Genetic load and no, you’re not entitled to breed.

The low IQ Americans: MUH ANCESTORS
-died. Mostly died. STFU with the snowflaking outrage.

Maths below.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297657116_Mutation_and_Human_Exceptionalism_Our_Future_Genetic_Load

Although the human germline mutation rate is higher than that in any other well-studied species, the rate is not exceptional once the effective genome size and effective population size are taken into consideration. Human somatic mutation rates are substantially elevated above those in the germline, but this is also seen in other species.

What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.

Actually, it’s anti-selection aka dysgenics. There is always a pressure in some direction, read Darwin?

You can’t have dystopia without dysgenics. That’s all a dystopia is.

The long-term consequence of such effects is an expected genetic deterioration in the baseline human condition,

Non-uniform.

By race and subrace.

potentially measurable on the timescale of a few generations in westernized societies,

Which metrics?

Technically you only need one truly fuck-up generation (say Boomers) to install those social policies up to 3 (living memory). This is without external group effects i.e. invasion on a genetic level, rape. So it isn’t fair to say immigration caused this, it compounds it severely. The Boomers and their outsized ingroup-gene infanticide will go down in history as mass murderers, if there’s anyone left.

and because the brain is a particularly large mutational target, this is of particular concern. Ultimately, the price will have to be covered by further investment in various forms of medical intervention.

Medicine isn’t magic. It cannot do that. We already cannot afford the current population with the present and dwindling useful tax base, let alone Japan levels of old coots living to infinity and China levels of population size.

You can’t fuck your way out of this, r-types. You can’t immigrate it either, those new entries have a lower IQ, higher overall group fertility and represent a smaller usable tax base. Debt doesn’t exist to cover this medical cost, even digital money typing. You can’t even type your way out of it. Hyperinflation would occur first, long before actually. Try running the numbers, see if you’re as smart as me. The cost of quality food is the anchor point. Of all living expenses, that one actually keeps you alive?

Don’t become a doctor, kids. Medicine bubble, heard it here first.

Hell, NHS GPs are already quitting now. Retention will only get worse. The ones who stay have lower IQ and can’t find gainful employment anywhere else. This is how socialism degrades infrastructure, the first generation the NHS seemed fine but the second, it attracted parasites to become GPs for the money and by the third, the original talented ones (by private sector standards) had retired and died, leaving training downhill from there.

Other people have explained that before. That one isn’t me.

Resolving the uncertainties of the magnitude and timescale of these effects will require the establishment of stable, standardized, multigenerational measurement procedures for various human traits.

Measurement? We’re lower IQ than ingroup Victorian ancestors by reaction time.

No action?

No correction?

No control?

No standards?

No relevant barriers to entry? Say, for breeding? At least on state funding?

Shows what they think of the producers, dunnit?

Leave the leech alone! The parasites are fine!

Yeah wait a few generations, maybe a century and hope the metrics are correctly chosen to matter!

Long after the researchers are dead so you can’t kill them for being wrong.

This is Idiocracy, even academia is full of nitwits.

We used to have a breeding license, it’s called a marriage certificate.

Below a certain IQ, you can’t actually consent to get married or breed. Maybe study that first?

No, that would be both logical and responsible.

See, I don’t just sit here bitching. I have solutions but nobody listens.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291734415_Mean_household_size_in_mid-Tudor_Englandclackclose_hundred_Norfolk

cites
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313794802_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

nb Historians and real scientists say European, liars typically say Caucasian.

For example, among European populations in the year 1600 AD the average individual had around a 25-40 % chance of dying in infancy, a 50 % chance of dying during childhood (Volk and Atkinson 2008), and only around a 40 % chance of fully participating in reproduction (Rühli and Henneberg 2013). The average family size was close to five in 1600s England (Arkell & Whiteman, 1998) -given the high rates of pre- term, infant, and child mortality, the numbers ever conceived would likely have been considerably higher. These historical Western infant and child mortality statistics are similar to those observed in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations (Volk and Atkinson 2008)

I’ll list the maths since there’s always that one idiot who “disagrees”.

Of those born, low ball:

100 – 25% = 75
75 – 50% = 37.5
37.5 – 40% = 15
15 of 100 births eventually reproduced, at best.

Your ancestors in 1600 weren’t entitled to breed either. STFU, stupid sections of America.
Natural selection is important.

RITES OF PASSAGE. TOUGH ONES.

Assuming you aren’t tradlarping?

Bear in mind, that wasn’t sex-specific and those estimates are the population i.e. they have to breed with one another.*

Less conservative estimate:

100 – 40% = 60
60 – 50% = 30
30 – 40% = 12
12 of 100 births eventually reproduced, by academic estimate. The more realistic one.

Again, stop being so entitled. Considering the odds, five kids average is actually pretty low.
The entitled brats, appealing to a tradition that’s totally ignorant and imaginary, are the spiteful mutants. In any other time period, you’d probably be dead by now. Male infant mortality is higher than female overall for humans, which hasn’t been factored in. 

And WWs 1 and 2 culled the bravest genes of that millennia selection by machine gun and sniper.

At least the bankers made mo- wait, they’ve already “run out” of fake money. Less than a century later.

What was it all for?

so

7.5%

or 7.5/100 births eventually reproduced as a couple TOPS

down to, more reasonably

6% of MEN* (or women, maybe**) compared to the grandfather’s generation.

[Father 50% reproduction as male, Grandfather 100% comparison, since all grandfathers would have bred logically.]

or 6/100 births from the total population, coupled.

Assuming 50/50 male/female birth split and flat survival, which doesn’t exist.**

Since breeding requires TWO people, America.

3 generations tops, with a 6% male survival in 1600 Europe.

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR.

6% by sex.

This doesn’t further subdivide by health, wealth, religion or attractiveness.

If one surviving guy in that 100 births total was infertile or refused marriage, you can kinda see why it was a big deal.

This is why inheritance was always conditional on religion, approved choice of spouse and vitally, children.

If the Boomers wanna do some good, write into your will your kids get nothing unless actively Christian, married, with at least one child with a spouse you approve of. They won’t do it. They’ll complain about no grandkids though. That never gets old.

Spiteful mutants

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-017-0084-x
Social Epistasis Amplifies the Fitness Costs of Deleterious Mutations, Engendering Rapid Fitness Decline Among Modernized Populations

Deleterious mutations are typically understood exclusively in terms of their harmful effects on carrier organisms. But there are convincing reasons to think that such adverse effects are not confined to the individual level. We argue that in social species, interorganismal gene-gene interactions, which in previous literatures have been termed social epistasis, allow genomes carrying deleterious mutations to reduce via group-level pleiotropy the fitness of others, including noncarriers.

Personally I think that’s nature’s IQ test, but go on.

(If you can be talked out of your instincts, you don’t deserve to breed).

This fitness reduction occurs by way of degradation of group-level processes that optimize the reproductive ecology of a population for intergroup competition through, among other mechanisms, suppression of free-riding.

If you can be talked out of it by people who hate you…

Such damage to group regulatory processes suggests a hidden role for the accumulation of behavior-altering “spiteful” mutations in the dynamics of the demographic transition—these mutations may have contributed to the maladaptive outcomes of this process, such as widespread subreplacement fertility.

Hmm. Not really. Multi-factorial.

A structured population model is presented describing aspects of this social epistasis amplification model. This phenomenon is also considered as a potential explanation for the results of Calhoun’s mouse utopia experiments, which provide an opportunity to directly test a major prediction stemming from the model.

Discouraging breeding is spiteful mutant if the host does it themselves, particularly from their own inability (no mate) rather than true choice. Picture all the women running round babying tranny feels.
If not, could be eugenic if encouraging the unfit only to abstain OR environmental, as desire for a family drops for group survival temporarily based on crime level and as high trust society becomes low trust; although GDP is an important consideration, for men as provider, moreso than women.

There’s also a connection to solar cycles and crops/food availability. Nobody’s sure if white people can sense it. Needs a study. But birth rate is tracked quite well to solar cycle, if you look.

Related papers:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470870850.ch10
Is There a g Factor for Fitness?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97518.x
Fitness Decline under Relaxed Selection in Captive Populations

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311841253_Mutation_Accumulation_Theory

Superstitious minds

Mini post. Kinda. Why is Benedict Cumberbatch so ugly?

No really. If we’re doing red pill observations, humour me.


I mentioned before about old world superstitions forgotten in recent years.
As recently as my parent’s generation, they considered ugly children the product of sin, that God was punishing their parents for their sin. You can still find this info around if you look but they rarely dive into it.

You could say it’s about STDs but back then people rarely travelled and slept around enough to frequently catch them. The modern microbiome of the slut is more taxed. So what?

Back to the school mocking. If a child had always married parents but became ugly in the teens, questions would be asked openly and they would get teased about whether one or both parents had ever cheated. This is where we get the term bastard. It isn’t actually about bastards, it’s about ugliness. The ugliness of parental deceit.

You can pretty much tell when there’s a birth defect in a baby, the eyes look dull if it’s mental. It’s a known indicator of fatal defects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957214001703

2015 Birth Defects in the Newborn Population: Race and Ethnicity

Overall birth defect prevalence was 29.2 per 1000 in a cohort of 1,048,252 live births, of which 51% were Caucasians.

Full white or mongrelised? Let’s assume pureblood despite America (mixed white, mostly). American whites are on average less attractive as white blended than single nation counterparts, even living in America. Models tend to come from homogeneous national areas, (i.e. subrace) a finding that is known to apply to white settlers in Brazil to this day, they send scouts. Specifically.

https://www.thecut.com/2010/06/model_scouts_find_more_than_ha.html

Compared with Caucasians, the risk of overall birth defects was lower in African–Americans (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9) and Hispanics (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9).

Failure to consider abortions for “no” reason or gender as defective. Selection bias. A lot of those already had abortions because they’re high abortion groups!

The risk of overall birth defects was similar in Caucasians and Asians. Relative to the Caucasians, African–Americans had a lower risk of cardiac, genitourinary, and craniofacial malformations but a higher risk of musculoskeletal malformations. Hispanics had a lower risk of genitourinary and gastrointestinal malformation. Asians had a higher risk of craniofacial and musculoskeletal malformations.

Didn’t control for proportion in the population, then non-whites are way ahead.

Craniofacial = ugly. 

Musculoskeletal = ugly. Well, dumpy.

Unless you’re going to argue a big is beautiful for literal birth defects?

And “similar” isn’t same. It isn’t statistical. This is like IVF success studies again (see below).

Why did some old world men witness the birth? All babies look like those reddish potatoes, it can’t be a resemblance. You can tell a resemblance to one parent over another by middle childhood to puberty.
We’re told that it’s about adultery and it might be true if you suspect a man with certain features e.g. skin colour, an extra finger.

Yet, what can you tell at birth? Ugliness.
Whether or not the man in question remembers that reason.

Cinderella effect also applies to genetic but ugly kids (lookism, it’s aka). The parents reject them, even if one genetically caused their fug.

Take Cumberbatch, product of a union involving adultery.
Fugly. Nice voice, but his father is the looker. Mother is a looker too. The issue cannot be genetic.

Some superstitions have a basis in fact.

Why did old ladies peer into a pram to judge the ugliness of the babe?

To see if you’re a SINNER!

[inc Thou shalt not adulterate]

Picking on an ugly white guy wouldn’t be totally kosher. I have other evidence.

We’re looking for spiteful mutants.

Now the post gets huge.

To more data, ever more data, smother the liars in data:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/informationregardingmixedraceparentage

“Please may I request the following information, records and documentation under the Freedom of Information Act:

Information in regard to people of mixed race parentage- often called ‘white and black Caribbean’, ‘white and black African’, ‘white and Asian’, ‘other mixed’- being at increased risk of being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or of suffering from fertility problems in their adult lives, which is related to their mixed race parentage

Information regarding NHS policy and practice on the advising of interracial couples, who are prospective parents, about the increased risk of their child being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or infertile in adult life, which would be connected to their, the child’s, mixed race parentage

Please may I also request statistical information and records which display the following:

The percentage of overall cases of babies born with a birth defect, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of babies still born, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of infertility, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall births, which is attributable to each ethnic group”

Reply:

“In Tables 8 and 10, mixed race is included in a single category of Mixed, Chinese and any other ethnic group. This is because the numbers in these groups are sufficiently low to risk being disclosive, and follows agreed statistical guidelines.
a) being born with a birth defect – this information is shown in Table 10.
b) being still born – this information is not published. However, you could request a special extract (further details of how to do this are explained below).
c) we do not hold any information on infertility, and are therefore not able to answer your question about adults suffering from fertility problems, connected to their mixed race parentage.”

Do not hold information my lily-white arse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/infertility-ivf-nhs-race-lgbt-asian-black-women-a9216921.html

Table link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/gestationspecificinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Page does not exist”.

It’s this paper.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/pregnancyandethnicfactorsinfluencingbirthsandinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Some research suggests that Black and Asian women have shorter gestation than White European women, and that this may be due to earlier fetal maturation (Patel et al., 2004). The discrepancies in gestation by ethnicity may also be explained by socio-economic, behavioural and physiological differences among the different ethnic groups (Gray et al., 2009).”

In an ONS report. They know.

“Table 10 (184.5 Kb Excel sheet) shows that for four of the five combined ethnic groups analysed, the most common cause of infant death was immaturity related conditions

(Black, 54%;

Mixed, Chinese and any other group, 44%;

White, 43%;

For a majority, that’s incredibly low.

and those where ethnicity was

not stated, 49%).

For the Asian group, the most common cause was congenital anomalies (41%). A higher incidence of congenital anomalies in Asian populations is well-documented (Gray et al. 2009).”

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/child-health/gestation-specific-infant-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2012/rft-table-1.xls

Low birthweight and prematurity are both measures of fetal development. Another measure is the baby’s size in relation to its gestational age. Babies whose birthweight lies below the tenth percentile for their gestational age are known as ‘small for gestational age’ (SGA).

Not all babies who are SGA have a pathological growth restriction; they may just be constitutionally small.

read: racially

This may explain why babies of Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani origin are more likely to be SGA than White British babies.”

Smaller brains too. Inbreeding depression but also group average by nation. Look at national IQ.

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
Bangladesh 82
Over one whole standard deviation below. According to the likes of Peterson, useless to a Western economy. The average Bangladeshi.
India 82
Recall regression to the mean. Also, friendliness correlates more to low IQ. Do not be fooled.
Pakistan 84
Thailand 91
Philippines 86
Nigeria 84
Jamaica 71, where we’re picking up new NHS nurses.

Enjoy that decline.

Tables 8 and 10 mentioned in FOI request not listed, have to know it’s there.
Under Downloadable Tables:

“Table 8: Live births, neonatal and infant mortality by ethnic group and gestational age at birth, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales

Table 10: Infant mortality by ONS cause groups and broad ethnic group, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales”

For future reference, write your FOI requests as “concern for services provided to BAME women” and “progressive need for up-to-date medical guidance for mixed race couples and the biracial in family planning”.

You have to download the excel, click to tables 8 and 10, then read the footnote of superscript 1 to know to scroll right.

Table 8: All others^1
7.1% under 37wks
9.2% SGA

Black SGA: 9.2 and 12.3%.
Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani only SGA: 17%, 16.3%, 14.2%.
White SGA: 7.2%, 6.2%.
Unknown 8.2%.
ALL SGA average: 8.2%.

Something’s off.

Pre-term neonatal deaths
Total: 869
B,I,P: 9, 30, 47
Black: 39, 13
White: 549, 63
Unknown, not stated: 32
All others^1: 87
For such a vanishingly small percentage of the population, how is it 87?
10% of pre-term deaths were “1 Chinese, Other Asian, Other black, Other and all Mixed groups.”

Do you see what I see?

For non-statistically minded people:

Infant death, pre-term
Total: 1232
B 21
I 41
P 66
Black African: 62
Black Caribbean: 20
W native 750
W other 86
Not stated 48
All others^1: 138

See it yet? If you controlled for population ratio, it’d be more dramatic by far.

This is why they hide it and I have to make my own charts.

Term infant deaths
Total: 895
All others^1: 102.
That’s 11.4% from a tiny group of mixed.

Table 10 screen-capped, do your own charts.

Related studies, I do have a point about measurement error.

https://iussp2009.princeton.edu/papers/93139
2009 Fertility by ethnic and religious groups in the UK, trends in a multi-cultural context

Asian tsunami in USA too
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281416/birth-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

From one of the links, can’t find which. Calm down. Either they’re abstaining from having kids once here, infertile, the neonate dies or it’s retarded. Being here is actually a curse since they’re held to the standards and economy of a higher IQ nation. They’re voter birds here for a season or tax chattel and they’ll leave when it’s convenient to.

Ethnicity and IVF

“How a patient’s ethnic background affects her chance of pregnancy, especially with IVF, is a fascinating yet poorly studied area of research. According to a 1995 national survey of family growth, non-Caucasian married women were more likely to experience infertility than Caucasian married women, yet these same non-Caucasian women were less likely to receive any type of infertility treatment—especially treatment with assisted reproductive technologies.

There is very little data in the literature examining ethnicity and its affect upon pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ethnic minorities compose a small percentage of patients in the nation’s IVF programs, making it relatively difficult to examine how they respond to various infertility treatments. In the few studies that have examined the affect of ethnicity on IVF pregnancy rates, differing outcomes have been found.

