Amazingly, there is IQ data for the Munduruku. And yet I can't locate IQ data for the entire nation of panama.

the issue was very evident with mike "the situation" and "j-wow."

has anyone done that? i have the WVS 2005 as a data frame. 
 
People have tested their pet theories, but I don't think anyone has asked the WVS its opinion. Or maybe they have and they retroactively "predicted" it for their paper. 
 
Anyway, prosociality (Roth's first three factors, however lumped or defined) is clearly a biggie: 
 
Multivariate models incorporating self-interested values, economic inequality, social trust and the interaction between these variables explained two-thirds of variance in victimization at the national level.

His theory appears self-contradictory in so far as he claims that poverty and unemployment have nothing to do with crime, and yet that dissatisfaction with one's position in society is a cause of violence. Unless he is claiming that unemployment and SES does not affect one's satisfaction with their social position. 
 
Otherwise, I agree that general social cohesion predicts (lack of) violence. I assume that social cohesion (trust in neighbors) and trust in government are highly correlated and logically interrelated. So his first three factors are probably more like one factor-- call it prosociality. 
 
Also, I'm not sure that counting street names from 1830 (or whatever) is better than just running regressions on all the World Values Survey questions and seeing what the top predictors are.

Thanks for the link, Ziel. I see now Zeeb noted that in the last post. That certainly must explain it. 
 
And the plains people in Eastern Colorado are fatter like Kansans, while the mountain people in Western Colorado are thinner, as per the Mountain State profile.

Mountain states have low obesity (including 5 of the 10 states with the least childhood obesity), and also have high IQs, so this may fit in with agnostic's theory about pathogens influencing general Mountain State health. 
 
But the sharp contrast between neighboring counties at the border of Colorado and Kansas gives me pause. Why would white children in Prowers County, CO be skinnier than white children in adjacent Hamilton County, KS? I doubt the people are different. State level school lunch differences?

Running to Google, I plugged in 'Why is Colorado...', and Google offered 5 search completions. Two being: 'Why is Colorado the thinnest state' and 'Why is Colorado the least obese state'. 
 
New to me.

So in addition to being quacks and liars the BCA are litigious cunts. The line between chiropracty and Scientology continues to blur.

Kansas and Colorado are an interesting contrast. There is no blending between neighboring border counties for either diabetes or obesity. Does this suggest some important state-level policy difference? The large health difference looks as artificial as the straight border between the two states. 
 
To a lesser extent there is a similar state-level obesity divide running down the center, with Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico one side, and Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kansas, and the Dakotas on the other. Texas is intermediate

And next you're going to be telling us that HBD is false because the "consensus" of "scientists" say so? 
 
A consensus of scientists don't say HBD, however defined, is false. In the broad sense, scientists publish loads of behavior genetic, sociobiological, and population genetic research. Even in the narrower sense of racial differences in cognitive abilities, a plurality of experts think genetics contribute. 
 
You might object that's mostly intelligence, but scientists don't believe race even exists. 
 
This isn't true. It isn't true in the narrow sense that a clear majority of polled biologists say that human races exist, and it certainly isn't true in the broad sense that population genetics, and biological sciences more generally, are predicated on the existence of "populations" and genetic differentiation. e.g. working science is predicated on the fact that Africans and Europeans are genetically differentiated, and approaching the facts otherwise would make something like a genome wide association study impossible.  
 
It's like saying most scientists don't believe mitochondria or South America exists. It is impossible to deny if you are working with it, in anything but name.

Similar to Japan and Christianity, most of the people who practice Eastern religions in the GSS are high IQ white people. 
 
Stark and Bainbridge noted that people who join cults are typically educated, upperclass, and urban.

I really enjoyed your Darwin series, David. Thanks.

Why do they spend money on this kind of research? Everyone knows that women want what other women have or what they can't have 
 
The colloquial definition of "know" is different from the scientific definition of "know". 
 
You don't build an argument in a scientific paper by going "everybody knows that wimmin dig big biceps". You need context, controls, numbers, effect sizes -- accurately quantified and qualified information you can build off of. 
 
And everything you think you know, there is someone else with more power than you who believes the exact opposite, and is eager to base some insane social policy on it. So you better have better data than him. 
 
"Everybody knows" ain't gonna cut it. 
 
(Read through more disucssion boards that don't agree with you. Whenever there is a one-off study supporting some position -- say that IQ tests are biased -- there's always the 'Duh, We Already Knew That' comment.)

