Inductivist

When it comes to having kids, it's possible that whites are more sensitive to the cost of living than are blacks or Hispanics. Perhaps the racial differences in fertility are smaller in inexpensive regions. Using General Social Survey (GSS) data, I calculated the mean number of offspring for women ages 40-59 during the years 2010-18.  The GSS records the region of the country in which the respondent lives. There are nine regions: I decided to compare the Pacific (west coast) and West South Central (TX, LA, OK, AR) regions since the former is expensive while the latter is more affordable.


Mean number of offspring
Pacific
Hispanic    2.92
Black         2.08
White         1.75

West South Central 
Hispanic    2.55
Black         2.27
White         2.11

As expected, Hispanic fertility is highest in both regions, while whites are on the bottom. While black and white women have more kids in the WSC region, Hispanic women in the Pacific have bigger families than Hispanics in the WSC, contrary to expectations.

Look at how the racial gap in the WSC is smaller than in the Pacific region. The Hispanic-white gap in the former is .44 kids, while it is 1.17 in the latter. Comparatively speaking, whites benefit from living in low-cost regions.

Do whites benefit when they move from a high-cost to an inexpensive region? The best I could do to answer this question with GSS data was to use a question about where you lived at age 16.  I extended the time span to 2000-2018 to get a large enough sample size and focused on a move from the Pacific to the Mountain region since it was the most common expensive-to-cheap move.

Mean number of offspring--whites

Pacific to Mountain States   2.17
Stayed in Pacific                  1.71

You can see that whites who lived in the Pacific region at age 16 but subsequently moved to the Mountain States averaged more kids than those who did not move out of the region. The move to cheaper regions seems to help fertility.



             

With the rise of militant, celebrity atheists, quite a bit of attention has been devoted to data that show that atheists tend to be smarter than theists.  Race realists are likely to rely on IQ to explain the greater religiosity of blacks and Hispanics.

I can think of another factor that might help explain these patterns: having a sense of control over one's fate, called locus of control by psychologists. As a religious person myself, I see that some people get interested in religion when they feel helpless. They turn to God when there is trouble they can't seem to handle. Many of my irreligious colleagues seem very in charge of their lives; they've got it all under control.

I've also read research that indicates that poor minorities tend to feel that they do not control their life outcomes. This is called an external locus of control. Maybe this sense of vulnerability explains their stronger belief in God.

The General Social Survey asked respondents, "Do you agree or disagree with the following: We each make our own fate." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5).

They were also asked about their confidence in the existence of God with responses ranging from "don't believe" (1) to "know God really exists and have no doubts about it" (6). As a first step, let's use OLS regression analysis to see if race is linked to belief in God and locus of control (sample size = 741):

Confidence in the existence of God (standardized OLS coefficients)
Black   .13***

Hispanics did not differ from whites significantly in belief in God, so we'll focus on blacks. They have greater confidence in God's existence.


External locus of control
Black   .06**

Compared to non-blacks, blacks are more likely to think they do not make their own fate. Now let's look at race, IQ, and belief.


Confidence in the existence of God
IQ   -.16***

As expected, we see IQ is associated with more doubting, but the correlation is weak.


Confidence in the existence of God
Black   .10***
IQ   -.14***

Recall how the black estimate for belief was .13 when only race was entered into the model. We see that when IQ is added, the black coefficient shrinks but does not disappear. This indicates that some of the greater belief by blacks is explained in terms of lower IQ, but much of the gap remains unexplained. Let's add locus of control:

Confidence in the existence of God
Black   .00
IQ   -.14***
External locus of control  .18***

When external locus of control is added, the race coefficient drops to zero. Much of the reason why blacks are more likely to believe in God is because of a sense of helplessness.  And when it comes to predicting belief, an external locus of control is more powerful than IQ.

This is a reminder than while HBD-ers are right to focus on intelligence, there are other consequential traits. Moreover, there is evidence that locus of control, like practically all psychological traits, is genetically influenced. According to this twin study, about 1/3 of the variation of a sense of control over your own life is due to genes.

Steve Sailer was debating yesterday with some immigration researcher about whether Hispanics litter more than whites. The American Housing Survey asks respondents if there is trash within half a block of their residence (sample size = 21,720). I show below the percentage of people by race who say there is a little or a lot:

Percent with litter within half a block

Blacks  15.9
American Indians  10.2
Hispanics  9.6
Whites  6.2
Asians  5.2

This is a racial/ethnic pattern that pops again and again with respect to all kinds of antisocial behavior: blacks and Native Americans are at the top, Hispanics are higher than whites, and Asians are better than everyone else. On the specific issue of Hispanics vs. whites, the percentage saying yes about trash is 1 1/2 times higher for Hispanics.

What are the patterns of inter-racial violence?

This report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics is an analysis of 2012-15 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data based on hundreds of thousands of American households. Victims of any kind of violence (assault/battery, robbery, rape) are asked about the specifics of the crimes committed, including the race and Hispanic status of offenders. Of course, we don't have data on homicides since "dead men tell no tales."

Adjusting for group size, I calculated the ratio of black-on-white crimes versus white-on-black crimes. Blacks are 6.3 times more likely to attack whites than the reverse.

Hispanics are 1.7 times more likely to commit some kind of violence against whites than whites against Hispanics.

Finally, blacks are 4.8 times more likely to assault Hispanics than vice-versa.

Elites always portray whites as the victimizers, but when it comes to rape, robbery, and assault (and murder which shows the same patterns) whites are most likely to be the victims, and blacks the perpetrators.

UPDATE: Looking at the numbers, what drives the large black-white difference is that despite the large numbers of whites in the population, their share of all black victimizers is small. Whites rarely attack non-whites. Their violence is confined mostly to other whites. 

Over the years, people like me have disagreed with Ron Unz that the rate of serious crime by Hispanics is not much different than that of whites.

Analysts typically rely on police or imprisonment data to estimate Hispanic/White differences, but Hispanics are significantly less likely than whites to report crimes to the police. Since Latinos are typically victimized by other Latinos (crime is typically intra-ethnic), there is an undercount of crime committed by Hispanics.

Using victim data is a method around this problem.  The National Crime Victimization Survey contacts tens of thousands of people each year to ask them about being victimized.  We can use these statistics as proxies of crime rates for various races/ethnicities. I took the estimates for 2014-2018 and averaged them since there is quite a bit of annual error, especially in a group as small as Asians.  Here are the percentages of people who were victimized by serious crime in the past year:

Percent victimized
Blacks  2.1
Hispanics  2.1
Whites  1.6
Asians  1.0
Other  3.1

See how the rates for Hispanics and blacks are the same. Prevalences for whites and especially Asians are significantly lower.

I doubt serious criminality among Latinos is exactly the same as blacks. While most crimes are intra-racial, some of the victimizations of whites, Latinos, and Asians are by blacks committing robbery or assault.

By the way, I assume that the "Other" category is mostly American Indians. Their very high prevalence is consistent with Cochran and Harpending's hypothesis that racial groups with deep histories of agriculture and powerful states experienced selection for docile and self-disciplined individuals.  Criminological research has found that criminals tend to be impulsive and disagreeable.  As people with shorter histories under agrarian states, Native Americans might have a higher percentage of these types.

Research indicates that the typical criminal has an IQ of around 90.  Since the mean IQ of Hispanics is in the same range, I wondered if the deportation of criminals is not eugenic for the Hispanic population.

Using General Social Survey (GSS) data, I estimated mean IQ for Hispanics who have ever been arrested and those who haven't.  I limited the sample to native-born Latinos since IQ tests in English are biased against people who don't speak English well (sample size = 92).

Arrestees have a mean IQ of 92.2.  For non-arrestees, the mean is 92.9--not much higher.

So it looks like removing criminal aliens does not raise Hispanic IQ.  On the other hand, removing them does help the US IQ which is around 97.  Also--removing criminals makes the Hispanic and US population less criminal. 

Richard Lynn's new book Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality describes hundreds of studies conducted around the world. One American study that strikes me is a simple one of racial differences in doing one's homework that is described on page 61.

The mean number of hours studied per week by high school seniors looks like this: Asians, 3.9; whites, 3.4; Hispanics and blacks, 2.0.  Asian teens study roughly twice as much as other minorities.

Academic apologists work full-time concocting reasons for the racial gaps we see, but how do we blame homework differences on malevolent, discriminatory whites?  Homework is done at home with no whites looking over your shoulder. The schools provide even poor minority kids with books and materials for assignments. Parents and kids simply decide how much time gets devoted to studying.

You might respond that minority kids are given less homework because of the "bigotry of low expectations." But why do Asians do more than whites?  If you answer that schools are just following stereotypes, so schools with lots of Asian students assign more homework, it simply starts to seem like schools might respond to what students are like, or hardworking families select schools with higher expectations.

It just becomes absurd to pin these racial gaps on anything at all bad that whites do.  Again and again,  we see that whites are mediocre.  What sort of white supremacist country sorts whites into the undistinguished middle?  I want a better brand of supremacy!

After reading Lynn's descriptions on more than 700 studies from dozens of countries, Occam's Razor demands the simplest explanation: the races are internally different.

I doubt the Hispanic crime rate is similar to that of whites. Let's put aside police statistics and victim surveys because both depend on someone reporting the crime, and immigrants are notorious for failing to report crimes out of fear of authorities.  And arrest data also depend on law enforcement policies.

Criminologists understand that homicide is a good measure of serious violent crime because corpses advertise crimes loudly.

The CDC has a neat website for analyzing mortality data.  I looked at homicide rates for 2017, the most recent year available. Here are the rates per 100,000 in the specific population:

Homicide Rate
Black  23.0
American Indian  9.7
Hispanic  5.3
White  2.8
Asian  1.7

Not surprisingly, blacks are at the top with a rate that is 13 1/2 times the Asian rate.  American Indians are second with a rate that is 5.7 times that of Asians.  This reminds me of Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending's hypothesis (if I remember correctly) that Native Americans never got pacified by centuries of the state weeding out the most violent.  Henry and Peter Frost published a paper three years ago that found that the English proclivity to execute criminals with abandon resulted in a country with a homicide rate that is a tiny fraction of what it was a 1,000 years ago.

Criminologists excuse black violence by blaming criminogenic urban environments. If living in a big city is the key to violence, why are rural Indians so murderous? Genes explain better than sociology.

When it comes to homicide, Hispanics resemble their racial reality: they are somewhere between American Indians and whites. Looking at Latin America, I'm pretty sure crime is a more serious problem for Hispanics than it is for whites.

The General Social Survey (GSS) had interviewers rate the skin tone of respondents from 1 (lightest) to 10 (darkest). This can serve as a rough proxy of European ancestry. GSS also gave them a ten-question vocabulary quiz which is highly correlated with verbal IQ.  I limited the analysis to Hispanics born in this country who self-identified as white (N= 185).

The correlation between IQ and skin tone is -.28, which indicates a medium-strength association between European ancestry and higher intelligence. 

A new meta-analysis of 24 studies found that ethnic minorities are at higher risk than members of the majority to have psychotic experiences (odds ratio = 1.4) and symptoms (odds ratio = 1.4). The risk was highest for minorities from the Maghreb (Northwest Africa) and the Middle East (odds ratio = 3.3) living in Europe, and Hispanics (odds ratio = 2.0)  and blacks (odds ratio = 1.9) in the United States. The authors also reported a heightened risk of delusional symptoms among immigrants (odds ratio = 1.5).

Of course, the researchers suggest discrimination is the cause of these manifestations of mental illness, but whether it's due to social or biological causes (or both) why don't we have folks stay in their home countries? It's better for us, and it might be better for them.

This meta-analysis of 58 studies documented the "Hispanic Paradox": Latinos are generally healthier and live longer than whites and blacks. To be specific, their rate of dying is 18% lower than that of other Americans.

This kind of finding keeps sociologists up at night because racism by whites is supposed to destroy brown lives, and yet Hispanics outlive whites, and what do people care about more than being alive?

The obvious candidate explanation is that genes are the reason Hispanics live so long, and the authors do manage to write two or three words about the possibility.

Sociologists are also very troubled to find that women live so much longer than men since male oppression, they tell us, absolutely crushes the female soul. And right on time, feminists dream up a million reasons why the sex difference is NOT biological. God forbid we actually develop explanations that fit the data. 

The study also reports that Asians live even longer than Hispanics. But how can any minority overcome the Evil White Man? Not only are Asians non-white, many are non-Christian. And many are immigrants. And we all know Trump's Deplorables--the power structure of this country (ha!)--despise anyone who is not white, Christian, and American.

So, again, how is it possible that Asian Americans are so healthy? How is it that they are so much more educated than the White Devil, and make so much more money than him? Maybe because liberals are 100% delusional, and genes explain these patterns.

I showed recently that some of the reason that Asians tend to vote Democrat is that they are, on average, younger than whites. Let's now see if this is true of Hispanics. Using GSS data, here are the percentage who voted for Romney in 2012:

Percent Voting for Romney

Hispanics
Ages 18-44  15.5
Ages 45+  24.1

Whites
Ages 18-44  47.8
Ages 45+  49.1

You can see than young Hispanics are very liberal. Older Hispanics are liberal, too, just a little less so.  The mean age of whites in 2012 was 49.4. It was only 40.9 for Hispanics, so they are a much younger group. Conclusion: Part of the reason why Hispanics are so much more liberal than whites is because they are younger, but even if their average age was that of whites, they would still be a liberal group.

Average IQ is a good measure of how well a group will do in the United States. A low IQ accurately predicts more problems in a community. Let's see where various Hispanic groups are at. To set white Americans at a mean IQ of 100, I had to set the mean IQ for all Americans at 96.5. This indicates that US IQ has dropped to a level lower than many European and East Asian countries. The results shown below are limited to Hispanics born in the US, since the measure of IQ is a vocabulary test in English, and foreigners are at a disadvantage.

Mean IQ

White Spanish 100.3
White Cuban 99.2
White Mexican 91.5
Mexican--other race 90.5
White Puerto Rican 90.3
Black Puerto Rican 88.4
Puerto Rican--other race 84.0

The only groups with IQs similar to white Americans as a whole are people who describe themselves as White Spanish or White Cuban. We would expect these folks to assimilate well into mainstream America. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, for example, are white Cubans.

For the remaining groups, the average IQs are much lower, ranging from 84 for non-white Puerto Ricans  to 91.5 for self-described White Mexicans. Many Hispanics consider themselves to be white which ignores the fact that most have some American Indian ancestry. As you can see, the IQ difference between white and non-white Hispanics is small. These groups are much more similar to each other than they are to non-Hispanic whites. At least in terms of IQ, it makes sense to lump white and non-white Hispanics into one group, but white Cuban Americans and those who call themselves Spanish should be lumped in with whites.

Based on average IQ, we expect these Hispanic groups with low numbers to fare poorly in the United States, and since IQ is a stable, highly heritable trait, the poor performance is likely to continue indefinitely.  

 

One way to measure recklessness is by accidental gun accidents. Research shows that these accidents typically involve young males who are playing around with a firearm, often while drinking.

Using CDC Wonder, I calculated rates for fatal gun accidents (FGAs) by race. I also separated Hispanics versus non-Hispanics. Since some groups have higher percentages of older people who are less likely to have an accident, I focus on those in the 15 to 24 age group.

Fatal Gun Accidents Rates

American Indian  0.8
Blacks  0.7
Whites 0.4
Hispanics  0.3
Asian  0.1

The risk for an accident will be greater for groups with higher levels of gun ownership. According to the General Social Surveys (years 2010, 2012, 2014) home gun ownership looks like this: Amerindians, 42%; blacks, 17%; whites, 40%; Hispanics, 19%; Asians, 16%.  If we adjust for exposure by dividing accident rate by the proportion of the group with guns, we get this:


Fatal Gun Accident Index

Blacks  4.2
American Indians  1.9
Hispanics  1.6
Whites  1.0
Asians  0.6

So recklessness among groups is highest for blacks and lowest for Asians.  In fact, the index for blacks is 7 times that of Asians.  I think I hear Phil Rushton's voice from the other side: "See, I told you so."

The high rate among Amerindians is also consistent with Cochran and Harpending's contention that these people have not been selected for tameness like other groups by many centuries of state control.

Would someone explain why the national media goes on endlessly about the critical importance of the Latino vote? According to this 538 table, Hispanic might is really only felt in states that are clearly blue (ie., California) or clearly red (i.e., Texas). Very small percentages of voting Hispanics in 2008 were in swing states. Focusing on this year's key states, the share of all Hispanic voters was one percent in Nevada and North Carolina. It was two percent of all Hispanic voters in Ohio and Virginia. It was only three percent in Colorado. The share is large only in Florida, but the state is not filled with Mexican Americans demanding amnesty for their illegal co-ethnics. Plus, come hell or high water, Latinos vote 2-to-1 for Democrats, so they are not swing voters but part of the Democrat base.

I watch the polls very closely, and Romney is doing surprisingly well in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan (or more precisely, Obama is doing surprisingly badly, especially when one considers the auto bailout). All the Hispandering, in addition to pandering to homosexuals and women who want free birth control, seems to be causing a reaction among working-class whites in the Rust Belt. Blue-collar whites vote in much larger numbers than Latinos in swing states, but Big Media doesn't give a shit about them.

Using FBI statistics, Audacious Epigone shows that blacks are much more likely than whites to commit an anti-gay hate crime. From the same table, I can calculate the difference for hate crimes involving Hispanic victims. The population-adjusted rate is 1.6 times higher for blacks than whites. This is another indication that blacks have a more serious problem with hate violence than whites. (The rate difference might be inflated some since the "white" numbers include Hispanics who are less likely to commit hates crimes against their own. On the other hand, keep in mind that "Hispanics" include many national groups, members of whom might not like each other.)

This FBI webpage lists the percentage of offenders of any type of hate crime by race. The population-adjusted rate for blacks is 1.8 times that of whites for 2010--the latest year available.

A new study from Homones and Behavior reveals a black-white difference among children in cortisol levels throughout the day. A flatter diurnal slope is associated with more chronic stress and health problems.

As shown in the graph, whites wake up with a significantly higher level which then falls more quickly throughout the day. The different slope remains even when the following factors are controlled: age, gender, non-steroid medication usage, sleep, wake time, socioeconomic risk, psychosocial risk, perceived discrimination, harsh parenting, and parental monitoring.

Compared to blacks, the slope for Hispanics is more similar to whites, although Hispanics do have lower cortisol levels than whites by evening time.

The authors suggest that since morning levels of cortisol are known to be influenced by genes, the racial difference might be due, in part, to genetic differences.

How exactly does the Republican candidate who talks the toughest against illegal immigration get the highest share of Hispanic votes in the Arizona primary? I suspect that Hispanics are not quite as race-faithful as liberals wish they were.  Not to worry, folks: they'll vote for you anyway because that's what perennially poor people do.

Here's one more bit of evidence that Hispanic "representatives" lie about their community being obsessed with the illegal immigration issue.

According to a Miami Herald poll of likely voters, Romney beats Obama by 16 points (53% v 37%) among Florida Hispanics. Now how does a Republican who says that all illegals should go home and get in the back of the line for legal permission to enter this country do so well among Latinos in Florida? Because they're mostly Cubans and Puerto Ricans who simply don't care about the illegal issue. Like other Americans, their first priority is more jobs. (Of course, Cubans care about Cuba, too.) Romney shows that you can talk tough about illegals and still win.  

Drug Use Trajectory participants were asked: "Based on your experience, a person could be counted on to do what they say if that person was Black." Answers ranged from "strongly agree" (1) to "strongly disagree" (5). Here are the means by race/ethnicity (sample size = 1,795):

Mean "can't count on blacks" score

Whites 1.61
Hispanics 1.90*
Black Hispanics 2.28*
Blacks 2.88*

*significantly higher than whites

Blacks--both Hispanic and non-Hispanic--are much less likely to agree that blacks can be counted on. The gap in attitude between blacks and whites is huge--1.1 standard deviations. Whites have nicer views of blacks than Hispanics do, and they have a much more positive view of blacks than blacks have of themselves. So much for the idea that white attitudes make blacks feel bad about themselves.