who’s outbreeding the most?

ron (a little facetiously i think) asks: “Is there any evidence that the Germans in America have become heavy inbreeders?”

i highly doubt it (and no one around here suggested that, btw). but it did get me to wondering which ethnic european-americans (i.e. whites) are outbreeding the most. so i checked the — you guessed it! — gss.

here are the percentages of respondents answering that their spouses were from the same ethnic background as themselves (of course, who knows how many of these people actually have mixed backgrounds):

danish = 9%
french = 9%

swedes = 12%
scottish = 13%
czechoslovakians = 18%

norwegians = 23%
polish = 27%
irish = 29%

netherlands = 31%
russians = 33%
italians = 34%
french canadians = 35%
germans = 36%
english/welsh = 39%

mexicans = 54%

i know — are these mexicans whites? i dunno. whatever. in any case, “white” mexicans marry other mexicans at a rate of 54%. that’s the highest rate for any of these groups.

the english/welsh group and the german-americans place next in the race for marrying their own kind — 39% and 36% respectively. their percentages are prolly so “high” in part because there are a lot of english-/welsh- and german-americans from which to choose.

only 9% of danish-americans are married to other danish-americans. the largest majority of them, 20%, have married german-americans. twenty percent (20%) of swedish-americans have married german-americans, too.

scottish-americans win the prize for marrying the most english/welsh at a rate of 41%. that’s more than the english/welsh marry themselves! (~_^) the czechoslovakians like the english/welsh, too — 21% of them have married anglo-/welsh-americans.

french-americans (not french canadians) like to marry irish-americans — 22% of them are married to irish-americans.

something like half of the russians, btw, are ashkenazi jews, presumably marrying other ashkenazi jews, although i didn’t actually check for that.

what’s pretty obvious from these numbers is that, apart from the mexicans, most white american ethnic groups are marrying out quite a LOT nowadays. dunno how long this has been going on (i tried to sort the data by cohort but that crashed my computer — twice. so i gave up.)

that is all.
_____

gss nesstar search: RACE + ETHNIC + SPETHNIC
n > 50 in all cases.

(note: comments do not require an email. remember – always important to put your best foot forward!)

46 Comments

  1. i tried to sort the data by cohort but that crashed my computer — twice. so i gave up.

    It would be interesting to figure out what causes certain people to inbreed and certain people not to. I suspect it has to do with the availability of a similar mate.

    There are obviously more yanks of redcoat lineage than are there of say, Danish lineage. Hence, a British American is likely to marry another British American, simply because there are a lot of British Americans.

    Reply

  2. @secular blood – “There are obviously more yanks of redcoat lineage than are there of say, Danish lineage. Hence, a British American is likely to marry another British American, simply because there are a lot of British Americans.”

    yeah, absolutely. i did say that in the post (or tried to!):

    “the english/welsh group and the german-americans place next in the race for marrying their own kind — 39% and 36% respectively. their percentages are prolly so ‘high’ in part because there are a lot of english-/welsh- and german-americans from which to choose.”

    (^_^)

    Reply

  3. I think i found the bit that made me wonder about a second kind of inbreeding – one possibly more related to IQ than the usual stuff we talk about – and how it might be effected by pop. density aka size of breeding population.

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/more-thoughts-on-genetic-load/

    “Still, the number of slightly deleterious mutations does vary between individuals: the distribution should be Poisson, although with N large enough to closely resemble a Gaussian distribution. And this distribution might be modified by selection: people on the high end may suffer materially reduced fitness. Theory suggests that they should.”

    Assume for the sake of argument that physical attractiveness within a population is inversely proportional to genetic load.

    In an ancient-valley with a breeding population of N = 1000 the chance of getting a Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie for King or Queen of the May is much lower than in an ancient-valley where N = 40,000, and similarly for the chance of getting both at the same time.

    So the higher N is the more potential mating material you have for assortative mating on lack of genetic load aka attractiveness.

    This process would also require a culture where people were free to choose their mates and if so the further assumption they would (on average) assortively mate on attractiveness aka low genetic load.

    Add in another assumption that couples with a combined lower than average genetic load for their local breeding population have the most surving children (on average).

    Then a
    1) Higher population density
    2) Culture of choosing own mates

    might lead to lower (average) genetic load.

    .
    In a nutshell, larger breeding populations and a culture of choosing mates would allow for more assortative mating on low genetic load.

    .
    hubchik has a lot of posts related to factor (2) e.g.

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/the-hajnal-line/

    https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/but-what-about-the-english/

    Reply

  4. A dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding.

    You could also say that White Kenyans in America are most outbreeding. Both of them.

    Reply

  5. A dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding.

    For the definition of “outbreeding” used by this blog, he is.

    Reply

  6. Well, I’ve always seen inbreeding discussed in the context of first-cousin marriages, where the genetic overlap for recent new mutations is 1/8. I’d think that the impact of the sort of overlaps you’re looking at—1/16, 1/32, 1/64—would be relatively small unless such inbreeding is almost universal rather than just fairly common. However, I’m no expert in this topic, and if someone’s published some serious simulation results showing substantial phenotypic harms, I’ll certainly accept that.

    But let’s say you’re 100% right and I’m 100% wrong, and the reason for the huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America is because of the ending of rural inbreeding rather than the urban social environment I hypothesize. Wouldn’t this just as easily explain the huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs, since they’re coming from rural villages with significant inbreeding and moving to cities where there’s very little? And you further point out that even now, Mex-Ams have a much higher rate intra-ethnic marriage than any white ethnic group, so as this gradually falls over time, wouldn’t you expect further IQ rises by your model?

    Offhand, it seems to me that my hypothesis and yours both tend to support the reality of a large apparent rise in Mex-Am IQ, which is probably the issue provoking the most heated debate.

    Reply

  7. “Well, I’ve always seen. . .”, “I’d think that. . .”, “I’m no expert. . .”, “But let’s say. . .”, “Wouldn’t you expect. . .”, “Offhand, it seems to me. . .”, “which is probably the issue. . .”

    Is this an argument or a series of insinuations? Sprinkle in a little irony now and then, a dash of sarcasm, pick on your weakest opponent, side with the bullies, and you’ve pretty much got Unz’s argumentative style. Me, I’m no expert but let’s say I’m right about this, wouldn’t you expect it to be a waste of time to try to argue with him? Offhand, I’d think the answer is probably.

    Reply

  8. @j – “A dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding.”

    @ron – “Well, I’ve always seen inbreeding discussed in the context of first-cousin marriages….”

    inbreeding happens simply when two genetically related individuals mate. that’s all. the question then becomes how related are they?

    the answer to that is … heh … relative. in more ways than one.

    j – you might say that a dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding ’cause they’re both germanic/whites. sure. if the comparison is to a dane marrying a nigerian, then the dane-german coupling is not outbreeding. but if you compare the partnering with a dane-dane partnering, then it is outbreeding. comparatively speaking.

    ron – yes, most of the talk in biology re. inbreeding relates to consanguineous (first and second cousin) matings, but there is also the whole scenario of endogamous mating (serious, repeated endogamous mating i mean). clearly that can narrow the gene pool as well, so it should not be overlooked when thinking about long-term evolutionary processes. also what greying wanderer is talking about, i.e. population size, something which i admittedly haven’t thought that much about.

    Reply

  9. @ron – “…where the genetic overlap for recent new mutations is 1/8. I’d think that the impact of the sort of overlaps you’re looking at—1/16, 1/32, 1/64—would be relatively small unless such inbreeding is almost universal rather than just fairly common.”

    don’t overlook the fact that those inbreeding coefficients (1/8th for first cousins, etc.) are based upon a perfectly randomly bred population (dunno if that truly exists in nature or not). i’m pretty sure no human population fits that bill, and as i’ve shown on the blog here, historically the peripheral european populations have had much less random mating than nw european populations.

    also, keep in mind that you have to keep in mind the background genetic structure of different populations, something which teh scientists are only beginning to uncover. central and south americans, for instance, are all much more similar to each other genetically speaking than europeans. so first-cousin mexicans are probably more similar to each other genetically than nw european first-cousins — and should mexican first-cousins marry, the amount of identical genetic material that they pass on to their kids ought to be higher, on average, than when nw european first-cousins marry.

    Reply

  10. @ron – “Wouldn’t this just as easily explain the huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs, since they’re coming from rural villages with significant inbreeding and moving to cities where there’s very little?”

    well, first of all, no — ’cause chuck has already shown that there isn’t a “huge apparent rise in mex-am iqs.”

    but looking aside from that and just considering the theory (with a SMALL “t”) that long-term inbreeding (consanguineous and/or endogamous mating patterns) leads to low average iqs and that quitting inbreeding can lead to an increase in iqs…

    1) again, you have to keep in mind the underlying genetic structure of any given population we happen to be talking about, so since the baseline is probably (possibly?) different for mexicans vs. europeans — i.e. native mexicans are prolly more related to one another genetically speaking than europeans — so it’s not certain that removing the forces of inbreeding depression from the mexican population would result in the same degree of changes as seen in european populations. (if that’s been seen in european populations at all, of course.)

    Reply

  11. HBDChick: don’t overlook the fact that those inbreeding coefficients (1/8th for first cousins, etc.) are based upon a perfectly randomly bred population (dunno if that truly exists in nature or not).

    That’s obviously correct. But my impression had been that inbreeding problems are generally due to relatively recent harmful recessive mutations, which haven’t been around long enough to get weeded out the gene-pool. If you’re talking about the sort of background genetic overlap that’s found among e.g. all Icelanders, those harmful mutations would probably have mostly dissipated over the last few centuries. After all, since most Icelanders have them, the bad genes would manifest phenotypically and disappear.

    I’d always imagined that the problem tended to be a new point-mutation that popped up, being recessive remained hidden, then was passed down through two separate branches of the tree, and suddenly manifested itself when cousins married in the third or latter generations. Obviously, the probability of one particular harmful mutation following that exact trajectory wasn’t high, but since there are lots of mutations in each individual, first-cousin marriages had a pretty fair chance that one might pop up.

    But my impression of the scientific model might easily be wrong, since I’ve never taken a genetics course in my life…

    Reply

  12. and 2) i’ve never said, or never suggested (i hope!), that the whole inbreeding/outbreeding thing explains everything. it’s just one, additional selection pressure that needs (i think) to be added to the whole host of others out there that are acting upon humans.

    consanguinity certainly correlates with low average iqs (see here and here and my posts here and here). i suspect that there would be an even stronger correlation between how long a population has been inbreeding and low average iqs, but i have no way of showing that right now (there’s no good index showing time-depth of inbreeding for different human populations — i’m working on it, tho!).

    but inbreeding/outbreeding is hardly the only explanation for variance in average iqs across populations! i agree with greying wanderer about the broad differences between groups from different latitudes. this is probably, at least in part, due to pathogen load, but probably also in part due to the old “surviving in northern climes” theory.

    to give examples how inbreeding/outbreeding doesn’t explain all of the variance in iq, i offer the chinese and african americans. oh, and ashkenazi jews. if i’m right, the chinese have practiced a good deal of cousin and other endogamous marriage since 300-something b.c., but they certainly don’t seem to have the lowest of the low average iq scores. otoh, african americans were forced into outbreeding having been removed from their natal populations back in africa — and they must’ve been outbreeding for a couple of hundred years by now, but they’re not a bunch of rocket scientists. although, interestingly, they do have a higher average iq than africans back in africa. some of that is undoubtedly nutrition, but maybe (and note that i say maybe) some of that is due to all the outbreeding. finally, ashkenazi jews — certainly endogamously mating for most of their history in europe, even sometimes/often (i don’t know the rates) quite close consanguineous marriages (cousins and the uncle/niece thing) — but obviously you guys don’t have a low average iq! because other selection pressures were involved. in fact, perhaps sometimes inbreeding can be a good thing wrt iq — presumbably, given the circumstances in which medieval ashkenazi jews lived and the selection pressures that were placed on them which led to a high average iq, it was a good thing that there wasn’t much outbreeding with polish or russian peasants.

    i think in your original article you said something like: it’s complicated. it is, indeed!

