« Group evolutionary strategies, etc | Gene Expression Front Page | Iraq »
March 13, 2003

Mixing it up

More ummarried couples are mixed-race says a new CENSUS report. Here you can see the original report and its data tables.

Update: Steve Sailer has an article up titled Interracial Marriage Gap Grows. One thing about the lack of Asian men married to white women-I think that the percentages would be even more lopsided if South Asians and Filipinos were not included in this, as my anecdotal experience is that both these groups have a reasonable sex balance compared to the Japanese/Chinese/Koreans.

Also, Mixed Asian has some posts on the issue.

Posted by razib at 08:05 PM

I'm crunching the numbers and should soon have an article on what happened to the "dating disparity" or interracial marriage gender gap between 1990 and 2000. In 1990, there were 2.5 times as many black husband - white wife married couples as white husband - black wife couples. In mirror image, there were 2.5 times more white husband - Asian wife than Asian husband - white wife couples. Do you care to post a guess what happened to those ratios from 1990 to 2000?

Posted by: Steve Sailer at March 14, 2003 03:53 AM

My antiquated software won't display all the graphics, but from what I could see, the data are not broken down by age. Without an age breakdown, the figures don't mean much: married people are (on average) older, and older people are (almost certainly) less likely to be in mixed-race relationships. I would guess that there is still a married/unmarried differential even when age is partialled out, but how big is it?

Posted by: David Burbridge at March 14, 2003 04:47 AM

David: actually, according to my own calculations (up on my blog now), the imbalance is smaller among unmarried couples living together than among married couples. In fact the imbalance among unmarried couples living together is smaller than the imbalance among married couples from 10 years ago.

Posted by: Eric at March 14, 2003 08:09 AM

I'll guess Steve....

They stayed the same?


Posted by: David at March 14, 2003 09:11 AM

Umm...how do you measure 'race'? By the subject's self-perception?

Posted by: Reginald Braithwaite-Lee at March 14, 2003 10:10 AM

Mr. Sailer in your article you state "The invention of the 'multiracial' category in 2000 makes direct comparisons across time somewhat tricky, however."
What do you mean by the term 'invention'? and why the scare quotes around 'multiracial'? Are you debating the existence of the concept?
Since by your own admission, e.g. black men are marrying white women-to what race do you assign their offspring?

Posted by: martin at March 14, 2003 04:29 PM

Those aren't "scare quotes" Martin. They're to indicate 'Multi-racial' as the name of the category, not as an adjective describing it.

Posted by: Jason Malloy at March 14, 2003 04:41 PM

Is your name Sailer? Ok makes sense now, Jason. But the advent of the multiracial American is going to make everything trickier seems to me.

Posted by: martin at March 14, 2003 04:47 PM

i'm multiracial-i'm 1/32 chinese :)

Posted by: razib at March 14, 2003 09:33 PM

1/32? That explains your affinity for East Asians, razib.

Well, I'll move into the "white" category and get with my soul sistah to help even it out;)


Posted by: David at March 15, 2003 12:16 PM

The Filipnas probably need to be treated as a special case. They specialize in marrying older Caucasian men. We have heaps of them in Australia.

Posted by: John Ray at March 16, 2003 05:05 AM

Just to clarify: my earlier comment was not concerned with the 'sex' imbalance, but with the main point of the original news report, i.e. the claim that interracial relationships are more common among unmarried couples than married ones. Maybe they are, but in data which do not disaggregate age groups the effect of age will be confounded with the married/unmarried variable.

Posted by: David Burbridge at March 16, 2003 05:33 AM