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)

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

https://imgur.com/a/NjKtq

Issac said...

"sample is only 170, so it should be viewed cautiously"

I concur, that chart definitely undershoots my anecdotal observations.

Sid said...

The Asian gap between men and women in neuroticism is surprisingly narrow. A mere seven points, whereas it's usually 10-12 points with other races (sans Jews of course).

My guess is that America is an easier place for Asian women than it is for Asian men. Being Asian usually doesn't accord you many Intersectional Pokemon points. Heck, elite schools are less likely to accept Asian applicants than those of other races. Tiger Moms, of course, are severely disappointed in sons who don't get into good schools.

Women who aren't Asian usually don't go for Asian men. In contrast, men of various races not uncommonly have "yellow fever." The dating market is brutal for most everyone (read Heartiste), but it has to be especially grueling for Asian men.

On the other hand, it may be that there's less sexual dimorphism among Asians, so the levels of neuroticism wouldn't be so divergent.

akarlin said...

Pretty much bears out all the stereotypes, and my own personal experience.

Jewish women are by far the most psychologically damaged demographic group I have encountered.

Only slightly surprising result is that I would have thought that Asians would be considerably higher, but they're equivalent to Hispanics.

Anonymous said...

so black men have the least mental health issues? Am I reading this right?

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Indeed.

Issac,

Ha!

Sid,

Asian men are out in the cold when it comes to interracial marriages/cohabitation. White male/Asian female pairings are 3x as common as Asian male/white female.

Yes, Asian males are just a step above white men. They may even be below white women in some contexts.

Anatoly,

Well, there's a pretty big difference b/w South Asian (fewer mental health issues--30.3% m/f combined) and East Asian (more--45% m/f combined), though the samples are even smaller than for Jews so I combined them.

Anon,

These are self-reported issues, not diagnosed ones. "I dindu nuffin wrong. Bitch shudna step on my foot so he got shot" will be interpreted as emotionally understandable by some (i.e. ghetto blacks) and insane by most.

benkurtzblog said...

The Jewish female result is striking.

Dr. Freud got his start treating neurotic Jewish women in Vienna, where there seemed to be an infinite supply, which suggests this is not a new phenomenon. There's a reason psychoanalysis did not get its start among the Amish.

Is there some genetic pathway mediated by estrogen? Suppressed by testosterone? If we age restricted the sample to only look at post menopausal age people in each category, do the proportions shift?

Ashkenazi Jews are known for high incidence of generic unusual diseases like Tay-Sachs, but I'm not aware of any that are sex linked. But maybe we just found one.

Audacious Epigone said...

Benkurtzblog,

Generally age mediates poor mental health among men and especially among women (that is post-menopausal women express less poor mental health than younger women do). The samples are pretty small for Jews though as noted, too small to breakdown further by age range.

It could be indicative of something larger, though. As they say, more research is required.

Sid said...

AE,

Even if it triggers the disgust reflex in white men to see their women with black men, there are ultimately enough white women around for white men to bear with it. It's also not unusual for white men to get with Asian women as a way to offset the difference.

In contrast, Asian men are a minority in the US, so I'm sure seeing their women with white men must feel like an existential threat.

The Hispanic Heritage survey showed that Zyklon Asian boys preferred Trump over Hillary. As I've said before, they're the biggest winners in a principled stand against miscegenation. (Black women would win big too, but to be crass about it, women have a much easier time sharing men than the reverse.)

On South Asians vs East Asians...

If I had to guess, South Asians would score similarly to Jews (easygoing men, neurotic women). But as you've stated, we need more data.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Exactly. The M-F interracial ratios for White-Asian pairings and Black-white pairings are very similar. In White-Asian pairings, WM/AF is 3x as common as the reverse. Among Black-White pairings, BM/WF is 3x as common as the reverse. So Asian men and black women are the mating market's biggest losers. But because of the inherently restrictive nature of female sex relatively to men, in the case of black women the issue is quality--the quantity is still there (as I think black single motherhood makes intuitively obvious). For Asian men, though, there's nothing.

It's even worse for Asian men than the ratios alone suggest, because there are more Asian men in the US than Asian women (tech visas, etc). There are a lot of Asian men who struggle to find anyone, even if they're willing to trade down.

Feryl said...

Jews are the mostly SWPLY of all ethnic groups; men are better at accepting hierarchies and roles therein than women. A highly mercenary and status conscious environment is going to be full of "loser" males who know they don't measure up, and basically accept that by the time they're in their later 20's. Meanwhile, SWPLy cosmopolitan females are going to all demand a big winner as the husband-to be, to the extent that they're considering marriage at all. There simply is never going to be enough Big Men to go around for women in general, let alone striver women; the effect on Jewish women is going to be particularly stinging since: they come from upper class backgrounds which look down on most men, and also, since the 70's many Jewish men (who are a desired "get") have eloped with studious but agreeable shiksas instead of Jewish girls who they fear might transform into their mothers (the infamous "gay belt" that encompasses the Mediterranean also has lots of mommy issues).

To put it another way: the lion's share of modern Jewish men are in an extremely favorable climate, since increasingly over the last 70 years fewer and fewer restrictions have existed to impede the social freedoms and financial success of Jews. Jewish men can essentially marry whoever they damn well please, since, well, money, and also because Gentiles after WW2 were socialized to admire Jews. When greater restrictions existed on these things, it helped bind all Jews together. And insured that more brainy and brassy Jewish girls got hitched to Mr. Right.

All the same, the much higher rates for women of all types certainly suggests that cultural conservatives are onto something when they lament the decline of nuclear families. What these conservatives often misunderstood is the economic underpinnings of decisions. Partly this is because of Boomers; in the 70's and most of the 80's, Boomers often boldy refused to settle down like earlier generations did, often out of principle as much as out of economic concerns. On the other hand, X-ers and Millennials can plausibly cite economic distress as a good reason for not marrying and having kids at an early age.

Of course, another famous principle of Boomers was never judging another person for whoever they were screwing at the moment. Boomers are by far the most hedonistic generation, and I have a hunch that their battering down of miscegenation taboos was as driven as much by hedonism as it was some kind of moral imperative about freedom or whatever. Lost in these discussions of "freedom" is whether other people have a right (or "freedom"?) to avoid dealing with the fallout of hedonistic behavior.

Feryl said...

CLOSEBLK (how close to blacks are you?) and CLASS:

Upper class whites least likely to say they aren't at all close to blacks. Hmm, I guess being around blacks with an IQ of 96 in college, and being around professional level AA blacks with an IQ of 108 at one's job qualifies as being "close" to back people. No novelty to state the hypocrisy raining down from the heavens; no rich white in their right mind has, since the mid 70's, allowed their young children to attend a school that is more than 5% native born legacy Af. American black. As evidence has mounted that racial differences are intractable, rich whites have demonstrated more and more interest in living in good neighborhoods and sending their kids to "good" schools; all the while, PC and diversity gets worse with every passing year. It's almost as though the chattering classes are experiencing some kind of psychosis, manic break, and grand mal seizure from the dissonance between fashion, "correct" thought/speech, and practiced/learned behavior.

Amusingly, lower class whites were the most likely to report being both very close AND not at all close to blacks. The avoidant whites are probably unpretentious and ornery left end of the bell curve whites just trying to survive another day, while on the other hand you've got wigger types.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Lost in these discussions of "freedom" is whether other people have a right (or "freedom"?) to avoid dealing with the fallout of hedonistic behavior.

My sense is that boomer morality doesn't take that into consideration much at all. Live and let live, consequences being what they may.

Wrt to closeness to blacks, the closeness upper class whites feel is probably a warm, fuzzy feeling they get when they watch Barack Obama give a speech. The closeness lower class whites experience is based on physical proximity and regular interaction (which upper class whites have little of).

luke jones said...

Is there any data on Amerindians? Based on their suicide rates the results should be an eye opener.

As for blacks, well, their relative lack of neuroticism is well established.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-adaptive-value-of-aw-shucks.html
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/stress-levels-poll_b_1231444.html
http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/12/black-americans-have-higher-self-esteem-than-white-americans/

The leftist myth of black self-hatred has no scientific support. Despite their social issues, all psychometric data suggest they are for the most part pleased with themselves.