Half Sigma

Weiner withdrawal

So Weiner is gone. Good riddance I say, but I’m still left wondering about a few things.

If Weiner just had straight-up sex with a hot young intern, would he have had to resign? Bill Clinton got away with receiving blowjobs from a chubby not-so-hot young intern. What Weiner did doesn’t seem as bad. He didn’t even have physical contact with any women. All he did was talk dirty over the phone and online, and send a few R-rated (not even X-rated) photos.

I think it’s a combination of (1) cybersex has a more perverted stigma about it than regular sex; and (2) Weiner’s name reminds people of a penis.

Doesn’t look good for Bashar al-Assad

As reported today:

Rami Makhlouf, Syrian business tycoon and cousin toPresident Bashar al-Assad, says he is quitting business and putting his profits into charity. The move that was announced on state television is being billed as a concession to one of protesters' many demands for reform.

Placating Muslim Arabs doesn’t work, a lesson the Israelis have learned (or should have learned). The anti-regime protesters will this as weakness and as an indication their strategy (whatever it may be) is working and they should keep at it.

Even though Bashar al-Assad is a scum who deserves whatever the masses do to him, the regime which replaces him will likely be controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, and a Muslim Brotherhood alliance between Egypt and Syria will be really bad for regional stability.

Say "no" to Bachmann, "yes" to Giuliani

James Taranto is gushing over the possibility of a Romney Bachmann ticket.

Why oh why to people keep thinking that it’s a good idea to have a conservative women on a presidential ticket? Recent election data shows that swing voters do not like to vote for conservative women.

Presidential tickets with women on them have been big losers.

Mondale/Ferraro, huge loss for Mondale.

McCain/Palin, huge loss for McCain.

Obama/Clinton, this ticket didn’t happen because Obama was too smart for that.

The best VP is someone that people can imagine stepping into the President’s shoes in an emergency. The best Republican for that role is Rudy Giuliani. Everyone remembers how Rudy rose to the occasion on 9/11.

Obama is very weak with the economy so bad. This is not the time for the Republicans to experiment with a female VP nominee. These times call for the choice with least risk because it is the Republican nominee’s election to lose. Giuliani has already been vetted in 2008 so there are no skeletons in his closet which aren’t already known. Giuliani won’t turn off any swing voters. Giuliani is the right choice for VP.

Herman Cain and the Muslims

I wrote during the debate that Cain could get away with saying he wouldn’t hire a Muslim because he’s black, and blacks are inherently non-racist.

But some guy writing an op-ed at CNN is very mad. He writes:

Regardless of his motivation, Cain is in essence posting a sign: "Muslims Need Not Apply." Herman Cain explains stance on Muslims

My Italian grandparents encountered similar discrimination when they immigrated to the United States in the 1920s and were met with signs informing them: "Italians Need Not Apply," meaning they would not be hired simply because they were Italian.

And before them, Irish immigrants were infamously "welcomed" with signs telling them: "Irish Need Not Apply."

I disagree. There’s a huge difference. An Italian can’t help being Italian and an Irish can’t help being Irish. But Islam isn’t a nationality, it’s a religious choice. A Muslim can choose to stop being a Muslim.

Because religious Muslims believe that the government and the religion should be joined (and Sharia law is part of that belief system), being a religious Muslim is incompatible with being someone who upholds the First Amendment to our Constitution.

So Cain is correct.

White Canadians rioting?

I thought that Lawrence Auster would have some insight on this, because he often writes about riots and other uncivilized behavior, but even he doesn’t have a good explanation. “ Let's just take in the fact that supposedly ultra-civilized white Canadians are behaving like, well, like American blacks…”

* * *

Thanks to a reader for the link to this news articles with excellent photos of the riots. You can clearly tell that the whites who are rioting are low class prole whites. It’s interesting how low class prole whites just look so much different than college educated whites.

I think that the bad values of the black underclass in the U.S. has seeped across the border to infect low class prole white Canadians.

Higher social classes behave better

In this Ross Douthat op-ed from last December, Ross just doesn’t get it because he’s blinded by his religious beliefs and he doesn’t understand HBD.

Higher social class people have higher IQs and higher future-time orientation. Furthermore, higher IQ is correlated with social conformity. Ross is confusing future-time orientation and conformity with being socially conservative, but there’s a pretty big difference.

For example, we have the weirdness that smarter people are more likely to attend church (mentioned by Ross) but at the same time smarter people are less likely to believe in the religion (not mentioned by Ross). Smart people attend church because smart people do what is socially expected of them, and attending church requires some future-time orientation. Dumb people may believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, but they find church boring and because they have low future-time orientation and don’t care what their neighbors think about them, they skip going to church.

The same applies to marriage. Among the higher social classes, being a single mother is looked down upon as low class, and people will do just about anything to avoid the stigma of appearing low class if they are from one of the higher classes. Low class people don’t care about appearing low class, so they happily engage in irresponsible sex (lacking the future time orientation to use birth control) and become single mothers.

Lesson learned from the Weiner scandal

If your name reminds people of a penis, you should change your name.

The purpose of reason

Steve Sailer found this NY Times article, but it confirms what I’ve previously written in my blog. Most people with the ability to reason (that is, smart people), use their reasoning ability to justify their beliefs rather than to seek the truth.

“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

This explains why smart people believe in dumb crap like no racial differences in IQ, man-caused global warming, and Jesus.

