Skip to content
December 27, 2013 / JayMan

Yes, I am Black

Contra Italianthro’s claims,

JayMan is an HBd blogger obsessed with IQ, heredity and achievement, and probably Richard Lynn’s #1 fan. He claims to be Jamaican, which makes him either the most insanely self-hating black person on earth, or a white Nordicist pretending to be black so he can get away with insulting blacks and everyone else who isn’t Northwestern European.

I wanted to leave this here to show everyone that yes, I am Black. And yes, I do indeed have a White wife:

JayMan & Wife Hands

And I am in fact quite proud of my Blackness and Jamaican heritage. (See About Me) That is my soon-to-arrive son’s crib in the background, and a copy of The Atlantic magazine… 🙂

Advertisements

40 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. Anonymous / Dec 27 2013 7:34 PM

    Race is a social construct and this doesn’t prove anything!

    • JayMan / Dec 28 2013 12:25 PM

      @Anonymous:

      :-p

  2. Messi / Dec 28 2013 12:00 AM

    [insert CB4 reference here]

  3. minoritymagnet / Dec 28 2013 9:58 AM

    It always amazes what counts as black in the US. Your skin tone can easily be found in Southern Europe or in the Middle East, too. I am of Middle Eastern descent (living in Europe) and have a similar skin tone – when asked for ethnicity I would pick White on the offical US cencus forms. What do you pick – just curious?

    • JayMan / Dec 28 2013 12:25 PM

      @minoritymagnet:

      Your skin tone can easily be found in Southern Europe or in the Middle East, too.

      Indeed.

      What do you pick – just curious?

      I pick multiple races (Black/White/Asian).

  4. Handle / Dec 28 2013 11:25 AM

    Congrats mon! Dawg a sweat and long hair hide it, but yu shake man han, yu nu shake him heart.

  5. Richard / Dec 28 2013 5:27 PM

    Not apropos of much, but I’ll put this here since I’d rather not put a comment on a post that came out a year or so ago, and while I am interested in HBD, I really can’t respect or stomach racists (who make up a huge part of those interested in HBD):

    Why do you think Hispanic immigration is “bad”? From my point of view they seem not at all different from the southern Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Irish (and Scot-Irish/northern Brit borderers) who flooded in to this country in previous centuries without changing the characteristics of this country much.

    BTW, I wouldn’t buy HBDChick’s stuff on China. She seems predisposed to the idea that cousin marriage was prevalent in China even though evidence for her position is shaky (personally, I hadn’t heard of a preference for such a thing).

    Plus, the effects of Communism on society & human nature are glossed away by her. You don’t see melamine added to milk in Taiwan or HK or Singapore, for instance.
    You did, however, see Americans sell radioactive beverages and mascara that causes blindness, however. Maybe that tells us that NW Europeans also don’t care about their fellow human beings. Or something.

    • JayMan / Dec 28 2013 6:15 PM

      @Richard:

      Why do you think Hispanic immigration is “bad”? From my point of view they seem not at all different from the southern Italians, Eastern Europeans, and Irish (and Scot-Irish/northern Brit borderers) who flooded in to this country

      You’re right, they’re not, average IQ notwithstanding (a few points lower for Latin Americans than it was for the S/E European/Irish immigrants who stayed in America).

      who flooded in to this country in previous centuries without changing the characteristics of this country much.

      On that point, you’d be wrong. For the Borderlanders, see here (or read Albion’s Seed or American Nations):

      Flags of the American Nations | JayMan’s Blog

      For the Southern and Eastern Europeans and the Catholic Irish, see:

      Those Who Can See: Were you Assimilable?

      The Split Personality of America | Staffan’s Personality Blog

      All mass immigration, from anywhere, is, typically, a negative. This is primarily because of the economic impact – large numbers of immigrants drive down wages for the native population (see my posts on immigration). The impact is intensified when the immigrant population isn’t behaviorally compatible with the native population, especially when the incoming population is more clannish than the native (“native” in this sense referring to the resident population, not their race, etc…).

      BTW, I wouldn’t buy HBDChick’s stuff on China. She seems predisposed to the idea that cousin marriage was prevalent in China even though evidence for her position is shaky (personally, I hadn’t heard of a preference for such a thing).

      See here:

      cousin marriage in china | hbd* chick

      Plus, the effects of Communism on society & human nature are glossed away by her.

      See my previous post, again, I will quote Staffan (emphasis mine):

      It’s clear that Whites and East Asians are doing better than the rest. In Latin America we find that the most European countries, Uruguay and Chile are doing best. But at the same time we see countries like Russia struggling. Some would say this needs to be adjusted for communism, but I say they created communism and weren’t doing well before that either. We can’t adjust for their entire history. So just being White is clearly not enough, or even necessary for that matter.

      You don’t see melamine added to milk in Taiwan or HK or Singapore, for instance.

