Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

Psychiatrist: fuck feelings

http://nypost.com/2015/08/23/psychiatrist-says-f-k-happiness-and-f-k-self-esteem/

clapping well done you tony

Adults who want to be handled with kid gloves can indeed fuck right off.

Say you’ve been to therapy, or bought a self-help book, or thought about doing either of those things. You may be wondering, “Why can’t I be happy?” “Why do I have such bad luck?” or “Why is my boss so unfair?”

One shrink has a novel solution: “F–k happy. F–k self-improvement, self-esteem, fairness, helpfulness and everything in between.”

Because if you can set aside all of these obsessions, you might be able to simply accept that there are lots of things you can’t change — and get over it.

Resilience.
Grow up.

That’s the message of the new book “F*ck Feelings” (Simon & Schuster), whose authors combine different skill sets for what amounts to the Ice Bucket Challenge of self-help books. The writers who would like to dump a gallon of ice chunks all over your confused little skull are Dr. Michael Bennett, a Harvard Medical School-trained psychiatrist, and his comedy-writer daughter Sarah Bennett, who used to contribute to the improv act the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. So if the book doesn’t fix your life, at least you may get a laugh out of it.

Whenever you have an insoluble “Why?” in your life, the Bennetts offer, the solution is to stop asking the question. “The answer you’ll get from your Maker, when you finally meet Him or Her and get to ask why,” they write, “is the same one you got from your mother when she didn’t know the answer and didn’t want to waste time — ‘because I said so. Now go make yourself useful.’ ”
And don’t expect anyone (except your mother) to pay attention when you’re describing your pains and sorrows.

In the chapter “F–k Self-Esteem,” the Bennetts mock the idea that feeling good about yourself is “an essential vitamin to take before you can gain control of your life.”

All it does is create r-selected Little Emperor sluts (inc. men).

Forget that: “Enjoy bursts of confidence when you can and take credit for your hard work, but beware making confidence a goal, because that implies control, responsibility and blame when you can’t make it happen . . . Instead, assume you’re stuck with s- -t.” So do your best to survive, try not to add to your troubles, and behave as if you like yourself.

A more pressing problem no one is doing anything about is ESE: Excessive Self-Esteem. “It would help humanity a lot more if those suffering from ESE adjusted their self-admiration to more reasonable levels,” the Bennetts write. If only Oprah would do shows entitled, “You’re not that great!”

Useful as the book is in counteracting therapy-speak — it amounts to a nourishing slap in the face for those who need to be shocked out of their crybaby habits — it’s really more important than that. Because the way Americans think about civic life is as flawed as the way we think about our own lives.

The book supplies lists of “things you wish for and can’t have” contrasted with “things you can aim for and actually achieve.” For instance, you wish you could have a “an improved heart free of hate, envy, fear and general ugliness.” Fat chance, buddy. What can you actually achieve? “Act decently in spite of the way you really feel” and “bear the pain of living with ugly feelings.”

I vaguely recall a book being written on this subject already. How to be a good person with a life of meaning.
I believe, now, don’t quote me on this, but I believe it was the Best Selling Book of All Time. Or something. Called The Bible? I think. Maybe.

If Americans ever reached that stage, it would be a natural next step for everyone to think: Hey, other people have feelings I consider ugly. I guess I’ll have to deal with that instead of trying to shut them up, or pretending I need a “safe space” where I can retreat from, say, Christina Hoff Sommers. Sommers’ speech at Oberlin last spring, in which she said “rape culture” on college campuses is overstated, caused a tiny tantrum among infantile students who warned of “toxic, dangerous, and/or violent” people, as though the scholar’s speech contained arsenic or bullets.

lol laughing rdj tony stark heehee haha

TLP, is that you?
Game recognize game. 

Even more important is the chapter, “F–k Fairness.” Sure, watching bad guys suffer makes for great entertainment, but the Bennetts warn about “the amount of evil you can cause by pursuing fairness.” You can’t undo all of the bad things that happen, at least not in this life. “You need to know when to accept the fact that you’ve been f–ked and know when fighting will get you further f–ked,” is the colorful way the Bennetts put it.

Rumination is toxic for the body. I’m not playing. It really is.
This books sound awfully stoic, I may need to add it to my list.

That is sound advice when it comes to your personal life — sorry your Daddy hit you and you didn’t get to hit him back, but there’s nothing you can do about it now. But it also goes for your existence as a citizen. Putting your psychic energy on a politician who promises an end to all the bad stuff that’s happened in the past, or who heralds a new law that is going to prevent bad stuff from happening in the future, or creates a sparkly new agency that is going to protect you from your own stupidity? F–k that.

Yeah, this is going on the list.
Anyone above the age of about 10 who believes in magical solutions should be legally ruled a minor.

Study: The self-control consequences of political ideology

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/06/17/1503530112.abstract
Other coverage here: phys.org/pdf354215618.pdf
and here: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-liberals
and here: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-06-belief-free-edge-self-control.html

Oh, r-types.

They want to be victims so badly, they learn helplessness and dependence and stamp their little feet. They reject their agency and wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

Gif is completely, totally relevant.

 

Increase Redundancies

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/08/04/two-is-one-and-one-is-none-how-redundancies-increase-your-antifragility/

This can apply on a cerebral level too. I frequently stack things slightly in my favour when there’s no reason and little effort. It might appear pointless, but if you’re backed into a corner (think of it like a chess game) you never know which of those advantages could come good.

The quality of bouncing back is called grit, it’s more of a perseverance and I like this anti-fragile idea.

Idiocracy is happening: dysgenics is making our brains shrink

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking

“Which brings us to an unpleasant possibility. “You may not want to hear this,” says cognitive scientist David Geary of the University of Missouri, “but I think the best explanation for the decline in our brain size is the idiocracy theory.” Geary is referring to the eponymous 2006 film by Mike Judge about an ordinary guy who becomes involved in a hibernation experiment at the dawn of the 21st century. When he wakes up 500 years later, he is easily the smartest person on the dumbed-down planet. “I think something a little bit like that happened to us,” Geary says. In other words, idiocracy is where we are now.”

Reminds me of something