Bad choice, adoptive parents are abusive

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-adoption-in-the-united-states

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-paradox-of-adoption/

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

Bad blood will out.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Amplification IQ

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category
Self-report 0.39 0.06 0.55 13,329
Other report (usually parents) 0.53 0.22 0.25 6,851
Criminal records 0.33 0.42 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

  • Extraversion:           0.86
  • Openness:              0.92
  • Neuroticism:            0.59
  • Agreeableness:       0.85
  • Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

Adoption is dyscivic. It’s AA for bad parents.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s \rho = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

Double relaxed Darwinian selection

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251531226_The_decay_of_Western_civilization_Double_relaxed_Darwinian_Selection

nb

I’ve noticed a bizarre trend of solid 10-attractive specimen, high IQ spouses (even men!) adopting children over leaving their infertile ‘beloved’.

That shit’s got to stop.

The purpose of marriage is fertility. Not love. Love is good but fruitless lovemaking is God’s way of saying “move on”.

Stigma should exist for that sort of thing, plus adoption is connected to trafficking. I suspect pedo in all celebrity cases.

We should stigmatise married hot people with high IQs who don’t have their own kids. Divorce shouldn’t be a stigma if one party is fertile and seeks children.

Reject the self-abnegating Marxism of mindful/mindless ‘meditation’

Skip to end for studies.

So-called meditation is a religious practice, a form of prayer. It is communication with spiritual entities beyond one’s body. It has no place in schools. Schools want to impose it because it forms a kind of repression in the developing brain, it is cliche Victorian emotional repression (the stiff upper lip). I happen to think the state and agents of the state should have no ‘right’ to call a citizen’s emotions invalid or wrong. Children are not hysterics to be corrected into quiet submission. These mindful or mindless devotionals are used to control children, by adults, a great evil. The meditation as they would practise it is pagan in origin and cannot be made secular. One’s Higher Self is godly, the Creator. It is the thing we rejoin once we die. Clearly, this is horrendously inappropriate to ‘teach’ children in a school setting, under the guise of keeping them quiet (stiff upper lip) and teaching ‘focus’. All prayer teaches focus by repetition of words or concepts with the express purpose of drowning out personal emotion. Schools should not be emptying the minds of the students. It is a toxic concept, and you can point to all the scientism studies you like and it won’t change the fact children should not be lectured on their very thought process and censored therein, by the State! This is how docile populaces are made, and the brain changes are permanent. We call this clipping of their wings brain damage, if we’re being more accurate. There is nothing inherently wrong with their natural, evolving brain development! Being a healthy, developing child is not a sin and should not be condemned with appropriated, shallow religious practices.

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Emotional_development

Piaget said kids cannot understand the abstract before the teens, the brain is too immature. THAT’s why they want to get at the kids before then!

This is why Marxists want access to primary school kids.

https://www.verywellmind.com/formal-operational-stage-of-cognitive-development-2795459

Piaget believed that what he referred to as “hypothetical-deductive reasoning” was essential at this stage of intellectual development. At this point, teens become capable of thinking about abstract and hypothetical ideas. 

Capable! Prior to this, critical rejection is impossible.

But religious material is taught as RE, prior to this…..

The State cannot preach contentment and faith in devotional practices like a church. It is curious that such a ‘process’ does not work without faith and this failure would present in older children more often, so the schools push the prayer earlier. In the same way children are not physically capable of performing all the same activities, it is a violation of human rights to foist any censorship onto their emotional mind. The right to feel is human and sacrosanct, legally. Blotting out ‘undesirable’ emotions by the state agents, like anger, is cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention, impossible. The military doesn’t go so far as to call possibly righteous emotions like anger ‘wrong’. A negative emotion is not innately ‘bad’ or wrong. If the teachers have failed to earn the respect (and obedience) of the students, however many drugs are pushed into that population, then perhaps the fault is with the adults and not the children? If we look at the league tables and life outcomes, a child’s disrespect of their teachers (and ‘misbehaviour’, aka questioning authority) is entirely valid.

“brain training” – it’s brainwashing

It’s creepy to watch those kids do qi or psi practices (those hand gestures) and think this is scientific.

Pushing Buddhism, they literally have a guy right there.

“their brains are being reshaped” – by the State
They’re encouraging ego death in white kids. See the fleeting reference to privilege, later? It forces a kind of depersonalization and derealization. Let me guess, this only ‘needs’ to be done on white kids in white schools?

If it were scientific, it’d work 100% of the time. This is based on faith.
When you drink water, you’re hydrated. There’s cause. With this, the ‘stress’ placebo only works if you believe it will. Slow breathing will literally do the same thing, but they want an empty mind.

Marcus Aurelius taught about ‘controlling the mind’ too but he was white and didn’t promote ego death for Cultural Marxism, so you won’t hear about it.

“delusions such as anger or attachment”
ATTACHMENT.
Like to your family, country, attachment!

“ignorance, jealousy, so when the mind is out of control”
They’re gaslighting children as hysterics.

Lobotomies have such a bad rep.

“They can’t control what they say or what they do”
I think they can they’re human beings, this is dehumanisation.
Worshipping Buddha, a man, is idolatry. It isn’t actually a religion, there is no God.

“everything we do relates to our intention”
the road to Hell
actually the West judges by character and behaviour
I’m sure there are some really nice, lonely pedophiles, they’re still evil.

“be mindful of the correct things”
WHAT correct things?
oh DO tell us!

(he does not)

“everyone needs to meditate” – some weeb larper

“clarity and peace within our mind” – you mean around authorities like school?
We had those things in the West for millennia.

“overcome anger completely”
need I point out how evil that is?
making them like sitting ducks
emotion has evolutionary purpose, Darwin wrote a whole BOOK on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expression_of_the_Emotions_in_Man_and_Animals
Cultural Marxism pushes formless identity and state-censored emotion.

Prof Charlton’s Thought Prison went into this.

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/

Why don’t you convert to political correctness?

Since you can’t do anything about political correctness, why not just make the best of it?

Why not exploit the situation instead of moaning about it?

Do what is expedient – why not?

*

Why not make a successful career out of PC – like so many others?

Why not surrender your private mind to PC, in the same way as you have already surrendered your public behaviour?

By having any reservations at all, you are making yourself miserable – why not simply cast-aside those reservations?

Just say an inner yes to what you will, anyway, be forced to do…

*

Since you necessarily inhabit the thought prison that is political correctness – then why not, at least, become one of the ‘trustys’ among the inmates – to assist with the smooth running of the gaol, and get yourself a few privileges.

Why not, indeed, strive to become one of the guards? Somebody has to do the job? Maybe you could temper the severity of the regime?

And herein lies the particular temptation for the intellectual elite – a temptation few resist.

That (literally) soul-destroying pragmatism by which (for eminently sensible reasons) we quietly, by gradual degrees, change sides in the spiritual battle of the world: that unseen warfare between The Good and that which opposes The Good.

*

Well why not?

There is no earthly reason why not.

In a world of pervasive and powerful PC, there is really only one compelling reason for holding back and resisting in any way, shape or form – which is that embracing political correctness will shrink your soul.

*

If you do not believe in the soul, this reason will carry no force at all: so by your own calculations you are stupid to resist PC.

the reprobate mind

Or, if you believe the soul is inviolable, and that nothing you think or do can affect the soul: then also, by your own calculations, you are stupid to resist PC.

If you do not believe in Natural Law (innate knowledge of The Good), and that breaking Natural Law harms the soul: then logically you should learn to love PC.

*

If you do not believe in the reality of transcendental good – then you might as well go with the flow, allow yourself to be re-programmed: to learn, by regular practice, to re-label lies as truth, ugliness as beauty, evil as virtue; until PC has entered into your heart and soul, as well as pouring into your ears and out-from your mouth.

*

But political correctness is nihilism; therefore it is not merely political: it is also existential. 

To fight against political correctness is therefore ultimately an existential act: a battle to preserve the eternal soul.

*

But if you do not believe that political correctness will harm your eternal soul: then you would be well-advised to suck it up.

Why not?…

BBC scum:

“as a scientist, categorically”
no?

Mengele was a scientist, wouldn’t trust him with kids. Scientists are not a superior race, free of motive and emotionality.

The nose in the air is creepy.

It’s a placebo action, there is no actual control because the kids know when they’re doing it.

Controlled breathing would be a control. But they won’t do that- no effect!

“the stories that we tell about ourselves, about other people, aren’t necessarily true”
paging Scientology
How is this the business of the State?
How is self-image and identity their concern?

and “about other people” – such AS?
“so we can enquire into that”
violation of human rights, right to privacy
this is experimentation violating the Nuremberg Code
Can the State psychoanalyze you? Where is the consent?

“a healthy skepticism about our thought process”
well calling it healthy makes it healthy
pass the deep-fried Mars bar
this is science

can I be skeptical of your skepticism?

if it’s real, why can’t I question it?

If you guessed I was the one replying, you’d be right. Also measurement error.

the ‘get em young’ thing is a huge red flag

they go from showing teens, discussing teens to…
“8 and 9 year-olds”

and the Buddhist guy wants to be left alone around them, in a hypnotic state.

 

I had a feeling about this…

Can Mindfulness Help Reduce Racism?

Can we override hidden prejudice? A new study says, yes, it can be done—and the key might be mindfulness meditation.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/can_mindfulness_help_reduce_racism

I fucking knew it.

Every. Single. Time.

Biases are only okay if brown people have them about white people, you see.

Now, a newly published study by researchers Adam Lueke and Brian Gibson of Central Michigan University suggests another way to impact implicit assumptionsmindfulness.

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/11/24/1948550614559651.abstract

In their study, 72 white college students were measured on their levels of implicit bias of blacks and the elderly using the IAT.

Was it a KKK convention? How else to only include white kids? What are the odds?

Another anti-white methodology, ignore the coincidence.

Some participants then listened to a 10-minute mindfulness meditation in which they were instructed to “become aware of bodily sensations (heartbeat and breath) and fully accept these sensations and any thoughts without restriction, resistance, or judgment”;

That’s one way pedos groom kids. So it’s beyond just steady breathing, you see. It’s self-hypnosis.

They don’t assign it as homework because then they couldn’t implant various notions while the kid is suggestible.

other participants listened to a recording about natural history, voiced by the same narrator.

Why not steady breathing? That isn’t a real control.

Afterwards, the two groups of students were evaluated on their levels of mindfulness and then reassessed on their levels of implicit bias using the IAT.

IAT is BS.

Results showed that people who listened to the 10-minute mindfulness recording demonstrated less implicit bias against blacks and old people on the race and age IATs than individuals who listened to the other 10-minute recording. In other words, the mindfulness intervention decreased students’ automatic biases against blacks and older adults.

The mind is numb, they’d be less likely to associate rabbits with carrots, too! It retards the thought process.

Why no politically neutral controls? Dogs > bones? Cats > burgers?

For example, mindfulness training has been shown to help overeaters decrease the automatic attractiveness of fatty foods, allowing them to resist eating those foods when the foods are presented to them.

It literally over-rides survival, yeah.

This is like the hen-chalk thing with people, it suppresses nervous function (fear appraisal). A fox could walk right in front of them and they wouldn’t move. Non-response is not good.

They’re doing this to your kids.

One interesting consideration is that in the present study the mindfulness training was very brief and non-specific—in other words, the authors did not specifically try to train the participants in bias-reduction.

Retardation, same thing. Stop noticing studies.

With no warning of the true purpose, the subject cannot resist – just like that chicken.

This leads the authors to suggest that brief mindfulness training may be a good substitute for—or may augment—more traditional anti-bias training. 

Brainwashing!

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_mindfulness_can_defeat_racial_bias

Even if we try to act adopt a colorblind view in the world, it doesn’t work because our brains don’t actually work that way.

They know what they’re doing.

In my own work, I identify, develop and examine the efficacy of a set of practices that intentionally link inner and outer work to raise awareness about race and racial experience in our lives, with a focus on personal, interpersonal, and systemic or structural levels. 

The resulting “ColorInsight Practices ” combine mindfulness-based practices with teaching and learning about race and color to increase awareness of how race and color impact us all, and give rise to insight and greater understanding. They pave the way to new experiences that help us loosen our attachments to narratives and other forms of suffering that give rise to biases along the way…..

Attachments are GOOD, a human RIGHT.

The Nazis wanted to end suffering, if we’re going in that direction.

Why is nobody talking about this? Controlled ops. Plenty of proof.

A Conversation on Mindfulness, Bias and Racial Justice


https://www.takingcharge.csh.umn.edu/mindfulness-racial-justice

When Mindfulness and Racism Intersect


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mindfulness-race_n_7310156

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3862075/
Discrimination hurts, but mindfulness may help: Trait mindfulness moderates the relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms
Discriminatory experiences are not only momentarily distressing, but can also increase risk for lasting physical and psychological problems. Specifically, significantly higher rates of depression and depressive symptoms are reported among people who are frequently the target of prejudice. Given the gravity of this problem, this research focuses on an individual difference, trait mindfulness, as a protective factor in the association between discrimination and depressive symptoms. In a community sample of 605 individuals, trait mindfulness dampens the relationship between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms. Additionally, mindfulness provides benefits above and beyond those of positive emotions. Trait mindfulness may thus operate as a protective individual difference for targets of discrimination.

Discrimination is critical thought, it’s vital for cognition.

Click to access 570baaf508aee06603519a68.pdf


Brief Mindfulness Meditation Reduces Discrimination.
Recent research has demonstrated that mindfulness meditation reduces implicit race and age bias by weakening the associations of the target group with negative constructs. The current research examined the potential for mindfulness to also affect discriminatory behavior. Participants listened to either a 10-min mindfulness audio or a control audio before playing a game in which they interacted with partners of different races in a simulation and decided how much they trusted them with their money. Results indicated that the mindfulness condition exhibited significantly less discrimination in the Trust Game than did either of the 2 control conditions. The implications and importance of mindfulness meditation in alleviating bias are discussed.

As thought control, it’s more effective than regular placebo!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151110171600.htm

Because it’s more involved placebo.

https://www.quora.com/Does-meditation-really-help-or-is-just-a-placebo?share=1

Transcendental meditation, mindfulness, and longevity: an experimental study with the elderly.

Abstract

Can direct change in state of consciousness through specific mental techniques extend human life and reverse age-related declines? To address this question, 73 residents of 8 homes for the elderly (mean age = 81 years) were randomly assigned among no treatment and 3 treatments highly similar in external structure and expectations: the Transcendental Meditation (TM) program, mindfulness training (MF) in active distinction making, or a relaxation (low mindfulness) program. A planned comparison indicated that the “restful alert” TM group improved most, followed by MF, in contrast to relaxation and no-treatment groups, on paired associate learning; 2 measures of cognitive flexibility; mental health; systolic blood pressure; and ratings of behavioral flexibility, aging, and treatment efficacy. The MF group improved most, followed by TM, on perceived control and word fluency. After 3 years, survival rate was 100% for TM and 87.5% for MF in contrast to lower rates for other groups.

Notice that this is one of only a handful of meditation studies that carefully tries to control for expectation — the placebo effect — so it is a more robust study-design than most people are used to seeing and the findings should therefore be that much more reliable.

I cannot find a straight placebo study.

Almost like they’re the same, at differing intensity.

Why not do a study with a control that just counts their breath to 100 again and again?

When we walk slower in parks, our breathing unconsciously adjusts down to our walking pace, it isn’t woo woo magical thinking bullshit.

In a pre-industrial West, we had no problem relaxing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_trust_and_low_trust_societies

Why would the Marxists push this now?

decrease ‘stress’, an evolved response to dangerous conditions?

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208490

An association between multiculturalism and psychological distress

Amidst increasing focus on rising rates of substance abuse and suicide among white Americans and extending prior research on intergroup attitudes and health, this study examines a novel factor associated with psychological distress: disagreement with multiculturalism. Using the Portraits of American Life Study (N = 2,292), logistic regressions indicate that for Whites and Hispanics, increased likelihood of psychological distress (depression, hopelessness and worthlessness) is associated with stronger disagreement with multiculturalism, measured as “If we want to create a society where people get along, we must recognize that each ethnic group has the right to maintain its own unique traditions.” For Blacks, however, attitudes toward multiculturalism are not associated with psychological distress. Future research might determine if these results can be replicated, and if so, identify the causal mechanism(s) at work

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/menticide

the systematic effort to undermine and destroy a person’s values and beliefs, as by the use of prolonged interrogation, drugs, torture, etc., and to induce radically different ideas.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/menticide

Medical definition of menticide: a systematic and intentional undermining of a person’s conscious mind : brainwashing.

systemic – check

intentional – check

undermining – check

of the MIND – check

It’s thought police censorship, a violation of human development.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.107.8.594?journalCode=ajp&#038;

Really it should be mentacide but that’s just English.*

That’s what my books say. I guess either works.

The concept of “menticide” indicates an organized system of judicial perversion and psychological intervention, in which a powerful tyrant transfers his own thoughts and words into the minds and mouths of the victims he plans to destroy or to use for his own propaganda. Modern psychiatry may deliver him several tools for this perversion. Our psychiatric standpoint toward this challenge has to be formulated. Examples of menticide are described and ways of protection indicated.

Reference Meerlo 1956 The rape of the mind

‘Multiculturalism’ causes low trust in society

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review

Several results stand out from the meta-analysis.

We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors, and when studied in more local contexts. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly. The review concludes by discussing avenues for future research.

Diversity isn’t a strength.

It’s anti-social. It’s dyscivic. It’s an act of war.

HBD is right, it’s almost always right. The only ‘wrong’ times are misunderstandings of term e.g. misuse of hypergamy (a marital condition) by forum fools.

Culture is genetic. Assimilation is a myth. This is Darwin, genes compete and dominate.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2894685/

Nothing about the definition of invasion requires they bring weapons at the time.

Are they unwelcome? Freedom of association is also freedom of exclusion.

If you want to shush the Gary Linekers, discuss middle-class slave ownership – nannies, drivers, tutors, all imported to work for cheap. Heavily tax remittance.

Call for criminal charges against those who illegally hire. Like, human trafficking charges, violation of human rights charges.

Fake alpha narcissists

It’s like any man who must say “I am king” is no true king.

Writ large.

Mostly they’re cluster Bs, usually male borderlines, so insecure in their identity they conflate bullying and domineering behaviour for confidence, having no true self or inner world beyond the superficial obnoxiousness.

And they think it’s okay because as Bs, they project everyone else ‘must’ be the same way (only lying about it).

All the alphas I’ve met were really nice. Family men types. The kind of happy that cluster Bs DESPISE. Alpha is a breeding pair. Female alphas don’t mention it either. If you’re at the top (a 10 overall) then why be mean? Where is the gain?

How can alpha/other exist if men don’t have genetic/appearance based leagues?

Why obsess over height or your jaw then?

All those refs to ‘dating studies’ that’s really just ONE study (I think OKC?) about women filtering the top men as a matter of course – well, that’s the imperative for women – filtering. That’s the whole point of dating, to find the One. It’s feminine. It’s normal. It’s loyal. It’s SEXUAL SELECTION. Most complaints re this line are pure cope from the unfit males. If you’re alpha, wouldn’t you be in that group? How is that a PROBLEM then? If women had no standards, they’d be prostitutes. ‘Game’ is linguistically the psyops done on trafficking victims to stay as slaves, so telling normal or sub-par men to ‘improve their game’ is knowingly encouraging them to waste their time by sociopathic men who know it doesn’t work.

The self-proclaimed alpha thing for individuals (rather than sociologically, which is valid) is really just astrology for men. Leos are jerks though. It’s literally a basic bitch list of negative Leo traits repackaged as “the chicks dig this, trust random posts on the internet, would we lie to you?”

Look at their wives, that’s all I’m saying. If they had a pussy VIP pass, they’d have a 10 trophy wife.

In studies, women want a man for a husband who is high in conscientiousness. Cluster Bs are the opposite.

Why don’t the manosphere tell you dat, huh?

Midwit IQ

The mid-wit wishes to be seen as high IQ while denying IQ altogether.
They’re a nitwit, really.
Our society conflates IQ with value and/or morality, something which annoys me, having quite a high IQ myself. Your IQ doesn’t make you pompous, that’s your parentage. It doesn’t make you morally superior, in fact, venal people tend to be midwits, but more effectively venal. Being moral is a choice anyone can make. ‘Smart’ people (slightly above average) are human parrots, effective at one skill, memory, yet they are prone to rationalisation (which idiots confuse for rationality) that their immorality is “actually” (atheist voice) pro-social and up is down. Appeal to exception is rampant on individual moral choices. But all population level stats are a grouping of individuals, so individual rationales ALSO apply. They deny basic statistical realities of formal logic and usurp it with subjective, projective rationalisations e.g. Group is dumb but Group controls the world. How? That is ill-logic, it does not compute, it literally does not add up. It’s P = Not-P. Their verbal fluidity + memory makes them glib and easy to hear but hard to understand. They lack cogency, which would be overt in transcript.

A rationalisation study in midwit men is needed, men rationalise more than women from social conditioning. Women are corrected young, since it’s emotionally grounded. Lower IQ men, while claiming to be high IQ, also deny any of their cognitions are emotionally grounded (nope, you’re human too dude).

IQ is an academic measure to improve academic learning, it isn’t a cap on skills. It’s general.

also LOL at thinking 130 is a high IQ. I meet those people all the time, not really.


Most midwits are like 115-125, very conformist.

It’s quite common for the high IQ to be capable of ‘spotting’ it in the wild. Nothing to do with liking someone or whether they agree with us. It’s possible to read anyone with the same or lower IQ to oneself.

After a while, as a kid, I figured I could spot someone’s IQ just by letting them rant for a while. With no input from me, you get their stream of consciousness, so it’s quite easy to get a feel for where they generally stand (factors like cogency, agility, vocal/neural speed). It’s like a mind map, or a forensic profile.

If you get good, you can also predict a conversation topic or ‘argument’ like five points deep. This is easiest with NPCs. It makes networking very dull. Do not try to learn it. It is hell. I wish I didn’t automatically do this, it’s like autocomplete on the other party’s arguments. I use to time them on my watch.

They need to do IQ studies where they test each bracket’s conformity with newspaper opinions. Easy to do.

The autism thing is a distraction intended to pathologise white men. Most autists are highly studied, it’s a selection bias. Most high IQ people are NOT autistic and most autists have LOW IQ (check child psych.). Also, you don’t need to be autistic to be a savant. It’s a Venn. There are non-autistic savants, the black swans exist. I have a couple of savant skills myself, and having been tested for many things including empathy (long story), not at all autistic. I got full empathy scores under lab conditions (facial recognition, inc micro-expressions). (Autism is characterized as a “low empathy” condition like sociopathy).

It’s really insulting to hear something like “you have a high IQ, so you must be autistic” or random normie men like “you’re smart, huh, you must have autism” it’s as nonsensical as the non sequitur of “you just ate an ice cream, you must be diabetic”.

I really prefer the other Dutton (psychopath researcher) because this guy is a total midwit. He parrots information like the autism conflation by one Jewish researcher (Baron-Cohen*). He uses Sheldon Cooper (fiction!) as an ANECDOTE.

Anecdotal fallacy, please stop.

*Smart white men are bad because ‘male brain’ – like REALLY? Most autism researchers disdain him. He’s a pig.

Midwits are facile, VAPID. Midwit men are VAPID. Verbally fluent but VAPID.

Like how only men care about leasing the latest sportscars. Vapidity. The variable needed.

This guy’s takes, for example, are wiki tier. I say that as someone who wrote many of those wiki pages. Many moons ago. I now know better than the information placed there. I just wanted to help other kids with homework.

Status signalling is not intelligence. It’s political piety plus narcissism. You need a religiosity metric of conformity.

He’s over-using the word ‘select’.

Social rewards DO NOT translate to breeding, especially in spiteful mutants.

Google Jayman’s work on “liberal fertility” for midwit applications. Basic HBD.

Another non seq. Ugh. No mention of communication gap at 30p differential or greater.

Self-delusion is not THOUGHT. It is rationalisation. They begin with the end.

Sweeping statements, pseudo-intellectual posing as morally superior.

But also seeing too many connections is schizophrenic or psychotic.

Approx 28m on he’s describing himself. Thousands of views? Do not expect full explanations from a youtube video, damn. Most of his audience are the midwit type who’d have been atheistkult ten years ago.

29m – that’s why I left. They’re actually relational narcissists. Pathologically. Test academics for narcissism, I dare you.

Autism isn’t descriptive Re IQ – especially since most are LOW IQ, if you actually had the intellectual honesty to check. It’s like getting average height for IQ150, being that height doesn’t make you that IQ. It doesn’t work like that, especially since high IQ is NOT a pathology, but autism IS a pathology.

The false equivalence is infuriating. 

Academia (using PC) tells white people that being high IQ is a pathology. That isn’t science, it’s cultural Marxism.

Shaming the very people who’d question or oppose them (Read Thought Prison). Except shaming doesn’t work on the highest IQs.

Do they ever shame non-whites as retarded (low IQ, autistic) for being high IQ? Nope, it’s systemic racism but demonstrably real.

Midwits are not open-minded but gullible.

Claimed Chinese IQ and culturally accepted cheating

Linking because: Please stop cucking for the Jews of Asia when you don’t understand the data.

103 isn’t even high, it’s within chance (5% alpha so 5 points) aka a fluke above the Western norm.

Chinese IQ, Cheating, Immigrant Hyper-Selectivity and East Asian “Genetic Superiority”

The East Asian race has been held up as what a high “IQ” population can do and, along with the correlation between IQ and standardized testing, “HBDers” claim that this is proof that East Asians are more “intelligent” than Europeans and Africans. Lynn (2006: 114) states that the average IQ of China is 103. There are many problems with such a claim, though. Not least because of the many reports of Chinese cheating on standardized tests. East Asians are claimed to be “genetically superior” to other races as regards IQ, but this claim fails.

They test urbanites preferentially, not the rural mass. They rig it, basically.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-rural-kids-have-lower-iqs-study

Caixin did not give the IQ scores for children residing in the rural areas covered, but quoted Mr Rozelle, who said that the average IQ scores for these age groups should range between 90 and 109.

Take the data yourself, they’re glorified rice farmers who enslave their kids. We surpassed that a century ago.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918303301

The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points a decade over 18-year period.

Yeah that sounds physically possible.

So almost two SD for the whole group over a generation? And we cannot replicate that here HOW?

Data are reported for intelligence of children in China assessed by the Combined Raven’s Test in 1988, 1996 and 2006. The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points over 18-year period. The British IQ of China in 1988 and 2006 is estimated as 94.8 and 109.8, respectively.

People can think I’m a bitch about this but I’m a bitch who reads the data first and forms an opinion later.

From search engine result on the paper:

Remember national IQ predicts GDP so it’s important for foreign investors, they have an interest in rigging it higher to keep the CCP going.

At a national IQ of 94?

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

That would put them on par with Vietnam. Do they have a reputation for being whiz kids? The Marxists are buying a reputation, wake up. They probably have the same national IQ as Kazakhstan (94), Romania (94), Armenia (94) and various other economic shit-holes nobody ever hears about, let alone considers bright and innovative. Stop cucking for cheats, that’s all I need. Portugal scores higher at 95 and look at their economy, like Romania they’re technically white.

At 100, being overly generous, that’s a solid average compared to smart, mostly NW or West European whites (the Renaissance, and Science people), and they’d be on par with Luxembourg. 

The intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist.

They also call Italy 102 despite its economy and centuries of cultural stagnation (pdf) so calling various types of chink 105-107 in recent years only (when the Marxists got free money printer) smells suspicious. Academic fraud should be a crime with heavy prison time. There is trillions in international investment riding on this.

Lynn shouldn’t be the only guy cited yet he seems to be, just with his later studies, ignoring greater quantities of historical evidence to the contrary (also collected by him).

Since when do we only listen to ONE guy on ANY topic?

(Unless it’s evolution and Darwin, since he invented it).

More data info below, scroll if short on time.

East Asian doesn’t actually exist in genetic history, there was essentially a creation of them by multiple Empires (mostly British) and stories/studies of African inflows of mtDNA (which would explain their physical similarities e.g. broad jaw, reduced nasal bridge, recessed chin, rounded forehead).

Racial computer data by Marquardt studies’ collection:

But *pronounced fluted nostrils (*compared to body size) and broad, thick lips:

Commonly considered solely African but falsely. Asians have it too.

Photographs used by Marquardt are representative of group facial averages shown in computer model.
Source HERE.

If E Asians had such a higher IQ truly, it would be reflected in their originality and innovation e.g. genius inventors and patents.

Don’t hold your breath. IQ is one metric and only important to academia (because it can be faked).
They’re still coasting off the British Industrial Revolution.

Back to top link:

Before continuing, something must be noted about Lynn and his Chinese IQ data. Lynn ignores numerous studies on Chinese IQ—Lynn would presumably say that he wants to test those in good conditions and so disregards those parts of China with bad environmental conditions (as he did with African IQs). Here is a collection of forty studies that Lynn did not refer to—some showing that, even in regions in China with optimum living conditions, IQs below 90 are found (Qian et al, 2005). How could Lynn miss so many of these studies if he has been reading into the matter and, presumably, keeping up with the latest findings in the field? The only answer to the question is that Richard Lynn is dishonest. (I can see PumpkinPerson claiming that “Lynn is old! It’s hard to search through and read every study!” to defend this.)

Qian study embedded here (hope this works):

http://000do4q.myregisteredwp.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/1836/2016/05/china-iodine-study.pdf

title is “The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a metaanalysis of studies conducted in China”

Although the Chinese are currently trying to stop cheating on standardized testing (even a possible seven-year prison sentence, if caught cheating, does not deter cheating), cheating on standardized tests in China and by the Chinese in America is rampant. The following is but a sample of what could be found doing a cursory search on the matter…..

In 2000, more than 2000 people protested outside of a university to protest a new law which banned cheating on tests.

When are we getting one of those?

The rift amounted to this: Metal detectors had been installed in schools to route out students carrying hearing or transmitting devices. More invigilators were hired to monitor the college entrance exam and patrol campus for people transmitting answers to students. Female students were patted down. In response, angry parents and students championed their right to cheat. Not cheating, they said, would put them at a disadvantage in a country where student cheating has become standard practice. “We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat,” they chanted. (Chinese students and their parents fight for the right to cheat)

Surely, with rampant cheating on standardized tests in China (and for Chinese Americans), we can’t trust the Chinese IQ numbers in light of the news that there is a culture of cheating on tests in China and in America.

Never hire them.

This has been outright stated by, for example, Lynn (1977) who prolcaims—for the Japanese—that his “findings indicate a genuine superiority of the Japanese in general intelligence.” This claim, though, is refuted by the empirical data—what explains East Asian educational achievement is not “superior genes”, but the belief that education is paramount for upward social mobility, and so, to preempt discrimination, this would then be why East Asians overperform in school (Sue and Okazaki, 1990).

They don’t believe in meritocracy, just the mobility part.

Meritocracy is a white concept. WEIRD is globally weird.

Minus Marxist so-called positive discrimination?

The success of second-generation Chinese Americans has, too, been held up as more evidence that the Chinese are ‘superior’ in their mental abilities—being deemed ‘model minorities’ in America. However, in Spain, the story is different. First- and second-generation Chinese immigrants score lower than the native Spanish population on standardized tests.

Americans: Spain is considered a shit-hole.

Findings from this study show that Chinese youth in Spain have substantially lower educational ambitions and attainment than youth from every other nationality. This is corroborated by recently published statistics which show that only 20 percent of Chinese youth are enrolled in post-compulsory secondary education, the prerequisite level of schooling for university education, compared to 40 percent of the entire adolescent population and 30 percent of the immigrant youth population in Catalonia, a major immigrant destination in Spain (Generalitat de Catalunyan, 2010).

It isn’t racist to note this, since nationality is NOT race.

US-born Chinese immigrants are shuttled toward higher education whereas in the Netherlands, the second-generation Chinese have lower educational attainment and the differences come down to national context (Noam, 2014).

nice term for child abuse (tiger mom is PR)

—in fact, the Chinese in Spain show lower educational attainment than other ethnic groups (Central Americans, Dominicans, Morrocans; Lee and Zhou, 2017: 2236) which, to Americans would be seen as a surprise.

if you’ve never worked with clingy Chinese people asking you to constantly “help” them perform basic tasks, yeah.

They stopped doing SATs here because it was showing up the thick Asians before they could cheat (to get into secondary school).

Second-generation Chinese parents match their intergenerational transmission of their ethnocultural emphasis on education to the needs of their national surroundings, which, naturally, affects their third-generation children differently. In the U.S., adaptation implies that parents accept the part of their ethnoculture that stresses educational achievement. (Noam, 2014: 53)

narcissism

Teachers even favor Asian American students, perceiving them to be brighter than other students.

In our own countries. So nurture favours them too. They still vote Left.

The fact that the term “Mongoloid idiot” was coined for those with Down syndrome because they looked Asian is very telling (see Hilliard, 2012 for discussion).

Really? I never noticed.

Is there an autism study in mongrels yet? (No, not yet).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504082411.htm

“Researchers have found in an analysis that minorities were widely underrepreseted in autism identifications in 2014″

Even the ‘successful’ half breeds hate the “racist” white parent, fair enough.

https://half-asian.net/category/half-asian/

“So then you have millions of half-Asians that look more or less Asian, ethnically ambiguous, and are deeply ashamed of their Asian heritage, being raised by some weird, misogynistic, anti-feminist, anti-Islamic, anti-black guy, raising some half-Asian kid whose mother tells him that he or she is white and that it was a brilliant life choice to marry some racist asshole. …”

funny how the white race traitor feels entitled to racial respect from a mongrel of their making, weird assumption you’d think?

“These are the same people who go onto raise us. Hateful, bitter, racist white men – since white men love humiliating Asian men in order to increase their access to Asian women. Literally – the entire premise of WM/AW is that Asian men are not men – and we, their sons, look totally Asian.”

Cook the rice, pay the price. I’m only sad for the kid/s, they didn’t choose it.

So they’re not happy, whatever the parents claim to have planned. People shouldn’t cover for the parents. I hope the kids throw them in a home to rot.

Back to IQ.

But, the IQ-ists switched from talking about Caucasian superiority to Asian superiority right as the East began their economic boom (Liberman, 2001). The fact that there were disparate “estimates” of skulls in these centuries points to the fact such “scientific observations” are painted with a cultural brush. See eg table 1 from Lieberman (2001):

This tells us, again, that our “scientific objectivity” is clouded by political and economic prejudices of the time. This allows Rushton to proclaim “If my work was motivated by racism, why would I want Asians to have bigger brains than whites?” Indeed, what a good question. The answer is that the whole point of “HBD race realism” is to denigrate blacks, so as long as whites are above blacks in their little self-made “hierarchy” no such problem exists for them (Hilliard, 2012).

Weebs are cancer.

Note how Rushton’s long debunked- r/K selection theory (Anderson, 1991Graves, 2002) used the current hierarchy and placed dozens of traits on a hierarchy where it was M > C > N (Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids respectively, to use Rushton’s outdated terminology). It is a political statement to put the ‘Mongoloids’ at the top of the racial hierarchy; the goal of ‘HBD’ is to denigrate blacks. But, do note that in the late 19th to early 20th century that East Asians were deemed to have small brains, large penises, and that Japanese men, for instance, would “debauch their [white] female classmates” (quoted in Hilliard, 2012: 91).

Asians are r-select, the most numerous race on the planet by FAR. I have covered this before. They swamp local resources and have inhumane population density. That is characteristic r-selection, with low overall group loyalty (close family doesn’t count, they’re low trust societies) and low group altruism (low altruism to animals as well).

Africa is less R than Asia.

Asians were also considered disease-ridden pet-eaters and we know how that went.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_plague_of_1900-1904

Where they go, death follows. Almost like America tried to keep them out until the 1960s…

Class is a confound for any immigrant.

From end of top link:

So if Chinese cheat on standardized tests, then we should not accept their IQ scores; the fact that they, for example, provide non-random children from large provinces speaks to their dishonesty. They are like Lynn, in a way, avoiding the evidence that IQ scores are not what they seem—both Lynn and the Chinese government are dishonest cherry-pickers. The ‘fact’ that East Asian educational attainment can be attributed to genes is false; it is attributed to hyper-selectivity and notions of class and what constitutes ‘success’ in the country they emigrate to—so what they attempt is based on (environmental) context.

lemmings at best, narcissists adopting the local mask (r-types) at worst

Common sense conclusion, the so-called redpills shall ignore it. 

Then rediscover it in a decade while we’re at war with them.

https://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.com/2016/10/fake-chinese-iq-studies-richard-lynn.html

A table was presented by Lynn showing 31 IQ studies on China’s population. A claim was made that “there are no samples on Chinese population citing IQ to be less than 95”. Here I will present contrary data set on China where average IQ results are less than 90 which as per Lynn’s claim do not exist. First lets look at IQ of China which is presented:-

Call out China.

Always, always call out the Commies.

Obviously when the data came into the scientific community, almost everyone was shocked not because of high results, but because of consistency of data. Average IQ in 31 different regions of China was within 10 points.

That never happens. If it sounds fake…. it probably is.

As it is noticed in IQ testing, average IQ in cities is 15 points higher than rural areas.

107-15 = 92

105-15 = 90 (assuming former number is true)

100-15 = 85 (one full SD below the UK)

94 (from old study above) -15 = 79

No wonder they have no trouble enslaving one another. What else would they be good for at that level?

On top of that, average IQ heavily depends on the people tested. If you were to test factory workers, the average will be 90. University students will show average of 110. So, the scientific community always doubted his work on China.

Uni students always score 110-115, that’s why they’re Uni students. Poor analogy. Stop relying on student scores to describe full adults, IQ people, it’s poor method (generally). US college students are like 115 at the low end.

How did he test Chinese population for IQ ?

A website was created and people were asked to take IQ tests. Unlike African samples where people were downward selected, Chinese IQ was upward sampling of population.

Chinks are renowned for forging ANY online test. Disregard Lynn.

TLDR: So Lynn lied about China’s low IQ, covering for them.

When he himself had previously taken data to that effect. Then he’s been caught fudging modern data and boosting its minimum to help them save face (and get into places like Eton).

I’m quoting most of that post in block for reference in case his site goes down:

Lastly, how easy it is to cheat on internet IQ testing. It’s quite easy. The results should not have been published as there is no control over test takers over the internet. There are many websites where even people in Latin America have reported 118 average IQs on many people.

It doesn’t really make sense to compare this IQ data on China with Thailand where most samples cited are in rural areas. Better will be to compare the data with Bangkok which shows IQ of 103.

Anyways, here are the low scoring IQ samples on China’s population :-

Wang, 2001 (Average IQ of 76-81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/wang-2001.pdf
Average IQ: 81 and 76

81+76 /2 =78.5

Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/hong-2001.pdf
Average IQ fluctuates between 65 and 82 for china, depending on amount of fluoride in water. Shandong province, china.

65+82 /2 =73.5

Li, 1995 (Average IQ of 79-89)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-1995.pdf
Average iq is in between 79 and 89 for china. Guizhou province, china.

79 + 89 /2 = 84

Yang, 1994 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yang-1994.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Jinan, China.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

An, 1992 (Average IQ of 76,84)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/an-1992.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 84. Guyang county, inner Mongolia.

76 + 84 / 2 = 80

Guo, 1991 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Source: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/guo-1991.pdf
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Hunan province, china.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

Lower results are in mild fluoride regions and higher results are in very optimum conditions.

Very optimum doesn’t count. Optimum would maybe but very? Anomaly.

ALL of those studies cited, averaged: 

78.5+73.5+84+78.5+80+78.5 (check me, weebs)

473 / 6 =

78.8333 recurring.

MUH SUPERIOR CHINESE IQ.

well they do think Communism is a good idea so

Also 78, the Congo (source).

The question arises, why did Lynn ignore these samples on China’s population. Well, if you go out with a propaganda of proving one nation smarter than another, such result manipulation is a must.

If my people had an average of IQ78, I’d make money printer go brrr too.

On top, these are the samples that are done in very optimum conditions like low fluoride, etc. and in top notch states of China.

Imagine if I cite these article which are pretty much done on rural population of China and compare it with cities in Europe, I will be able to prove that Europeans have average IQ of 105 and East Asians to be 83. Isn’t it. Its just a matter of what you want to show to the world.

aka Lynn is a liar.

and when I bitch about class and SES confounds, I’m being accurate.

Here are the IQ results in European cities:-

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/NationalIQs.aspx

Amsterdam: 109.4, Hamburg: 109.3, Warsaw: 108.

Even in South East Asia, India and Iran; you get IQ data to be 103+ in cities. Urban rural gap is only due to cognitive clustering in urban areas.

IQ in Bangkok: 103, Iran(urban): 105, Lucknow: 110, Ahmedabad: 104. There are several reports covering the same which I will discuss later. If the Chinese IQ data is to be compared, comparison has to be done in urban samples on rest of the world.

Exactly it’s like measuring height when one guy jumped.

Now, it has been proven that IQ dataset of China has also been obtained by selective citation just like any other nation. A question arises as to why East Asians do better on PISA which is an unbiased sample covering entire population randomly and unbiased ?

TLDR: they don’t. They cover to avoid giving out a lot of data. Typical Marxists.

I will talk about the Chinese. I will talk about Korea, Taiwan and Japan later on. Results of Shanghai and other urban areas were published. Chinese government did not allow PISA to publish the results of other provinces. A statement was made by PISA that “we have done PISA sampling in 12 provinces in China and in some of the poorest regions, you get performance close to the OECD average.”

Its a very generalized statement which doesn’t really mean anything. “Close to the OECD average”. It can be 50 points less or 20 points. Unless, PISA results on China which are held back are released nothing can be said about average IQ of China.

Weebs always look silly.

However, results of Chinese in South East Asia are well known and they do not show high IQs.

Imagine my shock. What next? Are there not hot singles in my area?

Let me attach PISA scores for you. Source:https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin…
On maths PISA:- Singapore scored 573, Malaysia scored 421, Thailand scored 427.
On reading:- Singapore scored 542, Malaysia scored 398, Thailand scored 441.
On science:- Singapore scored 551, Malaysia scored 420, Thailand scored 445.
Mean scores:- Singapore: 555, Malaysia: 413, Thailand: 437. (All in the report).

There are 3 million Chinese in Singapore which is a magnet for cognitive elites of China, 8 million Chinese in Malaysia, 10 million in Thailand.

A common argument given is that Malays and other races pull down the scores in Malaysia. It is well known that “other races do not pull down scores” in SEA and even if they do, the gaps are negligible. It is well evident in Singapore school results which I will discuss later to compare East and South Asian IQs.

For verifying whether there is multi modal distribution in PISA scores in Malaysia, I had to calculate the percentile of scores.

There is a table mentioned in PISA report which is attached above. Or detailed results can be seen here (https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin…). Page number 308 and 309:-
In Singapore:- 10 percentile score was 432, 25 percentile: 501, 75 percentile: 650, 90 percentile was 707.
In Malaysia:- 10 percentile: 319, 25 percentile: 363, 75 percentile: 474, 90 percentile: 530.

In Thailand:- 10 percentile: 328, 25 percentile: 372, 75 percentile: 476, 90 percentile: 535.

Even top 25 percent of Malaysia has an average PISA score corresponding to 98 IQ that is 87 percentile of Malaysian PISA data (520 is 100 IQ and 100 points is 1 standard deviation as discussed before). If I assume that all these are Chinese (that is each and every person of Chinese decent scored better than other races), how does it lead to high IQ and PISA scores among East Asians. This is the best case estimate.
For decent estimate, average IQ of Chinese in Malaysia: 95 IQ, Thailand: 97 IQ (according to PISA reports).
Performance in PISA level 5 and level 6:-
Page 31:-
Singapore: 29% students above level 5 and 6.
Malaysia: 0.9% students above level 5 and 6.
In Malaysia (a nation with moderate education system), “at the absolute maximum” 2.5% Chinese students scored in level 5 and level 6. V/S large majority of Chinese students in Singapore (“minimum 6.5% and maximum 38%”).
You can clearly see East Asian PISA score to be same as Czech Republic level once we include Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; instead of just concentrating on Singapore which is a magnet for China’s cognitive elites.
Czechs, you know, our overt intellectual superiors, fellow whites.
Chinese IQ in SEA (based on PISA) is 98 (best estimate) and 96 (decent estimate).
And PISA is the most reliable large scale study on IQ.
So, at their expat best is still below our average. Explains the nepotism. And the expectation you NEED to cheat versus white kids to even get in.
What’s the Asian dindu nuffin?
As IQ of China is unknown and there are contrary studies (some showing very high IQs, some very low IQs) and as large scale studies like PISA on China are unavailable to public; it is resonable to assume that China’s IQ will be same as Chinese living in SEA as per PISA reports. Chinese in SEA are net importers of high skill immigration from China unlike China which is a net exporter of high skill immigrants. So, at any cost Chinese IQ cannot be more than Chinese in SEA.
Logically.
Now what about the people especially the bloggers who post IQ of 115 for China. To be frank, most of them are misinformed. IQ of 115 on China is based on an assumption that presently IQ of China is 105 and China will score 115 due to optimum living conditions and first world environment. That’s not the case.
Wait, so they’re crystal-balling it?
Hard cope from the race mixers.
Muh magic dirt of the Western schools + clean air nurture theory BS.
Present IQ data available on China shows 95 IQ or 97.5 IQ as per Lynn’s work (which is based on his own calculations). 105 is the long term ceiling of IQ in China.
So not even 105 ever, let alone now.
Lynn is such a cucky little shit. Weebs keep rigging data like this to be anti-white, no wonder he keeps getting funding.

112 is the PISA IQ for Shanghai which is the highest IQ recorded in China where people are living in absolute optimum conditions. As cities generally score 15 points higher, average in China cannot be more than 105. Even the estimate of 105 comes at the cost of assuming optimum living conditions (excluding iodine deficiency, etc., etc.). Present IQ of China as per the data available is 95 as people are not living in optimum conditions. Many of the states have iodine deficiencies, many have underweight children.

But again if I start optimizing IQs for the rest of the world, most nations would score very high. To be frank, Africa and South Asia are the biggest victims of malnourishment and iodine deficiencies.

By the same logic: If China is smarter than us, so is Africa.
Talk about rationalizing a fetish.
While comparing IQ of two nations, you cannot compare an optimised number for one with an unoptimised number for another nation. Isn’t it.
“optimised” and futuristic = rigged
might as well be sodding Terminators

So, Lynn’s IQ comparisons between Europe and China by taking an optimised number for China (105) and an unoptimised number for Europe (97) is unacceptable and not in lines with the scientific methods of research.

If the data cited on other nations is un-optimised for iodine deficiencies etc.  etc.; why is he comparing it with an optimized estimate for China ? Of-course if you want to propagate a racial fallacy in the public, such stuffs are required. Even nations in Europe face iodine deficiencies at par or higher than people in China and European IQ can also be adjusted to 104, or I can calculate European IQ by taking highest scoring city in Europe, Amsterdam and subtracting 7 IQ like how he is doing for China which will put Europeans at 103. Isn’t it.

Plenty of European countries are white trash. We all know it. Try living near Little Polands. Thugs.
Eastern Europe didn’t have the same selection pressures as North West and hence has no First World culture, as we’d recognize it.
And rather Europeans face much higher iodine deficiencies than East Asians and I will show the same with appropriate data later on. On top of that, East Asians do not face any mal-nourishment. In the above text, I showed a few samples on East Asia in mild fluorosis regions that the average IQ in such villages is also in low 80s, let alone 100+. If I show East Asian IQ samples where they are done on malnourished population, the results will be very very low (less than 75 IQ).
LOL

So, it is funny if he is optimizing East Asian data to 105 and Europe is kept constant at 97 because it is Europe that faces higher environment contamination due to iodine deficiencies, etc.

And remember, the IQ numbers of India, mid-East that is shown in his book is not optimized unlike East Asia.

The main purpose of him writing his book is to get famous in the public by propagating a racial fallacy that is far from the truth. The scientific community does not acknowledge his books which does seem to be a fiction.

I will further prove that average IQ in Iran in optimum living conditions is also 105, same as people in China (in my coming posts). And will present relevant data.

here

Do trannies have copper toxicity?

(gammas too)

More estrogen (inc xenoestrogen) is stored in the body, along with a build-up of copper. These can produce psychiatric symptoms.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/holistic-psychiatry/201709/copper-toxicity-common-cause-psychiatric-symptoms
Maybe this is our version of Rome’s lead problem.
So glad I never touched those hormonal things.

Here is a short list of psychiatric symptoms and traits associated with copper overload:

Hyperactivity, academic underachievement, learning disabilities, ADHD, autism, skin sensitivity to tags in shirts or rough fabrics, intolerance to estrogen and birth control pills, onset during puberty, pregnancy or menopause, white spots on fingernails, skin intolerance to cheap metals, emotional meltdowns and frequent anger, ringing in ears, sensitivity to food dyes and shellfish, high anxiety, depression, poor immune function, sleep problems, poor concentration and focus, low dopamine activity, and elevated activity of norepinephrine and adrenaline.

“I have anxiety” sure Dave

Other medical conditions associated with copper overload include acne, allergies, Candida overgrowth, hypothyroidism, anemia, hair loss, chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia, migraines and male infertility.

Fatigue, hair loss, MALE infertility.

It can do this to a female body, imagine what it does to the male?

I’d sue, if I were them. The consent was uninformed.

The reason that copper is linked with such a long and varied list of conditions is that it is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of the immune system, the endocrine system, and the nervous system.

Copper is important for regulating the synthesis of neurotransmitters that mediate psychiatric symptoms. It is a co-factor in the chemical reaction that converts dopamine to norepinephrine. When copper levels are high, more norepinephrine and epinephrine (adrenaline) are synthesized from dopamine, which can causes feelings of agitation, anxiety and panic, overstimulation, racing thoughts, restlessness, and insomnia. In other words, it has an amphetamine-like effect, revving the nervous system into a state of overdrive. Consider that copper is often used in electrical wires because it conducts electricity well, and likewise increases nerve transmission, which is an electrical chemical process.

transduction, but ok

it’d be piss-easy to study, hair mineral analysis before meds, and after

Copper is also central to cellular energy production, and thus many patients with fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue conditions related to mitochondrial dysfunction have disorders of copper metabolism.

it all fits!

Copper overload is particularly common in women.

not anymore they just don’t check men

Estrogen can cause copper retention and accumulation, which can eventually result in toxicity. Hormonal events such as menarche, pregnancy or menopause can trigger it. These days when a patient tells me about a history of postpartum depression, severe PMS, dysmenorrhea or adverse effects related to the prescription of oral contraceptives, I immediately suspect copper overload.

Copper promotes the formation of blood vessels (angiogenesis) and when copper levels are elevated, it can predispose an individual to endometriosis and fibroid tumors, as well as increase the blood supply to other types of tumors. Excess copper can accumulate in the liver and impair its capacity for detoxification, which can result in chemical sensitivities.

I wonder if carnivores can get that?

I know it’s used in make-up a lot, as a colourant too.

Copper is carried in the blood by a specific protein called ceruloplasmin. Some patients have low levels of ceruloplasmin and thus have a large percentage of unbound copper in their blood. Unbound copper causes oxidative stress in the body. Oxidative stress is characterized by the presence of free radicals which interact with molecules in the body, damaging various cell components such as DNA, protein and lipids, and giving rise to various disease states, including autoimmune disorders, neurodegenerative disorders, and cancers, to name a few.

so it’s like poison to men, is what I’m getting

There is commonly an inverse relationship between zinc and copper in the body. Often when a patient has elevated copper, the zinc level is low. Zinc is another mineral essential to cellular function, regulation of the immune system, wound healing, and synthesis of neurotransmitters. An important ingredient in the treatment of copper overload is supplementation with zinc. This must be done very slowly and carefully, because zinc mobilizes copper stores. During this process, a person can initially feel even more anxious and symptomatic. Anti-oxidants are also used in the treatment of copper toxicity, as well as the elements molybdenum and manganese, and amino acids which promote metallothionein production. Metallothionein is another protein which binds heavy metals in the blood, and which is important for regulation of zinc and copper metabolism. It’s important to find a trained practitioner to help you with this process. A good resource is the Practitioner’s Page of the Walsh Research Institute website.

Birth Control: Copper Toxicity & Estrogen Excess

Copper toxicity is a hidden epidemic. Birth control pills and copper IUD’s contribute to excess copper in the body. For thousands of years, copper has been known to be anti-microbial in nature. Copper IUD’s work by releasing small but significant amounts of copper into the uterus. Copper immobilizes sperm as it travels to the fallopian tubes. This copper can and will enter into the blood causing all sorts of problems.

Birth control pills also tend to raise copper levels in the body. High levels of copper destroys vitamin C in the body, can deplete zinc levels, can lower iron, can cause an unusual rise in Vitamin A, and can aggravate B-vitamin metabolism. Birth control pills contain estrogen and progestin, and these powerful hormones in birth control pills turn off a woman’s ovulatory cycle. Estrogen and copper are succinctly related. Copper tends to raise estrogen in the body, and estrogen tends to cause copper to rise. Both copper and estrogen tend to feed one another.

and they give these to MINORS

but smarties have too much sugar.

There are long term consequences of both copper toxicity and excess estrogen. High levels of copper can cause numerous symptoms ranging from migraines, to PMS, chronic fatigue and allergic reactions. Copper is used in the body to produce ceruloplasmin, the major copper carrying protein, which is involved in iron utilization and the formation of hemoglobin.

Excess levels of ceruloplasmin is found among those with OCD, Schizophrenia, Angina, Alzheimer’s, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lymphoma.

Dangers Associated with Estrogen
Copper raises estrogen and vice versa. Estrogen is touted as a therapy for numerous medical conditions such as Osteoporosis, but this mass media hype fails to identify that estrogen is stress-promoting on bones and is age-promoting. Numerous studies have shown that estrogen can produce prolactin and that prolactin can cause osteoporosis.

In short, high estrogen and low progesterone increases bone loss. Osteoarthritis is associated with excess estrogen. It is true that estrogen can cause retention of calcium. But it is now known that high levels of calcium does very little to prevent or improve symptoms of osteoporosis. Osteoporosis is not bone loss, but rather the breakdown of the collagen matrix that holds bone together, a degenerative and catabolic condition which consists of deficiencies of minerals such as boron, magnesium and phosphorous. Only if the miracle estrogen or calcium was the answer to this and other degenerative diseases. They are promoted as such but all that calcium will just end up in the toilet, and all that estrogen will displace other hormones and nutrients, causing further complications.

soil fertility issue

Could also give them cancer
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3579922/

Urban industrialization and lowering IQ?

Might explain midwits – who often work in high-rise office jobs and get worse every year of it.

And wow, open-plan is bad.

Why hasn’t Woodley done a study on this?

It could be one factor behind modern declines discussed in At Our Wits’ End.

TLDW: CO2 levels caused by breathing (in enclosed spaces) and urban environments cause huge drops in cognitive performance. It can cause health problems down the road. Maybe working in an open-plan office with no open windows (too high up) will one day be viewed with the same disdain as coal mines.