# Facial width and certain findings of attractiveness

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0122637
Wider face men are more likely to be criminally aggressive.

Narrow (long-seeming) face in men predicts impression of high IQ.
https://www.medicaldaily.com/facial-features-predict-iq-men-long-face-and-wide-set-eyes-make-men-look-smart-not-women-273710
Explains the Sherlock expected bone structure, very Tesla.

“Each student in the picture completed a Czech version of the Intelligence Structure Test that uses various types of tools to measure the different types of intelligence.”
“Of the raters, 43 women and 42 men judged photos for intelligence, and 42 women and 33 men judged them for attractiveness using a scale of 1 to 7 (1 being the highest score, 7 being the lowest possible score).”
“The findings revealed both men and women were able to accurately evaluate the intelligence of men by just viewing the facial photographs.”
Lookism takes on a whole new level.

Good luck blaming muh Matriarchy (‘gynocentrism’) for your dumb face.

Pointy face and longer mid-face (nose area) preferred in women too, more model-like too e.g.

The modern short nose look is pure low IQ thot, since looks and IQ correlate.

White men prefer the smarter look more common to the white woman, naturally. Longer midface, smarter kids.

No IQ connection seen because eggs are expensive and they failed to distinguish r from k. Women also have a higher group average IQ compared to men (same pop) so the lower men assessing them is pretty funny. Otherwise, women couldn’t sexually select as a group.

If women tend to prefer intelligent men because of their generally higher social status“” how WILL the manosphere recover?

“and these men in turn tend to prefer attractive women, the alleged covariance of attractiveness and intelligence should be of no surprise [12]. However, such findings are controversial and should be approached cautiously since Kanazawa’s research methods and conclusions have attracted strong criticism [13]–[15]. As with physical attractiveness, intelligence is suggested to indicate good genes [16], [17]. This notion is supported by the fact that during the fertile phase of their menstrual cycle, women display a higher preference for men who score highly in creative intelligence [18]. Intelligence is also correlated with humour, which is suggested to have evolved in sexual selection as an intelligence-indicator [19]. By modifying the good genes approach we find a bad genes hypothesis, which argues that even though unattractive faces signal poor genetic fitness, there is no difference in genetic fitness between faces of average and high attractiveness [20].”

r/k child outcomes though….

“Men were more accurately assessed for intelligence than women, while women were more accurate at assessing the intelligence of both men and women [26], [28].”
and BOOM goes the dynamite

Men with longer faces are male models.

Longer midface and nose again.

Hollywood rhinoplasty must shorten the nose because it lacks structure to hold it up!!

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.

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?

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.

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:

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.

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.

# Double relaxed Darwinian selection

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251531226_The_decay_of_Western_civilization_Double_relaxed_Darwinian_Selection

nb

I’ve noticed a bizarre trend of solid 10-attractive specimen, high IQ spouses (even men!) adopting children over leaving their infertile ‘beloved’.

That shit’s got to stop.

The purpose of marriage is fertility. Not love. Love is good but fruitless lovemaking is God’s way of saying “move on”.

Stigma should exist for that sort of thing, plus adoption is connected to trafficking. I suspect pedo in all celebrity cases.

We should stigmatise married hot people with high IQs who don’t have their own kids. Divorce shouldn’t be a stigma if one party is fertile and seeks children.

# Midwit IQ

The mid-wit wishes to be seen as high IQ while denying IQ altogether.
They’re a nitwit, really.
Our society conflates IQ with value and/or morality, something which annoys me, having quite a high IQ myself. Your IQ doesn’t make you pompous, that’s your parentage. It doesn’t make you morally superior, in fact, venal people tend to be midwits, but more effectively venal. Being moral is a choice anyone can make. ‘Smart’ people (slightly above average) are human parrots, effective at one skill, memory, yet they are prone to rationalisation (which idiots confuse for rationality) that their immorality is “actually” (atheist voice) pro-social and up is down. Appeal to exception is rampant on individual moral choices. But all population level stats are a grouping of individuals, so individual rationales ALSO apply. They deny basic statistical realities of formal logic and usurp it with subjective, projective rationalisations e.g. Group is dumb but Group controls the world. How? That is ill-logic, it does not compute, it literally does not add up. It’s P = Not-P. Their verbal fluidity + memory makes them glib and easy to hear but hard to understand. They lack cogency, which would be overt in transcript.

A rationalisation study in midwit men is needed, men rationalise more than women from social conditioning. Women are corrected young, since it’s emotionally grounded. Lower IQ men, while claiming to be high IQ, also deny any of their cognitions are emotionally grounded (nope, you’re human too dude).

IQ is an academic measure to improve academic learning, it isn’t a cap on skills. It’s general.

also LOL at thinking 130 is a high IQ. I meet those people all the time, not really.

Most midwits are like 115-125, very conformist.

It’s quite common for the high IQ to be capable of ‘spotting’ it in the wild. Nothing to do with liking someone or whether they agree with us. It’s possible to read anyone with the same or lower IQ to oneself.

After a while, as a kid, I figured I could spot someone’s IQ just by letting them rant for a while. With no input from me, you get their stream of consciousness, so it’s quite easy to get a feel for where they generally stand (factors like cogency, agility, vocal/neural speed). It’s like a mind map, or a forensic profile.

If you get good, you can also predict a conversation topic or ‘argument’ like five points deep. This is easiest with NPCs. It makes networking very dull. Do not try to learn it. It is hell. I wish I didn’t automatically do this, it’s like autocomplete on the other party’s arguments. I use to time them on my watch.

They need to do IQ studies where they test each bracket’s conformity with newspaper opinions. Easy to do.

The autism thing is a distraction intended to pathologise white men. Most autists are highly studied, it’s a selection bias. Most high IQ people are NOT autistic and most autists have LOW IQ (check child psych.). Also, you don’t need to be autistic to be a savant. It’s a Venn. There are non-autistic savants, the black swans exist. I have a couple of savant skills myself, and having been tested for many things including empathy (long story), not at all autistic. I got full empathy scores under lab conditions (facial recognition, inc micro-expressions). (Autism is characterized as a “low empathy” condition like sociopathy).

It’s really insulting to hear something like “you have a high IQ, so you must be autistic” or random normie men like “you’re smart, huh, you must have autism” it’s as nonsensical as the non sequitur of “you just ate an ice cream, you must be diabetic”.

I really prefer the other Dutton (psychopath researcher) because this guy is a total midwit. He parrots information like the autism conflation by one Jewish researcher (Baron-Cohen*). He uses Sheldon Cooper (fiction!) as an ANECDOTE.

*Smart white men are bad because ‘male brain’ – like REALLY? Most autism researchers disdain him. He’s a pig.

Midwits are facile, VAPID. Midwit men are VAPID. Verbally fluent but VAPID.

Like how only men care about leasing the latest sportscars. Vapidity. The variable needed.

This guy’s takes, for example, are wiki tier. I say that as someone who wrote many of those wiki pages. Many moons ago. I now know better than the information placed there. I just wanted to help other kids with homework.

Status signalling is not intelligence. It’s political piety plus narcissism. You need a religiosity metric of conformity.

He’s over-using the word ‘select’.

Social rewards DO NOT translate to breeding, especially in spiteful mutants.

Google Jayman’s work on “liberal fertility” for midwit applications. Basic HBD.

Another non seq. Ugh. No mention of communication gap at 30p differential or greater.

Self-delusion is not THOUGHT. It is rationalisation. They begin with the end.

Sweeping statements, pseudo-intellectual posing as morally superior.

But also seeing too many connections is schizophrenic or psychotic.

Approx 28m on he’s describing himself. Thousands of views? Do not expect full explanations from a youtube video, damn. Most of his audience are the midwit type who’d have been atheistkult ten years ago.

29m – that’s why I left. They’re actually relational narcissists. Pathologically. Test academics for narcissism, I dare you.

Autism isn’t descriptive Re IQ – especially since most are LOW IQ, if you actually had the intellectual honesty to check. It’s like getting average height for IQ150, being that height doesn’t make you that IQ. It doesn’t work like that, especially since high IQ is NOT a pathology, but autism IS a pathology.

The false equivalence is infuriating.

## Shaming the very people who’d question or oppose them (Read Thought Prison). Except shaming doesn’t work on the highest IQs.

### Do they ever shame non-whites as retarded (low IQ, autistic) for being high IQ? Nope, it’s systemic racism but demonstrably real.

Midwits are not open-minded but gullible.

# Claimed Chinese IQ and culturally accepted cheating

Linking because: Please stop cucking for the Jews of Asia when you don’t understand the data.

103 isn’t even high, it’s within chance (5% alpha so 5 points) aka a fluke above the Western norm.

Chinese IQ, Cheating, Immigrant Hyper-Selectivity and East Asian “Genetic Superiority”

The East Asian race has been held up as what a high “IQ” population can do and, along with the correlation between IQ and standardized testing, “HBDers” claim that this is proof that East Asians are more “intelligent” than Europeans and Africans. Lynn (2006: 114) states that the average IQ of China is 103. There are many problems with such a claim, though. Not least because of the many reports of Chinese cheating on standardized tests. East Asians are claimed to be “genetically superior” to other races as regards IQ, but this claim fails.

They test urbanites preferentially, not the rural mass. They rig it, basically.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/chinas-rural-kids-have-lower-iqs-study

Caixin did not give the IQ scores for children residing in the rural areas covered, but quoted Mr Rozelle, who said that the average IQ scores for these age groups should range between 90 and 109.

Take the data yourself, they’re glorified rice farmers who enslave their kids. We surpassed that a century ago.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918303301

The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points a decade over 18-year period.

Yeah that sounds physically possible.

So almost two SD for the whole group over a generation? And we cannot replicate that here HOW?

Data are reported for intelligence of children in China assessed by the Combined Raven’s Test in 1988, 1996 and 2006. The IQ of the samples increased by 15.0 IQ points over 18-year period. The British IQ of China in 1988 and 2006 is estimated as 94.8 and 109.8, respectively.

From search engine result on the paper:

Remember national IQ predicts GDP so it’s important for foreign investors, they have an interest in rigging it higher to keep the CCP going.

At a national IQ of 94?

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html

That would put them on par with Vietnam. Do they have a reputation for being whiz kids? The Marxists are buying a reputation, wake up. They probably have the same national IQ as Kazakhstan (94), Romania (94), Armenia (94) and various other economic shit-holes nobody ever hears about, let alone considers bright and innovative. Stop cucking for cheats, that’s all I need. Portugal scores higher at 95 and look at their economy, like Romania they’re technically white.

At 100, being overly generous, that’s a solid average compared to smart, mostly NW or West European whites (the Renaissance, and Science people), and they’d be on par with Luxembourg.

The intelligence scores came from work carried out earlier this decade by Richard Lynn, a British psychologist, and Tatu Vanhanen, a Finnish political scientist, who analysed IQ studies from 113 countries, and from subsequent work by Jelte Wicherts, a Dutch psychologist.

They also call Italy 102 despite its economy and centuries of cultural stagnation (pdf) so calling various types of chink 105-107 in recent years only (when the Marxists got free money printer) smells suspicious. Academic fraud should be a crime with heavy prison time. There is trillions in international investment riding on this.

Lynn shouldn’t be the only guy cited yet he seems to be, just with his later studies, ignoring greater quantities of historical evidence to the contrary (also collected by him).

## Since when do we only listen to ONE guy on ANY topic?

(Unless it’s evolution and Darwin, since he invented it).

More data info below, scroll if short on time.

East Asian doesn’t actually exist in genetic history, there was essentially a creation of them by multiple Empires (mostly British) and stories/studies of African inflows of mtDNA (which would explain their physical similarities e.g. broad jaw, reduced nasal bridge, recessed chin, rounded forehead).

Racial computer data by Marquardt studies’ collection:

But *pronounced fluted nostrils (*compared to body size) and broad, thick lips:

Commonly considered solely African but falsely. Asians have it too.

Photographs used by Marquardt are representative of group facial averages shown in computer model.
Source HERE.

If E Asians had such a higher IQ truly, it would be reflected in their originality and innovation e.g. genius inventors and patents.

Don’t hold your breath. IQ is one metric and only important to academia (because it can be faked).
They’re still coasting off the British Industrial Revolution.

