Monday, October 30, 2017

Gay Jews

Riffing off the previous post, the following table shows the percentages, by religious affiliation, who identify as gay or bisexual (N = 8,582):


Bear in mind that the Jewish sample, at 161, is small, as the question about sexual orientation has only been asked since 2008.

As in the case of condoning gay sex, Jews are gayer than those without any religious are. Stealing Feryl's thunder, could that be a result of Jews tending to be born and raised in conurbation, and thus exposed to the pathogens that accompany high population density, rather than in sparsely populated flyover country?

Jews are effective eugenicists in part because Ashkenazis are afflicted with rare genetic disorders at rates far higher than non-Jews. Is part of the reason they are so favorable towards homosexuality because they are similarly 'afflicted' with homosexuality at higher rates than non-Jews?

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1-2), RELIG(1-4,9)

Sunday, October 29, 2017

Cultural change is a Jewish thing

Joe Biden--who may be quite the degenerate deviant himself--celebrating the enormous influence Jews have had on popular culture (via Vox Day):
“I believe what affects the movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” [Biden] said. That’s why he spoke out on gay marriage “apparently a little ahead of time.”

“It wasn’t anything we legislatively did. It was ‘Will and Grace,’ it was the social media. Literally. That’s what changed peoples’ attitudes. That’s why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace and rapidly embrace” gay marriage, Biden said.

“Think behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense.”
What is that influenced leveraged in favor of? Okay, we all know, but the blog exists for the purpose of empirically validating stereotypes, so indulge me.

The GSS has a couple of questions on homosexuality. The percentages, by religious affiliation, who say "sexual relations between two adults of the same sex" are "not wrong at all" (N = 34,713):


Jewish condoning of homosexuality outdoes even that of those without any religious affiliation. Given that some percentage of those without affiliation are ethnic Jews--or "post-Jewish atheists", as one blue checkmark puts it--that's quite remarkable since ethnic Jews without any feeling of connection to Judaism presumably condone it even more overwhelmingly than religious Jews do.

The story is a similar one with same-sex marriage. The percentages agreeing with the right for members of the same sex to marry, with "neither agree nor disagree" responses excluded (N = 9,689):


GSS variables used: MARHOMO(1-2,4-5), HOMOSEX(1-4), RELIG(1-4,9)

Saturday, October 28, 2017

Become who you are

Junior, who wields the social media rapier exceptionally well, captures why Gen Z is going to be quite problematic for the cultural commissars indeed:


A theme revisited frequently here is that being on the left in The Current Year means spending all your time and energy coming up with different ways to say "that is NOT okay" and then scouring society for reasons to say it.

The other day my son and my nephew, aged 3 and 5, were scolded by one of the womenfolk for talking about poop. When I was wrestling with them in the backyard an hour later, they started talking about... poop. Young people, especially boys, don't want to have their words policed. Nothing will make them want to say something more than being told they are not allowed to say it.

Jack Donovan calls SJWs "the new church ladies". Zyklons turning away from the pantsuited scolding old lesbian provided the country with a stark and salient illustration of as much.

Speaking of illustrations, the Cosmopolitan article Junior linked to serves as a good one of contemporary Prog lunacy:
The original article, written by Sachi Feris, discusses how her white daughter was torn between dressing as Elsa, from Frozen, or the titular character from Moana. Feris expresses concern that while an Elsa costume might reinforce notions of white privilege, dressing up as Moana is essentially cultural appropriation — the act of reducing someone's culture to stereotypes, and thereby belittling it.
Hey you little white bitch, no matter what you do, it's wrong. It's wrong because you are wrong. Your existence is the scourge of humanity.

Feris and her daughter are (((white))), not white, in case your assumption of as much needed confirmation.

These people are miscreants. It's all I can do to stay away from references to helicopter rides.

Parenthetically, my daughter loves Moana. As a consequence, it's often background noise in the house. I like it, too.

It's superficially PC. The protagonists are a tribe of Pacific Islanders, an acceptable non-white group to celebrate without scaring the whites--unless they live in Hawaii--who will pay to see the movie. The main character is an aspiring butt-kicking babe. Her well-intentioned but misguided father is the first major obstacle she has to overcome to fulfill her destiny.

On the other hand, the sexual dimorphism among members of the tribe is decidedly un-PC. It puts silverback gorillas to shame.

That aside, the movie is about the rebirth--or renaissance, if you prefer--of a people who have lost their way. Having been terrified into meekly settling for something they are not, the story picks up with the protagonist tribe transitioning from a state of contentment to one of languishing that is on its way to becoming one of existential threat. Guided by her moribund grandmother, Moana has a vision of her ancestors that compels her to start the journey that ultimately saves her people from ruin:



There are no other (human) groups in the movie, so the protagonist tribe is not afflicted by a negative identity. Theirs is a positive one. They are not defined by their relationships to oppositional groups. Their morality is that of a master rather, not of a slave.

This is something all peoples deserve. It is, in short, a tale that transpires in a world envisioned by the Alt Right. From Vox Day's 16 points:
The Alt Right ... supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.

The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
Moana cannot exist in the world dreamt of by the globohomo elite. They could never permit such a thing.

Friday, October 27, 2017

Breadwinning father, homemaking mother remains ideal in The Current Year

Via AmRen, an article on the unique roles of barbarian women in the insurgency:
The simple answer to the question of what to do with the growing number of women who wish to be more active in the white nationalist movement is to support their increased involvement—but only in the right ways. Women need not “co-opt” the areas where men are thriving in order to become relevant members of our community; we need to focus, instead, on strengthening our own sphere, on using available platforms in our own ways, and on showing other women the beautiful alternatives we offer to the lonely, impoverished, hedonistic existence that is now on offer.
Those marching through the institutions are still susceptible to being utterly routed if middle America were to find the organization and motivation to take to the field. That's easier said than done, of course, but many of the necessary sentiments are there.

In 2012, the GSS asked about the best and worst ways to organize "a family with a child under school age" in the context of parental breadwinning and homemaking responsibilities.

The following table shows the net desirability score for the six possible arrangements, computed by taking the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the best of the six and subtracting from it the percentage of respondents saying a given setup was the worst of the six.

The higher the score, the more desirable the arrangement. The lower the score, the less desirable, with negative scores indicating generally undesirable arrangements (N = 977; PT = part-time employment; FT = full-time employment):

ArrangementDesirability
Mother PT, Father FT+39.9
Mother home, Father FT+34.3
Mother FT, Father PT(4.7)
Both parents PT(6.1)
Both parents FT(25.0)
Mother FT, Father home(38.3)

Implicit in the questions is the understanding that the parent more desired at home is making a material trade off by foregoing paid work. Having that parent work part-time instead of staying home or working full-time is a way of trying to split the difference.

The conventional nuclear family arrangements--the ones that accord not only with millennia of human experience but also with the biological and psychological realities of human nature--are the most desirable.

The Mr. Mom, femcunt lawyer setup is perceived, by far, as the least desirable.

Inverting sex roles is viewed less favorably than is the attempt to make them indistinguishable. That flattening out, in turn, is viewed less favorably than living in accordance with Nature by letting men be men and women be women is.

We had it figured out. Now the progress takes away what forever took to find.

GSS variables used: FAMWKBST, FAMWKLST

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Civic nationalism is implicit white nationalism

In 2014, the GSS asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that "I feel more like a citizen of the world than of any country". The following graph shows the percentages who "agree" or "agree strongly", by race and also by whether or not they were born in the US (N = 1,235). "Neither agree nor disagree", which made up a little less than 1-in-5 of all responses, are not included:


Keep in mind this was asked during Obama's presidency, when the sentiment of star outside linebacker Michelle was still ascendant. The non-white, non-native disparity is surely even wider today than it was just a few years ago.

Despite the best efforts of Ben Shapiro and Paul Joseph Watson, the outlook for civic nationalism is not good. Civic nationalism is implicit white middle American nationalism. The smaller the share of the total population white middle America constitutes, the weaker an already enfeebled civic nationalism becomes.

While it would break the hearts of Bret Stephens and David Brooks--is there an echo in here?--if they knew it, the GSS also shows that, far from being more enthusiastic Americans than actual Americans, immigrants are ho-hum about US citizenship. The following graph shows the percentages of people living in the US, by whether they were born in the country or outside of it, who "strongly agree" that they would "rather be a citizen of American than any other country in the world" (N = 3,788):


They are also ho-hum about the US, which is a big reason for the moribundity of civic nationalism.

