It was suggested by a reader interested in M:TG that a sidebar link be added so an ongoing discussion of the game's environment can exist without forcing those who have no interest to periodically scroll past Magic posts I put up. I've done that. I'm putting my thoughts on Worldwake up at the moment.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Big 5 personality traits are intriguing, but aggregate measures are often unsatisfactory. I've previously posted on the counterintuitive inverse relationship between credit scores and conscientiousness at the state level as an illustration of this. Continuing that approach, the correlations with voting and estimated IQ for each of the five factors, as measured by Jason Rentfrow et al, follow*:
Because the data for all variables are by state ranking rather than by specific numerical value, linear correlations (for which I'm measuring) are likely to appear more robust than they actually are.
If a positive relationship between openness and voting for McCain was revealed, I'd really be ready to throw in the towel on inter-population comparisons, for reasons identified by Steve Sailer:
The slight positive correlation between agreeableness and conservative voting behavior doesn't strike me as surprising. Leftists seem to be more favorably inclined toward making their cultural and political opinions known than conservatives are, whether those opinions be solicited or not. Per capita, leftist causes also seem to draw more activists out to protest than conservative ones do--think gay rights demonstrations versus Nixon's Silent Majority. However, it contrasts with a 2006 study that found agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism correlated with voting for Kerry in 2004, while higher conscientiousness and extraversion correlated with voting for Bush.
The positive relationship between conscientiousness and supporting McCain is probably more expected. The attributes defining high conscientiousness tend to be celebrated as virtues by the Popular Right. They include being prepared, fulfilling duties and promises made, favoring structured settings to organic ones, being meticulous in one's work, etc.
The only relationship between personality traits and intelligence I've repeatedly heard or read about is the modest but positive relationship between openness and IQ. That is not evident here, nor are statistically significant correlations of intelligence with the other four traits.
* R-values show the strength of the correlation between variables and range from -1 to 1. Negative numbers indicate an inverse relationship (as one goes up, the other goes down), positive values show a positive relationship (as one goes up, so does the other), and zero indicates no relationship whatsoever. For our purposes, p-values essentially give the probability that the relationship is meaningless. For those of .10 or more, correlations should taken with little more than a grain of salt.
| Voting for McCain and... | r-value | p-value |
| Extraversion | .10 | .50 |
| Agreeableness | .28 | .05 |
| Conscientiousness | .41 | .00 |
| Neuroticism | (.17) | .23 |
| Openness | (.46) | .00 |
| Estimated avg IQ and... | r-value | p-value |
| Extraversion | .01 | .93 |
| Agreeableness | .05 | .70 |
| Conscientiousness | (.22) | .12 |
| Neuroticism | (.04) | .76 |
| Openness | (.02) | .87 |
Because the data for all variables are by state ranking rather than by specific numerical value, linear correlations (for which I'm measuring) are likely to appear more robust than they actually are.
If a positive relationship between openness and voting for McCain was revealed, I'd really be ready to throw in the towel on inter-population comparisons, for reasons identified by Steve Sailer:
Personality testing really needs some way to norm across subcultures. It seems like it does a fine job on, say, distinguishing among University of Illinois psychology majors, but once you get outside of a particular group with the same references, it falls apart on the between-group predictions (while, apparently, remaining okay within group).However, the two correlate in the expected way, so it doesn't appear we're trudging aimlessly through bitumen.
The slight positive correlation between agreeableness and conservative voting behavior doesn't strike me as surprising. Leftists seem to be more favorably inclined toward making their cultural and political opinions known than conservatives are, whether those opinions be solicited or not. Per capita, leftist causes also seem to draw more activists out to protest than conservative ones do--think gay rights demonstrations versus Nixon's Silent Majority. However, it contrasts with a 2006 study that found agreeableness, openness, and neuroticism correlated with voting for Kerry in 2004, while higher conscientiousness and extraversion correlated with voting for Bush.
The positive relationship between conscientiousness and supporting McCain is probably more expected. The attributes defining high conscientiousness tend to be celebrated as virtues by the Popular Right. They include being prepared, fulfilling duties and promises made, favoring structured settings to organic ones, being meticulous in one's work, etc.
The only relationship between personality traits and intelligence I've repeatedly heard or read about is the modest but positive relationship between openness and IQ. That is not evident here, nor are statistically significant correlations of intelligence with the other four traits.
* R-values show the strength of the correlation between variables and range from -1 to 1. Negative numbers indicate an inverse relationship (as one goes up, the other goes down), positive values show a positive relationship (as one goes up, so does the other), and zero indicates no relationship whatsoever. For our purposes, p-values essentially give the probability that the relationship is meaningless. For those of .10 or more, correlations should taken with little more than a grain of salt.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
++Addition++Steve offers more on 2009, deeming it the year only passing mattered. He wonders whether or not the NFL's popularity will decrease if a successful passing offense and a winning record continue to become increasingly synonymous with one another.
It's my impression that football votaries like smashmouth, low-scoring field position games a lot more than casual fans do. I'd guess more than a few of those casual fans would judge a typical 48-31 game more thrilling to watch than a 9-6 game. Assuming I'm in it to see the most competitive sixty minutes possible, I wouldn't--I'd take the second game for sure. But I'll still follow the NFL as high-scoring, pass-happy games become more common, whereas casual fans (especially women) will be unlikely to stick around if this year's Jets became the NFL archtype. So I'd guess the current trend will be good for business.
To the extent that passing is more important in the regular season than it is in the post-season, it's unfortunate as far as the league's level of popularity is concerned--the other way around would be more desirable. More indoor arenas and closed stadiums might help.
