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%).

32 comments:

JayMan said...

Yup, I covered this awhile back:

Dysgenic Fertility Among Blacks? Apparently, Yes

Idiocracy Can Wait?

Anonymous said...

You need to adjust for obesity. Wordsum has a positive impact on even female fertility after accounting for obesity. However, it appears some of the genes that positively influence wordsum also lead to obesity. I have a theory for the mechanism. Take a look at the GSS Data again, perform a regression analysis, and age over 40 is really necessary these days:

Regression Analysis:
Independent Variables: INTRWGHT, WORDSUM
Dependent Variable: CHILDS
Limits: AGE(40-100),SEX(2),HISPANIC(1),RACECEN1(1),INTRWGHT(1-4)

Correlation really isn't causation, even if data speculation is life beautification.

This shows WORDSUM having a positive impact on fertility. I'm not sure if intelligence is causing increased obesity because it leads to an activity that causes weight gain in the modern environment, or if some of the genes that cause intelligence also lead to weight gain. I suspect probably both in some cases.

--An Inflammatory Commentator
P.S. The cure is getting closer, and it is impossible to use backward looking data to predict a future after a medical revolution.

Sid said...

1. The dysgenic trend among whites is surprisingly mild. I figured that anti-fertility propaganda was imbibed mostly by college educated women. That might be the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if dumb whites simply watch TV shows and read magazines that I don't indulge with that have the same anti-fertility messaging.

My guess, however, is that dumbies and more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are.
Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact. After two kids or so, dumb whites understand that children are expensive and then use birth control more regularly, abort unwanted fetuses, and simply have less and less interest in sex over time.

2. I expect that any effects improved nurture had on black IQ (increased and targeted funding for black schools and access to medical care) was canceled out by how those very same policies subsidized the breeding of a black underclass. Simply put, underclass blacks don't pay for much with their own money: they get Medicaid, Section 8 housing, and food stamps. As such, it's easy for them to breed and there's not the same cost that other sections of society have when having children.

Apparently the same is happening with Hispanics.

3. I'd like to know why smart blacks and Hispanics don't have so many children. Maybe their being so much smarter than their group average means that they have a harder time finding spouses? Maybe it's because blacks and Hispanics reproduce in their late teens to mid twenties, which is when so many smart people are busy with college and maybe professional/grad school? I don't know, I find this genuinely interesting.

Maciano Van der Laan said...

It seems like FTR/IQ segment is a bell curve. With blacks the cut-off is just more visible because their average is lower.

Does this mean that the extremely smart Asians and Whites (0.1%) also have very little children?

Peter said...

Would love to know why the trend is so steep amongst rising IQs among blacks. Fascinating.

Feryl said...

The black birth rate is much lower than it was in the mid 90's and previous several decades; The Hispanic birth rates has fallen quite a bit over the last 5-10 years (the late 2000's recession), as Steve Sailer has noted that the late 90's and early 2000's were a time of tremendous growth in the "sand states" (the Sunbelt, really), and we've yet to recapture that era (most of the current so-called recovery is going to rich people and big companies). Actually, come to think of it every single post-mid 70's economic boom has increasingly been concentrated on rich people and conglomerates, with the latest "recovery" mostly a mirage to middle class people of whom there are fewer and fewer. Also relevant is that these booms primarily benefited Silents and early Boomers first, late Boomers 2nd, Gen X-ers third, and Millennials last. The economic climate of the 50's and 60's was a middle class paradise for Silents and early Boomers; today's supposed boom means absolutely nothing to people born after 1980.

WRT GSS skepticism, I'd bet that most high scoring blacks are part of a unusually studious and high scoring professional black elite who are not interested in having families. Other ethnic groups have enough inherent intelligence that they can score fairly well on the wordsum score in the absence of particular studiousness/professionalism. BTW, how many blacks score well on the Wordsum test, any way? We might be dealing with a small sample size because there just aren't that many blacks who score well in the first place, which is also taking into account the possibility that few blacks took the test in the first place.

Lastly, might we try and see how sexuality plays into this? Gay men are more verbally gifted, and quite a few high-scoring black women might be lesbians who'd rather read than get knocked up. Is the gay verbal advantage even more pronounced within black folk, compared to other races?

