up here have finally given up on the Dem's as the factory prole party (why it took them so long to take a hint we'll never know). Obama could've easily lost the (now feeble) Dem blue wall in '12 if the GOP had nominated a more prole friendly candidate.

If we attained greater racial consciousness, the Dems as they're currently constructed would be toast. White people are shamed for thinking about their interests while the Dems have hitched their wagon to 12-14% of the general population primarily because decades of post WW-2 cultural Marxism has made liberals obsessed with victims. Another reason is that blacks dominate a huge chunk of the urban East and Dems have proven for many generations at this point that they like their party to be a vehicle for poorly adjusted and/or recently settled ethnic groups who tend to concentrate in the city. Although before the mid 60's, before greater civil rights agitation and crime waves, prole white Southerners were welcome among the Dems.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

A potential way to break out of the black stranglehold on the Democrat nomination process is to further rig it using superdelegates, upping their weight from ~20% of delegates to something closer to half, at which point the primaries merely become a formality. Otoh, Keith Ellison is the odds on favorite to head the DNC, so what's more likely to occur is that the superdelegates are used to shore up black king-making.

So be it. No better way to raise white racial consciousness than that.