Eugenics celebrated for ironic reasons

https://www.rt.com/viral/339383-superhero-dna-gene-mutations/

LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE ON A GENETIC LEVEL

MASTER GENETICS

SUPERIOR DNA

INNATE SUPREMACY

HBD is still BS tho–

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.3514.html

LOOK AT THE EVOLVED DIFFERENCES

LOOK AT THE VISIBLE GENETIC EVIDENCE OF EUGENIC SELECTION

LET’S EUGENICALLY APPLY THIS TO INCREASE THE FITNESS OF THE WIDER SOCIETY BY ENGINEERING

but don’t call it eugenics.

If you don’t actually use the word ‘eugenics’, it’s all fine.

omg why no facepalm god ugh wut

Okay let’s say one line about this logically.

If you ignore the eugenics thing, and apply this to absolutely everyone, the baseline drops again and it becomes meaningless as a positive selection factor, so pushing the ‘it’ll help everyone!’ rationale would literally never work; you’re simply moving the average with no heed to negative consequences, further, the other innate factors (all billions of them) would in fact, become more prominent by comparison, as one genetic factor was removed from the equation and they moved up the effect size ranking.

Another case of bigoted statistics, I know.
Quantifiers ruin all the liberals’ fun.

Study shows older mothers make smarter babies

Research says children of older mothers are smarter, taller, and stronger

I don’t think this means what people think it does.

Considering IQ is at least mostly genetic (like, 70% charitably), and child IQ is based on the maternal IQ (not paternal).
Considering high IQ women marry and have children later (and always have done, historically, the average age of marriage in fact used to be around 25, earlier was reckless from immaturity, later was also fine hence remarriages were also allowed).
Considering they invest more money and time into their children, which accounts for the non-genetic factors to boot.
I think those factors all combine that there’s a third variable. Innate maternal IQ.

The age isn’t causing the intelligence in mothers to pop into existence out of nowhere.

Those women are intelligent to begin with, they delayed the gratification of family until they could support one and we’re seeing those women, responsible women, being compared with the spawn of the irresponsible and stupid.
Older mothers (very old, not, like, 30) either have very healthy babies or very sickly ones, it isn’t clear-cut always bad or always good. Either there are serious problems (a bad pregnancy, often ending in miscarriage) or there aren’t (a good one, biologically the same as a younger woman). Underage girls or young women also have a higher rate of miscarriage (and death) and disease/defects, although this is almost never mentioned. Nature evolved this for good reason, you can’t do things until their time and the reproductive system needs to stabilize hence this result shouldn’t be a surprising correlate. Your ovaries don’t start misfiring suddenly at an arbitrary age (although men, from the way they constantly produce sperm, DO have this high-mutation problem affecting the health and longevity of kids). The males of the manosphere, where you won’t see these studies covered because they’re bluepill pussies, have a lot of ridiculous notions of the female reproductive anatomy and function (e.g. they still talk about hymens like a seal on a tin can and making women bleed as a good thing). They can’t explain this stuff, in part because they think it’s “not their issue/problem”, “not science” and just “ew gross blood n stuff”, while expecting to be taken seriously as adults with internet access on reproductive topics. Naturally, if we try to educate them (you should be paying for this information), they’ll ignore you or call you wrong, because you ‘re a woman. Why would you know how a woman’s body works? That’s just silly.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double

It isn’t as if I’m trying to give them advice on ED, is it? (Although many of them are porn addicts, the true cause of ED). Everyone has their subjects. Random myths about ovaries and scare-mongering about fertility (while telling men to have kids while on Death’s door) are unhelpful. These people dole out dangerous advice to men (life-ruining, if you look at the cost of raising a special needs child) and have such a lack of class they mock women for their fertility problems and blame them for having a medical condition like PCOS (as if men don’t have fertility problems, when men have more fertility problems in total, mostly impotence issues and getting it up caused/exacerbated by porn use).

On the Eugenic Problem aka Idiocracy Problem.

If you want smart people to have children, they aren’t going to do it at age 18, it isn’t our way and never has been, so you’d better get used to later pregnancies. You can’t shame people into ignoring biology, like the feminists pushing fat as sexy. People always left it ‘late’ compared to the modern welfare baby at 15 ‘standard’. It isn’t too late until you can’t have any or if you refuse to have kids and become a genetic suicide.

Article: Was Hitler a Darwinian?

Was Hitler a Darwinian? No! No! No!

Richards’ essay on Hitler calls into question the entire enterprise of stigmatizing Darwin’s theory of evolution with the term “Social Darwinism”.  It’s not as if evolutionary theory has never been used to justify unethical practices. Any idea can be used for good or bad purposes. What’s wrong is the claim that evolutionary theory is somehow especially prone to misuse or was misused in specific cases such as Nazi war policy. We owe a debt of gratitude to careful scholars such as Robert J. Richards for setting the record straight.

TLDR: No.

Immediately, one of the biggest critiques of HBD and associated information, based on Godwin’s Law, is rendered null.

Kevin-Hart-Really-o rlly lies

Link: Information on and by Margaret Sanger

Comprehensive mine.

http://lifedynamics.com/library#birth-control-review

It makes you wonder whether we must expand the definition of mass murderer, doesn’t it?

Edging closer to the truth is better surely? Right??

Double digit millions and counting, she’s up there with Chairman Mao.

This, in no way, absolves the individuals directly involved. May God have as much mercy as they did…

Link: The eugenics of the death penalty

Moreover, eugenic effects.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html

That’s why Brits (and many Europeans) are such pushovers, aggression has been bled out of us en masse. Years of painful torture and executions (interesting history) will do that to a gene pool. Especially the Islanders (Queensberry rules, chaps) who seem to naively believe the rest of the world gives a flying monkey’s about our imagined standards.

Science makes complete sense, it is people who are wrong!

The whole purpose of prison was a genetic death, where they weren’t allowed to further contribute their genetic material to future society, depriving them any legacy (including voting); giving them conjugal visits and their spawn State assistance (doing their role of Provider better than they did) entirely defeats the point. This is why they were sometimes released – if they were castrated.

The international events begin to make sense

Common sense connectome findings vs lifestyle

There is a myth in circulation that creative or intelligent people do more drugs. Usually the false connection is made on the personality trait of openness (which isn’t predictive, since drug use is a choice). It’s a medium correlation more likely from middle class boredom and rebellion.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/human-brain-connectome-results-2015-9

The researchers found that people with more traits the researchers classified as “positive,” like high IQ, tended to have a greater number of brain connections than people with more traits the researchers classified as “negative,” like high drug use.

Direct observation, and they’re loathe to offend anyone.
Like, the scans are right there. You can point to it.

But some say we should be cautious in how we interpret the findings.

I wonder if those people use…..

Read the damn data if you're so bloody educated

It’s like disputing the Type II diabetes and insulin connection.

The more “positive” traits people had, the more brain connections they found, and vice versa.

Eugenic epigenetics confirmed.

But the brain-wiring patterns linked to general intelligence were not the same as those for other kinds of intelligence, such as hand-eye coordination, some researchers noted. [DS: cerebellum, dude] This suggests maybe we should reconsider what IQ tests actually measure, especially since many scientists think it’s not the most useful measure of intelligence. [DS: those many scientists work in another, useless field]

*facepalming in the distance*
IQ is only relevant to an academic context. So very relevant (to practical application).
Gardner’s theories (multiple intelligences) have grounds, yes. Moving on.

Interestingly, people who had recently used marijuana tended to be on the more negative end of the brain connectivity spectrum, the researchers said.

NO SHIT award of the year.
First prize is a Sherlock pipe.

But the jury’s still out on how marijuana affects the brain.

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got
No.

…Scientists still debate exactly what this brain circuitry does, but previous research has linked it to several higher-level brain functions…..

And this is only the beginning of human connectome studies……

Hahaha the HBD people will be pleased.

The Human Connectome Project is now looking at genetic data from people in the study, including many pairs of identical and fraternal twins, to see how genetic and environmental influences are related to brain connectivity.

crying laughter lmao

We’re copying Asia and doing a eugenics study, but we aren’t calling it that? As if it makes a difference?

Meanwhile, other groups are studying the brain connections of aging adults and developing babies.

And they’ll find evidence of all the prejudices that withstood the test of time.
All the poor lifestyle choices, all the terrible parenting and the overall genetic load (inferiority) by demo.
cracking up dawn french

I cannot wait.
Redpill study of the century. 

Let’s see them deny it and become anti-science when the harm principle is clearly violated. Vigorously. Repeatedly. Down the generations, who have no choice. 

n.b. Not to denigrate men, but while they have larger brains on average, prior studies have shown women have better connected ones. Make of that what you will.

Victorians were probably smarter than you

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/taking-on-board-that-victorians-were.html

I would’ve thought the successful Revolution as proof enough.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/how-many-geniuses-does-it-take-to-make.html

I prefer Victorian books for this reason. A book is a peek into another’s mind, and theirs are simply the deepest I have encountered.

There are other factors involved, including creativity (originality) and parallel lack of mutation load (mental disease).

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/why-is-genius-so-rare.html

I would be uncharitable for once and ascribe this experimental outcome to two common social factors;

  1. stupid people with high time preference were literally left to starve in the streets and were generally derided (social-moral influence on the weak-minded to dissuade those considering it) as grasshoppers to the smarter ants of society who made their choice.
  2. the mentally ill were thrown into asylums and much like prison used to function, this served to keep their genes separate from the common population and out of circulation as it practically barred them from reproduction (this is the true punishment intended from prison as a form that everyone seems to have forgotten).

If we brought back certain elements of these population controls, no doubt g/RT would rise.

If you want a practical guide to these questions, ask yourself where our geniuses are? They all seem to have died off in the 20th C. Where’s our Voltaire, Newton, or Emerson? Do they not exist, or does nobody pay them attention; I don’t know which is worse?

“You can do anything” parenting and teaching is actively harmful

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-telling-kids-to-dream-big-is-a-big-con/

It comes down to IQ grade. IQ denialism, as it was suggested by Haidt, makes about as much sense now as New Earth Creationism in biology, there is simply so much evidence.

Grades are just proxies for IQ — which most parents are too dumb to conceive of.

IQ isn’t strictly a number, it’s a grouping with an error variance. The Binet IQ was intended for school application ONLY – to ascertain how the child’s learning process could be assisted by teachers at each stage (level of work compared to their chronological age), look at modern Sets for the truest application.

If you’re at the top grouping possible for a human, as an adult, A+/200+ High Genius or basic polymath, you have all the choices. And who doesn’t want options for their child (and by ego extension, a compliment to their own genetic material) but the further down the pyramid you go, the more restricted your future prospects. These are facts.

If you wanna be an astronaut, you’d better be making As and Bs. Just because you sat in the same classroom for decades doesn’t mean you’re equal in life quality potential or entitled to the same things as adults (public school kids and pronounced failures regardless of family fortune are the amusing example).

Telling children they all have equal potential may seem nice, and the Nurture Brigade of modern teaching insist it’s fair (if you are ignorant of their status yes, in case) and necessary (see former) – but it traumatizes the average and below-average children and sets them up for a lifetime of suffering, and probable mental illness (hark! Freud’s ghost laughing in the distance). Children blame themselves when they fail or something goes wrong. Fine if the changes needed are within their control… this is rarely the case here.  The self-esteem movement formed to prevent mental illness, theoretically as a shield against it, and now… many young people are popping pills.

This lie about potential doesn’t even sink in (because for this to apply, they are dumb) when they’re adults. Millennials are miserable. They see their age-peers succeed and assume (all else being equal) there is something they can do about it, and feel entitled (+) or wronged (-), that their own course isn’t going the same way (a few come up with lies i.e. their competition is cheating, or secretly evil).

n.b. IQ is computed by age, so child ones are unreliable although age 11/12 is highly correlated, it’s best to get retested as an adult and expect a small dive. Many supposed prodigies fail on this count because they were merely ahead of the curve at school (by external factors of socialisation, see Gladwell’s Outliers), and not genetically ahead (permanently ahead). Hence, prodigies seem to burn out, when in fact the fakes (harsh but true) merely crash into the wall of their genetic potential. Elements of the modern school system e.g. obedience to popular belief, lack of imagination and rote memory dependence also contribute to this false-flagging of intelligence, as it were, rewarding traits which are, in effect, the anti-genius. Lies on the other side of the IQ fence.

People age at variable speeds (biological age)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/01/1506264112

Antiaging interventions are needed to reduce the burden of disease and protect population productivity.

Translation: they want to work you like a dog until you die.

Young people are the most attractive targets for therapies to extend healthspan

How is that NOT eugenics? You can bet it would be enforced.
Covered here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33409604

…The analysis showed that at the age of 38, the people’s biological ages ranged from the late-20s to those who were nearly 60.

Pretty huge variance.

“They look rough, they look lacking in vitality,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt from Duke University in the US.

The study said some people had almost stopped ageing during the period of the study, while others were gaining nearly three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed….

Wouldn’t it make more empirical sense to study the verifiable Dorian Grays of the group?
Could this be genetic load?
Epigenetics with environment?

Taken with other studies, such as caloric restriction, might the body have an optimum stressor rate, beyond which it begins to break down? What could affect this? Processed food, particulate matter (air pollution), toxins processed or physical exertions?

“Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian.”

I don’t see how. Unless you shoot people for being too young.

She argued the retirement age may be unfair for those “working at their peak” who then had to retire.

Oh, the government wants another excuse not to pay your pension. Fantastic.
It’s also ironic I was writing today about how men have a Wall too. Deny this. We’ve all seen people from school who were late bloomers, as well as people who peaked at age 15.

Beauty and Intelligence incredibly linked (same level as education)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

In a previous post, I show, using an American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, that physically more attractive people are more intelligent. As I explain in a subsequent post, the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women….

Mostly the former, as it explains female bequeath too it should be genetic. Assortative mating usually applies to objective attractiveness (the famed 10-scale) for both sexes, skewed relationships rarely last long without something else to make up for the gap.

Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought.

… Attractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 104.23, whereas unattractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 91.81.  The difference between them is 12.42. This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .381, which is reasonably large in any survey data…..

Huge IQ bridge, on par with eugenic/dysgenic effects? I’d love to see expanded profiles (marital status at 30, for example).

By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education. Both correlations are .381. Everybody knows that intelligence and education are very highly correlated. What they don’t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is. 

In other words,

If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.

oh damn wow ah

I’ll leave these here:
http://thisisattractiveprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisbeautyprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisthinprivilege.org/

“Privilege” has statistical backing!
The stereotypes, again, are true!

Maybe humans will branch into an Eloi and Morlock scenario? The IQ difference is huge, the SD I calculated for the summary result (both sexes) is 8.78227, population SD is 6.21 with population variance of 38.5641 in IQ. Huge values.