JayMan said...

@An Inflammatory Commentator:

"You need to adjust for obesity. Wordsum has a positive impact on even female fertility after accounting for obesity. However, it appears some of the genes that positively influence wordsum also lead to obesity."

If this process is real (which I doubt), the GSS is hardly the place to look at it.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it too. The genetic correlation between intelligence or education and BMI/obesity is always negative in all reports. Why would it be positive in just African-Americans?

szopen said...

Not about the dysgenics, but about gap narrowing:

Isn't a interracial marriage number quite high for blacks? I am not saying it is, but I keep reading that here and there... ANd if it is, wouldn't that mean a force contributing to narrowing of the gap?

On another hand, if one measures the gap between population A and B, and then C and B, where A (blacks from 1960) and B (blacks from, say, 2060) are genetically different, the any narrowing of the gap would be meaningless anyway..

akarlin said...

Yes, Jayman also has a good article on this.

Pretty disturbing. Anyone seen good explanations as to why this might be the case?

Anonymous said...

One could be forgiven for wondering if in fact intelligence itself as an evolutionary fitness strategy is overrated? They don't seem to have a good long term strategy for survival or even an old age if our known bankrupt government doesn't provide care?

It's almost as if they aren't so much "intelligent" in a practical sense but more clever in a wordsum sense but fatally silly on matters of survival.

I wonder what the Wordsum of the Wright Brothers was?

More Bluntly..Only a hopeless and hopelessly unfit from the evolutionary standpoint would you know come up with quantifying word count into "Wordsum."

Don't worry. We healthy middlers will save humanity, whites and probably even Civilization from your out of control pets.

I say your pets because if Progressives hadn't become so Jewish dominant and so genocidally anti-white you'd be Progs today.

On that note your judgement was off on freeing the feral pets, and we healthy working class middlers had it right.

Similarly your judgement is off on genocide as the solution or ethnic cleansing, or partition. Your numbers will not reveal this to you: you have poor judgement.
Perhaps that's the quant attraction. But your judgment is poor.

So kindly having taken us all to the left of pluto and regretted it don't try taking us to the right of Hitler. And bugger your precious intelligence.

You may have quantifiable wordsum [wordsum...I can't get over this...] but you have SHIT POOR JUDGMENT and shouldn't make life or death decisions, never mind genocide.

PS have a look at this gold star family. With proper raising you'd never guess their putative racial dysgenics. Elder son has academic scholarship with 3.7 GPA from K-school on...and he's half black, half Latino.

Because judgement and tradition not numbers work.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/gold-star-widow-releases-trumps-call-after-husband-was-killed-in-afghanistan/

vxxc
catch me on new post ban ID ! vetssc17

Lauris Kaplinski said...

About the achievement gap:
Unfortunately dysgenic fertility is only part (and probably smaller one) of the generic dysgenic trend. Deleterious mutations are, according to the best estimates, at least as strong and possibly stronger driver.
And their effect is expected to be much higher on whites because high IQ is pretty recent evolutionary adaptation and thus suspectible to a quick reversal as soon as the selective pressure ends.

Anonymous said...

None topic related. The most important post have been about the younger generation. I am still skeptical about the survey and would like to see it replicated. However, the election results and voting trends in Austria seem to support your findings. I would like to hear your thoughts.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how much the effect of selective forms of migration for hispanics. Since a huge proportion of that population is composed of people who came illegally very recently from basically rural peasant backgrounds.

Those are the types of populations most likely to have very low average IQs (The smart fraction from those populations likely go to the urban centres of Mexico or would be better off coming as legal immigrants and the IQs of such populations is likely depressed anyway from lower protein diets) and to respond most pro-natally to the increased resources of the US and particularly to the social welfare incentives (From their perspective) to have more children.

IE, without first generation immigrants responding to the resources of the US from their point of comparison of rural Mexico, even those of an illegal immigrant, is it as bad for hispanics as it looks?

Anonymous said...

JayMan - "You need to adjust for obesity. Wordsum has a positive impact on even female fertility after accounting for obesity. However, it appears some of the genes that positively influence wordsum also lead to obesity." If this process is real (which I doubt), the GSS is hardly the place to look at it.

