Don’t His-Panic — in Tables

The evidence presented here powerfully refutes the widespread popular belief that America’s Hispanics have high crime rates. Instead, their criminality seems to fall near the center of the white national distribution, being somewhat higher than white New Englanders but somewhat lower than white Southerners. Taken as a whole, the mass of statistical evidence constitutes strong support for the “null hypothesis,” namely that Hispanics have approximately the same crime rates as whites of the same age. — Unz, His-Panic, 2010.

Don’t Panic. — Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Sure…..

Let’s take a developmental approach:

Childhood-Adolescence

1. Parental reported social deviance scores from the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth as reported in Heckman’s “The productivity argument for investing in young children”.

racesocialdeviancecnlsy

(From: Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 29(3), 446-493. Web Appendix For The Productivity Argument for Investing in Young Children)

2. Middle School Suspension rates:

middleschool suspension rates

(From: Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis.)

Adolescence-Young Adulthood

3. Self-reported social deviance in the nationally representative Add Health Survey:

Image 1

4. High School Suspension rates:

suspension rates race ethnicity

(From: NCES, 2007. Suspensions and Expulsions of High School Students)

5. Juvenile Detention Rates:

juviraceage

juviraceoffense

Adulthood

6. The adult incarceration rates based on the nationally representative NLSY79 and NLSY97:

Fryer 2010 inc

(From: Roland Jr, G. (2011). Racial Inequality in the 21st Century: The Declining Significance of Discrimination. Handbook of Labor Economics, 4, 855-971.)

7. Adult incarceration estimates based on ACS and BJS:

ACSBJS

(From: Sabol, 2012. Understanding Sources of Differences from Interagency Research: ACS-GQ and BJS correction population estimates)

8. Adult incarceration estimates based on ACS and SISCF (Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities):

ACS2009

(From: Ewert, S., & Wildhagen, T. (2011). Educational Characteristics of Prisoners: Data from the ACS. In Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.)

9. Adult incarceration rates by nativity based on PUMS 5%, Census 2000:

crimegeneration

(From: Rumbaut, R. G., Gonzales, R. G., Komaie, G., & Morgan, C. V. (2006). Debunking the myth of immigrant criminality: Imprisonment among first-and second-generation young men. Migration Information Source.)

10. Meta-review results

Meta-analytic predictors of criminality:

Cross-National Predictors of Crime A Meta-Analysis

(From: Nivette, A. E. (2011). Cross-national predictors of crime: A meta-analysis. Homicide Studies, 15(2), 103-131.)

11. Review of Ethnic Group differences in Criminality:

Image 2

(From: Ellis, L., Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. (2009). Handbook of crime correlates. Access Online via Elsevier.)

Nativity x Incarceration Interaction

12. Incarceration by Nativity:

The Changing Pathways of Hispanic2009

(From: Fry, 2009. The Changing Pathways of Hispanic Youths Into Adulthood)

But what would one expect?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Don’t His-Panic — in Tables

  1. Steve Sailer says:

    I’d draw the distinction that Latin American immigrants who arrive in the U.S. after the typical ages of recruitment into street gangs (say, 12 to 20) have fairly low crime rates (other than drinking related crimes, domestic violence, and the like). In California arrest statistics, there’s a pretty sharp drop in the per capita rates of Hispanics relative to other groups after about age 19, in part because the denominator is swelling with new arrivals intending to keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. What that says about how their sons will behave is not clear.

    Also, I suspect the last 15 years of Mexican immigrants are less violent. For one thing, there are lots of well-paying jobs for criminals in Mexico now, whereas Mexico used to be locked down pretty tight. So, natural bad guys stay home and work for the cartels.

    Second, the 1996 reforms cutting welfare for illegal immigrants probably discouraged would be immigrants of poorer character.

    Third, immigration sources have shifted toward the more Indian regions and away from the more violent north. Think of the contrast as pyramid building slaves vs. cowboys.

  2. Curzio says:

    I think I’m willing to sign on to the thesis that Amerindian mestizos are not much more prone to violent crime than Whites. As I’ve read elsewhere — and one of your charts confirms this — Puerto Ricans and Dominicans have two of the three highest crime rates among Hispanic-Americans, but both of these groups are predominantly mulatto, with African slave ancestry, rather than Amerindian. They get grouped with “Hispanics” because many of them speak Spanish and have Spanish names, but genetically they’re closer to Blacks. I’m surprised by the crime rate of Cuban-Americans, since I believe most of them are White, but I could be wrong about that.

