California is a canary in the coal mine. As one of America’s “majority-minority” states with a mega-wealthy Jewish aristocracy (Silicon Valley and Hollywood), its cities have the living standards of Oaxaca at Geneva prices.
The average apartment in LA goes for $2,107. This is the new world order price for housing, a product of: real estate speculation, illegal immigrant fueled overpopulation and wage stagnation, and mass unemployment (was at 25% in 2010 and probably not much better now). Since local governments are run by corrupt Mexicans (on the city council level) and Jews (like Mayor ((((((Eric Garcetti))))))), they’re all taken care of or in on it.
You get a blanket under a bridge!
Add the low trust society multiculturalism creates, and the fact that some of these hobos are violent and filthy blacks or junkies, and public toilets are few and far between.
So the streets of Los Angeles are filled with human feces.
An outbreak of hepatitis A is spreading through Los Angeles County after leaping from a large homeless contingent in San Diego, threatening thousands of people and fueling criticism that local officials have not done enough to contain the deadly liver disease.
Hundreds of cases have turned up in southern California as well as Michigan — but conditions in Los Angeles, where roughly 50,000 people live on the streets, have prompted deeper concerns.
Reports compiled by volunteer organizations have faulted city officials for not providing enough accessible toilets as the homeless population sharply increased by 23 percent this year.
In a prescient warning, a June 2017 report by a collection of nonprofits called the LA Central Providers Collaborative sounded the alarm about crowding and living conditions on Skid Row, citing the city’s own predictions about the increased risk for hepatitis A and other diseases.
“One would think that Los Angeles, one of the greatest cities in the world, would exceed these minimal standards. However, this Audit finds that in Skid Row, Los Angeles fails to meet even the standards for a refugee camp,” the report said. “During overnight hours, there are only nine public toilets available for 1,777 unsheltered homeless people on Skid Row, and these toilets are largely inaccessible.”
The report noted that United Nations’ refugee camp standards are one toilet for every 20 people.
Even United Nations’ camps in Haiti have superior public sanitation than LA.
There’s no reason that one of the most resource rich states with such beautiful weather has to be such a horrible place to live. Until the 90s it was one of the most prosperous states in America.
When you replace your population with third world people, it’s a toilet that sinks all boats except the Jewish and billionaire ones. Everyone in California is doing badly, including the white minority, which is discriminated against by the state for jobs and educational opportunities. Basically if you can’t get a job with the municipality, you’re going to be struggling to subsist in a run down 65% Mexican gang run “middle class” neighborhood. Or knee deep in shit on Skid Row.
Want to see America’s near future? Visit sunny California!
A “non-white” student at Parkway Central High School in Chesterfield, Missouri reportedly confessed to writing “White Lives Matter Ni**ers!” on a mirror inside of a girls’ bathroom.
It’s past time for the Department of Justice to officially declare these hate hoaxes an epidemic.
This was found in a restroom at Parkway Central High School in Chesterfield, Missouri smh. I wish that y'all would control your tiny Hitlers, because we are getting sick of this bullshit. pic.twitter.com/NoLrnsrC7F
Parkway schools Superintendent Keith Marty said in a statement Tuesday that the revelation that a non-white student was involved was surprising, but it did not “diminish the hurt” caused by the incident at Parkway Central High School in Chesterfield.
“The behavior was wrong and the student will be held accountable for this serious act according to our student discipline policy,” said Marty, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “It is important to understand why this happened and why we are often quick to assume who is responsible,” he added.
It happened because minority students know faking such hate crimes is a one way ticket to coveted victimhood status and social justice stardom.
The racial slur was found in a girls’ restroom on campus last week, prompting the local community to organize and stand against racism. “I was horrified,” West County anti-racism activist Joy Weese Moll told KTVI last week. “A lot of us in West County have a really hard time saying racism exists here. It makes me sad for the person who wrote it because they have not been taught and not learned how beautiful our society can be.”
Parents who have children going to the school also reacted. “This is very much a white person issue that we need to tackle as white people and speak up against,” parent Alexandria Lane-Detwiler said.
This was a “racist hate incident” — against white people.
White people as a group were framed for this hoax.
Sweden is slowly descending into a civil war and the police is helpless …or so it seems. A recent flash mob in Gothenburg by the Nordic Resistance Movement shows a very different police force than the one that claim its unable to keep crime at bay in the 60 no-go zones in Sweden.
Help keep us ad free, sign up for a membership at http://www.redicemembers.com. You’ll receive full access to our extensive archives. Stream or download over 1400 programs, including radio, video, TV segments & Weekend Warrior.
Civilization has made most western people soft, now it’s time to get uncivilized again. If we don’t go back to survival mode, we will no longer have a future. Democracy will never fix this problem, because democracy created the problem. There is only one solution, and we all know it by instinct. Our Time is coming that is a Fact.
Most stories about civilization decline begin with the phrase, “We were told,” as in, “We were told that the famine was the fault of the kings, and that the new regime would ensure that there was always plenty,” and then launch into a description of how human wishful thinking did not match reality much at all, leading to horrors. This is why all revolutions fail.
Revolutions, after all, are based on human conjecture about what might be true, and since we like the thought of that, what should be true, but they rely on the “excluded middles” — the points between extremes — filled out by all the other details that are not part of the explanation. Secondary effects, implications and unintended consequences spring up like demons.
As with all ideas, we ask ourselves whether the argument is for an actual purpose, or simply a pretext or rationalization designed to explain how people want to feel about life, instead of what they see as its actual parameters. Since most people seem discontented, and can reliably be counted on to blame others for their own failings, it looks more like justification than purposeful action.
The sexual revolution fits this pattern as well despite being a cultural change brought about by a loose coalition of Leftist believers instead of purely a State action. We were told that we could keep living as we had, but that this way, people would not face the consequences for relatively “innocent” behavior. Instead we got the utter destruction of the family.
While many blame the Pill, the broader move toward the sexual revolution was present even a century before when women’s rights advocates demanded the ability to have sex outside of marriage, and Bohemians back into the 1600s endorsed polyamory and extra-marital sex. With the 1940s, it became a possibility since women had jobs and were living alone in big anonymous cities.
As with all things Leftist, the goal of sexual liberation was to avoid having the individual lose rank for bad behavior, or otherwise be less included because of the consequences of her or his actions. But fifty plus years later, we can see that whatever intentions, desires, or fantasies were behind the sexual revolution, it ended in horrors.
Since 1970, out-of-wedlock birth rates have soared. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants and 3.1 percent of white infants were born to single mothers. By 1990 the rates had risen to 64 percent for black infants, 18 percent for whites. Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families.
Over the same period the white out-of-wedlock birth ratio experienced yet faster growth- albeit from a lower-level-more then quintupling, from 3.1 percent to 18 percent.
Not surprising, many of these babies are unwanted, which led to a massive surge in abortions until checked by Republican laws making access more difficult:
In 2011, the U.S. abortion rate was 16.9 abortions per every 1,000 women aged 15 to 44, the lowest it’s been since abortion was legalized in 1973.
Between 2008 and 2010, 44 laws related to abortion were implemented in 18 states, according to the report. Most did not likely have an effect on the abortion rate, the study authors say, but a few may have. For example, a new law in Missouri that requires a woman to attend an in-person counseling session 24 hours before an abortion may have attributed to the state’s 17% decline.
Until the 1960s, abortion — the disposal of unwanted children who were mostly produced by casual sex — was relatively unknown in America, where now it is a commonplace event.
Fewer babies were born to teenagers in 2010 than in any year since 1946.
How does this shatter the family? In addition to the replacement of the family with the single-parent home, those who have more sex are the least likely to form lifelong bonds, meaning that they may reproduce, but will then end up alone and possibly with their children in one-parent homes or the dreaded parent plus significant other unstable relationship which seems to often end in molestation or violence:
‘The highest five-year divorce rates of all are associated with marrying in the 2000s and having 10 or more premarital sex partners: 33 percent,’ he wrote in the report.
And women who were virgins on their wedding night were the least likely to get divorced, according to the study.
According to census data cited in the report, barely half of adults ages 18 and older are married — 51% in 2010, compared with 72% in 1960. This decline is especially notable for young adults: 20% of 18- to 29-year-olds were married in 2010, compared with 59% in 1960.
…In 2011, the median age at first marriage is an estimated 28.7 for men and 26.5 for women. That means half of men don’t marry until at least about age 29, and half of women don’t marry until at least about age 27. In 1960, the median age at first marriage for both men and women was in the early 20s.