The article is about the GSS data, so I don't know why we would look for it here. However, what I was alluding to was the known association between use of electronics and obesity. Light at night alters metabolism, and I suspect smarter people are more likely to be entertained by night time computer use. That is how the genes that cause increased intelligence could cause a behavior that increases obesity. It is also why we need to perform regression analysis instead of correlation analysis:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230826783_Availability_and_night-time_use_of_electronic_entertainment_and_communication_devices_are_associated_with_short_sleep_duration_and_obesity_among_Canadian_children

--An Inflammatory Commentator

Audacious Epigone said...

Jayman,

Yes, I remember it as it came after I'd done a series of posts on the relationships between fertility and education, religiosity, alpha/beta-ness, and monogamy/promiscuity.

This post eliminates black Hispanics, those for whom English is not a first language, and extends through 2016, so it's not entirely redundant.

Inflammatory commenter,

The r-value is .01 and the p-value is 0.86, so there's no basically no relationship between the two. It gets slightly weaker if foreign-born are excluded.

That is still interesting, though it doesn't hold for white men or for non-whites. To the contrary, the correlation between wordsum and childs is strongly negative for non-whites with intrwght controlled for.

Sid,

y guess, however, is that dumbies and more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are

You are a gift that keeps on giving.

And yes, it is imperative to remember that TFR doesn't tell the whole story--time between generations matters enormously.

Maciano Van der Laan,

Maybe. The GSS doesn't provide us with a way to gauge as much. Converting wordsum scores to IQ gives us a ceiling in the 120s--it doesn't allow for a look at specific ranges beyond that.

Peter,

Social isolation maybe, but that just feels like the least unsatisfactory of many possible unsatisfactory explanations.

Feryl,

Yes, small samples (24 blacks, 34 hispanics) at the high-end for NAMs.

The gay advantage (and corresponding bisexual disadvantage, interestingly) over heterosexuals in wordsum for men is .4, about a quarter of a standard deviation, or about 4 IQ points. But the gay numbers in these samples are prohibitively small since the SEXORNT question only began being asked in 2008.

Szopen,

Sure, under the one-drop 'rule', interracial marriage will raise the mean IQ of both blacks and whites. The population mean IQ will not necessarily change, but the percentage of the population that is black will go up and white will go down.

Anatoly,

Pretty disturbing

Eugenics across the board would probably be best--in addition to reducing a lot of social pathologies, it would also reduce economic inequality--but I'm encouraged by the (nearly) 'neutral' white trend.

VXXC,

Your hostility, which I'm not sure I understand the genesis of, aside, in a Darwinian sense whatever leads to survival and reproduction is evolutionarily successful. The book is still being written on intelligence, but it certainly does not seem to clearly improve fitness at this point.

Lauris,

I've read conflicting takes on that. It's beyond me to even casual comment on.

Anon,

I haven't seen exit polls in English by age group. Native French famously went for Le Pen more than other age ranges did, and Trump did better among young whites than Republican candidates generally do. The Hispanic Heritage poll results take that to an entirely new level if they hold. The best way to evaluate as much will be to wait and see. The front end of Gen Z is now old enough to vote, and in a decade, they'll all be able to.

Anon,

Keep in mind this is restricted to Hispanics born in the US, so those who are at least second generation.

Anonymous said...

Sid:

"I'd like to know why smart blacks and Hispanics don't have so many children. Maybe their being so much smarter than their group average means that they have a harder time finding spouses? Maybe it's because blacks and Hispanics reproduce in their late teens to mid twenties, which is when so many smart people are busy with college and maybe professional/grad school? I don't know, I find this genuinely interesting."

I think I can explain this for you. When I just looked at the GSS white non-Hispanic and performed a regression analysis looking at WORDSUM and INTRWGHT, after adjusting for obesity, WORDSUM actually had a positive effect on fertility. I was surprised to discover that when I looked at all races, WORDSUM actually had a negative effect on fertility. When I added EDUC to the multiple regression analysis, the WORDSUM had almost no effect no fertility, but EDUC had a large negative effect, as did obesity.

I think the problem is that affirmative action is harming Black and Hispanic students. It is causing them to take on large amounts of debt and then not graduate, or graduate with a degree in a career where they under perform because they weren't really qualified. You can see the regression coefficients yourself. I limited INRTWGHT to (2-4) because it is a parabolic relationship, and there are not many people who are underweight.

http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss16
Analysis => Multiple Regression
Dependent: CHILDS
Independent: WORDSUM, INTRWGHT, EDUC
Limits: AGE(40-100),INTRWGHT(2-4)

WORDSUM correlation coefficient drops to -0.008
INTRWGHT is -0.075
EDUC is -0.076

However, if we go back to non-hispanic whites:
AGE(40-100),HISPANIC(1),RACECEN1(1),INTRWGHT(2-4)
WORDSUM has a slightly positive effect on fertility 0.003
EDUC is still slightly negative, but I suspect this is really capturing the effect of obesity during the college years, as discussed in the comments here:
http://anepigone.blogspot.com.tr/2017/07/stalin-is-new-hitler.html

--An Inflamatory Commentator


Anonymous said...

AE - "The r-value is .01 and the p-value is 0.86, so there's no basically no relationship between the two. It gets slightly weaker if foreign-born are excluded."
Are you referring to INTRWGHT? You need to use INTRWGHT(2-4) to see the relationship. The variable is parabolic. 1 is underweight, 2 is normal, 3 is overweight, 4 is obesity. You have to look at (1-2), vs (2-4) separately to get a linear regression.

"That is still interesting, though it doesn't hold for white men or for non-whites. To the contrary, the correlation between WORDSUM and CHILDS is strongly negative for non-whites with intrwght controlled for." As stated in the last comment, I believe that is the harmful effect of affirmative action. If we control for EDUC, the effect of WORDSUM is almost non-existent for all races. Also, we really don't have a good obesity data, and I suspect some of EDUC is really obesity at college age.

--An Inflammatory Commentator

Anonymous said...

@ A/E,

Thank you for your response.

I'm not being hostile I was giving it to the crowd straight. This is how when matters are important men may and do speak.

The winds of this blog and this current on the right consistently point towards either genocide or partition. I've pointed out before the geography of North America not to mention our current human map support no such partition; the winner of the wars will unite the continent as we did. In attempting to separate peacefully there would be a chain of bloody conflicts that end the same way although we might end up not the winner.

I also pointed out that intelligence is overrated, thank you for acknowledging it's not a trait pointing towards evolutionary fitness.

I have pointed out with the vantage of half a century those who live by quantifying humanity should not make life or death decisions especially genocidal ones; you don't understand people enough to make such decisions.

I gave an example of what per the "data" should be a super dysgenic family that instead is quite successful by white metrics across the board. They are a Gold Star Family.

Finally there is this: the people who do make life and death decisions are bound by war, crime fighting, firefighting, blood and oath and again we're all coming from the same clusters of families for generations now and please be aware those ties outweigh all else. I am describing not just military here but also police, firemen, EMTs etc.

**We're all coming from the same clusters of family. That's what volunteer defenders has literally bred us.**

We're exactly reflective by the way of the country as a whole in terms of race. As far as intelligence our testing - we are one of the few favored still with actual ability tests in the ASVAB - we eliminate the bottom quintile and are underrepresented in the top quintile.

But ^none of that^ matters to us just our ties of blood by war family.

Your conclusions and data, metrics and sums can be useful Sir as rough measurements of the situation but can't and won't tell in actual policy. What is above will tell. Sirs.

Feryl said...

"The gay advantage (and corresponding bisexual disadvantage, interestingly) over heterosexuals in wordsum for men is .4, about a quarter of a standard deviation, or about 4 IQ points. But the gay numbers in these samples are prohibitively small since the SEXORNT question only began being asked in 2008. "

"Bi-sexuals" mostly includes low self-esteem and/or low-IQ women (think: future porn star material) who presumably are not exactly bookish and are more into acting out. A decent number of guys sow their wild oats (within reason) and then grow out of it, whereas (as you've noted recently) wild-child girls are setting themselves up for a life-time of an emotional void and overall ill-being.

