[…] earlier posting 100 Blog Posts – Reflection on HBD Blogging and What Lies Ahead reviews the topics I’ve talked about in the beginning, including fertility trends, and health […]

[…] 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead – A review post, where I talk about the major themes and findings after 100 posts HBD […]

Will flouride lower your baby’s IQ?

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/02/harvard-study-confirms-fluoride-reduces-childrens-iq.html

[…] 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead […]

“It turns out that parenting doesn’t matter as much as we think. Indeed, short of extreme abuse or neglect, parents don’t affect how their children turn much at all. This includes not only children’s intelligence or their broad personality traits, but their life outcomes (including the things that “really” matter), like how much they earn, or whether or not they get in trouble with the law. This even includes how fat or thin they become, as was the subject of my second post (Should Parents Lose Custody of Obese Kids?). It also doesn’t matter if they grow up with a father present or with a single mother. It doesn’t matter if their parents are gay or straight. All those things are symptoms, of the true causes, not causes in themselves (the true cause being heredity).”

- OK. Since you’ve got a kid now yourself, Jayman, why not test this all out? Don’t abuse or neglect him, but don’t do much in the way of guidance or education either. No taking him to museums or science centers. You don’t even have to enroll him in school. Too much input after all. Just teach him very basic reading, writing and arithmetic, up to a minimal functional level. When he’s a teen do not, I repeat do not, attempt to teach him any ethics around sexuality. We’ll all check back on the experiment right here on this blog in the year 2034.

You game?

[…] especially racial differences in such – but with other topics (see my previous milestone post, 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead and my American nations series). In any case, I discuss the facts as they […]

[…] modern hallmarks of the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives, as testified by my examinations of their fertility gap (see also Who’s Having […]

Jayman, several weeks ago I made a comment on a survey you posted on your blog that purportedly divined the political leanings of the test participants. The following link is an example of the bias in so many surveys.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130811005342.htm

[…] aside from the previously featured demographic contraction (see Who’s Having the Babies? and 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead: Fertility), but the impact on the psyche of citizens, as discussed in The Atlantic article Suicide and the […]

[…] 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead […]

Oh, also – I know of an academic publisher that might release it…

Yeah! Who’s gonna write The Book?

Probably it should be a collaborative effort, actually. One person would lead to too much iconoclasm: it would be better to have samples across the HBD community. Unless that one person is a proponent of ‘vanilla’ HBD, like Sailer.

[…] come up with Bush, it is a related matter of faith that obesity is “bad for you”. Well, as I’ve previously reported, the situation is not what is commonly […]

[…] my ongoing investigation into fertility, I wanted to take another look at who’s having children. This post will look at fertility […]

“You certainly can.”

No you certainly cannot

What methods were they using to “measure intelligence”?
What was the definition of “intelligence” that they used as a priori?
What other lifestyle factors were controlled for, if any?

But Chris, my friend, that is part of the point. White people of Northern and Western European descent (as well as Northeastern) have thin, translucent skin that does not weather well in weather. That is why their skin shows the ravages of time (even a short time) more.

There are some exceptions.

“But indeed, you’re correct, since these are both Anglo populations, we can’t quite generalize to the rest of the world, yet.”

You can’t generalize to the rest of the world AT ALL.

And you can’t even generalize to the rest of the Anglo population – at all.

There are so many other factors to be controlled for.

That’s why “studies” like this are junk pop science.

Pure fluff.

@Hindu Bio Diversity – “No, their BODIES look hot, NOT their faces.
I can’t count the number of times I have seen a white person from the back and assumed him or her to be in their 20s and then they turn around and BAM! A wrinkly, leathery face. And guess what? Many of them WERE in fact in their 20s.”

But do you live in a sunny location? Maybe your observations apply to twenty-something white people in somewhere like California. Just because you see young white people with leathery skin in your part of the world, doesn’t mean it is true of young white people around the world. I live in the UK, and I rarely see young white people with ‘leathery’ skin as we have insufficient hours of bright sunlight here. Young Brits who have lived and worked in Spanish holiday resorts for a number of years may end up like this however. The main issues which lead to premature aging among young white Brits are smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, drug use, poor diet, and stress. I do see a lot of younger smokers with ‘crows-feet’ wrinkling around their eyes, etc.

I hope you write about middle eastern iq.

“How is it junk science?

Look, merely reporting a finding you find unbelievable doesn’t make something “junk science.” You need to point out the flaws in their methodology.”

Seriously bro? Regarding the “Drinking More Makes You Smarter” – Where’s the “science” in the following;

“Go ahead, order that second beer: You deserve it because you’re so smart. According to the greatest study in the history of science (we’re only slightly exaggerating), smarter people tend to drink “more frequently and in greater quantities” than their duller, drier peers. In two studies conducted in the United States and United Kingdom, children’s intelligence was measured and categorized in five groups ranging from “very dull” to “very bright.” When the study participants were assessed later in life (the Brits checked in from their 20s to their 40s) the “brighter” kids were the ones who emptied more glasses more often. Why? No one is exactly sure yet. Anybody want to drink on it?”

1. How did they measure the intelligence?
2. An extremely small group of kids in a mere 2 countries out of hundreds of countries on this planet, whom they determined somehow were “brighter” (we don’t know how they determined that or what they mean by “dull” and “bright”) end up drinking more in adulthood and thus a universal claim of “smarter people drink more” is concluded?

Are you kidding me?

If that’s what you consider “hard science” then I question YOUR intelligence.

And you can’t be serious pointing me to that Sailer blog about …. high school!

There is no science behind that and they are talking about Americans. You really think the rest of the world is as hung up on high school social life well into their old like *some* Americans might be?

This is what I mean. That kind of thing doesn’t qualify as “science”. Hell not even “junk science”.

A few Americans who have never moved passed their teen years psychologically talked to a few other Americans who also haven’t.

Whoop Di Do!

And about never moving beyond boyhood, watch this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vmJLIscyUE

Here’s more junk “science”

http://m.now.msn.com/smarter-people-drink-more-study-says

These “studies” are nonsense.

Jayman, their data sample is small. The conclusions were speculative.

Although this is “yahoo”, you can read this;

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health/love-sex/article/-/17582566/do-absent-dads-make-for-promiscuous-daughters/

“Regarding your comments about white women allegedly losing their looks at age 27. ”

Women? Where did I specify “women”? I said white PEOPLE.

” I can agree that some lower-class late 20′s white women who smoke, drink heavily, eat an unhealthy diet, and have 3 or more children might have ‘hit the wall hard’ as you put it. And there are those with premature wrinkles from excessive sunbathing or tanning salon abuse. But equally there are many late 20′s+ women who go to the gym regularly, eat healthily, look after themselves, and are still very hot.”

No, their BODIES look hot, NOT their faces.

I can’t count the number of times I have seen a white person from the back and assumed him or her to be in their 20s and then they turn around and BAM! A wrinkly, leathery face. And guess what? Many of them WERE in fact in their 20s.

Example: just the other night I went to a meditation sat sanga and the hostess was a petite, fit, college gal no older than 22. Or so I thought. The closer she got to me the closer I could see she was a very petite, fit 40 year old.

But hold on, here’s where it gets interesting. Her husband/partner/boyfriend/whatever you people call it, was a tall, hot, muscular atheletic Black man with skin as smooth as a babies bottom at about 24 years of age.

I thought to myself, “Dayum! This cougar thing is for real! You go girl”.

Turns out that the husband was 31 and the wife was only 27!

Keep in mind- she’s a health nut! No drinks, no drugs, no cigs, no gmo’s. All organic, yoga, tai chi, you name it!

“Plus once women of all ethnicities reach their 30s they rarely look as good as they did at 18-24, it’s not just white women. ”

Black don’t crack and black people don’t get wrinkles on average (in this country at least) until at least 50, if that. My neighbors are in their 60s and still don’t have ‘em.

“The city I live in has a very large Indian population, and I can honestly say that their women aged 27+ are not exactly at the peak of their looks anymore either (many of them are obese).”

Indians do not age any where near as good as black people but also not as bad as whites. They do have an obesity problem and they do need to become more physically active.

However, Indians belong to a culture that glorifies old age and they actually WANT to become old before their time. There are reasons for that which I won’t get into here.

JAYMAN:
“This would imply that mixed-race marriage are less likely to divorce. It’s not clear that’s true.”

In the US white husband/black wife couples have low divorce rates while black husband/white wife couples have high divorce rates.

As far as other types of mixed couples, it varies.

Regarding “evidence”.

The conclusion of the data was speculative.

@Hindu Bio Diversity – Regarding your comments about white women allegedly losing their looks at age 27. I think it rather depends on social background, diet, lifestyle choices, and genetics. I can agree that some lower-class late 20′s white women who smoke, drink heavily, eat an unhealthy diet, and have 3 or more children might have ‘hit the wall hard’ as you put it. And there are those with premature wrinkles from excessive sunbathing or tanning salon abuse. But equally there are many late 20′s+ women who go to the gym regularly, eat healthily, look after themselves, and are still very hot. Plus once women of all ethnicities reach their 30s they rarely look as good as they did at 18-24, it’s not just white women. The city I live in has a very large Indian population, and I can honestly say that their women aged 27+ are not exactly at the peak of their looks anymore either (many of them are obese).

” They hit their walls HARD at around 27 and have the shortest sexual shelf life.”

“That’s complete nonsense.”

Not at all. They hit their walls young, fast and hard because their skin wrinkles early and makes them look old before their time. That is what I mean by “short sexual shelf life” – sexual attractiveness.

Regarding parenting
“The evidence says no, it doesn’t”

I’m not buying this speculative conclusion.

Parenting matters – a lot.

“Further, if Europeans didn’t find each other attractive, the majority of marriages wouldn’t be within-race…”

Northern and Western Europeans are not marrying anymore. That was part of my point, but not well articulated.

“As well, I’d like to revisit the concept of attractiveness, and the notion that Europeans have the most attractive features”

Not even Europeans find other Europeans the most attractive, by evidence of their high divorce rates and low birth rates. The non-Europeans of the world are largely very attracted to each other and we are marrying, mating and out-breeding the unattractive (to each other) Europeans by leaps and bounds!

I don’t blame Europeans, particularly Northern Europeans for not being attracted to each other. With their thin lips and skin that ages hard and fast making them look 60 at 40. They hit their walls HARD at around 27 and have the shortest sexual shelf life.

Give me chocolate, dark or milk, any day, all day, over that mess.

Intelligence and novelty-seeking go hand-in-hand; it’s difficult to imagine someone being intelligent and not craving new information on various subjects. And openness to novelty is an important feature of liberal psychology; conservatives, by contrast, tend to want things to stay the same.

Speaking as an adopted kid now in touch with her biological family, “culture” and “parenting” certainly had an effect on big things like “did I get to go to school” and “was I traumatized as a child”. It had little long-term effect on things like my interests, personality, and ways of thinking about problems, which are much closer to my bio-family.

I suspect it is much easier to traumatize a child and prevent them from reaching their full potential (whatever that happens to be,) than to exceed whatever they were born with. But some cultures will support an individual’s nature more than others.

“Oh, just found a mention of sexual dimorphism and political orientation: “We have previously made the proposal (2005) that conservatives of both genders were more sexually dimorphic than liberals. This proposal implicated a higher ratio of testosterone to estrogen in the conservative male, and a higher ratio of estrogen to testosterone in the conservative female. The liberal males and females had lower ratios.”

I’ve read many times that in the US liberals have higher IQs than conservatives and the sexual dimorphism might have something do with that. When you are in touch with your “masculine side” as a woman, and your “feminine side” as a man, you can see things from the other perspective more. Seeing things from other or new perspectives, mulling them over and grokking them is a sign of higher intelligence.

“One post will be to address a serious issue in the HBD world: how will the world react to knowledge of HBD?”

More women from all over the world will marry African men.

“I’ve always suspected genetic roots of behavior. This suspicion was solidified upon reading Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate. There I learned of the existence of an enduring human nature – an enduring human nature that makes it impossible to “train” people out of certain undesirable behaviors. That was a great revelation in itself, but one of my biggest takeaways from that book was that established beliefs – even beliefs held by many experts – can be dead wrong. One of these was the belief in power of parenting.

This belief was the subject of my very first blog post (Taming the “Tiger Mom” and Tackling the Parenting Myth), and is that I still argue to this day from time to time.

It turns out that parenting doesn’t matter as much as we think. Indeed, short of extreme abuse or neglect, parents don’t affect how their children turn much at all. This includes not only children’s intelligence or their broad personality traits, but their life outcomes (including the things that “really” matter), like how much they earn, or whether or not they get in trouble with the law. This even includes how fat or thin they become, as was the subject of my second post (Should Parents Lose Custody of Obese Kids?). It also doesn’t matter if they grow up with a father present or with a single mother. It doesn’t matter if their parents are gay or straight. All those things are symptoms, of the true causes, not causes in themselves (the true cause being heredity).”

NOPE. I don’t buy this at all.
I’ve lived in too many different cultures and societies to think that the way kids turn out is entirely genetic. A lot has to do with parenting and parenting has to do with culture. Yes, nature is a factor, but nurture sure as hell is too.

[…] […]

[…] 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead – from jayman. and jayman jr.!! (^_^) […]

Ok, thanks for that. There is an awful lot of stuff which I am still learning in regards to evolutionary biology, that, aside from my amateur interest in molecular anthropology, I am still very much new to. When I’m less busy there is a lot of material which I need to read up on. I also just read this, from Stephen Pinker, which explained it well: http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection

Oh, just found a mention of sexual dimorphism and political orientation: “We have previously made the proposal (2005) that conservatives of both genders were more sexually dimorphic than liberals. This proposal implicated a higher ratio of testosterone to estrogen in the conservative male, and a higher ratio of estrogen to testosterone in the conservative female. The liberal males and females had lower ratios.”

http://neuropolitics.org/defaultjul12.asp

When I work my way back to 2005, I can update again.

“Yes I’ve seen that. It is interesting; one wonders if low sex drive is a pro-monogamy thing?”

Jay, have you seen this article over on Neuropolitics about sex drive and political orientation? (Or “Sociosexuality”, as they put it): http://neuropolitics.org/

To sum, conservatives (esp women) have *more* sex, but fewer partners, and unsurprisingly, want more children. Liberals have *less* sex, more partners, masturbate more, like the idea of threesomes or group sex more, have fewer children, and self-report as gay more. They conclude, in short, that liberals have a more social sexuality, while conservatives are more focused on reproduction.

Think of the cities, though, as a bottleneck: many folks arrive, but only some make it big–the skills that are successful in the cities are not necessarily the same as in the countryside. The more people move to the city, the more the non-city-adapted people die off.

One does not have to live in a city, though, to live in a resource-scarce environment–much of the European “countryside” has been very densely populated with no new land to be had for a long, long time. Excess children are not useful when you simply cannot obtain anymore food.

For those who didn’t emigrate to America or elsewhere, the only way to get more resources was to be smarter, as you’ve discussed. And to develop more intelligence, we may need to delay puberty to give brains longer to grow.

I would personally be very cautious about extrapolating from populations within the US to populations elsewhere, especially when those populations might not be related to us, (EG, the Bantu in SA are not the ancestors of the black folks in America,) without more detailed knowledge than I have of the rates of homosexuality in those other populations–there’s just so much “social pressure” and possibly ‘environmental factors’ which affect whether and how people sexually self-identify.

Homosexuality as a means of reduced fertility just doesn’t really work out, IMO. Fertility is generally a zero-sum game–if I happen to have zero children, and so there are more resources, then everyone else can just afford an extra kid. The food gets eaten, the high-breeders continue existing, and my genes are eliminated.

However, I could see homosexuality as a natural result of an environment in which people simply have sex with more partners. Men do not seem all that picky about partners, and will copulate with things like crude vinyl dolls, sofas, or watermelons. In an environment where ‘promiscuity’ is not punished and sexuality is more social, people may happen to have sex with members of the same sex when it happens to be useful/possible. In environments where monogamy is selected for, people who are more sociable in their sexuality may be selected against.

Of course, I should note that there are big differences in tribes within relatively small regions of Africa on this subject.

I agree that homosexuality rates in other populations is a subject which could use more study.

Maybe in a tropical environment, such as sub-Saharan Africa, with abundant food resources and easy year-round subsistence farming, but high parasite load and high infant mortality rate, there was less selection for males with higher iq and high levels of conscienciousness, and more selection for males with more aggression, greater physical strength, stronger immune system, and higher sex drive, etc. And that there was a greater degree of polygyny and promiscuity, and this ensured that men with the ‘best genes’ fathered the most offspring to compensate for the higher parasite load and infant mortality rate. With the abundant food resources in such an environment, females could produce more offspring (especially to compensate for the infant mortality rate), and could provide for their offspring more or less themselves and didn’t need a loyal, hard-working or nurturing male to pair with long-term. And over time this resulted in a more sexually dimorphic population. [For example, Bantu tribes in Southern Africa practice agriculture and are more polygynous, more promiscuous, produce more offspring, and are also more sexually dimorphic than hunter-gatherer tribes like the !Kung who practice monogamy, pair-bonding, and produce fewer offspring].
But maybe, if it is true that homosexuality occurs at a greater frequency among Black Americans than White Americans, it could suggest that in a tropical environment where larger numbers of offspring were produced, homosexuality was advantageous as a natural check on excessive population growth and was therefore selected for?
Conversely, in a colder, harsher environment perhaps there was a greater selection for monogamy, long-term pair bonding, smaller numbers of offspring, greater investment in offspring, and higher iq and conscientiousness level [maybe Northern Europe, or parts of East Asia] due to the scarcity of food resources, greater difficulty in practicing year-round agriculture, greater need to hunt for food, colder climate, etc. And maybe in this type of environment, if homosexuality occurred, it was not selected for as a means of preventing over-population like in the tropical environment, but perhaps as, in a population of more intelligent and more conscientious men, there was a risk that some of these men may possess these traits but also lack the necessary aggression to be a good hunter, as their brain could be too ‘feminised’..? I don’t really know if any of this is true, these are just some random hypotheses of mine.
Some people, such as Greg Cochran, believe homosexuality may be caused by a pathogen.
Perhaps future surveys or studies should also attempt to find out if there is a difference in rates of homosexuality between populations of Southern European origin versus Northern European origin, either in Europe or America, as the term ‘White American’ covers people of too many different origins. Also, in Africa, Middle East and Asia we can safely assume that true rates of homosexuality are likely to be vastly under-reported for cultural reasons.

Hi, Chris, you may find the study I linked to on gender non-conformity and intelligence interesting (I’ll post the link again to avoid confusion: http://www.academia.edu/724556/Gender_Nonconformity_Intelligence_and_Sexual_Orientation ) “Gay men had significantly fewer NART errors than heterosexual men and women (controlling for years of education). In heterosexual men, correlational analysis revealed significant associations between CGN, NART, and FSIQ scores (elevated boyhood femininity correlated with higher IQ scores). In heterosexual women, the direction of the correlations between CGN and all IQ scores was reversed (elevated girlhood femininity correlating with lower IQ scores).”

I suspect that homosexual identity is only a particular, culturally-influenced manifestation of gender-nonconformity, but a more androgynous population might make it more likely.

I didn’t mean to measure, say, hormone levels between intelligent and unintelligent men, but the difference between intelligent men and intelligent women compared to the difference between unintelligent men and unintelligent women–that is, one group’s spread may be larger than the other’s.
Likewise, I would be cautious in comparing across races–homosexual or gender non-conforming folks of a particular race or ethnic group may be more intelligent than other members of their group, regardless of how they compare to other groups. (The same goes for any measure of sexual dimorphism you happen to pick.)

Of course, there could very well be multiple causes.

In reference to what Amber said. Amber suggested a link in humans between degree of ‘masculinisation’, ‘feminisation’, intelligence, homosexuality, and sex drive.
I don’t necessarily believe that higher iq individuals are more likely to be homosexual. From Wikipedia “LGBT Demographics of the United States”: “A Gallup report published in October 2012 by the Williams Institute reported that 3.4% of US adults identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Minorities were more likely to identify as non-heterosexual; 4.6% of blacks, 4.0% of Hispanics and 3.2% of whites.” I don’t know how reliable these stats are, but if we assume they are correct then if higher average iq rates correlated with higher average rates of homosexuality these figures ought to be reversed.
Moreover, the difference in testosterone levels between blue collar (lower average iq?) and white collar (higher average iq?) men is statistically significant but not huge, I think I read somewhere about 20%. And yet a man’s testosterone level can fluctuate by a similar percentage regularly anyway due to external factors, eg different times of the day; in response to eating a meal; doing exercise; lifting weights; sleeping; good nutrition versus poor nutrition; playing a competitive sport; watching your team play; looking at an attractive woman (or a picture of one); etc. I think to have a massive effect on ‘masculinity’, as measured by aggression, sex drive, etc. there would need to be a far higher increase in testosterone level occurring (for example when bodybuilders use anabolic steroids or synthetic testosterone I believe that it causes a 700% rise in testosterone level, or similar).
My personal suspicion is that the higher aggression levels and supposed higher sex drive of lower iq men versus higher iq men is far more due to differences in personality traits, eg introversion versus extroversion, level of impulsiveness, dopamine level, etc. And that this is in turn due to differences in the brain with regard to the dopamine receptors and/or serotonin receptors density and sensitivity. And that higher iq men may HAVE a high testosterone level, high sex drive, or potential high aggression level, but they are better able to keep it under control or channel it into something else more productive rather than starting fights with other men or trying to sleep with lots of the women they meet. And having a more introverted personality rather than extroverted is a part of that. And with their higher iq they may get more of their ‘dopamine fix’ from reading books, learning, etc. Whereas a lower iq man could only seek their ‘dopamine fix’ more from less intellectual activities, which could include sex, violence, alcohol, drugs, food, acquiring status symbols, etc.
Also, I think that in the pre-natal environment, when a foetus is exposed to androgens in the womb, the level of androgen exposure will determine the future physical and mental characteristics of the child, with some initial characteristics already fixed and further characteristics setting in at puberty. However, for both males and females what I think occurs is that everyone has a degree of mental ‘masculinisation’ or ‘feminisation’; and a degree of physical ‘masculinisation’ or ‘feminisation’ on a scale. And in certain cases where the male brain is more ‘feminised’ the male is more likely to identify as bisexual or homosexual, and where the female brain is more ‘masculinised’ the female is more likely to identify as bisexual or homosexual. I do think that there could be a correlation between a greater percentage of lower iq men being from the slightly more ‘physically masculinised’ end of the spectrum, and a greater percentage of higher iq women being from the slightly more ‘mentally masculinised’ end of the spectrum. But overall I suspect there is a pretty balanced distribution of mental and physical masculinity versus femininity between both genders, whether low or high iq.

*Reading Frost’s essay now* Thanks for the link. I think part of the change has to do with audience/balance of power. When trying to convince people, when in the minority, a side must appeal to “logic” and “science” and so on. When in power, a side must only stay in power.

“Quite possibly. In essence, that was what I was saying. Another way to look at it, there’s a reason I’m in deep in “Yankeedom” and not in the Deep South.”

I find that when I use lots of words, folks not in agreement with me–especially those looking for something to disagree on–are much more likely to miss my point.

Intelligent women in my experience seem more masculine, but that may be influenced by having attended a “tech” school. If you look at, say, Caltech women, many of them are quite androgynous. And smart people seem to not only have fewer “oopsies” when it comes to their sex lives, but less raw desire. http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/04/intercourse-and-intelligence.php

There is a correlation between cities and intelligence, at least on a national level. Clearly intelligence is necessary to establish cities in the first place, and pre-social safety nets, they could be rather Dickensian places. Smart folks from the countryside could do quite well for themselves in cities, but stupider folks very likely died out. I suspect the transition from predominantly rural to predominantly urban living in Western societies over the past 300 years or so actually had a significant effect on IQ by eliminating those who simply didn’t have the brains and self-control to live in cities.

That city populations aren’t self-sustaining doesn’t in itself mean there can’t be evolutionary pressures at work in them; intelligent people are dying out, too, due to low sex drive/desire for children, but something largely genetic still created them. Androgyny may be the link between both longer/better brain development and low reproduction, and homosexuality might be one particular expression with that. Of course, multiple factors could always be involved.

Anyway, congrats on your little one.

Congratulations on the 100 posts; here’s to 100 more!

[…] My 100th blog post, for a recap of the key points discussed on my blog: 100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead […]

Ah, one more thing – was that you Jayman, who once wrote that he considers blog entry on why Slavic have “childish” features?

It’s been a great 100 posts, Jay. I’ve read all of them. I appreciate very much the existence of this blog, one of the few places where liberalism and HBD intersect. I have always valued analyzing the world through data, science, and reason, and in my teen and early college years was led to believe that this was the “liberal” approach; that conservatives were evolution-and-science-haters who let their preconceived philistine notions influence the ideas they belatedly stopped fighting. Only late in my college years did I realize that liberals can be just as anti-science if it contradicts something they want to be true.
This is probably just a feature of people.
It feels to me like liberalism has become very angry, lately, and anyone who doesn’t spout particular words or platitudes or satisfy a particular litmus test is automatically ‘the enemy’, even if they actually support the same things.
Since I don’t actually like hanging out with conservative racists, I’m very thankful for your blog, for the existence of other data-driven liberals.
I read through the LJ conversation about your post about how liberals should try to have kids. It was sad how little interest anyone there had in actually engaging you in conversation or considering your points. They had pre-decided that your points were evil and that was that. I feel like the rational, scientific approach just doesn’t work with these people; perhaps a simpler response of “hey, as a black guy, I’d rather live in a country with more liberal whites than conservative whites,” would have gotten through.

Anyway, I was thinking about your pioneer hypothesis and homosexuality (again), and it occurred to me that it seems that more intelligent people are more androgenous, while less intelligent people seem more sexually dimorphic. If we assume two environments, one with a high resource to population ratio (country) and one with a high population to resources ratio (country,) then the country population should have higher/earlier fertility and thus be less intelligent (less time for brain development,) while the city population should have lower/later fertility and be more intelligent (people who can amass more resources will have more kids, after all.) One way to achieve earlier/later puberty/higher or lower fertility would be for one population to be more dimorphic than the other, ie, the city population more androgynous. This ought to be measurable, say, by comparing testosterone levels or average heights or things like that.
Anyway, if we accept my premise that smart men tend to be more effeminate, and smart women more masculine, than the average background population, then it seems logical that more homosexuals would be found in this population. (Especially if we accept my theory that “homosexuality” is one aspect of an observable cluster of traits like counter-clockwise hair whorls and more “feminine” brain development in gay men (sexual preference is simply the trait people tend to focus on the most; we could just as easily, if we weren’t so obsessed with sex, focus on math ability and classify folks into math or not-math,) anyway, we could say that homosexuals possess a number of cross-gender traits, that is, they’re a population in which sexual dimorphism is extremely low.)
And once you live in a population with low-dimorphism, traits like ‘male’ and ‘female’ might stop mattering so much to your brain, because they’re less obvious–an effeminate male and a masculine female might be equally appealing. This would explain both the liberal and the city-connection between homosexuality, and why it doesn’t appear in (some?) hunter-gatherer populations. Likewise, homophobia might be a matter of uncanny valley for people from populations with greater dimorphism.

Anyway, there does seem to be some evidence that gender-nonconformity and intelligence are correlated, eg: http://www.academia.edu/724556/Gender_Nonconformity_Intelligence_and_Sexual_Orientation

Be well, and I’m looking forward to the next 100 posts.

Thanks for blogging, JayMan. Your blog consistently provides a lot of great information and introduces a lot of fascinating ideas. Keep it up!

Much could be written about the suppression of HBD ideas and data in popular culture. It makes the value of anonymous speech very clear.

Long and fruitful blog future, Jayman

[…] is no official introduction to HBD as yet, but as a next best thing you can read Jayman’s 100th post  published today, which offers a well-written overview of the […]

Bitcoin seems rather bubbly these days, don’t you think?

Great post!

Does this mean that you will be writing the book that introduces this field to the public? You certainly seem to be one of the best writers in the HBD bunch. I’d be happy to help out as an editor and proofreader as I’m sure others would be too.

[…] latest is a must-read: “100 Blog Posts – A Reflection on HBD Blogging And What Lies Ahead“. It’s an excellent overview of the HBD-blogging […]