July 17, 2008

Newspaper Sentence of the Day

From the Wilmington (DE) News Journal:
Increasing the number of black male librarians has become a hot topic.

More fully:

According to a 2007 report from the American Library Association, of the nation's almost 110,000 credentialed librarians -- that is, librarians with master's degrees -- 19 percent are men, 4.5 percent are black, and 0.5 percent are black men. The number of Latino men is just slightly higher -- 25 more nationwide.

By comparison, black women make up 4.2 percent of credentialed librarians, with Latina women at 1.4 percent.

Increasing the number of black male librarians has become a hot topic. At a recent conference in California, library association leaders dedicated a diversity program to finding ways to attract more black men to the profession.

I don't know about these days, but a couple of decades ago when I was in the marketing research business, we always had our eye out for hiring research librarians interested in switching to a higher paying career. A librarian who was okay with numbers was a good fit for many marketing research jobs, and we paid a lot better than libraries did. Why is it blacks' interest to get recruited into a notoriously low-paying career?

This just reminds me of something I wrote for National Review in 1995:

On campus, however, the automatic reaction whenever an embarrassing shortfall of blacks in any field is pointed out is another affirmative action campaign. For example, architecture schools have been attempting for years to recruit more blacks and Hispanics. Now, I commend a career in architecture to any young person with a trust fund, but the less privileged should remember that architecture pays wretchedly for the first decade or two (or three or four). Conservative critics of quotas often argue that lowering entrance standards for minorities is Bad, but that more intensely recruiting minorities is Good. Yet, seldom does any race-based recruitment campaign stem from a hardheaded analysis of what's in the best interest of the minorities. Instead, affirmative action is an automatic response by white leaders to their discomfort over their Black Lack. African-Americans have enough problems of their own without taking on this new Black Man's Burden of helping whites feel better about themselves.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

42 comments:

Skip said...

Speaking of black men and architecture, remember that Spike Lee movie in the early 90s in which Wesley Snipes played an architect? That was believable.

headache said...

"African-Americans have enough problems of their own without taking on this new Black Man's Burden of helping whites feel better about themselves."

Great one Steve. That so perfectly captures the cheesy hypocrisy of diversity and the endless white liberal preoccupation with black quotas, "freedom fighters", pols, and models.

Steve Sailer said...

Movies and TV shows up through the 1990s were always about architects. It was the default occupation -- Mr. Ed, Brady Bunch, etc. etc. -- kind of like how Chicago was the default place in flyover land to be from.

Anonymous said...

The idea that abilities and interests are not distributed evenly among the races is offensive and therefore wrong.

Accordingly, if any job or profession is disproportionately white, it must be because of white racism.

So affirmative action is necessary to fix the problem.

It's as simple as that.

Henry Canaday said...

At the University of Virginia School of Architecture in the mid-1960s, out of 70 entering freshmen, about five were expected to receive their degrees in the scheduled five years. Oh, and then they would get a shot at modest pay for the next 20 years. And it was not dramatically different at other schools of architecture that accepted students based on SAT scores. Now why in the hell would any son of a working-class family, eager to take advantage of wider opportunities to advance himself, do this?

You have to be a little crazy to study architecture in the first place. Then, when you have finally established yourself in late middle age, you can revenge yourself on clients and society with all those dreadful boxes, spheres and wings.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ed, the horse?

Anonymous said...

Whitey will always know what's best for everybody. Blacks don't want to go to national forests? Whitey thinks they should, and will make them. Muslims want to circumcise their females, along with their males? Whitey thinks they shouldn't, and will make them stop. Blacks don't want to be librarians? Then there's something wrong with them, and Whitey will fix it.

It is so predictably boring by this stage that, as CLander noticed, it's moved into the realm of parody.

RedSalamander said...

My mother works in a library. It is a low-paying job that requires a lot of schooling. My mother only has a bachelor's degree, so she is not an actual librarian -- she is a "Library Technical Assistant" despite forty years of experience. To qualify for a job as a "Librarian" you need at least a master's degree in library science. It always baffled me how much education is apparently required to learn the Dewey Decimal system, and how crappily the actual job pays. I would guess that most people who are motivated to go through grad school would be more interested in a job that pays a little better.