* * *

JP writes:

[T]his article should convince you that you are wasting your time trying to convince people of the "truth" of HBD. Liberals can, and will, hold on to their beliefs doggedly in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

I am very much aware of this point, which is why I previously wrote about how to spread the truth about HBD:

We need to understand that people believe what they believe for emotional reasons rather than logical reasons. Thus rational arguments about all of the scientific evidence in favor of HBD fall on deaf ears. The HBD-denialists have the more powerful emotional arguments. Primarily, they can call people who believe HBD racists, and everyone knows that racists are the most evil people in the world and no one wants to be a racist.

To spread the truth of HBD, we need to create the illusion of social proof rather than argue logically. Liberals understand this much better than conservatives, which is why they are winning.

Am I back?

The Google "penalty" seems to be removed, but we will see.

But the domain is still banned from Google Adsense, so I still can't make a hundred dollars a month of ad revenue from my blog. In addition to a monopoly on search, Google also has a monopoly on context-sensitive ad serving.

Why I suspect Google suppresses free speech

L writes:

It makes no sense why google would do this. There are plenty of other sites which talk about the same things you do. I'll write a complaint to google or try to get an explanation. It may be due to a technicality, someone's personal information may have been published (etc) or adsense nonsense. The best thing is to have your site back on google's search result. You didn't do anything wrong HS.

I did a LOT wrong. I wrote about the truth, and the blog did well in the Google search results because a lot of people linked here. After Steve Sailer's blog (the lead blog in this part of the blogosphere), my blog was one of handful of top blogs writing about HBD issues.

Sure, sites like the Stormfront White Nationalist Community may contain a lot more mean-spirited stuff about race than anything I’ve written here, but keeping Stormfront in the Google search results actually serves the left-wing agenda.

(1) Google gets credit for its commitment to freedom of speech by allowing such an obviously mean-spirited site to continue to show up in the search results. Then when Google blacklists a site such as mine, people say that it must be some technical glitch because Google takes no action against “worse” sites.

(2) Stormfront actually confirms the liberal worldview. The liberals believe that the U.S. is full of racists, and that the racists are dumb white trash. The existence of Stormfront makes liberals feel good about their beliefs. No one who matters would ever take Stormfront seriously. But my blog, written by an intelligent Jewish Ivy League graduate is a lot more dangerous, because I am actually able to convince other smart people that the liberals have been selling a lie about race for the last fifty years.

* * *

DanK writes:

Half. I can't believe you didn't see the angle for why you were blacklisted. It is because of the Palin work you have done.

This is unlikely, because the top executives at Google, the ones who would have the power to blacklist a blog because they disagree with its content, probably hate Palin.

The HBD content is the likely reason for the blacklisting.

Help me think up a new name for the blog

Since I’m blacklisted from Google SERPs, and one of the purposes of blogging is that people would read what I have to say, I have to start blogging under a new domain name.

I’m taking suggestions. You can use the lookup tool at Register.com to see if your idea for the domain is available.

* * *

Maybe the next blog will be written by a hot lesbian chick.

* * *

Or maybe a hot Asian girl who only likes white men.

* * *

Or a hot Asian girl who's an Ivy League Student and pays her tuition bills by working as a prostitute.

* * *

Seriously, maybe it's time to give up HBD blogging, because there's no personal benefit in it. Maybe I can just blog about value transference and how much Sarah Palin sucks.

* * *

I think I'll blog under the name Lance Taylor. That sounds like a cool name.

Half Sigma blacklisted from Google?

This blog no longer shows up on Google search results. This seems to have happened today.

Is this Google enforcing political correctness by preventing people from finding opinions that Google disagrees with?

It's hard to believe that Half Sigma is considered a more subversive blog than the Stormfront White Nationalist Community.

To see me not on Google, search for stuff I used to come up at the top of the SERPs for, such as:

half sigma
value transference
computer programming sucks

* * *

Maybe what Google is REALLY afraid of is not the HBD stuff, but my Value Transference theories.

Joe McGinnis doubts Sarah Palin’s story

Joe McGinnis, a well published author who is writing a book about Sarah Palin, says that he is not completely convinced that Trig is Sarah’s baby. He sees additional evidence in the emails that Sarah is lying about her pregnancy.

Why are all the lesbian bloggers actually white men?

That’s the question asked by Mark Steyn. Actually he didn’t mention race, but I figured I should put it in there anyway.

The answer is that white men, especially Jewish white men, are the best political bloggers. Being a top political blogger requires (1) an interest in politics, something which few women are interested in; (2) a unique and creative viewpoint helps a lot, and women tend to not have unique and creative viewpoints because women are conformists and men are contrarians; and (3) a high verbal IQ.

When women blog, they tend to blog about their personal lives, which is not something political blog readers want to read about. If there was a real female blogger in Syria, she’d probably be writing about her relationships or what she had for dinner rather than the political situation in Syria.

There is also a related issue about the rarity of people with interesting backgrounds who are also good writers. For example, people would like to read a blog written by a prostitute, but few prostitutes are good writers. Good writers tend to have really boring life stories.

Pregnancy hoax smoking gun email?

Henry Blodget and Andrew Sullivan are on top of the Palin email which may give an indication that her pregnancy was a hoax.

On April 7th, eight days before Trig was allegedly born, Palin writes an email to herself speaking as the voice of God. (The email is too well written to be entirely her own, so I wonder who helped her write it?)

The intriguing part of the email is this paragraph:

I let Trig's mom have an exceptionally comfortable pregnancy so she could enjoy every minute of it, and I even seemed to rush it along so she could wait until near the end to surprise you with the news - that way Piper wouldn't have so long to wait and count down so many days - just like Christmastime when you have to wait, impatiently, for that special day to finally open your gift? (Or the way the Palins look forward to birthday celebrations that go on for three, four day.. you all really like cake.) I know you, I knew you'd be better off with just a short time to wait!

As Henry Blodget writes:

The implication: How would Sarah Palin know 6 weeks before the due date and 1 week before her water broke that the pregnancy would be "exceptionally comfortable" and that God would seem to "rush it along"...unless she knew the outcome?

Liveblogging the Republican debate

I haven't liveblogged in a while, this will be fun. 8:00 PM on CNN.

7:46 Only 14 more minutes to DEBATE!

7:54 Mitt Romney LOOKS more like a President than anyone else on the stage.

8:01 Rick Santorum has 7 children? That's crazy! Bachmann is foster parent to zillions of children.

Newt comes out punching. No stories about his children.

Santorum + Bachmann + Romney = 17 children.

Ron Paul beats them. He's delivered 4000 babies.

8:04 Herman Cain is BLACK!!! He's BLACK!!!

8:08 T-Paw looks like a goofy high school history teacher.

8:10 Romney was hogging the podium.

8:13 Ron Paul is talking about the Federal Reserve again. That guy is like a broken record.

8:25 Ron Paul is talking about the Federal Reserve again. That guy is like a broken record.

8;29 Rick Santorum endorses a R&D credit--I disagree, they are just loopholes that allow people to avoid paying taxes without creating any jobs.

8:33 Finally it's the first commercial break so I can write some more.

This "debate" seems more like an echo chamber to me. Every candidate on the state says the exact same thing. Everyone hates Obamacare. Everyone supports "right to work" (which is a euphemism for cutting union power, but union power outside of the public sector has declined a lot during the last forty years, and those same forty years has seen median wages for men DECLINE.

So far, Michele Bachmann has surprised by being more impressive than I thought she would be (considering that she's a creationist who went to bogus schools). But she would be a bad person to vote for, because she would LOSE to Obama. Undecided voters don't like to vote for Republican women.

8:40 Romney finally says something smart! He says how stupid it was to bail out auto companies and they should have gone into bankruptcy right away. That's what I said also.

8:47 Ron Paul is talking about the Federal Reserve again. That guy is like a broken record.

8:51 The second commercial break.

T-Paw is extremely unimpressive, I'm writing him off. How did I ever think he'd be the nominee?

Newt is also not impressing me. Maybe he's getting old. And unimpressive debate performance coming on the heels of his campaign staff quitting on him en mass, it's not good for Newt.

9:13 Only a black guy can say he doesn't like Muslims. Romney gives a more PC speech about Muslims. Newt closes out the Muslim discussion by relaying an informative anecdote about the Pakistani who tried to bomb Times Square. Romney won this round by saying stuff that's most palatable to the MSM.

9:27 Pro-life echo chamber. Romney wins because he was once pro-choice, so he's not as crazy-pro-life as the other candidates.

9:34 Newt's answer to the illegal immigrant question is brilliant! Newt finally makes a splash in this debate.

9:51 The last commercial break. Rick Santorum closed out this segment with an excellent condemnation of Obama's crappy foreign policy. My opinion of Santorum has gone up.

9:58 Ron Paul mocks his obsession with the Federal Reserve.

WRAP UP

Romney looks the most Presidential. He's the best at avoiding answering questions. He will be a fearsome opponent for Obama and has the best chance of winning in a general election.

Santorum: I'd like to see more of him, I'm not sure.

Michele Bachmann: Better than I thought she would be. She would be a bad nominee because she would lose, but I predict that her campaign will pick up steam.

Cain: His speech patterns make him sound like a dumb black guy. No gravitas.

Paul: Still a joke candidate, but not as crazy-sounding as he was in 2008, but still obsessed with the Federal Reserve.

Newt: Although I liked his answer to the immigration question, he didn't impress me at all during the rest of the debate. I think he will be the first to drop out.

T-Paw: His campaign has failed to launch, and he was not impressive during this debate.

WINNER IS ROMNEY

Another hoax blog

So it turns out that the blog by a “gay” woman Syria was really written by an American man in Scotland.

Yet another intriguing blog by a “woman” that was really written by a man. I don’t think this has ever happened in the opposite direction, that some really great blog supposedly written by a man turned out to be written by a woman.

Interesting Palin emails

As reported in the Washington Post:

Gov. Sarah Palin was working with her staff on various issues on her plate on the day she reported she had gone into early labor with her fifth child, Trig, in April 2008.

Neither Palin nor her staff mention the possibility of her being in labor or giving birth prior to an announcement, and she signals no urgency about her travel or condition to her staff in the e-mails released for that period.

The secrecy is consistent with Sarah not actually being pregnant. The last thing she’d want, in that case, is the media or anyone else showing up at the hospital to witness evidence that she didn’t actually give birth to anyone.

There's no smoking gun, but it's interesting nevertheless.

New York City, no longer safe for whites?

This is one of those mysterious articles in which the news report refuses to describe what actually happened.

