Genetic load and no, you’re not entitled to breed.

The low IQ Americans: MUH ANCESTORS
-died. Mostly died. STFU with the snowflaking outrage.

Maths below.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297657116_Mutation_and_Human_Exceptionalism_Our_Future_Genetic_Load

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.

What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.

Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?

You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.

The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,

Non-uniform.

By race and subrace.

potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,

Which metrics?

Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.

and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.

Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.

You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?

Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.

Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.

Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.

Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.

No action?

No correction?

No control?

No standards?

No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?

Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?

Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!

Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!

Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.

This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.

We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.

Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?

No, that would be both logical and responsible.

See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291734415_Mean_household_size_in_mid-Tudor_Englandclackclose_hundred_Norfolk

cites
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313794802_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.

For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)

I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.

Of those born, low ball:

100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15
15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.

Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.

RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.

Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?

Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*

Less conservative estimate:

100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12
12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.

Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in. 

And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.

At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.

What was it all for?

so

7.5%

or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS

down to, more reasonably

6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.

[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]

or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.

Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**

Since breeding requires TWO people, America.

3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

6% by sex.

This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.

If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.

This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.

If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.

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?

 

Inbreeding without depression

https://countryofnowhere.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/inbreeding-in-the-uk/

As in, normal group preference, genophilia. No mutations.

Reminds me of the study that found distant cousins most fecund.

Britons are still living in the same ‘tribes’ that they did in the 7th Century, Oxford University has found after an astonishing study into our genetic make-up. Archaeologists and geneticists were amazed to find that genetically similar individuals inhabit the same areas they did following the Anglo-Saxon invasion, following the fall of the Roman Empire.

In fact, a map showing tribes of Britain in 600AD is almost identical to a new chart showing genetic variability throughout the UK, suggesting that local communities have stayed put for the past 1415 years.

Geneticist Professor Sir Walter Bodmer of Oxford University said: “What it shows is the extraordinary stability of the British population. Britain hasn’t changed much since 600AD.

“When we plotted the genetics on a map we got this fantastic parallel between areas and genetic similarity.

….

The findings also showed that there is not a single ‘Celtic’ genetic group. In fact the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically.

And the research has finally answered the question of whether the Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons interbred with the Brits or wiped out communities.

The team found that people in central and southern England have a significant DNA contribution from the Anglo-Saxons showing that the invaders intermarried with, rather than replaced, the existing population.

By choice or rape?

But there is no genetic signature from the Danish Vikings even though they controlled large parts of England – The Danelaw – from the 9th century, suggesting they conquered, kept largely to themselves, and then left. Only Orkney residents were found to have Viking DNA.

“We found that 25 per cent of the DNA of someone living in Orkney is from Norse ancestry which suggests that when the Vikings arrived they intermingled with the local population rather than wiping them out,” added Prof Peter Donnelly.

“Similarly the Saxons in Germany have contributed DNA to some of the English groups but not to some of the others. We can see not only the differences in the UK but the reasons for those differences in terms of population movements.”

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2015-03-19-who-do-you-think-you-really-are-genetic-map-british-isles#

https://countryofnowhere.wordpress.com/2016/05/20/simple-uk-genetic-maps/

Inbreeding is great if you have low genetic load in the participants, it preserves the health, looks and intellect of the bloodline. The breeding of good breeding was this deliberate sexual selection for fitness. It’s only a problem when you introduce mutations. They compound.

Outbreeding is far more likely to produce diseased or infertile offspring, much like a liger or a mongrel, the depression of mutations in genetic load can occur in a single generation.

Your deadbeat dad made you short

I ain’t playin’ today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4697772/
It isn’t muh genetics, it was Daddy’s adultery.
The sins of the father shall be visited etc etc.

If only we were warned in a book of some kind.

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Sins-Of-The-Father/

Men: parental death and divorce during early childhood was associated with shorter adult height, and later puberty. Later puberty was associated with shorter adult height. Path analyses demonstrated that the relationship between parental divorce and height was completely mediated by age at puberty; although parental death was only partially mediated by age at puberty

The wages of sin. Deadbeats may as well be statistically dead. Actually better.

Good luck blaming the Jews for your Dad’s case of the Wandering Penis.

Most common cause of divorce: adultery.

Most common spouse to cheat: male.

Sure, the wife might file but… vitally, after she’s been publicly humiliated. The Bible says to leave if he won’t do his duty.

If their own father is still sexual competition (coughs in Freud) then logically the son’s body would shut down and delay puberty. Manwhore dads kill their son’s chances, since they’re bad parents. Adultery isn’t just spousal abuse, it’s child abuse. So severe, it gets the death penalty of both guilty parties in Christianity. Better an adulterous husband be dead, for his children’s sake. Health outcomes like this prove it.

The Sexual Revolution made you short… and ironically less successful in it.

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!

Click to access 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.

Click to access 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.

Male attractiveness genetic, not gym

I was shocked.

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/171790

Abstract only, you can read the rest.

Human mate choice is influenced by limb proportions.

So far, so obvious.

Previous work has focused on leg-to-body ratio (LBR) as a determinant of male attractiveness and found a preference for limbs that are close to, or slightly above, the average. We investigated the influence of two other key aspects of limb morphology: arm-to-body ratio (ABR) and intra-limb ratio (IR). In three studies of heterosexual women from the USA, we tested the attractiveness of male physiques that varied in LBR, ABR and IR, using figures that ranged from −3 to +3 standard deviations from the population mean.

Good method.

You win a cookie.

We replicated previous work by finding that the optimally attractive LBR is approximately 0.5 standard deviations above the baseline.

Two cookies.

Health advantage (fitness) over mean.

We also found a weak effect of IR, with evidence of a weak preference for the baseline proportions.

All the cookies.

You didn’t fake anything.

In contrast, there was no effect of ABR on attractiveness,

Gym doesn’t change your ultimate genetic value.
Bicep curls won’t save an ugly mug, sorry.
And if they did, they’d still complain and call women shallow.
Like evolution is something superficial?

and no interactions between the effects of LBR, ABR and IR.

See, this is how you science.

THIS IS HOW YOU SCIENCE.

Our results indicate that ABR is not an important determinant of human mate choice for this population,

straight women, regular straight women

if you wanna pick up lesbians, your results may vary

and that IR may exert some influence but that this is much smaller than the effects of LBR. We discuss possible reasons for these results, including the limited variability in upper limb proportions and the potentially weak fitness-signal provided by this aspect of morphology.

Thank you!

Gym also means you throw off ratios with circumference and other noise. Optical illusions tend to operate on this principle. Women adapt out of being fooled.

A peacock can’t exercise into better plumage, LBR is the human genetic equivalent.
This is a solid finding, LBR is the male version of female WHR.

It’s nice to see someone take a male study seriously. We need more data so men aren’t pointlessly chasing a marketing dream of abs and pecs. Homoerotic fantasies pushed by gay designers won’t attract women.

I want to see a study in preference for the artificial look of gym bodies (both sexes) against likelihood of personality disorders.

Male beauty predicts sperm quality

Duuuuuh?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000138

It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.

Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

Fitness and reproductive success, bound.

Darwin wins again.

And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).

Sexual dimorphism and health

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/Suppl_1/S93

“Incels” reee.

Evolutionary psychologists suggest that a preference for sexually dimorphic traits in human faces is an adaptation for mate choice, because such traits reflect health during development. For male faces, this claim rests on the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis, which states that the increased testosterone levels needed to develop large masculine traits stress the immune system. We examined whether masculine traits in adolescent male faces are associated with health during development, and also whether feminine traits in adolescent female faces signal health. Feminine traits are attractive, but it is less clear whether they should signal health.

Being fertile = female health as a teen. More women are viable than men. Most men would die in crime, competition and war.

To be fair

Rated masculinity in adolescent male faces correlated modestly with actual health, and was perceived as healthy,

Duh.

but not as attractive.

Also obvious.

Gym rats and dudebros can’t make up for an ugly mug or low caste with bulked-up bitch tits.
Women aren’t stupid.

There are tons of Muslims gunning it down the gym, thinking they can magically interest white women.
Look at them on instagram.

This doesn’t work.

Rated femininity in adolescent female faces did not correlate with actual health, although it was perceived as healthy and attractive.

What is “attractive” now is just sexy, vis a vis quite masculine (big lips need a big jaw) and the old classic beauties with fine, smaller features in harmony were the fertile ones. Ideal:

These results support the immunocompetence-handicap hypothesis for male faces in that masculine traits signalled health during adolescence. However, they suggest that any health-related evolutionary benefits obtained from preferences for attractive facial traits may be weak.

Patriarchs don’t let their daughters marry pretty sluts, either.

Women do care about appearance, just genetic cues; not something easily faked with estrogenic wheatgrass powders and self-destructive vain exercise habits. Straight women are not attracted to men who look – sorry – gay.

The two options in modern life aren’t slob or effete but you wouldn’t know it looking.

A man is not measured by the size of his muscles or his notch counts.

Fitness is real masculinity, you earn real muscle by building something or fighting someone.

We could build orphanages and pave roads but no, that’s low status work-out, can’t do that! Might be patriotic and prosocial!

The hospitals and old manors crumble while men “slave” to look half-starved and wax their chest, history will deserve to mock your generation. The rich bastards on the Titanic had a gym.

Useful people got PAID to work out! I know! Crazy!

Many of history’s greatest men were slender virgins and they’ll matter more than any of these “Beautiful Ones” suiciding themselves out of the gene pool. Women want men, not some metrosexual who might come out as gay once they’ve pumped you for three kids. If you see a white woman, with an Asian, note he isn’t the gym type and was willing to propose and raise a family (what makes a man).

Human genetic load dragging us down

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/
The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition, potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies, and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern.” The word is dysgenic for $200.
“Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.”


Good luck with dropping global IQ, if anyone dared measure such a thing. Sum IQ/global population is the equation.

Who will pay for this global NHS? Our NHS is already running down with a slight immigrant pressure.

It is slight compared to The World.

As JF has mentioned, “clusters” as seen in racial categorization, pertain to findings of genetic distance.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070&type=printable

Examination of the relationship between genetic and geographic distance supports a view in which the clusters arise not as an artifact of the sampling scheme, but from small discontinuous jumps in genetic distance for most population pairs on opposite sides of geographic barriers, in comparison with genetic distance for pairs on the same side.

Called it.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/23/chromosomes-make-culture-including-language/

Speaking of germline mutations ruining society.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597845/

Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations

Is that a large enough sample for the manosphere? They don’t like the answer so obviously not.

As if I don’t post topics strategically… tut tut.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/old-men-dead-babies/

“Higher paternal age at offspring conception increases de novo genetic mutations. Based on evolutionary genetic theory we predicted older fathers’ children, all else equal, would be less likely to survive and reproduce, i.e. have lower fitness.”
The sins of the father…
Old dads, no grandkids?
“showed negative paternal age effects on infant survival and offspring reproductive success.”
Sexual selection goes for young men, with better hormone profiles and less obesity.*
Darwin says aged paternal societies are bad for it. Nobody needs your dusty DNA. That’s a sign of corruption – keeping the young men down, not breeding. *another direct link to children again
“Effects survived tests for key competing explanations, including maternal age and parental loss,”
Again, you cannot blame the women.

“We can use our findings to aid in predicting the effect increasingly older parents in today’s society will have on their children’s survival and reproductive success. To the extent that we succeeded in isolating a mutation-driven effect of paternal age, our results can be understood to show that de novo mutations reduce offspring fitness across populations and time periods.”

As close as science gets to settled.

Old fathers are a sign of a dying society. Right up there with strippers and crossdressers. You passed the time period where you were viable with decadence but managed to breed anyway, that society’s social norms are seriously damaged. Applies to women too but paternal age is a bigger factor so I have to spotlight. In a Patriarchy, you would expect fathers are held to the highest standards possible. Their total authority relies on the moral authority consequent of that fact.