It should go without saying that none of us can change the things we do not know about. If they do not want to know about it how can they want to change. After all, nothing is wrong in the mind of this type of individual. How can that be? How do the explain all the bad things that happen to them? The answers to these questions is that they engage in a variety of rationalizations: 1. They blame others, 2. They blame their fate or karma, 3. They blame racism, 4. Religious prejudice, 5. Sexual orientation, 6. Age, 7. Married or non married status, 8. The economy, 9. The President. 10. The weather and so it goes on and on.
Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes. Political attitudes.
Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.
Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…
“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
See the bias? POLITICAL STUDY.
If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.
Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population. Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.
SJWs always lie.
Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship” MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.
CHECK. What did they actually test?
“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.
“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality? Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean. Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.
“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?
“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.” It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.
Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.
“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.
“I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era. Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps. Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2 Men are more shallow, as as sex. “On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”
Good husbands are hotter.
Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.
“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”
Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability.Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368 “Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?” TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too. “Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”
Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry. Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”
Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure. Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.
And bullies? Insane reasoning.
The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm “The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”
Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.
“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.
The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.
Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits. “Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”
“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan
“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”
The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.
Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?
Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”
Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.
Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues. https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.” As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it. Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league. Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”
Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.
Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.
“Education is wasted on the lazy and stupid, and they’re the same people. That’s Dunning-Kruger. They’re blind to what they’re missing because they’re missing it!”
“If someone works harder than you, they deserve to beat you! Add up hours studied and you’ll find female (and male) conscientiousness isn’t bias, they activate with their IQ the traits which help them. The guy or girl “winging it” the night before deserves to fail*. Low IQ don’t have the IQ to know what they’re NOT doing! That isn’t everyone else’s fault! If there are systemic forces against men in some fields, the same must be true of women in other fields because that is how systems work, ya dummies!”
“..It just so happens by nature that there are more lazy men! So yeah, they fail! Confound!
You’re supposed to control for prevalence without ignoring the population. It’s like the IQ studies conducted by men that exclude stupid, lower class men to push the middle-class male genius narrative because the former dwarfs the latter mathematically if they don’t rig it.
(They also don’t control for education and class because they’re faking, like saying ugly people are intelligent in spite of correlations).
Another example of ignoring half: promiscuity/divorce risk studies that never look at men. That is scientism, like ignoring cooling data. They have looked but refuse to publish because it hurt their feelings. I’d like to see an atheist/divorce risk study.
You cannot ignore the left half of the bell curve, men overpopulate it!
Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).
They’ve simply never survived in these numbers before because responsibility is the new leprosy in a decadent West. It makes a lot of sense actually. No prior society (that didn’t collapse) ever had to tolerate this much stupid and it shows.”
I decided to drag up a study or two for the idiots who’d dispute it.
First, look at the materials put out to businesses.
“Of the five main personality factors, Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most consistent, significant predictor of workplace performance.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 For example, meta-analyses on the prediction of job performance from personality dimensions have demonstrated that broad measures of Conscientiousness predict overall job performance,15, 16 even controlling for cognitive ability.17, 18
AKA you can’t cry sexism, conscientious men (like Christians) do fine. Actually, that might be why. There are plenty of conscientious men so it isn’t an exclusive thing, the averages only vary slightly.
In addition to overall job performance, broad measures of Conscientiousness have been shown to predict a number of other valued workplace behaviors, such as organizational citizenship 19, 20 and leadership 21
as well as undesirable behaviors such as procrastination, 22 to name a few.
Conscientiousness is the best noncognitive predictor of performance across a wide variety of job types and work outcomes.”
NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.
Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.
You have emotions. You have intelligence. You have an EI score, like it or not.
“17 Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272–290. 18 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262]”
“we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five‐factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.”
This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures.
Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.
“Our findings confirmed positive associations between IQ and the facets of Competence and Dutifulness (ranging 0.11–0.27), with academic achievement showing correlations of 0.27 and 0.15 with these same facets and 0.15 with Deliberation. All conscientiousness facets were influenced by genes (broad sense heritabilities ranging 0.18–0.49) “
Whew, up to 50%!
The idea of a smart douchebag is a myth to keep them appeased, or at best, they’re only mildly above average (1-2SD), true genius can cooperate (and self-regulate) but idiots can’t perceive anyone above them.
Appearances are not always deceptive. Indeed, quite the opposite! In this highly informative and entertaining mini-book, Dr Dutton surveys the psychological data in support of the neglected idea that we can tell a lot about someone from how they look.
They’re still trying to ignore Charlton because he’s genuine.