      Taiwan and Hong Kong are indeed less corrupt than mainland China according to the Transparency International, (discussed in my post HBD Chick Vindicated?). But, all of those places are populated by select individuals. The people who colonized these islands may have been considerably less corrupt, on average, than the mainland Chinese. At least in Singapore, they appear to be smarter, so that’s a clue. HBD Chick and I did indeed discuss some of the measures the Singaporeans use to keep corruption under control.

    • Richard / Dec 28 2013 10:09 PM

      Actually, the economic impact is not necessarily a negative. Immigrants (at least recent ones in to the US) tend to be more entrepreneurial and creative than the native-born, per capita, for one. Immigrants don’t just take jobs; they also create jobs. I will grant that immigration tends to lead to inequality, though.

      As for clannishness, that was kind of my point: the US has already absorbed a huge amount of clannish types of people to get to where we are today; it’s rather hard to argue that it can’t absorb more clannish-type of people or else it will “break”, considering that the Irish, southern Italians, and Eastern Europeans didn’t manage to “break” America.

      Concerning cousin marriage in China, if you read the summary of the research paper, the conclusion is quite mixed. It does say some types of cousin marriage are “preferred” or “favored” at some places in some times (while others are forbidden or merely tolerated), but what does that mean? It certainly wasn’t something that was stressed by Chinese historians and, unlike the Arab countries, isn’t something that was used to achieve some sort of social setup. Her logic (in another article of hers) that there were laws prohibiting cousin marriages in dynastic China meant that cousin marriages _must_ have been prevalent is pretty weak; plenty of NW European countries prohibited cousin marriages as well, so if you follow her logic, cousin marriage must have been prevalent in NW Europe as well.

      Concerning adjusting for the whole history part, then fine, if you’re saying it’s OK to use some example when a certain people were under the sway of a pernicious evil ideology to epitomize the effects of that particular culture, then surely you must agree with me that NW Europeans have a tendency to commit genocide and like to enslave/wipe out outsiders, as the Germans under Nazism certainly did. You see the weakness of your/Staffan’s argument? Not being able to adjust for a whole history does not mean that you should not try to adjust for the effects of an ideology (especially since, in the case of East Asia, and even the Chinese, there are East Asians and Chinese under Communism and East Asians and Chinese not under Communism).

      “The people who colonized these islands may have been considerably less corrupt, on average, than the mainland Chinese.”

      Possible, in that China is as huge and varied as Europe, and there are big differences between North and South, various provinces, etc. However, you can compare the level of corruption between the denizens of southern Fujian and the original Han Taiwanese (genetically/ethnically/culturally the same people, as one came from the other). You can also compare the level of corruption between North and South Korea (genetically/ethnically/culturally the same people), which is massive. I’m quite certain that you’ll find that the amount of variance in corruption attributable to the political system, economic system, & wealth level overwhelms the amount of variance in corruption attributable to genetics.

      “At least in Singapore, they appear to be smarter, so that’s a clue.”

      Well, in Singapore, they also never suffered from malnutrition, which big parts of the current Chinese population above the age of 30 did.

    • JayMan / Dec 28 2013 11:03 PM

      @Richard:

      Actually, the economic impact is not necessarily a negative. Immigrants (at least recent ones in to the US) tend to be more entrepreneurial and creative than the native-born, per capita, for one.

      Richard, Richard, Richard…that’s all bullshit.

      Immigrants don’t just take jobs; they also create jobs.

      All told, the impact from immigrants on native born in terms of jobs is negative.

      As for clannishness, that was kind of my point: the US has already absorbed a huge amount of clannish types of people to get to where we are today; it’s rather hard to argue that it can’t absorb more clannish-type of people or else it will “break”

      I’ll put it like this: my wife, who is a very liberal, feminist, Yankee from northern Maine notes (based on her experience in Southern New England) that “that’s not New England.” The clannish European immigrants have changed the character of the country, and not necessarily in positive ways. Additional clannish immigrants will only serve to trend the country towards more corruption, not to mention intensify the bitterness of racial politics, and erode social cohesion (I assume you’re familiar with Robert Putnam’s work, yes?).

      Yes, America would survive. It wouldn’t be the same America, however.

      Concerning cousin marriage in China, if you read the summary of the research paper, the conclusion is quite mixed. It does say some types of cousin marriage are “preferred” or “favored” at some places in some times (while others are forbidden or merely tolerated), but what does that mean? It certainly wasn’t something that was stressed by Chinese historians and, unlike the Arab countries, isn’t something that was used to achieve some sort of social setup. Her logic (in another article of hers) that there were laws prohibiting cousin marriages in dynastic China meant that cousin marriages _must_ have been prevalent is pretty weak; plenty of NW European countries prohibited cousin marriages as well, so if you follow her logic, cousin marriage must have been prevalent in NW Europe as well.

      Genetic evidence would settle the matter. I have remarked that HBD Chick’s hypothesis needs to be tested with genetic evidence to see if it holds up. If it doesn’t, that would be a serious blow to her hypothesis.