Struck by the fact that GNXP male readers who are upper middle class have more children than those who are middle class 
 
Abstract intellectual interests are indicative of a high investment genotype. The lower the resource conditions the less likely someone of a high investment genotype is to reproduce.  
 
Also higher IQ people who are middle, or esp. lower class would have a much more restricted long-term mate pool. 
 
Low IQ men with lots of status and money have the most children; high IQ men with little status or money have the least children.

A cross-fostering experiment showed that infant characteristics didn't seem to affect the abusive behavior of macaque mothers. Non-violent mothers were non-violent with infants from violent mothers, and violent mothers were violent with the infants from non-violent mothers. 
 
And the non-violent macaque infants raised by violent mothers grow up to be violent mothers themselves due to early alterations in serotonin. 
 
(This is all the work of Dario Maestripieri, who was involved in the recent paper on testosterone and sex differences linked here last month. His papers are available online.)

JL, good call on HIV for NE Europe. Obviously I haven't given much serious thought to what's going on in that region yet, but there does appear to be some sort of there there.  
 
The MAOA study doesn't say Finns are more likely to carry the genetic variant, but it's an interesting question anyway. 
 
I think it is an interesting speculation that Finn violence is in some part a result of maladaption to alcohol; Finns use excessive alcohol to overcome social inhibitions that are more genetically common in Northern populations, but Northern European populations haven't had as much time to build genetic defenses against the negative effects of alcohol like Southern European populations. See: 
 
Genetic Variability and the Formation of Social Norms: The Case of European Alcohol Consumption 
 
"Having sexy sons doesn't necessarily mean ugly daughters, if you are not concentrating only on sexually dimorphic traits like size and robustness." 
 
Of course not. I said "to the extent," and I have no idea what that extent is. There is likely a correlation between the beauty of men and women in different populations, and local disease pressures may well boost looks in both men and women.

"Kinda disappointing picks overall -- it's probably a population-level version of the pattern among individuals, namely that uglier girls have to be a bit sluttier in order to attract mates." 
 
The irony is that men prefer promiscuous societies, and yet in promiscuous societies sexy men reproduce more. The result isn't more feminine offspring, but sexy sons. 
 
And to the extent that the genes that make sexy sons are sexually antagonistic, sexy sons means ugly daughters. 
 
Also, as Thomas Haden Church taught us in the movie Sideways via an obese truckstop waitress, promiscuous male mating is, by definition, not choosy male mating. 
 
In a world where Thomas Haden Church has to pick one, and only one, woman as his lifetime sex partner, he no longer chooses the obese truckstop waitress.  
 
Monogamy makes men choosy. Choosy men make sexier daughters. Monogamous men are the reason females got colorful.

And here's a Blue Balls Index, ordered by the size of the Male-Female difference within a country (The smallest difference is Latvia, men = 1/3 SD higher; the average sex difference is men = 2/3+ SD higher). Women don't average higher than men within any country, and even the sex differences between countries show limited overlap. (Highest women over men = -13.26-9.21 Latvian Women and Asian men) 
 
Morocco +45.52 
Bolivia +39.55 
Ukraine +33.43 
Philippines +33.29 
Turkey 32.45 
Peru +30.35  
Italy 30.34 
Romania +29.16 
Fiji +29.04 
United Kingdom +27.78 
Brazil +26.83 
Lebanon +26.69 
Argentina +25.42 
Croatia +25.2 
Lithuania +25.19 
Mexico +23.05 
Slovenia +23 
Finland +22.43 
Israel +22.28 
New Zealand +21.63 
Spain +20.91 
Zimbabwe +20.82 
Portugal +19.95 
Estonia +19.72 
Czech Rep. +19.47 
Bangladesh +19.3 
Ethiopia +19.29 
Greece +19.11 
Netherlands +18.95 
United States +18.79 
Poland +17.39 
Austria +17.23 
Serbia +17.1 
Canada +17.03 
Australia +15.79 
Slovakia +15.75 
Malta +15.39 
France +15.22 
South Korea +14.3 
Taiwan +14.18 
Belgium +12.88 
Germany +11.92 
Japan +11.75 
Congo +11.61 
Switzerland +10.99 
Hong Kong +10.67 
Botswana +10.5 
Latvia +7.74 
 
The Bottom 5 men: 
 
Taiwan 28.42 
Hong Kong 29.88 
S. Korea 30.5 
Bangladesh 31.10 
Japan 32.47 
 
The Top 5 Women: 
 
Latvia 41.68 
Finland 41.60 
New Zealand 38.79 
Austria 38.66 
Slovenia 36.45

This study is almost 5 years old. Here are a few remixed numbers from the paper I had on my computer: 
 
Average Sociosexuality by Country: 
 
Finland 50.50  
New Zealand 47.69  
 
Men 46.67 
 
Slovenia 46.26  
Lithuania 46.10  
Austria 45.73  
Latvia 43.93  
Croatia 42.98  
Israel 40.95  
Bolivia 40.90  
Argentina 40.74  
United Kingdom 40.17 
Estonia 39.95  
Germany 39.68  
Netherlands 39.34  
Morocco 39.31  
Switzerland 39.13  
Serbia 38.72  
Fiji 38.58  
Brazil 37.93  
Czech Rep. 37.52  
Australia 37.29  
United States 37.05  
France 36.67  
Turkey 36.06  
Mexico 35.69  
 
Average 35.31 (SD 26.05) 
 
Slovakia 34.90  
Peru 34.59  
Canada 34.52  
Italy 34.37  
Poland 34.21  
Spain 33.72  
Belgium 32.82  
Congo, D.R. 32.43  
Greece 32.38  
Ukraine 32.27  
Romania 32.16  
Philippines 32.10  
Malta 31.27  
Portugal 29.55  
Lebanon 28.57  
 
Women 27.34 
 
Botswana 27.02  
Ethiopia 26.55  
Japan 24.10  
Hong Kong 22.90  
Zimbabwe 22.66 
South Korea 22.21  
Bangladesh 19.67  
Taiwan 19.22  
 
M-F Difference 19.33 
 
Average by Region: 
 
Finland 50.50  
Lithuania 46.10  
Latvia 43.93  
Estonia 39.95  
Northeast Europe 45.12 
 
New Zealand 47.69  
Austria 45.73  
United Kingdom 40.17 
Germany 39.68  
Netherlands 39.34  
Switzerland 39.13  
Australia 37.29  
United States 37.05  
France 36.67  
Canada 34.52  
Belgium 32.82  
Northwest Europe 39.1 
 
Bolivia 40.90  
Argentina 40.74  
Brazil 37.93  
Mexico 35.69  
Peru 34.59  
Americas 37.97 
 
Slovenia 46.26  
Croatia 42.98  
Czech Rep. 37.52  
Slovakia 34.90  
Poland 34.21  
Ukraine 32.27  
Romania 32.16  
Eastern Europe 37.2 
 
Israel 40.95  
Morocco 39.31  
Turkey 36.06  
Lebanon 28.57  
Middle East 36.2 
 
Italy 34.37  
Spain 33.72  
Greece 32.38  
Malta 31.27  
Portugal 29.55  
Southern Europe 32.26 
 
Congo, D.R. 32.43  
Ethiopia 26.55  
Zimbabwe 22.66 
SS Africa 27.2 
 
Fiji 38.58  
Philippines 32.10  
Botswana 27.02  
Japan 24.10  
Hong Kong 22.90  
South Korea 22.21  
Bangladesh 19.67  
Taiwan 19.22  
More....

It sucks that I can never find my old comments in Haloscan search, but Finland is not an anomalous data point here. Finland and the Baltic states show an unusual amount of testosterone for Europe, and this shows up in measures like homicide, HIV, testicular cancer, digit ratio, and sperm quality. In some key ways Finland and surrounding areas look like tropical populations (and nearby Denmark is nearly the opposite). That is, it looks like there was significant female selection for "good genes" (Mixed ethnicity soldiers suggest that at least some of this is genetic). 
 
Steve calls one polygnous SSA group the "anti-Finns". But Finns are really an unusual mix of dad and cad traits (something he has been forced to consider before), and are probably more likely to become uncivilized in response to rapid cultural changes than other Europeans (which may be a reason they are more resistant to immigration), just like their more basket case-y Russian and Baltic neighbors.  
 
Danes are a better example of the paternal morph within Europe, and East Asians are still one of the best examples of the Anti-Pimbwe. 
 
The African sociosexuality scores may be counter-intuitive, but international data always puts East Asians at the bottom of the world when it comes to questions about how much they want and enjoy sex. Show me a man that is mild about his sex life, and I'll show you a decent father.