The trades are mostly for dunces

I’m tired of the low IQ cope, m-m-muh six figs, it’s almost as if women DON’T CARE about money, if they’d have intellectually disabled kids. Kinda like women evolved to avoid unfit men, in spite of bribes and gaslighting! Your sweet rims aren’t the thing they’d be breeding with, women don’t judge your stuff, they judge you. Almost like women don’t wanna bear some grandiose narcissist’s retard babies, for any price! I mean, it’s not like IQ is mostly genetic, eh? Women would rather have NO kids – than stupid or ugly ones. Look at what they do. One of the most common, valid abortion reasons men seldom mention – eugenics, i.e. aborting the stupid. It’s a waste of resources, sorry. What, would they oppose this? It’s hypocritical. Women should be praised for doing that, for making the tough choices, like the Nordic country where downies are going extinct – that saves taxpaying men a fortune! Their understanding of morality is oversimplified and lachrymose, like the complaints about women preferring to be alone and save for retirement minus kids than shorten your female lifespan by marrying a dead-weight dullard husband. Shaming women about any of this will not work. It’s like telling men to fancy fatties. Their assumptions are ‘equality’ and therefore wrong, because evolution and biology exist. Women are not the sex that wants kids (who still kill us), it’s generally men, as competition with other men. Otherwise all single women would be down the sperm bank getting Chad’s Superspunk. I shuddered typing that. nb. Why do Americans think women want kids? Polish women when surveyed (covered here previously) do not want kids so it isn’t religious. For most of history, that was not a choice for women. Postcards from the Fifties lied. If women could outsource their gender’s primary fatality risk to robo-wombs, that’d be great. Men already did that with drones and draft-dodging. In addition, why would women feel compelled to breed with cowards? What causes post-war baby booms? Considering certain crime waves invading the west, why are the local wombs suddenly closing up shop? This isn’t rocket science, it’s survival and I’m sick of nobody pointing out the obvious. Deportations then birth rates is the only way to fix it. But they’re too chicken. Those whom the gods would destroy….

This graph was adapted from Figure 12 of Hauser, Robert M. 2002. “Meritocracy, cognitive ability, and the sources of occupational success.” CDE Working Paper 98-07 (rev). Center for Demography and Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. The figure is labelled “Wisconsin Men’s Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More” and is found at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf

https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx

Honestly, if you throw away your life because a manosphere blog told you to, you deserve it. Not one of those guys is happy.

“I made the money, where’s da girls?” It was never the money, it was you – aiming too high. Stay in your league. Looks and IQ correlate, hot girls just play dumb so men aren’t intimidated or leave them alone (or crazies get violent, low IQ causes criminality). Men making money and complaining women don’t want them is like a fat girl complaining men don’t want them in spite of the big tits – they don’t count, it was never about those and they do not count.

We can all anecdote an exception of a high IQ trade person, I have relatives like that, but they did trades on the SIDE, after proving their IQ with harder qualifications, including IT and there’s no doubt in their mind which is harder. You could technically teach a monkey to use a spanner. Imagine you call a plumber and there’s a chimp with a wrench. Sexy? I think not. Alas, I’d pay to see that.

But high IQ people can do your whole job as a side project and we see it terrifies you.

Die mad.

The manosphere pretend they’re all special snowflakes when they’re just normies who hate women. Not even sluts, or they’d hate men too. They aren’t super cool action heroes in their own movie, nobody is jealous of them. They never develop mentally past the teens and it shows.

It’s like how Peterson makes normies feel special by talking about Disney, of all the trash. It’s literally about rescuing women, hardly war and peace, bucko. It is folk memory from a time of tribal war.

I consider the trades a fallback myself, having completed a ‘cake’ course or two at the same place many of them are taught in this country (City & Guilds). I completed those assignments in a single afternoon. That’s how dumb they are. It’s like BTECs and international baccalaureates. The slow students with rich parents think it counts. I was talked out of them – by people who TEACH them – because I could ‘do better’. Yet they lie to keep their job and say baccalaureates in particular are harder, begging the question – for dumb people, everything is harder. Proof: The teachers of IBs do not have IBs – they need real qualifications.

Anything learning by rote is low IQ, sorry, and you WILL be replaced by robots imminently.

It isn’t international because building codes and such vary. Trades are to a NATIONAL standard, have you never checked? I checked when I was like fifteen.

FYI

https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-average-IQs-rank-by-profession-Which-professions-have-the-highest-IQs?share=1

Meanwhile, I’m really into perfumes lately.
Organza, Quatre, Soleil and Roma. For my two female readers.

Bad choice, adoptive parents are abusive

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-adoption-in-the-united-states

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-paradox-of-adoption/

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

Bad blood will out.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Amplification IQ

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category
Self-report 0.39 0.06 0.55 13,329
Other report (usually parents) 0.53 0.22 0.25 6,851
Criminal records 0.33 0.42 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

  • Extraversion:           0.86
  • Openness:              0.92
  • Neuroticism:            0.59
  • Agreeableness:       0.85
  • Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

Adoption is dyscivic. It’s AA for bad parents.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s \rho = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

No wonder they deny IQ

Boomers score lower than their own parents and grandparents did, as a group, a regression.

Dysgenic.

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/baby-boomers-score-lower-on-cognitive-functioning-than-members-of-previous-generations-study-finds

h/t Vox Day

Don’t do drugs, kids.