      Concerning adjusting for the whole history part, then fine, if you’re saying it’s OK to use some example when a certain people were under the sway of a pernicious evil ideology to epitomize the effects of that particular culture, then surely you must agree with me that NW Europeans have a tendency to commit genocide and like to enslave/wipe out outsiders, as the Germans under Nazism certainly did. You see the weakness of your/Staffan’s argument?

      No, because under certain circumstances, at least some of them (certain Germans) in fact do. I don’t see the trouble here.

      Possible, in that China is as huge and varied as Europe, and there are big differences between North and South, various provinces, etc. However, you can compare the level of corruption between the denizens of southern Fujian and the original Han Taiwanese (genetically/ethnically/culturally the same people, as one came from the other).

      No two human groups, unless they were deliberately and randomly fissioned from one large founding population into two groups, are genetically identical. Just as there is regional variation in China, there is genetic variation.

      If I can find regional breakdown of corruption in China, I’ll take a look at it. But, sorting for less clannishness can produce two distinct populations even from a fairly homogenous initial population. Case in point, the settling of the North American Left Coast.

      You can also compare the level of corruption between North and South Korea (genetically/ethnically/culturally the same people), which is massive. I’m quite certain that you’ll find that the amount of variance in corruption attributable to the political system, economic system, & wealth level overwhelms the amount of variance in corruption attributable to genetics.

      Where do political and economic systems come from? Getting reliable enough measures to do the fine analysis you’re considering isn’t as easy as it sounds.

      “At least in Singapore, they appear to be smarter, so that’s a clue.”

      Well, in Singapore, they also never suffered from malnutrition, which big parts of the current Chinese population above the age of 30 did.

      Perhaps. But average IQs in Japan and South Korea are similar to those in China, suggesting that the negative impact from malnutrition can’t be all that great.

      BTW, I skimmed the “thosewhocansee” blog post.

      If anything, if you accept that the Hispanic immigrants of today are virtually the same as the southern Italians/Irish/Eastern Europeans of yesteryear,

      They are not exactly the same.

      it provides evidence that these immigrants will be assimilated just as those immigrants were.

      Immigrants don’t assimilate. They alter the receiving country, which moves towards some balance between immigrant traits and those of the native population.

      While back then, whites from those countries committed crimes at far higher rates than the native-born whites, these days, the whites in those northern states where the white population is dominated by those immigrant groups commit far fewer murders per capita than the whites in southern states that saw little immigration from those areas (and is dominated by the Scot-Irish/Northern Borderers with their lovely whiskey & gun culture).

      David Hackett Fischer is vindicated. Those who fearmonger about immigration are not.

      All told, the Hispanic homicide rate is more than double even the highest White rates, including the clannish immigrants of yesteryear. Granted, this lumps all Hispanics together (and there are considerable racial and founder differences between different Hispanic groups), but this does weaken the notion that modern Hispanic immigrants are just like the clannish Whites immigrants of a century ago.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 12:28 AM

      1. Matloff talks about “talent”, but what “talent” is he measuring? Regardless of “talent”, we know for a fact that a significant portion of Silicon Valley was founded or driven up by the foreign born and those with foreign blood, where immigrants have punched above their weight when it comes to successful startups. Maybe it’s drive. Maybe it’s culture. Maybe it’s something else, but it’s not “bullshit”.

      2. I know you’re familiar with Peter Turchin. Yes, at some point, immigration will have to stop, but at that point, assimilation begins and racial politics fades away. We all know what the corruption and murder rates were like among the foreign born whites 100 years ago, but what is the corruption and murder rates like among their descendants (who predominate in the North) compared to the corruption and murder rate of the whites in those southern states who were virtually untouched by the immigration wave of 100 years ago?

      “But, sorting for less clannishness can produce two distinct populations even from a fairly homogenous initial population.”

      3. Except that, at least in the case of Fujian and Taiwan, crossing back and forth and intermarriage was common; probably more common than between the West Coast and “back East”. The Taiwan Strait isn’t exactly an ocean.

      “Where do political and economic systems come from? Getting reliable enough measures to do the fine analysis you’re considering isn’t as easy as it sounds.”

      4. Well, in the case of Korea, both Communism and Capitalism came from the West, and both sides managed to survive only due to support by their (mostly Western) patrons. I’m not sure why the analysis would be difficult. In the case of Korea, you have big shiftings of the Korean population who almost randomly ended up on one side of the DMZ or the other, so virtually the entire effect comes from the economic and political system.

      “Perhaps. But average IQs in Japan and South Korea are similar to those in China, suggesting that the negative impact from malnutrition can’t be all that great.”

      5. What support do you have for the notion that it suggests that? Why can’t Chinese intrinsically, with the same amount of nutrition, have higher IQs than Koreans and Japanese? There’s been almost no mixing between Japanese and Chinese over the past 1500 years or so, and very little between Koreans and Chinese over the past 1000. Societal pressures in China (which had a more egalitarian examination system than Korea and made the examination system more important than Japan) leading to a greater emphasis on studying by a bigger proportion of society could have led to higher IQs.

      “They alter the receiving country, which moves towards some balance between immigrant traits and those of the native population.”

      OK, sure, but how much? Are those Americans of southern Italian descent closer in corruption rates to those of southern Italians now or their American neighbors? I think you’ll find that they are far closer to their American neighbors. So how does that vindicate those who fearmonger about immigration?

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 12:52 AM

      @Richard:

      1. Matloff talks about “talent”, but what “talent” is he measuring? Regardless of “talent”, we know for a fact that a significant portion of Silicon Valley was founded or driven up by the foreign born and those with foreign blood, where immigrants have punched above their weight when it comes to successful startups. Maybe it’s drive. Maybe it’s culture. Maybe it’s something else, but it’s not “bullshit”.

      If you’re going to respond to a point where I’ve given you quantitative evidence, you’re going to have to respond with something better than a sweeping dismissal and clear misunderstanding of the nature of statistics. The measures used were explained in the paper.

      To say that immigrants, as a whole, don’t perform as the native born doesn’t mean there won’t be some successful immigrants. This goes without saying here, or should, I think.

      I know you’re familiar with Peter Turchin. Yes, at some point, immigration will have to stop, but at that point, assimilation begins and racial politics fades away.

      Richard, don’t preach the gospel here. Immigrants don’t assimilate (they may learn the language and adopt some cultural practices, but their behavioral traits remain like their co-ethnics).

      As we saw from crime rates, Whites were more criminal in 1960 than in 1910…

      Except that, at least in the case of Fujian and Taiwan, crossing back and forth and intermarriage was common; probably more common than between the West Coast and “back East”. The Taiwan Strait isn’t exactly an ocean.

      OK, you’re grasping at straws now. There has not been enough gene flow to prevent the Taiwanese from diverging genetically from the mainland Chinese, especially when key traits are considered.

      Well, in the case of Korea, both Communism and Capitalism came from the West, and both sides managed to survive only due to support by their (mostly Western) patrons.

      Why do these societies continue to embrace these ideas?

      What support do you have for the notion that it suggests that? Why can’t Chinese intrinsically, with the same amount of nutrition, have higher IQs than Koreans and Japanese? There’s been almost no mixing between Japanese and Chinese over the past 1500 years or so, and very little between Koreans and Chinese over the past 1000. Societal pressures in China (which had a more egalitarian examination system than Korea and made the examination system more important than Japan) leading to a greater emphasis on studying by a bigger proportion of society could have led to higher IQs.

      Analysis for stunted growth might answer that question. However, economic performance alone would suggest that the Japanese compare equally well, if not favorably to the Chinese in terms of IQ.

      OK, sure, but how much? Are those Americans of southern Italian descent closer in corruption rates to those of southern Italians now or their American neighbors?

      Even not considering admixture in the States, Italian Americans aren’t fully representative of Southern Italians. A significant percentage of immigrants returned to Italy, and the immigration process itself tended not to draw from the very bottom rungs of the sending countries.

      Look Richard, you are reaching hard for facts to support what appears to be a preconceived view. I ask you to pause and consider the evidence that has been provided to you. If I see you have failed to do so, I may have to start moderating your comments. This is not to say that you’re not welcome to comment here, but I don’t have much patience for nonconstructive discussion, so please think before responding and consider what has been said to you. Thanks for understanding.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 4:41 AM

      “Immigrants don’t assimilate (they may learn the language and adopt some cultural practices, but their behavioral traits remain like their co-ethnics).”

      You take this as a given. I need evidence.

      “As we saw from crime rates, Whites were more criminal in 1960 than in 1910…”

      OK, I assume you got this from some data from some where. Could you point me to it? Thanks. I’d like to take a look. Is it broken down by region or state?

      You also have to take in to account the lead effect, which has a massive influence on homicide rates:
      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/us-murder-rate-track-be-lowest-century

      “OK, you’re grasping at straws now. There has not been enough gene flow to prevent the Taiwanese from diverging genetically from the mainland Chinese, especially when key traits are considered.”

      What?!?! How am I the one “grasping at straws”? Do you have any proof to back your assertion that there there has been any genetic divergence between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese? For that matter, how familiar are you about gene flow between the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese?

      “Why do these societies continue to embrace these ideas?”

      Which ideas? You do realize that Korea was divided between Western and Soviet occupation zones without consultation with any Koreans after WWII, I hope. Seems hard to me to accuse a society of “embracing an idea” when they didn’t actually get to vote or choose their government.

      “However, economic performance alone would suggest that the Japanese compare equally well, if not favorably to the Chinese in terms of IQ.”

      Again, if you completely ignore the effects of political and economic systems (and political and economic history), which you seem very wont to do. What you’re saying is essentially the equivalent of “this family is rich; they must be smart.” See the fallacy in that?

      Plus, you yourself have noted that malnutrition lowers IQ. We know that there was severe malnutrition suffered by many in the older generations in China. Yet you want me to accept that while malnutrition lowered the IQ of Africans and S. Americans, malnutrition did not lower the IQ of Chinese. That does not follow.

      “Even not considering admixture in the States, Italian Americans aren’t fully representative of Southern Italians.”

      Most Italian-American lineages trace back to southern Italy. This is a fact that really isn’t disputable. In fact, I believe it’s the vast majority of Italian-Americans though I’m not certain of that.

      But if the example of Italians is a problem, then let’s look at East Europeans. Unlike the Italians, they didn’t go back and forth. They came and they stayed. They also were all on the same side of the Hajnal Line. In their case, are Russian-Americans closer in corruption to Russians or to their American neighbors?

      Furthermore, if admixture would solve the problem of clannishness, then wouldn’t admixture solve the problem of Hispanic immigrants as well?

      “A significant percentage of immigrants returned to Italy, and the immigration process itself tended not to draw from the very bottom rungs of the sending countries.”

      Indeed and maybe. In fact, I’d like to see the data and logic behind your second statement, as that isn’t obvious to me. However, even if I assume that both those are true, both those points would apply to current immigration as well, would it not? At least, I don’t see the logic for why it wouldn’t. So why shouldn’t we see the same results?

      “Look Richard, you are reaching hard for facts to support what appears to be a preconceived view.”

      Personally, I feel the same way. Look, I’m persuadable and like data and logic, but when you say stuff like “However, economic performance alone would suggest that the Japanese compare equally well, if not favorably to the Chinese in terms of IQ”, it certainly seems to me that you’re ignoring realities that are inconvenient to your own preconceived view.

      As for the threat to apply censorship, I think that says more about you than about me, as I don’t see anything I’ve said that is “nonconstructive”.

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 4:20 PM

      @Richard:

      OK, I assume you got this from some data from some where. Could you point me to it? Thanks. I’d like to take a look. Is it broken down by region or state?

      It has been given to you Richard. Reread my comments to you.

      You also have to take in to account the lead effect, which has a massive influence on homicide rates:
      http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/us-murder-rate-track-be-lowest-century

      I don’t actually buy the lead effect, yet. I will have a thorough criticism of this at some point in the future.

      What?!?! How am I the one “grasping at straws”? Do you have any proof to back your assertion that there there has been any genetic divergence between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese? For that matter, how familiar are you about gene flow between the Taiwanese and mainland Chinese?

      Unless the people who went to Taiwan were a randomly assorted cross-section of the mainland Chinese population, they were going to be genetically different. You would need a HUGE amount of intermarriage/population movement to equalize the populations. In other words this is just a given.

      Which ideas? You do realize that Korea was divided between Western and Soviet occupation zones without consultation with any Koreans after WWII, I hope. Seems hard to me to accuse a society of “embracing an idea” when they didn’t actually get to vote or choose their government.

      Why does each Korea retain the government it does?

      Again, if you completely ignore the effects of political and economic systems (and political and economic history), which you seem very wont to do. What you’re saying is essentially the equivalent of “this family is rich; they must be smart.” See the fallacy in that?

      See the numerous posts to you on the topic.

      Allow me to spell it out for you: broadly speaking, we don’t have a lot of good evidence for “environmental” effects on behavioral traits or cognitive abilities. There are some, like childhood malnutrition and lead poisoning, but, in general, these are non-issues in the developed world. Hence, I’m pretty hard on environmental explanations for behavioral traits.

      Plus, you yourself have noted that malnutrition lowers IQ. We know that there was severe malnutrition suffered by many in the older generations in China. Yet you want me to accept that while malnutrition lowered the IQ of Africans and S. Americans, malnutrition did not lower the IQ of Chinese. That does not follow.

      It may have. However, we don’t see much evidence for that, yet.

      Most Italian-American lineages trace back to southern Italy. This is a fact that really isn’t disputable. In fact, I believe it’s the vast majority of Italian-Americans though I’m not certain of that.

      But if the example of Italians is a problem, then let’s look at East Europeans. Unlike the Italians, they didn’t go back and forth. They came and they stayed. They also were all on the same side of the Hajnal Line. In their case, are Russian-Americans closer in corruption to Russians or to their American neighbors?

      Richard, again, all immigration involves a degree of sorting, both in who comes in the first place and who stays. Few immigrant populations anywhere are truly representative of their source populations.

      “A significant percentage of immigrants returned to Italy, and the immigration process itself tended not to draw from the very bottom rungs of the sending countries.”

      Indeed and maybe. In fact, I’d like to see the data and logic behind your second statement, as that isn’t obvious to me.

      See here and here.

      However, even if I assume that both those are true, both those points would apply to current immigration as well, would it not?

      It doesn’t appear so:

      who are our mexicans? | hbd* chick and Steve Sailer: iSteve: NYT: Dr. Richwine guilty of not being oblivious to the obvious

      At least, I don’t see the logic for why it wouldn’t. So why shouldn’t we see the same results?

      Whether we should or not, that fact is that is not what we see.

      Again, and even if we did, there is the economic and social cohesion impacts to consider.

      This is tough to tease out, but something like a historical time series of homocide rates by whites by state would help (preferably by ethnicity, though that may be tough).

      See M.G.’s data.

      Anecdotally, Russian-Americans certainly seem less corrupt than the Russians in Russia.

      If this is true, this may have something to do with the sorting process involved in immigration.

      To expound some more about why “However, economic performance alone would suggest that the Japanese compare equally well, if not favorably to the Chinese in terms of IQ” is a poor defense of the argument that Japanese should have as high or higher IQ than Chinese, I’ll bring up the vast economic performance difference between West and East Germany and North and South Korea. The same genetic stock.

      No, they are not. See here and here.

      “Look Richard, you are reaching hard for facts to support what appears to be a preconceived view.”

      Personally, I feel the same way. Look, I’m persuadable and like data and logic,

      No Richard, it doesn’t appear that you are, at least not from what I see. I am presenting evidence to you, and you’re not responding from a point of due skepticism, but from a point of trying to make the fact fit your desires. In time, that may change, but that’s not where you are today, from what I se

      You are on moderation. You have been given a very large amount of information, more than sufficient to answer your questions. It’s clear that you haven’t yet read it all. As such, I’m temporarily putting you on moderation to give you a chance to process what has been given to you. Please do not respond until you have had to process what has been given to you, and return when you have time to consider the information.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 5:08 AM

      “You take this as a given. I need evidence.”

      OK, that behavioral traits post. I’ll look at that.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 3:13 PM

      To expound some more about why “However, economic performance alone would suggest that the Japanese compare equally well, if not favorably to the Chinese in terms of IQ” is a poor defense of the argument that Japanese should have as high or higher IQ than Chinese, I’ll bring up the vast economic performance difference between West and East Germany and North and South Korea. The same genetic stock. Virtually the same culture (in the case of Korea, with the vast mixing of the population there during the Korean War, essentially the same genes and culture on both sides). Massively different economic performance.

    • misdreavus / Dec 31 2013 2:41 AM

      Richard, your assertions have been examined and soundly refuted.

      As most of you are already aware, “Hispanic” is an infuriatingly imprecise demonym that encompasses people of a wide variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Under the operational definition of the term, Alberto Fujimori (100% Japanese) counts a “Hispanic”, as are Rigoberta MenchĂş (indigenous American), Pedro AlmodĂłvar (white European), and Celia Cruz (African Cuban).

      That being said, virtually all of the tiresome public dithering over the issue of Hispanic “integration” revolves around Mexican immigrants, who are largely of Mestizo descent — that is, a near even mixture of European and American Indian, with a smattering of African admixture from the descendants of freed slaves. How well do these immigrants integrate into American society, if at all? All of the evidence thus far says _very_ poorly. Consult the pioneering sociological research of Telles and Ortiz in “Generations of Exclusion” — Mexican Americans make modest progress in educational achievement and income past the first generation, and almost no progress thereafter all the way up to the fourth generation. You heard that right, _none_ whatever. (The authors take special care to control for rates of attrition and other confounding variables that may skew the results of their longitudinal studies. I suggest that you examine their research for yourself, they are meticulous in the analysis of their data. But be that as it may, the sum total of the evidence leans strongly toward little or no social integration whatever.) Mestizos are not Ashkenazi Jews or east Asians, and even then the two aforementioned groups do not integrate the way people expect them to, their educational and financial prowess notwithstanding. Just what kind of a moron thinks that continued Hispanic immigration to the United States will be a boon to the economy? I’ve visited California’s central valley. It reminds me of Tijuana, which is not a good thing at all.

      Of course, Telles and Ortiz prefer to blame all of the disparities on social deprivation and discrimination, as sociologists are wont to do. (I like to think I know better than that!) And if you think four consecutive generations of life in a land of plenty are not enough for Hispanic immigrants to truly demonstrate their mettle, try New Mexico. Over six generations under the stars and stripes and counting, yet still no integration.

    • JayMan / Dec 31 2013 8:11 AM

      @misdreavus:

      Very well said!

      Good to have your contribution around here.

      Sorry your comment was held in moderation because it contained the word “Ricard.”

    • Anthony / Dec 31 2013 1:39 PM

      msdreavus –
      “That being said, virtually all of the tiresome public dithering over the issue of Hispanic “integration” revolves around Mexican immigrants, who are largely of Mestizo descent — that is, a near even mixture of European and American Indian, with a smattering of African admixture from the descendants of freed slaves. ”

      Not so much anymore. Estimating visually (in and around Oakland, CA, and on construction sites throughout the Bay Area), I’d guess a lot of recent Mexican immigrants are much more than 50% American Indian.

      There are a lot of mestizo (and 3/4-white) Mexican immigrants who seem to have been here a while, and who seem to end up supervising the more recent immigrants. The mestizos seem more readily assimilable than the indios, even in Mexico – even after 230ish years, there are still large pockets of people in Mexico who don’t speak Spanish well.

  6. Richard / Dec 28 2013 10:28 PM

    BTW, I skimmed the “thosewhocansee” blog post.

    If anything, if you accept that the Hispanic immigrants of today are virtually the same as the southern Italians/Irish/Eastern Europeans of yesteryear, it provides evidence that these immigrants will be assimilated just as those immigrants were. While back then, whites from those countries committed crimes at far higher rates than the native-born whites, these days, the whites in those northern states where the white population is dominated by those immigrant groups commit far fewer murders per capita than the whites in southern states that saw little immigration from those areas (and is dominated by the Scot-Irish/Northern Borderers with their lovely whiskey & gun culture).

    David Hackett Fischer is vindicated. Those who fearmonger about immigration are not.

    • Randall Parker / Dec 28 2013 10:37 PM

      I do not see a compelling reason why we should accept this as likely:

      If anything, if you accept that the Hispanic immigrants of today are virtually the same as the southern Italians/Irish/Eastern Europeans of yesteryear,

      We can look at an historically Hispanic state (New Mexico) for a look at how Hispanics do after being inside the US for over a century. New Mexico ranks 43 in spite of some white population.

    • Garrett / Dec 29 2013 12:33 AM

      Hispanic-Americans have a relatively low violent crime rate. The “Hispanic” crime rate is inflated by the inclusion of Puerto Ricans and Dominicans (both black/mulatto populations).

      There are many American cities with significant Hispanic populations but low or modest crime rates (San Diego, San Jose, Santa Anna, El Paso, Irving TX, Chula Vista, Fontana, Oxnard, Laredo, Austin, Reno). The catch is that these cities have comparatively small *black* populations, which is what seems to really determine crime rates.

      See La Griffe on this topic:

      http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hispanic.htm

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 3:03 AM

      @Garret:

      Yes I saw that. It was my understanding that the crime rate for Mexicans (and Central and South Americans) was likely somewhat lower than Puerto Ricans and Dominicans.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 12:36 AM

      True. However, the Hispanics of NM haven’t had to assimilate in to a dominant local culture. They _are_ the local culture.

      If the calming influences of Yankeedom and the Midlands can drastically reduce the murder and corruption rates of southern Italian, Eastern European, and Irish whites a century ago, I have faith that it can do the same with the Hispanic immigrants of today.

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 1:07 AM

      @Richard:

      If the calming influences of Yankeedom and the Midlands can drastically reduce the murder and corruption rates of southern Italian, Eastern European, and Irish whites a century ago

      Do we have evidence that that even happened?

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 1:10 AM

      @Richard:

      You need to see my post All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable. Also see this comment I left over at HBD Chick’s.

    • Richard / Dec 29 2013 5:01 AM

      “You need to see my post All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable. Also see this comment I left over at HBD Chick’s.”

      OK, I’ll have to read that and think it through. Especially consider what are the behavioral traits that are heritable and the variability of those traits as well as phenotype. I’m thinking specifically of psychopathy, which evidently is higher among those of European descent (and even higher among those of African descent) than among East Asians. Psychopathy is a phenotype, however (as is corruption . . . or inclination towards homocide). Teasing out the interplay between environment and actual genes would be a bear.

      To throw something else out there, I believe a distinction should be made between “clannishness” in herding lawless societies (Northern Britain, Ireland, Southern Italy, Arabia) and “clannishness” in agricultural, generally ruled societies (Eastern Europe, pretty much all of East and SE Asia). The environments are very different, so the traits selected for should be quite different as well.

  7. Richard / Dec 29 2013 5:06 AM

    “Do we have evidence that that even happened?”

    This is tough to tease out, but something like a historical time series of homocide rates by whites by state would help (preferably by ethnicity, though that may be tough).

    Anecdotally, Russian-Americans certainly seem less corrupt than the Russians in Russia.

  8. Messi / Dec 29 2013 7:10 AM

    What about the fact that, supposedly, Mexican immigration has ended and Asian immigration is taking the lead?

  9. viking / Dec 29 2013 1:23 PM

    Jay
    First let me thank you for your work Im sure at some point in history you and HBDC will go down in history for you courage and groundbreaking work.Don’t underestimate you re taking things to another level from the more traditional scientists.
    I clicked on the comments because I hoped to get some personal insight into how you view the implications of your work or rather this dark enlightenment view of HBD. Im not a hater but I have always been realistic about race difference I was a liberal for a while in my teens but like race I got more realistic I see it as if you want to really solve things you must be honest. And honestly discovering the science since the bell curve has been disturbing I wonder why you dont see it as the existential threat I do is it because im white,and how do you feel about your role in sounding the alarm to your racial enemies yeah thats harsh but as a result of this information one tends to that conclusion.Not on an individual level and certainly whites are really behind this situation but the reality is this camp of the saints scenario is doom for western civilization. I note Dr Sowell is reading us and he I get is a conservative but you are a liberal.Now im a stickler for facts and will re order my position if facts get in the way despite politics perhaps you are the same well this all is a big topic and hard to establish trust in a few paragraphs but consider many of us in the dark community are not haters and will need to start explaining how this is possible quite soon i wonder if you might start the conversation.I said to liberal friends for years if you kep voting by a margin of 1% to piss in the cornflakes of half the country a viscous backlash will emerge so far it hasnt but I see green shoots, the DE might forestall such a turn if we could find a way to bridge the divide. I am a bit frustrated with this DE lack of pratical solution

