The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Sailer in Taki's: Chetty Finally Realizes Race Matters
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

But now in 2018, Stanford economist Raj Chetty is more or less admitting he got it wrong: instead, race matters. …

Now that Chetty has race data, he admits that the real main reason behind America’s long-running social problems is mostly just what I’ve been telling him for the past half decade: It’s race. Specifically, blacks and American Indians just don’t earn much money. Chetty writes in his new paper:

…blacks and American Indians are currently close to their steady-state income distributions.

Chetty has pretty much given up on finding magic municipalities where they do things right that can be studied to close America’s gaps. As I’ve always argued, and Chetty now agrees, instead the race gap is geographically pervasive and consistent:

Among children with parents at the 25th percentile, black boys have lower incomes in adulthood than white boys in 99% of Census tracts.

The few exceptions tend to be neighborhoods in Queens or in the D.C. suburbs that have many high-achieving black immigrants.

It’s almost as if whites and blacks, on average, tend to have somewhat different cultures, ancestors, and genes.

Interestingly, Chetty argues that increased welfare wouldn’t do much good in the long run for closing racial gaps:

Transient programs that do not affect intergenerational mobility directly, such as temporary cash transfers, are insufficient to reduce black-white gaps in income ranks because income distributions will revert back to their steady-states in future generations.

In fact, Chetty is beginning to admit that his whole obsession with income mobility was a distraction:

Mobility by itself is not the solution when it results in movement only within the lowest parts of the respective income distribution.

It’s time for academics to consider my point that we simply don’t know how to fix a lot of things, such as blacks and American Indians not earning much money, so let’s at least try not to make things worse for them through massive immigration.

Read the whole thing there.

From the Washington Post:

Same family income, same street, but the black boy still grows up to earn less
By Tracy Jan March 19

… “Race matters,” said Nathaniel Hendren, a Harvard economist who co-authored the paper with Raj Chetty at Stanford and two researchers with the U.S. Census Bureau. “Parent income and neighborhoods cannot explain the entirety of the black-white gap. Even when your parents get rich, the gaps don’t go away.” …

“The racial divide is something that permeates the backyards of every community in America, in both affluent and poorer neighborhoods,” Hendren said. “In fact, the gap is even larger in affluent neighborhoods with better schools.”

 
Hide 142 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don’t like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don’t see how amnesty wouldn’t turn America into a one party state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.
    , @Matthew McConnagay
    Is it that millennial white women lean Democratic, or young white women lean so? And potentially switch parties as they age?
    , @Anon321
    Young white women love gays and trans and to a somewhat lesser extent, abortion. The GOP hurts itself with them to a significant degree by getting bent out of shape about it. But supporting gay/trans stuff would alienate older people, so I dunno. I'd be interested to know the voting patterns of married young white women.
    , @Seth Largo
    There is a significant difference between the 90/10 split among African Americans and the 60/30 split among Hispanics and Asians. I've posted the math here before. Assuming that whites are just under 50% of the electorate, and that they continue to vote like a bloc, you only need to get another 5-10% of Hispanics and Asians to vote rightward to keep the country from turning into a Left Singularity.

    Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.
    , @Uilleam Yr Alban
    There will be violence before European Americans are, effectively, disenfranchised. I’d bet on Europa before the coalition of the fringes.
    , @ivarlo
    The recent election showed young Asian males voting for Trump.

    My guess is that if the Republican party decided to go front in center against affirmative action and showed it targeting Asians, that they would turn into the equivalent of Jews for Democrats -- a high achieving minority with a disproportionate financial influence that would help them win elections.

    But Republicans have to embrace Asians wholeheartedly in the structure of the party. Remember that no issue matters more for Asian moms than their kids getting reverse-AA'd out of good schools from the elementary to the college level.

    I don't think that the R's have figured this out yet.
    , @AnotherDad

    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification ...
     
    This stuff--the increasing college grad skew and white women skew--are depressing.

    Part of this is simply Trump--his bozo antics which good old boys tolerate as "he's Trump", but which are alienating to the self-conception of "educated" voters.

    However, this goes beyond Trump and to real tackle it we simply must have nationalists\conservatives\Republicans who can articulate *very clearly* on some core issues:

    -- "nation of immigrants", meaning "immigration forever!" is a genocidal scam
    It means either your descendants are continually diluted/pushed aside for newcomers ... unless immigration just makes the nation so crowded, unpleasant, mediocre that people simply no longer want to come here.

    -- the Democrat/progressive big statism is not actually good for women
    It's good for women ... who want to remain alone and childless or be a single mom, but for women who want to have a husband and children, you want your huband to be doing well supporting your children, not everyone elses.

    and most of all

    -- HBD is science, the blank slate is political nonsense.
    Various groups of people have had different histories and have evolved--jointly with culture--differing traits, physical and mental including intelligence and personality. This actually *must* be so or you are denying the principle of selection that is at the core of biology. Pretending everyone is born the same is psuedo-science in the service of politics.

    The reason Jewish leftists like Gould, Lewontin, Kamin have worked so hard to promote this weird theory of "no-genes!" for racial differences in cognitive traits, is because such a theory allows abuse and blame to be piled on whites, and makes a case for racial intervention by their beloved super-state and belittles whites feeling that they have special characteristics worth preserving in ethno-states. (It's both pro-state and anti-national.)

    It's imperative we move the needle to get well-educated people to understand that anti-genetic blank-slatism is--really stupid--psuedo science that contradicts basic biology. We have to move the consensus so that "educated" people will feel embarrassment--uncoolness--at believing in blank slatism and feel that blank slate political pitches are just sleazy political scams.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    So, this is kind of related:

    Either I’m just lazy or my search engine is broken, but I’m trying to find raw data on Ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores, and this is the only raw data I came across:

    There’s a table with sample size and average score, which I’ll clumsily copy/paste below:
    ——————————————————————————————————
    Source Sample sizes. Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested. Average IQ Ashkenazi Jews in USA and/or UK
    Backman 1972 1236 107.8 verbal IQ
    Backman in present study 150 107.5 crystallized IQ
    Lynn Estimated 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel
    Macdonald 1994 Suggested IQ 117
    Storfer Suggested IQ 112
    Shuey 1942 764 1.2 below non-Jewish whites
    Bachman 1970 Lesser than 100 112.8
    Herrnstein/Murray 1994 59 112.6

    The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and “1.2 below non-Jewish whites.” Am I reading this correctly, it’s 1.2 points below the White mean?

    I’m trying to find more raw data on this topic and the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence lists “Backman, M. E. (1972) and Levinson, B.M. & Block, Z” as the sources for the high IQ data, but it gives no scores, and I don’t have access to the raw data in those studies. (Does someone else?)

    And then I see this article and I think: huh? An average overall IQ score of 102?

    “I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools.”

    So, my impression is that the data on Ashkenazi IQ is lousy. What am I missing? I thought that we knew this stuff. 115 is quoted everywhere so authoritatively. Where is this number coming from? Why is it quoted everywhere with so much confidence?

    And Jewish brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches? Hmm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    , @utu
    I would like to see this sorted out. People can't agree on what is the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews but they have no qualms about making an assumption about standard deviation being 15 (which is much harder to estimate than mean) and about the shape of distribution.
    , @Curt Dunkel
    Yes. I agree that there is an issue here. There is an over reliance on Backman.

    Backman used Project Talent and the Project Talent data is publically available (ie, you can download it), but the base year data doesn't include a question on religion (that information was collected in a subsequent wave).

    https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/

    I tried to overcome the lack of a religion question in the data here and describe some of the issues with Backman's analysis here.

    https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Dunkel_2014a.pdf

    Other estimates using different data sets can be found here, along with the use of the Project Talent religion question.

    http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1488.pdf

    Good overall point on the quality/quantity of the data. I hope the response helps.
    , @Krastos the Gluemaker
    Why are so many interesting posts written by random anons, trend really has been going up recently...anyway:

    It's quoted by Jewish racists, and other racists whose only real point was to attack blacks or something and they just said it in passing.

    Obviously 115 is nowhere close to true, in fact there is strong evidence there is not any racial group higher than about 105 IQ and even then that's iffy, mostly a lack of non-corrupt data on some East Asian populations and unexplained gender gaps. 100-105 overall IQ for Ashkenazi Jews, where the white European mean is 100 (and some white European groups might differ a few points from that), if not due to environmental effects then possibly thanks to some genetic drift, possibly gender or ability component skewed, seems the most supported by evidence. (It really is like various old jokes: "Did you hear Jews have a verbal IQ of 107? No, I didn't know Jews have a verbal IQ of 112. Why, it's a shame nobody talks more about Jews having an overall IQ of 116")

    Very ironically, given other discussions here, though I don't think I personally commented on it here and it's worth a full article sometime: one reason why it's clear no racial group has particularly high mean IQs is relatively high IQ women (even 130-140) don't exist in the appropriate numbers. As with "general population students" in Shanghai it's bizarre to have a "race" of 115 IQ people where say 130 IQ women nevertheless barely exist; we know the latter case is selection bias in measurement, partly fraud of course. With this and other topics I call it being so racist you forget to be sexist. No existing evidence supports that the women just have something analogous to Down's Syndrome to account for it. Life is not a videogame and one can't just overwise change the variance either; you can't have a race of people with 115 mean IQ and sd 5. (more specifically this is clearly evolutionarily impossible as it contradicts all the scientifically known evidence of the highly polygenic nature of the trait. You'd have to be dealing with lizard people)

    Sampling errors abound of course though, and I've always maintained childhood IQ testing is often terrible. So it's easy to find measurements, not the latent truth, that look weird among groups of immigrants or something. For the same reason non-Jewish non-Hispanic white immigrants from the USA to Japan might have an IQ average of 120, or more clearly, middle class suburban girls who got exactly 3.0 grades during a school year have an IQ of 103 with a SD of 5, results like that can obtain with other races (even blacks, being careful).

    Probably the most hilarious thing from the racist crowd is the constant insistence of bizarre explanations to somehow mathematically cancel out educational/testing results they don't like from Israel. Like "Israel must secretly have a population of Sephardic Jews with a mean IQ of maybe 75 to 'balance things' out."

    Regardless of what some bloviators may or may have once written, by the way, by my count Jews are about 4% of white European historical intellectual figures (scientists etc), which is a bit higher than their share of the population, but then one has to see that many other groups are also skewed. Incidentally the production of highly accomplished individuals is an important topic with some other important explanations but for this subject it's almost irrelevant; parisomoniously, the best results for the Jews is to just count "one Einstein" as putting Einstein in a very small list of very select figures produces the highest ratio. The Swedish, for instance, are way overrepresented among historical intellectual figures compared to the Irish, but nobody accepts that as evidence the Swedish population or race is 20 points higher than the Irish in the present day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn’t square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won’t shift with demographics, but there’s no reason that parties can’t shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country’s that’s more conservative than average, then they’ll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it’s approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What’s the difference if we’re governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it’s still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting’s so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe’s still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they’ll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don’t really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    Fair enough.

    As I see things, there are two distinct possibilities:

    1. More likely: The Republican party will become the current Democratic party. The Democratic party will become the Progressive party.

    In this case, the values of the Republican party (if they exist) will be replaced by the existing values of the Democratic party. If Chelsea Clinton is the presidential candidate of the Republicans in 2028 or 2032, I don't see how it is good for the current supporters or elites of the Republican party.

    I don't see how that is good for the US either.

    2. Less likely: The Republican party becomes the White Populist party. The Democratic party becomes the party of the rest.

    In this case, the Republicans will simply become a punching bag for media & the democratic party. Demographics would mean an effective one party state in the US.
    , @TTSSYF
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities may have been perennial predictions since 1996, but that doesn't mean they aren't valid predictions. In fact, all you have to do is look at California to see that it's all too possible on a national level -- in fact, given our current trajectory, it is very likely. In fewer than 40 years, we've seen California go from giving Reagan nearly 53% of the popular vote in 1980 and about 57% in 1984 to its giving nearly 62% to Clinton in 2016. What more evidence to you need? And what does it matter if there is a nominal Republican party if the center has shifted so far to the political Left, as it has in Europe, as to be just that -- nominal only?
    , @snorlax
    That must be why Republicans win so many elections in California.
    , @Anonymous
    It doesn't work like that.

    The one constant of American life is the declining proportion of white Americans. The preponderance of white voters are in the older age groups. They will pass on in the coming decades. By contrast, non-whites are growing steadily - over 50% of newborns - and weighted toward the young and yet-to-votes.
    Obviously, the effect of passing years will be a 'twofer' multiplier for the 'minority' segment of the vote.
    Now, the biggest predictor of being a Democrat voter is being from a 'minority'. The biggest predictor of voting Republican is being a white male.

    Inevitably, there is only one way this can go.

    , @Whiskey
    Marriage is collapsing with White women per Charles Murray save the top income who are die hard Dems. Soi White women are highly likely to vote more Dem. The future White family will be single mom kids by different fathers.

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals
    , @Issac
    Are you anti-white?
    , @Samuel Skinner

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule?
     
    One of the major political issues in the United States is enforcing the law; I'm not sure how you can describe a situation where one political party thinks it is above the law as functional. I think it is safe to say the United States is no longer an 'actual' democracy any more then Russia currently is.

    It just doesn’t square with the median voter theorem.
     
    If voters vote based on race, that doesn't really apply. It also doesn't apply if one side uses electoral gains to provide them power to cover electoral fraud. This is why the big prize is the president; who cares what the Republicans get if the Democrats get the white house?
    , @Lurker

    If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it’s approximate 50% market share.
     
    But immigration etc will guarantee the average American becomes more 'liberal'. There's no 'if'.
    , @J.Ross
    Canada, Japan, Israel, South Africa, and a few others. But you misrepresent the real issue: there are violently incompatible ideas of what the Constitution means, which leftists want to resolve with permanent changes. There is an almost unprecedented failure of sympathy comparable to the atmosphere before the Civil War. It's not a matter of whether traitors like McCain or McConnell will get elected or not, it's a matter of stability.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Fair enough.

    As I see things, there are two distinct possibilities:

    1. More likely: The Republican party will become the current Democratic party. The Democratic party will become the Progressive party.

    In this case, the values of the Republican party (if they exist) will be replaced by the existing values of the Democratic party. If Chelsea Clinton is the presidential candidate of the Republicans in 2028 or 2032, I don’t see how it is good for the current supporters or elites of the Republican party.

    I don’t see how that is good for the US either.

    2. Less likely: The Republican party becomes the White Populist party. The Democratic party becomes the party of the rest.

    In this case, the Republicans will simply become a punching bag for media & the democratic party. Demographics would mean an effective one party state in the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Interesting it appears even the more colorful black YouTube personalities are waking up to this reality, blacks are more or less broke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let's say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. No magic dirt? The world had become disenchanted.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic%20dirt%20theory

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    I searched "terra encantada" to see if magic dirt meant anything in Spanish. Appropriately, it's an abandoned amusement park near Rio in Brazil.
    , @CCZ
    But SJWs and social engineering judges know that “magic dirt” is still the answer!!

    A Judge Just Told These 2 Wealthy Towns They Need To Build Housing For The Poor (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, March 19)


    Two wealthy New Jersey towns will have to plan for more than 2,200 low- and moderate-income housing units, according to a court ruling. Mercer County NJ Assignment Judge Mary C. Jacobson last week ruled Princeton (only 6% black residents) would have to accommodate 753 new affordable units and West Windsor (only 4% black residents) 1,500.

    But the bigger takeaway may be the judge's conclusion that more than 154,000 affordable housing units are needed across the state. That's way more than what the consultant hired by municipalities had projected but fewer units than what housing advocates want.
     
    "This ruling is a victory for lower-income and minority families across New Jersey," said Kevin Walsh, executive director of the Fair Share Housing Center.

    "Judge Jacobson's decision will give opportunities for thousands of lower-income and minority families to move into safe neighborhoods, send their children to good schools, and work at jobs where they live instead of traveling hours commuting each day. The exclusionary policies that will fall as a result of this ruling harm our whole state, especially African American and Latino communities," Walsh added.
     

    Previously, the state Supreme Court ordered 15 New Jersey judges to take over the process and decide how many “affordable” housing units each town -- in tandem with developers and builders -- needed to construct. (Urban cities are not part of the process.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities may have been perennial predictions since 1996, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t valid predictions. In fact, all you have to do is look at California to see that it’s all too possible on a national level — in fact, given our current trajectory, it is very likely. In fewer than 40 years, we’ve seen California go from giving Reagan nearly 53% of the popular vote in 1980 and about 57% in 1984 to its giving nearly 62% to Clinton in 2016. What more evidence to you need? And what does it matter if there is a nominal Republican party if the center has shifted so far to the political Left, as it has in Europe, as to be just that — nominal only?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Asians so racialist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

    This is the great folly of the modern world post TED talks. Any normal person knows that black women aren’t as rich as white women. Any normal person who has read official statistics and all previous research also knows this. Grusky has likely pontificated to his class about this poverty never once mentioning, ‘except among black women’.

    But here he thinks he sees it in a study by an Indian guy (The ultimate TED talk presenter) and he forgets reality and accepts this study because it has graphs and stuff and Indians are so smart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Hypothesis of what’s going on: People see 107-115IQ and they think: “115!” like when the job ad says “Paying Up to $150K” and you think $150K! gee wizz! and it’s actually $70K.

    But, I’m sure Jews can rationalize why they should own everything with just a 107 IQ: “Well, ackshually, if we take this bell curve out another sigma to the 160 IQ people, a 1:1 ratio makes sense! Now, let’s take it out yet another sigma to 175, and there’s just one guy there: a China man – uh, I mean, a Jew!”

    By the way, what is the mean IQ of the average self-made billionaire? 145? Or, more like 120-something, and high on extroversion? (and very good at *networking*)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra
    Warren Buffett: “Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ...Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. A very interesting quote from the article:

    >A huge political issue for the foreseeable future will be the endless struggle among different neighborhoods to hand the hot potato of poor blacks off to somebody else. These battles can be particularly desperate because there is no legal mechanism to prevent your community from tipping all the way into destruction, as happened to poor Ferguson, Mo., during the Late Obama Age Collapse.

    Perhaps, at macro level, this will be the story of Europe in 21st century. Many Europeans would like to keep the poor blacks in Africa. However, under current European elites and media narrative, it is impossible to do so.

    Will Europe tip all the way into destruction? From Paris to Baltimore, in one generation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Anon
    So, this is kind of related:

    Either I'm just lazy or my search engine is broken, but I'm trying to find raw data on Ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores, and this is the only raw data I came across:

    There's a table with sample size and average score, which I'll clumsily copy/paste below:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source Sample sizes. Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested. Average IQ Ashkenazi Jews in USA and/or UK
    Backman 1972 1236 107.8 verbal IQ
    Backman in present study 150 107.5 crystallized IQ
    Lynn Estimated 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel
    Macdonald 1994 Suggested IQ 117
    Storfer Suggested IQ 112
    Shuey 1942 764 1.2 below non-Jewish whites
    Bachman 1970 Lesser than 100 112.8
    Herrnstein/Murray 1994 59 112.6

    The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and "1.2 below non-Jewish whites." Am I reading this correctly, it's 1.2 points below the White mean?

    I'm trying to find more raw data on this topic and the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence lists "Backman, M. E. (1972) and Levinson, B.M. & Block, Z" as the sources for the high IQ data, but it gives no scores, and I don't have access to the raw data in those studies. (Does someone else?)

    And then I see this article and I think: huh? An average overall IQ score of 102?

    "I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools."

