Cognitive ability and fertility in Swedes

aka a select population of white people.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2019.0359

We examine the relationship between cognitive ability and childbearing patterns in contemporary Sweden using administrative register data. The topic has a long history in the social sciences and has been the topic of a large number of studies, many reporting a negative gradient between intelligence and fertility. We link fertility histories to military conscription tests with intelligence scores for all Swedish men born 1951–1967. We find a positive relationship between intelligence scores and fertility, and this pattern is consistent across the cohorts we study. The relationship is most pronounced for the transition to a first child, and men with the lowest categories of IQ scores have the fewest children. Using fixed effects models, we additionally control for all factors that are shared by siblings, and after such adjustments, we find a stronger positive relationship between IQ and fertility.

Furthermore, we find a positive gradient within groups at different levels of education. Compositional differences of this kind are therefore not responsible for the positive gradient we observe—instead, the relationship is even stronger after controlling for both educational careers and parental background factors. In our models where we compare brothers to one another, we find that, relative to men with IQ 100, the group with the lowest category of cognitive ability have 0.56 fewer children, and men with the highest category have 0.09 more children.

There are a lot of new readers who don’t seem to know how I roll.

  1. I am right.
  2. When in doubt, see rule one.

My assumptions have statistical backing. Read up or FO.

Oh, look, it’s the military! [coughs in K-type]

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/08/07/the-eugenic-economy/

My brain doesn’t instantly become thick because you dislike an opinion it produces.

If you’re not smart enough to know what’s science, what’s speculative and what’s satire, go elsewhere.

I’ve spent years proving myself on here, with a variety of good predictions (the refugee crisis, African demographics, Brexit, Trump etc). Your incredulity is not required.

Non-white births down in America

The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a baby.
https://ifstudies.org/blog/no-ring-no-baby ]

I am shook. Women don’t wanna be lumbered with the baby of a man who doesn’t care enough to be a husband and father?* They aren’t attracted to feckless manchilds?

Those bitches!

“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”

FEATURE

NOT. A. BUG.

Chart for the lazy people:

Look at the actual data before whining.

That’s called a selection pressure, children.

Men won’t marry? Women won’t breed.

Who wins? [women, their relatives breed]

But the “white” fertility figure is a bit misleading, as it includes most Hispanics, who have historically had much higher birth rates than non-Hispanic whites. Looking at all Hispanics together, these women are missing nearly 19% of the babies that would have been born from 2008-2016, or about 2.2 million births, as their age-adjusted fertility rates have fallen from 2.85 births per woman to just 2.1, and continue to decline. Meanwhile, non-Hispanic fertility has only declined from 1.95 births per woman to 1.72, yielding about 2.3 million missing births. Solidly half of the missing kids over the last decade would have been born to Hispanic mothers, despite the fact that Hispanics only make up about a quarter of fertility-age women.

Thus, in racial or ethnic terms, America’s “Baby Bust” is kinda, sorta, a little bit racist”

Telling them to be breeding sows isn’t?

Hey, what exactly are they claiming these women should do?

Get back in the maternity ward? Pump out future Dem voters?

*If you really “care” (virtue signal) about Western birth rates, Chicken Littles of the internet, ask MGTOW why they’re complaining about the birth rate but not marrying. You don’t get to complain if you’re causing the ‘problem’.

https://www.rt.com/usa/us-white-births-census-613/

https://nypost.com/2017/09/02/cheap-sex-is-making-men-give-up-on-marriage/

A problem you cause is a CHOICE.

[GDP will go up in a generation with fewer lower IQ drains on its system.]

Other data article:

For the lazy:

“That is, most long-run change in fertility can be accounted for by changes in the marital composition of society.”

Marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

HALF OR MORE.

Meanwhile, student loans must be written off if you care about IQ.

“It’s possible that debt may also reduce fertility, independently of marriage. Some studies do show that student debt has a strong effect on delaying fertility. The economic rationale is simple: having and raising children costs money, and student debt gobbles up a share of income right off the top of the budget. Crucially, even income-based repayment doesn’t fix this, as it resets with higher incomes: a debtor can’t earn their way out. As income rises, so do debt payments. At some high threshold, of course, the debtor can exceed the required payments and can advance the date of final repayment, but the point is that student loans, no matter how they are structured, divert money that might have gone towards planning for a child. It’s even possible that student loans delay marriage because they cause debtors to change their childbearing anticipations: maybe debtors realize they won’t be able to afford a child for a long time, and so they postpone marriage until they are (financially) ready for a child.”

Men can’t afford to marry, have kids unless loans are much lower.

Loan control would be a conservative policy, boosting high IQ fertility.

More babies being born are born to high IQ, educated parents.

Again, actual data.

“Finances, and student debt, specifically, aren’t the only reason for delayed marriage. Most unmarried people who want to get married say either that they are too young and unready for marriage, or else they haven’t found the right person. It may be that part of the problem is the decline in “marriageable men.” At the metro area level, the imbalance in sex ratios can sometimes be enormous.”

“The simple fact of the matter is that marital status is a key determinant of whether or not women have as many kids as they want.”

ACTUAL. DATA.

Women want to have kids, it’s the mens’ fault.

“Combined, it turns out that a combination of marital status, age, and fertility ideals is a pretty good predictor of individual-level fertility. In other words, marital status serves as a circuit-breaker on fertility aims: married people get close to achieving their aims, while never-married people generally don’t.”
“But one vital driver of birth rates is marriage. And as long as the average age of first marriage rises and the number of prime childbearing years the average woman spends married falls, we can expect to see fertility linger at low levels. Therefore, any policy supporting childbirth—however generous it may be—that does not also somehow impact marriage trends is unlikely to boost long-term fertility.”

It isn’t women’s fault they won’t man up.

The data is loud and clear.

White bachelor men are cucking themselves.

Inter-racial fertility

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00521.x

“Alternatively, opposition to the relationship from the couple’s family and friends may reduce fertility.”
Nice excuse, shame fertility is biological.

“Interracial and interethnic partnering do not affect fertility for cohabiting, Black‐White, Mexican‐White, and Puerto Rican‐White intermarried couples, but it does reduce fertility in Chinese‐White and Asian Indian‐White intermarriages.”

So much for your Eurasian master race, eh?

Does their atheism have anything to do with this?

Or should that be….

Take comfort in the fact there will be more half-black kids for your half-Asian kids to date!

Hybrid vigour, right goys?

Turley troopers

WHITE PILL POSTING.

http://www.pewforum.org/2018/05/29/being-christian-in-western-europe/

Attending church isn’t mandatory for faith. The disciples didn’t even do it. Plenty of attendees have no faith and don’t practice. They’re drunks, fornicators, adulterers and blasphemers.

Practice isn’t measured by how you spend a Sunday. And what is work? And what if your work is helping others? Jews consider using a light switch work. Is cooking? Food shopping? Cleaning? Driving? Using a door key?

You’re a Christian the whole week! Or not!

And what if the Lord made you nocturnal? Or you need to work weekends for overtime to feed family? This isn’t the Middle Ages, the Industrial Revolution screwed over our timings for church. Now we all have different schedules. Does reading the Bible not count as observance? What if the preacher isn’t using the Bible in good faith? What if all the local places are co-opted?

It’s just the Papacy that wanted to increase “donations” (that shouldn’t be tax-free, frankly).
There was a big social push to get weekly attendance. Because God said “rest” and that obviously implied “go out of your way to listen to people who just want to empty your wallet”.
Sitting in a pew won’t magically cleanse you. Priests don’t forgive, that’s God’s job.

I will whore for Patreon this once:

A new conservative age is rising in Western Europe! Support me on PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/drsteveturley

Death is genetic

Especially in the selfish, so the self-destructiveness of liberals (drugs, homosexuality, abortion, STDs) really is a feature, not a bug.

We already know sexual selection is genetic (r/K, HBD inheritance) so obviously natural is too.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/we-are-programmed-to-die-early-and-thats-a-good-thing

If death is gene-mediated, then who is programmed to live longer, r-types or Ks?

“Bar-Yam and his colleagues are arguing that natural selection actually favors traits that self-limit consumption and reproduction, not selfish maximalism, including lifespan limiting mortality. In other words, organisms may be able to have longer lifespans than they presently do, but natural selection has actually favored individuals that clock themselves out early.”

Unclear. Probably K but the variables are iffy.

They’re partially basing off the false idea that more reproduction is always good/favoured by evolution when actually it was responding to the selection pressure of high mortality. Now mortality is low, they should include quality, the alpha genes for the race between the sexes.
Fitness is not N children, that only applies when there is competition from r-types.

Sexual competition.

In a vacuum, K is superior for a society.