I mean, they don’t call dope, dope, without good reason. It usurps the natural ambition of the white students, it’s pushed on them because raising the non-white test scores didn’t work.

I wonder why the first chemically degenerate generation of the USA is dropping like flies from random* cancer but also experiencing cognitive decline?

We can’t blame fluoride for all of it, but also yes.

Maybe yoga lowers IQ, that’d make sense with how they babble on about it.

The binge-drinking, drug abuse… no wonder. No wonder.

It’s a little-known fact that with each infection, the risk of a hit to IQ is higher. This includes STDs.

I’m just saying. If they did a study…. someone do the study. It’ll be funny.

Partner count x IQ 

please

*pathogenic cancers, including STDs…..

the sluts of X, Y and Z will go the same way

‘Madness’ like the inane babbling is associated with degenerate behaviours so… that’d make sense.

I wonder if we can cross-reference their school test scores to see if they were smarter prior.

Mental suppression by psyops propaganda

https://web.archive.org/web/20170716214642/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954212

“Effortful control”.

This article analyzes the effortful control of automatic processing related to social and emotional behavior, including control over evolved modules designed to solve problems of survival and reproduction that were recurrent over evolutionary time. The inputs to effortful control mechanisms include a wide range of nonrecurrent information–information resulting not from evolutionary regularities but from explicit appraisals of costs and benefits. Effortful control mechanisms are associated with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the ventral anterior cingulated cortex. These mechanisms are largely separate from mechanisms of cognitive control (termed executive function) and working memory, and they enable effortful control of behavior in the service of long range goals. Individual differences in effortful control are associated with measures of conscientiousness in the Five Factor Model of personality. Research in the areas of aggression, ethnocentrism, sexuality, reward seeking, and emotion regulation is reviewed indicating effortful control of automatic, implicit processing based on explicit appraisals of the context. Evidence is reviewed indicating that evolutionary pressure for cooperation may be a critical adaptive function accounting for the evolution of explicit processing.

Incentives are everything. Stop saying degeneracy and other weakness is okay.

Man the fuck up.

Enabling weak character directly screws us all.

Are you part of the status quo?

We get imprisoned more than a capitalist in China.

The bacon mosque guy was murdered.

For a prank.

There’s suppression and then there’s a literal threat of death.

Various people have tried to doxx me (and been wrong, like no I’m not a Russian, not a man, etc etc) but while being illegal itself (both finding that data and disseminating it) would also be incitement to violence, up to and including death. So add on aiding and abetting GBH, murder. And you wonder why women aren’t online talking about any of these topics? Please. Most of them cave into vanity or hide behind a husband from cowardice, also limiting their topics…. then what’s the point? They’re afraid to offend. You should be offended, it’s good for you. Bruce Charlton’s got a lot of good material on this. It’s metaphysical, people shouldn’t take it so personally. Either there’s proof (like the China food theft thing that cucks tried to twist into All Asians when no, China is not even most Asians) or there’s other information like a train of logic that can be debunked and if you can’t…. why do you still want to dismiss it? When women mention these things it’s different than when men do it. Men debate for fun, women for survival. When a woman brings up an issue, that’s the time to worry. It isn’t a joke and joking about it is foolish. Women are people-pleasers so to bring up anything, least of all an uncomfortable topic, you sit up and pay attention. The Vikings trusted the wives with the family money, thinking they could see into the future. Women do have an intuition about the environment, to raise a family in it. We still entrust women with the family purse, to buy the food and other supplies. This is not a game.

PC is a cult and it’s death to the sane. You can’t even ask to be left alone. The Race Relations Act (UK) revoked our right to hire by merit LONG before ‘equality’ targets. Meritocracy died with that legislation, targets of obedience for show came later. You don’t wanna be the first corporate to stop clapping that rainbow flag. Track GDP since the RRA came through, it’s quite something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Relations_Act_1965

https://countryeconomy.com/gdp/uk

1960 – 5.8%

1963 – 4.7%

1964 – 5.9%

(First Race Relations Act passed)

1968 – 4.8%

How do you cut your economic growth in half? This is how!

1969 – 2.4%

1970 – 2.6%

1971 – 2.3%

Ta dah!

same with “hate speech”, it compounds hiring (and firing) for merit (and incompetence):

2008 – -0.3%

2009 – -4.2%

2010 – 1.9%

2011 – 1.5%

2012 – 1.5%

2018 – 1.4%

and with each “racial discrimination” document that passed, GDP permanently dropped below, by another level, another invisible ceiling cap, never to rise (except one or two anomalies) ever since.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Diversity is our strength, look at GDP! So good for companies, it must be enforced by the State!

But yeah, evil, evil data. Communism happens to other countries that… tell you… who you can… hire….

Yes. I went there.

The Orwell wording is the worst part.

The IQ ceiling in hiring is just silly. Every occupation has an IQ minimum to perform, there is no maximum but employee demand. Surely discriminatory companies are a good thing, since discrimination means to parse quality? Surely companies prejudiced against talent would fail? This credentialism is trying to get around the system while also profiting from tokens, have no pity when they lose their shorts.

Anti-competence laws, anti-competent managers kowtowing to them.

Isn’t the purpose of state schooling discrimination based on the academic IQ? Why have grades? They’re an IQ proxies. If all students are equal, do away with sets, have ONE exam board for ALL schools (even Eton) and ONE exam paper of equal difficulty (since we’re all the same, mentally). There should be no psychometrics, so education majors should be locked up for tracking ‘progress’, which is 100% of the thing they do.

The status quo is intellectually dishonest. It’s okay when they do it, since you’re evil.

Hollywood is 100% propaganda. Why else would it exist? A slice of America that evades ((taxes)) and doesn’t represent either higher art or Americans? Why does it get tax breaks while evading paying the taxpayer public?

Cuckservatives annoy me more than libertarians pretending to be centrists because at least the latter admit their beliefs are entirely selfish. Cuckservatives act like family men but also like the idea their daughter might become a hooker or their son might grow drugs. Obviously family values.

The problem with meditation rituals +IQ

Not meditation as in thought, contemplation but the Indian-seeming ritual.

Not yoga, which is a made-up substitute religion sold to Boomers, I already linked about that (it was in the New Yorker too).

Skip to the end at the IQ bit if you don’t care about genetic load and IQ as a related tangent.

New Age meditation is for rich people to pretend they have problems. If they were spiritual at all, they’d quit their vices. They would see how vice harms them and their soul. They connect with nothing real. It’s a hallucination projected on their bubble.
Meditation as it’s sold in the West is an opiate for idiots, they’re already mindless drones of conformity. As a form of prayer, it’s egocentric (muh Higher Self – do you mean Holy Spirit?). As a biological thing, Muh Scientism, it over-develops the parietal lobe (a bad thing, sloth ensues, fine if you’re a mountain man?) at the expense of the frontal lobe (a VERY bad thing, they’re crippling their critical thinking, humans need that rationality). An IQ study in fully developed adults who start meditation would be interesting, but they’d never be able to find a publisher* for the fact, with a good method, IQ would go down. Imagine all the products they couldn’t sell! The horror!

*Why you never hear the downsides of many antisocial practices, but meditation does reduce in-group loyalty, which “they” actually want (less genophilia, less love of your family where it should be, with your KIN). Phrased like that, the “love” rhetoric falls flat. If you cannot love your kin, you don’t love. Anyone.

Can Meditation Increase IQ?

Though no standardized test was developed as a result, the study interestingly demonstrated head size has almost nothing to do with intelligence.

True.

Also, women can have larger heads than men and the men who don’t get this… are morons.

IQ is simply a good method for representing intelligence in an individual, compared to the general population. IQ testing has its limits, but there is a reason for its sustained and wide acceptance in psychology.

You have to act on your IQ. Bitching on reddit how “misunderstood” you are is worse than being average.

Genuine intelligence does seek out truth though, not just info to show off.

The biggest contributors, such as…

  • Genetics
  • Conditions in utero
  • Experiences at a very young age

…were never much under our control.

Yes, an individual’s IQ score can vary mildly throughout life, and more can almost always be learned, but there is simply very little evidence that intelligence itself can be increased over time.

It can’t. Anyone who says otherwise is selling you something. Most of it’s genetic.

Attention gains are often just using the idiot-phone less and avoiding EMF.

Think about it – where do they meditate? Low EMF areas. What don’t they do? Check their phone every five minutes. It isn’t the ritual. Put down the Apple products.

So wherever you are in the distribution, whether or not you’ve even taken an IQ test, is where you’ve been from a young age and where you will stay.

It’s a big pill to swallow.

That’s the main red pill. Most men in particular refute this and become full-blown sociologists (sociologist fallacy) going on and on about nurture-theories. Noooope.

DNA is destiny, dude.

Plus, logically, if your score were already high… you wouldn’t feel a need to increase it?

Hey, I’m just being rational, pretty sure that’s illegal. As a woman.

A study published by Dan Simons and colleagues looked at these brain training games, and only found:

  • Strong evidence of subjects improving in the trained tasks themselves. Meaning, the more they played the game, the better they got at the game.
  • Less evidence that subjects had improved performance at closely-related tasks.
  • Little evidence that the subjects increased performance on distant-related tasks (anything outside the game, in the real world) or enhanced their everyday cognition in general (meaning, no raise in IQ).

Let them profit off idiots. By going for that IQ boost stuff, you’re admitting you’re low IQ already.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1529100616661983

It’s like men who take dating advice from other men, especially bachelors. At least talk to really old, happily married men? But noooooo. Or since the sexes are mentally different, talk to women about how they assess men to become the best competitor (and other men ARE your competition). …And they wonder why they attract angry, manjaw women – because they’re vibing with what another man told them.

Men also tend to give one another terrible advice, consciously or subconsciously to scupper competition. Rarely even trust relatives, same fact sadly holds with women.

Money shot:

Meditation can’t increase intelligence because there is little evidence intelligence can be increased by anything at all.

That’s it, that’s the fact.

ANYTHING. AT ALL.

Stop looking.

However, meditation can help you increase your IQ score by sharpening your mind and maximizing your ability to focus.

No such thing. Marketing gimmick you cannot measure (see study above, no real results, self-report is crap). ADD is also bullshit, it’s the new dyslexia (as Spectator leaked) for describing low IQ offspring to narcissistic parents who also refused to discipline their brain as babies and toddlers (easy to spot, the baby holding an iPad). You cannot have an attention deficit, that would make you a vegetable, in a COMA. It’s an alternative state of consciousness like anesthesia, which literally winds down your attention to a deficit aka below consciousness (it can be measured by EEG). They literally give the kids amphetamines, club drugs, because a key sign of low IQ in kids is low energy, listlessness, ennui (side effect arrogant atheism), later called “failure to thrive” (as spiteful mutants) since the mutation load doesn’t process for energy in the body effectively. Think about it – they’re only slow, compared to the genetically healthy norm of age peers. Again, their genetic inferiority -compared to the norm population of the parents requires them to take SPEED.

What is the Amphetamine Speed?

“The amphetamine speed is actually a “slang” name for the entire class of drugs known as amphetamines. All amphetamines, whether legal or illegal, activate chemical processes throughout the brain and body and so “speed up” most every bodily function.”

They have degenerated that far down. The drug category of speed. Why would energy level drugs “help” unless the root issue is genetic?

esp when the effects inc.

  • Loss of interest in sex
  • Impotence
  • Restlessness
  • Irritability
  • Agitation

Adderall

Impotence and no libido is great for depopulation efforts. But they want the low IQ to be productive workers for the companies.

But isn’t a supposed symptom of ADHD already the last three?

Yeah, don’t expect logic. Low IQ people often self-medicate with drugs anyway. It’s the dirty little secret of drug addicts. They often lack the full frontal lobe function for impulse control. Making it legal makes them worse, it enables them.

How can we tell it’s genetic? Look for a paternal age effect. All fathers biologically contribute is DNA.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aging-dads-more-likely-to-have-kids-with-autism-adhd-schizophrenia-and-more/

ding ding ding

Researchers examined all births that happened in Sweden between 1973 and 2001, and found a child born to a 45-year-old dad was 25 times more likely to have bipolar disorder, 13 times more likely to have ADHD, 3.5 times more likely to have autism, 2.5 times more likely to exhibit suicidal behavior or a substance abuse problem, and twice as likely to have a psychotic disorder like schizophrenia when compared to kids born to a 24-year-old father.

13x more likely past middle age

13, men have a right to be told this stuff in Sex Ed, family planning is important

and yes paternal is a bigger risk:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/older-dads-may-increase-childs-health-risks-more-than-older-moms/

the real QED? missing link:

https://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20090309/older-fathers-lower-iq-in-kids#1

Children born to older fathers don’t perform as well on tests of thinking skills during infancy and early childhood, while those born to older mothers have higher scores on the same tests, a study shows.

Ouch.

It’s like how single parent fathers also have kids with crap outcomes and test scores. The manosphere is in serious, life-ruining denial. Any single parent is a crap-shoot. Men have a right to know this young, to prepare.

The reason for this discrepancy is simple and evolutionary.

In fathers, early breeding (20s) is a sign he can mature faster than peers and lock down a quality woman earlier. He’s just a better man. Sorry.

Society shouldn’t enable dysgenic men to breed at all, especially in the teens. Also, sorry. But social policy matters here.

Women settle earlier, the lazier they are (dysgenic, r-select) from less discernment, the feminine trait. High IQ women complete education first, before assortative mating with a man in their class and general IQ band (eugenic, K). Child IQ maps most onto maternal IQ, as previously linked about if you search. The mother is the one raising it, don’t choose a bimbo. Also, her DNA having a high mutation load in utero will hamper the kid’s IQ regardless of the father. You’ll note in men with more than one wife, the kids with the wife who settled later are smarter, she’s more feminine and discerning. Women prepare for marriage and kids too. You need a woman who isn’t just a breeding sow. A woman who takes kids seriously and wants them, not a meal ticket. Avoid the Meghans.

McGrath’s team analyzed data from a large study called the U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project, which recruited pregnant women from 12 sites in the U.S. from 1959 to 1965. The data from this ongoing project has been a “treasure trove” for researchers, McGrath says.

His team looked at more than 33,000 children born between 1959 and 1965 and then looked at their results on cognitive tests administered at ages 8 months, 4 years, and 7 years. The tests evaluated the children’s ability to think and reason, measuring such skills as concentration, learning, speaking, reading, arithmetic, memory, and motor skills such as coordination.

Finally, they looked for links with the father’s age, the mother’s age, and in one analysis also adjusted for socioeconomic factors such as family income and parental education.

The average age of the fathers in the study was 28.4 and ranged from 14 to 66. The mother’s average age was 24.8 and ranged from 12 to 48.

same average as the middle ages

In recent years, according to the paper, it has become very common for couples to delay having children until their late 30s.

They’re falsely told it makes the kids smarter, only in the case of good genetics (and so higher natural IQ), solid education before (no Marxism) and only the woman (who can then raise the kid better). Men constantly regenerate gametes so mutate in a compounding way. Their DNA becomes more mutated with age. Eventually it’ll be seen as child abuse to delay on purpose too long (when you already found the right person and have your health). Women are born with most of our eggs for this reason, to maintain the species. What’s eugenic in a woman is dysgenic in a man, the sexes are opposites! This gives men incentives to improve his tribe. Nature doesn’t hate you, it’s a challenge and men are failing by assuming they’re like women.

The older the father, the more likely the child was to score lower on the tests, except for one measure of motor skills.

When they looked at the mother’s age, however, they found that the older the mother, the higher the children scored on the thinking skills tests. (That finding, reported in earlier studies as well, may be due to a more nurturing home environment if the mother is older, but this study suggests children of older fathers don’t reap the same benefit.)

I love how they try to nurture it away. Nope. It’s biological mainly.

However, when the researchers adjusted for such factors as the parents’ socioeconomic status, including income and education, it modified the effect of both parents’ ages on the intelligence tests. For instance, the average score on the Stanford Binet Intelligence Scale was nearly 6 points lower for children born to fathers age 50 compared to those born to fathers age 20. But when the socioeconomic factors were taken into account, the difference dropped to 2.2 points.

Incentives for high IQ men. Only low IQ men complain about fitness tests.

While the study findings may suggest the best combination of parents is an older woman with a younger man, McGrath says it’s too early to make any specific recommendations.

Suuuuure, PC liar. Protect those feels at all costs! Baby-killers.

They don’t mean by much, a few years, but modern men commonly lack any maturity to have a commitment in their twenties. I have noticed a trend of older women (5,10 years) settling with younger men, though. They also seem oddly fertile? The birth rate cult must take serious note of this. Older men regret not freezing their sperm but the egg freezing jokes are misplaced. Gametes degrade vastly faster in men. Sorry, you’re not like women?

If you really care about fixing sub-replacement fertility, look at what the data says is ideal and not your ego.

What’s behind the link between older fathers and lower IQ? “There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the sperm of older dads develop more mutations, that is, spelling mistakes in the DNA code,” McGrath says. His team is researching this idea further in animal studies comparing young mice with older ones.

ding ding ding genetic load

Their train of thought is the same as mine.

They’re avoiding getting this out in case more men take paternity leave they don’t deserve (since men can’t give birth and have nothing to recover from medically). They’ll tiptoe around old guy’s feels about impotence even if it gives their eventual, panic spawn a low IQ and bipolar disorder. Don’t pin your hopes on having grandkids in that case, what a waste.

They don’t wanna get sued, so they won’t tell men how serious this is. Better have no kids than invest in a sickly one and have no grandkids. But Big Pharma doesn’t like that.

We have known about the paternal age effect for many years,” says Harry Fisch, MD, director of the Male Reproductive Center and director of urologic microsurgery at Columbia University Medical Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital. Yet, he says, “We are just starting to scratch the surface.”

Testosterone levels begin to decline slowly at age 30, Fisch says. Ideally, men should father children “sooner rather than later,” he says.

No, supplements aren’t bio-available the way real T is. Your DNA is still being damaged.

“The 20s and early 30s are ideal, but real life intervenes,” he says, making that time frame not feasible due to lack of a partner, difficulty getting pregnant, financial restraints, or a host of other factors.

Fix the economy so high IQ men can settle in their 20s. Stop forcing them to fund the kids of the feckless men.

That’ll sort sub-replacement fertility AND the spiteful mutants won’t bother anyway. People are not genetically equal. Spiteful mutants actually think they can have kids and avoid being a parent. You can’t just hand the kid to the mother 100% and act like a bachelor. Then the kids won’t give you grandkids out of actual spite, as happens to narcissistic parents. Abandonment is abuse, and that includes Don Draper careerism.

In a perspective on the study, published in the same issue of PLoS Medicine, Mary Cannon, MD, of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland, says it is important to take socioeconomic factors into account when looking at the effect of a father’s age (as well as a mother’s).

IQ predicts SES so no. Shut up, Mary.

Men reap as they sow. They wanted to shirk patriarchy first. The ‘Sexual Revolution’ killed patriarchy in part by making it kill itself. Yes, waste your best sperm jacking it to porn, you’re free. Your sperm will be super potent for autism by the time you figure it out. Wait until they find out all those clubbing STDs make mutations more damaging.

Is it a coincidence the Boomers are the first generational product of ‘free love’? I think not. I have a pet theory the bad type of Boomer’s father picked up STDs during the war from brothels (men were enticed to attend by YKW) and warped their brain development by passing to the mother. The military won’t do that study.

Back to meditation.

The frontal lobe issues “muh concentration, et al.” are low IQ, from their heavy genetic load; the dumbness, the dense quality of them is a symptom of the IQ range. AKA being thick. Attention is filtered by your brain structure and informed by genetics.

from top:

It’s there at that maximum level of focus where you are the smartest you can possibly be. But unfortunately, neither meditation, or anything else, can increase where that limit is.

Denial of humanity is narcissism, denial of human limits. Pure egocentrism, spiritual bypassing for the ritualists.

It’s funny how both groups (New Agers and ADD/ADHD excuse-makers) are often also IQ denialists, while simultaneously wanting to ‘boost’ the thing they claim doesn’t exist? Deny mutation load, bitches. When we can test for it at birth, welcome to Gattaca. IQ tends to predict certain personality traits e.g. laziness, so people would actually be happier. Telling everyone we’re genetically equal makes the stupid miserable. They assume the system is against them, actually their parents.

Many relaxation symptoms of meditation rituals are just coping with a coffee addiction, mostly Starbucks, which they never drop. They love Starbucks more than any God. The breathing exercise kind isn’t meditation. It’s most commonly fighting a histamine, pesticide, GMO and/or mycotoxin response from a bad diet and sleep pattern. It’s suppressing your immune system from healing the damage. Like mega-dosing antioxidants means those free radicals can’t kill the cancer in you – so the cancer kills you. Stop trying to fix your biology, the train is fine.

They never mention that parietal/frontal issue but cranial space is at a premium, when one part grows, another is damaged and atrophies. When a person is stressed, they must address the causes in their life, rather than hoping for some genie to wing it for them. Opening your mind up invites all sorts of trauma and bad karma in, like opening your front door and leaving it unguarded overnight. Guard your heart, your mind and your soul. Cynically, the New Age people probably know what they’re doing, and they’re injuring the competition. Do not assume their sincerity. Most New Agers are deeply intellectually dishonest and they rip one another off all the time. A person who believes in moral absolutes and karma would never! Avoid the communal narcissists who are basically cult leaders. In another time they’d be leading witch trials for a girl who rejected them. If their object is material, that’s an abuse of the spiritual. Look at the vice in their personal life, where it cannot hide. Drink, drug, debauchery problems? They help no one, they are Will O Wisps guiding you to your own destruction. Siren songs are not a myth. They constantly travel, to hide from themselves? They seem weirdly lonely and depressed when not distracted by travel? Don’t take their life advice, they cannot be happy. The particular reasons for them don’t matter. Don’t let it be your problem. Spiteful mutants are nomads. They cannot settle – in a job, in a country, by marriage. They’ll search until they die.

Meditation amplifies your emotion, the way it’s packaged now to rich people will be interesting as they lose their fortunes. Especially Boomers, with no time to recoup or ability to compete in the Brave New Multicultural World they generally voted to import in. Sorry Boomer, you’re too white and male to be manager this time! Here’s your AA boss.

They haven’t tried it from a state of loss and deprivation, but a bubble of delusion and “I deserve this”. Meditating from any bad place, as a ritual, is like the surest way to become suicidal. New Agers know but never talk about this. If you ask around, people know this commonly but the topic gets banned or taken down. It’s ritualised rumination. Rumination is actively bad for your health (unless your health is already bad and you mistake normal for good).

That’s a cult indicator, forbidden bad experience discussion, it puts off new recruits.

They prefer to shame people for bad results, like that’s the first person it ever happened to.

(There’s drug abuse purging from the body years after the fact, a common cause of sudden health problems and ‘depression’ or ‘anxiety’ in celebrities. It takes years for drugs to fully leave all the organs. Who cares?)

Scanning for survivors

https://archive.md/f0O9R

They want to know who to keep alive during the depopulation efforts.

Admitting fitness (g is Darwinian fitness) involves admitting low fitness including the most dysgenic ranges of human specimens ever to exist. We live in an era where multiple generations of imbeciles were allowed to breed and succeed. It corrupts the rest, one rotten apple spoils the barrel. It’s a unique time in history.

The rich outgroup that echoes will steal genius genes from the docile public.

And then there’s no need to keep those aged workers or useless eaters alive, is there?

In an editorial about the genetics of race published in the New York Times on March 23, Harvard University biologist David Reich cited the new genetic IQ predictors and cautioned that “all traits influenced by genetics are expected to differ across populations.”

trans. we know race is real stop blaming us

they also have to admit that “low IQ” is sub-human (an excuse for aggressive sexual deviance found in intellectually disabled populations) or even non-human in the case of basic chromosomal print errors – this is again Darwin 101 and the reason your “pro-science” schools won’t permit his work

“We are in a situation when you mention you work in intelligence, people say, “Oh, you can’t measure that.’

Testing for idiots is rather simple.

Forging transcripts to justify special treatments would also occur.

Equal treatment in education was noble. Slow kids would get extra help, the mass in the middle would get along as quickly as possible to get out and work and the smart ones given extra work when they finished early.

It was a way of boosting every child to their max potential – but you can’t magic potential out of thin air.

Darwin predicted genes and this stuff over a century ago, it isn’t deep.

There are already pressures and stereotypes and biases impairing kid performance, teachers don’t care! They support mixed sex schools that drag down female performance, they support busing in black kids to white schools while claiming the white kids are toxic – same white kids gradeboosting the black kids but dragging their own down. Mixing religions also drags down performance on tests. Employers can’t use IQ tests even when it’s life/death.

Of course environment matters. Have the longest gazelle legs, if the other guy has an AK47 to trap you it won’t matter. The State itself is an IQ shredder.

End pathological altruism of lying to idiots, making them think it’s their fault or someone else that they fail when it’s just fact, like a shortarse trying to jump high, fails.

Stop infantilising bad kids and giving them “support” for being hostile little bullies to the others while your geniuses/tall poppies languish and wither and die, your futures with it.

Otherwise GDP won’t just STAGNATE it’ll COMBUST.

HIV cure was a lie

REALLY?

They wanted money?

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-teams-replicate-results-hiv-monkeys.html

REALLY?

In other news:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-curiosity-brain-harness.html

They want to control your curiosity. Part of the mentacide protocol.

Dya have a license to search for the holodomor?

But curiosity has also been associated with characteristics that reflect risk taking, stress tolerance and thrill seeking. This is how curiosity got its bad wrap as a mortal danger to felines.

They’re trying to replicate white characteristics so they can replace white people.

Doesn’t work – the genome is one whole thing, even junk DNA affects the rest.

We all know some people tend to be more curious than others. Supporting this, research shows some individuals experience curiosity more frequently or intensely than others. But is curiosity as a  just a level of degree—more versus less?

They know it’s connected to IQ.

They KNOW.

Everyone knows at this point.

Epistemic curiosity has been widely researched. This describes a person’s desire to acquire new information—such as facts, concepts or ideas—and bridge any gaps in their knowledge.

God forbid people seek out their own information and fact-check you asshats instead of blinding swallowing your shit.

Hey, didn’t you a-holes say “educate yourselves”?

I know it was a master-suppression technique but Ys and Zoomers actually listened.

People who show perceptual curiosity, on the other hand, try to maximise the sensory information they take in—like your friend who can’t stop looking around at anything and everything.

That’s called bad parenting. It’s connected to low IQ. That is perverting the definition of curiosity.

Curiosity = need for cognition.

This research can help us to understand how we can better harness curiosity in the real world, such as in work and educational settings.

WTF.

Imagine your boss dialing up your arousal at work like a fucking thermostat.

Gaining knowledge in this way would be very different from just delivering a set teaching material.

Trying to cover IQ range differences in school, eh?

Maybe another century of pretending that works, might work?

If the teachers are so lazy, replace them with robots.

Current research has shown that the effects of curiosity on learning are even stronger for children from families with a low socioeconomic status.

Idiots are less likely to zone out if you jangle keys, can confirm.

“The fornix is part of the limbic system.”

So it’s an r/K thing.

Click to access CLUFF.Edwards.UNDERGRAD.pdf

Need for Cognition, Intelligence, and Aging 

This study examined the constructs of need for cognition and intelligence (using the constituent
crystallized and fluid abilities that comprise overall intelligence) in relation to one another and over aging. Fifty young-old adults (54-69 years old) and 55 old-old adults (70-92 years old) were tested on a variety of measures, of which need for cognition, digit symbol (a measure of fluid intelligence), and vocabulary (a test of crystallized intelligence) were identified as outcome variables. The results suggest that need for cognition is significantly correlated to crystallized intelligence, need for cognition remains stable over aging, and fluid intelligence is best predicted by age.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-early-exposure-key-recognising-other-race.html

They want to brainwash your kids out of all instincts for self-preservation.

“The study, led by Professor Elinor McKone, examined the “other-race effect,” a phenomenon

they made up

noticing things means you brain is WORKING

in which people have difficulty telling apart individuals of a different race to their own.”

This is why you don’t go on Third World foreign holidays, btw.

Unless you want them going off age 18 and turning up dead in Thailand with their false sense of security finally burst.

Kids need more bonding time with BOTH parents (no deadbeat dads), the oxytocin will offset the propaganda.

“The other-race effect can have serious real-world consequences,” Dr. Dawel said.

“For example, inaccurate cross-race eyewitness testimony has contributed to wrongful criminal convictions, passport misidentifications and even magazines mistakenly illustrating stories with a picture of the wrong person.”

That isn’t serious so they’re lying.

The team is now working on developing new training methods to reduce the other-race effect in adulthood.

That doesn’t sound ominous at all.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-bone-marrow-piece-fertility-puzzle.html

They’re still only studying the women. Like women self-impregnate.

Can’t have the guys knowing all the DNA damage of soy, wheatgrass, HGH, etc.

Look at diet and bone marrow, duh.

Global Trends, Europe

2018:

Promising other people’s money is slavery.

Fuck you, champagne socialists.

The Guardian academia protests about ‘muh pensions’ won’t be the half of it. You didn’t earn a pension, Rome fell by making them non-military too. Public pensions are a myth to compel obedience from these useful idiots.

Being sustainable actually = national sustainability and avoiding over-breeding beyond food security and other needs. K-selection, not the promising of fiat gibs.

Caps from:

Click to access Global_Strategic_Trends_-_The_Future_Starts_Today.pdf

search food, meat, protein, China

just have fun

“Immigration could offset population declines in Europe”

and they show a photo of Muslims.

EU growth since 2000: 17% against the world average of 47%

Yes, let’s leave the Marxists in charge of everything.

They actually think the GDP will be the same with more Muslims and declining native population, with it declining national IQ.

Because we’re all interchangeable cogs, right?

Equalism aka Liberal Creationism is death.

You cannot make accurate predictions with this. GDP is best predicted by national IQ,

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/the-smart-fraction-theory-of-iq-and-the-wealth-of-nations/

“the value 0.73 actually underestimates the strength of the relationship”

so the racial genocide replacement politely called ‘demographic change’ will cause national IQ to decline and with it, GDP. Even less revenue than now, idiots.

Run the bloody numbers.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/we-are-totally-fucked/

Not that we’re avoiding ((debt)) even now.

They actually think GDP is a constant though, like the Sun rising in the East, it just happens.

Nobody takes extra hours because the tax system is fairer or wants to work hard as a virtue, no. No effort, just rely on it.

They actually think this. R-types do not understand resource scarcity or how hard it is to build up resources. They are infinite, in their minds.

They want to replace you. Remember this when they’re begging to be saved by random white people.

No appeal to white guilt, thank you. #Notyourwhitesavior 

The EU needs us, our military, as previously covered.

They can’t get a federal Europe until we feel threatened enough to sign up.

They also screech about fascism without using the word.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/04/30/fascism-historically/

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/told-ya-so-eu-army-forced/

All you need is one damn book to understand this better than the MOD:

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

Who would win?

 

MOD budget versus $6.99.

From the smart fraction post:

Thus, for a technologically sophisticated society, SFT asserts that a nation’s per capita GDP is determined by the population fraction with IQ greater than or equal to some threshold IQ. Consistent with the data of Lynn and Vanhanen, that threshold IQ is 108, a bit less than the minimum required for what used to be a bachelor’s degree. Figure 3 illustrates the fit of (3) to the data of Lynn and Vanhanen.

Dysgenics kills GDP.

Your immigration policy will starve you, State, for importing voter leeches.

They find about 70% of the variance in IQ is associated with genetic variation. Bouchard et al, Science, Oct 12, 1990, present an excellent review of these studies.”

Know thy HBD or die.

Controlling thus for environmental factors, Murray found earnings stratified conspicuously by IQ.

There is much more, Estraneo, but two nails are sufficient to fix the direction of a one-way sign. The arrow of cause points mostly from IQ to income, and not the other way round.”

Are individualistic societies less equal?

Are Individualistic Societies Less Equal? Evidence from the Parasite Stress Theory of Values

THE HORROR.

[This is how you don’t do a study on cultural differences.]

Click to access gini_pathogens-1.pdf

It is widely believed that individualistic societies, which emphasize personal freedom, award social
status for accomplishment, and favor minimal government intervention, are more prone to higher
levels of income inequality compared to more collectivist societies, which value conformity, loyalty, and tradition and favor more interventionist policies.

widely believed?

And tradition doesn’t mean, what you think it means i.e. nepotism, grandpa never retires.

The results in this paper, however, challenge this conventional view.

Great, nurture people.

Drawing on a rich literature in biology and evolutionary psychology, we test the provocative Parasite Stress Theory of Values,

aka wrong

because low fitness =

which suggests a possible link between the historical prevalence of infectious diseases, the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism and differences in income inequality across countries.

Specifically, in a two-stage least squares analysis, we use the historical prevalence of infectious diseases as an instrument for individualistic values, which, in the next stage, predict the level of income inequality, measured by the net GINI coefficient from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database (SWIID). Our findings suggest that societies with more individualistic values have significantly lower net income inequality.

Make your mind up.

White man bad or good.

The results are robust even after controlling for a number of confounding factors such as economic development, legal origins, religion, human capital, other cultural values, economic institutions, and geographical controls.

Legal origins…..

Oh, I brought screencap.

Shit, a diagram of people who wash their hands after.

Could this have something to do with infection? or…. IQ?

The Parasite Stress Theory of Values, which was first introduced by Thornhill and Fincher
(2014), proposes that regions with high levels of parasitic stress were more likely to naturally
select personality traits such as xenophobia, neophobia, ethnocentrism, and, more generally,
values that disregard the well-being of out-group members, including those at the lower
end of the economic ladder. Traits like xenophobia and neophobia, for instance, not only
reduce economic transactions between groups and across-regions, but reward conformity
and obedience toward traditional order and discourage novelty

???

Explain Brexit.

As a result, societies with high degree of pathogenic stress were more likely to develop cultural traits associated with collectivist values (Fincher et al., 2008) that view negatively ideas that can potentially threaten the established social norms.

Societies too thick to believe germ theory contaminate their water supply and get infected?

To this day?

See they wanna admit the collectivism but spin it.

From an evolutionary standpoint, these behavioral strategies were mechanisms to stop the spread of
infectious diseases

The required amount of immigrants is zero and mercantile transportation didn’t exist for millennia.

The Chinese seemed happy to swarm America as soon as it was legal.

Where did black death come from? Which continent?

Theoretically, then, the effect of individualistic values on income inequality is ambiguous.

More lies.

Since the individualism-collectivism component loads positively on values such as individual freedom, opportunity, achievement, advancement, recognition, and loads negatively on values such as harmony, cooperation, and relations with supervisors, Gorodnichenko and Roland (2012) note that, broadly defined, individualism emphasizes the values of personal freedom, affective autonomy, and achievement. In that sense, individualistic cultures award social status to personal achievements such as innovation, discoveries, or artistic achievements with high social status (Gorodnichenko and Roland, 2012).

How terrible. /s

A stylized empirical fact that emerged from a series of follow-up studies is that developed and industrialized nations are more likely to be associated with greater prevalence of individualism whereas less developed, traditional and agricultural societies are more likely to preserve collectivistic values (Hofstede et al., 1991).

“less developed” = low IQ

maybe the culture led to the economic prosperity and industry? big if true?

What is this a map of, children?

a) places people want to live

b) places white people live

c) cultures that aren’t shit-holes

d) cultures where capitalism is technically allowed

e) countries that won’t suffer comparatively in the next collapse

f) all of the above.

It’s F, for Fuck China, rates should’ve gone up decades ago.

You read the rest.

Autonomous (individualistic) cultures are ones where people are seen as autonomous and independent entities. In such cultures, people are encouraged to cultivate and express their own preferences, feelings, ideas, and abilities, and derive meaning from their own uniqueness. Embedded (collectivist) cultures, on the other hand, are ones where people find meaning by identifying with the group, participating in a shared way of life, and striving towards shared goals.

Where do you want to live?

In short, do you want to suppress, oppress and smother the smart, gifted people?

Average IQ by Race, Ethnicity, and Career . . . And Why It Matters

You can say Japan and China are smarter until you look at their pension plans.

I’ve posted about them.

Israel’s IQ is 95 on a good day.

Southeast Asians (Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Borneo)

87

about right, almost a whole deviation down

YOU have to live with this.

South Asians (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, the Gulf states, the Near East, and Turkey)

84

Yes, let us fear them.

Eastern and Southeastern Europe is 95

Hispanics in America 89

I’m scared, are you?

Welfare, the important metric.

Why count Asia as two? Why all the lies? Why?

You count all Europeans?