    So, my impression is that the data on Ashkenazi IQ is lousy. What am I missing? I thought that we knew this stuff. 115 is quoted everywhere so authoritatively. Where is this number coming from? Why is it quoted everywhere with so much confidence?

    And Jewish brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches? Hmm.

    There’s two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you’ll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you’ll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that’s a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we’re talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we’re really referring to is the “type specimen”. I.e. someone who’s genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we’d expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below “true” Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen’s concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there’s a single latent variable, that’s not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA’s first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it’s applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It’s well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn’t really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn’t just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It’s well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there’s an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ic1000
    Doug, thanks for taking the time to compose that excellent comment, providing relevant background information on the measurement of Ashkenazi intelligence
    , @Antlitz Grollheim

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.
     
    This really jumped out at me. The careers where this would have been valuable are not careers in the contemporary sense but vocations: farmer, mason, landscape architect, etc. As bureaucracy and educational complex grows, direct interaction with the environment is subsumed under careerist wrangling: e.g. can you make it sound compelling for a grant, or can you market it. The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we're all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.
    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Thanks for your post. I found it very informative.

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I've worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?
    , @Ed

    This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.
     
    I was going to respond that aren’t Russian Jews Ashkenazi but you pointed out astutely that many of the Russian Jews that moved to Israel weren’t very Jewish.

    Brings to mind a few years ago the clip of Israelis making Nazi salutes and celebrating Hitler. Turned out they were children of immigrants from Russia that had a line of Jewish descent but their families stopped being Jewish long ago. The kids saw themselves as Russian.
    , @utu

    to average somewhere below “true” Ashkenazi IQ
     
    Could you also write about true Scotsman IQ?

    on-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture
     
    What animal is gentile of Sephardic admixture. Actually Ashkenazi Jews often have European "admixture" that is over 50%, so perhaps they should be called Europeans with Middle Easter admixture.
    , @Pericles

    Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn’t really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

     

    Interestingly, back in the 80s the Swedish armed forces had a written intelligence test for everyone drafted (i.e., all males of age 18) which did include a major section on spatial reasoning.
    , @Anon
    You say, "First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness ... we’d expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below 'true' Ashkenazi IQ." Is there any evidence for this claim, that Jews with a lower blood quantum of Ashkenaziness but who are (presumably) raised and identify as Jews have lower IQs? That sounds like a cross-adoption study to me, which has never been done on Jews. This is a baseless assertion on your part.

    I still don't see any more raw data than the studies I cited, most notably: "The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and “1.2 below non-Jewish whites.” What I would like to see is raw data giving sample size and scores.

    You talk a lot about genetics. If you were an ethnographer and you found that two populations differ on some psychological trait like openness or IQ or ethnocentrism etc, would a more parsimonious explanation be that it is cultural or genetic in origin? What about when the two groups are as geographically and genetically as close as Whites and Jews are? Would it be more parsimonious to assume that an IQ study that showed a 10 point IQ difference between the French and Polish, say, to be caused by genetics, or environment/culture/socio-economics?

    The genetic distance between Blacks and Europeans is over 70 times greater than the difference between Whites and Jews, tantamount to the difference between 1,000 years of isolation and 70,000 years. The latter is a lot more time for genetic differences to evolve. Furthermore, we have evidence for genetic differences between Whites, Blacks and Asians in the form of cross-adoptions studies and brain size studies. Asian brains are bigger that White*1* brains which are bigger than Black brains, which is exactly what you would expect given their IQs. The limited data we have on Jewish brain size suggests that their brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches, than white gentile brains are, which flies in the face of a genetic explanation.*2*

    You start talking about brain regions that are "responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities." Care to cite your claim? Care to cite it as it specifically pertains to Jews, or any other identifiable racial group? It sounds like vague hypothetical hand waving to me. Maybe true, but please cite it.

    In my view, a more parsimonious explanation for a Jewish IQ advantage (to the extent it exists) is cultural, specifically, rooted in a culture of going into the professions - and not the other way around: high genetic IQ leading to Jews entering the professions in large numbers. (Why does an Amish boy become a farmer? Because he has a farmer's IQ, or a farmer's genetic mentality, or because his father's a farmer? What about sons of lawyers or accountants etc.?)

    HBDers have this hammer: genetics, and they've decided everything is a nail. "Why do the Chinese bind their wives feet? A genetic predilection to patriarchy! etc."

    ** Asian brains are bigger in relation to body size, but smaller in gross size.

    *** And the whole Tay-Sachs hypothesis is very weak. The Irish and Cajans and a population of French Canadians have a high rate of Tay-Sachs too, do they have high IQs? Further, there's never been a study to show that Tay-Sachs increases IQ in heterozygotes, so it's baseless speculation atop baseless speculation. (there might be a case for torsion dystonia, but you could probably make the same argument for myopia, which is probably related to intelligence though a lot of indoor book work.)
    , @SimpleSong

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

     

    Spatially loaded professions:

    Surgeon
    Pilot
    Dentist
    Radiologist
    Architect
    Mechanical, aerospace, or civil engineer (maybe electrical, computer, and chemical although these are more logic/mathematics focused)
    Construction management

    Verbally loaded professions:
    Law
    Journalism
    Sales
    Management/Strategy Consulting
    Internist
    Pediatrician
    government/lobbying/think tank

    Having trained many physicians, my impression is that our screening tools (standardized testing and the like) are excessively focused on verbal ability when many of these professions require little of it. We often got residents with relatively good scores, evaluations, etc., who when it came time to actually operate were always getting lost. Good people, but we had to wash them out. On the other hand we'd have some residents who I would swear were complete morons based on their inability to spell (abscess? abcess? absccess?) who nevertheless were outstanding and now are comfortably ensconced in private practice, hopefully with a spell checker.

    , @pumpkinperson
    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA’s first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    You're thinking of g factor scores which are not typically used outside of research.

    Tests like the wechsler simply take the sum total of all your standardized scores on each subtest, all being weighted equally. This sum is converted to IQ by converting the mean sum to 100 and the standard deviation of sums to 15. That's the model I was using in the cited article.

    Wechsler subtests for example are not weighted differently to maximize g because with enough diverse subtests, non-g variance typically cancels out & the composite's naturally extremely g loaded

    And intelligence is not synonymous with g. Retardation caused by fetal alcohol effect is not correlated with g yet still greatly important, so what matters most is overall cognition not g per se.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Raj Chetty — with his idea that we’d find the localities in America that got race relations and upward mobility “right” in order to emulate them — always struck me as the nerdy liberal do-gooder version of that sort of right-wing political pundit who carefully dances around the issue of race and reflexively blames poor local governance on the Democrats.

    A guy like that of course has his arrow of causation pointed the wrong way. Democrats don’t cause poor local outcomes, Black people cause an area to have poor local outcomes on average — and also Democratic mayors (given their voting patterns).

    I wrote about this in the Republican context ages ago: https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/the-rabid-right-is-too-polite/

    It will be interesting to see how it goes on the Democrat side, especially with their golden-boy high-achieving immigrant academic — perhaps a bit blind to some of the subtext and nuance regarding what you are allowed to say about race relations in polite American company — starts Noticing Things publicly.

    Will we mysteriously stop hearing from Chetty in the future? Will he be publicly defenestrated and fall victim to “point-n-sputter” and shouty charges of “RACIST!!”? He’s not white enough to claim privilege, but I’m counting down the days until someone makes him an “honorary white” so he can be assigned some good old fashioned “privilege.”

    Fun times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MadDog
    I see Raj as a typical Asian immigrant who likes to find fault with whites. His drive to embarrass whites lead to his silly study. Why not do a study on his people? Ask why his ancestral home is a slum? Self introspection and self criticism would be nice. Instead he chooses to bash white people. Cause it’s cool.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. “My Dad, an esteemed Black mortician,
    Was hopin’ I’d be a physician.
    But my dope-dealin’ friend
    Brung me to a sad end.
    White racists have caused my condition.”

    Read More
    • LOL: Buffalo Joe
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. Read More
    • Replies: @CJ
    LOL well then Edutopia is the perfect name for the operation. It's like the Talking Points Memo web site. I disagree with 95% of it, but the name is a superb descriptor.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    The White lady in the background is smiling, but there is still sadness in her face because she knows the Black boy will grow up to be an agent of chaos.
    , @J.Ross
    Edutopia ("a source for what works in education") is the textbook illustration of the phronetically-incapable, bad-policy-pushing, self-congratulatory, fake charity. I think George Lucas started it.
    I'm okay with people being richer than me, I'm okay with them being much richer, but it is downright contrary to the stated will of the Founders that they start these policy-driving NGO "combinations."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. If black women from the top one percent don’t regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there’s a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can’t say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven’t actually read the paper, so I’m hoping someone who has can explain better what’s going on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    also need to determine why the white boys did not regress toward the mean as the white girls appear to regress.

    But I suspect the White girls are not actually regressing as much as the data suggests, since the study focused on the individuals income; many of the white women will have married wealthy men and thus have the freedom to avoid working or avoid taking more stressful higher paying jobs because their husbands income gave them the freedom to pursue more rewarding , lower paying careers. If a white girl with wealthy parents takes a job teaching kindergarden earning $40,000 per year and is married to a husband earning $250,000 per year it is not equal to a single Black women earning the same money but married to a man earning $50,000 per year. It is more likely the black females will lack husbands and even when married their husbands will tend to be Black and not high earners. Thus the white girls with wealthy parents may well still be wealthy while earning the same as the Black girls with wealthy parents. Success for a women is more tied to their husbands, thus the white women will certainly have a higher status and more disposable wealth because of their husbands, while the Black females are less likely to have husbands at all and if they are lucky enough to be married , their husbands will earn much less than the husbands of white females.

    on the flip side the white men of wealthy parents may remain in the top 10% by obtaining a stressful job earning $180,000 per year while having a stay-at-home wife , a wife who teachers and earns just $45,000 per year. Many of my co-workers at Goldman were in this situation, with their wives not working or teaching. 2 of my co-workers had wives with good careers, one in law one in finance and both quit their $150,000 per year jobs after having children. Yet I never knew a man to quit his career to stay home with the kids.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Agreed.

    However, does Chetty show whether household income of blacks and white women of similar SES backgrounds is the same or just their individual income?

    Household incomes, especially of women after marriage age, so let's say past ~30 to 35, would be very interesting. One reason that the individual incomes of white women of high SES backgrounds might not be higher than similar black women is that those white women often marry the higher performing white men of high SES backgrounds. As a result, a good-sized portion of those white either don't have to work or can work part-time or lower paying, less stressful jobs. Black women would rarely be in that position.

    Just a guess.

    Did Chetty break out black and white women both on individual and household income?
    , @Ben Kurtz
    Having thought about this, I concluded that black women benefiting disproportionately from affirmative action is only half the point.

    The other half is that white women are far more likely than black women to marry. A married woman feels far less pressure to stay fully employed and earn as much as possible when compared to an unmarried woman. Many married women cut back their hours, take less demanding career paths, or leave work entirely, especially when they are raising children. Single women -- even single mothers -- usually feel far more compulsion to work as hard as possible for as much income as they can get. As a result, the income levels of white women (across the social spectrum) are lower than they otherwise would be, meaning lower than they would be if white women remained single at the rate that black women do.

    Bottom line: Not only is the black female line artificially uplifted by affirmative action, the white female line is "artificially" lowered by their greater tendency towards marriage, which allows them more room to slack off of paid work. In a version of America where affirmative action doesn't exist and the difference in marriage rates is negligible between black and white women (e.g. some idealized version of the 1950s), I fully expect that you would see a mean reversion effect in black women, which would show up in the form of their line being systematically below the white female line, across the range of family backgrounds.

    , @candid_observer
    It's not that black women don't regress to the mean -- it's that they don't regress to the mean any more than do white women (or black men, whose pattern of regression is almost exactly the same as both black women and white women).

    In fact, and of course, every group regresses to a mean, but the mean and the degree of regression may differ.

    The outlier of the four groups (white men, white women, black men, black women) is white men, who regress to a much higher mean, and may do so to a lesser extent.

    The initially surprising fact here, for me, was just how badly white women fared -- their mean was no better than that of black women (or black men). But I think the explanation here is pretty obvious, though: white women choose jobs, if any, that don't pay well. This is captured in the trope that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes -- a fact that mostly reflects the jobs white women take (white women being most of the female work force).

    But the regression to the mean one would see in income (due to women's choices) is not the same as the regression to the mean one would expect to see in cognitive ability. Women, white or black, don't differ much in cognitive ability from men, white or black respectively, across most of the distribution. That is, we would expect to see that, for example, the IQs of white women coming from a given rank in parent income would be almost the same as the IQs of white men coming from that same rank in parent income.

    The remaining puzzle is why black women, who presumably regress to a lower IQ, do as well as white women when parent income rank is fixed. My guess is that this is because white women have better opportunity to choose lower paying, but more satisfying, jobs because their husbands make more money.

    , @res
    Thoughtful comment. Some of my thoughts.

    1. Black male behavior is not a binary prison or not variable. I think dysfunctional behavior that is not sufficient to end up in prison contributes to the male earnings gap as well.

    2. I wish there was some way to quantify the impact of affirmative action in isolation. I tend to agree with " it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women."

    3. The other Chetty thread discussed stay at home married women as contributing to the lack of an earnings gap for women. Also differences in single mothers for whom income maximization is probably more important. I think it would be instructive to look at household income of women (the children in the study) but I don't think Chetty et al. did that.
    , @AnotherDad

    If black women from the top one percent don’t regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability.
     
    This is why spatial\math reasoning is important. (Like most NYT/elite media, there's a lot of slop in the verbal explanations for these pretty simple findings.)

    Look at the graphs.

    Everyone regresses toward the mean. Black men, on average, just regress a bit more than women--black or white--and white men regress a bit less.
    , @Brutusale
    The largest growth sector in higher education over the past 10-15 years are departments of "Diversity/Inclusion/Empowerment. How many of these idiotic jobs with ludicrous salaries go to black women?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. I’ve been reading Thomas Nelson Pages “The Negro Problem,” authored by a very decent, honorable and honest Southern gent around the turn of the 19th century. Most of the points he makes could well have been made by Steve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the reference. Available at https://archive.org/details/negrosoutherner00pagegoog

    I wonder what the NYT of the current year would have to say about their 1904 review of that book: https://www.nytimes.com/1904/12/10/archives/the-negro-problem-a-survey-of-the-matter-by-thomas-nelson-page.html
    Can someone who has a NYT subscription please download that to check just how politically incorrect the review was?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Well duh: https://twitter.com/ckyle8814/status/915052542173773824
    Africans are Africans – wherever on Earth they are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    That must be why Republicans win so many elections in California.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    It wouldn't make sense for the RNC to change their platform to pick up more elections in California, at the expense of losing purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.) As it stands the GOP has positioned itself really well to capture a much higher proportion of elected offices than the DNC. Does this mean that it will win every state?

    No, and it wouldn't make sense to try to. Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights. But that would cost them big in other places. For every California election the Democrats sweep, they get clobbered in twice as much in Texas and the South. Outside the Left Coast and Northeast there's no solid blue state at all four levels. Even traditional Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have or recently had Republican governors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Paging Arthur Jensen……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    It doesn’t work like that.

    The one constant of American life is the declining proportion of white Americans. The preponderance of white voters are in the older age groups. They will pass on in the coming decades. By contrast, non-whites are growing steadily – over 50% of newborns – and weighted toward the young and yet-to-votes.
    Obviously, the effect of passing years will be a ‘twofer’ multiplier for the ‘minority’ segment of the vote.
    Now, the biggest predictor of being a Democrat voter is being from a ‘minority’. The biggest predictor of voting Republican is being a white male.

    Inevitably, there is only one way this can go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unpc downunder
    From an elite perspective, the big problem with one-party government is that big business can lose influence over government policy. If the Democrats established a monopoly and went socialist, what could big business do about it? The only solution would be some form of non-democratic coup. And that would be very bad for a country like the US which now depends on foreign creditors and investors who have a lot of faith in its political stability and transparency. Hence, if the Democrats start establishing a monopoly, big business will simply switch sides and support the Republicans.

    Certainly there is possibility that the Republicans will continue to steer left on immigration and social/cultural issues, but that doesn't mean there is likely to be a one-party monopoly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anon • Disclaimer says:

    The new data is really interesting, but the mystery is not why black men whose parents were well off are doing relatively poorly. It’s why black women in the same position are keeping up with white women in that position. Steve’s Taki piece doesn’t seem to explain it and kind of evades that specific topic, saying that the overall picture is what’s important.

    To me, the details of the data are important. Is Chetty using individual income or household income? Well, let’s start with his source: 1040s. He doesn’t know household income. He does know household income of married couples filing jointly. He may be able to infer individual income from household income of married couples filing jointly. He may be able to reconstruct married couple household income from those few couples who file separately. What he doesn’t know is household income of unmarried couples shacking up, unless they are doing some mailing address voodoo on the IRS data.

    So what is he using for his comparisons? Individual? Married for married, individual for unmarried?

    Let’s throw out some ideas. Maybe white couples tend to be married more than black couples in this income demographic. Well, we know that is true from other studies. Maybe in unmarried couple situations, the woman tends to make more relative to the male partner, and maybe that delta is more extreme for blacks.Maybe in married couples, a white woman is less likely to choose a job for maximum income potentiall. Maybe she’s more likely to stay at home and raise kids or homeschool.

    I think you can come up with some combination of factors that would depress the income of a white woman in that parental income bracket relative to what she could make, relative to the income of a black woman.

    At any rate, let’s find out what income figure is being used. Is that in the original paper? Can somebody ask Chetty? I realize that this is the internet age, and we’re all supposed to just spout off our hot takes, but maybe this calls for picking up the phone and calling Chetty. Seriously. I write for a web site in a different field, and I do this all the time. Academics are easy to contact.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. I’m getting pretty tired of the discourse using income as their dependent variable. Like income is just a favor society does you and having more income is automatically better.

    Last time I checked, you had to work for your income. In general, the more income you get, the more useful your work has to be and the harder you have to work. More income also generally means more years of expensive education.

    How good a deal is a high income job anyway? From the traditional leftist standpoint, you get a good deal when your employer makes a small profit margin on your labor. You get “exploited” when your employer makes gets to pay you a lot less than they take home.

    … and you can see where this is going. Low-skilled low-paying jobs have tiny profit margins. Which makes sense because there’s a virtually unlimited supply of remedial jobs that require very little training, so a large pool of employees can switch jobs relatively easily. Whereas medical specialists, scientific researchers, and tech jobs have very few employers. Compare the profit margins per employee of Apple to Wal-Mart.

    The social justice discourse is just spending so much time and energy worrying about who gets to live in a $500,000 house that they never stopped to ask if the deal was even worth it. At the bare minimum, you have to output disproportionate value for society to get paid higher wages. Society isn’t doing high-income earners any favors.

    It is obviously better to have more money. But if you have to work for money, then it is not obviously a good use of your time and energy to try to earn a lot of it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Dash, You know there isn't a definition of what rich means when it comes to African Americans. Does a Government job that pays you $100k with solid benefits make you rich? If you can't get your son or daughter the same job, then they won't make $100k. I think more small business owning whites show their children how to succeed, as opposed to settle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    Is it that millennial white women lean Democratic, or young white women lean so? And potentially switch parties as they age?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. “One day the rain will come” — Chief Chetty

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    Doug, thanks for taking the time to compose that excellent comment, providing relevant background information on the measurement of Ashkenazi intelligence

    Read More
    • Agree: Antlitz Grollheim
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @snorlax
    That must be why Republicans win so many elections in California.

    It wouldn’t make sense for the RNC to change their platform to pick up more elections in California, at the expense of losing purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.) As it stands the GOP has positioned itself really well to capture a much higher proportion of elected offices than the DNC. Does this mean that it will win every state?

    No, and it wouldn’t make sense to try to. Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights. But that would cost them big in other places. For every California election the Democrats sweep, they get clobbered in twice as much in Texas and the South. Outside the Left Coast and Northeast there’s no solid blue state at all four levels. Even traditional Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have or recently had Republican governors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    How is that median voter theory working out in South Africa?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_2014

    249 seats to 89

    MVT works in a whitopia, elsewhere Lee Kwan Yew's theorem is better. Kinda like a lot of spergy economic theory, people who like equations and want to understand the complex are drawn to answers that is neat, plausible and wrong. And then they don't look very hard to see where it breaks down. That noticing probably won't help you get the undergrad. What will help you get the undergrad is finding an example in real life where the economic theory appears to stack up and using that as an example to illustrate why the theory "works".

    Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. - Mencken
    , @CJ

    ...purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.)
     
    All three of those states have a Democratic Senator. Respectively, Sherrod Brown, Bill Nelson and Tammy Baldwin.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Steve,

    You italicized the following sentence as if Chetty wrote it:

    “It’s almost as if whites and blacks, on average, tend to have somewhat different cultures, ancestors, and genes.”

    But actually it’s your quote. You should fix that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. “Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. ”

    You are free to not believe it, but be clear in what you are not believing.

    I don’t think the argument (the real argument) is that black males go to prison, thus they are locked out of jobs and college, thus prison presence explains the income gap.

    Rather, black males go to prison: this indicates a greater prediliction for anti-social behavior throughout the black male population: that anti-social behavior (which in extreme cases results in prison. In less extreme cases, results in high school dropout, drug abuse, non-jailable crimes, lack of impulse control, lack of future time orientation, etc), which results in lower income rates.

    A population with higher prision presence will also have higher high school dropout rates, higher likelihood of not showing up for work, higher likelihood of arguing with a boss, lower scholastic and test performance, etc etc.

    Thus, prison rates are a symptom, or indicator, of the underlying issue-not the mathematical explanation of the issue.

    joe

    Read More
    • Agree: Kylie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. From the Chetty paper:

    “Black men who move to better areas – such as those with low poverty rates, low racial bias, and higher father presence – earlier in their childhood have higher incomes and lower rates of incarceration as adults. These findings show that environmental conditions during childhood have causal effects on racial disparities, demonstrating that the black-white income gap is not immutable.”

    Astounding that a Stanford economist would get away with making this claim. No, this does not demonstrate causation because it is possible that the black men who moved out of bad neighborhoods were somehow different from the ones would didn’t leave. This is easy to imagine: smart black boys, or those with smart parents, are less likely to stay in the ghetto.

    Statisticians usually learn early in their career that you usually need randomized, controlled experiments to demonstrate causation. Chetty surely knows this, which means he’s lying.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. From scanning the original paper, children’s achieved income is measured on the individual level. If they aren’t working, the income is reported as 0:

    “We define children’s individual incomes as their own W-2 wage
    earnings plus self-employment and other non-wage income, which we define as Adjusted Gross
    Income minus total wages reported on form 1040 divided by the number of tax filers (thereby
    splitting non-wage income equally for joint filers). In years in which children have no tax return
    and no information returns, both individual and household income are coded as zero.”

    So I’m curious: perhaps black women earn just as much as white women (controlling for parent income) because white women are more likely to marry a productive husband and choose not to work, which would depress their personal income. If that’s true, then *among just women who work*, I’d predict that white women do earn more than black women even when controlling for parent income. Haven’t been able to confirm this yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ben Kurtz
    "[T]hen *among just women who work*, I’d predict that white women do earn more than black women even when controlling for parent income. Haven’t been able to confirm this yet."

    The one confounding dynamic that I'd be concerned about here is that white women who work are still probably more likely to be married and therefore, in my view, still likely to "let up on the gas" relative to an unmarried woman of similar education and skills. Getting married to a productive husband can lead a woman to choose not to work at all, but it can equally lead a woman to choose to work less, or in a less lucrative (but higher status or more enjoyable) field.

    For example, my wife used to work five days a week, but now she works four days a week. I can't prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I am pretty sure she would not have chosen to cut her hours if we was not married to me (I bring in a very good professional income). A woman like that will still show up in the "employed" statistics, but her earnings will still be "depressed" due to a marriage effect.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    Young white women love gays and trans and to a somewhat lesser extent, abortion. The GOP hurts itself with them to a significant degree by getting bent out of shape about it. But supporting gay/trans stuff would alienate older people, so I dunno. I’d be interested to know the voting patterns of married young white women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Same shoes, same track, same starting line.

    But somehow the runners finished the race at different times.

    y tho?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Steve Sailer says Raj Chetty don’t know nothing about race. Lynyrd Skynyrd did a song where the singer boasts that he knows a little about love. An Unz Review commenter spilled the beans that Chetty was mentored by Martin Feldstein at Harvard. Hillary Clinton gave an audience to Chetty in 2015 to help her plan her campaign for president. It all makes sense now.

    Raj Chetty will never understand the United States because he can’t understand European Christians. The United States is a European Christian nation and if you don’t have that blood you will never understand the United States. Raj Chetty could read David Hackett Fischer’s “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways In America” a hundred times over and he still wouldn’t be able to understand the United States.

    Martin Feldstein is a horrible creature who wants to raise the retirement age to pay for tax cuts and to pay for foreign wars. Feldstein probably wants to get the retirement age for eligibility for Social Security and Medicare to be raised to 75 or 80. No doubt Feldstein wants the American Empire to keep pouring money into the Israel sinkhole and to continuously engage in wars on behalf of Israel in the Middle East and West Asia.

    Raj Chetty is a canary in the coal mine that says the American Empire is very close to imploding. Mass immigration has allowed people such as Raj Chetty and Martin Feldstein to ensconce themselves as hostile elements in the ruling class of the American Empire.

    The United States is all about blood. Harvard guy Sam Huntington said it, and Harvard guys like Feldstein and Chetty ought to stop trying to cover it up.

    BACK TO BLOOD

    Tweet from 2015:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Sailer hits the nail on the head when he comments on the “hot potato” issue of where to put people that no one – not liberal whites, middle class blacks, etc. – want to live near. DC has successfully ghettoized inner PG county (often referred to as the ’9th ward’ of DC) so that more real estate is available for luxury apartments and condos inhabited by high income residents. However, there are plenty of cities that don’t have the same ability to pawn off their most troublesome residents on some other nearby municipality.

    Although the the Obama-era fair housing push to force poor minorities into upper income mostly white neighborhoods would have the effect of freeing up lots of prime urban land, I think the motivation was more to stick it to GOP-leaning communities by making them deal with the people urban progressives claim to value the most and possibly tilt some legislative districts from ‘lean GOP’ to tossups.

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Much like Chetty’s plan to relocate people from tragic dirt to magic dirt, a black a block doesn’t seem possible on a macro level. It can work in places like Oak Park because they are the only ones in the Chicago area doing it, but I don’t think there are enough blocks to go around in most metro areas today.

    I also wonder if what Oak Park did in the 1970s would work today. The hip hop industry has exploded since then and social media makes it much easier for people with the same interests to get together in person. Kids living on these blocks wouldn’t be limited to their immediate neighbors for socializing like they would have in the past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Travis
    true, we no longer have enough mostly white blocks...in addition it would be "racist" and violate the fair housing act if they attempted to limit the number of Blacks in each neighborhood to 12%. How would this be possible in the many states which are already 20% Black like New Jersey. Once a town gets to 20% black the whites and Asians start moving out because if a town is 20% Black the High School will be 30% Black (many whites go to private schools and there are not enough white children).

    The Neighborhood where I was raised is now 10% Black , but the township is 20% Black and the High School is 40% Black. A significant number of kids attend Catholic Schools to escape the Blacks. Most of the white people in the township are empty nesters, no longer have kids in school thus they do not have as much incentive to leave , but it keeps white families from moving into town while it depresses the home values of those who stay.

    already the school age population in America is 16% Black and just 55% white, thus is is not possible to create many neighborhoods with a black population around 12%. Even forced integration by an all powerful central government could not create school districts with demographics to help Blacks. It would result in every school district having too many Blacks , resulting in more white kids going to private schools or being home schooled.

    May be feasible in California because the Black population is under 7%, But they would have to live in mostly Mexican neighborhoods to accomplish this goal, which may actually increase gang membership due to the strength of the Mexican gangs.

    the Demographics of each state are significantly different, such that no state is 20% hispanic, 13% black, 60% White, 7% Asian. But if such a town existed it would be have a very different demographics in the local high school, as the current youth demographics are less than 59% white. and it is the school age demographics which is potentially beneficial to young blacks, not the white senior population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This really jumped out at me. The careers where this would have been valuable are not careers in the contemporary sense but vocations: farmer, mason, landscape architect, etc. As bureaucracy and educational complex grows, direct interaction with the environment is subsumed under careerist wrangling: e.g. can you make it sound compelling for a grant, or can you market it. The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we’re all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    ...The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we’re all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.
     
    That is a thought provoking insight. Thanks!
    , @SimpleSong
    Whoa, are you sure about that? Respectfully, I get the opposite impression. The very high verbal-IQ weighted professions include law, journalism, and non-STEM academia; and I think these are the few white collar professions that have not been doing well recently. The decent paying blue collar professions seem to be the skilled trades which are very heavily weighted towards spatial reasoning.

    Even within a field compensation seems to be more tilted towards those with good spatial reasoning. Surgeons and radiologists get paid much more than internists despite clearly have much lower verbal IQs (but better spatial reasoning skills.)

    Because women have higher verbal IQs than men, the entry of women into the workforce seems to have depressed wages for those that tilt towards verbal intelligence more than those with spatial or mathematical intelligence.

    Also all of the good paying high-verbal-IQ jobs tend to require an expensive university education and possibly graduate education. In contrast, for the spatial reasoning stuff, if you can do it you're in. So for net lifetime earnings this is another advantage.

    Lastly as automation becomes more commonplace, it pays to speak the language of the machines well (programming, mathematics) as opposed to good verbal/communication skills.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. OT

    I haven’t actually made a count of it, but it feels like it has been about three months since I have read an article about Global Warming. I’m sure there are still some out-of-touch cranks who have yet to get the word, but it sure feels like the Great Warming Crisis (or hoax) is finally over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon321
    Or maybe it's anti-"people of color"
    , @tyrone
    man-bear-pig don't give up that easy.
    , @Forbes
    A couple factors. Too busy focusing The Resistance on opposing Trump. Also, Tom Steyer is spending his money more directly on politics than issues, IIRC. And Hillary is still sucking up all the air in the room.

    I actually attended a lunch yesterday hosted by the Manhattan Institute addressing the exaggerated claims of the cost of climate change. The highlight, among many, was a critique of a study published in the November 2015 issue of Nature which concluded, based on an analysis of the effect of climate change upon country-level GDP, Mongolia would become one of the leading economies of the 21st century.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. But now in 2018, Chetty is more or less admitting he got it wrong: Race matters.

    Steve,

    Yes, but Chetty is saying that race matters because of white racism (and, to a degree, black culture), not because of biology. That’s a huge difference.

    Chetty writes:

    In low-poverty neighborhoods, two types of factors are most strongly associated with better outcomes for black men and smaller black-white gaps: low levels of racial bias among whites (emphasis mine) and high rates of father presence among blacks.

    Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches— earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

    Chetty hasn’t traded geography for race; he’s traded geography for racism.

    Despite your and Chetty’s subtle disagreement, he does seem to advocate for your Black-a-Block solution. Unfortunately, Chetty goes much farther down that path because he believes that reducing white racism is also key to helping black boys. Chetty wants “efforts” to reduce white racism by which I’m guessing endless diversity training sessions.

    What’s frightening – to me, at least – Chetty has a way to measure white racism.

    Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches— earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

    My guess is that Chetty would also use that word-association test.

    I can imagine a future where HUD uses a forced Black-a-Block strategy combined with required anti-racism training for whites (and, presumably, Asians). Maybe in time, our betters could require regular testing of individuals on their level of implicit racism. (Make taking the bias test a requirement for keeping your driver’s license.) The frequency and intensity of the diversity training would be based on how well whites (and Asians) in the area score on the test.

    Of course, all of that could be hyperbole. But who would have guessed in 1970 that corporations and universities would require diversity training. My point is once you say that a group’s underperformance is:

    1. Caused by racism (implicity and explicit)
    2. That said racism can be measured
    3. That said racism can be fixed or, at least, dramatically reduced by training

    it’s not a big jump to requiring training and testing.

    I find Chetty’s paper and the conclusions that the Cult of Equity people (Dems and GOP) could reach very disturbing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elsewhere
    Doesn't the causation likely go the other way, that bad black behavior creates implicit bias, rather than implicit (unconscious) bias causing poor black outcomes?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    also need to determine why the white boys did not regress toward the mean as the white girls appear to regress.

    But I suspect the White girls are not actually regressing as much as the data suggests, since the study focused on the individuals income; many of the white women will have married wealthy men and thus have the freedom to avoid working or avoid taking more stressful higher paying jobs because their husbands income gave them the freedom to pursue more rewarding , lower paying careers. If a white girl with wealthy parents takes a job teaching kindergarden earning $40,000 per year and is married to a husband earning $250,000 per year it is not equal to a single Black women earning the same money but married to a man earning $50,000 per year. It is more likely the black females will lack husbands and even when married their husbands will tend to be Black and not high earners. Thus the white girls with wealthy parents may well still be wealthy while earning the same as the Black girls with wealthy parents. Success for a women is more tied to their husbands, thus the white women will certainly have a higher status and more disposable wealth because of their husbands, while the Black females are less likely to have husbands at all and if they are lucky enough to be married , their husbands will earn much less than the husbands of white females.

    on the flip side the white men of wealthy parents may remain in the top 10% by obtaining a stressful job earning $180,000 per year while having a stay-at-home wife , a wife who teachers and earns just $45,000 per year. Many of my co-workers at Goldman were in this situation, with their wives not working or teaching. 2 of my co-workers had wives with good careers, one in law one in finance and both quit their $150,000 per year jobs after having children. Yet I never knew a man to quit his career to stay home with the kids.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    Agreed.

    However, does Chetty show whether household income of blacks and white women of similar SES backgrounds is the same or just their individual income?

    Household incomes, especially of women after marriage age, so let’s say past ~30 to 35, would be very interesting. One reason that the individual incomes of white women of high SES backgrounds might not be higher than similar black women is that those white women often marry the higher performing white men of high SES backgrounds. As a result, a good-sized portion of those white either don’t have to work or can work part-time or lower paying, less stressful jobs. Black women would rarely be in that position.

    Just a guess.

    Did Chetty break out black and white women both on individual and household income?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don’t they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don’t they?
     
    What do you mean? The income ranks (everyone remember Chetty looks at rank not income itself) of black women clearly regress towards the mean (looking at Figure VI A). The regression line slope is only about 0.22 and the line almost goes through the 50/50 point.

    The top 10% (by parental income rank) of all four (B/W M/F) groups go above the regression lines (regress less) which is an interesting observation. Has there been any discussion of that?
    , @Bernardo Pizzaro Cortez Del Castro
    The black girls with wealthy parents do revert towards the mean....the bigger question , why the white boys do not revert to the mean as the white girls do.
    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm guessing that you are wondering why black women of high-income parents don't regress farther than white women of high SES parents. As res noted, black women (and white women) regress toward the mean.

    Well, the big issue with the similarity between these black and white women is that Chetty used individual incomes instead of household incomes. That's a glaring omission. There seem to be two possible explanations.

    1. Affirmative Action

    Black women are by far the biggest beneficiaries of AA. In addition, I'd suspect that black women who are the children of high SES parents are the biggest beneficiaries among all black women making the AA lottery winners. This may give them a boost in income relative to any other group, including white women whose parents were high SES.

    2. Marriage

    White women who are the children of high SES parents have dramatically higher marriage rates than similar black women. In addition, these white women tend to marry the sons of high SES parents - you know, the whites who earn the most. Similar black women - if they do marry - are rarely marrying a high earner. As a result, many white women whose parents were high SES can either not work or work lower salary jobs because the main bread winner is their husband. Similar black women don't typically have that option.

    There may be other contributors, but these two could explain a lot of why these two groups of women don't differ in their average individual incomes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    There is a significant difference between the 90/10 split among African Americans and the 60/30 split among Hispanics and Asians. I’ve posted the math here before. Assuming that whites are just under 50% of the electorate, and that they continue to vote like a bloc, you only need to get another 5-10% of Hispanics and Asians to vote rightward to keep the country from turning into a Left Singularity.

    Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    >Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.

    Yeah, if somehow the rhetoric of civic nationalism replaces the current rhetoric of race, both on right and on left, we could have a sensible policies on most issues including immigration. I just don't see it happening though.
    , @J.Ross
    Remind me how xenophobic rhetoric is defined? Oh, right, anything we say is Nazism, they are allowed to joke about killing us, and people do not vote based on omitted rhetoric anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Pat Boyle
    OT

    I haven't actually made a count of it, but it feels like it has been about three months since I have read an article about Global Warming. I'm sure there are still some out-of-touch cranks who have yet to get the word, but it sure feels like the Great Warming Crisis (or hoax) is finally over.

    Or maybe it’s anti-”people of color”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    Thanks for your post. I found it very informative.

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I’ve worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    This is worth a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_aptitude#Mechanical_aptitude_and_spatial_relations
    It ties in nicely with Doug's point about spatial ability.

    P.S. Excellent comment, Doug!
    , @gunner29

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I’ve worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?
     
    Your friend probably handles only the physical removal and replacement of parts. He can look at something and see how the parts interact and the best way to take it apart and put it back together.

    But I doubt he's the diagnostician at the shop. That's where the guys that were good in school, work and excel. 40 years ago the shop manuals were written to a first year college reading level to understand it. Newspaper is 4th grade by comparison.

    And in the time since, the manuals have gotten bigger and more difficult to understand. Back then an entire manual was about an inch and a half thick. Last 20 years, it's about an 8 inch stack of manuals; for one vehicle.

    Most of this is electrically operated stuff; the computers that run everything. Somebody that is great with real parts probably isn't as good with understanding how a computer is working or not; nothing to put your hands on. It's just a concept you understand or don't.

    I took an assessment test in 9th grade, scored 97% in mechanical reasoning and spatial relationships. Scored 99% on the reading comprehension. I was one of the two diagnostic guys at the dealer I worked at. I could also do the straight R&R work like your friend.

    20 years ago the dealers locked out the mechanics union, which was Aerospace and Machinists. Couldn't agree on a new contract. Dealers wanted to pay $70K to the 2 or 3 diagnosticians in the shop and all the R&R guys would get $40K. They were on strike for about a year, but the dealers found enough guys to cross the picket line to keep the shops open. No more union mechanics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Marriage is collapsing with White women per Charles Murray save the top income who are die hard Dems. Soi White women are highly likely to vote more Dem. The future White family will be single mom kids by different fathers.

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals
     
    If that were true whites would have long since ceased to exist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Ed says:
    @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    I was going to respond that aren’t Russian Jews Ashkenazi but you pointed out astutely that many of the Russian Jews that moved to Israel weren’t very Jewish.

    Brings to mind a few years ago the clip of Israelis making Nazi salutes and celebrating Hitler. Turned out they were children of immigrants from Russia that had a line of Jewish descent but their families stopped being Jewish long ago. The kids saw themselves as Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The IDF should raise a Cossack regiment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Pat Boyle
    OT

    I haven't actually made a count of it, but it feels like it has been about three months since I have read an article about Global Warming. I'm sure there are still some out-of-touch cranks who have yet to get the word, but it sure feels like the Great Warming Crisis (or hoax) is finally over.

    man-bear-pig don’t give up that easy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. At some point, absent Communist style criminalization of speech, everyone with an IQ above 115 and any intellectual curiosity about the subject will have to admit “race matters.” Is that happening now?

    I’ve thought it was before and been mistaken*, but with the rise of European-American activism the stakes of ignorance have risen for the powers that be.

    *Around 2007 the blogger formerly known as Half Sigma was referenced in a NYT article about race realist quant bloggers. I think it was Razib Khan who then exclaimed something like “that is the sound of a dam breaking.” It turns out the naked emperor can continue in his immodesty for quite a while, as we’ve all learned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    There will be violence before European Americans are, effectively, disenfranchised. I’d bet on Europa before the coalition of the fringes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    No, there won't be any large scale mass violence. Western states are very powerful (when they have the will to act), western population is too pacifist, and Identity Evropa and their ilk are a group of LARPers, not smart politicians or fighters.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. how about an “equality of opportunity “for DALITS chetty? f**k-off back to India.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    Having thought about this, I concluded that black women benefiting disproportionately from affirmative action is only half the point.

    The other half is that white women are far more likely than black women to marry. A married woman feels far less pressure to stay fully employed and earn as much as possible when compared to an unmarried woman. Many married women cut back their hours, take less demanding career paths, or leave work entirely, especially when they are raising children. Single women — even single mothers — usually feel far more compulsion to work as hard as possible for as much income as they can get. As a result, the income levels of white women (across the social spectrum) are lower than they otherwise would be, meaning lower than they would be if white women remained single at the rate that black women do.

    Bottom line: Not only is the black female line artificially uplifted by affirmative action, the white female line is “artificially” lowered by their greater tendency towards marriage, which allows them more room to slack off of paid work. In a version of America where affirmative action doesn’t exist and the difference in marriage rates is negligible between black and white women (e.g. some idealized version of the 1950s), I fully expect that you would see a mean reversion effect in black women, which would show up in the form of their line being systematically below the white female line, across the range of family backgrounds.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. It would be so wonderful if Chetty would take a deep breath, screw up his courage, and announce that his new analysis, based on linking Census data on race with IRS data on income, shows that human biodiversity is the missing factor in understanding US income and education patterns. Looking at his tables and graphs, and lots of other missing data (such as the strong SAT-race patterns neutralized with respect to income class) the HBD conclusion is obvious. It would be great if someone as prominent at Chetty could state the obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    If you had a sweet gig where the cool kids fawn all over your periodic pronouncements, would you fall on your sword by telling the truth?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    It’s not that black women don’t regress to the mean — it’s that they don’t regress to the mean any more than do white women (or black men, whose pattern of regression is almost exactly the same as both black women and white women).

    In fact, and of course, every group regresses to a mean, but the mean and the degree of regression may differ.

    The outlier of the four groups (white men, white women, black men, black women) is white men, who regress to a much higher mean, and may do so to a lesser extent.

    The initially surprising fact here, for me, was just how badly white women fared — their mean was no better than that of black women (or black men). But I think the explanation here is pretty obvious, though: white women choose jobs, if any, that don’t pay well. This is captured in the trope that women earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes — a fact that mostly reflects the jobs white women take (white women being most of the female work force).

    But the regression to the mean one would see in income (due to women’s choices) is not the same as the regression to the mean one would expect to see in cognitive ability. Women, white or black, don’t differ much in cognitive ability from men, white or black respectively, across most of the distribution. That is, we would expect to see that, for example, the IQs of white women coming from a given rank in parent income would be almost the same as the IQs of white men coming from that same rank in parent income.

    The remaining puzzle is why black women, who presumably regress to a lower IQ, do as well as white women when parent income rank is fixed. My guess is that this is because white women have better opportunity to choose lower paying, but more satisfying, jobs because their husbands make more money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. “In fact, Chetty is beginning to admit that his whole obsession with income mobility was a distraction:

    ‘Mobility by itself is not the solution when it results in movement only within the lowest parts of the respective income distribution.’”

    As Gregory Clark discovered as a result of 6 years of research for The Son Also Rises (Princeton University Press), a lot of “mobility” is just random fluctuations in income. Life has a large element of luck or chance. This also explains why efforts to find all the factors (including IQ) that account for differences in pay levels across individuals account for only a minor part of the variance. Nevertheless, over several generations, the same surnames pop up again and again as having higher social status than other surnames; Clark could not rule out genetics as being decisive over a period of multiple generations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Are you anti-white?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    Thoughtful comment. Some of my thoughts.

    1. Black male behavior is not a binary prison or not variable. I think dysfunctional behavior that is not sufficient to end up in prison contributes to the male earnings gap as well.

    2. I wish there was some way to quantify the impact of affirmative action in isolation. I tend to agree with ” it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women.”

    3. The other Chetty thread discussed stay at home married women as contributing to the lack of an earnings gap for women. Also differences in single mothers for whom income maximization is probably more important. I think it would be instructive to look at household income of women (the children in the study) but I don’t think Chetty et al. did that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Drake

    I think it would be instructive to look at household income of women (the children in the study) but I don’t think Chetty et al. did that.
     
    Figure 4 of the appendix has this data. The huge gap in the spouse income graph in particular explains why white women don't feel the motivation to be high earners as strongly as black women.

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf#page=95
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.”

    The republican has won the popular vote just once since 1988, and a majority of votes cast for the House of Representatives in the last election were democrat; gerrymandering is the only thing that saved Congress and the Electoral College is the only reason the White House hasn’t already gone one-party. The country was a lot whiter back when those predictions were made. They are steadily becoming true.

    “Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule?

    What’s the sample size and how many democracies have actually gone through the same kind of demographic transformation?

    Also, plenty – and even without demographic transformation: Japan and Mexico have both enjoyed incredibly long stretches of one-party rule.

    Iran might be the only example of a multiracial democracy that I can think of that is semi-functional…but even then, just barely (Persians are 50% whereas the US will soon be even more diverse than that). And do we really want to follow Iran’s example?

    “It just doesn’t square with the median voter theorem.”

    I’d rather not base my nation-state on an abstraction.

    “If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it’s approximate 50% market share.”

    That’s only true up until a point. Then you get California.

    “What’s the difference if we’re governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions?”

    It’s astonishing that someone can’t see the obvious reason: democracies only work when there is a credible chance that the government can be changed; when they can’t, there is no check on increasing corruption and tyranny. Disagree? See South Africa. What check is there on the government’s plan to steal white farms without compensation? None.

    “The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology.”

    So, basically your theory won’t work then because what you’ve pointed out is human nature.

    “Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they’ll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.”

    Then we are in a lot of trouble because those are the two largest non-white ethnic groups in the country, and the later one is growing.

    “But on the flip side, I don’t really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists.”

    Both groups will likely continue voting Democrat as neither group wants to be ostracized and left out in a future one-party America ruled by an anti-white coalition.

    If anything you said has merit, we would have seen it in South Africa by now. We haven’t and won’t…and South Africa, as relative percentages of their population, isn’t as diverse as the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule?

    One of the major political issues in the United States is enforcing the law; I’m not sure how you can describe a situation where one political party thinks it is above the law as functional. I think it is safe to say the United States is no longer an ‘actual’ democracy any more then Russia currently is.

    It just doesn’t square with the median voter theorem.

    If voters vote based on race, that doesn’t really apply. It also doesn’t apply if one side uses electoral gains to provide them power to cover electoral fraud. This is why the big prize is the president; who cares what the Republicans get if the Democrats get the white house?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights.”

    Whites are now less than 50% of the p0pulation there and falling. I’m not sure if any policy change could now carry the state – and certainly not the legislature. Schwarzenegger was a social liberal and he won the state, as you say, but he was unpopular and probably wouldn’t be able to repeat the feat again, even if he wanted to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @danand
    Just a minor point, but we are @ ~39% (and falling) out here. And our politicians do not feel secure enough even @ that level. We must contine sanctuary/wide open borders until every state, county, and city official is a member of the good party and of a decent thinking race.

    As they say, as California goes; so goes the country (although I haven’t really heard that expesion for a while now?).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Doug
    It wouldn't make sense for the RNC to change their platform to pick up more elections in California, at the expense of losing purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.) As it stands the GOP has positioned itself really well to capture a much higher proportion of elected offices than the DNC. Does this mean that it will win every state?

    No, and it wouldn't make sense to try to. Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights. But that would cost them big in other places. For every California election the Democrats sweep, they get clobbered in twice as much in Texas and the South. Outside the Left Coast and Northeast there's no solid blue state at all four levels. Even traditional Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have or recently had Republican governors.

    How is that median voter theory working out in South Africa?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_general_election,_2014

    249 seats to 89

    MVT works in a whitopia, elsewhere Lee Kwan Yew’s theorem is better. Kinda like a lot of spergy economic theory, people who like equations and want to understand the complex are drawn to answers that is neat, plausible and wrong. And then they don’t look very hard to see where it breaks down. That noticing probably won’t help you get the undergrad. What will help you get the undergrad is finding an example in real life where the economic theory appears to stack up and using that as an example to illustrate why the theory “works”.

    Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong. – Mencken

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. What this article doesn’t address is the obvious. That in 200 years, not even income, and social stratification has overcome the impact of what remains a systemic issue.

    Color that four hundred years of socializing blacks uniquely as to color has been diminished enough to overcome the system that created it if even after 100 years

    or one could of course rest on the fall back position that blacks are genetically inferior, despite having no evidence of a genetic trait or traits that indicate as much.

    Leave it it to my intellectual superiors to complicate a simple observable historicity cue. That untraining twenty years of socialization take more than two years of superficial manipulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite

    What this article doesn’t address is the obvious. That in 200 years, not even income, and social stratification has overcome the impact of what remains a systemic issue
     
    What is obvious is that obvious does not mean what you think it does.

    Color that four hundred years of socializing blacks uniquely as to color has been diminished enough to overcome the system that created it if even after 100 years

     

    100 years? What happened in 1918 as it pertains to blacks? Otherwise you make sense, given that there are no blacks anywhere else in the world but the U.S. If there were, blacks in their natural state (or living in white countries in which the host population is not so rayciss) could be observed and conclusions could be drawn. Alas there are no blacks anywhere else but here.

    or one could of course rest on the fall back position that blacks are genetically inferior, despite having no evidence of a genetic trait or traits that indicate as much.

     

    "genetically inferior" in what way? If you are referring to physical size or resistance to malaria they are clearly not "inferior". If you are referring to intelligence as measured by IQ, there are mountains of evidence they are "inferior". Whether that is genetic or not is theoretically open to debate, though someone arguing it is not at least partially genetic is rather foolish. This would be more obvious if we just had a control group of blacks we could observe outside the US (like say if they had almost an entire continent to themselves where we could observe their outcomes), but alas there are none.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. The sine qua non of science is independent replication. Everyone must basically take Raj Chetty’s word for it. Since he (and his privileged associates) are the only ones with access to the data upon which their analyses rely, it is rather difficult to classify their results as “scientific”. The temptation to do so is based on the glaringly obvious fact that the vast majority of “social science” is abject pseudo-science. The relief we all feel at Chetty loosening the thumbscrews applied to us by the “social scientists” in order to extract a confession of our sinful nature as “racists”, “sexists”, etc. should not be mistaken for someone switching on the Enlightenment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Anon
    So, this is kind of related:

    Either I'm just lazy or my search engine is broken, but I'm trying to find raw data on Ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores, and this is the only raw data I came across:

    There's a table with sample size and average score, which I'll clumsily copy/paste below:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source Sample sizes. Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested. Average IQ Ashkenazi Jews in USA and/or UK
    Backman 1972 1236 107.8 verbal IQ
    Backman in present study 150 107.5 crystallized IQ
    Lynn Estimated 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel
    Macdonald 1994 Suggested IQ 117
    Storfer Suggested IQ 112
    Shuey 1942 764 1.2 below non-Jewish whites
    Bachman 1970 Lesser than 100 112.8
    Herrnstein/Murray 1994 59 112.6

    The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and "1.2 below non-Jewish whites." Am I reading this correctly, it's 1.2 points below the White mean?

    I'm trying to find more raw data on this topic and the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence lists "Backman, M. E. (1972) and Levinson, B.M. & Block, Z" as the sources for the high IQ data, but it gives no scores, and I don't have access to the raw data in those studies. (Does someone else?)

    And then I see this article and I think: huh? An average overall IQ score of 102?

    "I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools."

    So, my impression is that the data on Ashkenazi IQ is lousy. What am I missing? I thought that we knew this stuff. 115 is quoted everywhere so authoritatively. Where is this number coming from? Why is it quoted everywhere with so much confidence?

    And Jewish brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches? Hmm.

    I would like to see this sorted out. People can’t agree on what is the mean IQ of Ashkenazi Jews but they have no qualms about making an assumption about standard deviation being 15 (which is much harder to estimate than mean) and about the shape of distribution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    to average somewhere below “true” Ashkenazi IQ

    Could you also write about true Scotsman IQ?

    on-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture

    What animal is gentile of Sephardic admixture. Actually Ashkenazi Jews often have European “admixture” that is over 50%, so perhaps they should be called Europeans with Middle Easter admixture.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Peter Johnson
    It would be so wonderful if Chetty would take a deep breath, screw up his courage, and announce that his new analysis, based on linking Census data on race with IRS data on income, shows that human biodiversity is the missing factor in understanding US income and education patterns. Looking at his tables and graphs, and lots of other missing data (such as the strong SAT-race patterns neutralized with respect to income class) the HBD conclusion is obvious. It would be great if someone as prominent at Chetty could state the obvious.

    If you had a sweet gig where the cool kids fawn all over your periodic pronouncements, would you fall on your sword by telling the truth?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Seth Largo
    There is a significant difference between the 90/10 split among African Americans and the 60/30 split among Hispanics and Asians. I've posted the math here before. Assuming that whites are just under 50% of the electorate, and that they continue to vote like a bloc, you only need to get another 5-10% of Hispanics and Asians to vote rightward to keep the country from turning into a Left Singularity.

    Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.

    >Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.

    Yeah, if somehow the rhetoric of civic nationalism replaces the current rhetoric of race, both on right and on left, we could have a sensible policies on most issues including immigration. I just don’t see it happening though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @RCB
    From scanning the original paper, children's achieved income is measured on the individual level. If they aren't working, the income is reported as 0:

    "We define children’s individual incomes as their own W-2 wage
    earnings plus self-employment and other non-wage income, which we define as Adjusted Gross
    Income minus total wages reported on form 1040 divided by the number of tax filers (thereby
    splitting non-wage income equally for joint filers). In years in which children have no tax return
    and no information returns, both individual and household income are coded as zero."

    So I'm curious: perhaps black women earn just as much as white women (controlling for parent income) because white women are more likely to marry a productive husband and choose not to work, which would depress their personal income. If that's true, then *among just women who work*, I'd predict that white women do earn more than black women even when controlling for parent income. Haven't been able to confirm this yet.

    “[T]hen *among just women who work*, I’d predict that white women do earn more than black women even when controlling for parent income. Haven’t been able to confirm this yet.”

    The one confounding dynamic that I’d be concerned about here is that white women who work are still probably more likely to be married and therefore, in my view, still likely to “let up on the gas” relative to an unmarried woman of similar education and skills. Getting married to a productive husband can lead a woman to choose not to work at all, but it can equally lead a woman to choose to work less, or in a less lucrative (but higher status or more enjoyable) field.

    For example, my wife used to work five days a week, but now she works four days a week. I can’t prove this beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I am pretty sure she would not have chosen to cut her hours if we was not married to me (I bring in a very good professional income). A woman like that will still show up in the “employed” statistics, but her earnings will still be “depressed” due to a marriage effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Pat Boyle
    OT

    I haven't actually made a count of it, but it feels like it has been about three months since I have read an article about Global Warming. I'm sure there are still some out-of-touch cranks who have yet to get the word, but it sure feels like the Great Warming Crisis (or hoax) is finally over.

    A couple factors. Too busy focusing The Resistance on opposing Trump. Also, Tom Steyer is spending his money more directly on politics than issues, IIRC. And Hillary is still sucking up all the air in the room.

    I actually attended a lunch yesterday hosted by the Manhattan Institute addressing the exaggerated claims of the cost of climate change. The highlight, among many, was a critique of a study published in the November 2015 issue of Nature which concluded, based on an analysis of the effect of climate change upon country-level GDP, Mongolia would become one of the leading economies of the 21st century.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. ‘It’s almost as if whites and blacks, on average, tend to have somewhat different cultures, ancestors, and genes.’

    You don’t say!

    Jokes aside, he deserves our acclaim for having overcome that most pernicious human cognitive tendency, belief preservation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. @Cleburne
    I've been reading Thomas Nelson Pages "The Negro Problem," authored by a very decent, honorable and honest Southern gent around the turn of the 19th century. Most of the points he makes could well have been made by Steve.

    Thanks for the reference. Available at https://archive.org/details/negrosoutherner00pagegoog

    I wonder what the NYT of the current year would have to say about their 1904 review of that book: https://www.nytimes.com/1904/12/10/archives/the-negro-problem-a-survey-of-the-matter-by-thomas-nelson-page.html
    Can someone who has a NYT subscription please download that to check just how politically incorrect the review was?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Antlitz Grollheim

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.
     
    This really jumped out at me. The careers where this would have been valuable are not careers in the contemporary sense but vocations: farmer, mason, landscape architect, etc. As bureaucracy and educational complex grows, direct interaction with the environment is subsumed under careerist wrangling: e.g. can you make it sound compelling for a grant, or can you market it. The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we're all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.

    …The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we’re all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.

    That is a thought provoking insight. Thanks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. We’re supposed to be outraged over Facebook feeding personal info to political candidate campaign teams, but crickets when it comes to the IRS releasing the mother lode of personal info to Chetty Chetty Bang Bang.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    But now in 2018, Chetty is more or less admitting he got it wrong: Race matters.

     

    Steve,

    Yes, but Chetty is saying that race matters because of white racism (and, to a degree, black culture), not because of biology. That's a huge difference.

    Chetty writes:

    In low-poverty neighborhoods, two types of factors are most strongly associated with better outcomes for black men and smaller black-white gaps: low levels of racial bias among whites (emphasis mine) and high rates of father presence among blacks.

    Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches— earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

     
    Chetty hasn't traded geography for race; he's traded geography for racism.

    Despite your and Chetty's subtle disagreement, he does seem to advocate for your Black-a-Block solution. Unfortunately, Chetty goes much farther down that path because he believes that reducing white racism is also key to helping black boys. Chetty wants "efforts" to reduce white racism by which I'm guessing endless diversity training sessions.

    What's frightening - to me, at least - Chetty has a way to measure white racism.

    Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches— earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.
     
    My guess is that Chetty would also use that word-association test.

    I can imagine a future where HUD uses a forced Black-a-Block strategy combined with required anti-racism training for whites (and, presumably, Asians). Maybe in time, our betters could require regular testing of individuals on their level of implicit racism. (Make taking the bias test a requirement for keeping your driver's license.) The frequency and intensity of the diversity training would be based on how well whites (and Asians) in the area score on the test.

    Of course, all of that could be hyperbole. But who would have guessed in 1970 that corporations and universities would require diversity training. My point is once you say that a group's underperformance is:

    1. Caused by racism (implicity and explicit)
    2. That said racism can be measured
    3. That said racism can be fixed or, at least, dramatically reduced by training

    it's not a big jump to requiring training and testing.

