This post is also available in: English
Diversity™ heaps limitless miseries upon the host nation. You don’t need social science studies to tell you that, (you can just go to a diverse part of town and experience the joylessness, tension, annoyances, stress, and general aesthetic dreariness for yourself), but when the ¡SCIENCE! is available it sure is fun to rub it in libfruit faces.
Happiness in modern society: Why intelligence and ethnic composition matter
Recent developments in evolutionary psychology suggest that living among others of the same ethnicity might make individuals happier and further that such an effect of the ethnic composition on life satisfaction may be stronger among less intelligent individuals. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health showed that White Americans had significantly greater life satisfaction than all other ethnic groups in the US and this was largely due to the fact that they were the majority ethnic group; minority Americans who lived in counties where they were the numerical majority had just as much life satisfaction as White Americans did. Further, the association between ethnic composition and life satisfaction was significantly stronger among less intelligent individuals. The results suggest two important factors underlying life satisfaction and highlight the utility of integrating happiness research and evolutionary psychology.
LIE: Diversity™ is our strength.
TRUTH: Diversity™ is our sadness.
Happiness (for White people) is a paler shade of settlement.
Multiethnic societies make everyone unhappier, but the clash of tribes hits the downscale hardest, who lack the excess cognitive chops to rationalize their unhappiness as the sweet price to pay for moral posturing and crappy ethnic food that gives you the shits for weeks.
Modern multitribalism may not pose the same threat to the survival and reproduction of individuals as it would have in the ancestral environment when encirclement by another tribe usually meant you were about to be killed or raped, but that doesn’t mean modern multiracial stews like the US don’t threaten the Darwinian fitness of individuals dealing with the consequences of the diversity. Bloody tribal warfare and pillaging still exist, but in a domesticated form; instinctive tribal nepotism, out-group aggression, and low trust are proxies for open war, and these interactional conditions pose incremental risks to the social and economic statuses, as well as the psychological health, of members within the multitribal society. One example would be, for instance, the nepotistic domination of the Ivies by one tribe and its affirmative actioned pawns which has pushed out the historical representation of the heritage tribe.
Or, Diversity + Proximity = War (by any means).
In related ¡SCIENCE! news, shitlibs are just as prone to science denialism as are cuckservatives.
Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science
We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers’ correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.
I would love to know which test studies the researchers used to determine how much libs and cons engaged in motivated interpretation, besides the one mentioned in the abstract (“carbon emissions”). I’d bet that libs more intensely deny or spin the science of race and sex differences than cons deny the science of global warming. My observation is that cons aren’t as egotistically and emotionally invested in denying global warming as libs are in denying innate sex-based psychological differences and racial disparities in average IQ.
A commenter reminded me of a relevant 2014 CH post about a study of spiders and diversity, which found that tribal homogeneity, contra conventional shitlib wisdom, increases individual diversity.
Summarizing, a lack of inter-group diversity…actually increases individual diversity, through the mechanism of amplifying preexisting personality differences among same-group members. In contrast, a lot of inter-group diversity (say, moving to a SWPL hipster enclave in a minority white city soaked in vibrancy that makes daily living an adventure in survival) produces a uniformity of thought and, CH will note, uniformity of aesthetic within groups, which is why we see SWPL hoods in nearly every major American city converging on the same farm-to-table Obama-loving liberal hypocrite norm.
Paradoxically, group cohesiveness creates more individual diversity, while inter-group diversity creates more intra-group uniformity. Diversity + proximity = conformity.
In other words, the diversity that really matters — diversity of thought and personality — flourishes in less racially diverse environs.
Diversity is our within-group sameness.
PS I’ve added the study findings discussed in this post to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list at the top of the front page of this blog.