Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

Tech journo Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his claim to ethics

When he does an opinion piece on a point of active science. (Minus experts to support his specious claims). I have lost my former high regard for him. He became a sophist. Oh, the things I am sent by infuriated research psychologists. You should see how blue the air turned at this one.

Title: Sorry girls! But the smartest people in the world are all men!

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
(patronizing Buzzfeed-esque address)+(claim to scientific authority against presumed naive reader)+(geniuses+polymaths subgroup)
= claim: no women (ever, at present or in future)

Operative absolute highlighted for your scorn.

I won’t link to the troll and the article is a patronizing piece of shit. You can tell he has no critical training in the field of data interpretation even if you took a drunken night class 10 years ago for a semester. It’s that painfully bad. Either he didn’t do the research (his actual job) into the history of females in that group, or he would’ve immediately found this, to look for the negative evidence, the black swan OR he knew, he bloody knew and left it out. The disclaimer required. The distinction to be made. One line:

It is fine to critique performance, but impossible to disprove potential.

Rarity speaks nothing of ability. As we say, to omit this distinction would remove all claim to both internal and external validity. Rendering it totally invalid….?
The ethical obligation (journalists take training courses) must have …slipped his mind. To get the clicks from the fake MGTOWs putting down women (a group) as if that has anything to do with individual variance (themselves), as I’ve stated before in excruciating take-down style detail. I believe someone actually linked to me for it, I see clicks on the traffic.
He’s become the enemy, a clickwhore lying about science for political grievance (his ‘side’ doesn’t make it right). He cherry-picked a study like Anita does with male violence and his foundation of relative morality has evaporated.
It would be as specious, unethical and rampantly dishonest as if I had said that, say, drugged-up Ritalin boys were innately retarded instead of <insert alternative nurtured explanation here>.

I guess you could say, it’s about ethics in psychometrics journalism.

burn gif

After his great and professional work on Gamergate and he pulls this shit.

tyra rooting for you
I feel so betrayed, and I’d been defending him to people, too.

Wikipedia could prove this bitch wrong. WIKIPEDIA. THINK ABOUT THAT.
Here are the actual categories and stratification of IQ scores. Look at the words.

IQcategories1 IQcategories2 IQcategories3

IQcategories4 IQcategories5

I guess the whole research field is fucking wrong, and Milo Yiannopoulos is right.
#GalileoGambit I guess no adult woman is in the Superior Group over IQ130.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=girl+mensa+age&tbm=nws
Pass Go. Collect your Nobel.

I made a chart too, Milo! About my opinion, of your opinion!

fucksgivenme

The IFLScientism Crowd will be totes impressed! Because the scientific method is like Mythbusters, anyone can do it! If you do a random thing, like find a thing and write about it, you can throw on a lab coat and call it a day. You earned that degree, that PhD in Internetz. If I write in a diary about an ice cream I just consumed, it’s science! And going by your logic, nobody can claim otherwise! If I claim the ice cream opened a portal to another dimension, and made a moral value judgement that it was, in fact, evil, an evil ice cream, I am under no positive Burden of Proof for this negative opinion, in fact, the burden shifts onto everyone else! Isn’t science fun? You can just make it up, all day! It counts! And I made charts so it’s legit, fam! It has Hindu numerals and shit!
Because dissent isn’t the natural process of scientific progress or anything, it’s a conspiracy theory like Patriarchy!

You would think that a technology journalist, who rely on personal popularity, wouldn’t alienate half the STEM field? How is this a plan for career longevity, exactly? I know people who are now blacklisting him for this, since he clearly doesn’t expect people he works with, in-industry, to have read it.

Milo, if you’re reading this;tyra take responsibility

UPDATE: 48h later, I can see comments defending Milo for the article.
Comments from feminists. I leave you to your conclusions.

“You can do anything” parenting and teaching is actively harmful

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-telling-kids-to-dream-big-is-a-big-con/

It comes down to IQ grade. IQ denialism, as it was suggested by Haidt, makes about as much sense now as New Earth Creationism in biology, there is simply so much evidence.

Grades are just proxies for IQ — which most parents are too dumb to conceive of.

IQ isn’t strictly a number, it’s a grouping with an error variance. The Binet IQ was intended for school application ONLY – to ascertain how the child’s learning process could be assisted by teachers at each stage (level of work compared to their chronological age), look at modern Sets for the truest application.

If you’re at the top grouping possible for a human, as an adult, A+/200+ High Genius or basic polymath, you have all the choices. And who doesn’t want options for their child (and by ego extension, a compliment to their own genetic material) but the further down the pyramid you go, the more restricted your future prospects. These are facts.

If you wanna be an astronaut, you’d better be making As and Bs. Just because you sat in the same classroom for decades doesn’t mean you’re equal in life quality potential or entitled to the same things as adults (public school kids and pronounced failures regardless of family fortune are the amusing example).

Telling children they all have equal potential may seem nice, and the Nurture Brigade of modern teaching insist it’s fair (if you are ignorant of their status yes, in case) and necessary (see former) – but it traumatizes the average and below-average children and sets them up for a lifetime of suffering, and probable mental illness (hark! Freud’s ghost laughing in the distance). Children blame themselves when they fail or something goes wrong. Fine if the changes needed are within their control… this is rarely the case here.  The self-esteem movement formed to prevent mental illness, theoretically as a shield against it, and now… many young people are popping pills.

This lie about potential doesn’t even sink in (because for this to apply, they are dumb) when they’re adults. Millennials are miserable. They see their age-peers succeed and assume (all else being equal) there is something they can do about it, and feel entitled (+) or wronged (-), that their own course isn’t going the same way (a few come up with lies i.e. their competition is cheating, or secretly evil).

n.b. IQ is computed by age, so child ones are unreliable although age 11/12 is highly correlated, it’s best to get retested as an adult and expect a small dive. Many supposed prodigies fail on this count because they were merely ahead of the curve at school (by external factors of socialisation, see Gladwell’s Outliers), and not genetically ahead (permanently ahead). Hence, prodigies seem to burn out, when in fact the fakes (harsh but true) merely crash into the wall of their genetic potential. Elements of the modern school system e.g. obedience to popular belief, lack of imagination and rote memory dependence also contribute to this false-flagging of intelligence, as it were, rewarding traits which are, in effect, the anti-genius. Lies on the other side of the IQ fence.

The Decline and Reaching Your Potential

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/why-never-being-able-to-reach-your-full.html

This guy writes from the heart, it’s touching.

It is here we may have some disagreement. whereas I personally think all is lost and that we should “enjoy the decline,” others still hold out hope, thinking Western Civilization can be turned around.  But whichever camp you fall into (or hybrid thereof), neither does anything to address or identify the true, singular psychological cause of Real Americans’ grief.  Therefore, if we can at least identify the primary cause of our malaise we can at least address it, deal with it, and lift this depression that plagues us.  And that problem is:

That you’ll never be able to reach your full potential.

No matter how you look at it, be it psychological, secular, religious, darwinistic, or genetic, humans have always wanted to take this one life they have and make the absolute best of it.  They not only want what’s best for them, but they want to achieve some kind of greatness.  The problem is that while everybody wants greatness in their lives, not everybody is willing to work for it.  And with the replacing of republics with democracies we have put an end to forcing meritocratic behavior on the population, and instead given the power to the masses to legally steal other people’s wealth…..

applause
And who took that away from us, hm?
I say if we’re going out, we enjoy it, and take revenge if possible.