Friday, March 31, 2017

Average IQ can be a real bear, or silk purses and sow's ears

Do you know how a bell curve works? There's a book by that name, but I'm not referring to that just yet. A bell curve is all about statistical distribution, and you can read about the principle here [link]. But the book is about intelligence, and the bell curve does apply to that. If you have a country with a million people, and their average IQ is 100, given the overwhelmingly likely normal distribution, there will be X number of people with an IQ greater than 110. Now, if a doctor needs an IQ of 110 to be effective, and the million people require about X number of doctors, you have no problem. You have enough doctors. But if you have an average IQ of 90, you will not have enough doctors. Not nearly enough. And as for aerospace engineers and other high-IQ professions, you can forget it. Your country will not be competitive with countries with higher average IQ's. Take a look at this comparison of the Black American IQ bell curve with the White American one (I found it here [link]). First off, look at the 110 IQ mark. If you have a country consisting of a million White Americans, you're going to have at least three times as many people with an IQ of 110 than a corresponding country made up of a million Black Americans. The first will have enough doctors, and the second will have fewer than a third as many as it needs. As for Sub-Saharan Africa, with an average IQ of 70, forget it.



This is not trivial. It's intrinsic. And it doesn't just apply to higher IQ's. Let's say that an effective auto mechanic needs an IQ of 95 or more. Well, our two hypothetical countries are widely different here, too.  Don't be misled. The number of Blacks and Whites with an IQ of 95 look about equal. But there are many, many more Whites with an IQ of equal to or greater than 95 than there are Blacks.

Anyhow, Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen wrote a book called IQ and the Wealth of Nations [link] that explains in detail why average IQ is overwhelmingly important to the prosperity of a nation. Here's what Richard Lynn writes, from here [link]:

I graduated in psychology and took my Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge and have worked as lecturer in psychology at the University of Exeter, professor of psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, and at the University of Ulster.

Most of my work has been on intelligence. My major discoveries are that the Oriental peoples of East Asia have higher average intelligence by about 5 IQs points than Europeans and peoples of European origin in the United States and elsewhere; and that men have a higher average IQ than women by about 5 IQs points. I first published the high IQ of the Oriental peoples in 1977 in a paper on the intelligence of the Japanese. In subsequent years the high Oriental IQ has been confirmed in numerous studies of Oriental peoples in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, China, Singapore and the United States.

In 1983 I published a paper in Nature showing that the IQ in Japan had increased over the course of the previous half century, a phenomenon now known as the Flynn Effect following the demonstration by Jim Flynn of secular increases in intelligence in number of countries. In 1989 I proposed that the increases in intelligence have been caused by improvements in nutrition. I have also published several papers showing that intelligence is associated with brain size and reaction times.


My work on intelligence and brain size led me to consider the problem that women have smaller brains than men even when allowance is made for their smaller bodies. This implies that men should have higher average IQs than women, but it has been universally asserted that men and women have equal average IQs. In 1994 I proposed that the solution to this problem is that girls mature faster than boys and this compensates for their lower IQs, which only appear at the age of 16 onwards. Among adults men have higher average IQs than women by about 4 IQ points. This advantage consists largely of higher spatial abilities but is also present in non-verbal reasoning. In two meta-analyses of sex differences on the Progressive Matrices carried out with Paul Irwing (2004, 2005) we showed that in the general population men have a higher IQs than women by 5 IQ points, and in university students the advantage of men is 4.6 IQ points.

In 1991 I extended my work on race differences in intelligence to other races. I concluded that the average IQ of blacks in sub-Saharan Africa is approximately 70. It has long been known that the average IQ of blacks in the United States is approximately 85. The explanation for the higher IQ of American blacks is that they have about 25 per cent of Caucasian genes and a better environment.

