Early male death isn’t sexism

-because of course it fucking isn’t, hysterical windbags of the MRA forums, it’s basic evolution.
More male babies die too. Their genome is weaker, more fragile. Sorry Mother Nature doesn’t coddle delusions of invincibility.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/04/mystery-of-lifespan-gap-between-sexes-may-be-solved-say-researchers#maincontent

“suggesting the second copy offers a protective effect.”
known for decades
how many blues would you want to build a house? fewer or more?

“which could point to pathways for extending life” not for men
it’s like anything genetic, the people in a stronger position just win harder

HBD hates men? lol no

Imagine if immortality was possible but only for women?


Because it might be so.
Maybe doppel genes are required for it. We dunno.

Women existed in the genetic record prior to men, men are the mutants of the species. As abnormal, they’d be likelier to die. It isn’t personal, narcs.

Women can self-fertilise, men aren’t technically needed. Our cells can mutate into sperm, it’s biologically possible. The cell types that can mutate are called polar bodies.

“The idea that a second copy of the same sex chromosome is protective has been around for a while, supported by the observation that in mammals – where females have two of the same sex chromosomes – males tend to have shorter lifespans. In birds, males live longer on average and have two Z chromosomes, while females have one Z and one W chromosome.”

10/10 correct

God hates men? Would explain the proclivity to violence and why in Genesis Adam was told he needs a woman. One woman.

He did not tell women they need a man.

FGTOW QED?

Any claim to that effect adds to the Word and is un-Christian.

“The results reveal that individuals with two of the same sex chromosomes live 17.6% longer, on average, than those with either two different sex chromosomes or just one sex chromosome.

The team say the findings back a theory known as the “unguarded X hypothesis”. In human cells, sex chromosome combinations are generally either XY (male) or XX (female). In females only one X chromosome is activated at random in each cell.

As a result, a harmful mutation in one of the female’s X chromosomes will not affect all cells, and hence its impact can be masked. By contrast, as males only have one X chromosome, any harmful mutations it contains are far more likely to be exposed.”

Part of genetic load. Maybe why men defend their mother so?

In degenerate times, even more men would die. This explains male interest in politics, which will influence their own epigenetics in society. Good conditions/rules – more likely to survive.

“The team found that in species where males have two of the same sex chromosomes, these males live on average 7.1% longer than females. However, in species where the sex chromosome pattern is the other way around, such as humans, females live 20.9% longer on average than males.”

Mother Nature.

“But there are also other possibilities as to why the longevity gaps differ in size, including that oestrogen appears to protect the ends of chromosomes from being damaged – a process linked to ageing.”

Oestrogen also protects the brain from stress.
T-takers are literally killing themselves.

“For instance, owl monkey males live longer than females and the males play a big role in infant care in that species,” he said, noting such males have two different sex chromosomes.”

I have noted anecdotally that responsible K-type men outlive r-types of the same birth year, who often succumb to young (40-60yo) heart attacks and strokes, suddenly. If anyone has a study about r/K health outcomes in men esp. mortality, please link?

We know the children of monogamous men fare better.

I said you can’t pretend to be K, since it’s in your DNA.
Early cancer in r-types can easily be attributed to their microbiome being overloaded with STDs.

Selective breeding is literally Darwin tho…

Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.

It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.

Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!


Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.

Proof or it didn’t happen:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009
“The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.” so STFU.

pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”

“CHAPTER I. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.”

Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!


Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.

It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:

“THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.”

Fitness is real, yo.

e.g.
“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”

For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.

re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”

This shit even applies to FLOWERS.

“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;

genetics

no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;

germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor

why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;

atavism

why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.

chromosomes and brain development

It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.

genetics are timed in expression, phenotype

he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing

I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;

referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm

predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed

in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.

If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.

Having alluded to the subject of reversion,

also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)

I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

All quotes from early chapter 1.

When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.

Arm yourself with the truth.

Read the book.

Emotions are not universal

Darwin was an idealistic Christian.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/what-is-love-actually-the-worlds-languages-describe-emotions-very-differently/ar-BBYciZP

Culture is GENETIC.

“Yet many languages also have words that English speakers might think of as “basic” emotions — love, hate, anger, fear, sadness, happiness. Early theories, influenced by Charles Darwin and pegged to shared biological structures in humans, suggest there are certain universal emotions that serve as the source material for all others, as primary colors might be blended to create many new shades.

Universalism is bullshit. All shades. Not All ___ is a derailment, attempt to enable, dismiss or deflect or simple result of a category error.

But just as later work has suggested that different cultures do not always categorize color in the same ways,

Different rods/cones plus evolution.

there’s a growing understanding that even those supposedly “primary” emotions may hold their own meanings and nuances in different cultures that aren’t directly translatable.

Apply Occam to this. People are not cogs, Rousseau! 

Language is also genetic. Really. This is known.

Preview of what they’ll “discover” next, trying to get ahead of the net?

Humanity, as we WEIRD individualists think of it, is also non-uniform throughout the species. Diversity aka variation exists, a scale of 0-100, if you will. Basically? Some races are crueler than others, simply put. Others less sadistic, even to their own people, animals, children, elderly etc. Science is catching up. We are not, as we’ll be told, dehumanising THEM, they dehumanise themselves, they hurt one another, what better treatment can WE expect?

Civilization is a combination of simple factors and conditions inc. IQ (organism and national), honesty (low cultural corruption*), genetic individualism, K-select breeding and rearing and finally, low sadism (antisociality in the population, little pathology, especially sexual sadism). When “high trust” is required historically (the current PC code for this) the West succeeds because of its low racial sadism (and resultant bias towards justice) and tendency to punish/cull predators (civil unrest) instead of reward with money, rape victims, goats, whatever. High culture is produced by ALL these factors, you can’t make exceptions for your own hedonism.

It looks like collectivism but it isn’t – it doesn’t hide personal responsibility or agency behind Muh Group Card (like the men who marry in China and are allowed to cheat, two-faced “duty”) or the need for virtue as The Other Guy’s Problem. It isn’t cruel or cowardly in secret, it’s openly FAIR. Cruelty is the key sign of an inferior mind.

The SJWs don’t name me for that reason. The science is coming out.

m-m-m-muh appeal to authority?

*So neither China nor Russia will run jack shit. They cannot innovate in a vacuum. The kitten-crushers of Japan and China make shitty parents and military generals. Honour culture isn’t a parade, it’s bravery. It’s sacrifice.

Aging fathers, ugly kids

That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311035

Paternal age negatively predicts offspring physical attractiveness in two, large, nationally representative datasets

Freeze your sperm at 18 for optimum freshness.

Effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness is investigated in two datasets.

Various covariates are utilized.

Significant negative effects are found in both datasets.

Effects are independent of birth order.

Findings consistent with paternal age as a source of new mutations in offspring.

Abstract

The effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness has recently been investigated. Negative effects are predicted as paternal age is a strong proxy for the numbers of common de novo mutations found in the genomes of offspring. As an indicator of underlying genetic quality or fitness, offspring attractiveness should decrease as paternal age increases, evidencing the fitness-reducing effects of these mutations.

That’s a hard rectal red pill.

I’m sure the manosphere will try its hardest to ignore like the dead and defective babies.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sins-Of-The-Fathers

The problem is, you think you have time.

Thus far results are mixed, with one study finding the predicted effect, and a second smaller study finding the opposite. Here the effect is investigated using two large and representative datasets (Add Health and NCDS),

holy Jesus a sound method

I almost fell off my high horse

both of which contain data on physical attractiveness and paternal age.

Validity! Validity! My queendom for some statistical validity!

The effect is present in both datasets, even after controlling for maternal age at subject’s birth, age of offspring, sex, race, parental and offspring (in the case of Add Health) socio-economic characteristics, parental age at first marriage (in the case of Add Health) and birth order.

The confound control is practically orgasmic, I can’t wait to see how they mansplain this one away.

That is perfect method. But it triggers butthurts and their precious feefees are hurt by the mere implication that degenerate older dads are bad for their kid’s health. Because all those upper crust respectable 1950s dads were like “60 is the new 20 lol!” Who gives a shit if your kids need you past high school? You got more priceless clubbing times you don’t remember, that’s what really matters. Not seeing your grandkids.

