Is a book by two UCLA sociologists, Vila Ortiz and Edward E Telles, published in 2008. It originated in a fair-sized data set (1576 people) collected in 1965, which was rediscovered in 1992. The original respondents and their adult children were interviewed. It shows quite clearly that although second-generation Mexican-Americans averaged more education and higher SES than the first generation, presumably because they knew English, there was no further improvement in the third and fourth generations. The gap remained substantial: the fourth generation had a college completion rate of 6%, compared to a rate of 35% for whites of that same era.
Which is pretty much what you see in New Mexico too, except that here we’re often talking about the fifth, sixth, and seventh generation living in the US
I don’t see much sign that the story is greatly different in Central and South America. Mestizos – whose ancestry is part Amerindian and part European (usually Spanish), make up most of the population in those countries. Their PISA scores are low – lower than those of Hispanics in the US. Performance in science and technology is more important than test performance – but Latin America’s low performance is consistent with their low test scores. This showed up in my Zones of Thought map.
Isn’t there reason to believe that this is all going to change radically for the better in the near future, powered by the strongest force in the Universe, wishful thinking? Nope.
Nobody knows how to substantially change this picture. Yet.
West Hunter 
This seems likely to convince all but the most wishful of wishful thinkers. Do we have a summary of 6 generation effects across the world? Even the very positive scores are grist to the mill: how did the British retain Greenwich mean IQ in the very disparate environments of North America and Australia and New Zealand?
“This seems likely to convince all but the most wishful of wishful thinkers.”
Have you ever seen a typical American read about this and be convinced by it? There is a lot of wishful thinking in an average person.
Liberalism is a religion. Convincing them that anything is incorrect about their beliefs is like
trying to convert Iranian mullahs to Unitarianism.
Best comment ever!
Well, let’s accept your premise that Liberalism is a religion. I’m politically liberal in large part because of the essential tenets of the Christian faith, requiring only of me that I practice justice and kindness, take care of the needy, and walk humbly with God. Need I mention which political persuasion conforms more to these beliefs?
Today’s “conservatives” seem to drift dangerously close to Social Darwinianism, or Ayn Randism. My Christian faith, on the other hand, “works” if looked at historically — how did a tiny splinter faction of first-century Judaism grow within a few centuries to become the official religion of the Roman Empire? Really Good preachers and missionaries? Or, just possibly, a slightly better natural increase within the Christian population in the war- and natural disaster-ridden early centuries of the last two millenia, thanks to taking care of the needy, not leaving people to die by the side of the road?
. I’m politically liberal in large part because of the essential tenets of the Christian faith, requiring only of me that I practice justice and kindness, take care of the needy, and walk humbly with God. Need I mention which political persuasion conforms more to these beliefs?
No, of course not. It’s obviously conservatives. Conservatives give a lot more, and donate a lot more time, to charitable causes than liberals. Liberals sit around and vote for someone else to do it all. As for justice, well, it’s the conservatives that brought down the crime rate.
Today’s “conservatives” seem to drift dangerously close to Social Darwinianism, or Ayn Randism.
You are gravely confused. Allow Frédéric Bastiat to straighten it out for you —
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” — “The Law”
Also don’t forget the dire warnings about big government in the Bible. 1st Samuel 8:9-22 where the wicked Israelites demanded a king “like other nations”,could almost be a prophecy of Obammunism (and every other corrupt dictatorship we’ve seen over the last few centuries) and the consequences are dire. For more:
https://americanvision.org/7832/godless-state-serfdom-1-samuel-89-22/
My Christian faith, “works” if looked at historically — how did a tiny splinter faction of first-century Judaism grow within a few centuries to become the official religion of the Roman Empire? Really Good preachers and missionaries? Or, just possibly, a slightly better natural increase within the Christian population in the war- and natural disaster-ridden early centuries of the last two millenia, thanks to taking care of the needy, not leaving people to die by the side of the road?
