No relationship between intelligence and facial attractiveness in a large, genetically informative sample:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513814001512

Just reading this post for the first time since the Audacious Epigone just linked it. I have one question – is parental investment really a sufficient explanation for the more conspicuous secondary sex characteristics in human females? I’m not an expert on animal behavior but it seems like that in many bird species, the father’s investment is roughly equivalent to the mother’s.

[…] is the key. Best post for a man today on valuing […]

I think this post completely misses the reason why what the dude said was offensive. He doesn’t comment on the men! Whilst it would still be in pretty poor taste to say that the men were attractive/ unattractive too, it means that he is at least making a balanced observation.
By his comment, he alienates half the room and singles them out for scrutiny, over something that shouldn’t be relevant in that situation (you mention he is an attractiveness researcher, but my first point still stands: why not comment on the men too?).
To be completely anecdotal, I’m at a highly ranked UK university, and in my science degree are plenty of attractive men and women. I also know several rather attractive women who study neuroscience! (and no unattractive ones) I feel like one man’s poorly worded comment shouldn’t form the basis of an argument to say no particularly attractive women study science.

You are delusional, they have high per capita, because they absorb the wealth created by high IQ races, once they become majority, they could NOT absorb anymore wealth and they will be in a stagnation of per capita

instead of cherry picking mildly anomalous results from a 33 year old early twin study, why not look at the cumulative body of twin study research – either from Bouchard & McGue’s side of the pond or Plomin’s – indeed, a nicely simplified & worded-to-be-nice-to-those-who’d-rather-not-see is Asbury & Plomin’s (2014) G is for Genes: The Impact of Genetics on Education & Achievement. cheers!

things are polygenetic, rude dude. you think b/c there’s no “smoking gun individual gene” for much of anything, that therefore genes don’t matter – what a dufus! (variant spelling: doofus)

In the face of the unexpected and disappointing failures of GWA studies and previous molecular genetic research methods, Haworth and Plomin argued that the field should return its focus to quantitative genetic studies of families, twins, and adoptees, which have a “bright future.” Thus, they called for a retreat to previous kinship studies in light of the failures of molecular genetic research, never considering the possibility that the critics were right all along that the massive flaws and untenable theoretical assumptions of these methods explain these failures.

Plomin could not name any replicated gene findings in a 2011 publication, and continued to explain these negative results on the basis of “missing heritability.”35 According to Plomin, “The big question now in molecular genetics is how to identify the ‘missing’ heritability; the big question for non-shared environment is how to identify the ‘missing’ non-shared environment.” As critics have argued, both are “missing” because behavioral geneticists have mistakenly interpreted twin studies as providing unequivocal evidence in favor of genetics. Plomin and his colleagues continue to place total faith in twin research, and continue to ignore the implications of other evidence, which includes Plomin’s own carefully performed 1998 longitudinal adoption study that found a non-significant .01 personality test score correlation between birthparents and their 245 adopted-away biological offspring. According to Plomin and his colleagues, this birthparent-biological offspring correlation is “the most powerful adoption design for estimating genetic influence,” which “directly indexes genetic influence.”http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/genewatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pageId=384#endnotes

But aren’t you non-White in the same sense that you’re non-Black and non-Chinese?

Without hypodescent, sure.

Interesting word. Critical race theory is useful for something. You and Misdreavus are certainly better off joining what Steve Sailer calls “the flight from white”. Whitey is the cancer of human history, after all.

I suspect that, like David “Undercover Black Man” Mills, you can pass as white or as non-Black.

Probably not…

But then again:

Singer Rihanna says she was bullied at school – for being ‘white’. The raunchy star says she was taunted growing up on the Caribbean island of Barbados because she was fair-skinned. — Singer Rihanna says she was bullied at school – for being ‘white’.

dude, the ability to learn varies by individual – that variance is what selection acts upon (if selection is allowed to:) e.g., let’s take a learned ability, viz., reading. reading behaves as if it’s 70 or 80% inherited (monozygotics reared apart correlate higher than dizoygotics reared together, etc.) that’s crazy- how is a learned behavior heritable? because the brain structure that affects reading is inherited. do you think the brain is the only organ that is not subject to heritability? THAT would be crazy.

not a joke.

it seems very clear to me now that hbders don’t want to or can’t understand the truth.

Every country needs to take care of their own first and foremost. As a libertarian you may not see it that way but I believe that identity is built on blood and history and without it a country will deteriorate into crime and corruption and eventually split up. There is nothing humane about that.

Also, if you give these 11M citizenship there will be another 11M and so on. Mexico is doing fairly well because it profits from America, but if America becomes a new Mexico then you will have to find a new America to profit from. Easier said than done.

For the record, “misdreavus” is non-White, like me.

But aren’t you non-White in the same sense that you’re non-Black and non-Chinese? I suspect that, like David “Undercover Black Man” Mills, you can pass as white or as non-Black.

He is also gay.

And his logic fails him because of that:

Dear white nationalists: if the vast majority of your own race finds you repulsive, you don’t stand a damn chance.

In 1900, the vast majority regarded “white nationalism” as fine and homosexuality as “repulsive”. So presumably homosexuals didn’t stand a chance of having their vibrant sexuality recognized as a valid lifestyle optionization. And gay marriage was never ever going to happen.

