|
|
The self-esteem of some non-white populationsI plan on using this note in some of my future postings, but this note on self-esteem is interesting by itself, and elaborates on what John Jay Ray has posted earlier. Firstly, self-esteem is most commonly understood as one’s judgment of one’s value or worth. Given the capabilities, competence and contributions of African-Americans to society, and the fact that African-Americans should be well-aware of the latter, one would expect them to harbor lower self-esteem than whites. What does psychological research say about this? Surprise! African-Americans not only have higher general self-esteem than whites, but higher academic self-esteem, too! Those with substantial Asiatic ancestry have lower self-esteem than whites. Both Turkish and Surinamese adolescents in the Netherlands have higher self-esteem than do Dutch adolescents. Those interested in the details can read the following. Details: Consider a meta-analysis of data from 261 independent samples from 120 sources published between 1960 and June 1998, and having a total of 632,872 young-adult or younger participants, which was carried out by Gray-Little and Hafdahl (GLH-study). [1] A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the data of multiple studies so as to determine the strength of between-groups differences, if any, across the studies. The authors found higher self-esteem among blacks compared to whites (both males and females), and the black vs. white effect size was 0.148; this effect size (designated by the symbol “d”) is statistically significant as are other effect sizes reported in this post; statistically significant means that the difference is highly unlikely to be due to chance. d = 0.15 means that 56% of whites would have lower self-esteem than the average African-American across the age range sampled or that if the self-esteem distributions among the groups were plotted as bell curves, then there would be an 11% non-overlap between the two curves. On the other hand, Fig 1 shows that self-esteem increased with age in both groups, with young white children enjoying somewhat higher self-esteem than young African-American children.
The result that I most loved in the paper was that not only was the general self-esteem higher among African-Americans compared to whites (d = 0.201), but so was their academic self-esteem (d = 0.035), i.e., their assessment of their academic competence! Now, by the time that they are young adults, African-Americans should not have any doubts about their academic abilities, yet we obtain this curious find. The authors also noted that the studies using standardized self-esteem assessments showed a greater self-esteem advantage for African-Americans than studies using non-standard measures, i.e., the differences reported above are somewhat less than the differences that actually exist. Next, we consider a series of 10 meta-analyses by Twenge and Crocker (TC-study), who compared non-white vs. white self-esteem. [2] Their analysis also included people older than young adults compared to the GLH-study and had 712 datapoints: 354 samples comparing whites and African-Americans (n of participants = 232,997), 118 comparing whites and Hispanics (n = 65,999), 58 whites and Asians (n = 21,976), 28 whites and American Indians (n = 10,835), 88 African-Americans and Hispanics (n = 31,436), 26 African-Americans and Asians (n = 3,766), 11 African-Americans and American Indians (n = 2,460), 18 Hispanic and Asian (n = 2,951), 8 Hispanics and American Indians (n = 2, 277), and 3 comparing Asians and American Indians (n = 557). The non-white vs. white self-esteem effect sizes are shown in Fig 2.
In the GLH-study, the African-American self-esteem advantage was highest among low socioeconomic (SES) groups, and whites had a slight self-esteem advantage among high-SES groups, but in the TC-study, the self-esteem advantage was highest for African-Americans in the high SES groups, a difference resulting from the fact that the TC-study did not analyze results from studies that assessed academic self-esteem only. Fig 3 shows the African-American vs. white self-esteem effect size across age groups; the negative trend during old age should not be assumed to be age-related, but likely reflects birth cohort effects (see Fig 4).