---
Steve wondered if the pattern in 2009 of passing's dominance over rushing as a determinant of success was carried over from the season before. It could have been a fluke year, or the beginning of a secular trend. The following table shows the correlations between winning and both passing and running yards per attempt by regular season going back to 2002:
* not statistically significant at 90% confidence
In 2008, the pass-run gap was less pronounced than in 2009, but still significant. However, 2007 was similar to the just-concluded regular season. As we move back in time, passing maintains the upperhand, but not as overwhelmingly so. In 2004, when the playoff-bound Falcons (Vick alone ran for nearly 1,000 yards that year), Steelers (Staley-Bettis one-two punch), and Jets (Curtis Martin in his best season before complications with a knee injury forced him into retirement) built their offenses around the running game, rushing came within striking distance of passing in importance.
As Steve has discussed, the nimble, impatient quarterback who's comfortable being flushed out of the pocket to run is not the future of football, it is the past. The nearly total domination of passing relative to running today suggests that a new paradigm is emerging, where the running game is clearly superceded in importance by the ability to move the ball through the air.
If a football votary is up for investing a little time in it, it'd be interesting to see how the pass-run dynamics correlate with success going back several decades. NFL.com's stats on per-play averages extend back over 60 years, so the data are there.
It's my impression that football votaries like smashmouth, low-scoring field position games a lot more than casual fans do. I'd guess more than a few of those casual fans would judge a typical 48-31 game more thrilling to watch than a 9-6 game. Assuming I'm in it to see the most competitive sixty minutes possible, I wouldn't--I'd take the second game for sure. But I'll still follow the NFL as high-scoring, pass-happy games become more common, whereas casual fans (especially women) will be unlikely to stick around if this year's Jets became the NFL archtype. So I'd guess the current trend will be good for business.
To the extent that passing is more important in the regular season than it is in the post-season, it's unfortunate as far as the league's level of popularity is concerned--the other way around would be more desirable. More indoor arenas and closed stadiums might help.
---
Steve wondered if the pattern in 2009 of passing's dominance over rushing as a determinant of success was carried over from the season before. It could have been a fluke year, or the beginning of a secular trend. The following table shows the correlations between winning and both passing and running yards per attempt by regular season going back to 2002:
| Year | Pass | Run |
| 2009 | .80 | .09* |
| 2008 | .48 | .15* |
| 2007 | .76 | .24* |
| 2006 | .44 | .10* |
| 2005 | .60 | .40 |
| 2004 | .56 | .45 |
| 2003 | .67 | .07* |
| 2002 | .50 | .11* |
* not statistically significant at 90% confidence
In 2008, the pass-run gap was less pronounced than in 2009, but still significant. However, 2007 was similar to the just-concluded regular season. As we move back in time, passing maintains the upperhand, but not as overwhelmingly so. In 2004, when the playoff-bound Falcons (Vick alone ran for nearly 1,000 yards that year), Steelers (Staley-Bettis one-two punch), and Jets (Curtis Martin in his best season before complications with a knee injury forced him into retirement) built their offenses around the running game, rushing came within striking distance of passing in importance.
As Steve has discussed, the nimble, impatient quarterback who's comfortable being flushed out of the pocket to run is not the future of football, it is the past. The nearly total domination of passing relative to running today suggests that a new paradigm is emerging, where the running game is clearly superceded in importance by the ability to move the ball through the air.
If a football votary is up for investing a little time in it, it'd be interesting to see how the pass-run dynamics correlate with success going back several decades. NFL.com's stats on per-play averages extend back over 60 years, so the data are there.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
After Harry Reid's remarks about Barack Obama's favorable political utility were revealed, my brother told me that he'd heard a local conservative talk radio host predictably sputtering over the majority leader's comments, which served to illustrate leftist racism and hypocrisy. What Reid said of Obama:
While many whites pay scant attention to the social consequences of differences in black skin tone, it's salient in the black community. But even in popular culture, melanin matters. Caramel-colored black women tend to rise to the top (Beyonce, Rihanna). When the rare jet does so, it's often by way of association (Michelle Obama) or through sheer merit (the Williams' sisters). And there are reasons nearer the ground for why people tend to associate lighter skin with greater competence. The following table shows the estimated mean IQ (converted from wordsum scores, under the assumption that the average black IQ is 85 with a standard deviation of 15) for three subgroups of black respondents as assessed by interviewers in 1982:
As listening to the radio makes clear, black vocal inflections are usually easily detectable. Obama's strong frame and emphatic delivery are obvious political assets. If his public presence was akin to Ron Paul's, he wouldn't be in the White House.
Finally, "negro" is an antiquated but not necessarily derogatory term to use in describing people of African descent. The US Census uses it alongside "black" and "African-American", as older blacks apparently prefer it to the newer labels.
My brother was incredulous about the last point. I explained to him that "negro" used to be favored over "black". I wasn't sure when the swapping of acceptability occured, but guessed it was sometime in the seventies. Fortunately, Agnostic's clever method of tapping the New York Times' archives to gauge the popular presence of ideas, people, and phrases over time offers the chance for greater precision.
The following graph shows the percentage of total articles containing the word "negroes", "blacks", and "African-Americans" by decade from 1851 to 1959, and then by individual year thereafter*. The blue line tracks "negroes", the black line "blacks", and the red line "African-Americans":
There was a spike during the 1860s as the US Civil War was fought. A century later, focus again shifted to blacks as a separate group of Americans, and stayed there up through most of the previous decade. It's difficult to tell whether or not the decline in reference to blacks as a group has settled around 1 of 100 articles, or if it will drop further still. The decrease in usage may be due to the increasing attention given to Hispanics, leading to the substitution of "blacks" or "African-American" with the broader "minorities".
"Negro" was clearly the word of choice until 1969, the year of the 'culmination' of the black civil rights movement and the year following MLK's assassination. By 1972, "negro"--viewed as having an ugly association with slavery--had essentially fallen out of the respectable media's lexicon, thoroughly replaced by "black". The 20 to 30 articles using the word from that time are mostly referencing historical quotes from books or people.
In the late eighties, Teddy Roosevelt's dreaded hyphenated Americanism was given semantic legitimacy. Up to that point, it had never been used to describe American-born blacks. I was in preschool at the time, and given how inchoate politically correct phraseology doesn't seem to benefit from the most meticulous of record-keeping, I am not sure of the impetus for the third-generation descriptor. Please enlighten in the comments if you are able to [Xenophon has kindly done just that]. It looks as though "African-American" will assume primacy over "black" in the next few years.
Reid was thirty when "negro" went over the precipice. He grew up using it just as I use "black" to describe people today. God forbid that, in my seventies, I momentarily forget an update to the most current version of newspeak and say something I would've innocently said as a young adult. I hate political correctness.
GSS variables used: COLOR(1-2)(3)(4-5), WORDSUM
* The plural form of each term is used to avoid the problem of "black" as an adjective describing the color of something (other than human skin!). It seemed too arbitrary and tedious to run a string of phrases like "black man", "black woman", "black student", etc. The important thing is that each descriptor is plural, so the comparisons are not apples-to-oranges. Also, I made sure "African-Americans" would catch "African Americans" as well. It does.
[Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama --After apologizing to the President, he hastily spread his contrition around:
a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.
An aide to the senator told CNN that Reid offered apologies to several prominent African-Americans, including House Democrats Jim Clyburn of South Carolina and Barbara Lee of California; the Rev. Al Sharpton; CNN political contributor and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile; NAACP chairman Julian Bond; and the head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson.My reaction was similar to Ward Connerly's. The popular right does those who hold freedom of expression in the highest regard no favors by being leftist-lite in their hysterical seizures over such inconsequential remarks. The next Trent Lott episode has now been cued, and the stupid omertas that support the perpetual fear people have of saying the 'wrong thing' are strengthened instead of sustaining welcome cracks in their foundations. A little candidness is refreshing. Everything Reid said is at least plausible, and in my judgment objectively true.
While many whites pay scant attention to the social consequences of differences in black skin tone, it's salient in the black community. But even in popular culture, melanin matters. Caramel-colored black women tend to rise to the top (Beyonce, Rihanna). When the rare jet does so, it's often by way of association (Michelle Obama) or through sheer merit (the Williams' sisters). And there are reasons nearer the ground for why people tend to associate lighter skin with greater competence. The following table shows the estimated mean IQ (converted from wordsum scores, under the assumption that the average black IQ is 85 with a standard deviation of 15) for three subgroups of black respondents as assessed by interviewers in 1982:
| Skin tone | IQ |
| Light | 87.2 |
| Medium | 86.4 |
| Dark | 81.5 |
As listening to the radio makes clear, black vocal inflections are usually easily detectable. Obama's strong frame and emphatic delivery are obvious political assets. If his public presence was akin to Ron Paul's, he wouldn't be in the White House.
Finally, "negro" is an antiquated but not necessarily derogatory term to use in describing people of African descent. The US Census uses it alongside "black" and "African-American", as older blacks apparently prefer it to the newer labels.
My brother was incredulous about the last point. I explained to him that "negro" used to be favored over "black". I wasn't sure when the swapping of acceptability occured, but guessed it was sometime in the seventies. Fortunately, Agnostic's clever method of tapping the New York Times' archives to gauge the popular presence of ideas, people, and phrases over time offers the chance for greater precision.
The following graph shows the percentage of total articles containing the word "negroes", "blacks", and "African-Americans" by decade from 1851 to 1959, and then by individual year thereafter*. The blue line tracks "negroes", the black line "blacks", and the red line "African-Americans":
There was a spike during the 1860s as the US Civil War was fought. A century later, focus again shifted to blacks as a separate group of Americans, and stayed there up through most of the previous decade. It's difficult to tell whether or not the decline in reference to blacks as a group has settled around 1 of 100 articles, or if it will drop further still. The decrease in usage may be due to the increasing attention given to Hispanics, leading to the substitution of "blacks" or "African-American" with the broader "minorities".
"Negro" was clearly the word of choice until 1969, the year of the 'culmination' of the black civil rights movement and the year following MLK's assassination. By 1972, "negro"--viewed as having an ugly association with slavery--had essentially fallen out of the respectable media's lexicon, thoroughly replaced by "black". The 20 to 30 articles using the word from that time are mostly referencing historical quotes from books or people.
In the late eighties, Teddy Roosevelt's dreaded hyphenated Americanism was given semantic legitimacy. Up to that point, it had never been used to describe American-born blacks. I was in preschool at the time, and given how inchoate politically correct phraseology doesn't seem to benefit from the most meticulous of record-keeping, I am not sure of the impetus for the third-generation descriptor. Please enlighten in the comments if you are able to [Xenophon has kindly done just that]. It looks as though "African-American" will assume primacy over "black" in the next few years.
Reid was thirty when "negro" went over the precipice. He grew up using it just as I use "black" to describe people today. God forbid that, in my seventies, I momentarily forget an update to the most current version of newspeak and say something I would've innocently said as a young adult. I hate political correctness.
GSS variables used: COLOR(1-2)(3)(4-5), WORDSUM
* The plural form of each term is used to avoid the problem of "black" as an adjective describing the color of something (other than human skin!). It seemed too arbitrary and tedious to run a string of phrases like "black man", "black woman", "black student", etc. The important thing is that each descriptor is plural, so the comparisons are not apples-to-oranges. Also, I made sure "African-Americans" would catch "African Americans" as well. It does.
Friday, January 15, 2010
With the post-season underway, I thought I'd have a little fun running correlations between stats and wins for the 2009 NFL regular season. There are plenty of professionals at NBC, FOX, CBS, and ESPN (just to name the major broadcasters) who slice and dice this stuff for a living, and I'm not interested in trying to give them a run for their money by controlling for other variables, matching up output with active players for various games, and the like. Just the raw correlations for entire teams here:
* not statistically significant at 90% confidence
Points scored is the best predictor of a team's win-loss record. That's hardly surprising, since it's almost like saying a team's number of wins is the best indication of its success. But when considered along with other statistics, it does indicate how good offense (and passing, specifically) has come to supercede in importance good defense in posting a winning record. Every year, though, Chris Collinsworth or Boomer Esiason will remark in the course of a playoff game how crucial a good defense is to move forward in post season, insinuating that it matters more then than it does during the regular season. The NFL's official site archives stats going all the way back to 1932 (in a limited capacity), offering a way to empirically test that assertion for someone interested enough in it to make the required time investment.
The passer rating system as a measurement of QB performance has its critics. It doesn't account for yards gained on the ground or its corollaries, scrambling ability and sacks taken. But it's almost as useful as points scored in predicting a team's record.
Most teams win with their passing games. Of the top ten rushing teams, only four are in the playoffs. And the two odds-on favorites to win the Super Bowl, San Diego and Indianapolis, are #31 and #32, respectively. In contrast, eight of the top ten offenses in terms of total passing yards made the post-season, and only one playoff team, the improbable Jets, can't move the ball through the air.
Although special teams are often accorded one-third of a team's total equation by media figures and putative insiders, the layman's tendency to deemphasize them in favor of offense and defense looks pretty reasonable. It is nearly impossible to predict a team's level of success by looking only at its special teams statistics.
A defense that is worn down by being run at throughout the course of the game fares worse than one that gives up a lot of total yards in the air, statistically speaking. But this is surely obscured by the fact that teams that are winning run while those playing from behind pass.
Turnovers are huge. Penalties are not. Fourth down attempts are too infrequent to be of great consequence in aggregate, but the ability to convert on third down is important. Again, though, better teams are going to have more third and short situations than the Rams or Lions are.
| Offense | |
| Points scored | .88 |
| Team passer rating | .81 |
| Total yards gained per play | .81 |
| Yards gained per pass play | .80 |
| Total yards gained | .77 |
| 1st downs | .70 |
| Turnover ratio | .69 |
| Pass yards gained | .68 |
| 3rd down conversion % | .64 |
| QB hits allowed | (.53) |
| Sacks allowed | (.53) |
| Time of possession | .46 |
| 4th down conversion % | .25* |
| Pass attempts | .14* |
| Run attempts | .12* |
| Yards gained per rush play | .09* |
| Offensive penalty yards | .04* |
| Run yards gained | .04* |
| Pass/run ratio | .02* |
| Defense | |
| Points allowed | (.68) |
| Run yards allowed | (.58) |
| Passing yards allowed per pass play | (.57) |
| Total yards allowed | (.56) |
| Total yards allowed per play | (.54) |
| Opponent's passer rating | (.47) |
| 1st downs allowed | (.45) |
| Sacks made | .41 |
| Run yards allowed per play | (.33) |
| 4th down conversions allowed | (.30) |
| Passing yards allowed | (.24) |
| 3rd down conversion % allowed | (.23)* |
| Defensive penalty yards | .14* |
| Special Teams | |
| Average kickoff (kicking team) | .32 |
| Average net punt yards (kicking team) | .27* |
| Average kickoff return yards allowed | .15* |
| Total penalty yards committed | .11* |
| Average kickoff return yards gained | .05* |
| Field goal % | .03* |
* not statistically significant at 90% confidence
Points scored is the best predictor of a team's win-loss record. That's hardly surprising, since it's almost like saying a team's number of wins is the best indication of its success. But when considered along with other statistics, it does indicate how good offense (and passing, specifically) has come to supercede in importance good defense in posting a winning record. Every year, though, Chris Collinsworth or Boomer Esiason will remark in the course of a playoff game how crucial a good defense is to move forward in post season, insinuating that it matters more then than it does during the regular season. The NFL's official site archives stats going all the way back to 1932 (in a limited capacity), offering a way to empirically test that assertion for someone interested enough in it to make the required time investment.
The passer rating system as a measurement of QB performance has its critics. It doesn't account for yards gained on the ground or its corollaries, scrambling ability and sacks taken. But it's almost as useful as points scored in predicting a team's record.
Most teams win with their passing games. Of the top ten rushing teams, only four are in the playoffs. And the two odds-on favorites to win the Super Bowl, San Diego and Indianapolis, are #31 and #32, respectively. In contrast, eight of the top ten offenses in terms of total passing yards made the post-season, and only one playoff team, the improbable Jets, can't move the ball through the air.
Although special teams are often accorded one-third of a team's total equation by media figures and putative insiders, the layman's tendency to deemphasize them in favor of offense and defense looks pretty reasonable. It is nearly impossible to predict a team's level of success by looking only at its special teams statistics.
A defense that is worn down by being run at throughout the course of the game fares worse than one that gives up a lot of total yards in the air, statistically speaking. But this is surely obscured by the fact that teams that are winning run while those playing from behind pass.
Turnovers are huge. Penalties are not. Fourth down attempts are too infrequent to be of great consequence in aggregate, but the ability to convert on third down is important. Again, though, better teams are going to have more third and short situations than the Rams or Lions are.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
In the comments of the previous post, a reader asserts a common perception (or misperception, apparently) concerning green luddites:
The tendency is clear--the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he is to fear nuclear power. The notion that hostile sentiments toward nuclear power disproportionately come from (or at least previously came from) affluent SWPLs is incorrect. That the most vociferous opponents are high-IQ types claiming to represent many other high-IQ types of the same mind may still be accurate, as that seems to be the case for protest movements in general (in addition to being sharp, it is my impression that they also tend to be underachieving leftists with little social prestige). But in aggregate, smarties are more technologically progressive than the masses are.
GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), NUKEFAM, NUKEGEN
I'm glad to learn that the (self-described) "smarties" are now in favor of all that nuclear stuff they used to decry. I wonder if Hallmark makes a "I was stupid 'cause I was smart--I'm sorry!" card.The GSS asked a couple of questions concerning the potential dangers of nuclear power generation--one about those posed to a respondent's family, the other posed to the environment in general--in 1993 and again in 1994. Responses are on a 5-point scale that I've inverted for ease of viewing. A 1 indicates the belief that the perils of nuclear power are minimal, a 5 that nuclear power is extremely dangerous. Respondents are broken up into five categories; Really Smarts (wordsum score of 9-10, comprising 13% of the population), Pretty Smarts (7-8, 26%), Normals (6, 22%), Pretty Dumbs (4-5, 27%), and Really Dumbs (0-3, 12%). The average (mean) response for members of each group is shown. One standard deviation for the question regarding the respondent's family is 1.10 and 1.04 for the question pertaining to the environment in general:
With the popularity among "smarties" of Red & Green anti-vivisection, anti-science, and anti-technology the "Scientists often pry into things they ought to leave alone" should have elicited close to 90% not 5.1%.
| Group | Family | Environment |
| Really Smarts | 2.94 | 3.15 |
| Pretty Smarts | 3.12 | 3.32 |
| Normals | 3.38 | 3.51 |
| Pretty Dumbs | 3.48 | 3.63 |
| Really Dumbs | 3.68 | 3.82 |
The tendency is clear--the more intelligent a person is, the less likely he is to fear nuclear power. The notion that hostile sentiments toward nuclear power disproportionately come from (or at least previously came from) affluent SWPLs is incorrect. That the most vociferous opponents are high-IQ types claiming to represent many other high-IQ types of the same mind may still be accurate, as that seems to be the case for protest movements in general (in addition to being sharp, it is my impression that they also tend to be underachieving leftists with little social prestige). But in aggregate, smarties are more technologically progressive than the masses are.
GSS variables used: WORDSUM(0-3)(4-5)(6)(7-8)(9-10), NUKEFAM, NUKEGEN
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
++Addition++Steve Sailer makes note, calling out the inclusion of the question on astronomy out (and rightly so, as in reviewing the items chosen, it appears the least obviously commonsensical of the entire field) and waxing on the relationship between vocabulary and intelligence more generally.
---
Bruce G. Charlton, academic and editor in chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses, has previously described the perceived tendency for people of high intelligence to lack common sense, a consequence of ignoring instinctive reactions ("gut feelings" in the vernacular):
I scoured the entire library (in the process propitiously stumbling on some other interesting variables I had previously been ignorant of!) to assemble what is laid out below. Naturally, there is some level of arbitrariness in what is included and what is not. To minimize this, I cast a wide net to include those for which 'common sense' provides an obvious answer. Also, I did not break out responses by wordsum scores until after I'd settled on the questions to be included to avoid subconsciously favoring one item or another.
Items that solicit opinions without inquiring about consequences were passed over in favor of those dealing with predictable outcomes. That is, I'm less interested in whether or not a person favors governmentally enforced affirmative action, for which plausibly commensensical arguments can be made on both sides (the benefit to upper-echelon NAMs outweighs the harm done to middling and lower-end ice people or it doesn't), than I am in whether or not whites, specifically, are hurt by affirmative action. Obviously giving preferential treatment to a black job applicant hurts a more qualified white applicant who is passed over because of his ancestry.
Several potentially informative items are dead because they are not cross-referenced with wordsum scores. To avoid confounding factors, only white responses are included.
The items are separated into three categories; those for which the high IQ (smarties) people show more common sense than everybody else (the masses) does, those for which smarties and the masses demonstrate equal levels of common sense, and those for which the masses are more commonsensical than the smarties are. The percentages show in what proportions members of each group answered in affirmation of the question or agreed with the statement being made.
Smarties include only the sliver of the respondent pool scoring a perfect 10 of 10 on the wordsum test, equivalent to an IQ floor approaching 130 if the average white score is assumed to represent an IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. They comprise about 5% of the population. The masses (wordsum scores of 0-9) includes everybody else.
I don't gather from this that intelligence is a handicap when it comes to arriving at commonsensical conclusions about most things. The assertion that intelligence either lacks significant correlation with or correlates positively with nearly all desirable outcomes and behaviors seems to hold up here (though there are a couple of exceptions, including the question on genes and personality and also the question about future opportunities provided by advances in science and technology). With the glaring exception of HBD-related issues, smarties display more common sense in their thinking than the masses do.
However, when it comes to accurately assessing differences in human subgroups--or even acknowledging that they exist--society's brightest squelch common sense in the name of politically correct moral posturing. Virtually every question for which the masses are more grounded in reality than the smarties are involves race or gender. The epicycles constructed and maintained by smarties are demonstrably if one simply believes his own lying eyes.
The explanations for why this occurs are surely familiar to most readers. My favored working explanation is that smart whites compete primarily against other whites (and Asians). NAMs are abstract pawns used in a moral posturing game played against other whites. Ilkka puts a clever spin on it:
GSS variables used: RACE(1), WORDSUM(0-9)(10), GENEEXPS, BUSING, BLKSIMP, ANOMIA4, ABPOOR, HOMOCHNG, LETDIE1, HITOK, HITROBBR, POLHITOK, FEFAM, RACDIF2, FENUMOK, FIGHTLND, OB911, SCIPRY, PERMORAL, WHYPOOR1, INTLWHTS, INTLBLKS, DISCAFF, LFEGENES, PCLIT, ETHORGS, IMMUNITE, FEKIDS1, NOPLAN, NEXTGEN, ASTROSCI, EATGM, GUNSDRINK, SINGLPAR, HARMGOOD, ANTESTS
* (I hear Ned Flanders exclaiming, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know!")
** Even though this solicits a personal opinion, it strikes me as being so disruptive to society to merit being deemed as an opinion lacking in common sense entirely.
^ Again, the criteria for selected GSS items, beyond adequate sample size and cross-referenced data on wordsum scores, was arbitrarily selected and is consequently open to crticism for not adequately finding proxies for common sense. Also, the reasonable responses to some of the questions seem as though they should be obvious to a thinking person of even modest intellect, but do not involve what would generally be deemed commonsensical in popular parlance, the question on astrology serving as an example.
---
Bruce G. Charlton, academic and editor in chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses, has previously described the perceived tendency for people of high intelligence to lack common sense, a consequence of ignoring instinctive reactions ("gut feelings" in the vernacular):
My suggested explanation for this association between intelligence and personality is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense.Bruce suggested I take a look at the GSS to see to what extent it confirms or repudiates his assessment. To avoid the problem of cherry-picking, he thought it prudent to have someone other than himself peruse the data.
I scoured the entire library (in the process propitiously stumbling on some other interesting variables I had previously been ignorant of!) to assemble what is laid out below. Naturally, there is some level of arbitrariness in what is included and what is not. To minimize this, I cast a wide net to include those for which 'common sense' provides an obvious answer. Also, I did not break out responses by wordsum scores until after I'd settled on the questions to be included to avoid subconsciously favoring one item or another.
Items that solicit opinions without inquiring about consequences were passed over in favor of those dealing with predictable outcomes. That is, I'm less interested in whether or not a person favors governmentally enforced affirmative action, for which plausibly commensensical arguments can be made on both sides (the benefit to upper-echelon NAMs outweighs the harm done to middling and lower-end ice people or it doesn't), than I am in whether or not whites, specifically, are hurt by affirmative action. Obviously giving preferential treatment to a black job applicant hurts a more qualified white applicant who is passed over because of his ancestry.
Several potentially informative items are dead because they are not cross-referenced with wordsum scores. To avoid confounding factors, only white responses are included.
The items are separated into three categories; those for which the high IQ (smarties) people show more common sense than everybody else (the masses) does, those for which smarties and the masses demonstrate equal levels of common sense, and those for which the masses are more commonsensical than the smarties are. The percentages show in what proportions members of each group answered in affirmation of the question or agreed with the statement being made.
Smarties include only the sliver of the respondent pool scoring a perfect 10 of 10 on the wordsum test, equivalent to an IQ floor approaching 130 if the average white score is assumed to represent an IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. They comprise about 5% of the population. The masses (wordsum scores of 0-9) includes everybody else.
Items for which smarties display more common | Smarties | Masses |
| People must live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. | 27.9% | 44.7% |
| Favor allowing women who are poor and cannot afford any children to have abortions if they want to do so. | 64.7% | 47.0% |
| Homosexual attraction is a conscious choice. | 16.9% | 49.2% |
| Are there situations in which it is okay for a man to punch another man? | 82.9% | 67.2% |
| Is it ever okay for a policeman to strike a citizen? | 89.7% | 77.1% |
| It is a civic obligation to report a crime if you witness it. | 96.0% | 91.8% |
| Scientists often pry into things they ought to leave alone*. | 5.1% | 29.3% |
| Morality is a personal matter and society should not try to force everyone to maintain the same moral standards. | 66.7% | 74.9% |
| Genes are important in determining whether or not a person's life turns out poorly or turns out well. | 49.4% | 36.2% |
| There is no sense in planning for the future. If things are to happen, they will happen. | 11.7% | 40.6% |
| Astrology is not scientific. | 84.6% | 71.3% |
| Refuse to eat genetically modified food. | 19.6% | 31.2% |
| It should be illegal to carry a firearm while intoxicated. | 98.9% | 91.6% |
| A single parent is able to raise a child as well as a couple can. | 29.0% | 34.8% |
| Modern science does more good than harm. | 70.9% | 62.9% |
| Animal testing is okay if it might result in human lives being saved. | 70.0% | 62.4% |
| Items for which smarties and the masses dispaly equal levels of common sense | Smarties | Masses |
| Favor busing black and white children from one district to another**. | 24.0% | 22.8% |
| Allow incurable patients to die if the patient and family support doing so. | 70.1% | 71.4% |
| It's okay for a man to hit someone who has broken into his house. | 84.9% | 85.1% |
| Political organizations based on race and/or ethnicity make it more difficult for everyone to get along with one another. | 70.6% | 72.6% |
| Items for which the masses display more common sense than the smarties do | Smarties | Masses |
| Average difference between the intelligence of whites and of blacks, measured in standard deviations. | 0.20 | 0.53 |
| Genes play a major role in determining personality. | 20.7% | 24.8% |
| Things for blacks in the US have improved over time. | 51.1% | 64.5% |
| It is better for a man to work and a woman to take care of home. | 24.0% | 36.9% |
| Blacks do worse in life because of their innate inability to learn as much as whites. | 4.2% | 12.9% |
| There should be more women in the US military than there currently are. | 56.2% | 33.6% |
| Women should be assigned to military roles where hand-to-hand combat is likely. | 39.3% | 34.8% |
| Poor schools are an important reason why there are poor people in the US. | 81.8% | 72.5% |
| Whites are hurt by affirmative action policies that favor blacks. | 52.7% | 71.6% |
| It is a shame that traditional American literature is ignored while other literature is promoted because it is written by women or minorities. | 57.4% | 70.7% |
| Increased immigration makes it more difficult to keep the US united. | 45.6% | 74.4% |
| Biological differences between men and women are important in explaining why women are more likely to take care of children than men are. | 42.4% | 57.4% |
| Because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for future generations. | 86.5% | 92.0% |
I don't gather from this that intelligence is a handicap when it comes to arriving at commonsensical conclusions about most things. The assertion that intelligence either lacks significant correlation with or correlates positively with nearly all desirable outcomes and behaviors seems to hold up here (though there are a couple of exceptions, including the question on genes and personality and also the question about future opportunities provided by advances in science and technology). With the glaring exception of HBD-related issues, smarties display more common sense in their thinking than the masses do.
However, when it comes to accurately assessing differences in human subgroups--or even acknowledging that they exist--society's brightest squelch common sense in the name of politically correct moral posturing. Virtually every question for which the masses are more grounded in reality than the smarties are involves race or gender. The epicycles constructed and maintained by smarties are demonstrably if one simply believes his own lying eyes.
The explanations for why this occurs are surely familiar to most readers. My favored working explanation is that smart whites compete primarily against other whites (and Asians). NAMs are abstract pawns used in a moral posturing game played against other whites. Ilkka puts a clever spin on it:
Liberalism is status signaling that demonstrates that you are immune to theAnd Steve Sailer states it in no uncertain terms:
societal consequences of liberalism.
Political correctness makes people stupid.To the extent, if any, that this challenges Bruce's assertion^, it strikes me as encouraging. Rather than being maladaptive in facing the mundania of life, ceteris paribus, intelligence improves one's quality of life and his ability to comprehend the world around him.
GSS variables used: RACE(1), WORDSUM(0-9)(10), GENEEXPS, BUSING, BLKSIMP, ANOMIA4, ABPOOR, HOMOCHNG, LETDIE1, HITOK, HITROBBR, POLHITOK, FEFAM, RACDIF2, FENUMOK, FIGHTLND, OB911, SCIPRY, PERMORAL, WHYPOOR1, INTLWHTS, INTLBLKS, DISCAFF, LFEGENES, PCLIT, ETHORGS, IMMUNITE, FEKIDS1, NOPLAN, NEXTGEN, ASTROSCI, EATGM, GUNSDRINK, SINGLPAR, HARMGOOD, ANTESTS
* (I hear Ned Flanders exclaiming, "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know!")
** Even though this solicits a personal opinion, it strikes me as being so disruptive to society to merit being deemed as an opinion lacking in common sense entirely.
^ Again, the criteria for selected GSS items, beyond adequate sample size and cross-referenced data on wordsum scores, was arbitrarily selected and is consequently open to crticism for not adequately finding proxies for common sense. Also, the reasonable responses to some of the questions seem as though they should be obvious to a thinking person of even modest intellect, but do not involve what would generally be deemed commonsensical in popular parlance, the question on astrology serving as an example.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Umar Mutallab and Nidal Hassan, the underwear bomber and Ft. Hood shooter, respectively, are two more recent, highly visible affirmations of former CIA officer Marc Sageman's finding that rather than coming from the dregs of society, international terrorists tend to be more educated and affluent than is most of the population in the countries they come from:
Sageman also found that most (73%) were married, although Randall Parker and Dennis Mangan, among others, showcase compelling arguments that sexual frustration may play some role as well:
Parenthetically, the contemporary stigma surrounding men who are sexually frustrated is such that serious discourse on the subject rarely takes place. It is almost inconceivable in contemporary Western society that a well-off, healthy guy with a moderately prestigious occupation whose agoraphobic social awkwardness has left him sexually frustrated could be seen as more deserving of sympathetic pity than a chronically unemployed, uneducated cad who's been in and out of jail. The former is a loser deserving of ridicule while the latter is to be coddled and cared about, despite the fact that the burgher who can't get laid does a lot more good for society than the prolish thug who can't hold a job does. Yet for most people sexual fulfillment is one of the three most important elements (health and wealth being the other two) necessary for realizing contented happiness.
Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing - the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they’re just plain evil.Mutallab's father is a former bank executive and one of the richest men in Africa (though his father is not a villain--he warned the CIA that his son had cut off communication with him and was a potential threat). Mutallab was in college on his dad's dime. Hassan is a second-generation Palestinian who grew up in a Virginian middle class household where his parents owned a restaurant. These guys are not mired in destitute poverty, adopting 'extremist' views due to a lack of prospects for the future. Their comfortable lives are not exceptions to the rule--they are the rule.
Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.
Sageman also found that most (73%) were married, although Randall Parker and Dennis Mangan, among others, showcase compelling arguments that sexual frustration may play some role as well:
In Israel we have much experience with Arab suicide bombers and violent street mobs. One of the most effective remedies to the Intifada suicide attacks was to limit work permits in Israel to Palestinians over 40 and married. (That was improved upon by building a fence around Israel, which completely stopped that phenomenon). We cannot stop them coming to pray in the Jerusalem Al Aqsa Mosque, and every Friday prayer used to end in bloody confrontations with the police.An assessment similar to the the one done by Sageman based on more recent terrorist profiles would surely be informative.
So now, when the Arab street gets excited, Israel allows the entrance of only people over 40 and married. About 50% of the Palestinian girls are married by the age of 18, while men usually have to build their house to marry, which is around 30. Marriage is generally an exchange = you have to supply your sister in esxchange for a bride. That's why "honour killings" are so common - if the sister does not agree, she "brings shame on the family" and the brother cannot marry. Whores are killed by the "morality police". The consequence is that sexual perversion (goats?) and murderous acts of running amok are quite common in the Arab society, but who cares? They are never reported not here nor in the USA which is OK. I am sure if Major Hassan had been married he would have reacted with less violence.
Parenthetically, the contemporary stigma surrounding men who are sexually frustrated is such that serious discourse on the subject rarely takes place. It is almost inconceivable in contemporary Western society that a well-off, healthy guy with a moderately prestigious occupation whose agoraphobic social awkwardness has left him sexually frustrated could be seen as more deserving of sympathetic pity than a chronically unemployed, uneducated cad who's been in and out of jail. The former is a loser deserving of ridicule while the latter is to be coddled and cared about, despite the fact that the burgher who can't get laid does a lot more good for society than the prolish thug who can't hold a job does. Yet for most people sexual fulfillment is one of the three most important elements (health and wealth being the other two) necessary for realizing contented happiness.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
In the local pages of the Kansas City Star a couple weeks ago, this description of a murder suspect caught my eye:
A homicidal man is on the loose and the authorities are aware of a crucial aspect of his appearance (there is no way his eye and hair color could be known while his skin color remains a mystery) but are sitting on it to avoid the appearance of confirming an 'ugly' stereotype. The truth gets little consideration. As Bill Lind put it so well, political correctness is not a joke. It's deadly serious.
I am not aware of whether or not this is the standard practice of newspapers today as I rarely look at local street crime cases. Even if it is not, however, this is inexcusable.
Authorities issued a $500,000 warrant for [Andre S.] Chapple, 32. He is about 5 feet, 11 inches tall and 230 pounds with black hair and brown eyes.The murder took place in KCK and it was, uh, murder, so chances are Andre is black. It's conceivable, though, that he is 'Latino' or even white.
A homicidal man is on the loose and the authorities are aware of a crucial aspect of his appearance (there is no way his eye and hair color could be known while his skin color remains a mystery) but are sitting on it to avoid the appearance of confirming an 'ugly' stereotype. The truth gets little consideration. As Bill Lind put it so well, political correctness is not a joke. It's deadly serious.
I am not aware of whether or not this is the standard practice of newspapers today as I rarely look at local street crime cases. Even if it is not, however, this is inexcusable.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Writing for OneSTDV's blog, The Undiscovered Jew takes a look at fertility rates by age range and finds that from the age of 30 onward, IQ and white fertility correlate positively at the state level. That is, the smarter the state, the more fecund its 30+ population. The conclusion TUJ arrives at from this is that efforts to extend the span of viable female reproductive capacity using artificial reproductive technologies are the answer to below-replacement white fertility. Aubrey de Grey's drive to retard (and ultimately reverse) the aging process promises to carry eugenic consequences with it.
In the comments, Richard Hoste points to the same concern Francis Galton had 150 years ago; if one group breeds earlier than another group does, even if the total fertility rate of each group is identical, the early-breeding first group will outnumber the late-breeders of the second group.
A simple thought experiment demonstrates this. If hobbit couples have two children at age 20 and elf couples have two children at age 40, their TFRs (2.0) are identical. However, after 80 years, there are ten hobbits but only six elves. At age 20 (year 20), the first generation of hobbits have two kids. Twenty years later (year 40), their second generation offspring have two kids of their own, just as the first generation of elves are finally having their children. So after 40 years, we have two 40 year-old hobbits, two 20 year-old hobbits, and two newborn hobbits, to just two 40 year-old elves and two newborn elves.
But total population share and realizing replacement fertility are two separate (albeit related) issues. TUJ shows that if the fertility of white women in their late thirties doubled and fertility of white women in the early forties increased eightfold, without any other change in the fertility rates of white women under the age of 35, total white fertility would be above replacement. Although the white population would not grow as fast as the Hispanic population, the absolute number of whites would accrete over time. The formidable problem of an inverted age pyramid already facing Russia and Japan, with Western Europe not far behind, would thus be averted.
The desire for well-adjusted, industrious young people to get to work making babies instead of spending their twenties and thirties obtaining academic and then professional success may be hopelessly quixotic. A la Idiocracy, it's not going to happen on a largescale among those of European descent. For those concerned about the sustainability of white populations, extending female reproductive spans and getting the aging clock to tick in a counterclockwise direction are two of the most potentially fruitful strategies available.
In the comments, Richard Hoste points to the same concern Francis Galton had 150 years ago; if one group breeds earlier than another group does, even if the total fertility rate of each group is identical, the early-breeding first group will outnumber the late-breeders of the second group.
A simple thought experiment demonstrates this. If hobbit couples have two children at age 20 and elf couples have two children at age 40, their TFRs (2.0) are identical. However, after 80 years, there are ten hobbits but only six elves. At age 20 (year 20), the first generation of hobbits have two kids. Twenty years later (year 40), their second generation offspring have two kids of their own, just as the first generation of elves are finally having their children. So after 40 years, we have two 40 year-old hobbits, two 20 year-old hobbits, and two newborn hobbits, to just two 40 year-old elves and two newborn elves.
But total population share and realizing replacement fertility are two separate (albeit related) issues. TUJ shows that if the fertility of white women in their late thirties doubled and fertility of white women in the early forties increased eightfold, without any other change in the fertility rates of white women under the age of 35, total white fertility would be above replacement. Although the white population would not grow as fast as the Hispanic population, the absolute number of whites would accrete over time. The formidable problem of an inverted age pyramid already facing Russia and Japan, with Western Europe not far behind, would thus be averted.
The desire for well-adjusted, industrious young people to get to work making babies instead of spending their twenties and thirties obtaining academic and then professional success may be hopelessly quixotic. A la Idiocracy, it's not going to happen on a largescale among those of European descent. For those concerned about the sustainability of white populations, extending female reproductive spans and getting the aging clock to tick in a counterclockwise direction are two of the most potentially fruitful strategies available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