Because it’s been years since I read the book, (it actually came out in 2014-2015, moron) I’m going to ‘review’ (rip to shreds cruelly) this review. [tldr: Y’ALL NEED HBD, JESUS.]
5,000-ish words. Putting the shit into shitposting.
Because I can.
I feel I’ve lost YEARS off my life doing this, like the machine in Princess Bitchin’ Bride.
That’s its name now.
They’re bigging up Charlton because so many others (including yours truly) did first. Happy little lemmings of the online trend.
I’m happy for him and his co, Genius Famine is a solid 4-star book. It’s actually K-selection, that missing puzzle piece, a norm of religiosity is a part of it, not the other way around. Also, excess religion kills everyone. Massive hypothetical problems right there. MOVING TAYLOR SWIFTLY ON.
WE NEED HARDER SCIENCES. It’s a little like porn, the soft stuff is never enough.
“intelligence is negatively correlated with genetic signs of high mutational load–such as an ‘asymmetrical’ (ugly) face”
I linked to that the other day lately, and I’m basically the ONLY person round these parts who calls it mutation load when the correct scientific nomenclature is ‘genetic load’. I thought mutation/al was more descriptive. I am one literary bitch. WHO is stealing my shit?
Naturally, the only solution to an unnatural, manmade boom is artificial eugenics. I digress. There isn’t even a bar cart in sight. It’s my inner alcoholic. Charlton tries so sincerely to answer an HBD question with philosophy, applying religion to (a problem of) evobiology is one of the funniest things I’ve ever heard. My linking to his blog was intended as a supplement, not the substantive meal. For that, look up key HBD authors. If God himself came down on a fluffy cloud and zapped people with lightning bolts like a rock star Zeus, it still wouldn’t change the fact DNA exists and evolutionary genus have undergone speciation. If God created everything, why is any of his creation a bad thing to you? Where is your faith? Why wouldn’t He want us to understand all the incredible detail He threw into this video game? He’s got the whole world in his hands. So technically, God is cupping your balls. Respect Him.
The Industrial Revolution is fingered in A Troublesome Inheritance (uncited) but the evidence to support it is limited. Sharing the technology seems to have been the problem, the profit motive. Releasing certain technologies puts them in the hands of the low-IQ by default. This doesn’t end well, see the concepts of game theory and the arms race for further details.
There were actually two sexual revolutions before the one we know of the 1960s. Boomers are not the pivotal generation of history. The 60’s finale is the nail in the Western coffin with the Long March Through the Institutions, as the brilliant minds of the prior century finally died off.
1 – The Romantic Movement of the early 1800s. You’ve heard of it, Byron? Suddenly feelings were more important than facts and everyone realized what a special snowflake they were.
2 – The Belle Epoque and a little beforehand. The lifetime of Oscar Wilde fits it neatly. Again, the postwar generosity of K-types to struggling unfit societies in the name of God is the problem. Yes, I posit that Missions from God are demonic. When you consider everything they spawned to the outgroup is suffering – from the continued spread of leprosy, booming and starving populations, the rise of HIV, NGO child rape scandals and various tribal wars over scarce resources, the do-gooders of the 19th century killed it for the whole world of the 20th onward, who have had a dependent child in the guilt over the Third World it created ever since. Prove me wrong, internet. I know you can’t.
There’s an academic book, about 500 pages, called Pathological Altruism if you wanna know the mindset behind dumb white people who selfishly think the whole world should aspire to be Just Like Them. As if that’s possible or desirable. It’s written by a woman though, so I don’t expect it to make the same splash in this part of the internet, that constantly complains there aren’t enough women (while insulting and ignoring our contributions, bc thinking tits are terrifying).
HBD answers the concerns about inter-class fertility/fecundity, because class is rather constant based on your genome down the centuries. As in, social mobility has its limits. You can look all this stuff up in your own sweet time, you are literally online to be reading this, you’ve got no excuse. This is forbidden science because it is predictive. The current paradigm of equalism is not. The factors mentioned in this article precisely fit into other topics.
Family size – time preference, present and historical age at marriage, cultural expectations, national wealth and debt. Therefore, you’d expect Western(er) fertility will NEVER rise until national debt is removed as a dysgenic pressure. Not one of you wankers boo-hooing over the future has mentioned this. Clarey got close.
Not as random as it sounds.
I say Westerner because Magic Dirt isn’t real and we don’t want to bring up fertility in the West using non-Westerners, who have their own homeland to despoil. People are not interchangeable cogs, personality is genetically heritable too! You can’t build high-trust healthy societies with people who prefer to marry their child cousins and rig elections.
Luther, while based AF, not so much, on these topics.
The word dysgenic isn’t used in these conversations either. Atheism may be dyscivic but agnosticism is a human right. The Pope hates this.
Personality metrics are as important as IQ. Plenty of the world’s leaders are above-average IQ, they know what they are doing. These are the Fifth Column.
By chance alone, they couldn’t keep doing exactly the wrong thing for the People.
There are many myths about Christian fertility. If you breed beyond your ability to provide, another tenet of the religion, then all the children and the entire family die. This happens quickly or slowly, with reduced prosperity and poor marital prospects in times of K-selection, that either cause no marriage to occur, sub-standard fertility in the non-assortative pair match, excess labour and no creative production (bad for epigenetics) and/or mutation accumulation. Time preference correlates to industriousness and what we now call grit but is essentially prudence. It’s tempting to claim Idiocracy! because listing pop culture in place of papers is part of the dumbing down you so despise but first you must understand what an Idiocracy is = r-selection.
The K-shift we are undergoing is a prelude to the Malthusian contraction of population better known as the Malthusian trap. Think the big toothy metal things in cartoons.
You cannot describe demographic patterns without the Malthusian trap.
Nobody cites the meme “demographics is destiny” when that’s obviously the topic too. If you’re trying to make the complex easy to remember for simple readers. I just use GIFs to break up the text. Evidence of too much thinking intimidates them, y’see.
Get with the clickbait times, grandpa
The best argument I have seen on the spread of upper-class genes by the death of the lower orders was the spread of Black Death. This happened in bursts that appear to correspond to social and cultural leaps. It also targeted the urban leeches.
It is not a coincidence.
The strangest regressive trend is the spread of STDs, which are not purely r-selected, since the species must reproduce in K-types too and spouses do cheat. In the era of premarital sex, they may have brought the infertility or birth-defect causing pathogens (by mutating development) into the marriage itself. Religion happens to prevent these problems e.g. no prostitution, keep celibate, it doesn’t answer them. The strongest candidate for a shift after Black Death is the probable damage caused by Syphilis. I noticed this but I haven’t found anyone to explicitly study it.
There is also the matter of atheist scientist superhero. It’s a myth of scientism. There is social pressure. Anonymously, plenty of scientists identify as non-atheist, something else. The atheism probability exists on a bell curve of one to two standard deviations; beyond this, belief in the supernatural and faith in bizarre, paranoid delusions also increases greatly.
That’s why they tend to go a bit ..loopy at the end. Especially the mathlete Olympiads. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Grothendieck
There’s a shocking lack of historical (OLD, dusty-ass) case studies (Freud did this! If Freud can do this!…) and historical or cultural asterisks on the (largely but hardly acknowledged personality) theories of Genius Famine, but the bare bones is correct.
Here’s where I go off on one.
“The emancipation of women only worsened this fall in IQ, argue Dutton and Charlton.”
There is no evidence and quite the opposite, as child IQ conforms highly to maternal IQ and there is growing evidence about the benefits of delaying motherhood, at least until after the teenage years, once the body has stabilized and ceased to grow. Men traditionally delayed fatherhood too but don’t expect parity in discussion because questioning your priors is so sissy apparently.
The suffrage was universal, as the most cursory reading of history will confirm. Women could actually vote in many places before it anyway. ‘Women’s suffrage’ is a feminist myth.
I’ve covered this and so have others, in extensive detail. Modern young woman is more conservative than the average young man and in Charlton’s own country, women now vote more conservatively than men. This is a mathematical trend you can take to the sperm bank. Calm down.
Fridge horror. Did nobody bother to look this all up? Where is the intellectual curiosity in intellectuals these days?
You don’t just get to proclaim an opinion because of your name or its letters, or else we’d take Lena Dunham’s advice on the biology of abortion. This is called an appeal to authority, emotional children.
It’s also another reason I go anon. I don’t want to get attacked IRL for stating basic truths any asshole could point out with five minutes and an internet connection. You are already in the place you need to be, I’m crudely drawing a map.
“They have far fewer children than less intelligent women, who are more likely to become pregnant young and by accident”
That is a failing of the Sexual Revolution, availability and attitudes to contraception, the abandonment of fathers and all those things combined that caused the monolithic rise of the modern welfare state. These are the true culprits of the issue, not voting. Most socialists are men, for example. Cthulhu swims Left. The voting is splintered far more by race than it ever could be by sex, and not one of them has the stones to finger ‘race’ as an issue. Try studying Voting Behaviour 101. See the recent election of Trump, where white women mostly voted for him and hardly any non-white. It’s a racial composition matter.
On a finer note, I’ve yet to see a modern civilization that isn’t white in root or base. I don’t see civilization as a bad thing either, it depends what you consider Peak, a question the NRx keep bitch-slapping over, especially in the Catholic blogs, that I feel Brucey would enjoy.
It is also strange to note that they deny intelligent women exist – until it’s tempting to criticize us for our responsible breeding habits.[But if we’re irresponsible, we’re also evil single mothers? Because all conception is intentional, right? And the father will definitely marry them, huh? And finding a spouse is so easy for anyone, m/f, not-dumb? And they have magical solutions for all these conflicts of the postmodern with the biological? Without actually going into the biology of it? ] Intelligent women breed far more often than intelligent men, if you look historically. They do not. There is no comparison of the sexes upon which to make these snide remarks. They fixate on one half of a whole problem. Blame Women! as your standby is literally sexist (and stupid, these are societal issues). As would be Blame Men! be sexist, and stupid for similar, anti-natal reasons. I proffer Blame R-types, since they are exactly the problem here. It doesn’t stroke the ego but it settles the mind.
Women discuss family problems far more than men, you just don’t look for us.
Family politics is literally our domain, the home.
You don’t get to pretend this is your area. It shows. Low EQ and SQ.
Men crowd around a table and discuss money, women discuss socially.
Maybe ask mumsnet how easy raising babies is today?
IF so, why no more stay-at-home dads and let her do the ‘hard work’?
The looming factor post-IR isn’t mentioned once. The world wars were incredibly dysgenic.
The healthy and young and brave died. The cowards and feeble and corrupt remained safe and plump and sexed at home, to later provide for their children (Parental Investment Theory) and give them an advantage over war widows (the reason for our welfare state). Draft limitations are a problem not one man has the courage to mention.
You spared the genetic detritus. Darwin is laughing at you.
Might I impose that this selective blindness is an arrogant bias, on part of a sex who wishes fully to blame the Other?
Where geniuses do breed, they do not mention the potential for dead-end mutations e.g. Goethe’s children.
I suppose they mustn’t know? That’s encouraging.
Not to mention the female germline is more stable. The male is prone to mutations, because it’s constantly regenerating. So any problems with homosexuality, for instance… yeah, that isn’t on women. Infertility in men is literally measured by their mutations. Little X-men swimmers. The superpower is schizophrenia.
The American Model of collegiate academia killed the Medieval University of Europe. Chief among the concerns is tenure. There is no sound reason for tenure, a form of academic welfare. Naturally, I expect too much for academics still in the Matrix-like system to admit this. Universities have too much money and hence waste their time. It’s affluenza on the level of an organisation. I do not expect that idea to be popular, but it is the truth. If Harvard couldn’t be left money in donations and wills, would it be so arrogant? Would the conceit spread to its founders? Why is the state teat extended to these people? They have become like the modern church, with the same problems e.g. tax exemption. The Bible says ya gotta pay taxes. The Vatican gets around this by being the State. Again, I don’t expect these problems to magically wax into focus given the bias of the writers, I have to mention it.
And someone’s going to act like it can afford to go unsaid.
“Academics contribute to this by getting funding, publishing frequently, and attending conferences.”
The social scene is poison. There, I said it. It’s populated by the midwits Vox Day complains about. They think they’re clever because they all mutually agree. Aren’t they lovely? Good in front of a camera, bad thinkers.
It is a little sexist to call the model of fault Head Girl when her role is often second to Head Boy and anyone British knows what a massive kiss-up the Head Boys are. Most of the leading academia they complain of is still generally male, so I wonder how they can square that circle…
The obedience of school is the Prussian model. It’s based on the male military complex. Before that, the rote form to teach monks. ..Were they girly too?
Boys’ schools do not magically produce geniuses on par with Tesla. Women and femininity are not the problem and assuredly not a weakness. This is a cheap, trivial argument. The problem is sub-par management, which, if you look at politics too, is decidedly male. Is the masculinity a problem? No. Gender has nothing to do with it. The people running the show are simply incompetent, due to generations of suck-ups getting promoted, largely thanks to credentialism.
I fear they may be a little intimidated by the findings that girls’ scores have exceeded boys’. Well, if we stopped grading on a curve, used a mixture of testing metrics (papers and exam because there are problems with both), in an anonymous exam condition it’s the same paper, either you know your stuff or you don’t. If we stopped grading on a curve, male grades would slip further down because they don’t care, they’re kept in education beyond vocation age (13-14). Girls are more receptive to any instruction, including education. Blame the white matter, learning is a social experience. Maybe in one-on-one tutor setups boys would do better, but good luck getting state funding for that!
Also, why do grades need to be an intersex competition? Curriculums have always been crap, you’re meant to go beyond it.
“This person will be excellent at playing the academic game and will make a great colleague. But they won’t innovate; won’t rock the boat.”
The problem there is a culture called collectivism, it is the opposite of Western individualism and dampens creativity. Snuffs it, kills it dead. It’s prevalent in Asia, not female-only spaces. You also cite a personality trait called agreeableness and another, conscientiousness. Personality types are not wrong per se, they have a place. Bad academics were hired there by other bad academics who slipped through the old net and now academia is bad. Where is the XX in this, specifically? There were all-good female colleges and still are, same with boys’. Don’t grasp for simplistic bullshit.
If you knew as many stories about Catholic boarding schools as I do, you’d know godly obedience is not the norm. Have you heard of St Trinians? If anything, the veil of religion is an excuse to misbehave, because you can just go out on Saturday and confess to a priest on Sunday and it’s all fine with The Big G by Monday.
Naturally, I don’t expect two men to know this. However, it’s their job to check.
Part of the rationale of mixed sex schools was to reduce rebellion caused by sexual frustration, by channeling it socially. It has been moderately successful, except class sizes present a new issue.
The above incompetent management issue applies to religious schools for boys as well, that also have rampant abuse (fagging), pedophilia and homosexual problems... don’t ask the ‘hard’ questions though, guys. Very manly.
“Once upon a time, they note, a ‘country vicar’ had lots of free time to research” –botany, no
You can’t build a quantum tunnel in the average English garden. Stop it. Citizen science is dead barring medical trial subjects.
Ironically, those botanical studies led to the theory of evolution. It is strange to read a man who clearly doesn’t believe in evolution, make references to biology that stands on it.
There were also scientific nuns. They do not get a look-in (ever) although they meet the criteria of being both heavily religious and scientific….
Moreover, the search for Adam and Eve led to fossil studies. It’s almost like you can’t suppress epistemic truth and this upsets idiots.
“The genius has no institution to nurture him and his potential will not be fulfilled.”
He has never needed one, he needs a shed.
Scholarly pursuits didn’t begin in the Middle Ages!
Let’s wrap this up a little.
The problems are thrice:
1. if everyone is equal, nobody is special and there’s no such thing as genius. We don’t need to worry about it or nurture it because we must deal with the dullards and dunces, who need us the most, say the low-IQ themselves, who want to feel superior to someone.
2. if geniuses can’t get credit and funding, they can’t do anything. Duh. Science has a price tag.
3. if geniuses somehow happen to succeed, society looks for any way to tear them down out of envy, from claims about mental illness (currently, autism) to political reasons or simply Tall Poppy Syndrome.
“But we have reached a point where our lives are so secure, and where death is so remote, that we no longer believe that our lives, or our society, has eternal significance.”
All Cultures Are Equal lies. PC censorship, yes, we know about.
Punishment of in-group preference.
I mean, these concepts aren’t hard to research.
Most exist on wikipedia, for beginners.
“Western society is selfish; the human race is damaging the Earth.”
Those are two separate points. Europe is the only continent below replacement level.
We are the only sustainable continent. No conversation on sustainability can be had until we address population. The Left thinks it owns the environment as a topic, but they’re really retaining ground so we cannot discuss this in the mainstream, public spheres (denying a platform?)…
“In addition, our high level of comfort means that the problems with which a genius may now grapple are either too theoretical to care about or too long-term to think about now.” Lie.
“He will cause offence and question the dogmas which give us the comfort of certainty all for the sake of a problem so distant that most of us can postpone thinking about it.” Lie. I’m sick of these sweeping statements that pretend to be scientific. You get some jumped-up upper-middle class white prick who thinks he’s the next Hitchens because he ‘cares’ about XYZ topic (right-wing virtue signalling). Hitchens read books before mouthing off. For many years. Go back to reddit if you want delusions of grandeur.
“In this context, of life not being serious, we would expect the genius to be pilloried.”
How is life less serious now for anyone paying attention? Literally how? Where is my surfboard to coast?
It’s more serious and seriously depressing than ever! Sweeping statements! Geniuses are not insulted, they are denied. They are disqualified so as to be ignored! The findings may as well not have happened!
The cultural message is Noblesse Oblige is dead. We don’t need you, we haz iPhones. Unmentioned goes the fact that most illustrious scientists were members of the aristocracy. I guess Neoreaction slices a little too close to the nerves!
Academia just replicates the environment of aristocracy – badly.
