Below are results from the 2003 and 2011 English skills for life survey. Literacy and Numeracy were measured for the age 16 to 65 population. (Here.) Annoyingly, only %s by skill level were given. Moreover, the distributions was highly unnormal. This was unfortunate since the Literacy and Numeracy tests seemed to have been good measures of ability. To extract a d-vale, I compared the percent of Whites who fell above the skill level where approximately 50% of Whites fell to the % of Black Caribbeans who fell at and below this level. If you can think of a better method, feel free to offer it. I only compared Whites with BC because these were the only groups for which the English as first language rates were above 90%. The d-value came out to 0.77. I estimated a composite d-value of 0.86.
The Strong Horse
By Free Northerner
The Jacobins succeeded by being utopian and nice, then slowly expanding the definition of nice. The original Jacobin revolution ended rapidly after they began the Terrors. The more moderate Gramscian Joacobins succeeded by inches. They positied one small change as “nice”, “fair”, “equal” and this didn’t seem so bad, so people went along with it. (ie: a small pension so the nearly dead don’t spend their last couple years in miserable poverty). Each little “nice” thing added up until we came to our current cruel, inhuman behemoth. (ie: A pension system where rich 65 year-olds play golf on their non-existent, unemployed grandchildren’s dime).
Reaction can not win that way. It is not nice and never will be. Reality in this fallen world is harsh and ugly; those who are putting forth reality will be putting forth something harsh and ugly, not something nice.Violent restoration is near impossible and even if it succeeded, what we’d end up with in the end would hardly be what the reaction desires. I’m sure the Jacobins neither desired nor foresaw their revolution would end with a Corsican dictator and a Europe-wide war.
So we have to restore gradually, but we can not restore in the same manner the Jacobins ushered in their gradual revolution.
If we look at the current state of the Jacobins, we can see they keep their power mainly by control of the cultural institutions and by barely hidden aggression (such as that used on Watson, Richwine, Card, etc.). Neither of these can be defeated through Legionnaire’s form of subversion. It only plays into the Jacobites power.
By acting progressive you are further cementing the Jacobin’s apparent control over the cultural institutions. Know this, the apparent control is far weaker than it seems on the surface. A number of times in univerity after I made some right-wing (but not yet reactionary) point I was told after the fact that the person agreed with me but didn’t want to say anything. Others currently in the system have told me that people in the university system are not as left-wing as it seems, as its mostly a few really loud people and others simply going along to get along. The illusion of the Jacobin’s control is what builds the Jacobin’s control. By acting progressive you are furthering that illusion. By being open, you are shattering that illusion of consensus and control.
We will here go to Asch’s conformity experiments, which demonstrate that most people will conform to the group even when the group is objectively wrong in an easily verifiable way. Think about what kind of conformity can be manufactured for something as amorphous and hard to verify as politics.
But the more interesting part of the experiment was when the subject received a partner. The addition of a single confederate confirming the truth dropped the incidence of conformity by 80%.
If the Jacobins can force the illusion of progressive conformity, this will simply build the conformity, but if one person simply stands, the illusion is shattered.
To undermine the Cathedral’s moral-theology, one needs only to move a critical mass e.g., 10% of the populous to apostasy. To be in position to do this, one needs only to have a sufficiently cohesive core of reactivists who are plentiful enough to form phalanx, when needed, and who are dedicated and capable enough to anti-evangelize. The Cathedral recognizes this which is why it savagely targets any unified substantitive dissent, incipient or mature, imaginary or real (from Tea Partys to White Student Unions). This is obvious. Why dissenters fail to coalesce, such that they can not be individually harangued into submission is not.
Nyborg thinks so….
Nyborg, H. (2012). Migratory selection for inversely related covariant T-, and IQ-Nexus traits: Testing the IQ/T-Geo-Climatic-Origin theory by the General Trait Covariance model. Personality and Individual Differences.