The vast majority of whites do not find white nationalism repulsive. Tim Wise and countless other liberals believe in a very important part of white nationalism, because they live in highly non-vibrant areas, as far away from blacks and Hispanics as they can get. In the UK, when people are presented British National Party policies without being told that they’re BNP policies, a majority agree with them. The BNP supports nothing that mainstream parties in 1900 didn’t support. But “white nationalism”, i.e. the natural, healthy preference for whites to have control of their own destiny and control the borders of their own nations, has been demonized by the media. Misdreavus joins in the demonization.

humans are homogeneous at the genetic level compared to other apes.

human behavior is the most varied of any animal. this behavior is 100% learned. (eskimos aren’t born knowing how to hunt narwhal.)

the influence of genes on human behavior is negligble across a sufficiently large sample of environments.

all behavioral genetics is rot.

QED

here’s an example regarding by far the most heritable psychological trait: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6609726

i can go into slightly more detail if you like, but it will require greater mathematical sophistication than even herr doktor professor steve hsu has to understand.

Of course, the U.S. has failed to keep out something like 11 million immigrants who aren’t supposed to be here (my libertarian side points out the significant failure of the law), but I can’t see trying to deport or drive them out at this point. Is that really in our best interest? Or humane? Criminals excluded.

I’m not opposed to an individual evaluation if it can be done at a reasonable cost. Although if you look to eliminate all candidates that will be a burden this may amount to something very close to a blanket exclusion, especially if you take regression to the mean into account.

Immigrants should be evaluated on a case by case basis, in my opinion. I don’t see the sense of a blanket exclusion of immigrants from various countries. And interestingly, Mexico now has the same average per capita income (adjusted for PPP) as the U.S. did in 1950.

Asians and Jews are mostly not third world immigrants at all and Hindus, at least in the UK, are smarter than the British average thus making them at least 20 IQ points above the Indian national average. I’m assuming the immigrant activist Misdreavus is addressing isn’t one that would insist on high IQ immigrants only.

As for the regular immigrants, they are mostly better off in America than in their home countries because they enjoy various benefits. But even with this help it’s clear that they have some important characteristics in common with the third world countries they come from, like a low level of education and a high level of violent crime.

: It would be better to compare groups within America on things like crime and poverty. But we already know what that comparison looks like.

Fair enough. We can do both things, and find that “model minorities” like east Asians, Ashkenazi Jews, Hindus, etc. fare better than whites, which fare better than latinos and blacks (not immigrants, like Nigerian or Haitian doctors) are right on the bottom.

We all agree with it.

But can we also agree that, on absolute levels, blacks and Latinos are very rich, approaching European standards, that they live much better in the USA than almost anywhere else, that a great majority of them is not really poor or criminal or on welfare, and that latinos are a little dumber but probably a little healthier and happier (their genetics is not worse on everything) than whites as well?

I think nothing that I’ve just said should be all that controversial, should it?

“The best “brute” indicator that we have of well being is GDP per capita so let’s begin with it.

Wikipedia:
“In 2002, the average individual income among Hispanic and Latino Americans was highest for Cuban Americans ($38,733), and lowest for Dominican Americans ($26,467) and Puerto Rican Americans ($27,877). For Mexican Americans it was $33,927, and $30,444 for Central and South Americans.”

Let’s compare this performance with that of Germany, the biggest European economy:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=67

Germany year 2002 US$ 26,600 (GDP per Capita PPP)

Germans were poorer than Puerto Ricans and slightly richer than Dominican Americans, by this indicator. This is NOT third world country performance, got it?”

Average income and GDP/PPP are completely different measures. Even if they correlate well the absolute numbers can’t be compared.

“Let’s do it again with another good indicator of well being, life expectancy.

“Hispanic and Latino Americans are the longest-living Americans, according to official data. Their life expectancy is more than two years longer than for non-Hispanic whites and almost eight years longer than for African Americans.”

Again: this is not Third World country performance.”

This is not a good indicator for all groups because there are genetic differences between groups that affect life expectancy. Something that has been dealt with extensively on this blog btw.

“Last time I checked, Texas, California, Florida and other heavy third-world immigrant descendent states weren’t “poor”: they were richer than Germany for God’s sake!”

By what metric? You don’t provide a source and the only I could find is Wikipedia/IMF’s nominal GDP per capita. It has California as slightly above Germany but Texas and Florida clearly below,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

You may also consider that Germany has its own share of third world immigrants so it’s not a comparison to how things go if you allow third world immigration or not. It would be better to compare groups within America on things like crime and poverty. But we already know what that comparison looks like.

Also, immigrants from poor countries seem to do much better on your country than in Europe. The reasons for this must be multiple and fascinating (less developed welfare States, less Muslim immigration, employment “at will” doctrine, history of less xenophobia, HBD reasons (your immigrants are less inbred, because they are from Catholic cultures), etc.).

@Jayman: “I’m getting the feeling I’m going in circles here. Not a good thing (take the hint).”

I’ll take your hint and put some data on the table.

The best “brute” indicator that we have of well being is GDP per capita so let’s begin with it.

Wikipedia:
“In 2002, the average individual income among Hispanic and Latino Americans was highest for Cuban Americans ($38,733), and lowest for Dominican Americans ($26,467) and Puerto Rican Americans ($27,877). For Mexican Americans it was $33,927, and $30,444 for Central and South Americans.”

Let’s compare this performance with that of Germany, the biggest European economy:

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&v=67

Germany year 2002 US$ 26,600 (GDP per Capita PPP)

Germans were poorer than Puerto Ricans and slightly richer than Dominican Americans, by this indicator. This is NOT third world country performance, got it?

Let’s do it again with another good indicator of well being, life expectancy.

Wikipedia
“Hispanic and Latino Americans are the longest-living Americans, according to official data. Their life expectancy is more than two years longer than for non-Hispanic whites and almost eight years longer than for African Americans.”

Again: this is not Third World country performance. I think the statement of your friend, that third world country immigrants REPLICATE third world countries conditions in the USA was WRONG, and it is very easy to show that this is the case. Can we agree on this one?

@Jayman: The most representative immigrants are the various Hispanics (mostly Mexicans and Puerto Ricans).

They’re also very prosperous… They don’t “replicate” third world countries in the USA. This is false, sloppy thinking. You must be more precise with with your statements. As it is, I don’t see any difference between your friend’s attempt on wit and garden variety xenophobia… Low IQ people, at least on the USA, are capable of living with dignity and incomes higher than that of European or East Asia countries. What is your beef with them? Let them be.

Packing…
If you do not believe in free will then who is controlling you to be a hbd blogger, and say there is no free will?

Like i said, the problem is behavior and not groups. Behavior are cause by different combinations of the evolucionary events. Healthy sexual behavior need to be incentived and the problematic types need to have psychiatric treatment.

To say ” don’t there free will’ is stupid, sorry Jayman, if your conclusion is true so who to be control you to be a hbd blogger and to say ”don’t there free will”?
patogens?
The problem about majority of homossexual community is the exxaggeration but many homossexual men are not socially dysfunctional and it can leave into account, to us not commit same error in the past. The same about black community, if this interest you Jayman.
And antecipate your probability of answer about my ”micro-aggression” (hihihi) against you (don’t leave this part a serious), i’m very concern about try make the good, but, stereotyping a great diverse group. I agree absolutelly that irresponsible sexual behavior is a social vector to sexually infected diseases but the behavior and not the group should be erradicate. If not, so we have make something with jews and blacks, type an cure to ”psychological problems” of ashkenazis and extremelly dysfunctional average behavior of ”black people”.

I think I’ve found my next boyfriend.

i’m libertarian-ish: legalize freedom! i’m socially liberal, but fiscally starting to think i want my tax dollars to pay only for the part of public ed that involves reading, writing, science & math. not so much for the sensitivity training, cultural awareness & indoctrination. folks can get that on their own – not on my dime. i wish libertarians would realize different peoples are not interchangeable – but that’s a problem with many political persuasions. i wondered about misdreavus’s beef with libertarianism (since i’m a socially liberal/fiscal moderate – libertarian-ish) sure, we’re totally wrong for being all open borders & also wrong for magically pretending all peoples can be interchangeable if we simply wish hard enough (b/c it’s nice, that’s why!:), but we must be right about some things…

You REALIZE that an income of US$ 19,2 to US$ 34,5 thousand dollars is not Third World income, do you? What this maps proves is that all things equal, asians will do better than whites, and whites will do better than blacks on well governed countries. This probably (almost certainly) has something to do with different cognitive abilities. But you links does not prove that heavy immigration makes a country poorer. Just look at it. The effect is dwarved by the gains: this immigrants are WAY better than their ascendents that stayed on their countries (as you probably are, vis a vis yours ascendents on Jamaica, am I right?), and even the immigrant-heavy neighborhoods are very rich by world standards. Like, top 5%, I think.

I like what misdreavus has to say. Its really quite hilarious. However, as a libertarian, I do have a reply to him. Misdreavus makes the assumption common to most non-libertarians that libertarianism, in general, ignores certain realities of human nature. I would counter this argument that libertarianism is, in fact, the only political philosophy that actually recognizes a very fundamental aspect of human nature

All human organizations and institutions devolve into bureaucracy over time. The larger the organization, the more bureaucratic it becomes. It is also a known fact that all bureaucracy is dysfunctional (this appears to be a law of nature that is rooted in human nature). Libertarianism appears to be the only political philosophy that recognizes this fact. All non-libertarian political philosophies and ideologies (religion is simply a subset of ideology) are based on the efficacy of large scales institutions and organizations of one form or another. Since all of such things are inherently bureaucratic and therefore, by definition, dysfunctional, it is reasonable to say that it is all of the non-libertarian world-views that are in deep denial of this fundamental reality of human nature.

30 years of experience of all kinds of human institutions have convinced me that this is indeed the case. This is the reason why I am even more of a libertarian today, at age 50, than I was 30 years ago.

Lol…

Jayman…

He who makes up the core of HBD tells “us” so much more about HBD than does HBD tell us about HBD.

You are simply reiterating that “jayman” makes no judgement concerning the self-annihilating “nature.” “It” just is… Here by potential pathogen.

Does it need a cure?

Does “equality” mean healthy equals diseased?

And on and on…

Jayman thinks nothing… HBD makes jayman equal to faulty AI…

Voila’… Evidence for AI… His name is “jayman,” “black” nerd who unwillingly “observes” no human free will…

BUT… Has human-like intelligence.

This is quite the feat. Turing is stirring.

Jayman,

I understand what you’re doing…

But clearly, it is motivated in part by the desire to deflect attention from a more perplexing question…

Namely…

What does HBD have to say ABOUT the homosexual “nature?”

I assert that they have “nothing” to say…

I assert that they have “nothing” to say about the self-annihilating “nature.”

Rather odd, I say.

Jayman…

That’s not what I had in mind…

The causation of homosexuality is irrelevant. It is the “nature” of the thing that HBD takes no notice of…

Meaning, HBD, at best, merely “sees” same sex attraction caused by pathogen. But even this simple assertion rarely, if ever, rears its “ugly” head amongst HBDers.

If the homosexual is a self-annihilator and that self-annihilating “nature” has perpetuated itself, what conclusions shall we draw as to whether the cause of said homosexual was a matter of free will and/or pathogen?

“Dear immigrant activists: 3rd world immigrants tend to recreate the 3rd world everywhere they go.”

Is this actually true? Last time I checked, Texas, California, Florida and other heavy third-world immigrant descendent states weren’t “poor”: they were richer than Germany for God’s sake!

This kind of slopping thinking that makes you HBD people so despised by everyone.

HBD is worthless until it makes its findings explicit on the question of the homosexual “nature,” i.e., the self-annihilating “nature.”

,

Thanks for the link, but as you can see that study also uses a proxy, this time of registered partnership. We don’t know if that’s a representative sample. I agree that suicide mortality looks pretty elevated for this category so I’m not ruling anything out. But the rate is based on a total of 24 suicide – just 4-5 suicides more or less changes the rate dramatically.

Another thing to consider is that the rate for young people is half of the rate of the middle aged category which in turn is half of the rate of the 66+. Are old homosexuals so sensitive? Keep in mind that the time period is 1990-2001, so a lot of them must have been terminally ill, which could contribute to suicide and also explain why the suicides were more common with increasing age since those categories have had more sex and are more likely to be infected.

>It’s very difficult to know who or what an “anti–feminist” is since the word “feminist” seems to have no commonly agreed upon definition.

An anti-feminist is someone who isn’t intentionally deluding themselves that men and women are equal and interchangeable.

Excellent! Thank you for posting these. The libertarian one made me actually lol.

I have found that reasonably and calmly pointing out– that the disparities in the supposed effect of “privilege” are powerful evidence against the concept’s reality– proves to be an uncommonly effective method of arguing convincingly with progressives. I have not seen many folks truly abandon the idea after I make the point, but I *have* seen the good majority of (basically thoughtful) progressives at least become reflective about the belief in a way that makes space for self-criticism. So many of my peers (early 20s) now speak casually and implicitly of privilege. I really hope the evident absurdity of this and related ideas is enough to stymie their rise to absolute moral reign in the West. But I’m not optimistic, if this even has to be said.

Reality is the one source of truth! human reason is ultimately frail and contingent! and only assiduous auscultation of the body of aleitheia will secure us in our thinking! kai ta hetera!

Keep doing what you’re doing, Jay.

P.S. I’ve also found: when speaking with progressives about matters progressive, explicitly placing one’s self in opposition to their opinions will condition them emotionally and psychologically to be less amenable to reason and to foreign lines of thought. I assume this is widely transferable, but the moral righteousness particular to progressivism makes this especially eminent. A progressive lacking in intellectual self-awareness is a hard whale to find, let alone hunt. A little indirect communication is always a good thing in these cases:

http://members.pioneer.net/~tkerns/religsite/dqsite/dq-indirectcommSK.html

The first comment of Misdreavu about ”homophobia doesn’t cause higher suicide rates”. Groups obviously have similar characteristics (if not, was not group, duur for me, please) but is important also analyse individual by individual, subgroups by subgroups. The problem about many long-numerical terms statistical stuff of the human behavior is that it generally to be as summary and not the whole image. Homophobia is not the cause of the suicides rates in homo community will be right by some individuals and some subgroups but not to others. Is a life and is important leave it very well explained, specially to the masses.

“Do what works for you” should be applied to both individuals and populations, if you ask me.

Let my universalist friends enjoy societies in line with their evolutionary preferences. Let us particularist folk have communities that better reflect our own. Peaceful divorce. Everyone’s happy. We can stop fighting.

Fat chance of this happening.

“We’ll be long since gone before anyone notices the differences from genetic changes alone.”

Can you elaborate a bit?

Jayman, saw your tweet pointing out the youtube on how homosex has survived: “The Survival of the Fabulous.”

Okay, the title alone was enough to give pause…a lot of pause, but I forged ahead for all of a few seconds, long enough to see the guy in the lavender suit say, “I always wondered why nature would have made men like me.” You know, men like him–”fabulous” men. (And some gays wonder why the derision?)

Saw the clip was quite lengthy and nope, just couldn’t go further.

Exactly. There is no way for you to know, unless I reveal my personal information to strangers on the internet. But what *if* “HBD chick” turned out to be a “dude”? What impact would that have on the soundness of her (…or his?) arguments?

You’ll just have to take my word for it, I guess. I aim to please no one.

“Dear education reformers: We all know why you never send your own kids to “diverse” urban schools. #realityhurts”

I know at least one liberal educator who did.

