Time preference + health

I did a little extra. I’m spoiling you.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp3674.pdf
It’s biological.

“Psychological and Biological Foundations of Time Preference: Evidence from a Day Reconstruction Study with Biological Tracking”
“The paper finds that financial discounting is related to a range of psychological variables including consideration of future consequences, self-control, conscientiousness, extraversion, and experiential avoidance as well as being predicted by heart rate variability and blood pressure”
There’s a connection. Thought suppression is a variable.
“The correlations reveal that lower discounting in the financial discounting task is associated with high scores on conscientiousness, self-control, consideration of future consequences, cognitive/affective mindfulness, and low scores on experiential avoidance and extraversion.”
Prosocial traits.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w0539
Connected to health status.
“This paper reports the results of an exploratory survey designed to measure differences in time preference across individuals and to test for relationships between time preference and schooling, health behaviors, and health status. …The implicit interest rate revealed in their replies is weakly correlated with years of schooling (negative), cigarette smoking (positive), and health status(negative). Family background, especially religion, appears to be an important determinant of time preference.”
https://www.nber.org/chapters/c6546.pdf

Religion connected to time preference! Gasp!

Please do an atheism study, oh my.

http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=econ
The heavily hedonic aren’t actually happier than you either.
“Our result indicates that, compared to neutral affect, mild positive affect significantly reduces time preference over money. This result is robust to various specification checks, and alternative interpretations of the result are considered. Our result has implications for the effect of happiness on time preference and the role of emotions in economic decision making, in general.”

They’re getting their cake now so don’t give them yours later.

Suggesting the natural state is low TP, more prosocial. You’d expect this since we are here and our ancestors didn’t die in an orgy of chaos.

https://ericsjackson.blogspot.com/2012/05/time-preference-and-civilization.html

“In general civilization tends to be characterized by low time preference. Indeed, the ability to even consider future well-being may mark the transition to civilization”

This following has nothing to do with the post.

https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/WWC/Individualism+vs.+Collectivism+~+Identity+Politics+in+the+LGBT+Movement
“Thus, there is ultimately a need for both collectivism and individualism within the LGBT movement”
You wouldn’t believe that line was true unless I linked to it.

Health risks in mixed race children

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

Hybrid vigour, right?

Results. Mixed-race adolescents showed higher risk when compared with single-race adolescents on general health questions, school experience, smoking and drinking, and other risk variables.

Conclusions. Adolescents who self-identify as more than 1 race are at higher health and behavior risks. The findings are compatible with interpreting the elevated risk of mixed race as associated with stress.

Might’ve already posted it but who cares?

It’s still real.

Still trying to pin it on nurture, I see.

Immune response reduces female attractiveness

More evidence for the attractiveness = health brigade.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/9/4/20130255

“Instead, plasma cortisol level was negatively associated with attractiveness, indicating that stressed women look less attractive. Fat percentage was curvilinearly associated with facial attractiveness, indicating that being too thin or too fat reduces attractiveness. Our study suggests that in contrast to men, facial attractiveness in women does not indicate immune responsiveness against hepatitis B, but is associated with two other aspects of long-term health and fertility: circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and percentage body fat.”

That’s great except-
cortisol is part of the immune response process.
Directly.
So…. yeah.
https://www.verywellmind.com/cortisol-and-stress-how-to-stay-healthy-3145080

Biologists know this.

I’m at the stage where I can spot Royal Society errors in under five seconds.

Sort your variables out. Acute cortisol release is anti-inflammatory.

Fat also lets your body free up energy quickly to fight illness. You need “some” depending on your body (race, sex, energy needs, diet).

Some (correct) biologists want it relabeled as an organ.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/923153.stm

“Researchers have found that fat plays an important role in protecting bones and organs, regulating hormones and the immune system and managing women’s reproductive systems.”

Women just need more fat (as a %) for pregnancy (it’s most of a year, come on).

Try studying men, I doubt it doesn’t manage theirs too.

Like the free metabolic energy is scared of testicles or something.

Study the signals, quit with the noise.

To prove my grief, read this sack of shit Intro.

Can you tell me what’s wrong with it?

“The growing field of evolutionary psychology reports a large body of evidence to suggest that standards of beauty are not arbitrary cultural conventions, pointing to, for example, cross cultural agreement in preferences for cues to health and fertility [1]. Furthermore, a number of studies suggest that facial preferences emerge early in childhood, before any cultural standards of beauty are likely to be assimilated, suggesting we have a strong inborn universal standard of facial beauty [2]. Evolutionary psychologists interpret preferences as strategies evolved owing to the selective benefits accrued to those who chose their mates based on these criteria (reviewed in Rhodes [3]). To argue that such preferences are adaptive, however, it is necessary to show that preferred traits serve as cues to fecundity, health or other traits that enhance fitness, and contribute to higher reproductive success.

Nature or nurture, fucking PICK ONE.

Studies linking facial attractiveness and health records in men, however, have found only weak or no association between facial attractiveness and health (reviewed in Rhodes [3]).

method?

Recently, Rantala et al. [4] found that men’s ability to produce antibodies in response to the hepatitis B vaccine correlated positively with facial attractiveness, suggesting that men’s facial attractiveness indicates immunity in humans.

Vaccines. Evolution. Don’t use those two ideas in the same sentence.

I can and shall laugh at you derisively.

Thus, by choosing men with attractive faces as partners, women may get direct benefits by avoiding contagion and indirect benefit by increasing health and immunity of their offspring.

???

Because, in humans, both sexes are choosy,

rlly

one could predict that female facial attractiveness may also be associated with immune defence and sex hormone levels.

Y

However, to our knowledge, studies testing association between female facial attractiveness, immune defence and stress hormone levels are lacking. Studies linking facial attractiveness with indices of health have led to mixed results:

Where’s “health” on a blood test?

while certain studies

cherrypicker

have found some evidence

no
measurement error

that facially attractive women are healthier [5–7], other studies have found no association [8–10].

method?

Rantala et al. [11] found that the link between facial attractiveness and immune response in men was mediated by their facial adiposity, not their masculinity (facial masculinity was however associated with immune response, independently of facial adiposity). Thus, we could expect that adiposity in women is associated with the strength of immunity and attractiveness. The aim of this study was to test whether facial attractiveness in women is associated with the strength of their immune response, circulating levels of the stress hormone cortisol and adiposity.”

Proof you don’t publish Asians and assume they’re all smart.

This is in the Royal Society.

Guess the race of the diversity hire running this English historical society now?

Estrogen is inflammatory. Testosterone is anti.
(So guys bitching about women with endometriosis are idiots, they have more).

HOWEVER

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/10/991007083730.htm

“Braude’s new idea is that testosterone signals infection-fighting white blood cells to go out of the blood stream and into the skin. He says it’s also possible that testosterone merely triggers the stress response, and other steroids from the adrenal gland then execute the redistribution.”

a woman with elevated testosterone won’t be more attractive

women are not men!

Rich v. Poor America

The inequality thing isn’t wrong.

The causes attributed are.

Class is a major HBD factor.

TALK ABOUT IT.

For example, show me a rich Silicon Valley douchebag who didn’t have a rich parent. Who didn’t go to a good school and various special camps. Is it really merit and American spirit if they moved up just one class from the middle? Based on investments and decisions their parents made?

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).

Smear test risks not warned

I wonder why.

Why do an unnecessary procedure, even on virgins, misinform them that they must do it and charge for something physically damaging to the future reproductive health, that they can also charge for?

Why not study or publish the negative outcomes, which are hard to trace?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23831804-400-women-arent-being-told-real-risks-of-cervical-cancer-screening/

Almost like they want to hurt women and abort their babies.
I can’t find a way to link the whole thing, especially if the EU have their way.

Blood tests exist for cancer, like STDs, smear tests are outdated Victorian perversions and if you look up the law, plausibly a form of rape with an object, especially if misinformed.

https://www.steadyhealth.com/topics/miscarriage-after-a-pap-smear?page=4
If you damage the cervix, it can cause permanent harm.
Would men allow their balls to be scraped with a small serrated metal knife? oh, bleeding’s normal, it’ll heal, don’t worry!

“The overseas doctor said that was a big no’ no’ and that they never pap in the first tri-mester.” In a foreign country. If they know…