Saturday, January 31, 2015

Sex partners over time among men and women

Game's golden tongue on self-reported sex surveys:
The problem with sex surveys of this sort — i.e., the kind that ask in no uncertain terms just how slutty (women) or charming (men) you are — is that people lie. They lie to assuage their egos, and they lie to meet social expectations. And lo and behold, there are attenuating studies which discredit to some extent the reported results of sex surveys.
It's a point Heartiste Chrysostom has put pressure on several times before, and the finding that men average 2-3x as many lifetime sexual partners as women do has, as its prerequisite for being true, a world in which women outnumber men by a similar factor in the general population. That isn't the world we inhabit, of course, and consequently male self-reports, female self-reports, or both, are unreliable.

But just because women low-ball their counts and men inflate theirs--despite his sworn testimony, Bill Clinton probably would've counted Monica Lewinsky as a partner for the purposes of a survey like this while she likely would not have--doesn't mean data like these are worthless. There's a signal mixed in with the noise. It's difficult to definitively detect the former and separate it from the latter, but it doesn't mean that there is no value in giving a listen. Like so many other areas of human experience, the truth is stretched and excused but rarely ignored outright in perpetuity.

To the question of changes in sexual behavior over time, for example, social expectation bias suggests that we should see some increase in the number of reported partners among women as we progress forward in time due to the decrease in societal slut-shaming and the corresponding steady drop in marriage rates even if there is no change in the actual average number of partners women have today compared to what women tended to have in the past.

So without further ado, the following graphs track the percentages of white men and women aged 25-40 in lifetime sexual partner ranges over the nearly 25 years that the GSS has been querying respondents on as much. Subsequent tables show the mean, median, and modes for each year's total responses. First, men:


Female partner averages for white men aged 25-40 by year:

YearMeanMedianMode
198912.0061
199011.9141
199110.7051
199312.1961
199411.2351
199612.7471
199810.8361
200014.0661
200215.4161
200420.9551
200610.1551
200818.3873
201012.3961
201227.67 (!)51

Parenthetically, mean = total instances/number of samples (what we conventionally think of as "average"); median = the value at the 50th percentile of the sample distribution; mode = the most frequently occurring value in the sample.

(!) The 2012 mean is skewed by one respondent claiming to have had over 989 female partners, the only year in which Adonis was available for survey participation. Removing him from the year drops the mean to a more terrestrial 17.15.

There is very little in the way of any detectable secular trend here, although there are faint empirical traces of a bifurcating male sexual market in which the percentages of men earning 20+ notches and the percentages of 40 year-old virgins are both increasing modestly at the expense of men in the moderating middle.


And male partner averages for white women aged 25-40 by year:

YearMeanMedianMode
19894.5921
19903.9121
19914.7231
19934.5131
19945.4631
19965.6531
19984.9531
20006.1531
20025.4641
20045.5031
20066.4541
20085.2431
20105.8741
20126.8331

The results for women are less sporadic than they are for men, and there is an apparent slight but perceptible increase in the number of male partners women are bedding over the last couple of decades. This could conceivably be due to a reduction in shame among women in admitting to having high partner counts, it could be a result of real increases in novel sexual encounters in the US, some combination of the two, or something else.

Heartiste writes:
I’d add that, despite the above GrateFacts, it’s a good bet that lower-N count monogamy is still hanging on as the norm among Eurasian peoples. Well, serial monogamy, at any rate.
As the medians and modes show, that is indeed still the case.

Finally, 2012 was an especially lascivious year for GSS participants. The 2014 data will be released in the next couple of months. It will be interesting to see if 2012 turns out to be an aberration or the seminal year of an enduring trend towards more faux inseminations.

GSS variables used: YEAR, SEX, RACE(1), AGE(25-40), NUMMEN(0-989), NUMWOMEN(0-989)

Sunday, January 25, 2015

State IQ estimates (2013)

Like presidential elections, it has become standard for updated state IQ estimates based on NAEP scores for 8th graders on math and reading tests to be offered here every four years (for estimates based on 2005 and 2009 NAEP results, please click on the corresponding links).

The scores for both tests are on a 500 point scale, with a designed standard deviation of 50. In the proceeding table, these are converted into IQ estimates with a mean of 97.4--corresponding to the national average NAEP scores of 283.62 for math and 266.02 for reading--and a standard deviation of 15. The math and reading scores are given equal weighting.

I'm operating under the presumption that the average IQ in the US is 98. The reason the IQ estimates are based on a national mean of 97.4 is to take into account private schools, whose students on average score 15 points higher on the math test and 19 points higher on the reading test, corresponding to an estimated 5.1 IQ advantage over their public school counterparts. Representing one-tenth of the school age population, this yields a national average of 98. The estimates assume that the private school advantage relative to public schools is equal across states. That is, the public school score, plus 5.1 multiplied by the percentage of a state's students enrolled in private schools, gives the state's overall estimated average IQ.

Again in the spirit of the 2004 IQ hoax, states are colored in accordance with the way their populations voted in the 2012 Presidential election. Light red (blue) indicates the margin of victory for Romney (Obama) was less than 10%; dark red (blue) indicates it was 10% or more:

StateIQ
1. Massachusetts102.2
2. New Jersey101.4
3. New Hampshire101.0
4. Vermont100.9
5. Minnesota100.4
DoDEA100.1
6. Pennsylvania100.0
7. Maryland99.8
8. Washington99.8
9. Montana99.6
10. Connecticut99.5
11. Ohio99.5
12. Colorado99.5
13. Wisconsin99.1
14. North Dakota99.1
15. Maine99.1
16. Wyoming99.0
17. Kansas98.9
18. Idaho98.9
19. Virginia98.8
20. South Dakota98.8
21. Indiana98.8
22. Nebraska98.8
23. Iowa98.6
24. Utah98.4
25. Illinois98.3
26. Delaware98.3
27. Rhode Island98.2
28. Missouri98.2
29. Oregon98.2
30. Kentucky98.1
31. Texas98.1
32. North Carolina98.0
33. New York98.0
34. Florida97.6
35. Hawaii97.4
36. Michigan97.4
37. Tennessee97.1
38. Georgia97.1
39. Alaska96.8
40. South Carolina96.7
41. Arizona96.3
42. Arkansas96.3
43. Nevada96.3
44. California96.0
45. Oklahoma95.9
46. Louisiana95.5
47. West Virginia95.0
48. New Mexico94.7
49. Alabama94.5
50. Mississippi94.2
51. District of Columbia92.8

And a map of the same. The darker the state's shading, the higher it's estimated average IQ:


Proximity to the Canadian border continues to show salubrious effects. Cold is good for the constitution, dontcha know!

The Department of Defense entry might reasonably be colored dark red rendering it, rather than Montana, the strongest showing among solidly GOP 'states'. Red-staters' creme de la creme in governmental positions, yikes!

This is the third set of IQ estimates I've comprised based on NAEP data. The inter-year correlations are strong, .91 between 2005 and 2009, and .97 (p-value =  1.6E-30) between 2009 and 2013. One state has shifted upwards markedly, however. Maryland was 34th in 2005, 11th in 2009, and 8th this time around. As those able to feed at the public trough eat ever more gluttonously, gentrifying out NAMs and white plebes, the scholastic performance of the entire state rises. It's almost as if our political masters behave privately in a way that is diametrically opposed to the diversifying ideals they sing paeans to in public!

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Obama's half-nephew on the maternal side could look like Grant Ronnebeck

Illegal Alien With Criminal Record Kills AZ Clerk Over a Pack of Cigarettes:


The corpulent cherub had been arrested on previous occasions on his way to acquiring a felonious rap sheet. Inexplicably, he still wasn't deported.

Don't expect to hear anything about this from the Justice Department or from Barack Obama about how Grant, the clerk, could have been his son. Nope, while the evil, white-hating president uses the bully pulpit to express sympathy for the dregs of society like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and Michael Brown, because they're all black, he doesn't have a kind word in his lexicon for an innocent white kid whose totally avoidable death occurred due to his administration's utter dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcing the nation's immigration laws.

I've now started explicitly identifying myself as a dissident and a secessionist. I want nothing to do with the 21st century political entity referred to as the United States of America. My federal government hates me and I hate my federal government.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the numbers I'm standing next to, even if silently for now. From Ipsos-Reuters polling, the percentages of people who either "tend to support" or "strongly support" the idea of their "state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government", by age range:

18-29: 38.8%
30-39: 28.0%
40-49: 24.0%
50-59: 21.4%
60+: 15.3%

While support for secession tilts conservative, it's more of a generational thing than it is a partisan one. More young Democrats (34.0%) support secession than do older Republicans (23.9%).

Twenty years ago, no one took Scottish secession seriously. Then it almost happened. Catalonia could be next. Who thought Sudan would break up into two countries? The artificial lines on the Middle Eastern map that putatively demarcate the geographical dividing lines between titular countries have become almost meaningless in many places. There are more euroskeptics in the European Parliament now than there have been at any point since the founding of the European Union.

Consider same-sex marriage. Support for it was a distinctly minority position just ten years ago, and now most Americans support it. Things can change pretty quickly, and with each affront like this, that change gets propelled forward further.

The US is way too big, too disparate, too divided culturally, socially, religiously, politically. It's too diverse, and diverse societies never last. Never have, probably never will. The federal government, whether it be split, Republican-controlled, or Democrat-controlled, leaves hundreds of millions of people feeling unrepresented and forced to pony up for things they don't support, like wealth transfers to scofflaws and deadbeats or unending attempts to impose predetermined governmental structures on tribalistic countries that want nothing to do with what we tell them, at the barrel point of a gun, they should want.

Monday, January 19, 2015

Abortion aborts itself

The percentages of GSS respondents who say that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason she wants to, broken down by sex and also by the number of children respondents have had. The question is dichotomous, with "yes" and "no" as the only two answers permitted. For contemporary relevance, responses are from 2000 onward. To avoid racial confounding, only whites are considered. To allow for family formation to have occurred, only responses from those aged 35-50 are included. Sample sizes for each of the six categories are in the hundreds.

For men:

# of kidsEasy abort
058.7%
153.0%
2+43.3%

And for women:

# of kidsEasy abort
063.6%
153.0%
2+41.2%

It's not as detrimental to evolutionary fitness as homosexuality is, but a permissive attitude towards abortion isn't associated with fecundity. Shocker, I know. Hey, validating stereotypes is this place's raison d'etre, after all.

So go ahead and tell the joke about unfettered access to contraception and the legalization of same-sex marriage as a clandestine strategy for social conservatives to win the long war secure in the knowledge that, jocular though it may sound, it enjoys some empirical grounding.

GSS variables used: CHILDS(0)(1)(2-8), RACECEN1(1), SEX, ABANY

Sunday, January 11, 2015

Bread and circuses



Despite the general vernacular understanding of the rule, it is not necessary for a receiver to maintain control of the ball as he goes to the ground unless previous control was never established, control being defined by Rule 8, Section 1, Article 3 of the official 2013 NFL rule book as follows:
"A catch is complete... if a player, who is inbounds:

a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and

b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and

c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.)."
A and B were clearly met. C is the item at issue, and by its nature is almost unavoidably subjective, but it needs to be kept in mind that the parameters for overturning a call made on the field are, according to Rule 15, Section 9, Article 3, as follows:
"A decision will be reversed only when the referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change."
If it was plausible that Bryant was stretching for the end zone after both feet made contact with the ground, which would constitute an "act common to the game", it shouldn't be overturned.

Is there indisputable evidence that Bryant would have clearly lost his footing even if he were not stretching for the end zone? Quite possibly--heck, probably--he would have, but it's conceivable that he might not have, and that bare minimum possibility is the standard for the ruling on the field to stand.

Had the pass initially been ruled incomplete, it'd be an open-and-shut case, but the ruling on the field was a completed pass and thus should have been left to stand.