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…

Video: Dunning-Kruger

FFS.

Conformity, signalling and confidence itself have nothing to do with this effect.
I love how the video itself misexplains. You can look up the papers.

It’s 2 things – 1. lower IQ assuming everyone is their level. The more quant side. The big find you cannot deny.
2. People inept on a task assuming it must be easy or they can already do it. Example: scrutiny or being good at sex.

This effect is an impersonal test of ability and specifically performance. Self-report differs, but it always does. To some extent people need to be delusional or depressive realism kicks in. The problem is the depth and extent to which is impacts anything else, including memory.
Stupid people have false memories of what smarties said BECAUSE they didn’t understand them.
That is the big take.
They suck on IQ in part because they cannot interpret the question. This is why tests exist. Again, this is why the testing concept exists.
Deep down, they suspect this, and THAT is why they do not link (like this video does not link to a single fucking thing).
It works in reverse, they think they can communicate, a performance task, when they objectively cannot.
The distance of subjective and objective performance is easier to garner on more objective topics and skills.
These types of video stop at wikipedia, and do not link any papers. I won’t because I’ve read so many and each concludes something subtly different. Yet they didn’t link a single thing and had no reason not to. It’s hilarious.
This is like the Schrodinger’s Cat of psychology, basically almost everyone gets it wrong for personal reasons – a false performance which proves the effect. Acting like you get it – and you never read the paper, any paper. Never genuinely understanding something. This is the scary part, most of the talkers know nothing about the subject and their sentences are taken as valid opinions.
I don’t blame normal people for this effect, average 100 IQ-ers. It also involves a lesser known ‘cognitive dissonance’, the two are often mentioned in tandem by scholars who know. *cough cough*
Humility is punished as stupidity, so the average, feeling the distance and squeezed in the middle, pinched by category, will usually arrogantly feign, hoping to wing it. The winging it they know, although this disconnects to their knowledge that isn’t -knowledge on the topic. Later, they misremember, false memories are yet another topic and these are highly related but distinct, no wonder normal people can’t cite them.
Misconceptions are not lies, lying to third parties is still a lie and they chose never to check, there’s no cover for that.

They’re bluffing, the bad boss who can’t do their own work for example.

Referencing my first point, low IQ people have shitty metacognition. They don’t know, but they don’t know that. They cannot argue for this reason, especially with a person who has new and scary opinions. They can never be controversial and basically marry the ‘accepted’ and ‘settled’ information in a society. They have no weapon to draw and you can see by some rude comments where this comes in here. Their ego is attached to appearing to people, a way other people have never perceived them. It’s funny because they assume everyone is stupid as they are, another assumption of shitty metacognition that can’t properly read other people either. Hence stupid people online are confused for autistic, the autistic too have shitacular metacognition.

They can’t think and they don’t know what to think.

They pretend they definitely know what they think.

What to do, apart from read around every angle and the original science articles where available?
Note: 99/100, a newspaper will not link to the original science journal paper. They don’t want you to know the truth and possibly disagree with them.

By comparison, I rarely use myself as an authority unless I’m giving a firm opinion. I mean, that’s why you’re here, my take.
I ask a lot of questions. This implies I do not know.
I allow comments that insult me and provide new information. No bubble. The bitchy ones embarrass themselves.
There is a range of references, from other blogs to newspapers to journals.
I do not hide resources I disagree with, on the contrary, I want people to read them, safe in the knowledge other intelligent people will see what I did. Plus it’s fun to mock.
I link papers but not too much.
Nobody’s going to read 200+ links.

Be realistic.

It’s ok to say you dunno.