Look up the story of ‘snob’.
“And geniuses are more sensitive than most.”
In themselves, yes. Externally? Have you read the stories about Newton? He was a Grade A pillock socially, a total misanthrope who neither cared about nor sought approval. It was awesome.
He was worse than House. #herogoals
But I suppose the author wants to self-identify (Hello, Millennial) with Illustrious Status Group by the convenient emotions of existence. Why? If what you’ve written in that very paragraph is true, you’d be signalling anything you could that you were anything BUT a genius, if they’re so openly reviled!
Common sense, there is not.
“Life will become harsher and simpler and, eventually, more religious.”
This is already happening with economics and I linked to Jaymans exemplary coverage of liberal fertility being a feature, not a bug.
They tend to assume all religion is good for science though, when clearly it’s just the one (Protestantism) that allows it.
Not one big Mormon scientist, is there? Catholicism literally killed people for doing maths during the Renaissance. We could be living on other planets and piloting flying cars by now if the Pope weren’t a thing (and nothing in scripture says we need one). The Bible actually says to beware of false prophets who try to replace scripture and that God wants his followers to be happy and prosperous. That would be an easier sell, huh? Human rights aren’t really negotiable if you want someone’s labour so persuasion is the trick.
“At the moment, it seems that there’s nothing we can do to stop this short of a horrendous reversion to pre-Industrial levels of child mortality.”
We won’t stop magically knowing how child-rearing has evolved, this kind of knowledge isn’t academic. It’s preserved in the matrilineal line. This is obvious.
No blackpills unless they’re real.
“But if we could better nurture genius then somebody might come up with a solution before it is too late.”
Almost sounds like the entire point of eugenics. And do you want historical reversion or progress? Biblical living standards or First World ones? Decide. Pick one. Also, way to pass the fucking buck. You want it? You do it, prick.
These people say they’re So Smart (complete with IQ claims) …but not smart enough to get off their arse and actually do something.
Sure thing, kid. And they call us damsels.
Your armchair philosophy is gonna Save Da World.
Adults in the room, inwardly:
Why should a Feynman work for you?… There is no sane answer to this question. Rand’s stake of a point in the heart of greedy vampire societies that don’t appreciate the people who make it so good. Marx said who do you work for? Rand says WHY.
God-damn the entitlement of normies to the hard-earned property of the intellectual. Fruits of one’s labour, a human right. Read your philosophy, child. Sowing, reaping…
It is evil. Bible says a man who will not work, should not eat.
Aaron Clarey has actually covered this, there is no greed, there is only theft. It’s well-known in economics that anything less than a choice is force. That’s left-wing, isn’t it? All working [no leisure, no robots] … according to his abilities…[like you can work above them?] in a kind of commune [rejects family]… that contains everyone [supranationalism, no borders, open borders]… for universalism, a value. [we call this multiculturalism, still]
A little on the theft and self-ownership angle. This isn’t egalitarianism in the modern variation that doesn’t work, it’s from humanism, originally.
At most, they the producer get to choose to limit it to potential consumers as they see fit – exclusive to themselves, genetic kin…not everyone. This is Polyanna stupidity, Bill Gates has kept most of his fortune and he’s meant to be the nice one. As stated above, taking things from geniuses is part of the Problem TM. No regulation, no oversight, no Nanny State. Control is part of the ownership conditions. I don’t get to decide to sell your house. They got to that point, you didn’t – they earned the right to tell you to fuck off and build your own spaceship.
Pearls of wisdom are not for the herd of swine. Nope.
“The genius will combine this very narrow intelligence with very narrow interests.”
Hahahahahaha, you’ve never met one, have you?
They take time to decide on topics and between those, they rove. See von Neumann.
Don’t believe the Hollywood trope of a man in slacks sitting in front of a blackboard screaming WHYYYYYY? at the air (or God?) and throwing balled-up pieces of paper at his coworkers who JUST. DON’T. UNDERSTAND. Like that’s *their* problem. The tortured genius is trite and over-used as a metaphor for teenage angst.
“He’ll also be socially awkward and eccentric.”
Define this. Everyone is a weirdo once you get to know them for a few years.
Do you mean autism?
Rain Man wasn’t autistic. Stop. Being. Stupid. Question. Your. Assumptions.
Priors. Whatever fancy fucking name you want. If it makes you feel clever, delta/gamma-tier.
I proceed, insulting nobody in particular.
“They tend to be useless at everyday things” I knew. I just kneeeew the digs would come in eventually. Point three.
Do you mean all of these people are savants?
And you don’t technically need to be autistic to have savant or splinter skills.
Do they look this up?
INTELLIGENCE IS NOT A DISEASE. DO NOT PATHOLOGISE IT.
WHY AM I YELLING.
BECAUSE IT’S THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS CRITIQUE AND I LIKE YELLING, IT’S 5AM HERE.
If you actually want a society led by people better than you (some kind of aristocracy cmon), to care and take care of you, then don’t play into the enemy’s mind games.
“they are very fragile people and they are not usually interested in money”
Are they children? Can they not develop? Well, if you’re basing that last on the tenured….
“They need long-term security so that they do not have to worry about ordinary things, which they not interested in and are no good at.”
I feel basing this on mathematical niche SWPL men of the 20th century America is a method flaw.
Einstein is not the prototypic genius. Read more.
He became famous as a meme. The tongue meme. You know the one.
“If we can make these changes, insist Dutton and Charlton, then in spite of declining intelligence, it is possible that a genius may be produced who can develop a solution to this problem”
And I must scream.
Define the problem.
Use your four operational brain cells.
IF no geniuses = problem, how can we sprout one like a magic beanstalk of N-IQ?
IF intelligence is declining, surely plug the leak in the boat before you begin to bail?
IF there are geniuses, give them the media platform. Give them power. The media platform is the biggest problem because it encourages the stupid. Stop the comedies and MTV reality shit, even the ones you like you must give up America. It’s like taking a dummy from a baby, for much the same reasons.
IF academia is the problem, it isn’t geniuses then, is it? It’s the Cultural Marxist structure that is hostile to anyone that tells the truth.
IF someone had a solution, none of you would listen. That’s your own point, by the way!
Being lectured about degeneracy from a resident of New York.
The irony is five miles deep into Chomsky’s rectal cavity.
I quit this topic, for like… five months, until I’ve forgotten why I hate it again.
I already know the default reaction to this post, for example.
How shitposty do I have to be for you to listen to me? This is proof of what I mean, you complain everything spoonfeeds but then throw the rattle when someone dares break it down because it wasn’t how you’d do it. That’s the purpose of teaching, dumbass. You can’t yet. It wouldn’t work.
It isn’t personal, it’s societal. Not everything is about you.
Get new rhetorical strikes, please. Buy some. Get a GF pillow and a sense of humour too.
Next there’ll be a series of E-books on How to Save Western Civ and step one is grab the testes’ cream…
None of this will be glib, for we are truly the damned. How can you fix people who brag about being broken? How can you save what you can’t find? How can you cooperate with people who turn everything into a WWF match?
It isn’t a male thing either, you need both sexes to make a healthy society or it dies.
But what is it about Europeans that gives us this high ‘tendency towards the infinite,’ as Spengler put it? What is the source of what he called the ‘Faustian’ spirit of the West?
I think they mean the personality trait psychoticism, completely different and not a mental illness.
It relates to genius and risk-taking.
It slots in perfectly.
Please do that research.
I think we also suffered great national losses to those positive prosocial traits during both World Wars, while the cowards and infirm sat home twiddling their thumbs. It would explain the social discrepancy between new demographics, where it’s hard to believe we ever did any of those great things, and the old demographics, where the news was full of various discoveries, inventions and explorations.
Associated with creativity, this psychopathic competition for glory and esteem, evolved men who restlessly found a way to go beyond whatever was currently considered rational or possible, inventing new concepts, abilities and technologies.
That’s completely and utterly wrong. ‘Associated with’- Yes, murder is associated with life. You mean psychoticism, not psychopathy. Don’t be one of those sad-acts who idealizes the dregs of society because TV told you they wear cool suits and get all the babes (no and no). In reality, if you read Hare’s books, they’re outcasts, they are losers who die young and deserve it. The paragraph is a fairytale and I feel dumber for reading it. Don’t just pluck a disease out of thin air and pretend it’s a good thing. You’re studying personality, look at personality dynamics.
“evolved men” no
you can’t just evolve one sex
that isn’t how evolution works
Look at any successful ancient civilization and both sexes were great e.g. Sparta.
Femininity isn’t an excuse for weakness.
Genius isn’t an illness, repeat that until you internalize it; it’s a lie the elite have always claimed to keep their own power. GENIUS IS NOT A PATHOLOGY. THERE IS NO PATHOLOGY FOR GENIUS.
There is one disease truly associated with creativity and that’s bipolar disorder, there is plenty of neuro-scientific evidence, including GENETIC,
up to entire books, for that one single connection but that doesn’t sound cool so you won’t see these guys claim it. Also, women have it too, have you noticed certain sections of the internet keep trying to claim that women are all crazy (gaslighting), womens’ diseases (by heavy-skew prevalence) are all bad and all characteristically female (as if men don’t have emotions etc) and furthermore, there is NO male disease (fucking borderlines, I’m tellin’ ya) apparently, it’s all one big conspiracy (uhuh) and that any male disease is in fact, good for society? Ignore facts, logic and the swathe of evidence in the destruction caused by these men, apparently we’re meant to let them off the hook cos they are male and ‘boys will be boys’? That is true, but adult men are not boys. I think they need to study the Medical Model before they go claiming this shit like an SJW or maybe the dictionary definition of disease.
Point of fact, bipolar just have super high openness, a personality trait. It isn’t even their clinical disorder either. Psychos have the opposite, they’re closed-minded and never change, they make the same stupid mistakes over and over and over again, like a movie villain, based on the type. They have no common sense. They are thick. Can you find a single study showing psychopaths have high IQ? No, you cannot. Sociopaths maybe, but they’re a timid milquetoast version, like comparing a modern, smoothie-swilling athlete to an ancient soldier.
Point of fact, psychopaths are the most UN-original people you will ever meet, they’re that guy stealing credit for the slightest things like an idea in a meeting, and they save their own skin before anyone else. Stop treating them like superheroes, if you met one you’d hate him. They’re angry, broken people who hurt other people because it distracts them, they have no nobility or even basic moral values. The words mean nothing to them.
1 The EU is actually a European Empire, but it failed because it’s Commie-run. Every time I hear their “dream of a United Europe” I think yeah – so did Hitler. Except that guy was determined to go anywhere but Europe, and that’s why he lost. They’re making a similar mistake, taking care of basically anybody except native Europeans. Stop looking out. Clean house first. Otherwise, nothing out there matters.
“And a new study has begun the task of identifying which genes are most likely involved in ASPD, with significant success.”
Please start on borderlines and histrionics and narcissists. We can clear Parliament. We can do it.
Suck on your socialization hypothesis.
“This seems to be the first time researchers have made this leap with a personality disorder.
But just as interesting are the concerns the researchers express about how their research might be misused. “
Here we go. The guilt-trip.
The findings stand by themselves, it is a choice how we use them.
…In the past, claims about specific genes and violence have been — in the researchers’ words — “misused” by prosecutors as evidence that defendants are violent. And as more studies like this one link specific genes to the potential for violence, that danger only grows.
It revokes neither legal agency (you chose to act on it) nor commits crime (the act) on its own grounds (that would be like arresting redheads). Being born isn’t a crime, they’re being misleading.
This is about racial profiling, among others. Prediction is the trigger word. They can’t say it shouldn’t be studied but they want to.
Some people have the brain structure of psychopaths – they are not psychopaths.
Some people have a blue-eye allele – they do not have blue eyes.
This is simply a filter for early on in the process that might save lives, like estimating their height from a footprint.
Also, the amused expression on this woman typifies the K-type reaction to violence.
Problem being, if you have the looks where you get approached with paid modelling offers (real photographers), you tend to get a bitch shield because the other men approaching are either 1. creeps who have no sense of boundary or rudeness who might actually be rapists or 2. PUAs pretending to have the same ignorance of boundaries to build kino (assault) and fake rapport (repulsive).
Both only want one thing and it has nothing to do with a sweet personality, that’s why all women above a certain level are said to be bitches by these men, they don’t understand it’s situation dependent. We can smell that desperation like a shark smells blood and being rude makes them go away and stop wasting our time as quickly as possible, and who cares what they think because they’re rude to begin with?
The looks/personality thing is a trite dichotomy designed to make ugly people feel better, model-level people are really sweet in my experience…. as long as you aren’t trying to use them. This is crucial. It’s like a rich man is attuned to gold diggers. It’s fair to protect and guard your best asset.
It’s a laughable Demonstration of Lower Value when various men complain about women being ‘cold’ or having a bitch shield. Usually this is because they stupidly decided to neg her and she matched his bitchy tone. It isn’t a ‘test’. She’s giving you shit because she wants you to leave her alone. You interrupted her finite time and you aren’t even being nice about it. That alone merits rudeness. They assume this rejection (that’s what it is) happens to all men in all situations (meanwhile the real Alphas are laughing at them) and it comes down to a huge Fundamental Attribution Error.
I like to explain it to men thus: imagine if women were the approaching sex and crazy Lindy West-alikes kept stalking you, verbally antagonizing you to get a rise, and physically assaulting you under the pretense that you must be interested because you must be a slut (as a hot person)? You’d be rude too.