  10. Richard / Dec 29 2013 3:22 PM

    BTW, if you accept that NW Europeans have a tendency towards genocide of outsiders under certain circumstances (which you say you do), it behooves me, as a minority, to support allowing as much immigration in as possible to get to a majority-minority country as fast as possible. You as well, in fact. Yes, it may change the composition of society, but it makes genocide less likely. I can’t think of an example of a group in a majority-minority country managing to carry out race-based genocide without the support of an outside power. Yet if whites remain a dominant majority of this country, the specter of racial genocide always looms.

    • JayMan / Dec 29 2013 4:23 PM

      @Richard:

      BTW, if you accept that NW Europeans have a tendency towards genocide of outsiders under certain circumstances (which you say you do)

      At least some do. It’s not clear that all NW Euros have that capacity.

      it behooves me, as a minority, to support allowing as much immigration in as possible to get to a majority-minority country as fast as possible.

      No, that would be extremely counterproductive. That would raise racial tensions making conflict and disunity all the more likely. Peter Turchin?

    • JH73 / Dec 29 2013 5:21 PM

      “Yes, it may change the composition of society, but it makes genocide less likely. I can’t think of an example of a group in a majority-minority country managing to carry out race-based genocide without the support of an outside power.”

      Whenever someone else does something bad it’s never their fault right? After all, ‘others’ don’t have any agency. That is so racist of you. I do, however, appreciate white guilt because it’s probably part of the psychological package that makes them so successful.

      It’s also quite hilarious that you think genocide is a unique innovation to NW Euros when its been the modus operandi of Nature, for what 1 billion years now?

    • Anthony / Dec 30 2013 9:24 PM

      While a genocide by a minority seems unlikely, and uncommon, it has happened, depending on the definition of genocide – at least the Mongols under Genghis Khan have managed it. Also, genocide isn’t the only appalling outcome; a repitition of apartheid South Africa in a majority-minority United States seems a possible outcome, and more likely to occur if whites become a minority than if they remain the majority.

  11. Jensen / Dec 31 2013 2:40 AM

    I am sorry about the racists.

  12. Racial Reality / Dec 31 2013 8:37 AM

    A photo of part of a tan hand is your “proof” that you’re black? And having a white wife is your “argument” against being self-hating? Seriously?

    • JayMan / Dec 31 2013 8:55 AM

      @Racial Reality:

      If only that was a tan. Dude, it’s the end of December in Maine….

      I guess you didn’t see this post. Or for that matter, this one.

    • JH73 / Dec 31 2013 5:04 PM

      Oh man this is hilarious. Irregardless of Jayman’s race or his tendency to be racist, he proposes interesting hypotheses and is one of the more vocal left-of-center hbd bloggers. More importantly he seems to be right over those papers you half-halfheartedly called him out on.

      Racial Reality your blog also comes off as a lot more racist due to your poor filtering of comments.

  13. panjoomby / Dec 31 2013 3:28 PM

    that is a very nice, sweet & thoughtful picture, btw 🙂
    i didn’t even know “the 10,000 year explosion” came out in paperback (i have the hardback) i’ll be mad if the paperback has extra stuff! btw, greg cochran’s interview at the wonderful “new books in history” podcast network is like speed reading that book in 60 minutes – with bonus humor!

  14. Russ / Jan 24 2014 11:21 AM

    I saw your Jayman Jr posts and was quite excited! Babies are a cheerful thing to see. Congratulations on your new family member!

    Then I saw your post on Acadia and was pleased again. Being of Italian, French,English, Irish, Dutch decent and also having been coincidentally born in Newfoundland (grew up stateside) this post was speaking to me through history! Thank you, I need to learn more. Furthermore, I love the map of North America sans country borders!

    Then, unfortunately, I stumble on this argument about racism. It just makes me incredibly sad.

    My point? I’m not sure. But why is everyone trying to force each other to take sides about some genetic material? There are relatively few genes that dictate the superficial characteristics we call ‘race’. There are no sides, except for invented ones. I even feel the urge at times when I’m afraid of people across the world threatening my way of life and my freedoms and my hard won (lowly) place in society. At least I’m familiar with it. But please, everyone, please stop feeding into people’s fears and asking them to take sides! Sides of nothing that lead to nothing!

    So, I’m going to go back to re-read your blog on Arcadia and get a dose of baby smile with little Jayman pictures to try and start my day out again, feeling good. Thank you very much for posting your trip to the Canadian Maritimes and your baby pictures!!! Life is good….

Comments are welcome and encouraged. Comments DO NOT require name or email. Your very first comment must be approved by me. Be civil and respectful. NO personal attacks against myself or another commenter. Also, NO sock puppetry. If you assert a claim, please be prepared to support it with evidence upon request. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: