ron unz and iq

i hate taking time out from my usual routine of thinking/reading/writing about all-things-altruistic, especially when it means thinking/reading/writing about iq, ’cause 1) i’m far, far from being any sort of expert on iq, and 2) i’m not really interested in the topic (although i know, i know — iq is interested in me!) — but ron unz’s latest on iq (which i’m sure you’ve all heard about if you haven’t actually read) has forced me, ever so unwillingly, out of my comfort zone. plenty of folks smarter than me have already pointed out some of the ways that unz has got his thesis wrong — the thesis being that mexicans will catch up iq-wise to european-americans any day now just like previous immigrant groups to the u.s. did — but i’m going to add a couple of more to the innerwebs anyway.

here they are in no particular order:

– who are these irish-americans unz is talking about?

in his original article, unz makes a big deal out of the low-iq scores of irish people back in the 1970s and earlier versus their higher scores today. for example, unz says:

“The evidence today is that the tested IQ of the typical Irish-American — to the extent it can be distinguished — is somewhat above the national white American average of around 100 and also above that of most German-Americans, who arrived around the same time.”

a lot of “self-identified” irish-americans that i have met are, in fact, scots-irish folks (not that there’s anything wrong with that!). scots-irish people are a whole other kettle of fish than the native irish, and they’re not really found in the republic of ireland where, as i’ll talk about below, the modern pisa scores for “the irish” come from. rather, the scots-irish are found in ulster which is part of the u.k. so you’d have to weed out those irish-americans who are scots-irish and not native irish in order to compare irish-american iq scores with irish iq scores.

you’d also have to weed out anglo-irish scores from both irish-americans and the irish back in ireland ’cause they, too, are a whole other kettle of fish, and an awful lot of them have been quite clever so they might inflate either the irish-american or the irish iq scores if there were too many of them included in one of those groups.

also, like peter frost said:

“As for Irish American IQ, just what is an ‘Irish American’? Is Mariah Carey Irish? (She’s one quarter Irish, like me). It all comes down to self-identification and interest in Irish culture, music, etc. That factor alone would bias your sample towards the better educated.”

exactly.
_____

– who emigrated from europe?

unz dismisses the idea that there might’ve been any “self-sorting” amongst the immigrant groups that he talked about — southern italians, greeks or irish:

“Even if we ignore all contemporaneous evidence and argue that 19th century European immigrants to America and elsewhere somehow constituted the IQ elite of their originating countries, the theory of selective migration still remains implausible. It has long been established on both theoretical and empirical grounds that IQ scores generally follow a mean-reversion pattern, in which the children of outlying individuals tend to regress toward the typical levels of their larger population or ethnic group. So even if we hypothesize that the Irish, South Italians, Jews, and Greeks who immigrated to America constituted the smartest small slice of their generation — rather than, as seems more likely, often the poorer and most miserable — roughly half their relative IQ advantage would have dissipated after a single generation. Thus, the apparent one standard deviation gap between American Irish and Ireland Irish a few decades ago would have required an initial gap of something closer to two standard deviations at the time the immigration occurred, a difference so large as to be totally implausible.”

so unz doesn’t think that, perhaps, smarter individuals may have emigrated from europe leaving dullards behind, something which could account, for example, for the very low irish iq score of 87 from the 1970s. he thinks it more likely that it was “often the poorer and most miserable” — and presumably, therefore, those with the lowest iqs — that emigrated.

but that wasn’t the case. at least not according to thomas sowell, who unz actually referenced in his article (pgs. 22-23):

“Although the cost of a trip to the United States in the hold of a cargo vessel was less than ten pounds sterling (less than fifty dollars at contemporary exchange rates), the poorest of the Irish could not afford even that, so that immigration was very low from the poorest fourth of the Irish population. Those a notch above them on the economic scale emigrated in large numbers, often by selling their belongings, using up savings, and spending money sent by relatives already in America. From one-third to three-quarters of the Irish immigrations to America in the 1830s and 1840s was financed by money sent from North America.”

so it was not those with the least resources who immigrated to the u.s. — nor was it the “smartest small slice of their generation” either. the wealthy and, therefore, likely smartest people would probably have had little reason to leave their native countries. no. nineteenth century european immigrants to the united states were people who could afford passage to the new world — people with some resources — but also people with a reason to leave. in other words, most likely people with average-ish iqs. not on the top, but not on the bottom either.

emigration from ireland to britain, the u.s. and australia went on for 150 years (and counting!). and the population in ireland hit rock bottom in the 1960s and 1970s — just when lynn’s average iq of 87 for the irish was obtained (as part of a master’s thesis, btw):

iq scores started going up in ireland from the 1970s onwards not (just) because living standards improved (although better nutrition has probably helped), but because smarter irish folks chose to remain in the country (especially since the nation joined the e.u. which created more economic/job opportunities).

the irish iq score of 87 from the 1970s most likely reflects the fact that a vast majority of the average-to-bright irish individuals had left the country between roughly 1840 and 1960. the increase since the 1970s probably does have to do with some sort of regression to the mean (whatever it is). but it’s not obvious that this increase should give anyone hope that the same thing will happen in the mexican population since, afaik, they haven’t experienced the same sort of brain drain that ireland did.
_____

– who’s taking these pisa tests?

unz said:

“Furthermore, the most recent 2009 PISA international student academic tests sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development provide us with results that raise further doubts about the correctness of the Lynn/Vanhanen IQ scores from a wide range of European countries…. During the early 1970s, a huge national sample had placed the Ireland IQ at 87, the lowest in all of Europe, but today Ireland’s PISA scores are about average for the continent and roughly the same as those for France and Britain, while Irish per capita incomes have pulled a little ahead.”

i wondered over @evoandproud about which irish kids in ireland have been taking the pisa tests. i was concerned that perhaps the pisa tests were mostly conducted in and around dublin which would bias the sample (i.e. include more anglo-irish and smarter folks who had moved to the city), but i’ve read (quickly) through the 2009 pisa report for ireland [opens pdf] and the samples seem to have been drawn from around the country, so … never mind!

however … there does seem to have been a slight bias in the selection of participating schools which may have resulted in an inflation (perhaps only slight, i dunno) of the 2009 irish pisa scores.

there are, apparently, different sorts of high-schools in ireland: voluntary secondary schools, vocational schools, and comprehensive or community schools. the breakdown of what percentage of students attends each type of school looks like this:

voluntary secondary schools = 57%
vocational schools = 28%
comprehensive/community schools = 15%

but the breakdown of schools included in the 2009 pisa tests looks like this (pg. 129 – opens pdf):

voluntary secondary schools = 61.5%
vocational schools = 23.1%
comprehensive/community schools = 15.4%

so, 28% of high-school age kids in ireland attend vocational schools — you know, where you can learn a trade — but the kids at these schools only made up 23% of the pisa test takers. the missing 5% seems to be over in the voluntary secondary schools which are privately owned.

somehow i imagine that more well-to-do parents in ireland prolly try to get their kids into such private schools rather than vocational schools. i smell a bit of a bias in the irish pisa scores. maybe they wouldn’t be quite as high as they are without this bias. dunno for sure. just a thought.

furthermore — re. who’s taking these pisa tests? — unz also said:

“During the early 1970s, a huge national sample had placed the Ireland IQ at 87, the lowest in all of Europe, but today Ireland’s PISA scores are about average for the continent and roughly the same as those for France and Britain, while Irish per capita incomes have pulled a little ahead.”

indeed, the overall 2009 pisa scores for france, britain and ireland were (respectively): 496, 494, 496. so, yeah, the irish are just as smart nowadays as the french and the british, right? not necessarily.

today’s “french” population includes ca. 19% (11.8M) foreign born immigrants or their direct descendants, about one-third (4M) of whom are from north africa. and the u.k. had 7.86% minorities as of the 2001 census (and it’s well known that those rates have gone up since then). ireland just had ca. half that as of 2011. in other words, we’re just not comparing apples with apples here. it’s very possible that the average pisa/iq scores of ethnic french or british kids are higher than their current national scores and, therefore, higher than the pisa score for ireland.

you don’t think the immigrants in these countries could bring down the pisa scores? think again. the irish have actually experienced this even with the comparatively small number of immigrants they have (pg. 188 – opens pdf):

“There have been some marked demographic changes in the school-going population in Ireland since 2000. One such change was the increase in both the percentage of students with immigrant status and the percentage who spoke a language other than English or Irish at home (Table 9.2; see also Tables 6.19 and 6.20). Furthermore, the relationship between immigrant status, language spoken at home and achievement changed since 2000. In 2000, immigrant and ‘other language’ students had higher mean scores than native students, while in 2009, immigrant students and ‘other language’ students did significantly less well than native students. This is likely to be due to the differing composition of these two groups in 2000 and 2009 (e.g., in 2000 ‘other language’ students had a higher socioeconomic status than the students who spoke English or Irish whereas in 2009 the socioeconomic status of the two groups did not differ) (Cosgrove, et al., 2010).”

so, the more immigrants ireland got, the lower their pisa scores became. terrific.
_____

– what about new mexicans?

plenty of other people have pointed this out in comments elsewhere, but what about the success rates — or lack of — of the mexicans that have been in new mexico for several generations now? steve sailer has repeatedly written about this (see here and here for example), and the awesome epigone found that new mexico ranks 49th as far as average state iqs go (just in front of mississippi and washington d.c.). why haven’t the mexicans in new mexico caught up with european-americans given they’ve been here for several generations now?
_____

– what about african americans?

african americans apparently haven’t caught up with european-americans iq-wise either even after a couple hundred years. why not?
_____

and given those last two points, why would ron unz conclude that the average iq of mexicans in america will increase to match those of european-americans? even if that did happen with the southern italians, greeks and irish, which is by no means certain, we already have examples of that not happening with mexicans (and african americans) so … well, i dunno … i don’t know what he’s thinking.

i’m not a “hard hereditarian.” environment matters. nutrition matters. neglecting kids when their brains are developing seems to matter. the flynn effect is a real phenomenon. h*ll, evolution happens! — so a population’s average intelligence is hardly written in stone for eveh. but different populations are different because we’ve had different evolutionary histories. differences that prolly won’t be overcome overnight — or even in a generation or two, no matter how much ron unz (or i) would wish that to be possible. and it seems very cavalier to me to risk an entire society on the basis of a wish.

and don’t forget: iq isn’t the only thing to consider when thinking about the immigration of masses of people.
_____

tomorrow … back to the regularly scheduled programming.
_____

footnote: pardon me for indulging for a sec in one of those annoying innate behaviors that women (apparently) possess: shaming.

in this debate over his article, ron unz has resorted on more than one occasion to personal attacks on commenters. example:

“All in all, it appears that an enthusiastic interest in engaging in IQ debates is no strong sign of actually possessing much of the attribute under discussion.”

unnecessary and uncalled for. the points of the discussion — the evidence — will stand or fall on merit. there is no need for argumentum ad hominem.

that is all.

(note: comments do not require an email. italian immigrants.)

Advertisements

79 Comments

  1. as regards the article i agree with most of it however I do not think ethnic irish are markedly inferior in iq to ethnic french, brits, poles, swedes, and norwegians (who all seem to be around the same position).

    here is a relevant graph which separates out natives from 1st and 2nd generation immigrants:

    btw. i’ve been curious about this for some time. why do you write without capital letters?

    Reply

  2. The Irish:

    Lynn provides three Irish IQ samples: a 1972 sample of 3,466 yielding an IQ of 87, a 1993 sample of 1,361 yielding an IQ of 93, and another 1993 sample of 2,029 yielding an IQ of 91. These are all very large samples. There is also another minuscule 1979 sample of 75 which (unsurprisingly) yields an outlying value. All these results are Flynn-adjusted by Lynn.

    Furthermore, in a recent interview Lynn himself stated that his Dublin research in the late 1960s convinced him that the Irish were a low-IQ people, and that only a strong campaign of eugenics could solve the country’s problems. His opinion is very consistent with the (independent) test scores I have given above.

    Now I suggest that the huge recent rise in Irish IQs is probably due to changes in urbanization and socio-economic factors, and you dispute this.

    Let us assume Ireland actually had an innate, genetic IQ of 87 in 1972. Since there has been negligible genetic change since then, we’d expect to see approximately the same figure today, yet as I pointed out Ireland has roughly the same PISA scores as nations such as Britain, France, and Germany, whose IQs are around 100.

    You argue this might be explained because 20% of France’s population were low-IQ minorities, and the 8% of Britain’s population fell in the same category. Does this make any sense? Could a British population which was 92% high-IQ and 8% low-IQ really have the same average academic performance as an Irish population which was 100% low-IQ?

    Furthermore, if Ireland actually had an IQ of 87, something like 15-20% of the entire Irish population would be subject to clinical mental retardation. Do you believe this is the case?

    The fact to keep in mind is that a 15 point difference in IQ—a full SD—between two subpopulations is absolutely gigantic. It seems totally implausible that the Irish who stayed in Ireland and those who immigrated differed by 15 points. Actually, given mean-regression, the two groups of Irish would have needed to differ by around 30 points at that time. Do you really find this plausible?

    American-Born Mex-Ams:

    As I’ve pointed out, between the 1970s and the 2000s, roughly 61% of the Wordsum-IQ gap between white Americans and American-born Mex-Ams disappeared due to an enormous rise in the Wordsum-IQ of the latter group. These are hard, empirical facts. Perhaps my explanation is entirely wrong. But what is your alternate explanation?

    Rural/Urban Americans:

    Interestingly enough, in the 1970s the Wordsum-IQ gap between rural whites and urban/suburban whites was almost exactly the same size as the Wordsum-IQ gap between Americans whites and blacks. These numbers would tend to indicate that something like 10% of white farmboys in America had IQs below 70, and were clinically retarded. Do you really believe that during the 1970s 10% of all the white farmboys in America were mentally retarded?

    I have provided a great deal of hard, empirical data on these matters, as well as my own theoretical hypothesis. Perhaps my own hypothesis is entirely wrong. Then what is your alternate hypothesis?

    And under normal circumstances, I prefer not to engage in insult. However, I also prefer not to be accused of fraud or misrepresentation.

    Reply

  3. @ron – “It seems totally implausible that the Irish who stayed in Ireland and those who immigrated differed by 15 points. Actually, given mean-regression, the two groups of Irish would have needed to differ by around 30 points at that time. Do you really find this plausible?”

    no. but you haven’t demonstrated that the irish-americans with the average iqs as high or higher than german-americans are really native irish.

    @ron – “Let us assume Ireland actually had an innate, genetic IQ of 87 in 1972. Since there has been negligible genetic change since then, we’d expect to see approximately the same figure today….”

    there hasn’t been a negligible genetic change in ireland since 1972. there’s been an additon of something like 1.4 million individuals in two-and-a-half generations (ca. a 35% increase in the population). individuals who have not left the country. in other words, there’s been time for the population to regress to its natural mean, which is probably not 87. the 87 was an artifact of 140+ years of average-to-high iq individuals leaving the country. there was a brain drain which stopped just around 1960-1970.

    @ron – “Could a British population which was 92% high-IQ and 8% low-IQ really have the same average academic performance as an Irish population which was 100% low-IQ?”

    how do you get 92% high-iq in the british population from 92% white british? clearly half of the white brits are below the average of 100. that is what average means, after all. they’re not all high-iq. neither is the irish population 100% low-iq.

    @ron – “As I’ve pointed out, between the 1970s and the 2000s, roughly 61% of the Wordsum-IQ gap between white Americans and American-born Mex-Ams disappeared due to an enormous rise in the Wordsum-IQ of the latter group. These are hard, empirical facts.”

    yes, that is interesting. but that is only one data point (or one set of data). what about the average iq of new mexicans?

    @ron – “Do you really believe that during the 1970s 10% of all the white farmboys in America were mentally retarded?”

    no. but nor do i rule it out as an impossibility. frankly i don’t know either way because i’m not familiar with the data.

    @ron – “However, I also prefer not to be accused of fraud or misrepresentation.”

    of course that would not be right. but the person who you insulted here on my blog, and again on your own, did neither of those things as far as i am aware.

    Reply

  4. Hi hbd* chick. A couple of comments.

    Firstly I think IQ is likely to be more involved in migration than some people admit. Definitely personality (high Openness-Imagination and low Five-Factor Agreeableness) are known correlates of migration, and Chris Brand observed IQ as a correlate of voluntary migration in Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy (you can see his claims reprinted in Jensen’s The g Factor). From an economic standpoint we really ought to assume that both intelligence and poverty will encourage migration; definitely this would explain my own migrations, which were definitely successful at alleviating crushing poverty. So I believe there probably was a brain drain on Ireland.

    But moreover, the Celts evolved in an isolated corner of the map and have been frequently crushed by waves of immigrants. As someone who is substantially Celtic by ancestry I don’t mind telling you that like most people who were subjected to waves of invasions by more sophisticated cultures, the Irish and Welsh are likely to be intellectually inferior to their neighbors. And clearly it makes little sense to postulate an intelligence difference favoring, say, the Amerindians over the Europeans without asking, “Why, then, didn’t the Navajo build these big ships and go colonize Spain?” Yeah um, prolly they got colonized themselves cuz they were dumber. Opposition to racial realism often leaves a person totally unable to explain huge swaths of variation in cultural outcomes, particularly the abject failures of sub saharan African societies, and usually forces historical outcomes to be explained through many, many specific causes rather than simple explanations preferred by Occam’s Razor.

    Lastly though, I don’t think you’re being fair to mister Unz. Definitely I don’t see Ron characterizing some criticisms as stupid as being “ad hominem.” When I look at what he wrote…

    “Another claim repeatedly made was that the implausible European IQs I had cited came from studies testing children…The totally ignorant commenter failed to realize that with the exception of the doubtful Buj studies, ALL of Lynn’s remaining IQ studies are based on samples of children… All in all, it appears that an enthusiastic interest in engaging in IQ debates is no strong sign of actually possessing much of the attribute under discussion”

    …what I see is someone complaining about the tingling in his palm and the giant red welt across his forehead. Notice also his willingness to be charitable in passages like these:

    “Incidentally, I am grateful to the pseudonymous VDare author for directing me to Lynn book “Race Differences in Intelligence.” My own analysis had been based on the data in his “IQ and the Wealth of Nations,” supplemented by his sequel “IQ and Global Inequality,” but Lynn is an exceptionally prolific scholar, and the third book contains a wealth of useful additional data, much of which seems to further support my analysis.”

    Personally I think he’s wasting his time; the IQ dataset really is full of fluctuations. Individual studies just aren’t accurate to 10 points the way he seems to want them to be. (In fact there’s good reason to believe all of the African data is 8 points low; see for instance Wichert’s 2010 piece, “A systematic literature review of the average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans,” where “The inclusion of all studies… results in an estimate of an average IQ of 77”). The Irish, the Hispanics, and the Eastern Europeans are probably genuinely behind Western European norms, though at this point who really knows. Twenty years from now the issue will be resolved, right around the time when people are finally starting to realize Europeans had a good run. (Operative word: “had.”)

    In conclusion this song is way cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycFFWvguESU
    My favorite part is actually the German around 8:25, but on initial listenings it’s hard not to love the Dutch part that comes later.

    Reply

  5. Hi Ron! You slipped your reply in before mine; I’m always slow. But you say this:

    “I have provided a great deal of hard, empirical data on these matters, as well as my own theoretical hypothesis. Perhaps my own hypothesis is entirely wrong. Then what is your alternate hypothesis?”

    Please pay special attention to my post above, particularly the part where I say the data suck. You do get points for trying to find something in it, though.

    Reply

  6. hi mark!

    you said: “Lastly though, I don’t think you’re being fair to mister Unz. Definitely I don’t see Ron characterizing some criticisms as stupid as being ‘ad hominem.'”

    well, the comment i quoted in my post above has to be taken in context with the one mr. unz left here on my blog the other day (i deleted it because it was rude). it was a personal attack — they both were.

    i also deleted another personal attack by a commenter which was directed at ron.

    discussions about iq certainly do seem to get everybody hot and bothered. (~_^)

    (apologies for not responding to the rest of your comment — must dash!)

    Reply

  7. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/cousin-marriage-can-reduce-i-q-a-lot/

    “The most extreme case was…”

    Full-scale
    inbred: 88.4
    non-inbred: 99.6

    Now who knows if that is relevant or not but it seems like it might be given that *if* the Irish who emigrated to America were originally from small very inbred vllages and they all got jumbled up in American (and British) cities then you’d think that would lift some of the inbreeding depression if it existed.

    Purely from an anecdatal basis i think there is likely to be *some* truth in this. On an anecdatal basis there’s obviously no way to be sure if Irish people who’d been in Britain for a few generations were genetically the same as Irish people from the very rural parts of Ireland but the former aren’t noticeably different from native Brits (in the context i was in at the time) but the ones from the very rural parts of Ireland *were* very noticeably different.

    (This was 30 years ago btw.)

    Reply

  8. @g.w. – “*if* the Irish who emigrated to America were originally from small very inbred vllages and they all got jumbled up in American (and British) cities then you’d think that would lift some of the inbreeding depression if it existed.”

    yes, i was thinking along those lines, too. all of the eastern and southern european nineteenth century immigrants had low average iq scores per ron’s article (he quotes sowell) — and as we know, all of those groups are the inbreeders of europe. perhaps a generation or three of outbreeding here in the u.s. (or in britain for the irish) ameliorated some of the inbreeding depression.

    and speaking of brain drains — and inbreeding depression for that matter — i’m thinking again about the low iq scores of sicily and southern italy….

    Reply

  9. “all of the eastern and southern european nineteenth century immigrants had low average iq scores per ron’s article”

    Yes exactly – almost a pattern. If inbreeding depression of IQ is an established fact (?) then if there was a (mostly) latitudinal base pattern to average IQ then you’d expect populations in the same band to have variations in average IQ if they had variations in inbreeding.

    Personally I do tend to think the “Germanic” element in european populations may have come from one latitude band further north with a few extra innate Finnish/Japanese type bonus IQ points and i do think that probably changes the average in various European countries by a few points based on their German percentage but only by a few points.

    Reply

  10. I should add as well – again this is purely anecdatal – when dealing with people from ethnic groups that were completely rural in their original country and who marry within the same ethnic group but *don’t* arrange marriages with the same relatives they did back home the kids seems brighter than the parents. This may just be an artifact of language though.

    I also wonder if the lifting of inbreeding depression may be behind the Flynn effect.

    Reply

  11. “unz dismisses the idea that there might’ve been any “self-sorting” amongst the immigrant groups that he talked about”

    He wouldn’t have thought that if he had ever been to South Pittsburgh near where I live. Smart folks move (towards opportunity). Dumb folks tend to stay put.

    Reply

  12. re: who is taking those PISA tests?

    A little off topic but I can almost guarantee that in China it is not a representative sample of the general population. The idea that “the Party” would not try to bias the results to make China look good is against everything we know about how the Party behaves to say nothing of a thousand years of Chinese cheating on examinations. Cheating on tests is part of their cultural tradition. They don’t even consider it wrong particularly, if you can get away with it. In fact it’s smart. Only a naive fool would think otherwise. You think I’m kidding probably, but I’m not.

    Reply

  13. I went back to the Inductivist data on the Mexican IQ scores. This was based on persons claiming Mexican ancestry. It is not known the percentage of Mestizo admixture or which migration wave contributed. I recall the first major migration of Mexicans were Spanish-born Mexicans exiled from Mexico. I would expect Spanish persons to have an IQ similar to Anglo-Americans. If these are persons of Mexican ancestry, did that include recent admixture with American stock?

    My point is that the Mexican people are not homogenous. It seems like it is easy to find someone with 25% or less latino ancestry. Mestizos are noticeably absent from STEM classes at the local college compared to their local population. Perhaps there are more Americans claiming Mexican ancestry to gain benefits? The data from the Inductivists is vague.

    Reply

  14. @ Luke Lea “Let’s face it. Unz is just being dishonest. Dishonest or dumb. Either way he is not being serious.”

    Show better manners. This is the attitude from the mainstream that smothers utterly your position – as well as any hope of my being honest with others about what I really believe.

    Reply

  15. Anecdata again but i was thinking back to when i worked in a heavily Irish area (a long time ago) and trying to remember families where the children seemed noticeably smarter than the parents and i suddenly remembered something else. Height. The parents in the cases i remember were a lot shorter than their kids too. Now this might be diet who knows but it’s potentially interesting as data on height may be more widely available and

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/inbred-shorter-people/

    (apparently) there’s inbreeding depression for height too.

    So were the Irish shorter once too e.g. O’Reillys in the union army vs O’Reillys in WW1?

    Reply

  16. When I read the article, I went to Google to confirm a hypothesis I had about Mr Unz. It was duly confirmed.

    Reply

  17. I’d have more than a few things to say but I’m away in that far-flung corner of Maine with family (for a wedding no less) so I don’t have a lot of time.

    @Mark: I will say that thing about African IQ is overblown. The score that Lynn found (70) is correct. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some (serious) environmental depression reducing the African average IQ from its genetic potential level. Which also doesn’t mean that 70 isn’t a real IQ score.

    The more interesting IQ is that of African Americans and Blacks in other First World countries, who benefit from a much better environment than Africans do.

    Reply

  18. re: Show better manners.

    You’re right, Mark. I should have said I get the impression he is insincere (not dishonest) and is playing dumb, not dumb itself, because we know he’s not dumb — though claiming he had an iq of 214 was a pretty dumb thing to do.

    At what point in a debate do we get to raise the issue of sincerity? How many think Unz is being sincere?

    Reply

  19. Unz: ” if Ireland actually had an IQ of 87, something like 15-20% of the entire Irish population would be subject to clinical mental retardation. Do you believe this is the case?”

    Those ‘clinical mental retardation’ cut-offs are complete rubbish; they ignore variation in IQ by population group. An Ashkenazi with IQ 70 may well be organically retarded, though not necessarily; a Hottentot with IQ 70 is an unusually bright fellow.

    Re the southern Irish – even leaving aside Dubliners and Northern Irish, it seems clear that their genetic IQ is well above 87; but that does not mean they are genetically as smart as or smarter than ethnic southern English, Minnesotans or northern Italians, either. Even if they are – and IMO it is entirely possible that their depressed IQ was entirely cultural – that says nothing about the genetic potential IQ of Mestizo Mexicans, Irish are genetically very similar to other white Europeans; Mestizos are genetically quite distinct from European-Americans.

    Reply

  20. Mark:
    “Personally I think he’s wasting his time; the IQ dataset really is full of fluctuations. Individual studies just aren’t accurate to 10 points the way he seems to want them to be.”

    Agreed – they are very rough, flawed data. You can’t point at one study showing one IQ for a population, and claim that was definitively their IQ at that point in time. Lynn’s collation of thousands of studies gives useful information on global variation, signal emerges from the noise, but no one should believe that the Irish were ever definitively IQ 87, or the Khoi-San 54, etc,

    Reply

  21. Greying Wanderer:
    “the former aren’t noticeably different from native Brits (in the context i was in at the time) but the ones from the very rural parts of Ireland *were* very noticeably different.”

    That’s my impression too, from living in London the past 12 years. Educated Dubliners are much the same as the English. Working class London Irish born and bred in London are much the same as working-class English. Rural Irish with southern-Irish accents are noticeably different.
    I recall a similar difference growing up in Northern Ireland around southern-Irish students; the southern Irish were different from the northern Irish, whether Protestant or Catholic. AFAICR both Protestant and Catholic Northern-Irish saw the southern Irish as less intelligent, easygoing, drunken chatterboxes. The southern Irish saw/see us northerners of both religions as dour, crazily religious, and crazily violent.

    Reply

  22. Martin:
    “I would expect Spanish persons to have an IQ similar to Anglo-Americans”

    This seems to be the case, both on Lynn’s data and anecdotally. I visited Spain in the ’80s and it seemed much the same as northern Europe. I visited Greece in 2000 and Romania in 2004 expecting them to be much like Spain, being on similar latitudes. I got a big shock. Lynn’s data showing lower IQ in the Balkans than in the rest of Europe certainly fits what I saw.

    Reply

  23. simontm
    “Educated Dubliners are much the same as the English. Working class London Irish born and bred in London are much the same as working-class English. Rural Irish with southern-Irish accents are noticeably different.”

    Did/do you notice a height difference too? My experience with recently rural southern Irish was too long ago to be sure.

    Reply

    1. Unfortunately growing up in NI on a University campus I was a child, so all the students looked gigantic wherever they were from, and in London I don’t think I’ve ever met enough southern Irish in one place at one time (except when dragged to the local Irish pub for an Ireland-England match, where I was terrified due to me being Protestant) to make a judgement on height. I’d have to say that the native rural Irish that I met in London did not strike me as remarkably short, though I guess thinking about it they’d be shorter than their offspring. I think my mother’s poverty-stricken Northern Irish family were quite short too; she grew up in the ’30s with only potatoes to eat.

      Reply

  24. BTW British prejudice is to look down on Spain as an old enemy (Armada etc), but look up to Greece as the font of Civilisation, so I was not at all prepared for Athens in 2000 to be much less advanced than Madrid in 1987.

    Reply

  25. @anatoly – “here is a relevant graph which separates out natives from 1st and 2nd generation immigrants”

    cool! thnx. (^_^)

    @anatoly – “why do you write without capital letters?”

    sensitive pinkies. (~_^)

    Reply

  26. @mark – “like most people who were subjected to waves of invasions by more sophisticated cultures, the Irish and Welsh are likely to be intellectually inferior to their neighbors. And clearly it makes little sense to postulate an intelligence difference favoring, say, the Amerindians over the Europeans without asking, ‘Why, then, didn’t the Navajo build these big ships and go colonize Spain?’ Yeah um, prolly they got colonized themselves cuz they were dumber.”

    exactly!

    plus, i would add that many of these groups were clannish or tribal and so were so busy fighting amongst themselves that they didn’t manage to muster any sort of resistance to the invaders — like the irish, for example.

    Reply

  27. @luke – “A little off topic but I can almost guarantee that in China it is not a representative sample of the general population.”

    i believe you! i mean, does anybody really believe that cheating about school results only happens with ‘no child left behind’?

    Reply

  28. @andrew – “I went back to the Inductivist data on the Mexican IQ scores. This was based on persons claiming Mexican ancestry.”

    good point. same difficulty as with all the other gss data, then. self-identification. it’s a problem.

    Reply

  29. @jayman – “The more interesting IQ is that of African Americans and Blacks in other First World countries, who benefit from a much better environment than Africans do.”

    yup!

    Reply

  30. @simon – “Lynn’s collation of thousands of studies gives useful information on global variation, signal emerges from the noise, but no one should believe that the Irish were ever definitively IQ 87, or the Khoi-San 54, etc,”

    exactly!

    Reply

  31. @ Luke Lea: “At what point in a debate do we get to raise the issue of sincerity? How many think Unz is being sincere?”

    Ah, you can raise it whenever you like. I agree that Unz’s reputation isn’t sterling, but personally I think he’s sincere. Most people have better things to do than make up positions they don’t actually have and defend them over the course of thousand hours. With someone highly visible like Sternberg, lying has got to be much more tempting.

    I will say this, though – we need to default to accepting the things people say on good faith. When we denigrate dissenters, especially when we denigrate them on the basis of dissent, we’re robbing ourselves of the ability to learn something from them. I may think he’s wrong, but I’m willing to learn something from people like Unz.

    @ simontmn: “You can’t point at one study showing one IQ for a population, and claim that was definitively their IQ at that point in time. Lynn’s collation of thousands of studies gives useful information on global variation, signal emerges from the noise.”

    I think this is a critical concept. Everything we’re looking at here is statistical. People like to question the data or go with the data as though it’s a single thing, but really the data is something that sprawls out like a forest. No one study says much, but what we’re looking at from Lynn is a gigantic meta-analysis, and the fact that a strong signal does indeed come through the noise is well demonstrated by Lynn & Vanhanen’s ability to guess at national IQs in “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” and then see these guesses confirmed to within a few points in “IQ and Global Inequality.”

    Personally, I think the fact that Unz and others are publicly trying to navigate through this forest and say it says something besides the default hypothesis is really just evidence that HBD denial is losing ground. It’s pure rear guard action. Race Realism is all over the web; you can’t do a search on “intelligence” without the word “race” popping up. (That really is true, I just checked.) Growing up I’d never heard anything about a black-white IQ gap, but people today can’t avoid it without turning off their browsers and chucking their computer into the swimming pool. It’s still going to take a while to clear out most of the older generation of die hard antihereditarians, but from here on out I think it’s over. The Internet has cut HBD denial off at the root.

    @ hbd chick: “i would add that many of these groups were clannish or tribal and so were so busy fighting amongst themselves that they didn’t manage to muster any sort of resistance to the invaders”

    I’m not looking for a reply on this, but I think statements like the above are a weakness in your position. What exactly is meant by altruism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, clannishness, etc? You don’t talk much about personality, but it’s what your entire argument comes down to. You absolutely need people from outbred populations to have a different average personality from inbred populations, or the whole thing falls apart.

    My suggestion is that you check out the literature on personality and try to put your concepts in terms of the HEXACO traits, especially when there’s stuff like this floating around:

    http://tinyurl.com/clwjxja

    I don’t want to put words in your keyboard, but think about whether endogamy promotes high or low Emotionality, or Honesty-Humility, or whichever trait or traits should be involved. I’m going to be asking you about this in the future – and just remember, I have sharp, pointy teeth. And to me, vague and poorly considered answers smell just like blood.

    Reply

  32. Mark, let me just say that I’ve devoted a considerable amount of time reading and thinking about Unz’s writings on this subject. I did not come to my conclusion hastily. Nor would I urge anyone else to.

    Reply

  33. @mark – “I’m not looking for a reply on this, but I think statements like the above are a weakness in your position. What exactly is meant by altruism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, clannishness, etc? You don’t talk much about personality, but it’s what your entire argument comes down to. You absolutely need people from outbred populations to have a different average personality from inbred populations, or the whole thing falls apart.”

    yes, i use the words altruism and altruistic a lot and very loosely — i’m afraid that’s a bad habit i picked up from reading the literature on inclusive fitness — since hamilton, everyone’s been so focused on altruism, but that’s not really what i’m interested in. not per se.

    what i’m interested in are all of the “innate social aptitudes of man” that hamilton referred to, altruism (in the biological sense) being just one of them.

    sure, personality is the lynchpin here. and, no, i haven’t gotten around to talking much about it yet, although i did dip into it a little here when i rather wildly speculated about arabs and their aggressive tribalistic behaviors. my super-inbred saudi friends ought to be very low on agreeableness, if i’m at all right.

    @mark – “think about whether endogamy promotes high or low Emotionality, or Honesty-Humility, or whichever trait or traits should be involved.”

    endogamy ought to = high emotionality, low honesty, low humility.

    @mark – I’m going to be asking you about this in the future – and just remember, I have sharp, pointy teeth. And to me, vague and poorly considered answers smell just like blood.

    i’m not afraid of your, or anyone else’s, dentition. (~_^)

    Reply

  34. @mark – re. HEXACO — ok, i followed your link to wikipedia and had a look at the page. i read up to the point where altruism and reciprocal altruism were mentioned and then i stopped (and averted my eyes!) ’cause i thought i’d like to make my own educated guesses as to which personalities ought to go with outbrededness or inbrededness. (^_^)

    so, ranging from most outbred —> most inbred, i would guess:

    Honesty-Humility (H): sincere, honest, faithful, loyal, modest/unassuming —> sly, deceitful, greedy, pretentious, hypocritical, boastful, pompous
    Emotionality (E): brave, tough, independent, self-assured, stable —> emotional, oversensitive, sentimental, fearful, anxious, vulnerable
    Extraversion (X): outgoing, lively, extraverted, sociable, talkative, cheerful, active —> shy, passive, withdrawn, introverted, quiet, reserved (*not so sure about this trait)
    Agreeableness (A): patient, tolerant, peaceful, mild, agreeable, lenient, gentle —> ill-tempered, quarrelsome, stubborn, choleric
    Conscientiousness (C): organized, disciplined, diligent, careful, thorough, precise —> sloppy, negligent, reckless, lazy, irresponsible, absent-minded
    Openness to Experience (O): intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative, ironic —> shallow, unimaginative, conventional

    Reply

  35. @ Luke Lea: “I’ve read Unz over a period of years.”

    Well shoot, you know way more about Unz than I do. Frankly I’ve already lost interest in the man. Regarding me having worthwhile posts, though, you might want to give up on the rest of what I’ve got to say here. Maybe I should just count myself lucky that I got hbd chick to enumerate the six currently known factors of personality.

    @ hbd chick: (Paraphrased) “Inbred = H-, E+, X-, A-, C-, O-”

    Mmm. *snif* *snif* So you’re… ah… you’re ascribing every negative trait to the endogamous populations?

    @ Graying Wanderer: “Interesting list”

    Yes. Yes… it is interesting… Mmmh… It reminds me of Rushton’s brilliant and… not at all emotionally motivated attempts to assign every single positive personality trait to “k-strategist” East Asians and every negative trait to “r-strategist” Blacks (see for instance Rushton & Irwing (2009) “A general factor of personality” in Personality & Individual Differences). That’s… mmmm… it’s kindof distracting actually…

    @ hbd chick: “i’m not afraid of your, or anyone else’s, dentition.”

    Yeah that’s what G** d*** Bella Swan thought before Edward like tore her limb from limb in a frenzy of lust and f***ing bathed in her blood in that last movie. You know the one I’m talkin’ about? That movie was f***ing awesome.

    Reply

  36. re: Luke, that’s just the band name in stylized Cyrillic. What are you driving at?

    OK, I’m going to reveal one of my prejudices here. It seems like whenever in my random surfing I hit upon what turns out to be a white nationalist site they have some kind of weird symbol like that one on their masthead. So, for me, these sorts of symbols, and they are not all Cyrillic, have become a kind of shortcut for judging the site.

    Reply

  37. @mark – “So you’re… ah… you’re ascribing every negative trait to the endogamous populations?”

    there is no negative or positive in biology. there just is.

    like i said, tho — not sure about X. for that matter, i’m not so sure about E, either. the rest i would be a six-pack on. (~_^)

    @mark – “You know the one I’m talkin’ about? That movie was f***ing awesome.”

    sadly, i do. which means i’ve devoted a couple of neurons/synaptic connections to it which could’ve been better used on some useful information! and now, thanks to you, i’ve devoted even more of them to that stupid movie ’cause now i’ve got the memory of this discussion with you. curses! (~_^)

    thankfully, i haven’t seen whatever-the-h*ck-it-was-called, so i don’t have, like, a whole section of my brain devoted to it!

    Reply

  38. Luke Lea
    07/27/2012 at 1:46 PM

    “It seems like whenever in my random surfing I hit upon what turns out to be a white nationalist site they have some kind of weird symbol like that one on their masthead. So, for me, these sorts of symbols, and they are not all Cyrillic, have become a kind of shortcut for judging the site.”

    You’re right about this one. “Arkona” is a musical band promoting pagan culture and nationalist ideas. They claim Arkona is a symbol of pagan’s opposition to Christianity.

    Reply

  39. @ hbdchick: “which means i’ve devoted a couple of neurons/synaptic connections to it which could’ve been better used on some useful information! and now, thanks to you, i’ve devoted even more of them to that stupid movie ’cause now i’ve got the memory of this discussion with you.”

    OK. What I’m hearing from you is that you’d rather I stop acting as though I’m drunk, and instead got drunk and acted like I’m sober. I’m willing to try this. *Gets wine*

    “there is no negative or positive in biology. there just is.”

    Really? Because beauty in physical appearance is something independent raters agree on. And beauty in personality seems to have independent agreement as well. In fact, this is so much the case that it’s axiomatic that “we all want” as friends, relatives, and lovers, people who are responsible, optimistic, selfless, brave, imaginative, and agreeable. One generally doesn’t want to be around irresponsible, dour, selfish, fearful, unimaginative, or angry people. Most tellingly, personality inventories suffer when items are clumsily worded, because everyone insists that they have all the positive traits – psychometricians have to be clever about wording things so that people will be willing to admit negative characteristics. Thus, while your list may not be purely motivated by a sense that outbred populations are better, I do know that you prefer outbred societies, and your ascribing every commonly accepted positive trait to outbred populations does make me question your objectivity.

    I will further add that if I were to make a list of traits likely to do well in an inbred society, I would say that Conscientiousness (discipline, diligence, care, thoroughness) and Honesty-Humility (sincerity, honesty, faithfulness, loyalty, modesty) would spread in conditions where one married kin. People’s reputation is of paramount importance in closed societies over long periods of time, and people who are negligent, lazy, selfish, faithless, or disloyal will be seen as freeloaders and a danger to the tribe. Those with poor reputations could not simply wander away and start over, as under outbred conditions. Their misdeeds would quickly earn them the lasting persecution of their families, a persecution from which there would be no escape. Do you still want to bet a six-pack on these two traits being lower in endogamous societies?

    @ People Talking About Arkona:

    That I like their music probably does have *something* to do with their foreign-ness, their disliking of Christianity, and the lead singer’s unabashed personal pride. I tend to think that people with a clear sense of aesthetics and a strong sense of self aren’t generally Western, Christian, or emasculated. But truly, I started out listening to Arkona without understanding anything about it at all. I like their music because it is moving, not because I want to support some political message or ideological stance. If they were Communists, and all their lyrics were about getting rid of money and sharing ownership of big factories, I’d like them about the same.

    Reply

  40. @mark – “In fact, this is so much the case that it’s axiomatic that ‘we all want’ as friends, relatives, and lovers, people who are responsible, optimistic, selfless, brave, imaginative, and agreeable. One generally doesn’t want to be around irresponsible, dour, selfish, fearful, unimaginative, or angry people.”

    i’m not sure this would hold across different cultures. has this been shown to be the case in cross-cultural studies? (if yes, please provide a reference or two. muchas gracias!)

    @mark – “I do know that you prefer outbred societies…”

    i do have great admiration for one or two outbred populations (really mostly the english, so just one, i guess), but i’m not sure that i prefer everything about outbred societies. you may not be aware that i, your humble blog hostess, am from a rather inbred population myself and i can quite appreciate a lot of things about it. for instance, having a bit of spine when it comes to outsiders trying to take over. unfortunately, i can also see that that is also a weakness because then there is a general lack of cooperation between the different segments of the population … and outsiders can then take over.

    otoh, being too outbred (like the anglos) means that you can be taken over by more inbred groups.

    hmmmm. i think i just figured out that the basic weakness of both sides — outbred and inbred — is when they’re each confronted with the other type of society: inbred groups fall in the face of an “attack” by outbred groups, while outbred groups fall in the face of “attacks” by inbred groups.

    @mark – “…and your ascribing every commonly accepted positive trait to outbred populations does make me question your objectivity.”

    it’s difficult to be completely objective, and i don’t claim that i am, but i do try. when i evaluated the HEXACO traits i tried just to think of the characteristics of the different types of groups of which i am aware: nw europeans for outbred; italians, irish, scottish, greeks, russians, arabs and chinese for inbred. they didn’t all fit with all the traits as described — like i said, i had trouble with the Es and the Xs — but the rest i do think fit pretty well.

    yes, i am still confident on the Hs, As, Cs, and Os. shall we upper that bet to a bottle of scotch? single-malt, of course. (~_^)

    Reply

  41. “In fact, this is so much the case that it’s axiomatic that “we all want” as friends, relatives, and lovers, people who are responsible, optimistic, selfless, brave, imaginative, and agreeable.”

    No it isn’t.

    A very large part of the world now and an even larger part in the past *solely* wanted their friends and lovers to be very close relatives. Their agreeableness or otherise was irrelevant except when deciding between two brothers or two first cousins or two second cousins etc.

    Which is why hubchik’s lists make perfect sense.

    .
    “One generally doesn’t want to be around irresponsible, dour, selfish, fearful, unimaginative, or angry people.”

    Depends on the context. In the context of constant small-scale clan warfare maybe you do.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/hatfields-and-mccoys/

    “The Rutherfords and Halls were so violent that royal officials in 1598 ordered no quarter to be given to anyone of those names. The Johnston-Johnson clan adorned their houses with the flayed skins of their enemies the Maxwells in a blood feud that continued for many generations.”

    In that kind of context maybe you want your allies to be like

    “Reynolds recalled her grandfather, ‘Smallwood’ McCoy. “‘When he would come to visit, everyone would run and hide. They acted like they were scared to death of him. He had a really bad temper,’ she said….”

    Reply

  42. RE: cross cultural personality preferences

    To my knowledge the issue has not been explicitly addressed. I do know that acquiescence bias is stronger in more traditional cultures, and that in Africans replicating the findings of personality factors has proven difficult, presumably because of the deep intellectual limitations of respondents.

    RE: hbd* chick’s clannish heritage

    I am aware of your heritage. You do, however, seem much more taken by Western society than I am. My own sympathies are non-Western. The Forest Children were corrupted when they despoiled the Garden of the Trolls:

    http://www.readbookonline.net/read/21327/59586/

    RE: Virtues of inbred and outbred societies

    Inbred groups fall in the face of an “attack” by outbred groups, while outbred groups fall in the face of “attacks” by inbred groups.

    Yes. Collectivists (“inbred groups”) have a weaker technological base and large scale organizational ability, while individualists (“outbred groups”) have poor territorial control and resistance to free riders. For this and other reasons, a middle position on this dimension is ideal.

    RE which traits:

    i tried just to think of the characteristics of the different types of groups of which i am aware: nw europeans for outbred; italians, irish, scottish, greeks, russians, arabs and chinese for inbred. they didn’t all fit with all the traits as described — like i said, i had trouble with the Es and the Xs — but the rest i do think fit pretty well.

    Ah! That’s a posteriori reasoning, my dear. Your model is causal, and therefore should make clear predictions without you needing to think of specific populations.

    RE Scotch:

    I dunno. I’m not much for WHR-increasing drinks. See:

    Lukasiewicza (2005) “Alcohol intake in relation to body mass index and waist-to-hip ratio: the importance of type of alcoholic beverage”

    Bruce B. Duncan et al (1995). “Association of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Is
    Different with Wine than with Beer or Hard Liquor Consumption”

    Frankly I’d be willing to bet that microbrewery beer, particularly beer made without hops, would be good for a person, but overall I tend to think that the more processed food is, the less salubrious it becomes. Read all about it in the controversial work of Weston Price: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

    Reply

  43. @ Graying Wanderer: “No it isn’t.

    A very large part of the world now and an even larger part in the past *solely* wanted their friends and lovers to be very close relatives. Their agreeableness or otherise was irrelevant except when deciding between two brothers or two first cousins or two second cousins etc.”

    Tell me, does hbd chick live in such a society? Or, is she an English speaker, and likely to have the prejudices of other English speakers?

    Cross cultural differences in personality preference are interesting, but irrelevant.

    Reply

  44. @mark – “You do, however, seem much more taken by Western society than I am.”

    well, i like science. and i like the general eccentric nature of the english. apart from that — meh. (~_^)

    @mark – “That’s a posteriori reasoning, my dear.”

    hmmm. i didn’t know there was a posteriori reasoning. thought those things had to do with the type of knowledge. anyway…

    “Your model is causal, and therefore should make clear predictions without you needing to think of specific populations.”

    ah! you should’ve specified that’s what you were after. i am an inductivist by nature!

    my general predictions re. inbred and outbred personality traits are: inbred populations should exhibit traits that make them behave, in general, in a hostile manner towards unrelated individuals, and those behaviors might spill over, as it were, in their relations towards related individuals. outbred populations should exhibit traits that make them behave, in general, in a not-so-hostile manner towards unrelated individuals, and these behaviors might spill over in their relations towards related individuals.

    fill in specific HEXACO traits as you see fit.

    Reply

  45. @Mark

    Cross cultural differences in personality preference are interesting, but irrelevant.”

    It couldn’t be more relevant.

    You were discussing how a list of personality traits might divide between inbred and outbred cultures. An inbred culture by definition primarily cares about relatedness and the primary personality trait it would select for is loyalty e.g. honor killing. Hence outbred cultures both prefering and selecting more for agreeableness traits than inbred cultures makes perfect sense.

    Reply

  46. @ Graying Wanderer:

    I’d actually signed off for the night and was lifting weights when I realized that was what you’d meant by your previous post. Yes, it’s brilliant, and it makes perfect sense. Sorry to be slow.

    @ hbdchick: “i didn’t know there was a posteriori reasoning. thought those things had to do with the type of knowledge.”

    Don’t make fun of me. There’s no way that will work.

    Anyway you’ve been very patient with all this, as I know personality isn’t your thing. And since you’re an inductivist rather than a hypothesis tester person. Let me get a clear and not at all inebriated sense of how you want this to go down.

    What if I,

    just tell you,

    what the personality research says,

    take all of your alcohol away,

    and save you any further trouble? Is that the right idea? You let me know. OK? OK now. Goodbye.

    Reply

  47. @mark – “Don’t make fun of me.”

    i wasn’t making fun of you. that was a straight up statement/question from me.

    @mark – “What if I, just tell you, what the personality research says….”

    sure. shoot.

    Reply

  48. Yeah… I didn’t exactly think you were making fun of me, so much as I was drunk. You can really see it started at that 9:35 post, where like a DUI pulled over by the cops I was focusing very, very intently on walking that straight line, and then at 9:40 got confused. Then around 9:53 in that other thread I started getting mean (although I don’t think Ron noticed) and then by 11:57 I was just wandering around waving my arms.

    Definitely I did not want to commit myself to providing any information to you, but, now I’ve made the commitment, and the things a person does when drunk, he still does. As I’ve always said (and later learned Aristotle agreed with me about), when you make the choice to become inebriated, you make the choice that causes whatever happens next. I count myself lucky that I’m not a violent drunk so much as a silly and hypertrophically intellectual one.

    *Sigh*

    Anyway, I did make good on my promise insofar as I have gathered the data, and carried out the analysis you were evidently looking for. We know I’ve tried sending you an email before and it didn’t go through. But I will send you a test, and you can reply if you get it. If not, I’ll figure out some other way of conveying these findings to you.

    Also, about all that alcohol – please don’t forget to send it. My advice is to not worry about the address; just put it in a big cardboard box and send it anywhere in the Arctic Circle. It’s a small enough place that whether everything ends up in Norway, or Alaska, or Siberia, or wherever, I’ll just walk over and get it.

    (Looking forward to seeing those stars again for the first time in a couple months. Any day now!)

    Reply

  49. @mark – “I will further add that if I were to make a list of traits likely to do well in an inbred society, I would say that Conscientiousness (discipline, diligence, care, thoroughness) and Honesty-Humility (sincerity, honesty, faithfulness, loyalty, modesty) would spread in conditions where one married kin.”

    i just thought about this again and…

    …no, no, no. that’s just totally wrong! you only need to think about the most inbred societies in the world — egs. the arabs, pakistanis, afghanis, almost all groups in the middle east and north africa — to realize that it’s wrong. even if you think about one of the most inbred groups in europe — the southern italians — you’ll see that it’s wrong.

    not sure what it is, but there’s something not right with your model.

    Reply

  50. @ HBD Chick:

    It was just a plausible suggestion thrown out mostly to get you to think; I prefaced that statement with the subjunctive “If I were.” Truthfully I don’t believe that cultural exogamy or endogamy create a circumstance that significantly favors any type of personality change.

    Reply

  51. Mark
    “Truthfully I don’t believe that cultural exogamy or endogamy create a circumstance that significantly favors any type of personality change.”

    Well endogamy, where assistance-decisions are based almost entirely on relatedness would select for ethno-centrism (where ethno starts at family and works outwards) and loyalty through mechanisms like individuals running away from the group or honor-killing. It would select *against* traits that didn’t fit.

    Exogamy, where assistance-decisions are not solely based on relatedness might select for other traits that improve your chances of assistance from your kith and (less kin-centric) kin or it might simply remove the negative pressure applied by endogamy allowing random changes to survive easier.

    Reply

  52. “what are they when they’re at home?”

    That’s what I’m referring to. The question is, does a culture where endogamy is more normative exert selective pressure over time different from a culture where exogamy is normative? You often use the words “inbreeding” and “outbreeding” as though these things alone cause evolutionary change, but this isn’t exactly accurate to your model. If you prefer I drop the word “cultural,” I can, but I think it’s meaningful. What you are describing is a cultural phenomenon which hypothetically changes reproductive frequencies.

    Reply

  53. @mark – “You often use the words ‘inbreeding’ and ‘outbreeding’ as though these things alone cause evolutionary change….”

    no. i’ve never said that and i don’t mean that. sorry, but you’ve misunderstood.

    @mark – “What you are describing is a cultural phenomenon which hypothetically changes reproductive frequencies.”

    it’s not just a cultural phenomenon, it’s a biological phenomenon. with inbreeding or outbreeding (or whatever you want to call them) you’re altering the distribution of genes (alleles) and relatedness in a population (which should have knock-on inclusive fitness effects). i’m not talking about changing reproductive frequencies — i’m talking about changing (certain) selection pressures (see also here).

    Reply

  54. “What you are describing is a cultural phenomenon which hypothetically changes reproductive frequencies.”

    It’s man-made selective pressure. Honor-killing is just an extreme version of a form of behavior that all in-groups do to some extent and that behavior will have a selective effect. The difference in the effect of extreme or weak forms of that behavior may turn out in the end to not be very significant but they must exist.

    Reply

  55. re Mark’s “The question is, does a culture where endogamy is more normative exert selective pressure over time different from a culture where exogamy is normative?”

    Are you a new reader perhaps, Mark? If so, hbd*chick’s post on what happened to the tribes of Europe is a good place to start. It’s all about gene/cultural interaction: inclusive fitness, kin selection, clannishness, vs. the values of individualism and liberal society in general.

    Reply

  56. Yeah.

    I don’t understand how what I wrote doesn’t mean what you are all saying. And by that, I mean, I don’t think any of you understand how what I said in fact implies….

    hbdchick: “i’m talking about changing (certain) selection pressures (see also here).”

    Right, like where I used the phrase “selection pressures.”

    greying wanderer: “It’s man-made selective pressure.”

    Right, much like a cultural milieu that sends smart women to school and work while their less intelligent counterparts have kids.

    Luke Lea: “It’s all about gene/cultural interaction: inclusive fitness, kin selection, clannishness, vs. the values of individualism and liberal society in general.”

    Right, and while I realize that you’re being nice, and that it really would be better and more mature of me if I could just take this misguided pileon in stride, I can’t help that I find it utterly infuriating. J**** Ch***, I’m going to a get a drink. And no! Haha! No, I am not going to post more on this thread while I am drunk.

    I’ll see you later.

    Reply

  57. @mark – “I’ll see you later.”

    and when you do, watch the language. you know what you said (wrote) and i won’t have it around here. got that?

    Reply

  58. @mark – “Right, like where I used the phrase ‘selection pressures.'”

    i was trying to make the point that I am talking about selection pressures as well — not just that inbreeding and outbreeding “alone cause evolutionary change.” i wasn’t saying that you are/have not been talking about selection pressures.

    i still don’t know what you mean by “reproductive frequencies” though.

    Reply

  59. “My suggestion is that you check out the literature on personality and try to put your concepts in terms of the HEXACO traits, especially when there’s stuff like this floating around”

    While the HEXACO model is interesting, and certainly feels more “complete” than the Big Five, I will say that personality research in general still has a long way to go, hence I don’t put too much faith in such models (or most “models” in social science, for that matter). A big part of the problem is that too much of psychological research has been done on WEIRD people, and even then on the segment of those who are college students, and this has been a major stumbling block in trying to gauge the gamut of human behaviors. HBD Chick, more than most, has demonstrated the importance of sometimes very specific behavioral traits, which are quite heritable. Muslim honor killing is one such example (where does that fit in HEXACO?). It’s very clear that standard personality tests do not capture heritable behavioral traits that are of great significance.

    Indeed, it may turn out that it may not be possible to boil down human behavioral traits into simple dimensional systems because the range of behavioral traits is so great, and encompasses behavioral responses designed for fairly specific situations (which sounds almost like a sacrilege coming out of a reductionist like me); for example, how does one account for the ideological divide between libertarian liberalism of Anglo societies and collectivism/communism of Eastern Europe and China on the other (a divide, which, itself, is really only relevant for highly organized societies with a long history of civilization and agriculture)?

    Perhaps one day they’ll cook up a system that can broadly encompass the range of behavior, but that day is not today.

    Reply

  60. Hi JayMan. I wanted to let you know that I read your response (and your links), and broadly speaking I actually agree.

    I’m really not enjoying this, though. I’m gonna go.

    Have fun with your website hbd mistress; nice name change.

    Good luck.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to simontmn Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s