Razib Khan One-stop-shopping for all of my content

June 9, 2017

India = Nigeria + Italy in terms of fertility

Filed under: data,Total Fertility Rate — Razib Khan @ 6:57 pm


The map above shows the most recent district level fertility rates in India. It is immediately clear why comparing India to Pakistan and Bangladesh (let alone Nepal, Sri Lanka, or Bhutan) is a major error.

In some of the northern regions of the Hindi-speaking “cow belt” as well as the lightly populated Northeast the total fertility rate is similar to what you find in Nigeria, between 5 and 6 children per woman. For comparison the TFR for Saudi Arabia is 2.75. For Bangladesh it is 2.20 and for Pakistan it is 3.6. In contrast, much of the South, Punjab, and West Bengal have below replacement fertility.

Here is 2017 data by state:

State/UT Fertility rate 2017
Sikkim 1.2
Andaman & Nicobar 1.5
Chandigarh 1.6
Kerala 1.6
Punjab 1.6
Puduchery 1.7
Goa 1.7
Daman & Diu 1.7
Tripura 1.7
Delhi 1.7
Tamil Nadu 1.7
Karnataka 1.8
Andhra Pradesh 1.8
Lakshadweep 1.8
West Bengal 1.8
Telangana 1.8
Maharashtra 1.9
Himachal Pradesh 1.9
Gujarat 2
Jammu and Kashmir 2
Arunachal Pradesh 2.1
Haryana 2.1
Uttarakhand 2.1
Odisha 2.1
Chhattisgarh 2.2
Assam 2.2
 India 2.2
Mizoram 2.3
Dadra Nagar Haveli 2.3
Madhya Pradesh 2.3
Rajasthan 2.4
Manipur 2.6
Jharkhand 2.6
Uttar Pradesh 2.7
Nagaland 2.7
Meghalaya 3
Bihar 3.4

August 6, 2014

Conservatives respect atheists less

Filed under: data,GSS — David Hume @ 2:18 am

This clip by S. E. Cupp is making the rounds. I often find Cupp to be glib, so it’s no surprise that I disagree with many of the details of what she is saying. In particular it struck me as strange to listen to her talk about how conservatives respect atheists. Atheists are held in low esteem by the American public as a whole, let alone by conservatives. The general social survey has a question, SPKATH, which states:

There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. For instance, somebody who is against churches and religion… a. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your (city/town/community) against churches and religion, should he be allowed to speak, or not?

Here are fractions who would allow this person to speak or not not in 1972-1990:

charts

Here are fractions who would allow this person to speak or not not in 2000-2012:

charts2

Liberals tend to be more accepting of atheists making a speech than conservatives. Interestingly even in the 2000s ~20 percent of self-identified extreme liberals would still not allow an atheist speak. As opposed to ~40 percent of self-identified extreme conservatives.

Addendum: To be clear about the intent behind this post, I’m all about keeping it real. I think it is acceptable to be an atheist on the Right. A substantial proportion of libertarians are atheists. Even among non-libertarian conservatives it’s an acceptable position. But this is really mostly relevant at the elite levels pundits and policy professionals. Atheists just aren’t popular at the grass roots. There aren’t that many conservative atheists or atheist conservatives.

Conservatives respect atheists less

Filed under: data,GSS — David Hume @ 2:18 am

This clip by S. E. Cupp is making the rounds. I often find Cupp to be glib, so it’s no surprise that I disagree with many of the details of what she is saying. In particular it struck me as strange to listen to her talk about how conservatives respect atheists. Atheists are held in low esteem by the American public as a whole, let alone by conservatives. The general social survey has a question, SPKATH, which states:

There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. For instance, somebody who is against churches and religion… a. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your (city/town/community) against churches and religion, should he be allowed to speak, or not?

Here are fractions who would allow this person to speak or not not in 1972-1990:

charts

Here are fractions who would allow this person to speak or not not in 2000-2012:

charts2

Liberals tend to be more accepting of atheists making a speech than conservatives. Interestingly even in the 2000s ~20 percent of self-identified extreme liberals would still not allow an atheist speak. As opposed to ~40 percent of self-identified extreme conservatives.

Addendum: To be clear about the intent behind this post, I’m all about keeping it real. I think it is acceptable to be an atheist on the Right. A substantial proportion of libertarians are atheists. Even among non-libertarian conservatives it’s an acceptable position. But this is really mostly relevant at the elite levels pundits and policy professionals. Atheists just aren’t popular at the grass roots. There aren’t that many conservative atheists or atheist conservatives.

February 11, 2013

American Born or Raised Indian American outmarriage rates don’t change

Filed under: data,Intermarriage — Razib Khan @ 7:16 pm

In the early-to-mid 2000s I had a discussion with friends who were involved in the Sepia Mutiny blog about the trends for outmarriage rates in the Indian American community. Now that we have Census 2010 data we can compare.

US born or US raised Indian Americans married with US born or US raised
Ethnic identity of spouses
Indian Other Asian White Black Hispanic Others
Men 2010 62.4 4.5 25.6 0.7 3.5 3.4
Men 2000 65.2 4.3 27.3 0 4.3
Women 2010 52 2.9 37.8 2.8 2.1 2.4
Women 2000 54.2 0 39.1 4.3 4.2

Share

American Born or Raised Indian American outmarriage rates don’t change

Filed under: data — Razib Khan @ 7:16 pm

In the early-to-mid 2000s I had a discussion with friends who were involved in the Sepia Mutiny blog about the trends for outmarriage rates in the Indian American community. Now that we have Census 2010 data we can compare.

US born or US raised Indian Americans married with US born or US raised
Ethnic identity of spouses
Indian Other Asian White Black Hispanic Others
Men 2010 62.4 4.5 25.6 0.7 3.5 3.4
Men 2000 65.2 4.3 27.3 0 4.3
Women 2010 52 2.9 37.8 2.8 2.1 2.4
Women 2000 54.2 0 39.1 4.3 4.2

Share

August 9, 2012

What is the distribution of offspring per individual?

Filed under: data,Data Analysis — Razib Khan @ 7:58 am

A commenter below notes:

Also, in modern society, doesn’t just about everyone reproduce, such that not only is any particular advantage competing against other countervailing pressures as you note, but also that the “less fit” genomes are not removed from the overall population, but rather are added back to the mix? In other words, the less-preferred short males don’t die and have zero kids, they also get married and their genes get thrown back into the pot.

First, let’s not get caught in the assumption that for genes to be disfavored one has to have zero fitness in individuals carrying those genes. If, for example, in a situation of demographic expansion you had individuals who had eight children vs. those who had one child, there would be selection for the traits which were passed by those with eight children in relation to those who had one child. But, it did make me realize I wasn’t intuitively aware of the distribution of number of offspring in the population. I assumed that the median was around two, but that’s about it.

So, I looked at the GSS CHILDS variable for individuals born in 1950 or earlier from the year 2000 on (COHORT and ...

July 17, 2012

Women wanted more children in 2000s, but had fewer

Filed under: data,Demographics — Razib Khan @ 10:04 pm

As someone with mild concerns about dysgenic (albeit, with a normative lens that high intelligence and good looks are positive heritable traits) trends, I’m quite heartened that Marissa Mayer is pregnant. Of course she’s batting well below the average of some of her sisters, but you take what you can get in the game of social statistics. Quality over quantitative thanks to assortative mating.

This brings me to a follow up of my post from yesterday, People wanted more children in 2000s, but had fewer. A reader was curious about limiting the data set to females. Therefore, I did. The same general pattern seems to apply (the limitations/constraints were the same). The only thing I’ll note is that there were only ~40 women in the data set with graduate degrees in the 1970s who were also asked these particular questions, so take this with a grain of salt.


Realized 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s < HS 2.73 3.19 3.02 2.79 HS 2.67 2.91 2.59 2.22 Junior College 3 2.75 2.38 2.06 Bachelor 2.31 2.47 2.11 1.71 Graduate 2.11 2.07 1.89 1.56 < $20 K 2.52 2.89 2.57 2.23 $20-40 K 2.57 2.9 2.46 2.02 $40-80 K 2.91 2.95 2.49 1.99 > $80 K 3.08 2.86 2.35 1.95 Ideal 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s < HS 3.08 2.96 2.73 2.85 HS 3.04 2.89 2.61 2.97 Junior College 2.58 2.8 2.95 3.31 Bachelor 3.01 2.95 2.86 3.15 Graduate 2.73 2.52 3.63 3.02 < $20 K 3 2.84 2.79 3.04 $20-40 K 3.04 3.01 2.69 2.96 $40-80 K 3.06 2.83 2.89 3.06 > $80 K 3.13 2.87 2.84 3.06

 

Addendum: ...

June 24, 2012

Higher vocabulary ~ higher income

Filed under: data,Data Analysis,GSS,Income,IQ — Razib Khan @ 7:54 pm

Prompted by a comment below I was curious as to the correlation between intelligence and income. To indicate intelligence I used the GSS’s WORDSUM variable, which has a ~0.70 correlation with IQ. For income, I used REALINC, which is indexed to 1986 values (so it is inflation adjusted) and aggregates the household income. Finally, I limited my sample to non-Hispanic whites over the age of 30 (for what it’s worth, this choice also limited the data set to respondents from the year 2000 and later).

The results don’t get at the commenter’s assertions, because 10 out of 10 on WORDSUM does not imply that you’re that smart really. But the trendline is suggestive. Note that aggregated 0-4 because the sample size at the lower values is small indeed.

June 23, 2012

Attitudes toward genetically modified crops & science

Filed under: data,Data Analysis — Razib Khan @ 11:20 am

In the further interests of putting quantitative data out their instead of vague impressions, I noticed two GSS variables which might be of interest. One queries the impression of effect on the environment of genetically modified crops. The second asks about whether science does more harm than good. The latter question exhibited almost no year to year variation of note, so I just threw them in a pot together. But for the environment and genetically modified crop question I show responses for the year 2000 and 2010. As you can see there is a modest difference in regards to the first where liberals are more skeptical.

June 21, 2012

Left vs. right in anti-science

Filed under: data,Data Analysis — Razib Khan @ 8:31 pm

In the comments Chad says:

The Right is not inherently anti-science. Yes there are some morons out there who glorify in their ignorance, but lets recognize them for who they are, extremist idiots. This does not describe the majority of those on the Right. It doesn’t even describe the majority of creationists who are for the most part more concerned with work and children to be bothered to think about the origins of life in an average week. One can also point to similar kooks on the Left. Not just the genetic denialism described here, but also rejection of animal research, genetic engineering, organic farming, anti-vaccinations, etc.

First, I’m going to reiterate something: the majority of the human race consists of individuals who are not very smart. This is not meant as an insult, but it’s basically the truth. We may not be talking about idiots, but the average person on the street can not come close to reasoning like A. V. O. Quine. But the main issue I have with these equivalences is that though there is a valid point here, the reality is that it seems to be that the political Right in the USA has taken a ...

June 18, 2012

Trust in science, 1998 vs. 2008 (no difference)

Filed under: data,Data Analysis — Razib Khan @ 5:42 pm

A weeks ago Robert Wright had a post up, Creationists vs. Evolutionists: An American Story. Here’s the crux:

A few decades ago, Darwinians and creationists had a de facto nonaggression pact: Creationists would let Darwinians reign in biology class, and otherwise Darwinians would leave creationists alone. The deal worked. I went to a public high school in a pretty religious part of the country–south-central Texas–and I don’t remember anyone complaining about sophomores being taught natural selection. It just wasn’t an issue.

A few years ago, such biologists as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers started violating the nonaggression pact. [Which isn't to say the violation was wholly unprovoked; see my update below.] I don’t just mean they professed atheism–many Darwinians had long done that; I mean they started proselytizing, ridiculing the faithful, and talking as if religion was an inherently pernicious thing. They not only highlighted the previously subdued tension between Darwinism and creationism but depicted Darwinism as the enemy of religion more broadly.

If the only thing this Darwinian assault did was amp up resistance to teaching evolution in public schools, the damage, though regrettable, would be limited. My fear is that the damage is broader–that fundamentalist Christians, upon being maligned ...

May 20, 2012

Education encourages integration?

Filed under: data,Demographics,race — Razib Khan @ 10:36 am

It is sometimes fashionable to assert that higher socioeconomic status whites are the sort who will impose integration on lower socioeconomic status whites, all the while sequestering themselves away. I assumed this was a rough reflection of reality. But after looking at the General Social Survey I am not sure that this chestnut of cynical wisdom has a basis in fact. Below are the proportions of non-Hispanic whites who have had a black friend or acquaintance over for dinner recently by educational attainment:

35% – Less than high school
36% – High school
47% – Junior College
45% – Bachelor
59% – Graduate

I thought this might have been a fluke, so I played around with the GSS’s multiple regression feature, using a logistic model. To my surprise socioeconomic status was positively associated with having a black person over for dinner, and age negatively associated. These two variables in fact tended to exhibit equal magnitude values in opposition, and always remained statistically significant. Just to clear, I created a variable Non-South vs. South below (being Southern increases likelihood of having had a black person over for dinner). All the individuals surveyed are non-Hispanic whites for the year 2000 and ...

April 29, 2012

Comparing American conservative Protestants & Muslims

Filed under: data,Data Analysis,Public opinion — Razib Khan @ 7:09 pm

A few years ago a book came out, American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right. The title clearly was aimed to push copies, but the gist of the title has moderately wide circulation. The rough sketch is that conservative American Protestants are roughly equivalent to conservative Muslims. I have always held that this is a qualitatively misleading analogy. The reason is from all I can gather the socially views of mainstream American conservative Protestants are actually in the moderate range of opinion amongst Muslims. But apples-to-apples comparisons are rather difficult in this domain.

But then I realized that the World Values Survey could allow me to do exactly such comparisons. The method is simple. First, you can subsample the data sets, so I could look at Protestants in the United States who identified as political conservatives. I compared these to the view of Muslims in a selection of nations (the WVS doesn’t cover much of the world, and some questions are not asked in some countries).

The results below range from 1, never justifiable, to 10, always justifiable. There is some strangeness in the results below, but they show the general qualitative result: American ...

March 26, 2012

How income, class, religion, etc. relate to political party

Filed under: data,Data Analysis,Demographics,GSS,Politics — Razib Khan @ 9:11 pm

Update: There was a major coding error. I’ve rerun the analysis. No qualitative change.

As is often the case a 10 minute post using the General Social Survey is getting a lot of attention. Apparently circa 1997 web interfaces are so intimidating to people that extracting a little data goes a long way. Instead of talking and commenting I thought as an exercise I would go further, and also be precise about my methodology so that people could replicate it (hint: this is a chance for readers to follow up and figure something out on their own, instead of tossing out an opinion I don’t care about).

 

Just like below I limited the sample to non-Hispanic whites after the year 2000. Here’s how I did it: YEAR(2000-*), RACE(1), HISPANIC(1)

Next I want to compare income, with 1986 values as a base, with party identification. To increase sample sizes I combined all Democrats and Republicans into one class; the social science points to the reality that the vast majority of independents who “lean” in one direction are actually usually reliable voters for that party. So I feel no guilt about this. I suppose Americans simply like the conceit of being independent? I know I do. ...

March 25, 2012

The upper class is more Republican

Filed under: data,Data Analysis,Demographics — Razib Khan @ 2:31 pm

A few months ago I listened to Frank Newport of Gallup tell Kai Ryssdal of Marketplace that upper class Americans tend to be Democrats. Ryssdal was skeptical, but Newport reiterated himself, and explained that’s just how the numbers shook out. This is important because Newport shows up every now and then to offer up numbers from Gallup to get a pulse of the American nation.

Frankly, Newport was just full of crap. I understand that Thomas Frank wrote an impressionistic book which is highly influential, What’s the Matter with Kansas, while more recently Charles Murray has come out with the argument in Coming Apart that the elites tend toward social liberalism. I’m of the opinion that Frank is just wrong on the face of it, but that’s OK because he’s an impressionistic journalist, and I don’t expect much from that set beyond what I might expect from a sports columnist for ESPN. Murray presents a somewhat different case, as outlined by Andrew Gelman, in that his “upper class” is modulated in a particular manner so as to fall within the purview of his framework. Neither of these qualifications apply to Frank Newport, who is purportedly presenting straightforward unadorned data.

