Poor whites keeping the U.S. birthrate up?

Posted by Amon on December 19, 2005, 10:57 PM | #

As far as I know, White high school dropouts have a 2.3 fertility rate, and White college graduates, 1.6

Posted by Calvin on December 20, 2005, 06:45 AM | #

If highly intelligent parents tend to have less intelligent children because of regression to the genetic mean, wouldn’t it also be true that the children of less intelligent parents would have smarter children because of progression towards the genetic mean?

As long as the’re white, keep em coming.

Posted by Lurker on December 20, 2005, 07:51 AM | #

This regression to the mean business…

OK two white people with IQs of 110 have a sprog. Regression to the euro mean points to the nipper having an IQ of somewhere between 100 and 110. Two white people with IQs of 90 have a sprog. Regression to the euro mean points to the nipper having an IQ of somewhere between 90 and 100.

So how did someone with an IQ of 110 or 90 get born in the first place?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2005, 10:23 AM | #

Lurker it’s not regression to the mean but toward the mean:  IQs of offspring tend toward the mean for that population but if the parents are already pretty far from the mean, so might the kids remain, though they’ll tend to be closer to it than the parents.  As for the individual case, there are always exceptions.  The bell curve isn’t square but has tails at both ends that slope down to zero, with the bulk of people being in the middle.  A husband and wife with a certain IQ don’t have to have children with IQs in a particular range but probably will.  These probabilities manifesting over the whole population give the bell curve’s shape for that population. 

Regression toward the mean, incidentally, is a reminder that a race functions biologically as a unit, as a whole, not as a bunch of separate, independent parts that can be interchanged with corresponding parts of other races.  It can’t be dismantled by those at the top and reconstituted differently if they want to stay the same race.  They won’t if they do that.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 11:25 AM | #

I could frankly give a damn whether they’re white or not, the fact remains if the poor are breeding like rabbits, funded by our welfare payments the average IQ of the race, and of the species as a whole, will enter catstrophic and irreversible decline.  We are due to be back up the trees well before 3000 if current Western, Latin American, Middle Eastern and African fertility trends persist.  Only the Asians or massive genetic engineering will save us.

The world desperately needs far fewer and much more intelligent people, of whatever race. Yes I hope that a substantial chunk of them are from my own ethnic background, including a good few of my own descendents,.  But in the final analysis my loyalty to species (including by all means the odd friendly throwback Neanderthal) trumps that to race, so I can only regard differential fertility by the unwashed as an unmitigated disaster.

Posted by Amon on December 20, 2005, 12:09 PM | #

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/stalkers/em_tbc.html

“Among whites 19% of the birth were to mothers with IQ’s below 90, and 22% with IQ’s above 110.”

(The white average is set to 103, not 100.)

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 01:08 PM | #

Martin,

I held a similarly elitist view to you up to a few years ago, and felt all-too-justified in fencing off the great bulk of my own people on aesthetic and cultural grounds.  But I have been forced by the changing world about me to examine the suzereignty of culture and ideas and have found it wanting.

I have concluded that my people matter more to me - indeed, immeasurably more - than any mere noumena.  Strangely enough, the new ideas I encounter now only support me in that conclusion.  Actually, they are facts rather than pure ideas.  I mean the like of human difference, the wry consolations of regression (and progression) to the mean and, latterly, ethnic genetic interests.

I now find myself in a more comfortable position alround since, anyway, I make no claim to anything but a humble background myself.  Obviously, I can still no more readily join with the crowds waving their arms above their silly heads at Glastonbury or switching on to Corrie every other night.  But I can accomodate them as an extension of my self.  Their lineage is my lineage.  Their interests, ultimately, are mine.  They are the English in England, and without them I am impoverished to the point of nullity.  Mere ideas cannot fill the void, for they are not meant to.  Ideas, even the greatest, are but engines of war - and, as such, mere ephemera on the eternal, evolutionary battleground of ethnic interests.

It is not the ignorance of ignorant masses you should fear but their dispossession of the physical space they occupy.  For that is also your dispossession as well as the beginning of the end of the greatest of all humankind’s stories.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 20, 2005, 01:32 PM | #

Martin it wasn’t in this thread but another one that you wondered why no one had commented on the Sensenbrenner illegal immigration bill just passed by the House.  Here part of the reason:  it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.  Was its passage by a huge bipartisan majority good news?  Yes indeed, very much so.  But before anyone breaks out the champagne, remember it has many months still of wending its way through Congress, and no one knows what form it will take at the end of the process.  Juan Mann is pessimistic, as can be seen in his article linked herewith.  Rather than get our hopes up only to see them dashed later, Martin, we’re biding our time.  Where the immigration crisis is concerned no one’s going to hand us anything on a silver platter.  It’s going to be a fight every step of the way.  As for this bill ... “stay tuned” is probably the best and in fact only advice one can give at this point.  We’ve been burned too many times in the past to celebrate prematurely now.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 02:27 PM | #

Fred, I said in my first post that the Senate remained a major obstacle, and in this case the White House is too.  Sensenbrenner and the bill’s supporters need to push it ahead fast, because if the Prez has an opportunity to veto the bill three days AFTER the midterm elections, he’ll take it. Also, the Chamber of Commerce will be battling it all the way, and those guys are the GOP’s major source of campaign money. (It is in that battle that my Economic Man persona becomes useful, incidentally. The economic arguments for unrestricted immigration used to go largely unanswered except by me, but I am vain enough to think that my pieces on the subject and agitation in Think Tank meetings have produced the beginnings of an economic rebuttal from both right and left wing commentators. The WSJ is never going to be anti-immigration, but National Review now is, and I put that down to myself and John O’Sullivan. On the other side, there was a piece in the Washington Post recently that took a dim view of the effect of illegals on poor people’s wages.) 

Nevertheless, if the Bill isn’t the first positive step in immigration policy since 1924, I can’t think of what was, and 81 years is a long drought.

GW, we differ in that I am currently in Virginia rather than Sussex and have thus expressed by my actions my view of a country that persistently elects Labour governments and where the only decent jobs are in the unpleasant, overcrowded and expensive city of London, from which it is impossible to escape because transportation’s so bad.

It is in any case a matter not of snobbery but of arithmetic; if stupid people (whether white or Third World) have more kids than smart people (whether white or Asian) then since regression to the mean is only about 50% true, i.e. 110 regresses to 105 not 100, the race’s average IQ will decline by about 2-3 points per generation. Darwinism gone into reverse, in effect. 500 years (20 generations) of that and we’re grubbing roots, 1000 years and we’re swinging from the branches.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 03:09 PM | #

Martin,

Your understanding of RTTM is incomplete.  You are calculating on the basis of a one-time snapshot, taken yesterday when the light was poor.  But actually its a movie you can rewind tens of thousands of years.

In other words, the fixity your argument relies upon does not exist.  All the people in your photograph are interconnected through their lineage and share the requisite genes to produce the same Bell Curve - over time - from all sections of the population.  You yourself said the same thing, but in reverse, in the discussion about the Rothschilds.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 03:12 PM | #

Before anybody jumps down my throat, I should have said “... shares the requisite genes in sum - not individually, of course.  But this is a discussion about intelligence, heritability and populations.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 03:18 PM | #

If the mean in the second generation is 98, then surely the third generation regresses to that mean, not 100.  If stupid people have more children, the percentage of “dumb” genetic material increases, just as in the good old days, when the dumb ones were felled by the woolly mammoth, the percentage of smart people increased.  It is surely pure Darwinism that if dumb people have more kids than smart ones, dumbness is acccordingly selected for.

Presumably after about 200 years of progressive deterioration and great sales for hip-hop music, civilisation would be incapable of supporing itself and would collapse, doubtless in a major war, after which, if anybody was left the Darwinian selection towards dumbness would no longer hold until a culture as fragile and self-destructive as ours had been rebuilt. However, absent the major war, I don’t see what’s to stop the inevitable descent into the night of monkeyhood.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 03:25 PM | #

You may be happier if I express the same idea in racial terms.  If indeed there is a “smart” gene, that appeared about 8000 years ago and is not present in Africans, then until say 1914 that gene will have increased its share of the overall world population, as dumb epoeple will have succubed to starvation or disease.  However, if Africans have more kids than the rest of us, and modern medicine and welfare programs and immigration allow those kids to survive, then the percentage of “smart” genes in the population will once again decline, so the human race will get on average steadily stupider.

