Study more, better grades

Based on:

“Education is wasted on the lazy and stupid, and they’re the same people. That’s Dunning-Kruger. They’re blind to what they’re missing because they’re missing it!
“If someone works harder than you, they deserve to beat you! Add up hours studied and you’ll find female (and male) conscientiousness isn’t bias, they activate with their IQ the traits which help them. The guy or girl “winging it” the night before deserves to fail*. Low IQ don’t have the IQ to know what they’re NOT doing! That isn’t everyone else’s fault! If there are systemic forces against men in some fields, the same must be true of women in other fields because that is how systems work, ya dummies!”
“..It just so happens by nature that there are more lazy men! So yeah, they fail! Confound!

You’re supposed to control for prevalence without ignoring the population. It’s like the IQ studies conducted by men that exclude stupid, lower class men to push the middle-class male genius narrative because the former dwarfs the latter mathematically if they don’t rig it.

(They also don’t control for education and class because they’re faking, like saying ugly people are intelligent in spite of correlations).

Another example of ignoring half: promiscuity/divorce risk studies that never look at men. That is scientism, like ignoring cooling data. They have looked but refuse to publish because it hurt their feelings. I’d like to see an atheist/divorce risk study.

You cannot ignore the left half of the bell curve, men overpopulate it!

Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).

They’ve simply never survived in these numbers before because responsibility is the new leprosy in a decadent West. It makes a lot of sense actually. No prior society (that didn’t collapse) ever had to tolerate this much stupid and it shows.”

I decided to drag up a study or two for the idiots who’d dispute it.

First, look at the materials put out to businesses.

https://www.ets.org/s/workforce_readiness/pdf/21334_big_5.pdf

“Of the five main personality factors, Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most consistent, significant predictor of workplace performance.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 For example, meta-analyses on the prediction of job performance from personality dimensions have demonstrated that broad measures of Conscientiousness predict overall job performance,15, 16 even controlling for cognitive ability.17, 18 

AKA you can’t cry sexism, conscientious men (like Christians) do fine. Actually, that might be why. There are plenty of conscientious men so it isn’t an exclusive thing, the averages only vary slightly.

In addition to overall job performance, broad measures of Conscientiousness have been shown to predict a number of other valued workplace behaviors, such as organizational citizenship 19, 20 and leadership 21

Emotional Intelligence.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/emotional-intelligence-eq-ei-studies/

as well as undesirable behaviors such as procrastination, 22 to name a few.

Conscientiousness is the best noncognitive predictor of performance across a wide variety of job types and work outcomes.”

NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.

Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.

You have emotions. You have intelligence. You have an EI score, like it or not.

17 Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272–290.
18 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262]”

reference A

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00048.x

we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five‐factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220014617_Personality_Testing_and_Industrial-Organizational_Psychology_Reflections_Progress_and_Prospects

reference B, 85 years of research

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Schmidt-and-Hunter-1998-Validity-and-Utility-Psychological-Bulletin.pdf

This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures.

Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.

And when you look for a genetic connection ‘cos genes, like hips, don’t lie.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690500382X
“The heritability of conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement”

“Our findings confirmed positive associations between IQ and the facets of Competence and Dutifulness (ranging 0.11–0.27), with academic achievement showing correlations of 0.27 and 0.15 with these same facets and 0.15 with Deliberation. All conscientiousness facets were influenced by genes (broad sense heritabilities ranging 0.18–0.49) “

Whew, up to 50%!

The idea of a smart douchebag is a myth to keep them appeased, or at best, they’re only mildly above average (1-2SD), true genius can cooperate (and self-regulate) but idiots can’t perceive anyone above them.

Your IQ isn’t an excuse to be antisocial.

Old books

Remember, in 1984, old books were illegal.

http://unamusementpark.com/2018/05/reading-old-books-some-practical-suggestions/

Most of those books are 1. free 2. expose the modern rip-offs and 3. make you superior.

The Left hates when people ape their faux sophistication with the real thing.

Their worst nightmare is poor people doing it. There are no free liberal arts MOOCs for that reason, entry barrier. You wanna kill them, smash up their Ivory Towers? Put up all their material without the nonsense online. Lesson plans already exist.

Virtue signalling with real virtues make them nigh suicidal.

Ah, I love the sweet smell of thoughtcrime in the morning.

Hypnotic.

It smells like tea and doubt.

Low T = spatial ability

You don’t really hear men online look for data.

Why? They’re dumb enough to assume their opinion = fact.

In evobio, for example, if you actually look, women are likelier to be good at say, spatial intelligence.*

For foraging.

And remembering where they left the baby.

And obvious chick stuff like cave painting.

It’s simple enough to test.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1745699

The cognitive performance of normal men and women was studied, grouped according to whether the subjects had relatively high or low salivary testosterone (T) concentrations. Men with lower T performed better than other groups on measures of spatial/mathematical ability, tasks at which men normally excel. Women with high T scored higher than low-T women on these same measures. T concentrations did not relate significantly to scores on tests that usually favor women or that do not typically show a sex difference. These results support suggestions of a nonlinear relationship between T concentrations and spatial ability, and demonstrate some task specificity in this respect.

This explains STEM.

Naturally both sexes have an important place in the tribe. Only Americans would be dumb enough to assert otherwise. It’s the lone wolf myth. In biology, the lone wolf dies.

And men have no excuse to perform poorly on chick subjects.
It’s mostly productive personality traits like grit and conscientiousness. Basically, the only subject where your T levels matter is as a competitive athlete.

Meatheads can’t do maths. I find it funny they think they can calculate their own testosterone supplements (clue: more = better), much favoured is the Popeye to spinach approach.

“Why are there so many women in STEM?” they bitch.

Well, when it’s a blinded, fair test, they’re literally better at the material.
It’s meritocratic.

*Spatial should be studied separately from mathematical.
They are different types of intelligence.
It’s kinda like conflating a false equivalence of dancing and music composition.
Similar but very different.

European selection of intelligence genomes in ancient history

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/BF2A35F0D4F565757875287E59A1F534/S1832427417000378a.pdf/holocene_selection_for_variants_associated_with_general_cognitive_ability_comparing_ancient_and_modern_genomes.pdf

Human populations living during the Holocene underwent considerable microevolutionary change. It has been theorized that the transition of Holocene populations into agrarianism and urbanization brought about culture-gene co-evolution that favored via directional selection genetic variants associated with higher general cognitive ability (GCA).

aka the people who didn’t eat their seed crop lived to tell about it

To examine whether GCA might have risen during the Holocene, we compare a sample of 99 ancient Eurasian

misnomer

genomes (ranging from 4.56 to 1.21 kyr BP) with a sample of 503 modern European genomes

told ya so

You wouldn’t need to keep distinguishing it if they were synonymous.

(Fst = 0.013), using three different cognitive polygenic scores (130 SNP, 9 SNP and 11 SNP). Significant differences favoring the modern genomes were found for all three polygenic scores (odds ratios = 0.92, p = 001; .81, p = 037; and .81, p = .02 respectively). These polygenic scores also outperformed the majority of scores assembled from random

evolution is directed to fitness, quelle surprise

SNPs generated via a Monte Carlo model (between 76.4% and 84.6%). Furthermore, an indication of increasing positive allele count over 3.25 kyr was found using a subsample of 66 ancient genomes (r = 0.22, pone-tailed = .04). These observations are consistent with the expectation that GCA rose during the Holocene.

To a large extent, your survival is pre-destined.

Emotional Intelligence (EQ/EI) studies

I haven’t posted about this because I presumed anyone interested would read the book.

How silly of me. You need to read something online first, right?

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9f9d/58b5894ba0945d77dfec92193408a808742a.pdf

It’s new but there’s a lot there since emotional processing and regulation are cognitive abilities.
“Gender and race differences in EI are also meta-analyzed”
Yes, it’s totally SJW propaganda, they love looking for that stuff.

Not a day goes by, those pesky feminists don’t look for racial differences!

Did not one of you bother to look this up? I’m not even looking hard and finding great methods.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joop.12167/abstract

“both self-report EI and mixed EI exhibit modest yet statistically significant incremental validity (ΔR2 = .03 for self-report EI and ΔR2 = .06 for mixed EI) and large relative importance (31.3% for self-report EI and 42.8% for mixed EI) in the presence of cognitive ability and personality when predicting job satisfaction.”

You’d have to be quite stupid not to believe in EQ, it’s the technical side of what’s commonly mistaken for personality metrics. Do you not have a personality too? Do the people who “don’t believe” in IQ fail to have one?
If I dislike one MENSA member, IQ doesn’t cease to exist, I just think the person testing him should’ve tested him more.
If you can turn up your nose at meta-analyses, you must be intellectually dishonest. There’s no greater test available.
An hysterical or over-emotional person would also have a low EI/Q like the unfeeling robot, this isn’t emotionality or neuroticism. Those already exist.

If you read Daniel Goleman‘s book called, funnily enough, Emotional Intelligence, he explains many emotional difficulties men have, which lead to outcomes that are recognized and bemoaned by the same people that ignore EQ/EI (crime, divorce, suicide, depression)… male problems.
If those problems are real, the cause (low EQ/I) is also real.
Medical problem, biological cause. You’d think. So, what, are we not meant to study it? Because it might hurt some feelings? And you’re different from the SJW-types how?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222693042_A_comprehensive_meta-analysis_of_the_relationship_between_Emotional_Intelligence_and_health

“When measured as a trait, EI was more strongly associated with health ( = .34) than when it was measured as an ability ( = .17). The weighted average association with mental ( = .36) and psychosomatic health ( = .33) was higher, than the association with physical health ( = .27). Within the trait approach, the TEIQue showed the strongest association with mental health ( = .50), followed by the EQ-i ( = .44), SEIS ( = .29) and TMMS ( = .24). Furthermore, the cumulative meta-analysis indicated that this line of research has already reached sufficiency and stability. Overall, the results are encouraging regarding the value of EI as a plausible health predictor.”

Do you not have health, either?
Those numbers are too huge to ignore.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08959285.2017.1332630

Do you not have job performance? Are those metrics made-up too?
(All metrics are made up, dummy).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567116000836
“a significant correlation emerges from the data between emotional intelligence and job satisfaction

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/IJWHM-04-2016-0031?journalCode=ijwhm
Relates to depression.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27383222
Work-family balance.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.714/full
“The results support the overall validity of EI”

What would Forbes know about economic productivity?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianbailey/2015/03/05/emotional-intelligence-predicts-job-performance-the-7-traits-that-help-managers-relate/#5062b38a4124
Emotional stability and cognitive ability? Useless! Because some guys online can’t stand the idea they might fail a test. A totally unreal test, for sissies.
It’s still your brain processing emotions so obviously it’s going to correlate highly with IQ, another metric of brain processing. (Your highly is not scientific highly).

“EI is not soft, fluffy or about wanting to be liked. Individuals who have high EI want to succeed, can control their emotions, are gregarious and have positive self-appraisals. Nothing fluffy there.”

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879103000769
There’s a 22% correlate with general mental ability too.

“This study used meta-analytic techniques to examine the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and performance outcomes. A total of 69 independent studies were located that reported correlations between EI and performance or other variables such as general mental ability (GMA)”

Where’s the science?

The journals? Where they always were?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886907004503

After controlling for other factors like IQ, it is still predictive of stress and life satisfaction.

Like IQ, you can improve, it’s possible to bump it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886909000567

The alexithymia men typically report is responsive to therapy, surprising no one.

“The construct of emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the individual differences in the perception, processing, regulation, and utilization of emotional information. As these differences have been shown to have a significant impact on important life outcomes (e.g., mental and physical health, work performance and social relationships), this study investigated, using a controlled experimental design, whether it is possible to increase EI. Participants of the experimental group received a brief empirically-derived EI training (four group training sessions of two hours and a half) while control participants continued to live normally. Results showed a significant increase in emotion identification and emotion management abilities in the training group. Follow-up measures after 6 months revealed that these changes were persistent. No significant change was observed in the control group. These findings suggest that EI can be improved and open new treatment avenues.”

Alexithymia, btw: “Alexithymia is defined by: difficulty identifying feelings and distinguishing between feelings”.
I’m sure that has nothing to do with emotional processing in the brain, nope!
Why would we want to help men with their mental problems, how sexist! Men don’t have feelings!

inb4

Anecdotally, women know men have low EI or EQ because whenever they ask us about something, they want us to process their emotions for them, by whining and venting and hoping we’ll do the emotional labour on their behalf. Yep, like women letting men fix their car.
Emotional labour can also be studied scientifically.
http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-13471-007

The SJWs didn’t make it up.

Microcephalin and racial brain size

The skulls thing was popular so here.
*gestures wildly*

http://evoandproud.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-riddle-of-microcephalin.html

So what is going on? Perhaps the derived Microcephalin allele helps us on a mental task that IQ tests fail to measure. Or perhaps it boosts intelligence in some indirect way that shows up in differences between populations but not in differences between individuals.

What would the term for that be?

The second explanation is the one favored in a recent study byWoodley et al. (2014). The authors found a high correlation (r = 0.79) between the incidence of this allele and a population’s estimated mean IQ, using a sample of 59 populations from throughout the world.

They also found a correlation with a lower incidence of infectious diseases, as measured by DALY (disability adjusted life years). They go on to argue that this allele may improve the body’s immune response to viral infections, thus enabling humans to survive in larger communities, which in turn would have selected for increased intelligence:

Hello, Mutation Load!

Come on down!

And since the brain has been proven part of the immune system since, the theory holds.
The Ice Age hypothesis in A Troublesome Inheritance appears to hold weight, the notion of tribal bonding. Altruism is only pathological if its exertion harms your genetic kin, your ingroup.

There are plenty of HBD blogs, people. Read!

Genetics? In science? What is this witchcraft! Both medical studies and hips don’t lie. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-african-american-women-diabetes-higher-er-neg.html

Turns out Africans in particular have terrible health out of the environment they evolved for.
Maybe racism has just been migration this entire time.
If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree…