[…] Now, it’s important to understand what these data actually mean. These clusters do not mean that the descendants of the colonial settlers are numerically dominant in their respective regions, because they are not. Over the course of the continent’s history, the descendants of the original settlers were joined by subsequent immigrants, mostly other Europeans, who themselves settled in different parts of the country. As we saw previously in Demography Is Destiny, American Nations Edition: […]
[…] know this to be genetic differences between people living in each region, as detailed in my posts Demography is Destiny, American Nations Edition and More Maps of the American Nations. Behavioral genetic studies clearly establish that regional […]
Curious that African American rises while the number of stories in the media about racism against A-A seems to rise during that time. That is, the larger the minority became, the more we heard about their ‘abuse.’ I’m not aware of a country outside the US where A-A are treated substantively better.
[…] race produces culture, not the other way around. Culture does not arise in a vacuum. Even “[F]ine genetic variation across populations can have a substantial impact on societal characterist…” Imagine the impact that race has on societal characteristics. Certainly, if we do not […]
I thought that too, but I think it’s actually a function of the graph measuring ten year periods (1999-2009) against a final four year period (2009-2013). Immigration proceeds apace!
[…] Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start) and The Rise of Universalism and Demography is Destiny, American Nations Edition and National Prosperity – jayman’s been on a roll lately! (^_^) each of these warrants […]
I do think attitudes to religion (ie securalism ), homosexuality, etc would change fast. Values aren’t quite the same thing as personality traits, which is what shows 0 shared environment effect.
No. The shared environment impact on those things is also zero. See the Hatemi study above or my post The Atheist Narrative.
What’s going on with this graph?
Has immigration really decreased by two-thirds within the last five years?
@M:
Here’s the problem: those who choose to self-identify a certain way may be (and often are) systematically different from those who identify another way. That’s what makes such analysis mostly useless. You’d need the methods employed here to get reliable answers.
That said, I don’t find it implausible that outsiders to the South are smarter than the old stock inhabitants. The South never received large scale immigration, so what you could be seeing are transplants, who maybe smarter than average. The limitations remain in play, though.
Now, I had a feeling you’d try to dismiss it that way, but I’m talking about the aggregate of all Western European self reported ancestries together – Czech, Danish, English / Welsh, French, German, Irish, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Scottish, Swedish, Swiss.
Certainly there is a lot of shuffling within that group – people of mostly German ancestry imagine they’re mostly of English ancestry, people of mostly English ancestry imagine that they’re Irish, etc.
But statistically insignificant would be shuffling in and out of that group. Do you really believe there are masses of people misidentifying themselves within and outside the above groups, enough to have a statistically significant effect?
Nonetheless, stats –
– 4 Region Breakdown of the USA– 9 Region Breakdown of the USA
Considering only Whites of North and Central European ancestry*, the whole South region generally does about the same as the Midwest, and better in some areas. Of course, the East South Central region is weak. It’s also the least populous part of the South. The Northern plains are weaker in education, of course, compared to most of the South, for the same White North-Central European groups.
I don’t hold high hopes for you being able to integrate much of this with your sense of reality, but that is how it is, nonetheless.
*Those who aren’t are mostly, outside the Northeast, various White Hispanics and people with American Indian ancestry, who are more predominant in the South than the North, for obvious reasons.
@M:
Can’t trust ethnicity as reported in census/GSS. That’s why the methods described here were developed.
On the comments on White Southerners, the summary stats on the GSS actually show White Southerners of European background (I.e. all north central euro countries, combining anywhere from France, to Ireland, to Scandinavia to Poland) to actually outdo the same ethnic category from the Midwest, in education, vocab test and income. Its actually quite interesting and I’ll post the stats later when I am on my PC.
Hey thanks for a reply. I think there is some difference in values, than there is in personality.
I don’t think outcomes like IQ, or personality traits like aggressiveness, criminality , would change much if northerners adopted southerners in mass.
I do think attitudes to religion (ie securalism ), homosexuality, etc would change fast. Values aren’t quite the same thing as personality traits, which is what shows 0 shared environment effect.
Some things show huge shared environment effects, like what language you speak. Southern whites, on aggregate, adopted to northern whites , would still be more tribal on average than northern whites. But they would share a larger percentage (not arguing perfect overlap or convergence here) of values with there northern neighbors.
No. The shared environment impact on those things is also zero. See the Hatemi study above or my post The Atheist Narrative.
I do think attitudes to religion (ie securalism ), homosexuality, etc would change fast. Values aren’t quite the same thing as personality traits, which is what shows 0 shared environment effect.
But if white southerners , en mass, got adopted at childhood by northerners, a lot of the particular values of the south, would disappear fast.
No, not really. That’s the whole point of this post. The shared environment impact of these things is zero. Adoptees don’t turn out like they’re adoptive parents; they become like their biological parents.
But isn’t it odd how some cultural norms can change so fast.
You may want to see my previous post:
A lot of improvements of culture , seem to be really improvements of technology.
But, it does seem cultural norms can hugely impact a culture, look at how when cultural technologies where imported to a place like south Korea, it exploded in wealth.
I agree there is genetic variation across the USA that contributes , and largely to the pattern differences in values found across the usa. But if white southerners , en mass, got adopted at childhood by northerners, a lot of the particular values of the south, would disappear fast.
I know the argument, in the HBD sphere is that culture is sort of like phenotypic personality of a group (race, sub population, what have you) writ large. But isn’t it odd how some cultural norms can change so fast. HOmsexuality has changed in value fast, its even changed in value amongst southern whites fast, way , way fewer of them condemn than they did 30 years ago, even if a major of southern whites still oppose gay marriage.
Culture DOES have an impact is my point-and not a trivial one. Even though, it is also itself caused by genetic variation.
No, not really. That's the whole point of this post. The shared environment impact of these things is zero. Adoptees don't turn out like they're adoptive parents; they become like their biological parents.
But if white southerners , en mass, got adopted at childhood by northerners, a lot of the particular values of the south, would disappear fast.
You may want to see my previous post:The Rise of Universalism
But isn’t it odd how some cultural norms can change so fast.
@Lion:
A sub-population can create a very different culture when it moves to a new region.
If it’s a highly select fraction of the source population, yup.
“Second, the Scots-Irish are present in the Deep South, but they’re not the majority. Descendants of the English Cavaliers are.”
Oh yes, of course. Although I do believe Scotch-Irish form the majority in certain parts of the Deep South like the Gulf Coast, if I remember correctly.
I just think it’s interesting, considering the South has some of the most collectivist American Nations, but the Far West is the most individualist Nation. A sub-population can create a very different culture when it moves to a new region.
If it's a highly select fraction of the source population, yup.
A sub-population can create a very different culture when it moves to a new region.
great post – wealth of information! love all the maps you included… i posted a cool map on my blog today too 🙂
@Lion: First see my post More Maps…
Second, the Scots-Irish are present in the Deep South, but they’re not the majority. Descendants of the English Cavaliers are.
The Far West is an example of what you get with sorting. Individuals that went there were rugged individualists (you had to be in order to settle there). So they have a more libertarian view. Hell, they have legal prostitution (Nevada) and first gave women the right to vote.
Hello,
I’m glad you’re posting so frequently now. This post reminds me of a question that I meant to ask a few posts back:
As you know, much of what is known as conservative American culture is really Scotch-Irish culture. By conservative American, I mean gun-totin’, military joinin’, and church attendin’. The southern American nations (particularly the Deep South and Appalachia) and the Far West are strongly shaped by Scotch-Irish culture, but aspects of the culture are prevalent throughout the country, as embodied by country music and NASCAR. Even 4th of July celebrations are most celebrated in Scotch-Irish regions because of their patriotism.
However, you see significant variations between the various Scotch-Irish-dominated nations. I saw an article a few weeks ago outlining the decline of Far Westerners voting Republican:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is_gop_losing_the_libertarian_west/
I know this may seem like an obvious question, but what explains the neocon and religious right conservatism of the Deep South versus the more Libertarian nature of the Far West? Is it simply the founding stock that left the south creating the current voting patterns of the Far West? Or are environmental factors at work? The libertarians out West are more accepting of vice, southerners resent those things. It’s kind of confusing to me.
So you proved America is on a downhill slide. Finish connecting the dots! Start campaigning for an end to the H 1 B Visa!