Bloody Shovel 3

We will drown and nobody shall save us


Via Vox Day

Although the fact is not widely known, the ratio of male-to-female undergraduates in the United States was about at parity from 1900 to 1930. Male enrollments began to increase relative to female enrollments in the 1930s and later as GIs returned from World War II. A highpoint of gender imbalance in college attendance was reached in 1947 when undergraduate men outnumbered women 2.3 to 1. But starting then and continuing until the present in an almost unbroken trend, female college enrollments have increased relative to male enrollments.

The feminism angle is funny, but I think there's something more important to it. We all know that higher education is deleterious to female fertility. Probably the most harmful factor of them all. Well in 1900 elite women were already forsaking their beauty and fecundity to play the status game by learning some inconsequential knowledge to annoy their peers with.

It follows that the Western elites' mores have been dysgenic for quite a while then. Which made me think a lot in how little we know about the real mechanism of eugenics. Genetics is hard, statistics also makes little sense most of the time. You'd think that Steve Sailer, the man who pretty much started this HBD genre, would have a firm grasp on the theory, but he had a post a while ago on Regression to the Mean, and neither himself nor his (quite smart) commenters couldn't make sense of one each other.

We know quite well that intelligence is inheritable. We also know that different races have notably different IQs, and that variance inside one race is also surprisingly low. Swedes, Spaniards and Serbs have very different societies, some great, some very fucked up, yet their average IQ is pretty much the same. If you define eugenics as good breeding in a general sense (not just intelligence), well the different populations of Europe aren't that disimilar in health or beauty.

Yet we also know that the IQs of different classes of one population are also quite different. The correlation is by no means 1, but rich and powerful people tend to be smarter than the average. What most of us amateurs think is: some races are smarter than others; some classes are smarter than others. Ergo there must be some eugenic mechanism going on with both. How races evolved is a matter for anthropologists to speculate about. But how classes evolved is much closer to us, we have history and sociology to analyse it.

But what does history tell us? In a chat with Nick Land we were talking about how the Chinese evolved their 105 IQs. The standard model is that the mandarinate selected smart people through the civil exam, rewarded them with riches and the right to polygamy. They outbred the peasants, so their children raised the average IQ of the nation. It is very similar to the standard model for Ashkenazi IQ: the higher status for smart rabbis.

But that makes no sense at all once you take into account that neither South Korea nor Japan had a mandarinate at all, yet their IQs are equal, if not superior,  to the Chinese. Korea was a tightly run slave plantation run by hereditary aristocrats. And Japan was a land of savages until the 600s, civilised fast, but shortly after devolved into civil war and hardcore military feudalism. It's hard to find more different societies than those three, yet they still produced descendants which are very much indistinguishable in their brain structure, to the extent that their migrants to America are pretty much equivalent.

We don't know how populations evolved their IQ, and we surely don't know how the elites evolved theirs anyway. There's a line of thought out there about why elites deserve their power by their superior breeding. I am guilty of it too. Hell I am guilty of saying that the very structure of a society in highly unequal classes is a positive mechanism to ensure eugenic evolution. That the vastly superior status of the elite motivates people to strive and develop merit enough to join the elite, so good genes would concentrate on the top, producing excellence.

That was a reaction to the lousy middle-brow culture of the post WW2 years. But it is also a very stupid, simplistic model. Eugenics is about breeding, and the fact ist that elites, defined as the people who own the most property in a given society, don't breed eugenically. Propertied classes have, since the dawn of history, and probably since the dawn of property itself, been subjected to social dynamics which don't necessarily favor good breeding.

For one, through the vast majority of time in history, elites have arranged their descendants marriages thinking on the accumulation of property. For obvious reasons. Capital wants to accumulate. Of course it has the problem that if capital accumulates, in the end all the property is owned by a handful of families, who marry each other generation by generation. Which is textbook inbreeding. That's what happened to many noble houses in Europe. Hardly an example of biological excellence. Many perished through simple inbreeding depression.

Elite families also engage in pointless status competition. Which leads them to things such as send their sons away to be sodomised at Eton, or  sacrifice their daughters fertility by taking them to university as seen at the head of this post. But I think there a stronger, and indeed much more powerful dynamic in elite relations that leads to dysgenics. Gender relations.

Elite marriages usually are a family affair, carefully arranged by both families. The thing is, the status of each of the spouses depends on the family they belong to. To be more precise it depends on the status of the family as perceived by the particular spouse. It might happen, and indeed happened quite often, that a wife had superior status to her husband due to her family background. But of course we here know that a successful marriage, and indeed any successful heterosexual pairing depends on the undisputed status superiority of the man.

But then again what is status? Women perceive status in a different way from men. Women are more familial, and tend to have a higher opinion of themselves than any objective appraisal. That is particularly true of elite families, who raise their daughters to be refined yet insufferable snobs, conditioned to think and regard everything as a status game. It follow that for the real leisurely elite, gender relations were, and are, extremely dysfunctional. Which are not conducive to high fertility. Indeed, besides Gengis Khan and the early emperors of each Chinese dynasty, all the data I've seen shows that most elites this side of Rome have never outbred the plebs.

I always thought that regression to the mean was the statistical reflection of the fact that successful men tend to take pretty but dumb wives, that elite men prefer to fuck their obedient maids than their annoying wives, and that smart women either pair up with the bartender to loosen up or become cat ladies. Real assortative mating has never existed for any long period of time, and that is because there are large societal and psychological barriers against it.

Eugenics is a great idea, and perhaps it's not as complex as I make it to be here. But the fact remains that for all we speculate, we know very, very little about it. And of course the zeitgeist is unlikely to allow proper research to be done. But we need better data.


Leave a Reply
  • "But then again what is status? Women perceive status in a different way from men. Women are more familial, and tend to have a higher opinion of themselves than any objective appraisal. That is particularly true of elite families, who raise their daughters to be refined yet insufferable snobs, conditioned to think and regard everything as a status game."

    Bonfire of the Vanities illustrated this point quite well. Sherman McCoy's wife looked down on him for his inferior pedigree - he had a "hickish" name - ("like the Hatfields and the McCoys" (paraphrase)). She acted like an insufferable bitch towards him. He took a mistress.

    • It's a common theme in literature. Many Chinese historical dramas are based on the insufferable status games played by women in polygamous households. No wonder the man is always annoyed and ends up taking a new wife. Which only makes matters worse.

      • I was reading the the "Letters of a Shanghai Griffin" you linked to and hit the one from his old flame back in blighty. Presumably upper middle-class. What a cunt!

        • Lol. Yes it is quite awful. So much for the Victorian golden age.

          I always found strange the old culture of love letters and prolonged courtship. Such pampering must have bred loads of nasty cunts. Which also explains the masses of dandy homos that England used to breed.

  • You're probably familiar with Gregory Clark and his book Farewell to Alms. One of Clark's main theses in there is that the English middle class - merchants, landowners, etc. - outbred the lower classes starting from early middle ages and continuing at least until the industrial revolution. The correlation between fertility and income (that he uses mainly as an indicator for class) holds also within occupations in that wealthier landowners had more offspring, for example.

    I don't remember if he explicitly mentions IQ, but he emphasizes that over the centuries this has resulted in making 'middle-class values' (or more bluntly, 'human capital') such as conscentiousness, diligence, loyalty, reliability etc. more common among the populace as a whole due to the breeding differential and due to structural downward mobility in such a world. Since usually only the oldest son inherits the father's farm or occupation, the other sons 'trickle down' towards menial work, seafaring, military or such. I also remember him pointing out the obvious genetic component in this all.

    Keep that going a few centuries and you'll end up with a nation of shopkeepers.

    The point I'm trying to make is that focusing only on elites misses too much of the picture. You can get significant heritable results by just giving a slight but consistent advantage to those who are above average but not yet total outliers.

    • Yes, and that's the other problematic theory. Clark's theory is mostly about England, yet the English masses aren't any smarter nor diligent than the French, the Finns, the Hungarians, or the Russians, who have vastly different histories. Hell the Finns were doing slash and burn agriculture until a while ago.

      • Well what is the relevant psychometric for not fucking over a non-family business partner in a first time deal? Obviously there's another non-IQ psychometric we're missing.

        • hbdchick would tell you that it's about degrees of inbreeding. The English do stand out for the length and pervasiveness of outbreeding.

          I don't know though, the Japanese weren't good outbreeders and today they are vastly more civil than the English. Culture is important.

          • Conforming to a group culture (rather than to family loyalty) may be a side-effect in which case if the culture extolled politeness you'd get a very polite people but a poisoned anti-politeness culture would create the opposite - even with the same people.

      • It may be odd that Bruce Charlton treats that book as being akin to (pardon) Holy Writ. (...) "In other words, the error was that the industrial revolution led to increased economic inequality, and that therefore the solution was greater equality.

        In reality, the opposite was the case. The industrial revolution involved population growth and productivity growth - so per capita wealth increased, and the greatest share went to the poor.

        For perhaps the first time in human history, from the time of the industrial revolution, the poor had more surviving children than the rich." (...)

        • Thus, the IR starts the current era of dysgenics in the West:

 (...) "If we assume that reaction time is a valid measure of general intelligence, in other words that RT has a linear correlation with g - then this would mean that the average Victorian Englishman had a modern IQ of greater than 115." (....)

      • "Clark’s theory is mostly about England, yet the English masses aren’t any smarter nor diligent"


        I'd say they very likely *were* from c. 1300 to the industrial revolution when things went into reverse.

  • > The point I’m trying to make is that focusing only on elites misses too much of the picture. You can get significant heritable results by just giving a slight but consistent advantage to those who are above average but not yet total outliers.

    Yup. Also, Japan wasn't necessarily all that different for lacking a civil service exam. The smart, the wise, the creative, the brave, the highly-born (and mezzo-highly-born) recognize one another ; testing is not necessarily that big a deal. It /could/ make a considerable difference in practice, but I wouldn't hasten to assume so.

    As for elites and haute-elites sleeping with all the hot maidservants/ random chix, I'm no expert, but the balance of what I've read suggests that it was universal, the only big difference being whether it is covert or overt. Of course it's true that when/if haute-haute-elites are truly ruined by inbreeding depression, it won't really matter how many maidservants they lay. Their illegitimate offspring will perhaps be fitter than themselves, but will still not have excellent fitness: the pop is therefore not much improved.

    • "Also, Japan wasn’t necessarily all that different for lacking a civil service exam. "

      The thing is in China the smart, the bookish, not the enterprising, or the strong, or the handsome, were rewarded with vastly higher reproductive opportunity. That didn't happen in Japan. Not by a long shot. Japan was a feudal society with very little structure to detect and promote merit. They still turned out ok though.

  • The social policies coming from the Cathedral can be summed up in two words: incentivized irresponsibility. We don't need data to understand how to stop digging.

    • I beg to differ, largely. Bismarck carried out state health insurance, and while Nietzsche frowned gravely on his quasi-democratism, it would be hard to call him all that cathedralish. Yet free health care must surely be dysgenic. I don't actually want the low-born to suffer ill health, but that's not relevant to free or subsidized medicine being dysgenic: it just is dysgenic.

      I think reactionism's time has come, but I don't really think any foreseeable level of it will resolve in full the issue of differential fecundity by class and by Conscientiousness level. It's not just state welfare ; it's the fact that food is waaay cheap, infectious disease quelled, etc, as noted above. Honestly, unless technology should blaze some other path, it's hard to see what will avail, other than a statist one-child policy for the low-born, or something like that. I would just hope to use money rather than compulsion as much as possible.

      If you just want the low-born to languish, suffer, and fail to thrive, I think you would actually have to ban private charity in some quite thoroughgoing way. It has been pointed out that private charity pretty much distorts incentives just as much as state charity does.

      • In the past private charity was rather less of a 'problem' in this sense, but under today's material and ideological conditions, it will/would be/is a much greater 'problem'.

      • Precisely. Eugenics won't come through the starvation of the poor, it will have to come from differential fertility. And we need more hard data on how HBD really works if we want to know how to set the incentives right.

      • Bismarck may have implemented state welfare, but it was a relatively cheap and bloodless means of buying off the intellectual forerunners of today's Cathedral. They are still heirs to the blame.

        Technology has clearly changed the game relative to the eugenic situation in which the human capital was built upon which today's technological society is based. Spandrell clearly believes that understanding that past situation is a key factor in developing realistic, sustainable policies that would ensure our civilization does not devolve back to grass huts. That may be true, or it might be that our situation is historically unique and we must develop our own solutions. My point is that even in the absence of a well-developed historical understanding of recent human evolution, we can at the very least take Steve Sailer's advice: "If you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

        • Well yes stop digging is of course a good idea. But we have been digging this hole according to a quite consistent narrative, and we won´t stop digging until we have a compelling narrative to replace it. What I mean is that the science behind HBD needs to be more solid if we are to develop the replacement narrative.

          • I can sorta see that. But we already know groups vary, and we do have some idea why: malthusism, high latitude, history of agriculture and hierarchy (longer the better), etc. And now the stuff Cochran has been writing about, namely paternal age, and pop structure within a geography.

            Peter Frost interestingly points out certain shortcomings of the late Rushton, such as the fact that high-latitude environs are -- usually -- more r-selecting than k-selecting. However that rule of thumb won't necessarily apply to every last organism in high-latitude environs or tropical environs.

            Synchronically, we can just measure HBD and I think that is more important than the question of how things got that way. Everyone knows there are places in town where a north Eurasid usually doesn't want to go, and the reason is that it's full of people who aren't so north-Eurasid.

            • > (longer the better)

              Well, that is not strictly true, since many 'barbarous' traits are or can be desirable.

        • I kind of agree, it's not a pragmatic necessity to understand the deep past if you just want to preserve or enhance the traits of existing pops, in well-defined and measurable ways. What happened since the steam engine is much more relevant than anything prior, and what's happening this very minute is much the most relevant.

  • "Yet free health care must surely be dysgenic. I don’t actually want the low-born to suffer ill health, but that’s not relevant to free or subsidized medicine being dysgenic: it just is dysgenic."

    It depends.

    A fit, healthy man falls off a ladder and is *temporarily* unfit. Option 1) he lies in bed at home gets an infection and dies. Option 2) he gets fixed at hospital and is back being productive in six weeks. All singular, non-recurring medical situations are the same. One of the bodies arguing for national health insurance in the UK after WWI was the army because they had to reject so many recruits from the big cities for fixable health problems like rickets.

    That doesn't apply to a lot of medical ailments but it doesn't apply whether treatment is free or not. In a "Farewell to Alms" type scenario if the wealthy can afford medical treatments for very dysgenic illnesses then you get the same effect.

    . "Eugenics won’t come through the starvation of the poor"

    Switch sperm donors from medical students to special forces: IQ for the dumb, health for the smart and probably twice the likelihood of successful fertilisation as a bonus.

      • It's a potential debate. Medical students were chosen at some point - probably mostly by default on the basis of convenience. I think the chance of successful fertilization - which is generally very low in IVF - would be greatly increased by using sperm selected for ultra-health (with above-average IQ as a bonus). So - private clinics who want to make money from successful fertilization or countries which want to practise stealth eugenics could test the idea and then adopt it.

        memes ftw.

        • I forgot to add, more generally the point of mentioning the whole special forces vs medical student thing is in regard to the idea in eugenic's chat that you should select *for* a single trait, usually intelligence. By definition if you select for a single trait then you're selecting against everything else. Much better to select for a *package* that includes intelligence.

          • That isn't true, if you consider something like the semi-putative 'general fitness factor'. --Which I dare say is a priori highly likely to exist to at least a small extent, given that mating is highly assortive or selective in humans and most other taxa, and that nearly all known measurable traits are substantially heritable in man (and presumably in most mammals).

            The only logically possible reasons for mating selectively are, firstly, to get a mate that's genotypically and/or phenotypically superior in fitness, and secondly to get one that is thus superior for you in particular, as per your particularities. The upshot is that good traits should flock together somewhat in the same individuals.

            Almost silly of me to write all that, though, when I myself would also prefer to see a lot of special forces progeny, rather than med school progeny. And I don't dispute that they may indeed have a better suite of superior traits overall -- and may indeed have a higher general fitness factor.

            • "and may indeed have a higher general fitness factor"

              That's the underlying point yes. The overall *package* is better imo.

              . "The upshot is that good traits should flock together somewhat in the same individuals."

              This to me is the interesting question though - do they?

              I think if you're selecting on low genetic load then yes they will but if you only select on a single trait like IQ for generations then by definition doesn't it mean you have been selecting less on health?

              (You get this all the time in dog-breeding.)

              I think in the NW Euro tradition (non-aristocratic version) selection among a certain segment of the population was on the basis of low load so the idea of the people who won the genetic lottery being tall, good-looking, healthy and intelligent all at once isn't that strange - rare obviously but not enough to be strange. However i don't think that would be the outcome if you selected for a single trait.

            • "given that mating is highly assortive or selective in humans and most other taxa"

              Not sure that's been true since agriculture or at least i wonder if the vast majority of mating since agriculture has been arranged by the families on a non individually selective basis.

  • "Another lesser-known fact is that the number of male to female undergraduates in the United States was about at parity from 1900 to 1930. Male enrollments began to increase relative to female enrollments in the 1930s and they soared directly following the end of World War II. A highpoint of gender imbalance in college attendance was reached in 1947 when undergraduate men outnumbered women 2.3 to 1. From then on female college enrollments began to catch up, especially in the 1970s. Gender equality was again reached around 1980 and subsequently women overtook men in college enrollments and graduation rates.

    The narrowing of the gender gap in enrollments to 1980 was a return or a “homecoming,” although the levels of college going were almost six times higher in 1980 than in the 1920s for both men and women. This article explores the homecoming of American college women and the reversal in the gender gap in college attendance and graduation. "


    and even higher today.

    The regression to mean article would've meant that it didn't matter much if only the elite women dried out their wombs in academia, since the geniuses in a society come overwhelmingly from the middle classes due to their sheer numbers.

    "The middle class, to which in industrialized countries about a third of the population belongs, determines by its number of children whether the society goes up or down in the cycle. The offspring of the middle class supplies the largest percentage of socially upward mobile individuals and in each generation the highest absolute number of the highly gifted, with an IQ above 123 (Weiss, 1992). The highly gifted originate only to a small degree from the marriages of the highly gifted themselves, because the highly gifted proportion of any population is always very small."

    how women changed academia back in 19th century

      • That text has glaring quantitative errors. Those >123 are no 'very small proportion' of the population: 123 is roughly the 75th centile for NW Europids, and loads of >123s come from pairings of >123s (at least in NW Europids).

    • “The middle class, to which in industrialized countries about a third of the population belongs, determines by its number of children whether the society goes up or down in the cycle"

      Exactly. It's yeoman societies that produce the progress - the ones with the largest yeoman segment. You can always tell historically because their armies are always dominated by very disciplined heavy infantry.

  • Human evolutionary decay is the result of adultery (men mating with other men's wives) which causes Fisherian runaway selection. Monogamy or at least restricted polygamy is also good for human evolution. This makes survival (as opposed to seduction) the primary evolutionary value with particular emphasis on lowering the mortality rate of one's children. So what all genetically successful cultures share is effective prevention of adultery. I go into detail in my article on Human Evolution.

    • I commend you for this new approach on how to square HBD with Christianity. Very creative I must say. Not that I think you need God to incentivise monogamy. Northeast Asia has historically been more strict against adultery than Europe, and they don't base that on religion. Not to sleep with other men's wives is common sense.

  • I think eugenics typically happened in history at the tribal level. The superior tribe slaughtered the inferior one and replaced them wholesale.

    For example Germanic and Scandinavian tribes basically genocided Roman Britian (we know this because the English language is not a Romance language despite Britain being once Roman). We call the British people Anglo-Saxon which is based on the *non-English* tribes that drove them into the sea. By the time Britain drove off the Germans and Scandinavians many centuries later, they were themselves German and Scandinavian.

    Japan surely seeded Korea many times since it invaded numerous times in history.

    The whole deal of warfare in most of history was the more advanced side either took the land and got rid of the weaker one or ruled over and seeded the women of the weaker.

    Heck even as recently as WWII, French women were happy to be seeded by the German soldiers who were winning. That's just in a short window of time, too.

    • Ever heard of language replacement by elite dominance? If language replacement necessarily indicated genocide, we would expect a much greater genetic distance between modern Hungarians and other central Europeans than what we find given that their conquerors were Magyar tribesmen from far to the east.

  • > we know this because the English language is not a Romance language despite Britain being once Roman

    So the Proto-Indoeuros genocided most of W-Eurasia? I think 'apartheid' is the more common understanding of how pure Brythonic Celts might have been treated after ~600.

    It seems like a lot of them were driven off, to places where they had to live at unsuitable density, presumably fight each other, and doubtlessly sub-flourish. That's a sort of passive and unorganized genocide. Probably a lot were enserfed or enslaved, that's just a guess, and it would be hard to imagine many women of superior fitness being enconcubined, or just married.

    Slave gang chains are I think known from purely Celtic times/places -- so how much more likely were the slightly more successful Germanics to employ enslavement/serfment of Celts. I would emphasize 'slightly': Germanics had a rather sudden expansion into Romano-Brythonic territory, but this was exceptional and is explained by the Roman sociomilitary abandonment. In general the Germanic expansion at the expense of Celts was ploddingly slow, and Celtic tongues or anyway artifacts quite recently blanketed the land very far indeed to the east and northeast.

    • "I think ‘apartheid’ is the more common understanding of how pure Brythonic Celts might have been treated after ~600."

      A lot of this comes from the idea that I is germanic and R1b celtic and the percentage of I in the UK is only 20% so the anglo-saxons *must* have been only 20% of the population so they *must* have done x or y to retain control and spread their language. There are a ton of things wrong with this idea but the most basic one is Denmark is 50% R1b also so unless that happened in the intervening period the anglo-saxons would have been 50% R1b also.

      • Yeah, I am totally unclear on that stuff myself, it's Greek to me. I've been interested in just how Celt-admixed is nonceltic W-Europe -- but my interest has been super passive or lazy.

        So you think more highly of the idea of Brythonics just being driven out of much of England, perhaps especially E-England? But surely there was at least some substantial assimilation of cute girls, nay?

        • Given our new capabilities today we should just sort of mostly start over with autosomal information, wouldn't you say? That's probably one reason for my laziness.

          • I dunno. I think in the end it will turn out to be the interplay of Y dna, mtdna and autosomal which will tell the whole story.

        • I think the original writers like Bede had it right. Brythonics pushed out of the eastern half of England by a mass incursion followed by the slow piecemeal assimilation of the western half via elite conquest with gangs of younger sons from the Saxon half taking little pieces of terriotory at a time and inter-marrying with the locals. The Wessex royal family tree illustrates that iirc.

    • Take Ireland as a possible model -- under the ol' lord protector. Some mass killing, but more exploitation (I think). By exploitation I mean severe exploitation, resulting in much subflourishing and early death. But just wiping people out wholesale in an entire region has probably not been all that common.

      Instead, your agenda is to set yourself up as the shit, possibly off some dangerous local elites -- which will be dysgenic, though the conquest as a whole will probably be eugenic -- get liberal with the lash, and 'invite' all the hottest autochthnous girls to your castle.

      Similar stuff probably went down within Ireland, when some bonny lads went out to set themselves up as the shit down in the county seat, or in a capital -- and likewise for other lands. Driving-off and active genocide would be more likely when invader and invadee are relatively barbarous ; enserfment relatively more likely when they are milder-tempered. Especially the invadee. N-Ameroids were said to remain sullen and proud after endless beatings. Not sure how much I credit this, though, since their failure as a slave pop may also have a lot to do with the spectacular problems with infection that they faced -- which semi-uncontacted S-Ameroids still face to this day.

      Even the Nazis wanted to assimilate a large quotient of superior Slavs -- they at least talked about it, not certain what they enacted. They could have gotten this idea from history, but it may have been partly instinctual. Think about it a priori . . . sucking some superior people into your ethny when you have the chance is potentially fitness-enhancing, and I bet you could spot this phenomenon in other species where active and/or passive termination of enemy kin groups takes place. I think they may have also mass murdered other superior Slavs -- the ones apt to endanger their regime in Slavland.

      • "Take Ireland as a possible model — under the ol’ lord protector. Some mass killing, but more exploitation...Instead, your agenda is to set yourself up as the shit"

        Yes. Pre-modern elites were military elites so they didn't need - or want - to kill everybody. They wanted the peasants to survive to exploit them so a lot of the time these invasions are just one elite replacing another e.g. Norman conquest. But not always - sometimes a whole tribe would move and need all the available land for themselves so they displace a whole population. I think the Anglo-Saxon invasion was both - an initial displacement invasion in the east followed by a series of elite conquests westwards where gangs of landless younger sons of a landed elite grab some nearby land off another elite.

  • > This to me is the interesting question though – do they?

    I dunno, empirically the correlation of comeliness and IQ has not seemed that impressive in studies I have glanced at. I thought it would be larger. Not all (pairs of) good traits will 'push' together to the same extent though, probably.

    It seems pretty clear that men are sexually selected rather more for phenotype, relatively, and women for genotype. Women ailing in some way are a lot more sexually attractive than ailing men, and I don't think that's hard to understand. The 'performance' of a woman in life tasks matters -- it's just that the performance of a man matters somewhat more. A man (especially historically) is trying to outperform, resist, and exploit other men in a stark winner-loser dialectic, where woman's activity is relatively slanted toward a calmer and steadier resiling against assorted biotic and abiotic factors -- much of her protection from mankind coming from her mate and male relatives. Since the major attacks on human life, attacks both gross and subtle, radical and mild, have come from microbes and humans, women have one less thing to deal with, or anyway try to address. Hence the relative erotic emphasis on their comeliness, apparently a direct index of genotype (cf. the facial identicalness of twins). Genetic mutation, I guess, is actually a third major attack on human life.

    My point is that the different pressures on the genders is one reason why some pairs of good traits don't push together as much as others.

    Of course, there are what I think Jensen may(?) have termed extrinsic and intrinsic reasons for traits to push together or be found together. Two traits correlate intrinsically inasmuch as they simply emanate from the same alleles. Two traits -- perhaps the same two -- have extrinsic correlation to the extent that they derive from separate alleles that tend to be found together. --Tend to be found together by virtue of sexual selection, or by virtue of their synergetic fitness value under natural selection.

    Anecdotally, just go to the Brahmin grocery store and go to the Vaisya grocery store. In my old hood they are 100 m apart ; the Brahmins are obviously different and 'better', even though I don't like them much. If they didn't have such a fucking headful of anticivilizational attitudes and humanely anti-human schemes, they would be just plain better, though Vaisyas would enjoy unique virtues even then. Even my SWPL friends, who have reluctantly halfway heard me out on heredity, confess that the grocery store experiment is pretty striking.

    • "I dunno, empirically the correlation of comeliness and IQ has not seemed that impressive in studies I have glanced at."

      Hmm, what about at the population level? I'd expect a population that selected on low load would end up above-average in IQ, health (longevity), height, comeliness etc *as a population* compared with a population that had mostly arranged marriages or compared with a population that had selected on only one of those traits?

      Just a guess though.

  • @spandrell - "Swedes, Spaniards and Serbs have very different societies, some great, some very fucked up, yet their average IQ is pretty much the same."

    yes. this is why one of the messages i really want to get out there is that there's more to human biodiversity than iq.

    iq is obviously very, very (VERY) important -- but there are other aspects to human nature(s) that are also pretty d*rned important and that shouldn't be overlooked.

    i've got my own personal interest (ok, ok -- obsession!) with inbreeding/outbreeding and altruism/corruption/nepotism/etc., but there are, no doubt, other aspects of hbd that ought to be considered as well.

    • Hey, good to have you here. Have a seat or somethin'.

      Yes I guess that the same as IQ many personality traits are subject to variance. You do feel the difference when talking to a Russian and a German. It's hard to tell nature from nurture there though.

      What I find interesting is just how much, yet also how little IQ varies in reality. There's no narrative to justify Serbs, Finns and English being equally smart. Yet they are, mostly. It does seem like white IQ was set up in stone 10k years ago and stayed there.

  • East Asians evolved their high IQs the same way that Europeans did... by surviving an ice age, back when they were called Neanderthals. Populations don't get smart through civil service exams, most people aren't civil servants. Populations get smart because of brutal selection pressures operating on the entire population... pressures like trying to survive an Ice Age with only stone tools.

    East Asians are approximately 40% more Neanderthal than Europeans. I'd link the study but I don't want to be flagged as spam, it's easy to google it. Neanderthals lived in Europe, but a small, isolated population of Neanderthal hybrids made it out to East Asia where they filled up the land and created a huge cushion that protected the easternmost parts of East Asia from further Sapiens admixture (or at least reduced it).

    Meanwhile, Europe's Neanderthal component and ice age IQ was drowned under wave after wave of Homo Sapiens from Africa, which is after all right next to Europe. Thus Europeans are less Neanderthal and less intelligent.

    • That doesn't really explain Mongols or Siberian tribes. Not even close 100 IQs. Surely agriculture had a stronger effect than Neanderthal admixture.

  • 1 pingbacks