Bless her heart and rest her soul, my dear mother was a public school teacher whose children attended violent, crime-ridden, third-rate, inner-city public schools.

And I thank her for it, because it made me a reactionary.

Had I gone to school in the suburbs or attended private schools, I probably would have emerged as yet another over-compensating, white-hating, black nationalist mulatto, in the mold of Eric Holder or Barack Obama.

Instead I was rendered permanently immune to all the shibboleths of progressivism.

Thanks again mom!

“For the record, “misdreavus” is non-White, like me.

He is also gay.”

How do you know? I remember how, in short succession, a Syrian blogger “gay girl in Damascus” was a white dude living in Scotland, and then “Paula Brooks” behind “Lez Get Real” turned out to be a retired white dude.

Or you could just be like me and do it anyway.

Yes, middle sized city, No to Midwest. I’m in a Mid Atlantic state, close enough to NYC to feel its pull (and occasionally visit), but far enough away that the only culture I can enjoy is that which I make myself.

I will start blogging as soon as I am informed enough to have something interesting to say.

I am a former Gay and an actual Bisexual ( with anyways with preference for men) and funny how I have never had problems with suicide, drug abuse nor pedophilia like many gays.
Funny the assumption about Asian males, since I consider them to far better Blacks on department looks and is laughable that assumption about them, when you look outside the American media and see for example, how Korean male bands are trending topic in the Twitter of many countries.
( SHINee in Latin countries such as Mexico or Peru, Super Junior was a worldwide trending topic today, Exo was in Thailand )

Misdreavu talk about QUAAAAASI all groups of the post modern zoo called Westland or ToAllforeignpeopleland. I think tha’ the ‘piece of cake’ is not was ”brutally” atacked by Misd… who to be????????
Jayman, i know that you know who is

About WN…
is soooo easy to talk it in a highlight of the championship… because in the not soo long-long time, to be
a white
and a nationalist was organically understandable. (but not exactly a ”whitenationalist#, but yes, a ”white” or euroethnic tribe with a specific past or common cultural traditions)
So, if the ”white people” despise the ‘wn’ since your beggining was a miracle to these ethno-colletivity continue to exist at today.
Hohohoho, now i know…
They are the ”mason-jewdaico-conspirators”.
I will wait Misdreavu attack this groups of the lunatics,hihihihi.

(Bs, i not have any problem both Jayman and Misdreavu, is just kidding)

Suicide rates is higher in homossexual than heterossexual like is higher in asians than whites like is higher in… Are statistics that necessarily mean any-particular-thing about a one group because many other different groups in different categories have the same problem. Beyond the genetics (and parasites??) is very important analyse the interaction between the environment and the genes.
if there (obviously there) a homossexual man who are not predisposed to commit suicide so, there more combination of traits that can explain whole painture and not only the causalistic and illiterate ratio ”more homossexual men commit suicides, so, homossexualism CAUSE the higher rates of suicide”. Is more complex like that. Other explanation about the ” differences between lesbians and homossexual behavior and predisposition” is that something that i read about the extremism to be man, or, the variation of personality is much more higher in men than women, like intelligence. Lgbt community is a weird michro-cosmo of the social landscape, obviously that exist a ”personality style average” of the hetero men and the homo men, but, if the hetero men already to be in extremes than women, so, homos is like a extrem compared to heterossexual men.

It’s very difficult to know who or what an “anti–feminist” is since the word “feminist” seems to have no commonly agreed upon definition.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20033129

The association between relationship markers of sexual orientation and suicide: Denmark, 1990-2001.

Mathy RM1, Cochran SD, Olsen J, Mays VM.

Author information
Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

Minority sexual orientation has been repeatedly linked to elevated rates of suicide attempts. Whether this translates into greater risk for suicide mortality is unclear. We investigated sexual orientation-related differences in suicide mortality in Denmark during the initial 12-year period following legalization of same-sex registered domestic partnerships (RDPs).

METHOD:

Using data from death certificates issued between 1990 and 2001 and population estimates from the Danish census, we estimated suicide mortality risk among individuals classified into one of three marital/cohabitation statuses: current/formerly in same-sex RDPs; current/formerly heterosexually married; or never married/registered.

RESULTS:

Risk for suicide mortality was associated with this proxy indicator of sexual orientation, but only significantly among men. The estimated age-adjusted suicide mortality risk for RDP men was nearly eight times greater than for men with positive histories of heterosexual marriage and nearly twice as high for men who had never married.

CONCLUSIONS:

Suicide risk appears greatly elevated for men in same-sex partnerships in Denmark. To what extent this is true for similar gay and bisexual men who are not in such relationships is unknown, but these findings call for targeted suicide prevention programs aimed at reducing suicide risk among gay and bisexual men.

are you my neighbor? midwestern medium sized city? population about 350,000? red state? i hope you’re my neighbor! we can’t all be fortunate enough to live in Maine:)

Dear anti-feminists: we’re not returning to the 1950s. Ever. Technology is a bitch, isn’t it?

Uh, not so sure about this one? Women who like staying home with babies are, shockingly, the ones who have the most children. Since all behavioural traits are heritable, we’re likely to get a female population which has, on average, a strong innate desire to stay home and have babies. #realityhurts

Hats off to Misdreavus – those tweets should be on exhibit at the museum of truth. Along with wax statues of himself, JayMan, HBDchick, westhunter, etc.

& definitely Sir Staffan, I agree that liberals are more open to truth seeking… unless they have an IQ below 115 & have permanently “sacralized equality” –

jon haidt’s research suggests what we sacralize “binds & blinds us” – conservatives sacralize authority & loyalty, whereas liberals sacralize equality & fairness – if one has already sacralized equality it might be too late to change their belief.

I’m guessing that higher IQ would have higher belief malleability (more open to evidence). belief malleability is analogous to science: one’s view changes with new data to more closely approximate reality… I’m with Staffan & JayMan that that better describes the mind of a liberal –- yet smart conservatives are really the only folks I’ve ever convinced/swayed to the cause (because they don’t cling to equality).

& I agree with Sisyphean, b/c I’ve never heard anyone say, “I falsely believe the following…” arguing people into change is a sisyphean task – science publicizers think they can bring science to all – they don’t understand they can only bring it to people with a 115 IQ & above!! …Misdreavus “brings it” to all, tho!

German Nazis were most definitely NOT “white nationalists”. That is an American projection. They were Germanic supremacists who wanted to build an empire with a German elite like much of Eastern Europe used to be. A true Nazi would dump the majority of American whites in various inferiority categories and many “white nationalists” of America would find themselves grouped with the blacks that they hate.

There were eg some Africans in Germany and mixed black/white descendants of colonial troops in France and Germany for the whole Nazi period and they were safe, although declared inferior races who could not marry Germans (but then, almost no ethnicity in Europe could marry Germans without proof of “Germanic” features). Nazi propaganda was actually denouncing America for what we now call “white nationalism” eg segregation.

The Nazis rejected most non-German nationalists like Stepan Bandera of those Ukrainian demonstrations (strangely no one on CNN mentions who the guy in the picture is…) because non-Germans were inferior to them and they had no intention of letting Slavs have countries. Whiteness would have counted for absolutely nothing in a Nazi dominated world. Slavs, Celts and others were all supposed to become Germanized if they passed the doctor’s check and if not, well, then they’d die or be returned to a serf caste under German rule.

Nazis were not strictly against groups like Turks and those millions of Turkish guest workers in Germany probably would have happened much the same way with a Nazi victory – they just would have been made a second class caste more explicitly, with assigned ghettoes instead of de facto ghettoes and so on.

Here is the Wikipedia entry,

“Researchers have found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth is comparatively higher than among the general population.”

As you can see this is attempted suicide and ideation, not actual suicide. It doesn’t even say if the comparison with the general population is controlled for age. It seems unlikely that there is evidence since there would be no need for a speculative proxy otherwise. And note that it says “comparatively higher” rather than a specific number – would you do that if you really had something? Some will throw in bullying into the equation but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of that contributing to actual suicide either.

I think the big study that showed high rates of suicide, addiction, and mental illness was in, of all places, Denmark. (Or was it the Netherlands?) I think Denmark.

It’s sad that where you live could be anywhere from Atlanta to NYC to Silicon Valley.

I approve of male ramming. Yes indeed.

But surely a fair amount of gay suicide is due to homophobia. That seems like common sense to me, and I can find many obvious examples. And where are the stats on drug abuse from?

Anyone know if Misdreavus plans to start a blog? He seems to be ruffling feathers in all the right kinds of ways, I’m sure he could contribute to the HBD blogosphere.

Oh don’t worry, the only financial support I ask for is when someone buys something from me.

Lots of good food for thought from everyone. I’ll have to think on all of that. I think part of the genesis of my fatalistic attitude on these matters is my day to day reality: I live and work in a place where the brains tend to drain away from. It was a great financial decision to locate here, but it is also somewhat isolating intellectually. I am seldom exposed to minds open to questioning anything, let alone their own cherished beliefs.

“I am a wild mega open liberal artist, should I evangelize to you about the benefits of daily life drawing?”

Nah, I accept that you’re happy in your pursuits. Just please don’t expect that I financially support nor do I expect you to support me.

LOL. Misdreavus has chosen the Big Horned Ram, no doubt a gay ram, as his avatar.

While all human behavioral traits are heritable including political orientation, white people don’t hate white nationalism because of genetics. We know this because the Germans used to be white nationalists, but then, after much argument of the most effective kind, they were convinced that white nationalism is for losers. Now they hate it more than anyone. The genes remained roughly constant.

White people hate white nationalism because white nationalists are losers. Losers and malcontents are the kind of people who would be drawn to racial politics in the United States during the recent period of prosperity and apparent white rule. However, the political situation is changing. More people than ever are becoming losers (thx economic inequality) and even those who are not losers are being confronted by certain harsh realities.

We’ll see what happens.

I don’t think attitudes are that inflexible, especially not those of liberals. As I reflected in a comment recently, liberals seem to share a bit of the truth-honoring ideal of HBDers. Which is perhaps why they ignore HBD as good as they can and focus on Westboro Baptist Church – if they need people like that to feel rational they must have a lot of cognitive dissonance. All the more reason to keep talking about these things because eventuantually many of them will reconsider. I used to be a fairly PC liberal myself as was panjoomby. Paradoxically, it may be harder to convince a traditional conservatives (on issues they don’t already agree for political reasons).

The funny thing is that being an HBD crusader is kind of anti-HBD in reality. If you believe that the groups above believe the way they do largely because they were born that way (or possibly had their brains scrambled by a pathogen of some kind), then what can you say to convince them to think the way you do? I am a wild mega open liberal artist, should I evangelize to you about the benefits of daily life drawing? Do you care? Of course, I too am barking up the wrong tree here because the same genetic forces that drive me to be different and to create art, apparently drive you guys to try to convince others that you are correct no matter how futile that might be.

~s

Why don’t the multitude of very beautiful animals in Africa and birds across the tropics generally show the visual results of this differential genetic load you are talking about?

this is the third most important article i have read since i found the sphere in like 3 years.

Ekstra fotki, w sierpniu snieg dzieki Mont Blanc a we wrzesniu w tatrach.

[…] (I typically allow my readers to do their own Googling, but I’ll make a concession here: http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/keeping-it-real/). It also occurs to me that we Numenoreans are in the process of doing exactly what I would have […]

I agree with the post of Jayman, we can see it in many types of fashion and traditional clothes, the women are also more ornamented, typical femenine dresses are more broad and have ribbons with varied forms and designs,and in many cases the female clothes have symbols such as flowers, just like a flower itself is pretty flashy, the women who wore it too, (like Japanese Kimono, among many other styles of clothing). The male clothing is more thin and less broad, the Jeans are smaller than dresses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONCE5aGfaQ

As far as genetic load and “race”, uhm…white and black Americans carry about the same amount of genetic load…

http://dienekes.blogspot.tw/2013/05/deleterious-mutational-load-and-recent.html

@Jayman

Why is there a connection between attractiveness and IQ? Or, as the question should be, why the connection between unattractiveness and lower IQ? In his attempt to explain the lower average attractiveness of Black women, Kanazawa touched on one reason I believe is behind this link.

That is genetic load.

Wasn’t there some data that showed that:
The lower the IQ of a white woman the more attracted to a black man she is?

Do you know of such study?

Why would a lower IQ white women be not attracted to a lower IQ white men? Why the sudden shift in racial preferences the lower the IQ?

@Jayman,

“Looks are important for men, but it seems they are more important for women.”

It is not the real frame, because females are more choosier when it comes to mating. So female preferences by male mate phenotype are most correlated with greater variability of male mating success. One obvious implication of this, is that, given sufficient latitude of female choice (ie. relieved of systemic constraint, which would otherwise limit their choices), female mate choices will always tend towards small male breeding populations. In more colloquial terms, what this means is that male/female ‘leagues’ are asymmetrical, with male ‘rank’ being bottom heavy in distribution, while female ‘rank’ being top heavy. On the contrary, men find a wider range of female population within a suitable level of sexual attractiveness.

“Some studies claim Black men are. It’s a bit less clear.”

I do not agree. Predominantly, both females and males black faces get higher ratings for dominance and gender identity characteristics, but white faces receive the highest attractiveness ratings and higher ratings for nurturant and expressive characteristics.

@ Anthony,

“Sounds like parody time! Get pictures of a bunch of short guys, and taller but fatter guys, and put them in uniforms from low-paying jobs (gas station, Burger King, etc), and label it with something inspiring-sounding about “real men”.

You should to know that nowadays being a high status male (with respect to mating) says less about material resources/labor incomes (or educational prestige), than about physical beauty. Hence since economically prosperous, systemically mediated welfare state dynamic that prevails in developed world populations, economic and ecological pressures no longer mediate their mate choices to the extant they did in the past. One consequence of this is that male erotic capital (physical attractiveness) has supplanted other forms in the stratification of male status with respect to mate availability.

I am compelled to point out some thoughts about this item:

Sexual selection and sexual attraction seem be based on beauty rather than utility, and explains the common observation in nature that it is the most beautiful that survive. Im going to try to explain this. There is a dynamic interaction between the mean number of new deleterious mutations per generation (Mg), the mean number of deleterious mutations in the genome of the population (Mp) and percentage zygote survival (Z). Increased Mg leads to increased Mp and a fall in Zs but it takes several generations before a new equilibrium is reached. If sexual attraction is influenced by the number of deleterious mutations in the genome of individuals then Mp is reduced and Zs increased for any given value of Mg. This fall in Y and rise in Z is more marked in polygamous than monogamous mating systems. And deleterious mutations can occur without any observable or measurable effect on function. Thus sexual selection, in this organism, for low levels of deleterious mutations cannot be based on assessment of performance. Instead it is based on a simple symmetrical surface pattern that is flawlessly reproduced by organisms with no deleterious mutations, but is less than perfect, and therefore less attractive, if genetic systems have been deleted. A complex vital task requires a system with a high level of redundancy that acts so that the loss of one component has no observable effect and therefore cannot be used for sexual selection. The reproduction of a beautiful surface pattern also requires a low error, high redundancy genetic system; however, in this case there is advantage if a single deleterious mutation produces a recognisable change.

Furthermore deleterious mutations interact synergistically causing impaired performance in individual systems and this leads to a positive correlation between the total number of deleterious mutations in the genome and impaired performance across the whole spectrum of biological capability. This includes performance in intellectual tasks, sporting ability, the ability to fight disease and preserve health and the development of a symmetrical physical form. Sexual reproduction distributes deleterious mutations unequally amongst zygotes and Z will correlate negatively with zygote mutational load. Rising environmental mutagenesis will lead to a rise in the human genomic mutational load and to decrease Z, although the full effect would take several generations. So that a marked rise in environmental mutagenesis would lead to species extinction if mate choice were random, i.e., unrelated to the genomic mutational load. The biological imperfections caused by mutations, however, in health, intelligence and physical symmetry are all, to varying degrees, related to sexual attraction. Thefore if mates are chosen in response to sexual attraction the species can be maintained in the presence of high environmental mutagenesis.

Maby the polyandric pattern that we see today, which women mate with a minority of males could have the most marked effect in reducing the number of deleterious mutations in the next generation. When environmental mutagenesis falls, the number of eligible males would increase and a species would change from a polygamous to a monogamous pattern of mating. Thefore if sexual attraction is a force which counteracts genomic degradation this result would imply that women should not be attracted by good genes, but by a lack of bad genes. Humans should choose mates in a way that maximizes their reproductive success. But what exactly is the optimal choice? Most empirical research is based on the assumption that individuals seek a mate of the highest possible quality (in terms of the genes or resources that can provide), and hence show directional preferences for indicators of mate quality. This would imply that attractiveness and quality should be highly correlated. But surprisingly there are not a linear relationship between beauty or its components and genetic fitness, and there are not particular greater mate qualities of those who are highly attractive. Empirical research show that whereas unattractive faces can signal poor genetic fitness, on this account, those who avoid mates with extremely unattractive faces would have increased their reproductive success over those who did not. In the extreme case of genetic anomalies, such as Down’s syndrome, it is obvious that unattractive faces signal low health and intelligence. However, faces that are above average in attractiveness are no more ‘‘fit’’ than those in the middle of the attractiveness.

Specifically, some mathematical models have shown that the preferred male must provide genes that increase the survivorship or mating success of the offspring as compared to the genes provided by less desirable males. And empirical research on lek mating systems, as well as other nonresource-based mating systems has confirmed the association between mate preference and increased offspring viability, although the fitness effects appear small at only a few percent. Beauty provided valid cues to intelligence and/or health for faces in the lower but not the upper halves of the distributions of these facial qualities. Thus, low attractiveness (low averageness, low symmetry, or low sexual dimorphism) signal low fitness, as indexed by intelligence or health. On the other hand, high attractiveness does not signal any higher levels of fitness than does moderate levels of these attribute. Then mate preferences for attractive faces could not have enhanced reproductive success via choice mates in the top half of the beauty distribution. So maybe humans not only correctly utilize these cues when they are valid, but they also overgeneralize, utilizing these cues in the upper half of the distribution, where they are not valid. Therefore beauty preferences appear to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms.

I think that makeup, physical fitness, fashion, scent, and posture are components of female pursuit of beauty less than they are fertility signals. Look at pictures of female models/porn stars without makeup or any woman and you’ll notice (with a heterosexual penis) a difference. Men who apply makeup to themselves are considered feminine, and likely more attractive to homosexual tops than anything else.

Human males have several fitness signals. Male fashion has evolved from focusing on male size to intelligence to social competence. The traits that males advertised through historical evolution are harder or nearly impossible to change whereas the average woman benefits substantially from applying cosmetic enhancements to her appearance.

Female beauty is a finely tuned deception mechanism that masks fertility signaling. Sea Otters have low levels of sexual dimorphism and higher levels of paternal investment and there is no significant sea otter female beauty to speak of it. On a sidenote: This is why 60′s Equalist Feminism is completely at odds with later Sex Positive Feminism. The latter tried to establish asexuality as a basis for male-female relations while the latter is designed to increase female hypergamy. A woman who can take legal action against those who catcall at her (unfit males) can wear dress and makeup designed to salaciously entice males (making her more attractive, successful) while benefitting from a pro-female legal and political system; but this is at odds with Equalist Feminism which would have her wear no makeup at all and therefore be deprived of the benefits that a cosmetically enhanced female receives naturally putting her on the same level playing field as cosmetically unehanced men. Most people in HDB sites conflate the two feminisms because they don’t take a sideline approach to how philosophical feminism evolved from an asexual, philosophically principled movement to goodie bags for females.

and of course mixed race people are the prettiest of all, supposedly.

i was talking about the extremes, though, not the averages.

this IS pseudoscience and contradicts my own experience.

1. women try, but so do men, it’s just that makeup and clothes are irrelevant. exercise and eat right and get a little sun and fix your teeth if they need fixing and stay clean. that’s all anyone can really do.

2. i am prejudiced, but it seems to me the most attractive men (and i’m straight) are also nw euro. but so are the ugliest. what’s denzel washington to the young marlon brando? i mean come on. and brando’s family name was brandau. no italian blood in the godfather.

3. it also seems that according your theory women are interested in men who will invest most in their children. women are interested in looks too. they’re not supposed to be, but they are. the effect a very good looking man has on a woman is sometimes even more profound than the effect a very good looking woman has on a man. but perhaps due to “homophobia” men just can’t imagine that they can be the objects of desire.

4. among the wodaabe, the men wear the makeup.