The theory I have advanced to explain these race differences in IQ is that when early humans migrated from Africa into Eurasia they encountered the difficulty of survival during cold winters. This problem was especially severe during the ice ages. Plant foods were not available for much of the year and survival required the hunting and dismembering of large animals for food and the ability to make tools, weapons and clothing, to build shelters and make fires. These problems required higher intelligence and exerted selection pressure for enhanced intelligence, particularly on the Orientals.


--------------One thing not directly touched on here is the all-too-obvious (to non-liberals) fact that low-IQ immigrants to high-IQ countries lower the average IQ of the countries they move into. The US has been suffering from that ever since LBJ said that we don't want European immigrants any more, but sure do want the low-intelligence peasants and savages from the Third World. Vox Day compares our crumbling infrastructure with our plummeting average IQ. This is from his site [link]:


Crumbling infrastructure, crumbling society

It's interesting to drive over medieval and Roman-era bridges in Europe, then witness reports like these coming out of progressive Not-America:
Atlanta's notoriously tangled commutes were thrown into disarray Friday after a massive fire caused a bridge on Interstate 85 to collapse, completely shutting down the heavily traveled highway through the heart of the city.

Traffic was bumper to bumper on nearby streets as people scrambled to find alternate routes after the fire broke out during rush hour Thursday afternoon. However, officials said no one was hurt despite dramatic images of towering flames and plumes of smoke.

"This is about as serious a transportation crisis as we can imagine," Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed said.

As a result of the interstate damage, many commuters in some of Atlanta's densely populated northern suburbs will be forced to find alternate routes or ride public transit for the foreseeable future.

Georgia's top transportation official said there's no way to tell when the highway, which carries 250,000 cars a day, can be safely reopened to traffic in either direction following the collapse in the northbound lanes leading out of the city.

"We will have to continue to evaluate the situation and adjust as we do," Department of Transportation Commissioner Russell McMurry said. "This incident — make no bones about it — will have a tremendous impact on travel."

McMurry said Friday in a news release that bridge inspectors have determined the southbound lanes of I-85, adjacent to the section that collapsed, also were damaged by the fire and will need to remain closed for the foreseeable future.
It is average IQ that is the prime determinant of what a society will be like. And according to my calculations,
the average US IQ has declined by at least eight points since 1965. If you don't maintain your population demographics, both in terms of quantity and quality, your society will decline. And if you don't maintain your infrastructure, it will collapse.

Unfortunately, addressing either problem, let alone actually doing anything to fix them, is presently considered unthinkable. That will change, sooner or later, but how soon it changes will play a significant role in the shape of the eventual outcome.
------------
One thing I'd like to add here for food for thought is the fact that a high-IQ place like Hong Kong (average 108 IQ) that has virtually zero natural resources is infinitely more prosperous than, say, Venezuela, which has heaps of natural resources and an average IQ of 84. So when you're told that the prosperity of, say, the United States has nothing to do with the qualities of the American people, but is the result of the presence of great amounts of natural resources, you can answer that the resources were here before any White person had ever heard of the place. American Indians were right here for literally thousands of years, and they made use of virtually none of the mineral resources or water power or other things we take for granted. Nor did they domesticate any animals except turkeys (llamas and related species were domesticated by South American Indians).
And I think I've rung this bell enough for one post.
---------------
Quibcags:  The first is illustrated by Yuki Nagato, who I picked because of her high IQ. Just look at her and try to claim otherwise. She's from The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)I don't know who the girl in the second one is, but the third is characters from Haruhi again, dressed as nuns for some reason. And the last is a puzzled girl from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta).

Thursday, March 30, 2017

The Irrational Left

Nobody's said it better than Jay does in the quibcag. Now, the left used to be more rational than it is now, because it recognized most of reality as such. It acknowledged a lot of facts that it now rejects, and many of those facts are taboo one way or another — "hate facts" or something like that. It's probably a little unfair to use the Soviet girl as an illustration for this, because at its worst, the Soviet Union was realistic about most things, and even knew better than to take communist economic theory all that seriously.