As noted above, conservatives care for the needy more. In terms of demographics, a major factor in Christian demographic expansion was old fashioned sexual morality, today abominated by the Left: a total rejection of promiscuity, adultery, homosexuality, contraception, and abortion, and a wholehearted endorsement of “family values” —
The Christians are not distinguished from other men by country, by language, nor by civil institutions. For they neither dwell in cities by themselves, nor use a peculiar tongue, no lead a singular mode of life. They dwell in the Grecian or barbarian cities, as the case may be; they follow the usage of the country in dress, food, and the other affairs of life…….They marry, like all others; they have children; but they do not cast away their offspring – “Epistle to Diognetus 2nd Century
“Nobody knows how to substantially change this picture.” — One thousand years of zero economic growth will do the trick.
James Thompson – “how did the British retain Greenwich mean IQ in the very disparate environments of North America and Australia and New Zealand?” — environment has little to do with weather, much to do with social structure. The environments of the UK, British North America, Australia, and New Zealand were very similar.
Greg, the magic pixie dust that the evil white racists have been hiding will do the trick.
Paul Jaminet:
The environments of the UK, British North America, Australia, and New Zealand were very similar.
That’s some pretty powerful stuff you have been smoking. Can you tell me where you get it from?
The book’s title is “Ecological Imperialism: the Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900 A.D.” Worth a read. The author’s thesis is that colonial outings were wildly successful only in environments that resembled those of Western European homelands. Africa, India & S. Asia were nightmares precisely because we weren’t already adapted to their environments. The historical figures are astounding. At some pounts the Brits had 80,000 conscripts dying per WEEK of virulent diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
Since it was rare for Britain to have much more than 80,000 soldiers at a time, and rarer yet to have conscripts, those points must have been pretty unusual.
Similar to Van den Berghe’s excellent but little read the Ethnic Phenomenon. At least, I think that’s where I encountered the colonies-temperate vs colonies-tropical theory.
In addition to dearieme’s comment, that annualizes to a quarter of the entire population of the UK in 1800 dying to colonial diseases as conscripts (10% at 1900 population levels) on the top end.
In reality, what the book says is “Between 1793 and 1796, the British army in the Caribbean theater lost about 80,000 men, over half to yellow fever alone” and that between 1817 and 1836 between 85 and 135 per thousand per year stationed there died, and over 500 per thousand in West Africa at that time
Of course, the killers there weren’t exactly ecological, they were diseases, and mostly diseases from Africa, and as the very next page of that book points out, when the Europeans went to NE Australia, the results were very different. Helps not importing a whole bunch of African slaves.
I’m not so interested in making everyone above average. I would really like public policy to reflect some of this reality.
Local to me, the Ag department is madly propping up various minority farmers, in the wake of the various discrimination lawsuits (read: looting expeditions). You can drive down the road and see they are not up to speed with modern best practices, partly because (of course) many are just fronts for laundering drug money. One guy across the road from me spent a year in jail, yet he came back to continue his “farming” operation. The local bureaucrat (or should I say Cathedral Priest) has been confronted by such, and he says, “they meet the criteria”. Indeed.
“It may not be the End of the World as we know it, but I can see it from here.”
Come on Guys,
Many estimate BGI-Shenzhen will identify a vast majority of the thousands of genes related to intelligence within 5 to 6 years and the identification of those genes determining personality to follow a few years later. Today mankind has remade his world and, I estimate, will inevitably remake himself within the next fifty to eighty years.
Ill bet you are right in principle but over optimistic in your dates. Too much complexity, too little money spent by too few serious players to put dates this early. Now if nations get serious in this pursuit, spend money as if this goal is a hundred times as important as putting a man on the moon, which of course it is, then we will have reason to be more optimistic.
Especially if genetic load depressing intelligence, ambition, adaptability, or perseverance is the story.
“Today mankind has remade his world and, I estimate, will inevitably remake himself within the next fifty to eighty years.”
Some bits of mankind will – the bits currently in the stranglehold of the PC kommisariat, not so much.
