The establishment's theory of race differences in socially valued metrics is that this is due to "systemic racism", a kind of Marxist conspiracy theory where the dominant group (Whites) keeps other peoples down.
There are clear testable predictions from this theory. In places where racist, White people have more power, outcomes for non-Whites, especially Blacks and Hispanics should be worse. Recall that the US demographics by county look like this.
Of course, Republicans are racist in this theory.
Thus, the theory predicts that in these areas of the USA, Blacks and Hispanics should be particularly worse off compared to Whites. But the exact opposite is actually true. The race gaps are smaller, not larger, in Whiter and more Republican areas.
The above figures are for test score gaps, but the same holds true if we look at social status gaps. Here's some maps of race gaps in social status.
So we need another way to explain the variation in social status gaps. Well, it's easy. Test scores -- academic achievement that mainly reflecting intelligence -- explain why race gaps are smaller and larger in various locations. Meritocracy works.
It gets even worse for the theory. It turns out the effect of White population share and Republican vote share are interactive. The areas with the smallest race gaps are the ones with the largest White populations and the largest Republican vote shares combined!
There we have it. The Marxist conspiracy theory that is the go-to explanation of race relations fails when we look at county-level variation across the United States. The predictions it makes are exactly opposite of reality. If anything, it seems Republican Whites are good for minorities.
If you want more details, read my new blog post:
New study out: Systemic Racism Does Not Explain Variation in Race Gaps on Cognitive Tests
Our new meta-analysis of American race gaps in IQ/intelligence is out! The main results didn't change that much, with 2 exceptions:
First, there appears to be reverse publication bias for Black IQs, smaller studies find _larger_ values. This is a prediction from leftism bias model, since social scientists hack in the preferred direction, which is usually positive, but sometimes negative. Adjusting for this gives a Black IQ estimate 82 instead of 85.
The formal meta-analysis models did not find any changes over time, but if one looks at the plot, there is some trend, p > 5%.
Happy to release our newest and largest admixture project. 🧵 Thread with the main findings.
First, we compiled data from 100s of sources to estimate genetic ancestry for over 400 units in the Americas. These are countries and subnational divisions of the larger countries, such as US states, Canadian provinces, various Caribbean islands. Results can be seen in these 4 maps.
It was a real pain in the ass to merge the spatial data to produce the maps!
Next up, we gathered cognitive ability data from international datasets, and various regional and subnational scholastic tests, and any other source of standardized testing we could find. These were then converted to British international norms (Greenwich mean IQ) as best we could. It gives this map.
Using data from across the world, we estimated the speed of selection against intelligence across countries.
There is a certain regionality to the data
Relatively atheistic north Europeans have apparently quite weak selection, while more religious areas have stronger negative selection. This is the opposite of what American data suggested when studying individuals.
There are 20 samples in Becker's collection from 12 studies. These produce a mean of about 75 IQ.
Some Indian nationalists attack some of these studies. One of them studied children with zinc deficiency. This was demmed unrepresentative. However, this is not true, as India at the time had about 30% of the population having a zinc deficiency. This is a typical mistake when looking at datasets from poor countries. Disease-free people are not representative in such countries, various deficiencies is the norm and should be included, not excluded.
In any case, the values from this study were about the same as the other studies.
Some big accounts as asking why so many MAGA types are suddenly so very anti-Indian, considering that Indians in the US and to some degree in the rest of the West, are model immigrants (high performance, low crime). The main answer is not difficult to understand.
This answer is based on the typical finding of sociology. In terms of partisanship, whichever groups in society you dislike is just the ones you perceive to be most different from you politically. Brandt and colleagues worked this out in 2014.
On top of this general pattern, there's the fact that importing a bunch of foreign workers depress local salaries. That is of course why the companies do this. What's the largest source of such foreigners? India. So capitalists love them (cheaper labor) and workers dislike them (suppress their wages).