…Although 39% of Americans say they agree that marriage is becoming obsolete, most people who have never married say they would like to marry someday (including many who agree that marriage is becoming obsolete).
The divorce surge is over. (Or most people believe it is: this paper offers an alternate take.) In truth, the rise in divorce has been over for 20 years. Divorce rates peaked in the early 1980s when Ronald Reagan was president and the Internet was only a mite in the eye of wierdos hanging out in California garages.
…The younger generation, whether they know divorce is declining or not, believes that marriage is on the rocks. From their vantage point, they’re right. While fewer American adults have been divorcing over the past decades, a growing number of people in their own cohort have grown up apart from one parent, almost always their fathers.
…How can divorce be declining but at the same time more children growing up with single parents? Because—and this is the story that Miller underplays—so many parents never marry in the first place. A little history is in order here: When divorce rates skyrocketed in the 1970s, American were not simply suddenly looking at their spouses and deciding en masse that they couldn’t take it anymore. They were reacting to a changing understanding about what marriage meant. Instead of an arrangement largely centered around providing for and rearing the next generation, it was becoming an adult-centric union based on love and shared happiness, which as an upper middle class grew in size, became closely linked to granite countered kitchens, European and spa vacations, and weddings with 200 guests.
…If marriage and childbearing were no longer tightly linked but rather discreet—even unrelated—life events, and if they were not earning enough to enjoy the middle class status objects enjoyed by their more educated peers, then why marry at all? Why not just have kids without getting married?
This fits with the data about children being born out of wedlock. The Left replaced the family with the individual, part of a process called “atomization” which separates society into individual and State, and so now people simply reproduce, then abandon those children to day care, public schools, and jobs, and only wonder about whether this was a good idea when they get dropped off at nursing homes and abandoned.
The carnage of the sexual revolution is just beginning to reveal itself. The “Greatest Generation” experienced the first of it, the Baby Boomers lived it, and Generation X reacted to it, with the lockstep ideologues indoctrinated at public schools from the millennials embracing it as long as it was “safe sex,” but Generation Z finds itself looking back over the carnage and wanting away. It will take another few generations for us to see secondary effects such as lower transfer of social capital, greater neurosis, inability to attach, alienation, and other effects on kids who lack the benefits of a stable, family-oriented home situation.
Perhaps the sexual revolution will then be known as just another revolution: a fantasy, applied with violence, that destroyed its host and left behind a wandering, cultureless, and isolated herd of individuals who could not recall a life before everything became grey and meaningless.
Previously I wrote an article that just looked at the net budgetary impact of whites and non-whites. Here I decided to break down the black and hispanic numbers as well.
The most recent year with good data on everything is 2014. So that is the year all of these numbers are from.
Before getting into the methods, I’ll first show the final impact of this so you can see what a big deal this is:
Budgetary Impact of Whites, Blacks and Hispanics in 2014
White Per Capita
Black Per Capita
Hispanic Per Capita
This takes into account taxes paid and government services consumed at both the State and Federal level. The “Equal Military” column treats military spending as a service consumed equally on a per-capita basis between blacks, whites and hispanics. The “Static military” assigns all military spending to whites.
On net, whites generate a $249.52 billion surplus, or $1,260 per person if you assign 100% of military spending to whites. If you just give whites a proportional share of military spending, their surplus goes up to $553.52 billion total and $2,795 per capita.
Blacks, by contrast, run a budget deficit of $389.71 billion, or $10,016 per capita. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites, blacks STILL run a $306.53 billion deficit, or $7,700 per capita.
Hispanics run a budget deficit of $411.95 billion of $7,289 per capita if military spending is proportional. If 100% of military spending is assigned to whites hispanics run a deficit of $291.3 billion, or $5,160 per capita.
Race and Tax Revenue
So regarding the methodology, I first looked in several places to figure out how much each race paid in taxes, as the government doesn’t keep such statistics. However, there are statistics collected by the tax foundation showing how much each income bracket pays in taxes.
And the census has data on income for each race and the proportion of brackets they are. And so using this, we can deduce how much each racial group pays in taxes:
Race and Tax Payment in 2014
% of taxes bracket pays
% of bracket is white
% of bracket is hispanic
% of bracket is black
% of taxes paid by whites-in-bracket
% of taxes paid by blacks-in-bracket
% of taxes paid by hispanics-in-bracket
This comes out to $4529.52 billion paid by whites, $528.30 billion paid by hispanics, and $485.67 billion paid by blacks.
