Low birth rate caused by birth control, explained

If we’re talking evolution and society, we need to review everything in light of r/K.

Slut shaming was prosocial. Bring back bachelor tax (we already have it in welfare parent tax for non-parents).

More sex than ever, fewer babies. Doesn’t take a genius to work out.

It tends to cull r-types, birth control was designed for married K-types to curb in line with their natural instincts and environmental needs.
“3. People have a very strong, uncomplicated desire to love and care for the children they have.”
K-types only.
It’s impossible to discuss sex without sexual strategy.

And yet people do.

” A strong desire to have sex ensures children are produced with fairly high regularity, because birth control is either non-existent or unreliable. ”
R-types only.
Ks limit their sexuality for monogamy, once pair-bonding has been achieved with a suitable mate. In human terms, after marriage.
Most of the sub-replacement fertility in Europe is due to the low marriage rates. It’s good that people aren’t reproducing out of wedlock.

“The whole idea of it being a contentious question whether you chose to have kids or not is, as far as I can tell, a shockingly recent question. If the only way you could so choose would be to either a) not get laid, or b) rely on methods that require practice, discipline in the heat of coital moment, forward planning and/or health risks, the discussion would be largely moot.”

Still no mention of marriage as related to procreation.
This, from a traditionalist.
People are that decoupled. Thanks, sexual revolution!
Birth control is K-selected, the problem is that it didn’t account for the Revolution that messed with marriage.
If everyone having sex is married, it becomes a matter of family planning.
If anything with marriage goes awry, the r-types win out because the Ks aren’t even hopping the first hurdle of the big white wedding day. Plus they’re limiting.
The man who invented The Pill intended for it to help spouses who wanted to enjoy sex but not bankrupt their pre-existing families. We could also limit birth control to those who’ve already bred like it used to be but that’s too sensible. Chemical BC causes many health problems in women, there’s medical grounds to restrict it.
The Pill as a theory is K-enforcing since it imposes their pattern on the r-types.

Never including IQ as a factor in to who is/should be allowed birth control by the state is also an issue.
Age to a lesser extent. You don’t finish developing until your twenties.

IQ results between the sexes – the problem

I never got around to explaining this scientifically.

TLDR this picture. Understand this picture and you’ve pretty much got the gist.

Aside from sampling bias that it’s mostly men taking the tests.
Ideally, there’d be a vast study controlling for factors of class, education, mental health, anything that affects IQ and THEN, from that data (cross-cultural obviously) a comparison between the sexes.
Historical comparisons don’t work because women couldn’t attend full schooling, and were legally blocked from college.
Random error would be like what you had for breakfast that morning or a bird outside distracting you from the test. Those are confounds. Systemic error is the bias. Bias is a mathematical concept and it’s baked into the method design. That’s why me and everyone else who knows their stuff will read the methodology and critique that in light of the data results.
IQ also rejects many valuable parts of intelligence like grit or EQ (that women score well on), as well as the fact you can be taught it or improve your score, which flies in the face of the premise of IQ as a construct of ‘g’, as natural intellect. While very valuable and predictive of life outcomes, it is only a piece of paper and its greatest value is for academia.
The ‘Muh Male IQ’ crowd never suggest a corroborating test.

What confirmation bias?

“Finally, one of the best things you can do to deal with measurement errors, especially systematic errors, is to use multiple measures of the same construct. Especially if the different measures don’t share the same systematic errors, you will be able to triangulate across the multiple measures and get a more accurate sense of what’s going on.”

Those measures would include crime rates between the sexes, psychiatric suicidality and biological longevity.
On all those metrics, men lose. So much for ‘superior sex’ arguments.

Repost but good:
If you take the evolutionary biologist approach and control for the size of the body, women are actually more intelligent.
If you look at what’s more valuable to the brain, it’s white matter. Women have greater wm volume.
The Gender War is SJW propaganda because it’s anti-natal.
If the men saying ‘no brother wars’ don’t cooperate with women and have no one to breed with, they might as well be Milo.
If men don’t want to cooperate with women, they’re not men. They’re boys rebelling against Mommy. This applies vice versa, there’s a serious issue with someone who can’t grow up and mature into their duties. That’s not to say every man must be drafted or every woman needs to breed, but the sexes must support one another’s efforts while respecting civil liberties because those liberties make civilization.
The sexes are different, neither is superior. We’re supposed to be dimorphic, not androgynous, holding one sex to the standard of another is silly. Limiting them to that standard is also backward. Men can go into the arts, women into the sciences, it doesn’t make them lesser men/women. A pair of twins, one male and one female, are more alike than they ever could be different. The sexes are more alike than the races and if you look at the antagonists on the Gender War, they’re doing it to avoid the topic of a Race War by open competition.

The common ‘difference’ found between the sexes is approximately 3-4 IQ points in the averages. That’s it. That’s also tiny and well within chance based on factors like the aforementioned sampling bias. They’re clutching at straws. The data from meta-analysis (not single studies, which mean nothing in social science) is abused in bad faith too. They use it to claim something no data has ever nor will ever show to avoid their Burden of Proof i.e. they claim women are stupid. If you look at the data on retardation, a totally different question from 100-point moving averages, it’s clearly men that take the gold, especially the ones who claim their own mother, by their own logic, is stupid. Yes. Too stupid to abort.

When it comes to geniuses, these guys are trying to claim they’re Einstein by association.
That is retarded. Claim to be Hercules at least, he was male too. Aim high in your delusion.
They tend to ignore the fact there are also female geniuses, historically and currently. This is too much for their tiny
downstairs brain.
I could apply the sampling bias of the high-IQ tests but it’s common sense at this point, I won’t insult you. If you look at the only use for high-IQ tests, it’s to show off. Men take more of those by default and the types of intelligence included in IQ have a heavy maths bias, which girls excel at before puberty hits us over the head (earlier than boys nowadays) and we lose ground forever since academics are competitive.
Then go on to look at the way and reason these high-IQ studies are conducted – by men in academia, for men in academia. As in, these dicks are testing themselves. I’m sure there’s no way that could possibly be dodgy. Men are over-represented in the STEM tenures of academia, this would suggest they do better in academia. But is someone who needs the state teat truly intelligent?
They never study private sector workers. There’s also a heavy class bias, upper-middle only. Again, is this externally valid?
Does it have external validity?
Look at the front page of Google for this topic.

This comes up. This level is the best they can do.
“By just looking at those figures, it seems to corroborate the conventional wisdom that has been known for decades: the average IQs are about the same and males are a bit more variable.”
Remember variable in stats doesn’t mean wrong, necessarily.

A grand total of two points. Don’t build your spaceships to escape the cooties just yet.
At most, this biased page can find a single paper that claims what?
“In this paper, which looked at adult IQs, a five point higher IQ was found for males over females and the standard
deviations were found to be equal.”
Five. 5% as 5/100 average. 1/20. Mountains out of molehills.
But WAIT! There’s more!
This is intellectually dishonest. It misses out the basic reason for p-values – statistical significance.
Just because you have a number, doesn’t make it relevant.


But girls can’t do maths, right?

Most IQxgender findings are ‘statistically insignificant’, literally. They rarely report this.

As in, they are not scientific and to claim their hypothesis as they claim them is also unscientific.
“Inferential statistics are used to make generalizations from a sample to a population.”
OK, what is the sig. value in psychology, since it’s IQ? Always .05 or 5%. P-hacking to scrape this level is common but results cannot be replicated (called the replicability crisis – or fraud if you’re normal).
“In the behavioral and social and sciences, a general pattern is to use either .05 or .01 as the cutoff. The one chosen is
called the level of significance. If the probability associated with an inferential statistic is equal to or less than .05,
then the result is said to be significant at the .05 level.”

1% is for medical disciplines like neuroscience. They don’t use it in studies for brain differences between the sexes because they can’t meet that standard. Dwell on this fact. They typically have to lower the standard of proof to publish.
Type 1 and 2 errors also come in but that’s why we have meta-analysis (that these so-called high-IQ twerps don’t use, single studies only).
The common anecdotal Muh MENSA is also disingenuous, since, aside from who takes the test (and results should be controlled for that, they aren’t because that reduces the male score) they don’t bother to find out that just because you qualify for MENSA, doesn’t mean you have to join. Mind-boggling, I know. Women don’t signal on this, we don’t go round citing an IQ number.
The iq page with only two studies (please) concludes “Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15” – so age is an unrecognised factor? Another confound! If it’s endogenous to sex i.e. nature, it would apply at all ages!
Look up as many bell curves as you can find.

Notice which is literally higher along the Y, by volume?
Now the typical ‘curve’ they use has super-old data, e.g.

Racially Scottish 11yos in the 1930s. Yes, that is totally relevant to the 21st century and all of time and culture. How will women ever recover?
It doesn’t control for race either, which would further splinter the results.
As a final note on this section, comparisons are silly because the data is normalized i.e. what happens when you grade on a curve.
The raw data is compressed to fit the Gaussian distribution and make 100 still mean 100.

Most of the Flynn effect is scoring modern test-takers too high and comparing them to old test-takers as if the tests were equally difficult. Neither do the tests really compare to one another, even their boundary labels differ. Anything outside the total bell is ~wrong~…

Look at enough curves and you become good at spotting this.

It’s deceitful to claim that just because two lines are not exactly overlapping, that the representative groups are totally distinct. A conflation, a non sequitur and false equivalence, logically.

This type of curve, very common among the intellectually dishonest, is the standard form of representing differences as a hypothetical example in textbooks. Note there is no legend, there is no X-Y bar and not even a title or a dataset given. It’s a hypothetical example to demonstrate statistical differences between demographics in a population. It isn’t serious, note the extreme gradient that no known dataset would imply.

To the men who claim Muh Superior Male IQ

Sorry, no, you can’t sit on your ass playing video games and watching porn and pretend to be better than us.
THAT is a real difference:

But men famously object to being judged off their height – oh, like IQ is nicer???
Looking at the age confound, various known metrics of intelligence (many not included in IQ) DO vary by life stage.

They never look at vice and virtue in reality. Men represent many of the worst attributes of humanity, along with the best, and I think we know which group outnumbers which.

Then again I would say that.

The atheist men linking this stuff never link to anything that makes them look bad.

You can also compare the metric of testosterone balance, 2D:4D, since they mistakenly attribute it to that hormone the ovaries also make (they don’t know this).

I should also point out that the further you go from average, the more impossible it is to measure accurately (so there are no negative IQs even though logically there should be, and the tests tend to peter out around 145-175, anything beyond 180 and especially 200 cannot be measured in IQ).

Immeasurable genius – because it isn’t genius. Those are polymaths and IQ is inapplicable as a norm test.
0.000000021% of the global population. Many people claim to be polymaths but cannot prove it with their actions. Even on current population numbers, it’s unlikely there is a single polymath living in the world today.

7000000000*0.000000021  = 147, assuming all races have equal potential to polymathy, excluding class, education etc etc.

An increasing number of genes are shown to affect IQ and vary by race. I’ve yet to see ONE re the sexes.

Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.

Note: Henri Poincare was better than Einstein.

If we’re treating the less-intelligent like second-class citizens, that’d be mostly male.

Just because it looks scientific doesn’t mean someone, somewhere isn’t fucking with you.

Don’t make your reputation worse with bad statistics.

It isn’t any more scientific than a Venn diagram of people who like cake versus pie.

It’s ironic the dumbasses of the male population are trying to explain their superiority using maths they don’t understand. Further, in all their wisdom, believe women won’t notice, despite higher EQ…

Racial differences accounted for in beauty science [face only]

I have noted the Marquardt mask before and the frequent misconceptions about it. I glossed over one valid criticism because I couldn’t find the data on hand at the time and didn’t want to say ‘just trust me’. #dodgyAF
I’m not going to insult anyone because that’s for people who lack empirical proof. I never met someone who chose to be ugly and we cannot help what we are born.

I’m not going to make cross-comparisons because that would be mean and likely biased to certain ascribed values.
Instead, this is how they vary by pure mathematics from the universal template for the human species.

There are only female masks and examples here and I do admit there needs to be equal research on male beauty.
Please, believe I want this as much as the next woman.

Here are the European, Asian and African variations.

Try to claim ‘cultural standards’ now, chewing on humble pie.

European example, frontal/anterior view.

Description given, italics mine because ‘slightly’ on this scale is huge: “EUROPEAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Slightly vertically thin upper and lower lips Flat eyebrow (very little arch) Slightly wider nose Lateral border of the face slightly wider than the Mask Possible: Narrow eyes, longer vertical chin, longer nose.”
For example comparison, here’s the Asian prototype. A blind man could feel the difference. Yellow fever is creepier than White fever because Asian women resemble children, with faces most like babies (see, bust size, band size is fairly objective) whereas European women tend to resemble teenagers.

Description given, italics mine: “ASIAN VARIATION FROM RF MASK Medial epicanthic fold Lateral epicanthic fold Lateral border of the face significantly wider than the Mask Eye brows slightly superior to that of the Mask with shorter tails Slightly wider nose and nostrils (nasal ala and nares extend laterally) Superiorly positioned nasal columella creating a longer upper lip.”

Note: there are differences and the legal contrivance of a portmanteau ‘Caucasian’ is a myth based on geography (see the MRH), there is as much distinctiveness as between, say, European and African. As with all Asians, if you split by the demographic of sex as well, there would be greatly reduced sexual dimorphism (the men and women look more alike than Europeans by the same token comparison). This explains the great lengths the cultures go to, to distinguish themselves (makeup and what I and others consider fake femininity).

Further note: nobody meets the universal human standard. Nobody. This isn’t a point of so-called white supremacy, but white raced-women tend to conform to more of it on average, by chance.

Bear in mind, facial beauty is a reliable indicator of Darwinian fitness (see The Mating Mind) and positively, quite strongly correlates to IQ. That’s right – hot people are smarter too. The smart thing to do in an age that despises intelligence is to hide it.

Why don’t I make more scholarly posts?

1. The data isn’t collected to parse. 2. The data is suppressed (publication bias, left in the metaphorical drawer). 3. It’s behind a paywall or similarly hidden from sharing, meaning you’d have to trust my word and discussion, being less reliable and a general waste of everyone’s time. 4. These posts are literally my least popular but the most true. C’est la vie, mon amis.

What am I forced to do? Post gifs for every occasion and go under-appreciated.


The evolution of facial beauty, including the lips

They always study women for these things in general, it’s dumb.

Beauty is not sexy, sexy is not beauty. Sexy is Hollywood culture and porn, but I repeat myself. Beauty is sexual dimorphism (extremes into their own sex, not a cross-breed), fertility and evolution. ‘Male beauty’ standards would wound too many egos. At least they can go to the gym for below the neck stuff, and you’ve seen the butthurt on height when it’s linked to healthier babies from superior childhood nutrition and hormone balance, as well as genetics.

Many factors here.



There is a hard limit on lip thickness based on the vermillion border and African lips need a masculine high-T jawline to hold the structure’s area size and weight, which neutralises the ‘gain’. They signal sexual maturity of the other lips, that is all. Jolie inherited hers from her father, and this is more common than via the mother, so it isn’t actually specific to women but men (like better nails and eyelashes, it’s unusual in women). A little plumper than her childhood ratio is an individual cue to fertility, not the supernormal exaggeration of cosmetic filler.

Women with a larger mouth require more filler to achieve the same fullness.

African lips also age terribly and sun burn worse. The wrinkles are aging and with tissue loss (aging), sagginess kicks in really quick (pillow lips, stretched natural skin container for artificial material).

Evolutionally, anyone who survived the Ice Age couldn’t lose more moisture than was absolutely necessary. As a mucous membrane, the lips require harsh upkeep and lose a lot of water as well as heat, to keep warm.

A small selection pressure.


This is the FEMME Marquardt beauty mask you never actually see, because they don’t use it.
The androgynous morphed male-female one is commonly used all over the place to brainwash us.
On the right is the same face by mathematics, with the angles smoothed into a skin-like surface using the neutral colour grey, as artistic midtone. THAT is the most objective female beauty standard.

Look at the area covered by that mouth. It’s a rosebud mouth, tiny BUT ALSO full.
Taut and youthful, but sexy, and not sagging.

Area covered is genetic, based on the width of the mouth opening, fullness by side profile is hormonal. Note the pronounced Cupid’s bow.

Science doesn’t give a fuck about your feelings.

Examples from Old Hollywood






Maximum area for beauty

Virtue Signals in painful detail and the 1%


“Regardless of why and how virtue signals acquired their prestige, it is worth acknowledging the end result up front. First, simply as a matter of mental discipline: most right-wingers who are considering counter-signaling understand that a counter-signal makes them literally Hitler, but are surprised by the amount of uninhibited (and apparently genuine) class-hatred they will receive. Because the contempt comes as a surprise, it can be disconcerting and demoralizing. Being mentally prepared for it helps. If your social status is a sore point in real life, knowing that leftists treat everyone this way can help you stay detached. If you find the contempt stinging because you’ve never experienced anything like it, treat it as research into how leftists actually feel about the underclass they pretend to adore.”

They think of poor people as pets.

“But conversely, understanding how much political posturing in normal life is motivated by apolitical status-seeking, you can tailor your rhetoric much more effectively. When people virtue signal: play dumb, mock them, or pretend to find “problematic” attitudes (racist? patronizing? cis-centric?) in their virtue signals. Even explicitly praising a virtue signaler’s level of education (use the word “articulate”!) will discomfit him: blatant virtue signals are still virtue signals, but blatant status signals are tacky. The need to signal one’s status betokens low status, so a signal must be subtle and understated to communicate high status.”

Give them a disgust expression from the corner of your eye, immediately hide it then change the subject.

As if they’d told you they use hookers, at a children’s nursery group.

If you make them feel awkward, they stop.
That’s the secret emotional trigger you need.

“If would-be virtue signalers discover that whenever they try to signal their status only drops, they will get frustrated with signaling games, lose interest, and start to resent people whose virtue signals are more elaborate and earnest.”

Already happening, attacking other left-wingers for making them look bad, itself a signal.
No True Lefty, SJWier than thou.

See: Why mockery?
Well, it got me Brexit and Trump in the White House.
If only Farage for PM, maybe coalition.

Champagne, holidays, festivals.
Things only rich people buy and in bulk.
Nothing that affects the poor or even the majority of the middle-class.
Instant vote-winner, since you can drop their taxes as futile.
The 1% is almost half-Jewish, any attacks will be called anti-Semitic.

comment “Stop taxing people’s labour, investment and accomplishments.”

That’s the point of taxing the right things.