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)

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

These questions are not particularly indicative of virtue. While most people think cheating on a spouse out-of-the-blue is morally wrong, when confounding factors are added, as they are in any real marriage, most people take a more nuanced opinion, especially, for example in the case of an acquaintance of mine who cheated on his wife because she was abusive and mentally unstable, but didn't divorce her because of an (in the end) vain attempt to stay married to protect the children. Also, many people have been arrested falsely or over things that ended up not being prosecutable (like talking back to a cop) or defending oneself when attacked. I know of one person arrested for exactly that, though he was released almost immediately when the facts became apparent. Finally, while cheating on one's taxes is against the law, I know of almost no one who thinks the tax code is legitimate, and many who take as many deductions as they think they can get away with. In other words, these three questions are not good proxies for morality.

Better questions would be: do you causally lie to people for no really good reason? Do you cheat at golf? Do you shoplift from stores, or casually steal from strangers? Lying, cheating, and stealing are much better proxies for morality than cheating on one's spouse , or being arrested, or cheating on taxes.

Sid said...

1. I am not surprised that smart people are inclined to cheat. It generally seems like smart but amoral people have the fewest qualms about cheating compared to other unethical deeds, make the biggest fuss about how "outdated" Christian marital ethics are for not endorsing open marriages, claim monogamy is "unnatural," etc.

When smart people have Nietzschean "reevaluation of all values" in their personal lives, it seems like fidelity is the first thing to go, whereas stealing and especially murder are still deemed untouchable to moral revision.

2. I'm surprised midwits have the highest rates of arrest. What's the cut off between a dimwit and a midwit in this instance? I'd think people with IQs less than 90 would be especially prone to leaving trails of evidence that would lead to their arrest.

3. I'm surprised dimwits are the most inclined to think it's OK to cheat on their taxes. You'd think smart people would see more opportunities for avoiding paying taxes and devise clever ways of getting around paying them. Well, they do score more highly here than the midwits.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

They're far from perfect, and of course the issue with self-reported data is always that people will give an answer that presents them in the way they want to be seen rather than the way they actually are. Your proposed questions don't exist in the GSS, unfortunately.

There is one I wanted to use, asking if respondents would suffer in the place of a loved one, but for whatever reason that question isn't cross-referenced with Wordsum scores as is the case on some of the single year modules.

Sid,

1) Haidt talks about five moral dimensions, of which harm-based morality is one that most characterizes liberals and libertarians, who are relatively high-IQ populations (relative to "moderates", who tend to be lower). Cheating is easier to account for than stealing or bodily harm is in this framework.

2) It's a roughly 30%-40%-30% distribution for dim-mid-smart, or about less than 90-90 to 110-more than 110. The "criminal sweet spot" of an IQ of 90 is often remarked on.

3) So am I. I thought that would've followed the cheating on a spouse pattern. The differences here are all pretty modest though. Posts on things that don't show much of anything aren't particularly exciting, but since I looked at it figured I might as well share!

Arthur said...

The higher rates of arrest for midwits might be the additional vision to see criminal opportunities, but not enough to keep from getting caught.

chris said...

@AE

Does the increased cheating for higher IQ control for sex? Men have a higher variation in IQ, and so the high IQ are more likely to be men, and this could confound the results.

Also, some psychometrists suggest men might have a slightly higher average IQ as well, although I imagine if the measure of IQ was wordsum score, then such an average would be compensated by the slightly higher verbal abilities of women.

The Z Blog said...

I agree that equating IQ with morality is a fool’s errand. These are two different measures of a person. Someone’s IQ is something that can be measured to a reasonable degree of accuracy. There’s a reason we don’t have morality tests. When it comes to something like virtue, the definition shifts over time and place, so one man’s virtue can be another man’s vice. The Persians under Cyrus the Great thought commerce was a sign of moral turpitude.

That said, I think you are asking three unrelated questions here. The first question is about private morality. Put another way, it is “How do you judge your own moral character?” After all, cheating on a spouse is probably the most personal of moral topics. No one is publicly judged on infidelity anymore. It is just an accepted part of life that one works out in private. The fact that this negatively correlates to IQ is not surprising. Smart people are more aware of their own failings.

The second question is about how one is judged by society. This is not as clear cut. The midwits are going to be mostly lower middle and middle-class people. There is some benefit to having been arrested, depending upon the charge. For instance, getting popped for bar fighting as a young man carries some swag for lower middle class males. Getting arrested for protesting something in college will play well with the upper middle.

I think a better question for public morality would be drunk driving or domestic violence. These are universally shameful.

The last question is simply about how one feels about their rulers. Cheating the government is morally neutral, outside of a theocracy.

In sum, I’d look for questions that are class neutral that divide into private morality and public morality. That would give a clearer picture, I think.

dc.sunsets said...

For a while I was a member of Colloquy Society. Until I learned that it was full of high IQ morons who believe the full spectrum of Leftist tropes (blank slate, magic dirt) and who were blind to the irony of being blank-slaters while joining a high IQ society.

This may not be synonymous with virtue, but given that virtue to me stems from logical concatenation from axiom (praxeology), it seems related.

I taught my kids, we do what's right because we are BETTER than other people. By doing what's right, you can be smug about it (to yourself), seeing those who lack virtue as being scum, and so that should you be victimized by such scum, you know that it's not Karma, it's about you're better, they're scum, and the world's just like that. It must have worked; one day my youngest found a nice digital camera in the street. A neighbor kid accompanying him said, "keep it, keep it." My son recognized from the photos that it belonged to another neighbor and promptly returned it.

Anonymous said...

Love your blog and analyses. However, your results don't always match-up with the cache of findings. High IQ is associated with moral behavior (see reams of criminology research). Here is a nice example.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2462718

Audacious Epigone said...

Arthur,

Yes, I think that's what's implied in the idea of the so-called criminal sweet spot, though more that the dimwits are too scared/incompetent/unmotivated and the smartwits can see the cost/benefit over a longer period of time--IQ is clearly correlated with low time preference and future time orientation--that midwits may not.

Chris,

It doesn't but the differences hold across sexes--the ordering is the same. Among men, it's 12% of dimwits, 18% of midwits, 24% of smartwits who've cheated.

Re: wordsum, yeah, it's a decent proxy (.71 correlation b/w IQ and wordsum score) but it's not perfect. One reason is that women consistently outscore men on wordsum (but not on IQ tests).

Z,

Yeah, the questions aren't optimal. There is one that asks respondents whether or not they'd willingly suffer in the place of a loved one (to avoid the loved one having to suffer). That's probably as close as the GSS gets, but it's a single-year module that isn't cross-referenced with Wordsum scores.

The Persians under Cyrus the Great thought commerce was a sign of moral turpitude

Hell the second estate a couple millennia later didn't think much differently.

dc.sunsets,

Something to be proud of. Probably not much in the world to be more proud of.

One of the many bad things about the balkanization of the West is that WEIRDO attributes like honesty and fidelity will become increasingly harmful and costly at the individual level the less WEIRDO it becomes. In a high-trust society, the prisoner's dilemma fails because everyone rightly trusts everyone else. As social trust declines, being honest turns into a sucker's game.

It's tragic.

Anon,

Well, don't mistake a claim being made here that this is conclusive. It's just another few data points out there. The reams of criminal data, though, do show that criminality does not increase indefinitely as IQ declines. And as Z-Man alludes to, midwits and smartwits are probably better at getting off without charges once arrested than dimwits are (the GSS only asks about arrests, not convictions).

dc.sunsets said...

And as Z-Man alludes to, midwits and smartwits are probably better at getting off without charges once arrested than dimwits are (the GSS only asks about arrests, not convictions).

People above a certain level of intelligence seem to know to Shut. Up.

Watching "48 Hours" is a Ph.D. level education on how people hang themselves with their own words. No wonder the sweet spot for being convicted is below 90 IQ.

Feryl said...

There's a correlation between urbanization/secularism/upper class values and "victimless" crime gullibility. Secular upper class people are less inclined to believe in moral absolutes than religious lower class people (belief in the afterlife is a strong motivator). As well, upper class people are less likely to personally affected by drug/gambling addicts and the damage they inflict. Ghetto and trailer park dwellers are more likely to have their cars and homes broken into by addicts.

Another factor is that hedonism that doesn't directly involve harming another person is something that many higher IQ people flirt with at one time or another, but in general they have enough self-control to not get arrested/badly hurt/whatever. In the 60's, it was blacks and white college kids (who tended to be quite smart back then) who did drugs and slept around before prole whites did. While the black community fell apart over night, the full effects of permissive "victimless crime" culture weren't really felt among whites until the late 70's when younger whites of all classes were getting high and carousing.

