Sunday, May 01, 2016

Hispanic IQ in the United States

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.  

 

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Race is more powerful than income

Marxists tell us that money is more powerful than anything else. I'm not so sure. Watching the primaries has reminded me of the power of race.

Which predicts voting patterns better: income or race/ethnicity?  I want to compare all large ethnic groups in America, so let's choose Americans (like myself) of English descent as our comparison group since they were mostly likely to vote for Romney in 2012. For the first comparison, let's look at blacks. I ran a regression that includes this racial dichotomy along with income as predictors, voting for Obama over Romney as the outcome variable, and I list the standardized coefficients below:

Black  .60
Income  -.05

Income does not predict voting, but race is an extremely powerful predictor: Blacks were MUCH more likely than English-Americans to vote for Obama. Let's do those of Chinese descent next:

Chinese  .13
Income  -.08

Being Chinese (instead of English) had a stronger effect: It predicted voting for Obama more strongly than did poverty. Now let's look at an important ethnic group: Jews.

Jewish  .23
Income  -.09

Even with the small racial difference, being Jewish rather than English was a much better predictor of voting behavior than income.  We're getting the picture here that race is a more powerful determinant of behavior, at least in the context of politics.

Here are the results for the other racial comparisons (all groups are compared with Americans of English descent):

Mexican  .39
Income  -.13

Japanese  .12
Income  -.13

Asian Indian  .23
Income  -.10

Puerto Rican  .21
Income  -.11

West Indian .13
Income  -.13

Arab  .07
Income -.12

American Indian .18
Income  -.15


You can see that for Mexicans, Asian Indians, Puerto Ricans, and American Indians, race determines political orientation more than income. Race is just about as powerful as class for the other groups.

Economic determinists would predict that the race-voting correlation would disappear when income is controlled, but we see that income is the weaker influence.  Removing the effect of income, minorities seem to vote out of fear, as if their security or values might be undermined if Republicans get too much power.  (I didn't control for urbanness which might be another factor.)





Saturday, April 02, 2016

Penis envy is real

Folks, have you noticed how women think men are superior? Let's name male traits: competitive, physical, sports-loving, violent, ambitious, power-hungry, aggressive, sexual, worldly. Compared to when I was a kid in the 70s, women, freed to do what they please, have become more competitive, physical, sports-loving, violent, ambitious, power-hungry, aggressive, sexual, and worldly.

From the sixties, feminists have not claimed that they are the superior sex, and that, therefore, they should remain the same while men become identical to them--the standard of everything desirable.

I guess if men have always thought they were the best, and women betray the same beliefs by their actions, men actually are superior.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Why do white liberals in Red States vote for Bernie?

Why do these predominantly white Red States vote for Bernie in the primaries/caucuses? Is there a polarization that goes on? For example, in my mostly white state, about 60% vote Republican and 40% Democrat. The Republicans tend to be ordinary, religious folks. The Democrats are not religious and tend to be hipsters. I wonder if the progressives prefer the more extreme Democrat candidate because their politics are, in part, a reaction to state domination by conservatives. "I want to be the opposite of those bigoted squares," and Hillary is not a sufficiently extreme contrast. Why else would they vote so differently from their demographically similar neighbors? 

High-decorum Republicans hate Trump

Let me expand on the idea that very religious people tend to dislike Trump.  It's not just religious people. It's what I would call high-decorum folks. There is certain kind of person--or maybe two kinds of people--who place a premium on being associated with high symbols, whether symbols be religious or social.

For the first type, maybe it's more internal. I've met many religious individuals who have high standards and are very proper. I suspect it's a component of conscientiousness, and it's seems like an internally-directed trait.

The other kind of person is more concerned with the opinion of others and is very motivated to associate himself with symbols of high status. If he feels he is being linked to low rent people, he's very uncomfortable.

These traits seem to be part of the story of why some Republicans hate Trump so much while others like him. Sure, ideologies matter, but it looks to me like more is going on. Trump is very distasteful to people who really care about such things. Many ordinary people enjoy what's low and that doesn't get in their way of liking him. I find politics in general to be very ugly and sleazy--a constant con game perfectly made for conmen. I get disgusted at piety and self-righteousness, not sleaze. When people get all exalted with this stuff, my reaction is, what horseshit.


Sunday, March 20, 2016

Irreligious conservatives LOVE Trump




Presidential election analysts have overlooked the role of religiosity among Republicans. I don't mean evangelicalism, I mean religious commitment. Mormons in Idaho did not like Trump, and data indicates they do not like him in Utah. Some might argue that it's some Mormon peculiarity--their doctrine does give a special status to American Indians (and thus Hispanics)--but I suspect that this is part of a larger pattern. I've been around a lot of religious people in my life. They're often very proper.  They don't like Trump because he's vulgar and unprincipled. The irreligious tend to go the other way--at least non-elites. They love a good dirty joke, they love Howard Stern--Trump's buddy--and are comfortable with having situational values.

The table supports my thinking. These are people who are very or moderately conservative but who hardly ever go to church. They LOVE trump.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Trump wins among demographic groups denied by "experts"

How do these pundit frauds get away with it all the time? They constantly claim that Trump cannot win among women, moderates, independents, the young, and Hispanics. I won't address the claim that educated people won't vote for him: Audacious has refuted that repeatedly.

According to the New York Times exit poll of Florida, Trump--going up against Rubio and Kasich squishies--won among women, moderates, independents, and the young. Rubio won among Hispanics, but Trump beat Cruz handily. Among non-Hispanics, Trump destroyed Rubio 49 to 23 percent.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Trump should win AZ



Am I missing something. Conventional wisdom says that no one breaks Trump's way in the last few days. Exist polls from Tuesday by the NYT beg to differ as you can see above.  According to RCP, Trump is up 13 points in AZ with one-third undecided.  If AZ is anything at all like FL, a plurality of late-deciders should go to Trump, and he should win.