Race and Government Use
So how does that compare with services consumed? Well for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare I was able to find racial breakdowns. But what about state spending? Roads, schools, trash pick-up, police? For all of that I lumped into “equal government” and assigned the cost of it on a population basis.
Race and Government Use 2014
White Use %
White Use $
Black Use %
Black Use $
Hisp. Use %
Hisp. Use $
So as it happened, and this is something I thought going in, the race differences in government consumption are not a very big deal, and the real cause of the budgetary impacts of races is the difference in tax payment. I also found some data showing that whites made up 75% of millionaires, and I thought “ya know, based on this, whites overall probably pay around 75% of the taxes” – and I was correct.
Wage Impact of Racial Diversity
One thing people will say in response is that white wages are jacked up by having non-whites around. This doesn’t appear to be true when you look at regions in the US:
Median Income and Proportion of Popoulation of Whites by Region
Median Income of White Males
Median Income of White Females
So a big impact doesn’t just pop out at you. And if there is a correlation between median white income in a state, or county, and the proportion of blacks and/or hispanics in that state or county, well then the next step would be to show causality.
Another interesting thing to point out is that a Dutch meta-analysis of 384 studies on the impact of immigration on native wages in the United States and EU countries found that a 1% increase in immigrants as part of the labor force was associated with a 0.119% reduction in native wages.
But one thing to consider is correlation and causation. Just because a 1% increase in immigration is only associated with a 0.119% decrease in native wages doesn’t mean that the actual impact is that small.
So we’re looking at a small negative impact on wages, not the big positive impacts you would need for the libertarian story to hold water. I mean it’s not stupid to believe in the absence of data; lower-skill people come in, earn wages, white people are freed for higher-earning labor. But it doesn’t appear to be actually happening.
If you want to argue that the presence of blacks and hispanics around white people drives up white wages, that’s not something that is immediately obvious from the data, it’s only intuitive if you to hold very pro-market priors. You need more than just “ideas that make sense” and connect-the-dots / painting-by-numbers economic narratives that libertarians like to spin, and then act as if they’ve actually discovered something.
The negative fiscal impact of blacks and hispanics is significant. All of this discussion of a “national debt” and “deficit” is primarily of function of blacks and hispanics. Without them, we would be running budget surpluses today, even when keeping the military the same size.
camps for people who refuse to leave white people alone.
They ALL need to Leave, blacks, asians, browns, you need to go home, and time is running out to do it peacefully, we are winning, we will take back our nations, and when we are in power, things will not be nice for you.
Many people think that racial populations are “equal” with respect to their genetic potential for cognitive traits. On this website, we look at a lot of data having to do with racial differences in various traits to assess the validity, or lack thereof, of this assumption. Sometimes, though, it is important to step back and recognize just how impossible the notion of equality truly is. If the races really are genetically equal with respect to most psychological traits, it is nothing short of an evolutionary miracle, and in this article, I will explain why.
We all accept that the races differ in various ways for genetic reasons. For instance, East Asians are shorter than Africans and Europeans. Certain body types were more likely to evolve in different climates. In response to environmental variables such as UV radiation, we evolved differences in skin color, hair color, hair texture, etc. Some historic populations had cows available to milk while others did not and, so, some populations are lactose tolerant while others are not. Some populations had to face malaria, while others did not, and this led to differences in our blood. The list could go on. This is all utterly uncontroversial.
The races also differ in brain size. This has been shown repeatedly, all over the world, dating back more than a century (Last, 2016). More recently, it has been shown that you can predict someone’s race by looking at the shape of their brain (Fann et al. 2015). Yet, it is supposed that, unlike the racial differences in virtually every other part of the body, these ones are due entirely to the environment. This is obviously a political move. Evolution doesn’t care that genetic differences in personality are politically controversial, it sees the brain as just another organ. If we evolved differences in all the others, we probably evolved differences in the brain too.
In fact, the brain is a more likely site for genetic differences between races than most other parts of the body are. Why? Because researchers have shown that genes involved in the brain are the ones that differ most between the races (Wu and Zhang, 2011) .
“Other genes that showed higher levels of population differentiation include those involved in pigmentation, spermatid, nervous system and organ development, and some metabolic pathways, but few involved with the immune system.” – Wu and Zhang (2011) (emphasis added)
Given this, if anything we should expect racial differences in the brain to be larger than other racial differences. The assumption that they are infinitely smaller, such that they do not exist, is not genetically plausible.
Ultimately, this is just common sense. Populations around the world had different food sources. They hunted different kinds of animals and picked different kinds of plants. They lived in different climates. They fought different diseases. These differences impact behavior. For instance, some animals require more group work to kill than others. Harsh winters require more pre-planning and delayed gratification (saving food) than more temperate climates. The more easily acquirable food is around, the less important working with the group is. The more predators and other humans are around, the more physical strength and aggression will be needed. The more pathogens are present, the more important cleanliness will be. This list could go on infinitely.
And maybe you think one of these explanations is wrong and an environmental difference will have the opposite effect of what I have said. That is certainly possible, but the idea that any one of these environmental differences, let alone all of them together, will have no effect whatsoever on the selective pressures for any mental traits is completely implausible.
And this is all before culture comes into the picture. Once that happens, these differences are magnified times a hundred. In some cultures, being smart is the best way to have lots of kids. In others, physical strength, or determination, or social intelligence, etc., will be the most effective way. The notion that in every culture every psychological variable has the exact same association with fertility, which is the logical implication of egalitarianism, is obviously insane.
That culture has sped up evolution is evident in our own DNA. By looking at our genome, researchers can estimate how the speed of evolution has changed over time. In 2007, a landmark paper was released showing that evolution sped up by a factor of 100 within the last 5000 years, suggesting that the development of civilization, which happened at different times and in different ways around the globe, had an extremely dramatic impact on evolution (Hawks et al., 2007).
Even more recently, we are starting to get some idea of how culture influenced evolution. For instance, a 2014 paper found that England’s “war on murder”, a time in which criminals were essentially sent to die for fairly petty crimes, had a significant eugenic effect on the population in terms of criminality (Frost and Harpending, 2015). And, after all, how couldn’t it? If you kill a ton of criminals every generation, genes that predispose people towards criminality are obviously going to become less common.
My pointing in bringing this up is not to suggest that England is especially non-criminal. Other countries no doubt had similar periods and England has had its share of crime problems in its history. Nonetheless, the “war on murder” is a vivid example of the fact that culture can, and in fact must, impact evolution. Anything that differentially impacts people’s probability of reproducing will. Given this, and given the enormous amount of culture diversity which has existed on earth for millennia, it is, once again, lunacy to suggest that this all led to every population on earth possessing the exact same genetic predisposition for every mental trait there is.
On top of all this, there’s the Neanderthals (and others). After humans left Africa they met, and bred with, other species or subspecies of human. These other humans had been evolving separately from us for a really long time and they are universally accepted to have been different from us physically, and mentally, due to evolution. Some populations bred with these groups more than others, and Africans didn’t breed with them at all. This has led to the races differing in their degree of Neanderthal admixture.
Moreover, Neanderthal DNA is associated with various traits, including mental ones. For instance, one researcher described their findings from early last year thusly: “We discovered associations between Neanderthal DNA and a wide range of traits, including immunological, dermatological, neurological, psychiatric and reproductive diseases.” Specifically, they found that Neanderthal DNA was related to traits like nicotine addiction, depression, and other mental traits.
How is it even possible, you might ask, for the races to differ in their level of Neanderthal admixture and still be “equal” if Neanderthals weren’t “equal”? It’s not. For this, and all the other reason’s laid out here, equality is, practically speaking, a biological impossibility.
Kinshasa’s young fashionistas parade the Matonge neighborhood wearing haute couture.
“As Rutter (2002) noted, ‘Any dispassionate reading of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that genetic factors play a substantial role in the origins of individual differences with respect to all psychological traits, both normal and abnormal’ (p. 2). Put concisely, all psychological traits are heritable.”
Bouchard then points to the general heritabilities of commonly used psychological traits:
I call this “The Iron Law of Heritability”, though this is not a commonly used term. It is meant as a label for the common understanding among psychologists that all general psychological traits are to some degree heritable.
So when we explore any kind of psychological variation, the question is not “is that variation down to genetics”, the question is “HOW MUCH of the variation we see is down to genetics”, because it is always going to be some.
Heritability of Political Views Within the United States
There is a general misunderstanding of how twin studies are done. The common conception of twin studies is that identical twins are separated at birth, and then you see how similar they are in various traits when they grow up in different environments.
This has the obvious problem in that the range of environments of adopted twins may not reflect the range of environments for the whole population.
Another, better, way to do twin studies is simply to compare identical and non-identical twins reared in the same environment. Non-identical twins share roughly 50% of their genes + additional similarity from assortive mating, whereas identical twins share almost 100% of their genes.
So instead of controlling for genes and looking at the impact of environmental variation, twin studies can control for environment and look at the impact of an increase in genetic similarity.
For example, IQ scores. What they do is look at how similar the IQs of non-identical twins are, and then compared that to how much MORE similar the IQs of identical twins are; to see how much an impact an increase of 50% genetic similarity has.
For example, if the IQs of non-identical twins correlate with each other at 0.5, and the IQs of identical twins correlate at 0.8, then that implies the general heritability of IQ in the populations examined is 0.6, or 60%. This is because a 50% increase in genetic similarity produced a 30% increase in IQ similarity.
But because of assortive mating, this is going to be an underestimate, because couples are not randomly selected; couples tend to be more genetically similar to each other than they are to the general population.
If, for example, non-identical twins aren’t 50% genetically similar, but are 60% genetically similar, then identical twins are only going to be 40% more similar than non-identical twins. If non-identical twins were 60% genetically similar in the previous example, then the estimated heritability of IQ would be 75% instead of 60% – this is because the jump from non-identical to identical is only 40% more genetic similarity this time, and this 40% increase produces a 30% increase in IQ score similarity. And 0.3 / 0.4 is 0.75.
But then there is another problem, which is that assortive mating is based on traits in a person, not their genes. And so lets say non-identical twins are 55% genetically similar across the whole genome; well, for genes relevant to IQ, they may be 70 % genetically similar. And so in this case, identical twins only represent a 30% increase in genetic similarity, but produce a 30% increase in similarity of IQ scores, which would mean the real heritability of IQ in this population is 100%.
But keep in mind that this “0.4 heritability of political views” is like says “there is a 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites”. The heritability of political views increases with age, and there’s no industry-standard age when studies on the heritability of political views start asking.
The heritability of political views also varies by issue. A study on Swedish twins, which had 2,338 identical twins and 4,868 non-identical twins, found that the heritability of immigration views was higher than any other issue:
Heritability of Political Opinions in Swedish Twins
And remember, this is assuming a genetic similarity of non-identical twins of 0.5, when it could be higher across the whole genome, and higher still for those genes associated with psychological traits, which would mean that the increase in psychology-relevant genetic similarity you get going from non-identical to identical twins is probably less than 50%, and so all these heritabilities from all of these studies would be higher.
Molecular Genetic Data
Regarding group differences, researchers are starting to find some genes associated with social sensitivity and collectivism, and how those genes differ by race.
A 2010 paper by Way and ((((((Lieberman)))))) looked at country differences in allele frequencies two gene locations: A118G and MAOA-uVNTR, both of which have been independently found to correlate with social sensitivity WITHIN populations. For example, a Swede with the “G” allele at the gene location A118G is more sensitive to social pressure than a Swede with a different allele.
(You need to within-group validate the gene otherwise you’ll just have correlations with genes between groups, which could be coincidental. I.e. – if Japan has any purely cultural difference with Europeans, AND some genetic difference with Europeans, even if that genetic difference has zero causal impact on the cultural difference, the cultural difference will correlate with the genetic difference. This is why they must be validated WITHIN populations before comparisons between populations are made.)
They also used a combination of indexes of collectivism and individualism in from four databases, and plotted those results with allele frequency data.
Way and ((((((Lieberman))))))’s results for A118G
Way and ((((((Lieberman))))))’s results for MAOA-uVNTR
Out of curiosity, I plotted Chiao and Blizinsky’s numbers by country with country results from a Pew Survey results on various free speech questions:
First the proportion of percentage of people who support the right to criticize government and the percentage of the population with the “S” variant of the 5-HTTLPR gene:
Next is the right to criticize one’s own religion:
And then there is views on the right to say things that are “offensive” to “minorities”:
Of course we don’t know if “speech offensive to minorities” means the same thing in China as it does in Germany. For example, I have personal experience of people who support banning “hate speech” but don’t support banning sites like The Alternative Hypothesis. Even though there is plenty on this site that “minorities” will be offended by. I suspect a typical Chinaman who opposes “hate speech” would be against banning this site, however a German who similarly says he is “against hate speech” would be more likely to support banning this site.
So if there is a bit of fuzziness between countries as to what these questions are actually asking, that will dampen any correlation because the effect of different countries having slightly different conceptions of what the questions are asking would be to introduce randomness.
It’s also important to know that support for laws that ban speech critical of “minorities” is something that distinguishes the first and the third world. If you click above the links and look into the data, you will see that Latin American countries are about as supportive of free speech as European countries, even though “hispanics” in the United States are less supportive of free speech than European-Americans are. However, one of the distinguishing traits between the first and the third world is that the third world is more likely to support laws that prohibit speech “offensive” to “minorities”, and there are internally-validated genetic correlates that explain part of this. Obviously we have a long way to go to show the full extent of genetic causation, but it can’t just be hand-waved away as totally environmental.
You may find instances where the correlations between allele frequencies and a given trait add up to more than 1. This just means that “genes for” that trait tend to evolve together in sets. I.e. the G allele of A118G probably has its own independent effect, but its presence also indicates that you probably have other alleles that CAUSE an individual to be more collectivist within a given environment. And a .4 correlation between that G allele and collectivism takes into account both the direct effects of that single allele, AND the effects of other alleles that a person who has the G allele also tends to have.
But the point is that the twin studies find heritability estimates of around 40% for political views in general, and slightly above 50% for views on immigration.
Environment ain’t all it’s cracked up to be
Now, when someone says “X trait is 50% heritable”, they’re not only referring just to a specific environmental range, but the “non-heritable” or “environmental” proportion of the variance may not mean what you think it means.
For example, a twin study from 2011 found the heritability of independent reading to be 0.62 at age 10 and 0.55 at age 11.
There have also been studies on the heritability of diet. For example, this study here estimated the heritability of diet to be 0.32.
However, that’s just an aggregate. Another study found for example the heritability in men of how many potatoes you eat was 0.68, what we call vegetables 0.24 heritable, red meat 0.34, etc. If you want to see the complete breakdown, you can look through the tables in that study.
Exercise and sports participation also have high sbustantial heritabilities. This study put the heritability of voluntary non-sports exercise at 0.63 for males and 0.32 for females, and the heritability of sports exercise at 0.684 for males and 0.398 for females.
This replicated an older study that found the heritablity of sports exercise at 0.83 for males and 0.35 for females, and non-sports exercise at 0.62 for males and 0.29 for females. This study gave an overall heritability of exercise of 0.49.
Intuitively, it seems that “independent reading” would be a good proxy for the intellectual environment one creates for themselves. Which is to say that, in the United States at age 10 and 11, the heritability of a person’s intellectual environment is about 50% to 60%?
The next thing to note is the difference between “shared” and “unshared” environment. The term “shared environment”, in the context of twin studies, is the environment that twins share with each other as a result of being in the family they are in.
In short, “shared” environment is the environment that was given to you, while “unshared” environment is the environment you create.
Which then calls into question what “environmental” really means. Let me give two examples: one involving strength training and the other involving vocabulary.
1. Bob and Bill, in an untrained state, lift almost exactly the same amount of weights in any lift. However Bob, for genetic reasons, goes to the gym, works out and builds muscles. Bill doesn’t. Thus there develops a gap in strength and muscle mass between Bob and Bill. So is the difference in muscle mass and strength between Bob and Bill due to a genetic or environmental difference? Well, it’s kind of environmental, but the environmental difference stemmed from the genetic difference.
2. The same thing could happen with independent reading; Bob and Bill, if they both read the same amount, would have the same active vocabulary. But Bill, for genetic reasons, does independent reading, and thus has a more active vocabulary.
So when someone says the heritability of a trait is 0.5, and the rest is down to “environment”, unless otherwise specified, they are almost always talking about direct heritability only.
But that “environment” proportion is itself always a function of genetic variation to some degree. And this is important when getting into the next part of this series on civilizational tendencies.