Explains the persecution complex.
Explains the persecution complex.
Throwing this here.
and the spread is nice and geographical — west to east/north to south: the anglos and the dutch (and are the scandinavians there? i can’t tell), my long-term outbreeders, are the least corrupt — then, working upwards on the chart (i.e. towards more corrupt) you’ve got the belgians and french and spanish — crossing the line into the more corrupt zone you start to have poland and hungary and the czech republic, places on the border of the hajnal line and the medieval outbreeding project — and then you get up to italy and the ukraine and russia.
east asia is, of course, interesting with singapore, hong kong, and japan being some of the least corrupt, and china being way up by corrupt italy. need to work on figuring out east asia one of these days! (~_^)
Nobody looks at Asia.
We know about Africa and Europe, we all know at this point. For about a century, we have known.
The interesting thing now is Asia/Europe. Are you all too scared to look?
Look at voting patterns, this is important.
so, there’s definitely a connection between intelligence and corruption, but that’s not the whole story, otherwise china and russia and italy and korea wouldn’t be very corrupt at all.
maybe their IQ scores are as real as their college transcripts?
Muh model minority.
Cheating is illegal BTW. It’s fraud and theft from the worthy applicants who lost out (zero sum).
Teachers help too: racketeering.
one thing that the chinese, russians, and italians have in common (don’t know much about the koreans) is a longer history of inbreeding as compared to the english and the dutch (see mating patterns series below ↓ in left-hand column). the awesome epigone did find a correlation (0.44) between consanguinity and corruption, but like i said then, i’m betting that the correlation would be stronger if we could calculate something like degree+length-of-time inbreeding.
All trader nations. Merchants. Former merchant empires.
see also: Corruption: The Exception or the Rule?
The third piece of evidence is that the racial gaps have existed for a long time. In fact, based on the data from the tables above, the White/Black brain size gap doesn’t seem to have gotten any smaller during the 20th century.
Long before your 60s immigration acts.
The first thing to note is that brain size in the general population has a heritability of 87%. Thus, almost all the differences between individuals in brain size are caused by genes.
Secondly, we should note that racial brain size differences are present at, and even before, birth.
Keep blaming women though, that’ll help.
We need more direct studies like this. Gestation length and other variables must be accounted.
Menarche and other variables like WHR vary by race in the women too. More studies! MORE!
The manosphere is based on a myth of equalism, it was destined to fail.
Fourthly, racial brain size differences have been found all around the world. For instance, the Beals and Smith data set previously referred to features skulls from over 100 populations world wide. Many of the autopsy studies previously cited were done in East Asia, as were two of the MRI studies. This makes any gene independent cultural explanation less likely.
Fifthly, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934; Bean, 1906). This finding has been established on multiple occasions and is what a hereditarian hypothesis would predict since mulattoes are half White and half Black genetically speaking.
Do studies for other mixes.
Sixth, many traits which tend to co-evolve with larger brains also differ racially in a way that mirrors the body size adjusted brain size pattern. Rushton and Rushton (2003) looked at 37 anatomical features which 3 textbooks on human evolution identified as tending to co-evolve in the hominid line with larger brains. For instance, larger pelvic size tends to co-evolve with brain size so that mothers can give birth to larger brained infants. Rushton then utilized 5 forensic anthropology textbooks to look at racial differences in these traits. These traits followed the East Asian>White>Black pattern in 25 out of 31 cases. The probability of this happening at random is .000000001.
WHR is important.
Follow the tag, there are racial differences in studies.
And East-Asian isn’t a race, at best it’s a sub-group, do more studies. Properly.
Asians fail more often on IVF, also posted about that.
Similarly, Rushton (2004) showed that, across 234 mammalian species, brain size correlates with longevity, gestation time, birth weight, litter size, age of first mating, body weight, and body length. Various studies have shown that each of these variables also differ between the races in a way that, based on what we find across the animal kingdom, would predict the body size corrected brain size differences we observe (Rushton, 1995; Templer 2006; Rushton and Templer, 2009;).
Longevity – must look at averages e.g. not Danes for all whites nor Japs for all Asians.
Gestation – we know this varies.
Weight – control confounds.
Litter size – look at natural rate of twinning.
Virginity loss is r-select, do not want.
Body weight – vague.
Length – we already know racial height. Still, add to the rest, I guess.
Thus, we have six lines of evidence all of which would be predicted by a hereditarian view on racial differences in brain size. While each line of evidence on its own may not be compelling, the combination of all six seems to strongly imply that racial brain size gaps are partly heritable.
It is worth noting that the racial brain size gaps are probably not entirely attributable to genes. Some authors, including Richard Nisbett, have plausibly argued that nutrition also plays a role. However, there explanations are not mutually exclusive, no environmental variables has been shown to account for the majority of the gap, and, as we have seen, there are many separate lines of evidence indicating that genes also play a role
A confound, in weight.
I suggest seafood consumption.
There is good evidence that the races evolved different brain sizes in response to climate. Specifically, various studies have found that a population’s brain size correlates with climate related variables. For instance, Pearce and Dunbar (2011) ‘s data set produces a correlation of .74 between a population’s brain size and its latitude. Similarly, Ash and Gallup (2007) found a correlation of .48 between the size of 109 fossilized human skulls and the latitude at which they were found. Further still, Bailey and Geary (2009) analyzed 175 skulls ranging in age from 10,000 years old to 1.9 million years old and found a correlation of -.41 between brain size and winter temperature and -.61 between size and latitude (larger brains were found in areas more distant from the equator).
How dare you use science.
The weebs might reee!
Lynn (2015) used Smith and Beals data set of 20,000 skulls from 122 populations to estimate that roughly 30% of the African-European IQ gap can be statistically accounted for by brain size differences. By contrast, brain size differences would actually predict an Asian-European IQ gap 35% larger than the one that actually exists. Thus, brain size is probably one of many factors, both biological and environmental, which account for racial intelligence differences.
Can ya rig the test?
Easy, who’s the most innovative?
Especially before colonialism spreading info. Right?
You can rig IQ tests and college transcripts, not more advanced farming equipment when the other group invented it centuries prior.
Solutrean hypothesis. [Aside from small bands of Viking later on].
“The Solutrean-Clovis connection (more formally known as the “North Atlantic Ice-Edge Corridor Hypothesis”) is one theory of the peopling of the American continents that suggest that the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean culture is ancestral to Clovis. This idea has its roots in the 19th-century when archaeologists such as CC Abbott postulated that the Americas had been colonized by Paleolithic Europeans. After the Radiocarbon Revolution, however, this idea fell into disuse, only to be revived in the late 1990s by American archaeologists Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford.
Time of academic standards and real proofs.
Radiocarbon is bullshit and everyone knows it. The hard limit is a thousand years or two.
“I asked several people who know about this field. Their responses are numbered below.
(1.) C14 dating is very accurate for wood used up to about 4,000 years ago. This is only because it is well calibrated with objects of known age. ”
And that’s wood, DNA dies faster but thankfully, we have skeletal forensics.
Their supposed and awfully convenient Asian DNA/Clovis finding was based on, you guessed it, radiocarbon data.
Plus a hefty pinch of BS.
“Only 1 to 2 percent of the collected DNA was human,” Willerslev said. “The rest of it came from bacteria that invaded the skeleton after death.” “Comparison studies of the ancient DNA showed that it was similar to the genomes of ancient people living in Siberia and the ancestors of East Asians.”
– Siberia is European, racially, especially at that time. So they didn’t actually disprove Solutrean whatsoever.
You also cannot compare 1% of an ancient child’s skull shavings, tops, with modern 100% human DNA.
ANY modern human. It’s well within error range for a racial study. Hypothetically, however….
If they were Asian, they’d be comparable with modern Asians including those living American tribes, not ambiguous and long-dead ‘ancestors’ of certain Asians. AKA they’re (Clovis) not actually related to the modern tribes at all claiming the name ‘Native American’, by their own admission. What does ancestors mean? Could be bloody African for all we know, because they do not explain. Could be an amoeba. Literally.
And why would they genocide their own relatives? Think.
More on Solutrean:
Bradley and Stanford argued that at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum, ca 25,000–15,000 radiocarbon years ago, the Iberian peninsula of Europe became a steppe-tundra environment, forcing Solutrean populations to the coasts. Maritime hunters then traveled northward along the ice margin, up the European coast, and around the North Atlantic Sea. Bradley and Stanford pointed out that the perennial Arctic ice at the time could have formed an ice bridge connecting Europe and North America. Ice margins have intense biological productivity and would have provided a robust source of food and other resources….”
Migration proof, timing, ecosystem, food supply. All in keeping with Darwinism.
In line with other intellectually honest, more recent info e.g. A Troublesome Inheritance.
Cue bullshit cover-up.
“Evidence supporting the Solutrean theory of Clovis colonization includes two artifacts—a bi-pointed stone blade and mammoth bone—which are said to have been dredged from the eastern American continental shelf in 1970 by the scalloping boat Cin-Mar. These artifacts found their way into a museum, and the bone was subsequently dated to 22,760 RCYBP. However, according to research published by Eren and colleagues in 2015, the context for this important set of artifacts is completely missing: without a firm context, archaeological evidence is not credible.”
It’s negative evidence for the latter Asian hypotheses, you are wrong.
Appeal to credulity, fuck off with your scientism.
No artifact has context because you can’t go back in time and ask them questions, not an argument.
They literally have objects taken from areas of the earth from those time periods, no radiocarbon required.
“One piece of supporting evidence cited in Stanford and Bradley’s 2012 book, ‘Across Atlantic Ice,” is the use of caching. A cache is defined as a tightly clustered deposit of artifacts that containing little or no manufacturing debris or residential debris, artifacts which appear to have been deliberately buried at the same time. For these ancient site types, caches are typically made up of stone or bone/ivory tools.
Ancient preppers, aye.
So you have undisturbed earth, specific cultural objects and known white behaviour.
Stick a fork in it, it’s done.
Bone artifacts are recorded as European and Neanderthal based. They are still used in Europe for leathercraft.
“A remarkable series of several dozen European-style stone tools, dating back between 19,000 and 26,000 years, have been discovered at six locations along the US east coast.”
Stanford and Bradley suggest that “only” Clovis (such as Anzick, Colorado and East Wenatchee, Washington) and Solutrean (Volgu, France) societies are known to have cached objects before 13,000 years ago. But there are pre-Clovis caches in Beringia (Old Crow Flats, Alaska, Ushki Lake, Siberia), and pre-Solutrean caches in Europe (Magdalenian Gönnersdorf and Andernach sites in Germany).”
“The most prominent opponent of the Solutrean connection is American anthropologist Lawrence Guy Straus.”
One guy means fuck-all. Whataboutism doesn’t work.
The proof wouldn’t be there if the peoples were not.
“Since the discovery of credible Preclovis sites, Bradley and Stanford now argue for a Solutrean origin of Preclovis culture. The diet of Preclovis was definitely more maritime-oriented, and the dates are closer in time to Solutrean by a couple of thousand years—15,000 years ago instead of Clovis’s 11,500, but still short of 22,000. Preclovis stone technology is not the same as Clovis or Solutrean technologies, and the discovery of ivory beveled foreshafts at the Yana RHS site in Western Beringia has further lessened the strength of the technology argument.”
Lessened is not debunked, lessened is your claimed opinion, they just need more data (edit: found, added above). The data they have doesn’t vanish.
Above link up to 26,000 years ago now, guess they found the extra evidence they needed.
“Finally, and perhaps most compellingly, there is a growing body of molecular evidence from modern and ancient indigenous American people indicating that the original population of the Americas have an Asian, and not a European, origin.”
Conflation, intellectual dishonesty, false equivalence.
Er, studying modern people claiming a title means NOTHING to ancient ones. Non sequitur. The modern tribes are Asian based but they’re noticeably not dead under icy layers. It is mathematical certainty the modern Asians in America must’ve killed the ancient Clovis tribes. Genocide.
So there’s no thing as a Native American – that’s still alive.
Latter X2a studies essentially try to prove a negative, therefore impossible, as well as wrong.
Modern tribal Asians in America are also European-Asian mongrels, drawing any conclusions on their DNA is patently false, as it pertains to ancients. Shit in a pool is still shit.
Outside of America, the Clovis child skull study was interpreted correctly:
Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy’s origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy’s ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.
S I B E R I A N
Krauts are so Asian, aren’t they?
Their findings go even further: More than 80 percent of all native peoples in the Americas — from the Alaska’s Aleuts to the Maya of Yucatan to the Aymaras along the Andes — are descended from Montana boy’s lineage.
Mongrels, discounted. Some of those the product of white female rape. Well documented into the late 19th century.
Last week, the scientists published the results of sequencing the child’s DNA in the scientific journal Nature. Late last year, the same team published the decoded genome of another early human: A juvenile buried near Lake Baikal in Siberia some 24,000 years ago. Their genomes showed surprising ancestral similarities.
That American publications forgot to mention.
Along with the entire Siberian study, really.
Not suppressed, no.
Perish the thought.
This earned Willerslev’s team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages — when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over — in greater detail than ever before.
specific DNA, mapped migration patterns, items used…. where’s the argument against now?
In the trash, where it belongs.
A third of both juveniles’ DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal’ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany’s Swabian Jura mountains.
Germans are the new Asian?
Such genetic analysis of Native American bones is highly controversial. It is a sacrilege to some. Others fear it could link their ancestors to Europeans, as this study has done.
If you don’t like science, stop taking our antibiotics.
Gathered at the burial site, Willerslev revealed the team’s results: the remains’ age, the boy’s ancestry to native tribes of the Americas and the links to Siberia and Europe. Doyle’s reaction would determine whether or not Willerslev’s study could be published or not because the scientist had promised to destroy it if he didn’t obtain permission.
Quit your bullshit, scientism.
We don’t destroy findings because the non-whites get uppity. They raped enough white women to have that DNA, it means f-all. It doesn’t connect to ancient peoples directly, as the most PC reporters actually admit.
I’ll believe they’re related to whites when they stop taking AA.
Some of the earliest humans to inhabit America came from Europe according to a new book Across Atlantic Ice: The Origin of America’s Clovis Culture. The book puts forward a compelling case for people from northern Spain traveling to America by boat, following the edge of a sea ice shelf that connected Europe and America during the last Ice Age, 14,000 to 25,000 years ago. Across Atlantic Ice is the result of more than a decade’s research by leading archaeologists Bruce Bradley of the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom, and Dennis Stanford of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. Through archaeological evidence, they turn the long-held theory of the origins of New World populations on its head. For more than 400 years, it has been claimed that people first entered America from Asia, via a land bridge that spanned the Bering Sea. We now know that some people did arrive via this route nearly 15,000 years ago, probably by both land and sea. Eighty years ago, stone tools long believed to have been left by the first New World inhabitants were discovered in New Mexico and named Clovis. These distinctive Clovis stone tools are now dated around 12,000 years ago leading to the recognition that people preceded Clovis into the Americas. No Clovis tools have been found in Alaska or Northeast Asia, but are concentrated in the south eastern United States. Groundbreaking discoveries from the east coast of North America are demonstrating that people who are believed to be Clovis ancestors arrived in this area no later than 18,450 years ago and possibly as early as 23,000 years ago, probably in boats from Europe. These early inhabitants made stone tools that differ in significant ways from the earliest stone tools known in Alaska. It now appears that people entering the New World arrived from more than one direction.
In “Across Atlantic Ice,” the authors trace the origins of Clovis culture from the Solutrean people, who occupied northern Spain and France more than 20,000 years ago. They believe that these people went on to populate America’s east coast, eventually spreading at least as far as Venezuela in South America. The link between Clovis and contemporary Native Americans is not yet clear.
Sure it fucking is – there isn’t one.
They’ve looked and found nothing.
Bradley and Stanford do not suggest that the people from Europe were the only ancestors of modern Native Americans.
They’re mixes, duh. Heavily Asian, look at the skulls.
They argue that it is evident that early inhabitants also arrived from Asia, into Alaska, populating America’s western coast.
Their ongoing research suggests that the early history of the continent is far more intriguing than we formerly believed. Some of the archaeological evidence analyzed in the book was recovered from deep in the ocean. When the first people arrived in America, sea levels were nearly 130 meters lower than today. The shore lines of 20,000 years ago, which hold much of the evidence left by these early people, are now under the ocean. This is also the case in Europe.
“We now have really solid evidence that people came from Europe to the New World around 20,000 years ago,” Bradley says. “Our findings represent a paradigm shift in the way we think about America’s early history. We are challenging a very deep-seated belief in how the New World was populated. The story is more intriguing and more complicated than we ever have imagined.” “There are more alternatives than we think in archaeology and we need to have imagination and an open mind when we examine evidence to avoid being stuck in orthodoxy,” Stanford adds. “This book is the result of more than a decade’s work, but it is just the beginning of our journey.” Across Atlantic Ice is published by University California Press, Berkeley.–Source University of Exeter
The sexual dimorphism for this metric is obviously lowest on Asians.
Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.
Hello sexual selection, tied intimately to natural selection.
also connected to “desire and capability for having children” p7 or 299.
so K-type women may have better WHR.
Normal weight women have the most positive attributes associated.
Overweight category was universally unattractive.
It’d be nice to see a male study on this. I think Western women would want more children if fewer men were obese.
Why Asians are considered youthful but not sexy (they’d usually fall in the underweight group):
The variables of attractiveness, sexiness, and good health were located close to each other, suggesting that subjects perceived them to be closely related.
Attributes of desire and capability for having children were located close to each other in the solution space but farther from attractiveness, sexiness, and good health, implying that subjects did not perceive a great similarity between these two sets of attributes.
Finally, the attribute of youthfulness was located alone and away from both sets of other attributes. Thus, subjects apparently did not perceive youthfulness to be related to any other measured attributes of good health, sexiness, attractiveness, and desire and capability for having children.
So there’s that. Nobody’s jealous.
Figure N7 was located closer to attractiveness, sexiness, and good health as well as desire and capability for having children than any other Figure.
Normal weight for frame (and race) + most nubile WHR would make sense.
More of those genes survived.
Figure N9 was located closest to desire and capability for having children, whereas Figure N8 was located between Figure N7 and Figure N9. The figure N10 was grouped along with overweight figures, which were not perceived to be closely associated with any of the attributes under investigation. Underweight female figures, U7 and U8, were associated only with youthfulness. However, underweight figures with high WHR (U9 and U10) were perceived as neither youthful nor healthy, in spite of the fact that their depicted body weight was quite similar to figures with lower WHR.
Women with an atrocious WHR (boy hips, no waist) and under or overweight for their skeleton are objectively unattractive from an evolutionary standpoint. This would apply whether it’s a Jap, a Ruskie or an American.
Stop calling sexy science ‘racist’ because it doesn’t share your fetish.
This chart drags you harder than I ever could.
Your Asian girlfriend with the boy hips is approximately as attractive to the world as the average WHR white fat chick. That’s your level, accept it.
It’s also a fact we cannot accurately perceive attractiveness of the racial outgroup as well as our own, so an awareness of ingroup flaws changes nothing.
Most modern women straight up don’t look healthy, whether they’re American, European or, yes, Asian.
Stop trying to make boy hips = sexy happen. It’s not going to happen.
Look at the damn gradient on that underweight thing. The solution to fat women isn’t anorexia. That also suggests bad genes. In fact, at least the fat percentage on slightly overweight 0.7 WHR women suggests femininity and fertility.
“Overall, it seems that subjects inferred reproductive capability from body fat”
What does a foetus feed from?
“Thus, it seems that although WHR is related to health and attractiveness, body weight is perceived to be related to reproductive capability”
“As a group, underweight figures were assigned the lowest reproductive capability, followed by overweight figures and then normal weight figures.”
Suck on that, soyboys.
You actually tend to downgrade. That’s why the Democrat-voting soyboys all want an Asian girlfriend and expressly don’t want kids with it.
“Overall, it appears that both fatness and thinness are perceived as unattractive, and such figures are not perceived as having especially high reproductive potential. “
Not womanly. Remember that word? This:
Not girly, not sexy, not cute, not hot. Womanly.
You can’t discuss women in a reproductive, evolutionary context without it.
Thus, consistent with the present findings, men did not find thin or underweight figures attractive.
If you only care for other male opinions.
There is some evidence that suggests that being extremely underweight or overweight can have adverse effects on female reproductive functions.
Ya don’t say?
A critical body mass has been shown to be significantly related to the onset of menstrual cycle and its maintenance (Frisch & McCarthur, 1974), although recent evidence (DeRidder et al., 1990) suggests that it is the body fat distribution, rather than body fat mass or body weight, that is related to early pubertal development.
Distribution varies by race.
Africans are the most pronounced in women then Europeans shapely but delicate then Asians last – no shape, very yang flesh (broad but flat or full in the middle like cortisol fat) and almost nothing to distribute.
Am I imagining all of this?
Underweight females (15% below ideal body weight) have been reported to have a higher incidence of oligomenorrhea (menses 35 days or more apart) and amenorrhea and to have a higher prevalence of ovu-latory infertility than normal weight females (Green, Weiss, & Daling, 1986).
Underweight women also give birth to infants who are small and growth delayed, and such infants often have permanently impaired intellectual and physical development (Supy, Steer, McCusker, Steele, & Jacobs, 1988).
Menstrual dysfunction and ovulatory infertility also occur more often in females who are 20% above ideal body weight (Green et al., 1986). Morbid obesity in females with high WHR has been shown to increase the degree of androgenicity (increased percentage of free testosterone) and associated menstrual and ovulatory problems (Kirschner & Samojilik, 1991). Thus, the reproductive success of a woman may be low in spite of a high level of fat deposits if the regional distribution of fat is not appropriate, that is, gynoid.
Finally, the finding that underweight figures were assigned high rankings for youthfulness but not for attractiveness (or other attributes related to reproductive potential) is difficult to reconcile with some evolutionarily based mate selection hypotheses.
Normal men aren’t pedos.
Youthfulness and health have been proprosed as absolute criteria for female attractiveness (Symons, 1987).
Stick with health.
Health has good or bad, you have no negative way to assess youth e.g. immature.
Features of physical appearance associated with youth supposedly provide the strongest and most reliable cues for female reproductive potential. The present finding illustrates that the relationship of youthfulness and attractiveness is quite complex.
A woman who is judged to be attractive is also found to be youthful; however, youthfulness alone does not make a woman attractive. Apparently, youthfulness is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for determination of female physical attractiveness.
also, don’t try to chalk this up to taste:
“Furthermore, if the ideal of female attractiveness is arbitrary and ever changing, no evidence of transgenerational stability in the meaning of WHR should be found, as older men are more likely to be exposed to different ideals of attractiveness than are younger men.”
“Older men did not associate health with underweight figures, including those with lower WHR.”
TLDR: Pedos are wrong. Underweight, waistless wonders are not attractive.
Study 2, rubbing salt in that fact.
Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of “good genes” in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (∼0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes.
These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men’s neurological processing.
Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high
Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones. However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low.
This is why we need studies on men too.
Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.
Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness
Attractiveness conveys reliable information about a woman’s age, health, and fertility. Body fat distribution, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is a reliable cue to a woman’s age, health, and fertility, and affects judgment of women’s attractiveness. WHR is positively correlated with overall body weight or body mass index (BMI). Some researchers have argued that BMI, rather than WHR, affects judgments of female attractiveness. To evaluate the role of WHR, independent of BMI, we secured photographs of pre- and post-operative women who have undergone micro-fat grafting surgery. In this surgery, surgeons harvest fat tissue from the waist region and implant it on the buttocks. Post-operatively, all women have a lower WHR but some gain weight whereas others lose body weight. Results indicate that participants judge post-operative photographs as more attractive than pre-operative photographs, independent of post-operative changes in body weight or BMI. These results indicate that WHR is a key feature of women’s attractiveness.
Let’s look historically. Study 5
Trends in waist-to-hip ratio and its determinants in adults in Finland from 1987 to 1997
Background: Although abdominal obesity has been shown to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of other diseases, secular changes in fat distribution in populations have rarely been documented.
Objective: Our objective was to assess trends in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in the Finnish population during a 10-y period. In addition, we investigated the associations of WHR with body mass index (BMI), age, education, and lifestyle factors.
Design: Three independent cross-sectional surveys were carried out at 5-y intervals between 1987 and 1997. Altogether, 15096 randomly selected men and women aged 25–64 y participated in these surveys.
Results: The WHR increased in both men and women during the 10-y period (P< 0.0001). In men, the strongest upward trend took place in the first 5-y period and then seemed to plateau; in women, the WHR continued to increase into the 1990s. In both sexes, the most prominent increase was observed in subjects aged ≥45 y. The WHR increased in all education-level groups, the lowest WHR being among those with the highest education. Age (18% in men, 12% in women) and BMI (33% in men, 25% in women) accounted for most of the variation in WHR, whereas only 3% was explained by education and lifestyle factors.
Conclusions: Abdominal obesity is a growing problem in Finland, especially in persons aged ≥45 y. These adverse changes in body shape continued to take place, particularly in women, in the 1990s.
Something in the food?
More history, prehistoric. Study 6
Preferred Women’s Waist-to-Hip Ratio Variation over the Last 2,500 Years
The ratio between the body circumference at the waist and the hips (or WHR) is a secondary sexual trait that is unique to humans and is well known to influence men’s mate preferences. Because a woman’s WHR also provides information about her age, health and fertility, men’s preference concerning this physical feature may possibly be a cognitive adaptation selected in the human lineage. However, it is unclear whether the preferred WHR in western countries reflects a universal ideal, as geographic variation in non-western areas has been found, and discordances about its temporal consistency remain in the literature. We analyzed the WHR of women considered as ideally beautiful who were depicted in western artworks from 500 BCE to the present. These vestiges of the past feminine ideal were then compared to more recent symbols of beauty: Playboy models and winners of several Miss pageants from 1920 to 2014. We found that the ideal WHR has changed over time in western societies: it was constant during almost a millennium in antiquity (from 500 BCE to 400 CE) and has decreased from the 15th century to the present. Then, based on Playboy models and Miss pageants winners, this decrease appears to slow down or even reverse during the second half of the 20th century. The universality of an ideal WHR is thus challenged, and historical changes in western societies could have caused these variations in men’s preferences. The potential adaptive explanations for these results are discussed.
Should’ve controlled for race.
Why not look at male WHR? Plus sperm health? Found:
- The volume of ejaculate decreases in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (suggesting an inverse relationship).
- The sperm quality and viability declines with increasing waist circumference.
- Investigators also discovered that quality of semen decreases (such as sperm viability, motility, semen volume) with increasing body size; however, no relationship was observed between sperm DNA fragmentation index and physical activity or obesity.
Latter requires time.
Various research and clinical studies suggests that subfertility in men is multifactorial i.e. several factors can impact the quality of reproductive health.
- Abnormal sperm production: Study conducted by Jensen and associates (2) suggested that abnormal BMI is very strongly linked to impaired sperm production. One of the many reasons is, abnormal metabolism of testosterone (which plays a key role in the production of healthy and viable sperms).
- Abdominal obesity and risk of metabolic disorders: According to a new study reported in the Human Reproduction (3), investigators provided statistical evidence that abnormal BMI and abdominal obesity is very strongly linked to a number of health issues (such as cardiovascular dysfunction, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and others). Needless to say that these health issues have a deleterious effect on the sexual health regardless of the body-mass index (or BMI).
- Obesity, physical activity and testosterone: Testosterone levels tends to decline in males who have a sedentary lifestyle. Various research and clinical studies indicates that aerobic activity or exercise can improve testosterone metabolism in males significantly.
1. Eisenberg, M. L., Kim, S., Chen, Z., Sundaram, R., Schisterman, E. F., & Louis, G. M. B. (2014). The relationship between male BMI and waist circumference on semen quality: data from the LIFE study. Human Reproduction, 29(2), 193-200.
2. Jensen, T. K., Andersson, A. M., Jørgensen, N., Andersen, A. G., Carlsen, E., & Skakkebæk, N. E. (2004). Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones among 1,558 Danish men. Fertility and sterility, 82(4), 863-870.
3. Hammiche, F., Laven, J. S., Twigt, J. M., Boellaard, W. P., Steegers, E. A., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. (2012). Body mass index and central adiposity are associated with sperm quality in men of subfertile couples. Human reproduction, 27(8), 2365-2372.
Yet they don’t tell men this information.
Back to women
Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces.
Both attractiveness judgements and mate preferences vary considerably cross-culturally.
We investigated whether men’s preference for femininity in women’s faces varies between 28 countries with diverse health conditions by analysing responses of 1972 heterosexual participants. Although men in all countries preferred feminized over masculinized female faces, we found substantial differences between countries in the magnitude of men’s preferences. Using an average femininity preference for each country, we found men’s facial femininity preferences correlated positively with the health of the nation, which explained 50.4% of the variation among countries. The weakest preferences for femininity were found in Nepal and strongest in Japan. As high femininity in women is associated with lower success in competition for resources and lower dominance, it is possible that in harsher environments, men prefer cues to resource holding potential over high fecundity.
Asia is weird for dimorphism studies.
Hence the focus on health.
While the economy is bad, it isn’t surprising men prefer manly looking women.
It’s temporary. There’ll be a flood of divorces as the economy improves. Men will suddenly see how mannish the wife has been and be repulsed. Menopause also makes women look more mannish, including higher WHR. So much for a youth argument there.
Factors Underlying the Temporal Increase in Maternal Mortality in the United States
They don’t say more non-white mothers or more mixed race babies, so it’s wrong. They guess.
“Blood pressure and stroke risk rise steadily the more alcohol people drink, and previous claims that one or two drinks a day might protect against stroke are not true, according to the results of a major genetic study.”
Drinks companies lied to us?
The research, which used data from a 160,000-strong cohort of Chinese adults, many of whom are unable to drink alcohol due to genetic intolerance, found that people who drink moderately – consuming 10 to 20 grams of alcohol a day – raise their risk of stroke by 10 to 15 percent.
For heavy drinkers, consuming four or more drinks a day, blood pressure rises significantly and the risk of stroke increases by around 35 percent, the study found.
Drinks = units.
“The key message here is that, at least for stroke, there is no protective effect of moderate drinking,” said Zhengming Chen, a professor at Oxford University’s Nuffield Department of Population Health who co-led the research. “The genetic evidence shows the protective effect is not real.”
Fuck, genetics? How dare you hint at racial differences.
The sky isn’t falling you fecking idjits.
[Marriage is also a factor. Unmarried women don’t want a 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?
“That’s because the decline in fertility has been far greater among minorities than among non-Hispanic whites”
NOT. A. BUG.
Chart for the lazy people:
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’.
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.”
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.