Facial width and certain findings of attractiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081237
If women tend to prefer intelligent men because of their generally higher social status“” how WILL the manosphere recover?

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

r/k child outcomes though….

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

Men with longer faces are male models.

Longer midface and nose again.

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

What about the white minstrels?

Yeah, aren’t racial stereotypes evil? Or could they be reasonable at times?

Such as…. when they’re true?

My issue with those is that they aren’t true/were never true/are deliberately inflammatory and personally insulting in a way you simply couldn’t get away with, with any other race.

What would be the term for this? Crackaninny? The American media stereotype of certain white people as weak, silly and abusive.

Note: yeah is the redneck form of Yes, you all sound like that abroad.

In spite of the fact Brits have better teeth on average than the modern American (sure, blame corn syrup), our celebrities are rarely anorexic or fat and rugby players don’t wear padding and cups, unlike the NFL sissies.

Actual hatefacts to offend everyone

OR
Nevermind, your fear is completely justified.

Feel free to make your own.

So let’s talk about the Red Pill, shall we?

This little red pill where any group is magically exempt from criticism… almost like a privilege. Offense is “how dare you imply my demographic is morally fallible!”

Shall we?

 

Genius IQ genetic study in America

I’m amazed you found any.

Guys, IQ has a genetic basis! This is a TOTALLY NEW THING.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-genetic-analysis-people-extremely-high.html

Representing the top 0.03 per cent of the ‘intelligence distribution’, these individuals have an IQ of 170 or more – substantially higher than that of Nobel Prize winners, who have an average IQ of around 145.

Genetic research on intelligence consistently indicates that around half of the differences between people can be explained by genetic factors. This study’s unique design, which focused on the positive end of the intelligence distribution and compared genotyping data against more than 3,000 people from the , greatly enhanced the study’s power to detect genes responsible for the heritability of intelligence.

Paper geniuses. err… sure, okay, that methodology works I guess... but isn’t it a case of academia proving the benchmark of academia (grading, as SATs are a mathematically acceptable sub for IQ)?

On paper, Obama was a good President.

Did they check other demographic factors, like religion? Nope.
Did they check for any intelligence level above genius? No. Tests do not exist nor apply.

So they’re not even comparing the norm to the BEST, they’re comparing to themselves.
Difference.
There are no polymaths in academia.

Our research shows that there are not genes for genius. However, to have super-high intelligence you need to have many of the positive alleles and importantly few of the negative rare effects, such as the rare functional alleles identified in our study.’

We’ve mentioned that before around NRx, it’s called the genetic load hypothesis.

I'm smarter than anyone else you'll ever meet

I’ll leave this here.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9DbvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA45&lpg=PA45&dq=genetic+load+hbd&source=bl&ots=Wf7D4jJvAH&sig=McC9TR-Lxo4r5z154aXcKBhas-A&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw99yL5rvRAhXUOFAKHZ1vC1YQ6AEIOTAE#v=onepage&q&f=false

geneticload

Meanwhile, the people who can do maths are waking up.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/njj/suppose_hbd_is_true/

TLDR: Stereotyping is MEAN! ….But also accurate?

It’s only prejudice if you ignore the evidence when it arises.
So if you ignore the negative evidence e.g. that guy could kill you, you’re also being prejudiced ( to ‘that guy couldn’t kill me’, the belief held prior to evidence aka The Prior).

‘Educated’ adults are hiding under the blanket from terrorism, hoping it will go away.

Nature tends to cull those people pretty quickly. Ahh, Darwin!
The tone of all these articles is the same: Disregard race, attend education.
Chock full of fallacies. They want censorship, they want suppression. You don’t ignore a factor. Science 101. Nothing is forbidden. This isn’t religion. If you don’t feel comfortable, scientists don’t care.
If HBD were true, what would we see in social science following a Blank Slatist denialism over many, many decades, an academic fraud enforced by regressive speech law?
A reproducibility crisis!

http://lesswrong.com/lw/o95/be_secretly_wrong/

You have to understand that this system is not real, it’s just a game. In real life you have to be straight-up wrong sometimes. So you may as well get it over with.

This whole blog is one big thought experiment. Thanks for tuning in.

Misogyny stereotypes (myths) – a case of projection

I love it when they’re logical for once.

Women are sluts – men have higher partner counts.
Women can’t be trusted – most sociopaths/psychopaths are men.
Women are emotional – anger issues are typically male.
Women are violent – not by any known definition of the word and most murders of men and women are done by… men. It’s rational to be wary of men, the same way other men are. If a random man follows you on a dark road, male or female, you’ll panic a little.
Women are crazy – most suicides are men.
Women are unstable – women can live together peacefully, men literally fight. All the time.
Women are useless – women raise men, ergo… men are only as useful as the women who raise them. In Iceland in 1975, the women went on strike – chaos ensued and the men were useless. Do not push us. If men down tools for a day, the economy suffers, maybe. Nobody really cares except factory owners and that’s why strikes keep happening. If women strike, the species stops.
If women stopped working, nobody would notice/Women are lazy – mothers work hours that breach human rights law.
Women cheat – Ashley Madison was a sausage fest.
Women are desperate – have you seen what men will fuck? Toasters, sofas, cars, postboxes, fruit.
Women can’t control themselves – look at all the above facts.
Women can’t keep a marriage together – the biggest causes of divorce are money issues (the male should attempt to be the financial provider) and cheating (look at the Ashley Madison hack stats). Do not confuse the person who filed for divorce for the person who ruined the marriage.
Women drink too much – true, largely cultural – but men drink more. And do more drugs, and OD more.
Women are sex crazy – women can go without just fine. But look to India, where millions of unsexed men are ruining an entire country.
Women need men – sorry, is that supposed to be an insult? You can sniff the attachment issues. Commitment phobes, usually men. They will literally never, ever keep a woman happy. A single woman, they are incapable of it (spot them by daydreaming about a harem, who in reality, would gang up on their weak ass).
Women care about computers too much/attention whore – men brag in their own way and recently post ab selfies. Which sex is the typical porn addict? Which sex relies on hook-up apps because they are poorly socialized? aka scared to talk to people.
Women are dumb – there are more male retards than female.
Women are soft – women are polite, men are rude but confuse this with something to be admired.
Women flake – men are socially dense and spin rejection into a fault of the other party.
Women are terrible with their finances – well, do you want her to earn the family bacon or not? Which sex tends to balance the family chequebook? Single women, yes, but single men rack up more debt on stupid things like car leases and bottle service, so STFU.
Women love shoes – it’s status signalling, idiots. Men love cars, guess which is more expensive?
Women don’t ‘get’ guy stuff – we do, we think most of it is stupid. See recently Pokemon Go and the guy who was tapping away on his phone while his wife gave birth. A+ manliness there.
Women aren’t feminine – feminine doesn’t mean pushover willing to serve some random stranger’s whim. It never has.
Women are frigid – Madonna/Whore in narcissists again.
Women aren’t good at sex – yes, I’m sure out of all your partners it happened to be 100% of the women at fault.
Women don’t like me – similar point.
Women cuckold men – I haven’t seen any hard data to support this, it’s a myth to make the bachelors less depressed.
Women need men more than men need women – single women don’t kill themselves, usually.
Women are incompetent – better school grades, more positions at University, better pay before the age of 30 when they leave the market for the true incompetents to clean up.
Women are lazy – women tend to balance home/work, men cannot. They usually choose work and fear being a stay-at-home father because they know it’s harder work than faffing around in a cubicle for 3 hours of paperwork and looking busy the rest of the time. Most working men can’t even keep their house tidy when it’s just them living there, they still need women in the form of maids, to say nothing of hookers.
Women are weak – higher pain tolerance, bitches.
Women gossip more – about the same, in studies. Men gossip about different things, especially sex, which they gossip far more about (SATC lied).
Women’s genitals are inferior to sacred phallus – two words: multiple orgasms.
And the ultimate one, women are illogical – women put up with men, men can’t understand women. Men confuse rationalization with rationality and are boorish enough to assume their opinion is not only wanted, interesting, but also correct. Is that logical to you?

*mic drop*

eyebrow waggle

When you hear such men, they’re bitter at their own faults.

Video: Greg Johnson’s ‘In defense of prejudice’

counter-currents.com/2016/02/in-defense-of-prejudice-video/

Pattern-seeking, also called patternicity, is innate to mammals.

It is a survival instinct.

We can no more switch it off than our perception of colour.

Ignore the patterns at your own peril.

When you recklessly imperil the lives of those around you, they’re going to perceive two threats.

Original Threat + Traitor

Where there one concept, there is its opposite.

Where there is loyalty, there is disloyalty.

Where there is safety, there is danger.

Endangering others? Makes you responsible too.

Scorpion and the Frog. A snake doesn’t change its nature.

As for the mathematics, this is truly probabilistic. I haven’t seen this application before but it’s dead-right. This is why social science has proven (and hates to admit) that stereotypes are mostly true. Prejudice being acting according to these, where there is individual information to the contrary that they are ‘not like that.’ Self-preservation and precaution (Christian prudence) are the psychologically healthy reactions to logical assessments of risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Bayes_classifier#Probabilistic_model

Beauty and Intelligence incredibly linked (same level as education)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/201012/beautiful-people-really-are-more-intelligent

In a previous post, I show, using an American sample from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, that physically more attractive people are more intelligent. As I explain in a subsequent post, the association between physical attractiveness and intelligence may be due to one of two reasons. Genetic quality may be a common cause for both (such that genetically healthier people are simultaneously more beautiful and more intelligent). Alternatively, the association may result from a cross-trait assortative mating, where more intelligent and higher status men of greater resources marry more beautiful women….

Mostly the former, as it explains female bequeath too it should be genetic. Assortative mating usually applies to objective attractiveness (the famed 10-scale) for both sexes, skewed relationships rarely last long without something else to make up for the gap.

Regardless of the reason for the association, the new evidence suggests that the association between physical attractiveness and general intelligence may be much stronger than we previously thought.

… Attractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 104.23, whereas unattractive NCDS respondents have the mean IQ of 91.81.  The difference between them is 12.42. This mean difference implies a correlation coefficient of r = .381, which is reasonably large in any survey data…..

Huge IQ bridge, on par with eugenic/dysgenic effects? I’d love to see expanded profiles (marital status at 30, for example).

By pure coincidence, the correlation between physical attractiveness and intelligence in NCDS is exactly the same, down to the third decimal point, as the correlation between intelligence and education. Both correlations are .381. Everybody knows that intelligence and education are very highly correlated. What they don’t know is that physical attractiveness is equally highly correlated with intelligence as education is. 

In other words,

If you want to estimate someone’s intelligence without giving them an IQ test, you would do just as well to base your estimate on their physical attractiveness as you would to base it on their years of education.

oh damn wow ah

I’ll leave these here:
http://thisisattractiveprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisbeautyprivilege.tumblr.com/
http://thisisthinprivilege.org/

“Privilege” has statistical backing!
The stereotypes, again, are true!

Maybe humans will branch into an Eloi and Morlock scenario? The IQ difference is huge, the SD I calculated for the summary result (both sexes) is 8.78227, population SD is 6.21 with population variance of 38.5641 in IQ. Huge values.

Sluts are rejected by other women, even sluts themselves

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-05-women-promiscuous-female-peers-friends.html

They're so stupid it's a laughriot

Literally nobody likes them socially (cause and effect are bidirectional). And they think behaviour is without consequence? They are “unsuitable for friendship” and long-term relationships, never ‘wife material’ certainly.

Participants’ preference for less sexually active as friends remained even when they personally reported liberal attitudes about casual sex or a high number of lifetime lovers.

They know, deep down, how fucked up they are and don’t want to deal with drama twice over, acting up because it’s the only form of attention you can scrape.
“poor psychological and ” – did it measure this? which came first?
Average men don’t want to be friends with players either:

Even sexually modest men preferred the non-permissive potential friend in only half of all variables.

Only half? Yeah, the researcher is a broad. There isn’t a ‘double standard’ as she claims. Players want wingmen friends some of the time, but still, not one more successful than them. Totally different consideration, nothing to do with ‘stigma’, what is she on?

Never occurs to these people that “stigma” is in fact, true? No studies on that, are there?
Nobody asks the question of whether the stereotypes are true? The stigma is justified? Or is the answer un-PC so they never published it?

It’s like drunk-driving and wondering why nobody trusts you with their car keys, they’re socially retarded. Social reputation in a social species, which you’re never going to change, is crucial to social survival. Don’t wanna be treated like a goatfucker? Don’t fuck any goats. They want the reward of the bad girl (behaviour) AND the reward of the good girl too (being treated with respect). They want to have their cake and eat it. It’s impossible. Nobody likes a slag (not even themselves). Never will. You have to choose and you did choose, quit crying about the consequences of your foolish agency.