Whether or not this is the case can readily be investigated by constructing an Add Health M-F scale and comparing mean differences. In table 1, Udry and Chantala (2004) list wave 2 variables that can be used, if anyone is interested … (If you need a (bootleg) copy of SPSS, let me know.)
TWCS has a superb post on Afro-Criminality:
“As well, Afros who emigrate to countries that never practiced slavery or colonialism still commit more crimes than other groups there…
Disproportionate Afro immigrant crime in France, Switzerland, Australia, London, Canada.”
HBD Chick finds that PISA scores in Spain correlated with Latitude… (Apparently, the same holds for Japan: Japanese north–south gradient in IQ predicts differences in stature, skin color, income, and homicide rate)
… and uncovers the church’s biosocial egalitarian engineering project:
from his Summa Theologica [pg. 2749]:
“The degrees within which consanguinity has been an impediment to marriage have varied according to various times…. [T]he Old Law permitted other degrees of consanguinity, in fact to a certain extent it commanded them, to wit that each man should take a wife from his kindred, in order to avoid confusion of inheritances: because at that time the Divine worship was handed down as the inheritance of the race. But afterwards more degrees were forbidden by the New Law which is the law of the spirit and of love, because the worship of God is no longer handed down and spread abroad by a carnal birth but by a spiritual grace: wherefore it was necessary that men should be yet more withdrawn from carnal things by devoting themselves to things spiritual, and that love should have a yet wider play. Hence in olden time marriage was forbidden even within the more remote degrees of consanguinity, in order that consanguinity and affinity might be the sources of a wider friendship; and this was reasonably extended to the seventh degree, both because beyond this it was difficult to have any recollection of the common stock, and because this was in keeping with the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost. Afterwards, however, towards these latter times the prohibition of the Church has been restricted to the fourth degree, because it became useless and dangerous to extend the prohibition to more remote degrees of consanguinity. Useless, because charity waxed cold in many hearts so that they had scarcely a greater bond of friendship with their more remote kindred than with strangers: and it was dangerous because through the prevalence of concupiscence and neglect men took no account of so numerous a kindred, and thus the prohibition of the more remote degrees became for many a snare leading to damnation.”
More insanity about race.
Insane, mendacious, dishonest, or factually incorrect:
Pigliucci, M. (2013). What are we to make of the concept of race?: Thoughts of a philosopher–scientist. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.
Ontology of Species:
Theoretical proof that more ancestrally similar people are more genetically similar in total.
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199-216.
Martin, R. A., Lastuk, J. M., Jeffery, J., Vernon, P. A., & Veselka, L. (2012). Relationships between the Dark Triad and humor styles: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(2), 178-182.
Boutwell, B. B., Franklin, T. W., Barnes, J. C., Beaver, K. M., Deaton, R., Lewis, R. H., … & Petkovsek, M. A. (2013). County-level IQ and fertility rates: A partial test of Differential-K theory. Personality and Individual Differences.
Briley, D. A., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2013). Explaining the Increasing Heritability of Cognitive Ability Across Development: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Twin and Adoption Studies. Psychological science.
More Flynn Effect:
More iq & religion:
More iq & PO:
Cohen, D. J., White, S., & Cohen, S. B. (2012). Mind the Gap The Black-White Literacy Gap in the National Assessment of Adult Literacy and Its Implications. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 123-148.
More MI with respect to the BW gap:
Keith, T. Z., Fugate, M. H., DeGraff, M., Diamond, C. M., Shadrach, E. A., & Stevens, M. L. (1995). Using multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis to test for construct bias: An example using the K-ABC. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(4), 347-364.
Fan, X., Willson, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1995). Assessing the similarity of the factor structure of the K-ABC for African-American and White children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13(2), 120-131.
Vietnamese IQ (not low):
Asma, 2013. The Myth of Universal Love
Singer, who is perhaps the world’s best known utilitarian philosopher, argues in his book “The Expanding Circle” that the relative neocortical sophistication of humans allows us to rationally broaden our ethical duty beyond the “tribe” — to an equal and impartial concern for all human beings. “If I have seen,” Singer writes, “that from an ethical point of view I am just one person among the many in my society, and my interests are no more important, from the point of view of the whole, than the similar interests of others within my society, I am ready to see that, from a still larger point of view, my society is just one among other societies, and the interests of members of my society are no more important, from that larger perspective, than the similar interests of members of other societies.”
Like mathematics, which can continue its recursive operations infinitely upward, ethical reasoning can spiral out (should spiral out, according to Singer) to larger and larger sets of equal moral subjects. “Taking the impartial element in ethical reasoning to its logical conclusion means, first, accepting that we ought to have equal concern for all human beings.”
All this sounds nice at first — indeed, I would like it to be true — but let me throw a little cold water on the idea. Singer seems to be suggesting that I arrive at perfect egalitarian ethics by first accepting perfect egalitarian metaphysics. But I, for one, do not accept it. Nor, I venture to guess, do many others. All people are not equally entitled to my time, affection, resources or moral duties — and only conjectural assumption can make them appear so.
I fully agree with Singer that were one to consider everyone to be substantially morally equal then it would only be logical to take everyone into account the same — and therefore to not prefer oneself to anyone else….But this isn’t why I reject the dogma. Rather, I do because I intuit that substantial inequality is a metaphysical principle of being. It seems to be a logical one too. If different things were principally the same, they could not be different. Substantial inequality therefore must be a part of the essence of what some-thing is….Metaphysical nature naturally informs morality. If morality is not to be based on what IS then on what? Of course, one might attempt to defy the way of things and to level all beings, to make all the same, but doing so is in discord with how-things-ARE, and what is discordant with the way of things is chaos bringing. And who wants more chaos? So, I am forced to reject equality, and with it human equality, as both a metaphysical and a moral principle: People are not metaphysically equal. They were not created substantially equal. They don’t deserve equal consideration in principle….But this is not to reject moral equality in toto. While different things in the world aren’t substantially equal, they are, inevitably, accidentally so. They are equal in some respects e.g., the salt and sugar over on the counter are both equally white. It is good and natural then, that is, in tune with nature of things to accept accidental moral equality. We grant equality in some respects, in some regards. People, while substantially morally unequal, are accidentally — in specific, often negotiable, instances — deemed equal.
(For a related discussion, see Meng Hu’s on libertarianism and AFQT scores.)
In the Add health survey, when restricting consideration to non Hispanic Whites, liberals were significantly more verbally intelligent than self identified conservatives as self defined in both waves 3 and 4. The difference was in excess of one half of a population SD. The results were mixed when looking at wave 4 digit span backwards scores, however. Interestingly, liberals were more verbally intelligent in adolescence (age 12 to 18) presumably before political orientation (PO) coalesces. This suggests that liberalism attracts more VIQ individuals rather than that liberally oriented individuals become more VIQ via education, that is, liberal ID is consequent to VIQ, not vice versa.
This is shown below:
There was a good deal of longitudinal variation in self-ID PO. This had some effect on scores. Selecting only individuals who consistently IDed as liberal or conservative in both waves gave the following results:
I was forced to condense liberals and conservatives into one category each because otherwise the samples were unreliably small. While there was a liberal-conservative gap, there was no democrat-republican gap. I would surmise that this is the result of republicans running left. That is, republicans close the VIQ — and with it, the influence — gap by appropriating liberal-left ideas and attracting VIQ individuals. Below shows the point-biserial correlations between dichotomously coded groups and wave 1, wave 3, and wave 4 cognitive ability.
The VIQ gap clearly explains the left-ward drift of the nation. Not only are liberals more VIQ than conservatives, but liberal liberals and liberal conservatives are more VIQ than, respectively, conservative liberals and conservative conservatives. In the present mediacracy, the former can dominate the latter.
But why the gap? To explore this question I looked at numerous variables. When placed in a regression equation, the most explanatory of them only jointly accounted for 1/3 of the difference. Below I will review variables that are commonly noted.
First I looked at PO and novelty seeking. A number of variables loaded on a common factor which could be called a novelty or change factor. The factor strongly correlated with PO but was uncorrelated with cognitive ability. Embracing the mantra of change will help neither conservatives nor republicans close the gap.
Correlation matrix for novelty indexes and PO.
Novelty factor, PO, cognitive ability.
Next, I looked at the relation between PO and a preference for abstract ideas and self reported creativity. Both variables correlated with PO and cognitive ability. This is shown below:
Abstract-Imagination, PO, cognitive ability.
More importantly, a preference for abstractness non trivially mediated the PO-VIQ relation. If conservatives want to increase their mean VIQ, they should put aside the Buckley-esque commonsensicalism and work on creating a more theoretical conservatism.
VIQ-PO taking into account Abstract-Imagination
Next, I created Wave 3 and wave 4 “feeling factors” out of a number of related variables. The correlation matrices of the variables used (before recoding them to show the same signs) is shown below:
Correlation matrix for feeling indexes
I created two factors as the wave 3 and the wave 4 feeling factors differently related to PO. The relations between PO, Feeling 3, Feeling 4, and cognitive ability are shown below:
Feeling factors, PO, cognitive ability
While wave 4 feeling factor significantly correlated with cognitive ability, it didn’t significantly correlate with PO. While Wave 3 feeling factor did correlate with PO, it showed a relatively weak association with VIQ. My interpretation would be that a more mature other-understanding contra misanthropy is unassociated with PO, while a more naive, immature let’s-change-the-world age 20-26 understanding is associated with PO. But this understanding only weakly correlates with VIQ and, moreover, does not appreciably mediate the PO-VIQ association (analysis not shown). The upshot is that more “compassionate conservatism” will not win many brains.
Next, I created a religious-transcendent factor. The correlation matrix for the variables used is shown below:
Correlation matrix for religious indexes
This factor strongly correlated with PO and with party identification. But contra to expectation based on e.g., Lynn et al. there was no correlation between it and cognitive ability. I presume that the difference in findings had has to do with the definition and operationalization of religiousness e.g., I didn’t contrast religious with atheist, but rather factor analyzed a bag of religion/spirituality related variables.
Religious factor, PO, cognitive ability
Anyways, if the above is correct, it would suggest that both conservatives and republicans don’t need to lose religion to get (V)IQ. (To note, I’m sympathetic with many religious folk because I accept their basic mental frame; I just reject the existence, not the idea, of a transcendent — and so class myself as a nihilist of sorts).
Of the variables discussed, then, the one with the highest R-squared was openness to abstraction. This then might be an area to focus on.
Meng Hu commented:
Lynn has a new paper [on UK ethnic IQ scores]. The sample age is 5 yrs, but blacks averaged 90 IQ points. I am somewhat surprised that bengladeshi and and pakistani scored even lower than blacks. Oh, and black caribbean average 96.6 points.
The problem be …
That Lynn curiously chose to report the age 5 MCS scores rather than the age 7 MCS scores.
I discussed the MCS results over a year ago. Refer here to help understand Lynn’s curious choice of analysis.
Why We Deny Reality
I recall the first time I viewed VDare.com.
It was years ago when the site was still in its old cumbersome and difficult to read format. My mind was awash with guilt and foreboding as I realized, to my shock and horror, that I had landed on one of those racist, white supremacist websites. I shirked away in sullen guilt, overwhelmed with shame that I had allowed myself to cast a glimpse at such disgusting content, even though I hadn’t actually read it.
Later, I learned my assessment of VDare.com was wrong. That false impression was subtly implanted in my mind by external sources, critics whose agendas were contrary to those of American patriots.
Fortunately, my curiosity drove me to investigate. I discovered that the web site’s publisher, Peter Brimelow, was a highly respected and well-known investment guru. He was hardly one of those hooded hillbilly caricatures concocted by the left. Furthermore, Brimelow is not even from the South. He is of British birth.
My second look at VDare.com included a few moments of actually reading the content. Still a bit of flush tinged my face from residual brainwashing encounters that flood the media, I tepidly proceeded only to learn that VDare.com had been grossly misrepresented. It’s content had little to do with race, but focused instead, on immigration. Racial aspects were, of course, included.
What I previously presumed to be brain poison turned out to be the cure for latent traces of Marxism that tainted my otherwise libertarian-conservative brain. A lust for reality and quest for truth compelled me to continue to visit the site almost daily.
In time I discovered other web sites, such as Amren.com and the coarser, but honest (Stuff Black People Don’t Like) SBPDL.com, and the more docile but ever-so-sexy AngryWhiteDude.com. No longer restrained by chains of guilt, I was free to explore in search of simple truth.
A question arises:
Where does the guilt sensation come from when we encounter bits of reality that conflict with the prevailing cultural Marxist agenda? Who laid the mental track that our minds are to run on? Why are we awash with guilt when we allow ourselves to consider reality regarding racial and other matters? Why did our great-great-grandparents thinks so differently? Are we truly enlightened? Or has our thinking been dulled and darkened?
…Our environment, particularly entertainment television and cable news, are an ongoing sensitivity class that instructs us what to think and what thoughts are taboo. When public figures defy those taboos (think Michael Richards and Don Imus), they are presented to us as demonic examples; evidence that abject evil still exists in this world in the form of racism (always White racism!) Their sins are greatly exaggerated while more serious racism — such as the epidemic of black-on-white violent crime — is ignored. In time our minds are molded so efficiently that we think their thoughts are our thoughts and, eventually, they actually become our thoughts.
I recall traveling down a similar road. It started, in early 2009, with an innocent suggestion, concerning race and behavior, made to one of my brothers …and with the ensuing explosion of moral outrage that this comment set off. Never in my life had I experienced such an eruption of indignation — and I have been caught doing many a shameful deed. So, being one inclined by nature to inquire into the things below the earth and in the sky, how could I resist investigating such apparently heretical matters — matters which, until then, I had only a vague intuition about? But I started out timidly, fearfully. I recall daring to click on the then odious to me — But why so? Who had taught me to feel this way about this site? — Amren sometime late in 2009. In the days following, I too was filled with a strange guilt-like sensation — Where did it come from? How was I trained to feel so about something which I had been hitherto only vaguely aware of? — but also with that mischievous delight that comes from peeking into dark places, forbidden and secret. No one instructed me that these topics were unclean and impure but somehow, through winks and nods, they implanted this understanding.
It has taken some time to unlearn these strange, sickly ideas.
(McFarland, et al. (1992). Authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union)
Conservatism (dislike of radical change) is technically different from authoritarianism (willingness to agree with established authority), but they both heavily load on the same psychometric factor – “alphaism” in Saucier’s schema — and on a common genetic factor, so they are closely related dispositions. Moreover, the American “authoritarian” values investigated by McFarland, et al. closely overlap with (once) American conservative values. So I don’t think that I am doing “conservatism” a disservice by associating it with “authoritarianism”.
Generally, there is a lot of muddleheadedness in the field of political psychology. You have a number of progressive (read: communist) academics who try to prove that conservatives are closed minded imbeciles — and in their attempts to prove this, they muck up distinctions. The result is, for example:
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality and ideological variable studied in political, social, and personality psychology. Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don’t adhere to them. They value uniformity and are in favour of using group authority, including coercion, to achieve it.
By which understanding Stalinists and Maoists are “rightwing” authoritarians. The bias is palpable. And the result is conceptual confusion.
Related papers of interest:
De Regt, S., Mortelmans, D., & Smits, T. (2011). Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 44(4), 299-308.
Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2009). Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time. Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1141-56.
Ludeke, S., Johnson, W., & Bouchard Jr, T. J. (2013). “Obedience to traditional authority:” A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness. Personality and Individual Differences.
Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(2), 366.