Abortion for any reason, Yes or no

ABANY, RES16, CLASS(1-4)
Lower Class -
Country, not farm - 27.2 Yes
72.8 No

Farm - 25.4 Yes
74.6 No

Town Less 50,000 27.1 Yes
72.9 No

Town 50,000-250,000 37.2 Yes
62.8 No

City Suburb 50.4 Yes
49.6 No

Big City 46.8 yes
53.2 No
Working Class -
Country, not farm 32.8 Yes
67.2 No

Farm 23.9 Yes
76.1 No

Town less 50,000 37.1 Yes
62.9 No

Town 50,000-250,000 42.1 Yes
57.9 No

City suburb 48.2 Yes
51.8 No

Big City 45.9 Yes
54.1 No

Middle Class
Country, not farm 38.6 Yes
61.4 No

Farm 32.4 Yes
67.6 No

Town less 50,000 42.7 Yes
57.3 No

Town 50,000-250,000 47.8 Yes
52.2 No

City suburb 57.1 Yes
42.9 No

Big City 50.8 Yes
49.2 No

Upper Class
Country, not farm 47.3 Yes
52.7 No

Farm 25.7 Yes
74.3 No

Town less 50,000 46.7 Yes
53.3 No

Town 50,000-250,000 58.4 Yes
41.6 No

City suburb 72.2 Yes
27.8 No

Big City 65.0 Yes
35.0 No

Being privileged and socialized in urban areas of anonymous hedonism and shameless striving gives you very permissive values. Caveat: in all likelihood, Jews surveyed are far more likely to have been raised in a big city or it's surrounding environs than gentile whites, but there's no effective way to totally disentangle gentiles and Jews on the GSS, given that questions about Jewish heritage are inconsistently asked, and religious questions aren't very helpful given how liberal upper class gentiles and Jews alike frequently report having no religion.

Feryl said...

If the GSS proves anything, it's that Jews are products of atomized liberal urban values. It's likely that if gentiles had the same IQ and upbringing, they'd turn out much the same. Ergo; the most Jewish-like white gentiles frequently intermarry with actual Jews (see: Ivanka and Jared). And the claim that Trump is some kind of storm fronter is hilariously fatuous, given that in every way imaginable, Trump represents the Noo Yawk values that Ted Cruz blasted (incredibly, Cruz didn't face accusations of anti-Semitism).

Let's not forget that much of the Trump platform was inspired by economic and cultural populism, in which racial politics are incidental rather than the main focus. Trump attacked low quality Mexicans, Muslims, and foreigners in general to appeal to fed-up white proles, and he also attacked cuck ideology that hurts workers, The PC crowd immediately said that such appeals to proles are inherently racist, without bothering to examine the true fact that foreign workers, corrupt politicians, and greedy companies have conspired to economically batter prole whites for 40 years. Trump has always focused on how poor foreign and economic policies ultimately hurt everyone in the long-haul; on other issues (guns, abortion, whatever) Trump, like most urban East Coast whites, ranges from indifferent to liberal. It's just that to appeal to conservative culture hawks, Trump has had to beat the right drums to not look like an outsider in his new party.

PC makes people so stupid that nearly all liberals seize on Trump's racially tinged comments without bothering to examine Trump's historical behavior and statements, none of which suggest he ever wanted anything to do with reactionary groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens. Thing is, populism is going to inherently land hard on someone, and often times that someone is going to be nonwhite or foreign terrorists, criminals, invaders, job thieves, etc. Both sides need to realize that the key to Trump and Bernie was that they're sincerely trying to improve the average person's life; neither is an elitist cultural warrior. Trump's never been sanctimonious, and Bernie got shown up by black ID politics avengers.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I have the outline of a post looking at urban upper class Jews and urban upper class whites to see just how similar they are. My suspicion is you're right.

Indeed, that's a perspicacious comment about Trump's total lack of sanctimony. He is a pugilist, dismissive, etc but never sanctimonious. That probably goes a long way in explaining his appeal to middle Americans and proles. It's something the Sam Harriss and the Charles murrays of the world can't seem to understand.

Sid said...

"He is a pugilist, dismissive, etc but never sanctimonious."