    The implication here is that the mestizo crime rate in America is actually a good deal lower than what one would think by glancing at the “Hispanic” crime data, and that the Black crime rate is even higher (lord help us!).

    The high murder rates in countries like Guatemala and the violence in Mexico can probably be attributed to cultural and political factors, such as drug wars — similar to the high violent crime rate in European countries like Russia and Ukraine — rather than to genetic factors, and the HBDers who rushed to lump mestizos with Africans in their propensity for aggression probably shot themselves in the foot.

    • Chuck says:

      Ok, but American-Indians also have a sky high rate of crime. But the issue is complex as I noted, in passing, here. There are high rates of ethnic attrition for Hispanics, Amer-Indians, and Asians in the US. Basically, the more successful — and presumably less criminally prone — of the former two groups melt into the White cultural and genetic pool just as do the less successful of the latter group.

  3. Curzio says:

    By the way, has anyone ever double-checked Richard Lynn’s data on Mexico from 2005?

    “Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was administered to a representative sample of 920 white, Mestizo and Native Mexican Indian children aged 7–10 years in Mexico. The mean IQs in relation to a British mean of 100 obtained from the 1979 British standardization sample and adjusted for the estimated subsequent increase were: 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.”

    I ask because the 94.3 score for Mestizos is higher than what I usually see attributed to them. While it’s below the White average, it’s not still not a bad score, as in: mixing with some of them wouldn’t provoke a civilizational collapse, and if we selected our immigrants a little better, we could still let in Mexicans and maintain a first-world society.

    I remain convinced that without the pathological behavior of the Black community, there would be little to no impetus for racialism in North America.

    • Chuck says:

      There are tons of Mexican scores available. You can check, for example, the Spanish version of the woodcock johnson (Batería). If you want to review and post about them over at Human Varieties that would be great and I will help you find sources. If not, I’m not going to waste my time reviewing the data just for you. You can also check the international achievement test scores.

      Racialism is about more than just bitching about race difference. There is also the issue of cultural and genetic integrity i.e., not disintegrating into a post ethnic, post cultural mass. That said, since Hispanics are largely genetically and culturally European, if it was not for the cultural marxist left, miscegenation would not be a big deal — since Hispanics could readily be incorporated without uprooting White European identity. The La Razza, “people of color” crap doesn’t help, though.

      • Curzio says:

        I can read Spanish (as well as French, Italian, and German), so yes, I’d be willing to take a look at them, though as the belatedness of my reply reveals, I can’t make any firm guarantees as to when I can deliver the data, especially since I have little training in statistics.

        Something else to look at to test the global hereditarian hypothesis and which I haven’t seen mentioned elsewhere: Chile.

        Chile is interesting because it’s one of the most successful of all Latin American countries: high GDP per capita and standard of living, stable institutions, low corruption, etc. The lazier racialists try to claim it as a “White” Hispanic country, but it’s not quite so simple. It’s more accurately called a “light Mestizo” country. Genetic tests reveal that the majority of Chileans (at least 60% of the population) possess significant Amerindian ancestry (estimates range from 35% to 40% Amerindian). This is backed up by the phenotype of many Chileans, which is noticeably more “mixed” than the average Argentine or Uruguayan. Yet, funnily enough, Chile either equals or outpaces both of them on numerous metrics

        “In 2006, Chile became the country with the highest nominal GDP per capita in Latin America.[18] Chile has an inequality-adjusted human development index of 0.652, compared to 0.654, 0.641 and 0.519 for neighbouring Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil, respectively. 5.3% of the population lives on less than US $2 a day.[19]

        The Global Competitiveness Report for 2009-2010 ranks Chile as being the 30th most competitive country in the world and the first in Latin America, well above from Brazil (56th), Mexico (60th) and Argentina which ranks 85th.[18] ”

        I’ve seen IQ scores for Chile listed as around 92, but I *strongly suspect* that number is based on decades old data. I’d be interested to see more recent numbers.

        Another reason Chile is important: it’s one of the few countries in the Americas to have never imported Africans. This means that the admixture there is solely Amerindian, which allows us to look at the effects of it without any complicating factors.

        The more I think about it, the more a genotypic IQ of 94-95 for Mestizos, and 89-90 for pure Amerindians sound plausible. These would align with the Mexican IQ scores, and would give a “light Mestizo” country like Chile an average IQ somewhere between 95-98, which is definitely enough to remain competitive with “purely” European countries like Argentina and Uruguay and approach Western European levels.

      • Curzio says:

        By the way, I’ve noticed, an *ahem* error in Richard Lynn’s reporting of his own data.

        http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=266611

        As mentioned above, the scores are 98·0 for whites, 94·3 for Mestizos and 83·3 for Native Mexican Indians.

        The demographics for Mexico, correctly given in the paper linked, are 10% White, 60% Mestizo, and 30% pure Indian. 98(.1) + 94(.6) + 83(.3) — average of 91.

        ow I double-checked Lynn’s book IQ and Global Inequality, published in 2006, and I noticed that Lynn cites the 2005 Mexican study above, but reports the overall Mexican average as 88. The reason is found on page 312:

        http://de.scribd.com/doc/129505348/Richard-Lynn-Tatu-Vanhanen-IQ-and-Global-Inequality

        For some strange reason, in this book he reports Mexico’s demographics as 10% White, 30% Mestizo, 60% Indian. Thus 98(.1) + 94(.3) + 83(.6) = average of 88.

        But not only is this demographic information obviously wrong, it contradicts the percentages reported in his own damn paper!

        Now, it’s possible that this was an honest error on Lynn’s part. I read through the entire 2005 Mexican study, and nowhere in it did he bother calculating the overall Mexican IQ, neither as either 88 nor 91. Only the scores for each particular ethnic group are enumerated. But the “error” that appears in IQ and Global Inequality is awfully convenient for two reasons:

        1) The only other IQ study in Mexico yielded an average of 87, but it was from the 1960s and there were some methodological problems with it. Listing the “updated” Mexican average as 88 gives an illusion of consistency and immobility.

        2) In the color-coded global IQ maps that HBDers love to throw around, countries with a score above 90 or 91 are usually colored differently from those which score below 90. It’s like the difference between a B+ and an A- as a final grade in school. Mexico is fairly easy to spot on a map, so if it were colored with other 90+ IQ nations, people would notice. Lynn’s “error” makes it easier to group Mexico with other Central American/mestizo countries.

        I can’t help but wonder if there are similar “errors” elsewhere in Lynn’s data.

        • Chuck says:

          Sorry, been busy. Email me at: j122177(at)hotmail.com if you would like to take me up on my offer and I’ll introduce you to Jason Malloy, who has collected probably the world’s largest collection of IQ tests. We can then get you started Refer to the linked post below for background concerning Jason’s ongoing HV project. :
          http://humanvarieties.org/2013/01/19/the-human-varieties-global-i-q-dataset/

          Generally, Lynn is somewhat sloppy at times. (And so am I.) But he gets the rough shape of things correct. Refer to the following papers:

          Hanushek and Woessmann. The Economics of International Differences in Educational Achievement
          Lynn and Vanhanen, 2012. Intelligence: A Unifying Construct for the Social Sciences
          Rindermann, 2007. The g-Factor of International Cognitive Ability Comparisons: The Homogeneity of Results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-Tests Across Nations
          ALtinok and Murseli, 2006. International Database on Human Capital Quality
          Altinok et al, (work in progress). International Database on Human Capital Quality: An Update
          Meisenberg and Lynn, 2011. Intelligence: A Measure of Human Capital in Nations
          http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/national-iq-references/

          But also here:

          Meisenberg, G., & Woodley, M. A. (2013). Are cognitive differences between countries diminishing? Evidence from TIMSS and PISA. Intelligence.

          As far as I am concerned, the global IQ scores are consistent with the type of hereditarian hypothesis that I would be willing to defend, given the measurement error inherent in estimating “national IQs”. See my brief commentary here, point (2):
          http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/redebunking-ron/

          To address some specifics:

          You said: “But not only is this demographic information obviously wrong, it contradicts the percentages reported in his own damn paper!”

          He’s reviewing a huge amount of information practically by himself and he is doing so quickly. Errors are to be expected. This is a relatively minor one.

          You said: “The only other IQ study in Mexico yielded an average of 87, but it was from the 1960s and there were some methodological problems with it. Listing the “updated” Mexican average as 88 gives an illusion of consistency and immobility.”

          Lynn does tend to impose order onto the data and read the results from his perspective. But, the Mexican scores are about correct from what I remember. Again, shoot me an email and I will get you in touch with Malloy. Maybe you can review the Latin American IQ and achievement scores and try to convince us that Lynn is substantially wrong.

          “I can’t help but wonder if there are similar “errors” elsewhere in Lynn’s data.”

          There are numerous such. But what you mention is minor. Major problems, for example, are Lynn’s South East Asian estimates, which are proving to be completely off e.g.,
          http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/thai-national-iq-98-race-realism-sucks-another-big-one/#comment-3404

          • B.B. says:

            On a related note, the Ulster Institute is soon to publish a festschrift to Richard Lynn. I’d guess a significant chunk of it will be reprints from Personality and Individual Differences Volume 53, Issue 2. Though I’d guess there probably will be some new content:

            http://www.ulsterinstitute.org/

            /also isn’t it a bit weird that an Institute run by Lynn is publishing his own festschrift?

          • Curzio says:

            I’ll email you, but I wanted to clear some things up for the benefit of those who might be following this exchange:

            My goal isn’t to debunk hereditarianism so much as to accurately gauge the magnitude of the gaps. If some game-changing evidence proved hereditarianism false, I’d accept it with some relief, although I’d wonder what was causing the level of dysfunction seen among Blacks. Given what we know about natural selection and the heritability of intelligence, the existence of no gaps whatsoever seems highly unlikely.

            My somewhat optimistic prediction is that the genotypic differences between non-Africans could prove relatively surmountable, say within 5-6 points from the UK standard, but the gap between SSAs and others is much more worrisome. I don’t count small groups like Australian Aborigines in that prediction.

            I’ve seen that Thailand info before and it demonstrates why I have reservations about using standardized test scores as proxies for IQ tests. I’ve seen similar contradictions with the northern vs southern Italy gap: the two regions perform about the same on Raven’s matrices, yet the north outperforms the south on tests and in economic development. Also, while Mexico performs below the OECD average on PISA, it still scores significantly higher than White countries like Argentina. Lots of anomalies like that.

  4. Curzio says:

    By the way, I’ve seen you’ve also tackled Cuba’s abnormally high test scores. Normally I object when people attempt to dismiss data they don’t like, but I do think that some degree of suspicion with regard to a one-party state like Cuba is justified.

    http://schugurensky.faculty.asu.edu/moments/1998cuba.html

    “This comparative study on Latin American educational achievement was particularly important because it was the first one in which the indicators and procedures were agreed upon by the representatives of all the participant countries.”

    What I want to know is precisely what those procedures were. Was there any chance for the government to tamper with results? Have you been able to locate any information on that account? I have not.

    IF Cuba’s test scores are legitimate, then it would suggest that sound educational policies can drastically improve scores for non-European and non-East Asian students. Of course, some might be disturbed by the suggestion that those policies require authoritarian measures…

    • Chuck says:

      Unfortunately, I really haven’t had time to look into the international scores much. To be honest, I don’t find them to be very informative — since it’s not clear what exactly they are indexing. See here:
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/01/30/national-iqs-summarized/

      More informative, in my opinion, are intra-national scores. I’ve tried to look into these somewhat. For example:
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/gaps-around-the-world/
      http://occidentalascent.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/narrowing-the-genetic-environmental-uncertainty-if-you-wish/

      But this “investigation” has turned out to be more complex than I originally anticipated — since results were confounded by psychometric bias, migrant selection, and intermarriage.

      Nonetheless, I think that it’s still more productive to look at intra- national differences — to see, for example, if Amerindian ancestry is associated with outcomes throughout Latin America. Since racial hereditarians aren’t genetic determinist, one can’t disprove a hereditarian hypothesis with a mere couple of counter examples. Racial hereditarianism, on the global level, predicts broad patterns. The more exceptions found, the weaker the global hereditarian hypothesis becomes. (Obviously, of course, you can have local hereditarianism owing to differential migration, identification, and reproductive patterns — for example, I’m sure that “Asians” (Mongoloids plus South Asian Caucasoids) in the US are/were more migrant selected in IQ related traits than “Hispanics”, etc.)

      Were you to discover that in 22 out of 26 Latin American countries/territories Amerindian ancestry was associated with cognitive ability and that the direction of the association was the same then that would be interesting. If the magnitude of the association was also about the same that would be even more interesting. Such findings would support a hereditarian hypothesis contra idiosyncratic environmental hypotheses. Of course, one could always posit some alternative environmental hypotheses that predicts homogeneity of effect e.g., colorism or minority caste system– but such hypothesis, insofar as they are semi scientific, should be testable, as countries should vary in these effects (having different histories, genetic compositions, etc.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s