« Olympus OM-D E-M5 part 2 | Main | Olympus OM-D E-M5 part 3: autofocus on a mirrorless camera »

June 21, 2012

Comments

We do NOT need MORE super-religious pacifist types like Mormons. We need more buck-tooth 1860-type Johnny Reb Baptists who can/will fight.

Quantrelle > Romney

Besides, where the baby population booms in colored 'hoods - I don't see many churches. They either burn them down or they close by "theyself." They're too busy getting drunk, high and fucking for Jesus to go to church.

Audacious epigone recently showed that religion is apparently fairly eugenic in America.

That is, religiosity is strongly positively associated with fertility among smarts while at the same time, religiosity seems to be fairly neutral in relation to fertility for dumbs.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2012/06/education-religiosity-and-fecundity.html

I'm not surprised. Indeed, it has been well established that conservativism is associated with greater fecundity (here, Inductivist http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-do-wealthy-white-conservative-women.html and my own blog, http://jayman.blog.com/2012/06/01/liberalism-hbd-population-and-solutions-for-the-future/ ), and hints were found that religiosity had something to do with it. In short, it is the bible-thumpers who are breeding most, which explains a lot of the religious wackiness in American politics.

This is quite consistent with the pioneer effect hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that when habitable land is abundant—such as when new territory is being opened up—any trait that encourages early and prodigious reproduction will be favored, and those traits would naturally come to be associated with high fertility.

A key point of my hypothesis about the link between colonization and conservativism, at least in regards to the America frontier and similar areas, is that while breeding rates go up among pioneers, the demanding lifestyle also meant that paternal investment needed to be high. When you have those things together—early and prodigious breeding (which implies fast maturation and high sex drive) along with high paternal investment (which requires monogamy)—you are going to get stringent rules and mores with regard to sex. This is out of necessity, since such early maturing and highly sexed individuals need structure in place to sustain monogamous pairings. Nothing works for that purpose quite like religion, particularly in the West, hence, you have attitudes of the Moral Majority. This is also seen among similar fast-breeding but high paternal investment societies, such as with Muslims, Gypsies, or Irish Travellers.

Doesn't Utah have the highest fertility rate?

The previous thread someone said intelligent *women* have fewer children than men, which I've seen supported elsewhere, so it would be nice to see the regression for intelligence-fertility disaggregated by sex.

Never heard of the Pioneer Effect hypothesis, but we find more liberal-minded people in cities and more conservative-minded people in the country. Their beliefs could be a product of their environment: cities require a more activist role for the state because of infrastructure needs (roads, police, public transportation, adjudicating disputes etc). Since urban living is more expensive, people probably choose to have fewer children, which is why they move to relatively affluent suburbs.

Sorry HS, but that's a horrible title and I think you are misreading the meaning of the coefficients in the regression model. Actually IQ correlates negatively with children even after controlling for religiosity.

Those regression coefficients don't necessarily tell us much about the relative importance of the variables BIBLE and WORDSUM because they are themselves correlated.

In fact, I ran regressions controlling for BIBLE and still found a very strong negative correlation between WORDSUM and CHILDS.

I recoded WORDSUM into roughly equal groups (0-4;5;6;7;8-10).

Looking at the gap between the lowest scoring of those five groups and the highest:

BIBLE = 1 (Word of God): idjuts (0-4) have 0.21 more kids than smarties (8-10)

BIBLE = 2 (Inspired word): idjuts have 0.11 more kids

BIBLE = 3 (Book of Fables): idjuts have 0.34 more kids


Just to follow up, EQWLTH doesn't belong in the regression model at all. It's only effect is to create a spurious impression that it's a stronger variable than WORDSUM. Here are the adj R-squared values:

BIBLE(1-3), WORDSUM, EQWLTH: 0.025
BIBLE(1-3), WORDSUM: 0.025
BIBLE(1-3), EQWLTH: 0.024

This shows that adding EQWLTH doesn't improve the regression model. Next, looking at the correlation matrix shows that EQWLTH does not correlate with CHILDS:

CHILDS & BIBLE(1-3): -0.13
CHILDS & WORDSUM: -0.07
CHILDS & EQWLTH: 0.01

Looking at the relationship between CHILDS & EQWLTH shows the correlation is not linear but a barbell with both extremes having more kids.

My conclusion:

1. BIBLE is the most important variable
2. WORDSUM has an effect indep of BIBLE
3. BIBLE has an effect indep of WORDSUM
4. EQWLTH has a non-linear correlation to CHILDS.
5. Adding EQWLTH to the model does not improve the predictive value and causes spurious results.

@The Real Vince:

"Never heard of the Pioneer Effect hypothesis, but we find more liberal-minded people in cities and more conservative-minded people in the country."

Read my blog. You can read all about it.

"Their beliefs could be a product of their environment: cities require a more activist role for the state because of infrastructure needs (roads, police, public transportation, adjudicating disputes etc). Since urban living is more expensive, people probably choose to have fewer children, which is why they move to relatively affluent suburbs."

A level of self-selection is likely at play. Those who want to have families head away from cities, while those who want fewer children remain urban dwellers. But there is also an evolutionary effect, which is more evident when one compares the Northeast with the rest of the country.

"We do NOT need MORE super-religious pacifist types like Mormons. We need more buck-tooth 1860-type Johnny Reb Baptists who can/will fight."

There are tons of Mormons in the military. BYU has one of the highest-ranking ROTC programs in the country. Perhaps you are thinking of Quakers.

Thanks Dan.

As the data show, while IQ alone has virtually no association with fertility one way or the other, educational attainment is an even stronger predictor of fecundity (and is inversely correlated with it, of course) than religiosity is. Uneducated people with no religious affiliation and no church attendance have more kids than the most pious PhD's do, although religiosity is still a very strong predictor--it's just not the strongest one.

I'm glad I'm married with kids, instead of being an "intellectual" sitting around and thinking about stuff. That has to be boring.

Again, none of this data shows that religiosity *causes* higher levels of fecundity. In an age where religious participation and child-bearing are culturally optional, the tendency to toward both might be a product of the same (partially heritable) behavioral predispositions. We don't know, but there probably aren't too many instances of people who were originally secular and completely disinterested in having children who suddenly become highly religious, and thus inspired to have a ton of children.

As a comparison between developed countries in general, those with near-replacement fertility rates are the culturally liberal ones that encourage female participation in the labor market, namely Anglo and Nordic countries, France and the Netherlands. Culturally conservative countries in Eastern Europe, Southern Europe and East Asia have traditional concepts of marriage (with a stay-home wife), so those who can't afford or aren't interested in such marriage don't participate at all. Consequently, they have fertility rates close to 1.3 or 1.4.

See this map illustrating fertility differences between European countries and counties within each country: http://i.imgur.com/WV9Wj.png Muslim immigration can't explain the differences, as some of the darkest green counties are in regions that do not have high rates of immigration.

Wrong measurement: Bible and redistribution are both test for which particular religion someone, and are not accurate measures of how religious someone is. A sincere Unitarian will tell you the Bible is a book of fables, and will have very few children, not because he is irreligious, but because his religion encourages female hypergamy.

Similarly, a reform Jew may be just a religious as an orthodox Jew, but an orthodoxy Jew will have more children because his religion encourages patriarchy.

A better measure would be "what church do you go to, and how often", which, combined with measures such as diversity training to detect progressivism as a religion, would show us that some religions breed, and others, particularly progressivism, do not.

> educational attainment is an even stronger predictor of fecundity

Educational attendance (not attainment) should be treated as church attendance.

I predict that the best predictor would be educational and church attendance, and how your church/educational institution treats hypergamy and patriarchy.

Fertility is not magic. It means having kids in your late teens to early thirties. That's it. That's all there is. And the explanation for SOME religious behavior is simply that women in that grouping get married and start having kids at an early age.

We know Hispanic fertility is higher than that of Whites, IIRC (I could be wrong) so too is Black fertility. Its not magic -- the women there have kids early (often 16 years old for Hispanic girls who again IIRC I could be wrong have the highest teen pregnancy rates). Higher fertility = kids earlier.

Mormons have enormous pressure and also social support for women to "couple up" early and start having kids (with built-in baby sitters to help with childcare for multiple kids, efforts to find jobs, etc.). Catholics, don't do much in that area, however Hispanic/Mexican women don't care, just find the sexiest bad boy and have kids as single mothers. Ditto mostly Black women (illegitimacy over 70% nationwide, over 90% in the Ghetto).