I got in an argument with a total shitlib recently about Harvey Weinstein and his donations to Hillary's campaign versus Trump's Access Hollywood tape. I said that for all Trump's sins, he never presents himself as being some great women's rights icon, whereas Hillary does while taking money from a serial rapist, tens of millions from Saudi and Qatar, and is married to another rapist. Trump is who he is, whereas Hillary is a total fraud who has never believed in anything that didn't benefit her personally.

Of course, the shitlib stormed off and promised to never speak to me again. Puckishly, I said in falsetto, "Yippee!"

On a related note, compare Trump with Puerto Rico with Hillary on Haiti. Trump is giving Puerto Rico tough love: he's filling their ports with aid, while chastising their corrupt, feckless leadership for not trucking them around the country. He's also reminding them that their finances will need to be set into order, even if ironically he's terrifying Wall Street by hinting at loan forgiveness.

In contrast, the Clintons were happy to virtue signal and shed crocodile tears over Haiti, and then ransack their charity and relief funds and hand out deals to their donors and cronies, no matter how incompetent they were. A year ago, Hurricane Matthew killed over 500 people in south Haiti because the infrastructure set up was so shoddy. That's just psychopathic. And of course, the same people who covered for Harvey Weinstein covered up Haiti last year.

Gee, and they accuse US of being racist!

Issac said...

AE,

"It's something the Sam Harriss and the Charles murrays of the world can't seem to understand."

I rather suspect they do understand but would rather feign ignorance so as not to lose their beloved "he's crazy," backstop. If one admits to understanding Trump's appeal, they are forced into the position of defending the anti-Trump platform explicitly, which is a wildly unpopular collection of virulently anti-white social reforms piled atop naked corporatism.

Men like Murray and Harris would much rather emote some kind of dumbfounded exasperation than lose their vaunted optimate caste position of "rational" detachment.

Orthodox said...

High IQ is associated with moral behavior (see reams of criminology research).

Following laws does not equal morality. Bill Clinton "depends on what the definition of is is." The 2008 financials crisis where all the bankers talked about how they followed the laws, checked with their lawyers. There's serial killers and mass murderers. There's all the rapists and pedophiles in Hollywood, and all the people who cover for them. Very few if any will go to jail. Intelligence is a tool. Good people use it for good, evil people use it for evil. Dumb people behave immorally in dumb ways and run afoul of laws. Smart people are better at hiding their immorality. Smart people also redefine morality. "Sodomy is cool now, so we're not being immoral!"

The Bible is several thousand years of accumulated wisdom. The dimwit who follows the Bible will beat the amoral smartie in a long enough game.

DissidentRight said...

It occurs to me that both lefties and cucks equate virtue with what is in reality softness, and softness is a luxury of the bureaucrat class, and the bureaucrat class tends to be modestly more intelligent than average. The closer you are to the bottom, or the further removed from the smoothing effects of government-related employment, the more softness is likely to cost you.

DissidentRight said...

The dimwit who follows the Bible will beat the amoral smartie in a long enough game.

You mean...the afterlife? :-)

But in earthly terms, though, this is clearly not true. The Psalms and Proverbs and the Prophets say as much, not to mention logic and experience. In the long game, the individual smartie beats the dimwit, moral or not. In the long game, the nation of smarties beats the nation of dimwits...moral or not.

Just look at the West. We had by far the best combination of morals and smarts. And yet, we threw away the morality and tried to commit civilizational suicide.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Trump prefers not leave unexpressed a thought that comes into his mind. He is a rarity in that regard.

The Cloud People find this not only unacceptable, but horrifying. They care far more about expressed thoughts than about actual actions and behaviors.

I doubt I speak only for myself when I say it endears him to me.

Issac,

Touche. Trumpism is more popular than Trump. The Cloud People really do not want to deal with any of Trump's populist issues, so they're deadset on the idea that if they are able to destroy him, the ideas he rode on will go away.

Orthodox,

Intelligence is a tool. Good people use it for good, evil people use it for evil.

Well put, thanks.

Dissident Right,

There's is the morality of the fish tank. It's a virtue-signalling morality that has no utility outside of the fish tank. If the tank ever busts and all the fish inside are thrust into the ocean, they're screwed.

In the long game, the nation of smarties beats the nation of dimwits...moral or not.

Is Europe going to beat Africa? I guess we'll see.

Feryl said...

The Cloud People really do not want to deal with any of Trump's populist issues, so they're deadset on the idea that if they are able to destroy him, the ideas he rode on will go away.