We are headed for either political dissolution or the end of democracy and the beginning of an imperial occupation within the boundaries of the US itself. Jack Donovan has said a few words regarding the latter.

GSS variables used: CITWORLD(4-5), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), AMCITIZN(1), BORN

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Education, not intelligence, significantly delays family formation

A theme revisited frequently here over the years is that the mildly 'dysgenic' trend occurring in the US is more strongly tied to educational attainment than to intelligence directly.

TFR isn't the whole story. When the ball gets rolling matters, too. The shorter the time between generations, the more descendants the initial progenitor will have X years down the road.

A similarly relationship between educational attainment and total fertility exists between educational attainment and age of first birth (the first inverse, the second positive). The relationship between intelligence and age of first birth is mostly accounted for by educational attainment. Smart high school graduates get started earlier than dullards with doctoral degrees in -studies do.

The following graphs attempt to illustrate as much in a way that is comprehensible without resorting to regression coefficients. The first graph shows the age of first birth by educational attainment for non-Hispanic whites born in the US, participating in the GSS since the year 2000. There are relatively large disparities among people of similar intelligence that correspond strongly to their level of educational attainment:


The second graph shows the age of first birth by intelligence when educational attainment is separated out. The disparities among people of similar educational attainment but differing levels of intelligence are far more modest: 


Parenthetically, the r-values are .37 for educational attainment and age of first birth when wordsum is controlled for and .08 for wordsum and age of first birth when educational attainment is controlled for. That is, educational attainment is more than 4x as strong a predictor of age of first birth as intelligence measured by wordsum score is. 

The idea of universal publicly funded post-secondary education in the US is civilizationally disastrous. It will accentuate several of our problems while alleviating none of them.

GSS variables used: DEGREE(0-1)(2)(3)(4), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), BORN(1)

Monday, October 23, 2017

Welcome to the Hotel Babylonia

From the Census, the percentages among adults living in the US, by race, who are non-citizens:


If the official estimates of illegal alien populations are too low, as people like Ann Coulter have suggested, the true percentages of non-whites are even higher than the graph indicates.

Taking the government figures at face value, though, it means 1-in-53 whites in the US are non-citizens. For blacks, it's 1-in-17. For Hispanics and Asians, it's nearly 1-in-3.

It would of course be unacceptably waaaycist for ICE agents to hone in on Hispanics and Asians. That they're more than an order of magnitude more likely to be non-citizens than whites are is just a thinly veiled way of legitimizing bigotry.

A historian writing in the year 2200 about the decline and fall of the American republic empire would do well to include this graphic in the work's first chapter.

Sunday, October 22, 2017

White (electoral) power

Looking at the Voting and Registration Supplement to the Census current population survey for the 2016 election, I expected to find that part of the low turnout rates among Asians and Hispanics relative to whites and blacks could be accounted for by differing age profiles. Older people vote more than younger ones do, and the new settlers are younger than Old America is. Ergo, after a couple decades of boomers dying off, the yellow and brown electoral shares would shoot up as their median ages caught up.

The data gave me a good stiff arm. The electoral idolness is remarkably consistent across age ranges, with eligible Asians and Hispanics voting at just 75% of the rate eligible whites do (blacks vote at 90% of the white rate).

The following graph shows the racial distribution of votes cast in the 2016 US presidential election, by age:


Predicting how things will play out decades in the future is fraught with peril, but this suggests that a mid-century America where whites no longer constitute a majority of the population will still be an America where whites comprise a majority of voters.

Assuming the US makes it to the turn of the 22nd century in something close to its current political form--a precarious assumption to say the least in my view--whites will have only recently forfeited their electoral majority.

This makes the Rovian strategy of selling out whites in favor of Hispandering heavily appear even dumber than Steve Sailer has shown it to be.

Whites are electoral kangz. We are positioned to remain so well into the future. Appeal to and then deliver on ourselves and our posterity and enjoy permanent ruling majority status. It's not easy, but it is fairly simple.

