SINGLE-PARENT FAMILIES IN SWEDEN

Iain Murray has recently commented on a large Swedish study that shows clear psychological disadvantage among chilren from single-parent families. Iain and everybody else seem to be interpreting this as showing that single-parent families are a bad thing. Such families may well be a bad thing. I believe they are. But the study cannot be used to prove that. We have to be careful of the direction of causation. An amazingly high proportion of what we are is genetically determined (even ideology -- See Martin & Jardine, 1986 and Eaves et al., 1999) so I would say that a more likely interpretation of these results is that those with enough psychological deficiencies to prevent them from forming good pair bonds tend to pass such deficiencies on to their children. In short, the source of the disadvantage observed in the children is genetic, not social at all. Sad news for interventionists but they will not listen anyway.

References:
Eaves, L.J., Martin, N.G., Meyer, J.M. & Corey, L.A. (1999) Biological and cultural inheritance of stature and attitudes. In: Cloninger, C.R., Personality and psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.
Martin, N. & Jardine, R. (1986) Eysenck's contribution to behaviour genetics. In: S & C. Modgil (Eds.) Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy. Lewes, E. Sussex: Falmer

*******************************

CONSERVATISM IS MORE NORMAL

Matthew Cowie writes:

I noticed your item on how Chapman believes that Bloggers are more conservative because they are older. I agree with widely held view that the internet is conservative because it is an alternative to the mainstream media's leftist bent. However, two other factors could be that conservatism is more a grass roots movement than leftism, which is more of an elitist movement. That the New York Times bestseller lists are overwhelmingly dominated by even nominal conservative writers is evidence of this. As Ann Coulter stated, "Liberals don't read books – they don't read anything," she said. "That's why they're liberals. They watch TV, absorb the propaganda, and vote on the basis of urges.

The second factor could be that the youth are generally more conservative/libertarian and the users of the internet tend to be younger than the general population. School choice and Social Security privatization are heavily favored by Americans aged 18-25, for instance. More polling data is in This article from the Washington Times.

************************************

FOR FEMINISTS TO PONDER

An anti-feminist book that was turned down for publication by 55 publishers has to be pretty good! Prof. Goldberg says that men are naturally dominant because of their different hormones etc. Fortunately for freedom of speech it did eventually get published. Here is a summary. His critics have found him hard to argue with. See here.

Babette Francis points out that Leftist discrimination against men can end up hurting the women it is supposed to help.

Why are there so few women who are top achievers (famous composers etc.) in so many fields? Denis Dutton has made a study of genius and says: This variability characteristic insures that there are more crazy, subnormal males than females off at the low end of the curve [and] it also makes for more above-normal males, crazed or sane, at the high end. In other words, more women are “normal” -- for good or ill.

*****************************