This means mate/husband searching by women past age 22 or so is incompatible with fertility. It cannot be allowed. In a fairly obvious social competition, Blacks and Hispanics have developed informal but effective measures to produce a lot of kids for demographic power. White middle/working class women looking at men the mostly don't find sexy tend to mate search burning away fertile years to find the "best" man, seeing as how the guys around them are not good enough.

That should surprise no one, White middle/working class women are the most free, of any social pressure in personal choices, being isolated and atomized to a great extent. A White Catholic might go to church, every day, but face no social pressure to have kids early.

Other societies and Mormons shut down that freedom mainly by extensive social ties and pressure to create kids. Simple as that.

What whiskey's comment fails to take into observation is that women who couple up early and start having kids right away are wired differently (intellectually inferior) than those middle class women who side-step tradition; those freer women are free because they want to be. You think that if an atheist woman with an Ivy League education married at age 23, she will have more than two kids during her lifetime? No, she won't because she doesn't want that many kids. And this is why I cannot for the life of me understand people who credit the lack of high fertility to late marriages; the late marriage doesn't cause only-one-child, the genetic/behavioral tendency of certain women causes late marriage and few children. Regardless of when these women become sexually active or marry, they won't have four children.

Higher intelligence/less religiosity/pursuit of higher education/lack of desire for a house filled with children's noise are all a result of the same genetic predisposition.

@anon666:

Thanks for that image. In the context of what I said on my blog, the areas of the Celtic fringe and Scandinavia have high fertility rates because these people still have land into which they can expand (all of these being sparsely populated). The same is not true for most of continental Europe. In the southern UK, France, and the Netherlands however, I suspect that immigrant populations are driving fertility.

What you say about Southern and Eastern Europe is pretty spot-on, and explains the low fertility rates there. Of course, those attitudes can't hold on forever as those who hold those attitudes about marriage and family (i.e., the slow breeders) will be replaced by those who find ways of having children (i.e., the fast breeders).

You are basically echoing the central point of my blog post. Religion doesn't cause higher fertility but those with religious temperaments also tend to marry (and hence have children) sooner. From what I could tease out of the GSS data for the age of first marriage across the country, this is borne out. Women in Middle America get married younger than those on the coasts. This is because their temperaments are inclined towards fast breeding (i.e., early reproduction) thanks to evolutionary forces during the colonial era.

@whiskey:

"Fertility is not magic. It means having kids in your late teens to early thirties. That's it. That's all there is. And the explanation for SOME religious behavior is simply that women in that grouping get married and start having kids at an early age."

That's pretty much the thing. Those who are religious tend to also hold attitudes towards early marriage and a hence higher lifetime number of children. The fast-breeding Whites that now populate the American interior are less concerned about pursuing higher education or experiencing the world searching for an ideal mate or all things that delay marriage for slow-breeding Whites. I'd suspect that fast-breeding Whites physically mature earlier as well, but I haven't seen data on this as yet. As I stated on my blog, this—by itself—isn't necessarily a problem; all it means is that population would shrink until the fast-breeders replace the slow breeders. Of course, the flow of immigrants disrupts this process, by preventing the land from depopulating and hence land values falling again.

@LaPanache:

"Regardless of when these women become sexually active or marry, they won't have four children.

Higher intelligence/less religiosity/pursuit of higher education/lack of desire for a house filled with children's noise are all a result of the same genetic predisposition."

Yes. That is yet another aspect. Slow-breeders, who in America are primarily liberals, in addition to marrying later, also tend to *want* fewer children. Many even justify it as "doing their part for the planet," ignoring the fact that the people who are truly overburdening the planet are not so inclined.

@JayMan:

These SWPL Liberals don't need to justify anything. Concern for the environment/planet, costs of child-rearing, questionable genetics are all mere excuses for not having a lot of kids; the truth is it is not going to be enjoyable to have 3+ young kids in your life every day. The responsibility is unwanted to most people who want to live some of their lives for themselves. Selfish? You bet. But it is no more their job to care about the demographic makeup of America than it is the Duggers' job to care about overburdening the planet.

Many people who get upset about the "slow-breeders" overestimate the burden a single individual is willing (or should be shamed into) taking for the greater community. Believe me, I care a lot about this world, but not enough to disrupt my own life significantly for it. And here I'm echoing the internal sentiment of all my SWPL friends who want the DINK lifestyle.

The comments to this entry are closed.