The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Lance Welton Archive
Melinda Gates Wrong, of Course—White Males Key to Innovation. (Has She MET Bill?)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

According Melinda Gates the wife of the (white, male) Microsoft pioneer Bill Gates—only women and minorities can give us innovation. [Why Melinda Gates Has Been Funding Female VCs Through Her Secretive Investment Firm, by Polina Marinova, May 30, 2018.]Perhaps Mrs Gates should talk to the psychologists who actually research these things. Because their finding is that it is overwhelmingly high IQ—and therefore white—countries that are responsible for per capita innovation. And it is specifically those high IQ, white countries whose populations have the highest levels of the male hormone testosterone.

We tend to assume that a country’s scientific achievement is essentially a reflection of its average IQ. Controlling for population size, smart countries produce the most science Nobel Laureates, the most important s cientific breakthroughs…so it’s the countries with the biggest brains that are the engines of civilization.

However, a recently published study, led by Dutch psychologist Prof. Dimitri Van der Linden(right) has concluded it’s not so simple. Of course national IQ is important—but so are national average levels of testosterone.

The study, recently published in the Journal of Creative Behavior, sums up its findings very clearly in its title: National‐level Indicators of Androgens are Related to the Global Distribution of Scientific Productivity and Science Nobel Prizes, [By Dimitri Van der Linden et al May 23, 2018]. In layman’s terms, it’s not just a nation’s brains that predicts its scientific achievements, it’s…well…it’s balls!

Van der Linden and his team are fascinated by the way that countries where average IQ is considerably higher than the European average—such as Japan, South Korea and Finland—score so poorly in terms of per capita science Nobel prizes and other measures of per capita scientific achievement, such as highly cited publications.

On these measures, certain wealthy high IQ societies are on a par with or even beneath Greece and Portugal, whose average IQ, due to Black and Moorish admixture, is closer to 90 than the European average of 100—let alone the Japanese average of 105. How can this bizarre anomaly be explained?

The researchers argue that there is a key difference between being a scientist and being the kind of “genius” scientist who makes the earth-shattering discovery that is considered worthy of a science Nobel prize.

Scientists in general, they argue, are characterized by high intelligence and an agreeable and rule-following nature. This is vital because they have to be meticulous, cooperate in large research groups, and avoid even minor mistakes.

However, studies of acknowledged geniuses and of many science Nobel prize winners indicates that they’re not like this at all. They combine outlier high intelligence—far higher than the IQ score of about 130 associated with a science PhD—and moderately low agreeableness, rule-following and impulse control. They are uncooperative, driven, impulsive and neither understand the feelings of others nor particularly care about them if they do understand them. They are, in other words, high functioning autistics.

(Sounds like Donald Trump!)

This, argue the team, is crucial to genius. The genius is clever enough and sufficiently able to “think outside the box” to come up with his original idea. He has the drive and ambition to win the race to the breakthrough—just as Darwin went to print in 1859 because he believed someone else was getting close to having “his” idea.

And original ideas almost always offend vested interests and upset people. But the genius either doesn’t realise this or he just doesn’t care.

These kinds of characteristics, argue the researchers, are predicted by high testosterone. It follows, they argue, that when comparing countries of relatively similar average IQ, then it will be the higher testosterone countries that will display higher levels of per capita scientific achievement. And this is the hypothesis which the study tests.

The authors gathered a variety of proxies for national level of testosterone. These were:

  1. Body hair: Hairy people have higher testosterone levels; hence old men lose their leg hair.
  2. A genetic marker: the percentage of a country’s population with a version of the CAG receptor gene associated with high testosterone.
  3. Prostate cancer incidence: High-testosterone men are more prone to this condition.
  4. 2D4D Ratio on men and women: High-testosterone people’s fingers are similar lengths; low testosterone people display a big distance in length between their second and fourth digit.
  5. Frequency with which people have sex: high-testosterone predicts a high sex drive.
  6. Lifetime number of sexual partners: High-testosterone people are sexually promiscuous.

Van der Linden and his team first showed that all of these supposed testosterone markers inter-correlated—at 0.67, a strong correlation. This proved that they really were measuring the same thing: national testosterone level.

They then limited their sample to countries with an IQ of at least 90, which encompassed 98% of countries that had won science Nobels. This allowed them, to a significant extent, to control for national IQ.

With this done, they found that their measures were all associated in the expected direction—scientific Nobel prize achievement—with effect sizes ranging from 0.1 to 0.49, the best predictor being fingers—the male 2D4D ratio described above—which is strongly a matter of genetics.

And when controlling for confounding factors such as GDP, pathogen level, extent of democracy, and temperature—meaning a massively reduced sample—the associations with androgens remained in the expected direction and with regard to scientific publications—where the sample size was much larger than for the relatively small number of science Nobel prizes that have been handed out—the associations remained statistically significant; i.e. 95% or more certain not to be a fluke.

The authors highlighted various national outliers, which were mainly caused by the country’s science Nobel laureates not being natives of the country in question but instead being, for example, a person of English ancestry in Brazil; or simply an Ashkenazi Jew in a European country.

So, those of us who want to preserve civilization clearly cannot afford to simply focus on national IQ. Very high national IQ is important but when combined with very low testosterone levels it gets you Japan or Finland: efficient, trusting, well-run, but no original ideas and very little contribution to civilization.

For civilization to really take off you need an optimal level of highly intelligent, high testosterone people.

Perhaps population difference in behaviour-altering hormones will be the new taboo, as this study was originally presented at the London Conference on Intelligence which explored non-PC science and took place annually at UCL until 2017 without the authorities realizing its subject matter (See my Then they came for the London Conference on Intelligence—And Free Speech, And Science, January 30, 2018,]. It was specifically highlighted in an expose on the conference as one of the more outrageous and ideologically unacceptable papers [Toby Young Breeds Contempt, Private Eye, January 10, 2018.} (Not online, click to enlarge, or try this PDF)

But the paper’s conclusions have made it past the scientific gatekeepers and been published in an academic journal. It implies that Europe, and European descended countries, are the fabled “Goldilocks Zone” for civilization of high IQ plus high testosterone.

In other words, Melinda Gates has it exactly backwards —it’s clever, masculine white people give us the most innovation.

And, of course, give her the money to impose her ridiculous ideas.

Lance Welton [Email him] is the pen name of a freelance journalist living in New York.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: Feminism, IQ, Political Correctness, Testosterone 
Hide 13 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. m___ says:

    On the article

    Great take “brains and balls” rare combination indeed, probably because of the diminute possibilities within a population. The testosterone element might be the explanatory of the Flynn effect related to males only within the same environment.

    Both extrapolations, testosterone and IQ are “false” measures, since they overlap and affect thousands of gene drivers probably(testosterone probably having the highest additional phenotypical added effect, in turn boosting or suppressing IQ).

    According to us there is at least a third mostly gene influenced variable that influences the outcome to expressed Nobel Price winners.

  2. Allowing such analyses to be expressed for open debate is what free speech or scientific publication is about. A big plus for Unz for popularizing this. The analysis still might be accused of cherry picing but it is there to be debated.

  3. Bill Gates is not the key to anything. He is the hero of clueless fools.

    • Replies: @AhPhui
  4. Jamie_NYC says:

    The differences in Standard Deviations of IQ distributions differ among the populations, as well as averages. This may help explain why some populations have more outliers. The authors of the study do not seem to have taken this into account.

  5. Dr. Doom says:

    Due to the enormous wealth of her husband, Melinda Gates has dedicated herself to grabbing attention and being put on camera by giving money to groups of dark skinned people that the media finds interesting somehow. After saying things similar to what the media constantly does, she gave small amounts of cash to groups of dark skinned people who happened to be around and basked in the glow of the media attention. People said nice things about her, although some were shocked Bill Gates wasn’t gay.
    Next year people expect her to either gain attention some other way or be arrested for supporting criminal activities by not vetting dark skinned people who are often tied to crime and terrorism before giving them money.

  6. AhPhui says:

    Miles W. Mathis says that Bill Gates is not all that smart, just a lucky rich kid from a wealthy background. He postulates that Steve Jobs and Gates were both geeky jobless nerds from rich families, pushed into the limelight, at a time when the spook agencies had decided it was time to introduce PCs to the masses. Mathis calls them “cardboard cutout geeks”.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  7. Item 4 is incorrect: the opposite is correct. Testosterone exposure prior to birth increases the length of the ring finger relative to the index finger. The two fingers are usually about the same length for females. There are personality differences between ancestral groups which could be influenced by genetics, I suppose.

  8. El Dato says:

    at a time when the spook agencies had decided it was time to introduce PCs to the masses.

    Mathis calls them “cardboard cutout geeks”.

    That Mathias guy must be a straight-on fucking idiot like there are so many today.

    Shit makes no sense at all because back then…

    a) PCs were so simple that any hobbyist could ferret out spooks in there. Remember Bill affirming that 640K RAM should be enough for anyone. Hell you could solder one together from crap Intel microprocessors yourself (a microprocessor was an innovation back then), drop a 10 MByte hard disk in that cost as much as a car and it WORKED.

    b) No-one thought that PCs would ever be connected to anything. Networking was the preserve of massive rigs sitting at universities and in military bunkers. Internet was completely unheard of.

    Basically an IBM PC (or any other of the many “PCs” back then – they were all incompatible) was completely useless, and data exchange was meant to be by tape or floppy. It was actually a miracle that it was taken up.

    After some time, someone came up with the idea of warbling bytes through phone lines (, and even that was fraught with regulatory bullshit of all kind (i.e. basically illegal and Ma Bell told everyone that they couldn’t just connect to those cables in the home). Things got better only very slowly. By 1990 you could actually get 64 Kbps lines into your home if your banker was nice.

    The fact that the PC and the Mac even made it out of that era has a lot more to do with IBM forgetting to patent the crap out of its architecture and Jobs being genius enough to make the great leap forward from the totally arse/hobbyist Apple ][ to the Mac – by “borrowing” the work of Xerox Research. (Before that, there was the Apple Lisa but it was unaffordable and thus a failure.)

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  9. MarkinLA says:
    @El Dato

    The fact that the PC and the Mac even made it out of that era has a lot more to do with IBM forgetting to patent the crap out of its architecture

    Yes, the fact that the PC had an open architecture created an explosion of Electrical Engineers and programmers developing add on PC cards that could be put into their PC to do all sorts of data acquisition and process control operations without needing a separate programmable control module.

    At Hughes Aircraft Company, one of our senior scientists designed and built a plug-in card for the PC that allowed a PC to interface with our missile hardware prototypes. Engineers could develop their “tactical” software before all the missile prototype hardware was ready. Test software to check out the missile hardware could be developed without needing the processor unit.

  10. Escher says:

    Is the author saying that Bill Gates is a high-testosterone individual?

    • LOL: eah
  11. Svigor says:

    Yes, and she probably resents his success, relative to her own. *Throws 10k vase* “You just got lucky!” Resentful women lap that leftist crap right up.

  12. I don’t think that most Nobel science winners would qualify as “geniuses”. It is doubtful that even such an influential man as Darwin was a genius; he happened to be at the right time in the right place. Copernicus too.

    As for the “testosterone theory”, some truly great & indisputable geniuses were sometimes quarrelsome, but were virtually asexual (Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Kant, …) or not possessing dominant or overbearing personalities (J.C. Maxwell, Max Planck, ..).

    These 6 points seem to be of no importance. And, yes- the Japanese have gotten a few Nobel prizes in past 10 years; also, Fields medalists, Millennium prize & Wolf prize recipients may be better sources for analysis then Nobel prize winners alone.

    • Replies: @Rich
  13. Rich says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Yup, Japanese researchers have actually won quite a few Nobels, in fact 18 in the past 18 years. Including one for stem cells. The Nobel Prize-winning rate for Japan in the past quarter century is actually the same as the rates for France and Germany–both Nobel powerhouses. Meanwhile, nearby Korea, with a little less than half Japan’s population, has won zero Nobels. The Japanese are not more masculine than Koreans; in fact, some would say the opposite is true, at least culturally.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 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
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Lance Welton Comments via RSS