Friday, February 24, 2012

Complaints About Spouses

My current set of coworkers is, on the whole, a quite nice group of ladies.  My sole major complaint about them is that they constantly say awful things about their husbands.  Their husbands are apparently incapable of personal hygiene, work, speech, and perhaps even thought.  It all seems somewhat inappropriate water-cooler talk, as well as quite exaggerated.

In a fit of pique I tried to recall any time I had heard a man gripe about his wife in a similar setting (actually, to anyone but a marriage counselor or a close friend, in private).  I couldn't recall a single time, and chalked up this as another case of big differences between men and women.

Fate of course decided to intervene to teach me a lesson.  Not two weeks after I came to the above conclusion, I went to the dentist to have a cleaning.  My dentist is a big old grouch, to be sure, but that day he was in fine form, going on at length about what a "lazy and stupid" woman (his words!) his wife is.  (He was mainly talking to the hygienist, a personal employee of his.)  At that point I recalled that he had actually complained about her on the previous visit, only then I didn't know (or suspect) that the woman he held in such contempt was his wife.

So of course I had to retract my observation.  The bitterness that my dentist displayed was not at all mixed with the sarcastic mirth displayed by my coworkers.  Furthermore, family-strife-venting in front of a patient is surely even more inappropriate than it is in front of peers.

Today it hit me--this really is a difference between men and women.  I noted that I've never heard a woman of whom I'm a customer (patient, client, etc.) complain about her husband.  And the fact remains that I've never heard a male coworker complain about his wife.

Has anyone else ever noticed this pattern?  Is the pattern that (a) men are happy to air their dirty laundry (and, let's face it, their history of poor decision-making) among subordinates and customers, while (b) women are comfortable doing so only among peers?

Can anyone explain this, or is it just a chance anomaly of the individuals I know?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Psychotherapy and Social Class

It's often been noted that many of the people in long-term psychotherapy don't seem to have any real problems, just general feelings of unease.  They may feel some hurt related to their employment, or their upbringing, or their place in the community, or even the universe in general.  (This is to say nothing of people with distinct, crippling mental diseases like schizophrenia, who are a different matter entirely.)

Ceteris paribus, people with the time and money for long-term talk therapy have fewer problems than those who lack the time and money.  If you can afford this sort of thing you are better off than most right there.  However, ceteris paribus is an unreasonably large condition.  Actually, it's laughable.  Who says other things should be equal?

People who get into the middle and upper classes through intelligence and hard work are a special breed, and other upper-middle-class people are descended from those who got there through intelligence and hard work.  Intelligence, conscientiousness, and hard work are related to psychological dimensions that, if magnified enough, can change from virtues into vices.  A lot of modern neuroses look like some sort of unfortunate exaggeration of a social/psychological virtue:

Perhaps the large number of people in psychotherapy is a result of the same kind of class sorting that Charles Murray is always talking about.  I have no real angle on helping people with these conditions, and I'm aware that a lot of alt-rightists deny their existence.

I do think that we'd all be helped in understanding the conditions that are distortions of virtues if we could keep straight what is virtue and what is vice.  It's no good recognizing that autism can be understood not as a disease but as an extremely male thought pattern, if male thought patterns have already been effectively demonized.  Leftism is as big a barrier to understanding psychology as it is to understanding sociology and economics.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

NYPD: Not So Bad After All?

This article implies that New York's finest may have actually been doing a pretty good job in monitoring foreigners involved in a religio-military organization which has declared endless war against Christians, atheists, Jews, and pagans.
But the latest documents mention no wrongdoing by any students.
-Chris Hawley
It appears that believing that Christians and Jews deserve to be forced, with threat of violence, to pay special protection money to mullahs, while atheists and pagans deserve to die ipso facto, and joining a religion which preaches and acts on these beliefs, does constitute any "wrongdoing" according to Chris Hawley.  Interesting.
Like New York City itself, American universities are admired across the globe as places that welcome a diversity of people and viewpoints.
- Robert Hornsby
No, American universities are laughed at across the globe for condoning the viewpoint that Christians and Jews deserve to be forced, with threat of violence, to pay special protection money to mullahs, while atheists and pagans deserve to die ipso facto, with this one-way tolerance of course constituting an attack on Christian, Jewish, and atheistic, and pagan viewpoints.  (As well as every other religion on Earth; I'm not going to list all of them.)

If Muslims were not fancied by the anti-white left to constitute some sort of an oppressed race, they would never be allowed to pretend that organizing to carry out Sura 9:29 was somehow protected by a broadly-construed freedom to organize religiously, binding all levels of government.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012


Due to the usual overburdened schedule problems, I won't be blogging or commenting much for a few weeks or months.  I thank all who have recently commented, especially Jim Bowery, who must have set some sort of a record.

See you later.

Friday, February 10, 2012

Bowery on the Bowery Tax

I would like Jim Bowery to adumbrate his tax idea here.  I do not understand it.  He offers it as an alternative to both the status quo and to the Moldbug's self-assessed formalist tax (which is itself an alternative to Henry George's land value tax).

I have invited him to this thread to summarize the proposal and hopefully answer questions.  I have no opinion on it other than that it is interesting and I couldn't digest it.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Correlation Data on Homicide and Race

Over at HBD Chick's place I posted some data on homicide rates by region.  These data are for murders per million residents, as per Wikipedia:

All the countries in Southern Africa – 373 (2004), 320 (2010)
All the countries in East Africa – 208 (2004), 230 (2010)
All the countries in Central America - 293 (2004), 250 (2010)
All the countries in West and Central Europe - 15 (2004), 12 (2010)

[Example of a particularly nice European country: France - 8 (2006)]

Data by US State came from an anti-death penalty site:

New Hampshire – 10 (2010), 8 (2009)
North Dakota – 15 (2010), 19 (2009)
West Virginia – 33 (2010), 46 (2009)
California – 49 (2010), 53 (2009)
Louisiana – 112 (2010), 118 (2009)
USA nationwide - 48 (2010)

So while the American totals are dramatically worse than West/Central Europe, it's impressive how much it varies from state to state.  Almost looks like it varies with IQ, doesn't it?

Of course psychometrics enthusiasts wouldn't find that too surprising, but neither would race realists find it too surprising if it was correlated with race.  The above data make it look like states that are racially equivalent to Europe are approximately as dangerous as Europe, with respect to murder/homicide.  Since there are no US states with as a high a percentage of blacks as most African countries, we shouldn't be surprised that there are no states topping 200 murders per million inhabitants (and indeed only Louisiana tops 100, but of course DC is at about 234).

More direct data, from victimization reports, indicates quite the same thing (though as Queen Latifah proved recently, noöne will call you out if you ignore victimization data and concentrated on arrest data, which are allegedly tainted by racism).

HBD Chick recommended I do a post on this, so I decided to do a little research and put 2010 data on homicides by state together with data from the census of the same year on race and ethnicity by state.  I used the state-by-state homicide data from the above site, while I found data on race and ethnicity at this US Census Bureau page.

Here are the data:

State Homicide White Black Hispanic
Alabama 62.5 68.5 26.2 3.9
Alaska 37.5 66.7 3.3 5.5
Arizona 61 73 4.1 29.6
Arkansas 54.5 77 15.4 6.4
California 51 57.6 6.2 37.6
Colorado 28 81.3 4 20.7
Connecticut 33 77.6 10.1 13.4
Delaware 49.5 68.9 21.4 8.2
Florida 53.5 75 16 22.5
Georgia 58 59.7 30.5 8.8
Hawaii 18 24.7 1.6 8.9
Idaho 14.5 89.1 0.6 11.2
Illinois 57.5 71.5 14.5 15.8
Indiana 47 84.3 9.1 6
Iowa 13 91.3 2.9 5
Kansas 39.5 83.8 5.9 10.5
Kentucky 43 87.8 7.8 3.1
Louisiana 115 62.6 32 4.2
Maine 19 95.2 1.2 1.3
Maryland 75.5 58.2 29.4 8.2
Massachusetts 29 80.4 6.6 9.6
Michigan 59.5 78.9 14.2 4.4
Minnesota 16 85.3 5.2 4.7
Mississippi 68 59.1 37 2.7
Missouri 67.5 82.8 11.6 3.5
Montana 29.5 89.4 0.4 2.9
Nebraska 26.5 86.1 9.2 7
Nevada 59 66.2 8.1 26.5
New Hampshire 9 93.9 1.1 2.8
New Jersey 39.5 68.6 13.7 17.7
New Mexico 84 68.4 2.1 46.3
New York 42.5 65.7 15.9 17.6
North Carolina 51 68.5 21.5 8.4
North Dakota 17 90 1.2 2
Ohio 43.5 82.7 12.2 3.1
Oklahoma 57.5 72.2 7.4 8.9
Oregon 23.5 83.6 1.8 11.7
Pennsylvania 52.5 81.9 10.8 5.7
Rhode Island 29 81.4 5.7 12.4
South Carolina 64 66.2 27.9 5.1
South Dakota 32.5 85.9 1.3 2.7
Tennessee 65 77.6 16.7 4.6
Texas 52 70.4 11.8 37.6
Utah 16.5 86.1 1.1 13
Vermont 12 95.3 1 1.5
Virginia 46.5 68.6 19.4 7.9
Washington 26 77.3 3.6 11.2
West Virginia 39.5 93.9 3.4 1.2
Wisconsin 26.5 86.2 6.3 5.9
Wyoming 17 90.7 0.8 8.9
DC 234 38.5 50.7 9.1

The first column of numbers is the 2009-2010 average homicides per million residents.  After that are statistics from the 2010 census for two racial groups (whites and black) and one ethnic group (Hispanics).

Here are some correlation coëfficients:
Between homicide rate and fraction of whites ... - 0.584
Between homicide rate and fraction of blacks ... 0.784
Between homicide rate and fraction of Hispanics ... 0.136
Between homicide rate and sum of blacks & Hispanics fractions ... 0.716
Between homicide rate and sum of blacks & adjusted Hispanics fractions ... 0.816.

I wasn't satisfied with just correlating homicide and number of blacks, but adding in Hispanics detracts from the correlation (basically because Hispanics aren't nearly as homicidal as blacks).  So I decided to try to sum blacks plus a fraction of Hispanics, with the fraction chosen to maximize the correlation.  The fraction I eventually chose was 0.3125.  (The latter is certainly not a formal multiple regression, but I've forgotten how to do that so for the time being it will have to suffice.)

In conclusion, the magnitudes of these correlations tend to support the thesis that blacks and Hispanics really are more prone to violent crime than whites, and that arrests of innocent blacks and Hispanics by racist police officers are not responsible for differing arrest rates.  

(Coming up: I found a different site with the interesting "White persons not Hispanic" statistic, which I add into the data mix for comments below.  I hypothesize that homicide and WNH will be even more strongly negatively correlated than homicide and whites.  Rates for Europe broken out by country are available here.)