Brighton Beach is an immigrant Russian neighborhood, normally pretty safe. I was there last month and didn’t see anything that looked very threatening.

I assume a bunch of blacks took the subway there from black neighborhoods, and they were the ones who were shooting guns and killing people. That’s the kind of reporting the NY Times refuses to report, because they don’t want white people to know that blacks commit crime.

Half Sigma is a ahead of the times

Back in April, 2006, that's more than five years ago, I wrote about how median income for men has been declining since 1970.

The zeitgeist has finally caught up with me, thanks to the recession. At the more mainstream libertarian-conservative economics blog Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok has a chart talking showing how GDP has increased, but median male income has not increased and is actually lower today than it was in the early 1970s.

As you see, I am ahead of the times on a lot of topics. I was also the first blogger to write about the law school scam and the fake law school hiring statistics, which is now a hot topic in the blogosphere.

Maybe in another few years, other bloggers will be writing about value transference?

Sexual conquests don't lead to happiness

For the last two decades, the GSS has asked how many sexual partners respondents had during the last year.

Here are the charts for both men and women. I restricted ages to 18-40, because maybe older than 40 are too old to enjoy having lots of sexual partners.

SDA 3.5: Tables GSS 1972-2010 Cumulative Datafile

Jun 09, 2011 (Thu 08:35 AM PDT)

Variables Role Name Label Range MD Dataset Row PARTNERS HOW MANY SEX PARTNERS R HAD IN LAST YEAR 0-9 -1,98,99 1 Column HAPPY GENERAL HAPPINESS 1-3 0,8,9 1 Control SEX RESPONDENTS SEX 1-2 0 1 Weight COMPWT Composite weight = WTSSALL * OVERSAMP * FORMWT .1927-11.1290 1 Filter PARTNERS(0-7) HOW MANY SEX PARTNERS R HAD IN LAST YEAR 0-9 -1,98,99 1 Filter AGE(18-40) AGE OF RESPONDENT 18-89 0,98,99 1

Statistics for SEX = 1(MALE) Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL PARTNERS 0: NO PARTNERS 22.4 120.1 63.6 341.9 14.0 75.2 100.0 537.2 1: 1 PARTNER 33.1 1,100.0 58.4 1,943.5 8.5 282.6 100.0 3,326.0 2: 2 PARTNERS 20.1 106.3 66.3 351.1 13.6 72.0 100.0 529.4 3: 3 PARTNERS 20.5 70.8 68.0 235.3 11.5 39.8 100.0 345.9 4: 4 PARTNERS 18.7 39.8 65.4 139.0 15.8 33.7 100.0 212.6 5: 5-10 PARTNERS 23.5 54.4 55.9 129.2 20.6 47.5 100.0 231.1 6: 11-20 PARTNERS 26.1 14.6 57.9 32.2 16.0 8.9 100.0 55.7 7: 21-100 PARTNERS 11.8 2.9 51.2 12.7 37.0 9.2 100.0 24.9 COL TOTAL 28.7 1,508.9 60.5 3,185.0 10.8 569.0 100.0 5,262.9

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Statistics for SEX = 2(FEMALE) Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL PARTNERS 0: NO PARTNERS 23.2 130.2 63.4 355.4 13.4 75.1 100.0 560.7 1: 1 PARTNER 35.2 1,614.3 56.5 2,586.7 8.3 378.9 100.0 4,579.9 2: 2 PARTNERS 19.9 108.3 64.0 347.7 16.0 87.1 100.0 543.1 3: 3 PARTNERS 18.9 31.6 64.9 108.2 16.2 27.0 100.0 166.8 4: 4 PARTNERS 20.0 18.9 60.1 56.9 19.9 18.9 100.0 94.7 5: 5-10 PARTNERS 27.6 14.5 62.3 32.9 10.1 5.3 100.0 52.7 6: 11-20 PARTNERS 4.2 .5 76.6 9.8 19.2 2.5 100.0 12.8 7: 21-100 PARTNERS 45.8 1.6 39.9 1.4 14.3 .5 100.0 3.6 COL TOTAL 31.9 1,920.0 58.2 3,499.0 9.9 595.2 100.0 6,014.2

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Allocation of cases (unweighted) Valid cases 10,793 Cases excluded by filters or weight 43,213 Cases with invalid codes on row, column or control variable 1,081 Total cases 55,087

Datasets 1 /html/D3/GSS10 2 /html/Npubvars/GSS10

According to game blogs, men who have sex with many women would be the happiest, because they would be liberated from being henpecked husbands and boyfriends.

The reality is quite different. The happiest people of both sexes are those who have had a single sexual partner during the last years. Having many sexual conquests does NOT increase a man’s happiness.

Furthermore, I’m going to show you one additional table that’s restricted to men, aged 18-40, who reported having a single sexual partner during the previous year:

Statistics for SEX = 1(MALE)
Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N		HAPPY
		1 VERY HAPPY	2 PRETTY HAPPY	3 NOT TOO HAPPY	ROW TOTAL
MARITAL	1: MARRIED	39.5 818.3	55.4 1,146.9	5.0 104.1	100.0 2,069.4
	2: WIDOWED	48.2 10.4	45.1 9.8	6.6 1.4	100.0 21.6
	3: DIVORCED	19.2 30.0	67.6 105.8	13.2 20.6	100.0 156.4
	4: SEPARATED	9.5 3.5	68.4 24.9	22.1 8.0	100.0 36.4
	5: NEVER MARRIED	22.8 237.8	62.9 655.5	14.2 148.4	100.0 1,041.6
	COL TOTAL	33.1 1,100.0	58.4 1,942.9	8.5 282.6	100.0 3,325.5

We see that it’s marriage, and not the fact of having a single sexual partner which increases happiness.

The myth of the high divorce rate

This myth is spread around on “game” blogs, but they didn’t invent the myth. The myth as stated at “game” blogs is that a man should never get married because your marriage will end in divorce and your wife will take all of your money.

The reality is that divorce and other marital dysfunction is primarily a problem for proles. College educated people have a low divorce rate, and the divorce rate for the college-educated has actually decreasing since 1980. According to Dan Hurley writing in the NY Times, for college graduates married between 1990 and 1994, the ultimate divorce rate will probably be only 25%.

Given that divorce rates have probably declined further since the early 1990s among the higher classes, and given that not all college graduates are created equal, and that people getting married a second time are a lot more likely to divorce, if you are getting into a first marriage, and you and your spouse are both smart people who went to good colleges, your chance of getting divorced is pretty low, probably less than 15%.

And yesterday I addressed the myth of unhappy miserable marriages. Married people of both sexes are significantly happier than the unmarried.

What if Weiner hadn’t lied?

If he had just said “yes, I enjoy having cybersex with women I meet online” instead of insisting that his account was hacked and anything anyone else says is just right-wing lies, would he have been better off?

Marriage makes men happy as well as women

A follow-up to the previous post, here are more charts breaking down the marriage-happiness comparison by sex, and for the last three datasets (2006-2010).

SDA 3.5: Tables GSS 1972-2010 Cumulative Datafile

Jun 08, 2011 (Wed 07:49 AM PDT)

Variables Role Name Label Range MD Dataset Row MARITAL MARITAL STATUS 1-5 9 1 Column HAPPY GENERAL HAPPINESS 1-3 0,8,9 1 Control SEX RESPONDENTS SEX 1-2 0 1 Weight COMPWT Composite weight = WTSSALL * OVERSAMP * FORMWT .1927-11.1290 1 Filter YEAR(2006-2010) GSS YEAR FOR THIS RESPONDENT 1972-2010 1

Statistics for SEX = 1(MALE) Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL MARITAL 1: MARRIED 39.0 703.0 53.1 957.3 7.8 141.0 100.0 1,801.3 2: WIDOWED 20.1 13.5 56.1 37.7 23.9 16.1 100.0 67.2 3: DIVORCED 17.8 64.0 62.1 222.9 20.0 71.9 100.0 358.8 4: SEPARATED 17.0 12.0 53.6 37.6 29.4 20.6 100.0 70.2 5: NEVER MARRIED 19.6 179.3 61.9 567.4 18.5 169.7 100.0 916.4 COL TOTAL 30.2 971.8 56.7 1,822.9 13.0 419.2 100.0 3,213.9

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Statistics for SEX = 2(FEMALE) Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL MARITAL 1: MARRIED 43.0 880.6 49.3 1,010.6 7.7 158.5 100.0 2,049.7 2: WIDOWED 22.1 72.7 58.4 192.0 19.5 64.1 100.0 328.9 3: DIVORCED 18.5 86.5 62.2 290.3 19.3 89.9 100.0 466.7 4: SEPARATED 12.3 13.7 60.9 68.1 26.9 30.1 100.0 111.9 5: NEVER MARRIED 19.3 168.9 62.6 549.2 18.1 158.6 100.0 876.7 COL TOTAL 31.9 1,222.5 55.0 2,110.3 13.1 501.1 100.0 3,833.9

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Statistics for all valid cases Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL MARITAL 1: MARRIED 41.1 1,583.6 51.1 1,967.9 7.8 299.4 100.0 3,851.0 2: WIDOWED 21.8 86.2 58.0 229.7 20.2 80.2 100.0 396.1 3: DIVORCED 18.2 150.6 62.2 513.1 19.6 161.8 100.0 825.5 4: SEPARATED 14.1 25.7 58.1 105.8 27.8 50.7 100.0 182.1 5: NEVER MARRIED 19.4 348.3 62.3 1,116.7 18.3 328.3 100.0 1,793.2 COL TOTAL 31.1 2,194.3 55.8 3,933.2 13.1 920.4 100.0 7,047.9

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Allocation of cases (unweighted) Valid cases 7,033 Cases excluded by filter or weight 46,510 Cases with invalid codes on row, column or control variable 1,544 Total cases 55,087

Datasets 1 /html/D3/GSS10 2 /html/Npubvars/GSS10

The impetus for posting this is that there is an attitude on “game” blogs that marriage is for chumps, and there are anecdotal stories about some “AFC” they know who’s in an unhappy marriage. PUAs say they are too smart to be suckered into marriage.

But actual scientific analysis of the available sociological data shows that the game bloggers are wrong. Marriage appears to be a magic elixir of happiness for both sexes. (And in the previous post, I addressed the issue of whether marriage causes happiness, or if being happy causes people to get married.)

Marriage appears to make you happy

I present two tables.

The first table compares marriage to happiness in the 1972-1980 GSS datasets.

The second table contains the same comparison for the recently released 2010 dataset.

SDA 3.5: Tables GSS 1972-2010 Cumulative Datafile

Jun 08, 2011 (Wed 07:12 AM PDT)

Variables Role Name Label Range MD Dataset Row MARITAL MARITAL STATUS 1-5 9 1 Column HAPPY GENERAL HAPPINESS 1-3 0,8,9 1 Weight COMPWT Composite weight = WTSSALL * OVERSAMP * FORMWT .1927-11.1290 1 Filter YEAR(1972-1980) GSS YEAR FOR THIS RESPONDENT 1972-2010 1

Frequency Distribution Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL MARITAL 1: MARRIED 40.2 3,468.5 50.3 4,339.0 9.5 816.4 100.0 8,623.9 2: WIDOWED 23.3 181.2 55.4 431.2 21.3 166.0 100.0 778.5 3: DIVORCED 18.8 99.0 58.9 309.8 22.3 117.0 100.0 525.8 4: SEPARATED 18.0 51.2 48.4 137.7 33.6 95.4 100.0 284.3 5: NEVER MARRIED 21.8 406.5 62.7 1,166.3 15.5 288.4 100.0 1,861.2 COL TOTAL 34.8 4,206.4 52.9 6,384.1 12.3 1,483.1 100.0 12,073.6

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Allocation of cases (unweighted) Valid cases 12,075 Cases excluded by filter or weight 42,967 Cases with invalid codes on row or column variable 45 Total cases 55,087

Datasets 1 /html/D3/GSS10 2 /html/Npubvars/GSS10

SDA 3.5: Tables GSS 1972-2010 Cumulative Datafile

Jun 08, 2011 (Wed 07:11 AM PDT)

Variables Role Name Label Range MD Dataset Row MARITAL MARITAL STATUS 1-5 9 1 Column HAPPY GENERAL HAPPINESS 1-3 0,8,9 1 Weight COMPWT Composite weight = WTSSALL * OVERSAMP * FORMWT .1927-11.1290 1 Filter YEAR(2010) GSS YEAR FOR THIS RESPONDENT 1972-2010 1

Frequency Distribution Cells contain: -Row percent -Weighted N HAPPY 1 VERY HAPPY 2 PRETTY HAPPY 3 NOT TOO HAPPY ROW TOTAL MARITAL 1: MARRIED 39.3 411.8 50.8 532.9 9.9 104.1 100.0 1,048.8 2: WIDOWED 21.8 28.1 59.9 77.3 18.3 23.6 100.0 128.9 3: DIVORCED 17.2 45.0 62.4 163.4 20.4 53.5 100.0 261.8 4: SEPARATED 9.2 4.5 61.1 30.1 29.7 14.6 100.0 49.3 5: NEVER MARRIED 17.8 97.6 65.2 357.9 17.0 93.5 100.0 549.0 COL TOTAL 28.8 587.0 57.0 1,161.5 14.2 289.3 100.0 2,037.8

Color coding: <-2.0 <-1.0 <0.0 >0.0 >1.0 >2.0 Z N in each cell: Smaller than expected Larger than expected

Allocation of cases (unweighted) Valid cases 2,038 Cases excluded by filter or weight 53,043 Cases with invalid codes on row or column variable 6 Total cases 55,087

Datasets 1 /html/D3/GSS10 2 /html/Npubvars/GSS10

As we see, one of the constants of sociology is that married people are happier.

Now some people will ask the legitimate question, does marriage cause happiness, or are unhappy people unlikely to get married?

I think there are some hints in these two tables that it’s marriage which causes happiness. Notice that divorced and widowed respondents are as unhappy as the never married (even less happy, in fact). If happy people are the ones getting married, wouldn’t they still be happy people after divorce or death of a spouse?

In the more than two decades between the first chart and the second chart, the percentage of people who are single has significantly increased. If happiness were not caused by marriage, we would expect the happiness of single people to increase as the marriage rate decreases, because the cohort of single people in 2010 should include some happy people who would have gotten married in the different social environment of earlier decades. But in fact, the unhappiness of the never married has increased in the 2010 dataset relative to the 1972-1980 datasets.

Romney to beat Obama

The latest poll shows that Romney would beat Obama if the presidential election were held today, but Obama would crush Palin. This demonstrates my point about Romney having lots of gravitas and Palin completely lacking in it.

The mediocre performance of Jon Hunstman and T-Paw could be chalked up to those guys lacking name recognition.

More about the truth about Sarah Palin's alleged pregnancy

A reader says that the Salon article completely debunks the allegation that Sarah Palin faked a preganancy.

But actually, if you carefully reread the anonymous comment, you will see that the two accounts are consistent with each other.

Everyone who supposedly provides evidence that Sarah Palin did give birth to Trig are alleged to be part of the conspiracy. This includes Dr. Cathy Baldwin Johnson, Mercedes and Levi Johnston, and that even Frank Bailey, the author of the Sarah Palin tell-all book, is hiding the truth.

Let’s examine some of the alleged facts in the Salon article.

The reporter directly questioned Palin about the matter in a private meeting in her Juneau office before she gave birth. Gov. Palin responded by voluntarily lifting her outer layer of clothing, offering a clear look at her round belly.

She only removed the outer layer of clothing, the reporter didn’t see her bare naked belly. So the reporter was duped by her fake belly, which was covered by her inner layer of clothing.

we had heard the rumors before the delivery of this baby also, that Bristol was pregnant, and so, when my photographer and I got to the hospital and we saw her, I thought, well, clearly there’s no way that that girl just delivered a baby seven hours ago.

The anonymous comment alleges that Bristol gave birth two months prior to the date according to the Palins, so obviously she didn’t look like she just delivered a baby.

In order to debunk this rumor we need (1) a credible witness who saw Sarah’s bare naked pregnant belly; or (2) a credible witness who saw Bristol Palin in the winter of 2008 (when she was mysteriously absent from school for unexplained reasons) who saw that she wasn’t pregnant. The only time I know of that Bristol was seen in public that entire winter was when she had her car accident.

Because Sarah Palin could provide evidence if she wanted to, but instead acts mad and outraged whenever someone brings it up (sort of the way Weiner behaved until he finally admitted he was lying), we don’t know the truth.

A year without toilet paper, the movie

I previously mentioned the infamous NY Times article about the environmental nut who went a year without toilet paper (among other things).

This week, I watched the “documentary” movie, No Impact Man, about Colin Beavan, the guy from the NY Times article. And “documentary” is in quotes because I really see this as a reality-genre movie about a Manhattan couple in which the husband is so over-the-top liberal environmentalist that he’s more of a parody than a real person.

The wife, Michelle Conlin, comes off as a vapid consumerist who models her life after the TV show Sex and the City. She starts the movie by buying herself a thousand-dollar handbag in order to prepare herself for the year of deprivation. She seems like the kind of person who votes for Democrats because all the cool people vote for Democrats and not because she’s especially political (except I would wager that she hates anti-abortion people). How does someone so vapid wind up being a “Senior Writer” for Businessweek?

Her career gives the movie an interesting twist. Yesterday I wrote about women who make more money than their husbands, and their relationship seems to be that way. Colin is an SAHD. That’s a stay at home dad. He cooks, cleans, and takes care of their daughter while Michelle goes to the office, and she seems happy to go to the office which has a nice climate controlled environment. You see, as part of the year without impact, they have to forgo electricity. Meanwhile, back at the co-op, a realistic-looking tiny and extremely cluttered Manhattan apartment (not at all like the roomy apartment in the TV show Friends), living without impact is a full-time job for Colin. He has to do laundry by hand (and by foot), and he has to buy organic food daily because there’s no refrigerator. Until his wife starts begging ice cubes from a neighbor (who has a much nicer apartment) and putting them into an ice chest. Initially, Colin had this idea of a “pot in a pot” which would keep food cool through evaporative cooling, but it didn’t work.

One thing Michelle really hated about the project was having to give up coffee. You see, as part of not having any impact, they could only eat local foods, and because no coffee is grown within 250 miles of Manhattan, coffee was not allowed.

How did they get married in the first place? Their 2002 wedding announcement made the NY Times:

Ms. Conlin and Mr. Beavan met in February 2000 at a birthday party in the East Village given by a friend of Ms. Conlin's.

''Another of my friends was quite physically aggressive about getting us together,'' said Ms. Conlin, recalling the night. ''She said, 'You guys are both writers,' and physically flung us together.''

The main story arc is that Michelle wants to have a baby, but Colin doesn’t want one. He has primary parental responsibility given that he’s the SAHD, so his wishes ought to carry more weight here. But Michelle guilts him. “I put up with the pot in a pot, what about what I want?”

UPDATE: MICHELLE’S PARENTS ARE RICH!

How did I miss this? Michelle Conlin is the daughter or Ed Conlin who owns one quarter of Conlin’s Furniture, a chain of furniture stores in the northern Midwest with $50 million annual sales before the recession.

A chain of furniture stores probably had a profit margin of about 7% before the recession, so Ed was making $800K to $900K per year, but he probably made less a lot less during the last two years.

Michelle doesn’t seem to have gotten a lot of that money, because the tiny co-op they live in which is on or near lower Fifth Avenue I would guess sells for $600K to $700K.

When will we find out the truth about Sarah Palin and Trig?

Three days ago I wrote:

Palin hasn’t proven to me that she’s being truthful about the circumstances of Trig’s birth. Weiner hasn’t proven to me that he’s being truthful about the circumstances of the Twitter photo.

Now we know the truth about Anthony Weiner. He is a liar. He must get some sort of sexual pleasure from sending lewd photos to women he met on the internet.

Henry Blodget is still seeking the truth about Sarah Palin and Trig.

Is this anonymous comment a complete fabrication, or is it the truth? This is the text of the comment:

Shitfire, I've held my tongue long enough. I'm going to share a few details I have been keeping under my hat because I thought even if I posted "Anonymous", it could still be traced back to me. I have done a bit of research and decided it's worth the risk if these little tidbits of information aid in the investigation for any bloggers, authors, et al.

First of all, I am NOT part of the Palin family. I work in the healthcare field and that is how I know what I'm about to share. Please respect my severe anxiety and trepidation about posting and do not ask where I work, my exact position, or other questions whose answers would only serve to immediately identify me.

This is what I know- you can take it or leave it, believe it or write it off. I'm only sharing at this point because I simply cannot believe this ridiculous farce is still...well, a ridiculous farce.

1. Trig was born two months earlier than stated by the Palins. He was NOT born at Mat Su. Keep in mind the only way I could state certainly where he was NOT born...is to know where he WAS born.

2. Trig was not hurriedly released from hospital care, necessitating what is often called "the wild ride". I believe (this is just my perception, not a "fact") Sarah Palin planned the Wild Ride well in advance as it served two purposes: she didn't have to worry about trying to look pregnant in formal attire at the evening function that night in Texas, and it allowed her the perfect cover story here in Alaska- everyone wakes up and voila, the governor's had her baby.

3. Trig that was born AS Trig (meaning the "first" Trig) did indeed have an ear deformity. In my professional opinion, it is highly unlikely the infant presented at the Republican National Convention was the "original" Trig.

4. Cathy Baldwin Johnson WAS present at the delivery of Trig in February 2008. Sarah Palin was NOT present.

5. Tripp Johnston was also NOT born at Mat Su.

6. Tripp Johnston was not born until five weeks after his announced birth.

7. IF Mercede and Levi Johnston visited Bristol and an infant at Mat Su in December...it was 100% staged. I do not feel this was the case- I (again, this is just my opinion) feel the Johnstons were strong-armed by the Palins. I believe Mercede and Levi both signed nondisclosure agreements and possibly took payoffs.

I am 100% certain Mercede nor Levi could have been present at Tripp Johnston's birth in "December"...because Tripp Johnston was **NOT** born on any day in December.

I can state with certainty that Dr. Cathy Baldwin Johnson was initially duped into this hoax and then blackmailed to continue it. She remains conflicted and torn about whom she is best serving by keeping quiet.

I can state with certainty that Dar Miller, the sweet and lovely woman who perished in a suspicious house fire in 2008 was ASKED to assist in caring for Trig. I do not know whether she ever considered or accepted the job. I cannot stand to think that her death was the result of a purposeful act. However, I find it extremely suspicious that any attempt to access records or evidence of the house fire (which should be public record if the case was ruled accidental death and closed) are met with what I can only describe as inappropriately aggressive stonewalling.

I can state with absolute certainty that virtually the only thing completely destroyed beyond repair in the arson fire at the church was several file cabinets filled with files related to births, adoptions, and foster care placements. Considering these were metal file cabinets, the arsonist must have opened the drawers and poured or placed an accelerant IN them.

As with the fire that claimed Dar Miller's life, any attempt to obtain evidentiary reports or investigative statements on this incident are met with complete and volatile obfuscation.

Lastly, I know it to be medically impossible for Sarah Palin to have become pregnant after 2002. The procedure she had made it impossible for a reversal to be performed. I have seen several pages relating to these medical records including an anesthesiologist's report and a perfusionist's stand-by report. (indicating his services were not needed)

I find it frustratingly impossible that so few people recognize something is wrong with this narrative as the Palins tell it. Why "out" Bristol rather than just showing Trig's birth certificate? I of course know Sarah can't show what she does not have, but why don't MORE people recognize this?

The above statements are the sum total of what I know. Please do not tell me it's my "duty" to Alaska or America to "go public". As much as I would like to say "screw it" and purge my soul to Gryphen...the image of Dar Miller's sweet smile makes itself seen in my head. And I think...it's too awful to even consider...but WHAT IF...what IF that is what happens to people who "know too much" about the pregnancies and babies claimed by the Palin family? WHAT if?

So I apologize for not being "public"...and I know there will certainly be many of you who don't believe me. I don't fault you for it, after all the red herrings Sarah herself has pitched out. But to ease my own burden, I'm putting this out here...in hopes an author or researcher can put it together with what THEY know...and perhaps shut down this disgusting lie machine Sarah Palin...once and for all.

One final detail I neglected to mention- Frank KNOWS the absolute truth. He pulled many strings and made many inquiries near the time of Trig's ACTUAL birth. I of course can't day exactly what he knows, but I know he's 100% aware that Sarah Palin did NOT give birth to anything in April of 2008...except for a hundred pound LIE.

The commenter either knows the truth, or has very carefully been following everything that is known about the alleged hoax and fabricated a lie based on careful internet research.

Women who earn more than their husbands

I came across this three-year-old NYMag article about women who earn more than their husbands. The women featured in this article are what one might call bitches. They are angry with their husbands for not earning a proper income. These women confirm Roissy’s game theory that women are sexually attracted to high status males. When they earn more than their husbands, their husbands seem low-status to them, and this causes the women to lose sexual attraction.

When men earn a lot more than their wives, the wives usually quit working and dedicate their lives to spending their husbands’ money. No one thinks this situation is unusual nor do they criticize the women. But when men give up on working because their wives make a lot of money, the men somehow become despicable, and the wives get mad at their husbands for spending their money.

Should the low-wage or non-wage husband do the housework? I personally hate doing stuff like cleaning and cooking, and I could never stand taking care of children full time. So I am sympathetic to the men who aren’t interested in doing that stuff.

If a man and woman marry in their early twenties, and both pursue careers, it’s really hard to predict which one will wind up making more money. It’s a risk that couples take. What’s sad is that if the man winds up making more money, everyone is happy, but if the woman makes more money, she resents her husband. At least in some marriages, that’s the case.

I wonder if this article exaggerates the problems of the wife making more money. It’s actually quite common nowadays and becoming more common with each passing year. It was 22% before the “mancession”. I’m sure it’s higher four year later. I’m sure women make more money in more than 25% of marriages today. This number would be even higher without assortative mating. Most of these marriages probably work out. I know couples in which I suspect the wife makes more money, but they stay married and don’t have any outward signs of marital dysfunction.