It's also, at least at my mom's library, a place that attracts aging hippie/academic types, and definitely is female-dominated. which probably makes it even less appealing to most black men.

bigboy said...

Skip said...
"Speaking of black men and architecture, remember that Spike Lee movie in the early 90s in which Wesley Snipes played an architect? That was believable."

What's not believable that there are black architects in the U.S. or the character's behavior in the movie?

Truth said...

The default occupation. Now that's funny.

Remember that Dweeb from 'thirtysomething'? Geez what a tool!

Mu'Min M. Bey said...

Well fellas,
I see that were back on to our favorite whipping boy subject, those unqualified Black menz gettin' OUR JOBS, LOL!!!

Actually, I can see where you're coming from. I've never been a huge fan of AA myself, for reasons that I may explain later.

The question I have for you guys is this: what do you propose all the brothas do? OK, so the vast majority of Black men simply do not belong in the high IQ jobs because they ain't smart enough. OK, I get that. Then what? What public policy prescriptions and solutions do you see to this? Sailer wrote an excellent paper sometime back on this but I really want to get you guys input on this, since its obviously a huge area of (greatly displaced) concern for you.

Question: What do we do w/The Black Males???

Oh and btw, the Spike Lee movie was Jungle Fever, which I saw back when it first came out. Not bad but not the bomd either.

Holla back

Salaam
Mu

Lucius Vorenus said...

Steve Sailer: Movies and TV shows up through the 1990s were always about architects. It was the default occupation -- Mr. Ed, Brady Bunch, etc. etc. -- kind of like how Chicago was the default place in flyover land to be from.

Don't forget the ne plus ultra of architect movies.

Concerned said...

"Increasing the number of black male librarians has become a hot topic."

See you one and raise you one, from The Guardian:

"Where are our black ballerinas?"

Where indeed. A pressing national problem.

Reg Cæsar said...

Why is it blacks' interest to get recruited into a notoriously low-paying career?

It may not be in the black jobseeker's interest, but it is in the black community's. Urban libraries need staff who can frighten rambunctious children into library-suitable behaviour. And who other than black men are fit for the job?

Reg Cæsar said...

Movies and TV shows up through the 1990s were always about architects.

Remember the short-lived Ronny Cox series Apple's Way, about an architect who escaped some metropolis to set up practise in his Iowa hometown? (Did they ever say why?) And Charles Bronson was an armed architect in Death Wish.

But I think admen were more common on sitcoms, e.g., Darrin on Bewitched. And that would be a lot more popular role model for verbally-inclined young blacks, wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

But only disproportionately white, because if a profession is disproportionately black, or Latino, or Asian or Jewish, well that is OK.

I recall seeing a PBS special celebrating the fact that 80 percent or more of comedians are Jewish, a dominance that we were told was purely the result of merit.

Truth said...

"recall seeing a PBS special celebrating the fact that 80 percent or more of comedians are Jewish,..."

So, you are told that 1% of the population produces 80% of the commedians; and you believe this?

Anonymous said...

The idea that abilities and interests are not distributed evenly among the races is offensive and therefore wrong.

Accordingly, if any job or profession is disproportionately BLACK, it must be because of BLACK racism.

So affirmative action is necessary to fix the problem of too many BLACKS being wide recievers, cornerbacks, tailbacks, outside linebackers and free safeties, as well as shooting guards, point guards, small forwards, power forwards, and centers as well as designated baserunners and outfielders, shortstops as well.

It's as simple as that, and until we have more Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Hmong, Eskimo, Mexican, Arabian, Aboriginal, Indian, and white men in these jobs, its evidence of racism and it must be eradicated via enormous government programs enforced by diversity officerZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

7/18/2008

albertosaurus said...

There are other dimensions and issues besides IQ and racism. There is also the Dominance-Submission dimension.