Before continuing, something must be noted about Lynn and his Chinese IQ data. Lynn ignores numerous studies on Chinese IQ—Lynn would presumably say that he wants to test those in good conditions and so disregards those parts of China with bad environmental conditions (as he did with African IQs). Here is a collection of forty studies that Lynn did not refer to—some showing that, even in regions in China with optimum living conditions, IQs below 90 are found (Qian et al, 2005). How could Lynn miss so many of these studies if he has been reading into the matter and, presumably, keeping up with the latest findings in the field? The only answer to the question is that Richard Lynn is dishonest. (I can see PumpkinPerson claiming that “Lynn is old! It’s hard to search through and read every study!” to defend this.)

Qian study embedded here (hope this works):

title is “The effects of iodine on intelligence in children: a metaanalysis of studies conducted in China”

Although the Chinese are currently trying to stop cheating on standardized testing (even a possible seven-year prison sentence, if caught cheating, does not deter cheating), cheating on standardized tests in China and by the Chinese in America is rampant. The following is but a sample of what could be found doing a cursory search on the matter…..

In 2000, more than 2000 people protested outside of a university to protest a new law which banned cheating on tests.

When are we getting one of those?

The rift amounted to this: Metal detectors had been installed in schools to route out students carrying hearing or transmitting devices. More invigilators were hired to monitor the college entrance exam and patrol campus for people transmitting answers to students. Female students were patted down. In response, angry parents and students championed their right to cheat. Not cheating, they said, would put them at a disadvantage in a country where student cheating has become standard practice. “We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat,” they chanted. (Chinese students and their parents fight for the right to cheat)

Surely, with rampant cheating on standardized tests in China (and for Chinese Americans), we can’t trust the Chinese IQ numbers in light of the news that there is a culture of cheating on tests in China and in America.

Never hire them.

This has been outright stated by, for example, Lynn (1977) who prolcaims—for the Japanese—that his “findings indicate a genuine superiority of the Japanese in general intelligence.” This claim, though, is refuted by the empirical data—what explains East Asian educational achievement is not “superior genes”, but the belief that education is paramount for upward social mobility, and so, to preempt discrimination, this would then be why East Asians overperform in school (Sue and Okazaki, 1990).

They don’t believe in meritocracy, just the mobility part.

Meritocracy is a white concept. WEIRD is globally weird.

Minus Marxist so-called positive discrimination?

The success of second-generation Chinese Americans has, too, been held up as more evidence that the Chinese are ‘superior’ in their mental abilities—being deemed ‘model minorities’ in America. However, in Spain, the story is different. First- and second-generation Chinese immigrants score lower than the native Spanish population on standardized tests.

Americans: Spain is considered a shit-hole.

Findings from this study show that Chinese youth in Spain have substantially lower educational ambitions and attainment than youth from every other nationality. This is corroborated by recently published statistics which show that only 20 percent of Chinese youth are enrolled in post-compulsory secondary education, the prerequisite level of schooling for university education, compared to 40 percent of the entire adolescent population and 30 percent of the immigrant youth population in Catalonia, a major immigrant destination in Spain (Generalitat de Catalunyan, 2010).

It isn’t racist to note this, since nationality is NOT race.

US-born Chinese immigrants are shuttled toward higher education whereas in the Netherlands, the second-generation Chinese have lower educational attainment and the differences come down to national context (Noam, 2014).

nice term for child abuse (tiger mom is PR)

—in fact, the Chinese in Spain show lower educational attainment than other ethnic groups (Central Americans, Dominicans, Morrocans; Lee and Zhou, 2017: 2236) which, to Americans would be seen as a surprise.

if you’ve never worked with clingy Chinese people asking you to constantly “help” them perform basic tasks, yeah.

They stopped doing SATs here because it was showing up the thick Asians before they could cheat (to get into secondary school).

Second-generation Chinese parents match their intergenerational transmission of their ethnocultural emphasis on education to the needs of their national surroundings, which, naturally, affects their third-generation children differently. In the U.S., adaptation implies that parents accept the part of their ethnoculture that stresses educational achievement. (Noam, 2014: 53)

narcissism

Teachers even favor Asian American students, perceiving them to be brighter than other students.

In our own countries. So nurture favours them too. They still vote Left.

The fact that the term “Mongoloid idiot” was coined for those with Down syndrome because they looked Asian is very telling (see Hilliard, 2012 for discussion).

Really? I never noticed.

Is there an autism study in mongrels yet? (No, not yet).

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180504082411.htm

“Researchers have found in an analysis that minorities were widely underrepreseted in autism identifications in 2014″

Even the ‘successful’ half breeds hate the “racist” white parent, fair enough.

https://half-asian.net/category/half-asian/

“So then you have millions of half-Asians that look more or less Asian, ethnically ambiguous, and are deeply ashamed of their Asian heritage, being raised by some weird, misogynistic, anti-feminist, anti-Islamic, anti-black guy, raising some half-Asian kid whose mother tells him that he or she is white and that it was a brilliant life choice to marry some racist asshole. …”

funny how the white race traitor feels entitled to racial respect from a mongrel of their making, weird assumption you’d think?

“These are the same people who go onto raise us. Hateful, bitter, racist white men – since white men love humiliating Asian men in order to increase their access to Asian women. Literally – the entire premise of WM/AW is that Asian men are not men – and we, their sons, look totally Asian.”

Cook the rice, pay the price. I’m only sad for the kid/s, they didn’t choose it.

So they’re not happy, whatever the parents claim to have planned. People shouldn’t cover for the parents. I hope the kids throw them in a home to rot.

Back to IQ.

But, the IQ-ists switched from talking about Caucasian superiority to Asian superiority right as the East began their economic boom (Liberman, 2001). The fact that there were disparate “estimates” of skulls in these centuries points to the fact such “scientific observations” are painted with a cultural brush. See eg table 1 from Lieberman (2001):

This tells us, again, that our “scientific objectivity” is clouded by political and economic prejudices of the time. This allows Rushton to proclaim “If my work was motivated by racism, why would I want Asians to have bigger brains than whites?” Indeed, what a good question. The answer is that the whole point of “HBD race realism” is to denigrate blacks, so as long as whites are above blacks in their little self-made “hierarchy” no such problem exists for them (Hilliard, 2012).

Weebs are cancer.

Note how Rushton’s long debunked- r/K selection theory (Anderson, 1991Graves, 2002) used the current hierarchy and placed dozens of traits on a hierarchy where it was M > C > N (Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids respectively, to use Rushton’s outdated terminology). It is a political statement to put the ‘Mongoloids’ at the top of the racial hierarchy; the goal of ‘HBD’ is to denigrate blacks. But, do note that in the late 19th to early 20th century that East Asians were deemed to have small brains, large penises, and that Japanese men, for instance, would “debauch their [white] female classmates” (quoted in Hilliard, 2012: 91).

Asians are r-select, the most numerous race on the planet by FAR. I have covered this before. They swamp local resources and have inhumane population density. That is characteristic r-selection, with low overall group loyalty (close family doesn’t count, they’re low trust societies) and low group altruism (low altruism to animals as well).

Africa is less R than Asia.

Asians were also considered disease-ridden pet-eaters and we know how that went.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_plague_of_1900-1904

Where they go, death follows. Almost like America tried to keep them out until the 1960s…

Class is a confound for any immigrant.

So if Chinese cheat on standardized tests, then we should not accept their IQ scores; the fact that they, for example, provide non-random children from large provinces speaks to their dishonesty. They are like Lynn, in a way, avoiding the evidence that IQ scores are not what they seem—both Lynn and the Chinese government are dishonest cherry-pickers. The ‘fact’ that East Asian educational attainment can be attributed to genes is false; it is attributed to hyper-selectivity and notions of class and what constitutes ‘success’ in the country they emigrate to—so what they attempt is based on (environmental) context.

Common sense conclusion, the so-called redpills shall ignore it.

Then rediscover it in a decade while we’re at war with them.

https://raceandiqmyths.blogspot.com/2016/10/fake-chinese-iq-studies-richard-lynn.html

A table was presented by Lynn showing 31 IQ studies on China’s population. A claim was made that “there are no samples on Chinese population citing IQ to be less than 95”. Here I will present contrary data set on China where average IQ results are less than 90 which as per Lynn’s claim do not exist. First lets look at IQ of China which is presented:-

Call out China.

Always, always call out the Commies.

Obviously when the data came into the scientific community, almost everyone was shocked not because of high results, but because of consistency of data. Average IQ in 31 different regions of China was within 10 points.

That never happens. If it sounds fake…. it probably is.

As it is noticed in IQ testing, average IQ in cities is 15 points higher than rural areas.

107-15 = 92

105-15 = 90 (assuming former number is true)

100-15 = 85 (one full SD below the UK)

94 (from old study above) -15 = 79

No wonder they have no trouble enslaving one another. What else would they be good for at that level?

On top of that, average IQ heavily depends on the people tested. If you were to test factory workers, the average will be 90. University students will show average of 110. So, the scientific community always doubted his work on China.

Uni students always score 110-115, that’s why they’re Uni students. Poor analogy. Stop relying on student scores to describe full adults, IQ people, it’s poor method (generally). US college students are like 115 at the low end.

How did he test Chinese population for IQ ?

A website was created and people were asked to take IQ tests. Unlike African samples where people were downward selected, Chinese IQ was upward sampling of population.

Chinks are renowned for forging ANY online test. Disregard Lynn.

TLDR: So Lynn lied about China’s low IQ, covering for them.

When he himself had previously taken data to that effect. Then he’s been caught fudging modern data and boosting its minimum to help them save face (and get into places like Eton).

I’m quoting most of that post in block for reference in case his site goes down:

Lastly, how easy it is to cheat on internet IQ testing. It’s quite easy. The results should not have been published as there is no control over test takers over the internet. There are many websites where even people in Latin America have reported 118 average IQs on many people.

It doesn’t really make sense to compare this IQ data on China with Thailand where most samples cited are in rural areas. Better will be to compare the data with Bangkok which shows IQ of 103.

Anyways, here are the low scoring IQ samples on China’s population :-

Wang, 2001 (Average IQ of 76-81)
Average IQ: 81 and 76

81+76 /2 =78.5

Hong, 2001 (Average IQ of 65-82)
Average IQ fluctuates between 65 and 82 for china, depending on amount of fluoride in water. Shandong province, china.

65+82 /2 =73.5

Li, 1995 (Average IQ of 79-89)
Average iq is in between 79 and 89 for china. Guizhou province, china.

79 + 89 /2 = 84

Yang, 1994 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Jinan, China.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

An, 1992 (Average IQ of 76,84)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 84. Guyang county, inner Mongolia.

76 + 84 / 2 = 80

Guo, 1991 (Average IQ of 76,81)
Average IQ for china is 76 and 81. Hunan province, china.

76 + 81 / 2 = 78.5

Lower results are in mild fluoride regions and higher results are in very optimum conditions.

Very optimum doesn’t count. Optimum would maybe but very? Anomaly.

# ALL of those studies cited, averaged:

78.5+73.5+84+78.5+80+78.5 (check me, weebs)

473 / 6 =

# 78.8333 recurring.

## MUH SUPERIOR CHINESE IQ.

well they do think Communism is a good idea so

Also 78, the Congo (source).

The question arises, why did Lynn ignore these samples on China’s population. Well, if you go out with a propaganda of proving one nation smarter than another, such result manipulation is a must.

If my people had an average of IQ78, I’d make money printer go brrr too.

On top, these are the samples that are done in very optimum conditions like low fluoride, etc. and in top notch states of China.

Imagine if I cite these article which are pretty much done on rural population of China and compare it with cities in Europe, I will be able to prove that Europeans have average IQ of 105 and East Asians to be 83. Isn’t it. Its just a matter of what you want to show to the world.

aka Lynn is a liar.

and when I bitch about class and SES confounds, I’m being accurate.

Here are the IQ results in European cities:-

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

Amsterdam: 109.4, Hamburg: 109.3, Warsaw: 108.

Even in South East Asia, India and Iran; you get IQ data to be 103+ in cities. Urban rural gap is only due to cognitive clustering in urban areas.

IQ in Bangkok: 103, Iran(urban): 105, Lucknow: 110, Ahmedabad: 104. There are several reports covering the same which I will discuss later. If the Chinese IQ data is to be compared, comparison has to be done in urban samples on rest of the world.

Exactly it’s like measuring height when one guy jumped.

Now, it has been proven that IQ dataset of China has also been obtained by selective citation just like any other nation. A question arises as to why East Asians do better on PISA which is an unbiased sample covering entire population randomly and unbiased ?

TLDR: they don’t. They cover to avoid giving out a lot of data. Typical Marxists.

I will talk about the Chinese. I will talk about Korea, Taiwan and Japan later on. Results of Shanghai and other urban areas were published. Chinese government did not allow PISA to publish the results of other provinces. A statement was made by PISA that “we have done PISA sampling in 12 provinces in China and in some of the poorest regions, you get performance close to the OECD average.”

Its a very generalized statement which doesn’t really mean anything. “Close to the OECD average”. It can be 50 points less or 20 points. Unless, PISA results on China which are held back are released nothing can be said about average IQ of China.

Weebs always look silly.

However, results of Chinese in South East Asia are well known and they do not show high IQs.

Imagine my shock. What next? Are there not hot singles in my area?

Let me attach PISA scores for you. Source:https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin…
On maths PISA:- Singapore scored 573, Malaysia scored 421, Thailand scored 427.
On reading:- Singapore scored 542, Malaysia scored 398, Thailand scored 441.
On science:- Singapore scored 551, Malaysia scored 420, Thailand scored 445.
Mean scores:- Singapore: 555, Malaysia: 413, Thailand: 437. (All in the report).

There are 3 million Chinese in Singapore which is a magnet for cognitive elites of China, 8 million Chinese in Malaysia, 10 million in Thailand.

A common argument given is that Malays and other races pull down the scores in Malaysia. It is well known that “other races do not pull down scores” in SEA and even if they do, the gaps are negligible. It is well evident in Singapore school results which I will discuss later to compare East and South Asian IQs.

For verifying whether there is multi modal distribution in PISA scores in Malaysia, I had to calculate the percentile of scores.

There is a table mentioned in PISA report which is attached above. Or detailed results can be seen here (https://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfin…). Page number 308 and 309:-
In Singapore:- 10 percentile score was 432, 25 percentile: 501, 75 percentile: 650, 90 percentile was 707.
In Malaysia:- 10 percentile: 319, 25 percentile: 363, 75 percentile: 474, 90 percentile: 530.

In Thailand:- 10 percentile: 328, 25 percentile: 372, 75 percentile: 476, 90 percentile: 535.

Even top 25 percent of Malaysia has an average PISA score corresponding to 98 IQ that is 87 percentile of Malaysian PISA data (520 is 100 IQ and 100 points is 1 standard deviation as discussed before). If I assume that all these are Chinese (that is each and every person of Chinese decent scored better than other races), how does it lead to high IQ and PISA scores among East Asians. This is the best case estimate.
For decent estimate, average IQ of Chinese in Malaysia: 95 IQ, Thailand: 97 IQ (according to PISA reports).
Performance in PISA level 5 and level 6:-
Page 31:-
Singapore: 29% students above level 5 and 6.
Malaysia: 0.9% students above level 5 and 6.
In Malaysia (a nation with moderate education system), “at the absolute maximum” 2.5% Chinese students scored in level 5 and level 6. V/S large majority of Chinese students in Singapore (“minimum 6.5% and maximum 38%”).
You can clearly see East Asian PISA score to be same as Czech Republic level once we include Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore; instead of just concentrating on Singapore which is a magnet for China’s cognitive elites.
Czechs, you know, our overt intellectual superiors, fellow whites.
Chinese IQ in SEA (based on PISA) is 98 (best estimate) and 96 (decent estimate).
And PISA is the most reliable large scale study on IQ.
So, at their expat best is still below our average. Explains the nepotism. And the expectation you NEED to cheat versus white kids to even get in.
What’s the Asian dindu nuffin?
As IQ of China is unknown and there are contrary studies (some showing very high IQs, some very low IQs) and as large scale studies like PISA on China are unavailable to public; it is resonable to assume that China’s IQ will be same as Chinese living in SEA as per PISA reports. Chinese in SEA are net importers of high skill immigration from China unlike China which is a net exporter of high skill immigrants. So, at any cost Chinese IQ cannot be more than Chinese in SEA.
Logically.
Now what about the people especially the bloggers who post IQ of 115 for China. To be frank, most of them are misinformed. IQ of 115 on China is based on an assumption that presently IQ of China is 105 and China will score 115 due to optimum living conditions and first world environment. That’s not the case.
Wait, so they’re crystal-balling it?
Hard cope from the race mixers.
Muh magic dirt of the Western schools + clean air nurture theory BS.
Present IQ data available on China shows 95 IQ or 97.5 IQ as per Lynn’s work (which is based on his own calculations). 105 is the long term ceiling of IQ in China.
So not even 105 ever, let alone now.
Lynn is such a cucky little shit. Weebs keep rigging data like this to be anti-white, no wonder he keeps getting funding.

112 is the PISA IQ for Shanghai which is the highest IQ recorded in China where people are living in absolute optimum conditions. As cities generally score 15 points higher, average in China cannot be more than 105. Even the estimate of 105 comes at the cost of assuming optimum living conditions (excluding iodine deficiency, etc., etc.). Present IQ of China as per the data available is 95 as people are not living in optimum conditions. Many of the states have iodine deficiencies, many have underweight children.

But again if I start optimizing IQs for the rest of the world, most nations would score very high. To be frank, Africa and South Asia are the biggest victims of malnourishment and iodine deficiencies.

By the same logic: If China is smarter than us, so is Africa.
While comparing IQ of two nations, you cannot compare an optimised number for one with an unoptimised number for another nation. Isn’t it.
“optimised” and futuristic = rigged
might as well be sodding Terminators

So, Lynn’s IQ comparisons between Europe and China by taking an optimised number for China (105) and an unoptimised number for Europe (97) is unacceptable and not in lines with the scientific methods of research.

If the data cited on other nations is un-optimised for iodine deficiencies etc.  etc.; why is he comparing it with an optimized estimate for China ? Of-course if you want to propagate a racial fallacy in the public, such stuffs are required. Even nations in Europe face iodine deficiencies at par or higher than people in China and European IQ can also be adjusted to 104, or I can calculate European IQ by taking highest scoring city in Europe, Amsterdam and subtracting 7 IQ like how he is doing for China which will put Europeans at 103. Isn’t it.

Plenty of European countries are white trash. We all know it. Try living near Little Polands. Thugs.
Eastern Europe didn’t have the same selection pressures as North West and hence has no First World culture, as we’d recognize it.
And rather Europeans face much higher iodine deficiencies than East Asians and I will show the same with appropriate data later on. On top of that, East Asians do not face any mal-nourishment. In the above text, I showed a few samples on East Asia in mild fluorosis regions that the average IQ in such villages is also in low 80s, let alone 100+. If I show East Asian IQ samples where they are done on malnourished population, the results will be very very low (less than 75 IQ).
LOL

So, it is funny if he is optimizing East Asian data to 105 and Europe is kept constant at 97 because it is Europe that faces higher environment contamination due to iodine deficiencies, etc.

And remember, the IQ numbers of India, mid-East that is shown in his book is not optimized unlike East Asia.

The main purpose of him writing his book is to get famous in the public by propagating a racial fallacy that is far from the truth. The scientific community does not acknowledge his books which does seem to be a fiction.

I will further prove that average IQ in Iran in optimum living conditions is also 105, same as people in China (in my coming posts). And will present relevant data.

here

# Urban industrialization and lowering IQ?

Might explain midwits – who often work in high-rise office jobs and get worse every year of it.

Why hasn’t Woodley done a study on this?

It could be one factor behind modern declines discussed in At Our Wits’ End.

TLDW: CO2 levels caused by breathing (in enclosed spaces) and urban environments cause huge drops in cognitive performance. It can cause health problems down the road. Maybe working in an open-plan office with no open windows (too high up) will one day be viewed with the same disdain as coal mines.

# Americans hate thinking

This month made me want to post this early for some reason.

Americans literally detest thinking.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-35570-001

They’d rather be electrocuted, actually.
https://osf.io/qwked/

Wilson et al. (2014) investigate whether it is easier for people to steer their thoughts in pleasant directions when the external world is not competing for their attention or whether it is more difficult to think in enjoyable ways even in the absence of competing external demands.
The results of 11 studies suggest that participants typically do not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoy doing mundane external activities much more, and that many prefer to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts.
Ah! The fruits of multi-generational dysgenic breeding.
Law of attraction might be making America dumber.
Howzat Republic workin’ out for ya.

# Beauty x Intelligence

Anyone who refutes the connection (caused by low genetic load) is coping.

It’s a K-selection process.

The difference is huge in both sexes, just a few points above would be major.

10+? Huge sexual selection pressure for both sexes.

Suddenly the “muh minority wage gap” complaints take on a new light, eh?

# 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).

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.
• 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.

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

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

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.

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.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.

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?)