There have been only a few studies specifically comparing IVF success rates between African Americans and Caucasians. The results of two of these studies contradict each other, with one showing that African Americans had decreased pregnancy rates with IVF as compared to Caucasians, and the other finding no difference in pregnancy outcomes with IVF between these two ethnic groups.

Likewise, there are only a few studies directly comparing IVF pregnancy outcomes between Indians and Caucasians. One shows a trend towards decreased pregnancy rates in Indian women and finds that Indian women were significantly more likely to have their cycle cancelled as compared to Caucasian women. In comparison, another study found no significant difference in IVF pregnancy rates between Indians and Caucasians. A more recent study has shown that Asian ethnicity was an independent predictor of poor outcome with IVF. There have been no studies examining IVF pregnancy outcomes in Hispanics in comparison to any other ethnic groups.

We’ll see why.

When I was in training, I published the first study comparing IVF outcomes among multiple ethnic groups. It was a retrospective study utilizing a data set that was the result of the collaboration between three IVF centers in the Boston area: Boston IVF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital IVF Center, and Reproductive Science Center.
We retrospectively reviewed the cycles of 1,135 women undergoing IVF between 1994 and 1998. Only the first IVF cycle for each couple was reviewed. Ethnicity was self-reported. Women who categorized themselves as having a mixed ethnic background were excluded.

Seriously. Measurement bias much?

….In order to better understand how ethnicity affects IVF outcome, it will be necessary to study a larger number of minority patients. In these studies, it is important that all ethnicities be included. If racial differences do exist, IVF treatment protocols could be adjusted to improve the success rates for patients of all ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, further exploration in this area is necessary and very important.”

We did that.

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/bjog-release/

“After adjusting for certain factors including the age of the patient at time of treatment, cause of female or male infertility, and type of treatment (ICSI vs IVF), the study found that White Irish, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black African, and Other Asian women had a significantly lower odds of a live birth than White British women. For example, the live birth rate for White British women was 26.4% compared to 17.2% for White Irish women and 17.4% for Black African women.

The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.

Moreover, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black British, Black African, Black Caribbean and Middle Eastern women were at a higher risk of not reaching the embryo transfer stage.

The paper explores the possible reasons behind the variation and states that while genetic background could be a potential determinant of egg and sperm quality, variation in environmental exposures relating to lifestyle, dietary factors, socio-economic and cultural factors could be influencing egg and sperm quality, accessibility of fertility treatment and behaviour towards seeking medical care and consequently reproductive outcomes.

No, they were living in the same place. Muh Magic Dirt.

Genetics is the ONLY difference now.

You have NOTHING.

DNA causes germline DNA, really? Maybe?

Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in South Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.

Shit tier WHR tipped us off on that one, see end.

Dr Kanna Jayaprakasan, Consultant subspecialist in Reproductive Medicine, Derby Fertility Unit, Royal Derby Hospital; Honorary Associate Professor in Gynaecology, University of Nottingham and senior author of the paper, said:

“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.

“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.

“The main strengths of the study are the use of the UK HFEA national database which includes a large number of women treated in all UK units. However, the numbers in some of the sub-ethnic minorities, such as Bangladeshi women, were low in the study.”

Professor Adam Balen, spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Chair of the British Fertility Society (BFS) said:

“Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.

“This interesting study looking at maternal ethnicity provides useful data based on a large number of women undergoing fertility treatment. The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.”

Nope!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472648315002564

“Black and South Asian women were found to have lower live birth rates compared with White women”
“Black and South Asian women seem to have the poorest outcome, which is not explained by the commonly known confounders. Future research needs to investigate the possible explanations for this difference and improve IVF outcome for all women.”

Almost like Anglo women evolved to breed in the Anglo climate?

The Ice Age killed the boyish ones.

MORE:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636517/

“Variation in risk factors and outcomes was found in infants of White mothers by paternal race/ethnicity.”

I wonder which way.
Inbreeding or outbreeding depression?

Guess.

“Status exchange hypothesizes that in a marriage market framework, minority men marry less-desired White women (e.g., of lower education) in exchange for higher social status. The second hypothesis, in-group preference, simply suggests that people prefer members from their own group, and thus, intermarriage is the less desirable scenario.”

Dudebros like “where’s da studies?”

I’m like “Have you even looked?”

“Together they found that mixed-race couples differed significantly with respect to their sociodemographic characteristics from the endogamous couples. After control for those variables, biracial infants were found to have worse birth outcomes than infants with 2 White parents but better than infants with 2 Black parents.6,8–12 (Henceforth, infant’s race/ethnicity will be referred to by the notation “maternal race/ethnicity–paternal race/ethnicity” [e.g., White–Black].)”

DING DING DING DING DING

TIL Wombs iz white supremacist.

“Consistent with Table 1, infants in the White–unreported group had the worst birth outcomes in each category.”

Trans. mixed. Likely Asian since S. America and Black are already covered.

Learn to read, weebs.

“In general, I found substantial variation in birth outcomes within the group of infants with White mothers and fathers of different racial/ethnic groups. This is interesting because it shows that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the infant’s race/ethnicity, regardless of father’s race/ethnicity, can be problematic.

aka nice way of calling out deception

For example, it is not uncommon for a study to refer to infants of White mothers as “White infants,” even though “White infants” may imply that the fathers are White. In this study, I demonstrated that infants of a White mother and a White father, the real “White infants,” have the better birth outcomes than do those infants of a White mother and a non-White father. Therefore, the practice of using “White mother” to refer to White infants will yield lower estimation of the birth outcomes because there are infants of non-White fathers in the sample.”

They know. It’s a cover-up.

Category errors galore.

“The infants in the White–White group had the most-advantaged birth outcomes, followed by infants in the 3 Hispanic-father groups. Infants in the White–Black group had the second-most-disadvantaged birth outcomes; the differences in birth outcomes between White–Black and White–White infants were statistically significant: White–White infants had a 2% (70 g) higher average birthweight, 26% lower LBW rate (4.64% vs 6.26%), and 39% lower infant mortality rate (0.43% vs 0.71%) than did White–Black infants. Infants in the White–unknown group had the most-disadvantaged outcomes in each category. These heterogeneities within White mothers show that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the race/ethnicity of the infant is problematic: White–White infants had the best birth outcomes among the groups studied, so any other paternal race/ethnicity pulls down the averages for all White mothers. That is, the birth outcomes of White–White infants are actually underestimated by researchers who use mothers’ race/ethnicity to refer to infants’ race/ethnicity, and thus, the racial/ethnic disparities between White and any other race/ethnicity may be underestimated accordingly as well.”

Relevant!

“…Clearly, the unreported father is a proxy for more-noteworthy factors, because if unreported fathers were merely missing from certificates, their infants’ outcomes should not be so much worse.”

What DO these studies have in common? [Asians]

Could also be child of rape as a confound.

You’ll see.

2012 Biracial couples and adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776059

“Biracial status of parents was associated with higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes than both White parents but lower than both Black parents, with maternal race having a greater influence than paternal race on pregnancy outcomes.”

Evolution is racist or instincts evolved for reasons? Pick ONE.

Your Third World surrogate plan may need retouching.

If it fails or dies or gets retarded, you still gotta pay up! What are the odds?

Why is it so hard to find studies about the most populous race on the planet?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238617

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564431
2018
What is associated with IQ and other development issues? Pre-term birth.

“Maternal age, education level, race and ethnicity, smoking during pregnancy, and parity were significant risk factors associated with PTB.”

It’s mentioned along with smoking.

“…The analysis of interactions between maternal characteristics and perinatal health behaviors showed that Asian women have the highest prevalence of PTB in the youngest age group (< 20 years; AOR, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28-1.54).”

I want more studies about them. I’m not scared of reality.

That suggests a genetic predisposition to be present so young. I’d compare PTB to WHR, personally.

“Pacific Islander, American Indian, and African American women ≥40 years of age had a greater than two-fold increase in the prevalence of PTB compared with women in the 20-24 year age group.”

Their own women.

Pre-term study and IQ:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/136/3/415
“RESULTS: Across all assessments, VP/VLBW individuals had significantly lower IQ scores than term-born controls, even when individuals with severe cognitive impairment (n = 69) were excluded. IQ scores were found to be more stable over time for VP/VLBW than term-born individuals, yet differences in stability disappeared when individuals with cognitive impairment were excluded. Adult IQ could be predicted with fair certainty (r > 0.50) from age 20 months onward for the whole VP/VLBW sample (n = 260) and from 6 years onward for term-born individuals (n = 229).

CONCLUSIONS: VP/VLBW individuals more often suffer from cognitive problems across childhood into adulthood and these problems are relatively stable from early childhood onward. VP/VLBW children’s risk for cognitive problems can be reliably diagnosed at the age of 20 months. These findings provide strong support for the timing of cognitive follow-up at age 2 years to plan special support services for children with cognitive problems.”

So it doesn’t cause but it is associated. Humans evolved long gestation for the brain.

Clear defect evidence in the genes- study it!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29903290

But surely, you say, genetic issues would be also hormonal (hormones regulate genes as well) and apply to men?
Well…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31348744
Yes. Yes it would.

“A total of 9079 patients were reviewed, of which 3956 patients had complete data. Of these, 839 (21.2%) were azoospermic. After adjusting for age, African-Canadians (odds ratio [OR] 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.25) and Asians (1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62) were more likely to be azoospermic compared to Caucasians.”

Some of us form opinions AFTER reading.
White men are literally more fertile and most fertile with white women.

“Similarly, African Canadians (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.33-2.29) were more likely to be oligospermic and Asians (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.97) less likely to be oligospermic. Low volume was found in African-Canadian (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.05-1.91), Asians (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and Indo-Canadians (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.01-2.13). Furthermore, Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93) and Hispanics (OR 0.58; 95% CI 034-0.99) were less likely to have asthenospermia. Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.94) and Indo-Canadians (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.99) were less likely to have teratozospermia. No differences were seen for vitality. No differences were seen for FSH levels, however, Asians (p<0.01) and Indo-Canadians (p<0.01) were more likely to have lower testosterone.”

It’s always the damn Asians.
Magic Dirt won’t fix your shitty sperm.

Maybe if we spend more on the NHS! The evolution fairy may visit!

The lower sexual dimorphism of Asians makes them functionally partially infertile. This is why they marry so young (it isn’t traditionalism) and despite this, have a low birth count per person, and are the most populous race on Earth. They’re actually the most r-selected, Mother Nature holds them back from fertilization with mutations. Along with r-selection, more total fertility issues in the male/offspring (azoospermia, infant death), lower volume AND lower testosterone, it all fits!

Is that my fault? No. Stop blaming me for reading. I’m not, in fact, God.

Hey, we have our own group with shitty sperm. Theirs is just bigger and more characteristic of the whole.

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962784

“AR-CAG repeat length was longer in infertile men in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.43, P <0.01; SMD = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.25, P <0.05; SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.15-0.63, P <0.01).

Notice p-value difference is so loose for white it doesn’t meet the medical standard? 0.05 is too high. Absurdly.

The overall study shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility. The subgroup study on races shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races. Increased AR-CAG repeat length was also associated with azoospermia. This meta-analysis supports that increased androgen receptor CAG length is capable of causing male infertility susceptibility.”

In the interest of intellectual honesty.

WHR

We literally have the studies. e.g. It’s metabolic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306982/

“Sixty-four PCOS patients and 40 women served as the control group were studied. The two groups were subdivided according to the body mass index (BMI) into two obese and non-obese groups. Waist:hip ratio (WHR), plasma epinephrine level was estimated, sympathetic skin response (SSR); postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, heart rate variability (HRV), and valsalva ratio were measured in both groups.”
“Compared to the control group, obese PCOS patients demonstrated higher BMI and WHR, reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, altered HRV, higher plasma epinephrine level, and rapid pulse rate. Moreover, non-obese patients show reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, higher plasma epinephrine level, and higher pulse rate. BMI and WHR of the patients were positively correlated with plasma epinephrine level; while the HRV was negatively correlated WHR.”
“The BMI and WHR were significantly higher in the PCOS patients compared to the control group 36.63±4.23 kg/m2 vs. 34.14±3.39 kg/m2 (p=0.041) and 0.88±0.05 compared to 0.79±0.11 (p=0.001), respectively.”

“We demonstrated high plasma epinephrine level during lying and standing positions in PCOS patients. This could be of obesogenic origin as we noticed a positive correlation between plasma epinephrine level and both of BMI and WHR. PCOS patients of this study exhibited central abdominal obesity and the mechanisms by which central obesity drive an increase in sympathetic activity are not entirely clear. Yet, the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on (16). This was further supported that adipocytes isolated from the visceral fat depot of women with PCOS had increased catecholamine-stimulated lipolysis (17).”

Nice boy hips. Don’t try for kids. (Goes for all races, Spartans forced girls to be lightly athletic to be ready for childbirth as a woman, that broadens hips beyond racial average).
And when the NHS totally fails, picture the fatal correction to reality when these women expect childbirth interventions. No waist? No taste.

Old expression.

It’s genetic. They’re gonna get fat – or the kids will. We’ve all seen them. I’m just saying, the signs were there. Choosing a woman with a shit tier WHR is like electing for a manlet over the average height. It could rarely work out for health, but rarely. Don’t get angry at me.

https://www.europeanreview.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/4755-4761-Metabolic-parameters-in-PCOS-and-abdominal-obesity.pdf

“RESULTS: Women with WHR ≥0.8 had higher concentration of glucose and insulin (both fasting and after 120 min of oral administration of 75 g glucose), as well as HOMA-IR value, than women with WHR value < 0.8. Also, abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters. Higher free androgen index and lower concentration of sex hormone binding globulin and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate were found in female with WHR ≥ 0.8.

There’ll still be guys like “WHR doesn’t matter, medically”.

Muh dudebros going, “at least they’re skinny”. But they’re not?

“Women with WHR ≥0.8 had… abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters.”

They’re literally not. Chemically. You can biopsy the tissue and test it.

the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on”

My feels have zero to do with that, dude. It’s genes?

NOBODY is jealous. You keep your secret fatty.

I implore you to marry the future whale and learn the hard way. They’re a puffer-fish.

Whatever their race. But the shorter they are, the worse it is. Short women should have an even SMALLER waist, since it’s skeletal. My own is far smaller than most Asians, for instance, despite being taller than most of them as white. If you want to piss them off, say (honestly) that men like small waists. Just generally. Gets them every time, although most people wouldn’t say they had a large one (not really looking and they don’t dress for it). They know they’re broad and they hate women who dress to show any different, including lucky exceptions in their own race, since it’s a countersignal. Namely: I can afford to have a smaller midsection, less running and foraging is required.

[If I want to dress to piss off a group of women, bodycon but for the waist only. It’s subtle and you’d imagine as a man they would neither notice nor care. Great way to tell a woman’s natural WHR – do they like bodycon? It needn’t be tight on T&A, actually that’s better, it’s actually about waist fit. Pill women also get larger round the middle, any weight gain is there and ruins WHR so it’s visual slut shaming too. Love it.]

Follicular stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, androstenedione, and 17-beta-estradiol, were on similar level in both groups. Elevation in triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein levels, as well as decrease in high density lipoprotein level in serum of women with WHR value ≥0.8, were found when compared to women with WHR < 0.8. A statistically significant correlation was found between WHR value and glucose, insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, free androgen index and lipid profile parameters.”

Hips don’t lie because biochemistry.

“CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal obesity causes additional disorders in metabolic and hormonal parameters in PCOS women, which confirmed changes in analyzed parameters between PCOS women with WHR < 0.8 and WHR ≥ 0.8 and statistically significant correlations between WHR value and analyzed parameters.”

Aging fathers, ugly kids

That’s one solid explanation for why people are generally uglier nowadays, even the healthy weight.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886916311035

Paternal age negatively predicts offspring physical attractiveness in two, large, nationally representative datasets

Freeze your sperm at 18 for optimum freshness.

Effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness is investigated in two datasets.

Various covariates are utilized.

Significant negative effects are found in both datasets.

Effects are independent of birth order.

Findings consistent with paternal age as a source of new mutations in offspring.

Abstract

The effect of paternal age on offspring attractiveness has recently been investigated. Negative effects are predicted as paternal age is a strong proxy for the numbers of common de novo mutations found in the genomes of offspring. As an indicator of underlying genetic quality or fitness, offspring attractiveness should decrease as paternal age increases, evidencing the fitness-reducing effects of these mutations.

That’s a hard rectal red pill.

I’m sure the manosphere will try its hardest to ignore like the dead and defective babies.

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Sins-Of-The-Fathers

The problem is, you think you have time.

Thus far results are mixed, with one study finding the predicted effect, and a second smaller study finding the opposite. Here the effect is investigated using two large and representative datasets (Add Health and NCDS),

holy Jesus a sound method

I almost fell off my high horse

both of which contain data on physical attractiveness and paternal age.

Validity! Validity! My queendom for some statistical validity!

The effect is present in both datasets, even after controlling for maternal age at subject’s birth, age of offspring, sex, race, parental and offspring (in the case of Add Health) socio-economic characteristics, parental age at first marriage (in the case of Add Health) and birth order.

The confound control is practically orgasmic, I can’t wait to see how they mansplain this one away.

That is perfect method. But it triggers butthurts and their precious feefees are hurt by the mere implication that degenerate older dads are bad for their kid’s health. Because all those upper crust respectable 1950s dads were like “60 is the new 20 lol!” Who gives a shit if your kids need you past high school? You got more priceless clubbing times you don’t remember, that’s what really matters. Not seeing your grandkids.

Class, race, sex, age at marriage, birth order, maternal age, offspring age – there’s literally nothing else to control for. Nothing. It’s flawless.

THESE. ARE. THE. STUDIES. WE. NEED.

Logically, since women are born with most of their eggs, there wouldn’t be a maternal effect. It isn’t constantly replenishing like the male gamete. Cell division’s a bitch. Male lifestyle for all his years prior

https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-and-child/dads-smoking-before-conception-harms-kids/

affects the child at conception (and even which sperm is conceived) far more than the details of pregnancy (minus pollutants it’s pretty much the same as in ancient times, the womb is not a new environment).

Maybe add child health although those studies already exist to cross-reference with attractiveness?

As in, are the girls more womanly as adults in WHR and the boys have more manly frames (broad shoulders, narrow waist, which should be a metric of its own)? Or less gender typical? Even androgynous, or fully gender-atypical?

Do younger or older fathers produce better-looking kids in the gendered sense?

[We can tell by looking at old photos but let’s pretend.]

Give me a time machine, please. The ugly wigger types hurt my eyes.

[I have also noted mannish looking sisters tend to be the older, “ugly” sister of two -coughs Beatrice- and the girly looking brothers tend to be the younger, usually gay one. Cannot unsee.]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309595000682

e.g.

“In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance). Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms. The male beard is not obviously related to phenotypic quality and may have evolved through a process of runaway intersexual selection.”

The beard can also be a sign of poor grade genes e.g. savages, wolf man. Overall bone structure uber alles.

Maybe factor in sexual activity of the father prior to conception? Especially partner count and STDs. STDs are known to harm attractiveness in the host [coughs David Beckham, most of Hollywood] so why not the offspring’s?

Back to the top study:

The apparent robustness of the effect to different operationalizations of attractiveness suggests high generalizability, however the results must be interpreted with caution, as controls for parental levels of attractiveness were indirect only in the present study.

aka please don’t sue us but you know it’s true

But you can wait forever because the Jews said so!

Say, who owns all the biotech and IVF companies?

https://www.fertilitybridge.com/blog/2018/4/11/battleforivfmarketwallstreetvsprivatepractice

[chuckles in Israel shekels]

https://hmcisrael.com/specialty/ivf-israel/

“According to statistics, around 20% of couples wishing to conceive are faced with certain obstacles that inhibit a successful pregnancy.

Fertility Treatment is one of the most prioritized fields of medicine in Israel.”

Sure, you can wait for decades! Also, cut the kid when they’re born!

We need more future little Viagra users.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2307/2648044

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7752-female-genital-mutilation-can-cause-infertility/

Does Circumcision Decrease the Fertility of Sperm in the Male?

“However, birth rates are much higher in countries where the men are predominantly uncircumcised.”

There is no question that an uncircumcised man has a cooler penis than a circumcised man in the flaccid state. For some reason, removal of the foreskin is the reason for this. There seems to be some sort of temperature sensor in the foreskin that may control penile temperature. Removing the foreskin gets rid of this sensor.

It only takes a few temperature degrees of difference to damage sperm. As the penis is in close proximity to the testicles, it’s quite likely that a cooler penis would help keep the testicles cooler (Remember that men are more potent in the colder months of the year). Under these condition, if the testicles got too cold, they can always be retracted closer to the body.

Almost like God gave men a prepuce solely for this evolutionary function in reproduction.

…Now consider this: Circumcised and uncircumcised men have the same penis temperature on full erection, as we stated earlier in this article. So, clearly, there is a specific reason why a natural-uncircumcised penis remains at a cooler temperature during the flaccid state. When the penis is erect it is no longer in close proximity with the testicles, so penile temperature should not affect the testicular temperature at this phase (be the penis circumcised or uncircumcised).

Upon orgasm, the penis tends to retract more into the pelvis (at least with my experience). Due to the friction and increased blood flow that occurred during the sexual act, it makes sense that the penis will have an increase in temperature in a flaccid state post-sex than in a flaccid state previous to the sexual act. Could this retraction be another mechanism for the “heated” penis to steer clear of the testicles?

Go there, science.

Circumcision and Male Fertility: Is There a Link?

Scientists have recently concluded that circumcision can help with infertility in males suffering from two very specific diseases.

So… not generalizable.

Some woman perv studies after all that penis talk.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513814000269

Women’s faces and voices may be cues to their reproductive potential. If so, then individual differences in indices of female fecundity and residual reproductive value, such as hormonal profiles, body composition, and age, should be associated with women’s facial and vocal attractiveness to men. However, previous research on these associations is sparse, has rendered mixed results, and is limited to Western samples. The current study therefore explored relationships between correlates of reproductive capability (testosterone levels, age, and body mass index [BMI]) and facial and vocal attractiveness in women from industrial and foraging societies. Women’s facial and vocal attractiveness was associated with each of these indicators in at least one of the two samples. The patterns of these associations suggest that women’s faces and voices provide cues to both common and unique components of reproductive potential and help explain the evolution of men’s mating preferences.

Lesson: Avoid the manjaw.

Women change their vocal pitch all the time though. European women are taught to make it lower at school (speak up = louder, lower pitch), Asians try to make it higher. The key is how they sound when hysterically upset. That’s their true level. Europeans go up, Asians down.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513812000475

Attractive facial features in women are assumed to signal fertility, but whether facial attractiveness predicts reproductive success in women is still a matter of debate. We investigated the association between facial attractiveness at young adulthood and reproductive life history—number of children and pregnancies—in women of a rural community. For the analysis of reproductive success, we divided the sample into women who used contraceptives and women who did not.

So partnered, married women. Not single ones.

Introducing two-dimensional geometric morphometric methodology, we analysed which specific characteristics in facial shape drive the assessment of attractiveness and covary with lifetime reproductive success. A set of 93 (semi)landmarks was digitized as two-dimensional coordinates in postmenopausal faces. We calculated the degree of fluctuating asymmetry and regressed facial shape on facial attractiveness at youth and reproductive success. Among women who never used hormonal contraceptives, we found attractive women to have more biological offspring than less attractive women. These findings are not affected by sociodemographic variables. Postmenopausal faces corresponding to high reproductive success show more feminine features—facial characteristics previously assumed to be honest cues to fertility. Our findings support the notion that facial attractiveness at the age of mate choice predicts reproductive success and that facial attractiveness is based on facial characteristics, which seem to remain stable until postmenopausal age.

Menopause is not the face equalizer you think.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816302318

African and European perception of African female attractiveness

Dare you to do the same study with every race judging every other.

Majority of research on attractiveness is restricted to faces of European origin. The perception of attractiveness may, however, vary across communities due to variations in both facial morphology and local standards of beauty. We investigated the relative contribution of four facial markers of attractiveness based on 101 female facial portraits (standardized, non-manipulated) from Cameroon and Namibia, which were assessed by local male raters and by raters from a distant European population, the Czech Republic. Images from Cameroon include only women of Bantu origin, while Namibians are represented by women of both Bantu (Owambo/Herero) and Nama origin. While controlling for age and BMI, we explored the relationship between female attractiveness and a set of facial traits: fluctuating asymmetry, averageness, shape sexual dimorphism, and skin color (rated and measured in CIELab color space).

In the Cameroonian sample, local male raters favored lighter-skinned female faces with morphology closer to average. The attractiveness of Nama women as rated by Nama men positively correlated with lighter complexion, but this did not extend to rating by Cameroonian men. The attractiveness of Namibian Owambo/Herero women was positively associated with facial femininity and lighter complexion when judged by both Cameroonian and Nama male raters. In all samples, the attractiveness as rated by Czech men was predicted by age and BMI, but not by skin color. We found no significant association between attractiveness and fluctuating asymmetry in any of the tested samples. When controlling for age, the effect of skin color on attractiveness turned to be non-significant in the Owambo/Herrero and Nama sample, but remained significant in the Cameroonian sample. Variations in skin color thus represent an important factor of African female attractiveness within the African context, but they do not seem to affect judgements made by European raters.

They don’t want any of them.

Sensitivity to some facial markers of female attractiveness thus seems to be restricted to regional populations and/or constrained by shared ethnicity.

Paler women have more oestrogen. So duh.

Women reject old guys who’d give them dead or ugly kids:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816301283

“This finding is consistent with men’s stated preference for young, fertile women in mating and suggests that the typical pattern is generated by women’s limiting role in mating.”

aka their gender role

“older men tend to marry older women, including those who are peri- and post-menopausal”

TIL Korea is so degenerate it has slave markets. Ooof.

So much for the myth that young women have the hots for them. Yeah, I’m sure the Jap schoolgirl came onto you, right perv?

Deadbeats are the end of the West:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513816303671

Research in evolutionary psychology, and life history theory in particular, has yielded important insights into the developmental processes that underpin variation in growth, psychological functioning, and behavioral outcomes across individuals. Yet, there are methodological concerns that limit the ability to draw causal inferences about human development and psychological functioning within a life history framework. The current study used a simulation-based modeling approach to estimate the degree of genetic confounding in tests of a well-researched life history hypothesis: that father absence (X) is associated with earlier age at menarche (Y). The results demonstrate that the genetic correlation between X and Y can confound the phenotypic association between the two variables, even if the genetic correlation is small—suggesting that failure to control for the genetic correlation between X and Y could produce a spurious phenotypic correlation. We discuss the implications of these results for research on human life history, and highlight the utility of incorporating genetically sensitive tests into future life history research.

I don’t think debtor’s prisons will come back – but if you breed it, you should feed it. I think the abandoned women that existed since Biblical times will just hire bounty hunters to shoot the first family deserter for a share of his life insurance policy.

Patriarchs everywhere would rejoice at culling the cads. The women get a widow’s pension.

Everyone wins. Hey, you said “until death do us part”. Men used to die by their oaths.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S109051381400052X

I have noticed that immigrant men have a higher pitch than their non-immigrant relatives.

Maybe the act of immigration impairs masculinity?

Low male voice pitch may communicate potential benefits for offspring in the form of heritable health and/or dominance, whereas access to resources may be indicated by correlates of socioeconomic status, such as sociolinguistic features. Here, we examine if voice pitch and social dialect influence women’s perceptions of men’s socioeconomic status and attractiveness. In Study 1, women perceived lower pitched male voices as higher in socioeconomic status than higher pitched male voices.

A lot of PUAs get shot down for 1. being brown and feeling entitled to a white woman, the lowest miscegenation group also further sickened by repeated forced “refugee” interactions and 2. having a high pitch voice and effete face compared to their national relatives. Compare within the white race, the “Latin lover” in Italy versus Italian immigrants raised and living in London, who sound like cartoon chipmunks by comparison.

Yes, we notice.

No, you can’t change it. We notice.

Same applies to white men who moved South so it appears to be immigration. Either being an immigrant or the act itself makes a man less manly. Most obviously, torso body fat deposition like a woman of their group and the sisters become like the men at home, more athletic.

In Study 2, women independently perceived lower pitched voices and higher status sociolinguistic dialects as higher in socioeconomic status and attractiveness.

It isn’t the money, it’s the genes.

Good genes, good brains, good money. Fixating on the money is what ugly guys do – Muslim prince to Jewish media mogul.

We also found a significant interaction wherein women preferred lower pitched men’s voices more often when dialects were lower in sociolinguistic status than when they were higher in sociolinguistic status.

Capacity to protect. Not a desk jockey. The middle-class is effeminate. They want army. No cowards.

Women also perceived lower pitched voices as higher in socioeconomic status more often when dialects were higher in sociolinguistic status than when lower in sociolinguistic status.

Women know quality, really? Almost like our lives depend on it.

Finally, women’s own self-rated socioeconomic status was positively related to their preferences for voices with higher status sociolinguistic dialects, but not to their preferences for voice pitch.

Plenty of men chose to marry down to get a looker out of their genetic league, hypergamy.

Erotic capital is worth it, as you can tell by the fertility study above, even post-menopausal they’re better-looking.

Hence, women’s preferences for traits associated with potentially biologically heritable benefits, such as low voice pitch, are moderated by the presence of traits associated with resource accrual, such as social dialect markers. However, women’s preferences for language markers of resource accrual may be functionally independent from preferences for potential biological indicators of heritable benefits, such as voice pitch.

Women…. making…. mate choices?

mutation load is important?

 

Link between mental health and ….bad health

The types of “health” are related, really? Shook over here.

If only there were a physical connection we could see like some kind of fleshy vehicle of testable units, a body of some description. No, we’re floating blobs of consciousness in a cloud of feels, aren’t we?

Mutation (genetic) load is true, at least somewhat but who dares to directly study it? Instead we are left with related variables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048500/

The lifespan of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter compared to the general population. This excess mortality is mainly due to physical illness. We report prevalence rates of different physical illnesses as well as important individual lifestyle choices, side effects of psychotropic treatment and disparities in health care access, utilization and provision that contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.”

Detailed.

“Nutritional and metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, viral diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy complications, stomatognathic diseases, and possibly obesity-related cancers are, compared to the general population, more prevalent among people with SMI.”

People with mental problems can’t take care of themselves, really?

Not to be harsh but, is this news?
I searched, not one mention of fitness.

Ability to reproduce (here it would be impotence for age in the male) and carry (childbearing without issue for age, the female) is a significant component of it (organism fitness, for the nerds at home).

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html

“struggle for existence”, he repeated in description
the vindicated theme for this post

“Besides modifiable lifestyle factors and side effects of psychotropic medications, access to and quality of health care remains to be improved for individuals with SMI.”

#sigh

Enough of that for now.

And they’re exponentially more expensive.
https://www.healthcatalyst.com/understanding-risk-stratification-comorbidities/
I dislike this fact but…. the information is out there. We can’t help by lying.

There isn’t just one thing causing the “mental” disease and another separate thing causing the “bodily” disease.
It’s all genetic! At least, moderately genetic.
And remember I said exponential risk of suck?

“Charlson Comorbidity Measure: The Charlson model predicts the risk of one-year mortality for patients with a range of comorbid illnesses. Based on administrative data, the model uses the presence/absence of 17 comorbidity definitions and assigns patients a score from one to 20, with 20 being the more complex patients with multiple comorbid conditions. It is effective for predicting future poor outcomes. This method is explained in further detail below”

You cannot fight math. You will lose.

#struggle4life

poor outcomes = death, more or less

This is tough to read like the IQ link. I wouldn’t blame you skipping all this. You cannot unsee it.

“One thing all of these models have in common is that they are based, in some degree, on comorbidity. Understanding comorbid conditions is a critical aspect of population health management because comorbidities are known to significantly increase risk and cost. In fact, a study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports that care for patients with comorbid chronic conditions costs up to seven times as much as care for those with only one chronic condition.”

Twice the condition can be seven times the cost. I’ll leave you to think about that.
Is this systemic injustice?
No!
The body is complex, various conditions interact with one another. Not killing the patient by accident due to Condition B to treat Condition A needs time and more research and more money!

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html

“Expenditures and gaps in health care delivery are not evenly distributed across the population, however. To improve health care quality and reduce costs, policy-makers must focus on particular subgroups who are at greatest risk. Persons with mental health and medical comorbidities represent just such a population.”
“The pathways causing comorbidity of mental and medical disorders are complex and bidirectional.

What I said.

Medical disorders may lead to mental disorders, mental conditions may place a person at risk for certain medical disorders, and mental and medical disorders may share risk factors

Yup.

It’s all healthcare, people!

ALL OF IT.

For instance, low IQ can also ’cause’ someone to more likely get heart disease.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heart-intelligence/low-intelligence-among-top-heart-health-risks-study-idUSTRE61903L20100210

Here’s a clunker of a line.

“When mental and medical conditions co-occur, the combination is associated with elevated symptom burden, functional impairment, decreased length and quality of life, and increased health care costs.”

This upsets me. Just world is a fallacy.

Bear in mind the IQ/depression link in the last post:

“At the same time, major depression is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.”

If the economy is making people of a certain IQ band effectively useless, they’re going to be depressed.
Especially if “their” jobs owed by their home country are outsourced to visa people.

“Exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as trauma, abuse, and chronic stress are all associated with both mental and medical disorders, and responsible for much of the high rates of comorbidity, burden of illness, and premature death associated with chronic illness.”

It’s sad. It’s sad to read about. That is a harrowing existence.

But stress shouldn’t be lumped in with trauma and abuse.

“Many of the most common treatments for diseases may actually worsen the comorbid condition.”

You tell me where the solution is because I don’t see it.

A society of hospital patients (don’t forget aging demographics).

Over to Oz.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-men
Mental disorders were more common among people with chronic physical conditions (28.0%) when compared to people who did not have a chronic physical condition (17.6%).
The data is usually out there. Tough to find but present.

Another!
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh40/109-117.pdf

This article briefly reviews the associations
among alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dysregulation of the brain’s and
body’s stress system (i.e., the limbic–hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenal axis) might serve as a common mechanistic
link to explain some of the relationships among these
frequently comorbid conditions. Finally, the article examines
the role of sex differences in stress circuitry. These differences
may explain why men and women differ in their risk for
developing comorbid alcoholism and stress ­related disorders.”

Addictions play into it too, because of course they do.

And you can’t really blame sexism for an individual’s brain circuitry.

Let’s look at one more substance and how it alters development (i.e. when children/teens/young adults use it).

An interaction of marijuana and low IQ they won’t study so here’s something odd.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/correlation/2017-aas.pdf
“Psychotic patients who used cannabis frequently before illness onset have higher genetic predisposition to schizophrenia than those who did not”
“Our study supports an association between high SZ-PGRS and frequent cannabis use before illness onset
in psychosis continuum disorders.”

Before someone points to this classic arse-covering exercise,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens
I linked because you wanted info on school shooters and pot use is a major factor.
Naturally the drug use wouldn’t change IQ because the IQ is the causative factor in having a childhood addiction problem.
However the study compares ongoing users to abstaining, not ongoing addicts to a twin who never did the stuff, there is no control group, making this link pointless so don’t try to send me it. I’ve seen it.

When the brain is developing, there is a permanent loss of functioning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/10/new-study-shows-smoking-pot-permanently-lowers-iq/

And abnormal function. Like with any drug to any developing organ.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

For the ‘self-medication’ lie:
“The use of marijuana did not correct the brain function deficits of depression, and in some regions made them worse.”

“Of additional interest, those participants who used marijuana from a young age had highly abnormal brain function in areas related to visuo-spatial processing, memory, self-referential activity and reward processing.”
No, they cannot perceive themselves accurately.

This whole drug study in children (<25) thing is like breaking someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat and wondering why they can’t sprint. You wouldn’t give them alcohol and tobacco, why give them anything else that’s an addictive drug and think it’s fine? Why not nice and “natural” opioids next?

[ I googled this as a joke and fuck you, America.
nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html
axialhealthcare.com/opioid-use-safety-children/
druggy parent trash pushing it on the kids? That’s low. ]

Why not the ankles too? Why not?

I firmly believe some of these kids have the misfortune that their parents are their worst enemy in life.

Anyway.

“The study found that early marijuana use was also associated with lower IQ scores.”

Associated. Which first? The lower IQ or child drug abuse?

“With past research suggesting a genetic role between marijuana use and depression, Dr. Osuch and her collaborators at Western University’s Robarts Research Institute also conducted genetic testing on participants. They discovered that a certain genetic variation of the gene that produces Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) was found in greater proportion in youth who used marijuana from an early age. BDNF is involved in brain development and memory, among other processes.

Could be a race-based finding, unclear.

“This is a novel finding that suggests this genetic variation may predispose youth to early marijuana use,” said Dr. Osuch.”

So how many of you heard about it in the MSM?

Funny how they trust none of the political news but all the scientism rationalizing living like a CA Democrat member.

It doesn’t have to be good universally for you to do it, like smoking tobacco, just admit it can be bad for society and move on. Denial of biology makes it more annoying and a full ban more likely. Shaming normal people for being “squares” is what all druggies do including alcoholics.

Why link that here?

What would drug use increase, in the organism? Mutation rate. The genetic load (whatever it was) becomes heavier. So to do that before reproducing, knowing the adverse effects, the child/ren will be worse off as well. So much for “doing no harm” and “victimless crime”. Eventually parents will be sued by their children for bad lifestyle habits that damaged their personal genome (and their children’s genome etc). It’s coming.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/15/lawyers_unaware_children_can_sue_parents_for_support.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/adult-children-sue-mom-bad-parent/story?id=14407409

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-haired-teen-sues-his-parents-for-2m-for-being-born-ginger/

I warned you, cannot unsee it.

Low IQ a mental health risk

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/

Read it and fucking weep.

If you understand it, you’ll want to.

Researchers have hypothesized that people with lower IQs may have a higher risk of adult mental disorders,

less ability to thrive in the world leads to depression, really?

but few studies have looked at the relationship between low childhood IQ and psychiatric disorders later in life. In a new, long-term study covering more than three decades, researchers at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)

sorry is three decades by Harvard not good enough for some of you?

while you’re playing the Devil’s fiddle of appeal to authority?

“Well, this wasn’t in the Guardian” YEAH.

No prizes for guessing why.

found that children with lower IQs showed an increased risk of developing psychiatric disorders as adults, including schizophrenia, depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

but not limited to

Lower IQ was also associated with psychiatric disorders that were more persistent and an increased risk of having two or more diagnoses at age 32.

Wow the asylum special? Next post about that, regular hospitals are fast becoming the new asylum.

Because “stigma” is a great excuse to endanger regular populations.

The study will be published online December 1, 2008 and in the January print issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry.

The study participants were members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a cohort of children born in 1972-1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. At the initial assessment at age 3, the study had 1,037 children. The participants were also interviewed and tested on their overall health and behavior at ages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26 and at age 32, when 96% of the original cohort participated. IQs were assessed at ages 7, 9 and 11. Psychiatric disorders were assessed at ages 18 through 32 in interviews by clinicians who had no knowledge of the subjects’ IQ or psychiatric history.

blind

The authors used IQ as a marker of a concept called cognitive reserve, which refers to variation between people in their brain’s resilience to neuropathological damage.

Darwin just called it fitness but okay. Ignore evolution.

Or it could be the inverse genetic measure genetic load, where less is best.

The results showed that lower childhood IQ predicted an increased risk of a variety of adult mental disorders.

Imagine my shock.

“Lower childhood IQ predicted increased risk of schizophrenia, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Individuals with lower childhood IQ also had more persistent depression and anxiety and were more likely to be diagnosed with two or more disorders in adulthood,” said lead author Karestan Koenen, assistant professor of society, human development, and health at HSPH.

Next post will focus on comorbids.

It’s ironically depressing reading.

No association was found between lower childhood IQ and substance dependence disorders, simple phobia, panic disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Sounds dodgy but okay.

The mechanism through which lower childhood IQ might lead to increased risk of adult anxiety disorders is not known,

that is a lie

the world doesn’t need low IQ labor anymore, especially in the First World

but the authors suggest some possible explanations.

Step 1. give them more money?

They write that lower childhood IQ might reveal a difference in brain health that makes an individual more vulnerable to certain mental disorders. Another possible mechanism is stress–individuals with lower childhood IQs are less equipped to deal with complex challenges of modern daily life, which may make them more vulnerable to developing mental disorders.

I won’t even.

The findings may be helpful in treating individuals with mental health disorders.

Hang on, if it’s implicitly caused by low IQ, it cannot be fixed.

Ever.

It’s their parents’ fault (median IQ of the genetic parents, all else equal).

Why blame the kid?

“Lower childhood IQ was associated with greater severity of mental disorders including persistence over time and having two or more diagnoses at age 32,” said Koenen.

32 is young, they haven’t even hit middle-age yet when conditions skyrocket.

Deep breath.

“Since individuals with persistent and multiple mental disorders are more likely to seek services, cognitive ability may be an important factor for clinicians to consider in treatment planning.

REALLY.

This is why IQ denialism is toxic. It isn’t everything but hey, it’s something!

When you’re planning about people, plural, it’s important!

For example, individuals with lower cognitive ability may find it harder to follow instructions and comply with treatment regimens.

How low are we talking?

By taking clients’ cognitive ability into account, clinicians may improve treatment outcome,” she said.

The results may also be helpful in prevention planning. “Educators and pediatricians should be aware that children with lower cognitive ability may be at greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders. Early detection and intervention aimed at ameliorating mental health problems in these children may prevent these problems from carrying over into adulthood,” said Koenen.

No no no, no no no and…. no.

I’m ragequitting this post and writing the next, I tried.

Atheists are the runts

You couldn’t tell by bone structure? The men are almost pigeon-chested with women’s shoulders an Austen character would be proud of.

http://www.unz.com/article/are-atheists-genetic-mutants-a-product-of-recent-evolution/

New mutations crop up all the time and the genes don’t survive.

It’s kinda like the SJW claim that sexes don’t exist because hermaphrodites do.

Er, mutants exist. They are aberrations. Ironically, they’re seeking meaning like Jesus in toast.

But they would also have had mutant genes affecting the mind.

Really?

Really?

This is because the brain, home to 84% of the genome, is extraordinarily sensitive to mutation, so mental and physical mutation robustly correlate. If these children had grown up, they might have had autism, schizophrenia, depression… but they had poor immune systems, so they never had the chance.

Why would nature waste resources better spent on the children likeliest to breed?

This is literally Darwin.

Among these, the authors argue, was a very specific kind of religiosity which developed in all complex societies: the collective worship of gods concerned with morality.

It’s no coincidence many atheists are psychopathically broken enough to reject the concept of objective morality, moral absolutes (unless it applies to their opponent, to weaken them). In a small tribe, they’d have been kicked out by the elders at the first sign of criminality and deception to starve. The anti-weasel reflex is still present in us, it makes us get off a bus early when an unstable person gets on or avoid the creepily attentive boy who offers to buy us a drink to spike.

Your instincts keep you alive better than a lazy police force.
Antisocial people hate instincts because it thwarts their lies.

Ask yourself, why did men in all great societies have to leave the home, live alone,  prove themselves and follow the law to be worthy of respect? We coddle teenagers and hence we have a society of weak men. They complain about this yet never volunteer to do what needs to be done, a sign of their weakness, it begins with the moral.

If you’re so different from women, ya gotta act like it.

Sitting around complaining among the women is what the gay guys do. Not attractive. How many mistake this vanity for intellect?

Mixed schools were a sign of the mistake. When little girls exercise like little boys, their brains are masculinized. How many pro-Patriarchy guys would prefer a male-only school? Vanishingly few. They’re full of shit. They want all the imagined rewards with none of the effort. But sex-exclusive schools get better grades, with less distraction, as do religion-specific and race-specific ones.

Without morality, there is no reputation. Without reputation, there is no honour and no culture.

Hypocrites who refuse to lead by example because *valley girl voice* It’s HAAAARD.

This very specific kind of religiousness was selected for and, indeed, it correlates with positive and negative ethnocentrism even today.

Genophilia is evolutionally fit, no shit.

The authors demonstrate that this kind of religiousness has clearly been selected for in itself. It is about 40% genetic according to twin studies, it is associated with strongly elevated fertility, it can be traced to activity in specific regions of the brain, and it is associated with elevated health: all the key markers that something has been selected for.

Ask an atheist if he has asthma. That one condition.

They’re lazy moral Marxists. “I can take what I want because I can find an excuse”. It’s a child’s mindset begging their parents for a toy or to “let them get away” with eating a cookie before dinner. They feel the world (and any God) owes them personally, entitlement is the mindset of weakness.

They earn nothing. They get nothing. That is just.

Their failure is a sign the system works. It’s like the “incels” who refuse to develop an adult personality but demand AA for orgasms. Redistribution of hotties and thotties. They’re just fucking marxists. Literally.
“Rejection should be illegal” people. Utterly brittle personalities, sheltered.

There is no right to another person’s body, and this coming from self-proclaimed libertarians? How many hands do they have? Take matters into your own hands.

They think women don’t suffer (aren’t fully human) or that suffering is rare, new and some personal outrage. You can’t argue with reality.
Who wants to sleep with a kid in a grown man’s body?

And it is from here that the authors make the leap that has made SJW blood boil. Drawing on research by Michael Woodley of Menie and his team (see here and here)they argue that conditions of Darwinian selection have now massively weakened, leading to a huge rise in people with damaging mutations. This is evidenced in increasing rates of autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, sex-dysmorphia, left-handedness, asymmetrical bodies and much else. These are all indicators of mutant genes.

dysgenic, the word you need to use

Pollutants in food, water, air, clothing, medications (neurotoxic) and unprecedented interactions with foreign microbiomes throwing the native ones off cause a hefty amount too. Then there are easily remedied things like non-Indians eating a diet they didn’t evolve for and wondering why gastro issues are through the roof.

I think the antacid people own stock in curry suppliers. White people are dumb.

Peasant food is not good for you. Foreign peasant food is worst for you.

Malthus shall prevail.

All except the handedness is true. Natural variations exist in eye colour, hair, nails, handedness. It doesn’t mean as much as psychologists claim it does, it’s just easy and cheap to study. They’re lazy. You have a dominant foot too but nobody gives a shit.

It’s fucking palmistry.

Most people are slightly ambi.

Mutants are not necessarily dysgenic though, advantageous ones are simply a lot rarer and normally come from better bloodline stock with reduced genetic load (in fact, that might be the deciding factor in whether a trait presents as useful or thanatos).

Look at the HBD studies about SES (class) over multiple generations. Social mobility is a false condition of fiat debt spirals, it will correct too. Champagne socialists will be the elderly people in manual labouring jobs.

Little mentioned but autism is a “low empathy” condition. Like psychopathy. They cannot cooperate properly and lack the emotional intelligence to be leaders. The idea some super-academic smartypants in the white house would solve all problems is symbolic of their deficits. They can’t run their own life in an orderly way.

Low empathy = antisocial, in practice.

They deny this from egocentrism but it’s pathognomonic of the pathological medical condition.

They deny it’s any of the last three things too. It’s part of the condition.

Why deny they lack empathy? They’re shrewd enough to know it’s socially undesirable but if you ask around the idea, they’ll freely admit they hate all people, raging bigots. They’re full of self-pity, self-loathing, refusal to change (like a sociopath) or learn from moral errors and highly reactive to others but in an angry closed-off way.

They think reactivity (over sensitive) and lashing out at people (intermittent explosive) is empathy.

Utterly incapable of humility. That requires the self-awareness of social intelligence but they don’t really see other people. They are not perceptive on the human level. They even crowd out other mental illnesses for more air time.

Super competent and smart, they claim…. until you hold them to that standard.
It’s like how the ADHD guys claim to be slow but also geniuses (logically exclusive). Their own subjective experience of their mind when it sputters like an old car biases them with feeling. They claim they don’t have feelings because they’re constantly over-run with them. Overwhelmed. It’s like Victorian hysteria in men.

A nerve study would be interesting.

They’ll abandon their parents on their deathbed once they hear their name’s on the will, totally callous. Instead of admitting they’re selfish, they’ll go Ayn Rand and claim (intellectualization is their favourite defensiveness) they aren’t bad people (just do bad things, repeatedly, by choice??!!) but society, unwilling to coddle, is dragging them down.

Antisocial people feel the need to destroy and punish all the good of society and spare the bad. It does vary.

In some instances, heartless. Look up stories of women who’ve been married to Asperger’s men, they sound almost exactly like sociopaths. For example, denial of the condition to gaslight then blaming the condition at other times.

So Dutton and his team argue that, this being the case, deviation from this very specific form of religiousness—the collective worship of moral gods in which almost everyone engaged in 1800—should be associated with these markers of mutation.

oh look, a real psychologist and none of the JP fans like him

maybe he should tell them to wash their hands

In other words, both atheists and those interested in spirituality with no moral gods (such as the paranormal) should be disproportionately mutants.

There has never been a pilot country of atheists. They refuse to found so much as a village. When a group doesn’t want to live among itself, it implicitly admits it is damaged.

They can’t play the Poor Me card if they aren’t surrounded by normal empaths who’ll assume the best.

And this is precisely what they show. Poor physical and mental health are both significantly genetic and imply high mutational load. Dutton and his team demonstrate that this specific form of religiousness, when controlling for key factors such as SES, predicts much better objective mental and physical health, recovery from illness, and longevity than atheism.

Longevity?

Can someone film Aubrey when told this?

That’s literally the best Darwinian metric.

I wonder if he could study atheist researchers of the psychology of religion. Would they rig the test? Yes, they’d try. Aren’t atheist researchers of religion a little biased? Nobody brings this up.

It’s generally believed that religiousness makes you healthier because it makes you worry less and elevates your mood,

look at the Wiccans, it’s a connection to the natural world (disconnection from the fake world of urban, neon and shiny atheist crap)

but they turn this view on its head, showing that religious worshippers are more likely to carry gene forms associated with being low in anxiety. Schizophrenia, they show, is associated with extreme and anti-social religiosity, rather than collective worship. Similarly, belief in the paranormal is predicted by schizophrenia, and this is a marker of genetic mutation.

Aliens, bigfoot, Slenderman. Atheists believe in lots of things, diffuse. Next they’ll break out the healing crystals.

Next, they test autism, another widely accepted marker of mutation, as evidenced by the fact that it’s more common among the children of older men, whose fathers are prone to mutant sperm. Autism predicts atheism.

Old men babies are damaged. Huh. If only I had a tag on paternal age.

Genetic disease leads to genetic suicide?

Of course, rather than blaming men for marrying and breeding to late, I’m sure they’ll blame wider society like men didn’t make a series of choices over years that materially harmed their children.

The problem people have with atheistkult isn’t that they don’t believe. It’s that they’re obsessive about how EVIL (but evil doesn’t exist?) this meme is and wish to harm and destroy and crush people who are “dumb” enough to fall for it and be happy and healthy.

Yeah, we aren’t falling for it.

You choose what to believe, you choose to look for it or not. They shut their eyes and cry “why don’t I see?”

Mala fides. If they were women in the olden days, they’d have been killed as witches. It’s amazing given how many claim to be super competent, how their life fails to play this out. We have mewling men who can’t take care of themselves but attempt to guilt trip the rest of us into respecting them and playing into the delusion.

throw on a dress and legally, we’d have to