    I find Chetty's paper and the conclusions that the Cult of Equity people (Dems and GOP) could reach very disturbing.

    Doesn’t the causation likely go the other way, that bad black behavior creates implicit bias, rather than implicit (unconscious) bias causing poor black outcomes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Anon321
    Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don't they?

    Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don’t they?

    What do you mean? The income ranks (everyone remember Chetty looks at rank not income itself) of black women clearly regress towards the mean (looking at Figure VI A). The regression line slope is only about 0.22 and the line almost goes through the 50/50 point.

    The top 10% (by parental income rank) of all four (B/W M/F) groups go above the regression lines (regress less) which is an interesting observation. Has there been any discussion of that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Thanks for your post. I found it very informative.

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I've worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?

    This is worth a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_aptitude#Mechanical_aptitude_and_spatial_relations
    It ties in nicely with Doug’s point about spatial ability.

    P.S. Excellent comment, Doug!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Thank you. That is helpful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Anon
    So, this is kind of related:

    Either I'm just lazy or my search engine is broken, but I'm trying to find raw data on Ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores, and this is the only raw data I came across:

    There's a table with sample size and average score, which I'll clumsily copy/paste below:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source Sample sizes. Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested. Average IQ Ashkenazi Jews in USA and/or UK
    Backman 1972 1236 107.8 verbal IQ
    Backman in present study 150 107.5 crystallized IQ
    Lynn Estimated 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel
    Macdonald 1994 Suggested IQ 117
    Storfer Suggested IQ 112
    Shuey 1942 764 1.2 below non-Jewish whites
    Bachman 1970 Lesser than 100 112.8
    Herrnstein/Murray 1994 59 112.6

    The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and "1.2 below non-Jewish whites." Am I reading this correctly, it's 1.2 points below the White mean?

    I'm trying to find more raw data on this topic and the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence lists "Backman, M. E. (1972) and Levinson, B.M. & Block, Z" as the sources for the high IQ data, but it gives no scores, and I don't have access to the raw data in those studies. (Does someone else?)

    And then I see this article and I think: huh? An average overall IQ score of 102?

    "I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools."

    So, my impression is that the data on Ashkenazi IQ is lousy. What am I missing? I thought that we knew this stuff. 115 is quoted everywhere so authoritatively. Where is this number coming from? Why is it quoted everywhere with so much confidence?

    And Jewish brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches? Hmm.

    Yes. I agree that there is an issue here. There is an over reliance on Backman.

    Backman used Project Talent and the Project Talent data is publically available (ie, you can download it), but the base year data doesn’t include a question on religion (that information was collected in a subsequent wave).

    https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/

    I tried to overcome the lack of a religion question in the data here and describe some of the issues with Backman’s analysis here.

    https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Dunkel_2014a.pdf

    Other estimates using different data sets can be found here, along with the use of the Project Talent religion question.

    http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1488.pdf

    Good overall point on the quality/quantity of the data. I hope the response helps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Regarding "A comparative study of the general factor of personality in Jewish and non-Jewish population"

    So, I summarized the data in A Comparative Study below, hopefully I understood it correctly. Basically, I inferred that Jewish and White Atheist IQ are both ~107.5, non-Jewish whites are ~101.5. This gives Jews and Atheists a ~6 point IQ advantage over the average non-Jewish white.

    Questions: All 3 of these datasets you presented excluded all non-Whites? "Hispanic Whites" were excluded? I didn't read the myopia study in detail, but isnt't the most parsimonious explanation for myopia spending a lot of time indoors (reading) in childhood, and would that not increase IQ scores, esp., as measured by a vocab test?

    To summarize the intelligence data, you presented 3 data sets: ADD Health, MIDUS II, Projec Talent (PT).
    ADD Health: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
    MIDUS II: composite score of: backward digits, category fluency, number series, and counting backwards
    PT: 11 tests: abstract/arithmetic/mechanical reasoning, reading, 2d/3d rotation, vocab, basic science knowledge

    ADD Health
    -----------
    Jews 111.24
    Catholic 100.39
    Protestant 100.99
    Agnostic/Atheist 105.46

    MIDUS II: Translated to 100 mean and std dev of 15 below *1*
    --------------
    Jews .36 (1.10)
    Catholic .04 (.94)
    Methodist -.04 (.98)
    Baptist -.36 (1.04)
    Agnostic/Atheist .47 (1.04)

    Project Talent
    -----------------
    Jews 106.71 (8.34)
    Catholics 102.93 (8.66)
    Protestants 103.99 (8.93)
    No religion 109.45 (8.83
    -----------------

    If you just averaged the 3 you'd get:
    Jews 107.96
    Atheist/Agnostic: 107.4
    Catholic: ~101

    If I were to rank these three datasets in terms of comprehensiveness, I'd probably say PT > MIDUS II > ADD Health. ADD Health is just a vocab test. I'd probably weight them: [.5, .3, .2] [PT, MIDUS, ADD], (giving about the same):
    Jews 107.38
    Athesit/Agnostic: 108.01
    Catholic: ~101

    I'd estimate that Jewish and Atheist IQ are both about 107.5. White Christian as 100.5. Since non-religious Americans are about 20% of the population, non-Jewish whites are about 101.5. So, Jews have about a 6 point advantage over non-Jewish whites: (107.5 vs 101.5).

    If Jewish IQ is no higher than that of Atheist Whites, and only 6 points above the overall white IQ, it makes you wonder what that means.

    As further research, it would be interesting to look at the raw Shuey, Levinson and Romanoff data.

    *1* I translated this to a mean of 100 standard dev 15 below - I assume this is about right?
    -----------------------
    Jews 105.94
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @eah
    https://twitter.com/edutopia/status/976101177212506113

    LOL well then Edutopia is the perfect name for the operation. It’s like the Talking Points Memo web site. I disagree with 95% of it, but the name is a superb descriptor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Anon321
    Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don't they?

    The black girls with wealthy parents do revert towards the mean….the bigger question , why the white boys do not revert to the mean as the white girls do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @EliteCommInc.
    What this article doesn't address is the obvious. That in 200 years, not even income, and social stratification has overcome the impact of what remains a systemic issue.

    Color that four hundred years of socializing blacks uniquely as to color has been diminished enough to overcome the system that created it if even after 100 years

    or one could of course rest on the fall back position that blacks are genetically inferior, despite having no evidence of a genetic trait or traits that indicate as much.


    Leave it it to my intellectual superiors to complicate a simple observable historicity cue. That untraining twenty years of socialization take more than two years of superficial manipulation.

    What this article doesn’t address is the obvious. That in 200 years, not even income, and social stratification has overcome the impact of what remains a systemic issue

    What is obvious is that obvious does not mean what you think it does.

    Color that four hundred years of socializing blacks uniquely as to color has been diminished enough to overcome the system that created it if even after 100 years

    100 years? What happened in 1918 as it pertains to blacks? Otherwise you make sense, given that there are no blacks anywhere else in the world but the U.S. If there were, blacks in their natural state (or living in white countries in which the host population is not so rayciss) could be observed and conclusions could be drawn. Alas there are no blacks anywhere else but here.

    or one could of course rest on the fall back position that blacks are genetically inferior, despite having no evidence of a genetic trait or traits that indicate as much.

    “genetically inferior” in what way? If you are referring to physical size or resistance to malaria they are clearly not “inferior”. If you are referring to intelligence as measured by IQ, there are mountains of evidence they are “inferior”. Whether that is genetic or not is theoretically open to debate, though someone arguing it is not at least partially genetic is rather foolish. This would be more obvious if we just had a control group of blacks we could observe outside the US (like say if they had almost an entire continent to themselves where we could observe their outcomes), but alas there are none.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @MEH 0910
    No magic dirt? The world had become disenchanted.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic%20dirt%20theory

    I searched “terra encantada” to see if magic dirt meant anything in Spanish. Appropriately, it’s an abandoned amusement park near Rio in Brazil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @MEH 0910
    No magic dirt? The world had become disenchanted.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic%20dirt%20theory

    But SJWs and social engineering judges know that “magic dirt” is still the answer!!

    A Judge Just Told These 2 Wealthy Towns They Need To Build Housing For The Poor (NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, March 19)

    Two wealthy New Jersey towns will have to plan for more than 2,200 low- and moderate-income housing units, according to a court ruling. Mercer County NJ Assignment Judge Mary C. Jacobson last week ruled Princeton (only 6% black residents) would have to accommodate 753 new affordable units and West Windsor (only 4% black residents) 1,500.

    But the bigger takeaway may be the judge’s conclusion that more than 154,000 affordable housing units are needed across the state. That’s way more than what the consultant hired by municipalities had projected but fewer units than what housing advocates want.
     
    “This ruling is a victory for lower-income and minority families across New Jersey,” said Kevin Walsh, executive director of the Fair Share Housing Center.

    “Judge Jacobson’s decision will give opportunities for thousands of lower-income and minority families to move into safe neighborhoods, send their children to good schools, and work at jobs where they live instead of traveling hours commuting each day. The exclusionary policies that will fall as a result of this ruling harm our whole state, especially African American and Latino communities,” Walsh added.

    Previously, the state Supreme Court ordered 15 New Jersey judges to take over the process and decide how many “affordable” housing units each town — in tandem with developers and builders — needed to construct. (Urban cities are not part of the process.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn’t really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    Interestingly, back in the 80s the Swedish armed forces had a written intelligence test for everyone drafted (i.e., all males of age 18) which did include a major section on spatial reasoning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. “It’s almost as if whites and blacks, on average, tend to have somewhat different cultures, ancestors, and genes.”

    but

    “The few exceptions tend to be neighborhoods in Queens or in the D.C. suburbs that have many high-achieving black immigrants.

    ahh

    “so let’s at least try not to make things worse for them through massive immigration.

    Call me a cherry-picking bastard all you want, but it strikes me that the solution is to replace your blacks with high achieving Nigerian, Indian and Chinese immigrants or at least key in your Blacks to that being the Dems long term plan, replacing them.

    Also American spellings argh! my eyes hurt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Have you thought-experimented how our blacks would react to literal replacement?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Could Chetty’s results be explained, at least partially, to the distribution of MAOA-2R genes among racial groups?

    https://www.selfhacked.com/blog/about-mao-a-and-what-to-do-if-you-have-the-warrior-gene/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it’s approximate 50% market share.

    But immigration etc will guarantee the average American becomes more ‘liberal’. There’s no ‘if’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Whiskey
    Marriage is collapsing with White women per Charles Murray save the top income who are die hard Dems. Soi White women are highly likely to vote more Dem. The future White family will be single mom kids by different fathers.

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals

    If that were true whites would have long since ceased to exist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    We should all chip in and get Whiskey an escort, err a "date". Put me down for $20.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Doug
    It wouldn't make sense for the RNC to change their platform to pick up more elections in California, at the expense of losing purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.) As it stands the GOP has positioned itself really well to capture a much higher proportion of elected offices than the DNC. Does this mean that it will win every state?

    No, and it wouldn't make sense to try to. Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights. But that would cost them big in other places. For every California election the Democrats sweep, they get clobbered in twice as much in Texas and the South. Outside the Left Coast and Northeast there's no solid blue state at all four levels. Even traditional Democratic strongholds like Massachusetts, New Jersey and Illinois have or recently had Republican governors.

    …purple states like Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin. (All of which are solid red at all four levels of legislatures, governors, representatives and senators.)

    All three of those states have a Democratic Senator. Respectively, Sherrod Brown, Bill Nelson and Tammy Baldwin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Anon
    Hypothesis of what's going on: People see 107-115IQ and they think: "115!" like when the job ad says "Paying Up to $150K" and you think $150K! gee wizz! and it's actually $70K.

    But, I'm sure Jews can rationalize why they should own everything with just a 107 IQ: "Well, ackshually, if we take this bell curve out another sigma to the 160 IQ people, a 1:1 ratio makes sense! Now, let's take it out yet another sigma to 175, and there's just one guy there: a China man - uh, I mean, a Jew!"

    By the way, what is the mean IQ of the average self-made billionaire? 145? Or, more like 120-something, and high on extroversion? (and very good at *networking*)

    Warren Buffett: “Investing is not a game where the guy with the 160 IQ beats the guy with a 130 IQ…Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    You say, “First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness … we’d expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below ‘true’ Ashkenazi IQ.” Is there any evidence for this claim, that Jews with a lower blood quantum of Ashkenaziness but who are (presumably) raised and identify as Jews have lower IQs? That sounds like a cross-adoption study to me, which has never been done on Jews. This is a baseless assertion on your part.

    I still don’t see any more raw data than the studies I cited, most notably: “The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and “1.2 below non-Jewish whites.” What I would like to see is raw data giving sample size and scores.

    You talk a lot about genetics. If you were an ethnographer and you found that two populations differ on some psychological trait like openness or IQ or ethnocentrism etc, would a more parsimonious explanation be that it is cultural or genetic in origin? What about when the two groups are as geographically and genetically as close as Whites and Jews are? Would it be more parsimonious to assume that an IQ study that showed a 10 point IQ difference between the French and Polish, say, to be caused by genetics, or environment/culture/socio-economics?

    [MORE]

    The genetic distance between Blacks and Europeans is over 70 times greater than the difference between Whites and Jews, tantamount to the difference between 1,000 years of isolation and 70,000 years. The latter is a lot more time for genetic differences to evolve. Furthermore, we have evidence for genetic differences between Whites, Blacks and Asians in the form of cross-adoptions studies and brain size studies. Asian brains are bigger that White*1* brains which are bigger than Black brains, which is exactly what you would expect given their IQs. The limited data we have on Jewish brain size suggests that their brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches, than white gentile brains are, which flies in the face of a genetic explanation.*2*

    You start talking about brain regions that are “responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities.” Care to cite your claim? Care to cite it as it specifically pertains to Jews, or any other identifiable racial group? It sounds like vague hypothetical hand waving to me. Maybe true, but please cite it.

    In my view, a more parsimonious explanation for a Jewish IQ advantage (to the extent it exists) is cultural, specifically, rooted in a culture of going into the professions – and not the other way around: high genetic IQ leading to Jews entering the professions in large numbers. (Why does an Amish boy become a farmer? Because he has a farmer’s IQ, or a farmer’s genetic mentality, or because his father’s a farmer? What about sons of lawyers or accountants etc.?)

    HBDers have this hammer: genetics, and they’ve decided everything is a nail. “Why do the Chinese bind their wives feet? A genetic predilection to patriarchy! etc.”

    ** Asian brains are bigger in relation to body size, but smaller in gross size.

    *** And the whole Tay-Sachs hypothesis is very weak. The Irish and Cajans and a population of French Canadians have a high rate of Tay-Sachs too, do they have high IQs? Further, there’s never been a study to show that Tay-Sachs increases IQ in heterozygotes, so it’s baseless speculation atop baseless speculation. (there might be a case for torsion dystonia, but you could probably make the same argument for myopia, which is probably related to intelligence though a lot of indoor book work.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @Doug
    Demographic shifts leading to permanent Democratic majorities have been perennial predictions since 1996. Over that time Republicans have captured nearly 75% of state governments, majorities in the House and Senate, and 4 out of the 7 presidential terms.

    Historically how many actual democracies have fallen into long-run one-party rule? It just doesn't square with the median voter theorem. Not saying that values won't shift with demographics, but there's no reason that parties can't shift as well. If the Republicans represent the part of the country's that's more conservative than average, then they'll probably keep doing so. If the average American becomes more liberal, than the Republican Party will become more liberal up to the point of keeping it's approximate 50% market share.

    You may say this is six or half-dozen. What's the difference if we're governed by Democratic majorities or RINO-coalitions? But it's still a pretty important distinction. For one conservative interest groups are still likely to have pretty big effects on RINOs, because they still have to win primaries. Particularly if you focus effort on to a few issues, where you force the candidate to be conservative, but let the candidate be more liberal on other issues to win the general. Second, legislative voting's so consistent along party lines that RINOs still vote substantially different than even Blue-Dogs. Olympia Snowe's still much to the right of Joe Manchin, once you look at her voting record.

    The only way I see the median voter theorem not guaranteeing the continued survival of the two-party system is if political party brand loyalty ends up trumping issues and ideology. Maybe large segments of Democratic voters are just so loyal to the party that they'll never vote Republican, even if the GOP adopted the entire DNC platform. I definitely think this might be the case for black voters, and probably certain groups of hispanics.

    But on the flip side, I don't really see white women and Asians being die-hard Democratic loyalists. Then you have to also consider that as the parties shift left with demographics, very high percentage of white men and married white women will find themselves on the Republican side of the median voter. Even if whites become a minority, if they start voting anywhere close as party-consistent as other minorities the GOP will still have substantial electoral support.

    Canada, Japan, Israel, South Africa, and a few others. But you misrepresent the real issue: there are violently incompatible ideas of what the Constitution means, which leftists want to resolve with permanent changes. There is an almost unprecedented failure of sympathy comparable to the atmosphere before the Civil War. It’s not a matter of whether traitors like McCain or McConnell will get elected or not, it’s a matter of stability.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Nigerian Nationalist
    "It’s almost as if whites and blacks, on average, tend to have somewhat different cultures, ancestors, and genes."

    but

    "The few exceptions tend to be neighborhoods in Queens or in the D.C. suburbs that have many high-achieving black immigrants."

    ahh

    "so let’s at least try not to make things worse for them through massive immigration."

    Call me a cherry-picking bastard all you want, but it strikes me that the solution is to replace your blacks with high achieving Nigerian, Indian and Chinese immigrants or at least key in your Blacks to that being the Dems long term plan, replacing them.

    Also American spellings argh! my eyes hurt.

    Have you thought-experimented how our blacks would react to literal replacement?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @eah
    https://twitter.com/edutopia/status/976101177212506113

    The White lady in the background is smiling, but there is still sadness in her face because she knows the Black boy will grow up to be an agent of chaos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Seth Largo
    There is a significant difference between the 90/10 split among African Americans and the 60/30 split among Hispanics and Asians. I've posted the math here before. Assuming that whites are just under 50% of the electorate, and that they continue to vote like a bloc, you only need to get another 5-10% of Hispanics and Asians to vote rightward to keep the country from turning into a Left Singularity.

    Under such circumstances, one would think the right would see the benefit in keeping the worst of the xenophobic rhetoric in check.

    Remind me how xenophobic rhetoric is defined? Oh, right, anything we say is Nazism, they are allowed to joke about killing us, and people do not vote based on omitted rhetoric anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @eah
    https://twitter.com/edutopia/status/976101177212506113

    Edutopia (“a source for what works in education”) is the textbook illustration of the phronetically-incapable, bad-policy-pushing, self-congratulatory, fake charity. I think George Lucas started it.
    I’m okay with people being richer than me, I’m okay with them being much richer, but it is downright contrary to the stated will of the Founders that they start these policy-driving NGO “combinations.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Thanks for your post. I found it very informative.

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I've worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?

    I have a good friend who is a redneck Chicano (not at all unusual in rural Texas and Oklahoma) who struggled in school and would probably not score very high on an iq test. But he is an amazing mechanic. He can fix anything on a car or truck, even if he has never dealt with a similar problem. He just figures it out. I’ve worked on my truck with him and his ingenuity is amazing at times.

    This would seem to require a fairly high intelligence at some level. Any thoughts?

    Your friend probably handles only the physical removal and replacement of parts. He can look at something and see how the parts interact and the best way to take it apart and put it back together.

    But I doubt he’s the diagnostician at the shop. That’s where the guys that were good in school, work and excel. 40 years ago the shop manuals were written to a first year college reading level to understand it. Newspaper is 4th grade by comparison.

    And in the time since, the manuals have gotten bigger and more difficult to understand. Back then an entire manual was about an inch and a half thick. Last 20 years, it’s about an 8 inch stack of manuals; for one vehicle.

    Most of this is electrically operated stuff; the computers that run everything. Somebody that is great with real parts probably isn’t as good with understanding how a computer is working or not; nothing to put your hands on. It’s just a concept you understand or don’t.

    I took an assessment test in 9th grade, scored 97% in mechanical reasoning and spatial relationships. Scored 99% on the reading comprehension. I was one of the two diagnostic guys at the dealer I worked at. I could also do the straight R&R work like your friend.

    20 years ago the dealers locked out the mechanics union, which was Aerospace and Machinists. Couldn’t agree on a new contract. Dealers wanted to pay $70K to the 2 or 3 diagnosticians in the shop and all the R&R guys would get $40K. They were on strike for about a year, but the dealers found enough guys to cross the picket line to keep the shops open. No more union mechanics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Now – here is Charles Murray making fun of the NYT’s misinterpretation of Chetty’s findings as quoted by Steve Sailer in Taki’s Magazine:

    “An analysis destined for the unintended-consequences-of-publicizing-technically-accurate-data hall of fame.”

    – It’s funny – if only for – hehe some of the “happy few”, I can imagine.

    Funny, though. I mean like: Really well thought trough fun! – – H e a v y . fun even.
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    “- – Yeah, h e a v y . and a bottle of bread – – – ” (Bob Dylan and The Band – The Basement Tapes) or: “- give me some-a-funnin””
    ..
    ..
    (Eh – I hope, I don’t confuse anybody: Charles Murray is right, of course – and even funny – a tad funny – no?! – Yes, a tad funny he methinks really is – : – At least!)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Anybody that ever wants to win playing Jeopardy should remember Chetty’s name. Because when this revelation becomes common knowledge with the left, he’ll disappear so fast, it’ll make your head spin.

    With leftism being the ‘religion’ of the leftys, they won’t accept any heretics. Off with their head!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  99. @res
    This is worth a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_aptitude#Mechanical_aptitude_and_spatial_relations
    It ties in nicely with Doug's point about spatial ability.

    P.S. Excellent comment, Doug!

    Thank you. That is helpful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Ed

    This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.
     
    I was going to respond that aren’t Russian Jews Ashkenazi but you pointed out astutely that many of the Russian Jews that moved to Israel weren’t very Jewish.

    Brings to mind a few years ago the clip of Israelis making Nazi salutes and celebrating Hitler. Turned out they were children of immigrants from Russia that had a line of Jewish descent but their families stopped being Jewish long ago. The kids saw themselves as Russian.

    The IDF should raise a Cossack regiment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    The recent election showed young Asian males voting for Trump.

    My guess is that if the Republican party decided to go front in center against affirmative action and showed it targeting Asians, that they would turn into the equivalent of Jews for Democrats — a high achieving minority with a disproportionate financial influence that would help them win elections.

    But Republicans have to embrace Asians wholeheartedly in the structure of the party. Remember that no issue matters more for Asian moms than their kids getting reverse-AA’d out of good schools from the elementary to the college level.

    I don’t think that the R’s have figured this out yet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Anon321
    Steve, you are still dodging the issue of why black female high income earners do not revert to the mean at all. Why don't they?

    I’m guessing that you are wondering why black women of high-income parents don’t regress farther than white women of high SES parents. As res noted, black women (and white women) regress toward the mean.

    Well, the big issue with the similarity between these black and white women is that Chetty used individual incomes instead of household incomes. That’s a glaring omission. There seem to be two possible explanations.

    1. Affirmative Action

    Black women are by far the biggest beneficiaries of AA. In addition, I’d suspect that black women who are the children of high SES parents are the biggest beneficiaries among all black women making the AA lottery winners. This may give them a boost in income relative to any other group, including white women whose parents were high SES.

    2. Marriage

    White women who are the children of high SES parents have dramatically higher marriage rates than similar black women. In addition, these white women tend to marry the sons of high SES parents – you know, the whites who earn the most. Similar black women – if they do marry – are rarely marrying a high earner. As a result, many white women whose parents were high SES can either not work or work lower salary jobs because the main bread winner is their husband. Similar black women don’t typically have that option.

    There may be other contributors, but these two could explain a lot of why these two groups of women don’t differ in their average individual incomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. You’re making Chetty’s team of very smart guys look silly, Steve. You should be ashamed!

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/team/

    Read More
    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I love the "Equality of Opportunity" team picture.

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/images/team2017_1.jpg

    13 team members, 2 women, 0 blacks.

    I guess hypocrisy is part of the job description.

    Heal thine own damn self, physician.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. @Uilleam Yr Alban
    There will be violence before European Americans are, effectively, disenfranchised. I’d bet on Europa before the coalition of the fringes.

    No, there won’t be any large scale mass violence. Western states are very powerful (when they have the will to act), western population is too pacifist, and Identity Evropa and their ilk are a group of LARPers, not smart politicians or fighters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @Dashiel_Bad_Horse
    I'm getting pretty tired of the discourse using income as their dependent variable. Like income is just a favor society does you and having more income is automatically better.

    Last time I checked, you had to work for your income. In general, the more income you get, the more useful your work has to be and the harder you have to work. More income also generally means more years of expensive education.

    How good a deal is a high income job anyway? From the traditional leftist standpoint, you get a good deal when your employer makes a small profit margin on your labor. You get "exploited" when your employer makes gets to pay you a lot less than they take home.

    ... and you can see where this is going. Low-skilled low-paying jobs have tiny profit margins. Which makes sense because there's a virtually unlimited supply of remedial jobs that require very little training, so a large pool of employees can switch jobs relatively easily. Whereas medical specialists, scientific researchers, and tech jobs have very few employers. Compare the profit margins per employee of Apple to Wal-Mart.

    The social justice discourse is just spending so much time and energy worrying about who gets to live in a $500,000 house that they never stopped to ask if the deal was even worth it. At the bare minimum, you have to output disproportionate value for society to get paid higher wages. Society isn't doing high-income earners any favors.

    It is obviously better to have more money. But if you have to work for money, then it is not obviously a good use of your time and energy to try to earn a lot of it.

    Dash, You know there isn’t a definition of what rich means when it comes to African Americans. Does a Government job that pays you $100k with solid benefits make you rich? If you can’t get your son or daughter the same job, then they won’t make $100k. I think more small business owning whites show their children how to succeed, as opposed to settle.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Luke Lea
    You're making Chetty's team of very smart guys look silly, Steve. You should be ashamed!

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/team/

    I love the “Equality of Opportunity” team picture.

    13 team members, 2 women, 0 blacks.

    I guess hypocrisy is part of the job description.

    Heal thine own damn self, physician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    They don't have to play by their rules because they're fighting oppression. It's the modern form of indulgence.

    It's the same reason Al "Man Bear Pig" Gore gets to fly around the world and own several homes. He's fighting against man-made global warming so he can emit the same amout of greenhouse gases as a small town.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Ed
    Interesting it appears even the more colorful black YouTube personalities are waking up to this reality, blacks are more or less broke.



    https://youtu.be/1NM_1dPyAUY

    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let’s say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mishra

    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let’s say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.
     
    This is what we've done already, only 1) to the tune of far more than $250K per and 2) ('many of us') have become quite wealthy selling (and renting) them stuff.
    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Reminds me of a Dave Chappelle skit depicting what happens when negroes get reparations. It is one of the funniest comedy skits I have ever seen. I'm too lazy to look it up and link it, but it's probably pretty easy to find on YouTube.
    , @Brutusale
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2pveof
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Barnard
    Much like Chetty's plan to relocate people from tragic dirt to magic dirt, a black a block doesn't seem possible on a macro level. It can work in places like Oak Park because they are the only ones in the Chicago area doing it, but I don't think there are enough blocks to go around in most metro areas today.

    I also wonder if what Oak Park did in the 1970s would work today. The hip hop industry has exploded since then and social media makes it much easier for people with the same interests to get together in person. Kids living on these blocks wouldn't be limited to their immediate neighbors for socializing like they would have in the past.

    true, we no longer have enough mostly white blocks…in addition it would be “racist” and violate the fair housing act if they attempted to limit the number of Blacks in each neighborhood to 12%. How would this be possible in the many states which are already 20% Black like New Jersey. Once a town gets to 20% black the whites and Asians start moving out because if a town is 20% Black the High School will be 30% Black (many whites go to private schools and there are not enough white children).

    The Neighborhood where I was raised is now 10% Black , but the township is 20% Black and the High School is 40% Black. A significant number of kids attend Catholic Schools to escape the Blacks. Most of the white people in the township are empty nesters, no longer have kids in school thus they do not have as much incentive to leave , but it keeps white families from moving into town while it depresses the home values of those who stay.

    already the school age population in America is 16% Black and just 55% white, thus is is not possible to create many neighborhoods with a black population around 12%. Even forced integration by an all powerful central government could not create school districts with demographics to help Blacks. It would result in every school district having too many Blacks , resulting in more white kids going to private schools or being home schooled.

    May be feasible in California because the Black population is under 7%, But they would have to live in mostly Mexican neighborhoods to accomplish this goal, which may actually increase gang membership due to the strength of the Mexican gangs.

    the Demographics of each state are significantly different, such that no state is 20% hispanic, 13% black, 60% White, 7% Asian. But if such a town existed it would be have a very different demographics in the local high school, as the current youth demographics are less than 59% white. and it is the school age demographics which is potentially beneficial to young blacks, not the white senior population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Antlitz Grollheim

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.
     
    This really jumped out at me. The careers where this would have been valuable are not careers in the contemporary sense but vocations: farmer, mason, landscape architect, etc. As bureaucracy and educational complex grows, direct interaction with the environment is subsumed under careerist wrangling: e.g. can you make it sound compelling for a grant, or can you market it. The word trumps the techne.

    It seems we're all now under the pressures that led to the formation of the Ashkenazim.

    Whoa, are you sure about that? Respectfully, I get the opposite impression. The very high verbal-IQ weighted professions include law, journalism, and non-STEM academia; and I think these are the few white collar professions that have not been doing well recently. The decent paying blue collar professions seem to be the skilled trades which are very heavily weighted towards spatial reasoning.

    Even within a field compensation seems to be more tilted towards those with good spatial reasoning. Surgeons and radiologists get paid much more than internists despite clearly have much lower verbal IQs (but better spatial reasoning skills.)

    Because women have higher verbal IQs than men, the entry of women into the workforce seems to have depressed wages for those that tilt towards verbal intelligence more than those with spatial or mathematical intelligence.

    Also all of the good paying high-verbal-IQ jobs tend to require an expensive university education and possibly graduate education. In contrast, for the spatial reasoning stuff, if you can do it you’re in. So for net lifetime earnings this is another advantage.

    Lastly as automation becomes more commonplace, it pays to speak the language of the machines well (programming, mathematics) as opposed to good verbal/communication skills.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    You make some great points with which I can't disagree. My reply would be the overall emphasis. Brahmin-type careers are not high-paying because everyone and their mother is trained for them. My impression talking to tradesmen is that illegals and bureaucracy make work you can be proud of damn near impossible anymore. So I agree that becoming a plumber or medical technician is a great career move. I'm just saying there are way more hurdles to becoming the next Henry Ford as opposed to becoming a Ted Talk Patreon millionaire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Lurker

    White women are thus the eternal and natural enemy of White men as are Blacks due to incompatible goals
     
    If that were true whites would have long since ceased to exist.

    We should all chip in and get Whiskey an escort, err a “date”. Put me down for $20.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Buffalo Joe
    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let's say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.

    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let’s say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.

    This is what we’ve done already, only 1) to the tune of far more than $250K per and 2) (‘many of us’) have become quite wealthy selling (and renting) them stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @candid_observer
    I love the "Equality of Opportunity" team picture.

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/images/team2017_1.jpg

    13 team members, 2 women, 0 blacks.

    I guess hypocrisy is part of the job description.

    Heal thine own damn self, physician.

    They don’t have to play by their rules because they’re fighting oppression. It’s the modern form of indulgence.

    It’s the same reason Al “Man Bear Pig” Gore gets to fly around the world and own several homes. He’s fighting against man-made global warming so he can emit the same amout of greenhouse gases as a small town.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. OT A man investigating the murder of Seth Rich (the guy Julian Assange pointed to as the [not Russian] source of the Hillary campaign leaks) has been shot twice in the back and run over. Apparently as a dispute over the ownership of a website, and not a terrorist signal to stop investigating the murder of the guy who leaked the emails.

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/03/20/seth-rich-investigator-attacked/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. @Buffalo Joe
    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let's say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.

    Reminds me of a Dave Chappelle skit depicting what happens when negroes get reparations. It is one of the funniest comedy skits I have ever seen. I’m too lazy to look it up and link it, but it’s probably pretty easy to find on YouTube.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    Spatially loaded professions:

    Surgeon
    Pilot
    Dentist
    Radiologist
    Architect
    Mechanical, aerospace, or civil engineer (maybe electrical, computer, and chemical although these are more logic/mathematics focused)
    Construction management

    Verbally loaded professions:
    Law
    Journalism
    Sales
    Management/Strategy Consulting
    Internist
    Pediatrician
    government/lobbying/think tank

    Having trained many physicians, my impression is that our screening tools (standardized testing and the like) are excessively focused on verbal ability when many of these professions require little of it. We often got residents with relatively good scores, evaluations, etc., who when it came time to actually operate were always getting lost. Good people, but we had to wash them out. On the other hand we’d have some residents who I would swear were complete morons based on their inability to spell (abscess? abcess? absccess?) who nevertheless were outstanding and now are comfortably ensconced in private practice, hopefully with a spell checker.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    The dental school test has a spatial reasoning section, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @SimpleSong

    For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

     

    Spatially loaded professions:

    Surgeon
    Pilot
    Dentist
    Radiologist
    Architect
    Mechanical, aerospace, or civil engineer (maybe electrical, computer, and chemical although these are more logic/mathematics focused)
    Construction management

    Verbally loaded professions:
    Law
    Journalism
    Sales
    Management/Strategy Consulting
    Internist
    Pediatrician
    government/lobbying/think tank

    Having trained many physicians, my impression is that our screening tools (standardized testing and the like) are excessively focused on verbal ability when many of these professions require little of it. We often got residents with relatively good scores, evaluations, etc., who when it came time to actually operate were always getting lost. Good people, but we had to wash them out. On the other hand we'd have some residents who I would swear were complete morons based on their inability to spell (abscess? abcess? absccess?) who nevertheless were outstanding and now are comfortably ensconced in private practice, hopefully with a spell checker.

    The dental school test has a spatial reasoning section, right?

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Yes. https://www.kaptest.com/study/dat/whats-tested-dat-perceptual-ability-pat/
    , @SimpleSong
    It does, and I think the MCAT needs one as well, as a lot of anatomy requires fiendishly good spatial reasoning skills. For example, such and such nerve passes posterior to X, anterior to Y, and lateral to Z. If the patient has their arm above their head and you hold an ultrasound probe at a 90 degree angle to the axial plane of the humerus, which of these white dots is the radial nerve? Can you spot which person is an anatomic variant? Are you sure that's a variant or do you just have the probe backwards?

    As time goes on we have started using ultrasound for everything, and gotten more reliant on other forms of imaging, the spatial reasoning component is getting more important, not less. It also used to be that only surgeons needed to be good spatially but now ED docs use ultrasound all the time; anesthesiologists do as well, radiology as a field has grown tremendously, and the hospitalists use it for lines and drains.

    But, not tested on the MCAT or USMLE, (as far as I know); USMLE in particular is basically a verbal recall test and has had pretty poor predictive value for us.

    , @Tipsy
    I heard years ago that they used to make you carve a tooth out of a piece of chalk. If you couldn't do that, you weren't fit to be a dentist.

    Don't know if the story was apocryphal or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Anon
    So, this is kind of related:

    Either I'm just lazy or my search engine is broken, but I'm trying to find raw data on Ashkenazi Jewish IQ scores, and this is the only raw data I came across:

    There's a table with sample size and average score, which I'll clumsily copy/paste below:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source Sample sizes. Number of Ashkenazi Jews tested. Average IQ Ashkenazi Jews in USA and/or UK
    Backman 1972 1236 107.8 verbal IQ
    Backman in present study 150 107.5 crystallized IQ
    Lynn Estimated 103.5 Ashkenazi Jews in Israel
    Macdonald 1994 Suggested IQ 117
    Storfer Suggested IQ 112
    Shuey 1942 764 1.2 below non-Jewish whites
    Bachman 1970 Lesser than 100 112.8
    Herrnstein/Murray 1994 59 112.6

    The two studies with the largest samples sizes of 1236 and 764 (Backman and Shuey) say that their IQ is 107.8 Verbal and "1.2 below non-Jewish whites." Am I reading this correctly, it's 1.2 points below the White mean?

    I'm trying to find more raw data on this topic and the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence lists "Backman, M. E. (1972) and Levinson, B.M. & Block, Z" as the sources for the high IQ data, but it gives no scores, and I don't have access to the raw data in those studies. (Does someone else?)

    And then I see this article and I think: huh? An average overall IQ score of 102?

    "I learned that most studies of American Jews are not very representative, because samples are often drawn just from New York city or from children in Orthodox schools."

    So, my impression is that the data on Ashkenazi IQ is lousy. What am I missing? I thought that we knew this stuff. 115 is quoted everywhere so authoritatively. Where is this number coming from? Why is it quoted everywhere with so much confidence?

    And Jewish brains are smaller by 2 cubic inches? Hmm.

    Why are so many interesting posts written by random anons, trend really has been going up recently…anyway:

    It’s quoted by Jewish racists, and other racists whose only real point was to attack blacks or something and they just said it in passing.

    Obviously 115 is nowhere close to true, in fact there is strong evidence there is not any racial group higher than about 105 IQ and even then that’s iffy, mostly a lack of non-corrupt data on some East Asian populations and unexplained gender gaps. 100-105 overall IQ for Ashkenazi Jews, where the white European mean is 100 (and some white European groups might differ a few points from that), if not due to environmental effects then possibly thanks to some genetic drift, possibly gender or ability component skewed, seems the most supported by evidence. (It really is like various old jokes: “Did you hear Jews have a verbal IQ of 107? No, I didn’t know Jews have a verbal IQ of 112. Why, it’s a shame nobody talks more about Jews having an overall IQ of 116″)

    Very ironically, given other discussions here, though I don’t think I personally commented on it here and it’s worth a full article sometime: one reason why it’s clear no racial group has particularly high mean IQs is relatively high IQ women (even 130-140) don’t exist in the appropriate numbers. As with “general population students” in Shanghai it’s bizarre to have a “race” of 115 IQ people where say 130 IQ women nevertheless barely exist; we know the latter case is selection bias in measurement, partly fraud of course. With this and other topics I call it being so racist you forget to be sexist. No existing evidence supports that the women just have something analogous to Down’s Syndrome to account for it. Life is not a videogame and one can’t just overwise change the variance either; you can’t have a race of people with 115 mean IQ and sd 5. (more specifically this is clearly evolutionarily impossible as it contradicts all the scientifically known evidence of the highly polygenic nature of the trait. You’d have to be dealing with lizard people)

    Sampling errors abound of course though, and I’ve always maintained childhood IQ testing is often terrible. So it’s easy to find measurements, not the latent truth, that look weird among groups of immigrants or something. For the same reason non-Jewish non-Hispanic white immigrants from the USA to Japan might have an IQ average of 120, or more clearly, middle class suburban girls who got exactly 3.0 grades during a school year have an IQ of 103 with a SD of 5, results like that can obtain with other races (even blacks, being careful).