The self-esteem of American whites has risen from the 1960s to the mid-1990s, [3] but the minority self-esteem has risen even faster, which is shown for African-Americans vs. whites in Fig 4; note that d exceeds 0.30 for African Americans in the early 1990s. The TC-study also revealed higher academic self-esteem among African-Americans (d = 0.04)! The results of the GLH-study cannot be explained in terms of sampling bias or exaggerated responding on the part of the African-Americans. [1] The results of the TC-study cannot be explained in terms of internalization of stigma, positivity of racial identity, or the stigma as self-protection hypothesis, i.e., the notion that self-esteem is protected via in-group comparisons, attributions of incompetence to prejudice, and devaluation of domains in which one’s group fares poorly. [2] On a different note, both Turkish and Surinamese adolescents in the Netherlands have higher self-esteem than do Dutch adolescents. [4, 5] The authors of the studies neglected to mention genetic factors, but then they couldn’t or the PC-police would come after them. The authors of the GLH-study proposed that the greater self-perceived distinctiveness on the part of African-Americans likely explains their higher self-esteem. However, why do African-Americans hold their distinctiveness in high regard? I have a difficult time imagining any non-black person who would want to exchange places with an African-American to acquire the distinctiveness of African-Americans. The authors of the TC-study proposed cultural differences as an explanation, which I am positive they are not stupid enough to believe explains the majority of the variance, but then one has to appease the PC-police in academia. Anyway, an excellent literature review has revealed strong evidence for genetic factors in self-esteem, [6] which should not be surprising because there is no way that African-Americans could have higher academic self-esteem than whites if genetic factors were not operating. Additionally, even the studies that have examined self-perceived physical attractiveness, which have been addressed in the meta-analyses cited, have revealed higher physical-appearance-related self-esteem among African-Americans compared to whites! Literature Cited: Posted by J Richards on Thursday, May 5, 2005 at 03:24 AM in Psychology, Race realism Comments:2
Posted by Effra on May 05, 2005, 07:28 AM | # We might understand this paradox better if we substituted ‘complacency’ for ‘self-esteem’. Blacks are complacent about their attainments and endowments as part of a general miscalculation about one’s qualities and lack of foresight that accompanies relatively low ‘g’. In the real world this is expressed as a persistent inclination to over-predict one’s outcomes, and then to blame the inevitable shortfall on the malignity of others, esp. in rival races. Failure does not destroy blacks’ complacency, only prompts them to seek more and more fanciful explanations of it, such as ‘stereotype threat’ and the genetic encoding of ‘the legacy of slavery’. Not learning from experience is almost a definition of low intelligence. There is a continual preening of the ego, a determination not to be ‘dissed’ but to be granted ‘maximum respec’’ merely for existing (and usually existing partly on the collective bounty of other races to boot). As Michael Levin noted in ‘Why Race Matters’, shrinks have found that the mental lives of black Americans are awash with ‘impulse-ridden fantasies’. Complacency nurtures this dreamscape of gallant resistance to pervasive, subtle oppression. It explains most of the political rhetoric of negroids in the Civil Rights era. Whites with low IQs cannot muster the same amount of complacency—though the cultivation of ‘human rights’ in modern welfare states may have fostered it—since they have to compare themselves with much more intelligent specimens of the same race. Worried, conformist, workaholic orientals suffer from perpetual feelings of inadequacy—and in consequence, over-perform. 3
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 05, 2005, 09:33 AM | # as our women do not seem to find it unappealing in blacks Yes, but which ones? (chuckle) 4
Posted by Childeric on May 05, 2005, 11:10 AM | # Yes, but which ones? (chuckle) A disturbingly burgeoning fraction of all social strata. Let’s not kid ourselves. 5
Posted by Varimathas on May 05, 2005, 01:21 PM | # Hmm…why can’t culture be a valid explanation for higher black academic self-esteem, though? For instance, the impact of “thug culture” on the black population is well known, as a black who actually does manage to succeed well in school is derided as “acting white” by his peers. For these kids, wouldn’t doing poorly in school be a source of pride? Every time they got an F on a test, they’d say, “See? I’m a real black man! Whitey ain’t got nuthin’ on me!” and feel good about themselves. Another reason I propose is a difference in standards. Perhaps where the typical white takes pride in getting an A in class, the typical black sets his sights much lower, and considers a “D” to be a great score. So an African-American youth getting straight Ds and maybe a C in all his classes would say to himself, “Damn! Not a single F! I must be a genius!” Those are the two hypotheses I postulate…do you think they might be plausible explanations for differences in self-esteem between the races? 6
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 05, 2005, 01:59 PM | # do you think they might be plausible explanations for differences in self-esteem between the races? Idiots think the whole world revolves around them. Smart people tend not to harbour such delusions. Thats my explanation. 7
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 05, 2005, 02:01 PM | # A disturbingly burgeoning fraction of all social strata. In which country? 8
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2005, 02:53 PM | # Varimathus, JR has asked a question which I attempted, briefly, to answer. That answer is, in technical language and speaking of averages for populations, that higher daily peaks in the rythmicity of Syrum Testosterone production is both the expression of a fitness to environment evolved over, say, 300,000 years and the expressor of the empty but literally cock-sure “face” that black males tend, on average, to bring to their everyday social interaction. Black females also exhibit, on average, higher peaks in ST rythmicity than white females. And, yes, girls make testosterone. This is the meat in the self-esteem sandwich. No need for cultural and semi-cultural extrapolations. It’s sociobiology. 9
Posted by Varimathas on May 05, 2005, 03:55 PM | # Hmm…I see.Then if that’s so, would you also say that the substantially lower self-esteem Asians display can be chalked up to their lower levels of Syrum Testosterone? P.S: Human biology facsinates me, and I’ve become quite interested in the effects of testosterone on behavior…if you wouldn’t mind, would you be able to direct me to some studies proving a higher African average in testosterone production? Any literature on the association between testosterone and “self-esteem” would be appreciated as well. Thanks in advance. 10
Posted by Phil Peterson on May 05, 2005, 04:21 PM | # Guessedworker, A high IQ would lower the “advantage” of high testosterone levels in promoting “self esteem”. One needs a combination of both I think - low IQ and high levels of testosterone, for high self-esteem. 11
Posted by Varimathas on May 05, 2005, 04:48 PM | # Hmm…I see your point, Phil. As you said above, the stupid tend to have inflated opinions of themselves. Out of curiosity, though, could I ask you the same question I asked Guessedworker? Are there any studies that have shown a negative correlation between IQ and self-esteem? Since intelligent people tend to be more accomplished, I’d expect them to think more highly of themselves because of that… 12
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2005, 05:14 PM | # Here are a few links which provide some material to explore othis subject. They are fairly tangential in some cases, and not all recent. The better links seems to lead to paid sites and registration pages, I am sorry to say. http://www.mesomorphosis.com/articles/bahrke/bahrke05.htm http://www.euvolution.com/articles/crime.html http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/bell-curve/rushton-crime.html http://www.anthropogeny.com/applications.html http://www.anthropogeny.com/Testosterone and Socioeconomic Differences in Mortality.htm http://www.dcmsonline.org/jax-medicine/2001journals/Jan2001/prostate.htm In very general terms, ST differentials between blacks and whites are replicated between whites and East Asians. That behaviourial consequences will flow as measurable differences in health outcomes, proneness to impulsivivity and violence etc is hardly surprising - except to the left, of course, who must protect their sacred blank slate. 13
Posted by Svigor on May 05, 2005, 06:22 PM | # This is the meat in the self-esteem sandwich. No need for cultural and semi-cultural extrapolations. It’s sociobiology. Agreed. Even without the interferance of white and Jewish race-hucksters, the black norm of high confidence and low competence is a recipe for problems. 14
Posted by Varimathas on May 05, 2005, 09:18 PM | # Guessedworker, thanks so much for the informative links, they were really helpful. Thanks again I was wondering, though…the high-quality stuff is subscriber-only. There is a high-quality university library in my area, though, so I was wondering, are there any medical journeys or similar publications I should take a look at if I’m interested in this subject? I plan to look up Mr. Richard’s citations, are there any other journals I should pay attention to? 15
Posted by J Richards on May 05, 2005, 11:46 PM | # Varimathas: You mention two points in favor of a cultural explanation of higher academic self-esteem on the part of African-Americans. You say that poorly performing African-American youth would feel good about “acting black” rather than “acting white,” but although this could make African-Americans feel good about themselves in general, why should “acting black” convince them that they are competent—and on par with whites if not better than them—with respect to academic abilities? The fact is that there are few African-American youth who perform well-enough so as to appear to be “acting white,” and most African-American youth are not under peer-pressure to underperform because try as they might, they wouldn’t be able to academically perform in the normal white range. Therefore, most African-American youth should be aware of their true academic competence, but overestimate it to beyond the capabilities of the white average! Your second hypothesis is a variant of the “stigma as self-protection hypothesis,” more specifically the notion that self-esteem is protected via in-group comparisons, something that I have already addressed that the TC-study found no evidence for; for instance, some non-black minorities who perform worse academically than whites have a positive view of their own race yet manifest lower academic self-esteem than whites. 16
Posted by Guessedworker on May 06, 2005, 08:32 AM | # Jeez, what a lousy speller I am when the Varimathas, If you really mean to check these references out I guess you can do worse than consult the archives at:- Pubmed Heredity Nature and related journals (see 2nd drop-down) Good luck. 17
Posted by Varimathas on May 06, 2005, 09:39 AM | # Thank you muchly, Guessedworker. Mr. Richards, I concede your points concerning my two hypotheses. I do have just one question, though. I’m not very experienced with data analysis. You mention a d of .15 means that about 56% of whites have a lower self-esteem than blacks. So if the academic self-esteem of blacks is about d=.04, may I ask how that number translates into a percentile? Sorry for all the questions, as I said, I have very little experience with this sort of data analysis. Thanks in advance; I appreciate your time. 18
Posted by Durnham on May 06, 2005, 01:25 PM | # “On the other hand, Fig 1 shows that self-esteem increased with age in both groups, with young white children enjoying somewhat higher self-esteem than young African-American children.” That’s odd. Blacks generally have higher self-esteem than whites across age groups, aside from the aged, so why do you think young white kids have higher self-esteem than young black kids? P.S: ” You say that poorly performing African-American youth would feel good about “acting black” rather than “acting white,” but although this could make African-Americans feel good about themselves in general…” Okay, so Varimathus’ explanation fails in regards to academic self-esteem, but what about in general terms of self-worth, for which d was .201? Do you think te “black thug culture” our little friend might explain part of the general differential rather than the academically-specific differential? 19
Posted by Durnham on May 06, 2005, 01:26 PM | # *our little friend talked about. Sorry for the omission. 20
Posted by Effra on May 06, 2005, 08:15 PM | # The fact that black males’ self-esteem surges past that of whites after young childhood implicates testosterone, since it is after puberty that the differential production of what Steve Sailer calls the manly molecule shows up. Kids value sporting prowess more than scholastic honours, and blacks outperform whites in the explosive short-fuse sports events which kids engage in at school. This may nourish black youths’ self-esteem—better a jock than a nerd—as does the earlier puberty and sexualisation of blacks due to higher average testosterone. White and oriental nerds wish they were as ‘cool’ as the black stud, feeding his self-esteem. Being a ‘wigger’ is fashionable among adolescents: the Ali G syndrome. Later, though, the more intelligent mature into understanding the social and economic advantages of brain power. But the negroid remains locked into his memories of boyhood prowess. Much of black men’s style—the shambling gait, lurid and baggy clothes, flashy ‘bling’, trash talk, socialisation by gang membership, fear of monogamy—is a ritualised expression of a Peter Pannish desire to stay in the boyish phase when whites envied them. Life as a circle jerk. 21
Posted by Durnham on May 06, 2005, 10:29 PM | # So you’d say it’s the intersection of high testosterone and low-IQ that explains higher levels of black esteem? If blacks had higher IQs, do you think this would be the case? It’s not as if there’s a shortage of high-testosterone white males in sports—for instance, I imagine Jim Kelly of the Buffalo Bills has a good deal of the ‘manly molecule.’ Yet he doesn’t seem to have an unreasonably high self-esteem. Do you think that in people with high testosterone levels, higher IQ leads to greater humility? That’s the pattern I see around me in whites. 22
Posted by Guessedworker on May 07, 2005, 02:06 AM | # Durnham, I think one has to allow for an evolutionary impact on the mind. The Rushtonian view is that testosterone production was reduced in populations struggling to feed themselves in the northern hemisphere, since ever more mouths made matters worse. Preserving the lives of fewer offspring was a more successful evolutionary strategy than carelessly producing many offspring (the latter, of course, developed in the food-rich but high desease, high-drought -risk conditions of sub-Saharan Africa). There is a view that brain development, or encephalisation, is more or less a diametric of high reproductivity. It seems a logical conclusion. But I am not aware of any definitive research on the matter (which doesn’t mean it hasn’t been done - just that the “net” has noticed it). As to whether that brain development necessarily implies humility, again there is no research of which I am aware - though it has been found that blond northern males tend, on average, to be more shy than dark-haired, darker-skinned southerners. My view remains that specifically negroid self-confidence is an evolutionary strategy arising in the quest to reproduce at a high level. 23
Posted by J Richards on May 07, 2005, 07:45 PM | # Varimathas: d = 0.04 corresponds to very slightly over 50th percentile, which may not sound much, but is still a statistically significant find. The practical meaning of this is that if you were to select an African-American and a white person at random, their academic self-esteem would appear to be similar, and only systematic investigations will reveal whether the academic self-esteem among the two populations is actually similar; the meta-analyses have revealed slightly different levels of academic-self-esteem between the two populations, which is in favor of African-Americans. However, this find should be contrasted with the corresponding find concerning the most notable basis for academic performance, i.e., IQ, which differs by a standard deviation between the populations, i.e., if you were to select an African-American and a white person at random, in about only one out of four such trials will the African-American exceed the IQ of the white person. Thus, the higher academic self-esteem of African-Americans is of special interest. Durnham: Whereas Fig 1 from the GLH-study reveals a slight white-pre-teen-kid advantage with respect to self-esteem, Fig 3 from the TC-study does not reveal a white-pre-teen-kid advantage/disadvantage. The TC-study used more data for analysis and excluded studies evaluating academic self-esteem only, likely accounting for the slightly discrepant find. However, it still requires an explanation as to why African-American kids aged 5-10 years do not manifest higher self-esteem compared to white kids in the same age range to a degree that is comparable to the discrepancy in adulthood. Whereas I could speculate on this, I do not know the answer. It is possible that high regard for the looks of white kids (not necessarily low regard for their own looks) and observations that white kids have access to better toys and other goodies could be responsible for temporarily tempering what would otherwise manifest in higher self-esteem among the African-American kids. A test of this hypothesis would be comparing the American data with the data from standardized assessments of childhood self-esteem in black-majority African nations. You ask whether Varimathas’ contention “that a variant of the ‘stigma as self-protection hypothesis’ explains higher academic self-esteem among African-Americans” possibly explains the higher general self-esteem among them, instead. Well, for African-Americans to fell good about “acting black,” they have to hold blackness in high regard. What would make them hold their blackness in high regard? Within-group comparisons are unlikely to be responsible for making them have a high regard for their blackness, but a high regard for blackness is likely to prompt them to compare themselves within their own group so as to not undermine their high regard for blackness. 24
Posted by Effra on May 08, 2005, 11:39 AM | # Durnham: “Do you think that in people with high testosterone levels, higher IQ leads to greater humility? That’s the pattern I see around me in whites.” I don’t know that humility is the antithesis of complacency (self-esteem). I should prefer to call it empathy: being able to perceive the impression one’s way of facing the world makes on the world, and being able to adjust that impression for advantage. What strikes me about people of low intelligence is that they generally lack what could be called charm: they just don’t appreciate what to do and say in a given situation, particularly if it is a little outside their normal social range, because (contrary to Howard Gardner’s moonshine about ‘EQ’) emotional sensitivity and smarts tend to march in step. Certainly orientals, who are slightly more intelligent than whites on average and also less apt to vary widely in IQ, do seem to be more preoccupied with ‘face’ (giving a good impression) and saying and doing what the other party wants to hear. Whereas blacks and stupid whites cultivate an ‘in yo face’ aggressiveness or over-familiarity, which lurches towards its equally exaggerated opposite (tongue-tied, avoiding the interlocutor’s eyes, downcast head) when they want to appear co-operative. They do not understand that among the white majority, one attitude comes over as menacing and the other as parodically insincere or shifty. It has been argued by multiculti proponents that whites misinterpret the ‘humble’ act of blacks as dumb insolence, but why can’t British-born blacks understand this and alter their ways? Because, I would submit, their sense of self is too bound up with this polarised repertoire of behavioural tricks—demanding or extruding ‘respect’—to allow them to give it up. 25
Posted by Varimathras on May 08, 2005, 03:21 PM | # Hmm…so Effra, you would say that a higher intelligence seems to lead to a lower sense of self-esteem? Also, you mention that “contrary to Howard Gardner’s moonshine about ‘EQ’ emotional sensitivity and smarts tend to march in step.” I’m wondering, but are you thinking of any studies when you say this? Do you know of anyone who’s done some research on the correlation between “emotional smarts” and IQ? Finally, you say that blacks’ “sense of self is too bound up with this polarised repertoire of behavioural tricks—demanding or extruding ‘respect’—to allow them to give it up.” I’m sort of confused, though—why would this “repertoire” be so bound up with their sense of self? In fact, looking at history, from an American perspective at least, I’d say the “humble” act of blacks was more a self-defense mechanism than anything else. Slaves would be punished if they seemed to be disrespecting their masters, for instance, so the “humble” act of blacks would be a natural act of self-preservation in that milieu. 26
Posted by Guessedworker on May 08, 2005, 04:29 PM | # There’s a nice logic in that, Varimathras. I tend to the view that there exists in the personality buffers which prevent contrary experiences of self from coming into contact and thus conflict. Humiliation need never contact with jaunty self-confidence, and one may continue to identify with the latter quite free of earlier, unpleasant experiences. It’s cheating, of course, if you’ve got caught out and deserve your punishment. But that’s self-preservation for you. Next entry: All brutes & barbarians? Previous entry: So that’s it for another four years |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 01:27 PM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Sound principles of money, by Arthur Kitson' on 02/09/12, 01:26 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:44 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:16 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 12:04 PM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:54 AM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:45 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:19 AM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:18 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 11:11 AM. (go) (view) Ron Trisner commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 11:10 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:51 AM. (go) (view) Michael commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:46 AM. (go) (view) Bill commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 10:05 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 09:00 AM. (go) (view) Dan Dare commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:37 AM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:10 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:05 AM. (go) (view) Helvena commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 08:04 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'Yo! Cop = Scum Cow!' on 02/09/12, 07:16 AM. (go) (view) The Socal group scam commented in entry 'The Moral high ground?' on 02/09/12, 06:50 AM. (go) (view) Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Guessedworker on May 05, 2005, 05:46 AM | #
The irrationality of black academic self-esteem, in particular, argues for a cause elsewhere. The only elsewhere available is good ole sex.
Where fitness is served by reproduction rather than a high investment in childcare it follows that anything that amplifies sexual activity will be advantaged. Black males self-evidently tend towards physical vanity and tend to be forward and direct with women. In Europeans these qualities spell “serial philanderer” and are negatively valued.
No doubt from an East Asian perspective we Europeans look equally insubstantial, footloose and damaging. Either way there is ample evidence to show that a significant proportion of East Asian women do not necessarily find that unappealing in us, as our women do not seem to find it unappealing in blacks. That being so, for the majority males the only protection is expulsion of the competitor.