Agnostic did a post some months back where he critiqued how naive and foolish the elite's "take" on foreign conflict is. Before WW2, we were comfortable writing off entire nationalities/tribes as no good scum. See: foreign policy propaganda used to revolve around demonizing "the enemy" who encompassed an entire tribe. The Krauts and Japs in WW2, etc. After WW2, Western elites felt ashamed of this sort of racial collectivism, and in future conflicts a foreign opponent would be marketed as suffering from poor leadership or from adherence to a poor ideology. Now, perhaps not coincidentally, our military has had fewer and fewer unqualified successes since this attitude adjustment. Pro-Vietnam Boomers, of whom there were many, were often highly derisive of leadership not having "the guts" to go far enough to win. There's some merit to this: winning "the hearts and minds" of your opponent became sentimentally important to Western elites by the 1960's. No longer would we wage war based solely on the tactics required to smash and frighten your enemy into submission.

The meme of "cut the head off, the snake dies" has become tiresomely commonplace when "leaders" discuss their tactics and goals. Ironically, many liberal critics of US foreign policy are blind to the fact that whatever your feelings are on the morality of war strategy and tactics, the reality is that if you want short and long-term realization of your tribe's success, you must be ruthless and unapologetically chauvinist. As usual, problems that started with G.I.s (who largely weren't calling the shots in conflicts before Vietnam) would become much worse under Silents and Boomers. Silents and Boomers are neurotic and guilt-ridden about the prosperity they inherited, and many of them truly are ashamed to have benefited from a nation and an empire which they feel was mounted on blood and bigotry. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water; of course Americans, and all Western countries, have erred and sinned; what nation's haven't? But that's no excuse to systematically dismantle Western nations and attack the very notion of distinct nations and peoples; remember that many people born from oh, 1900-1970, really do believe that the only thing holding back any person or tribe is bad ideas/bad leaders. Marxist oppression ideology and blank slatism are plagues which have driven the madness that appears to be at it's peak right now among the latte set.

Feryl said...

Whereas many Boomers have felt compelled to go all-out to finally win a big war that will give another American generation the glory that WW2 GIs got, younger generations are sick and tired of military excess and ineptitude. We simultaneously pick too many fights while not having a clue how to win them. We knock out secular third world tyrants, and leave vacuums which are soon filled by Boomer zealots who have legions of Gen X and Millennial followers. All the while, our Marxist "leaders" assure us that any place and any people can be "nation-built" in the image of the West. Prior to this disastrous foreign policy era (the 1990's-present), we had mixed results (both politically and morally) in the anti-commie era of the 50's-80's (Korea, Vietnam, funding and arming anti-commies in Latin America and the Middle East).

Boomers need to get a clue that rarely, if ever, are conflicts as morally and ideologically "simple" as WW2. But that doesn't stop wrong-headed and moralistic marketing of recent conflicts in which both the premise of the fight and the tactics of the fight are stupid. I think it's overlooked that the moral and cultural wars fought by Boomers have also created literal wars; as Boomers basically took over leadership in the 90's (with the support of the remaining Silent mentors), Boomers of all tribes have been perpetually fighting with each other across the globe to try and make their particular vision victorious. Since Boomers are fundamentally moralistic and fueled by Manichean delusion, it's impossible to make them calm down and back off. Even the rising generation of Millennials, who were supposed to be looked after, hasn't stopped the blood thirst and mania of zealous Boomer leaders. At least before the 1990's the commies were a clear threat and gave us something to mutually oppose.

Feryl said...

"He is a pugilist, dismissive, etc but never sanctimonious."

Yeah, saying "you suck" is different than calling someone a sinner. People on the East Coast are often surly, but they aren't self-righteous.

People like Cuck Murray have built their image based on elitism; they won't deign to acknowledge that they ever bought into a flawed premise, that perhaps all along proles intuitively understood certain things that most elites are in denial of. And of course, one bit of hypocrisy that stands out is how successful Leftist elites simultaneously won't relinquish their material gains while also braying about social inequities. Rightists like Murray, on the other hand, openly admit that inequality is a natural thing, but end up rationalizing a number of abusive and corrupt arrangements which of course benefit elites like Murray. Elites on both sides have a lot to answer for.

Pretentions of moral and cultural elitism are a disease that's taken over way too much of our leadership.

Feryl said...

RES16 and RELIG:

45.6% of Jews grew up in the big city, while 17.4% of those reporting no religion grew up in the big city. Protestant numbers for both the big city and big city suburb were pretty low. About 20% of Catholics grew up in the big city.

Those who claimed to belong to an unlisted religion had about 25% grow up in the big city; likely this includes all kinds of mumbo-jumbo that swply types might be into.

Only about 17% of atheists grew up in the big city and it's suburbs. There's a much weaker connection between urban upbringing and atheism than I thought, although on specific moral questions (abortion etc.) the GSS would likely reveal a correlation between liberal hedonistic values and urban upbringing. Wait a sec.....Let's look at whites only....the number of atheists who grew up in the big city actually declines after narrowing it down to whites! I'd have thought that religious and urban blacks and Mexicans were keeping the number of atheists low, but nope.

DissidentRight said...

AE,

1. Yep, fishbowl morality.

2. Europe colonized Africa, and with way fewer toys. Africa can’t even sustain mechanized agriculture. Even in America’s case, where the hispanic threat is relatively much greater, I strongly suspect the “let’s redraw the borders to avoid mass deportation” attitude that you occasionally see when people talk about the breakup is going to die with boomercucks. (Not that those particular people are boomercucks, since boomercucks can't hardly even imagine breakup, but people mistake the boomercuck mentality for something lasting.)

If you’re getting at the Christianization of Africa, I don’t think Christianity can make up a 20+ point IQ gap. (I'm a Christian.)

DissidentRight said...

Feryl,

Only about 17% of atheists grew up in the big city and it's suburbs. There's a much weaker connection between urban upbringing and atheism

For your research, "no religion" = "atheist"?

"No religion" is like a Christian who goes to church occasionally, at least on Christmas and Easter, as long as there isn't anything better to do. I wonder about the city/country origins of atheists who, as it were, go to church every Sunday.

Feryl said...

The RELIG variable and the are you a spiritual person variable are the most consistently asked religious questions. The RELIG variable doesn't list "atheist" as a response; therefore, one must conclude that avowed atheists are most likely reporting "no religion" or "other".

So yes, I was treating "no religion" and atheism as being synonymous with each other. Most GSS respondents (particularly before the 2000's) appear to be representive of historical white America; few Muslims and even not that many Jews have participated in the survey. Many white Gentiles are atheists (especially post-Boomers), and as such it's not surprising that many of America's atheists grew up in smaller towns. Since the mid 1800's blacks, Mexicans, and Ellis Island peoples have basically and increasingly taken over the demographics and often leadership (ethnic political machines and powerful Jews) of nearly all of America's big cities and many of their prominent suburbs. All the same, there are a still a lot of white people (esp. legacy/blonde/Protestant white Americans) in the smaller towns and hinterlands. Most of us, if we're honest, agree with Ann Coulter that on balance, America has seen more bad than good from post 1840 immigration policy, and each successive wave of foreigners has further pushed America away from the culture that the Anglo-Scots-Dutch intended, and was fairly easy to sustain with a fair number of French/Germans/Scandis/Irish Protestants along for the ride. Italians can probably make the strongest case for being beneficial; they haven't produced the political machines that blacks/Jews/Irish became notorious for, and they're much less sentimental about the Ellis Island days and about their motherland than are Jews or Irish Catholics. Besides, Italians produce great art, compared to the schmaltz that Jews and Irish Catholics are fond of.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

The good thing is that this nation-building nonsense is going to die with the boomers. There's no motivation or money for it from subsequent generations.

Dissident Right,

If you’re getting at the Christianization of Africa, I don’t think Christianity can make up a 20+ point IQ gap

I'm skeptical that high IQ Europe is going to end up 'beating' low IQ Africa. High IQ may end up being evolutionarily maladaptive in the 21st and 22nd centuries. It's not implausible to me.

DissidentRight said...

AE,

High IQ may end up being evolutionarily maladaptive in the 21st and 22nd centuries. It's not implausible to me.

That's interesting, since AFAIK Hi-IQ has always been a decisive advantage. What's special about the 21st & 22nd centuries?

I don't see it. The invasion + suicidal tendencies of various white Hi-IQ individuals, groups, subnations, or nations create a negative feedback loop for the others. Their self-culling hardens the rest of us. I think the defeat of the Lizard Queen illustrates this.

Sid said...

Before the 20th century, Africa was underpopulated compared to Europe and Asia. Diseases there had ages to evolve alongside the human immune system, and would regularly wipe out human populations just as they were getting large.

In this environment, it was evolutionary advantageous to have as many children as possible, without particular concern for their living standards or for parental care.

Come the 20th century, and modern medicine (along with advanced agricultural techniques) meant that African population density could increase. The older pressures were lifted, and by the end of the 21st century, the African population could explode to four billion.

Meanwhile, high IQ populations (such as those in North America, Europe, and Japan), who had once had to work hard in daily toil to survive, enjoy historical unprecedented levels of ease and leisure. That said, this also means that their depressive and self-doubting tendencies are now being given space to play out unhindered. I think China is now starting to face this phenomenon too.

As such, we're seeing high IQ population birth rates fall and low IQ ones shooting up. It's a dysgenic trend, where the global average IQ is dropping steadily each decade.

The established wisdom, such as it is now, is that the world is ever improving. Per Steven Pinker, rates of violence are falling, global poverty rates are in decline, etc.

Even so, these trends are starting to change. The murder rate fell in America from roughly 1992 to 2014... Then Ferguson happened and the murder rate has since spiked by 20%. I saw on Razib Khan's Twitter account that global poverty rates increased slightly in 2016.

What was making the world better was the success of modern civilization, but the underlying factors that made that civilization possible (high levels of intelligence, conscientiousness, and altruism) are now being undermined by the civilization those qualities created. There's little doubt that Germany's taking in Muslim Invaders is rooted in altruism, but damn the world if that isn't altruism defeating itself, as the Muslims and Africans have not and will not return that mercy with gratitude.

It remains to be seen, but by the end of the 22nd century, it may yet be apparent that intelligence, diligence, and kindness created a civilization that obliterated those very qualities.

DissidentRight said...

Sid,

That said, this also means that their depressive and self-doubting tendencies are now being given space to play out unhindered.

That's only one of the trends in play. The other trend is represented by Generation Zyklon. Then comes Generation Alpha.

It remains to be seen, but by the end of the 22nd century, it may yet be apparent that intelligence, diligence, and kindness created a civilization that obliterated those very qualities.

Nations that underperform on IQ can only "beat" Hi-IQ nations if those nations commit altruistic suicide. But the act of suiciding creates a negative feedback loop that undermines the suicidal tendencies. To _actually_ lose, you need a South Africa scenario...

the African population could explode to four billion.

The problem with South Africa is the whites were vastly outnumbered even BEFORE the cuck phase began, which illustrates why the African population is, ultimately, irrelevant to Europe. They aren't _in_ Europe. The _act_ of moving them to Europe _is_ uncucking the Europeans as we speak. Once you reach Critical Woke Mass, you get Organic War. And the Africans can't hardly even beat us in Corporate Imperial Wars That Nobody Cares About. Forget about a real war.

Imagine if Hitler had sent “armies” composed of Africans to invade France. Lol.
Imagine if Eisenhower had sent “armies” composed of Africans to invade Normandy. Lol.
Don't forget the fact that African isn't a unit any more than Europe is.

The only thing that’s a threat to a Hi-IQ nation is a bigger, badder Hi-IQ nation. IMNSHO.Sid,

That said, this also means that their depressive and self-doubting tendencies are now being given space to play out unhindered.

That's only one of the trends in play. The other trend is represented by Generation Zyklon. Then comes Generation Alpha.

It remains to be seen, but by the end of the 22nd century, it may yet be apparent that intelligence, diligence, and kindness created a civilization that obliterated those very qualities.

Nations that underperform on IQ can only "beat" Hi-IQ nations if those nations commit altruistic suicide. But the act of suiciding creates a negative feedback loop that undermines the suicidal tendencies. To _actually_ lose, you need a South Africa scenario...

the African population could explode to four billion.

The problem with South Africa is the whites were vastly outnumbered even BEFORE the cuck phase began, which illustrates why the African population is, ultimately, irrelevant to Europe. They aren't _in_ Europe. The _act_ of moving them to Europe _is_ uncucking the Europeans as we speak. Once you reach Critical Woke Mass, you get Organic War. And the Africans can't hardly even beat us in Corporate Imperial Wars That Nobody Cares About. Forget about a real war.

Imagine if Hitler had sent “armies” composed of Africans to invade France. Lol.
Imagine if Eisenhower had sent “armies” composed of Africans to invade Normandy. Lol.
Don't forget the fact that African isn't a unit any more than Europe is.

The only thing that’s a threat to a Hi-IQ nation is a bigger, badder Hi-IQ nation. IMNSHO.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dissident Right,

A century ago, Africa's population was well under half of Europe's. By this century's end, it's projected to be 8x that of Europe. That's a staggering inversion in the span of a couple hundred years, just the time between Julius Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, or less time than between Aurelius and Constantine. Survival and reproduction are, ultimately, the only things that matter.

Whites were over 20% of South Africa's population a century ago. That's nowhere close to a majority, of course, but it's easily enough to militarily beat the other 80%. Yet they haven't, and it's pretty obvious now that they won't.

No one hopes I'm incorrect and you're exactly right more than I do, though.

DissidentRight said...

True, that's fair.

But,
1. Geography
2. National & political diversity of Europe
3. National & political diversity of Africa
4. IQ gap magnitude
suggest that African population growth (while alarming) isn't a serious threat. Besides, I am not sure that African pop growth can be sustained without foreign aid. But I don't really know anything about it.

At least one wildcard that we know about is the Chinese colonization of Africa. Armies of African cannon fodder with Chinese leadership could be very dangerous.

Notably, reasons 1 & 2 don't apply to America in the same way as Europe. We share a land border with Mexico (not that Mexico is a particular threat), and while white America is nationally diverse, we have a central regime that exercises far more local power than the EU.

Audacious Epigone said...

have a central regime that exercises far more local power than the EU

For now, yes. I'm uncertain that will be the case in even a couple of decades.

Jonathan Centauri said...

What do you mean by virtue? There is no law anymore. The Anti-White attitudes are impossible to ignore now. Look at the prosperity vs IQ index internationally. Individuals are not societies. You miss the forest of you look at the trees too closely. IQ correlates to time preference and the understanding that rules and standards create things like cooperation. Idiots like Little Jebbie Cuckster can ballyhoo his Motel Six Rock Troll relatives and their "work ethic" all they want, but the Devil is in the details. Corruption, crime and nasty diseases from poor hygiene. IQ HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. Intelligence leads to clean living, cooperation and growth. Mexicans cannot find jobs at home. Their inherent corruption and bad management comes ENTIRELY FROM LOW MEDIAN IQ.
With Whites you get Star Trek. Non-Whites are never far from The Stone Age. Real World Examples do not support that crapola about "equality". Race is NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.
SOCIETY IS A RACIAL CONSTRUCT.
White Scandinavia made Socialism WORK. Venezuela is the same whatever dictator or policy you put there. All creatures have their own space. All animals are equal in their own cage at the zoo. In the jungle, the strong eat the weak.

Corvinus said...

"Race is NOT A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT. SOCIETY IS A RACIAL CONSTRUCT."

Race is linked to biology; ethnicity is linked to culture. Race is a biological and social construct. Ethnicity is a social construct. Ethnicity is the term for the culture of people in a given geographic region, including their language, heritage, religion and customs. To be a member of an ethnic group is to conform to some or all of those practices. Certainly, race and ethnicity overlap, but they are distinct. For example, a Japanese-American would probably consider himself a member of the Asian race, but, if he does not engage in any of the practices or customs of his ancestors, he might not necessarily identify with the ethnicity, but rather consider himself to be American. Of course, American is not a “race”, it is a conglomeration of distinct ethnic groups all rolled into one, with a common cultural bond. Scandanavians, which are from the white race, are descendants from several distinct (North) Germanic tribes. Through intermarriage, they developed a unique set of customs that incorporated Old Norse traditions. So, in a nutshell, race refers to a group of people who possess similar and distinct physical characteristics, while ethnicity refers to a a category of people who regard themselves to be different from other groups based on common ancestral, cultural, national, and social experience.

Remember, natural science consists of mental constructs, created with the objective of explaining sensory experience of our world. Human beings affix labels to make sense of our environment. For example, the California spotted owl is an animal, i.e. biological construct. The name of the creature is a human designation—strix occidentalis, i.e. human construct. That is, binomial nomenclature refers to a formal system, developed by people, to name species. The California owl was not a “California owl” until someone actually and specifically labeled it. Race, biology, ethnicity--all are concepts created by man as an organizational tool to offer a consistency about the natural world in which they observe.