Since people, perhaps left-liberals in particular, tend to lack a strong moral and/or intellectual sense in regard to impugnable issues like the Race/IQ debate, they often “misunderstand” the twofold causal process that is necessary in order to try to figure out what has been going on in civilization’s history, both distant and contemporary. It seems reasonable to belive that higher (quite strongly genetically related) IQ and hence knowledge, both among individuals and groups, lead to the creation of particular marcro and micro environments, which in turn boost IQ with some extra points, and not primarily the almost other way around – that people are passive non-agents and that the deleterious social environments, which have for some ugly reason emerged everywhere were certain populations live, depress IQ and knowledge. Even if Lynn & Vanhanen’s works (2002, 2006) have some palpable flaws, they still managed to understand the most likely patterns.
believe – where
I finally get the “Zones of Thought” reference. Very pithy.
My posts are chock-full of subtle references. Even I only get half of them.
Pingback: Dystopian Conservative Future? « JayMan's Blog
Which is pretty much what you see in New Mexico too, except that here we’re often talking about the fifth, sixth, and seventh generation living in the US
I’m seeing a possible tie-in with the earlier “Boiling off” post. What I’m guessing, in other words, is that after 5+ generations only the generally less successful/ambitious descendants of the immigrants are still clinging to the Hispanic label. Most others have long since “boiled off” and become subsumed into the white population.
Peter
You’re mostly wrong, but who’s counting?
I don’t have numbers for that. It’s a plausible theory, but here in NH, we don’t have enough day-to-day data to even intuit this.
Why would you say I’m mostly wrong? If most members of the 5th+ generation have subsumed into the white population they wouldn’t show up as “underachieving” Mexican-Americans.
Peter
Because it doesn’t happen very often. The opposite happens: people who are one-half or one-fourth Mestizo by ancestry (sometimes zero) self-identify as Hispanic in order to receive various ‘affirmative-action’ goodies.
Moreover, in the past, the rates of intermarriage were lower than now.
The only place where substantial numbers of mestizos have lived in the US for a long time is New Mexico. Naturally, I don’t know as much about New Mexico as Ron Unz, since I’ve lived here for 20 years, had my children go to mostly-Hispanic public schools, etc, while he’s never even stepped foot outside of the airport – but I like to think that I know something about the state.
Well, I’m familiar with an N of one.
My daughter is dating a blond haired, blue eyed, 6’2″ recent Cal Berkeley graduate who, while he physically and mentally takes after his German mother, is named Martinez. Although he’s not brilliant, I estimate his SAT as 2000+. While he doesn’t think of himself as Hispanic, he may have played the Hispanic card to attend Cal since his father is ‘part-Mexican’, as his son describes him. The young man also concedes he is the most talented of the three siblings.
If you read the book Cochran recommended, you’ll note that back in the 50s the long-settled Mexican population identified as Spanish & white. The sociologist authors were gladdened that Chicana identity became more popular since then, not making much of a connection between that and the various undesirable outcomes they documented in later generations.
Hanging with recent Mexican immigrants might have an effect: it’s hard to believe that the label itself makes much difference.
Pingback: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear…. « Human Varieties
Pingback: Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear…. | humanvarietiesdotorg
Re: “Yet.”
If one understands that the ability to create herd-thinning diseases exists already and is becoming easier and easier every day then the probability that some number of people or groups will introduce said diseases into the world approaches one. If you don’t understand that this ability is increasing, Google “biohack” and then imagine Theodore Kaczynski with a test tube in his hand or Hitler in his bunker facing his defeat.
Alongside the ability to create bioweapons is the ability to fend them off. If one imagines a day when this genie does escape the bottle it is hard to imagine that the deaths will fall randomly on the earth’s population. While geographic isolation will protect a few, it is hard to imagine overwhelmed medical facilities doing much to stem the tide in Africa or South Asia (to name two obvious examples). Natural selection will be hard at work in the usual “fling them all on a wall and see what sticks” manner.
As the poet said, it is useless to see the future and screech at it, but that’s what I see.
Pingback: why human biodiversity is true…and why jason richwine is right | hbd* chick
Pingback: More Maps of the American Nations | JayMan's Blog