    Reply

  13. @ron – “I’d always imagined that the problem tended to be a new point-mutation that popped up, being recessive remained hidden, then was passed down through two separate branches of the tree, and suddenly manifested itself when cousins married in the third or latter generations…. But my impression of the scientific model might easily be wrong, since I’ve never taken a genetics course in my life…”

    yes, your impression is absolutely right. but that just has to do with deleterious mutations.

    my idea is — and i don’t know if anyone else has suggested this or not — that, in additon to those nasty deleterious mutations, long-term inbreeding leads to a lower average iq just because low iq individuals are not weeded out of the population.

    in nw european societies, since sometime in the medieval period, it’s really been sink or swim for individuals, a la gregory’s clark’s A Farewell to Alms if you just add intelligence into his model along with his middle class values. the english and the dutch and the french and, to a slightly lesser extent i think, the germans have had to be successful largely on their own — or in alliance with other individuals — not having large, extended families to fall back on.

    otoh, think of how inbred clans/tribes operate. as far as i’ve read so far, they don’t throw the dullards out of their group. the clan takes care of everybody. often even makes sure they marry — and, therefore, pass on their not-quite-so-smart genes.

    here’s an example from modern egypt of what i mean:

    “The importance that poor peasants attach to the brokerage services by a single wealthy patron can be seen in the continuing importance of the extended family unit in rural Egypt. In the village of El-Diblah [pseudonymous village representative of upper egypt], as well as other Egyptian communities, politics and much of life itself are organized on the basis of large, extended families numbering 500 members or more. These extended families are broad patrilineal structures, which may or may not be able to trace themselves back to a single historical founder. While these extended families do not represent monolithic social structures, most fellahin are animated by a real feeling of belonging to a particular extended family unit. When they need a loan or help with outside government officials, poor peasants will often turn to the leader or a prominent person within their extended family. In the village of El-Diblah three of the four leading extended families are headed by rich peasants. In the eyes of most fellahin, this is exactly as it should be. In the countryside wealth acquired by virtually any means provides a good indication of an individual’s ability to deal with (or against) the ouside world.

    “‘Zaghlul,’ for example, is the rich peasant head of one of the leading extended families in El-Diblah. A short, wiry 55-year-old fellah, whose dress and mannerisms are almost indistinguishable from those of other peasants in the village, Zaghlul now owns about 25 feddans of land. Much of this land is planted in sugar cane, a crop that he uses to supply his own cane press that produces black molasses for local sale. As the owner of 25 feddans of land, and the proprietor of one of the few ‘manufacturing’ enterprises in the village, Zaghlul is able to dispense a wide number of agricultural and non-agricultrual work opportunities to favored members of his extended family. Many of the poorer members of his extended family live in a mud-brick settlement surrounding Zaghlul’s modern two-story, red-brick house. In the evenings a steady stream of these poor people come to Zaghlul’s house, seeking brokerage and intercessionary services (for example, help in securing agricultural inputs and medical services from the government)….“

    see? different selection pressures in inbred societies. and the reason for the altruistic behavior of the smarter members of these clans to the not-so-smart members lies somewhere in inclusive fitness theory (i think).

    edit: of course, this doesn’t seem to have happened in the case of ashkenazi jews, the selection pressures being different. again, inbreeding/outbreeding doesn’t explain everything automatically. (it’s not magic. it’s biology!)

    Reply

  14. @luke – “…pick on your weakest opponent….”

    oy! i know i have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but i have the heart and stomach of a king…!

    (~_^)

    Reply

  15. Mexican mestizos are probably the most outbred people on the planet.

    “Looking at lower-income mestizos in Mexico City, Lisker (1995) found that the average mestizo admixture to be 59% Amerindian, 34% European (oft. Spaniard), and 6% Black. ”

    And Mexicans are just as dumb as ever. Notwithstanding Unz’s propaganda, mestizos have an average IQ around 80 – 86.

    And they are just as clannish and as violent as ever. See Mexican gang-bangers in action.

    Reply

  16. “The CIA World Fact Book estimates that 60% of Mexicans are mestizos (and another 30% Amerindian)”

    Reply

  17. @ron – “Offhand, it seems to me that my hypothesis and yours both tend to support the reality of a large apparent rise in Mex-Am IQ, which is probably the issue provoking the most heated debate.”

    i forgot to say: don’t you forget, ron, that there’s more to this debate about mexican immigration than just will their iqs go up (and then will everything be ok). apart from more current issues (like immigrants taking jobs from americans during a recession/depression), there are other human biodiversity metrics to be considered, too — for the long-term scenario, i mean.

    Reply

  18. HBDChick: my idea is — and i don’t know if anyone else has suggested this or not — that, in additon to those nasty deleterious mutations, long-term inbreeding leads to a lower average iq just because low iq individuals are not weeded out of the population.

    But then I wouldn’t really call it a consequence of inbreeding, but a consequence of social relations that you claim might be connected with inbreeding, which is something entirely different.

    Here’s a clarifying example. Suppose someone argued that Christianity was associated with low-IQ, because Christian charity tends to support the least successful members of a population. Offhand, I think that would be just as plausible or perhaps more so than your inbreeding speculation.

    Inbreeding depression caused by harmful recessives is a hard scientific fact. I’d really put these other sorts of arguments more in the hand-waving category…

    Reply

  19. @ron – “But then I wouldn’t really call it a consequence of inbreeding, but a consequence of social relations that you claim might be connected with inbreeding, which is something entirely different.”

    there are clear connections between inbreeding and different types of social relations, as you put it — i.e. more individualistic vs. collectivistic. the rest of what i said follows if you think in terms evolution by natural selection. it may not be right, of course — needs to be demonstrated. but i’m working on that. (~_^)

    Reply

  20. j

    “A dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding.”

    Not now. But 600 years ago a dane from one ancient-valley moving to a town and breeding with another dane from a different ancient-valley was outbreeding hence why after x hundred years danes are outbred however because of the low population size even though they are outbred danes are still highly (and relatively equally) related to other danes. Which i think will turn out to be the human ideal.

    This stuff starts at the extended family level and works outwards from there imo.

    (Ashkenazi Jews may actually turn out to be a stop-start variation on this.)

    Reply

  21. Ron
    “Wouldn’t this just as easily explain the huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs, since they’re coming from rural villages with significant inbreeding and moving to cities where there’s very little?”

    Yes. I’m not a hard IQ hereditarian in that way. I think things are innate and hereditary *at a single point in time* but over generations they can change for whatever reason. I do (currently) think there’s likely to be a latitudinal bands of IQ which limit the maximum average and i also think populations have significant behavioral differences (e.g. violence within a population will be related to how recently that population left the tribal clan-warfare stage) but those are separate arguments.

    Reply

  22. Ron
    “Well, I’ve always seen inbreeding discussed in the context of first-cousin marriages”

    Yes, same here and i think that’s part of it too but it didn’t quite seem big enough on its own to explain the cultural attitude to inbreeding and the ideas relating to genetic load mentioned on cochran & harpending’s blog seemed like they *might* fit the bill.

    Reply

  23. hubchik
    “long-term inbreeding leads to a lower average iq just because low iq individuals are not weeded out of the population…in nw european societies, since sometime in the medieval period, it’s really been sink or swim for individuals”

    Yes, whether it’s specific very bad genes from cousin-marriage or a build-up of genetic load (lots of genes of minor negative impact which collectively have a big impact) some cultures create a *mechanism* for shedding some of that load and some cultures create a mechanism for *preventing* that load being shed.

    Reply

  24. “But then I wouldn’t really call it a consequence of inbreeding, but a consequence of social relations”

    Social relations that encourage or discourage (not neccessarily intentionally) inbreeding.

    Reply

  25. Just to repeat there are two arguments here. One is over the data itself and one is other what model would best fit *if* you believe the data says a certain thing. I’m only in the second argument.

    Also i’m throwing cochran’s genetic load idea into hubchik’s consanquinity and culture idea because i think it will turn out to greatly strengthen the case but i don’t know how widely accepted the genetic load idea is yet.

    Reply

  26. (A better answer to the one i gave above would have been)

    j
    “A dane breeding with a german is not outbreeding.”

    Not now. But 600 years ago a Dane from one ancient-valley moving to a town and breeding with another Dane from a different ancient-valley only 20 miles away was outbreeding hence why after x hundred years Danes are already outbred*. This stuff starts at the extended family level and works outwards from there imo.

    (*I’m defining an outbred population as one which has
    (1) partially averaged out relatedness across the whole national population.
    (2) adopted a culture adapted to an outbred population which culture has then in turn adapted them further through cultural selective pressures.
    (3) got rid of much more of their genetic load than non outbred groups.)

    However because Danes were mostly outbreeding within a national boundary and with a relatively small total national population, even though they are outbred, Danes are still highly (and relatively equally) related to other Danes. Which i think will turn out to be the human ideal.

    (Ashkenazi Jews may turn out to be a stop-start version of the same thing.)

    Reply

  27. @g.w. – “Yes, whether it’s specific very bad genes from cousin-marriage or a build-up of genetic load (lots of genes of minor negative impact which collectively have a big impact) some cultures create a *mechanism* for shedding some of that load and some cultures create a mechanism for *preventing* that load being shed.”

    brilliant!! nicely put together. (^_^) i betcha that’s it (or pretty durned close to it).

    Reply

  28. These things may need different names but calling them all inbreeding for now i think inbreeding is likely to be made up of three components:

    1) Standard large-effect recessive gene cousin thing.
    2) A version of (1) that can happen where you have a low breeding population over a long time where a lot of people have a recessive large-effect gene.
    3) Genetic load shedding as partially a function of pop. density and partially culture.

    The large-effect genes in (2) couldn’t be too fatal and couldn’t reduce individual fitness too much or not at all if everyone else in that ancient-valley had the same thing, like height maybe. Similarly, if it’s (3) then if a random Brad Pitt spawns in one ancient-valley and moves to a town and meets a random Angelina Jolie from a different ancient-valley then the average genetic load of the population would be lower than if they’d both stayed put.

    Either way, if either are partly correct then i think a lot of the results from height data might show the effect – especially if it’s from within a single country.

    For example

    http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/marital-distance-and-height-of-children.html

    “Analyses revealed that marital distance, midparental height, and SES had a significant effect on height in boys and girls.”

    Reply

  29. But let’s say you’re 100% right and I’m 100% wrong, and the reason for the huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America is because of the ending of rural inbreeding rather than the urban social environment I hypothesize.

    I hate to have to keep beating this dead horse, but .. there are no “huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America”.

    A lot of people around here seem to be in the habit of constructing an elaborate hypothesis in an attempt to explain a faulty assumption. Once you wrap your head around the fact that the Irish in Ireland have essentially the same IQ as the Irish in America, you don’t have to expend all this effort in trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

    Reply

  30. “Well, I’ve always seen inbreeding discussed in the context of first-cousin marriages”

    hbdchicks use of the term is a little bit elastic, but the concept is elastic as well.

    Reply

  31. “the huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs”

    Since I’m sure Ron won’t deign to answer my question, does anybody else know what his claim about a “huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs” is based on? Even using the crappy wordsum metric, Mex-Am IQ appears to be just a little above that of blacks.

    Reply

  32. @frank – “does anybody else know what his claim about a ‘huge apparent rise in Mex-Am IQs’ is based on?”

    yeah, wordsum scores. but chuck (the occidentalist) showed very clearly that on several other intelligence tests there have been no increases in mexican-american scores, so that part of the discussion is over, afaiac. it’s just not the case.

    Reply

  33. @frank – “I hate to have to keep beating this dead horse, but .. there are no ‘huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America’.”

    but there are gaps (dunno how huge or not) between the iq/pisa scores of southern italians & greeks and northern europeans in europe today. and southern spaniards, too, for that matter. see the reluctant apostate’s maps here.

    i fully agree, however, that it has not been established that the iqs of any of these european groups were high or low in the past (back in europe) and then either decreased or increased in the u.s. over the past few generations. so far as i’ve seen, there are no good data for the iqs of the immigrants. not that have been presented so far anyway.

    Reply

  34. Frank
    “I hate to have to keep beating this dead horse, but .. there are no ‘huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America’.”

    You seem to be completely misunderstanding the whole argument. No one is saying that. Some people are saying there were huge gaps in the past in both Europe and America and that those gaps have mostly closed in America (or re-opened slightly but in different directions) and have partially, mostly or completely closed in Europe varying with each individual case (mainly i’d suggest relative to levels of urbanization / industrialization / population density whch in turn will often be a proxy for how mountainous / remote the region is).

    Reply

  35. Frank

    “A lot of people around here seem to be in the habit of constructing an elaborate hypothesis in an attempt to explain a faulty assumption…you don’t have to expend all this effort in trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

    But you do.

    The misunderstanding here is between science and politics. If someone constructs a politcal model based on science then an argument over the data is a strong argument among scientists but among the public it is moot because they don’t know who is telling the truth over the data so they end up discounting it. This leaves them with just the model. So scientifically it might make sense to argue over the data but politically it is entirely pointless to *just* argue over the data. However if you construct a model that better fits the purported data (regardless of whether or not the data is correct) then the public are left with two models to decide between.

    As it happens i do think the anecdata, if researched properly and turned into data, would show that inbreeding both in the intentional near-cousin sense, the unintentional near-cousin sense (simply via very low pop. density) and the genetic load sense, has various depressive effects for different reasons and therefore with different cures but even if i didn’t believe it if you have someone using science as the basis for a political model then you need a competing model or their model wins by default.

    Reply

  36. The misunderstanding here is between science and politics.

    Eh? I really don’t know what you’re talking about here. Who is the public, who are the scientists, and who are the politicians around here? (I guess Ron Unz might count as a politician)

    Reply

  37. You seem to be completely misunderstanding the whole argument. No one is saying that.

    You seem a little slow on the uptake, since in my comment which you replied to I specifically quoted somebody saying exactly the thing which you claim nobody is saying!

    Here is is again.

    But let’s say you’re 100% right and I’m 100% wrong, and the reason for the huge apparent IQ gaps between Irish, Greeks, South Italians, etc. in Europe and America is because of the ending of rural inbreeding rather than the urban social environment I hypothesize.

    Yes, dammit, somebody is saying that.

    Some people are saying there were huge gaps in the past in both Europe and America

    Yes, there are people here saying that as well. As is the custom around these parts, they don’t back up what they say with anything resembling hard evidence.

    Reply

  38. Frank
    “Yes, dammit, somebody is saying that.”

    Sorry, i meant nobody but Mr Unz.

    Reply

  39. Did you consider Americans of German descent like the Amish, Mennonites, who do, for the most part, marry within their own group? I would think this constitutes inbreeding.

    Reply

  40. @betsy – “Did you consider Americans of German descent like the Amish, Mennonites, who do, for the most part, marry within their own group? I would think this constitutes inbreeding.

    yes. small populations, even if they don’t purposefully marry their first cousins, will inevitably inbreed. they probably wind up marrying some sort of distant cousin (3rd, 4th, fth) even if they avoid marrying their first cousins.

    the amish, i’m pretty sure, don’t marry their first cousins as a regular, encouraged practice (i think), but the mennonites do — some of them anyway. 33% consanguineous (that could be anything from 1st to 2nd cousin marriage, or even uncle-niece) marriages in 1980 in mennonites in kansas [pg. 2 here – pdf file].

    the thing to remember, though, is that these groups sprang from a comparatively outbred group — the germans (see mating patterns in europe series below in left-hand column — particularly the posts about the germans) — so while the amish/mennonites have kinda reversed the oubreeding project of the germans on the whole, they haven’t come from a long-term inbreeding group like the arabs — or (probably) the southern italians. still, some of them have started to act rather silly lately…. (~_^)

    iirc, i couldn’t find any amish/mennoites surveyed in the gss, so, no — they’re not included here.

    Reply

Leave a 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