Is NUMMEN (and NUMWOMEN) a better way to gauge sexuality than SEXORNT? The num variables have a much longer history on the GSS, and besides are much more objective than asking someone what their identity is (how many Millennials girls "identify" as gay or bi when they're in college?).

Feryl said...

Wordsum, whites and males only (I don't control for Hispanics since that makes sample sizes too low, so I use race(1) and that's it) by number of same sex partners:

Nummen (0)
10 - 5.2
9 - 9.2
8 - 12.5
7 - 17.3
6 - 22.3
5 - 15.9
4 - 9.5
3 - 4.9
2 - 2.0
1 - .9
0 - .3

Nummen (1-700)
10 - 9.0
9 - 8.6
8 - 13.3
7 - 16.4
6 - 24.1
5 - 14.0
4 - 7.0
3 - 4.2
2 - 2.4
1 . 9
0 - 0

Wow, that's a fairly sound victory by fairies. Gays are vastly over-represented in acting, singing, the media, and politics, given how few gays there are. Also of note is that there appears to be a correlation between urban upbringing and teh ghey, and we all know that verbal elites cluster in big cities. It could well be that hetero urban elites are more likely to give birth to off-spring who are verbally gifted and/or recipients of the gay pathogen.

BTW, this would also explain why homsexuality doesn't get "evolved" out of existence; humans who either are very high or very low in class cluster in high pathogen environments to live near like groups (what, do you expect elites to no be as close as possible to their fellow lawyers, politicians, think-tankers, etc.?). The disadvantage incurred by not reproducing is off-set by most (advanced?) human societies conferring high status on verbal elites who must accept exposure to pathogens as the price to be paid for living near thousands of other fellow elites. And these same elites, more often than not, enjoy ethnic restaurants staffed by immigrants and ethnic urban labor in general.

Feryl said...

The last point I brought up because immigrants always bring in new varieties of germs that the locals aren't used to. More immigrants=more diseases.

Urban environments, immigrants, transplants, warm weather, rainy and humid weather, and 3rd world culture are all associated with high levels of pathogens.

Feryl said...

Wikipedia looks to have scrubbed the gay-germ theory from it's arena of "acceptable ideas"; you have to go to Greg Cochrane's bio article to find it.

Environment and homosexuality does have a section on urban correlations, but it's framed in terms of "social construct" BS.v Several studies linking gayness to urban upbringing are acknowledged, but don't mention anything related to science. The idea that people born in the country are more likely to repress their identity is laughable; every body wants and needs sex, and wants to hang out with like-minded people. To the extent that fairies are born in the sticks, most end up going to and staying in the big city. Ultimately, most men born in low-pathogen areas are straight as an arrow, verbally disinclined, and have a visceral distaste for homos and for urban areas that will never really go away. The homos and elites who didn't happen to grow up in the big city are the exception that proves the rule, since they stand out so much from the ranks of hinterland proles.

Audacious Epigone said...

Inflammatory commenter,

If we control for EDUC, the effect of WORDSUM is almost non-existent for all races

Indeed. Did a post back in 2012--not sure why the graphs seems to have deteriorated over time, heh, must of been using a different program at the time--about just that.

VXXC,

At what point does this manifest itself as anything approaching the sort of resistance to the Great Erasure that is going to be necessary to avoid genocide or partition? When whites are 60% of the population? 50%? 40%? In two decades, when the boomers have died off, we'll be quite close to non-Hispanic whites no longer constituting a majority of the American population. We're looking at over 150 million non-whites then.

Feryl,

It's an mean difference of .2, so it's not nothing but the advantage isn't huge. Undeniable overrepresentation in those fields, though I get the sense that they may actually be underrepresented in more introverted high-verbal fields like writing. Is it the combination of high-verbal and desire for the glam, gregarious lifestyle that combines for that aforementioned dominance?

Feryl said...

For those keeping score, try and conceive your kids in non-elite metro areas (if you aren't willing to live totally out in the sticks), preferably in the parts of the US that are dry and/or cold. I'd bet that males born and raised in the outer suburbs and hinterlands of the Dakotas, Montana, and Idaho are probably the least gay people in the country (not including feather indians who grew up on dreadful reservations).

Bos-Wash, the Deep South, and Texas should be avoided at all costs, esp. if you're white. That being said, if you do end up in these places, avoid the urban areas like the plague, esp. if you're going to be having a kid. That goes for every region, really; stay the hell away from the bug-ridden cities.

Feryl said...

Since gays are more extroverted, and don't have wives or children to protect, it's much easier for them to pile up in urban areas where they end up often competing with each other in various fields requiring extroversion and flamboyance. We all know too that decadent gays are far less troubled by urban crime and disease waves than heteros are.

And I thought I read that gays were studied and were found to have sharper diction that heteros. Likely that in the course of their lives, gays pad their advantage by frequently hanging out with verbal elites (gay or otherwise), which further develops the former's eloquence.

Anonymous said...

@akarlin

Might just be a chance effect of lower sample sizes in the "Pretty / Really smarts" categories though.

I'd suggest, reanalyze and look at each group normalized to its SD and mean.

Replicate with SES would also be interesting.

(Incidentally, Greg Clark has his finding from surname analysis that low status White names such as "the surnames of the New France settlers of North America – Hebert, Cote, Gagnon — are all now of low social status, 300 years after most of these settlers arrived in the New World. And they are converging on mean status no faster than black surnames", which is at odds with higher / lower regression among different groups. What does anyone make of that? Suggests a) no White low surname advantage in attaining medium status, which you would suggest if racial discrimination mattered and b) no different regression to the mean.)

Ryan Andrews said...


Two things:
1.) How can this data jive with the fact that the white birth rate is 1.75, the black rate is 1.9, and the Hispanic rate is 2.3? I know this is based on people who had their kids years ago, and the birth rate (especially among Hispanics) has declined since great recession, but hasn't the white rate been at or below two for several decades?

2.) Is the black rate really That much more dysgenic than the white rate? This scale is using the white mean score of 6 as normal, but the black mean/median, I assume, is lower. If, as with IQ, around 1/6 of blacks score at or above the white average, then blacks with a "normal" score are actually among the top 1/6 of blacks, and they have a birth rate of 2.5. I know the black birth rate fall off a cliff at the very high end, but presumably that is a small portion of the their top 1/6, or even their top 10%. Based on this graph, I would guess that the birth rate of the top 10% of blacks is still higher than 2. Clearly, this graph shows a more dysgenic trend among blacks than whites, but maybe not dramatically so.


Audacious Epigone said...

Ryan,

The parameters grab people born from between about 1910 at the earliest through 1980 at the latest, with an oversampling the closer to the midpoint you go and an undersampling the farther out to the edges of that range that you go. This is mostly tracking baby boomers but also some previous generations and some Xers.

Wordsum, because it's multiple choice (0-3 correct out of the 10 are all effectively the same score), shows a white-black gap of a little more than half of 1 SD rather than the full SD that La Griffe du Lion coined the iron law of sociology. As a consequence, we're looking at the relatively talented fifth in the first two groups of pretty and really smart blacks while just over half the black population falls in the real dumbs or pretty dumbs categories.

Anonymous said...

@Sid

Yes, that is exactly why the situation is really bad for blacks and Hispanics. Imagine how socially isolating it is to be an IQ 130+ white person. Now imagine how much worse it gets if you are an IQ 130+ black or hispanic person. I imagine that it must be just as lonely for the IQ 130 blacks and Hispanics as it is for the IQ 145+ whites.

Ryan Andrews said...

I see; thanks for the explanation. I should have paid attention to the percentage shares for each category the first time around.

Corvinus said...

Sid...

"My guess, however, is that dumbies and more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are. Occuring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact. After two kids or so, dumb whites understand that children are expensive and then use birth control more regularly, abort unwanted fetuses, and simply have less and less interest in sex over time."

Assuming that white people are acting against their own interest to have more children to negate the impact of non-white children.

Assuming that IQ is the end all and be all for every white person.

Assuming that there will be an "unmistakably dysgenic impact" should white people choose to make their own decisions about race and culture and child rearing.

Praytell, what are your metrics for determining "dumb whites"?