Empires rise with K, die with r.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/29/rk-is-timeless/

“Aside from August Weismann—who in 1882 did actually argue that death was programmed—it’s because when they considered the effect of evolutionary selection, they were taking averages across organisms and their environments instead of considering each individual organism in its local context. By removing the individual from its particular place or location within a given population, this average ignores the complex relationship between that individual and its environment.”

READ DARWIN.

“By looking at how an individual’s local context affects their fitness, Bar-Yam and his colleagues were able to show that traits which may be an advantage in the short-term (such as an individual’s longevity or ‘selfish’ resource consumption) can actually be a significant disadvantage in the long term, and vice versa.”

Implying it’s bad for the nation, the wider genetic kin group or thede.

Nature is nationalist.

“While this may work out well for the most selfish individuals in the short term, if Bar-Yam and his colleagues are correct it could be cataclysmic for our species in the long run.
“What people do affects their environment and that affects their ability to survive,” said Bar-Yam. “This is something we’re all well aware of today. If you overexploit your resources, you’re going to be in trouble.”‘

MALTHUS, she said, screaming into the void.

“As Bar-Yam points out, if death is genetically programmed, that also means it can probably be hacked.”

The problem with the autistic, they assume they know better than nature. They don’t even know what all these genes do in all conditions and they want to go chopping them out with CRISPR. You know why CF spread? It protects you from TB.

For those who know jack-shit about evolution: the vast majority of mutations are bad, not just bad but fatal (anti-fitness, dysgenic) and that’s why it’s good when nature throws away the genetic equivalent of a shitty doodle on scrunched-up paper. That’s why humans evolved to die quickly, to spread up the overall rate of mutation as a species but also to conserve gains quickly too with shorter generational duration (more breeding in same time).

How many people deserve to live that long? Will it include youth or the shit years, extended for centuries? Who wants to slave away for centuries, cos they can’t financially retire? Biohacking is fraught with technical issues.

Link: On pathology of low birthrates, explained

From the HBD side, both Anonymous Conservative and Jayman have previously agreed that the low birth rate of liberals is a feature and not a bug. The former from the perspective of low child-rearing in r-selection and the latter from genetics and, I guess, Malthus?

It’s connected, r-type extinction events are Malthusian in nature.

Obviously, the PC practice of pathological altruism (there is an academic book of that title on the subject) is applying ingroup evolved mechanisms to depress the ingroup birthrate and increase the outgroup based on the largesse of state theft. It’s a combination of resource reparations and treacherous (if not suicidal and insane) genocide, by the post-WW2 original definitions, already linked here.

http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/on-pathology-of-low-birthrates.html
~tuts in Social Darwinism~

A selection of neat lil quotes.

“But even people who think about this when it comes to profit and organisations often don’t think about the equivalent for ideas and cultural practices.
To wit: if you want a culture or idea to survive, the people who practice it must have high birth rates…
Because ideas, like most things in this world, are heritable. Both genetics and culture mean that parents in general pass their values on to their children. Take away the children, and you take away the people likely to hold the idea tomorrow.
Of course, people are apt to forget this, because it’s a slow-moving effect. The faster way ideas spread is through communication across a given population.

requires homogeneity and a culture of respect for received wisdom, interrupted in the 20th century, when all the major fault-lines started showing

Which is all well and good. The more you spread the idea, the more people who hold it right now, and, ceteris paribus, the more people will hold it next generation…..”

Richard Dawkins did not advance the idea of a meme.

It was Darwin.

The ‘gene’ is an idea of transmitted information, it is not limited to the biological, it is symbolic theory nor limited to precise ranges of biological material. That is a 20th century use based on chemical experiments to ‘crack’ human DNA using computers.
‘Origin of the Species’ should be on school reading lists. It isn’t because it’s accurate and unPC. Many science teachers aren’t qualified to explain it either, knowing nothing about say, farming or animal breeding, which are used in examples. You need life experience to explain life.

Meanwhile, the intelligent are either at home or in the wider workforce.

Later, on progressivism, political correctness, social justice warrior feminism etc…
Feminism in particular needs a constant fresh crop of young women far more than Patriarchy.

Anti-natal ideologies are parasitic on the host’s reproductive potential, it cripples more surely than Polio. Just look at abortion and anything labelled Cultural Marxism, it’s dysgenic, it’s a society-killer. Just like there are no centuries-old atheist or multicultural societies, these things do not have any survivability or, in PC terms, sustainability (really longevity, they don’t stand up to the scrutiny of history). The ‘right side of history’ rhetoric assumes humans have innately changed within a few generations and the old rules no longer apply.

Why? They are ‘fat and happy’ for the first time in human history. If you look up the history of mankind, we are not designed for this surplus unless our behaviours are prosocial and good for fitness of our ‘family’, genetic kin. (To love your neighbour had always previously meant distant genetic kin). However, charity has murdered the West as well as it has Africa, the fighting spirit and much of the independence and creativity has gone, the intellectual thirst died with candy. A little hunger if we fell behind on bills without welfare or some reliable religious fasting kept us sharp, there are plenty of studies that demonstrate health benefits, epigenetics is coming in, microbiome improvements AND the cognitive spectrum from starvation to gluttony, each with particular traits. Could it have been a sin because it leads to a decadent mind? Perhaps. Too much of a good thing is a very, very bad thing. All these anti-obesity efforts that blame the wrong thing (it isn’t fat, it’s carbs) and increase the price of basic foodstuffs (see CPI and how starvation includes malnutrition, with the lower nutrient profile of mass-produced food) and THAT is a superior explanation for K-shift and the so-called ‘rise of conservatism’ like a tidal wave.

Bread and circuses.

The deepest self-loathing is genetic suicide, the notion you don’t deserve to live – into the next generation.

All surviving religions have a pro-natal credo. This is not a coincidence.

I like these old-type posts but feel I’m explaining why water is wet.

SI

If you’re searching for dysgenic factors or variables to trigger suicidal liberals.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/practically-why-is-the-left-dead/
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2017/05/20/21st-century-economics-are-making-millennials-infertile/

Paper: The population cycle drives human history

http://www.v-weiss.de/cycle.html

No, it’s an actual paper.

The biggest problem with this population stuff is an emphasis of maths (quantity) over quality (HBD). The premise is false. Again, the premise is false:
HUMANS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE COGS.

…Humans are not much different from animals. If one promotes the reproduction of farm horses, one receives farm horses and no racehorses. As outlined before, the power of a people depends upon its percentage of intelligent and efficient ones.

I have posted about economic prosperity and national IQ. http://wp.me/p10lxG-1t5

These cannot be produced by school and education according to demand, but they must be born before, like racehorses. It is the erroneous belief of the politically correct that ill and weak descendants, if only they are well fed and educated, would be able to uphold the high level of Western civilization or even develop it further….

cool mocking shades yes peace

#mike drop#

…Myrdal (1940, 188ff.) wrote far‑sightedly: “The basic principle for population policy in a democratic country … is, that a very large number of births must be regarded as undesirable. … In a democratic society we cannot accept a way of things whereby the poor, ignorant, and inexperienced maintain the stock of population. … .The deepest dilemma of democratic population policy is that we do not desire … a reversal of industrialization and rationalization. … The general method of population policy can be described as a transfer of income from individuals and families without children to families with children. … In a democracy a population policy is a contradiction in itself. … It is not, like much other reform policy, the relatively simple question of inducing a majority to tax a minority for its own benefit. It is just the contrary: to ask a majority to tax itself severely in favor of a minority. For the majority of every population … consists of citizens who are either unmarried or have no child burdens at all, or only very light ones. [DS: We are already taxed AWAY from having children by high rent, utilities, clothes etc, why is it this way around, the anti-social way?]… For the overwhelming majority of every people, distributional reforms in the interest of the reproducing families mean economic sacrifice.” Until now, nowhere can such a policy or even a eugenic one be maintained in the necessary long run required for any chance of success….

Taxes are supposed to punish poor social grace, being childless by choice is anti-society, since you want everyone else to pay for your stuff in old age, why shouldn’t it tax you? At least for your pension and other costs? Or might people exempt themselves from future societal benefits if they chose to be childless? I might agree with that.

This says it all:

When the insight began, it did not immediately produce the expected consequences, and once the consequences eventuated, any effective policy is mentally handcuffed by egalitarian ideology.

And what about assistance for those with children who couldn’t have the foresight to wear a condom? Nobody ever thinks of cutting it because ‘think of the children’ but they fail to see those people chose to be reckless, yet keep their kids. Any other type of recklessness is punished.

If you’re old enough to consent, you’re able to take full legal responsibility for the child.

Over to John Stuart Mill;

“Every one has a right to live. We will suppose this granted. But no one has a right to bring children into life to be supported by other people. Whoever means to stand upon the first of these rights must renounce all pretension to the last.”