Emil O W Kirkegaard Profile picture
Jan 6 10 tweets 6 min read Read on X
I published a new study and it's a juicy one.

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.


Image
Image
Image
Image
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.Image
Image
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.


Image
Image
Image
Image
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.
Image
Image
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.
Image
Image
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!
Image
Image
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

emilkirkegaard.com/p/new-study-ou…
Or read the study yourself. It's only 20 pages:

researchgate.net/publication/37…
You can also download the data and R code yourself if you are more curious. There are many more figures and maps in the OSF repository.

osf.io/m8gs5/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Emil O W Kirkegaard

Emil O W Kirkegaard Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @KirkegaardEmil

Apr 17
Everybody knows some topics or questions are taboo, but which ones? Do people agree? Decided to find out. We asked 500 Americans online to rate the tabooness of 29 questions, and this was the result.

Race and IQ was the winner, even beating incest, pedophilia, gay germs etc. Image
The results were almost entirely consistent across all subgroups: age, sex, politics, race, science knowledge. The correlations for taboo ratings across groups were >.90, close to 1.00 without sampling error.

Though note that some grounds find everything more taboo than others.


Image
Image
Image
Image
Why did we look into this? Well, back in 2021, I made fun of this paper. And now we have the published demonstration the taboo hierarchy.

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Feb 26
The egalitarians in power were quick to cancel those academics who dared write that Dutch immigration report.

demo-demo.nl/wp-content/upl…
Image
Socialism attracts losers. This is also true for immigration socialism. Image
Attaining a reasonable outcome -- no more costs from foreigners in the country -- requires drastic measures. Even reducing 'refugees' by 90% is not enough. Image
Read 20 tweets
Feb 14
To understand the fiscal effects of immigration you have to start with a plot like this one. From the perspective of the government, people below 25 are net negatives, between 25 and 75, they are net positive, and then negative again. Image
The reasons for this are straightforward. Below 25's cost the state money in terms of childcare and education and don't yet make much money, and thus don't pay much in income tax. Old people cost money in retirement, old peoples homes, and healthcare. Image
The current net fiscal effect of an immigration group thus depends on its age distribution to a large extent. Maybe a group is currently positive because it is of working age, but that is short-term thinking. You must apply a lifetime perspective -- longtermism.
Image
Image
Read 8 tweets
Feb 4
Education attainment is often given as the best example of heritability not being noticeably stronger than shared environment. But this conclusion is somewhat incorrect because of the assortative mating bias. In this study of Finnish and Dutch families, heritabilities were estimated at 55% and 66%, compared with shared environment of 16% and 13%.

frontiersin.org/articles/10.33…Image
In this Norwegian family study, heritability for education was estimated at 55%, close the above. Shared environment was 27%.

nature.com/articles/s4146…
Image
As usual, beware that variances are deceptive. If heritability is 60% and shared environment is 15%, this doesn't mean that genetics is 4x as important. You need to take the square root to get the path coefficients. These are 0.77 and 0.39. Thus, genetics is about 2x as powerful.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 15
Among those below 30, support for freedom of speech is a Right-Wing thing. This interaction with age was seen in both UK and US samples.

Image
Image
Image
Of the more familiar factors, support for freedom of speech predictors were:

- being a man
- intelligence
- valuing freedom (duh)
- intellectual humility
Image
Image
Authors found that one could break down free speech support into 4 subdimensions. Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 7
Who likes big butts? Who prefers breasts instead? @MrGeorgeFrancis and I decided to look into this in more detail using national and subnational data.

The main source of data here are Pornhub and Google searches for body-related terms. There is strong agreement across sources. Image
The main metric from the data is the relative interest in butts versus breasts. Behold, science. Image
Since such preferences plausibly relate to life history speed, and various metrics of development of a given locality, we of course checked the relationship to intelligence at the same level: national. Image
Read 12 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(