Human history was polyandry

Most women got their top choice. If a woman has her pick of the men, that’s polyandry.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool

So, sure, genetically polygamy has a long history… most men would hate that system though.

But eggs (and the carrier) are expensive, sperm is worthless.

SEXUAL SELECTION IS EUGENIC.

That is not a bad thing. Selecting out the weak are the ones whose offspring wouldn’t have survived long anyway. Humanity would’ve died out if they didn’t choose the healthy and civilized.

By low IQ alone, a sizable number of men should be rejected.

Insufficient men existed genetically for so-called hypergamy, a marriage detail of the 20th century where rich men preferred beauty in women (regardless of background, given the finite supply in their own class, they had to marry down) which has NOT continued into this one (aka not how evolution works). The social phenomena of hypergamy is why male sexual selection fails, it’s dysgenic, they fuck down and over generations, ruin their bloodline because they don’t have any decent standards (dating studies reinforce this). They prefer a pair of marginally nicer tits over quality descendants (see IQ/class studies, regression to the mean) who actually continue to breed (so their investment was not wasted).

To this day, white women are least likely to miscegenate, and yet men, knowing the ruin that follows, are somehow more open (sexually desperate) to the prospect. This is why women are the prudent, selecting sex, the peahens assessing the tail feathers. It’s the only system that works intergenerationally.

Monogamy is still the best course in my opinion (or look at the Third Worlds with too many men and not enough war falling into sewer-exploding chaos), the way humans have evolved in civilization (not like other primates) and it’s definitely the best course for men.

You know, mathematically.

Men save time picking a good woman, impressing a vast sample size of ONE and then mate guarding. Their instincts arise from ancestors’ success with this. Parental attachment becomes secure and that leads to stable child development e.g. later menarche, and then improves odds of grandchildren, etc… etc.

[Being a sterile manwhore means nothing in evolution.]

This isn’t about man feelings, thank you. It’s as impersonal as genetics.

From here on out, no normie filter.

You have been warned.

Much is written by foolish men on the longer technical male fertility window, omitting quality studies, but what they fail to notice is how the vast majority of men would’ve been dead by middle age (mid-30s) thanks to rites of passage, crime, war and disease. The best quality men had to be rewarded for surviving somehow.

They bring up wolf packs (one, monogamous alpha pair) and lion prides (most males are dead) without the slightest glimmer of self-awareness.

EVOLUTION IS A HIERARCHY, IDJITS.

The cuck thing intrigued women because it seemed like quality men were getting their act together by refusing to support the weak ones any longer, letting the entitled leeches of society e.g. deadbeats, shrivel up without the taxpayer teat. It’s more a promise. Why did women vote for Trump? ACTION.

Hillary wanted to import weak, cowardly men to flood their already swelling domestic angry ranks of would-be rapists and murderers.

Women didn’t vote for her. Shocker.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/americas-stop-hitting-yourself/

“If I hated American men and wanted their legacy to die out, I’d convince them women are like the Jewish Lilith and never to marry or have kids (both of which extend male lifespan and joy).”

Anyone who falls for it deserves to die out.

Women didn’t talk about #killallmen because, well, we kill most of them by genetic suicide anyway. What’s there to say?

Why was this such a huge hit? Listen.

He didn’t think she was good enough, so she rejects him. Now he’s alone.

She wanted to invest, he didn’t. Now he can’t find equivalent offers.

What was she supposed to do, sit around and pine while her ovaries dried up? He had at least three years! That’s three decades in ovary time! Shit or get off the pot, man.

It’s like passing up on a Ferrari because it’s the wrong colour. Men are not passive.

[Also why fronting and negging do not work. Sir, there is a LINE. Please move over so the next guy can talk. You see this in clubs.]

Men get confused since women have options – it’s like offering BBQ to a vegan or a Prius to a Trump supporter, we don’t want those options.

We’d rather have NOTHING.

What’s worse for men – there’s no such thing as “alpha” or there is, and you aren’t one?

So why don’t women talk about it?

We do, you don’t hear it.

At no point did Jesus say “and thus every man is entitled to a waifu” but a lot of men heard it.

The perfect woman of proverbs 31 wears purple silks to make her husband look good but they point to the vain line in another section about pearl braids their husband can’t afford. The problem there isn’t jewelry and fashion, it’s keeping up with the Joneses instead of being a good wife. If you can be a good wife first, roll on the pearls.

Even under so-called polygyny, the women get to choose to marry – the best man, rejecting N-1 of males.

Again, basic maths.

However, this was in there:

I’m sure they forgot.

To be friendzoned, you must actually be friends.

Most people are acquaintances.

Hey guys, I am very smart for saying this but – water is wet?

Why are misogynists so common and misandrists so rare?

To this day, I haven’t seen a misandrist go on a murder spree.

Thousands of years and counting. They have cause, look at crime stats.

What are they doing in revenge? You don’t see a future together? Funny, so does she.

Imagine if women sent an influx of vag pics to Milo. It looks like an audition.

Why do we ‘slut shame’? Fine, I’ll humour you. They don’t choose good men, allow bad behaviour that inconveniences everyone and add shit to the gene pool. Nobody wants shit in their pool.

You let the men think they run everything while killing off the ones who disrespect you.

And that’s why you are here.

The top segment of men support this, by the way, roll on Patriarchy, time of oddly fatal male labour? Abortion only for rape babies? Lots and lots of ground war? Why did Marx point out class war as crushing men? Men are their own worst enemy.

Try to deny it to yourself with each passing year. Women win, just accept it and maybe you can share in it.

Why do “male feminists” turn out to be secretly misogynist the whole time?
Why do they have a reputation for rejection?

This is why weaker men wanted to prevent women from deciding for themselves who to marry.

Evolution is brutal and cannot abide weakness. Mother Nature.

Your ancestors were the least misogynistic of the bunch, it’s selective breeding like domesticating dogs. And you think, to keep women in line and producing for society, being the exception will help you? Ask Elliot how that went. Product of hypergamy Elliot. Angry, mongrel Elliot, who blamed women instead of his father who didn’t want a white son. Cannon fodder in saner times. Not heir material. Why did he preferentially stab Asian males?

Misogynists hate women – but they hate men even more. Most psychopaths are misogynists, most psychopaths are men, most homicide victims are….. ?

Did ya guess? It’s men. If only there were a clever way for nature to resolve this problem. To produce a… civilization?

They don’t become crazy because they’re bachelors, they are bachelors because they are crazy.

If women are crazy, why want them?

As mentioned here and elsewhere, misogyny is a known trait of the inferior male.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/07/24/link-inferiority-the-opposite-of-genius/

Good men don’t despise femininity. Rich people don’t hate the banks.

If you had to choose a man to invest in, would you choose a protector or abuser?

Good men use the death penalty to remove the scum from the gene pool, women use passivity with not a drop of blood spilled and each generation progressively more peaceful. Until the weak men imported more dregs out of spite. What do they salivate over? Men being killed in terror attacks, no valor and women being raped, no choice.

That is the omega.

Omega females want pretty women to have ugly, stupid or mud babies. You can’t be out-competed by a better bloodline that doesn’t exist. Again, spite is evil. Wrath is a deadly sin.

That picture needs two fewer dogs and two more children. Ban pets and the white birth rate would skyrocket.

Remember, Muslims hate dogs? Pattern recognition is a skill.

Why in times of war do women say of men in praise “he was a good man, he didn’t deserve to die”, what does that imply?

Comic: shit rapists say

Sorry, is this shitposty enough? They really don’t deserve better.

Ironically, these are the same guys to bitch about prison rape (prison full of people exactly like themselves). Because women/children/rarely men have no rights when it conflicts with their lust and sense of entitlement, but God forbid someone wolf whistle snowflake in prison, he demands social justice!

If anything, the Devil supports free choice – free of conscience.

It makes you wonder, were the Devil like a person, how much he hates humanity?

Why else try to trick these scumbags into deserving heaped punishment?

That would logically explain why a Godhead was fine with it.

It’s just bringing out more of what’s already there, the blackness of their evil heart. Blaming the Devil is like an American blaming McDonald’s. Dude, just don’t go!

When I’m standing in a bakery and really hungry, I can’t steal the food no matter how much my body’s instincts scream at me. Crimes have a mens rea. Guilty mind, intent, it isn’t spiritual or physical. People miss that fact because they distract from it. These perverts try to play “Real Victim Here” when, if being themselves were such a torment, they’d commit suicide (logically). They have the lowest risk of suicide of many pathological groups, because they compulsively lie (obviously) and inhumanely enjoy their sexual predation like a lion biting into a juicy gazelle. This is difficult for good people to wrap their head around. They enjoy ruin, including their eventual own (idiots self sabotage). They dig their own grave, call it “insanity” (they’re not) or sin, the result remains.

It isn’t an excuse. If anything, far from meriting compassion like a full human being, they merit lead and a shallow grave because we put all other predators down except for the most deadly – human on human predators with provably subhuman brains. Or hell, if we’re going to think Joker style about this, give them to the necrophile rapists, that’d be a plot twist. They don’t believe in dignity, after all. They don’t think they have a soul so it’s just a clump of cells left behind, whether worms or technical humans enjoy it shouldn’t matter.

Man has caused most of his problems by ignoring or preventing natural law. Most law is in the punishments and they fit the crimes. By keeping various people around and worse, encouraging them (you can’t rehab someone if it’s what they are) then they increase the world’s suffering according to utilitarianism and the “helpers” become enablers also responsible for the crimes committed (part of pathological altruism in a clinical context).

When therapists and lawyers are held personally (partially) responsible for the criminals they helped free to re-offend, that’s justice.

If they released a non-human predator, we wouldn’t get so soft. Violent criminals are not children. Infantilizing them is enabling horrors.

They didn’t know? some cuck will claim. Really? It was their job to know, they took the job, they took the money, they looked at the facts. Case closed. They claimed a lie, in court, that criminal X was safe. At minimum perjury and medical negligence to society. They lied to a jury and a judge. To get more money. Isn’t that… aiding and abetting? Bribery?

Sexual selection does not include rape in humans, hence the “selection” part. Even birds choose their mates, bird brain is an insult (unfair but still). Rapists like Genghis Khan are not, in fact, successful in the Darwinian sense. He was an r-type. Fitness is qualitative (K-select attribute), not quantitative (N descendants) and over sufficient generations the material of one rapist would be diluted out or dead (inherited high time preference trait is recklessness), which is far less of a genetic “gain” to count than the murders (of men! creepy fans of his) that allowed him to continue his rampage for so long (including deaths of his kin in his own army). Khan was the ultimate deadbeat abuser. What’s to admire? That isn’t civilized, it’s a savage. Savages are unfit and if you read Darwin this comes through clearly. He discusses sexual selection in the context of society’s formation and fitness and the struggle for life and peace and what we consider the long, painful process of civilization (e.g. sanitation, humans prefer one another not smeared in shit). Rapist genes are useless (incompetent individuals who, by definition, need to steal/parasite from others) and in fact harmful to a group (hence there’s such a thing as incestuous rape, they aren’t even “good” for close kin). Inferior genes do exist (selfishness is a hallmark of the unfit) and a desperate man is no man at all. Unfit genes are culled and this is good, this is what evolution is all about. Whether it’s the vain guy who wants to focus on his career and the gym or the rapist who gives women “the creeps” so they don’t want even more vulnerable kids with it, those genes don’t serve any human society, current or future, they should be allowed to go gently into that good night. Rapists only desire to reproduce for three reasons: 1. control of the victim/mother including financial leeching, 2. vanity/children as status symbol (like welfare queens) despite abuse of the child (they see it as an object that should be grateful they let it live, God complex feeds into this point) and 3. all the benefit of children who will probably try to love them and feel like taking care of them when they’re old and none of the investment (deadbeats should be abandoned in turn, they come back to the kids classically when they ‘need’ a kidney). Such dependence and parasitism (and on the innocent too) is low and disgusting. Loyalty is a two-way street. Loyalty evolved (reciprocity, pair bonds) to merit compassion, they are owed nothing but society’s shaming. [Shame works on the narcissist better than anyone else.]

(Note: Deadbeat mothers should also be abandoned, the logic applies to all of the predatory leeches).

Children owe their parents in as much as they acted like parents. It’s a job. 

Yet you’ll see them try to twist “honour thy mother and thy father” despite being atheists.

https://www.biblehub.com/2_corinthians/6-14.htm There is no fellowship. There is no obligation to a cheat in any game with rules.

Those are roles. You don’t magically become a parent at conception or birth, like modern simpletons claim, it’s really an IOU on years of upbringing. It’s a contract more than a title.

Deadbeats are like an employer who expects you to work but refuses to pay you. That has a name.

You know what is evolution, though? Natural selection. As in, murdering rapists and pedophiles to prevent the genes worming into future court cases, it’s good for the fitness of the group/tribe. They never “get” to that part. The Victorian society was so incredibly prosperous in the latter period directly BECAUSE it kept hanging for various crimes in the early period. A genetic cull preludes prosperity (dating back to the K/T extinction event allowing humans to best dinosaurs and later, the Ice Age giving Europeans* a massive edge at a unique latitude, an event Inuits missed with later migration Northbound), it’s a fact of history that some death allows worthier life to flourish whether the cause is a proportionate penal code with its act together, war with a vast drafting policy or fatal disease that picks on and exploits various human flaws e.g. promiscuity, by EVOLUTION. It’s the same with American prosperity, they hanged a bunch of criminals, were tough on crime (just?) for many decades and then magically, there was a long time where crime rates were pitiful, as if the problem stopped breeding. [Think rabbit farms but rabbits with rabies.] These are not human problems, it’s mathematical. There are forces that allow flourishing (fitness is the result) and those that regress society by depressing the flourishing forces (worst of all punishing those instead). Society is not obligated to keep those groups who endeavor to destroy it on an individual level. The Bible clearly doesn’t include punishment of violent crime as killing of 10 commandment fame because sometimes only death (let God sort them out alludes to killing, America) can prevent more death and trauma i.e. not killing your enemy means war eternally. It’s a binary choice of bad now or worse later.

Abortion of future criminals (I trust you can look up the stats) has prevented far more cruel murders. Would it be better to prevent conception or earlier in the chain of events, fornication? Of course but the fact remains, there are calculations. Human life does have a price – and a cost.

Keeping one human alive can incur a greater cost to humanity than any self-congratulation (sin of pride and playing God) at “sparing” their life (like you have the power or the wisdom to know what’s right). Such do-gooders are the most un-Christian people you’ll ever meet.

Suffering is not a wishy-washy thing. It’s quantifiable. 

If we slot them into r/K (as an extreme, tbf) then you’d be hard-pressed to miss how r-types have a high fertility rate (consensual reproduction or not) simply to compensate for their extraordinarily high death rate (this is true across species). To accept the sexual fact of the matter (ignoring the proof on parental investment requirements for fitness) then ignore the fatality side of the literal life/death equation goes to show these psychopaths are low IQ.

Most of them are many, many SD below the likes of Bundy**, who was probably killing for a cult (look at his background). Rape-murder is a cliche case because it’s the epitome of misogynistic rage (think Jack the Ripper) and the epitome of unfit (no baby if they’re dead and it prevents other members of society from survival too, like genetic civil war).

Basically, rapists are enacting a kind of civil war on the genetics of the society dumb enough to host them, whether it be with murders, causing infertility (trauma can or various STDs they pass) or their inferior weakling genetics eventually leading to the death of the better genome they forcibly combined with. They’re the lamprey on the good genes (measured in fitness) of their victims. Pictured:

Society is the victim, especially at a group level (genetics, gene pool). Society is the biggest consensual structure going. This is why the legal system is mostly imposing its values via punishments. When losers have nothing, society has everything. Justice does not mean everyone gets a cookie.

If they dehumanize their rape victims, society owes them no humanization (let alone privileged treatment) themselves. Sexual impulses led to the modern creation of cheap satisfaction toys and there’s always their hands. There is no excuse. Evolutionary arguments would actually call for their hanging or castration because Social Darwinism. For the good of the collective genome.

If nobody wants something, it’s defective.

*A Troublesome Inheritance goes into it.

**Do not suffer a male witch to live either.

For the point about selfishness, in the clearest context we call it cowardice.

Selfish people don’t just stop one day. It escalates like psychopathy, rape and murder.

Considering this –

Homework, think about this: is killing a rapist (child or other) worse than rape?

Society will be buzzing about that question after the next decade’s events.

Link between mental health and ….bad health

The types of “health” are related, really? Shook over here.

If only there were a physical connection we could see like some kind of fleshy vehicle of testable units, a body of some description. No, we’re floating blobs of consciousness in a cloud of feels, aren’t we?

Mutation (genetic) load is true, at least somewhat but who dares to directly study it? Instead we are left with related variables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048500/

The lifespan of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter compared to the general population. This excess mortality is mainly due to physical illness. We report prevalence rates of different physical illnesses as well as important individual lifestyle choices, side effects of psychotropic treatment and disparities in health care access, utilization and provision that contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.”

Detailed.

“Nutritional and metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, viral diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy complications, stomatognathic diseases, and possibly obesity-related cancers are, compared to the general population, more prevalent among people with SMI.”

People with mental problems can’t take care of themselves, really?

Not to be harsh but, is this news?
I searched, not one mention of fitness.

Ability to reproduce (here it would be impotence for age in the male) and carry (childbearing without issue for age, the female) is a significant component of it (organism fitness, for the nerds at home).

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html

“struggle for existence”, he repeated in description
the vindicated theme for this post

“Besides modifiable lifestyle factors and side effects of psychotropic medications, access to and quality of health care remains to be improved for individuals with SMI.”

#sigh

Enough of that for now.

And they’re exponentially more expensive.
https://www.healthcatalyst.com/understanding-risk-stratification-comorbidities/
I dislike this fact but…. the information is out there. We can’t help by lying.

There isn’t just one thing causing the “mental” disease and another separate thing causing the “bodily” disease.
It’s all genetic! At least, moderately genetic.
And remember I said exponential risk of suck?

“Charlson Comorbidity Measure: The Charlson model predicts the risk of one-year mortality for patients with a range of comorbid illnesses. Based on administrative data, the model uses the presence/absence of 17 comorbidity definitions and assigns patients a score from one to 20, with 20 being the more complex patients with multiple comorbid conditions. It is effective for predicting future poor outcomes. This method is explained in further detail below”

You cannot fight math. You will lose.

#struggle4life

poor outcomes = death, more or less

This is tough to read like the IQ link. I wouldn’t blame you skipping all this. You cannot unsee it.

“One thing all of these models have in common is that they are based, in some degree, on comorbidity. Understanding comorbid conditions is a critical aspect of population health management because comorbidities are known to significantly increase risk and cost. In fact, a study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports that care for patients with comorbid chronic conditions costs up to seven times as much as care for those with only one chronic condition.”

Twice the condition can be seven times the cost. I’ll leave you to think about that.
Is this systemic injustice?
No!
The body is complex, various conditions interact with one another. Not killing the patient by accident due to Condition B to treat Condition A needs time and more research and more money!

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html

“Expenditures and gaps in health care delivery are not evenly distributed across the population, however. To improve health care quality and reduce costs, policy-makers must focus on particular subgroups who are at greatest risk. Persons with mental health and medical comorbidities represent just such a population.”
“The pathways causing comorbidity of mental and medical disorders are complex and bidirectional.

What I said.

Medical disorders may lead to mental disorders, mental conditions may place a person at risk for certain medical disorders, and mental and medical disorders may share risk factors

Yup.

It’s all healthcare, people!

ALL OF IT.

For instance, low IQ can also ’cause’ someone to more likely get heart disease.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heart-intelligence/low-intelligence-among-top-heart-health-risks-study-idUSTRE61903L20100210

Here’s a clunker of a line.

“When mental and medical conditions co-occur, the combination is associated with elevated symptom burden, functional impairment, decreased length and quality of life, and increased health care costs.”

This upsets me. Just world is a fallacy.

Bear in mind the IQ/depression link in the last post:

“At the same time, major depression is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.”

If the economy is making people of a certain IQ band effectively useless, they’re going to be depressed.
Especially if “their” jobs owed by their home country are outsourced to visa people.

“Exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as trauma, abuse, and chronic stress are all associated with both mental and medical disorders, and responsible for much of the high rates of comorbidity, burden of illness, and premature death associated with chronic illness.”

It’s sad. It’s sad to read about. That is a harrowing existence.

But stress shouldn’t be lumped in with trauma and abuse.

“Many of the most common treatments for diseases may actually worsen the comorbid condition.”

You tell me where the solution is because I don’t see it.

A society of hospital patients (don’t forget aging demographics).

Over to Oz.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-men
Mental disorders were more common among people with chronic physical conditions (28.0%) when compared to people who did not have a chronic physical condition (17.6%).
The data is usually out there. Tough to find but present.

Another!
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh40/109-117.pdf

This article briefly reviews the associations
among alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dysregulation of the brain’s and
body’s stress system (i.e., the limbic–hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenal axis) might serve as a common mechanistic
link to explain some of the relationships among these
frequently comorbid conditions. Finally, the article examines
the role of sex differences in stress circuitry. These differences
may explain why men and women differ in their risk for
developing comorbid alcoholism and stress ­related disorders.”

Addictions play into it too, because of course they do.

And you can’t really blame sexism for an individual’s brain circuitry.

Let’s look at one more substance and how it alters development (i.e. when children/teens/young adults use it).

An interaction of marijuana and low IQ they won’t study so here’s something odd.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/correlation/2017-aas.pdf
“Psychotic patients who used cannabis frequently before illness onset have higher genetic predisposition to schizophrenia than those who did not”
“Our study supports an association between high SZ-PGRS and frequent cannabis use before illness onset
in psychosis continuum disorders.”

Before someone points to this classic arse-covering exercise,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens
I linked because you wanted info on school shooters and pot use is a major factor.
Naturally the drug use wouldn’t change IQ because the IQ is the causative factor in having a childhood addiction problem.
However the study compares ongoing users to abstaining, not ongoing addicts to a twin who never did the stuff, there is no control group, making this link pointless so don’t try to send me it. I’ve seen it.

When the brain is developing, there is a permanent loss of functioning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/10/new-study-shows-smoking-pot-permanently-lowers-iq/

And abnormal function. Like with any drug to any developing organ.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

For the ‘self-medication’ lie:
“The use of marijuana did not correct the brain function deficits of depression, and in some regions made them worse.”

“Of additional interest, those participants who used marijuana from a young age had highly abnormal brain function in areas related to visuo-spatial processing, memory, self-referential activity and reward processing.”
No, they cannot perceive themselves accurately.

This whole drug study in children (<25) thing is like breaking someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat and wondering why they can’t sprint. You wouldn’t give them alcohol and tobacco, why give them anything else that’s an addictive drug and think it’s fine? Why not nice and “natural” opioids next?

[ I googled this as a joke and fuck you, America.
nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html
axialhealthcare.com/opioid-use-safety-children/
druggy parent trash pushing it on the kids? That’s low. ]

Why not the ankles too? Why not?

I firmly believe some of these kids have the misfortune that their parents are their worst enemy in life.

Anyway.

“The study found that early marijuana use was also associated with lower IQ scores.”

Associated. Which first? The lower IQ or child drug abuse?

“With past research suggesting a genetic role between marijuana use and depression, Dr. Osuch and her collaborators at Western University’s Robarts Research Institute also conducted genetic testing on participants. They discovered that a certain genetic variation of the gene that produces Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) was found in greater proportion in youth who used marijuana from an early age. BDNF is involved in brain development and memory, among other processes.

Could be a race-based finding, unclear.

“This is a novel finding that suggests this genetic variation may predispose youth to early marijuana use,” said Dr. Osuch.”

So how many of you heard about it in the MSM?

Funny how they trust none of the political news but all the scientism rationalizing living like a CA Democrat member.

It doesn’t have to be good universally for you to do it, like smoking tobacco, just admit it can be bad for society and move on. Denial of biology makes it more annoying and a full ban more likely. Shaming normal people for being “squares” is what all druggies do including alcoholics.

Why link that here?

What would drug use increase, in the organism? Mutation rate. The genetic load (whatever it was) becomes heavier. So to do that before reproducing, knowing the adverse effects, the child/ren will be worse off as well. So much for “doing no harm” and “victimless crime”. Eventually parents will be sued by their children for bad lifestyle habits that damaged their personal genome (and their children’s genome etc). It’s coming.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/15/lawyers_unaware_children_can_sue_parents_for_support.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/adult-children-sue-mom-bad-parent/story?id=14407409

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-haired-teen-sues-his-parents-for-2m-for-being-born-ginger/

I warned you, cannot unsee it.

Low IQ a mental health risk

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/

Read it and fucking weep.

If you understand it, you’ll want to.

Researchers have hypothesized that people with lower IQs may have a higher risk of adult mental disorders,

less ability to thrive in the world leads to depression, really?

but few studies have looked at the relationship between low childhood IQ and psychiatric disorders later in life. In a new, long-term study covering more than three decades, researchers at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)

sorry is three decades by Harvard not good enough for some of you?

while you’re playing the Devil’s fiddle of appeal to authority?

“Well, this wasn’t in the Guardian” YEAH.

No prizes for guessing why.

found that children with lower IQs showed an increased risk of developing psychiatric disorders as adults, including schizophrenia, depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

but not limited to

Lower IQ was also associated with psychiatric disorders that were more persistent and an increased risk of having two or more diagnoses at age 32.

Wow the asylum special? Next post about that, regular hospitals are fast becoming the new asylum.

Because “stigma” is a great excuse to endanger regular populations.

The study will be published online December 1, 2008 and in the January print issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry.

The study participants were members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a cohort of children born in 1972-1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. At the initial assessment at age 3, the study had 1,037 children. The participants were also interviewed and tested on their overall health and behavior at ages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26 and at age 32, when 96% of the original cohort participated. IQs were assessed at ages 7, 9 and 11. Psychiatric disorders were assessed at ages 18 through 32 in interviews by clinicians who had no knowledge of the subjects’ IQ or psychiatric history.

blind

The authors used IQ as a marker of a concept called cognitive reserve, which refers to variation between people in their brain’s resilience to neuropathological damage.

Darwin just called it fitness but okay. Ignore evolution.

Or it could be the inverse genetic measure genetic load, where less is best.

The results showed that lower childhood IQ predicted an increased risk of a variety of adult mental disorders.

Imagine my shock.

“Lower childhood IQ predicted increased risk of schizophrenia, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Individuals with lower childhood IQ also had more persistent depression and anxiety and were more likely to be diagnosed with two or more disorders in adulthood,” said lead author Karestan Koenen, assistant professor of society, human development, and health at HSPH.

Next post will focus on comorbids.

It’s ironically depressing reading.

No association was found between lower childhood IQ and substance dependence disorders, simple phobia, panic disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Sounds dodgy but okay.

The mechanism through which lower childhood IQ might lead to increased risk of adult anxiety disorders is not known,

that is a lie

the world doesn’t need low IQ labor anymore, especially in the First World

but the authors suggest some possible explanations.

Step 1. give them more money?

They write that lower childhood IQ might reveal a difference in brain health that makes an individual more vulnerable to certain mental disorders. Another possible mechanism is stress–individuals with lower childhood IQs are less equipped to deal with complex challenges of modern daily life, which may make them more vulnerable to developing mental disorders.

I won’t even.

The findings may be helpful in treating individuals with mental health disorders.

Hang on, if it’s implicitly caused by low IQ, it cannot be fixed.

Ever.

It’s their parents’ fault (median IQ of the genetic parents, all else equal).

Why blame the kid?

“Lower childhood IQ was associated with greater severity of mental disorders including persistence over time and having two or more diagnoses at age 32,” said Koenen.

32 is young, they haven’t even hit middle-age yet when conditions skyrocket.

Deep breath.

“Since individuals with persistent and multiple mental disorders are more likely to seek services, cognitive ability may be an important factor for clinicians to consider in treatment planning.

REALLY.

This is why IQ denialism is toxic. It isn’t everything but hey, it’s something!

When you’re planning about people, plural, it’s important!

For example, individuals with lower cognitive ability may find it harder to follow instructions and comply with treatment regimens.

How low are we talking?

By taking clients’ cognitive ability into account, clinicians may improve treatment outcome,” she said.

The results may also be helpful in prevention planning. “Educators and pediatricians should be aware that children with lower cognitive ability may be at greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders. Early detection and intervention aimed at ameliorating mental health problems in these children may prevent these problems from carrying over into adulthood,” said Koenen.

No no no, no no no and…. no.

I’m ragequitting this post and writing the next, I tried.

Our NHS

“Random but I wonder if a Roe v Wade repeal would include the Pill abortifacient? Biologically, it must. It’s a chronic Morning After pill, another chemical abortion. Both are given to minors, more grounds.”

I’ve had NHS staff imply that (me) having kids would be bad. To my face.

When I say imply I mean not really imply, more like tell. Me. To. My. Face.

The white woman with a black man sitting next to me, however, was encouraged to have more, lots more.

I look stupid so I get a lot of these stories. Mostly it’s a glossed-over sarcastic expression.
Their let kept staring at me for ages too, like, sorry I’m infinitely more attractive than your parents, kid.

Over an hour of near-constant staring, closer to two. Yes, I was the most attractive woman in the room by far, the slim pickings of the waiting room full of women was not my fault but still. They didn’t even turn the kid around, no manners either. It was really bloody creepy.

It was stupid too, completely unresponsive to facial expressions.

I’d like to see a study on whether the maternal outcomes or quality of care differs based on race receiving the care or type of couple, I’ve seen that it does in other instances.

inb4 no there was NO medical reason, and I was noticeably younger than her

that waiting room had an average of four, I’m not bragging

I’m thinking NHS pensions would be bad…. the ghosts of fetuses past can pay for them.

You only deserve a pension if you did your job. Worst part is I wasn’t even there about kids.

I sat down in a waiting room, that was my crime.

Memoryholed IQ science

To be completely balanced, it also explains why there are so many male accidents, suicides/criminals, low-wage workers and bachelors who can’t find any woman to marry them, any at all. There are simply more male failures (and those things are outcomes, symptoms of the cause) in the general population due to the erratic nature of their brains.

https://vdare.com/posts/beria-s-razorblade-applied-to-science-paper

Nobody ever mentions that half of the data because the men reading it are midwits with only slightly above average intelligence. They miss the point like an autist without the excuse.

Of course, the likes of MRAs don’t believe in biology if it hurts their feefees.

Bloody equalists.

In real terms, there are far more male idiots than geniuses so looking overall doesn’t work either. To be totally practical, IQ is roughly comparable to life outcomes so being a moron is a big deal, meanwhile not being a genius (more normative) isn’t actually a problem? But even the manosphere doesn’t want to take up the victim card, even when it actually applies. They act as if all men are of equal genetic fitness and can expect equal life outcomes, a delusion.

The people who don’t get this post are the very people I was referencing.

Academia pays attention to the right extreme of the Bell Curve to wank themselves off in p-values, when actually, the purpose of IQ (Binet) was to focus on the causes of the left extreme and bring it up to average. It’s a category error, they know they’re wrong. The right extreme is too small as a population to legitimately study, especially in this time period of fewer true geniuses than before.

The midwits sometimes only understand if I include pictures so here, this is a fact they try to hide. Naturally, to uplift the sub-par into positions of responsibility would be A. dysgenic and B. anti-merit along with C. dangerous.

For the 2-4+SD, consider their extremes-based argument in light of this.

There is a vast difference but it’s difficult to say how much because (aside from the race confound) they don’t want to accumulate the data. Instead they’ll only gather the data on their own group (middle-class, usually Jewish/Atheist, middle-aged) from the right-extreme (however they manipulate the test to show this) and falsely represent it as the reference population [label: Genius] to allow them to signal with bad science. In truth, the geniuses of the world are incredibly rare (based on contribution) and passing a test does not a genius make.

Absence of evidence (because you refuse to do your job) is not evidence of absence.

No, we’re not going to “trust you”, take the data. The researchers are biased in favour of their own group and will twist the data into agreement.