When the “average person on the street” thinks upper class they think first and foremost money. This is not all they think about, but in the rank order of criteria this is certainly first on the list. We can argue till the cows come home as to whether a wealthy small business owner in Iowa who is a college drop out is more or less elite than a college professor in New York City who is bringing home a modest upper middle class income (very modest adjusting for cost of living). But to a first approximation when we look at aggregates we had better look at the bottom line of money. After that we can talk details. And the first approximation is incredibly easy to ascertain. Below is a table and chart which illustrate the proportion of non-Hispanic whites after 2000 who align with a particular party as a function of family income, with family income being indexed to a 1986 value (so presumably $80,000 hear means what $80,000 would buy in 1986, not the aughts).

 

Family Income Strong Dem Dem Lean Dem Ind Lean Rep Rep Strong Rep
Less than $20,000 12 15 12 24 9 15 12
$20-$40,000 12 15 10 18 11 19 15
$40-$80,000 11 14 10 13 11 24 18
More than $80,000 12 12 10 11 11 23 21

The results are straightforward: the more income a family has, the more likely they are to be Republican. There is a lot of nuance and geographical detail to be fleshed out in these results. But these facts are where we need to start.

Andrew Gelman has much more as usual. For example, this chart:

 

 

Why do I keep posting this stuff? Because facts matter. That’s my hope, my faith. Tell people facts, and they will open their eyes. Tell your friends, tell your family. Have whatever opinion you want to have, but start with the facts we know. Look up facts, calculate facts, analyze facts. They are there for us, we just need to go look. Google is your friend, Wikipedia is your friend. The General Social Survey is your friend.

December 30, 2011

Vocab by ethnicity, region, and education

Filed under: data,Data Analysis,GSS,I.Q.,Regionalism — Razib Khan @ 12:58 pm

A questioner below was curious if vocabulary test differences by ethnic and region persist across income. There’s a problem with this. First, the INCOME variable isn’t very fine-grained (there is a catchall $30,000 or greater category). Second, it doesn’t seem to control for inflation. But, there is a variable, DEGREE, which asks the highest level of education attained. I used this to create a “college” and “non-college” category (i.e., do you have a bachelor’s degree or not). Because of sample size considerations I removed some of the ethnic groups, but replicated the earlier analysis.

Below are two tables. One shows the mean vocab score for region and ethnicity (for whites) for those without college educations, and another shows those with college educations. I decided to generate a correlation over the two rows, even though it sure isn’t useful as a quantitative statistical measure because of the small number of data points. Rather, I just wanted a summary of the qualitative result. The short answer is that the average vocabulary difference seems to persist across educational levels (the exception here is the “German” ethnicity).

Mean WORDSUM Score by Ethnicity and Region
No college education

Northeast

Midwest

South

West
German 6.05 5.81 5.79 6.11
Eastern Europe 6.17 6.16 6.18 6.29
Scandinavian 6.35 5.97 6.23 6.35
British 6.6 6.21 6.02 6.57
Irish 6.66 5.83 5.69 6.58
Italian 6 5.85 5.8 6.18

College educated

Northeast

Midwest

South

West
German 8.03 7.48 7.63 7.33
Eastern Europe 7.7 7.37 7.5 8.09
Scandinavian 8.5 7.82 7.86 7.92
British 8.44 8.06 7.76 7.95
Irish 8.03 7.79 7.39 7.59
Italian 7.45 7.75 7.6 7.87

Correlation of college and non-college
German 0.08
Eastern Europe 0.92
Scandinavian 0.57
British 0.70
Irish 0.57
Italian 0.40

November 23, 2011

Iran is relatively liberal on social issues

Filed under: data,Data Analysis — Razib Khan @ 9:46 am

We’ll be talking about Iran a lot in the near future in the United States. I doubt we’ll invade the country (thank god). But one thing I think needs to be emphasized: on social issues Iran is more “progressive” than many of our close allies in the region, like Saudi Arabia, and one of the more progressive nations in the region. This is neither here nor there in the domain of geopolitics, but to convince a public about something it is often necessary to make a cartoon or caricature the enemy. I think it is important to remember though that aside from Israel our closest allies in the region are techno-feudal monarchies like Saudi Arabia, not those nations, like Iran, which have made a more thorough accommodation with modernity out of necessity (because oil can’t support the whole economy). It also reminds us that labels like “Islamic Republic” may not be totally useful.

As a gauge of modern outlook, as understood in the West, I poked around the World Values Survey. The results are for wave 4, around ~2000. The question asked was: A wife must always obey her husband. Possible answers:
- Agree strongly
- Agree
- Neither agree or disagree
- Disagree
- Strongly disagree

Below are two tables with nations which responded to this question. I stratified by sex and educational level of respondents. The sample sizes are in the “Total” column. The other numbers are percentages, summed along the rows to 100%. There are some surprises, but I’ll let the data speak for itself….


Total Agree strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
Algeria 1252 44 31 15 8 2
Sex Male 635 57 27 11 6 1
Female 617 31 35 20 11 2
Bangladesh 1489 34 49 10 5 2
Sex Male 825 38 49 8 4 1
Female 664 29 49 12 7 3
Indonesia 992 27 52 6 12 3
Sex Male 499 36 50 6 7 1
Female 493 18 55 6 17 5
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2496 24 28 18 17 12
Sex Male 1343 31 31 17 14 7
Female 1153 16 25 20 21 19
Iraq 2305 64 25 9 0 2
Sex Male 1114 63 27 9 0 2
Female 1191 65 24 10 0 2
Jordan 1219 43 31 7 12 7
Sex Male 593 57 29 5 6 4
Female 626 29 34 10 18 9
Morocco 1012 56 24 13 6 1
Sex Male 496 66 22 10 3 1
Female 516 47 27 17 8 1
Nigeria 2020 83 13 2 1 1
Sex Male 1031 87 10 1 1 1
Female 989 79 17 3 1 1
Pakistan 1975 28 19 20 20 13
Sex Male 1021 34 18 19 17 12
Female 954 22 21 21 23 14
Saudi Arabia 1494 52 30 13 3 2
Sex Male 753 64 26 8 1 0
Female 741 39 33 19 5 4
Turkey 3368 32 42 15 11 0
Sex Male 1706 39 41 13 8 0
Female 1662 25 43 16 15 0
Egypt 3000 47 31 12 10 0
Sex Male 1540 53 29 11 7 0
Female 1460 40 34 14 12 0
Total 22622 44 31 12 9 4





Total Agree strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
Algeria 1248 44 31 15 8 2
Education level (recoded) Lower 301 49 31 12 8 0
Middle 544 46 31 16 7 1
Upper 403 39 30 17 10 4
Bangladesh 1476 34 49 9 5 2
Education level (recoded) Lower 789 34 52 8 5 2
Middle 401 37 46 10 5 3
Upper 286 31 49 12 7 2
Indonesia 985 27 53 6 12 2
Education level (recoded) Lower 241 25 58 5 8 3
Middle 411 28 53 5 13 1
Upper 333 29 49 6 13 3
Iran (Islamic Republic of) 2391 24 28 18 17 12
Education level (recoded) Lower 757 36 27 16 12 9
Middle 981 21 31 19 18 11
Upper 653 16 25 19 22 18
Iraq 2288 64 25 9 0 2
Education level (recoded) Lower 1298 67 25 7 0 1
Middle 577 63 24 11 0 3
Upper 413 55 29 13 0 3
Jordan 1217 43 31 7 12 7
Education level (recoded) Lower 587 54 27 6 7 6
Middle 332 36 34 8 15 8
Upper 297 27 38 9 19 8
Morocco 1012 56 24 13 6 1
Education level (recoded) Lower 788 63 24 10 3 0
Middle 160 38 26 22 13 1
Upper 64 22 30 25 14 9
Nigeria 2012 83 13 2 1 1
Education level (recoded) Lower 768 83 13 2 1 1
Middle 774 85 13 1 1 1
Upper 470 80 15 3 2 0
Pakistan 1973 28 19 20 20 13
Education level (recoded) Lower 1078 36 27 12 9 16
Middle 614 20 10 33 31 6
Upper 281 13 11 24 36 17
Saudi Arabia 1494 52 30 13 3 2
Education level (recoded) Lower 135 46 31 13 6 4
Middle 973 52 29 13 3 2
Upper 386 52 30 13 3 2
Turkey 3179 33 43 14 11 0
Education level (recoded) Lower 1975 37 48 9 6 0
Middle 918 29 39 18 14 0
Upper 287 15 23 33 29 0
Egypt 2998 47 31 12 10 0
Education level (recoded) Lower 1516 53 32 9 7 0
Middle 927 43 31 15 11 0
Upper 555 38 30 18 15 0
Total 22272 45 31 12 9 4

July 31, 2011

Liberals more politically picky in mates?

Filed under: Culture,data,Data Analysis,dating — Razib Khan @ 8:08 pm

In the early 2000s I recall Joel Grus telling me how reality television would become a pretty powerful exploratory tool for social science. I’m not quite sure of that now (there here’s a game-theoretic analysis of Survivor!). For example, consider The Bachelor and The Bachelorette. If you watched this series you might think that we’re still living in the same country where a episode of Star Trek was not shown in the South because of an interracial kiss. In some ways “appointment television” has become a lagging indicator.

Rather, it looks like firms whose bread & butter is “the social web” are where the gold in social science is. Consider the OkTrends blog, which is affiliated with and has access to OkCupid. These companies have sample sizes not in the thousands, but in the millions! The Financial Times has a fascinating piece on the “secret sauce” of Match.com, Inside Match.com: It’s all about the algorithm:

With the number of paying subscribers using Match approaching 1.8 million, the ­company has had to develop ever more ­sophisticated programs to manage, sort and pair the world’s singles. Central to this effort has been the development, over the ...

May 26, 2011

“Gross national happiness” in numbers

Filed under: Bhutan,data,Data Analysis,Economics — Razib Khan @ 11:34 pm

Bhutan famously espouses “gross national happiness”:

The term “gross national happiness” was coined in 1972 by Bhutan’s former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who has opened Bhutan to the age of modernization, soon after the demise of his father, King Jigme Dorji Wangchuk. He used the phrase to signal his commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan’s unique culture based on Buddhist spiritual values….

Apparently the nation has recent switched from absolute to constitutional monarchy:

Bhutan’s political system has developed from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy. In 1999, the fourth king of Bhutan created a body called the Lhengye Zhungtshog (Council of Ministers). The Druk Gyalpo (King of Druk Yul) is head of state. Executive power is exercised by the Lhengye Zhungtshog, the council of ministers. Legislative power was vested in both the government and the former Grand National Assembly.

On the 17th of December 2005, the 4th King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, announced to a stunned nation that the first general elections would be held in 2008, and that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his eldest son, the crown prince….

From what I can tell the royal house of Bhutan seems genuinely sincere. More plainly paternalist ...

May 11, 2011

Brown man + white woman

Filed under: data,Identity,Interracial,marriage,United States — Razib Khan @ 3:19 pm

The title was for search engine optimization! :-) There’s a new blog, Inverted Trope, which is about “the cultural portrayal of relationships between brown men and white women.” People in such relationships naturally do notice these sorts of things. It’s human nature. But there’s one thing I do want to enter into the record: clearing up issues of sex differences in marriage between Asians and whites. The website Asian Nation has posted 2000 census data. Below I’ve reproduced the Asian – white pairings by sex, and, for all marriages, as well as those between only those born or raised in the USA.

So the chart below you see that 6 percent of all Asian Indian men were married to white women, while restricting the marriages to only those individuals born or raised in the USA you obtain that 31 percent of Asian Indian men were married to white women. The respective numbers for women are 4 and 36 percent.

All marriages between pairs Both individuals US-born or raised

White W
White M
White W
White M
Asian Indian M 6 Asian Indian W 4 Asian Indian M 31 Asian Indian W 36
Chinese M 5 Chinese W 14 Chinese M 30 Chinese W 40
Filipino M 9 Filipino W 27 Filipino M 36 Filipino W 46
Japanese M 20 Japanese W 27 Japanese M 38 Japanese W 32
Korean M 6 Korean W 24 Korean M 40 Korean W 61

Two things that jump out of these data:

1) The sex difference difference between all marriages and native/raised only marriages is probably pointing to the reality of a lot of foreign Asian women who marry white American men.

2) The proportion of native born for each Asian group differs a lot. The vast majority of Indian Americans today and in 2000 were born and raised abroad, especially those of marriage age. So to a good approximation the total intermarriage rate is reflecting that of an immigrant community. In contrast the majority of Japanese Americans are not immigrants, but the descendants of early 20th century migrations. So the “all” pool is very different from the US-born and raised pool.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress