The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It
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
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
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

This is of course the famous National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 database featured in The Bell Curve. The Department of Labor recruited a nationally representative sample of 14 to 23-year-olds to track over their lifetimes. Then in 1980, the Pentagon, having admitted their scoring norms for the AFQT military entrance test were inflated, paid the DoL to give the military test to the panel. In 1990, one of the branches of the military gave all the data to Herrnstein and Murray who made it the core of their 1994 book.

 
Hide 137 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. No fair! This discriminates against undesirable women.

  2. Black women are more likely to have illegitimate children?

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Flip

    Black women are less likely to value and defer to their men (sadly, they may be wise in this, not on account of any fault in them , but, rather, in the wisdom of their males, hence the trouble....)

  3. Neo-Bolshevik revolution coming down the pike. No big deal, Steve. Stay the course.

  4. What does this mean? Single parents are not allowed to enter the military. So, does never married mean that these women became single moms during their service? Does married-divorced mean they were married at the time of their first panel, and subsequently divorced? And Never Married-Married-Divorce means they were unmarried, and then married and divorced during their military service?

    The military does not seem like a good, flexible occupation for a single parent. There mere fact that divorced and single mothers stayed in the military suggests a lack of options. Single moms who left the military might have much higher IQ.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @KL

    I believe that the sample is not of military recruits but the nationally representative sample recruited for the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979. In 1980, the Pentagon paid the Dept of Labor, which was running the NLSY panel, to have their young people take the military's AFQT entrance test.

    The data from the NLSY79, once it was augmented with AFQT IQ-like scores, became the heart of "The Bell Curve."

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Alden
    @KL

    If black male single parents were not allowed to enter the military there wouldn’t be any black men in the military.

    Why does single parent mean only woman single parents? Takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Just look at all the mulatto trash our brave black military men have left all over the world. Although they refused to acknowledge it, all those mulattos had black male parents.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  5. Out there just smart enough to see through the folly of modern culture’s assault on the value of the nuclear family.

  6. Although men value physical attractiveness in a woman very highly, it doesn’t mean that she needs to be a beauty queen, or that a beauty queen will automatically have greater appeal. Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @martin_2


    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.
     
    Agree in general but your scoring system is way out of whack. The vast majority of women (men too, I suppose), will rate between a 4 and a 6 -- that's where the big bulge in the bell curve is as far as looks or sexual marketplace value. Maybe more 3s lately too with obesity such a growing problem.

    So a 7 would be way higher than the 40th percentile. 10s hardly exist at all, and you may never actually meet a 9 in your entire lifetime -- so an 8 is the realistic ceiling and thus a 7 is not Hall of Fame material but certainly as good as it's probably going to get lookswise. More likely you find a 5 or 6 who really floats your boat for whatever reason and gets an extra point for intangibles such as wit or character.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Hypnotoad666, @Cool Shoes

    , @Rosie
    @martin_2


    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10
     
    Oh is that all? Good grief.
    , @Hannah Katz
    @martin_2

    For marriage, men subconsciously look for healthy women who can produce healthy children. Healthy women tend to be better looking than unhealthy ones. Overly skinny or morbidly obese women often do not produce healthy children.

    Women subconsciously look for men who can be good providers for their families. Less emphasis on looks, and more on financial success and dependability. Traditional, I know, but applicable.

  7. Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Wrong place, and wrong ring.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

  8. @KL
    What does this mean? Single parents are not allowed to enter the military. So, does never married mean that these women became single moms during their service? Does married-divorced mean they were married at the time of their first panel, and subsequently divorced? And Never Married-Married-Divorce means they were unmarried, and then married and divorced during their military service?

    The military does not seem like a good, flexible occupation for a single parent. There mere fact that divorced and single mothers stayed in the military suggests a lack of options. Single moms who left the military might have much higher IQ.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alden

    I believe that the sample is not of military recruits but the nationally representative sample recruited for the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979. In 1980, the Pentagon paid the Dept of Labor, which was running the NLSY panel, to have their young people take the military’s AFQT entrance test.

    The data from the NLSY79, once it was augmented with AFQT IQ-like scores, became the heart of “The Bell Curve.”

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Steve Sailer

    That was over 40 years ago. How come there is no newer data? Did they lose the test?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Steve Sailer

    I still don't understand those baseline captions. Steve says the sample's not of recruits, just people who've taken the test, but this data still makes no sense without an explanation of those labels.

    What's "Never Married -> Married" ? Surely everyone is "Never Married" before they're "Married"?

    What distinguishes that column from plain "Married" ?

    Same applies to "Married -> Divorced" and "Never Married -> Married -> Divorced"

    Replies: @Bert

  9. @Steve Sailer
    @KL

    I believe that the sample is not of military recruits but the nationally representative sample recruited for the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979. In 1980, the Pentagon paid the Dept of Labor, which was running the NLSY panel, to have their young people take the military's AFQT entrance test.

    The data from the NLSY79, once it was augmented with AFQT IQ-like scores, became the heart of "The Bell Curve."

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @YetAnotherAnon

    That was over 40 years ago. How come there is no newer data? Did they lose the test?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Jim Don Bob

    There is a National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 from 18 years later.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  10. I’m not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is … let us say … uh …

    Alexis Bledel types. Don’t ask and don’t tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don’t get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don’t marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that … because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don’t think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Whiskey

    https://i.imgur.com/jGFhzSo.jpg

    Replies: @Charles St. Charles

    , @Ray Caruso
    @Whiskey

    I'm curious. What do you mean by "Alexis Bledel types"? That's not the kind of woman you typically find in the ranks of our glorious armed forces, certainly not in terms of physical appearance.

    Replies: @Jimbo, @Bardon Kaldian

    , @dearieme
    @Whiskey

    You don’t get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett

    I've never understood the high rating people put on Ms Tett. Her writing, the bits of it I've read, strikes me as terminally dull.

    , @Neoconned
    @Whiskey

    LOL i had to google the Bledel reference....ive never watched Handmaid Tale but from what i read of it....seems incredibly stupid....

    Why would the Christian cult put lesbians in camps.....when they could just marry them out to men to "break them in"....HT reminds me of V for Vendetta.....full of weird over the top Anglo paranoias....

    , @John Johnson
    @Whiskey

    Sexy bad boys don’t marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that … because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    It's more of a supply and demand problem.

    There is a limited supply of decent men to marry. Most of them are picked off early.

    These women aren't looking to be single moms. But yes they see their options and probably decide to just get pregnant with the good looking guy down the street. I really don't blame them. I've been trying to hire a contractor for over a month and can't believe how many of them are s--theads. How much society/tv/parents are to blame is a legitimate question but it doesn't change the fact that they would make lousy husbands and if I was a woman I wouldn't want to split their genes either.

  11. @Jim Don Bob
    @Steve Sailer

    That was over 40 years ago. How come there is no newer data? Did they lose the test?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    There is a National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 from 18 years later.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    On a lighter note, but somewhat related (e.g. Wonderlich Test can substitute for IQ scores) 43 TB QB Tom Brady just defeated 41 NO QB Drew Brees in NFC Divisional Round. Brady will now face off vs. GB QB Aaron Rodgers.

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlich Test and against Rodgers. Does having a high test score predict NFL success, or is it overrated? There must be a reason why he has advanced to 14 AFC/NFC Championship games which is nearly double whoever is in second place. Meanwhile, NE this yr, failed to make the playoffs. So for those thinking of "who made whom? Bellichik vs Brady?" The answer now becomes quite clear.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @prime noticer, @Polynikes

  12. @martin_2
    Although men value physical attractiveness in a woman very highly, it doesn't mean that she needs to be a beauty queen, or that a beauty queen will automatically have greater appeal. Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Rosie, @Hannah Katz

    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.

    Agree in general but your scoring system is way out of whack. The vast majority of women (men too, I suppose), will rate between a 4 and a 6 — that’s where the big bulge in the bell curve is as far as looks or sexual marketplace value. Maybe more 3s lately too with obesity such a growing problem.

    So a 7 would be way higher than the 40th percentile. 10s hardly exist at all, and you may never actually meet a 9 in your entire lifetime — so an 8 is the realistic ceiling and thus a 7 is not Hall of Fame material but certainly as good as it’s probably going to get lookswise. More likely you find a 5 or 6 who really floats your boat for whatever reason and gets an extra point for intangibles such as wit or character.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @Known Fact

    You are assuming the 1-10 rating scale is some kind of logarithmic or Gaussian distribution. I am not sure that's how most people use it. In everyday use, it's probably more like some imperfect linear percentile distribution. Except nobody wants to draw distinctions under about 4 or 5. All those people just have "good personalities "

    Replies: @black sea, @Known Fact

    , @Cool Shoes
    @Known Fact

    I think it was RSD Tyler who said that most men would be happy with a good natured 5.

    Replies: @anon

  13. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It
     
    https://i2.wp.com/www.femestella.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/NG-S7_701-SC5-JG-CamA_0017_hires2.jpg

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Wrong place, and wrong ring.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Wrong place, and wrong ring.
     
    Sorry, but I don’t post NSFW content.
  14. This analysis should be done separately for each race. The results are likely to be the same but not as striking.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Balaji

    The big mid-section in The Bell Curve from the same data source is of whites only.

  15. @Steve Sailer
    @Jim Don Bob

    There is a National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 from 18 years later.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    On a lighter note, but somewhat related (e.g. Wonderlich Test can substitute for IQ scores) 43 TB QB Tom Brady just defeated 41 NO QB Drew Brees in NFC Divisional Round. Brady will now face off vs. GB QB Aaron Rodgers.

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlich Test and against Rodgers. Does having a high test score predict NFL success, or is it overrated? There must be a reason why he has advanced to 14 AFC/NFC Championship games which is nearly double whoever is in second place. Meanwhile, NE this yr, failed to make the playoffs. So for those thinking of “who made whom? Bellichik vs Brady?” The answer now becomes quite clear.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it's not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn't think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He'd hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he'd get clobbered by the pass rush.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Peter Akuleyev

    , @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady is the greatest athlete in any sport, in the history of sports.

    Patriots dynasty was about 70 to 80 percent Brady, 20 to 30 percent Belichick. Belichick not much success without Brady. Patriots coaching tree no success - Brian Flores may turn out to be the best.

    Wonderlic is only loosely related to ability at the position - some of the very good players at the position have been below 20. each position has an average score. scores have increased 1 point across all positions over the last 25 years. even african players are slightly above average intelligence for the general african population, going by Wonderlic results, so intelligence or at least reaction speed helps somewhat at all positions. Jeff George lowest score ever at the position for a european - 10.

    not sure if it has ever been done, but a Wonderlic study of league average players versus Hall Of Fame players might be interesting. would also guess that players from two parent families are slightly better on average per game statistics.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sternhammer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Polynikes
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    About 75% Belicheck 25% Brady. Manning or Rodgers could have easily done the same on those Patriot teams. My guess is Manning would’ve more possibly.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  16. Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It

    Be careful what you ask for.

  17. Or else, in contradistinction to TV, men like smart women.

    Or else, smart women make more money, and so they can buy themselves a husband, especially in view of the disposability of men in the current dispensation.

    Or else smart women are better liars.

    Or else something else.

    I guess correlation really is causation.

  18. @martin_2
    Although men value physical attractiveness in a woman very highly, it doesn't mean that she needs to be a beauty queen, or that a beauty queen will automatically have greater appeal. Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Rosie, @Hannah Katz

    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10

    Oh is that all? Good grief.

  19. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    On a lighter note, but somewhat related (e.g. Wonderlich Test can substitute for IQ scores) 43 TB QB Tom Brady just defeated 41 NO QB Drew Brees in NFC Divisional Round. Brady will now face off vs. GB QB Aaron Rodgers.

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlich Test and against Rodgers. Does having a high test score predict NFL success, or is it overrated? There must be a reason why he has advanced to 14 AFC/NFC Championship games which is nearly double whoever is in second place. Meanwhile, NE this yr, failed to make the playoffs. So for those thinking of "who made whom? Bellichik vs Brady?" The answer now becomes quite clear.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @prime noticer, @Polynikes

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it’s not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn’t think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He’d hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he’d get clobbered by the pass rush.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124"

    Unlike, I believe you once said, Eli Manning, who had a score around 139, this would tend to mean that Brady has a chance to win next week. That TB beat GB earlier this season at least tends to confirm that it is possible that Brady can win next week.

    But then the question has to be asked: Which QB has won the most championships, and advanced to the most Super Bowls? And, which QB has the best postseason record of all time? Which QB has mode the most of his opportunities? If he were to win vs GB next week, and then win a 7th Championship, this certainly would help make his case that it was he, and not Bellichik, who made NE the franchise that it was for a generation.

    This would be akin to Michael Jordan taking WASH to the NBA finals and winning during the final yrs of his career.

    As of right now, Mahomes has as many Championship wins as Rodgers, and in nearly half the time.

    I would venture to say that for a sixth round draft pick, if Brady still remembers the QBs who were taken ahead of him, he probably very well remembers his own Wonderlich score and perhaps has looked up the various QBs scores as well. Infinite attention to detail, leaving no stone unturned, etc. tends to be a Brady thing.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer



    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlic Test and against Rodgers.
     
    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

     

    Imagine the voters' Wonderlic scores:




    Jackson County, Mo.: 60% Biden
    Norfolk County, Mass.: 67% Biden
    Orleans Parish, La.: 83% Biden
    Brown County, Wisc.: 53% Trump

    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL's 28 counties. Apparently only the Red skins' Washington Football Team's Prince Georges was better for Biden than Orleans. (San Francisco also topped N.O., but the 49ers no longer play there.)

    Replies: @Ed, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer


    Aaron Rodgers 128

     

    Rodgers scores very well on common sense, too:

    Rodgers, a California native who formerly starred at the University of California, Berkeley, spoke on “The Pat McAfee Show” about his $500,000 donation to the Dave Portnoy’s Barstool Fund, which has been sending relief to many small businesses desperate to keep their businesses afloat...

    Of Portnoy’s efforts, Rodgers concluded, “It’s really a call to action for those of us who can donate. Let’s donate. Let’s help our brothers and our sisters out because these are our people. We’re all we got.”


    ‘They’re Not Even Following Their Own Rules’: Packers’ Aaron Rodgers Slams Pelosi, Newsom
     

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

     

    Speaking of endless careers...


    Feinstein, 87, Files Paperwork For Possible Re-Election; Gets Scolded On Social Media

    "Feinstein’s already the oldest senator in the chamber. She would be 91 if re-elected, and 97 if she serves out her full six-year term following a 2024 victory."

    Dole (97) and Buckley (98 in March) have been retired for decades!
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Steve Sailer

    Where does Harvard boy Ryan Fitzpatrick fit in? He has certainly milked a moderate degree of talent into a very impressive career (in terms of longevity and financial rewards).

    Replies: @dcthrowback

  20. @Balaji
    This analysis should be done separately for each race. The results are likely to be the same but not as striking.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    The big mid-section in The Bell Curve from the same data source is of whites only.

  21. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it's not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn't think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He'd hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he'd get clobbered by the pass rush.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Peter Akuleyev

    “Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124”

    Unlike, I believe you once said, Eli Manning, who had a score around 139, this would tend to mean that Brady has a chance to win next week. That TB beat GB earlier this season at least tends to confirm that it is possible that Brady can win next week.

    But then the question has to be asked: Which QB has won the most championships, and advanced to the most Super Bowls? And, which QB has the best postseason record of all time? Which QB has mode the most of his opportunities? If he were to win vs GB next week, and then win a 7th Championship, this certainly would help make his case that it was he, and not Bellichik, who made NE the franchise that it was for a generation.

    This would be akin to Michael Jordan taking WASH to the NBA finals and winning during the final yrs of his career.

    As of right now, Mahomes has as many Championship wins as Rodgers, and in nearly half the time.

    I would venture to say that for a sixth round draft pick, if Brady still remembers the QBs who were taken ahead of him, he probably very well remembers his own Wonderlich score and perhaps has looked up the various QBs scores as well. Infinite attention to detail, leaving no stone unturned, etc. tends to be a Brady thing.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers' prime. as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row.

    Andy Reid is now getting underrated, one of the best coaches in the league, who has built two Superbowl teams from scratch, with several different quarterbacks. Mahomes was drafted straight onto a playoff team, and only needed to be better than Alex Smith at throwing deep for the Chiefs to go far into the playoffs. of course Mahomes is great, but now he's getting too much credit.

    Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn't throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw. as soon as he did, the Steelers went to the Superbowl quickly. Big Ben now has the most 500 yard games in NFL history, but he has the opposite problem - the current coach is not that good in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  22. @Whiskey
    I'm not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is ... let us say ... uh ...

    Alexis Bledel types. Don't ask and don't tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don't get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don't marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that ... because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don't think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ray Caruso, @dearieme, @Neoconned, @John Johnson

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
    • LOL: Alden
    • Replies: @Charles St. Charles
    @Anonymous

    I have the same syndrome, but it only presents with about 98% of women.

  23. this study also grouped the women by hair color. conversion to mean wechsler scores:

    yellow 103
    brown 102
    red 101
    black 100

    european women only, others were excluded for statistical control.

    i’ve posted about it a couple times before.

    • Replies: @dearieme
    @prime noticer

    How does anyone know the true hair colour of an adult woman?

    (I know a thirty-something who dyes her hair dark because she believes that men in corporate life tend not to take blondes seriously.)

  24. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    On a lighter note, but somewhat related (e.g. Wonderlich Test can substitute for IQ scores) 43 TB QB Tom Brady just defeated 41 NO QB Drew Brees in NFC Divisional Round. Brady will now face off vs. GB QB Aaron Rodgers.

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlich Test and against Rodgers. Does having a high test score predict NFL success, or is it overrated? There must be a reason why he has advanced to 14 AFC/NFC Championship games which is nearly double whoever is in second place. Meanwhile, NE this yr, failed to make the playoffs. So for those thinking of "who made whom? Bellichik vs Brady?" The answer now becomes quite clear.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @prime noticer, @Polynikes

    Tom Brady is the greatest athlete in any sport, in the history of sports.

    Patriots dynasty was about 70 to 80 percent Brady, 20 to 30 percent Belichick. Belichick not much success without Brady. Patriots coaching tree no success – Brian Flores may turn out to be the best.

    Wonderlic is only loosely related to ability at the position – some of the very good players at the position have been below 20. each position has an average score. scores have increased 1 point across all positions over the last 25 years. even african players are slightly above average intelligence for the general african population, going by Wonderlic results, so intelligence or at least reaction speed helps somewhat at all positions. Jeff George lowest score ever at the position for a european – 10.

    not sure if it has ever been done, but a Wonderlic study of league average players versus Hall Of Fame players might be interesting. would also guess that players from two parent families are slightly better on average per game statistics.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    My guess is that IQ is less related to in-game playing ability than off field stuff like learning the playbook fast or not getting hurt during the off-season trying to jump your jetski. (One theory about shortstop Cal Ripken's 2600 game playing streak was that he never ever does anything off the field that would make him miss a game: he never trips or drops anything on his toe or hits his thumb with a hammer.)

    Smarter quarterbacks probably more are likely to get signed as backup quarterbacks because they can also serve as assistant assistant coaches and then sometimes they get a break and get back into the lineup and revive their careers.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @Sternhammer
    @prime noticer

    Wayne Gretzky!

    Replies: @silviosilver

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @prime noticer

    Wonderlich, as it serves as a proxy IQ test, also demonstrates IQ, period. The smarter position players speak for themselves...the offensive lineman, QB, even K and P tend to be at the high end of IQ. The dumber positions, CB, WR, RB, most defensive linemen (except safeties and some linebackers) are at the bottom. You can often see this play out in real life: Which position players tend to have off field issues with the police, and are unable to handle the large sums of money post-retirement?

    NE dynasty was always 80% Brady, now he's demonstrating why its so. The one mistake NE made was getting rid of Garrappolo when they did. If they had held on to him, they would have been in a better position to make the playoffs, or at least had a better chance of doing better.

  25. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it's not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn't think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He'd hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he'd get clobbered by the pass rush.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Peter Akuleyev

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlic Test and against Rodgers.

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    Imagine the voters’ Wonderlic scores:

    Jackson County, Mo.: 60% Biden
    Norfolk County, Mass.: 67% Biden
    Orleans Parish, La.: 83% Biden
    Brown County, Wisc.: 53% Trump

    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL’s 28 counties. Apparently only the Red skins’ Washington Football Team’s Prince Georges was better for Biden than Orleans. (San Francisco also topped N.O., but the 49ers no longer play there.)

    • Replies: @Ed
    @Reg Cæsar

    Prime George’s County, MD is very black as is New Orleans. No mystery as to why Biden would fare the best in these places.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Reg Cæsar


    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL’s 28 counties.

     

    Correction: Thirty counties. Or twenty-nine and a parish. Can't keep count anymore!
  26. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124"

    Unlike, I believe you once said, Eli Manning, who had a score around 139, this would tend to mean that Brady has a chance to win next week. That TB beat GB earlier this season at least tends to confirm that it is possible that Brady can win next week.

    But then the question has to be asked: Which QB has won the most championships, and advanced to the most Super Bowls? And, which QB has the best postseason record of all time? Which QB has mode the most of his opportunities? If he were to win vs GB next week, and then win a 7th Championship, this certainly would help make his case that it was he, and not Bellichik, who made NE the franchise that it was for a generation.

    This would be akin to Michael Jordan taking WASH to the NBA finals and winning during the final yrs of his career.