Class, race, sex, age at marriage, birth order, maternal age, offspring age – there’s literally nothing else to control for. Nothing. It’s flawless.

THESE. ARE. THE. STUDIES. WE. NEED.

Logically, since women are born with most of their eggs, there wouldn’t be a maternal effect. It isn’t constantly replenishing like the male gamete. Cell division’s a bitch. Male lifestyle for all his years prior

https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/dads-smoking-before-conception-harms-kids/

affects the child at conception (and even which sperm is conceived) far more than the details of pregnancy (minus pollutants it’s pretty much the same as in ancient times, the womb is not a new environment).

Maybe add child health although those studies already exist to cross-reference with attractiveness?

As in, are the girls more womanly as adults in WHR and the boys have more manly frames (broad shoulders, narrow waist, which should be a metric of its own)? Or less gender typical? Even androgynous, or fully gender-atypical?

Do younger or older fathers produce better-looking kids in the gendered sense?

[We can tell by looking at old photos but let’s pretend.]

Give me a time machine, please. The ugly wigger types hurt my eyes.

[I have also noted mannish looking sisters tend to be the older, “ugly” sister of two -coughs Beatrice- and the girly looking brothers tend to be the younger, usually gay one. Cannot unsee.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000682

e.g.

“In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance). Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms. The male beard is not obviously related to phenotypic quality and may have evolved through a process of runaway intersexual selection.”

The beard can also be a sign of poor grade genes e.g. savages, wolf man. Overall bone structure uber alles.

Maybe factor in sexual activity of the father prior to conception? Especially partner count and STDs. STDs are known to harm attractiveness in the host [coughs David Beckham, most of Hollywood] so why not the offspring’s?

Back to the top study:

The apparent robustness of the effect to different operationalizations of attractiveness suggests high generalizability, however the results must be interpreted with caution, as controls for parental levels of attractiveness were indirect only in the present study.

aka please don’t sue us but you know it’s true

But you can wait forever because the Jews said so!

Say, who owns all the biotech and IVF companies?

https://www.fertilitybridge.com/blog/2018/4/11/battleforivfmarketwallstreetvsprivatepractice

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

https://hmcisrael.com/specialty/ivf-israel/

“According to statistics, around 20% of couples wishing to conceive are faced with certain obstacles that inhibit a successful pregnancy.

Fertility Treatment is one of the most prioritized fields of medicine in Israel.”

Sure, you can wait for decades! Also, cut the kid when they’re born!

We need more future little Viagra users.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648044

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility/

Does Circumcision Decrease the Fertility of Sperm in the Male?

“However, birth rates are much higher in countries where the men are predominantly uncircumcised.”

There is no question that an uncircumcised man has a cooler penis than a circumcised man in the flaccid state. For some reason, removal of the foreskin is the reason for this. There seems to be some sort of temperature sensor in the foreskin that may control penile temperature. Removing the foreskin gets rid of this sensor.

It only takes a few temperature degrees of difference to damage sperm. As the penis is in close proximity to the testicles, it’s quite likely that a cooler penis would help keep the testicles cooler (Remember that men are more potent in the colder months of the year). Under these condition, if the testicles got too cold, they can always be retracted closer to the body.

Almost like God gave men a prepuce solely for this evolutionary function in reproduction.

…Now consider this: Circumcised and uncircumcised men have the same penis temperature on full erection, as we stated earlier in this article. So, clearly, there is a specific reason why a natural-uncircumcised penis remains at a cooler temperature during the flaccid state. When the penis is erect it is no longer in close proximity with the testicles, so penile temperature should not affect the testicular temperature at this phase (be the penis circumcised or uncircumcised).

Upon orgasm, the penis tends to retract more into the pelvis (at least with my experience). Due to the friction and increased blood flow that occurred during the sexual act, it makes sense that the penis will have an increase in temperature in a flaccid state post-sex than in a flaccid state previous to the sexual act. Could this retraction be another mechanism for the “heated” penis to steer clear of the testicles?

Go there, science.

Circumcision and Male Fertility: Is There a Link?

Scientists have recently concluded that circumcision can help with infertility in males suffering from two very specific diseases.

So… not generalizable.

Some woman perv studies after all that penis talk.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513814000269

Women’s faces and voices may be cues to their reproductive potential. If so, then individual differences in indices of female fecundity and residual reproductive value, such as hormonal profiles, body composition, and age, should be associated with women’s facial and vocal attractiveness to men. However, previous research on these associations is sparse, has rendered mixed results, and is limited to Western samples. The current study therefore explored relationships between correlates of reproductive capability (testosterone levels, age, and body mass index [BMI]) and facial and vocal attractiveness in women from industrial and foraging societies. Women’s facial and vocal attractiveness was associated with each of these indicators in at least one of the two samples. The patterns of these associations suggest that women’s faces and voices provide cues to both common and unique components of reproductive potential and help explain the evolution of men’s mating preferences.

Lesson: Avoid the manjaw.

Women change their vocal pitch all the time though. European women are taught to make it lower at school (speak up = louder, lower pitch), Asians try to make it higher. The key is how they sound when hysterically upset. That’s their true level. Europeans go up, Asians down.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812000475

Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not.

So partnered, married women. Not single ones.

Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.

Menopause is not the face equalizer you think.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816302318

African and European perception of African female attractiveness

Dare you to do the same study with every race judging every other.

Majority of research on attractiveness is restricted to faces of European origin. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across communities due to variations in both facial morphology and local standards of beauty. We investigated the relative contribution of four facial markers of attractiveness based on 101 female facial portraits (standardized, non-manipulated) from Cameroon and Namibia, which were assessed by local male raters and by raters from a distant European population, the Czech Republic. Images from Cameroon include only women of Bantu origin, while Namibians are represented by women of both Bantu (Owambo/Herero) and Nama origin. While controlling for age and BMI, we explored the relationship between female attractiveness and a set of facial traits: fluctuating asymmetry, averageness, shape sexual dimorphism, and skin color (rated and measured in CIELab color space).

In the Cameroonian sample, local male raters favored lighter-skinned female faces with morphology closer to average. The attractiveness of Nama women as rated by Nama men positively correlated with lighter complexion, but this did not extend to rating by Cameroonian men. The attractiveness of Namibian Owambo/Herero women was positively associated with facial femininity and lighter complexion when judged by both Cameroonian and Nama male raters. In all samples, the attractiveness as rated by Czech men was predicted by age and BMI, but not by skin color. We found no significant association between attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry in any of the tested samples. When controlling for age, the effect of skin color on attractiveness turned to be non-significant in the Owambo/Herrero and Nama sample, but remained significant in the Cameroonian sample. Variations in skin color thus represent an important factor of African female attractiveness within the African context, but they do not seem to affect judgements made by European raters.

They don’t want any of them.

Sensitivity to some facial markers of female attractiveness thus seems to be restricted to regional populations and/or constrained by shared ethnicity.

Paler women have more oestrogen. So duh.

Women reject old guys who’d give them dead or ugly kids:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816301283

“This finding is consistent with men’s stated preference for young, fertile women in mating and suggests that the typical pattern is generated by women’s limiting role in mating.”

aka their gender role

“older men tend to marry older women, including those who are peri- and post-menopausal”

TIL Korea is so degenerate it has slave markets. Ooof.

So much for the myth that young women have the hots for them. Yeah, I’m sure the Jap schoolgirl came onto you, right perv?

Deadbeats are the end of the West:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816303671

Research in evolutionary psychology, and life history theory in particular, has yielded important insights into the developmental processes that underpin variation in growth, psychological functioning, and behavioral outcomes across individuals. Yet, there are methodological concerns that limit the ability to draw causal inferences about human development and psychological functioning within a life history framework. The current study used a simulation-based modeling approach to estimate the degree of genetic confounding in tests of a well-researched life history hypothesis: that father absence (X) is associated with earlier age at menarche (Y). The results demonstrate that the genetic correlation between X and Y can confound the phenotypic association between the two variables, even if the genetic correlation is small—suggesting that failure to control for the genetic correlation between X and Y could produce a spurious phenotypic correlation. We discuss the implications of these results for research on human life history, and highlight the utility of incorporating genetically sensitive tests into future life history research.

I don’t think debtor’s prisons will come back – but if you breed it, you should feed it. I think the abandoned women that existed since Biblical times will just hire bounty hunters to shoot the first family deserter for a share of his life insurance policy.

Patriarchs everywhere would rejoice at culling the cads. The women get a widow’s pension.

Everyone wins. Hey, you said “until death do us part”. Men used to die by their oaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381400052X

I have noticed that immigrant men have a higher pitch than their non-immigrant relatives.

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

Low male voice pitch may communicate potential benefits for offspring in the form of heritable health and/or dominance, whereas access to resources may be indicated by correlates of socioeconomic status, such as sociolinguistic features. Here, we examine if voice pitch and social dialect influence women’s perceptions of men’s socioeconomic status and attractiveness. In Study 1, women perceived lower pitched male voices as higher in socioeconomic status than higher pitched male voices.

A lot of PUAs get shot down for 1. being brown and feeling entitled to a white woman, the lowest miscegenation group also further sickened by repeated forced “refugee” interactions and 2. having a high pitch voice and effete face compared to their national relatives. Compare within the white race, the “Latin lover” in Italy versus Italian immigrants raised and living in London, who sound like cartoon chipmunks by comparison.

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

Same applies to white men who moved South so it appears to be immigration. Either being an immigrant or the act itself makes a man less manly. Most obviously, torso body fat deposition like a woman of their group and the sisters become like the men at home, more athletic.

In Study 2, women independently perceived lower pitched voices and higher status sociolinguistic dialects as higher in socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

Good genes, good brains, good money. Fixating on the money is what ugly guys do – Muslim prince to Jewish media mogul.

We also found a significant interaction wherein women preferred lower pitched men’s voices more often when dialects were lower in sociolinguistic status than when they were higher in sociolinguistic status.

Capacity to protect. Not a desk jockey. The middle-class is effeminate. They want army. No cowards.

Women also perceived lower pitched voices as higher in socioeconomic status more often when dialects were higher in sociolinguistic status than when lower in sociolinguistic status.

Women know quality, really? Almost like our lives depend on it.

Finally, women’s own self-rated socioeconomic status was positively related to their preferences for voices with higher status sociolinguistic dialects, but not to their preferences for voice pitch.

Plenty of men chose to marry down to get a looker out of their genetic league, hypergamy.

Erotic capital is worth it, as you can tell by the fertility study above, even post-menopausal they’re better-looking.

Hence, women’s preferences for traits associated with potentially biologically heritable benefits, such as low voice pitch, are moderated by the presence of traits associated with resource accrual, such as social dialect markers. However, women’s preferences for language markers of resource accrual may be functionally independent from preferences for potential biological indicators of heritable benefits, such as voice pitch.

Women…. making…. mate choices?

mutation load is important?

 

But tongue posture varies by language (or race)

Given the lookism data and non-harmful, non-genetic nature of this, it seems fine.

However, it may only be possible to enhance certain races e.g. NW Europeans and native, dominant speakers of certain languages e.g. English, Old English.

I’m not messing with you. This once.

I haz receipts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pronunciation_of_English_/r/
Peter Ladefoged wrote: “Many BBC English speakers have the tip of the tongue raised towards the roof of the mouth in the general location of the alveolar ridge, but many American English speakers simply bunch the body of the tongue up so that it is hard to say where the articulation is”.[6]

AHA.

The ‘orthotropic’ principle!

The extension to the IPA recommends the use of the IPA diacritics for “apical” and “centralized”, as in ⟨ɹ̺, ɹ̈⟩, to distinguish apical and domal articulations in transcription. However, this distinction has little or no perceptual consequence, and may vary idiosyncratically between individuals.[7]

Culturally, actually. Close.

How many of these guys with facial issues speak American, not proper English?

Not judging, per se, just ….noticing.

Why are the Brits considered generally better looking than comparable American men?

Could it be that, to us, they sound stupid because, among other things, they sound drunk? They literally sound like they’re slurring.

Again English English is the only real English, tongue posture is immensely important. It would be like using a hammer wrong and wondering why it hurts, this is important. Common Core is opposed to elocution lessons, wonder why.
And reminder, language is genetic in origin.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355373/

“Mutation rates are required only for adding a time scale to both trees. Based on the topologies of trees generated from both the genetic and linguistic data, the inference of the parallel evolution of genes and languages in Caucasus is supported, despite controversies about the mutation rates.”

Parallel evolution, you can’t just take another race’s language and expect fluency on par with a genetic native. This might contribute to, say, Africans’ lower tests score, at least a little.

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree etc.

The blogs full of historical handsome men leads me to believe Victorian English was particularly good for male facial structure (on women you don’t notice so much)


e.g. the difference to now in

“Flapped” or “Tapped” R: alveolar flap [ɾ] (About this soundlisten) (occurs in Scouse, most Scottish English, some South African, Welsh, conservative Irish and Northern England English, and early twentieth-century Received Pronunciation; not to be confused with flapping of /t/ and /d/)

A lot of Welsh models, almost untouched pristine language rearing, just saying. If a beautiful Welshman moves to America and adopts the accent, over time his facial beauty weakens.

18th and 19th century Americans (listen on youtube) sounded British. Rural British.

This faded out mid-20th century, with the rise of TV monoculture, when the American man’s face seemed to weirdly cave in like a child’s.

Gay men with excellent facial beauty (women admire) also have precise language, old-fashioned dialect. They know, they’re shallow.

How many Hollywood actors are posh?

Schools used to teach elocution. Why no longer? It’s part of speaking a language.

I’ve actually had to tell men that texting over talking will weaken their jaw.

They didn’t know. It’s a MUSCLE.

The digital native Millennials have overall worse jawlines than Gen X. Coincidence?

When old people age, they have fewer people to talk to, speeding up atrophy.

I have met researchers on these disparate topics so can bring you these threads, albeit short of resolution. Research needed, obviously. It is just really interesting. Like, even eating with cutlery made white people have more civilized jaws.

But forcing the proven brain delay of bilinguilism is bad for them, not to mention could be impossible due to differences.

http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/06/13/success-in-second-language-learning-linked-to-genetic-and-brain-measures/

Genetic variations of the COMT gene and a measure of the strength of the brain’s communications network — known as “white matter”— jointly accounted for 46 percent of the reason for why some students performed better than others in the language class.

So girls are better at it.

A waste of a class, must never be compulsory.

But being well-spoken literally makes men hotter to women. We can see it in how their face moves.

How many rappers look like mouth-breathers? [Whites invented rap, called flyting].

Flyting is a ritual, poetic exchange of insults practised mainly between the 5th and 16th centuries. The root is the Old English word flītan meaning quarrel. Examples of flyting are found throughout Norse, Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Medieval literature involving both historical and mythological figures.

Crushes on matinee idols are not a coincidence. Speech, song, poetry. All of it helps.

Etiquette had benefits. I very much want to benefit from telling men this.

What makes a species classification?

Assuming you’ve read previous links about mixed race fertility issues and health problems.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-species.html

“Most evolutionary biologists distinguish one species from another based on reproductivity: members of different species either won’t* or can’t mate with one another, or, if they do, the resulting offspring are often sterile, unviable, or suffer some other sort of reduced fitness.
In a new paper published in the journal eLife, the researchers show that sex chromosomes evolve to be genetically incompatible between species faster than the rest of the genetic chromosomes and reveal the factors at play in this incompatibility.

*White women are a different species?

True.

So sexual repulsion is part of species classification.

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-sex-evolve-prof-laurence-hurst.html

“This variation is manifested at the genetic level: sex generates some organisms within the species with lots of harmful mutations and some with relatively few. Supporters of the so-called mutational deterministic theory argue that if organisms with many mutations have disproportionately low survival chances, many bad mutations tend to die out with their hosts, generating a large number of organisms that are free from such mutations.”

“This sort of evolutionary game of cat and mouse is known as Red Queen evolution, from the character in Alice in Wonderland who insisted that one must run just to stay in the same place. Indeed, genes related to immunity are some of the fastest evolving we have. There is also recent evidence that species can increase the amount of genetic mixing they do when they sense that they are infected with a parasite. This means their offspring will be even more different from one another and their parents.”

Hard times make strong men.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-human-evolution-possibly-faster.html

“But neutral evolution can’t explain why some genes are evolving much faster than others. We measure the speed of gene evolution by comparing human DNA with that of other species, which also allows us to determine which genes are fast-evolving in humans alone. One fast-evolving gene is human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), which is needed during brain development. A random section of human DNA is on average more than 98% identical to the chimp comparator, but HAR1 is so fast evolving that it’s only around 85% similar.

Though scientists can see these changes are happening – and how quickly – we still don’t fully understand why fast evolution happens to some genes but not others. Originally thought to be the result of natural selection exclusively, we now know this isn’t always true.”

“The human mutation rate itself may also be changing. The main source of mutations in human DNA is the cell division process that creates sperm cells. The older males get, the more mutations occur in their sperm. So if their contribution to the gene pool changes – for example, if men delay having children – the mutation rate will change too. This sets the rate of neutral evolution.”

I have covered paternal age before. Few times.

Men delaying fatherhood is killing the West more than low birth rates. Having a few sprogs when you’re older only works if they’re higher quality than you could’ve had earlier.

Although obviously the birth rate CANNOT rise without marriage rates rising first.

https://www.livescience.com/609-hundreds-human-genes-evolving.html

“This study addresses the question ‘Are humans still evolving?’, and the answer is ‘Absolutely,'” study team member Benjamin Voight”

“The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight.”

or it could be like domesticating foxes and be a visible side effect of lower criminal aggression, more civilization?
just test albinos in non-white groups

“And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can’t metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit.”

naturalistic fallacy, mutations can hold you back too

for example, if being able to produce it made you more prone to alcoholism, a disadvantage

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031124612.htm

“Only a few genetic changes are needed to spur the evolution of new species—even if the original populations are still in contact and exchanging genes.

Multiculturalism isn’t the risk you think it is.

[The risk to democracy, however….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827122410.htm ]

Once started, however, evolutionary divergence evolves rapidly, ultimately leading to fully genetically isolated species, report scientists.”

“”Our work suggests that a few advantageous mutations are enough to cause a ‘tug-of-war’ between natural selection and gene flow, which can lead to rapidly diverging genomes,” Kronforst said.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm

“A study of diverse African groups by geneticists has identified new genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation. The findings help explain the vast range of skin color on the African continent, shed light on human evolution and inform an understanding of the genetic risk factors for conditions such as skin cancer.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180711114544.htm

The one tribe in Africa thing was always a myth.

https://www.livescience.com/445-darwin-natural-selection-work-humans.html

“The findings suggest that about 9 percent of the human genes examined are undergoing rapid evolution.

“Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome,” said Carlos Bustamante, a biologist at Cornell University.

A separate study announced last month indicated the human brain is still evolving, too.

Compared to chimps …”

If there’s reproduction, there’s evolution.

BC mutation.

Another 13 percent of the genes examined in the study showed evidence for negative selection, whereby harmful mutations are weeded out of the population. These included some genes implicated in hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and Usher syndrome. The latter is the most common cause of congenital blindness and deafness in developed countries.

Medical geneticists are interested in finding genes sensitive to negative selection because they might one day be useful for predicting an individual’s likelihood of developing a disease if the types of mutation to a gene and the environmental conditions are known.

Being able to determine which classes of genes are particularly vulnerable to negative selections is a first step, Bustamante said.”

Negative selection.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821124835.htm

“A newly-discovered species of ant supports a controversial theory of species formation. The ant, only found in a single patch of eucalyptus trees on the São Paulo State University campus in Brazil, branched off from its original species while living in the same colony, something thought rare in current models of evolutionary development.

Nope!

“Most new species come about in geographic isolation,” said Christian Rabeling, assistant professor of biology at the University of Rochester. “We now have evidence that speciation can take place within a single colony.”

The findings by Rabeling and the research team were published today in the journal Current Biology.”

B-b-b-but…

Where’s the evidence?