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.

“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.

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.”


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

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.”

reference B, 85 years of research

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.
“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


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).

Link: IQ and standard of living

We need an update.

Take the data, Trump. Publish it. Far and wide.

The State already controls how you reproduce. It takes money from the barren to pay for another’s child.

Taking child support from a non-parent is illegal….?


The biggest Dem weapon is the welfare cliff.

Global IQ drops

The pride of Christians replacing Natural Selection. You know better than God, right?

Fuck “mysterious ways”, sometimes you need to over-rule God’s will for feels!

And going into debt and producing unborn debt slaves to finance it, totally kosher!

CHINOs hate Darwin because it shows their signalling is selfish, real Christians don’t really care. They aren’t pathological in their altruism so that theory is seen as obvious too.

If you look closely Jesus only fed believers who went on to be good people.

Now we don’t even have the Red Cross because they refused to take it bearing the symbol, it was changed locally to Red Crescent. If a beggar spat at your works, what would Jesus do?

People who hate the cross and all it stands for? BROTHER!

h/t Anonymous Conservative

But dysgenics isn’t real, where’s the evidence?

Maybe one of the Horsemen is Bill Gates.

Don’t make the easy mistake. Don’t blame smart people for the decisions of stupid ones, place the blame where it belongs. As for blaming the women, well, how many are married? Who proposes? It takes two.

Europe is only responsible for Europe and we’re quite sustainable unlike – oh, literally EVERYONE ELSE.

Asia is a bigger pox on global IQ than Africa, if you crunch some numbers.

“My personal theory is that the drop in I.Q. is real and viral; that is, it is caused by an infection that is highly communicable through proximity.” HPV?

Genetic load would make sense if responsive to STDs.

Israel digs its own grave

You import people who hate you, you’re gonna have a bad time.

Guards lose to Mob. Ask the French King.


The highest IQ of a century ago didn’t breed! How many kids did Einstein have? Three, married twice. To my knowledge, his line is gone now or very dilute. Kids of divorce don’t breed much either.

Edison, white, had many children. Two wives, no divorce. Six kids. His line is pretty much long gone too. Only one of those had kids. One out of six!

You could be full r and have a thousand kids. If they don’t reproduce past one or two generations, it’s over.

Low T = spatial ability

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

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

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

For foraging.

And remembering where they left the baby.

And obvious chick stuff like cave painting.

It’s simple enough to test.

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

This explains STEM.

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

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

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

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

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

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