    As of right now, Mahomes has as many Championship wins as Rodgers, and in nearly half the time.

    I would venture to say that for a sixth round draft pick, if Brady still remembers the QBs who were taken ahead of him, he probably very well remembers his own Wonderlich score and perhaps has looked up the various QBs scores as well. Infinite attention to detail, leaving no stone unturned, etc. tends to be a Brady thing.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers’ prime. as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row.

    Andy Reid is now getting underrated, one of the best coaches in the league, who has built two Superbowl teams from scratch, with several different quarterbacks. Mahomes was drafted straight onto a playoff team, and only needed to be better than Alex Smith at throwing deep for the Chiefs to go far into the playoffs. of course Mahomes is great, but now he’s getting too much credit.

    Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn’t throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw. as soon as he did, the Steelers went to the Superbowl quickly. Big Ben now has the most 500 yard games in NFL history, but he has the opposite problem – the current coach is not that good in the playoffs.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Fans make fun of Andy Reid because he's bad at the one thing fans watching at home can pretend to be really good at: late game drive clock management. For the other 99.5% of being a head coach, he's terrific.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @prime noticer

    "Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers’ prime."

    Rodgers won his only SB with McCarthy, it wasn't a total waste.

    "as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row."

    And lost them both. Let's not be so quick to glorify the losers. It is not a slam dunk that Rodgers wont tank again vs the GOAT (or GWEL, the Greatest Who Ever Lived). LaFleur went to the NFC Title Games with largely McCarthy's teams, that's not really an accomplishment. The team was already really good, plus the added advantage of playing in a weak division. Mitch Trubisky? Come on. You call that competition for the division? Matt Stafford is overrated. There's no one else to give GB serious competition.

    Brady vs Rodgers could be the NFC matchup for the ages.




    "Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn’t throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw."

    Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O'Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution. Current coach sucks in playoffs. Thing is, until he won the SB last yr, that's what the consensus around Andy Reid was, that he sucked in the playoffs and couldn't win the big one. With PHI he went to four consecutive NFC Title games and lost three in a row before losing to NE SB XXXVIX. His playoff record sucked as bad as Tomlin's. Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.

    But so far, Aaron Rodgers only SB win has come with Mike McCarthy as his coach.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  27. This does nothing to undermine the theory that g is nothing more than general fitness. A woman with fewer deleterious mutations should have both a higher IQ and a figure more enticing to males.

    What is the data really telling us? Hot chicks are smarter? Smart chicks are hotter? Or that ugly and stupid ride the DNA railways together?

    • Replies: @Redneck farmer
    @Stan d Mute

    Maybe smart chicks know they're going to look like their mother, and in 10 years, that means no man?

    , @dearieme
    @Stan d Mute

    the theory that g is nothing more than general fitness.

    Too strong. I suggest that that g is inter alia a guide to general fitness.

    [Observe: when discussing g always throw in a Latin tag.]

  28. @KL
    What does this mean? Single parents are not allowed to enter the military. So, does never married mean that these women became single moms during their service? Does married-divorced mean they were married at the time of their first panel, and subsequently divorced? And Never Married-Married-Divorce means they were unmarried, and then married and divorced during their military service?

    The military does not seem like a good, flexible occupation for a single parent. There mere fact that divorced and single mothers stayed in the military suggests a lack of options. Single moms who left the military might have much higher IQ.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Alden

    If black male single parents were not allowed to enter the military there wouldn’t be any black men in the military.

    Why does single parent mean only woman single parents? Takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Just look at all the mulatto trash our brave black military men have left all over the world. Although they refused to acknowledge it, all those mulattos had black male parents.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Alden

    "Why does single parent mean only woman single parents? "

    Because they're the one's who get all the benefits from the G. How many single negro fathers would be granted alimony and child support from the mothers of their chitlins? I'm guessing it's still pretty much zero.

  29. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Wrong place, and wrong ring.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Wrong place, and wrong ring.

    Sorry, but I don’t post NSFW content.

    • LOL: ic1000
  30. @Known Fact
    @martin_2


    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.
     
    Agree in general but your scoring system is way out of whack. The vast majority of women (men too, I suppose), will rate between a 4 and a 6 -- that's where the big bulge in the bell curve is as far as looks or sexual marketplace value. Maybe more 3s lately too with obesity such a growing problem.

    So a 7 would be way higher than the 40th percentile. 10s hardly exist at all, and you may never actually meet a 9 in your entire lifetime -- so an 8 is the realistic ceiling and thus a 7 is not Hall of Fame material but certainly as good as it's probably going to get lookswise. More likely you find a 5 or 6 who really floats your boat for whatever reason and gets an extra point for intangibles such as wit or character.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Hypnotoad666, @Cool Shoes

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone’s measures, all the men are now below average….

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Autochthon

    Learn game.

    Like Sebastian from "Cruel Intentions."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFR2vpMIQU

    Replies: @Romanian, @Autochthon

    , @Bill Jones
    @Autochthon

    Do we know what bar this poll was conducted in and how close to last call?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    , @Alden
    @Autochthon

    Another involuntarily celibate loser who can’t get a woman makes a comment. Instead of UNZ Review this site should be named the UNZ support group for involuntarily celibate ugly creepy losers who can’t get a woman.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Autochthon

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Autochthon

    Women think what their magazines & TV shows tell them to think.

    Replies: @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey

    , @HallParvey
    @Autochthon

    Nobody's perfect.

    , @Known Fact
    @Autochthon

    And it's a triple whammy because
    1) She rates you too low
    2) She rates herself too high
    3) She hopes to punch upward on this already skewed marketplace scale (before age and reality begin to intrude, at least), while men's tastes in women are more pragmatic -- more diverse and inclusive in the true sense of the words.

    I know, I know, that's all very stereotypical, and if you're fortunate you'll find an exception that tests the rule.

    , @SFG
    @Autochthon

    OK, I'm sorry. You can blame the Jews for Marxism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, one-third of the Immigration Act of 1965, the New York Times, the ADL, and the crappiness of most blockbusters (who owns Hollywood after all?)

    But only settling for a prince? That goes back a lot further.

    Besides if you're talking about attractiveness the effect should be larger on men, who are more visually oriented.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Autochthon


    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

     

    Nearly all men are ugly. That's why they should pay much higher fines for indecent exposure. During the mid-'70s streaking craze, a Georgia sheriff's office announced that young women would be treated lightly, but any men who tried it would have the book thrown at them.

    Hard to argue with that.
  31. @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers' prime. as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row.

    Andy Reid is now getting underrated, one of the best coaches in the league, who has built two Superbowl teams from scratch, with several different quarterbacks. Mahomes was drafted straight onto a playoff team, and only needed to be better than Alex Smith at throwing deep for the Chiefs to go far into the playoffs. of course Mahomes is great, but now he's getting too much credit.

    Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn't throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw. as soon as he did, the Steelers went to the Superbowl quickly. Big Ben now has the most 500 yard games in NFL history, but he has the opposite problem - the current coach is not that good in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Fans make fun of Andy Reid because he’s bad at the one thing fans watching at home can pretend to be really good at: late game drive clock management. For the other 99.5% of being a head coach, he’s terrific.

    • Replies: @prime noticer
    @Steve Sailer

    fans make fun of Andy Reid because it looks like he's reading a restaurant menu during the game instead of a playbook.

  32. @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady is the greatest athlete in any sport, in the history of sports.

    Patriots dynasty was about 70 to 80 percent Brady, 20 to 30 percent Belichick. Belichick not much success without Brady. Patriots coaching tree no success - Brian Flores may turn out to be the best.

    Wonderlic is only loosely related to ability at the position - some of the very good players at the position have been below 20. each position has an average score. scores have increased 1 point across all positions over the last 25 years. even african players are slightly above average intelligence for the general african population, going by Wonderlic results, so intelligence or at least reaction speed helps somewhat at all positions. Jeff George lowest score ever at the position for a european - 10.

    not sure if it has ever been done, but a Wonderlic study of league average players versus Hall Of Fame players might be interesting. would also guess that players from two parent families are slightly better on average per game statistics.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sternhammer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    My guess is that IQ is less related to in-game playing ability than off field stuff like learning the playbook fast or not getting hurt during the off-season trying to jump your jetski. (One theory about shortstop Cal Ripken’s 2600 game playing streak was that he never ever does anything off the field that would make him miss a game: he never trips or drops anything on his toe or hits his thumb with a hammer.)

    Smarter quarterbacks probably more are likely to get signed as backup quarterbacks because they can also serve as assistant assistant coaches and then sometimes they get a break and get back into the lineup and revive their careers.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Steve Sailer

    Byron Leftwich is an American football coach and former quarterback who is the offensive coordinator for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the National Football League. Tom has probably forgotten more than Byron ever knew about being a QB, but they have been successful. Probably because Byron and Bruce Arians (sp?) figured out about half way through the season that they had to adapt the offense to Tom's strengths.

    And yes Mike McCarthy wasted much of Aaron Rodgers' career. It's been 10 years since GB won the SB. But MM managed to fail upwards and get the Cowboys' job, where he was mediocre as usual.

  33. Steve Sailer:

    “Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It”

    Ah, the eternal conservative obsession with breeding, family formation, children, etc.

    No, higher IQ woman use their intelligence to discover, invent, create, etc. Madame Curi, Elizabeth Blackburn, Hypatia, Carol Greider, Catherine of Russia, etc, are good examples.

    An intelligent woman dedicating herself to creating half-asses hybrids of herself and raising them, hybrids that might not inherent any of her greatness, is a total waste of a life.

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Rockford Tyson

    That’s pretty much what the misogynist White woman hating Men Of UNZ think.

    Most are unmarried don’t have children and don’t have any kind of sex life with women. They seem to live in an imaginary world of happy prosperous families that doesn’t exist now and never really existed. It’s amazing to read the rants against abortion and even contraception by men who have never have and never will do the deed that makes a baby.

    I’ve been reading conservative websites since the internet began. This is the only one that caters to women haters. The Men of UNZ can’t get a woman so they get together on this site to bitch and whine about it.

    They don’t care a rat’s ass about affirmative action against White men. But they rant against our racial enemies, blacks getting abortions.

    This really isn’t a conservative site. It’s a White women haters site.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    , @HallParvey
    @Rockford Tyson


    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.
     
    What if most women prefer that situation?
    , @SFG
    @Rockford Tyson

    The vast majority of high-IQ women and men do not become a Curie (Marie or Pierre).

    From the eugenic point of view (and this shouldn't be limited to IQ), there's a tradeoff between current and future productivity since effort devoted to raising children can't be devoted to scientific discovery or whatever. Since women have a briefer window of fertility it's more of a concern. The dude can wait till 50 and he's got his Nobel to spawn and all you'll get is more autism; the lady doesn't have that option.

    That said there are certainly solutions you could come up with--maternity leave etc.--that would allow for women to do both. I'm not denying a lot of the conservative rhetoric does fit the old feminist stereotype about excuses to keep women down, but there's some truth to it too.

    Replies: @Rob

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Rockford Tyson

    A woman is a woman.

    C.G. Jung said: Woman's principle is Eros, Man's principle is Logos. Here, I'd disagree. In my view: Woman's principle is Eros, Man's principle is Thymos (with some Logos added). Of course, these are generalizations, but not without foundation.

    If we just look at physiology & bodies, we know perfectly than woman's body is all about reproduction (periods, mood swings, maternal instinct, ...), while with us- not quite. We have an entire field of medicine on women's health, gynecology, while andrology does not exist (or does, as a side show).

    Then, psychologically, Byron was right: “Man’s love is of a man’s life, a thing apart. It’s a woman’s whole existence.”

    Some women of genius may find men of secondary importance in their lives, but even among them, they're in the minority. Virtually all "high IQ" women want their man, family &, if possible, progeny.

  34. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Learn game.

    Like Sebastian from “Cruel Intentions.”

    • Replies: @Romanian
    @JohnnyWalker123

    The actor even ended up marrying Reese Witherspoon!

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    , @Autochthon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I am happily married. Games are for Atari.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  35. @Stan d Mute
    This does nothing to undermine the theory that g is nothing more than general fitness. A woman with fewer deleterious mutations should have both a higher IQ and a figure more enticing to males.

    What is the data really telling us? Hot chicks are smarter? Smart chicks are hotter? Or that ugly and stupid ride the DNA railways together?

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @dearieme

    Maybe smart chicks know they’re going to look like their mother, and in 10 years, that means no man?

    • LOL: JohnnyWalker123
  36. The issue is marriage, not just procreation. All the single ladies with kids are procreating, too. And I didn’t see any value judgment about what either group does with the rest of their time.

    Also, if Madame Curie’s high IQ female ancestors hadn’t procreated there wouldn’t have been any Madame Curie.

  37. @Steve Sailer
    @KL

    I believe that the sample is not of military recruits but the nationally representative sample recruited for the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1979. In 1980, the Pentagon paid the Dept of Labor, which was running the NLSY panel, to have their young people take the military's AFQT entrance test.

    The data from the NLSY79, once it was augmented with AFQT IQ-like scores, became the heart of "The Bell Curve."

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @YetAnotherAnon

    I still don’t understand those baseline captions. Steve says the sample’s not of recruits, just people who’ve taken the test, but this data still makes no sense without an explanation of those labels.

    What’s “Never Married -> Married” ? Surely everyone is “Never Married” before they’re “Married”?

    What distinguishes that column from plain “Married” ?

    Same applies to “Married -> Divorced” and “Never Married -> Married -> Divorced”

    • Replies: @Bert
    @YetAnotherAnon

    Never Married ----> Married means the woman had at least one child out of wedlock and subsequently married. Presumably a way to avoid mentioning bastardy. This must be the thousandth instance of a politically correct euphemism or circumlocution obscuring the facts.

  38. @Whiskey
    I'm not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is ... let us say ... uh ...

    Alexis Bledel types. Don't ask and don't tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don't get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don't marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that ... because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don't think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ray Caruso, @dearieme, @Neoconned, @John Johnson

    I’m curious. What do you mean by “Alexis Bledel types”? That’s not the kind of woman you typically find in the ranks of our glorious armed forces, certainly not in terms of physical appearance.

    • Replies: @Jimbo
    @Ray Caruso

    Its Whiskey, Ray. Don't try to make sense of it.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Ray Caruso

    This poor woman is perhaps more typical ...

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9156005/Fort-Bliss-soldier-charged-2019-sexual-assault-19-year-old-female-private-Asia-Graham.html

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/01/11/01/37845696-9132791-image-a-13_1610330039237.jpg

    and this is her murderer

    https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/01/17/03/38099978-9156005-image-m-59_1610853564591.jpg

  39. @Known Fact
    @martin_2


    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.
     
    Agree in general but your scoring system is way out of whack. The vast majority of women (men too, I suppose), will rate between a 4 and a 6 -- that's where the big bulge in the bell curve is as far as looks or sexual marketplace value. Maybe more 3s lately too with obesity such a growing problem.

    So a 7 would be way higher than the 40th percentile. 10s hardly exist at all, and you may never actually meet a 9 in your entire lifetime -- so an 8 is the realistic ceiling and thus a 7 is not Hall of Fame material but certainly as good as it's probably going to get lookswise. More likely you find a 5 or 6 who really floats your boat for whatever reason and gets an extra point for intangibles such as wit or character.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Hypnotoad666, @Cool Shoes

    You are assuming the 1-10 rating scale is some kind of logarithmic or Gaussian distribution. I am not sure that’s how most people use it. In everyday use, it’s probably more like some imperfect linear percentile distribution. Except nobody wants to draw distinctions under about 4 or 5. All those people just have “good personalities ”

    • Replies: @black sea
    @Hypnotoad666

    I think a lot of people just equate this scale to the school grading scale they grew up with.

    9 - 10 = Excellent

    8 - 8.9 = Good

    7 - 7.9 = Acceptable

    6 - 6.9 = Deficient

    0 - 5.9 = Fail

    Replies: @Alexandros

    , @Known Fact
    @Hypnotoad666

    Right, I think the mismatch is that people's grading sysems are based on what you get on a test in school -- if you get a 70 that's blah, just a C, just acceptable. But that number is skewed largely because almost no one is getting anything lower than a 60.

    In a real-life distribution of looks or overall sexual marketplace value most people are clumped around the middle -- a 4,5 or maybe 6 out 10, or a 50 out of 100. So if you're a 7 in the looks department, the 70th percentile, you are actually not just acceptable, you're noticeably above the average. When you get to 8 or so you're talking about attractive people who can make a living or otherwise skate through life based at least in part on their looks. A 9 is rare and way out there in terms of standard deviations, maybe what, a Maria Bartiromo or Sophia Loren?

    As long as people agree on a common scale of reference, it's all OK I suppose

  40. @Whiskey
    I'm not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is ... let us say ... uh ...

    Alexis Bledel types. Don't ask and don't tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don't get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don't marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that ... because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don't think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ray Caruso, @dearieme, @Neoconned, @John Johnson

    You don’t get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett

    I’ve never understood the high rating people put on Ms Tett. Her writing, the bits of it I’ve read, strikes me as terminally dull.

  41. @prime noticer
    this study also grouped the women by hair color. conversion to mean wechsler scores:

    yellow 103
    brown 102
    red 101
    black 100

    european women only, others were excluded for statistical control.

    i've posted about it a couple times before.

    Replies: @dearieme

    How does anyone know the true hair colour of an adult woman?

    (I know a thirty-something who dyes her hair dark because she believes that men in corporate life tend not to take blondes seriously.)

  42. @Stan d Mute
    This does nothing to undermine the theory that g is nothing more than general fitness. A woman with fewer deleterious mutations should have both a higher IQ and a figure more enticing to males.

    What is the data really telling us? Hot chicks are smarter? Smart chicks are hotter? Or that ugly and stupid ride the DNA railways together?

    Replies: @Redneck farmer, @dearieme

    the theory that g is nothing more than general fitness.

    Too strong. I suggest that that g is inter alia a guide to general fitness.

    [Observe: when discussing g always throw in a Latin tag.]

  43. @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady is the greatest athlete in any sport, in the history of sports.

    Patriots dynasty was about 70 to 80 percent Brady, 20 to 30 percent Belichick. Belichick not much success without Brady. Patriots coaching tree no success - Brian Flores may turn out to be the best.

    Wonderlic is only loosely related to ability at the position - some of the very good players at the position have been below 20. each position has an average score. scores have increased 1 point across all positions over the last 25 years. even african players are slightly above average intelligence for the general african population, going by Wonderlic results, so intelligence or at least reaction speed helps somewhat at all positions. Jeff George lowest score ever at the position for a european - 10.

    not sure if it has ever been done, but a Wonderlic study of league average players versus Hall Of Fame players might be interesting. would also guess that players from two parent families are slightly better on average per game statistics.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sternhammer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Wayne Gretzky!

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Sternhammer

    I was going to say the same. There's no way Brady is as good at football as Gretzky was at hockey, or as Jordan was at basketball. But especially Gretzky. Is anyone ever going to get close to the numbers he put up?

  44. @Ray Caruso
    @Whiskey

    I'm curious. What do you mean by "Alexis Bledel types"? That's not the kind of woman you typically find in the ranks of our glorious armed forces, certainly not in terms of physical appearance.

    Replies: @Jimbo, @Bardon Kaldian

    Its Whiskey, Ray. Don’t try to make sense of it.

  45. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Autochthon

    Learn game.

    Like Sebastian from "Cruel Intentions."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFR2vpMIQU

    Replies: @Romanian, @Autochthon

    The actor even ended up marrying Reese Witherspoon!

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    @Romanian

    Then he cheated on her a lot, resulting in a divorce.

    The real-life actor was remarkably similar to the character he played.

  46. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Steve Sailer

    I still don't understand those baseline captions. Steve says the sample's not of recruits, just people who've taken the test, but this data still makes no sense without an explanation of those labels.

    What's "Never Married -> Married" ? Surely everyone is "Never Married" before they're "Married"?

    What distinguishes that column from plain "Married" ?

    Same applies to "Married -> Divorced" and "Never Married -> Married -> Divorced"

    Replies: @Bert

    Never Married —-> Married means the woman had at least one child out of wedlock and subsequently married. Presumably a way to avoid mentioning bastardy. This must be the thousandth instance of a politically correct euphemism or circumlocution obscuring the facts.

    • Thanks: YetAnotherAnon
  47. @martin_2
    Although men value physical attractiveness in a woman very highly, it doesn't mean that she needs to be a beauty queen, or that a beauty queen will automatically have greater appeal. Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.

    Replies: @Known Fact, @Rosie, @Hannah Katz

    For marriage, men subconsciously look for healthy women who can produce healthy children. Healthy women tend to be better looking than unhealthy ones. Overly skinny or morbidly obese women often do not produce healthy children.

    Women subconsciously look for men who can be good providers for their families. Less emphasis on looks, and more on financial success and dependability. Traditional, I know, but applicable.

  48. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    On a lighter note, but somewhat related (e.g. Wonderlich Test can substitute for IQ scores) 43 TB QB Tom Brady just defeated 41 NO QB Drew Brees in NFC Divisional Round. Brady will now face off vs. GB QB Aaron Rodgers.

    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlich Test and against Rodgers. Does having a high test score predict NFL success, or is it overrated? There must be a reason why he has advanced to 14 AFC/NFC Championship games which is nearly double whoever is in second place. Meanwhile, NE this yr, failed to make the playoffs. So for those thinking of "who made whom? Bellichik vs Brady?" The answer now becomes quite clear.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @prime noticer, @Polynikes

    About 75% Belicheck 25% Brady. Manning or Rodgers could have easily done the same on those Patriot teams. My guess is Manning would’ve more possibly.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Polynikes

    Other way round, 75% Brady, 25% Bellichick. Coulda shoulda with Manning, but DIDNT. Manning was on a dominant IND team, and his postseason record is one of the worst in NFL history for a dominant great starting QB. Just plain abysmal. A player has to perform in January, any QB can do so during the season when the quality of opponents isn't uniformly good across the board. Not so in January.

    You hate Brady, we get it. FACT: As soon as Brees retires, Brady will own all the major passing QB career records

    FACT: Brady has the most postseason wins, and most championships. If he wins the SB with TB, then NE's dynasty was clearly Brady.

    Remind us again how Bellichik did in the playoffs this year, since any old QB can work in his system and win in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Brutusale

  49. @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer



    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlic Test and against Rodgers.
     
    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

     

    Imagine the voters' Wonderlic scores:




    Jackson County, Mo.: 60% Biden
    Norfolk County, Mass.: 67% Biden
    Orleans Parish, La.: 83% Biden
    Brown County, Wisc.: 53% Trump

    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL's 28 counties. Apparently only the Red skins' Washington Football Team's Prince Georges was better for Biden than Orleans. (San Francisco also topped N.O., but the 49ers no longer play there.)

    Replies: @Ed, @Reg Cæsar

    Prime George’s County, MD is very black as is New Orleans. No mystery as to why Biden would fare the best in these places.

  50. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Do we know what bar this poll was conducted in and how close to last call?

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Bill Jones

    "Do we know what bar this poll was conducted in and how close to last call?"


    If the survey's conducted at last call in a bar, the men's ratings of women would change dramatically from the pretty normal distribution their preferences produce when sober.

    It would look more like the reverse of women's ratings of men, with no women at all in the "least attractive" rating, and 81% rated "above average".

    Beer goggles are real.

  51. @Rockford Tyson
    Steve Sailer:

    "Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It"

    Ah, the eternal conservative obsession with breeding, family formation, children, etc.

    No, higher IQ woman use their intelligence to discover, invent, create, etc. Madame Curi, Elizabeth Blackburn, Hypatia, Carol Greider, Catherine of Russia, etc, are good examples.

    An intelligent woman dedicating herself to creating half-asses hybrids of herself and raising them, hybrids that might not inherent any of her greatness, is a total waste of a life.

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    Replies: @Alden, @HallParvey, @SFG, @Bardon Kaldian

    That’s pretty much what the misogynist White woman hating Men Of UNZ think.

    Most are unmarried don’t have children and don’t have any kind of sex life with women. They seem to live in an imaginary world of happy prosperous families that doesn’t exist now and never really existed. It’s amazing to read the rants against abortion and even contraception by men who have never have and never will do the deed that makes a baby.

    I’ve been reading conservative websites since the internet began. This is the only one that caters to women haters. The Men of UNZ can’t get a woman so they get together on this site to bitch and whine about it.

    They don’t care a rat’s ass about affirmative action against White men. But they rant against our racial enemies, blacks getting abortions.

    This really isn’t a conservative site. It’s a White women haters site.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Alden

    Alden, you're not yourself today. Eat a Snickers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXL8QPWLbBo&feature=emb_logo

  52. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Another involuntarily celibate loser who can’t get a woman makes a comment. Instead of UNZ Review this site should be named the UNZ support group for involuntarily celibate ugly creepy losers who can’t get a woman.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @Alden

    I'm skeptical of the bar graphs. Don't believe everything you read. Also don't believe that very many men give a damn for Madame Curie and her accomplishments, regardless of her haunting intelligent look. They just don't have the time or interest. Still, if they worked with her or otherwise had opportunity to observe her skill, quite likely they would have the utmost respect for her. Men can be shallow, but generally have ability to appreciate excellence. Many of us however, would rather make the assessment ourselves, rather than be served truth by scold.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    , @Autochthon
    @Alden

    I'm married with children, dumbass.

  53. Understanding that a) if you have kids with someone, they will have a lot of the traits of your partner, and b) don’t have said kid with someone you don’t want in your life long term, is a pretty low bar to get over. However, our betters have decreed that single black moms are the most virtuous people our nation has to offer, so we have a lot of them as a result though we are told it’s racist to point out the result is a breathtaking level of cultural dysfunction that results in 3rd world levels of violence, underemployment, and an unshakeable sense of entitlement.

  54. @Hypnotoad666
    @Known Fact

    You are assuming the 1-10 rating scale is some kind of logarithmic or Gaussian distribution. I am not sure that's how most people use it. In everyday use, it's probably more like some imperfect linear percentile distribution. Except nobody wants to draw distinctions under about 4 or 5. All those people just have "good personalities "

    Replies: @black sea, @Known Fact

    I think a lot of people just equate this scale to the school grading scale they grew up with.

    9 – 10 = Excellent

    8 – 8.9 = Good

    7 – 7.9 = Acceptable

    6 – 6.9 = Deficient

    0 – 5.9 = Fail

    • Replies: @Alexandros
    @black sea

    Maybe for the upper portion, certainly not for the lower. A woman around 5-6 is not "a fail". She's just a bit over average. And an 8 is definitely above just "good". That's the prettiest girl most men will ever hope to lay their hands on.

    Mine is like this:

    10 = perfect. she could not become prettier even if God intervened.
    9 = extremely attractive. only minor things separate her from a 10.
    8 = very attractive. prettier than a big majority of girls you see.
    7 = attractive. prettier than most girls, but not by a lot.
    6 = attractive. pretty, but average
    5 = possibly attractive. around average.
    4 = she's got blue hair
    3 = she's fat
    2 = she's bald
    1 = she eats blocks of cheese for a snack

  55. @Alden
    @KL

    If black male single parents were not allowed to enter the military there wouldn’t be any black men in the military.

    Why does single parent mean only woman single parents? Takes a man and a woman to make a baby. Just look at all the mulatto trash our brave black military men have left all over the world. Although they refused to acknowledge it, all those mulattos had black male parents.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    “Why does single parent mean only woman single parents? ”

    Because they’re the one’s who get all the benefits from the G. How many single negro fathers would be granted alimony and child support from the mothers of their chitlins? I’m guessing it’s still pretty much zero.

  56. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Women think what their magazines & TV shows tell them to think.

    • Replies: @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Ads>tv

  57. @Hypnotoad666
    @Known Fact

    You are assuming the 1-10 rating scale is some kind of logarithmic or Gaussian distribution. I am not sure that's how most people use it. In everyday use, it's probably more like some imperfect linear percentile distribution. Except nobody wants to draw distinctions under about 4 or 5. All those people just have "good personalities "

    Replies: @black sea, @Known Fact

    Right, I think the mismatch is that people’s grading sysems are based on what you get on a test in school — if you get a 70 that’s blah, just a C, just acceptable. But that number is skewed largely because almost no one is getting anything lower than a 60.

    In a real-life distribution of looks or overall sexual marketplace value most people are clumped around the middle — a 4,5 or maybe 6 out 10, or a 50 out of 100. So if you’re a 7 in the looks department, the 70th percentile, you are actually not just acceptable, you’re noticeably above the average. When you get to 8 or so you’re talking about attractive people who can make a living or otherwise skate through life based at least in part on their looks. A 9 is rare and way out there in terms of standard deviations, maybe what, a Maria Bartiromo or Sophia Loren?

    As long as people agree on a common scale of reference, it’s all OK I suppose

  58. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Nobody’s perfect.

  59. @Rockford Tyson
    Steve Sailer:

    "Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It"

    Ah, the eternal conservative obsession with breeding, family formation, children, etc.

    No, higher IQ woman use their intelligence to discover, invent, create, etc. Madame Curi, Elizabeth Blackburn, Hypatia, Carol Greider, Catherine of Russia, etc, are good examples.

    An intelligent woman dedicating herself to creating half-asses hybrids of herself and raising them, hybrids that might not inherent any of her greatness, is a total waste of a life.

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    Replies: @Alden, @HallParvey, @SFG, @Bardon Kaldian

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    What if most women prefer that situation?

  60. @Ray Caruso
    @Whiskey

    I'm curious. What do you mean by "Alexis Bledel types"? That's not the kind of woman you typically find in the ranks of our glorious armed forces, certainly not in terms of physical appearance.

    Replies: @Jimbo, @Bardon Kaldian

  61. A lot of people here in these comments are making the issue too complicated. It’s just a matter of that smart men and smart women marry each other because they find intelligence to be a romantically attractive quality. Viz.: Frau. and I. Yours truly, low 140s, Frau., I don’t know if she has ever had a formal IQ test, but my educated guess based on a lot of observation (she is my wife and the mother of our infant twin sons, after all, so I’ve had a lot of observation opportunities) is mid-130s.

    • Agree: David In TN
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @countenance

    Agreed.

    Smart men and women generally get married still. Midwits do some of the time (particularly if they marry early and don’t mess around). Dumb people hardly ever marry anymore.

    Ugly and stupid go together after the early 20s or so. Go walk around a Wal Mart and just observe. I don’t think it’s necessarily like that worldwide, or that it was always the case in the US. But thanks to poor diets, substance abuse, and dysgenic breeding for two generations, dumb people are very unattractive as adults.

    , @John Johnson
    @countenance

    A lot of people here in these comments are making the issue too complicated. It’s just a matter of that smart men and smart women marry each other because they find intelligence to be a romantically attractive quality.

    I think it is more just basic compatibility.

    If you are going to live with someone you want to be able to have a conversation without the other person feeling intimidated. You also want to have common interests or at least be able to tolerate what the other person does.

    Marriages based on sex can probably work for a while but I would guess make up a lot of divorces.

    But with that said there is a very real problem of smart career women holding out for a smart career man that doesn't exist. Basically the man they are expecting is already married or has plenty of options.

    I have seen this problem first hand and I don't have any answers. TV convinced these single White women that they all have a charming White collar husband out there looking for them. Even unattractive women believed this. Most just need to get with the UPS guy and get over it.

    The "Sex in the city" lifestyle is grossly exaggerated. I have lived in the city and most women were not out slutting it up. They were far more likely to be at home watching that stupid show.

    On the upside most of these single women are liberal and dysgenics in Whites will probably have political ramifications that will work against the left. But on some level I do feel bad for them. They were sold a load of BS like most of us.

  62. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    And it’s a triple whammy because
    1) She rates you too low
    2) She rates herself too high
    3) She hopes to punch upward on this already skewed marketplace scale (before age and reality begin to intrude, at least), while men’s tastes in women are more pragmatic — more diverse and inclusive in the true sense of the words.

    I know, I know, that’s all very stereotypical, and if you’re fortunate you’ll find an exception that tests the rule.

  63. Hey iSteve, many have wondered what was really behind the GWOT. Terrorism, pipelines, oil, grand strategy, blah blah blah. Turns out what’s behind military policy is eugenics.

  64. Very beautiful women tend to be scarily smart in my experience. It’s very interesting to observe and interact with them as a gay man because they drop the ditzy façade they typically would put on with a straight guy who looks like me, and instead start to talk like a normal person and I can glimpse the machinery underneath. A very beautiful (actress/model-tier) woman in the west is the most socially intelligent person you’ll ever meet. They typically get exactly what they want whether it’s a rich husband or a star career. They may later regret their decision, but that’s a human thing.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Mr. Mean


    Very beautiful women tend to be scarily smart in my experience.
     
    Go meet some strippers. Deadheads aplenty in that crowd. (The deadheads tend not to last long in that game, since you need social skills to get customers - looks alone won't cut it - but there is always a flow of new girls willing to try their luck.)

    Replies: @DextersLabRat

  65. @Rockford Tyson
    Steve Sailer:

    "Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It"

    Ah, the eternal conservative obsession with breeding, family formation, children, etc.

    No, higher IQ woman use their intelligence to discover, invent, create, etc. Madame Curi, Elizabeth Blackburn, Hypatia, Carol Greider, Catherine of Russia, etc, are good examples.

    An intelligent woman dedicating herself to creating half-asses hybrids of herself and raising them, hybrids that might not inherent any of her greatness, is a total waste of a life.

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    Replies: @Alden, @HallParvey, @SFG, @Bardon Kaldian

    The vast majority of high-IQ women and men do not become a Curie (Marie or Pierre).

    From the eugenic point of view (and this shouldn’t be limited to IQ), there’s a tradeoff between current and future productivity since effort devoted to raising children can’t be devoted to scientific discovery or whatever. Since women have a briefer window of fertility it’s more of a concern. The dude can wait till 50 and he’s got his Nobel to spawn and all you’ll get is more autism; the lady doesn’t have that option.

    That said there are certainly solutions you could come up with–maternity leave etc.–that would allow for women to do both. I’m not denying a lot of the conservative rhetoric does fit the old feminist stereotype about excuses to keep women down, but there’s some truth to it too.

    • Replies: @Rob
    @SFG

    Endless education probably does more to hurt smart women’s fertility than any feminist philosophy. Given that the status drive is very strong, men not earning enough to support their families on one income, and divorce being fairly well-accepted, I do not think many responsible women, especially smart women, will start families earlier or finish with larger families if it means lower social status, a lifetime of much lower income, and dependence on someone for livelihood who could jump ship at any time.

    Conservative solutions might work, but so what? I don’t necessarily subscribe to the Whig theory of history, but in modern America, conservatives never turn back a social change, nor do they slow or mitigate any change through anything but trying to harm people whose costs and benefits lead them to want changes in the first place. Take abortion, the issue which, until Trump, defined the conservative base. Much like repealing Obamacare, no conservative have any ideas on what to after the repeal. What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies? Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion. No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. They just want to punish people already in shitty situations.

    I don’t think conservative elites care about abortion, but they sure as shit care about Obamacare. That hurts their portfolios, and costs their donors money. Tried to repeal it, what, like 50 times. No interest in what to replace it with. I don’t think conservative elites care about demographic collapse, though it will hurt them tremendously. Their only plan for getting intelligent, responsible people to have enough children is to let employers discriminate against women, and especially mothers. That way, women will get frustrated with employment, go back to the farm, and raise a passel of young ‘uns!

    Getting anyone, Red Team! or Blue Team! to make policy as if biology is real is nearly impossible. But what needs to be addressed? How much time getting established in a middle class (or above) takes now. Low social status of mothers, especially those without jobs. Unsuitability of potential husbands - this actually does not have a solution, but is not a huge problem for whites, yet. Any others?

    Both parties are neoliberal. The owner’s of capital and buyers of labor will not give up ‘labor market flexibility’ voluntarily. But having kids is really stressful when a family needs two incomes, and neither has stability. Perhaps there is a governmental solution? It seems to me that any payment for children policy causes adverse incentives. The higher skill nature of jobs that have not been automated, outsourced, or insourced into paying poverty wages means people have to spend more time in education. Companies spend almost nothing on education and training. What they do spend on training has negative value - diversity training and such. Perhaps allowing companies to use IQ and aptitude training, so that they can be more assured of earning returns on their investment? Might not matter, HR is full of dumbs who don’t realize that IQ is a cheap measurement with good predictive value. I wonder if a company could get away with IQ testing if it did not adversely impact blacks. Like take whites who score over 115, but blacks who score over 100. Or, test whites, but just hire diversity at the legally required rate without testing them. Really, does the chief diversity officer need to be smart? How much grains does it take to call people racist? If the marketplace were less monopolistic, then the few companies that did realize IQ was important (P&G comes to mind. Any others) could pay premiums to smarter workers. When those companies did well, they would either drive fantasy-based businesses out, or other companies would imitate the winners.

    I am honestly not sure what could be done to get bright women through education faster. If girls mature 3(?) years before boys, then 15 year-old girls are as ready for college-level work as 18 year old guys. Maybe smart girls should get seriously rigorous college coursework in high school. Being 2 years ahead academically, bright women could take masters degrees when men and brightish women are getting their bachelors. They would then be a couple years ahead in their careers, and could establish themselves well enough that employers could depend on them mainly working from home. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company.

    I have high hopes for work from home being the norm for jobs where that is possible. Women could live in cheaper places with less anti-natalist cultures. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company. Ideally, the third world gets rich, stops having a labor cost advantage, and everyone is rich. Or rather, as rich as their IQ and cultures allow. I do hope for that, we have globalism, and it may not be stoppable, so it would be nice if it ended grinding poverty everywhere without bringing it here.

    I don’t know what can be done for the relatively low social status of mothers. But if a critical mass of trend-setters had kids, maybe the female side of culture would flip from shaming married women with large families to shaming childless women? Could the Kardashian chicks be sponsored into having kids with smart, sane men?

    Housing cost is a big one. That would be helped tremendously by immigration restriction. At least, it would have helped twenty years ago. Today, there may be enough third world-Americans that unclogging the metaphorical toilet after the bathroom is covered in crap is too late. Education costs would also be improved by reduced immigration.

    Oh, here’s one. We know from human behavioral ecology that childhood environment matters very little in adult outcomes. At least that was true for the bulk of the population in mid-20th century America. If parents realized that their genes do most of the work in determining their kids adult outcomes (in the main, chronic diseases and injuries have a lot of effect, but they are fairly rare). Perhaps responsible people would have more kids if they knew that their environment is largely inconsequential, over a broad, but not infinite, range of environment

    Over a long enough time, if society did not collapse from dysgenic, then natural selection would make women have kids regardless of social status or resource stability. I do not think we want lots of women who reproduce with that stereotypically ghetto mindset. But societies select for what correlates with having more children, g-children, etc, not what we wish it would select for

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @S. Anonyia

  66. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    OK, I’m sorry. You can blame the Jews for Marxism, libertarianism, neoliberalism, one-third of the Immigration Act of 1965, the New York Times, the ADL, and the crappiness of most blockbusters (who owns Hollywood after all?)

    But only settling for a prince? That goes back a lot further.

    Besides if you’re talking about attractiveness the effect should be larger on men, who are more visually oriented.

  67. Seriously for all the rhetoric about ‘men not appreciating intelligent women’ and ‘intelligent women don’t just want to be moms’ a lot of intelligent women just want to start a family. I mean, I’d bet there probably is a weak negative correlation given (1) we’ve seen a negative correlation between WORDSUM and number of children–I think Epigone had it (2) higher education is full of antinatalist feminist propaganda but even so most women, like most men, want to lead normal lives. They just don’t get jobs in the NYT writing about it.

  68. @countenance
    A lot of people here in these comments are making the issue too complicated. It's just a matter of that smart men and smart women marry each other because they find intelligence to be a romantically attractive quality. Viz.: Frau. and I. Yours truly, low 140s, Frau., I don't know if she has ever had a formal IQ test, but my educated guess based on a lot of observation (she is my wife and the mother of our infant twin sons, after all, so I've had a lot of observation opportunities) is mid-130s.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson

    Agreed.

    Smart men and women generally get married still. Midwits do some of the time (particularly if they marry early and don’t mess around). Dumb people hardly ever marry anymore.

    Ugly and stupid go together after the early 20s or so. Go walk around a Wal Mart and just observe. I don’t think it’s necessarily like that worldwide, or that it was always the case in the US. But thanks to poor diets, substance abuse, and dysgenic breeding for two generations, dumb people are very unattractive as adults.

  69. Anon[106] • Disclaimer says:

    Being in a stable marriage is also a sign of emotional stability. People who are emotionally stable bring home the bacon, stay together, and raise their kids without crazy drama. Their kids also inherit this natural tendency towards emotional stability, and they’re less likely to do drugs and alcohol and mess up their lives.

    The importance of emotional stability is way underrated by our society.

  70. @Rockford Tyson
    Steve Sailer:

    "Smarter Women Use Their IQ Points to Get a Man to Put a Ring on It"

    Ah, the eternal conservative obsession with breeding, family formation, children, etc.

    No, higher IQ woman use their intelligence to discover, invent, create, etc. Madame Curi, Elizabeth Blackburn, Hypatia, Carol Greider, Catherine of Russia, etc, are good examples.

    An intelligent woman dedicating herself to creating half-asses hybrids of herself and raising them, hybrids that might not inherent any of her greatness, is a total waste of a life.

    What you are basically saying is that a woman has no value besides being a breeding animal. If she has talents and abilities, she should express them only through her sons. Besides the cruelty and unfairness of this, her sons may come to be duds.

    Replies: @Alden, @HallParvey, @SFG, @Bardon Kaldian

    A woman is a woman.

    C.G. Jung said: Woman’s principle is Eros, Man’s principle is Logos. Here, I’d disagree. In my view: Woman’s principle is Eros, Man’s principle is Thymos (with some Logos added). Of course, these are generalizations, but not without foundation.

    If we just look at physiology & bodies, we know perfectly than woman’s body is all about reproduction (periods, mood swings, maternal instinct, …), while with us- not quite. We have an entire field of medicine on women’s health, gynecology, while andrology does not exist (or does, as a side show).

    Then, psychologically, Byron was right: “Man’s love is of a man’s life, a thing apart. It’s a woman’s whole existence.”

    Some women of genius may find men of secondary importance in their lives, but even among them, they’re in the minority. Virtually all “high IQ” women want their man, family &, if possible, progeny.

  71. @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    My guess is that IQ is less related to in-game playing ability than off field stuff like learning the playbook fast or not getting hurt during the off-season trying to jump your jetski. (One theory about shortstop Cal Ripken's 2600 game playing streak was that he never ever does anything off the field that would make him miss a game: he never trips or drops anything on his toe or hits his thumb with a hammer.)

    Smarter quarterbacks probably more are likely to get signed as backup quarterbacks because they can also serve as assistant assistant coaches and then sometimes they get a break and get back into the lineup and revive their careers.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Byron Leftwich is an American football coach and former quarterback who is the offensive coordinator for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the National Football League. Tom has probably forgotten more than Byron ever knew about being a QB, but they have been successful. Probably because Byron and Bruce Arians (sp?) figured out about half way through the season that they had to adapt the offense to Tom’s strengths.

    And yes Mike McCarthy wasted much of Aaron Rodgers’ career. It’s been 10 years since GB won the SB. But MM managed to fail upwards and get the Cowboys’ job, where he was mediocre as usual.

  72. @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady is the greatest athlete in any sport, in the history of sports.

    Patriots dynasty was about 70 to 80 percent Brady, 20 to 30 percent Belichick. Belichick not much success without Brady. Patriots coaching tree no success - Brian Flores may turn out to be the best.

    Wonderlic is only loosely related to ability at the position - some of the very good players at the position have been below 20. each position has an average score. scores have increased 1 point across all positions over the last 25 years. even african players are slightly above average intelligence for the general african population, going by Wonderlic results, so intelligence or at least reaction speed helps somewhat at all positions. Jeff George lowest score ever at the position for a european - 10.

    not sure if it has ever been done, but a Wonderlic study of league average players versus Hall Of Fame players might be interesting. would also guess that players from two parent families are slightly better on average per game statistics.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Sternhammer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Wonderlich, as it serves as a proxy IQ test, also demonstrates IQ, period. The smarter position players speak for themselves…the offensive lineman, QB, even K and P tend to be at the high end of IQ. The dumber positions, CB, WR, RB, most defensive linemen (except safeties and some linebackers) are at the bottom. You can often see this play out in real life: Which position players tend to have off field issues with the police, and are unable to handle the large sums of money post-retirement?

    NE dynasty was always 80% Brady, now he’s demonstrating why its so. The one mistake NE made was getting rid of Garrappolo when they did. If they had held on to him, they would have been in a better position to make the playoffs, or at least had a better chance of doing better.

  73. @prime noticer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers' prime. as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row.

    Andy Reid is now getting underrated, one of the best coaches in the league, who has built two Superbowl teams from scratch, with several different quarterbacks. Mahomes was drafted straight onto a playoff team, and only needed to be better than Alex Smith at throwing deep for the Chiefs to go far into the playoffs. of course Mahomes is great, but now he's getting too much credit.

    Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn't throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw. as soon as he did, the Steelers went to the Superbowl quickly. Big Ben now has the most 500 yard games in NFL history, but he has the opposite problem - the current coach is not that good in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers’ prime.”

    Rodgers won his only SB with McCarthy, it wasn’t a total waste.

    “as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row.”

    And lost them both. Let’s not be so quick to glorify the losers. It is not a slam dunk that Rodgers wont tank again vs the GOAT (or GWEL, the Greatest Who Ever Lived). LaFleur went to the NFC Title Games with largely McCarthy’s teams, that’s not really an accomplishment. The team was already really good, plus the added advantage of playing in a weak division. Mitch Trubisky? Come on. You call that competition for the division? Matt Stafford is overrated. There’s no one else to give GB serious competition.

    Brady vs Rodgers could be the NFC matchup for the ages.

    “Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn’t throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw.”

    Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O’Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution. Current coach sucks in playoffs. Thing is, until he won the SB last yr, that’s what the consensus around Andy Reid was, that he sucked in the playoffs and couldn’t win the big one. With PHI he went to four consecutive NFC Title games and lost three in a row before losing to NE SB XXXVIX. His playoff record sucked as bad as Tomlin’s. Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.

    But so far, Aaron Rodgers only SB win has come with Mike McCarthy as his coach.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.
     
    "Doug Pederson, please pick up the white courtesy phone."

    2) Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O’Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution.
     
    IIRC, O'Donnell ran himself out of town when the Jets offered him $25 million.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  74. @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Fans make fun of Andy Reid because he's bad at the one thing fans watching at home can pretend to be really good at: late game drive clock management. For the other 99.5% of being a head coach, he's terrific.

    Replies: @prime noticer

    fans make fun of Andy Reid because it looks like he’s reading a restaurant menu during the game instead of a playbook.

  75. @Reg Cæsar
    @Steve Sailer



    It would be interesting to compare exactly where Tom Brady fares on the Wonderlic Test and against Rodgers.
     
    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

     

    Imagine the voters' Wonderlic scores:




    Jackson County, Mo.: 60% Biden
    Norfolk County, Mass.: 67% Biden
    Orleans Parish, La.: 83% Biden
    Brown County, Wisc.: 53% Trump

    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL's 28 counties. Apparently only the Red skins' Washington Football Team's Prince Georges was better for Biden than Orleans. (San Francisco also topped N.O., but the 49ers no longer play there.)

    Replies: @Ed, @Reg Cæsar

    Trump carried precisely one of the NFL’s 28 counties.

    Correction: Thirty counties. Or twenty-nine and a parish. Can’t keep count anymore!

  76. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it's not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn't think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He'd hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he'd get clobbered by the pass rush.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Peter Akuleyev

    Aaron Rodgers 128

    Rodgers scores very well on common sense, too:

    Rodgers, a California native who formerly starred at the University of California, Berkeley, spoke on “The Pat McAfee Show” about his $500,000 donation to the Dave Portnoy’s Barstool Fund, which has been sending relief to many small businesses desperate to keep their businesses afloat…

    Of Portnoy’s efforts, Rodgers concluded, “It’s really a call to action for those of us who can donate. Let’s donate. Let’s help our brothers and our sisters out because these are our people. We’re all we got.”

    ‘They’re Not Even Following Their Own Rules’: Packers’ Aaron Rodgers Slams Pelosi, Newsom

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    Speaking of endless careers…

    Feinstein, 87, Files Paperwork For Possible Re-Election; Gets Scolded On Social Media

    “Feinstein’s already the oldest senator in the chamber. She would be 91 if re-elected, and 97 if she serves out her full six-year term following a 2024 victory.”

    Dole (97) and Buckley (98 in March) have been retired for decades!

  77. @Autochthon
    @Known Fact

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    https://i.imgur.com/L9Vu4Zo.png

    Like a kind of perversion even by Lake Woebegone's measures, all the men are now below average....

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @Bill Jones, @Alden, @Bardon Kaldian, @HallParvey, @Known Fact, @SFG, @Reg Cæsar

    Because of (((modern propaganda))) and hypergamy, most women now deem nearly all men ugly:

    Nearly all men are ugly. That’s why they should pay much higher fines for indecent exposure. During the mid-’70s streaking craze, a Georgia sheriff’s office announced that young women would be treated lightly, but any men who tried it would have the book thrown at them.

    Hard to argue with that.

  78. Rob says:
    @SFG
    @Rockford Tyson

    The vast majority of high-IQ women and men do not become a Curie (Marie or Pierre).

    From the eugenic point of view (and this shouldn't be limited to IQ), there's a tradeoff between current and future productivity since effort devoted to raising children can't be devoted to scientific discovery or whatever. Since women have a briefer window of fertility it's more of a concern. The dude can wait till 50 and he's got his Nobel to spawn and all you'll get is more autism; the lady doesn't have that option.

    That said there are certainly solutions you could come up with--maternity leave etc.--that would allow for women to do both. I'm not denying a lot of the conservative rhetoric does fit the old feminist stereotype about excuses to keep women down, but there's some truth to it too.

    Replies: @Rob

    Endless education probably does more to hurt smart women’s fertility than any feminist philosophy. Given that the status drive is very strong, men not earning enough to support their families on one income, and divorce being fairly well-accepted, I do not think many responsible women, especially smart women, will start families earlier or finish with larger families if it means lower social status, a lifetime of much lower income, and dependence on someone for livelihood who could jump ship at any time.

    Conservative solutions might work, but so what? I don’t necessarily subscribe to the Whig theory of history, but in modern America, conservatives never turn back a social change, nor do they slow or mitigate any change through anything but trying to harm people whose costs and benefits lead them to want changes in the first place. Take abortion, the issue which, until Trump, defined the conservative base. Much like repealing Obamacare, no conservative have any ideas on what to after the repeal. What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies? Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion. No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. They just want to punish people already in shitty situations.

    [MORE]

    I don’t think conservative elites care about abortion, but they sure as shit care about Obamacare. That hurts their portfolios, and costs their donors money. Tried to repeal it, what, like 50 times. No interest in what to replace it with. I don’t think conservative elites care about demographic collapse, though it will hurt them tremendously. Their only plan for getting intelligent, responsible people to have enough children is to let employers discriminate against women, and especially mothers. That way, women will get frustrated with employment, go back to the farm, and raise a passel of young ‘uns!

    Getting anyone, Red Team! or Blue Team! to make policy as if biology is real is nearly impossible. But what needs to be addressed? How much time getting established in a middle class (or above) takes now. Low social status of mothers, especially those without jobs. Unsuitability of potential husbands – this actually does not have a solution, but is not a huge problem for whites, yet. Any others?

    Both parties are neoliberal. The owner’s of capital and buyers of labor will not give up ‘labor market flexibility’ voluntarily. But having kids is really stressful when a family needs two incomes, and neither has stability. Perhaps there is a governmental solution? It seems to me that any payment for children policy causes adverse incentives. The higher skill nature of jobs that have not been automated, outsourced, or insourced into paying poverty wages means people have to spend more time in education. Companies spend almost nothing on education and training. What they do spend on training has negative value – diversity training and such. Perhaps allowing companies to use IQ and aptitude training, so that they can be more assured of earning returns on their investment? Might not matter, HR is full of dumbs who don’t realize that IQ is a cheap measurement with good predictive value. I wonder if a company could get away with IQ testing if it did not adversely impact blacks. Like take whites who score over 115, but blacks who score over 100. Or, test whites, but just hire diversity at the legally required rate without testing them. Really, does the chief diversity officer need to be smart? How much grains does it take to call people racist? If the marketplace were less monopolistic, then the few companies that did realize IQ was important (P&G comes to mind. Any others) could pay premiums to smarter workers. When those companies did well, they would either drive fantasy-based businesses out, or other companies would imitate the winners.

    I am honestly not sure what could be done to get bright women through education faster. If girls mature 3(?) years before boys, then 15 year-old girls are as ready for college-level work as 18 year old guys. Maybe smart girls should get seriously rigorous college coursework in high school. Being 2 years ahead academically, bright women could take masters degrees when men and brightish women are getting their bachelors. They would then be a couple years ahead in their careers, and could establish themselves well enough that employers could depend on them mainly working from home. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company.

    I have high hopes for work from home being the norm for jobs where that is possible. Women could live in cheaper places with less anti-natalist cultures. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company. Ideally, the third world gets rich, stops having a labor cost advantage, and everyone is rich. Or rather, as rich as their IQ and cultures allow. I do hope for that, we have globalism, and it may not be stoppable, so it would be nice if it ended grinding poverty everywhere without bringing it here.

    I don’t know what can be done for the relatively low social status of mothers. But if a critical mass of trend-setters had kids, maybe the female side of culture would flip from shaming married women with large families to shaming childless women? Could the Kardashian chicks be sponsored into having kids with smart, sane men?

    Housing cost is a big one. That would be helped tremendously by immigration restriction. At least, it would have helped twenty years ago. Today, there may be enough third world-Americans that unclogging the metaphorical toilet after the bathroom is covered in crap is too late. Education costs would also be improved by reduced immigration.

    Oh, here’s one. We know from human behavioral ecology that childhood environment matters very little in adult outcomes. At least that was true for the bulk of the population in mid-20th century America. If parents realized that their genes do most of the work in determining their kids adult outcomes (in the main, chronic diseases and injuries have a lot of effect, but they are fairly rare). Perhaps responsible people would have more kids if they knew that their environment is largely inconsequential, over a broad, but not infinite, range of environment

    Over a long enough time, if society did not collapse from dysgenic, then natural selection would make women have kids regardless of social status or resource stability. I do not think we want lots of women who reproduce with that stereotypically ghetto mindset. But societies select for what correlates with having more children, g-children, etc, not what we wish it would select for

    • Agree: silviosilver
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Rob

    "What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies?"

    Since nearly half of all total annual abortions come from non-white women, this sounds a bit racist to call non-white babies junk? What would the Left say if one were to call their babies junk, and that they didn't matter?


    "Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? "

    Ok, let's stop with the BS hypotheticals since there aren't any concrete solutions listed here, so let's try this instead.

    Use the tax code in a positive way: For every baby born to a single mother under age 27 (or perhaps 29), she will get a tax credit of up to 15-20k for the first five years. Considering that most women under the poverty line have access to government health care and government programs regarding medical, and childbearing and free access to various such programs, there are already programs in place by Uncle Sam to help remedy the situation.


    "Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. "

    Most liberals aren't adopting children as they tend to have smaller families, so let's be consistent. Churches and other religious organizations have been directly addressing these issues for decades now, but wouldn't expect such a person as yourself to be familiar with that.


    "No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion."

    And what are these root causes, pray tell? Since about 95% of all total annual abortions is done for expressed purposes of birth control, sexual permissiveness is the overriding cause. Anyone over the age of twelve can figure that one out, duh. Its fairly simple. Keep the pants zipped up and the legs crossed, and the girl/woman doesn't get pregnant. Fancy that. Works every time.

    "No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. "

    They already have access to all forms of family planning, those under the poverty line have numerous government programs available. Birth control pills are now free and paid for by the government, for example. Women don't need access to family planning, if they're not at the responsible maturity level to prepare for having a family, but then, that deals with a fairly high IQ as well as putting a ring on it (on their finger, that is). Would also remind one that family planning center's main venue of profitability remains abortion. It is big business for some.


    "They just want to punish people already in shitty situations."


    Why is having a child a shitty situation? Oh, unless they're actually expected to pay for their own mistake by not keeping their legs crossed? So, if you get drunk, and crash your car into a tree and end up a cripple, you want to sue the bar that sold you the drinks, because they didn't save you from your own lack of responsibility and a low IQ to make solid responsible decisions? Understood. There are those kinds of people in the world. Yep, life does suck for those who screw up and lack maturity, and ability to make sound decisions for their own individual lives.

    , @S. Anonyia
    @Rob

    It’s not so much education that depresses fertility among intelligent women, it’s that modern urban or suburban life is really fun when you are married with no kids and two incomes. The world is your oyster then, and it’s painful to give it up. Greater availability of nannies would help, or a social model like the Soviet Union where the retired/bored granny takes care of the kids.

  79. I have a suspicion that it’s ‘intelligence is inversely associated with impetuousness’ among men and women.

  80. @Sternhammer
    @prime noticer

    Wayne Gretzky!

    Replies: @silviosilver

    I was going to say the same. There’s no way Brady is as good at football as Gretzky was at hockey, or as Jordan was at basketball. But especially Gretzky. Is anyone ever going to get close to the numbers he put up?

  81. @Mr. Mean
    Very beautiful women tend to be scarily smart in my experience. It’s very interesting to observe and interact with them as a gay man because they drop the ditzy façade they typically would put on with a straight guy who looks like me, and instead start to talk like a normal person and I can glimpse the machinery underneath. A very beautiful (actress/model-tier) woman in the west is the most socially intelligent person you’ll ever meet. They typically get exactly what they want whether it’s a rich husband or a star career. They may later regret their decision, but that’s a human thing.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Very beautiful women tend to be scarily smart in my experience.

    Go meet some strippers. Deadheads aplenty in that crowd. (The deadheads tend not to last long in that game, since you need social skills to get customers – looks alone won’t cut it – but there is always a flow of new girls willing to try their luck.)

    • Replies: @DextersLabRat
    @silviosilver

    Aren't most strippers not *beautiful* beautiful? Same with porn stars. Look good with lots of make-up and aren't exactly ugly but not model/actress type beautiful. Show me a stripper who looks like Ana de Armas or that model who fucked the Chinese billionaire and then married the Snapchat guy.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  82. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aaron Rodgers 128
    Tom Brady 124
    Drew Brees 114
    Patrick Mahomes 106.

    These are all quick and dirty IQ approximations from the 12 minute Wonderlic, with 2 IQ points per right answer and 100 set at 21 right out of 50.

    The QBs with the really endless careers tend to be solidly above average in IQ.

    But it's not clear that IQ correlates with smart decision making on the field. For example, Frank Ryan earned a Ph.D. in math from Rice. But his Cleveland Browns teammates didn't think he was a great decision maker on the field. Instead, they loved him for how brave he was. He'd hold the ball until the last possible microsecond waiting for the receiver to get open, which meant he'd get clobbered by the pass rush.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reg Cæsar, @Reg Cæsar, @Peter Akuleyev

    Where does Harvard boy Ryan Fitzpatrick fit in? He has certainly milked a moderate degree of talent into a very impressive career (in terms of longevity and financial rewards).

    • Replies: @dcthrowback
    @Peter Akuleyev

    ...and kids. He has 6. Gotta love Fitz!

  83. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Steve Sailer

    Where does Harvard boy Ryan Fitzpatrick fit in? He has certainly milked a moderate degree of talent into a very impressive career (in terms of longevity and financial rewards).

    Replies: @dcthrowback

    …and kids. He has 6. Gotta love Fitz!

  84. @Bill Jones
    @Autochthon

    Do we know what bar this poll was conducted in and how close to last call?

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “Do we know what bar this poll was conducted in and how close to last call?”

    If the survey’s conducted at last call in a bar, the men’s ratings of women would change dramatically from the pretty normal distribution their preferences produce when sober.

    It would look more like the reverse of women’s ratings of men, with no women at all in the “least attractive” rating, and 81% rated “above average”.

    Beer goggles are real.

  85. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @prime noticer

    "Rodgers main problem was Mike McCarthy, who sucks, and wasted 8 years of Rodgers’ prime."

    Rodgers won his only SB with McCarthy, it wasn't a total waste.

    "as soon as he was gone, the Packers went directly to the NFC Championship twice in a row."

    And lost them both. Let's not be so quick to glorify the losers. It is not a slam dunk that Rodgers wont tank again vs the GOAT (or GWEL, the Greatest Who Ever Lived). LaFleur went to the NFC Title Games with largely McCarthy's teams, that's not really an accomplishment. The team was already really good, plus the added advantage of playing in a weak division. Mitch Trubisky? Come on. You call that competition for the division? Matt Stafford is overrated. There's no one else to give GB serious competition.

    Brady vs Rodgers could be the NFC matchup for the ages.




    "Bill Cowher had the same issue when he wasted years with Kordell Stewart, a guy who couldn’t throw, when all he needed to do was just get a player who could throw."

    Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O'Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution. Current coach sucks in playoffs. Thing is, until he won the SB last yr, that's what the consensus around Andy Reid was, that he sucked in the playoffs and couldn't win the big one. With PHI he went to four consecutive NFC Title games and lost three in a row before losing to NE SB XXXVIX. His playoff record sucked as bad as Tomlin's. Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.

    But so far, Aaron Rodgers only SB win has come with Mike McCarthy as his coach.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.

    “Doug Pederson, please pick up the white courtesy phone.”

    2) Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O’Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution.

    IIRC, O’Donnell ran himself out of town when the Jets offered him $25 million.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jim Don Bob

    “Doug Pederson, please pick up the white courtesy phone.”

    It's PHI what do you expect. The town that boos Santa Claus when he doesn't deliver what they ask him for.

  86. @black sea
    @Hypnotoad666

    I think a lot of people just equate this scale to the school grading scale they grew up with.

    9 - 10 = Excellent

    8 - 8.9 = Good

    7 - 7.9 = Acceptable

    6 - 6.9 = Deficient

    0 - 5.9 = Fail

    Replies: @Alexandros

    Maybe for the upper portion, certainly not for the lower. A woman around 5-6 is not “a fail”. She’s just a bit over average. And an 8 is definitely above just “good”. That’s the prettiest girl most men will ever hope to lay their hands on.

    Mine is like this:

    10 = perfect. she could not become prettier even if God intervened.
    9 = extremely attractive. only minor things separate her from a 10.
    8 = very attractive. prettier than a big majority of girls you see.
    7 = attractive. prettier than most girls, but not by a lot.
    6 = attractive. pretty, but average
    5 = possibly attractive. around average.
    4 = she’s got blue hair
    3 = she’s fat
    2 = she’s bald
    1 = she eats blocks of cheese for a snack

  87. @Romanian
    @JohnnyWalker123

    The actor even ended up marrying Reese Witherspoon!

    Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Then he cheated on her a lot, resulting in a divorce.

    The real-life actor was remarkably similar to the character he played.

  88. @Whiskey
    I'm not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is ... let us say ... uh ...

    Alexis Bledel types. Don't ask and don't tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don't get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don't marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that ... because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don't think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ray Caruso, @dearieme, @Neoconned, @John Johnson

    LOL i had to google the Bledel reference….ive never watched Handmaid Tale but from what i read of it….seems incredibly stupid….

    Why would the Christian cult put lesbians in camps…..when they could just marry them out to men to “break them in”….HT reminds me of V for Vendetta…..full of weird over the top Anglo paranoias….

  89. @Polynikes
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    About 75% Belicheck 25% Brady. Manning or Rodgers could have easily done the same on those Patriot teams. My guess is Manning would’ve more possibly.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Other way round, 75% Brady, 25% Bellichick. Coulda shoulda with Manning, but DIDNT. Manning was on a dominant IND team, and his postseason record is one of the worst in NFL history for a dominant great starting QB. Just plain abysmal. A player has to perform in January, any QB can do so during the season when the quality of opponents isn’t uniformly good across the board. Not so in January.

