The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenters to FollowHide Excerpts
By Authors Filter?
Andrei Martyanov Andrew J. Bacevich Andrew Joyce Andrew Napolitano Boyd D. Cathey Brad Griffin C.J. Hopkins Chanda Chisala Eamonn Fingleton Eric Margolis Fred Reed Godfree Roberts Gustavo Arellano Ilana Mercer Israel Shamir James Kirkpatrick James Petras James Thompson Jared Taylor JayMan John Derbyshire John Pilger Jonathan Revusky Kevin MacDonald Linh Dinh Michael Hoffman Michael Hudson Mike Whitney Nathan Cofnas Norman Finkelstein Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn Paul Craig Roberts Paul Gottfried Paul Kersey Peter Frost Peter Lee Philip Giraldi Philip Weiss Robert Weissberg Ron Paul Ron Unz Stephen J. Sniegoski The Saker Tom Engelhardt A. Graham Adam Hochschild Aedon Cassiel Ahmet Öncü Alexander Cockburn Alexander Hart Alfred McCoy Alison Rose Levy Alison Weir Anand Gopal Andre Damon Andrew Cockburn Andrew Fraser Andy Kroll Ann Jones Anonymous Anthony DiMaggio Ariel Dorfman Arlie Russell Hochschild Arno Develay Arnold Isaacs Artem Zagorodnov Astra Taylor Austen Layard Aviva Chomsky Ayman Fadel Barbara Ehrenreich Barbara Garson Barbara Myers Barry Lando Belle Chesler Beverly Gologorsky Bill Black Bill Moyers Bob Dreyfuss Bonnie Faulkner Brenton Sanderson Brett Redmayne-Titley Brian Dew Carl Horowitz Catherine Crump Charles Bausman Charles Goodhart Charles Wood Charlotteville Survivor Chase Madar Chris Hedges Chris Roberts Christian Appy Christopher DeGroot Chuck Spinney Coleen Rowley Cooper Sterling Craig Murray Dahr Jamail Dan E. Phillips Dan Sanchez Daniel McAdams Danny Sjursen Dave Kranzler Dave Lindorff David Barsamian David Bromwich David Chibo David Gordon David North David Vine David Walsh David William Pear Dean Baker Dennis Saffran Diana Johnstone Dilip Hiro Dirk Bezemer Ed Warner Edmund Connelly Eduardo Galeano Ellen Cantarow Ellen Packer Ellison Lodge Eric Draitser Eric Zuesse Erik Edstrom Erika Eichelberger Erin L. Thompson Eugene Girin F. Roger Devlin Franklin Lamb Frida Berrigan Friedrich Zauner Gabriel Black Gary Corseri Gary North Gary Younge Gene Tuttle George Albert George Bogdanich George Szamuely Georgianne Nienaber Glenn Greenwald Greg Grandin Greg Johnson Gregoire Chamayou Gregory Foster Gregory Hood Gregory Wilpert Guest Admin Hannah Appel Hans-Hermann Hoppe Harri Honkanen Henry Cockburn Hina Shamsi Howard Zinn Hubert Collins Hugh McInnish Ira Chernus Jack Kerwick Jack Rasmus Jack Ravenwood Jack Sen James Bovard James Carroll James Fulford Jane Lazarre Jared S. Baumeister Jason C. Ditz Jason Kessler Jay Stanley Jeff J. Brown Jeffrey Blankfort Jeffrey St. Clair Jen Marlowe Jeremiah Goulka Jeremy Cooper Jesse Mossman Jim Daniel Jim Kavanagh JoAnn Wypijewski Joe Lauria Johannes Wahlstrom John W. Dower John Feffer John Fund John Harrison Sims John Reid John Stauber John Taylor John V. Walsh John Williams Jon Else Jonathan Alan King Jonathan Anomaly Jonathan Rooper Jonathan Schell Joseph Kishore Juan Cole Judith Coburn K.R. Bolton Karel Van Wolferen Karen Greenberg Kelley Vlahos Kersasp D. Shekhdar Kevin Barrett Kevin Zeese Kshama Sawant Lance Welton Laura Gottesdiener Laura Poitras Laurent Guyénot Lawrence G. Proulx Leo Hohmann Linda Preston Logical Meme Lorraine Barlett M.G. Miles Mac Deford Maidhc O Cathail Malcolm Unwell Marcus Alethia Marcus Cicero Margaret Flowers Mark Danner Mark Engler Mark Perry Matt Parrott Mattea Kramer Matthew Harwood Matthew Richer Matthew Stevenson Max Blumenthal Max Denken Max North Maya Schenwar Michael Gould-Wartofsky Michael Schwartz Michael T. Klare Murray Polner Nan Levinson Naomi Oreskes Nate Terani Ned Stark Nelson Rosit Nicholas Stix Nick Kollerstrom Nick Turse Noam Chomsky Nomi Prins Patrick Cleburne Patrick Cloutier Paul Cochrane Paul Engler Paul Nachman Paul Nehlen Pepe Escobar Peter Brimelow Peter Gemma Peter Van Buren Pierre M. Sprey Pratap Chatterjee Publius Decius Mus Rajan Menon Ralph Nader Ramin Mazaheri Ramziya Zaripova Randy Shields Ray McGovern Razib Khan Rebecca Gordon Rebecca Solnit Richard Krushnic Richard Silverstein Rick Shenkman Rita Rozhkova Robert Baxter Robert Bonomo Robert Fisk Robert Lipsyte Robert Parry Robert Roth Robert S. Griffin Robert Scheer Robert Trivers Robin Eastman Abaya Roger Dooghy Ronald N. Neff Rory Fanning Sam Francis Sam Husseini Sayed Hasan Sharmini Peries Sheldon Richman Spencer Davenport Spencer Quinn Stefan Karganovic Steffen A. Woll Stephanie Savell Stephen J. Rossi Steve Fraser Steven Yates Sydney Schanberg Tanya Golash-Boza Ted Rall Theodore A. Postol Thierry Meyssan Thomas Frank Thomas O. Meehan Tim Shorrock Tim Weiner Tobias Langdon Todd E. Pierce Todd Gitlin Todd Miller Tom Piatak Tom Suarez Tom Sunic Tracy Rosenberg Virginia Dare Vladimir Brovkin Vox Day W. Patrick Lang Walter Block William Binney William DeBuys William Hartung William J. Astore Winslow T. Wheeler Ximena Ortiz Yan Shen
Nothing found
By Topics/Categories Filter?
2016 Election 9/11 Academia AIPAC Alt Right American Media American Military American Pravda Anti-Semitism Benjamin Netanyahu Blacks Britain China Conservative Movement Conspiracy Theories Deep State Donald Trump Economics Foreign Policy Hillary Clinton History Ideology Immigration IQ Iran ISIS Islam Israel Israel Lobby Israel/Palestine Jews Middle East Neocons Political Correctness Race/IQ Race/Ethnicity Republicans Russia Science Syria Terrorism Turkey Ukraine Vladimir Putin World War II 1971 War 2008 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 23andMe 70th Anniversary Parade 75-0-25 Or Something A Farewell To Alms A. J. West A Troublesome Inheritance Aarab Barghouti Abc News Abdelhamid Abaaoud Abe Abe Foxman Abigail Marsh Abortion Abraham Lincoln Abu Ghraib Abu Zubaydah Academy Awards Acheivement Gap Acid Attacks Adam Schiff Addiction Adoptees Adoption Adoption Twins ADRA2b AEI Affective Empathy Affirmative Action Affordable Family Formation Afghanistan Africa African Americans African Genetics Africans Afrikaner Afrocentricism Agriculture Aha AIDS Ain't Nobody Got Time For That. Ainu Aircraft Carriers AirSea Battle Al Jazeera Al-Qaeda Alan Dershowitz Alan Macfarlane Albania Alberto Del Rosario Albion's Seed Alcohol Alcoholism Alexander Hamilton Alexandre Skirda Alexis De Tocqueville Algeria All Human Behavioral Traits Are Heritable All Traits Are Heritable Alpha Centauri Alpha Males Alt Left Altruism Amazon.com America The Beautiful American Atheists American Debt American Exceptionalism American Flag American Jews American Left American Legion American Nations American Nations American Prisons American Renaissance Americana Amerindians Amish Amish Quotient Amnesty Amnesty International Amoral Familialism Amy Chua Amygdala An Hbd Liberal Anaconda Anatoly Karlin Ancestry Ancient DNA Ancient Genetics Ancient Jews Ancient Near East Anders Breivik Andrei Nekrasov Andrew Jackson Androids Angela Stent Angelina Jolie Anglo-Saxons Ann Coulter Anne Buchanan Anne Heche Annual Country Reports On Terrorism Anthropology Antibiotics Antifa Antiquity Antiracism Antisocial Behavior Antiwar Movement Antonin Scalia Antonio Trillanes IV Anywhere But Here Apartheid Appalachia Appalachians Arab Christianity Arab Spring Arabs Archaic DNA Archaic Humans Arctic Humans Arctic Resources Argentina Argentina Default Armenians Army-McCarthy Hearings Arnon Milchan Art Arthur Jensen Artificial Intelligence As-Safir Ash Carter Ashkenazi Intelligence Ashkenazi Jews Ashraf Ghani Asia Asian Americans Asian Quotas Asians ASPM Assassinations Assimilation Assortative Mating Atheism Atlantic Council Attractiveness Attractiveness Australia Australian Aboriginals Austria Austro-Hungarian Empire Austronesians Autism Automation Avi Tuschman Avigdor Lieberman Ayodhhya Babri Masjid Baby Boom Baby Gap Baby Girl Jay Backlash Bacterial Vaginosis Bad Science Bahrain Balanced Polymorphism Balkans Baltimore Riots Bangladesh Banking Banking Industry Banking System Banks Barack H. Obama Barack Obama Barbara Comstock Bariatric Surgery Baseball Bashar Al-Assad Baumeister BDA BDS Movement Beauty Beauty Standards Behavior Genetics Behavioral Genetics Behaviorism Beijing Belgrade Embassy Bombing Believeing In Observational Studies Is Nuts Ben Cardin Ben Carson Benghazi Benjamin Cardin Berlin Wall Bernard Henri-Levy Bernard Lewis Bernie Madoff Bernie Sanders Bernies Sanders Beta Males BICOM Big Five Bilingual Education Bill 59 Bill Clinton Bill Kristol Bill Maher Billionaires Billy Graham Birds Of A Feather Birth Order Birth Rate Bisexuality Bisexuals BJP Black Americans Black Crime Black History Black Lives Matter Black Metal Black Muslims Black Panthers Black Women Attractiveness Blackface Blade Runner Blogging Blond Hair Blue Eyes Bmi Boasian Anthropology Boderlanders Boeing Boers Boiling Off Boko Haram Bolshevik Revolution Books Border Reivers Borderlander Borderlanders Boris Johnson Bosnia Boston Bomb Boston Marathon Bombing Bowe Bergdahl Boycott Divest And Sanction Boycott Divestment And Sanctions Brain Brain Scans Brain Size Brain Structure Brazil Breaking Down The Bullshit Breeder's Equation Bret Stephens Brexit Brian Boutwell Brian Resnick BRICs Brighter Brains Brighton Broken Hill Brown Eyes Bruce Jenner Bruce Lahn brussels Bryan Caplan BS Bundy Family Burakumin Burma Bush Administration C-section Cagots Caitlyn Jenner California Cambodia Cameron Russell Campaign Finance Campaign For Liberty Campus Rape Canada Canada Day Canadian Flag Canadians Cancer Candida Albicans Cannabis Capital Punishment Capitalism Captain Chicken Cardiovascular Disease Care Package Carl Sagan Carly Fiorina Caroline Glick Carroll Quigley Carry Me Back To Ole Virginny Carter Page Castes Catalonia Catholic Church Catholicism Catholics Causation Cavaliers CCTV Censorship Central Asia Chanda Chisala Charles Darwin Charles Krauthammer Charles Murray Charles Schumer Charleston Shooting Charlie Hebdo Charlie Rose Charlottesville Chechens Chechnya Cherlie Hebdo Child Abuse Child Labor Children Chimerism China/America China Stock Market Meltdown China Vietnam Chinese Chinese Communist Party Chinese Evolution Chinese Exclusion Act Chlamydia Chris Gown Chris Rock Chris Stringer Christian Fundamentalism Christianity Christmas Christopher Steele Chuck Chuck Hagel Chuck Schumer CIA Cinema Civil Liberties Civil Rights Civil War Civilian Deaths CJIA Clannishness Clans Clark-unz Selection Classical Economics Classical History Claude-Lévi-Strauss Climate Climate Change Clinton Global Initiative Cliodynamics Cloudburst Flight Clovis Cochran And Harpending Coefficient Of Relationship Cognitive Empathy Cognitive Psychology Cohorts Cold War Colin Kaepernick Colin Woodard Colombia Colonialism Colonists Coming Apart Comments Communism Confederacy Confederate Flag Conflict Of Interest Congress Consanguinity Conscientiousness Consequences Conservatism Conservatives Constitution Constitutional Theory Consumer Debt Cornel West Corporal Punishment Correlation Is Still Not Causation Corruption Corruption Perception Index Costa Concordia Cousin Marriage Cover Story CPEC Craniometry CRIF Crime Crimea Criminality Crowded Crowding Cruise Missiles Cuba Cuban Missile Crisis Cuckold Envy Cuckservative Cultural Evolution Cultural Marxism Cut The Sh*t Guys DACA Dads Vs Cads Daily Mail Dalai Lama Dallas Shooting Dalliard Dalton Trumbo Damascus Bombing Dan Freedman Dana Milbank Daniel Callahan Danish Daren Acemoglu Dark Ages Dark Tetrad Dark Triad Darwinism Data Posts David Brooks David Friedman David Frum David Goldenberg David Hackett Fischer David Ignatius David Katz David Kramer David Lane David Petraeus Davide Piffer Davos Death Death Penalty Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Debt Declaration Of Universal Human Rights Deep Sleep Deep South Democracy Democratic Party Democrats Demographic Transition Demographics Demography Denisovans Denmark Dennis Ross Depression Deprivation Deregulation Derek Harvey Desired Family Size Detroit Development Developmental Noise Developmental Stability Diabetes Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders Dialects Dick Cheney Die Nibelungen Dienekes Diet Different Peoples Is Different Dinesh D'Souza Dirty Bomb Discrimination Discrimination Paradigm Disney Dissent Diversity Dixie Django Unchained Do You Really Want To Know? Doing My Part Doll Tests Dollar Domestic Terrorism Dominique Strauss-Kahn Dopamine Douglas MacArthur Dr James Thompson Drd4 Dreams From My Father Dresden Drew Barrymore Dreyfus Affair Drinking Drone War Drones Drug Cartels Drugs Dry Counties DSM Dunning-kruger Effect Dusk In Autumn Dustin Hoffman Duterte Dylan Roof Dylann Roof Dysgenic E.O. 9066 E. O. Wilson Eagleman East Asia East Asians Eastern Europe Eastern Europeans Ebola Economic Development Economic Sanctions Economy Ed Miller Education Edward Price Edward Snowden EEA Egypt Eisenhower El Salvador Elections Electric Cars Elie Wiesel Eliot Cohen Eliot Engel Elites Ellen Walker Elliot Abrams Elliot Rodger Elliott Abrams Elon Musk Emigration Emil Kirkegaard Emmanuel Macron Emmanuel Todd Empathy England English Civil War Enhanced Interrogations Enoch Powell Entrepreneurship Environment Environmental Estrogens Environmentalism Erdogan Eric Cantor Espionage Estrogen Ethiopia Ethnic Genetic Interests Ethnic Nepotism Ethnicity EU Eugenic Eugenics Eurasia Europe European Right European Union Europeans Eurozone Everything Evil Evolution Evolutionary Biology Evolutionary Psychology Exercise Extraversion Extreterrestrials Eye Color Eyes Ezra Cohen-Watnick Face Recognition Face Shape Faces Facts Fake News fallout Family Studies Far West Farmers Farming Fascism Fat Head Fat Shaming Father Absence FBI Federal Reserve Female Deference Female Homosexuality Female Sexual Response Feminism Feminists Ferguson Shooting Fertility Fertility Fertility Rates Fethullah Gulen Fetish Feuds Fields Medals FIFA Fifty Shades Of Grey Film Finance Financial Bailout Financial Bubbles Financial Debt Financial Sector Financial Times Finland First Amendment First Law First World War FISA Fitness Flags Flight From White Fluctuating Asymmetry Flynn Effect Food Football For Profit Schools Foreign Service Fourth Of July Fracking Fragrances France Francesco Schettino Frank Salter Frankfurt School Frantz Fanon Franz Boas Fred Hiatt Fred Reed Freddie Gray Frederic Hof Free Speech Free Trade Free Will Freedom Of Navigation Freedom Of Speech French Canadians French National Front French Paradox Friendly & Conventional Front National Frost-harpending Selection Fulford Funny G G Spot Gaddafi Gallipoli Game Gardnerella Vaginalis Gary Taubes Gay Germ Gay Marriage Gays/Lesbians Gaza Gaza Flotilla Gcta Gender Gender Gender And Sexuality Gender Confusion Gender Equality Gender Identity Disorder Gender Reassignment Gene-Culture Coevolution Gene-environment Correlation General Intelligence General Social Survey General Theory Of The West Genes Genes: They Matter Bitches Genetic Diversity Genetic Divides Genetic Engineering Genetic Load Genetic Pacification Genetics Genetics Of Height Genocide Genomics Geography Geopolitics George Bush George Clooney George Patton George Romero George Soros George Tenet George W. Bush George Wallace Germ Theory German Catholics Germans Germany Get It Right Get Real Ghouta Gilgit Baltistan Gina Haspel Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Global Terrorism Index Global Warming Globalism Globalization God Delusion Goetsu Going Too Far Gold Gold Warriors Goldman Sachs Good Advice Google Gordon Gallup Goths Government Debt Government Incompetence Government Spending Government Surveillance Great Depression Great Leap Forward Great Recession Greater Appalachia Greece Greeks Greg Clark Greg Cochran Gregory B Christainsen Gregory Clark Gregory Cochran Gregory House GRF Grooming Group Intelligence Group Selection Grumpy Cat GSS Guangzhou Guantanamo Guardian Guilt Culture Gun Control Guns Gynephilia Gypsies H-1B H Bomb H.R. McMaster H1-B Visas Haim Saban Hair Color Hair Lengthening Haiti Hajnal Line Hamas Hamilton: An American Musical Hamilton's Rule Happiness Happy Turkey Day ... Unless You're The Turkey Harriet Tubman Harry Jaffa Harvard Harvey Weinstein Hasbara Hassidim Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatemi Havelock Ellis Haymarket Affair Hbd Hbd Chick HBD Denial Hbd Fallout Hbd Readers Head Size Health And Medicine Health Care Healthcare Heart Disease Heart Health Heart Of Asia Conference Heartiste Heather Norton Height Helmuth Nyborg Hemoglobin Henri De Man Henry Harpending Henry Kissinger Herbert John Fleure Heredity Heritability Hexaco Hezbollah High Iq Fertility Hip Hop Hiroshima Hispanic Crime Hispanic Paradox Hispanics Historical Genetics Hitler HKND Hollywood Holocaust Homicide Homicide Rate Homo Altaiensis Homophobia Homosexuality Honesty-humility House Intelligence Committee House M.d. House Md House Of Cards Housing Huey Long Huey Newton Hugo Chavez Human Biodiversity Human Evolution Human Genetics Human Genomics Human Nature Human Rights Human Varieties Humor Hungary Hunter-Gatherers Hunting Hurricane Hurricane Harvey I.F. Stone I Kissed A Girl And I Liked It I Love Italians I.Q. Genomics Ian Deary Ibd Ibo Ice T Iceland I'd Like To Think It's Obvious I Know What I'm Talking About Ideology And Worldview Idiocracy Igbo Ignorance Ilana Mercer Illegal Immigration IMF immigrants Immigration Imperial Presidency Imperialism Imran Awan In The Electric Mist Inbreeding Income Independence Day India Indians Individualism Inequality Infection Theory Infidelity Intelligence Internet Internet Research Agency Interracial Marriage Inuit Ioannidis Ioannis Metaxas Iosif Lazaridis Iq Iq And Wealth Iran Nuclear Agreement Iran Nuclear Program Iran Sanctions Iranian Nuclear Program Iraq Iraq War Ireland Irish ISIS. Terrorism Islamic Jihad Islamophobia Isolationism Israel Defense Force Israeli Occupation Israeli Settlements Israeli Spying Italianthro Italy It's Determinism - Genetics Is Just A Part It's Not Nature And Nurture Ivanka Ivy League Iwo Eleru J. Edgar Hoover Jack Keane Jake Tapper JAM-GC Jamaica James Clapper James Comey James Fanell James Mattis James Wooley Jamie Foxx Jane Harman Jane Mayer Janet Yellen Japan Japanese Jared Diamond Jared Kushner Jared Taylor Jason Malloy JASTA Jayman Jr. Jayman's Wife Jeff Bezos Jennifer Rubin Jensen Jeremy Corbyn Jerrold Nadler Jerry Seinfeld Jesse Bering Jesuits Jewish History JFK Assassination Jill Stein Jim Crow Joe Cirincione Joe Lieberman John Allen John B. Watson John Boehner John Bolton John Brennan John Derbyshire John Durant John F. Kennedy John Hawks John Hoffecker John Kasich John Kerry John Ladue John McCain John McLaughlin John McWhorter John Mearsheimer John Tooby Joke Posts Jonathan Freedland Jonathan Pollard Joseph Lieberman Joseph McCarthy Judaism Judicial System Judith Harris Julian Assange Jute K.d. Lang Kagans Kanazawa Kashmir Katibat Al-Battar Al-Libi Katy Perry Kay Hymowitz Keith Ellison Ken Livingstone Kenneth Marcus Kennewick Man Kevin MacDonald Kevin McCarthy Kevin Mitchell Kevin Williamson KGL-9268 Khazars Kim Jong Un Kimberly Noble Kin Altruism Kin Selection Kink Kinship Kissing Kiwis Kkk Knesset Know-nothings Korea Korean War Kosovo Ku Klux Klan Kurds Kurt Campbell Labor Day Lactose Lady Gaga Language Larkana Conspiracy Larry Summers Larung Gar Las Vegas Massacre Latin America Latinos Latitude Latvia Law Law Of War Manual Laws Of Behavioral Genetics Lead Poisoning Lebanon Leda Cosmides Lee Kuan Yew Left Coast Left/Right Lenin Leo Strauss Lesbians LGBT Liberal Creationism Liberalism Liberals Libertarianism Libertarians Libya life-expectancy Life In Space Life Liberty And The Pursuit Of Happyness Lifestyle Light Skin Preference Lindsay Graham Lindsey Graham Literacy Litvinenko Lloyd Blankfein Locus Of Control Logan's Run Lombok Strait Long Ass Posts Longevity Look AHEAD Looting Lorde Love Love Dolls Lover Boys Low-carb Low-fat Low Wages LRSO Lutherans Lyndon Johnson M Factor M.g. MacArthur Awards Machiavellianism Madeleine Albright Mahmoud Abbas Maine Malacca Strait Malaysian Airlines MH17 Male Homosexuality Mamasapano Mangan Manor Manorialism Manosphere Manufacturing Mao-a Mao Zedong Maoism Maori Map Posts maps Marc Faber Marco Rubio Marijuana Marine Le Pen Mark Carney Mark Steyn Mark Warner Market Economy Marriage Martin Luther King Marwan Marwan Barghouti Marxism Mary White Ovington Masha Gessen Mass Shootings Massacre In Nice Mate Choice Mate Value Math Mathematics Maulana Bhashani Max Blumenthal Max Boot Max Brooks Mayans McCain/POW Mearsheimer-Walt Measurement Error Mega-Aggressions Mega-anlysis Megan Fox Megyn Kelly Melanin Memorial Day Mental Health Mental Illness Mental Traits Meritocracy Merkel Mesolithic Meta-analysis Meth Mexican-American War Mexico Michael Anton Michael Bloomberg Michael Flynn Michael Hudson Michael Jackson Michael Lewis Michael Morell Michael Pompeo Michael Weiss Michael Woodley Michele Bachmann Michelle Bachmann Michelle Obama Microaggressions Microcephalin Microsoft Middle Ages Mideastwire Migration Mike Huckabee Mike Pence Mike Pompeo Mike Signer Mikhail Khodorkovsky Militarized Police Military Military Pay Military Spending Milner Group Mindanao Minimum Wage Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study Minorities Minstrels Mirror Neurons Miscellaneous Misdreavus Missile Defense Mitt Romney Mixed-Race Modern Humans Mohammed Bin Salman Moldova Monogamy Moral Absolutism Moral Universalism Morality Mormons Moro Mortality Mossad Mountains Movies Moxie Mrs. Jayman MTDNA Muammar Gaddafi Multiculturalism Multiregional Model Music Muslim Muslim Ban Muslims Mutual Assured Destruction My Lai My Old Kentucky Home Myanmar Mysticism Nagasaki Nancy Segal Narendra Modi Nascar National Debt National Differences National Review National Security State National Security Strategy National Wealth Nationalism Native Americans NATO Natural Selection Nature Vs. Nurture Navy Yard Shooting Naz Shah Nazi Nazis Nazism Nbc News Nbc Nightly News Neanderthals NED Neo-Nazis Neoconservatism Neoconservatives Neoliberalism Neolithic Netherlands Neuropolitics Neuroticism Never Forget The Genetic Confound New Addition New Atheists New Cold War New England Patriots New France New French New Netherland New Qing History New Rules New Silk Road New World Order New York City New York Times Newfoundland Newt Gingrich NFL Nicaragua Canal Nicholas Sarkozy Nicholas Wade Nigeria Nightly News Nikki Haley No Free Will Nobel Prize Nobel Prized Nobosuke Kishi Nordics North Africa North Korea Northern Ireland Northwest Europe Norway NSA NSA Surveillance Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear War Nuclear Weapons Null Result Nurture Nurture Assumption Nutrition Nuts NYPD O Mio Babbino Caro Obama Obamacare Obesity Obscured American Occam's Razor Occupy Occupy Wall Street Oceania Oil Oil Industry Old Folks At Home Olfaction Oliver Stone Olympics Omega Males Ominous Signs Once You Go Black Open To Experience Openness To Experience Operational Sex Ratio Opiates Opioids Orban Organ Transplants Orlando Shooting Orthodoxy Osama Bin Laden Ottoman Empire Our Political Nature Out Of Africa Model Outbreeding Oxtr Oxytocin Paekchong Pakistan Pakistani Palatability Paleoamerindians Paleocons Paleolibertarianism Palestine Palestinians Pamela Geller Panama Canal Panama Papers Parasite Parasite Burden Parasite Manipulation Parent-child Interactions Parenting Parenting Parenting Behavioral Genetics Paris Attacks Paris Spring Parsi Paternal Investment Pathogens Patriot Act Patriotism Paul Ewald Paul Krugman Paul Lepage Paul Manafort Paul Ryan Paul Singer Paul Wolfowitz Pavel Grudinin Peace Index Peak Jobs Pearl Harbor Pedophilia Peers Peggy Seagrave Pennsylvania Pentagon Perception Management Personality Peru Peter Frost Peter Thiel Peter Turchin Phil Onderdonk Phil Rushton Philip Breedlove Philippines Physical Anthropology Pierre Van Den Berghe Pieter Van Ostaeyen Piigs Pioneer Hypothesis Pioneers PISA Pizzagate Planets Planned Parenthood Pledge Of Allegiance Pleiotropy Pol Pot Poland Police State Police Training Politics Poll Results Polls Polygenic Score Polygyny Pope Francis Population Growth Population Replacement Populism Pornography Portugal Post 199 Post 201 Post 99 Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Post-Nationalism Pot Poverty PRC Prenatal Hormones Prescription Drugs Press Censorship Pretty Graphs Prince Bandar Priti Patel Privatization Progressives Project Plowshares Propaganda Prostitution Protestantism Proud To Be Black Psychology Psychometrics Psychopaths Psychopathy Pubertal Timing Public Schools Puerto Rico Punishment Puritans Putin Pwc Qatar Quakers Quantitative Genetics Quebec Quebecois Race Race And Crime Race And Genomics Race And Iq Race And Religion Race/Crime Race Denialism Race Riots Rachel Dolezal Rachel Maddow Racial Intelligence Racial Reality Racism Radical Islam Ralph And Coop Ralph Nader Rand Paul Randy Fine Rap Music Raqqa Rating People Rationality Raul Pedrozo Razib Khan Reaction Time Reading Real Estate Real Women Really Stop The Armchair Psychoanalysis Recep Tayyip Erdogan Reciprocal Altruism Reconstruction Red Hair Red State Blue State Red States Blue States Refugee Crisis Regional Differences Regional Populations Regression To The Mean Religion Religion Religion And Philosophy Rena Wing Renewable Energy Rentier Reprint Reproductive Strategy Republican Jesus Republican Party Responsibility Reuel Gerecht Reverend Moon Revolution Of 1905 Revolutions Rex Tillerson Richard Dawkins Richard Dyer Richard Lewontin Richard Lynn Richard Nixon Richard Pryor Richard Pryor Live On The Sunset Strip Richard Russell Rick Perry Rickets Rikishi Robert Ford Robert Kraft Robert Lindsay Robert McNamara Robert Mueller Robert Mugabe Robert Plomin Robert Putnam Robert Reich Robert Spencer Robocop Robots Roe Vs. Wade Roger Ailes Rohingya Roman Empire Rome Ron Paul Ron Unz Ronald Reagan Rooshv Rosemary Hopcroft Ross Douthat Ross Perot Rotherham Roy Moore RT International Rupert Murdoch Rural Liberals Rushton Russell Kirk Russia-Georgia War Russiagate Russian Elections 2018 Russian Hack Russian History Russian Military Russian Orthodox Church Ruth Benedict Saakashvili Sam Harris Same Sex Attraction Same-sex Marriage Same-sex Parents Samoans Samuel George Morton San Bernadino Massacre Sandra Beleza Sandusky Sandy Hook Sarah Palin Sarin Gas Satoshi Kanazawa saudi Saudi Arabia Saying What You Have To Say Scandinavia Scandinavians Scarborough Shoal Schizophrenia Science: It Works Bitches Scientism Scotch-irish Scotland Scots Irish Scott Ritter Scrabble Secession Seduced By Food Semai Senate Separating The Truth From The Nonsense Serbia Serenity Sergei Magnitsky Sergei Skripal Sex Sex Ratio Sex Ratio At Birth Sex Recognition Sex Tape Sex Work Sexism Sexual Antagonistic Selection Sexual Dimorphism Sexual Division Of Labor Sexual Fluidity Sexual Identity Sexual Maturation Sexual Orientation Sexual Selection Sexually Transmitted Diseases Seymour Hersh Shai Masot Shame Culture Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Shanghai Stock Exchange Shared Environment Shekhovstov Sheldon Adelson Shias And Sunnis Shimon Arad Shimon Peres Shinzo Abe Shmuley Boteach Shorts And Funnies Shoshana Bryen Shurat HaDin Shyness Siamak Namazi Sibel Edmonds Siberia Silicon Valley Simon Baron Cohen Singapore Single Men Single Motherhood Single Mothers Single Women Sisyphean Six Day War SJWs Skin Bleaching Skin Color Skin Tone Slate Slave Trade Slavery Slavoj Zizek Slavs SLC24A5 Sleep Slobodan Milosevic Smart Fraction Smell Smoking Snow Snyderman Social Constructs Social Justice Warriors Socialism Sociopathy Sociosexuality Solar Energy Solutions Somalia Sometimes You Don't Like The Answer South Africa South Asia South China Sea South Korea South Sudan Southern Italians Southern Poverty Law Center Soviet Union Space Space Space Program Space Race Spain Spanish Paradox Speech SPLC Sports Sputnik News Squid Ink Srebrenica Stabby Somali Staffan Stalinism Stanislas Dehaene Star Trek State Department State Formation States Rights Statins Steny Hoyer Stephan Guyenet Stephen Cohen Stephen Colbert Stephen Hadley Stephen Jay Gould Sterling Seagrave Steve Bannon Steve Sailer Steven Mnuchin Steven Pinker Still Not Free Buddy Stolen Generations Strategic Affairs Ministry Stroke Belt Student Loans Stuxnet SU-57 Sub-replacement Fertility Sub-Saharan Africa Sub-Saharan Africans Subprime Mortgage Crisis Subsistence Living Suffrage Sugar Suicide Summing It All Up Supernatural Support Me Support The Jayman Supreme Court Supression Surveillance Susan Glasser Susan Rice Sweden Swiss Switzerland Syed Farook Syrian Refugees Syriza Ta-Nehisi Coates Taiwan Tale Of Two Maps Taliban Tamerlan Tsarnaev TAS2R16 Tashfeen Malik Taste Tastiness Tatars Tatu Vanhanen Tawang Tax Cuts Tax Evasion Taxes Tea Party Team Performance Technology Ted Cruz Tell Me About You Tell The Truth Terman Terman's Termites Terroris Terrorists Tesla Testosterone Thailand The 10000 Year Explosion The Bible The Breeder's Equation The Confederacy The Dark Knight The Dark Triad The Death Penalty The Deep South The Devil Is In The Details The Dustbowl The Economist The Far West The Future The Great Plains The Great Wall The Left The Left Coast The New York Times The Pursuit Of Happyness The Rock The Saker The Son Also Rises The South The Walking Dead The Washington Post The Wide Environment The World Theodore Roosevelt Theresa May Things Going Sour Third World Thomas Aquinas Thomas Friedman Thomas Perez Thomas Sowell Thomas Talhelm Thorstein Veblen Thurgood Marshall Tibet Tidewater Tiger Mom Time Preference Timmons Title IX Tobin Tax Tom Cotton Tom Naughton Tone It Down Guys Seriously Tony Blair Torture Toxoplasma Gondii TPP Traffic Traffic Fatalities Tragedy Trans-Species Polymorphism Transgender Transgenderism Transsexuals Treasury Tropical Humans Trump Trust TTIP Tuition Tulsi Gabbard Turkheimer TWA 800 Twin Study Twins Twins Raised Apart Twintuition Twitter Two Party System UKIP Ukrainian Crisis UN Security Council Unemployment Unions United Kingdom United Nations United States Universalism University Admissions Upper Paleolithic Urban Riots Ursula Gauthier Uruguay US Blacks USS Liberty Utopian Uttar Pradesh UV Uyghurs Vaginal Yeast Valerie Plame Vassopressin Vdare Veep Venezuela Veterans Administration Victor Canfield Victor Davis Hanson Victoria Nuland Victorian England Victorianism Video Games Vietnam Vietnam War Vietnamese Vikings Violence Vioxx Virginia Visa Waivers Visual Word Form Area Vitamin D Voronezh Vote Fraud Vouchers Vwfa W.E.I.R.D. W.E.I.R.D.O. Wahhabis Wall Street Walter Bodmer Wang Jing War On Christmas War On Terror Washington Post WasPage Watergate Watsoning We Are What We Are We Don't Know All The Environmental Causes Weight Loss WEIRDO Welfare Western Europe Western European Marriage Pattern Western Media Western Religion Westerns What Can You Do What's The Cause Where They're At Where's The Fallout White America White Americans White Conservative Males White Death White Helmets White Nationalist Nuttiness White Nationalists White Privilege White Slavery White Supremacy White Wife Why We Believe Hbd Wikileaks Wild Life Wilhelm Furtwangler William Browder William Buckley William D. Hamilton William Graham Sumner William McGougall WINEP Winston Churchill Women In The Workplace Woodley Effect Woodrow Wilson WORDSUM Workers Working Class Working Memory World Values Survey World War I World War Z Writing WTO X Little Miss JayLady Xhosa Xi Jinping Xinjiang Yankeedom Yankees Yazidis Yemen Yes I Am A Brother Yes I Am Liberal - But That Kind Of Liberal Yochi Dreazen You Can't Handle The Truth You Don't Know Shit Youtube Ban Yugoslavia Zbigniew Brzezinski Zhang Yimou Zika Zika Virus Zimbabwe Zionism Zombies Zones Of Thought Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
Nothing found
All Commenters • My
Comments
• Followed
Commenters
All Comments / On "Adoption"
 All Comments / On "Adoption"
    It has long been known that children are likelier to be abused, neglected, or murdered by stepparents than by birth parents. This kind of genetic discrimination seems consistent with kin selection theory: parents are expected to care more for children who share kinship with them, as opposed to a purely legal and social relationship (Daly...
  • @Anonymous
    A bit on another topic, but regarding the overrepresentation of adoptees in the juvenile justice system, psychiatric treatment centres, do you feel that this is due to the supposed "genealogical bewilderment" theory (that adoptees are psychologically traumatized by not being raised by their birth parents) or to genetic and prenatal factors? I strongly suspect it's the second (genetic factors), but I like to know others' opinions and explanations.

    I strongly suspect genetic (and prenatal) factors are behind the overrepresentation of adoptees in the juvenile justice and psychiatric system. One other powerful argument against the “genealogical bewilderment” theory is that despite their problems, adoptees generally do better than children raised by single and/or teenage mothers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In a mixed group, women become quieter, less assertive, and more compliant. This deference is shown only to men and not to other women in the group. A related phenomenon is the sex gap in self-esteem: women tend to feel less self-esteem in all social settings. The gap begins at puberty and is greatest in...
  • @helena
    In other words, Euros could develop diaspora mentality and strong sense of identity with positive messages. The goal now can only be salvaging some sort of self-government, if not at national level, then at local level; clubs and societies with international links. And Euros can be the bigger man and accept everyone with some Euro heritage as part of the big family. Shrink and expire or grow and expand.


    Sean,
    (OT), you're keen on the homo-germ hypothesis, I think, apologies if not. I had a thought yesterday that I'd like to share -
    -do you think it is possible that homosexuality could be a side-effect of racial mixing? It's an observation that makes me wonder but, logically, I can imagine how that might work; maybe we are 'programmed' within a defined set of gender-genes that could get shaken about by racial mixing?

    No, they can go back to their roots & ethnically cleanse anyone who’s not a part of that bloodline.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu_(Asura)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] I am reminded here of Peter Frost’s On the Adaptive Value of “Aw Shucks:” […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • […] Frost recently posted on female shyness among men–more specifically, on the observation that adolescent white females appear to become very shy […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • In other words, Euros could develop diaspora mentality and strong sense of identity with positive messages. The goal now can only be salvaging some sort of self-government, if not at national level, then at local level; clubs and societies with international links. And Euros can be the bigger man and accept everyone with some Euro heritage as part of the big family. Shrink and expire or grow and expand.

    Sean,
    (OT), you’re keen on the homo-germ hypothesis, I think, apologies if not. I had a thought yesterday that I’d like to share –
    -do you think it is possible that homosexuality could be a side-effect of racial mixing? It’s an observation that makes me wonder but, logically, I can imagine how that might work; maybe we are ‘programmed’ within a defined set of gender-genes that could get shaken about by racial mixing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @singh.jatt
    No, they can go back to their roots & ethnically cleanse anyone who's not a part of that bloodline.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danu_(Asura)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @AnotherDad

    ... higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. ...
     

    Excellent comment Sean.

    I'll add--while it varies individually--i don't actually think white girls on average think black men are very attractive--visually. (I've heard several young women say just the opposite.)

    I think the attraction is precisely that black men are "selected for polygyny" and more aggressively male, have more "game".
    In an era when
    a) women are told they don't have to depend on a man, have a welfare state and bogus make work job opportunities (i.e. don't feel the need to pick a suitable provider) and
    b) white men are bad-mouthed for being male, coached to be more compliant and feminine
    this quality of aggressive maleness, of "game" is appealing to many women. And *especially* because they are propagandized that blacks are cool and sticking with their own kind is racist.

    And i think these tendencies are no doubt worse in Europe where the PC is intense and the


    "folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like"
     
    essentially missing.

    It's a disaster. White men need to stand up and let white women know what's acceptable for them to still be considered acceptable romantic\mating prospects. Otherwise white civilization is headed into the sewer. It took many thousands of years to create the white genome that is capable of producing the pleasant prosperous societies we have. It must be defended ... or those societies are gone.

    It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

    I think they’re gone already; there’s no turning back. Europeans in Europe will have to accept minority status (as they now appear in many adverts, especially mobile technology type adverts) or, they will form enclaves and, that is likely to be as unsuccessful as it has been in S Africa because, the State will not support them with ‘ethnicity grants’ the way other ‘cultures’ have been supported, and the media will villify them the way UKIP supporters are already regularly referred to as fish-heads, losers, and knuckle-draggers.

    So far, ‘defense’ has been worse than futile; more like an own-goal. Europeans have to think less Euro-like and more PR-like. The word white is a busted flush. It will always be viewed as 1860 and 1933. Euros could try clever, eye-catching advertising. Something like a T-shirt with a circle of Euro heads – yellow/turquoise, red/hazel, black/blue, white/grey, mouse/green. And catch-phrases such as, ‘we love our women’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    Yes, "looks like." It's possible for a woman to create an image of being deferential, while doing most of the real decision-making. That's how traditional European societies used to work.

    In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile.

    Fred,

    You're exaggerating in both directions. Things were not so idyllic in 1930 (I can show you articles from that period where American men complain about American women and compare them unfavorably to European women). By the same token, your present-day impressions of American women are largely based on single women, either the ones you've met or the ones your friends bitch about. In a tight marriage market, such as now exists, most single women are god-awful. I agree. The nice women are married.

    Statistically, White American women behave a lot better than do African American women or Hispanic American women. Sure, Mexican women may seem nicer, but they live in a culture where their behavior is a lot more constrained than it would be in the U.S. If you transplant them to the U.S. they will change, and they will underperform White American women on almost any indicator.

    In this kind of discussion, men blame their problems with women on feminism. I think a more relevant factor is the ratio of single men to single women on the mate market. Until the 1970s, women outnumbered men on the mate market, so there was a lot of pressure on women to be nice. Since the 1980s, that ratio has completely reversed. Single men now outnumber single women at all ages up to the mid-40s. And the ratio is even more unbalanced if we look at childless singles.

    So if you're a seller in a seller's market, you're going to milk the buyer for all he's worth, regardless of whether you're a feminist or a traditionalist. That's the way the mate market now functions, and getting rid of feminism won't change a thing.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions

    I think some people are spooked by terms like "selective pressure." Basically, if you move into a certain set of circumstances, you will have to fit in. People who fit in better will live longer and reproduce more than people who don't. If you don't like "selective pressure" let's talk about "circumstance-fittingness."

    The mate market is also influenced by geography and a tougher job market.

    Men who live in big cities have access to a favorable ratio of single women to men but struggle to make enough money to make them a viable long-term catch, hence the urban dating market contains lots of caddish guys and over-fussy, cautious or masculine women. Similarly guys at college can meet lots of women but aren’t a very appealing catch as they don’t make any money (women in their 20s now make more money than men).

    Conversely, men in rural areas may have jobs but face a serious dearth of females since most single women flock to big cities for work (either because of their career choices, or simply because they just don’t like the rural lifestyle).

    Meanwhile in surburban areas there are a lot of young working class women, but many of them are single mothers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Anonymous
    I don't believe FR is using it as an insult, and I am certainly not. I also don't use the word "Scientific" to insult people engaging in actual metaphysical inquiry. But, I might use it to critique their mixing of domains.

    A conceptual clarification is in order. My reading of the post was the function behind female deference varying around the world was related to of sexual selection of women. Calling that ‘metaphysical’ sounds negative, however Fred’s allows that black African are different, so he wasn’t saying that it was unscientific to say races vary in behaviour, merely incorrect in some detail. The science of biology is quite compatible with the idea of selection pressures producing adaptations with the purpose of finding a mate. The purpose of finding a mate exists in the system, so it is in that sense a higher level or metaphysical explanation of what is going on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don't have society's cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

    … higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. …

    Excellent comment Sean.

    I’ll add–while it varies individually–i don’t actually think white girls on average think black men are very attractive–visually. (I’ve heard several young women say just the opposite.)

    I think the attraction is precisely that black men are “selected for polygyny” and more aggressively male, have more “game”.
    In an era when
    a) women are told they don’t have to depend on a man, have a welfare state and bogus make work job opportunities (i.e. don’t feel the need to pick a suitable provider) and
    b) white men are bad-mouthed for being male, coached to be more compliant and feminine
    this quality of aggressive maleness, of “game” is appealing to many women. And *especially* because they are propagandized that blacks are cool and sticking with their own kind is racist.

    And i think these tendencies are no doubt worse in Europe where the PC is intense and the

    “folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like”

    essentially missing.

    It’s a disaster. White men need to stand up and let white women know what’s acceptable for them to still be considered acceptable romantic\mating prospects. Otherwise white civilization is headed into the sewer. It took many thousands of years to create the white genome that is capable of producing the pleasant prosperous societies we have. It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    It must be defended … or those societies are gone.

    I think they're gone already; there's no turning back. Europeans in Europe will have to accept minority status (as they now appear in many adverts, especially mobile technology type adverts) or, they will form enclaves and, that is likely to be as unsuccessful as it has been in S Africa because, the State will not support them with 'ethnicity grants' the way other 'cultures' have been supported, and the media will villify them the way UKIP supporters are already regularly referred to as fish-heads, losers, and knuckle-draggers.

    So far, 'defense' has been worse than futile; more like an own-goal. Europeans have to think less Euro-like and more PR-like. The word white is a busted flush. It will always be viewed as 1860 and 1933. Euros could try clever, eye-catching advertising. Something like a T-shirt with a circle of Euro heads - yellow/turquoise, red/hazel, black/blue, white/grey, mouse/green. And catch-phrases such as, 'we love our women'.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Yeah, as an insult.

    I don’t believe FR is using it as an insult, and I am certainly not. I also don’t use the word “Scientific” to insult people engaging in actual metaphysical inquiry. But, I might use it to critique their mixing of domains.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    A conceptual clarification is in order. My reading of the post was the function behind female deference varying around the world was related to of sexual selection of women. Calling that 'metaphysical' sounds negative, however Fred's allows that black African are different, so he wasn't saying that it was unscientific to say races vary in behaviour, merely incorrect in some detail. The science of biology is quite compatible with the idea of selection pressures producing adaptations with the purpose of finding a mate. The purpose of finding a mate exists in the system, so it is in that sense a higher level or metaphysical explanation of what is going on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @astro boy
    "Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes."
    No, it's not.
    "In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics..."
    Exactly.
    Doesn't mean sciency things aren't objectively true, but conflating the word "metaphysics" with scientific truths is an abuse of language.
    In any case, FR appears to have been using the word in the same way I do, and NOT the way you do.

    Yeah, as an insult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I don't believe FR is using it as an insult, and I am certainly not. I also don't use the word "Scientific" to insult people engaging in actual metaphysical inquiry. But, I might use it to critique their mixing of domains.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don't have society's cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

    “Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes.”
    No, it’s not.
    “In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics…”
    Exactly.
    Doesn’t mean sciency things aren’t objectively true, but conflating the word “metaphysics” with scientific truths is an abuse of language.
    In any case, FR appears to have been using the word in the same way I do, and NOT the way you do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Yeah, as an insult.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    "But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc."

    No they don't!

    At least not the desirable higher IQ females.

    Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don’t have society’s cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

    Read More
    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @astro boy
    "Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes."
    No, it's not.
    "In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics..."
    Exactly.
    Doesn't mean sciency things aren't objectively true, but conflating the word "metaphysics" with scientific truths is an abuse of language.
    In any case, FR appears to have been using the word in the same way I do, and NOT the way you do.
    , @AnotherDad

    ... higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. ...
     

    Excellent comment Sean.

    I'll add--while it varies individually--i don't actually think white girls on average think black men are very attractive--visually. (I've heard several young women say just the opposite.)

    I think the attraction is precisely that black men are "selected for polygyny" and more aggressively male, have more "game".
    In an era when
    a) women are told they don't have to depend on a man, have a welfare state and bogus make work job opportunities (i.e. don't feel the need to pick a suitable provider) and
    b) white men are bad-mouthed for being male, coached to be more compliant and feminine
    this quality of aggressive maleness, of "game" is appealing to many women. And *especially* because they are propagandized that blacks are cool and sticking with their own kind is racist.

    And i think these tendencies are no doubt worse in Europe where the PC is intense and the


    "folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like"
     
    essentially missing.

    It's a disaster. White men need to stand up and let white women know what's acceptable for them to still be considered acceptable romantic\mating prospects. Otherwise white civilization is headed into the sewer. It took many thousands of years to create the white genome that is capable of producing the pleasant prosperous societies we have. It must be defended ... or those societies are gone.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Astro boy
    Oh, now, I see. You don't know what metaphysical means.

    http://www.armandmarieleroi.com/?p=1074
    In the Eastern Aegean lies an island. It has silver olive groves, green marshes and forested hills. In the spring, migrating birds fill its skies and flowers fill its meadows. And there is a lagoon, clear and calm, that cuts the island nearly in two. Science was born on its shores.In 345 BC, Aristotle arrived on Lesbos. He was young and newly married. In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics, Aristotle began to study nature. He recorded the salaciousness of sparrows, the sexual incontinence of girls, the stomachs of snails, the sensitivity of sponges, the sounds of cicadas and the structure of the human heart. And then he explained them all. He founded the Science of Life.

    The Lagoon is the wondrous story of how one man began the greatest of all human endeavours; how, for centuries, his work was celebrated and how, in the Scientific Revolution, it was condemned so that today he is remembered as a philosopher, but forgotten as a scientist. Yet his science was beautiful and vast.

    In this luminous book, acclaimed biologist Armand Marie Leroi goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle knew and loved. He recovers Aristotle’s science and explores his inspired theories – as well as the things that he got wildly wrong. Modern science still bears Aristotle’s stamp. Even now he shows us how to discover new worlds

    For crucial part of BBC documentary with Leroi explaining Aristotle’s achievement, see here.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation).

    A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[2] Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn’s intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. [...] ]Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations. Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective[...] In contrast, teleological based “grand narratives” are eschewed by the postmodern attitude[11] and teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary and harmful to those whose stories are diminished or overlooked.[12]

    Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of one’s capacity as an independent reasoner, one’s dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre’s book After Virtue famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysical biology’, but he has cautiously moved from that book’s account of a sociological teleology toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism

    Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes. But it is not subjective or ethereal, it’s about the dirt, worms, and reproducing mammals’ genes being selected to cope with pressures that vary geographically.

    Culture can adapt people faster than genetics admittedly, maybe even better inasmuch as Mexican women are perhaps more deferential when brought up in Mexican culture. But that is perhaps an argument for people not giving up their traditional culture, which (metaphysically speaking) is there for a reason.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    Yes, "looks like." It's possible for a woman to create an image of being deferential, while doing most of the real decision-making. That's how traditional European societies used to work.

    In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile.

    Fred,

    You're exaggerating in both directions. Things were not so idyllic in 1930 (I can show you articles from that period where American men complain about American women and compare them unfavorably to European women). By the same token, your present-day impressions of American women are largely based on single women, either the ones you've met or the ones your friends bitch about. In a tight marriage market, such as now exists, most single women are god-awful. I agree. The nice women are married.

    Statistically, White American women behave a lot better than do African American women or Hispanic American women. Sure, Mexican women may seem nicer, but they live in a culture where their behavior is a lot more constrained than it would be in the U.S. If you transplant them to the U.S. they will change, and they will underperform White American women on almost any indicator.

    In this kind of discussion, men blame their problems with women on feminism. I think a more relevant factor is the ratio of single men to single women on the mate market. Until the 1970s, women outnumbered men on the mate market, so there was a lot of pressure on women to be nice. Since the 1980s, that ratio has completely reversed. Single men now outnumber single women at all ages up to the mid-40s. And the ratio is even more unbalanced if we look at childless singles.

    So if you're a seller in a seller's market, you're going to milk the buyer for all he's worth, regardless of whether you're a feminist or a traditionalist. That's the way the mate market now functions, and getting rid of feminism won't change a thing.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions

    I think some people are spooked by terms like "selective pressure." Basically, if you move into a certain set of circumstances, you will have to fit in. People who fit in better will live longer and reproduce more than people who don't. If you don't like "selective pressure" let's talk about "circumstance-fittingness."

    I’m surprised that no one has even mentioned humour. Certain kinds of humourous talk may be typical of unpretentious ladies’ (“girls’”) lunches but plenty of heterosexual matings from one night to permanent are facilitated by making the other laugh.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    The metaphysic, or bio-logic if you prefer, comes in when we say, as seems indubitable, that the purpose of a girl spending 3 hours to get ready for a night out and trying a dozen different tops on is reproduction. I don't know if European women take more care over their preparation for a night out when culture is held constant, and I'm still waiting to be told if Mexican women brought up in US culture are less deferential to men than Anglo women brought up in that same culture. Metaphysics is that which must always be true.

    Oh, now, I see. You don’t know what metaphysical means.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    http://www.armandmarieleroi.com/?p=1074
    In the Eastern Aegean lies an island. It has silver olive groves, green marshes and forested hills. In the spring, migrating birds fill its skies and flowers fill its meadows. And there is a lagoon, clear and calm, that cuts the island nearly in two. Science was born on its shores.In 345 BC, Aristotle arrived on Lesbos. He was young and newly married. In Athens, he had been taught by Plato to seek truth in the intangible realm of ideas. Rejecting his teacher’s metaphysics, Aristotle began to study nature. He recorded the salaciousness of sparrows, the sexual incontinence of girls, the stomachs of snails, the sensitivity of sponges, the sounds of cicadas and the structure of the human heart. And then he explained them all. He founded the Science of Life.

    The Lagoon is the wondrous story of how one man began the greatest of all human endeavours; how, for centuries, his work was celebrated and how, in the Scientific Revolution, it was condemned so that today he is remembered as a philosopher, but forgotten as a scientist. Yet his science was beautiful and vast.

    In this luminous book, acclaimed biologist Armand Marie Leroi goes to Lesbos to see the creatures that Aristotle knew and loved. He recovers Aristotle’s science and explores his inspired theories – as well as the things that he got wildly wrong. Modern science still bears Aristotle’s stamp. Even now he shows us how to discover new worlds

     

    For crucial part of BBC documentary with Leroi explaining Aristotle's achievement, see here.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for. It is derived from two Greek words: telos (end, goal, purpose) and logos (reason, explanation).

    A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as that of a fork, is called extrinsic.[2] Natural teleology contends that natural entities have intrinsic purposes, irrespective of human use or opinion. For instance, Aristotle claimed that an acorn's intrinsic telos is to become a fully grown oak tree. [...] ]Since the Novum Organum of Francis Bacon, teleological explanations in science tend to be deliberately avoided in favor of focus on material and efficient explanations. Final and formal causation came to be viewed as false or too subjective[...] In contrast, teleological based "grand narratives" are eschewed by the postmodern attitude[11] and teleology may be viewed as reductive, exclusionary and harmful to those whose stories are diminished or overlooked.[12]

    Against this postmodern position, Alasdair MacIntyre has argued that a narrative understanding of oneself, of one's capacity as an independent reasoner, one's dependence on others and on the social practices and traditions in which one participates, all tend towards an ultimate good of liberation. Social practices may themselves be understood as teleologically oriented to internal goods, for example practices of philosophical and scientific inquiry are teleologically ordered to the elaboration of a true understanding of their objects. MacIntyre's book After Virtue famously dismissed the naturalistic teleology of Aristotle's 'metaphysical biology', but he has cautiously moved from that book's account of a sociological teleology toward an exploration of what remains valid in a more traditional teleological naturalism
     
    Seeing purpose in women of reproductive age exhibiting deference to men is metaphysical, yes. But it is not subjective or ethereal, it's about the dirt, worms, and reproducing mammals' genes being selected to cope with pressures that vary geographically.

    Culture can adapt people faster than genetics admittedly, maybe even better inasmuch as Mexican women are perhaps more deferential when brought up in Mexican culture. But that is perhaps an argument for people not giving up their traditional culture, which (metaphysically speaking) is there for a reason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    I don´t know about the situation other countries, but in Germany also high IQ women seem prefer males of westafrican ancestry over males with other ancestry

    I highly doubt that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Wally
    "But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc."

    No they don't!

    At least not the desirable higher IQ females.

    I don´t know about the situation other countries, but in Germany also high IQ women seem prefer males of westafrican ancestry over males with other ancestry

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seck
    I highly doubt that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @astro boy
    um, no.
    I think that Fred's point that in some cases, behaviors change too rapidly to be scientifically shown to be genetic changes. Genetic metaphysicians say all change is genetic, regardless of other information, and proceed from there. In the same way that spiritual metaphysicians ascribe all causes to the unseen. Do you see the difference?
    I certainly agree that our biology effects many things.
    Also, I don't really care if it is outdated. And, it wasn't an insult, but an accurate description of the phenomenon.

    The metaphysic, or bio-logic if you prefer, comes in when we say, as seems indubitable, that the purpose of a girl spending 3 hours to get ready for a night out and trying a dozen different tops on is reproduction. I don’t know if European women take more care over their preparation for a night out when culture is held constant, and I’m still waiting to be told if Mexican women brought up in US culture are less deferential to men than Anglo women brought up in that same culture. Metaphysics is that which must always be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Astro boy
    Oh, now, I see. You don't know what metaphysical means.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    Yes, “looks like.” It’s possible for a woman to create an image of being deferential, while doing most of the real decision-making. That’s how traditional European societies used to work.

    In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile.

    Fred,

    You’re exaggerating in both directions. Things were not so idyllic in 1930 (I can show you articles from that period where American men complain about American women and compare them unfavorably to European women). By the same token, your present-day impressions of American women are largely based on single women, either the ones you’ve met or the ones your friends bitch about. In a tight marriage market, such as now exists, most single women are god-awful. I agree. The nice women are married.

    Statistically, White American women behave a lot better than do African American women or Hispanic American women. Sure, Mexican women may seem nicer, but they live in a culture where their behavior is a lot more constrained than it would be in the U.S. If you transplant them to the U.S. they will change, and they will underperform White American women on almost any indicator.

    In this kind of discussion, men blame their problems with women on feminism. I think a more relevant factor is the ratio of single men to single women on the mate market. Until the 1970s, women outnumbered men on the mate market, so there was a lot of pressure on women to be nice. Since the 1980s, that ratio has completely reversed. Single men now outnumber single women at all ages up to the mid-40s. And the ratio is even more unbalanced if we look at childless singles.

    So if you’re a seller in a seller’s market, you’re going to milk the buyer for all he’s worth, regardless of whether you’re a feminist or a traditionalist. That’s the way the mate market now functions, and getting rid of feminism won’t change a thing.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions

    I think some people are spooked by terms like “selective pressure.” Basically, if you move into a certain set of circumstances, you will have to fit in. People who fit in better will live longer and reproduce more than people who don’t. If you don’t like “selective pressure” let’s talk about “circumstance-fittingness.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'm surprised that no one has even mentioned humour. Certain kinds of humourous talk may be typical of unpretentious ladies' ("girls'") lunches but plenty of heterosexual matings from one night to permanent are facilitated by making the other laugh.
    , @unpc downunder
    The mate market is also influenced by geography and a tougher job market.

    Men who live in big cities have access to a favorable ratio of single women to men but struggle to make enough money to make them a viable long-term catch, hence the urban dating market contains lots of caddish guys and over-fussy, cautious or masculine women. Similarly guys at college can meet lots of women but aren't a very appealing catch as they don't make any money (women in their 20s now make more money than men).

    Conversely, men in rural areas may have jobs but face a serious dearth of females since most single women flock to big cities for work (either because of their career choices, or simply because they just don't like the rural lifestyle).

    Meanwhile in surburban areas there are a lot of young working class women, but many of them are single mothers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If deference to males in European women is due to something hereditary, the extremely equalitarian modern culture’s failure to produce a generation of forthright women will be seem as evidence of a male chauvinist pig miasma/glass ceiling that is repressing European women.

    But the non European women brought up in Western permissive culture will not have the same genetic tendency to deference, and feminists will be entranced by more women ‘like Somali born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Iraqi born Swedish politician Esabelle Dingizian, british MP ‘Naz’ Shah, or the half Iranian German politician Sahra Wagenknecht. Confident women like these and Nina Burleigh (half Iraqi) will become extremely prominent in public life in the future.

    The failure of young European women to behave as the intelligentsia think they should will create the impression among HBD sceptics that there is a deadening white male influence damaging girls’ self esteem. We will see much more of groups like the Swedish feminists party, which did well in recent elections;-

    http://feministisktinitiativ.se/eu-valsplattformen/the-tide-is-high-replace-the-racists-with-feminists/

    The elections to the European Parliament need to be seen in light of the mobilization of parties with racist, nazi and fascist ideologies around Europe. Several of those parties are already represented in the European Parliament and there is a significant risk that this group will continue to grow. More action is needed to counter structural discrimination. If this does not happen, racist and conservative forces will gain more ground. We need to raise the level of ambition in the struggle for democracy and human rights for all. Feminist parties are forming across Europe and our long-term goal is to work together for the establishment of a feminist political group.

    Feministiskt Initiativ is contesting the EP elections as an alternative for everyone who wants to see a different political trajectory. Our political platform is built on equality, human rights and freedom from all forms of discrimination. We want to reallocate resources by investing in welfare, sustainability, accessibility and human security.

    We challenge the image of Sweden and Europe as the paradise of gender equality. This is a false image that diminishes the existing problems and stands in the way of genuine change. It is an image that is used by nationalists wanting to portray women’s oppression as a foreign problem that originates in other parts of the world. Women’s rights are thus hijacked in racist rhetoric that aims to close borders. At the same time, nationalist and racist parties are the ones peddling the most misogynistic policies. Culture is in focus for these parties, described as something that is nationally homogenous, and is used to construct boundaries between people. [...]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    You think we are autonomous moral agents, and our biological nature as mammals does does not affect our purposeful behavior? 'Doing metaphysics' is in any case a very outdated insult .

    um, no.
    I think that Fred’s point that in some cases, behaviors change too rapidly to be scientifically shown to be genetic changes. Genetic metaphysicians say all change is genetic, regardless of other information, and proceed from there. In the same way that spiritual metaphysicians ascribe all causes to the unseen. Do you see the difference?
    I certainly agree that our biology effects many things.
    Also, I don’t really care if it is outdated. And, it wasn’t an insult, but an accurate description of the phenomenon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The metaphysic, or bio-logic if you prefer, comes in when we say, as seems indubitable, that the purpose of a girl spending 3 hours to get ready for a night out and trying a dozen different tops on is reproduction. I don't know if European women take more care over their preparation for a night out when culture is held constant, and I'm still waiting to be told if Mexican women brought up in US culture are less deferential to men than Anglo women brought up in that same culture. Metaphysics is that which must always be true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fred Reed
    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    When they have the same upbringing you can tell if it was the culture. US Blacks seem to behave not a little differently in modern permissive culture than they did 80 years ago. The Chinese in the US do too well for their behaviour to be anything but substantially hard-wired. The model minority is losing patience.

    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    If they are genetically no more argumentative with men than Anglo women, Mexican women when brought up in the US would no more or less deferential to men . Is that true, or are ethnic Mexican women brought up in US culture more argumentative than Anglo women? If Mexican women brought up in the US are more argumentative around men than Anglo women then it is probably innate to Latinas to be non-deferential to men. The culture in Mexico could school them to be other than they are naturally.

    I have read there is a downward assimilation trend among Mexican immigrants to the US on a variety of indices, which become increasingly worse with succeeding generations brought up in US culture. That rather suggests that Mexican traditional culture is required to do what is it is not necessary for US culture to do because the adaptive behaviour is hard wired in Anglos In Africa the culture is surely the opposite to the genetic tendency, Nigerian culture is for great deference from wives.

    I don’t think it is true that the mass of women were in fear of being without a man, working women didn’t, they were in a variety of jobs such as servants. Women can’t always get another man but leaving wives was once not socially accepted. The case in which women were constrained to be deferential was the world of Jane Austen. Her novels portray the quandary of women who to remain in their leisured class must marry a wealthy man. Austen’s popularity may have been that the stories feature the world the readers wanted to live in; one where ladies who are impertinent and scoff at suitors pretensions (Elizabeth Bennet) or turn down a marriage proposal from a wealthy suitor (Fanny Price), yet end up with a catch anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It might be useful to see if beauty/sex appeal factors into this. Most girls are not great beauties and this might affect their ‘self esteem’ as much as anything else. OTOH a very attractive 16 year old girl knows she is desirable and has no need to be assertive, she has to fight off the attention of males.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    There seems to be a kind of paradox here.

    What seems like lack of self-esteem is really driven by self-esteem.
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    It's like how a cat acts. It acts so weak, mews, makes baby-like sounds, purrs, and etc. It seems lacking in self-esteem as it acts so gentle before the master, but it is actually working on the master's emotions to be the center of attention and affection. It is partly an act, even if unwitting on the cat's part. The cat is saying, 'drop everything and show me all the love in the world, make me the center of your affection.'

    When women are young, they are sort of nervous and unsure cuz they're just coming into maturity.
    But they are also feeling very narcissistic. Every young woman wants to be seen and admired as 'hot stuff'. Her self-esteem is tied to how much men admire her. And she knows or intuitively senses that men are attracted to women who are feminine, who have the soft touch, and etc. Some men may prefer more exciting women, but even they have to have some feminine touch.
    So, even though it may look like deference on the outside, it is a kind of trick to make the men feel their share of deference to her by alluring them to her looks and feminine guile.
    Paradoxically, a woman gains power over a man by making herself come across as powerless and damsel-like. By acting soft, she makes herself to appealing to him, and the guy becomes smitten with her gentle feminine qualities. He comes under her spell.

    Consider TWILIGHT. You see how Bella acts so nervous and helpless before Edward. She confesses that her life is in his hands. He can kill her and devour her or he can protect her and love her. And her soft touch totally drives him nuts and makes him love her even more. If she acted like a crazy biatch, he might have been turned off. So, her powerless act actually made her gain power over him. He feels it is his duty to protect her from everything.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nixgj_W5dEU

    And consider all the femme fatales in Film Noirs. They pretend to be helpless, but in doing so, they lure the men into their web.
    Now, in the case of Rachel in BLADE RUNNER, she wasn't putting on an act. She wasn't trying to pull some mind-trick on Deckard. But her soft-helpless-damsel act did have power over him, and he became willing to go to the end of the world to save her.
    In contrast, Deckard was just happy to blow away the other two replicant women who were just out to kick his arse. And it's not just about practicality of security and protection. The woman's self-esteem comes from the kind of man she can catch in her web. Women wanna be seen with the best kind of man.

    Women are vain. And their sexual nature is to be gotten than to get. Even when they get, they wanna feel gotten.
    Suppose there's a rich powerful woman who can attract lots of men. Would that be enough? No. If she feels that SHE got herself a man, it won't be as satisfying as feeling that HE got her. She wants to feel hunted and conquered by the man than the other way around.

    Take THE FOUNTAINHEAD the movie. Dominique Francon(Patricia Neal) has the riches and the looks. She can get any man. But she feels no satisfaction with any of them. She wants to feel gotten by a man who is beyond her power to get. She wants to be won, conquered, and owned by a god-man. And that is why she gets all woozy over Howard Roark.

    https://youtu.be/3UiPwI1ieyM?t=1m6s

    Imagine a young woman in a room with some guy named Howard Roark and Coward Dork. Suppose Howard is tall, strong, dynamic, and assertive, whereas Coward is short, nebbish, shy, and timid.
    When the young woman is with Howard, she feels woozy and helpless. When she's with Coward, she feels confident and in-control.
    Now, which company will she prefer? To be in the company of alpha Howard(who makes her feel powerless and weak in the knees) or beta Coward(who makes her feel powerful and steely in her spine)?
    If we could separate her being from her sexuality, she might prefer Coward cuz she would have control over him. But a woman cannot deny her sexual nature, and a woman's sexual nature is to be attracted to a man of power greater than hers.

    So, is this lack of self-esteem and deference on her part? In a way, but it is also a path to a uniquely female self-esteem and confidence/mastery. Female sexual self-esteem is bound to being attractive to the top dog. She feels proud to belong to a Real Man. Also, she feels confidence in having woven a web around him and making him belong to her and her alone. She feels special in having conquered the eyeballs and other balls of the superior man.

    Male nature being what it is, a man's ultimate happiness comes from being on top. He is the king, the lord.
    Consider the ending of THE FOUNTAINHEAD with the skyscraper. d
    Much earlier when Howard and Dominique first met, it was the archetypal mythic image of the hero looking up at the goddess-figure. He is below, she is above. He is a lowly laborer albeit with big dreams. She is a daughter of a rich man and has all kinds of privileges. She lives the dream life.

    But he wants to be master of the world, and her real desire is to be conquered and belong to the master of the world.
    At the end, Howard the hero triumphs and he's building the tallest skyscraper in the world and he, the great mortal, is standing on top... and the goddess ascends to him from below. (The most rapturous moment in cinema?)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swOxKu80JpU

    So, alpha male is to rule over all, and alpha female is to belong to the man who rules over all. In a way, it is deference on the part of the woman, but it is also a female kind of dominance because she has lured and ensnared the heart of the bestest man. He rules her and owns her body, but she owns his heart and soul.

    Consider what little Mary does to little George in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
    In a way, Mary seems to lack self-esteem and defer to George.
    And she is smitten with him. But then, the other side of her self-esteem is all about her indomitable will-power to win his heart and keep him for herself.
    In her case, she doesn't care if George become rich and powerful. There is something about him that appeals to her more than any other man does. Sam Wainwright is fated to become richer and more privileged, but Mary wants to be with George because he's a natural leader. She senses he is naturally superior and only got stuck in Bedford Falls due to circumstances. Even with nothing, he is more of a man than a man with all the riches in the world.

    It was the same way with Dominique Francon with Howard Roark in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. When they first met, he didn't have diddly squat. He was a nothing and a nobody. But she could sense a quality in him: good looks, manliness, and a searing intelligence. In contrast, many rich men she knew in life didn't interest her. They had economic power or were on the career path but lacked the stuff of magic, the combination of looks, charisma, personality.
    Dominique senses his natural greatness so much that she is willing to give up all her privilege and live a modest life with him just to be by his greatness that just beams from his presence:
    https://youtu.be/vC5yxqKedTk?t=3m7s

    The scene when little Mary whispers into George's ear is kinda cute but in a way a kind of darkly beautiful scene. On the surface, it's must a girl making a puppy love wish, but as we later find out, her love for George from the start was very deep and real, not just some cutesy childish fancy.
    And even though George doesn't hear what she said -- he's deaf in one ear --, it's as if his soul spiritually heard her cuz his life becomes entwined with hers. And the wish was both a blessing and a curse cuz he finds true meaning through her but also becomes stuck to family life and obligations that prevent him from becoming someone like Howard Roark who conquers the world.
    https://youtu.be/yH_dUxEhqK8?t=28s

    (Of course, if Ayn Rand was whispering to him, she would have spoken into the ear that could hear and told him to drop everything and go do his great stuff and hell with altruism for people of the small town. Hers was a radicalized form of Americanism where individual ambition is all that matters.)
    George and Mary meet up later when older and they again make a wish by throwing stones at a old abandoned house. Again, her wish remains deaf to him, but we know what it is. She wants George to be with her even if it means his big dreams won't come true. In one way, she seems to be deferring to George all throughout the movie, but she really wants him and her self-esteem is bound to winning him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAERYfeiYBc

    Anyway, after little Mary whispers "I'll love you til the day I day", George says he's gonna grow up to have a couple of harems and two or three wives.
    He's an alpha male alright. He has the qualities that could have lots of girls and have lots of fun.
    And that is what attracts her about him, except she wants to have him all for herself.
    So, a woman wants a man who could have all the women in the world just for herself.
    And to win that man, she has to show some degree of feminine deference to hook his heart.

    Deference is different from timidity and mousiness that don't appeal to a man. Deference is a kind of emotional game where you seem to show respect and admiration to get/win something in return. It's like Michael Corleone defers to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER II to gain something. Deference could mean simple-minded obedience, but it could also be strategic. You defer to someone to get something from him. It's a way of buttering up the person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmxluz27Q-4

    A mousy woman hides in her own space. A 'deferent' woman may be using her wiles, smiles, and guiles to lure a man of power whom she desires. It is a way of catching him by having him catch her.
    Some people use the soft approach merely to accept the inferior status. But others use the soft approach to ease into possession of the object of their fascination/desire.
    A dog defers to the master in its happiness to be inferior. But a cat plays soft with the master to gain mastery over him/her. A cat, after all, always has its own agenda.

    So, we need to distinguish between dog-women who defer in happy acceptance of inferiority and cat-women who play at deference in sneaky attention of what they really want. And if a top man conquers her and owns her, she owns him too cuz he's now smitten with her.

    Socially, she may be junior partner, a princess to the prince, but they are together aristocrats way above all the peasants and peons, male and female.
    A queen is lower than a king, but she is above everyone else.

    Also, given female nature, her true happiness comes from finding the man who can conquer and possess her. Consider Brunnhilde. She was one badass Valkyrie and sad to lose her power, but she finds the greatest happiness when she is saved/conquered by Siegfried. She belongs to him, but he also belongs to her because feminine power over a man is something that defies the usual game of power. Male power is usually about "I kicked his ass" and "I sacked everything real good." And of course, beaskly men can find pleasure in rape and plunder.
    But when a man falls for a woman of special beauty and charm, he feels himself in the presence of a power that defies the usual dynamics. Siegfried the fearless -- he didn't even fear a giant dragon -- feels fear for the first time when he meets Brunnhilde. He feels emotions that are more than about arggghh.
    Or consider EXCALIBUR. Initially, Uther is all about kicking butt and raping.
    But the fool really falls in love with Igraine and feels something he'd never felt before when he sees her with his baby. She and the kid have a power over him that makes him want to be more than a brute.

    Ideally, a woman wants a man who has it all: looks, brains, strength, ability, personality, charisma, integrity, values. But as it turns out, most men have some prized traits while having little or none of the other. A woman may feel dreamy for the guy with the looks, feel piqued by the guy with brains, feel hot with the guy with muscle, feel alive with the guy with personality. She is drawn to something about them all and may use her deferential strategy to get something out of them.

    This, I must say, is one of the best comments from Priss.

    What I’d like to add on is, in real life, in mating game, one of the traits women look for is “social status”. It is either they want (1) a finished product or (2) a product that will become the product of the year in their mating market.

    No women will stoop down to a guy with a lower socio-economic status. They will flock if those guys from lower strata become Alpha during their mating time. But they will not actively look out for a guy from lower strata with potential to become their future wives. That’s nature.

    We can remove the “socio-economic status” if they’re looking for one night hookup. There are tons of movies with women from higher strata picking guys from lower strata solely due to their “Manliness” and “Alpha” behavior in all other countries, not only in Hollywood. Those movies cater to the needs of men in local populations to aim higher in their lives and they can achieve gorgeous, ultra high, fine ladies in their lives.

    As time moves on, and socio-economic status changes over time, the landscape of movies story also changes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Erik Sieven
    yes, western white women are very powerful today, due to the welfare state, female (pseudo) work participation etc. But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.

    “But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.”

    No they don’t!

    At least not the desirable higher IQ females.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    I don´t know about the situation other countries, but in Germany also high IQ women seem prefer males of westafrican ancestry over males with other ancestry
    , @Sean
    Sub Saharan Africans are not physically unattractive to white women, if you control for IQ. Black are more extroverted and I think the evidence is quite clear on that. Re the type of girls in countries like Germany who go for blacks, I think you are forgetting that the higher IQ girls internalise their cultural environment, and it tells them that blacks are just men with a different coloured skin rather than men selected for polygyny, in which the ability to attract women is vital but a proclivity for forming lasting emotional attachment to a particular woman is maladaptive. Euro girls think blacks as boyfriends are going to be a lot more clingy that they actually turn out to be.

    In countries like Germany brighter girls get more anti-racist education and take it more seriously. Basically, the high quality girls in European society are more indoctrinated to be open to a black male as a sexual partner. Education is a form of indoctrination and in countries where the the most educated young women don't have society's cautious attitude to blacks to acquire a folk wisdom understanding of what blacks are like, the girls only find out through the bitter experience of being used and dumped.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @astro boy
    Fred,
    I greatly appreciate your willingness to call foul when these HBD arguments do get a metaphysical quality to them. I do think they are on to something, but they need to learn to stop arguing like it is metaphysic.

    You think we are autonomous moral agents, and our biological nature as mammals does does not affect our purposeful behavior? ‘Doing metaphysics’ is in any case a very outdated insult .

    Read More
    • Replies: @astro boy
    um, no.
    I think that Fred's point that in some cases, behaviors change too rapidly to be scientifically shown to be genetic changes. Genetic metaphysicians say all change is genetic, regardless of other information, and proceed from there. In the same way that spiritual metaphysicians ascribe all causes to the unseen. Do you see the difference?
    I certainly agree that our biology effects many things.
    Also, I don't really care if it is outdated. And, it wasn't an insult, but an accurate description of the phenomenon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Cold weather requires cooperation – cooperation develops the division of labor and intellectual specialization – smart males thrive in that environment. That in a nutshell, is the story of Western culture.

    Black males living in the tropics had a different success selection modal – theirs was a cultural environment of physical and verbal confrontation, with far less family responsibilities – thus giving woman more cultural power. This is the problem with blacks in America – they are still operating and living as a tropical society in a cold culture. To gain success, they have to adapt.

    Environment dictates culture – which in turn pushes biological selection.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fred Reed
    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    “a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science”

    To be fair supposedly hard sciences like physics fall into metaphysics all the time. How else to explain the nonsense that is string theory and the mess particle physics has become. (The “God particle”? Seriously?) I don’t know what kind of science we should be sticking to, anyway. Evolutionary biology is harder than economics, surely, but not all that hard. Certainly internet discussions of it don’t stay on some lofty plain high above the dregs of economics.

    The subject seems to me to stray into various fields on its own, for instance sociology, history, politics, etc. What would constitute an un-metaphysical discussion? I have no idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fred Reed
    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    “It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. ”

    Everything is interpretation. When I first looked at haplogroups, the transition from African to Asian stood out to me. But then when I started reading gene-blogs it became apparent that that interpretation was false. But what exactly did happen between C and F? And between L and M. And why did it happen somewhere on the coast of South Asia, before going inland? And why are Europeans and others called Cauc-Asians?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fred Reed
    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    female deference can be seen all over the animal kingdom…. female mammals are mounted…and thus submissiveness is often required.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Fred Reed
    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    Fred,
    I greatly appreciate your willingness to call foul when these HBD arguments do get a metaphysical quality to them. I do think they are on to something, but they need to learn to stop arguing like it is metaphysic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    You think we are autonomous moral agents, and our biological nature as mammals does does not affect our purposeful behavior? 'Doing metaphysics' is in any case a very outdated insult .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.

    The apparent impossibility of measuring selective pressure and correlating it with results, f = ma, and the tendency to attribute traits to genes whose existence is inferred from the traits, lends a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science.

    It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @astro boy
    Fred,
    I greatly appreciate your willingness to call foul when these HBD arguments do get a metaphysical quality to them. I do think they are on to something, but they need to learn to stop arguing like it is metaphysic.
    , @Leftist conservative
    female deference can be seen all over the animal kingdom.... female mammals are mounted...and thus submissiveness is often required.
    , @helena
    "It seems to me, as one who has lived widely abroad, that there are in a sense only two races, blacks and everybody else. "

    Everything is interpretation. When I first looked at haplogroups, the transition from African to Asian stood out to me. But then when I started reading gene-blogs it became apparent that that interpretation was false. But what exactly did happen between C and F? And between L and M. And why did it happen somewhere on the coast of South Asia, before going inland? And why are Europeans and others called Cauc-Asians?
    , @guest
    "a metaphysical quality to these discussions, which resemble debates between economists more than science"

    To be fair supposedly hard sciences like physics fall into metaphysics all the time. How else to explain the nonsense that is string theory and the mess particle physics has become. (The "God particle"? Seriously?) I don't know what kind of science we should be sticking to, anyway. Evolutionary biology is harder than economics, surely, but not all that hard. Certainly internet discussions of it don't stay on some lofty plain high above the dregs of economics.

    The subject seems to me to stray into various fields on its own, for instance sociology, history, politics, etc. What would constitute an un-metaphysical discussion? I have no idea.

    , @Sean

    I don’t know how I would prove it, and yet to my admittedly superficial gaze blacks do not seem to behave like other peoples of the same latitudes.
     
    When they have the same upbringing you can tell if it was the culture. US Blacks seem to behave not a little differently in modern permissive culture than they did 80 years ago. The Chinese in the US do too well for their behaviour to be anything but substantially hard-wired. The model minority is losing patience.

    To this lay observer, deference seems proportional to dependence, and changes too rapidly to be genetic. In 1930, women in America needed a husband to live decently, so they were deferential and agreeable, this being a large part of femininity. Now they can live without men and do not fear their strength, so they are more combative and hostile. Thus feminism. Thus the strong tendency of American men to complain of the lack of feminine women in the US and their attraction to Thais, Mexicans, Viets, and other women of the tropical world where deference is the norm. That is, the north-south cline seems to be deference to the south, lack of it to the north.
     
    If they are genetically no more argumentative with men than Anglo women, Mexican women when brought up in the US would no more or less deferential to men . Is that true, or are ethnic Mexican women brought up in US culture more argumentative than Anglo women? If Mexican women brought up in the US are more argumentative around men than Anglo women then it is probably innate to Latinas to be non-deferential to men. The culture in Mexico could school them to be other than they are naturally.

    I have read there is a downward assimilation trend among Mexican immigrants to the US on a variety of indices, which become increasingly worse with succeeding generations brought up in US culture. That rather suggests that Mexican traditional culture is required to do what is it is not necessary for US culture to do because the adaptive behaviour is hard wired in Anglos In Africa the culture is surely the opposite to the genetic tendency, Nigerian culture is for great deference from wives.

    I don't think it is true that the mass of women were in fear of being without a man, working women didn't, they were in a variety of jobs such as servants. Women can't always get another man but leaving wives was once not socially accepted. The case in which women were constrained to be deferential was the world of Jane Austen. Her novels portray the quandary of women who to remain in their leisured class must marry a wealthy man. Austen's popularity may have been that the stories feature the world the readers wanted to live in; one where ladies who are impertinent and scoff at suitors pretensions (Elizabeth Bennet) or turn down a marriage proposal from a wealthy suitor (Fanny Price), yet end up with a catch anyway.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I’ve always suspected that the decline of female self-esteem in adsolescence could at least in part be explained by the sex differences in physical development during that period. Children revel in physical play and interaction. Suddeenly in adolescence the boys become bigger and much stronger and more agile. Meanwhile girls put on fat instead of muscle, develop floppy breasts, big hips and asses, and even more pronounced knockknees than in childhood. The boys they once beat up have suddenly become capable of turning them into involuntary sex objects. To top it all off they’re suddeenly constrained by hormonal fluctuations that for many make one week every month or so a living hell. The same hormones turn female society of competitors for male favor just as boys are forming the kind of male-bonding groups that persist through adulthood. No wonder girls become depressed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Leftist conservative [AKA "radical_centrist"] says: • Website

    female deference is an obstacle to growing the supply of workers in america.

    Big Business wants women to compete against men in the labor supply. That lowers wages and increases the sales of consumer goods.

    But women need to be psychologically prepped and programmed to be assertive.

    That is why the media, hollywood, govt, academia etc all push feminism.

    Feminism is a tool of Capital to increase the supply of labor, thus depressing wages, increasing sales and increasing corporate profits.

    You feed feminism into the minds of young white men and women in school, and after a few years of that, the natural and instinctive female deference has been psychologically overcome, and both young men and young women seek women as fit and proper to compete against males in the workplace.

    Biology has thus been overcome in the name of increased corporate profits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “But other work has noted that Black girls maintain their self-esteem and their classroom “voice” into adolescence despite the fact that they may feel neglected in education”
    his quote from the Morris paper from 2007 shows a typical phenomena for modern social sciences. Formal institutions get overrated regarding their importance while informal institutions get neglected.
    In the quote it is implied that educational success in terms of grades etc. could have a big impact on the self esteem of youths.
    Meanwhile in reality I would say out of the total experience of “school” for youths grades are jut one minor factor. More important is the experience of physical differences, especially physical strength differences, aggression and surrender in everyday social interactions., even the olfactory experience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Lion of the Judah-sphere
    Modern white Western women are becoming more masculine and more African-like. The high Openness whites of Western Europe have taken Feminism further than any other culture, and the women have adopted positions of power moreso in this society than any other. In many ways, high Openness whites enjoy adopting the lifestyle patterns of pre-civilized people, for whatever reason. On the flip side, Asian women remain (relatively) demure and deferential.

    yes, western white women are very powerful today, due to the welfare state, female (pseudo) work participation etc. But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc."

    No they don't!

    At least not the desirable higher IQ females.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Women are more manipulative. Perhaps their regardful behavior is an opening ploy for manipulation.

    I certainly don’t take interest in bossy women.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Modern white Western women are becoming more masculine and more African-like. The high Openness whites of Western Europe have taken Feminism further than any other culture, and the women have adopted positions of power moreso in this society than any other. In many ways, high Openness whites enjoy adopting the lifestyle patterns of pre-civilized people, for whatever reason. On the flip side, Asian women remain (relatively) demure and deferential.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erik Sieven
    yes, western white women are very powerful today, due to the welfare state, female (pseudo) work participation etc. But in the end they use this power and freedom to arrange a situation in which they pair with subsaharan African or muslim males, thus they put themselves back into an situation where the show deference etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Priss Factor
    There seems to be a kind of paradox here.

    What seems like lack of self-esteem is really driven by self-esteem.
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    It's like how a cat acts. It acts so weak, mews, makes baby-like sounds, purrs, and etc. It seems lacking in self-esteem as it acts so gentle before the master, but it is actually working on the master's emotions to be the center of attention and affection. It is partly an act, even if unwitting on the cat's part. The cat is saying, 'drop everything and show me all the love in the world, make me the center of your affection.'

    When women are young, they are sort of nervous and unsure cuz they're just coming into maturity.
    But they are also feeling very narcissistic. Every young woman wants to be seen and admired as 'hot stuff'. Her self-esteem is tied to how much men admire her. And she knows or intuitively senses that men are attracted to women who are feminine, who have the soft touch, and etc. Some men may prefer more exciting women, but even they have to have some feminine touch.
    So, even though it may look like deference on the outside, it is a kind of trick to make the men feel their share of deference to her by alluring them to her looks and feminine guile.
    Paradoxically, a woman gains power over a man by making herself come across as powerless and damsel-like. By acting soft, she makes herself to appealing to him, and the guy becomes smitten with her gentle feminine qualities. He comes under her spell.

    Consider TWILIGHT. You see how Bella acts so nervous and helpless before Edward. She confesses that her life is in his hands. He can kill her and devour her or he can protect her and love her. And her soft touch totally drives him nuts and makes him love her even more. If she acted like a crazy biatch, he might have been turned off. So, her powerless act actually made her gain power over him. He feels it is his duty to protect her from everything.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nixgj_W5dEU

    And consider all the femme fatales in Film Noirs. They pretend to be helpless, but in doing so, they lure the men into their web.
    Now, in the case of Rachel in BLADE RUNNER, she wasn't putting on an act. She wasn't trying to pull some mind-trick on Deckard. But her soft-helpless-damsel act did have power over him, and he became willing to go to the end of the world to save her.
    In contrast, Deckard was just happy to blow away the other two replicant women who were just out to kick his arse. And it's not just about practicality of security and protection. The woman's self-esteem comes from the kind of man she can catch in her web. Women wanna be seen with the best kind of man.

    Women are vain. And their sexual nature is to be gotten than to get. Even when they get, they wanna feel gotten.
    Suppose there's a rich powerful woman who can attract lots of men. Would that be enough? No. If she feels that SHE got herself a man, it won't be as satisfying as feeling that HE got her. She wants to feel hunted and conquered by the man than the other way around.

    Take THE FOUNTAINHEAD the movie. Dominique Francon(Patricia Neal) has the riches and the looks. She can get any man. But she feels no satisfaction with any of them. She wants to feel gotten by a man who is beyond her power to get. She wants to be won, conquered, and owned by a god-man. And that is why she gets all woozy over Howard Roark.

    https://youtu.be/3UiPwI1ieyM?t=1m6s

    Imagine a young woman in a room with some guy named Howard Roark and Coward Dork. Suppose Howard is tall, strong, dynamic, and assertive, whereas Coward is short, nebbish, shy, and timid.
    When the young woman is with Howard, she feels woozy and helpless. When she's with Coward, she feels confident and in-control.
    Now, which company will she prefer? To be in the company of alpha Howard(who makes her feel powerless and weak in the knees) or beta Coward(who makes her feel powerful and steely in her spine)?
    If we could separate her being from her sexuality, she might prefer Coward cuz she would have control over him. But a woman cannot deny her sexual nature, and a woman's sexual nature is to be attracted to a man of power greater than hers.

    So, is this lack of self-esteem and deference on her part? In a way, but it is also a path to a uniquely female self-esteem and confidence/mastery. Female sexual self-esteem is bound to being attractive to the top dog. She feels proud to belong to a Real Man. Also, she feels confidence in having woven a web around him and making him belong to her and her alone. She feels special in having conquered the eyeballs and other balls of the superior man.

    Male nature being what it is, a man's ultimate happiness comes from being on top. He is the king, the lord.
    Consider the ending of THE FOUNTAINHEAD with the skyscraper. d
    Much earlier when Howard and Dominique first met, it was the archetypal mythic image of the hero looking up at the goddess-figure. He is below, she is above. He is a lowly laborer albeit with big dreams. She is a daughter of a rich man and has all kinds of privileges. She lives the dream life.

    But he wants to be master of the world, and her real desire is to be conquered and belong to the master of the world.
    At the end, Howard the hero triumphs and he's building the tallest skyscraper in the world and he, the great mortal, is standing on top... and the goddess ascends to him from below. (The most rapturous moment in cinema?)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swOxKu80JpU

    So, alpha male is to rule over all, and alpha female is to belong to the man who rules over all. In a way, it is deference on the part of the woman, but it is also a female kind of dominance because she has lured and ensnared the heart of the bestest man. He rules her and owns her body, but she owns his heart and soul.

    Consider what little Mary does to little George in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
    In a way, Mary seems to lack self-esteem and defer to George.
    And she is smitten with him. But then, the other side of her self-esteem is all about her indomitable will-power to win his heart and keep him for herself.
    In her case, she doesn't care if George become rich and powerful. There is something about him that appeals to her more than any other man does. Sam Wainwright is fated to become richer and more privileged, but Mary wants to be with George because he's a natural leader. She senses he is naturally superior and only got stuck in Bedford Falls due to circumstances. Even with nothing, he is more of a man than a man with all the riches in the world.

    It was the same way with Dominique Francon with Howard Roark in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. When they first met, he didn't have diddly squat. He was a nothing and a nobody. But she could sense a quality in him: good looks, manliness, and a searing intelligence. In contrast, many rich men she knew in life didn't interest her. They had economic power or were on the career path but lacked the stuff of magic, the combination of looks, charisma, personality.
    Dominique senses his natural greatness so much that she is willing to give up all her privilege and live a modest life with him just to be by his greatness that just beams from his presence:
    https://youtu.be/vC5yxqKedTk?t=3m7s

    The scene when little Mary whispers into George's ear is kinda cute but in a way a kind of darkly beautiful scene. On the surface, it's must a girl making a puppy love wish, but as we later find out, her love for George from the start was very deep and real, not just some cutesy childish fancy.
    And even though George doesn't hear what she said -- he's deaf in one ear --, it's as if his soul spiritually heard her cuz his life becomes entwined with hers. And the wish was both a blessing and a curse cuz he finds true meaning through her but also becomes stuck to family life and obligations that prevent him from becoming someone like Howard Roark who conquers the world.
    https://youtu.be/yH_dUxEhqK8?t=28s

    (Of course, if Ayn Rand was whispering to him, she would have spoken into the ear that could hear and told him to drop everything and go do his great stuff and hell with altruism for people of the small town. Hers was a radicalized form of Americanism where individual ambition is all that matters.)
    George and Mary meet up later when older and they again make a wish by throwing stones at a old abandoned house. Again, her wish remains deaf to him, but we know what it is. She wants George to be with her even if it means his big dreams won't come true. In one way, she seems to be deferring to George all throughout the movie, but she really wants him and her self-esteem is bound to winning him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAERYfeiYBc

    Anyway, after little Mary whispers "I'll love you til the day I day", George says he's gonna grow up to have a couple of harems and two or three wives.
    He's an alpha male alright. He has the qualities that could have lots of girls and have lots of fun.
    And that is what attracts her about him, except she wants to have him all for herself.
    So, a woman wants a man who could have all the women in the world just for herself.
    And to win that man, she has to show some degree of feminine deference to hook his heart.

    Deference is different from timidity and mousiness that don't appeal to a man. Deference is a kind of emotional game where you seem to show respect and admiration to get/win something in return. It's like Michael Corleone defers to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER II to gain something. Deference could mean simple-minded obedience, but it could also be strategic. You defer to someone to get something from him. It's a way of buttering up the person.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmxluz27Q-4

    A mousy woman hides in her own space. A 'deferent' woman may be using her wiles, smiles, and guiles to lure a man of power whom she desires. It is a way of catching him by having him catch her.
    Some people use the soft approach merely to accept the inferior status. But others use the soft approach to ease into possession of the object of their fascination/desire.
    A dog defers to the master in its happiness to be inferior. But a cat plays soft with the master to gain mastery over him/her. A cat, after all, always has its own agenda.

    So, we need to distinguish between dog-women who defer in happy acceptance of inferiority and cat-women who play at deference in sneaky attention of what they really want. And if a top man conquers her and owns her, she owns him too cuz he's now smitten with her.

    Socially, she may be junior partner, a princess to the prince, but they are together aristocrats way above all the peasants and peons, male and female.
    A queen is lower than a king, but she is above everyone else.

    Also, given female nature, her true happiness comes from finding the man who can conquer and possess her. Consider Brunnhilde. She was one badass Valkyrie and sad to lose her power, but she finds the greatest happiness when she is saved/conquered by Siegfried. She belongs to him, but he also belongs to her because feminine power over a man is something that defies the usual game of power. Male power is usually about "I kicked his ass" and "I sacked everything real good." And of course, beaskly men can find pleasure in rape and plunder.
    But when a man falls for a woman of special beauty and charm, he feels himself in the presence of a power that defies the usual dynamics. Siegfried the fearless -- he didn't even fear a giant dragon -- feels fear for the first time when he meets Brunnhilde. He feels emotions that are more than about arggghh.
    Or consider EXCALIBUR. Initially, Uther is all about kicking butt and raping.
    But the fool really falls in love with Igraine and feels something he'd never felt before when he sees her with his baby. She and the kid have a power over him that makes him want to be more than a brute.

    Ideally, a woman wants a man who has it all: looks, brains, strength, ability, personality, charisma, integrity, values. But as it turns out, most men have some prized traits while having little or none of the other. A woman may feel dreamy for the guy with the looks, feel piqued by the guy with brains, feel hot with the guy with muscle, feel alive with the guy with personality. She is drawn to something about them all and may use her deferential strategy to get something out of them.

    Great comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The decline of cities like Detroit, Memphis and Birmingham as their populations have become majority African-American has often been ascribed to differences between African and Caucasian IQs and to differences in frequencies of MAOA alleles. Another difference of possible causal significance is the level of deference shown by females to males. African-American females are far less easy-going and less likely to make the kind of compromises that would be necessary to maintain a nuclear family. One can argue that this racial difference is really the critical one, and that IQ and MAOA alleles would not be civilizationally crippling if there were intact families. The collective behavior of the Meztizo immigrants appears to support this line of argument, as their women are more deferential and their families are stronger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Very interesting blog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mr. Frost wins! Finally I come across the crux of the matter as it seems to me stated correctly. Though I hasten to add, the conclusion I’ll refer to appears by my reading only to be implied, and if I’m jumping to that conclusion then probably the error is mine, an error that may or may not suggest there’s room on the point to tighten the text.

    Female deference should therefore vary within our species. In particular, it should correlate with the degree of paternal investment in offspring and, relatedly, the intensity of female-female competition for mates. This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.

    That men compete and women pick seems to be taken for granted by human nature realists universally. But it seems impossible to describe in a logical way how it happens that women secure the power to decide on the man by displaying their deference; when women are dependant on men they make them invest more by deferring to them; we are supposed to imagine that men compete to win the deferential woman, whose pivotal act of deference is consenting to marry the one she desires. None of these formulations do a justice, though I don’t know how to be more generous.

    Obviously, a human relationship cannot actually be a paradox. So the paradox is reduced to the self-deception of men and the feminine wiles of women: “This doesn’t mean that women are actually more deferential in societies where men are providers. It simply means that they create an impression of deference, while continuing to do much of the real decision-making.” However, there is a way to escape the paradox without imputing such motives that can only be asserted, and that explicates the matter more elegantly as well.

    “Female deference correlates with the intensity of female-female competition for mates.” To wit, the men are not competing for the sincerely deferential woman, the sincerely deferential women are competing for them, and they are the established men of means who are given providers, the alphas. Properly speaking, these men pick the woman they want to marry, and would be proposing marriage to like an offer more than an ask. These are not the women who generally manipulate their self-deceiving husbands (that is, until they hit menopause) because he might only be as loyal as she deserves.

    Basically, the rest of the women get married to the variable betas, whose level of self-deception seems to be more or less, but generally not on account of any false-mask of deference the woman ever wore. Seems to me universally true that women find it excruciatingly irksome and often impossible to feign a deferential respect to men they are quite not sure about. Same as it always was that way, so that the women who used to marry the men they never much engaged in talk are today the women who don’t talk to they men the don’t marry.

    Hence the crux of the matter: female deference differs within society, because which sex competes for which differs depending on male status. The confusion this refutes is not just that males only ever compete for mates, but the very current and crude concept being shoved around by these pick-up artists of artifice, who confect some historical precedent for how they go about attracting a mate. By affecting the demeanor of an alpha they claim to make the woman sincerely deferential. Except the trick requires outcompeting the field in very small and subtle ways, so that it’s truer to say the woman chooses to believe the PUA has won than to say the PUA chooses the one he wants. Thus they strain a basically clear conception between which sex competes for which, and distract from their conceptual straining by insisting that getting laid makes them alphas. Well, I guess there is a whole world waiting to see if these guys can actually become what they claim to have attained, and get a prize to give them marriage. Which is to say, no one in the world could possibly believe the self-delusions of men who admit their category of deceptions so deliberately.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says: • Website

    There seems to be a kind of paradox here.

    What seems like lack of self-esteem is really driven by self-esteem.
    And what looks like deference is really a demand for preference, i.e. demand to be noticed, admired, and loved.

    It’s like how a cat acts. It acts so weak, mews, makes baby-like sounds, purrs, and etc. It seems lacking in self-esteem as it acts so gentle before the master, but it is actually working on the master’s emotions to be the center of attention and affection. It is partly an act, even if unwitting on the cat’s part. The cat is saying, ‘drop everything and show me all the love in the world, make me the center of your affection.’

    When women are young, they are sort of nervous and unsure cuz they’re just coming into maturity.
    But they are also feeling very narcissistic. Every young woman wants to be seen and admired as ‘hot stuff’. Her self-esteem is tied to how much men admire her. And she knows or intuitively senses that men are attracted to women who are feminine, who have the soft touch, and etc. Some men may prefer more exciting women, but even they have to have some feminine touch.
    So, even though it may look like deference on the outside, it is a kind of trick to make the men feel their share of deference to her by alluring them to her looks and feminine guile.
    Paradoxically, a woman gains power over a man by making herself come across as powerless and damsel-like. By acting soft, she makes herself to appealing to him, and the guy becomes smitten with her gentle feminine qualities. He comes under her spell.

    [MORE]

    Consider TWILIGHT. You see how Bella acts so nervous and helpless before Edward. She confesses that her life is in his hands. He can kill her and devour her or he can protect her and love her. And her soft touch totally drives him nuts and makes him love her even more. If she acted like a crazy biatch, he might have been turned off. So, her powerless act actually made her gain power over him. He feels it is his duty to protect her from everything.

    And consider all the femme fatales in Film Noirs. They pretend to be helpless, but in doing so, they lure the men into their web.
    Now, in the case of Rachel in BLADE RUNNER, she wasn’t putting on an act. She wasn’t trying to pull some mind-trick on Deckard. But her soft-helpless-damsel act did have power over him, and he became willing to go to the end of the world to save her.
    In contrast, Deckard was just happy to blow away the other two replicant women who were just out to kick his arse. And it’s not just about practicality of security and protection. The woman’s self-esteem comes from the kind of man she can catch in her web. Women wanna be seen with the best kind of man.

    Women are vain. And their sexual nature is to be gotten than to get. Even when they get, they wanna feel gotten.
    Suppose there’s a rich powerful woman who can attract lots of men. Would that be enough? No. If she feels that SHE got herself a man, it won’t be as satisfying as feeling that HE got her. She wants to feel hunted and conquered by the man than the other way around.

    Take THE FOUNTAINHEAD the movie. Dominique Francon(Patricia Neal) has the riches and the looks. She can get any man. But she feels no satisfaction with any of them. She wants to feel gotten by a man who is beyond her power to get. She wants to be won, conquered, and owned by a god-man. And that is why she gets all woozy over Howard Roark.

    Imagine a young woman in a room with some guy named Howard Roark and Coward Dork. Suppose Howard is tall, strong, dynamic, and assertive, whereas Coward is short, nebbish, shy, and timid.
    When the young woman is with Howard, she feels woozy and helpless. When she’s with Coward, she feels confident and in-control.
    Now, which company will she prefer? To be in the company of alpha Howard(who makes her feel powerless and weak in the knees) or beta Coward(who makes her feel powerful and steely in her spine)?
    If we could separate her being from her sexuality, she might prefer Coward cuz she would have control over him. But a woman cannot deny her sexual nature, and a woman’s sexual nature is to be attracted to a man of power greater than hers.

    So, is this lack of self-esteem and deference on her part? In a way, but it is also a path to a uniquely female self-esteem and confidence/mastery. Female sexual self-esteem is bound to being attractive to the top dog. She feels proud to belong to a Real Man. Also, she feels confidence in having woven a web around him and making him belong to her and her alone. She feels special in having conquered the eyeballs and other balls of the superior man.

    Male nature being what it is, a man’s ultimate happiness comes from being on top. He is the king, the lord.
    Consider the ending of THE FOUNTAINHEAD with the skyscraper. d
    Much earlier when Howard and Dominique first met, it was the archetypal mythic image of the hero looking up at the goddess-figure. He is below, she is above. He is a lowly laborer albeit with big dreams. She is a daughter of a rich man and has all kinds of privileges. She lives the dream life.

    But he wants to be master of the world, and her real desire is to be conquered and belong to the master of the world.
    At the end, Howard the hero triumphs and he’s building the tallest skyscraper in the world and he, the great mortal, is standing on top… and the goddess ascends to him from below. (The most rapturous moment in cinema?)

    So, alpha male is to rule over all, and alpha female is to belong to the man who rules over all. In a way, it is deference on the part of the woman, but it is also a female kind of dominance because she has lured and ensnared the heart of the bestest man. He rules her and owns her body, but she owns his heart and soul.

    Consider what little Mary does to little George in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.
    In a way, Mary seems to lack self-esteem and defer to George.
    And she is smitten with him. But then, the other side of her self-esteem is all about her indomitable will-power to win his heart and keep him for herself.
    In her case, she doesn’t care if George become rich and powerful. There is something about him that appeals to her more than any other man does. Sam Wainwright is fated to become richer and more privileged, but Mary wants to be with George because he’s a natural leader. She senses he is naturally superior and only got stuck in Bedford Falls due to circumstances. Even with nothing, he is more of a man than a man with all the riches in the world.

    It was the same way with Dominique Francon with Howard Roark in THE FOUNTAINHEAD. When they first met, he didn’t have diddly squat. He was a nothing and a nobody. But she could sense a quality in him: good looks, manliness, and a searing intelligence. In contrast, many rich men she knew in life didn’t interest her. They had economic power or were on the career path but lacked the stuff of magic, the combination of looks, charisma, personality.
    Dominique senses his natural greatness so much that she is willing to give up all her privilege and live a modest life with him just to be by his greatness that just beams from his presence:

    The scene when little Mary whispers into George’s ear is kinda cute but in a way a kind of darkly beautiful scene. On the surface, it’s must a girl making a puppy love wish, but as we later find out, her love for George from the start was very deep and real, not just some cutesy childish fancy.
    And even though George doesn’t hear what she said — he’s deaf in one ear –, it’s as if his soul spiritually heard her cuz his life becomes entwined with hers. And the wish was both a blessing and a curse cuz he finds true meaning through her but also becomes stuck to family life and obligations that prevent him from becoming someone like Howard Roark who conquers the world.

    (Of course, if Ayn Rand was whispering to him, she would have spoken into the ear that could hear and told him to drop everything and go do his great stuff and hell with altruism for people of the small town. Hers was a radicalized form of Americanism where individual ambition is all that matters.)
    George and Mary meet up later when older and they again make a wish by throwing stones at a old abandoned house. Again, her wish remains deaf to him, but we know what it is. She wants George to be with her even if it means his big dreams won’t come true. In one way, she seems to be deferring to George all throughout the movie, but she really wants him and her self-esteem is bound to winning him.

    Anyway, after little Mary whispers “I’ll love you til the day I day”, George says he’s gonna grow up to have a couple of harems and two or three wives.
    He’s an alpha male alright. He has the qualities that could have lots of girls and have lots of fun.
    And that is what attracts her about him, except she wants to have him all for herself.
    So, a woman wants a man who could have all the women in the world just for herself.
    And to win that man, she has to show some degree of feminine deference to hook his heart.

    Deference is different from timidity and mousiness that don’t appeal to a man. Deference is a kind of emotional game where you seem to show respect and admiration to get/win something in return. It’s like Michael Corleone defers to Hyman Roth in THE GODFATHER II to gain something. Deference could mean simple-minded obedience, but it could also be strategic. You defer to someone to get something from him. It’s a way of buttering up the person.

    A mousy woman hides in her own space. A ‘deferent’ woman may be using her wiles, smiles, and guiles to lure a man of power whom she desires. It is a way of catching him by having him catch her.
    Some people use the soft approach merely to accept the inferior status. But others use the soft approach to ease into possession of the object of their fascination/desire.
    A dog defers to the master in its happiness to be inferior. But a cat plays soft with the master to gain mastery over him/her. A cat, after all, always has its own agenda.

    So, we need to distinguish between dog-women who defer in happy acceptance of inferiority and cat-women who play at deference in sneaky attention of what they really want. And if a top man conquers her and owns her, she owns him too cuz he’s now smitten with her.

    Socially, she may be junior partner, a princess to the prince, but they are together aristocrats way above all the peasants and peons, male and female.
    A queen is lower than a king, but she is above everyone else.

    Also, given female nature, her true happiness comes from finding the man who can conquer and possess her. Consider Brunnhilde. She was one badass Valkyrie and sad to lose her power, but she finds the greatest happiness when she is saved/conquered by Siegfried. She belongs to him, but he also belongs to her because feminine power over a man is something that defies the usual game of power. Male power is usually about “I kicked his ass” and “I sacked everything real good.” And of course, beaskly men can find pleasure in rape and plunder.
    But when a man falls for a woman of special beauty and charm, he feels himself in the presence of a power that defies the usual dynamics. Siegfried the fearless — he didn’t even fear a giant dragon — feels fear for the first time when he meets Brunnhilde. He feels emotions that are more than about arggghh.
    Or consider EXCALIBUR. Initially, Uther is all about kicking butt and raping.
    But the fool really falls in love with Igraine and feels something he’d never felt before when he sees her with his baby. She and the kid have a power over him that makes him want to be more than a brute.

    Ideally, a woman wants a man who has it all: looks, brains, strength, ability, personality, charisma, integrity, values. But as it turns out, most men have some prized traits while having little or none of the other. A woman may feel dreamy for the guy with the looks, feel piqued by the guy with brains, feel hot with the guy with muscle, feel alive with the guy with personality. She is drawn to something about them all and may use her deferential strategy to get something out of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Great comment.
    , @Seck
    This, I must say, is one of the best comments from Priss.

    What I'd like to add on is, in real life, in mating game, one of the traits women look for is "social status". It is either they want (1) a finished product or (2) a product that will become the product of the year in their mating market.

    No women will stoop down to a guy with a lower socio-economic status. They will flock if those guys from lower strata become Alpha during their mating time. But they will not actively look out for a guy from lower strata with potential to become their future wives. That's nature.

    We can remove the "socio-economic status" if they're looking for one night hookup. There are tons of movies with women from higher strata picking guys from lower strata solely due to their "Manliness" and "Alpha" behavior in all other countries, not only in Hollywood. Those movies cater to the needs of men in local populations to aim higher in their lives and they can achieve gorgeous, ultra high, fine ladies in their lives.

    As time moves on, and socio-economic status changes over time, the landscape of movies story also changes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Thanks! I’ve notified Ron about these two errors. (which are wholly mine).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Mr. Frost,

    Congratulations on another excellent article. Two passages seem to have errors (or I’m missing something, which is always a possibility):

    (1) “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is lower” Actually, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “female deference should be stronger where paternal investment is higher” (e.g., in Northern Europe)

    (2) “social interactions were less infrequent between husband and wife”. Again, the text seems to imply just the opposite, i.e., “social interactions were more infrequent (in Ghana) between husband and wife (than in Europe)

    Cheers,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects. Birth order is an excellent test for these effects: it is something that systematically differs between siblings and is bona fide non-genetic (mostly). Hence, it's a great way to see...
  • […] Lion of the Judah-Sphere informed us of a post by JayMan claiming birth order has no real effect on […]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @fnn
    What to make of this?:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/


    The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, highly significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]
     

    N = 68. I’m not going to get excited.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • fnn says:

    What to make of this?:

    http://www.isegoria.net/2015/05/early-academic-training-produces-long-term-harm/

    The initial results of this experiment were similar to those of other such studies. Those in the direct-instruction group showed early academic gains, which soon vanished. This study, however, also included follow-up research when the participants were 15 years old and again when they were 23 years old. At these ages there were no significant differences among the groups in academic achievement, but large, highly significant differences in social and emotional characteristics.

    By age 15 those in the Direct Instruction group had committed, on average, more than twice as many “acts of misconduct” than had those in the other two groups. At age 23, as young adults, the differences were even more dramatic. Those in the Direct Instruction group had more instances of friction with other people, were more likely to have shown evidence of emotional impairment, were less likely to be married and living with their spouse, and were far more likely to have committed a crime than were those in the other two groups. In fact, by age 23, 39% of those in the Direct Instruction group had felony arrest records compared to an average of 13.5% in the other two groups; and 19% of the Direct Instruction group had been cited for assault with a dangerous weapon compared with 0% in the other two groups.[4]

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @fnn:

    N = 68. I'm not going to get excited.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Jose
    Something I've noticed with cattle is that first born are usually physically smaller than subsequent offspring. Stands to reason there could IQ differences too.

    Doubt it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Something I’ve noticed with cattle is that first born are usually physically smaller than subsequent offspring. Stands to reason there could IQ differences too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @Jose:

    Doubt it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Who's making more babies? "Good boys" or "bad boys"? Originally, the good boys were, thanks to parental monitoring of relations between single men and single women. The pendulum then swung toward the bad boys in the 1940s, only to swing back after the 1960s. A recent Swedish study has found that "bad boys" are outbreeding...
  • @fnn
    " It probably takes certain genetic traits to lie a nation into wars throughout the globe..."


    Add Wilson, FDR and Civil Rights hero LBJ. Is it news that guys who want to be the Big Chief tend to sociopaths? Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?

    “Are you in favor of a return to rule by hereditary monarchs?”

    Sounds like a good idea to me. We’ve given democracy a fair trial. It didn’t work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • One of the greatest pieces of evidence demonstrating that the family/rearing environment has no effect on eventual outcomes is the absence of birth order effects. Birth order is an excellent test for these effects: it is something that systematically differs between siblings and is bona fide non-genetic (mostly). Hence, it's a great way to see...
  • @jjbees
    @strongsloth...there would be two influences on age of parent and intelligent;

    More intelligent people tend to wait longer to have children, and waiting longer increases mutations of sperm and egg.

    I've wondered that if the average dumb person reproduces at 18, and the avg. really smart person at 36, then you have 4 generations of dumbs for the 2 generations of smarts, does this lack of genetic recombination reduce risk of things going badly (as almost all genetic mutations do)...I imagine it does.

    If you have a high IQ, and assuming this represents diminished mutational load, it makes sense to undergo recombination (and likelihood of poor recombination) as few times as possible, and to hold out for one high quality mate.

    Low IQ = high mutational load, might as well try to get lucky with as many partners as possible and maybe hit gold.

    Paternal age effects on IQ appear to be pretty small. More study is needed, of course.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Who’s to say that these adoptive families got both of their adoptees from the same country? I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to “go cheap” for their second adoption.”

    Table 3 suggests this is what happens. Kids from smart regions like East Asia are more common as first children and less smar regions like South America have more second children.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Blended families sounds like a very strong candidate. Some women even assume they can never get another man once they have a kid. And as Strongsloth says, age of parents may have a prenatal environmental effect unrelated to childrearing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @strongsloth…there would be two influences on age of parent and intelligent;

    More intelligent people tend to wait longer to have children, and waiting longer increases mutations of sperm and egg.

    I’ve wondered that if the average dumb person reproduces at 18, and the avg. really smart person at 36, then you have 4 generations of dumbs for the 2 generations of smarts, does this lack of genetic recombination reduce risk of things going badly (as almost all genetic mutations do)…I imagine it does.

    If you have a high IQ, and assuming this represents diminished mutational load, it makes sense to undergo recombination (and likelihood of poor recombination) as few times as possible, and to hold out for one high quality mate.

    Low IQ = high mutational load, might as well try to get lucky with as many partners as possible and maybe hit gold.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JayMan
    @jjbees:

    Paternal age effects on IQ appear to be pretty small. More study is needed, of course.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I get depressed when I think about the genetic influences on intelligence. My family, while somewhat upper-middle class, is certainly not Ivy League material, nor are they as accomplished as I would wish they would be. I do not consider either of my two sisters particularly intelligent, though they are almost as smart as you would expect SWPL kids to be. It sucks to know that there is a genetic ceiling that you will never rise above in life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Finally, another Jayman post! Great! I feel like I need to read through this one more time while looking at the links, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I am the firstborn, the smartest kid (I’m the Mensan, IQ146), and the only college graduate in the family. Dad was forty when I was born. I was a latchkey, free range kid with a mandate to be home before dark. The school system in my company town was pretty basic at best, marginal at worst. There was no interest in identifying gifted children; You don’t look for things you don’t want to find. The school system’s basic product was a factory worker.

    I will plant an outlier flag in any study.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Even controlling for IQ, there are huge confounds in the kinds of people who have more children and the kinds who have fewer children, and in the short-term, a kid who is number ten in their family is much less likely to have gotten intensive educational coaching than a number one, but short-term effects are largely short-term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • It’s my understanding that children of older parents have lower IQ than those of younger parents. If so this should show up as a negative environmental impact on later children. I don’t know how big an effect should be expected, but if it’s small ones we are talking about…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Who's making more babies? "Good boys" or "bad boys"? Originally, the good boys were, thanks to parental monitoring of relations between single men and single women. The pendulum then swung toward the bad boys in the 1940s, only to swing back after the 1960s. A recent Swedish study has found that "bad boys" are outbreeding...
  • @IA
    Abelard,

    Can't queers find their own cake decorators?

    Yes, but they can sue the straight ones for fun and profit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Re strength, but a lot of those old-time manual worker strongmen were Finns ect, they’re naturally strong people. You aren’t ever going to turn a greyhound pup into a sled dog. I was told by a doorman ‘don’t try to be something you’re not, because they’ll see through you’. Of course if you go looking for trouble you will find it.

    Peter appreciates those who do some calculations, and if they are relied on in a post, the calculations ought to be cited. What I object to is Jayman and Jason Malloy’s naive rationalism. They think a calculation is superior to opinion; with a few calculations they can show the gut feeling of everyone else is wrong. It’s a big temptation to come up with startlingly counter-intuitive findings that show that things are actually the opposite to what mass opinion would have. It gets you published, and cited.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.

    Not necessarily. Let’s assume Blogger Joe writes a blog post about how thing A is similar to things B and C, because all three have property X. He provides three sources for that: source #1 proves that thing A has X, source #2 proves that thing B has X, and source #3 proves that thing C has X. Now of course you can read sources #1 through #3 and then write a paragraph about how A, B and C are similar because of property X, and cite all three of the sources separately, but I would tend to think that was plagiarism, because you write about an idea (the similarity) that you got from Blogger Joe without properly attributing it to Blogger Joe. In fact, without even mentioning his name, as if he never existed. Am I missing something?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @reiner Tor

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
     
    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.

    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Not necessarily. Let's assume Blogger Joe writes a blog post about how thing A is similar to things B and C, because all three have property X. He provides three sources for that: source #1 proves that thing A has X, source #2 proves that thing B has X, and source #3 proves that thing C has X. Now of course you can read sources #1 through #3 and then write a paragraph about how A, B and C are similar because of property X, and cite all three of the sources separately, but I would tend to think that was plagiarism, because you write about an idea (the similarity) that you got from Blogger Joe without properly attributing it to Blogger Joe. In fact, without even mentioning his name, as if he never existed. Am I missing something?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    Benching 160 at 12, even a limited motion movement, is not credible.

    Female bonobo bite fingers off males who annoy them and a gang of female bonobos has been seen tearing a male to pieces

    I don’t know what’s credible and what isn’t, but what I’ve read about strongmen of old, they mostly started out as child workers moving incredible (for a child) weights in mines or steel works. Probably our understanding of what is possible for a child (or even an adult) is not very good. I personally never knew any twelve-year-old who bench pressed any weight at all, so I have no idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Benching 160 at 12, even a limited motion movement, is not credible.

    Female bonobo bite fingers off males who annoy them and a gang of female bonobos has been seen tearing a male to pieces

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    I don't know what's credible and what isn't, but what I've read about strongmen of old, they mostly started out as child workers moving incredible (for a child) weights in mines or steel works. Probably our understanding of what is possible for a child (or even an adult) is not very good. I personally never knew any twelve-year-old who bench pressed any weight at all, so I have no idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Sean
    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    --------
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don't necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.


    I don't think Greg Laden is like that. "TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking."


    Elsewhere Laden muses: 'Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?'

    Obviously it would be bad news for the 'make love not war' bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp 'cultural norms' make chimps act like chimps.

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.

    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If you go and read the original source yourself, you cite it for whatever it is you mention. A cite is not a hat tip.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • I have one daughter, and I found that the secret to raising successful children is to make sure that out in the world, they will be able to hold their own in the Lord of the Flies world of public school and beyond.

    No TV right from the get go. The kid will actually have an attention span. Ten years from now, they will be doing studies on children with and without TV who grew up, and find that the world is divided between the TV kids and no TV kids. The no TV kids have a longer attention span and are generally better at social skills. You say hi to a TV kid and he looks at his sneakers and mumbles. You say hi to my kid, and she will get into a conversation with you. This has translated into her being very successful at selling clothes and getting people to sign up for credit cards at her first job. She found her career niche at 16 years old! As an aside, I think it is a serious human rights violation to not have jobs for kids younger than 16. Kids should have summer jobs by age 10, even if they only work 4 hours a day.

    No processed food. According to the book, “The Science of Skinny,” written by a PhD biochemist Dee McCaffrey, it’s the chemicals added to processed food that makes people fat. No kidding! It’s not about discipline, or exercise, it’s that people are fat because they are being poisoned. My kid grew up eating old world Russian-Ukrainian food, much of it from a garden I grew. Also, when she was 10 years old I forced her to run track and cross country. I said, “Being fat or stupid is not an option for you, kid.”

    Sex education from me amounted to playing the song “Violet” by the band Hole, in the car over and over again when she was 10 or 11 years old and explaining the lyrics and talking about them.

    None of that “keep yourself pure” bullshit. Just “this is how the world works, and it’s your choice how you are going to be.” She saw the other girls give up their bodies to the boys, and then get immediately abandoned and she told me she recalled the song Violet, particularly “when they get, what they want, then they NEVER WANT IT AGAIN!”

    So she knew I didn’t lie to her. I told her how to navigate the world of predators and bullies and purveyors of pretty lies. I didn’t tell her what to think,or what to do, I just made sure she had a very deep and broad understanding of reality, and what her own options are.

    As for boys — you got to force them to do fight training from a young age — judo, boxing, wing chun, BJJ, muy thai, aikido. If your sons go out and get their asses kicked by bullies, they will despise you their father. If your sons go out and kick those bullies asses, they will revere their father. It’s that simple.

    White boys go through puberty later than NAMs, and so white boys are at a physical disadvantage in the crucial adolescent years. I got beat up real real bad, 3 times, by a half Greek, half Lebanese kid who was a trained boxer and could bench 160 and had a full mustache at 12. I was 13 at the time, I didn’t even have armpit hair until I was 16 and I could only bench press 80 pounds. I saw this same Greek-Lebanese kid flee in terror from a skinny Irish boxer with long arms, very fast hands, a big goofy smile, and a high tolerance for pain. His name was Robert but he was known as “Dobber” because he always had a swollen lips from getting punched and when asked his name he couldn’t say “Robert” he would say “Dobber.” Dobber was also a late bloomer, but he had so much boxing training that everyone was afraid of him, and he would accept money from bullied kids to go beat up bullies. Therefore, white boys need to be given the edge of intense fight training from a young age so they gain physical dominance from kindergarten and never ever lose it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Of course there are biological differences between bonobos and (other) chimps.

    But they’re still chimps and cultural practices drove them apart. These cultural differences are under ecological pressure but so are those of Homo sapiens at the subsdistence level.

    Mating patterns resulted in bonobos reducing sexual dimorphism (and therefore feminised males.) If you just look at female skulls, bonobos are simply not that much apart from the other chimps.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • B&B sticks up for bonobos, the paedo primate.

    Culture! Chimps or bonobos take years to learn how to bash open a nut with a rock, which is the limit of their acheivement ).

    Bonobos are a different species from chimps , yet Laden thinks a few conflict resolution memes might let them all get along.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Two points on nature vs nurture.

    1. People leaning towards cultural explanations, hold opposing hereditary explanations to far higher standards than their own. They seldom seem to cite a specific mechanism by which culture has worked to create cognitive-behavioural differences between the two stocks involved.

    2. Gene-culture co-evolution observes culture as driving heredity, making the discussion obsolete. Indeed at the time depth for the split between certain populations, like Euros and West Africans, cultural divergence actually predicts psychological divergence as well.

    As for chimps, not all bonobos are ‘sexy’, not all are nonviolent and some eat red meat. Culture does play a role in the other apes. Apes are cultured animals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    Sean,

    JayMan does good work. More to the point, he provides his sources.

    I would love to cite authoritative scholars, like Henry Harpending. But he is one of a few who will discuss these issues, as Greg Cochran has noticed:

    "A certain person we will not name, famous for the discovery of the double helix, once said “Harpending must really have balls of steel, in order to take a genetic look at Jewish intelligence.” Why should it take balls of steel? And, for that matter, why are balls of steel so rare in academia? Do they undergo a procedure?"

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/i-cant-afford-to-think-about-that/

    There is a strange kind of Pavlovian training in academia. You learn what you should say and what you shouldn't. After a while, it becomes second-nature. It sickens me when I read things by certain academics that run counter to what they actually say in private. But that's the reality of academia.

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    ——–
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don’t necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.

    I don’t think Greg Laden is like that. “TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking.”

    Elsewhere Laden muses: ‘Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?’

    Obviously it would be bad news for the ‘make love not war’ bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp ‘cultural norms’ make chimps act like chimps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
     
    That is actually dishonest. If he got the idea from JayMan, he should quote JayMan, and not pretend to have gotten his sources himself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Peter, where is your evidence that high fertility among the low income is driven exclusively or near exclusively by immigration?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • No, “we” shouldn’t. If you want to make changes in the real world, you’ll have to limit yourself to goals that are realistic and justified. You’ll also have to get off the Internet and use your real name, but that’s another story.

    I’m hoping you can pave the way for those who both see the problem and want actual solutions that will work.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “it’s a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.”

    The statistics say otherwise. Fertility has fallen below the replacement level among African Americans in general, and the decline has been especially steep among single men with multiple sex partners. I realize you have strong feelings on this issue, but shouldn’t you give more weight to that kind of evidence than to Maury Povitch?

    “Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don’t have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that?”

    Let’s say I have mixed feelings. I know of cases where people have been placed in institutions for dubious reasons (often financially related). In any event, I don’t believe in radical measures if they are unnecessary.

    “We should do both.”

    No, “we” shouldn’t. If you want to make changes in the real world, you’ll have to limit yourself to goals that are realistic and justified. You’ll also have to get off the Internet and use your real name, but that’s another story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot."

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?


    "Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible."

    That won't happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. "I'm not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations."

    You usually don't get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.


    "I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find."

    Yes, I'm familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn't it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?

    Yes, the fact that the Maury Povitch show can find so many of these men indicates to me that they do make up a subset of the population. Maybe it’s 0.1 or 0.2%. The point is, it’s a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

    Yes, I do believe that someone with an IQ of 75 is able to see that he’s had a lot of children and then feel good about the fact. Among some inner city blacks a large brood is seen as a source of prestige, just as it in some third world cultures. Why is it so hard to believe that 1% or less of the population thinks like that?

    Not even that is required, however. All it takes is a man who doesn’t like wearing condoms bedding women not responsible enough to take birth control. The link between sex and reproduction has only been broken for those with average and above average IQ.

    You do realize that 50% of blacks have IQ below 85 and another 16% have IQs below 70, right? What evidence do you have that the link between sex and reproduction has been broken for that demographic?

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    We should do both. Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don’t have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that? If we do that, we should also be able to take away the freedom to procreate among the very low IQ.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Sean,

    JayMan does good work. More to the point, he provides his sources.

    I would love to cite authoritative scholars, like Henry Harpending. But he is one of a few who will discuss these issues, as Greg Cochran has noticed:

    “A certain person we will not name, famous for the discovery of the double helix, once said “Harpending must really have balls of steel, in order to take a genetic look at Jewish intelligence.” Why should it take balls of steel? And, for that matter, why are balls of steel so rare in academia? Do they undergo a procedure?”

    http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/08/16/i-cant-afford-to-think-about-that/

    There is a strange kind of Pavlovian training in academia. You learn what you should say and what you shouldn’t. After a while, it becomes second-nature. It sickens me when I read things by certain academics that run counter to what they actually say in private. But that’s the reality of academia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    If someone has a post that draws your attention to a good ref, you can cite the original source.
    --------
    Peter, a lot of people just take up positions depending on who they are talking to. They don't necessarily believe what they say in private any more than what they say in their peer reviewed stuff.


    I don't think Greg Laden is like that. "TWO young boys are having an argument while their fathers, resting in hammocks, look on. The argument is over something silly but escalates until the dads decide to intervene. They equip each boy with a small pole and position them face to face, explaining the rules of the game. Each child has the opportunity to whack the other with the stick, in turn. The boys can continue to carry out this ritualized but stingingly painful combat until one of them gives up, handing victory to his opponent. Eventually, these boys will grow into men, and this sort of combat, using either long poles borrowed from the nearby dwellings or bare fists pounded on chests, will become a normal (though infrequently used) way to settle significant disputes between men. Dueling is part of the culture in which these children are being raised. Those who demonstrate the most bravery will likely rise in status, perhaps take on a leadership role, have a better choice in marriage partner, and perhaps have more than one wife.

    Thousands of miles away, two young boys are also having an argument. Again, fathers are watching from the shade as tempers build. One of the boys raises a fist, but before he can strike the other child, one of the dads is on him, hugging him tightly and uttering soothing words. Naturally, this does not work very well, and the angry child squirms to break free and continues to yell at the other child. But over time, he becomes quiet and his tears of anger dry, his breathing slows, and his heart rate normalizes. The hug continues for a while longer, and then the man lets the child go. The two boys exchange a few meaningless words and wander off to play together. These boys will grow to men in a culture where sharing is the primary ethic and cooperation is a matter of survival.

    The first of these stories comes from Napoleon Chagnon’s ethnography of the Yanomamö Indians of Venezuela, the second from Irv DeVore’s description of the Ju/’hoansi Bushmen (aka “San”) of the Kalahari in southern Africa. To be honest, the stories are cribbed from DeVore’s lecture on child-raising across cultures, and both stories are simplifications dramatized for effect.

    Had we carried out the impossible experiment of swapping Yanomamö babies for Ju/’hoansi babies at birth, the genetically Yanomamö children would grow up as cultural Ju/’hoansi, and the genetically Ju/’hoansi children would grow up as cultural Yanomamö. Waiteri, translatable as “fierceness,” is a trait valued among the Yanomamö, while sharing and peaceful resolution of conflict is valued among the Ju/’hoansi.

    The point is this: Our way of being is certainly tied to our biological heritage, but the differences we see across cultures are the products of lived experience, with cultural norms shaped by our environment and how we are brought up. It also seems true that within academia, there are subfields into which we are enculturated, and which inform and shape our thinking."


    Elsewhere Laden muses: 'Every now and then I wonder about this question, not one that Marta asked: What would happen if a group of chimps and a group of bonobos, in the wild, found themselves as neighbors?'

    Obviously it would be bad news for the 'make love not war' bonobos, especially the males. However Laden seems to actually be puzzling about what would happen. So he apparently believes chimp 'cultural norms' make chimps act like chimps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot.”

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?

    “Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible.”

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

    “I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find.”

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp

    Then stop watching TV. I stopped a long time ago, and I can think a lot more rationally now than I did before. Seriously, do you consider TV to be a faithful depiction of reality?
     
    Yes, the fact that the Maury Povitch show can find so many of these men indicates to me that they do make up a subset of the population. Maybe it's 0.1 or 0.2%. The point is, it's a logical necessity that such a demographic must be growing exponentially.

    That won’t happen because the link between sex and reproduction has been broken. In order for people to target reproduction and not sex, they have to have some kind of future time orientation. “I’m not happy with just bedding women. I want to have children and grandchildren. I want to have an impact on the gene pool and future generations.”

    You usually don’t get that kind of thought process with an IQ of 75. A certain degree of intellectual maturity is required. Perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of genetic or cultural change will combine low intelligence with future time orientation. Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

     

    Yes, I do believe that someone with an IQ of 75 is able to see that he's had a lot of children and then feel good about the fact. Among some inner city blacks a large brood is seen as a source of prestige, just as it in some third world cultures. Why is it so hard to believe that 1% or less of the population thinks like that?

    Not even that is required, however. All it takes is a man who doesn't like wearing condoms bedding women not responsible enough to take birth control. The link between sex and reproduction has only been broken for those with average and above average IQ.

    You do realize that 50% of blacks have IQ below 85 and another 16% have IQs below 70, right? What evidence do you have that the link between sex and reproduction has been broken for that demographic?

    Yes, I’m familiar with that data. The higher birth rate in the under $10,000 bracket is due almost entirely to recent immigrants from high-fertility cultures. Wouldn’t it be simpler to control the flow of immigration (which is legally possible) than to dictate how many children people can have (which is possible only in a totalitarian society)?
     
    We should do both. Our society forcibly puts people in mental institutions if they don't have the ability to take care of themselves. Do you oppose that? If we do that, we should also be able to take away the freedom to procreate among the very low IQ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.”

    The mothers don’t have to be the same demographic as the fathers. By the way, I don’t think you ought to cite bloggers (especially Jayman, you might as well cite one of my comments as Jaymans’s blog). To cite a blog, it needs to be by someone authoritative such as Henry Harpending, otherwise it is non-credible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Hepp
    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don't know, but they're on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It's simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I'm genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let's say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    Exactly my thoughts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them."

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else's fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    "How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?"

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    Peter, I’m a great fan of your work, but I have to say that I suspect you’re not looking at the data because you’re afraid of what you’ll find.

    http://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

    What would be so bad about discouraging births among the low IQ and irresponsible? Your plan to “separate sex from reproduction” would have unpredictable consequences. For an issue this important, we should call for achieving public policy goals by tackling them directly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    "You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them."

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else's fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    "How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?"

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don’t know, but they’re on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It’s simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I’m genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    In our society, no one starves. Let’s say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?
     
    Exactly my thoughts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • “You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them.”

    Why the future tense? The only people outbreeding anybody in Western societies are certain religious minorities: Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Hassidic Jews, and Muslim fundamentalists. Everyone else’s fertility is converging on the same level of around 1.7 children per woman. If current trends continue the white middle class will end up with the highest fertility among non-religious Americans.

    Demographic change is no longer being driven by differences in fertility. It is being driven solely by immigration.

    “How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?”

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hepp
    There is a demographic of young black men (and other races to a lesser extent) that go out and have 10 or more children with multiple mothers. How many? I don't know, but they're on TV a lot. Imagine that this makes up just .1% of the black population. It's simply a matter of exponential growth (yes, I know, regression to the mean and all that). Also, these kinds of people have very short generational times.

    So I'm genuinely curious. In our society, no one starves. Let's say .1% of the low IQ population does the evolutionarily most logical thing and simply has as many children as physically possible. Then what?
    , @Hepp

    By taking away their EBT cards? Anyway, fertility is already below replacement level in that demographic.

     

    Peter, I'm a great fan of your work, but I have to say that I suspect you're not looking at the data because you're afraid of what you'll find.


    http://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/

    What would be so bad about discouraging births among the low IQ and irresponsible? Your plan to "separate sex from reproduction" would have unpredictable consequences. For an issue this important, we should call for achieving public policy goals by tackling them directly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • 1. When sexual freedom is separated from reproductive freedom, most people will voluntarily make different choices in each case. The men who father the next generation of children will no longer be the sort of men who provide the most exciting sexual experience. The State should encourage this separation of sex from reproduction but not dictate the actual reproductive choices. Most people can be trusted to choose responsibly.

    You have no basis for your belief that those with IQs below 90 will “choose responsibly.” Even if most do, those that do not will eventually outbreed them.

    2. If some people make reproductive choices that impose high external costs on the rest of us, they should be made to pay at least part of that cost.

    How does the demographic that pays no income tax, and often has no income period, going to be made to pay for its mistakes?

    You’re trying to have it both ways. You want the government to leave people alone, and just trust everything will work out.

    Tell me, what would you do with men like this? Just trust them, as they multiply by 20 every generation?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159476/Tennessees-deadbeat-dads-The-men-81-children-46-different-women–theyre-paying-child-support-them.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Hepp,

    Of course not, but my “plan” would involve people being free to make their own choices. In fact, it would just be a consolidation of what already exists.

    My plan basically comes down to two principles:

    1. When sexual freedom is separated from reproductive freedom, most people will voluntarily make different choices in each case. The men who father the next generation of children will no longer be the sort of men who provide the most exciting sexual experience. The State should encourage this separation of sex from reproduction but not dictate the actual reproductive choices. Most people can be trusted to choose responsibly.

    2. If some people make reproductive choices that impose high external costs on the rest of us, they should be made to pay at least part of that cost.

    Sean,

    I suspect a significant number of liberals agree with the above, just as a significant number of conservatives hold positions that are officially rejected by mainstream conservatives. As actually practiced, however, liberalism holds more promise than conservativism when one goes beyond the rhetoric and looks at what will likely happen.

    Abelard,

    Some problems we worry a lot about will resolve themselves on their own. Unfortunately, the reverse also holds true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Our society is not declining, but is actually improving:

    http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21582041-rich-world-seeing-less-and-less-crime-even-face-high-unemployment-and-economic

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-birth-rates-on-the-decline-says-cdc/

    More evidence that society is actually improving and that we are becoming less “decadent” (whatever that word is supposed to mean). So again I ask, if these improvements are occurring in a society that is largely disregarding the beliefs and influences of the social conservative movement, what exactly do we need a social conservative movement to do for us?

    One more point. Social conservatives say they want to improve society. Eugenicists make the same claim. How are these two methods necessarily mutually exclusive?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • There is no politically mainstream school of thought that accepts genetic factors substantially explain criminality, a tendency to “love and leave”, or intellectual capacity. Paul Gottfried got kicked out of a conservative organisation for implying that mainstream people could believe that. A single value is supreme: human personality. Left or right, Enlightenment worshipping rationalist or Christian, no one says that biological inheritance is a valid way to understand social behavior in society. (That is not quite true. because for stone age cultures, humanists like Steven Pinker and Daniel C. Dennett can accept Naploleon Chagnon’s work.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • If I feared being stigmatized, I wouldn’t be writing this sort of stuff. I’m not afraid of the ‘e’ word. It just doesn’t apply to me. A eugenicist is someone who wishes to improve the human race according to some predetermined criteria. I don’t want to improve anything. I’m not interested in creating a race of 140+ IQ people who will live twice as long and look like Hollywood celebrities.

    I just want to keep things from getting worse.

    Peter, that’s a pretty odd position. Let’s say you succeeded and stopped things from getting worse, but your plans were too successful and now people were becoming happier, healthier, and smarter. Would you then advocate reversing the trend, so things can go back to where it was when you started?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • B&B,

    If I feared being stigmatized, I wouldn’t be writing this sort of stuff. I’m not afraid of the ‘e’ word. It just doesn’t apply to me. A eugenicist is someone who wishes to improve the human race according to some predetermined criteria. I don’t want to improve anything. I’m not interested in creating a race of 140+ IQ people who will live twice as long and look like Hollywood celebrities.

    I just want to keep things from getting worse.

    Of course, if you expand the definition of eugenics to include my position, you win the argument. Anyone can win an argument by changing the definitions.

    “Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.”

    If the woman became single after conception (i.e., her husband abandoned her), the fine wouldn’t apply. This is why we have marriage contracts, to provide abandoned women with the power of legal recourse.

    “If birth control is instead separated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails”

    No, I’m not saying that birth control should be mandatory for certain people. People should be free to do as they wish, but they should pay the full cost of their choices. Single parenthood does impose a high cost on society, and I don’t see why the right to reproduce should include the right to have one’s reproduction subsidized by the taxpayer. At that point, the taxpayer has the right to impose certain conditions in exchange.

    “in the past of ‘bad boys’ we were free of the social problems we have now”

    You’re talking about a past when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is now and when life was very nasty. Thomas Hobbes had this to say about that past:

    “In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ”

    I like living in a society where minor personal disputes don’t lead to killing. I like being left alone. I’m critical of modernity but I’m not an anti-modernist.

    Jonathan,

    Clark doesn’t, and there’s not much in the way of quantitative data, but you might want to read:

    Fletcher, R. (2004). Bloodfeud: Murder and Revenge in Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford University Press.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Slightly OT, but does Clark provide data on pre- versus post-Conquest England? There’s a venerable school of history that sees pre-Norman England as generally peaceful and well-ordered, at least internally (externally, of course, the Danes created a lot of violence). I’m wondering if this pro-Saxon reading of history holds up to scrutiny.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    B&B

    Please, I'm not a eugenicist. I don't wish to create a biologically new man or new woman. I simply wish to conserve what already exists.

    I guess I should discuss the actual policies I'd like to see; otherwise, people will make a lot of dumb assumptions about what I really want. In general, I'd like to see the sort of policies that already exist in Russia and Israel. We should create fiscal incentives for births to stable couples with stable incomes. Single mothers should be fined unless they can demonstrate they have the means to raise the child on their own. Surrogacy should be made available to sterile couples. International adoption should be banned.

    I, too, favor birth control over abortion. Unfortunately, many people live entirely in the present and are incapable of almost any planning, including the sort of planning that is inherent to contraception. In any case, abortion will always be necessary for cases of rape and for cases of seduction of people with weak impulse control.

    You seem to think that other people are like yourself, with the exception of a "dysfunctional minority." I'm sorry but you're naïve. Yes, there are many societies in this world where bad boys are the norm and where good boys like you are the stigmatized minority (if you're lucky enough to survive). Bad boys were the norm in England a thousand years ago, when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is today. Burning cats alive was a popular form of public entertainment, as were many blood sports. Then, gradually, that personality type lost ground and eventually became so rare that we came to see it as a pathological condition.

    Words like "dysfunctional" and "abnormal" are relative terms. Right now, we have the luxury of thinking that we're normal and that only "sick people" aren't like us. Don't count on that situation lasting always.

    Peter,
    I appreciate that you don’t want the eugenicist stigma, but you are by definition advocating eugenics. If you ask any bioethicist what eugenics means, we are both eugenicists by definition.

    I agree with you about the financial incentives, although they have limited effects, as well as surrogacy and interracial adoption.

    But as well as feeling we should support those of our people when they need it, I object to fining single mothers because the problem is mothers (who are not always single at the time) who are impregnated by several males. Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.

    Also you seem yourself to conceptually conflate contraception with reproductive rights arguments. If bbirth control is instead seperated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails

    Last thing, you take a ‘peace at any price’ attitude to the past, but in the past of ‘bad boys’ we were free of the social problems we have now, that are down to attitudes such as tolerance and the decline over time of the purity/sanctity moral foundation. Bad boys who misbehaved used to be put to death, if not by the state, then by rival families. The impulse to avoid violence lets these people out onto the street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Why did the Swedes let all those Somalis, Pakistanis and other riff-raff from the third world into their beautiful and safe country? Talk about suicidal stupidity!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • B&B

    Please, I’m not a eugenicist. I don’t wish to create a biologically new man or new woman. I simply wish to conserve what already exists.

    I guess I should discuss the actual policies I’d like to see; otherwise, people will make a lot of dumb assumptions about what I really want. In general, I’d like to see the sort of policies that already exist in Russia and Israel. We should create fiscal incentives for births to stable couples with stable incomes. Single mothers should be fined unless they can demonstrate they have the means to raise the child on their own. Surrogacy should be made available to sterile couples. International adoption should be banned.

    I, too, favor birth control over abortion. Unfortunately, many people live entirely in the present and are incapable of almost any planning, including the sort of planning that is inherent to contraception. In any case, abortion will always be necessary for cases of rape and for cases of seduction of people with weak impulse control.

    You seem to think that other people are like yourself, with the exception of a “dysfunctional minority.” I’m sorry but you’re naïve. Yes, there are many societies in this world where bad boys are the norm and where good boys like you are the stigmatized minority (if you’re lucky enough to survive). Bad boys were the norm in England a thousand years ago, when the homicide rate was 50 times greater than it is today. Burning cats alive was a popular form of public entertainment, as were many blood sports. Then, gradually, that personality type lost ground and eventually became so rare that we came to see it as a pathological condition.

    Words like “dysfunctional” and “abnormal” are relative terms. Right now, we have the luxury of thinking that we’re normal and that only “sick people” aren’t like us. Don’t count on that situation lasting always.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B and B
    Peter,
    I appreciate that you don't want the eugenicist stigma, but you are by definition advocating eugenics. If you ask any bioethicist what eugenics means, we are both eugenicists by definition.

    I agree with you about the financial incentives, although they have limited effects, as well as surrogacy and interracial adoption.

    But as well as feeling we should support those of our people when they need it, I object to fining single mothers because the problem is mothers (who are not always single at the time) who are impregnated by several males. Fining single mothers would harm people who were dumped by men.

    Also you seem yourself to conceptually conflate contraception with reproductive rights arguments. If bbirth control is instead seperated from personal choice to be regarded instead as a function of the state, your argument about people being unable to use contraception reliably then fails

    Last thing, you take a 'peace at any price' attitude to the past, but in the past of 'bad boys' we were free of the social problems we have now, that are down to attitudes such as tolerance and the decline over time of the purity/sanctity moral foundation. Bad boys who misbehaved used to be put to death, if not by the state, then by rival families. The impulse to avoid violence lets these people out onto the street.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @Peter Frost
    First, I'm not a eugenicist. If you want to call me names, call me a genetic conservationist.

    Second, I don't consider myself to be a "conservative," since that term has been pre-empted by a lot of hucksters. So please don't accuse me of supporting the Bush Dynasty or Wall St. I'm a Canadian! I had no part in electing any members of the Bush family! Honest!

    As for the Wall St. bailout, my country had no part in that either. I personally feel that some people on Wall St. should have done jail time, preferably in a typical prison where they would have likely been sodomized. But that's just my opinion.

    Finally, I agree that everything is interconnected, but I cannot carry on an intelligent discussion if everyone wanders off on to other subjects. I'd love to talk about George Bush, but not right now. O.K.?


    "how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators?"

    Easy, there are no rampant birth rates in those groups. Hispanic American fertility is now down to replacement level, and African American fertility is now well below replacement. The fertility decline in low SES groups appears to be a robust trend and not easily reversible.


    "We need more white “bad boys”; people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson."

    We seem to disagree on the meaning of "bad boys." By "bad boys" I mean men with the following psychological profile:

    - little or no desire to care for one's offspring, i.e., low level of paternal investment
    - strong tendency to love and leave women, i.e., weak pair bonding
    - poor impulse control
    - tendency to live in the present, i.e., weak future time orientation
    - reluctance to endure short-term pain for long-term gain
    - low anger thresholds, i.e., tendency to express anger for trivial reasons
    - "Big Man" characteristics, i.e., bombastic speech, ostentatious mannerisms and behavior, strong desire for "respect" from others, etc.

    I don't want to get into a discussion about whether corporate CEOs (or George Bush) are really "good boys". They aren't, but they're socially detrimental in a very different way. Their crimes are on a larger and more collective scale.

    Peter, I’m not calling you a eugenicist as a smear, but because any attempt to consciously engineer society through the mode of reproduction is eugenics. I don’t actually feel any kind of moral objection in itself to the idea of eugenics, but I object to the assumptions and double standards of 21st C eugenicists, and also their habit of comitting the is-ought fallacy when they confuse their value judgments about social class with scientific objectivity.

    ‘Bad boys’ as you describe them, seem to have the DSM antisocial disorder, in no society or social class is such a straw man typical of the majority they’re just a dysfunctional minority.

    To curtail serial impregnators, and women who have children by several different fathers, what we need is birth control, not the violence of abortion. And its life history not background that should be used to say who it is demanded of. Bad breeders can consent to either sterilisation or long term contraception if they wish to recieve the hand outs most of them rely upon. This way it avoids the issue of coercion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • First, I’m not a eugenicist. If you want to call me names, call me a genetic conservationist.

    Second, I don’t consider myself to be a “conservative,” since that term has been pre-empted by a lot of hucksters. So please don’t accuse me of supporting the Bush Dynasty or Wall St. I’m a Canadian! I had no part in electing any members of the Bush family! Honest!

    As for the Wall St. bailout, my country had no part in that either. I personally feel that some people on Wall St. should have done jail time, preferably in a typical prison where they would have likely been sodomized. But that’s just my opinion.

    Finally, I agree that everything is interconnected, but I cannot carry on an intelligent discussion if everyone wanders off on to other subjects. I’d love to talk about George Bush, but not right now. O.K.?

    “how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators?”

    Easy, there are no rampant birth rates in those groups. Hispanic American fertility is now down to replacement level, and African American fertility is now well below replacement. The fertility decline in low SES groups appears to be a robust trend and not easily reversible.

    “We need more white “bad boys”; people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson.”

    We seem to disagree on the meaning of “bad boys.” By “bad boys” I mean men with the following psychological profile:

    - little or no desire to care for one’s offspring, i.e., low level of paternal investment
    - strong tendency to love and leave women, i.e., weak pair bonding
    - poor impulse control
    - tendency to live in the present, i.e., weak future time orientation
    - reluctance to endure short-term pain for long-term gain
    - low anger thresholds, i.e., tendency to express anger for trivial reasons
    - “Big Man” characteristics, i.e., bombastic speech, ostentatious mannerisms and behavior, strong desire for “respect” from others, etc.

    I don’t want to get into a discussion about whether corporate CEOs (or George Bush) are really “good boys”. They aren’t, but they’re socially detrimental in a very different way. Their crimes are on a larger and more collective scale.

    Read More
    • Replies: @B and B
    Peter, I'm not calling you a eugenicist as a smear, but because any attempt to consciously engineer society through the mode of reproduction is eugenics. I don't actually feel any kind of moral objection in itself to the idea of eugenics, but I object to the assumptions and double standards of 21st C eugenicists, and also their habit of comitting the is-ought fallacy when they confuse their value judgments about social class with scientific objectivity.

    'Bad boys' as you describe them, seem to have the DSM antisocial disorder, in no society or social class is such a straw man typical of the majority they're just a dysfunctional minority.

    To curtail serial impregnators, and women who have children by several different fathers, what we need is birth control, not the violence of abortion. And its life history not background that should be used to say who it is demanded of. Bad breeders can consent to either sterilisation or long term contraception if they wish to recieve the hand outs most of them rely upon. This way it avoids the issue of coercion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @rod1963
    I certainly wouldn't want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he's a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don't see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He's a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us - the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That's scary, it's far worse than Milgram's experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.

    I certainly wouldn’t want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he’s a sociopath.

    There is no actual evidence that CEOs or politicians are literally sociopaths, but I agree about them ignoring the ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’ to go after low class criminals.

    Blindeds by statistics, they do not think critically about what statistics represent. Faced with statistically high brain structures among criminals, they assume the brain structures represent crime and not failure to get away with it. This thinking is sadly not just limited to eugenics but is even widespread in neurology. Paedophiles, we are told, have impulse control problems – based upon prison samples of active offenders (not kiddy porn downloaders who don’t molest children.)

    Skeem and others have ripped apart this kind of thinking about neuroscience and psychology, but it still persists.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Abelard Lindsey sounds like a libertarian, unable to see why people are concerned for society, be they left- or right-wing, religious or secular.

    My point is that those concerns are misplaced and unnecessary. Well recognized metrics of social decay or what some might refer to as “decadence” include crime, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and the much ballyhooed “dysgenic” trend of the “bad boys” out breeding the “good boys”. If all of these metrics are, in fact, improving (as they have over the past 20 years), what exactly do we need to fear about the future of society? It seems to me that there is nothing to fear but fear itself and that the future (say, 2050 or 2100) will turn out to be perfectly fine.

    Again I ask, what exactly do we need to be concerned about?

    I stand by my point. The fears expresses by social conservatives are as much a figment of the imagination as those of the liberal-left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • Was in agreement until I got near the end. But you seem to be offbase when it comes to claiming that the modern situation favors reproduction by the good boys, instead of bad boys/those of low IQ/poor future time orientation.

    This may hold for who fathers the children of “good girls” (white and Asian girls from Upper middle class and higher social castes, etc [barring the occasional Karadashian]), who tend to have the intelligence and means to practice responsible birth controls, be raised with at least some level of morals, etc. but I doubt it holds for most other groups- how else to explain the rampant birth rates of ghetto gangstas, trailer trash, and illegal infiltrators? The bad boys and the girls they live around are procreating at an exponential rate, and they don’t care as much about the consequences as they did in the past because they don’t have to- Obama Claus and his liberal reindeer pay the tab.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
  • @rod1963
    I certainly wouldn't want my kid to be a CEO or politician because that would mean he's a sociopath. But they are the only kind IMO that can make it up the political or corporate ladder. You have to be a talented liar, cheat, manipulator and strategist all in the same nasty package.

    Yes the eugenicists don't see these wolves in sheeps clothing. They only see the more overt, low IQ, lumbering thugs like Brown. He's a good poster boy for the effort but they invariably miss the other ones the wolves among us - the sociopath and psychopath who dress nicely and are charming conversationalists, yet much more dangerous.

    Whereas the low rent thug steals with his hands. The sociopath steals and ruins peoples lives by the thousands with a stroke of pen and a board room meeting to change policy and never breaks a sweat.

    I think back to the Ford Pinto gas tank fiasco. The cold blooded bean counters found it was cheaper to let people be burned alive than simply doing a fix that only added a few pennies to the cost of the car. The execs thought it was a great idea.

    Or how the big 3 ratings agencies gave AAA ratings to garbage securities bundled by Goldman-sachs and others, which were then happily snapped up by pension funds and self-destructed a short time later and we all had to pay for it.

    That's scary, it's far worse than Milgram's experiment.

    It all reminds me of that old saying about the banality of evil conducted in air-conditioned offices by impeccably groomed and well educated people talking quietly over a table who do the worst of things.

    It’s nothing personal. It’s just business.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.