The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersGene Expression Blog

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

While I was on blogging hiatus single motherhood and the whole Dan Quayle flap came back into the news. Here’s Mitt Romney:

The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family.

The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention. For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%. But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor. Culture matters.

I’ve been ragging on the cultural Left on this weblog recently because of the delusions that those of this bent simply won’t let go of in the quest for utopian egalitarianism. But one aspect of the American cultural and political scene is that Left and Right often operate with similar presuppositions, only weighting the emphasis differently. While the cultural Left puts the focus on nearly infinite possibilities of individual self-actualization, the cultural Right has backed itself into a corner of individual moral perfectionism which borders on the farcical.

The most extreme form of this is the attitude toward homosexuality. Though many social conservatives are now accepting the proposition that homosexual orientation can be innate, many deny this likelihood. Ultimately the morality of homosexuality doesn’t necessarily depend on whether it is innate or not, but obviously the injustice of the situation becomes more stark when you are arguing that a human being must suppress their natural impulses.

But speaking of natural impulses, modern social conservatives are asking people to maintain monogamous commitment for 50+ years. This is a profoundly extreme expectation, as pre-modern mortality rates were such that the likelihood of such a long pair-bond was low in any case. This does not mean that such long-term monogamy is not a laudable goal (I have such a goal myself), but many social conservatives haven’t grappled with the daunting hand which they’ve been dealt. This isn’t 1600 any longer.

Perhaps the most striking disjunction between the world which social conservatives assume exists and the world as it is comes to the role of the nuclear family: it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you think it matters. Here’s a major reason why:

Dividing the children of the NSFH into four groups – those with no family disruption, those who lost a parent to death, those whose parents divorced, and those born to never-married mothers – we find significant differences in educational outcomes. Those whose mothers divorced or never married clearly suffer the most negative effects. Adjusting for the factors that predate father absence and are known to influence school failure, we find that children in these two categories are several times more likely to drop out of school than their peers with intact families. The dropout risk is 37 percent for those with never-married mothers and 31 percent for those with divorced parents, in contrast with the 13 percent risk of those from families with no disruption. Significantly, the risk for children who lost a parent to death is 15 percent, virtually the same as that for children from intact homes. Clearly, children of a widowed mother enjoy economic and other advantages over their peers from households headed by divorced or never-married parents.

Those “other advantages” includes particular genes. The null hypothesis which the media and the public intellectual complex sell us is that destabilized households lead to late life destabilization in individuals. What this misses is that destabilized individuals lead to destabilized households, and destabilized individuals also produce other destabilized individuals. In other words, one reason that kids whose parents didn’t stay together and are messed up is because they have the same crappy dispositions as their parents. They share genes with their parents.

This isn’t to deny that all things equal being in an intact nuclear family is preferable to being raised by a single parent. Ask anyone who grew up in a situation where they lost one of their parents to cancer or some such thing. But naive assumptions that simply increasing the marriage rate will reverse social dysfunction are going to be dashed against the reality that putting together explosive impulsive people under the same roof is not going to turn them into Ward and June Cleaver.

Addendum: Rule-of-thumb, parental environment/social influence explains about ~10 percent of the variation in behavioral or cognitive characteristics. The balance is split about evenly between genetic influence, and other random unaccounted for environmental/stochastic factors.

• Category: Science • Tags: Behavior Genetics, Conservatism 
🔊 Listen RSS

Matt Yglesias points to an OKCupid survey which shows that in the United States there tends to be a rather coherent block of social & economic conservatives within the Republican party, while the Democrats are a coalition between those who emphasize social issues and those who emphasize economic issues. Social liberals are often found in the upper socioeconomic strata and look positively upon globalization and free trade. Economic liberals, in the American sense, are not necessarily social liberals, as is well known in the case of black Americans who tend to support government programs but are more socially moderate-to-conservative. Combined with the consistent pattern of conservatives outnumbering liberals it would naturally lead one to believe that this is a nation where the Right is eternally ascendant.

And it is certainly true that compared to European nations the United States is conservative on many social and economic metrics.* But is the arc of American history toward a conservative or liberal direction? In other words, what is the probability that there would be a blanket ban on abortion in the United States in one generation? What about the maintenance of federal laws which ban recognition of same sex marriages? Which the proportion of national GDP which consists of government spending?

For all the talk about American exceptionalism the arc of history seems to be moving to the Left, broadly speaking. Despite the reality that the American Left seems weaker in numbers and less coherent a movement than the Right, conservatives have been waging a rearguard battle by and large. The macrohistorical trends are simply not born out by the strength of numbers that conservatives have at any given moment. One might infer from this that there are strong sociocultural dynamics and institutional biases which nudge Western liberal democracies in a Left direction, with the rate of change modulated by contemporary political configurations. And yet perhaps we are too Whiggish, human history has been characterized by secular trends being nested within broader cyclical patterns.

* This has been to be qualified, as many European governments have more restrictive abortion rights regimes, and racial nationalist parties gain more traction in most of Europe than they ever would in the United States.

• Category: History, Ideology, Science • Tags: Conservatism, Culture, Politics 
🔊 Listen RSS

Daniel Larison points me to this piece in The New English review which discusses intersection of unbelief and conservatism, sparked in part by Heather Mac Donald’s “coming out” last year. The article references my 10 questions with Heather. Over at Real Clear Politics there is a response to the piece in TNE. Finally, Larison offers his critique.

(you can view the technorati responses to the interview here)

• Category: Science • Tags: Atheism, Conservatism 
Razib Khan
About Razib Khan

"I have degrees in biology and biochemistry, a passion for genetics, history, and philosophy, and shrimp is my favorite food. If you want to know more, see the links at"