If you tell me that that’s different because the smart gene is present in some races and not in others, then I beg to disagree.  Darwinism is Darwinism, natural selection is natural selection, and dumb is dumb.

Posted by Phil on December 20, 2005, 04:19 PM | #

Martin,

The human race won’t last another 1000 years. It’ll be all over by then. Don’t worry about it. One little asteroid…....

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 04:39 PM | #

Martin.

What I am saying is that even if an IQ 98 should arise in one generation, that would be a snap-shot and is not a fixed picture of potentiality. It would just be a picture of the mean IQ genetically rendered within one generation.  That generation, however, would retain the full pack of 52 cards, so to speak - all the genetic possibilities of prior generations of the whole population.  So later generations will progress to the 100 mean.

Perhaps John or JR will elucidate.

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 20, 2005, 04:40 PM | #

The point is dumb is not dumb. As Rushton states, “Regression to the mean is seen, typically, when individuals with high IQ scores mate. Their children tend to show lower scores than their parents. The converse happens for low IQ parents; they have children with somewhat higher IQs.” Their children on ‘average’ would show lower IQ however it does not mean that high IQ parents cannot have a higher IQ child, only that on average their children will be less intelligent. Dumb parents can also have high IQ children.

As Rushton explains, “This is because the parents pass on some, but not all, of their exceptional genes to their offspring. It is analogous to rolling a pair of dice and having them come up two 6’s or two 1’s. The odds are that on the next roll, you will get some value that is not quite as high (or as low). “

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 20, 2005, 06:14 PM | #

In conversation with Sailer, Richard Lynn suggests that regression is somewhat nominal.

I think you have overestimated the effect of “regression toward the mean.” The effects are quite small, as shown empirically in the Terman study of genius in which the IQs of the children were only about 5 points lower than those of the [average of]parents(133 vs 138, respectively). Theoretically, IQ is believed to be mostly determined by additive genes. If it were entirely determined by additive genes the average IQ of the children would be the same as that of the average of the parents. Thus Jodie Foster with her IQ of say 100 mated with a sperm donor with an IQ of 160 should have children with an average IQ of 130. Jodie Foster with her IQ of say 100 mated with Mr Average with an IQ of 100 should have children with an average IQ of 100. Regression occurs through non additive genes and environmental effects.

Posted by ben tillman on December 20, 2005, 06:21 PM | #

I still haven’t seen an adequate explanation of how regression to the mean can continue beyond one generation.

Posted by Martin Hutchinson on December 20, 2005, 06:23 PM | #

Desmond yes, that’s what I’d understood about regression to the mean, so my point about inexorable deterioration stands (don’t forget I write a column called “The Bear’s Lair”—do you expect me to be bullish about humanity"s future? The glass is half empty, and draining as we speak!)

GW, the population after one generation may have the same overall genetic potential, but there will be fewer smart gennes and more dumb ones.  At each generation new mutations that make the new generation stupider will be favoured, just as new smart mutations were favored on the way up.

The intelligence of Britain peaked in 1827, at the retirement of Lord Liverpool.  The overall intelligence of the human race went on rising through the 19th Century but peaked in 1914.  The initial decline was gradual, but became catastrophic in the 1960s and thereafter. Bad luck, those of you born after 1970, you are the last flickering candles in a sea of Britney Spears-listening darkness.

Posted by Guessedworker on December 20, 2005, 07:09 PM | #

Martin, you really are incorrigible.  IQ has increased in the West with nutritional advances, and Britney Spears is a very pretty lady with whom many middle-aged, died-in-the-wool Conservatives would be only to pleased to spend a night.

Prof Lynn does not prove your case.  All he is saying is that the process of regression is slower than some people think because the steps are smaller.  But the destination is the same, whether the steps are small or large.  Nowhere is Prof Lynn saying that lower IQ people only carry genes for that IQ, which is the crux of your argument.

Posted by Amon on December 20, 2005, 07:13 PM | #

“Among whites 19% of the birth were to mothers with IQ’s below 90, and 22% with IQ’s above 110.”

If the white IQ = 103 and SD = 15 (which it is in the NLSY), 19% of white women have an IQ of 90 or less—so this group reproduces in exactly its proportion. But the 110+ group, which contains 32% of white women, reproduces at about a third of its proportion. So the dysgenic effect is caused not by low-IQ women over-reproducing, but by high-IQ women under-reproducing.

Posted by John J Ray on December 20, 2005, 07:29 PM | #

“The intelligence of Britain peaked in 1827, at the retirement of Lord Liverpool”

Marty really is what Australians call a “stirrer”.  I do a bit of it myself.  It is fun.

Mean IQs of course went up like a rocket just about everywhere during the 20th century due to better medical care (particularly perinatal) and better nutrition.  About a third of IQ is environmentally determined.

So the empirical basis for fears of a falling mean IQ is just not there.  And genetic engineeering as a common means of boosting IQ is no more than a century away

Posted by Desmond Jones on December 20, 2005, 11:27 PM | #

The discussion appears to be mixing two different issues. Prof. Lynn does support Martin’s position, however, not because of RTTM, but, as Amon suggests, because high IQ women are not having children at the same rate as low IQ women. If both groups, according to Lynn’s ’ Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations’, each had the same number of children then the dysgenic effect is abrogated.

Professor Lynn writes:

[W]e have considered the criticisms of the view that the genetic quality of modern populations is deteriorating. These are that there is no genetic determination of intelligence, conscientiousness, crime, educational attainment or socioeconomic status; that there can be an inverse association between intelligence and fertility without genetic deterioration occurring; that there are no genetic differences between the social classes; that there are no such things as bad genes; that the genes for genetic diseases should be preserved, especially in other people, because they make a positive contribution to creative achievement; and that all human types, including the mentally retarded, criminals and psychopaths, are equally valuable. All these arguments have been examined and found wanting. Only one verdict is possible concerning the critics of eugenics who have advanced these arguments, and that is that they have not taken the trouble to examine the research evidence. The eugenicists believed that modern populations were deteriorating genetically. The evidence set out in this book shows they were correct.

Posted by Svigor on December 20, 2005, 11:36 PM | #

The point of life is to survive and then pass on one’s genes.  If intelligent whites can’t do this, then perhaps intelligence != fitness.

Posted by Svigor on December 20, 2005, 11:39 PM | #

Also keep in mind that European man, with his lower mean IQ and wider bell curve has consistently outperformed Asian man, well for the last half-eon anyways.

Posted by Dude on March 10, 2006, 03:12 AM | #

Perhaps intelligence != fitness is a good thing.

I think intelligent people deserve to die off if they continue to recognize - but not do anything about - major impending problems. 

I certainly don’t want to do anything about major impending problems because I can’t change jack without resorting to violence which would in turn screw up my safe little world.  And I know that I would be the only one with enough balls to do anything and one person can not change anything.

Hopefully some other country such as Japan or China will have enough balls to keep their population from deteriorating.  Then if humanity is lucky they will put countries like the United States out of their missery (keep in mind this state of missery might be a few hundered years away so in the mean time we can “live it up”).

I seriously think we came close to the point where we could keep ourselves in check, as opposed to having nature keep us in check (which is the case with every other living thing).  But alas, we are no different than the field mice who reproduce like crazy in times of plenty - only so 80% of them can starve to death a few months later.  And no, “free will” can not be used as a lame excuss to contrast man from beast.

Posted by Dude on March 10, 2006, 03:23 AM | #

In fact, since less intelligent people are slightly more likely to stand up for what believe in (even if it means getting shot or going to jail), I think that they should have top breeding rights.  The only way mankind can ever get to a point where it keeps itself in check is if individuals are willing to make sacrifices for goods greater than themselves.