I did a quick count on one of the BDSM sites. Among white males the Dominant - Submissive split is about 55% - 45%. Among black males it is about 70% - 30%.

Librarians are archetypal submissives. Those desparately seeking a way to serve others.

There are a lot fewer black males available for the submissive librarian role than it initially appears.

Anonymous said...

"Question: What do we do w/The Black Males???"

Nothing. This isn't a communist, or any other kind of totalitarian country, where jobs are handed out.

We believe in a meritocracy. In an ideal world it would be 100% meritocratic. It isn't however, but we'll push as hard as we can. We do understand that morals are important, too.

Speaking of black men and jobs, just as a wife of a high tech manager, I've helped two black men out professionally and not out of any patriarchal feeling, but because they were good and pointed this out persuasively. The first was a driver that my brother had worked with. The owner of my husband's company kept hiring, and then firing, shady characters. I recommended my brother's friend because he was good as gold and extremely religious, a married father of five. Six years later, our owner still has the same driver and that man is perfectly happy with his job. The next involved a high tech worker and just occurred within the past week. Our owner went to my husband and told him to come up with two people to fire and he told him he was leaning towards two men: an uber nerd whose numbers were low and was so unpresentable that he could not be sent anywhere and a black man who was good and honest, but who also consistently had low numbers, sometimes the lowest, sometimes not. My husband told me of this and said he did not want to see the black man go because he was so friendly, easy to get along, and just plainly a good man. I brought up a third man who should *easily* get fired before the black man and that was this man who had only been there three months. My husband asked how I could judge him on so short a record. I pointed out that all signs pointed to this man's I.Q. being lower than the black man's plus he had a criminal past. You see, the black man was a known quantity while with the brand new hire, there was hope. I argued my case extremely persuasively why the new guy was dumber and worse. I even told my husband that he may need to utter, "I.Q.", when making his case to the owner. That guy was just fired two days ago while the black man kept his job.
(It goes without saying that I don't want to see anybody fired."

Mu'Min M. Bey said...

To Hi-Tech Wifey,
Hi, and good looking out on your helping a few brothas out, and, I want to point this out, DESERVING brothas. So, I thank you again.

No, we don't live in a Communist State (Thank God!), but we do live together in a polity, and that means we have a choice as to how we're gonna interact w/each other. Such is the way of public policy, and its in all of our interests to make sure not only Black men of whatever IQ number, but all of us have a legit chance at making an honest buck in this society. That don't mean doing the Stalin thing and handing out jobs now, I'm talking about the things that Grand New Party book mentioned, which was a kind of rehash of many of the ideas Sailer's been talking about for years now, etc.

Of course, all of that is policy being crafted and implemented on the federal, state and local levels. Which may or may not happen, and if and when it does happen, gov't has proven itself not to be the best implementer of plans and programs, LOL-so we can expect mixed results at best.
Ultimately, its gonna come down to in my view, people such as yourself, who see something good in good guys who just happen to be Black, and give em a shot. Now, let me be clear here-in no way am I saying we should put a thumb on the merit scale. You gotta be good, we agree on that point. But lets face it, there's still a bit of hard feelings for Black folks and males in particular, and one would have to be crazy to think that still doesn't go down from time to time. So this is gonna take good people like you to step up and be counted.

The idealist in me is w/you 100% on Merit, but I'm just old enough to know Human Nature a bit too much to fully believe it. And besides, as Lander points out everyday on his blog, you White folks are very good w/coming up w/all kinds of twists and turns to cover your tracks when you want to do something, or don't want to do something. So you add the two together and it explains, *in part* the extremely high double digit unemployment figures among Black males in Urban America.

Sailer really tackled this issue in his article, Great Black Hopes. I would love to hear what you think of it if you haven't read it already. Thanks again for your thoughts and more importantly, your actions!

Good lookin' out

Salaam
Mu

Anonymous said...

"I did a quick count on one of the BDSM sites. Among white males the Dominant - Submissive split is about 55% - 45%. Among black males it is about 70% - 30%."

Very scientific.

Even if representative, those numbers don't necessarily support your argument. Going by mainstream press accounts, anyway, the prototypical male customer of dominatrices and the like is a high-level corporate executive or professional: someone with greater than average power in the "real world". Someone with no power to begin with (i.e., the typical black man) is hardly in a position to get off by having it taken away.

David Davenport said...

Aren't most male librarians homosexuals?

Anonymous said...

Yo, Truth: I’m just reporting what I heard on PBS. I didn’t say I believed that 80 percent of comedians were Jewish, much less that such a disproportionate number had anything to do with merit and quality. Here is a quote from a website reporting on what Time Magazine reported.


QUOTE:
This embarrassingly rich crop of American Jewish comedians defies common sense. In 1979, for example, Time estimated that whereas Jews made up only 3 percent of the American population, fully 80 percent of professional comedians were Jewish.

Anonymous said...

Yo Truth: Here is the article from Time magazine. If nothing else, the writing in this 30 year old Time mag article suggests that the French had it right when they said that the more things change, the more they stay the same.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,948701,00.html




Although Jews constitute only 3% of the U.S. population, 80% of the nation's professional comedians are Jewish. Why such domination of American humor? New York City Psychologist Samuel Janus, who once did a yearlong stint as a stand-up comic, thinks that he has the answer: Jewish humor is born of depression and alienation from the general culture. For Jewish comedians, he told the recent annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, "comedy is a defense mechanism to ward off the aggression and hostility of others.



Janus has spent ten years and $20,000 of his own money traveling around the country to interview top comedians and give them psychological tests. So far, he has tested 76 Jewish humorists, including Milton Berle, George Burns, David Brenner, Sid Caesar, David Steinberg and Mort Sahl. Most, he says, were ambivalent about their Jewishness and compulsively turned to humor to ward off their private demons. As Joan Rivers told Janus, "If I were marching to the ovens, I'd be telling jokes all the way." What makes says Janus is their pain.



Many of the comedians had been in psychotherapy and almost all had major traumas in early childhood. The late Totie Fields' mother died when Totie was five; Art Buchwald's mother died shortly after his birth. David Steinberg's older brother died young, says Janus, "and the family never stopped mourning." In general, the psychologist believes, these comedians had overprotective, constricting mothers and a drive to break out of the Jewish world and gain general acceptance. Says he: "Only a few will talk about their Jewishness with any sense of pride; Alan King, Jack Carter and Don Rickles are rare exceptions. But most of them talk about their work for non-Jewish causes or what they did for the Cardinal. The one thing they live for is acceptance. They are always working for it, always worrying and insecure—like Rodney Dangerfield, they 'don't get no respect.' There is never enough respect.

Anonymous said...

I live in a university town where the college has both a well regarded football team and an excellent STEM curriculum. The football team is dominated by black men who are very good at football. Very good.

The STEM majors are not very good at sports requiring great physical prowess. The football players aren't STEM majors.

The university obsesses over how to bring more blacks into the STEM curriculum and spends a not inconsequential amount of money trying to do this. It spends not one thin dime on trying to bring more nerdy white guys and SE Asians - typical STEM majors - into the football program. When it comes to the football program, it seems to figure, "Don't mess with success."

Is it possible that the powers that be actually think that college football teams are more important to the success of the republic than quality STEM workers?

Mu'Min M. Bey said...

Yo STEM Man,
You need to checkout Sailer's piece Great Black Hopes to understand what you're seeing on the college campus. Sailer says that Black men should intentionally seekout fields where having physical presence and production numbers are key-like sales. Having worked in sales myself for many years, I can personally attest to what he's saying, and I've told other brothas myself that the reason why sports works so well for us is because there's no BS way you can mess w/that scoreboard. Because at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

Scoreboard.

So, any job where a lot of stress is laid on results, numbers, like sales, is a job for Black men. Also, I agree, jobs that require too much in the way of abstract high concept thinking and the like don't do well, and definitely no jobs where there's a "co-ed" vibe to it. The more the job is all-male, the better.

Let's face it, Black men on average are or appear to be more "manly" than do White and Asian guys. Hispanic guys come a close second, so both groups should corner the jbo markets where manliness, leadership, and production numbers are the ticket.

Checkout Sailer's article.

Salaam
Mu

Anonymous said...

There go the libraries...

albertosaurus said...

Anonymous sarcastically reponds to my posting about Dominance-Submission:

Very Scientific

And then he makesan arguement based on "mainstream press accounts".

I may certainly be wrong in my speculation that black men are disproportionately not attracted to the role of librarian because they are less likely to be submissive psycho-socially.

My image of a librarian is one who is an extreme member of the "helping professions". Librarians, in my experience derive satifaction from serving others.

My image of black men is that of a class of men who are in a sense hyper-masculine. We know for example that black males have free testosterone levels 21% higher than white men. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741)

We also know that testosterone is related to dominance. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v231/n5302/abs/231366a0.html)

I therefore hypothesized that black males would be less submissive than whites and therefore less attracted to the librarian career. It seemed plausible. But first I checked before I submitted a post to this blog. I did a count on one of the BDSM sites and found rather clear evidence that black men at least advertise themselves as submissives less frequently than do white men.

I think testing your hypothesis against independent empirical data is in fact scientific in spirit. Whereas anonymous seems to think true science is relying on "mainstream press accounts".

Anonymous said...

"Even if representative, those numbers don't necessarily support your argument. Going by mainstream press accounts, anyway, the prototypical male customer of dominatrices and the like is a high-level corporate executive or professional: someone with greater than average power in the "real world". Someone with no power to begin with (i.e., the typical black man) is hardly in a position to get off by having it taken away."

Aren't dominatrices very expensive? If you're a poor guy who can't get laid you're more likely to spend your money on other things or just straight sex, without being able to afford "extras." That may skew the numbers.

Truth said...

"It spends not one thin dime on trying to bring more nerdy white guys and SE Asians - typical STEM majors - into the football program."

Actually, this is one of the rather common arguments on this, and like websites. If you really think about it, it is wholly illogical. We'll take SE Asians first. Football is a contact sport and a huge advangage in football is in Mass; Greater mass and acceleration, more forward inertia in a collision which will force the ball to go forward or backward and work to your advantage or disadvantage. It is beyond dispute, that generally speaking, SE Asians are smaller (and slower) than blacks and whites. As force = mass x acceleration, a lower level of of each (mass and acceleration) is a huge disadvantage to a collge football player. In addition, the people knighted with expensive and valuable football scholarships in college were good to great football players in high school. Asian parents show less interest in their children playing sports in HS than either blacks or whites so this should answer the question as to why there are not more Asians playing football.

In addition, the majority of college football players are white not black (roughly 52% at the Division I level)...

http://howthebigmanseesit.com/-2-
2-2-2-2-2-2/college-football-has-
some-serious-explaining-to-do

People jump to the conclusion that college football is dominated by blacks because the starters and All-Americans are. In addition, many black professional basketball, baseball and football players have intoned that affirmative action ALREADY DOES exist for white athletes, and that were everything fair, there would be less whites on the teams than there are now.

"Is it possible that the powers that be actually think that college football teams are more important to the success of the republic than quality STEM workers?"

Well, you're on the right track. Not to the success of the republic, but college football is probably more valuable to the success of the university then do the STEM programs. In order to validate this argument all one has to do is look at the relative revenue generated. College football at a BCS conference school brings in a few HUNDRED MILLION dollars, where as the STEM program only generates money if one of the graduates wins a Nobel, or gets rich and donates a chunk to the school afterward: Otherwise the program operates as a liability. Comparing the two programs is like comparing a Summer blockbuster with Will Smith to a critically regarded Hungarian art film. This does not even take into account the increased publicity created by successful sports programs which leads to ease in recruiting students, educators and administrators as well as charitable alumni donations.

Anonymous said...

The is massive discrimation against whites in football at all levels. See castefootball.us for the details.

pat said...

Only Philadelphia Eagle fans will remember a large black bust named Kevin Allen:

Kevin Allen, a former offensive tackle with the Philadelphia Eagles and the ninth player taken over all in the 1985 draft, interrupted jury selection in his trial in Atlantic City yesterday to plead guilty to aggravated sexual assault last Sept. 1. The plea was made under an agreement that dismissed other charges.

Kevin Allen, a former offensive tackle with the Philadelphia Eagles and the ninth player taken over all in the 1985 draft, interrupted jury selection in his trial in Atlantic City yesterday to plead guilty to aggravated sexual assault last Sept. 1. The plea was made under an agreement that dismissed other charges. Allen, who is from Indiana, started the first four games of his rookie season before being demoted to special teams and let go at the beginning of last season

Truth said...

"The is massive discrimation against whites in football at all levels. See castefootball.us for the details."

Yes, a group of world renoun sociologists named Dixie Destroyer, White Lightning and WhiteCB. Actually, I like the site, I go on it a couple of days a week, it's hilarious.

The smart guys on that site get banned pretty quickly though. Nevada is the only one left (Tough J. Riggins does make sense once in a while).

The two guys named JD sniping at each other have made me spit my coffee on the keyboard more than once, and whatever you do, bring Wolverine back!

Anonymous said...

Mu'Min M. Bey said
" Let's face it, Black men on average are or appear to be more "manly" than do White and Asian guys. Hispanic guys come a close second ".

While I agree with most of your argument, I don't understand where you got your argument about hispanics from. by and large this hispanic masculinism is a product of macho hispanic culture and does not derive from physiological dominance. hispanic culture is hella lot more masculine than the feminizing culture we have here in the states, a culture whose biggest male participants are white males.

secondly, we know for fact the mestizo latin-american are a product of native indians who are hybrid descendents of asiatic people(like inuits and chukchis) and spaniards. so if whites are supposedly more masculine than asians, then a hybrid of white spaniards and east asian is less masculine than whites in general.

thirdly, even in latin america the most masculine symbols in society and sports are overwhelmingly white, so even there mestizo masculine rainbow favors whities more so than asiatic indians.

IMHO as the latest hispanics go into thier 3rd and 4th generation in the US their socially imposed masculanism will dissolve as they are feminized by our fem lib culture.

Look at it this way, say the chinese imported latin american culture and all of a sudden they start acting hyper masculine, on the surface it WILL look like they are so masculine because they are only ones with balls in their own country. Then they move to usa and people assume they are alpha(afterall alpha-malesness depends more on implication rather then action) becuz compared to the average feminized institutionalized american male the Chinese immigrant male is more "wild".

at any rate this whole notion of hypermasculine is more elastic that most people assume. I'd like to know your opinion on this ISteve readers, maybe even steve himself.

Anonymous said...

Truth said
"Well, you're on the right track. Not to the success of the republic, but college football is probably more valuable to the success of the university then do the STEM programs. In order to validate this argument all one has to do is look at the relative revenue generated. College football at a BCS conference school brings in a few HUNDRED MILLION dollars, where as the STEM program only generates money if one of the graduates wins a Nobel, or gets rich and donates a chunk to the school afterward: Otherwise the program operates as a liability."

What u said is true except how much money does it take to make and maintains olympic sized football fields, other fields for other sports, basketball court, swimming pool, competing against other schools for the best athletes, paying millions and millions for athletes and millions more coaches and staff. now do that year year and new escalating costs on new sport programs, spending some more on women sports program(lol). all this and i'm excluding advertisement and other associated costs to make the schools more attractive for future athletes, coaches, students(gyms, snazzy buildings etc etc). I seriously wonder how much the universities profit after going thru all this hassle and spending.

just concentrate on studies.

n/a said...

The 20 year old study on a small sample of college students linked by albertosaurus is the primary basis for claims of elevated testosterone levels in black men. Note that after adding necessary controls the difference in free testosterone is 13% (not 21%).

Using a large, nationally representative sample Rohrmann et al. find blacks men have elevated estrogen but not testosterone levels relative to white men America. Africans in Africa have lower T levels than American and European whites.

Also see the following:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/02/salivary-t-levels-markedly-lower-in.html

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/02/testosterone-and-dominance-in-men.html

http://racehist.blogspot.com/2008/03/population-variation-in-endocrine.html

Anonymous said...

n/a said

"The 20 year old study on a small sample of college students linked by albertosaurus is the primary basis for claims of elevated testosterone levels in black men. Note that after adding necessary controls the difference in free testosterone is 13% (not 21%).

Using a large, nationally representative sample Rohrmann et al. find blacks men have elevated estrogen but not testosterone levels relative to white men America. Africans in Africa have lower T levels than American and European whites"

It makes sense, and seems to align with my own observation. In terms of testosterone and athletic ability and physical dimensions: African American>Caribean African> Africans themselves. so now what's the difference between the above mentioned groups. the most western African descendents have gone thru the filtration process of slavery(which promoted physical attributes), but they also have a higher percentage of European admixture to them. so is it possible that European DNA made them athletic freaks!!?? In contrast to African Americans and Euros, Africans are much smaller in dimensions and density, markedly stable both of which most possibly means lower testosterone levels.

I didn't know about elevated estrogen levels, this would explain black excellence in communication(verbal and non-verbal) and expression.

josh said...

Blacks have elevated estrogen levels? Would this explain the Down-Low?

Anonymous said...

josh said

"Blacks have elevated estrogen levels? Would this explain the Down-Low?"

....LOL....
well it just might, it is fairly common.

Anonymous said...

Manliness has a lot to do with culture. I am sure East Asian horsemen from the Mongol Horde were far more masculine than the Nigerian management students I see around me or even some of the African tribesmen I see on TV. They were legendary womanisers (So were the Vikings) for a start.

albertosaurus said...

Let's Review -

Our host reported that there seems to be too few black males entering the librarian profession. This I believe was at least in part meant as humor. Of all the problems in the world this would seem to be among the least significant.

The American Library Association seems to assume that this black male shortfall is the ressult of some sort of discrimination by whites.

Our host suggested that since the position of librarian doesn't pay all that well, maybe blacks were wise.

Other commenters suggested since the librarian job requires some brains that blacks, being relatively disadvantaged brainwise, should be expected to be under represented.

At this point I suggested that that blacks might not be attracted to library work because it is a "helping" job that is more appealing to those with submissive personalities and blacks are less likely to be submissive than are whites.

My post was answered by an anonymous poster who wrote a very confused response in which he theorized that poor blacks couldn't afford dominatrices. I have no idea what that's supposed to mean but I did respond to his criticism that I had been unscientific when I did a count of black versus white self proclaimed submissiveness. Anonymous seemed to believe that the spirit of science was best served by relying of what he called the "mainstream press".

In my response I cited the first study I googled on blacks and testosterone and testosterone and dominance-submission.

Now another commenter - "n/a" - takes me to task for citing what he calls "20 year old" research. It seems he has a web site devoted to this very issue. He certainly is more familiar with these questions than I am. In fact I may have been incorrect in my casual speculation. I am often wrong about a lot of things.

But n/a's references and his web site references are not very convincing. The main reference finds no black-white testosterone difference after they control for all the physical differences such as body mass and fat content. This doesn't seem very surprising.

The raw data seems to show that blacks have more lean muscle mass than whites and also more testosterone. If we eliminate the lean muscle mass differences by matching the two groups for body composition then the testosterone differences are also eliminated. What else would you expect?

His web site seems to be devoted not to explaining testosterone and dominance but to explaining it away. A typical study notes that blacks and whites have no T differences while children but by adulthood the blacks have higher levels.

This is adult difference attributed to the "honor" culture among blacks who presumably have adapted by secreting more man juice. That may very well be. Maybe whites who had such a culture would also have high T levels. The point is that his own references show that blacks have higher T levels as adults.

If as n/a claims blacks only have those higher testosterone levels because of their disfunctional "honor" culture, OK. I wasn't making any kind of genetic versus environment argument.

My point is still that blacks are less likely to to be attracted to the job of librarian because of their postion on the dominance-submission scale.