    Probably the most hilarious thing from the racist crowd is the constant insistence of bizarre explanations to somehow mathematically cancel out educational/testing results they don’t like from Israel. Like “Israel must secretly have a population of Sephardic Jews with a mean IQ of maybe 75 to ‘balance things’ out.”

    Regardless of what some bloviators may or may have once written, by the way, by my count Jews are about 4% of white European historical intellectual figures (scientists etc), which is a bit higher than their share of the population, but then one has to see that many other groups are also skewed. Incidentally the production of highly accomplished individuals is an important topic with some other important explanations but for this subject it’s almost irrelevant; parisomoniously, the best results for the Jews is to just count “one Einstein” as putting Einstein in a very small list of very select figures produces the highest ratio. The Swedish, for instance, are way overrepresented among historical intellectual figures compared to the Irish, but nobody accepts that as evidence the Swedish population or race is 20 points higher than the Irish in the present day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    If black women from the top one percent don’t regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability.

    This is why spatial\math reasoning is important. (Like most NYT/elite media, there’s a lot of slop in the verbal explanations for these pretty simple findings.)

    Look at the graphs.

    Everyone regresses toward the mean. Black men, on average, just regress a bit more than women–black or white–and white men regress a bit less.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Steve Sailer
    The dental school test has a spatial reasoning section, right?
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Steve Sailer
    The dental school test has a spatial reasoning section, right?

    It does, and I think the MCAT needs one as well, as a lot of anatomy requires fiendishly good spatial reasoning skills. For example, such and such nerve passes posterior to X, anterior to Y, and lateral to Z. If the patient has their arm above their head and you hold an ultrasound probe at a 90 degree angle to the axial plane of the humerus, which of these white dots is the radial nerve? Can you spot which person is an anatomic variant? Are you sure that’s a variant or do you just have the probe backwards?

    As time goes on we have started using ultrasound for everything, and gotten more reliant on other forms of imaging, the spatial reasoning component is getting more important, not less. It also used to be that only surgeons needed to be good spatially but now ED docs use ultrasound all the time; anesthesiologists do as well, radiology as a field has grown tremendously, and the hospitalists use it for lines and drains.

    But, not tested on the MCAT or USMLE, (as far as I know); USMLE in particular is basically a verbal recall test and has had pretty poor predictive value for us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I have okay 2-d thinking skills but poor 3-d skills. I'd be a bad doctor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @SimpleSong
    It does, and I think the MCAT needs one as well, as a lot of anatomy requires fiendishly good spatial reasoning skills. For example, such and such nerve passes posterior to X, anterior to Y, and lateral to Z. If the patient has their arm above their head and you hold an ultrasound probe at a 90 degree angle to the axial plane of the humerus, which of these white dots is the radial nerve? Can you spot which person is an anatomic variant? Are you sure that's a variant or do you just have the probe backwards?

    As time goes on we have started using ultrasound for everything, and gotten more reliant on other forms of imaging, the spatial reasoning component is getting more important, not less. It also used to be that only surgeons needed to be good spatially but now ED docs use ultrasound all the time; anesthesiologists do as well, radiology as a field has grown tremendously, and the hospitalists use it for lines and drains.

    But, not tested on the MCAT or USMLE, (as far as I know); USMLE in particular is basically a verbal recall test and has had pretty poor predictive value for us.

    I have okay 2-d thinking skills but poor 3-d skills. I’d be a bad doctor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    You can be a great dermatologist with 2-D only.

    In all seriousness, though, things like endocrinology, infectious disease, medical oncology, require almost no spatial skills but strong verbal recall. Personally I got absolutely pounded in my infectious disease elective which most of my classmates thought was easy. I was probably worse than an internet search for most things but thankfully google didn't exist then and also thankfully the attendings realized I was a dud and kept me on a short leash.

    Medicine is strange in that depending on the subfield vastly different cognitive profiles are required. But we do a one-size-fits-all approach to entrance exams which I think is sub-optimal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Anonymous
    It doesn't work like that.

    The one constant of American life is the declining proportion of white Americans. The preponderance of white voters are in the older age groups. They will pass on in the coming decades. By contrast, non-whites are growing steadily - over 50% of newborns - and weighted toward the young and yet-to-votes.
    Obviously, the effect of passing years will be a 'twofer' multiplier for the 'minority' segment of the vote.
    Now, the biggest predictor of being a Democrat voter is being from a 'minority'. The biggest predictor of voting Republican is being a white male.

    Inevitably, there is only one way this can go.

    From an elite perspective, the big problem with one-party government is that big business can lose influence over government policy. If the Democrats established a monopoly and went socialist, what could big business do about it? The only solution would be some form of non-democratic coup. And that would be very bad for a country like the US which now depends on foreign creditors and investors who have a lot of faith in its political stability and transparency. Hence, if the Democrats start establishing a monopoly, big business will simply switch sides and support the Republicans.

    Certainly there is possibility that the Republicans will continue to steer left on immigration and social/cultural issues, but that doesn’t mean there is likely to be a one-party monopoly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Ben Kurtz
    Raj Chetty -- with his idea that we'd find the localities in America that got race relations and upward mobility "right" in order to emulate them -- always struck me as the nerdy liberal do-gooder version of that sort of right-wing political pundit who carefully dances around the issue of race and reflexively blames poor local governance on the Democrats.

    A guy like that of course has his arrow of causation pointed the wrong way. Democrats don't cause poor local outcomes, Black people cause an area to have poor local outcomes on average -- and also Democratic mayors (given their voting patterns).

    I wrote about this in the Republican context ages ago: https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/the-rabid-right-is-too-polite/

    It will be interesting to see how it goes on the Democrat side, especially with their golden-boy high-achieving immigrant academic -- perhaps a bit blind to some of the subtext and nuance regarding what you are allowed to say about race relations in polite American company -- starts Noticing Things publicly.

    Will we mysteriously stop hearing from Chetty in the future? Will he be publicly defenestrated and fall victim to "point-n-sputter" and shouty charges of "RACIST!!"? He's not white enough to claim privilege, but I'm counting down the days until someone makes him an "honorary white" so he can be assigned some good old fashioned "privilege."

    Fun times.

    I see Raj as a typical Asian immigrant who likes to find fault with whites. His drive to embarrass whites lead to his silly study. Why not do a study on his people? Ask why his ancestral home is a slum? Self introspection and self criticism would be nice. Instead he chooses to bash white people. Cause it’s cool.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Cool yes, but also, this is the human default. The completely one-sided propaganda war against whites by various ethnicities makes more sense when you look at the supposed peaceful coexistence of neighboring tribes in the developing world. It's not a perpetual pogrom, but there is an unforgiving tallying of little grievances in the best of times, and a lot of behaviors that make perfect sense once you see them as competition. This part of the war on whites is like an American tourist dealing with a haggling merchant. The American cannot understand why the prices are so high (but pays anyway), and the merchant cannot figure out why the American does not make a counter-offer (but is not going to leave money on the table).
    The best response would be for us to tactfully, mercilessly, and accurately keep track of grievances against Chetty's people (ie, Indian medical fraud), being careful never to make a false accusation or to forgive one provable misdemeanor. Instead we want to pet the pretty tiger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. @Steve Sailer
    I have okay 2-d thinking skills but poor 3-d skills. I'd be a bad doctor.

    You can be a great dermatologist with 2-D only.

    In all seriousness, though, things like endocrinology, infectious disease, medical oncology, require almost no spatial skills but strong verbal recall. Personally I got absolutely pounded in my infectious disease elective which most of my classmates thought was easy. I was probably worse than an internet search for most things but thankfully google didn’t exist then and also thankfully the attendings realized I was a dud and kept me on a short leash.

    Medicine is strange in that depending on the subfield vastly different cognitive profiles are required. But we do a one-size-fits-all approach to entrance exams which I think is sub-optimal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @MadDog
    I see Raj as a typical Asian immigrant who likes to find fault with whites. His drive to embarrass whites lead to his silly study. Why not do a study on his people? Ask why his ancestral home is a slum? Self introspection and self criticism would be nice. Instead he chooses to bash white people. Cause it’s cool.

    Cool yes, but also, this is the human default. The completely one-sided propaganda war against whites by various ethnicities makes more sense when you look at the supposed peaceful coexistence of neighboring tribes in the developing world. It’s not a perpetual pogrom, but there is an unforgiving tallying of little grievances in the best of times, and a lot of behaviors that make perfect sense once you see them as competition. This part of the war on whites is like an American tourist dealing with a haggling merchant. The American cannot understand why the prices are so high (but pays anyway), and the merchant cannot figure out why the American does not make a counter-offer (but is not going to leave money on the table).
    The best response would be for us to tactfully, mercilessly, and accurately keep track of grievances against Chetty’s people (ie, Indian medical fraud), being careful never to make a false accusation or to forgive one provable misdemeanor. Instead we want to pet the pretty tiger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    I'm guessing that you are wondering why black women of high-income parents don't regress farther than white women of high SES parents. As res noted, black women (and white women) regress toward the mean.

    Well, the big issue with the similarity between these black and white women is that Chetty used individual incomes instead of household incomes. That's a glaring omission. There seem to be two possible explanations.

    1. Affirmative Action

    Black women are by far the biggest beneficiaries of AA. In addition, I'd suspect that black women who are the children of high SES parents are the biggest beneficiaries among all black women making the AA lottery winners. This may give them a boost in income relative to any other group, including white women whose parents were high SES.

    2. Marriage

    White women who are the children of high SES parents have dramatically higher marriage rates than similar black women. In addition, these white women tend to marry the sons of high SES parents - you know, the whites who earn the most. Similar black women - if they do marry - are rarely marrying a high earner. As a result, many white women whose parents were high SES can either not work or work lower salary jobs because the main bread winner is their husband. Similar black women don't typically have that option.

    There may be other contributors, but these two could explain a lot of why these two groups of women don't differ in their average individual incomes.

    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    (everyone, please note the child household income data pointer below. that data is freely available)

    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.
     
    This is a key point. You can see it clearly in the first table at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/
    It is much easier to see in the spreadsheet (especially with first row/column locked), but here is some data to give an idea. The spreadsheet also has data for indians and asians.

    Here are the population counts (213100 people in each percentile) for the 95-100% parental income bins for blacks, hispanics, and whites:

    6300 8400 180100
    5400 7900 181000
    4300 7300 183100
    3400 7000 184000
    2400 6400 185500
    1800 5600 186600

    Compared to the 1-5% bins

    59500 34900 69000
    55500 39900 69000
    54000 40400 72000
    53000 41900 73500
    52000 42400 75000

    They also give density numbers which make it easier to see how the selection happens within each race. Density for blacks, hispanics, and whites 95-100%

    0.2289 0.3206 1.334
    0.1961 0.3015 1.342
    0.1563 0.2786 1.356
    0.1234 0.2672 1.363
    0.0872 0.2442 1.375
    0.0654 0.2137 1.383

    And 1-5%

    2.161 1.335 0.5115
    2.016 1.527 0.5115
    1.961 1.546 0.5338
    1.925 1.603 0.545
    1.889 1.623 0.5561


    Looking more closely at that spreadsheet it has some data I don't think anyone has talked about. It appears to show child household income as well as the individual income we see in the graphs. These are the variables:
    kfr_[race]_[gender] - Mean child family (household) income rank by race and by gender.

    By that measure white females do better than white males apparently across the whole range of parental incomes (in contrast to the graphs!). White females also do about 10% better than black females across the board (with a fair bit of variation).

    I think this validates some of the conjectures made both in your posts and the comments about the marriage/work habits of white women influencing the numbers shown in the graphs.

    The individual data is in these variables:
    kir_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank by race and gender.

    Some other interesting variables. Unfortunately these are only for blacks and whites and not separated by sex:
    kid_married_[race]_ pooled - Percentage of children married by race.
    The differences are large across the range.

    These are also interesting. It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?
    kir_1par_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank for children with single
    parents; by race and gender.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. I just read this piece. Can anyone ascertain who are these millionaire black boys being locked up? Are they the sons of black businessmen, engineers, and doctors … or are they the sons of rappers, professional athletes, and bureaucrats?

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    I don't know if these guys are millionaires, but here are some sons of prominent blacks that got into legal trouble.

    Kansas City, Missouri mayor Sly James' son was arrested in 2012, and this was not his first brush with the law:

    KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Kyle James, son of Kansas City, Missouri Mayor Sly James had another brush with the law. James was arrested in KCK on May 13 for disorderly conduct.

    FOX 4 contacted the Mayor’s office about the incident. A spokesperson said they have no comment.

    In April, James was involved in a fight near the Brooksider Bar in Kansas City, Mo. Click here for that story.

    James has a history of trouble, including a high-profile fight in the Power and Light District last year. In addition, he allegedly punched a woman in a Midtown bar and recently witnessed a fatal shooting involving a friend of his near Westport.
     
    Dallas Police Chief David Brown's son murdered two people and then was killed in a police shootout in 2010.

    In June 2010, Brown’s only son, 27-year-old David Jr., shot and killed two men — including a 37-year-old police officer — at an apartment complex in Lancaster, Texas, 17 miles south of Dallas.

    He died in the Father’s Day shootout when officers returned fire.
     
    I doubt James and Brown are millionaires, but they are definitely high earners. Yet their sons seem pretty messed up.
    , @Triumph104
    The article focuses on income, not net-worth or wealth. The number of black engineers, doctors, and bureaucrats earning $1 million or more each year would negligible.


    Black sons who grew up millionaire parents and were incarcerated for at least one day:

    1. Bryant Gumbel's son was mistakenly identified and arrested in 2002. In 2008 the son was arrested for DUI after police found him asleep in his vehicle smelling of alcohol. Both father and son have learning disabilites.

    http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/24/bryant-gumbels-boy-wreck-at-the-wheel/

    2. Lawrence Taylor played for the NY Giants from 1981 to 1993. His son Lawrence Jr. is serving 30 years for statutory rape and child molestation.

    http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/04/lawrence-taylor-son-guilty-of-statutory-rape-gets-30-years/

    I don't know when Megachurch pastor TD Jakes started earning at least $1 million annually, but his son (adopted or step-son) was arrested in 2009 after exposing himself and masturbating in front of an undercover police officer in a park.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Steve Sailer
    The dental school test has a spatial reasoning section, right?

    I heard years ago that they used to make you carve a tooth out of a piece of chalk. If you couldn’t do that, you weren’t fit to be a dentist.

    Don’t know if the story was apocryphal or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @rogue-one
    OT:

    (From Pew Research)
    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification


    http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/wide-gender-gap-growing-educational-divide-in-voters-party-identification/

    Some interesting bits:

    1. White Millennial women vote like blacks: A growing majority of Millennial women (70%) affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic.

    2. Minorities really don't like republicans.

    (a) African American voters continue to affiliate with the Democratic Party or lean Democratic by an overwhelming margin (84% Democrat to 8% Republican).
    (b) Hispanic voters align with the Democrats by greater than two-to-one (63% to 28%)
    (c) Asian American voters also largely identify as Democrats or lean Democratic (65% Democrat, 27% Republican)

    I don't see how amnesty wouldn't turn America into a one party state.

    Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification …

    This stuff–the increasing college grad skew and white women skew–are depressing.

    Part of this is simply Trump–his bozo antics which good old boys tolerate as “he’s Trump”, but which are alienating to the self-conception of “educated” voters.

    However, this goes beyond Trump and to real tackle it we simply must have nationalists\conservatives\Republicans who can articulate *very clearly* on some core issues:

    – “nation of immigrants”, meaning “immigration forever!” is a genocidal scam
    It means either your descendants are continually diluted/pushed aside for newcomers … unless immigration just makes the nation so crowded, unpleasant, mediocre that people simply no longer want to come here.

    – the Democrat/progressive big statism is not actually good for women
    It’s good for women … who want to remain alone and childless or be a single mom, but for women who want to have a husband and children, you want your huband to be doing well supporting your children, not everyone elses.

    and most of all

    – HBD is science, the blank slate is political nonsense.
    Various groups of people have had different histories and have evolved–jointly with culture–differing traits, physical and mental including intelligence and personality. This actually *must* be so or you are denying the principle of selection that is at the core of biology. Pretending everyone is born the same is psuedo-science in the service of politics.

    The reason Jewish leftists like Gould, Lewontin, Kamin have worked so hard to promote this weird theory of “no-genes!” for racial differences in cognitive traits, is because such a theory allows abuse and blame to be piled on whites, and makes a case for racial intervention by their beloved super-state and belittles whites feeling that they have special characteristics worth preserving in ethno-states. (It’s both pro-state and anti-national.)

    It’s imperative we move the needle to get well-educated people to understand that anti-genetic blank-slatism is–really stupid–psuedo science that contradicts basic biology. We have to move the consensus so that “educated” people will feel embarrassment–uncoolness–at believing in blank slatism and feel that blank slate political pitches are just sleazy political scams.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Anon
    "Republicans could probably be competitive in California if they dropped abortion and gun rights."

    Whites are now less than 50% of the p0pulation there and falling. I'm not sure if any policy change could now carry the state - and certainly not the legislature. Schwarzenegger was a social liberal and he won the state, as you say, but he was unpopular and probably wouldn't be able to repeat the feat again, even if he wanted to.

    Just a minor point, but we are @ ~39% (and falling) out here. And our politicians do not feel secure enough even @ that level. We must contine sanctuary/wide open borders until every state, county, and city official is a member of the good party and of a decent thinking race.

    As they say, as California goes; so goes the country (although I haven’t really heard that expesion for a while now?).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Gene Su
    I just read this piece. Can anyone ascertain who are these millionaire black boys being locked up? Are they the sons of black businessmen, engineers, and doctors ... or are they the sons of rappers, professional athletes, and bureaucrats?

    I don’t know if these guys are millionaires, but here are some sons of prominent blacks that got into legal trouble.

    Kansas City, Missouri mayor Sly James’ son was arrested in 2012, and this was not his first brush with the law:

    KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Kyle James, son of Kansas City, Missouri Mayor Sly James had another brush with the law. James was arrested in KCK on May 13 for disorderly conduct.

    FOX 4 contacted the Mayor’s office about the incident. A spokesperson said they have no comment.

    In April, James was involved in a fight near the Brooksider Bar in Kansas City, Mo. Click here for that story.

    James has a history of trouble, including a high-profile fight in the Power and Light District last year. In addition, he allegedly punched a woman in a Midtown bar and recently witnessed a fatal shooting involving a friend of his near Westport.

    Dallas Police Chief David Brown’s son murdered two people and then was killed in a police shootout in 2010.

    In June 2010, Brown’s only son, 27-year-old David Jr., shot and killed two men — including a 37-year-old police officer — at an apartment complex in Lancaster, Texas, 17 miles south of Dallas.

    He died in the Father’s Day shootout when officers returned fire.

    I doubt James and Brown are millionaires, but they are definitely high earners. Yet their sons seem pretty messed up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Steve Sailer
    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.

    (everyone, please note the child household income data pointer below. that data is freely available)

    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.

    This is a key point. You can see it clearly in the first table at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/
    It is much easier to see in the spreadsheet (especially with first row/column locked), but here is some data to give an idea. The spreadsheet also has data for indians and asians.

    Here are the population counts (213100 people in each percentile) for the 95-100% parental income bins for blacks, hispanics, and whites:

    6300 8400 180100
    5400 7900 181000
    4300 7300 183100
    3400 7000 184000
    2400 6400 185500
    1800 5600 186600

    Compared to the 1-5% bins

    59500 34900 69000
    55500 39900 69000
    54000 40400 72000
    53000 41900 73500
    52000 42400 75000

    They also give density numbers which make it easier to see how the selection happens within each race. Density for blacks, hispanics, and whites 95-100%

    0.2289 0.3206 1.334
    0.1961 0.3015 1.342
    0.1563 0.2786 1.356
    0.1234 0.2672 1.363
    0.0872 0.2442 1.375
    0.0654 0.2137 1.383

    And 1-5%

    2.161 1.335 0.5115
    2.016 1.527 0.5115
    1.961 1.546 0.5338
    1.925 1.603 0.545
    1.889 1.623 0.5561

    Looking more closely at that spreadsheet it has some data I don’t think anyone has talked about. It appears to show child household income as well as the individual income we see in the graphs. These are the variables:
    kfr_[race]_[gender] – Mean child family (household) income rank by race and by gender.

    By that measure white females do better than white males apparently across the whole range of parental incomes (in contrast to the graphs!). White females also do about 10% better than black females across the board (with a fair bit of variation).

    I think this validates some of the conjectures made both in your posts and the comments about the marriage/work habits of white women influencing the numbers shown in the graphs.

    The individual data is in these variables:
    kir_[race]_[gender] – Mean child individual income rank by race and gender.

    Some other interesting variables. Unfortunately these are only for blacks and whites and not separated by sex:
    kid_married_[race]_ pooled – Percentage of children married by race.
    The differences are large across the range.

    These are also interesting. It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?
    kir_1par_[race]_[gender] – Mean child individual income rank for children with single
    parents; by race and gender.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    From the other thread, the child household income data for whites and blacks is plotted in ONLINE APPENDIX FIGURE IV: Intergenerational Gaps in Household and Spousal Income, by Gender on page 95.
    I missed that when I skimmed the 106 page paper.
    , @anon

    It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?
     
    You'd think that such kids would be getting cash and non-cash gifts from the parents, which would be reportable income, wouldn't it? (I am not a tax lawyer) ... but that kind of raises the issue of how much you can even trust tax returns. Is there an audit gap between the races? Is there an incarceration gap for tax fraud between the races? Is race not asked on the tax forms for fear it would end up being used in profiling for tax evasion investigations?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @res
    (everyone, please note the child household income data pointer below. that data is freely available)

    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.
     
    This is a key point. You can see it clearly in the first table at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/
    It is much easier to see in the spreadsheet (especially with first row/column locked), but here is some data to give an idea. The spreadsheet also has data for indians and asians.

    Here are the population counts (213100 people in each percentile) for the 95-100% parental income bins for blacks, hispanics, and whites:

    6300 8400 180100
    5400 7900 181000
    4300 7300 183100
    3400 7000 184000
    2400 6400 185500
    1800 5600 186600

    Compared to the 1-5% bins

    59500 34900 69000
    55500 39900 69000
    54000 40400 72000
    53000 41900 73500
    52000 42400 75000

    They also give density numbers which make it easier to see how the selection happens within each race. Density for blacks, hispanics, and whites 95-100%

    0.2289 0.3206 1.334
    0.1961 0.3015 1.342
    0.1563 0.2786 1.356
    0.1234 0.2672 1.363
    0.0872 0.2442 1.375
    0.0654 0.2137 1.383

    And 1-5%

    2.161 1.335 0.5115
    2.016 1.527 0.5115
    1.961 1.546 0.5338
    1.925 1.603 0.545
    1.889 1.623 0.5561


    Looking more closely at that spreadsheet it has some data I don't think anyone has talked about. It appears to show child household income as well as the individual income we see in the graphs. These are the variables:
    kfr_[race]_[gender] - Mean child family (household) income rank by race and by gender.

    By that measure white females do better than white males apparently across the whole range of parental incomes (in contrast to the graphs!). White females also do about 10% better than black females across the board (with a fair bit of variation).

    I think this validates some of the conjectures made both in your posts and the comments about the marriage/work habits of white women influencing the numbers shown in the graphs.

    The individual data is in these variables:
    kir_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank by race and gender.

    Some other interesting variables. Unfortunately these are only for blacks and whites and not separated by sex:
    kid_married_[race]_ pooled - Percentage of children married by race.
    The differences are large across the range.

    These are also interesting. It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?
    kir_1par_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank for children with single
    parents; by race and gender.

    From the other thread, the child household income data for whites and blacks is plotted in ONLINE APPENDIX FIGURE IV: Intergenerational Gaps in Household and Spousal Income, by Gender on page 95.
    I missed that when I skimmed the 106 page paper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Chetty writes:

    In low-poverty neighborhoods, two types of factors are most strongly associated with better outcomes for black men and smaller black-white gaps: low levels of racial bias among whites (emphasis mine) and high rates of father presence among blacks.

    Black men who grow up in tracts with less racial bias among whites – measured by testing for implicit bias or explicit racial animus in Google searches— earn more and are less likely to be incarcerated.

    Chetty assumes this means low bias leads to greater black achievement, but it could just as easily be the reverse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  135. @res
    Thoughtful comment. Some of my thoughts.

    1. Black male behavior is not a binary prison or not variable. I think dysfunctional behavior that is not sufficient to end up in prison contributes to the male earnings gap as well.

    2. I wish there was some way to quantify the impact of affirmative action in isolation. I tend to agree with " it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women."

    3. The other Chetty thread discussed stay at home married women as contributing to the lack of an earnings gap for women. Also differences in single mothers for whom income maximization is probably more important. I think it would be instructive to look at household income of women (the children in the study) but I don't think Chetty et al. did that.

    I think it would be instructive to look at household income of women (the children in the study) but I don’t think Chetty et al. did that.

    Figure 4 of the appendix has this data. The huge gap in the spouse income graph in particular explains why white women don’t feel the motivation to be high earners as strongly as black women.

    http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/race_paper.pdf#page=95

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. anon[487] • Disclaimer says:
    @res
    (everyone, please note the child household income data pointer below. that data is freely available)

    But the percentage of 30-year-old black women today whose parents made, say, $150k in 1995 is much lower than the percentage of 30-year-old white women today whose parents made $150k in 1995. So the black women are much more selected than the white women.
     
    This is a key point. You can see it clearly in the first table at http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/data/
    It is much easier to see in the spreadsheet (especially with first row/column locked), but here is some data to give an idea. The spreadsheet also has data for indians and asians.

    Here are the population counts (213100 people in each percentile) for the 95-100% parental income bins for blacks, hispanics, and whites:

    6300 8400 180100
    5400 7900 181000
    4300 7300 183100
    3400 7000 184000
    2400 6400 185500
    1800 5600 186600

    Compared to the 1-5% bins

    59500 34900 69000
    55500 39900 69000
    54000 40400 72000
    53000 41900 73500
    52000 42400 75000

    They also give density numbers which make it easier to see how the selection happens within each race. Density for blacks, hispanics, and whites 95-100%

    0.2289 0.3206 1.334
    0.1961 0.3015 1.342
    0.1563 0.2786 1.356
    0.1234 0.2672 1.363
    0.0872 0.2442 1.375
    0.0654 0.2137 1.383

    And 1-5%

    2.161 1.335 0.5115
    2.016 1.527 0.5115
    1.961 1.546 0.5338
    1.925 1.603 0.545
    1.889 1.623 0.5561


    Looking more closely at that spreadsheet it has some data I don't think anyone has talked about. It appears to show child household income as well as the individual income we see in the graphs. These are the variables:
    kfr_[race]_[gender] - Mean child family (household) income rank by race and by gender.

    By that measure white females do better than white males apparently across the whole range of parental incomes (in contrast to the graphs!). White females also do about 10% better than black females across the board (with a fair bit of variation).

    I think this validates some of the conjectures made both in your posts and the comments about the marriage/work habits of white women influencing the numbers shown in the graphs.

    The individual data is in these variables:
    kir_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank by race and gender.

    Some other interesting variables. Unfortunately these are only for blacks and whites and not separated by sex:
    kid_married_[race]_ pooled - Percentage of children married by race.
    The differences are large across the range.

    These are also interesting. It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?
    kir_1par_[race]_[gender] - Mean child individual income rank for children with single
    parents; by race and gender.

    It is amazing how badly black males do at the 99% parental income level (worse than 88-98%). Is this an artifact of the athletes and entertainers showing up here?

    You’d think that such kids would be getting cash and non-cash gifts from the parents, which would be reportable income, wouldn’t it? (I am not a tax lawyer) … but that kind of raises the issue of how much you can even trust tax returns. Is there an audit gap between the races? Is there an incarceration gap for tax fraud between the races? Is race not asked on the tax forms for fear it would end up being used in profiling for tax evasion investigations?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @TGGP
    If black women from the top one percent don't regress to the mean, that indicates to me the environmentalists/nurturists have something of a point over an explanation based on cognitive ability. The only explanation I recall reading in the comments section at MR is that there's a lot of affirmative action and since black males tend to be ineligible due to prison or whatnot the benefits accrue to upper-class black women (and perhaps men from those immigrant enclaves Steve mentioned). I can't say I find that entirely satisfactory. Blacks may be much more likely to go to prison, but not enough to explain the earnings gap. And it strikes me as implausible there are enough AfAm token slots to prevent an earnings gap among women. I haven't actually read the paper, so I'm hoping someone who has can explain better what's going on.

    The largest growth sector in higher education over the past 10-15 years are departments of “Diversity/Inclusion/Empowerment. How many of these idiotic jobs with ludicrous salaries go to black women?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Buffalo Joe
    Ed, if we paid reparations to every black American of let's say, $250K, I would hire four armed guards and sell flat screen TVs, rims, sneakers and fake Rolexes out of a truck in the hood and be very wealthy in a couple of weeks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Doug
    There's two factors at work producing the discrepancy between sources. First is the different between genetic Ashkenazism and self-identified Jewishness. Ashkenazi Jews form a separate cluster in the genomic data. If you plot Europeans you'll find broadly separable clusters for Northwestern Europeans, Mediterraneans, Eastern Europeans and Ashkenazis. Then if you correlate that with self-identified Jewishness among people European descent, you'll find disprportionate loading on the Ashkenazi cluster.

    However that's a far cry from saying that all self-identified Jews are 100% Ashkenazi. When we're talking about Ashkenazi IQ, what we're really referring to is the "type specimen". I.e. someone who's genome falls exactly in the middle of the Ashkenazi cluster. Most self-identified Jews fall outside of this because they have non-negligible gentile of Sephardic admixture. So we'd expect the IQ of self-identified Jews to average somewhere below "true" Ashkenazi IQ. This is particularly a problem in when using Israelis to proxy for Ashkenazi IQ because of very high Sephardic admixture, as well as the massive wave of Russian immigration in the 1980s. Many Soviet citizens of very partial Jewish ancestry used it to escape the USSR.

    The second factor is how the g-factor is constructed. When we talk about intelligence, we almost always refer to Jensen's concept of a g-factor. The idea is that there's a single latent variable, that's not directly observable, but is strongly predictive of performance across a range of intellectual activities. We can estimate g using a combination of intelligence tests, and this estimate is much more predictive (and heriditable) than the results from any single test or task.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA's first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    The link you cited is taking a linear combination, but it's applying an equal weight to each variable. The PCA factor instead assigns different weights to different variables based on how predictive that test is relative to other tests. For example we know that mathematical reasoning ability is very predictive of processing speed, verbal ability and other intelligence tests. In contrast spatial ability has low correlation to other sub-types.

    It's well known that Ashkenazi Jews score very high on this g-factor. However on other types of tests that are less g-loaded they tend to score average or even slightly below gentile average. For example spatial reasoning. This largely seems in line with the evolutionary selection for Ashkenazi intelligence. Spatial reasoning is a pretty specific type of intelligence, and doesn't really have that much carryover effects. For example very few careers require high spatial intelligence, in contrast nearly every career demands verbal fluency.

    This isn't just an Ashkenazi phenomenon either. It's well known that Australian aborigines have excellent ability to distinguish canonical direction. Nearly every aborigine can always point out what direction North is at nearly any time. Overall aborigines probably rank at least three standard deviations higher on this skill than Europeans. However this intelligence type has basically zero g-loading. Aborigines rank much lower in other more generalizable cognitive abilities.

    A lot of the natural selection for higher g populations probably operated on this model. Areas of the brain responsible for specific, non-g-loaded abilities lost brain capacity to make room for expanded general reasoning abilities. Due to metabolic limitations there's an upper limit on total brain size, so the evolution for intelligence is mostly about making tradeoffs about what parts of the brain to spend a fixed budget.

    The link you cited made a very common statistical mistake. It simply averaged the results across a battery of tests (math, verbal, spatial, memory, processing speed). In reality to construct g accurately we apply a statistical technique called PCA. This takes a range of variables across data points (test takers), and tries to explain the maximum amount of variance using the fewest latent variables. For example if we have six tests, PCA’s first factor will be a single linear combination of those tests that best predicts the performance across all six tests.

    You’re thinking of g factor scores which are not typically used outside of research.

    Tests like the wechsler simply take the sum total of all your standardized scores on each subtest, all being weighted equally. This sum is converted to IQ by converting the mean sum to 100 and the standard deviation of sums to 15. That’s the model I was using in the cited article.

    Wechsler subtests for example are not weighted differently to maximize g because with enough diverse subtests, non-g variance typically cancels out & the composite’s naturally extremely g loaded

    And intelligence is not synonymous with g. Retardation caused by fetal alcohol effect is not correlated with g yet still greatly important, so what matters most is overall cognition not g per se.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Gene Su
    I just read this piece. Can anyone ascertain who are these millionaire black boys being locked up? Are they the sons of black businessmen, engineers, and doctors ... or are they the sons of rappers, professional athletes, and bureaucrats?

    The article focuses on income, not net-worth or wealth. The number of black engineers, doctors, and bureaucrats earning $1 million or more each year would negligible.

    Black sons who grew up millionaire parents and were incarcerated for at least one day:

    1. Bryant Gumbel’s son was mistakenly identified and arrested in 2002. In 2008 the son was arrested for DUI after police found him asleep in his vehicle smelling of alcohol. Both father and son have learning disabilites.

    http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/24/bryant-gumbels-boy-wreck-at-the-wheel/

    2. Lawrence Taylor played for the NY Giants from 1981 to 1993. His son Lawrence Jr. is serving 30 years for statutory rape and child molestation.

    http://www.tmz.com/2015/05/04/lawrence-taylor-son-guilty-of-statutory-rape-gets-30-years/

    I don’t know when Megachurch pastor TD Jakes started earning at least $1 million annually, but his son (adopted or step-son) was arrested in 2009 after exposing himself and masturbating in front of an undercover police officer in a park.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anon[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Curt Dunkel
    Yes. I agree that there is an issue here. There is an over reliance on Backman.

    Backman used Project Talent and the Project Talent data is publically available (ie, you can download it), but the base year data doesn't include a question on religion (that information was collected in a subsequent wave).

    https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/

    I tried to overcome the lack of a religion question in the data here and describe some of the issues with Backman's analysis here.

    https://openpsych.net/files/papers/Dunkel_2014a.pdf

    Other estimates using different data sets can be found here, along with the use of the Project Talent religion question.

    http://www.midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1488.pdf

    Good overall point on the quality/quantity of the data. I hope the response helps.

    Regarding “A comparative study of the general factor of personality in Jewish and non-Jewish population”

    So, I summarized the data in A Comparative Study below, hopefully I understood it correctly. Basically, I inferred that Jewish and White Atheist IQ are both ~107.5, non-Jewish whites are ~101.5. This gives Jews and Atheists a ~6 point IQ advantage over the average non-Jewish white.

    Questions: All 3 of these datasets you presented excluded all non-Whites? “Hispanic Whites” were excluded? I didn’t read the myopia study in detail, but isnt’t the most parsimonious explanation for myopia spending a lot of time indoors (reading) in childhood, and would that not increase IQ scores, esp., as measured by a vocab test?

    To summarize the intelligence data, you presented 3 data sets: ADD Health, MIDUS II, Projec Talent (PT).
    ADD Health: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test.
    MIDUS II: composite score of: backward digits, category fluency, number series, and counting backwards
    PT: 11 tests: abstract/arithmetic/mechanical reasoning, reading, 2d/3d rotation, vocab, basic science knowledge

    ADD Health
    ———–
    Jews 111.24
    Catholic 100.39
    Protestant 100.99
    Agnostic/Atheist 105.46

    MIDUS II: Translated to 100 mean and std dev of 15 below *1*
    ————–
    Jews .36 (1.10)
    Catholic .04 (.94)
    Methodist -.04 (.98)
    Baptist -.36 (1.04)
    Agnostic/Atheist .47 (1.04)

    Project Talent
    —————–
    Jews 106.71 (8.34)
    Catholics 102.93 (8.66)
    Protestants 103.99 (8.93)
    No religion 109.45 (8.83
    —————–

    If you just averaged the 3 you’d get:
    Jews 107.96
    Atheist/Agnostic: 107.4
    Catholic: ~101

    If I were to rank these three datasets in terms of comprehensiveness, I’d probably say PT > MIDUS II > ADD Health. ADD Health is just a vocab test. I’d probably weight them: [.5, .3, .2] [PT, MIDUS, ADD], (giving about the same):
    Jews 107.38
    Athesit/Agnostic: 108.01
    Catholic: ~101

    I’d estimate that Jewish and Atheist IQ are both about 107.5. White Christian as 100.5. Since non-religious Americans are about 20% of the population, non-Jewish whites are about 101.5. So, Jews have about a 6 point advantage over non-Jewish whites: (107.5 vs 101.5).

    If Jewish IQ is no higher than that of Atheist Whites, and only 6 points above the overall white IQ, it makes you wonder what that means.

    As further research, it would be interesting to look at the raw Shuey, Levinson and Romanoff data.

    *1* I translated this to a mean of 100 standard dev 15 below – I assume this is about right?
    ———————–
    Jews 105.94
    Catholic 100.56
    Methodist 99.44
    Baptist 94.38
    Agnostic/Atheist 107.33

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @SimpleSong
    Whoa, are you sure about that? Respectfully, I get the opposite impression. The very high verbal-IQ weighted professions include law, journalism, and non-STEM academia; and I think these are the few white collar professions that have not been doing well recently. The decent paying blue collar professions seem to be the skilled trades which are very heavily weighted towards spatial reasoning.

    Even within a field compensation seems to be more tilted towards those with good spatial reasoning. Surgeons and radiologists get paid much more than internists despite clearly have much lower verbal IQs (but better spatial reasoning skills.)

    Because women have higher verbal IQs than men, the entry of women into the workforce seems to have depressed wages for those that tilt towards verbal intelligence more than those with spatial or mathematical intelligence.

    Also all of the good paying high-verbal-IQ jobs tend to require an expensive university education and possibly graduate education. In contrast, for the spatial reasoning stuff, if you can do it you're in. So for net lifetime earnings this is another advantage.

    Lastly as automation becomes more commonplace, it pays to speak the language of the machines well (programming, mathematics) as opposed to good verbal/communication skills.

    You make some great points with which I can’t disagree. My reply would be the overall emphasis. Brahmin-type careers are not high-paying because everyone and their mother is trained for them. My impression talking to tradesmen is that illegals and bureaucracy make work you can be proud of damn near impossible anymore. So I agree that becoming a plumber or medical technician is a great career move. I’m just saying there are way more hurdles to becoming the next Henry Ford as opposed to becoming a Ted Talk Patreon millionaire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?