IQ and alcohol choices

Risky title, you deserve a fun one.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/751544

TLDR:

Many of the so-called cognitive benefits of wine drinking are, in fact, the product of more intelligent people choosing to identify wine as the educated tipple compared to beer. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

It’s an error to claim it’s the booze when levels of various compounds are almost nothing.

It was an association of behaviour, not a causation of chemistry. Forcing wine on a poor idiot won’t make him smarter.

Drinking beer won’t ‘make’ you stupid, it is simply that dumber people tend to drink beer (and that’s why it’s cheaper).

Wine is an outmoded way to get sophisticated and wasted.

Nowadays even the French don’t want to be French!

The middle-class decry colonialism and model their drinking habits on Napoleon.

Blood has more protein, ask the Clintons.

Link: Why we need eugenics

The founding stated purpose of the NHS was eugenic.
It isn’t what your history teacher brainwashed you.
Every celebrity sticking up for “healthcare” is into eugenics.
As long as the NHS pays for abortions and contraception.

Repeat abortions nursing article:

“there is a significant risk that the child would suffer physical or mental abnormalities leading to serious handicap”

Various conditions will disappear.

http://atavisionary.com/why-we-need-eugenics/

Important practical note:

Logically, you’d need proportionate eugenic policies to simply counterbalance the dysgenic ones, purely to even it out and start from neither. neutral position. Eugenic in this case is basically any policy that encourages healthy taxpayers to have more kids and raise them properly (that will also have better life outcomes and so on into prosperity via pursuit of individual happiness helped by the nation state they own, how terrible, right?). Dysgenic is whatever prevents this sustainable circle of life (holds aloft a lion cub) or more directly harmful, promotes ill-health and sterility in a population swayed by antisocial (punitive) policy changes. It’s technically dysgenic to promote the continuation of the “loser” lines of the outgroup too (keeping prisoners and slaves instead of killing them in war means eventually your kids will breed with them) but that’s also pathological altruism (classic empire suicide) and only formerly happened when a major war was lost and most of the healthy men were dead (conquest). Migration patterns is a PC way to say “conqueror boundaries”.

To promote continuation of another genetic line over one’s own isn’t merely genetic suicide and likely a form of madness (nothing in evolution accounts for this and it’s direct ingroup harm), it’s literally a spin on treason.

If the outgroup is so great, go live among them before “helping”.

Demographics matter. Biology matters. People’s personalities, including non-cognitive traits that affect life outcomes, are highly heritable. Specific pro-social temperaments conducive to civilization have been demonstrated to be genetically determined in animal studies with foxesand mice. In addition, all relevant identical twin studies have found that genetics accounts for at minimum 45% of the total variation in intelligence within populations. A significant portion of studies, notably including the most comprehensive ones, have estimated the genetic contribution to be between 70 and 80%. The heritability of intelligence has also been demonstrated in non-human primates.

IQ as a measure of intelligence and a predictor of positive outcomes has been demonstratedbeyond any shadow of doubt. Not only are those with high IQ more likely to have positive life outcomes on a personal level, but their efforts as a class contribute significantly more to the economic health and technological progress of civilization than the average or low IQ classes.

You want equal outcomes?
Start with equal contributions!

“They can’t”? Yeah, we know!

That is literally our point.

So who owes whom, considering the people who take more than they produce have the privilege of living off those other people already, purely for a coincidence of geography?
National socialism, right there. Producers enslaved to consumers, seems temporary.

They complain about The Rich but never want to kick the Russians out of London, do they?
Then it’s lachrymose Guardian pieces blithely bemoaning why property is so expensive.
Putin kicked those corrupt Russians out and you wanna keep them? WHY?

The only Russian collusion is with real estate agents.

IQ is so important to civilization, in fact, that the relative wealth of a country can be accurately predicted from average IQ*. Intriguingly gains that result from increasing intelligence do not suffer from the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, the relative fertility of high intelligence vs. low intelligence people has significant implications for the evolution of civilization and humanity…..

Evolution is ongoing remember.

Incentives make societies based on their priorities and values, punitive sanctions on health and markers of prosociality e.g. income tax paid, decay the society of envy.

The politics of envy end in death. I guess it’s the sociopath’s way to prevent ‘suffering’.

I feel like the only person to notice how America’s hand-wringing guilt over its “evil” supposedly ‘eugenic‘ sterilizations of the grossly dependent went without mention during the unusual boom times a generation plus afterward. The same prosperity occurs after the natural culling effect of major disease outbreaks. This happens everywhere.

Black Death > Boom, Renaissance

Everywhere.

Maternity leave good for children, misogynists

The mothers are far from being selfish* and lazy.

(*Expecting the man to make the money, his gender role?)

http://bernard.pitzer.edu/~dmoore/psych199s03articles/Brooks-Gunn_Daycare.pdf
Show me the equivalent study on fathers, please. [TLDR Tender Years is true.**]

Past nine months, needs more research to say it’s bad (the positive claim, burden of proof).

**You’d expect this loss of the father is survivable since men died all the time of war, hunting and disease yet we’re demonstrably still here. 

Note for idiots: Survivable is not desirable. Hume is disappointed in you.

Ideally, women should take maternity leave, if the couple can afford to. Whether she does or not is her husband’s business (read: not yours).

Study more, better grades

Based on:

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

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

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

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

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

Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).

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

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

First, look at the materials put out to businesses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.

Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.

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

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

reference A

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

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

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

reference B, 85 years of research

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

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

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

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

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

Whew, up to 50%!

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

Your IQ isn’t an excuse to be antisocial.

Male beauty predicts sperm quality

Duuuuuh?


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513803000138

It’s called fitness, smarter people are also naturally more attractive.
Who we’re told is (((smart))) in the modern world is just educated, a different variable, natural IQ correlates to beauty. It’s an established, permanent correlation. Appealing to exception doesn’t work.

Facial attractiveness has been related to health in both men and women. Certain psychological, physiological, and secondary sex characteristics have been used as accurate markers of hormonal and developmental health. The main objective of this study was to investigate the capacity of women to select males of high reproductive quality based on their facial attractiveness. A total of 66 males were included in the study. Each of them provides a semen sample, and frontal and lateral photographs were taken. Semen analysis was made according to standard WHO (1999) guidelines for morphology, motility, and concentration. Moreover, a Sperm Index (SI) was calculated as the principal component of these parameters. In Study 1, 66 women rated the attractiveness, as a possible permanent couple, of pictures of all 66 men. In Study 2, the pictures of a subset of 12 males were randomly selected from three semen quality subgroups (terciles named good, normal, and bad, according to the value of the SI). These 12 pictures were rated on attractiveness by two independent sets of women (N=88 and N=76). Facial attractiveness ratings were significantly (P<.05) and positively correlated with sperm morphology, motility, and SI, but not with concentration, for all the women sets.

Fitness and reproductive success, bound.

Darwin wins again.

And naturally, with age men are less attractive and sperm quality tanks (i.e. paternal age and miscarriage go up).