    You hate Brady, we get it. FACT: As soon as Brees retires, Brady will own all the major passing QB career records

    FACT: Brady has the most postseason wins, and most championships. If he wins the SB with TB, then NE’s dynasty was clearly Brady.

    Remind us again how Bellichik did in the playoffs this year, since any old QB can work in his system and win in the playoffs.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Brady has 32 post season wins. The next guy, some shlub named Montana, has 16.

    , @Brutusale
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Seeing as the other 31 GMs in the league found 198 players more desirable than Brady, Belichick was 100% responsible for Brady's career.

    Belichick was also smart enough to keep Brady in the lineup when the guy he replaced was ready to go. Said guy had just signed what was at the time the richest contract in the NFL and was a Pro Bowl QB.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Drew_Bledsoe

    Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record. The backup was fine under Belichick's regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Matt_Cassel

    The Patriots sucked this year (or so I've read; I haven't watched pro sports since the first kneel). Well, losing the greatest QB ever hurts, as does not having the guy who's arguably the greatest tight end ever. They also lost the most players opting out due to Chinky Flu.

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29607350/takeaways-deadline-players-opting-2020-nfl-season-coronavirus-concerns

    I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success, and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on.

    Belichick spent the year trying to fashion a silk purse out of a sow's ear. His entire body of work, though, speaks for itself, though sometimes a photo speaks a bit louder.

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-why-bill-belichick-was-wearing-10-huge-rings-at-the-patriots-ring-party/

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  90. @Alden
    @Autochthon

    Another involuntarily celibate loser who can’t get a woman makes a comment. Instead of UNZ Review this site should be named the UNZ support group for involuntarily celibate ugly creepy losers who can’t get a woman.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Autochthon

    I’m skeptical of the bar graphs. Don’t believe everything you read. Also don’t believe that very many men give a damn for Madame Curie and her accomplishments, regardless of her haunting intelligent look. They just don’t have the time or interest. Still, if they worked with her or otherwise had opportunity to observe her skill, quite likely they would have the utmost respect for her. Men can be shallow, but generally have ability to appreciate excellence. Many of us however, would rather make the assessment ourselves, rather than be served truth by scold.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Neil Templeton

    "The bar graphs" are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons' expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  91. @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    Funny how winning a SB changes the perception.
     
    "Doug Pederson, please pick up the white courtesy phone."

    2) Cowher HAD a QB who could throw, Neil O’Donnell, they ran him out of town when he lost the SB to DAL, and made Stewart the solution.
     
    IIRC, O'Donnell ran himself out of town when the Jets offered him $25 million.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “Doug Pederson, please pick up the white courtesy phone.”

    It’s PHI what do you expect. The town that boos Santa Claus when he doesn’t deliver what they ask him for.

  92. @Rob
    @SFG

    Endless education probably does more to hurt smart women’s fertility than any feminist philosophy. Given that the status drive is very strong, men not earning enough to support their families on one income, and divorce being fairly well-accepted, I do not think many responsible women, especially smart women, will start families earlier or finish with larger families if it means lower social status, a lifetime of much lower income, and dependence on someone for livelihood who could jump ship at any time.

    Conservative solutions might work, but so what? I don’t necessarily subscribe to the Whig theory of history, but in modern America, conservatives never turn back a social change, nor do they slow or mitigate any change through anything but trying to harm people whose costs and benefits lead them to want changes in the first place. Take abortion, the issue which, until Trump, defined the conservative base. Much like repealing Obamacare, no conservative have any ideas on what to after the repeal. What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies? Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion. No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. They just want to punish people already in shitty situations.

    I don’t think conservative elites care about abortion, but they sure as shit care about Obamacare. That hurts their portfolios, and costs their donors money. Tried to repeal it, what, like 50 times. No interest in what to replace it with. I don’t think conservative elites care about demographic collapse, though it will hurt them tremendously. Their only plan for getting intelligent, responsible people to have enough children is to let employers discriminate against women, and especially mothers. That way, women will get frustrated with employment, go back to the farm, and raise a passel of young ‘uns!

    Getting anyone, Red Team! or Blue Team! to make policy as if biology is real is nearly impossible. But what needs to be addressed? How much time getting established in a middle class (or above) takes now. Low social status of mothers, especially those without jobs. Unsuitability of potential husbands - this actually does not have a solution, but is not a huge problem for whites, yet. Any others?

    Both parties are neoliberal. The owner’s of capital and buyers of labor will not give up ‘labor market flexibility’ voluntarily. But having kids is really stressful when a family needs two incomes, and neither has stability. Perhaps there is a governmental solution? It seems to me that any payment for children policy causes adverse incentives. The higher skill nature of jobs that have not been automated, outsourced, or insourced into paying poverty wages means people have to spend more time in education. Companies spend almost nothing on education and training. What they do spend on training has negative value - diversity training and such. Perhaps allowing companies to use IQ and aptitude training, so that they can be more assured of earning returns on their investment? Might not matter, HR is full of dumbs who don’t realize that IQ is a cheap measurement with good predictive value. I wonder if a company could get away with IQ testing if it did not adversely impact blacks. Like take whites who score over 115, but blacks who score over 100. Or, test whites, but just hire diversity at the legally required rate without testing them. Really, does the chief diversity officer need to be smart? How much grains does it take to call people racist? If the marketplace were less monopolistic, then the few companies that did realize IQ was important (P&G comes to mind. Any others) could pay premiums to smarter workers. When those companies did well, they would either drive fantasy-based businesses out, or other companies would imitate the winners.

    I am honestly not sure what could be done to get bright women through education faster. If girls mature 3(?) years before boys, then 15 year-old girls are as ready for college-level work as 18 year old guys. Maybe smart girls should get seriously rigorous college coursework in high school. Being 2 years ahead academically, bright women could take masters degrees when men and brightish women are getting their bachelors. They would then be a couple years ahead in their careers, and could establish themselves well enough that employers could depend on them mainly working from home. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company.

    I have high hopes for work from home being the norm for jobs where that is possible. Women could live in cheaper places with less anti-natalist cultures. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company. Ideally, the third world gets rich, stops having a labor cost advantage, and everyone is rich. Or rather, as rich as their IQ and cultures allow. I do hope for that, we have globalism, and it may not be stoppable, so it would be nice if it ended grinding poverty everywhere without bringing it here.

    I don’t know what can be done for the relatively low social status of mothers. But if a critical mass of trend-setters had kids, maybe the female side of culture would flip from shaming married women with large families to shaming childless women? Could the Kardashian chicks be sponsored into having kids with smart, sane men?

    Housing cost is a big one. That would be helped tremendously by immigration restriction. At least, it would have helped twenty years ago. Today, there may be enough third world-Americans that unclogging the metaphorical toilet after the bathroom is covered in crap is too late. Education costs would also be improved by reduced immigration.

    Oh, here’s one. We know from human behavioral ecology that childhood environment matters very little in adult outcomes. At least that was true for the bulk of the population in mid-20th century America. If parents realized that their genes do most of the work in determining their kids adult outcomes (in the main, chronic diseases and injuries have a lot of effect, but they are fairly rare). Perhaps responsible people would have more kids if they knew that their environment is largely inconsequential, over a broad, but not infinite, range of environment

    Over a long enough time, if society did not collapse from dysgenic, then natural selection would make women have kids regardless of social status or resource stability. I do not think we want lots of women who reproduce with that stereotypically ghetto mindset. But societies select for what correlates with having more children, g-children, etc, not what we wish it would select for

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @S. Anonyia

    “What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies?”

    Since nearly half of all total annual abortions come from non-white women, this sounds a bit racist to call non-white babies junk? What would the Left say if one were to call their babies junk, and that they didn’t matter?

    “Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? ”

    Ok, let’s stop with the BS hypotheticals since there aren’t any concrete solutions listed here, so let’s try this instead.

    Use the tax code in a positive way: For every baby born to a single mother under age 27 (or perhaps 29), she will get a tax credit of up to 15-20k for the first five years. Considering that most women under the poverty line have access to government health care and government programs regarding medical, and childbearing and free access to various such programs, there are already programs in place by Uncle Sam to help remedy the situation.

    “Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. ”

    Most liberals aren’t adopting children as they tend to have smaller families, so let’s be consistent. Churches and other religious organizations have been directly addressing these issues for decades now, but wouldn’t expect such a person as yourself to be familiar with that.

    “No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion.”

    And what are these root causes, pray tell? Since about 95% of all total annual abortions is done for expressed purposes of birth control, sexual permissiveness is the overriding cause. Anyone over the age of twelve can figure that one out, duh. Its fairly simple. Keep the pants zipped up and the legs crossed, and the girl/woman doesn’t get pregnant. Fancy that. Works every time.

    “No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. ”

    They already have access to all forms of family planning, those under the poverty line have numerous government programs available. Birth control pills are now free and paid for by the government, for example. Women don’t need access to family planning, if they’re not at the responsible maturity level to prepare for having a family, but then, that deals with a fairly high IQ as well as putting a ring on it (on their finger, that is). Would also remind one that family planning center’s main venue of profitability remains abortion. It is big business for some.

    “They just want to punish people already in shitty situations.”

    Why is having a child a shitty situation? Oh, unless they’re actually expected to pay for their own mistake by not keeping their legs crossed? So, if you get drunk, and crash your car into a tree and end up a cripple, you want to sue the bar that sold you the drinks, because they didn’t save you from your own lack of responsibility and a low IQ to make solid responsible decisions? Understood. There are those kinds of people in the world. Yep, life does suck for those who screw up and lack maturity, and ability to make sound decisions for their own individual lives.

  93. @JohnnyWalker123
    @Autochthon

    Learn game.

    Like Sebastian from "Cruel Intentions."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFR2vpMIQU

    Replies: @Romanian, @Autochthon

    I am happily married. Games are for Atari.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    I am happily married. Games are for Atari.

    I do fine with women and I am also happily married.

    Most women just aren't as interesting as depicted on television. Same goes for most men in all fairness.

    If you find one that is interesting or enjoyable to be around then marry her.

    Or you can spend our life hanging out at bars listening to top 40 music. I guess that is called game. It seems most these "game" guys haven't figured out that vaginas are actually pretty consistent. There is no magical bacon strip out there. Anatomical variation is more of an issue for women.

  94. @Alden
    @Autochthon

    Another involuntarily celibate loser who can’t get a woman makes a comment. Instead of UNZ Review this site should be named the UNZ support group for involuntarily celibate ugly creepy losers who can’t get a woman.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton, @Autochthon

    I’m married with children, dumbass.

  95. @Anonymous
    @Whiskey

    https://i.imgur.com/jGFhzSo.jpg

    Replies: @Charles St. Charles

    I have the same syndrome, but it only presents with about 98% of women.

  96. @Neil Templeton
    @Alden

    I'm skeptical of the bar graphs. Don't believe everything you read. Also don't believe that very many men give a damn for Madame Curie and her accomplishments, regardless of her haunting intelligent look. They just don't have the time or interest. Still, if they worked with her or otherwise had opportunity to observe her skill, quite likely they would have the utmost respect for her. Men can be shallow, but generally have ability to appreciate excellence. Many of us however, would rather make the assessment ourselves, rather than be served truth by scold.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven't spent much time around women.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @black sea, @anon, @Autochthon

  97. Tom Brady is so good at football that it’s incomprehensible even to people who are knowledgeable about sports. as demonstrated in this thread.

    Michael Jordan doesn’t have the all-time record in anything. not career points, not championships, nothing. well, except ESPN slurping. he has that locked down. he has really clean testicles.

    Brady taking the Bucs to the Superbowl would be like Jordan taking the Wizards to the Finals? except that’s exactly what Brady did in real life. when Jordan was 40 years old, he was playing his last season as a second rate player on a random team, which is what happens to a lot of Hall Of Fame players when they hang around too long, like Joe Montana.

    when Tom Brady was 40 years old, HE WAS MVP. HE TOOK THE PATRIOTS TO THE SUPERBOWL.

    and, Brady will finish as the all-time career leader in all relevant statistics.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @prime noticer


    Brady taking the Bucs to the Superbowl would be like Jordan taking the Wizards to the Finals? except that’s exactly what Brady did in real life.
     
    Huh? You really think the Bucs beating the Packers is that much of a sure thing? I hope they do, but I don't think it will happen.

    The thing with Jordan is that he was clearly the most dominant player year after year, whereas Brady, at least as judged by passer rating (imo the most useful measure, but perhaps you have other ideas), had numerous seasons where he was far from the best QB.

    As for his performance at his age, that is undoubtedly impressive, but you have to measure it by the standards of his position, and it's far from uncommon that QB's post big numbers very late into their careers. Still, it must be acknowledged, that even by this standard Brady stands out.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  98. the Patriots could have done the same thing with Peyton Manning? how? in what world? does anybody check the numbers on this stuff? when Peyton Manning was 39 years old he couldn’t even play. he threw for 9 touchdowns and 17 interceptions and was only able to get thru 9 games. the Broncos completely carried him to the Superbowl and thru the Superbowl.

    when Brady was 39, he threw for 38 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in only 12 games, due to a 4 game suspension. he took the Patriots to the Superbowl – a Patriots team that doesn’t go to the Superbowl with old, final year, noodle arm Peyton Manning.

    then, the next year, when Brady was 40, HE WAS MVP. and took the Patriots to the Superbowl again. for the second time in a row. what was Peyton Manning doing? oh, that’s right, he was OUT OF THE LEAGUE. in the Superbowl, Brady threw for 505 yards, a record that will probably stand forever. Peyton Manning has never had a 500 yard game IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER.

    er, yikes. it appears that the very next year, 41 year old Tom Brady THEN AGAIN took the Patriots to the Superbowl for the third time in a row. by this point, Peyton Manning was doing insurance commercials.

    indeed, in the last Superbowl he could actually PLAY in, Manning got absolutely obliterated in one of the biggest blowouts in history. HOW IN THE WORLD could the Patriots ‘do the same thing’ with Peyton Manning?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Peyton Manning winning a Super Bowl when he a physical shell of his former self was impressive.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  99. @prime noticer
    the Patriots could have done the same thing with Peyton Manning? how? in what world? does anybody check the numbers on this stuff? when Peyton Manning was 39 years old he couldn't even play. he threw for 9 touchdowns and 17 interceptions and was only able to get thru 9 games. the Broncos completely carried him to the Superbowl and thru the Superbowl.

    when Brady was 39, he threw for 38 touchdowns and 2 interceptions in only 12 games, due to a 4 game suspension. he took the Patriots to the Superbowl - a Patriots team that doesn't go to the Superbowl with old, final year, noodle arm Peyton Manning.

    then, the next year, when Brady was 40, HE WAS MVP. and took the Patriots to the Superbowl again. for the second time in a row. what was Peyton Manning doing? oh, that's right, he was OUT OF THE LEAGUE. in the Superbowl, Brady threw for 505 yards, a record that will probably stand forever. Peyton Manning has never had a 500 yard game IN HIS ENTIRE CAREER.

    er, yikes. it appears that the very next year, 41 year old Tom Brady THEN AGAIN took the Patriots to the Superbowl for the third time in a row. by this point, Peyton Manning was doing insurance commercials.

    indeed, in the last Superbowl he could actually PLAY in, Manning got absolutely obliterated in one of the biggest blowouts in history. HOW IN THE WORLD could the Patriots 'do the same thing' with Peyton Manning?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Peyton Manning winning a Super Bowl when he a physical shell of his former self was impressive.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Peyton didn't "win" that SB so much as not mess it up for DEN's elite Defense, (which was the real winner of the SB/postseason). Manning was in the role of Trent Dilfer; manage the game, don't throw more than 15-20 passes per game, if that, let the running game work the magic, don't screw it up for the team's real leaders (e.g. the defense) to actually win the game. If DEN had to actually rely on Manning to lead them to a victory during the postseason, they'd have lost.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  100. as a Penguins fan i respect the Gretzky, and he even has many of the relevant all-time NHL records. but he only has 4 Stanley Cup wins. come on. he doesn’t even measure up to Brady in a MUCH smaller sport, where only 6 players are on the ice at a time and 1 guy can make a huge difference.

    when Gretzky was 39 he was out the league. Brady went to the Superbowl. when Brady went to that Superbowl, he was the only player still on the team from when he first went to the Superbowl when he was 24. think about that. the ENTIRE team turned over, except for him. the Patriots were mostly him.

    i don’t think we need to go into a big discussion comparing how much bigger and harder football is than the other sports. if the numbers were comparable, Brady would still be better, because football is the biggest, hardest sport by far. but, the numbers aren’t comparable. he’s significantly better in his sport in a ballpark apples to apples comparison, before adjusting for sport size and difficulty.

    Tom Brady is the best athlete in any sport, in the history of sports. including soccer.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Who are the winningest American athletes? Bill Russell won 11 NBA titles, but the NBA was pretty small time back then. Yogi Berra won 10 World Series when baseball was America's #1 sport, although most were in a 16 team major league, which late in his career expanded to 18 and then 20.

    It's hard to compare basketball, with 5 starters, to football with 24.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  101. @prime noticer
    as a Penguins fan i respect the Gretzky, and he even has many of the relevant all-time NHL records. but he only has 4 Stanley Cup wins. come on. he doesn't even measure up to Brady in a MUCH smaller sport, where only 6 players are on the ice at a time and 1 guy can make a huge difference.

    when Gretzky was 39 he was out the league. Brady went to the Superbowl. when Brady went to that Superbowl, he was the only player still on the team from when he first went to the Superbowl when he was 24. think about that. the ENTIRE team turned over, except for him. the Patriots were mostly him.

    i don't think we need to go into a big discussion comparing how much bigger and harder football is than the other sports. if the numbers were comparable, Brady would still be better, because football is the biggest, hardest sport by far. but, the numbers aren't comparable. he's significantly better in his sport in a ballpark apples to apples comparison, before adjusting for sport size and difficulty.

    Tom Brady is the best athlete in any sport, in the history of sports. including soccer.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Who are the winningest American athletes? Bill Russell won 11 NBA titles, but the NBA was pretty small time back then. Yogi Berra won 10 World Series when baseball was America’s #1 sport, although most were in a 16 team major league, which late in his career expanded to 18 and then 20.

    It’s hard to compare basketball, with 5 starters, to football with 24.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    The thing to keep in mind is that of the original 16 member MLB, there were no playoff rounds, so the AL/NL team that finished first on Oct 1 went straight to the WS. Only two teams out of 16 qualified for the postseason. The reasoning being was that a team had six months to attempt to finish first and win the Pennant. And six months is sufficient time to do so. In some ways, it is easier for a team to sneak into the postseason with a substandard record and "luck" into winning a championship. In theory, per the example of this years NFC Eastern Division, a 7-9 team could be playing in the SB. Sub .500 teams have no business even qualifying for the postseason, but mathematical anomalies will happen.

  102. @prime noticer
    Tom Brady is so good at football that it's incomprehensible even to people who are knowledgeable about sports. as demonstrated in this thread.

    Michael Jordan doesn't have the all-time record in anything. not career points, not championships, nothing. well, except ESPN slurping. he has that locked down. he has really clean testicles.

    Brady taking the Bucs to the Superbowl would be like Jordan taking the Wizards to the Finals? except that's exactly what Brady did in real life. when Jordan was 40 years old, he was playing his last season as a second rate player on a random team, which is what happens to a lot of Hall Of Fame players when they hang around too long, like Joe Montana.

    when Tom Brady was 40 years old, HE WAS MVP. HE TOOK THE PATRIOTS TO THE SUPERBOWL.

    and, Brady will finish as the all-time career leader in all relevant statistics.

    Replies: @silviosilver

    Brady taking the Bucs to the Superbowl would be like Jordan taking the Wizards to the Finals? except that’s exactly what Brady did in real life.

    Huh? You really think the Bucs beating the Packers is that much of a sure thing? I hope they do, but I don’t think it will happen.

    The thing with Jordan is that he was clearly the most dominant player year after year, whereas Brady, at least as judged by passer rating (imo the most useful measure, but perhaps you have other ideas), had numerous seasons where he was far from the best QB.

    As for his performance at his age, that is undoubtedly impressive, but you have to measure it by the standards of his position, and it’s far from uncommon that QB’s post big numbers very late into their careers. Still, it must be acknowledged, that even by this standard Brady stands out.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @silviosilver

    Is there an agreed upon way to adjust QB passing statistics for the weather? Brady's home stadium, until this year, was outdoors in New England, whereas, say, Peyton Manning played indoors at home.

    Aaron Rodgers' home is outdoors in Green Bay. On the road, he has a game in cold Chicago and indoor games in Minnesota and Detroit.

    That's probably the worst climate for a quarterback with New England and Buffalo second. The Patriots play once per year in snowy Buffalo, once in moderate New York and once in mild Miami.

    Roethlisberger had good stats for a career spent outdoors in the rust belt. He may have the toughest schedule for passing, with 11 outdoor games per year in the upper midwest.

    Philip Rivers continues to rack up good stats, but he has played his career in San Diego, Los Angeles, and now indoors in Indianapolis.

    Drew Brees has played outdoors in San Diego and indoors in New Orleans.

    All this suggests that there is a reason that while Brady's regular season stats are very good, his post season stats are great.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  103. @silviosilver
    @prime noticer


    Brady taking the Bucs to the Superbowl would be like Jordan taking the Wizards to the Finals? except that’s exactly what Brady did in real life.
     
    Huh? You really think the Bucs beating the Packers is that much of a sure thing? I hope they do, but I don't think it will happen.

    The thing with Jordan is that he was clearly the most dominant player year after year, whereas Brady, at least as judged by passer rating (imo the most useful measure, but perhaps you have other ideas), had numerous seasons where he was far from the best QB.

    As for his performance at his age, that is undoubtedly impressive, but you have to measure it by the standards of his position, and it's far from uncommon that QB's post big numbers very late into their careers. Still, it must be acknowledged, that even by this standard Brady stands out.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Is there an agreed upon way to adjust QB passing statistics for the weather? Brady’s home stadium, until this year, was outdoors in New England, whereas, say, Peyton Manning played indoors at home.

    Aaron Rodgers’ home is outdoors in Green Bay. On the road, he has a game in cold Chicago and indoor games in Minnesota and Detroit.

    That’s probably the worst climate for a quarterback with New England and Buffalo second. The Patriots play once per year in snowy Buffalo, once in moderate New York and once in mild Miami.

    Roethlisberger had good stats for a career spent outdoors in the rust belt. He may have the toughest schedule for passing, with 11 outdoor games per year in the upper midwest.

    Philip Rivers continues to rack up good stats, but he has played his career in San Diego, Los Angeles, and now indoors in Indianapolis.

    Drew Brees has played outdoors in San Diego and indoors in New Orleans.

    All this suggests that there is a reason that while Brady’s regular season stats are very good, his post season stats are great.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Where would you rank QBs of old like Dan Fouts? Because he played in sunny warm SD, he racked up 4,000 yrds at a time when most QBs couldn't even break 3,000. Of course, when he had to actually play in ice cold CIN for the 1981 AFC Championship game, CIN won 27-7. So it would appear that QBs like Fouts benefitted from the warm weather of SD and yet it came back to hurt them when they had to play in the Rust Belt winter for the chance to go to the SB.

  104. @Known Fact
    @martin_2


    Providing a girl is, say, a 7 out of 10, which is probably at the 40th percentile (where the most attractive are at the hundredth percentile), then other qualities will start to factor in, such as character and personality, and of course general intelligence.
     
    Agree in general but your scoring system is way out of whack. The vast majority of women (men too, I suppose), will rate between a 4 and a 6 -- that's where the big bulge in the bell curve is as far as looks or sexual marketplace value. Maybe more 3s lately too with obesity such a growing problem.

    So a 7 would be way higher than the 40th percentile. 10s hardly exist at all, and you may never actually meet a 9 in your entire lifetime -- so an 8 is the realistic ceiling and thus a 7 is not Hall of Fame material but certainly as good as it's probably going to get lookswise. More likely you find a 5 or 6 who really floats your boat for whatever reason and gets an extra point for intangibles such as wit or character.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Hypnotoad666, @Cool Shoes

    I think it was RSD Tyler who said that most men would be happy with a good natured 5.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Cool Shoes

    Legit.

    "Men want a companion, not a competitor".

  105. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Autochthon

    Women think what their magazines & TV shows tell them to think.

    Replies: @David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey

    Ads>tv

  106. @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Peyton Manning winning a Super Bowl when he a physical shell of his former self was impressive.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Peyton didn’t “win” that SB so much as not mess it up for DEN’s elite Defense, (which was the real winner of the SB/postseason). Manning was in the role of Trent Dilfer; manage the game, don’t throw more than 15-20 passes per game, if that, let the running game work the magic, don’t screw it up for the team’s real leaders (e.g. the defense) to actually win the game. If DEN had to actually rely on Manning to lead them to a victory during the postseason, they’d have lost.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    And Denver was in the SB only because they'd beaten the Patriots at home by 1 point after the Pats usually reliable kicker missed a field goal. The Patriots would have killed Cam Newton.

    The Pats 3 SB losses were by small margins; they never got blown out. The loss to the Giants in 2007 came down to the helmet catch by David Tyree. The defender was Rodney Harrison.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Robdn8OYA&feature=emb_err_woyt

  107. @Alden
    @Rockford Tyson

    That’s pretty much what the misogynist White woman hating Men Of UNZ think.

    Most are unmarried don’t have children and don’t have any kind of sex life with women. They seem to live in an imaginary world of happy prosperous families that doesn’t exist now and never really existed. It’s amazing to read the rants against abortion and even contraception by men who have never have and never will do the deed that makes a baby.

    I’ve been reading conservative websites since the internet began. This is the only one that caters to women haters. The Men of UNZ can’t get a woman so they get together on this site to bitch and whine about it.

    They don’t care a rat’s ass about affirmative action against White men. But they rant against our racial enemies, blacks getting abortions.

    This really isn’t a conservative site. It’s a White women haters site.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Alden, you’re not yourself today. Eat a Snickers.

  108. @Steve Sailer
    @prime noticer

    Who are the winningest American athletes? Bill Russell won 11 NBA titles, but the NBA was pretty small time back then. Yogi Berra won 10 World Series when baseball was America's #1 sport, although most were in a 16 team major league, which late in his career expanded to 18 and then 20.

    It's hard to compare basketball, with 5 starters, to football with 24.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The thing to keep in mind is that of the original 16 member MLB, there were no playoff rounds, so the AL/NL team that finished first on Oct 1 went straight to the WS. Only two teams out of 16 qualified for the postseason. The reasoning being was that a team had six months to attempt to finish first and win the Pennant. And six months is sufficient time to do so. In some ways, it is easier for a team to sneak into the postseason with a substandard record and “luck” into winning a championship. In theory, per the example of this years NFC Eastern Division, a 7-9 team could be playing in the SB. Sub .500 teams have no business even qualifying for the postseason, but mathematical anomalies will happen.

  109. @Steve Sailer
    @silviosilver

    Is there an agreed upon way to adjust QB passing statistics for the weather? Brady's home stadium, until this year, was outdoors in New England, whereas, say, Peyton Manning played indoors at home.

    Aaron Rodgers' home is outdoors in Green Bay. On the road, he has a game in cold Chicago and indoor games in Minnesota and Detroit.

    That's probably the worst climate for a quarterback with New England and Buffalo second. The Patriots play once per year in snowy Buffalo, once in moderate New York and once in mild Miami.

    Roethlisberger had good stats for a career spent outdoors in the rust belt. He may have the toughest schedule for passing, with 11 outdoor games per year in the upper midwest.

    Philip Rivers continues to rack up good stats, but he has played his career in San Diego, Los Angeles, and now indoors in Indianapolis.

    Drew Brees has played outdoors in San Diego and indoors in New Orleans.

    All this suggests that there is a reason that while Brady's regular season stats are very good, his post season stats are great.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Where would you rank QBs of old like Dan Fouts? Because he played in sunny warm SD, he racked up 4,000 yrds at a time when most QBs couldn’t even break 3,000. Of course, when he had to actually play in ice cold CIN for the 1981 AFC Championship game, CIN won 27-7. So it would appear that QBs like Fouts benefitted from the warm weather of SD and yet it came back to hurt them when they had to play in the Rust Belt winter for the chance to go to the SB.

  110. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Polynikes

    Other way round, 75% Brady, 25% Bellichick. Coulda shoulda with Manning, but DIDNT. Manning was on a dominant IND team, and his postseason record is one of the worst in NFL history for a dominant great starting QB. Just plain abysmal. A player has to perform in January, any QB can do so during the season when the quality of opponents isn't uniformly good across the board. Not so in January.

    You hate Brady, we get it. FACT: As soon as Brees retires, Brady will own all the major passing QB career records

    FACT: Brady has the most postseason wins, and most championships. If he wins the SB with TB, then NE's dynasty was clearly Brady.

    Remind us again how Bellichik did in the playoffs this year, since any old QB can work in his system and win in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Brutusale

    Brady has 32 post season wins. The next guy, some shlub named Montana, has 16.

  111. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Peyton didn't "win" that SB so much as not mess it up for DEN's elite Defense, (which was the real winner of the SB/postseason). Manning was in the role of Trent Dilfer; manage the game, don't throw more than 15-20 passes per game, if that, let the running game work the magic, don't screw it up for the team's real leaders (e.g. the defense) to actually win the game. If DEN had to actually rely on Manning to lead them to a victory during the postseason, they'd have lost.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    And Denver was in the SB only because they’d beaten the Patriots at home by 1 point after the Pats usually reliable kicker missed a field goal. The Patriots would have killed Cam Newton.

    The Pats 3 SB losses were by small margins; they never got blown out. The loss to the Giants in 2007 came down to the helmet catch by David Tyree. The defender was Rodney Harrison.

  112. @Autochthon
    @Neil Templeton

    "The bar graphs" are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons' expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven’t spent much time around women.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @John Johnson

    Hypergamy is real. A man who has low social skills and isn't funny, but is in fact a multi-millionaire, or even a billionaire, well, women can work with that. They'll gladly hook up with a man who out earns them by a wide factor. Very few women of quality (a 7 and above on the looks scale) refuse to date someone who earns less than they make. So, if looks are important to men, so is money/earning power in the marketplace important to women. For most all women, funny, social skills, etc. are subjective after the fact spin on the one objective trait that is desired across the board---a man who earns quite a lot in income. To suggest that women are not interested in money is both asinine and ridiculous. Sure, they might hook up short term with funny, good looks, etc. But for long term relationship, diamonds are a girls best friend. To suggest that someone like Mark Zuckerberg couldn't have his pick of women (all things being equal, like him being single) is ridiculous.

    Money counts big time with women. Facts are facts.

    Dating sites also tend to confirm this. Very few women go for poor to average salaried men, but top income earners, they'll find a way to fit them into their social schedules for dates.

    , @black sea
    @John Johnson


    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.
     
    Not for very long.
    , @anon
    @John Johnson

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    OK Cupid's data is an empirical sample of female preferences because of the size of their data base. It is a more accurate sample than anything else.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Men are much more visual than women as a rule, this isn't controversial. The Pareto behavior displayed in the OK Cupid data is valid.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    Your statement does not constitute empirical data of male preferences, because your statement does not reference a true cross section of men and also you do not tell us what men are attracted to overall.

    Plus, you're wrong.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    These two statements are sweeping generalizations that in no way affect the big data from OK Cupid.

    The Internet affects humans in a lot of ways that we don't really notice. Women crave attention from men, it's hard wired. The net allows women to receive attention from men 24 / 7 if they desire, and that has curious effects. OK Cupid's data is instructive in this regard, along with such sites as OnlyFans, but one has to be willing to learn.

    There is a limited supply of decent men to marry. Most of them are picked off early.

    The median age of a US woman on the day of her first marriage is 27, probably 28 for college graduates. It's been increasing for about 30 years, and shows no sign of leveling off.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Autochthon
    @John Johnson


    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.
     
    Or they will marry South American and Eastern European women who are not psychotic....
  113. @Whiskey
    I'm not sure of that Steve.

    First, the sample of women in the Armed Services is ... let us say ... uh ...

    Alexis Bledel types. Don't ask and don't tell. [Clinton flashback]

    Secondly, they are likely to be blue collar in background, often single mothers themselves.

    You don't get higher IQ in a woman than say, Gillian Tett. Editor of the US Edition of the Financial Times. Single mother, two black daughters. Absent father.

    There is also a huge culture shift. In 1980, it was generally unacceptable to be a single mother. Now? Its celebrated. There are also far more resources for single motherhood, and you kind of forget the main reason why women want to be single mothers.

    Sexy bad boys don't marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that ... because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    Of course that successful strategy ends when free resources stop being available. A single mother with a sexy bad boy spawn is useless even to a beta male.

    No, I don't think that survey really tells us much other than the military is filled with lesbians.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Ray Caruso, @dearieme, @Neoconned, @John Johnson

    Sexy bad boys don’t marry them. Having a kid with a sexy bad boy is the ideal for women. They get the sex, the kid, and they guy they want (part of the time) without having to compromise with icky icky beta types who stick around. No woman wants or needs that … because resources are plentiful and have been for the last 70 years or so and therefore are permanent, and unchanging. Because, tingles! Mr. Man!

    It’s more of a supply and demand problem.

    There is a limited supply of decent men to marry. Most of them are picked off early.

    These women aren’t looking to be single moms. But yes they see their options and probably decide to just get pregnant with the good looking guy down the street. I really don’t blame them. I’ve been trying to hire a contractor for over a month and can’t believe how many of them are s–theads. How much society/tv/parents are to blame is a legitimate question but it doesn’t change the fact that they would make lousy husbands and if I was a woman I wouldn’t want to split their genes either.

  114. @Autochthon
    @JohnnyWalker123

    I am happily married. Games are for Atari.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I am happily married. Games are for Atari.

    I do fine with women and I am also happily married.

    Most women just aren’t as interesting as depicted on television. Same goes for most men in all fairness.

    If you find one that is interesting or enjoyable to be around then marry her.

    Or you can spend our life hanging out at bars listening to top 40 music. I guess that is called game. It seems most these “game” guys haven’t figured out that vaginas are actually pretty consistent. There is no magical bacon strip out there. Anatomical variation is more of an issue for women.

  115. @Rob
    @SFG

    Endless education probably does more to hurt smart women’s fertility than any feminist philosophy. Given that the status drive is very strong, men not earning enough to support their families on one income, and divorce being fairly well-accepted, I do not think many responsible women, especially smart women, will start families earlier or finish with larger families if it means lower social status, a lifetime of much lower income, and dependence on someone for livelihood who could jump ship at any time.

    Conservative solutions might work, but so what? I don’t necessarily subscribe to the Whig theory of history, but in modern America, conservatives never turn back a social change, nor do they slow or mitigate any change through anything but trying to harm people whose costs and benefits lead them to want changes in the first place. Take abortion, the issue which, until Trump, defined the conservative base. Much like repealing Obamacare, no conservative have any ideas on what to after the repeal. What does society do with all the unwanted junk babies? Who is going to support them? Who is going to raise them? Oh, some infertile couples (fewer every year as reproductive tech improves) want to adopt healthy white babies? What about the others? Institutions? Throw them on the compost heap? Crickets from conservatives. No interest in addressing the root causes of abortion. No interest in giving women access to other forms of family planning. They just want to punish people already in shitty situations.

    I don’t think conservative elites care about abortion, but they sure as shit care about Obamacare. That hurts their portfolios, and costs their donors money. Tried to repeal it, what, like 50 times. No interest in what to replace it with. I don’t think conservative elites care about demographic collapse, though it will hurt them tremendously. Their only plan for getting intelligent, responsible people to have enough children is to let employers discriminate against women, and especially mothers. That way, women will get frustrated with employment, go back to the farm, and raise a passel of young ‘uns!

    Getting anyone, Red Team! or Blue Team! to make policy as if biology is real is nearly impossible. But what needs to be addressed? How much time getting established in a middle class (or above) takes now. Low social status of mothers, especially those without jobs. Unsuitability of potential husbands - this actually does not have a solution, but is not a huge problem for whites, yet. Any others?

    Both parties are neoliberal. The owner’s of capital and buyers of labor will not give up ‘labor market flexibility’ voluntarily. But having kids is really stressful when a family needs two incomes, and neither has stability. Perhaps there is a governmental solution? It seems to me that any payment for children policy causes adverse incentives. The higher skill nature of jobs that have not been automated, outsourced, or insourced into paying poverty wages means people have to spend more time in education. Companies spend almost nothing on education and training. What they do spend on training has negative value - diversity training and such. Perhaps allowing companies to use IQ and aptitude training, so that they can be more assured of earning returns on their investment? Might not matter, HR is full of dumbs who don’t realize that IQ is a cheap measurement with good predictive value. I wonder if a company could get away with IQ testing if it did not adversely impact blacks. Like take whites who score over 115, but blacks who score over 100. Or, test whites, but just hire diversity at the legally required rate without testing them. Really, does the chief diversity officer need to be smart? How much grains does it take to call people racist? If the marketplace were less monopolistic, then the few companies that did realize IQ was important (P&G comes to mind. Any others) could pay premiums to smarter workers. When those companies did well, they would either drive fantasy-based businesses out, or other companies would imitate the winners.

    I am honestly not sure what could be done to get bright women through education faster. If girls mature 3(?) years before boys, then 15 year-old girls are as ready for college-level work as 18 year old guys. Maybe smart girls should get seriously rigorous college coursework in high school. Being 2 years ahead academically, bright women could take masters degrees when men and brightish women are getting their bachelors. They would then be a couple years ahead in their careers, and could establish themselves well enough that employers could depend on them mainly working from home. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company.

    I have high hopes for work from home being the norm for jobs where that is possible. Women could live in cheaper places with less anti-natalist cultures. On the other hand, people who are rarely seen are easily forgotten or fired. Companies might wonder whether the work could be outsourced to India at a much lower cost. But that is coming already, I read a New Yorker article on third worlders working for a infotech personal assistant company. Ideally, the third world gets rich, stops having a labor cost advantage, and everyone is rich. Or rather, as rich as their IQ and cultures allow. I do hope for that, we have globalism, and it may not be stoppable, so it would be nice if it ended grinding poverty everywhere without bringing it here.

    I don’t know what can be done for the relatively low social status of mothers. But if a critical mass of trend-setters had kids, maybe the female side of culture would flip from shaming married women with large families to shaming childless women? Could the Kardashian chicks be sponsored into having kids with smart, sane men?

    Housing cost is a big one. That would be helped tremendously by immigration restriction. At least, it would have helped twenty years ago. Today, there may be enough third world-Americans that unclogging the metaphorical toilet after the bathroom is covered in crap is too late. Education costs would also be improved by reduced immigration.

    Oh, here’s one. We know from human behavioral ecology that childhood environment matters very little in adult outcomes. At least that was true for the bulk of the population in mid-20th century America. If parents realized that their genes do most of the work in determining their kids adult outcomes (in the main, chronic diseases and injuries have a lot of effect, but they are fairly rare). Perhaps responsible people would have more kids if they knew that their environment is largely inconsequential, over a broad, but not infinite, range of environment

    Over a long enough time, if society did not collapse from dysgenic, then natural selection would make women have kids regardless of social status or resource stability. I do not think we want lots of women who reproduce with that stereotypically ghetto mindset. But societies select for what correlates with having more children, g-children, etc, not what we wish it would select for

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @S. Anonyia

    It’s not so much education that depresses fertility among intelligent women, it’s that modern urban or suburban life is really fun when you are married with no kids and two incomes. The world is your oyster then, and it’s painful to give it up. Greater availability of nannies would help, or a social model like the Soviet Union where the retired/bored granny takes care of the kids.

  116. @countenance
    A lot of people here in these comments are making the issue too complicated. It's just a matter of that smart men and smart women marry each other because they find intelligence to be a romantically attractive quality. Viz.: Frau. and I. Yours truly, low 140s, Frau., I don't know if she has ever had a formal IQ test, but my educated guess based on a lot of observation (she is my wife and the mother of our infant twin sons, after all, so I've had a lot of observation opportunities) is mid-130s.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson

    A lot of people here in these comments are making the issue too complicated. It’s just a matter of that smart men and smart women marry each other because they find intelligence to be a romantically attractive quality.

    I think it is more just basic compatibility.

    If you are going to live with someone you want to be able to have a conversation without the other person feeling intimidated. You also want to have common interests or at least be able to tolerate what the other person does.

    Marriages based on sex can probably work for a while but I would guess make up a lot of divorces.

    But with that said there is a very real problem of smart career women holding out for a smart career man that doesn’t exist. Basically the man they are expecting is already married or has plenty of options.

    I have seen this problem first hand and I don’t have any answers. TV convinced these single White women that they all have a charming White collar husband out there looking for them. Even unattractive women believed this. Most just need to get with the UPS guy and get over it.

    The “Sex in the city” lifestyle is grossly exaggerated. I have lived in the city and most women were not out slutting it up. They were far more likely to be at home watching that stupid show.

    On the upside most of these single women are liberal and dysgenics in Whites will probably have political ramifications that will work against the left. But on some level I do feel bad for them. They were sold a load of BS like most of us.

  117. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Polynikes

    Other way round, 75% Brady, 25% Bellichick. Coulda shoulda with Manning, but DIDNT. Manning was on a dominant IND team, and his postseason record is one of the worst in NFL history for a dominant great starting QB. Just plain abysmal. A player has to perform in January, any QB can do so during the season when the quality of opponents isn't uniformly good across the board. Not so in January.

    You hate Brady, we get it. FACT: As soon as Brees retires, Brady will own all the major passing QB career records

    FACT: Brady has the most postseason wins, and most championships. If he wins the SB with TB, then NE's dynasty was clearly Brady.

    Remind us again how Bellichik did in the playoffs this year, since any old QB can work in his system and win in the playoffs.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob, @Brutusale

    Seeing as the other 31 GMs in the league found 198 players more desirable than Brady, Belichick was 100% responsible for Brady’s career.

    Belichick was also smart enough to keep Brady in the lineup when the guy he replaced was ready to go. Said guy had just signed what was at the time the richest contract in the NFL and was a Pro Bowl QB.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Drew_Bledsoe

    Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record. The backup was fine under Belichick’s regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Matt_Cassel

    The Patriots sucked this year (or so I’ve read; I haven’t watched pro sports since the first kneel). Well, losing the greatest QB ever hurts, as does not having the guy who’s arguably the greatest tight end ever. They also lost the most players opting out due to Chinky Flu.

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29607350/takeaways-deadline-players-opting-2020-nfl-season-coronavirus-concerns

    I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success, and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on.

    Belichick spent the year trying to fashion a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. His entire body of work, though, speaks for itself, though sometimes a photo speaks a bit louder.

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-why-bill-belichick-was-wearing-10-huge-rings-at-the-patriots-ring-party/

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Brutusale

    Wow, so you don't really believe that Tom Brady belongs in the HOF even. Wow, just wow.

    "Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record."

    You didn't finish the full concept. How'd NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that's right, they didn't make the playoffs that year. Must've had something to do with not having Brady at QB.


    "The backup was fine under Belichick’s regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again."

    We can also say the same thing about 99% of Belichick's coaches under him. Nearly every single one of them, when they went onward to other teams, weren't heard from again. It is a sign of a coach's greatness, by the way, as to how many other great or near great coaches he mentors or develops. The fact that there's been none, absolutely none, under Belichick's tutelage speaks volumes. As in,...he's overrated as a coach. He happened to have the GOAT as starting QB. Great coaches like Lombardi, Paul Brown, Shula, etc. all have what is called a coach's tree of other coaches who developed into great coaches themselves. Belichick for example, worked under Bill Parcells. Parcells was a much better coach than Belichick. If Parcells had coached NE during Tom Brady's career, it could be stated that NE still would've gone to the same number of SB's, namely, because they had GOAT (or GTEP) at QB.


    "I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. "

    Yes, you are. And you just did. Belichick wins nothing without Brady, pure and simple. His head coaching in CLE wasn't all that. How many SBs did he win in CLE? How many?


    "But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success,"

    After winning SB's for a long time with the likes of second rate jabrones like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc. he more than proved his ability. It's nice when the great QBs of all time are permitted to have a few WRs of above average skills. So he earned that right.

    Also, you have to finish the thought. TB hadn't been to the playoffs since 2002, and Brady leads them to the NFC championship game in his first yr with them. Nearly twenty yrs of not making the playoffs, and they get there this yr, first yr with Brady. Considering that Gronk and Antonio Brown haven't played up to dominant standards this season, so basically the same roster as last yr for Tampa Bay, and yet now they're playing for chance at the Super Bowl. Think that has a lot to do with change of QB. Funny how that works. No its not, actually, not when talking about GOAT.



    "and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on."

    Again, these two players for this season have been non factors (because they've been out of the league for over a yr each). Gronk retired rather than continue to play in NE. He made his reasons why he did so and chose to return. HINT: he didn't particularly like playing for Belichick but he does like playing with Tom Brady. Funny how that works.


    About 99% of Belichick's body of work is directly tied to Tom Brady. If Brady wins a SB without Belichik, then the answer is 100% clear who was more valuable to NE. And the Narrative will then be, "You know, anyone could've coached NE to a SB so long as Tom Brady was the QB."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jim Don Bob

  118. @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven't spent much time around women.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @black sea, @anon, @Autochthon

    Hypergamy is real. A man who has low social skills and isn’t funny, but is in fact a multi-millionaire, or even a billionaire, well, women can work with that. They’ll gladly hook up with a man who out earns them by a wide factor. Very few women of quality (a 7 and above on the looks scale) refuse to date someone who earns less than they make. So, if looks are important to men, so is money/earning power in the marketplace important to women. For most all women, funny, social skills, etc. are subjective after the fact spin on the one objective trait that is desired across the board—a man who earns quite a lot in income. To suggest that women are not interested in money is both asinine and ridiculous. Sure, they might hook up short term with funny, good looks, etc. But for long term relationship, diamonds are a girls best friend. To suggest that someone like Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t have his pick of women (all things being equal, like him being single) is ridiculous.

    Money counts big time with women. Facts are facts.

    Dating sites also tend to confirm this. Very few women go for poor to average salaried men, but top income earners, they’ll find a way to fit them into their social schedules for dates.

  119. @Cool Shoes
    @Known Fact

    I think it was RSD Tyler who said that most men would be happy with a good natured 5.

    Replies: @anon

    Legit.

    “Men want a companion, not a competitor”.

  120. @Brutusale
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Seeing as the other 31 GMs in the league found 198 players more desirable than Brady, Belichick was 100% responsible for Brady's career.

    Belichick was also smart enough to keep Brady in the lineup when the guy he replaced was ready to go. Said guy had just signed what was at the time the richest contract in the NFL and was a Pro Bowl QB.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Drew_Bledsoe

    Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record. The backup was fine under Belichick's regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Matt_Cassel

    The Patriots sucked this year (or so I've read; I haven't watched pro sports since the first kneel). Well, losing the greatest QB ever hurts, as does not having the guy who's arguably the greatest tight end ever. They also lost the most players opting out due to Chinky Flu.

    https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29607350/takeaways-deadline-players-opting-2020-nfl-season-coronavirus-concerns

    I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success, and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on.

    Belichick spent the year trying to fashion a silk purse out of a sow's ear. His entire body of work, though, speaks for itself, though sometimes a photo speaks a bit louder.

    https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-why-bill-belichick-was-wearing-10-huge-rings-at-the-patriots-ring-party/

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Wow, so you don’t really believe that Tom Brady belongs in the HOF even. Wow, just wow.

    “Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record.”

    You didn’t finish the full concept. How’d NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t make the playoffs that year. Must’ve had something to do with not having Brady at QB.

    “The backup was fine under Belichick’s regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again.”

    We can also say the same thing about 99% of Belichick’s coaches under him. Nearly every single one of them, when they went onward to other teams, weren’t heard from again. It is a sign of a coach’s greatness, by the way, as to how many other great or near great coaches he mentors or develops. The fact that there’s been none, absolutely none, under Belichick’s tutelage speaks volumes. As in,…he’s overrated as a coach. He happened to have the GOAT as starting QB. Great coaches like Lombardi, Paul Brown, Shula, etc. all have what is called a coach’s tree of other coaches who developed into great coaches themselves. Belichick for example, worked under Bill Parcells. Parcells was a much better coach than Belichick. If Parcells had coached NE during Tom Brady’s career, it could be stated that NE still would’ve gone to the same number of SB’s, namely, because they had GOAT (or GTEP) at QB.

    “I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. ”

    Yes, you are. And you just did. Belichick wins nothing without Brady, pure and simple. His head coaching in CLE wasn’t all that. How many SBs did he win in CLE? How many?

    “But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success,”

    After winning SB’s for a long time with the likes of second rate jabrones like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc. he more than proved his ability. It’s nice when the great QBs of all time are permitted to have a few WRs of above average skills. So he earned that right.

    Also, you have to finish the thought. TB hadn’t been to the playoffs since 2002, and Brady leads them to the NFC championship game in his first yr with them. Nearly twenty yrs of not making the playoffs, and they get there this yr, first yr with Brady. Considering that Gronk and Antonio Brown haven’t played up to dominant standards this season, so basically the same roster as last yr for Tampa Bay, and yet now they’re playing for chance at the Super Bowl. Think that has a lot to do with change of QB. Funny how that works. No its not, actually, not when talking about GOAT.

    “and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on.”

    Again, these two players for this season have been non factors (because they’ve been out of the league for over a yr each). Gronk retired rather than continue to play in NE. He made his reasons why he did so and chose to return. HINT: he didn’t particularly like playing for Belichick but he does like playing with Tom Brady. Funny how that works.

    About 99% of Belichick’s body of work is directly tied to Tom Brady. If Brady wins a SB without Belichik, then the answer is 100% clear who was more valuable to NE. And the Narrative will then be, “You know, anyone could’ve coached NE to a SB so long as Tom Brady was the QB.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady and Randy Moss weren't together too long, but in their first year together in 2007, they went 16-0 with Brady throwing for a then-record 50 TD and Moss catching a still record 23 touchdowns. That was probably the best QB-receiver combination ever.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    “Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record.”

    You didn’t finish the full concept. How’d NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t make the playoffs that year. Must’ve had something to do with not having Brady at QB.
     

    NE didn't make the 2008 postseason even with an 11-5 record because they lost the division to Miami who also had an 11-5 record but had a better conference record. The 8-8 San Diego Chargers did make the playoffs.

    Most teams would kill for a backup who could get them to 11-5. Cassel made his career that year.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  121. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Brutusale

    Wow, so you don't really believe that Tom Brady belongs in the HOF even. Wow, just wow.

    "Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record."

    You didn't finish the full concept. How'd NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that's right, they didn't make the playoffs that year. Must've had something to do with not having Brady at QB.


    "The backup was fine under Belichick’s regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again."

    We can also say the same thing about 99% of Belichick's coaches under him. Nearly every single one of them, when they went onward to other teams, weren't heard from again. It is a sign of a coach's greatness, by the way, as to how many other great or near great coaches he mentors or develops. The fact that there's been none, absolutely none, under Belichick's tutelage speaks volumes. As in,...he's overrated as a coach. He happened to have the GOAT as starting QB. Great coaches like Lombardi, Paul Brown, Shula, etc. all have what is called a coach's tree of other coaches who developed into great coaches themselves. Belichick for example, worked under Bill Parcells. Parcells was a much better coach than Belichick. If Parcells had coached NE during Tom Brady's career, it could be stated that NE still would've gone to the same number of SB's, namely, because they had GOAT (or GTEP) at QB.


    "I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. "

    Yes, you are. And you just did. Belichick wins nothing without Brady, pure and simple. His head coaching in CLE wasn't all that. How many SBs did he win in CLE? How many?


    "But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success,"

    After winning SB's for a long time with the likes of second rate jabrones like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc. he more than proved his ability. It's nice when the great QBs of all time are permitted to have a few WRs of above average skills. So he earned that right.

    Also, you have to finish the thought. TB hadn't been to the playoffs since 2002, and Brady leads them to the NFC championship game in his first yr with them. Nearly twenty yrs of not making the playoffs, and they get there this yr, first yr with Brady. Considering that Gronk and Antonio Brown haven't played up to dominant standards this season, so basically the same roster as last yr for Tampa Bay, and yet now they're playing for chance at the Super Bowl. Think that has a lot to do with change of QB. Funny how that works. No its not, actually, not when talking about GOAT.



    "and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on."

    Again, these two players for this season have been non factors (because they've been out of the league for over a yr each). Gronk retired rather than continue to play in NE. He made his reasons why he did so and chose to return. HINT: he didn't particularly like playing for Belichick but he does like playing with Tom Brady. Funny how that works.


    About 99% of Belichick's body of work is directly tied to Tom Brady. If Brady wins a SB without Belichik, then the answer is 100% clear who was more valuable to NE. And the Narrative will then be, "You know, anyone could've coached NE to a SB so long as Tom Brady was the QB."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jim Don Bob

    Tom Brady and Randy Moss weren’t together too long, but in their first year together in 2007, they went 16-0 with Brady throwing for a then-record 50 TD and Moss catching a still record 23 touchdowns. That was probably the best QB-receiver combination ever.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    For a single season, yes. For an expanded career, there's Manning to Harrison, or Manning to Wayne. But as Brady had already won three SB's by the time NE brought in Moss, Brady didn't need Moss to make him great (he was already HOF bound before Randy Moss joined the team). What it definitely shows is that Brady can work with whatever he's given. A great WR, then he can put up stats with the best of them. 2nd/3rd rate style creampuffs like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola? He can still find a way to bring the Lombardi Trophy to NE. Imagine if NE had drafted HOF bound WR AZ Larry Fitzgerald in '04. Brady would've had a solid dependable number one dominant WR for about a decade, and perhaps would've had more opportunities to play in more SB's. It would appear in hindsight that NE's ownership took for granted that Brady would be Brady, and that it really didn't matter who he threw to, so why waste money on quality dominant receivers? Did it for so long on the cheap, until TB decided to hightail it out of NE. And now they have to rebuild.

  122. @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven't spent much time around women.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @black sea, @anon, @Autochthon

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    Not for very long.

  123. anon[253] • Disclaimer says:
    @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven't spent much time around women.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @black sea, @anon, @Autochthon

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    OK Cupid’s data is an empirical sample of female preferences because of the size of their data base. It is a more accurate sample than anything else.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Men are much more visual than women as a rule, this isn’t controversial. The Pareto behavior displayed in the OK Cupid data is valid.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    Your statement does not constitute empirical data of male preferences, because your statement does not reference a true cross section of men and also you do not tell us what men are attracted to overall.

    Plus, you’re wrong.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    These two statements are sweeping generalizations that in no way affect the big data from OK Cupid.

    The Internet affects humans in a lot of ways that we don’t really notice. Women crave attention from men, it’s hard wired. The net allows women to receive attention from men 24 / 7 if they desire, and that has curious effects. OK Cupid’s data is instructive in this regard, along with such sites as OnlyFans, but one has to be willing to learn.

    There is a limited supply of decent men to marry. Most of them are picked off early.

    The median age of a US woman on the day of her first marriage is 27, probably 28 for college graduates. It’s been increasing for about 30 years, and shows no sign of leveling off.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @anon

    The data from OkCupid also underlies the other point: Women are, on the whole, hypergamous. They tend to marry or enter long term relationships, upward. In this sense they are practical and social mobile. They want the best deal (economically speaking) possible that directly benefits themselves. If they have an opportunity to hook up with a multi-millionaire, or at least a man from the top 5% of all income earners, then they will seriously consider hooking up with that man, all things considered. He does not have to be overly "handsome", "funny", "sociable", all variables which are subjective, by the way. But there is one variable that is entirely objective and fairly easy to verify--is that man in the top 5% of all income earners in the US? Only a fool would believe that most women over the age of say, 25, aren't aware of a man's income status, particularly one that they may be considering dating long term.

    One of the reasons why women are waiting to marry for the first time than in decades past, is because it takes them a while to "find" the right desirable male, and that means finding one who is in the top 5% of all income earners (or at the very least, as close to the top 5% of income earners as possible).

    Men tend to like what they are hardwired to like, and so are women. For women, most of them then, it is an objective quality---hypergamy. Income. If they are going to put their eggs in a single basket, then that basket had better be of the highest quality (income speaking), a basket that can weather the economic storms, ups and downs of life, etc.

    Remember: Looks are subjective. Income is objective. Either a man is in the top 5% of all income earners, or he is not. That is objective. As most women are in the workforce, they really want to make sure that the man that they are considering having a relationship with significantly out earns them. For most, a male being in the top 5% of all income earners is what they consider a reasonable settling for.

    Replies: @anon

  124. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Tom Brady and Randy Moss weren't together too long, but in their first year together in 2007, they went 16-0 with Brady throwing for a then-record 50 TD and Moss catching a still record 23 touchdowns. That was probably the best QB-receiver combination ever.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    For a single season, yes. For an expanded career, there’s Manning to Harrison, or Manning to Wayne. But as Brady had already won three SB’s by the time NE brought in Moss, Brady didn’t need Moss to make him great (he was already HOF bound before Randy Moss joined the team). What it definitely shows is that Brady can work with whatever he’s given. A great WR, then he can put up stats with the best of them. 2nd/3rd rate style creampuffs like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola? He can still find a way to bring the Lombardi Trophy to NE. Imagine if NE had drafted HOF bound WR AZ Larry Fitzgerald in ’04. Brady would’ve had a solid dependable number one dominant WR for about a decade, and perhaps would’ve had more opportunities to play in more SB’s. It would appear in hindsight that NE’s ownership took for granted that Brady would be Brady, and that it really didn’t matter who he threw to, so why waste money on quality dominant receivers? Did it for so long on the cheap, until TB decided to hightail it out of NE. And now they have to rebuild.

  125. @anon
    @John Johnson

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    OK Cupid's data is an empirical sample of female preferences because of the size of their data base. It is a more accurate sample than anything else.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Men are much more visual than women as a rule, this isn't controversial. The Pareto behavior displayed in the OK Cupid data is valid.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    Your statement does not constitute empirical data of male preferences, because your statement does not reference a true cross section of men and also you do not tell us what men are attracted to overall.

    Plus, you're wrong.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    These two statements are sweeping generalizations that in no way affect the big data from OK Cupid.

    The Internet affects humans in a lot of ways that we don't really notice. Women crave attention from men, it's hard wired. The net allows women to receive attention from men 24 / 7 if they desire, and that has curious effects. OK Cupid's data is instructive in this regard, along with such sites as OnlyFans, but one has to be willing to learn.

    There is a limited supply of decent men to marry. Most of them are picked off early.

    The median age of a US woman on the day of her first marriage is 27, probably 28 for college graduates. It's been increasing for about 30 years, and shows no sign of leveling off.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The data from OkCupid also underlies the other point: Women are, on the whole, hypergamous. They tend to marry or enter long term relationships, upward. In this sense they are practical and social mobile. They want the best deal (economically speaking) possible that directly benefits themselves. If they have an opportunity to hook up with a multi-millionaire, or at least a man from the top 5% of all income earners, then they will seriously consider hooking up with that man, all things considered. He does not have to be overly “handsome”, “funny”, “sociable”, all variables which are subjective, by the way. But there is one variable that is entirely objective and fairly easy to verify–is that man in the top 5% of all income earners in the US? Only a fool would believe that most women over the age of say, 25, aren’t aware of a man’s income status, particularly one that they may be considering dating long term.

    One of the reasons why women are waiting to marry for the first time than in decades past, is because it takes them a while to “find” the right desirable male, and that means finding one who is in the top 5% of all income earners (or at the very least, as close to the top 5% of income earners as possible).

    Men tend to like what they are hardwired to like, and so are women. For women, most of them then, it is an objective quality—hypergamy. Income. If they are going to put their eggs in a single basket, then that basket had better be of the highest quality (income speaking), a basket that can weather the economic storms, ups and downs of life, etc.

    Remember: Looks are subjective. Income is objective. Either a man is in the top 5% of all income earners, or he is not. That is objective. As most women are in the workforce, they really want to make sure that the man that they are considering having a relationship with significantly out earns them. For most, a male being in the top 5% of all income earners is what they consider a reasonable settling for.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    The data from OkCupid also underlies the other point: Women are, on the whole, hypergamous.

    Now you're just trolling Rosie...

    One of the reasons why women are waiting to marry for the first time than in decades past, is because it takes them a while to “find” the right desirable male, and that means finding one who is in the top 5% of all income earners (or at the very least, as close to the top 5% of income earners as possible).

    That's one reason. What women call the "glass ceiling" is more like a glass floor. College women often have the job that their grandfather would have secured; they are their own "beta bucks", so to satisfy hypergamy they look even further up the income pyramid. Diminishing returns set in. Yeah, I've seen the actual marriage data, but it's also like looking in the rear view mirror while driving on the freeway.

    But c'mon, man, the main reason for a median age of 27 is it's the standard "have it all" feminist life script. Women are followers, and they get the script from their high school teachers, from movies, their friends, etc. Sure, Sex and the City is all fiction, but so? That didn't stop it from being very persuasive.

    In fact here's an article from about a year and a half ago. Bear in mind that Bushnell essentially based her1990's book on her own life -- and she essentially got almost all of the script, the "stuck the landing" at the last minute, and yet still...no children makes her sad.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sex-and-the-city-author-candace-bushnell-regrets-not-having-kids-says-she-was-truly-alone

    As most women are in the workforce, they really want to make sure that the man that they are considering having a relationship with significantly out earns them. For most, a male being in the top 5% of all income earners is what they consider a reasonable settling for.

    Yes, in other words 'Pareto" or 90 / 10 to be obvious. However, what a girl considers "reasonable" to settle for at the age of 24, and what she will settle for a few years later as the big 3 - 0 is looming in the windshield of her life - these can be two different things.

    In any event, the big data from OKC has been troubling to blank-slate equalitarians for a few years now, but they can't do anything about it. Because, gosh, it's almost as though men and women are different in the wiring of their hindbrain, rather than interchangeable carbon units programmed solely by nurture.

    Can't be true, because "equality". Or as an old guy I once knew used to write, "Eek-wallet-ee".

  126. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Brutusale

    Wow, so you don't really believe that Tom Brady belongs in the HOF even. Wow, just wow.

    "Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record."

    You didn't finish the full concept. How'd NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that's right, they didn't make the playoffs that year. Must've had something to do with not having Brady at QB.


    "The backup was fine under Belichick’s regime, took big money to play elsewhere, and has essentially never heard from again."

    We can also say the same thing about 99% of Belichick's coaches under him. Nearly every single one of them, when they went onward to other teams, weren't heard from again. It is a sign of a coach's greatness, by the way, as to how many other great or near great coaches he mentors or develops. The fact that there's been none, absolutely none, under Belichick's tutelage speaks volumes. As in,...he's overrated as a coach. He happened to have the GOAT as starting QB. Great coaches like Lombardi, Paul Brown, Shula, etc. all have what is called a coach's tree of other coaches who developed into great coaches themselves. Belichick for example, worked under Bill Parcells. Parcells was a much better coach than Belichick. If Parcells had coached NE during Tom Brady's career, it could be stated that NE still would've gone to the same number of SB's, namely, because they had GOAT (or GTEP) at QB.


    "I am in no way taking away one iota of respect for what Tom Brady has done. "

    Yes, you are. And you just did. Belichick wins nothing without Brady, pure and simple. His head coaching in CLE wasn't all that. How many SBs did he win in CLE? How many?


    "But he was able to go to a situation in Tampa that was pretty well set up for his success,"

    After winning SB's for a long time with the likes of second rate jabrones like Edelman, Hogan, Amendola, etc. he more than proved his ability. It's nice when the great QBs of all time are permitted to have a few WRs of above average skills. So he earned that right.

    Also, you have to finish the thought. TB hadn't been to the playoffs since 2002, and Brady leads them to the NFC championship game in his first yr with them. Nearly twenty yrs of not making the playoffs, and they get there this yr, first yr with Brady. Considering that Gronk and Antonio Brown haven't played up to dominant standards this season, so basically the same roster as last yr for Tampa Bay, and yet now they're playing for chance at the Super Bowl. Think that has a lot to do with change of QB. Funny how that works. No its not, actually, not when talking about GOAT.



    "and his signing there encouraged more talent, like Gronkowski and Antonio Brown, to sign on."

    Again, these two players for this season have been non factors (because they've been out of the league for over a yr each). Gronk retired rather than continue to play in NE. He made his reasons why he did so and chose to return. HINT: he didn't particularly like playing for Belichick but he does like playing with Tom Brady. Funny how that works.


    About 99% of Belichick's body of work is directly tied to Tom Brady. If Brady wins a SB without Belichik, then the answer is 100% clear who was more valuable to NE. And the Narrative will then be, "You know, anyone could've coached NE to a SB so long as Tom Brady was the QB."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @Jim Don Bob

    “Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record.”

    You didn’t finish the full concept. How’d NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t make the playoffs that year. Must’ve had something to do with not having Brady at QB.

    NE didn’t make the 2008 postseason even with an 11-5 record because they lost the division to Miami who also had an 11-5 record but had a better conference record. The 8-8 San Diego Chargers did make the playoffs.

    Most teams would kill for a backup who could get them to 11-5. Cassel made his career that year.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jim Don Bob

    When talking about the GOAT, it's good to provide context.

    In twenty yrs with NE, (18 as a starter, sat on bench rookie season and was injured for '08), NE made the postseason 18 yrs when Tom Brady was the starter. In 18 yrs, he took them to 13 AFC Championship games (more than two-thirds of the time).

    So in other words, in 2008 when NE did not have Tom Brady as their starter, they missed the playoffs. Pure and simple as to the reason why. When Brady came back healthy in 2009, NE made the playoffs and continued to do so for the next straight decade.

    Had Brady been healthy in 2008, its safe to say that NE would have won at least 2-3 additional games and made the playoffs. Remember, in 2007 with Brady, NE went 16-0, so its fair to say that NE in 2008 would've gone at least 13-3.

    This past season, 2020, Brady went to TB, and NE failed to qualify for the playoffs. Since NE in 2019 was essentially the same team on offense as it had been in 2020, except for a different starting QB, this tends to put the lie to the idea that it was the system that accounted for NE dominance and that "any QB" playing in NE during 2001-2020 could/can lead the team to the postseason.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  127. @Jim Don Bob
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    “Brady was hurt in the first game of the 2008 season and was replaced by his backup, who led the team to an 11-5 record.”

    You didn’t finish the full concept. How’d NE do in the 2008 postseason? Oh, that’s right, they didn’t make the playoffs that year. Must’ve had something to do with not having Brady at QB.
     

    NE didn't make the 2008 postseason even with an 11-5 record because they lost the division to Miami who also had an 11-5 record but had a better conference record. The 8-8 San Diego Chargers did make the playoffs.

    Most teams would kill for a backup who could get them to 11-5. Cassel made his career that year.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    When talking about the GOAT, it’s good to provide context.

    In twenty yrs with NE, (18 as a starter, sat on bench rookie season and was injured for ’08), NE made the postseason 18 yrs when Tom Brady was the starter. In 18 yrs, he took them to 13 AFC Championship games (more than two-thirds of the time).

    So in other words, in 2008 when NE did not have Tom Brady as their starter, they missed the playoffs. Pure and simple as to the reason why. When Brady came back healthy in 2009, NE made the playoffs and continued to do so for the next straight decade.

    Had Brady been healthy in 2008, its safe to say that NE would have won at least 2-3 additional games and made the playoffs. Remember, in 2007 with Brady, NE went 16-0, so its fair to say that NE in 2008 would’ve gone at least 13-3.

    This past season, 2020, Brady went to TB, and NE failed to qualify for the playoffs. Since NE in 2019 was essentially the same team on offense as it had been in 2020, except for a different starting QB, this tends to put the lie to the idea that it was the system that accounted for NE dominance and that “any QB” playing in NE during 2001-2020 could/can lead the team to the postseason.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    You can see Brady vs. his sub Matt Cassel in superstar receiver Randy Moss's statistics from 2007-2009. With Brady, Moss had a record 23 TDs in 2007 and a league-leading 13 in 2009. With Cassel in 2008 he had a fine 11 TDs. Brady targeted Moss more than Cassel did, and Brady completed 61% of his targets to Brady, while Cassel completed 55%. Moss averaged 9.3 yards per target from Brady and 8.1 from Cassel.

    So the differences between peak Brady and a pretty good quarterback (one Pro Bowl) at his peak are somewhat subtle in the statistics, but they are consistent and apparent.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MossRa00.htm

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  128. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jim Don Bob

    When talking about the GOAT, it's good to provide context.

    In twenty yrs with NE, (18 as a starter, sat on bench rookie season and was injured for '08), NE made the postseason 18 yrs when Tom Brady was the starter. In 18 yrs, he took them to 13 AFC Championship games (more than two-thirds of the time).

    So in other words, in 2008 when NE did not have Tom Brady as their starter, they missed the playoffs. Pure and simple as to the reason why. When Brady came back healthy in 2009, NE made the playoffs and continued to do so for the next straight decade.

    Had Brady been healthy in 2008, its safe to say that NE would have won at least 2-3 additional games and made the playoffs. Remember, in 2007 with Brady, NE went 16-0, so its fair to say that NE in 2008 would've gone at least 13-3.

    This past season, 2020, Brady went to TB, and NE failed to qualify for the playoffs. Since NE in 2019 was essentially the same team on offense as it had been in 2020, except for a different starting QB, this tends to put the lie to the idea that it was the system that accounted for NE dominance and that "any QB" playing in NE during 2001-2020 could/can lead the team to the postseason.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    You can see Brady vs. his sub Matt Cassel in superstar receiver Randy Moss’s statistics from 2007-2009. With Brady, Moss had a record 23 TDs in 2007 and a league-leading 13 in 2009. With Cassel in 2008 he had a fine 11 TDs. Brady targeted Moss more than Cassel did, and Brady completed 61% of his targets to Brady, while Cassel completed 55%. Moss averaged 9.3 yards per target from Brady and 8.1 from Cassel.

    So the differences between peak Brady and a pretty good quarterback (one Pro Bowl) at his peak are somewhat subtle in the statistics, but they are consistent and apparent.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MossRa00.htm

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Interesting. In the big picture, the differences, though subtle, were the difference between NE not making and making the playoffs.

    It does make one wonder why exactly NE didn't bother to get a first rate WR once Randy Moss left. Gronk at TE tended to be injury prone, Hernandez at TE, well,....but aside from these two and a minor find in Wes Welker for a couple seasons, Brady simply didn't have much to throw to for nearly a decade. It could be incompetence, indifference, or cheapness on NE's front office part regarding their lack of attempting to get a dominant WR on the level of Randy Moss (once Moss moved on). Usually when a team's franchise QB requests a dominant WR, the club more than obliges, or at least attempts to. Many years, NE didn't even attempt to get a dominant WR.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  129. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    You can see Brady vs. his sub Matt Cassel in superstar receiver Randy Moss's statistics from 2007-2009. With Brady, Moss had a record 23 TDs in 2007 and a league-leading 13 in 2009. With Cassel in 2008 he had a fine 11 TDs. Brady targeted Moss more than Cassel did, and Brady completed 61% of his targets to Brady, while Cassel completed 55%. Moss averaged 9.3 yards per target from Brady and 8.1 from Cassel.

    So the differences between peak Brady and a pretty good quarterback (one Pro Bowl) at his peak are somewhat subtle in the statistics, but they are consistent and apparent.

    https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MossRa00.htm

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Interesting. In the big picture, the differences, though subtle, were the difference between NE not making and making the playoffs.

    It does make one wonder why exactly NE didn’t bother to get a first rate WR once Randy Moss left. Gronk at TE tended to be injury prone, Hernandez at TE, well,….but aside from these two and a minor find in Wes Welker for a couple seasons, Brady simply didn’t have much to throw to for nearly a decade. It could be incompetence, indifference, or cheapness on NE’s front office part regarding their lack of attempting to get a dominant WR on the level of Randy Moss (once Moss moved on). Usually when a team’s franchise QB requests a dominant WR, the club more than obliges, or at least attempts to. Many years, NE didn’t even attempt to get a dominant WR.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Great wide receivers can be a handful in terms of personality. And the Patriots haven't had many top draft picks in this century. So Belichick tended to look for white guys who were undervalued like Welker and Edelman.

    But, yeah, Brady to Moss averaged 18 touchdown catches per season over two seasons (while playing outdoors in New England). Only one other player has ever had more than 18 touchdown receptions in a single season: Jerry Rice caught 20 from Joe Montana in 1987.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  130. anon[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @anon

    The data from OkCupid also underlies the other point: Women are, on the whole, hypergamous. They tend to marry or enter long term relationships, upward. In this sense they are practical and social mobile. They want the best deal (economically speaking) possible that directly benefits themselves. If they have an opportunity to hook up with a multi-millionaire, or at least a man from the top 5% of all income earners, then they will seriously consider hooking up with that man, all things considered. He does not have to be overly "handsome", "funny", "sociable", all variables which are subjective, by the way. But there is one variable that is entirely objective and fairly easy to verify--is that man in the top 5% of all income earners in the US? Only a fool would believe that most women over the age of say, 25, aren't aware of a man's income status, particularly one that they may be considering dating long term.

    One of the reasons why women are waiting to marry for the first time than in decades past, is because it takes them a while to "find" the right desirable male, and that means finding one who is in the top 5% of all income earners (or at the very least, as close to the top 5% of income earners as possible).

    Men tend to like what they are hardwired to like, and so are women. For women, most of them then, it is an objective quality---hypergamy. Income. If they are going to put their eggs in a single basket, then that basket had better be of the highest quality (income speaking), a basket that can weather the economic storms, ups and downs of life, etc.

    Remember: Looks are subjective. Income is objective. Either a man is in the top 5% of all income earners, or he is not. That is objective. As most women are in the workforce, they really want to make sure that the man that they are considering having a relationship with significantly out earns them. For most, a male being in the top 5% of all income earners is what they consider a reasonable settling for.

    Replies: @anon

    The data from OkCupid also underlies the other point: Women are, on the whole, hypergamous.

    Now you’re just trolling Rosie…

    One of the reasons why women are waiting to marry for the first time than in decades past, is because it takes them a while to “find” the right desirable male, and that means finding one who is in the top 5% of all income earners (or at the very least, as close to the top 5% of income earners as possible).

    That’s one reason. What women call the “glass ceiling” is more like a glass floor. College women often have the job that their grandfather would have secured; they are their own “beta bucks”, so to satisfy hypergamy they look even further up the income pyramid. Diminishing returns set in. Yeah, I’ve seen the actual marriage data, but it’s also like looking in the rear view mirror while driving on the freeway.

    But c’mon, man, the main reason for a median age of 27 is it’s the standard “have it all” feminist life script. Women are followers, and they get the script from their high school teachers, from movies, their friends, etc. Sure, Sex and the City is all fiction, but so? That didn’t stop it from being very persuasive.

    In fact here’s an article from about a year and a half ago. Bear in mind that Bushnell essentially based her1990’s book on her own life — and she essentially got almost all of the script, the “stuck the landing” at the last minute, and yet still…no children makes her sad.

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/sex-and-the-city-author-candace-bushnell-regrets-not-having-kids-says-she-was-truly-alone

    As most women are in the workforce, they really want to make sure that the man that they are considering having a relationship with significantly out earns them. For most, a male being in the top 5% of all income earners is what they consider a reasonable settling for.

    Yes, in other words ‘Pareto” or 90 / 10 to be obvious. However, what a girl considers “reasonable” to settle for at the age of 24, and what she will settle for a few years later as the big 3 – 0 is looming in the windshield of her life – these can be two different things.

    In any event, the big data from OKC has been troubling to blank-slate equalitarians for a few years now, but they can’t do anything about it. Because, gosh, it’s almost as though men and women are different in the wiring of their hindbrain, rather than interchangeable carbon units programmed solely by nurture.

    Can’t be true, because “equality”. Or as an old guy I once knew used to write, “Eek-wallet-ee”.

  131. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    Interesting. In the big picture, the differences, though subtle, were the difference between NE not making and making the playoffs.

    It does make one wonder why exactly NE didn't bother to get a first rate WR once Randy Moss left. Gronk at TE tended to be injury prone, Hernandez at TE, well,....but aside from these two and a minor find in Wes Welker for a couple seasons, Brady simply didn't have much to throw to for nearly a decade. It could be incompetence, indifference, or cheapness on NE's front office part regarding their lack of attempting to get a dominant WR on the level of Randy Moss (once Moss moved on). Usually when a team's franchise QB requests a dominant WR, the club more than obliges, or at least attempts to. Many years, NE didn't even attempt to get a dominant WR.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Great wide receivers can be a handful in terms of personality. And the Patriots haven’t had many top draft picks in this century. So Belichick tended to look for white guys who were undervalued like Welker and Edelman.

    But, yeah, Brady to Moss averaged 18 touchdown catches per season over two seasons (while playing outdoors in New England). Only one other player has ever had more than 18 touchdown receptions in a single season: Jerry Rice caught 20 from Joe Montana in 1987.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Steve Sailer

    "And the Patriots haven’t had many top draft picks in this century. "

    Excuses, excuses. A team has to want to do what it takes to get the best quality available talent. NE also seldom bothered to trade up to get the top picks. Example: They didn't make a move to attempt to trade up to get RB Adrian Peterson, which they could've done so if they had so chosen. Trading up to get the top draft picks is done by NFL teams all the time, NE apparently didn't want to for whatever reason. Per top draft picks, a team has to give up something in order to gain something in the draft.


    "So Belichick tended to look for white guys who were undervalued like Welker and Edelman."

    Notice that Belichick didn't bother to trade up to get a blue chip RB like Christian MacAffrey. In NE's backfield, he would've helped Brady immensely. Yet NE declined on trying to get him. Why? This speaks to part laziness, and an overconfidence that Brady would be Brady indefinitely and could make due with whatever second rate supporting cast around him. So long as Brady remained healthy, he'd be able to take NE to the Super Bowl.

    Sometimes to get the best available talent out there, a team has to trade up. They were penalized by loss of draft picks due to Deflategate, might as well have gotten something for a draft pick by trading up to get Christian MacAffrey.

    Montana didn't need Jerry Rice to make him great. He had already won two super bowls before Rice was drafted. It should also be noted that unlike Brady and Moss in 2007, SF failed to appear in the SB in 1987. (But SF did win the SB the following two seasons (1988, 1989).

  132. @silviosilver
    @Mr. Mean


    Very beautiful women tend to be scarily smart in my experience.
     
    Go meet some strippers. Deadheads aplenty in that crowd. (The deadheads tend not to last long in that game, since you need social skills to get customers - looks alone won't cut it - but there is always a flow of new girls willing to try their luck.)

    Replies: @DextersLabRat

    Aren’t most strippers not *beautiful* beautiful? Same with porn stars. Look good with lots of make-up and aren’t exactly ugly but not model/actress type beautiful. Show me a stripper who looks like Ana de Armas or that model who fucked the Chinese billionaire and then married the Snapchat guy.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @DextersLabRat

    Aren’t most strippers not *beautiful* beautiful?

    "Strippers" is a loose term. Plenty run the gambut, from locals who arent' all that, to feature dancers who are pornstars as well.

    "Same with porn stars."

    Up to about ten yrs, you'd have been completely wrong. Before the internet's free content and social media took over, it used to be that contract girls were the cream of the crop and many could compete looks wise with the best glamour runway models. Now even the term "porn star" could mean anything. Also there are more categories (including amateur niches) that didn't exist even a decade ago. So when the term "porn star" is used, it could mean anything nowadays.

    "Show me a stripper who looks like Ana de Armas or that model..."

    There are still plenty of porn stars that fit this description. All one has to do is look at the various mainstream video studios (what's left of them) and one will find plenty of 7's, 8's, and 9's that fit the description. They do still exist, they're just a bit harder to find. But they're there.

    Again, men's tastes, while fairly consistent, show that they're not really all that picky regarding women's looks. Any old run of the mill will do, so long as they're wearing some makeup and look reasonably attractive in the right lighting.

  133. @DextersLabRat
    @silviosilver

    Aren't most strippers not *beautiful* beautiful? Same with porn stars. Look good with lots of make-up and aren't exactly ugly but not model/actress type beautiful. Show me a stripper who looks like Ana de Armas or that model who fucked the Chinese billionaire and then married the Snapchat guy.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Aren’t most strippers not *beautiful* beautiful?

    “Strippers” is a loose term. Plenty run the gambut, from locals who arent’ all that, to feature dancers who are pornstars as well.

    “Same with porn stars.”

    Up to about ten yrs, you’d have been completely wrong. Before the internet’s free content and social media took over, it used to be that contract girls were the cream of the crop and many could compete looks wise with the best glamour runway models. Now even the term “porn star” could mean anything. Also there are more categories (including amateur niches) that didn’t exist even a decade ago. So when the term “porn star” is used, it could mean anything nowadays.

    “Show me a stripper who looks like Ana de Armas or that model…”

    There are still plenty of porn stars that fit this description. All one has to do is look at the various mainstream video studios (what’s left of them) and one will find plenty of 7’s, 8’s, and 9’s that fit the description. They do still exist, they’re just a bit harder to find. But they’re there.

    Again, men’s tastes, while fairly consistent, show that they’re not really all that picky regarding women’s looks. Any old run of the mill will do, so long as they’re wearing some makeup and look reasonably attractive in the right lighting.

  134. @Steve Sailer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Great wide receivers can be a handful in terms of personality. And the Patriots haven't had many top draft picks in this century. So Belichick tended to look for white guys who were undervalued like Welker and Edelman.

    But, yeah, Brady to Moss averaged 18 touchdown catches per season over two seasons (while playing outdoors in New England). Only one other player has ever had more than 18 touchdown receptions in a single season: Jerry Rice caught 20 from Joe Montana in 1987.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “And the Patriots haven’t had many top draft picks in this century. ”

    Excuses, excuses. A team has to want to do what it takes to get the best quality available talent. NE also seldom bothered to trade up to get the top picks. Example: They didn’t make a move to attempt to trade up to get RB Adrian Peterson, which they could’ve done so if they had so chosen. Trading up to get the top draft picks is done by NFL teams all the time, NE apparently didn’t want to for whatever reason. Per top draft picks, a team has to give up something in order to gain something in the draft.

    “So Belichick tended to look for white guys who were undervalued like Welker and Edelman.”

    Notice that Belichick didn’t bother to trade up to get a blue chip RB like Christian MacAffrey. In NE’s backfield, he would’ve helped Brady immensely. Yet NE declined on trying to get him. Why? This speaks to part laziness, and an overconfidence that Brady would be Brady indefinitely and could make due with whatever second rate supporting cast around him. So long as Brady remained healthy, he’d be able to take NE to the Super Bowl.

    Sometimes to get the best available talent out there, a team has to trade up. They were penalized by loss of draft picks due to Deflategate, might as well have gotten something for a draft pick by trading up to get Christian MacAffrey.

    Montana didn’t need Jerry Rice to make him great. He had already won two super bowls before Rice was drafted. It should also be noted that unlike Brady and Moss in 2007, SF failed to appear in the SB in 1987. (But SF did win the SB the following two seasons (1988, 1989).

  135. @John Johnson
    @Autochthon

    “The bar graphs” are empirical data from a major dating Website. Believe them or not; be as skeptical as you like about the underlying data (who uses this Website, whether those persons’ expressed preferences via online selections reflect their actual beliefs, etc.) – but these are actual data – i.e., facts.

    No they are not empirical data of female preferences because they do not represent a true cross section of women and they also do not tell us what women are attracted to overall.

    Do modern women have skewed views of attractiveness? Most likely but men are still more driven by looks.

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    A handsome man however has to have basic levels of confidence and sociability. Women will not date a creep just because he is good looking.

    Women will also look past quite a bit for a man that is funny or fun to be around. All this talk of hypergamy comes from men that haven't spent much time around women.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @black sea, @anon, @Autochthon

    Most men will put up with anything for a pretty woman including overt psychotic behavior.

    Or they will marry South American and Eastern European women who are not psychotic….

  136. Can confirm anecdotally: my wife was the first woman to ever say to me: whatever you think is best, we will do it (N.B., not “I will do it….”), so I married her. Intelligent women are meta-intelligent (contra feminazi-jackasses) in the sense they realise that, notwithstanding their advice and counsel (valued by any smart man) it is optimal that one person have ultimate authority and make decisions in order for the [family, squadron, team] be able to advance without being bogged down by “analysis-paralysis” or the infamous bickering of committees that wisely makes each sovereign place external affairs in the hands of a single executive) – even the famously (and workably) democratic polises of classical Greece saw the value of tyrant (in the denotational, not the modern connotational and negative context of the idea) in this context.

  137. @Flip
    Black women are more likely to have illegitimate children?

    Replies: @Autochthon

    Black women are less likely to value and defer to their men (sadly, they may be wise in this, not on account of any fault in them , but, rather, in the wisdom of their males, hence the trouble….)

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS