Category Archives: Biology

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.

But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.

Measuring potential school performance:

Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false

Job performance:

Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.

Eugenics:

Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:

Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning

And i also agree with:

Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture

and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):

Height and IQ Genes

making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind

Testing mental health:

This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.

Criterion validity and correlation:

I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).

I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.

And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.

I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 

I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?

Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.

Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.

Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.

State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.

Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.

Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.

Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.

Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.

Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.

Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls

Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.

Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.

Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.

The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.

Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.

Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

Leave a comment

Filed under Accidents, Alcohol, Biology, Corrections, Crime, Culture, Depressants, Economics, Education, Eugenics, Genetics, Health, Higher Education, Illness, Intelligence, Intoxicants, Law enforcement, Psychology, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: How Many People Are Transgender, and Is the Rate Increasing?

Eric Blair: Speaking of gender, I am not very familiar with non-binary gender stuff..how did we even get from two genders to 70?

Thanks for the comment, George, and thanks for stopping by the blog. All this time I thought you were dead!

That’s a damn good question. My position is that once you let people act as crazy as they want to, you open the door, and there’s no limit to how crazy people will act. Which is how you end up with 70 genders.

The trans madness has been exploding. The figure cited in the 1960’s and 1970’s was 1/30,000. Presumably almost all of these were the more pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age, sometimes as young as two. However, a recent survey of Generation Z showed that 2% labeled themselves transgender, and another 11% labeled themselves nonbinary. So you can see that the rate of this stuff has gone through the roof.

You would not expect a genetic or biological condition to go from 1/30,000 to 1/50 in a few short decades (someone do the math for me please). Genetic or even biological change does not happen that fast. Obviously this is a sociological phenomenon no doubt being driven by quite a bit of faddism. Even trans advocates admit that 88% of transgender people are not transsexuals. Only 12% are the relatively pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age. The other 88% are people with paraphilias, all or almost all men. The paraphilias encompass autogynephilia, crossdressing, and transvestism. The latter are mostly heterosexual and the former are mostly homosexual.

Indeed, when we get to the point where 2-3% of people are gay and another 2% are transgender, we are definitely getting into a pretty weird world here in the Current Year. It’s long past 1984 already and we are into a whole new dystopia of sexual bizarreness.

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Genetics, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Psychology, Psychopathology, Science, Sex, Weirdness

How to Define Sexual Orientation – Behavior or Attraction?

It is often said that the statement “Straight men who have sex with men” is an oxymoron because any man who has sex with men is at least bisexual. I disagree.

It depends on how you want to define sexual orientation.

First of all we need to realize that most gay men have had sex with women, and many continue to do so. And all the talk about married gay men. Most lesbians have had sex with men, and many continue to do so. So none of these gay men (almost all of them) who have had sex with women are really gay? So none of these lesbians (almost all of them) who have had sex with men are really lesbians?

I do not define sexual orientation on behavior. Behavior is one thing and orientation is another. They tend to line up pretty well but not completely and not always.

Orientation is the largely biological tendency or setup of what at least men and many women are attracted to. A lot of lesbians appear to be biologically set up to be this way.

Behavior is who you have sex with, which usually lines up fairly well but sometimes not completely with orientation.

It’s well known that when women are not around, straight men (men who are attracted to women only and men not at all) will have sex with men.

Many lesbians who have little or no attraction to men nevertheless have sex with them, often quite a bit of sex. Note how many prostitutes are lesbians.

Many straight women will have sex with other women in all-female institutions if there are no men around.

The people engaging in this opportunistic homosexuality are often not bisexual; instead they are just deprived straights fulfilling their sexual needs with the same sex as the opposite sex is not available.

The only men who are bisexual are those are who attracted to both sexes.

We also get into how people identify, which is important. I know women who have sex with men and women but identify as straight, as they only have relationships with men. I know a woman who identifies as lesbian though she has sex with men too because she can only fall in love with a woman. This woman was a 25-75, which normally should mean lesbian-leaning bisexual, but she defined herself as lesbian.

Many men are 90-10’s or 80-20’s (very straight leaning bisexuals), but as they have no interest in and refuse to act on their male interest, they identify as straight, which is reasonable. Many women who define themselves as straight to me tell me that they have some lesbian interest but refuse or choose not to act on it.

The GLBTQWTF SJW’s have been wildly antiscientific about sexual orientation since forever. You almost never read anything truthful, factual, or scientific about sexual orientation in the popular press and increasing even in academic journals. That is because the debate has been taken over by GLBTQWTF SJW’s who have twisted all the science into propaganda and lies for their nonheterosexual orientations.

There are very few clinicians or scholars who are doing actual scientific work in sexual orientation nowadays because GLBTQWTF SJW’s are utterly hostile to even having science look at the question.

Joe Kort is a gay psychologist. He is one of the few humans in the US who is actually doing real work on sexual orientation. He has written a book called Straight Guise about straight men who have sex with men. He lists all the different reasons why they do this.

Kort defines them as straight because they are not attracted to men or men’s bodies.

3 Comments

Filed under Biology, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Scholarship, Science, Sex, Women

Alt Left: Putting “Transsexual” Minors on Hormones Boils Down to Child Abuse

70% of “trans” minors grow out of it by age 18. I know a man who tried to transition as a teenager. Then he went back. He now has some permanent physical damage and deformation to his body (3 inches too short for instance) due to his normal development as boy getting hijacked by powerful hormones. He calls his trans phase a delusion (which it is), and he’s deeply depressed, even suicidal. Oh, and he’s also incel. And consequently he’s really pissed off on top of the suicidality and self-hate.

Giving these “trans” kids those insane hormones boils down to child abuse.

8 Comments

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Health, Left, Medicine, Operations, Psychology, Psychopathology, Sex

Radfems and MRA’s: Two Peas in a Pod

Noting that radfems reject the strong science proving the reality of biological gender, the fact is that radfems anti-science. So like the reactionaries in that way…must be horseshoe theory again.

Radfems are some of the most extreme ideologues out there. I see absolutely zero difference between radfems and the MRA’s, PUA’s, incels, and MGTOW’s. Radfems the other side of the mirror, that’s all. Radfems hate men like MRA’s hate women. Both screech that they are constantly under attack by the other gender. They both claim that their gender suffers from horrific oppression. They both propose extreme solutions to deal with the enemy, which happens to be the other gender.

Both deny that there are any good people of the other gender. And it appears that they both hate science when it gets in the way of their precious ideology. They’re both frighteningly angry all the time, but MRA’s anger is more dangerous because male anger is more physical. They both center your entire existence and the entire universe around the notion of gender. They both claim their own gender is an oppressed class. They both refuse to make allies with the other gender.

They both claim that the other gender does not suffer or that their suffering merits no importance. Both claim the other side has it easy and is not oppressed. Many of both seek to live lives as separately from the other gender as possible. They are both wildly ideological, with lists of 100’s of positions that every one in the movement must check one, and if even one checkmark is missed, that person is declared on the side of the enemy and is thrown out of movement. Ideological diversity is nonexistent in either movement. Neither group believes in the existence of nuance.

Both groups are examples of extreme solipsism – the whole universe is about them – their own bodies, that is, their gender. Both claim to be engaged in informed searches for the truth, but they are too weighted down with dogma to do that. Both lionize some of the worst haters around. Schopenhauer is Mary Daly. Nietzsche is Julie Bindel. Elliot Rodgers is Valerie Solanis.

Misandrists and misogynists are the same thing. Both groups are forms of Identity Politics. Radfem is female IP and MRA is male IP. They hate each other, but they are both just different forms of IP and they are much more alike than different.

Most sane people reject both of movements and think they’re both insane, just at different ends of the crazy spectrum. No one likes MRA’s for good reason, and radfems are not popular either. Even normal feminism is not popular. Only 14% women say they are feminists, though equal rights is a reasonable concept. This is because though equal rights is great, most feminists are fanatics, and their views do not line up with that of the average woman because feminist views are extremist.

16 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Masculinism, Politics, Radical Feminists, Science

Gender Is Biological and Given, Not Social and Constructed

The view of radical feminism and in fact all of feminism is that gender is socially constructed. From a radical feminist or radfem website:

There is no such thing as biological gender! Seriously dude, do you even know what radfem is? From your comments here you seem to think we are a bunch of sexless, genderless, manhating, violent women.

Sex is biological. We are born either male or female (with a small percentage intersex).

Gender is a social construct with attributable stereotypical traits, behaviours and presentation.

Please educate yourself on the basics.

All you have to do is wander around the planet a bit for while with your ears and eyes open to realize that that’s not true. Recent advances in neurology indicate that there are vast differences in male and female brains in terms of the number of structures effected, which typically differ in size, shape, etc.

Look also at the experiences of transwomen,  men who became women. On female hormones, their behavior and  thinking changed radically and even their entire view of the world became radically  different.

Some transwoman’s on those hormones have reported changes in emotionality and even entire worldview. I realize radfems reject biological gender, but these reports are very interesting. One transwoman was a very masculine, almost stoical, hard-type man. On the hormones, he reported that he was wildly emotional, all over the place all the time, and frequently out of sorts via being confused by all this mercurial emotionality. And this guy was John Wayne before. I figure the pills caused the changes. And one more thing, radfems will hate this too – he said he started giggling. A lot. Not sure if I have ever seen a man giggle.

Another transwoman was on the Reddit Redpill MRA group (I know you hate them but I read everywhere). He reported that on the hormones, the world felt very frightening and confusing and he has a strong sense of weakness and wanting to be protected, specifically by a strong, powerful figure. He also become quite emotional, often for little reason. He noticed that his “cis” boyfriend pretty much ignored the emotionality and this transwoman felt that men often ignored a lot of women’s emotionality because a lot of it was not based on much and its too tiring to respond to weathervanes all day.

I know feminists don’t believe any of this stuff, but those pills are very powerful and surely hormones can have some psychological effects? Isn’t this obvious evidence that gender is biological? Give a men female hormones and his behaviors, emotions, thinking and even epistemology change dramatically in ways that remarkably resemble stereotypical female behavior. How can feminists explain this away?

.

7 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Neuroscience, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Science

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious.

But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head.

This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Intelligence, Psychology, Science

Lily Allen, “Who’d Have Known?”

Another great song from Lily Allen. I did not mention it in the last post, but this Electropop stuff is also great dance music. In addition to the 1980ish origins, it also has roots in techno and house dance music produced by DJ’s in dance clubs later on. I liked both techno and house.

Some great dance music, even if I had quit dancing by that time. I actually love to dance and supposedly I can dance pretty well. There’s one great thing about dancing, regardless of whether you think it’s faggy. And that’s because in a real way, dancing is the opposite of faggy. Women and girls love a great dancer, especially in a sexy, attractive and rather masculine male. Dancing is a very sexual activity – it’s nearly vertical sex de facto if you think about it. Dancing makes women horny. An ability to dance is a great component of Game, especially if you are attractive, fairly masculine and sexy.

What I am trying to say is that if you look good and your Game is good, being a great dancer can also get you laid. A lot. One great reason to take up dancing, guys!

That I dance well his is due to the fact that I have a partly Female Character. Face it guys, dancing in the West is a phenomenon rooted deeply in the Female Character. Yes, men do dance sometimes even in hypermasculine Arab, Kurdish and Turkic cultures, but let’s not fool ourselves. There’s nothing masculine in even that dancing. If you dance well, you have a feminine side, and that’s not a bad thing.

Is there any male dancing? Square dancing, line dancing, and of course slow dancing, etc. are rooted in the Female Character. There’s nothing masculine about flowing around in such a friendly way like that. The very fact that you are flowing, smiling, and warm shows you are acting female because females flow when they move while males move like mechanical objects or automatons in harsh, cold, blocky movements. Females also smile and act warm, while men scowl and act cold. These things are called Essential Gender Character. Check out the great Otto Weininger for more.

I would say that slam dancing is pretty masculine. Stage diving and slam pits are are all about the Male Character. Females trolling around the slam pit are acting pretty masculine, not that that’s a bad thing, since most if not all people have both Masculine and Feminine characters, following Weininger.

After all, testosterone is what makes women horny in the first place. The nuking of the female sex drive post-menopause (yeah, it’s real all right) is down to declining testosterone as much as declining estrogen. The greater sexuality of Black women may be down to increased testosterone. There are women who actually take testosterone supplements or get shots to revive a flagging sex drive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Man World, Music, Psychology, Rock, Romantic Relationships, Science, Sex

Is There Life After Death?

I told you so.

But I already figured this out before they proved it. I don’t need Mommy Science to prove things for me. I can figure them out on my own and prove them on my own via my own use of the empirical method, which we all use every day, all day long, anyway. So we are all little scientists. And we little scientists don’t need the Big Scientists to tell us what’s true and not true or real and not real  when we have already figured these things out on our  own via our own empirical investigations.

This was my latest theory – that you live for at least a couple of hours after you die, and the article seems to back it up. There is a very convincing account on Quora of a man who was apparently dead for two hours and then regained life somehow. Don’t ask me how that works.

This man also has a very convincing testimony of reincarnation.

5 Comments

Filed under Biology, Death, Medicine, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science

Why is Domestic Violence Almost Twice as Common among Lesbian Couples and Male Gay Couples?

Link to the study.

Answered on Queera. I am really starting to hate homosexuals, especially gay men, and I have been an ally for decades. They keep reporting me to Queera Staff for homophobic hate speech. I have been trying very hard from the start to leave anything like that out of my answers, but they keep reporting me anyway. Every time I try to write my answers to make them more acceptable, but the fags just report me again.

And yeah, they are fags because they declared war on me. Gay men who I hate are fags. The rest are just gay men. They are trying to their damndest to get me banned from there. Queera is one of the most wildly pro-gay sites on the whole Internet. If you didn’t know any better, you would think gays are the greatest thing since radial tires. Gays swarm every question about homosexuality and flood it with answers that are mostly just a wild pack of crazy lies. The problem with gays nowadays is that almost 100% of gay people are gay activists all wrapped up in Gay Politics, and as such they are mostly some of the most obnoxious and crazy SJW’s of them all. And I hate SJW’s. So I’m starting to hate gays just for being SJW scum. I don’t really care about the fact that they are gay – if they got wired up that way, I will support them 100%. But SJW’s need to be shot.

This post, incredibly enough, got reported and consequently buried as homophobic hate speech. Or maybe feminists complained. It got tagged for violating some rule called Be Nice, Be Respectful. If you so much look at the gays wrong, they bomb your post with hate speech reports.

Apparently the hate speech is when I said that gay men are vastly more likely to be effeminate than straight men and that many lesbians are quite masculine. I guess it’s evil homophobic hate speech to imply that gay men are effeminate and lesbians are masculine! What the Hell? It’s not hate speech. It’s true!

I guess that’s the problem though. I was on a Marxist forum the other day and a wildly SJW Marxist stated openly that the truth could indeed be hate speech. So here we are in SJW 1984, where telling the truth is evil bigotry, a sanctionable offense, and probably likely to be soon against the law.

The commenter the other day was right. Gay men are no fun anymore. There used to be a lot of pretty cool and fun gay guys. A lot of them were very funny, and they were known to be irreverent to say the least. Their typically degenerate lifestyles precluded any sanctimoniousness on their part, as they were an outrageous version of the glass houses maxim.

Now fags are a drag. They’re all a bunch of sanctimonious, priggish, censorious, church lady thugs. And like the feminists, they are getting dangerous. The gays are trying to get all of us straight men thrown out of our jobs and to ruin our careers, just like the feminists are trying to make all of us straight men lose their jobs, have their careers destroyed or even nowadays, thrown in jail. Both of them have basically declared war on straight men. The Feminine Principle has declared war on the Masculine Principle.

These SJW thugs, feminist or gay, are a downright menace. I don’t see any possibilities  for peace with these crazies. This is going to be a war to the end.

There will be no peace with the SJW’s.

Yes, lesbian couples and gay male couples beat each other up at twice the rates of straight couples. No one seems to know why this is, but it is common knowledge among clinicians and accepted as basic fact.

Perhaps there is a lack of proper balance or Yin Yang in these relationships.

With lesbians, you have two women who often act like men. Lesbians are more likely to be masculine than straight women.

Transmen experience an increase in crime rate after they transition from female to male. It’s as if becoming a man makes it more likely that one acts violent or criminal, which as a man I would agree with.

With gay men, well, first off, gay men are not women. People, including transsexual fetishists, think that gay men are just women in men’s bodies. Yes, gay men are wildly disproportionately effeminate and feminine, but on the other hand, they are as full of testosterone as straight men. Gay men have a significantly increased crime rate opposed to straight men, mostly for property crime.

Obviously when a man is gay, he is not a typical feminine human. He is a man, 100% man, a testosterone fueled man, who has a feminized brain in some respects, but in other ways, he is just as man of a real man as any man out there. Gay men have the same testosterone levels as straight men, and this is what drives violence and aggression in men.

With gay men, you are pairing two testosterone fueled humans together without any Yin-Yang balance to even things out. The result is likely to be explosive.

The frightening figure is that women are actually safer in relationships with men than they are with women, which gives the lie to radical feminism.

Also straight men are much less likely to beat up their partners than gay men are, which once again gives the lie to feminist theory that states that male violence against women is some special thing related to males’ inherent hatred for women or the feminine.

The truth is that this is a complex area, and psychology has no explanations for these empirical facts. We only know that the facts are real. Why the facts are the facts is another matter altogether, and no one seems to know why.

3 Comments

Filed under Biology, Crime, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Science, Scum, Sex