Inductivist

Let me show you a typical move by a liberal researcher (redundant).  Imagine you want to show that blacks face bias when applying for a job.  A liberal propagandist will simply cite a statistic that blacks get turned down more often than whites as proof of discrimination. 

The researcher knows that anyone with two brain cells will counter that, "There might be reasons other than bias that blacks are less likely to get the job. They might be less likely to have preferred qualifications like a college degree."

So the researcher does a statistical analysis that adjusts for education. When the racial effect persists, the analyst concludes that it is due to discrimination.  An obvious problem with this approach is that it is assumed that race is a measure of bias. You assume what you're trying to demonstrate.

Having said that, I'm going to do exactly what the progressives do, only with my own preferred theory.

I wrote recently how Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending theorize that groups that have deeper histories of agriculture will differ in personality traits. They argue that success at farming requires the ability to plan for the long-term and the discipline to carry out the plan. If you eat your seed grain, you will have nothing to plant in the spring.

Length of agricultural goes like this from longest to shortest: Middle Eastern, Chinese/Europe, sub-Saharan African, and Native American. So the level of planning and discipline--called "conscientiousness" by personality researchers--should follow the same pattern.  We don't have an adequate number of Middle Easterners in the General Social Survey sample, so let's include Jews to represent this group. We also add Hindus as another group with a long agricultural history.

The dependent variable in the regression model is years of education and the predictors include IQ plus dummies for all these ethnic groups.  The idea behind the model is that one's education is determined by his IQ and his level conscientiousness. Once we adjust for IQ, if the ethnic dummies are still significantly related to education, this reflects conscientiousness.  I chose blacks to be the reference group since they are a large group with a shorter (and more isolated) agricultural history, and so they should be toward the low end of conscientiousness.

Here are the results (sample size = 8,898):

Years of education (standardized OLS regression coefficients)
IQ   0.43***
Jewish   0.06****
East Asian  0.03***
Hindu   0.02
White  0.01
Hispanic   -0.02*
Native American   -0.07***
Other race  -0.02

The results are dominated by IQ.  It's a powerful predictor (contrary to what N.N. Taleb says. He would say IQ-like tests get you into the school, so it's circular, but the test doesn't finish your degree for you).  Jews and East Asians finish more years of education than what is predicted by their IQs. Hispanics and especially Native Americans complete less schooling than their IQ's predict.

Following my approach, the data suggest that Jews and East Asians have high levels of consciousness, while Native Americans and Hispanics (who are part Native American) are significantly less conscientious than blacks--the reference group.
 

A good income is associated with positive characteristics like industriousness and intelligence, traits that are strongly influenced by genes.  High-income adults are obviously in the best position to have large families.  Do they?  Look at the graph (General Social Survey, 2010-2016, women ages 40-55, household income in 1986 dollars, N = 1,325):
















While women with two children have higher incomes than those with no children, income tends to fall as family size increases beyond two kids.  Compared to families with eight or more kids, two-child families earn more than double the household income.

Here's the graph for men ages 45-60 (N = 1,170):
















We see a similar pattern for men, although the income drop beyond two kids is perhaps not as steep as for women. (Don't make much of the high bar for men with seven kids: it's based on only four cases.)

We're seeing the same kind of pattern again and again: Americans who are in the best position to have a big family are least likely to do so.

With these trends, the long-term future will go to the people on the bottom of American society -- the people who have the least genetic potential.

In my view, people in the human biodiversity (HBD) community have a tendency to focus on the importance of IQ to the exclusion of other traits.  Don't get me wrong: general intelligence is IMPORTANT, but so are traits like conscientiousness. 

One reason why we don't write much about personality traits is that the science is not as developed. We typically have to rely on self-report data to measure personality, and such an approach has obvious limitations.

I agree with the view that educational level reflects conscientiousness as well as intelligence.  It's takes planning and self-discipline to stay in school and to spend so much time learning about topics that only we nerds find interesting.

Here's a bar graph depicting the current mean number of offspring for women ages 40-55 by years of education completed (General Social Survey, N = 1,443):
















I assume that people with only a few years of education are immigrants from countries where this sort of thing is common.  Women with less than a high school education average more than three kids.  Compare this to the mean of 1.4 kids for those with 20 years of schooling.

Consciousness as well as IQ are heritable, so if I'm right that educational level reflects both, current social trends are selecting for low intelligence AND low self-discipline.  Not good.

The Alt-Right makes a big deal about IQ, and rightly so, but I just ran across this meta-analysis of dozens of studies that shows that the supertrait of conscientiousness--basically self-discipline--is just about as predictive of academic performance as intelligence.