Speaking of, barring misfortune the Epigones should be above replacement by June of next year.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

Relationship between intelligence and age when children born

Responding to the apparently quite mild contemporary dysgenic trend among whites, Sid writes:
My guess, however, is that dumbies are more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are. Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact
The GSS inquires about the age of parents at the time of the birth of their first child. It will likely come as a surprise to no one reading this that Sid is correct.

The following table shows, by intelligence*, the mean age of non-Hispanic whites when their first children are born. To avoid issues with language fluency, responses are restricted to those born in the US. For contemporary relevance, responses are from 2000 onward:

IntelligenceAvgAge
Real dumbs22.3
Pretty dumbs23.4
Normals24.2
Pretty smarts25.3
Really smarts27.0

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), AGEKDBRN, BORN(1), WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), YEAR(2000-2016)

* For intelligence, respondents are broken up into five categories that come to very roughly resemble a normal distribution; Really Smarts (Wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 11% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 30%), Normals (6, 24%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 8%).

Friday, October 20, 2017

Regular worship participation by religious affiliation

In this week's installment of the Power Hour, the blog's sole proprietor does a segment touching on church attendance in the West, noting that outside of a couple peripheral Catholic countries like Poland and Ireland, active Christianity is dead in Europe. Moribundity is beckoning in the US, too, though we're a generation or so behind the Old Continent.

As a complement to Z-Man's discussion of the topic, the percentages of people, by religious affiliation, who attend worship services weekly (or more) in the US. The GSS began collecting expanded religious affiliation data in 1998, so responses are from then onward (N = 25,540):


The disparity between the Crusaders and the Saracens must be wider in Europe than it is in the US. Another unique aspect to American Christianity is that our Protestants take it more seriously than our Catholics do. As weak as Catholicism is in Europe, Protestantism is even weaker.

It's a bipolar age we live in. On the one hand, there is a widespread sense among WEIRDOs that religion is an anachronism on its way out. On the other hand, it's hard to shake the feeling that the religious will end up inheriting the earth.

GSS variables used: ATTEND(7-8), RELIG(1)(2)(3)(4)(6)(7)(8)(9), YEAR(1998-2016)

Thursday, October 19, 2017

Dark dysgenics

The following graph shows average (mean) number of children by race and intelligence*. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from this millennium. To avoid language fluency issues, only those born in the US are considered. To allow time for family formation to occur, responses from those under the age of 35 are excluded:


The dysgenic trend among whites is quite mild compared to that of NAMs, particularly blacks (sample sizes are too small for Jews and Asians).

Short of viable genetic engineering, the achievement gap will not be narrowing. To the contrary, it will continue to widen.

As Z-Man is fond of saying, this will not end well. It's a good reminder of what separate countries are for.

Sample sizes by race are as follows: Whites - 5,148; Blacks - 939; Hispanics - 334.

GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), BORN(1), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RACECEN1(1)(2), CHILDS

* For intelligence, respondents are broken up into five categories that come to very roughly resemble a normal distribution; Really Smarts (Wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 11% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 30%), Normals (6, 24%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Real Dumbs (0-3, 8%).

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

If she'll stray for a furtive lay there's a good chance she's cray cray

The percentages of non-Hispanic white men and women, by level of marital fidelity, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 4,677):


The gap, at 6.7 points, between men who cheat and those who don't is half that of the gap, at 13.2 points, between women who cheat and those who don't. In percentage terms, cheating wives, relative to faithful wives, are a little over 50% more likely to experience poor mental health than cheating husbands, relative to faithful husbands, are.

As Heartiste could explain much better than I, this result is predictable. Cheating is defined here as "having sex with someone other than your husband or wife while married". If the 'cheating' were purely platonic, the dynamics would be different.

Women find it difficult and distressing to bang a man on the side with whom they have a shallow or no emotional relationship with, while maintaining an emotional bond and living partnership with their husbands. It's easier for men to have a side mistress. Instead of being wrecked by such an arrangement, many men have to actively resist the urge to set one up.

A woman has trouble loving multiple men simultaneously, but is able to love a man other women also love. A man is able to love multiple women simultaneously, but has trouble loving a woman other men also love. Polygyny historically has been (and still is) more common than polyandry partly because of this reality.

For what it's worth, my recommendation is to dance with the one who brought you, especially if she is the one who has brought you children.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH, SEX, EVSTRAY(1-2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Stressed and depressed be the low-class lass

In response to GSS data showing a positive correlation between marriage and mental health, commenter Marlborough County writes:
To use Charles Murray's parlance people in Belmont get married, people in Fishtown do not. Look at the CLASS variable. Big difference. Isn't marriage just a proxy for class here?
That's quite reasonable, and he's correct about the link between social class and marriage and thus also between social class and mental health. To the contrary, mo' money does not appear to lead to mo' problems, at least not emotional ones.

But the marriage gap exists independently of social class. The percentages of non-Hispanic white women, by marital status and social class, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 3,209):


Rules, structure, and convention benefit those at the bottom of society most. The expansion of bohemian and bacchanalian mores from cosmopolitan elites into the wider popular culture has been devastating for those at the bottom. This, of course, fits perfectly within Murray's framework in Coming Apart.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), SEX(2), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), MARITAL(1)(3,5), CLASS

Sunday, October 15, 2017

Maneaters

Women murdering men is close to three times as common as women murdering other women is:


I stumbled across this while looking for cross-referenced offender and victim data from the latest iteration of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. The latest year the figures on sex are cross-referenced (that I could find--the report is not intuitively organized so I may be missing it) is 2013 so that's where the data in the preceding table comes from.

I'm mildly surprised by this though I guess I shouldn't be. A lot of these murders are presumably gang-related and the way of men is the way of the gang. When it's a gangsteress taking the shots, most of the targets are men. Whoever is doing the killing, the object of their homicidal intent tends to be a man. Male privilege!

Saturday, October 14, 2017

Childless women have poorest self-reported mental health

The percentages of people, by sex and number of biological children, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 6,961):


Whatever the cause and effect may be, if there is one at all, what these results suggest is that having children probably doesn't turn people into nervous, anxious wrecks. By providing purpose, and satisfying the biological imperative, it may even ameliorate mental health issues rather than accentuating them.

Living in accordance with one's nature may in fact be a better formula for human flourishing than trying to perpetually reconfigure, redefine, recalibrate, and even flat out remake that nature. There's a philosophical tradition in the West stretching back to antiquity that suspects as much.

GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), SEX, CHILDS(0)(1)(2)(3-8), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)

Friday, October 13, 2017

Feminism wins

The percentages of people, by sex and marital status, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are considered. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 6,521):


Eat, anxiety meds, pray, anxiety meds, love.


GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), MARITAL(1)(3,5), SEX, RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1)

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

The well is full of virtue

Vox Day, falsely accused of asserting that "intelligence determines virtue", denies it. Jordan Peterson recently denied the same in a podcast with Stefan Molyneux.

Assuming we're talking about the contemporary conception of virtue as ethical behavior (as opposed to the latin virtus, which is closer to what we'd refer to today valor or courage) are they correct?

The GSS includes three questions serving as reasonable first approximations of the contemporary concept of virtue. The following graph shows how respondents, by intelligence buckets as measured through Wordsum scores, fare on these measures. To avoid language fluency issues, only those born outside the US are excluded. To avoid racial confounding, only non-Hispanic whites are included:


No apparent relationship emerges. Each intelligence grouping looks best on one measure, worst on another, and in between on a third. The differences are modest. 

Intelligence is as useful for rationalizing as it is for ratiocination.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), ARREST, TAXCHEAT(1-2), WORDSUM(0-5)(6-7)(8-10), ETHNIC(8,10,11,14,15,18,19,21,24,26), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), BORN(1)

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

White Privilege: Psychological Edition

Percentages, by race and sex, who report having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. All responses are from 2002 onward (N = 9,342):


Contrary to the Narrative about putative low black self-esteem and the emotional burden that comes from doing "X while black", black bodies--especially male ones--tend to suffer less from psychological afflictions than non-whites do. 
Stereotype of blacks as non-neurotic,
carefree isn't a new one (via TWCS)
One might be forgiven for thinking that being weighed down by systemic oppression would be stressful, depressing, and emotionally taxing. Apparently it is not.

To the contrary, gentile white men fare marginally worse than all the groups of oppressed men do. I guess every form of refuge has its price!

Then again, that oppression takes a toll on members of the fairer sex among one particularly oppressed group, Jews (though the Jewish sample is only 170, so it should be viewed cautiously). It seems their intelligence has not come without a cost

No word, parenthetically, on whether or not Amy Alkon has managed to shake that which many a Jewess is unable to avoid:


GSS variables used: MNTLHLTH(0), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), RELIG(3)

Sunday, October 08, 2017

Speculating on data is the spice of the quant life

The previous post generated a lot of "correlation does not equal causation" responses on the ping pong ball forum. Jayman is fond of the mantra, and for good reason, but most of the people chanting it are tedious to deal with.

I understand as much, and that all traits are heritable. I could've as easily written that women experiencing "stress, depression, and problems with emotions" are at high-risk for riding the cock carousel instead of the other way around as I actually did write it.

One may influence the other, they could be mutually reinforcing, or they could have nothing to do with one another. It could conceivably even be the case that, in isolation, sleeping around is beneficial for women but it's something the mentally unstable do more of than balanced women do and so the benefit gets buried under the other problems they suffer.

The color commentary here is my best guess punditry. Its mileage will accordingly vary. This is primarily a quant blog. Data is the focus. That data is suggestive, not conclusive. I'm not interested in posting something fit for scientific journal publication. For one, they contain their share of bullshit. Hell, while there are clear patches, much of the fields of sociology and psychology are covered in bullshit.

It's easy to use selective controls to produce intended results. It's why I prefer to look at simple relationships. If I control for other variables, it's limited to those presenting the most obvious potential confounds, like sex and race.

Steve Sailer has mentioned on multiple occasions that he likes using data not gathered for the purpose of answering the question he's asking because it generally avoids the problem of stacking the deck in favor of a preferred outcome. The GSS is perfect for that. There are several hundreds variables to cross-tab.

For sake of argument, assume all traits are perfectly heritable. No voluntary or even involuntary behaviors are capable of modifying underlying traits and tendencies. Extract philosophy entirely. We're still left with subjective experience, and that's where the punditry comes in. If, every day after work, a man comes home and stares at the wall for six hours before going to bed, he will have the same quantifiable outcomes--lifespan, income, personality, health, etc--of other men who do things regular men do.

I guess we could refrain from evaluating wall man in relation to the others, but it feels anti-human to do so. Life is for living. I go "exploring" in the woods with my son not because it's going to make him more resourceful later in life but because it's fun for him and for me and it creates memories we'll treasure as long as we live.

Go a step further and take free will out of the equation. We may not have any. The corollary of that, of course, is that it shouldn't be expected that people assuming correlation and causation are the same will be swayed by arguments about correlation not equaling causation. The world is simply doing what it's going to do and that is that. There is no agency, but there is no way to convince people who think there is agency that we are devoid of it, so stop wasting your time--if that's what your destined to do, or don't, if it's not. Whatever.

That said, the example of smoking seems a devastating relatively recent illustration of how social pressure can strongly modify behavior. The genetic predisposition to smoking in the US population presumably hasn't changed much in the last 50 years, but smoking rates have declined drastically. Religiosity has reliably correlated with fertility for generations, yet religiosity continues to decline in societies where the religious consistently out-breed the irreligious.

Finally, some interaction with the archetype Heartiste has warned will be the downfall of the Western world. I was unaware of her until today, but she's a blue check mark so I assume she's not a troll (her tweets unrelated to celebrating barrenness and the joys of prostituting for free, she seems pretty sensible):

Totally irrelevant!

Sustainable for exactly one generation!

Income opporunity
She could get more no-strings-attached in her prime than I could. Game, set, match!
The world revolves around more than a woman's immediate personal preferences

Saturday, October 07, 2017

Sluts are nuts

The following graph shows percentages of respondents who reported having experienced poor mental health--defined as "stress, depression, and problems with emotions"--in the month prior to being surveyed. Results are broken down by sex and by total number of opposite-sex partners (non-heterosexuals are excluded; all responses are from 2002 onward, when the GSS began querying about mental health; and N = 3,782 for women and 3,475 for men):


Unsurprisingly, being repulsive or invisible to the opposite sex is suboptimal. The ground floor girl is gold. As rides on the cock carousel increase from there, things go downhill. The more men who have ridden her, the worse her neurosis will be. Women who've had over 15 partners are at more than 50% greater risk of poor mental health than women who steadfastly remain tethered to 'the one'.

I mention women in the preceding paragraph because while the trends are technically the same for men and women, the degree of differentiation by partner count is negligible in the case of men while it's staggering in the case of women.

A recent post at the chateau spurred me to take a look at relevant data in the first place. Heartiste nailed what is merely being quantitatively corroborated here:
Every added cock scours a woman’s soul while every added pussy gilds a man’s soul. Bad relationship experiences accumulating over the years can potentially embitter both men and women, but men in my observation, when they bounce back, are more seamlessly able to reconstitute a loving relationship with a new woman minus the emotional baggage of past women who left them with foul memories. In contrast, women who have run through failed relationships tend to dump increasingly heavy loads of baggage on their new men.
Giving away the vadge is akin to giving away citizenship--it feels good in the moment but it creates all kinds of problems down the road. Slut-shame her not only for her own good but also for the good of Western civilization.

GSS variables used: NUMMEN(0)(1)(2-5)(6-15)(16-989), NUMWOMEN(0)(1)(2-5)(6-15)(16-989), SEX(1)(2), MNTLHLTH(0)(1-30)

Thursday, October 05, 2017

Unapologetically rise from the ashes

What if it were possible for both sides of the gun control debate to get what they want?

What if it were possible for some places to restrict the movement of firearms and allow the free movement of undocumented migrants while other places allow for the free movement of firearms and restrict the movement of illegal aliens?

What if it were possible for places where people think diversity is a strength to become more diverse while places where people desire homogeneity to become more homogeneous?

What if it were possible for something other than a uniform set of rules, restrictions, and regulations to apply to 330 million people--people who are disunited linguistically, culturally, ethnically, politically, financially, geographically, morally, racially, and religiously?

It is possible. It's happening across the globe--from Spain to Sudan, from Britain to Kurdistan, from East Timor to, say, some day in the not-so-indefinite future, Texas.

The members of these formerly United States are like a married couple well past the point at which they should've divorced.

The husband leaves the gate open, the dog runs off and before long the couple is yelling back and forth about how stupid it was to get the house in this neighborhood. A psychopath shoots up concertgoers and we're simultaneously screaming about the evils, and apologizing for the merits, of guns, white men, parenting strategies, media sensationalism.

The wife forgets to turn a light off in the closet and before long their yelling back and forth about how she doesn't care about saving for retirement and he doesn't care about anything but money. A subset of athletes refuse to stand for the anthem and we're simultaneously screaming about the evils of and apologizing for the freedom to do so without consequence, of popular entertainment, on what constitutes patriotism.
Resonates with wistful boomers;
stuff of legend for younger Americans

Every incident escalates with such rapidity that it should probably be described as immediacy into something much larger than the incident itself.

Who do Hillary Clinton voters hate more--Donald Trump or Nigel Farage? Who pisses red-staters off more--the Democrat party or the Labour party? Trump and Democrats, the ones with control over their lives, of course.

This nation no longer makes sense. Inertia, economic convenience, and a large enough tax base to run a global empire are the only things holding this carcass of a country together.

How the political dissolution will occur is anyone's guess--probably along currently existing state boundaries, though that needn't necessarily be the case. What seems clear, though, is that it's time--past time--for secession.


---

Parenthetically, when I had the opportunity to host a certain polymath for a few hours over the summer, I asked if he thought the political dissolution of the US in our lifetimes was a real possibility. A decade ago his answer would have been "no way", but now he thinks it is conceivable (though not necessarily desirable).

The likely mechanism? Another severe economic downturn, exacerbated by the potential of a resultant dollar crisis. There are obvious ways a crash could precipitate dissolution.

There are also less obvious ones. To get out from under the risibly unpayable national debt, for example, a state like Texas could secede, declare the federal debt accumulated under the union it used to be a part of both unconstitutional by the standards of that union and an unjust burden on the republic of Texas, and wash its hands of any obligation on the $20 trillion.

The Cloud People would never allow it! The secession would be brutally suppressed! The optics of Spain's reaction to the Catalon referendum were terrible, even though Catalonia's actions were clearly illegal (while Texas' would not be).

Think the people of Oklahoma would go for the feds marching on Texas? More likely, they'd petition the governor to join their southern neighbor. Hell, think people in Massachusetts would? Nope. Good riddance, they'd say.

Monday, October 02, 2017

Mean Wordsum score by highest degree attained across groups

The following table shows the mean Wordsum score by demographics and by highest completed degree (n = 21,502):


Education will never 'close the gap' because the width of said gap is pretty consistent across differing levels of educational attainment.

We see, for example, that whites have about a full point advantage on blacks at every level of degree completion with the exception of post-graduate degrees, where the advantage is even larger (because a lot of black post-graduates pursue subjects that provide the relatively easily attained credentials they need to do the blackety-blackety-black?)

Even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that there is no ceiling on the percentage of blacks who can earn graduate degrees without pulling the mean Wordsum score for black graduate degree holders down (a dubious assumption), the only conceivable way to narrow the gap would be to push differential rates of educational attainment so that more blacks and fewer whites pursued higher levels of education.

Alternatively, we could focus our collective energies on improving outcomes for everyone, even if those improvements benefit members of different races at similar rates, instead of quixotically trying to bridge the unbridgeable. But that's the sort of strategy only an extremist would advocate.

And don't dare notice that Jews without any college experience have more expansive vocabularies than blacks with post-graduate degrees do!

A few technical notes:

I'll often convert Wordsum scores to IQ estimates but elected not to in this case to emphasize the intractability of The Gap. Even if spending a decade in college doesn't increase the g-factor, shouldn't it at least reliably increase a person's vocabulary? Given the conventional wisdom, shouldn't we expect a black doctorate to have a more expansive vocabulary than a white high school graduate does? Doesn't post-graduate education require a lot more reading than getting a high school diploma does?

Additionally, I've traditionally used the GSS variable EDUC for educational attainment, but DEGREE is better so I'll be using that from now on. Despite having tapped the database on and off for a decade now, I'm still discovering new things contained within it.

There is a fifth degree category, "junior college", not included above because the sample sizes were prohibitively small for Jews and Asians (only 7.8% of all respondents fall into the category), but results are predictably between "high school graduate" and "bachelor degree".

To avoid language fluency issues, results were restricted to respondents born in the US. For contemporary relevance, all results are from the year 2000 onward.

GSS variables used: DEGREE(0)(1)(3)(4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-99), RELIG(3), BORN(1), YEAR(2000-2016)

Sunday, October 01, 2017

A black is more likely to commit an anti-white hate crime than vice versa

A decade ago I did a series of posts showing, in short, that the "hate crime" designation is a way to get to bizarro world validate The Narrative, with designated victim classes actually looking like victims and designated oppressor classes actually looking like oppressors.

The FBI hasn't yet released data on hate crimes for 2016, so we're looking at 2015 figures here.

Hate crimes made up just 0.07% of all crime in 2015. Like the major media highlighting the 1-in-1,000 story that fits while passing over without comment the hundreds that do not, the hate crime designation allows for a portrayal to be crafted in which Hate appears to be the purview of heterosexual white men even though actual crime is overwhelmingly the purview of Sun People, especially young black men.

Despite the enormous latitude provided, in 2015 a black was still more likely to perpetrate a hate crime of anti-white bias than a white (including Hispanics!) was to perpetrate a hate crimes of anti-black bias*. While 1-in-203,000 whites committed an anti-black hate crime, 1-in-127,000 blacks committed an anti-white hate crime.

When it comes to hate crimes against sexual deviants, the black overrepresentation is even more pronounced. Blacks were 417% as likely to commit an anti-gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/gender-non-conforming hate crime as whites were.

That's a lot of punching down on my part, so let's take a swing at the clouds. The following graph shows the percentages of anti-X hate crimes that are hoaxes in which the alleged perpetrator is unidentified:


* Emphasizing as much without pointing out that blacks are correspondingly also more likely to be victims of hate crimes than whites are--something that will always characterize a smaller group vis-a-vis a larger group in a tit-for-tat scenario--is to commit a rhetorical sin of omission of my own. I don't deny it, because the whole hate crime category is bullshit. It exists as a means of running interference on the actual nature of interracial crime in the US, so I don't care.