We tend to think of communism as being an enemy of Western Civilization, which indeed it was, but it wasn't really dreamed up to wreck our civilization. Marx himself would have considered most of our current social justice warriors decadent idiots, and he's have been right, too. He was concerned, however perversely, about justice for the working class. Our current left couldn't care less about the working class, which is why said working class rejected the left and voted for Trump. So whatever the left used to be, from Marx to William Jennings Bryan to Gene Debs, it is now entirely devoted to the destruction of Western Civilization, which is why it's totally abandoned reality and logic.

The quote comes from Chateau Heartiste, who says:

The Three Rs: How To Defeat Anti-White Leftoids

Good comment by Jay, who writes about the studied irrationality of the cro-modern virtue-signaling Left, and how the Maul-Right can effectively oust them from their hegemonic information gatekeeping.
There is a very important point CH has mentioned in this, which needs to be reiterated. The Left is quintessentially irrational. I’ll say it again, in case it’s not getting through. Leftists are at war with reality. This is why invoking logic, facts, irrefutable proof, superlative arguments, etc., is generally futile in dealing with them. Their entire body of expression arises out of a wilful suppression of observable fact in what could be described as a mass psychosis that is fuelled by… social esteem.
They want to be popular. They want to be liked. They want to feed off Twitbook likes, friendings, and so on. That’s why they virtue-signal: to thrive on the nectar of approval. They are of the same cloth as those who vocally supported Hitler or Stalin were cut from: go-along-to-get-alongers. They have no logic-based, robustly structured, consistent argument matrix; instead, their language is rhetorical, emotive, sensual, impulsive, hysterical, accusative. But never rational.
This opens up the means to deal with them. And that is… charitable ostracisation. Sure, refute their mantras with compelling arguments; it will serve as a public testimony to their idiocy and may plant in them a seed for future recovery, but in the interim, politely cut them off. Let them know, with solemn cadences, that their views are unacceptable to you. In short, “unfriend” them.
Ridicule, Realtalk, and Rejection are the Three Rs of successfully neutering leftoids.
Cut them quick.
Cut them up.
Cut them off.
The Left has had a monopoly on the use of Rhetoric-slash-Ridicule to disarm their enemies, which was a choice of necessity because the Left long ago abandoned Reason as an avenue to access power. It’s all sophistry and triple bankshot hypocrisy for the Left, abetted by cowardly controlled opposition epitomized in CuckRyan’s untrustworthy sanpaku eyes, and this formula has been very successful for them…..until now.
Read the rest here:
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/03/30/the-three-rs-how-to-defeat-anti-white-leftoids/

And let me add....

There's no exaggeration here. The left is batsh*t-irrational, to coin a term. They constantly twist facts until they're meaningless. A good example is one very misleading fact, of a sort, brought up once again by Juan Williams on Fox News. Basically, it's the assertion that immigrants have a lower crime rate than Americans. Several things wrong with that.

1. When we hear this, we automatically think of the White American crime rate, but the immigrant rate is being compared to the aggregate crime rate for Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and everybody else. I'm sure if you check, you'll find that the immigrant crime rate is significantly higher than the White crime rate.

2. Immigrants tend to be older. And as such, more of them are past the young male cohort that is most inclined towards crime.

3. Immigrants' children are of course not counted as immigrants, but as Americans. The fact is that the second and third generation of immigrants are very much more inclined towards crime than the original immigrants. They lack the feeling of gratitude for the opportunities here that the originals have. On the contrary, they want all the goodies and freebies they can get, and they're constantly being taught that Americans don't deserve what they have and therefore should be robbed.

And that's an actual fact, that they just misinterpret and use to mislead. But many of the left's "facts" are nothing of the kind, but baseless assertions.  Here are a few:

1. There's no such thing as race.
2. All races are equal.
3. There are 31 or some silly number of genders, which seems to be different than 'sexes,' but I wouldn't bet money on it.
4. Trump is stupid.
5. Trump is insane.
6. Hillary is somehow talented.
7. Diversity is our strength

I'm sure you can add a few of your own.

And now, on roughly the same subject, to Fred:


Social Justice Warriors and Bubonic Plague:Is There a Difference?


Some observations:
(1) Liberals posit the equality of groups that are not equal, attribute the inevitable differences of outcome to discrimination, and try to eradicate them through regulation, affirmative action, and punishment of those noticing the differences. This doesn’t work, assuring a  pretext for indignation that is non-depletable, like the liver of Prometheus.
Here we have the bedrock of American politics.
(2) Liberals believe that we should all  love one another, and hate those who don’t. This puts them in the morally invincible position of being against hatred. It also obscures the observable fact that most of us, certainly to include liberals,  dislike a great many people, and that most groups detest a lot of other groups, or will if placed in contact with them. Distance is prerequisite to love.
(3) Groups hate each other, firstly, the greater their proximity. Secondly, the more they differ from one another, and, thirdly, the more power one has over another or the greater the apparent superiority of one over the other. The result is a spectrum of hostility running from surliness to severed heads.
This explains anti-antisemitism. Jews do not assimilate: Bill O’Toole in America does not think of himself as Irish, but Rachel Cohen thinks of herself as Jewish. This is not a sin, which has nothing to do with it.  Proximity is close to a maximum since Jews are widely mixed through the population. Jews rise to positions of power, completing the triad. They can’t win.
There are those who believe that Homo sapiens came about through the mating of a Neanderthal with a pit bull. While this has not been confirmed, it fits the evidence.
(4) This brings us to the curious notion that diversity is a strength, which it obviously is not. Diversity is in fact the cause of most of the world’s troubles. If you doubt that diversity is a great evil, consider relations between:
Keep reading here:
http://fredoneverything.org/social-justice-warriors-and-bubonic-plagueis-there-a-difference/
---------------
Quibcags: The first is illustrated by a drawing I found on the net. The second by characters from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!) And I believe the third is based on characters from Azumanga Daioh (Japaneseあずまんが大王 HepburnAzumanga Daiō?, lit. "Great King Azumanga") 

Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Art of the Icon of Sin


This quibcag deserves to be full-size. The illustration is by the Icon of Sin [link], who does very nice, shall we say, right-wing or alt-right work on Deviantart. Go there and praise it. And encourage more such. 

To riff off the quote — and if you don't recognize the name, do google — this is the most compact and convincing statement of its sort that I've ever come across. It pretty much knocks most popular ideologies into a cocked hat, from libertarianism to neoconnery to liberalism. And it demonstrates that any other system of thinking is going to lead to a collapse. Can anybody out there refute that?

Friday, March 24, 2017

Gregory Cochran reads Cordelia Fine, so you don't have to

Bad ideas never seem to go away. At least not the ones that the left likes. And the idea the left likes most of all is equality, and not some silly right-wing equality before the law, or equality of opportunity, either. The leftist idea is that all people are equal, period. That's all races, all ethnic groups, all religious groups, and both all 31 sexes. And since all such groups are equal in ability, temperament, yadda yadda yadda, when they don't have an equality of performance, that means somebody is discriminating against or oppressing somebody, of course. And the cure for that is massive government expenditures to equalize outcomes, and equally (heh!) massive numbers of regulations to punish everybody who doesn't cooperate fully.

This is an example of the "I f*cking love science" faction of the left. You see, guys (and girls) in lab coats carrying clipboards around have scientifically determined that unlike practically all other mammals, which, if they're distributed very widely at all across the world, have separated into subspecies that average differently in intelligence and other environmental adaptations, human beings haven't done that at all. Races don't exist, of course, and they're all equal anyway. Being separated on different continents for tens of thousands of years didn't affect people at all, because they're mysteriously immune to evolution. And they've also proved, somehow or another, that the human sexes (however many there are) are also totally equal in every way. I know they don't seem equal, and are physiologically distinct in many more ways that the obvious ones, and that their brains certainly look different, and that the sexual stereotypes of men and women have been pretty much the same for centuries and seem to mirror reality very closely.
But never mind all that. A feminist says otherwise, and Gregory Cochran [link] reviews her book:

Old T-Rex

I’ve just finished Testosterone Rex, by Cordelia Fine. In this book, she argues against the existence of innate psychological differences between the sexes. She does not want her readers to believe that men and women have different natures – apparently because such differences, or belief in their existence, would prevent social equality of the sexes. Personally, I think the more important question is whether it’s true. But I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Rather than talk much about differences between the sexes, which would do her case no good at all, she talks about testosterone’s role in creating such differences. Testosterone is a strawman theory, here. Sex differences might be caused, in part or in whole, by biological factors other than testosterone: would disproving an incorrect testosterone-based theory make the differences go away? On the other hand, it might confuse people enough to reduce or eliminate belief in such differences. People are fairly easy to confuse.


Sex differences can be pretty big. Men are about 8% taller, but they have 90% greater upper body strength (about three standard deviations) and 65% greater lower body strength. They run faster, jump higher. Teenage boys routinely beat professional female athletes, as when the Newcastle Jets U-15 team recently defeated Australia’s national women’s soccer team 7-0.

There are psychological differences as well. Boys prefer rough-and-tumble play, girls prefer ‘intimate theatrical play’. Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys like trucks, while girls prefer dolls. Interestingly, we see similar sex differences in play in other young primates, such as vervet and rhesus monkeys. Young chimpettes are known to carry a stick around, sticks that seem to be stand-ins for future babies – like dolls. Since other primates that are not exposed to anything resembling human socialization [they can’t talk] show similar play preference patterns, socialization is unlikely to be the driver of those patterns in humans, no matter how much Fine would like that to be the case.

Girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia are exposed to high levels of androgens before birth: their play styles are more like those of boys, and they (like boys) are better at spatial rotation tests than other girls. Fine suggests that CAH girls are socialized differently [due to their medical condition] , and that this may account for their boy-like play preferences. The female offspring of rhesus monkeys treated with testosterone during pregnancy also show male-shifted play preferences, such as tough-and-tumble play. Similar effects are seen in rats. Socialization is powerful !

Men are far more violent than women, far more likely to commit murder [and suicide], in every society. Obviously, if we see it everywhere and everywhen, the cause must be … climate change.!

Men take more risks, especially after puberty. Fine attempts to talk this away, as she often does. Her
argumentative approach sometimes has a certain mad charm, as when she mentions her baby son rolling across the room to a power drill, juggling knives, and trying to plunge a running hair dryer into the cake mix. I guess that no truly educated person could believe in anything so obvious, so… She also steps up to ” No true Scotsman “. She defines what must be the only correct definition of a risk-prone personality – someone that tends to embrace every possible risk – and if those correlations aren’t perfect, how could there be such a thing as a risk-prone person? She reminds me of Donald Rumsfeld, trying to define away the insurgency in Iraq by explaining that real guerrillas must have a unified doctrine and central command, which would have been a surprise to the raggedy-assed Spaniards fighting Napoleon, the men that gave us the word.

But crypts don’t lie. Teenage boys are twice as likely to die in accidents: you don’t see girls climbing down into the bear pit on a dare. To be fair, you don’t see boys do it twice. Young men are more likely to get killed making nitrogen tri-iodide, climbing Half Dome, or stealing copper from power lines. They can do it in a car, they can do it in a bar.

Almost all men are sexually interested in women, and the overwhelming majority of women are sexually attracted to men. I’ve heard that there are parallels in the animal kingdom. When you think about it, it makes a twisted kind of sense. Isn’t that a psychological difference?

Moderate differences in the average value of a trait can drive big differences out in the tails of the distribution. Men are only four or five inches taller than women, but all the tallest human beings are male. Men have a moderate edge in spatiovisual processing, but are overwhelming dominant – 100-1 – in the uppermost reaches of mathematics and science. Not just due to visuospatial differences, but that’s part of it. This also shows up in pool, which is not very dependent upon strength, but where the top men are much better players than the top women. Men’s advantage in spatiovisual skills likely plays a part in this. Jeanette Lee, when she was the top women player, said that there were ‘dozens of male players who could wax me.’ And, probably, even more that would have liked to.


Sexual differences are driven by selection favoring changes in one sex that lead to increased reproduction. This must explain men’s strength advantage, a product of competition with other males. Selection is the ultimate cause of psychological differences between the sexes, as well.

Generally, sexual selection is strongest in the sex with the greater reproductive variance. Usually, that means males – some have many offspring while others have few or none. Female reproduction varies less. Fine discusses a series of experiments by Angus Bateman [published in 1948] that led to claims of higher reproductive variance in male fruit flies. There were problems in those experiments – mistakes, technical problems and limitations. Some of the mutations used to trace paternal identity interfered with fitness and thus buggered the statistics. We wouldn’t have to use such a sloppy procedure today, but hey, it was 1948 – they didn’t even have the human chromosome count right. Yet similar studies have been done more recently on many other species – without those problems – and Bateman’s principle, that females are the limiting factor of parental investment, is generally true. Male reproductive variance is generally higher. So how does criticism of errors in a pioneering study refute a now-proven idea? That would be like claiming that Otto Lilienthal’s glider crash, where he died saying “sacrifices must be paid for” [which makes no sense at all] proves that Man will never fly. Fine’s fruit fly chapter is completely pointless. This lawyerly rhetorical technique, criticizing an early experiment in order to snipe at a well-established contemporary theory, was also used by S.J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, when he argued that Samuel Morton had skewed his measurements of skulls to fit his preconceptions. Which was untrue – but it wouldn’t have mattered a rat’s ass if Morton had screwed up, because the art has advanced very far since Morton’s time. Today we use MRI and CAT scanners to image skulls to millimetric precision.


Fine takes a stab at showing that there’s isn’t much point [in terms of extra evolutionary fitness] in men getting extra mates. She comes up with an unphysical and absurd example – mentioning how unlikely it would be for 100 one-night stands to generate an extra 100 babies. That’s totally irrelevant: all it shows is that she’s innumerate. Here’s the practical example: suppose some dude has a wife and a girlfriend next door. Suppose he has intercourse 50 times with each of them over a year – both are probably going to have a kid, while with just the wife , he would have had one. 2 > 1. Am I getting too abstract here? By the way, if sexual selection doesn’t really happen, what could explain men’s huge strength advantage? Eating Wheaties?

Fine seems to think that only producing a horde of extra kids could have any evolutionary significance – but she is wrong. One more kid is a big deal, fitness-wise. On average, over most of the human past, people only managed to raise two children to adulthood. In real life there are always other factors to consider, of course. Does he have enough resources to feed one more child? Is his girlfriend married, and will her husband be duped into raising someone else’s kid? Or will her husband get wise and clobber our protagonist?

Fine is inspired here by some work by Dorothy Einon, who attempted to show that a famous case, where Sultan Moulay Ismail (“the Bloodthirsty”) is said to have fathered 888 children, couldn’t possibly have happened. Einon was wrong: careful simulations show that it was possible, although Ismail did show real dedication. Fine manages to misunderstand Einon’s mistakes.


If you make a math model whose results that completely contradict common knowledge – if it predicts that the Saudi royal family does not exist, or that Miles Park Romney didn’t father 30 children – you would be well advised to recheck it. Just sayin’.

Fine goes on to criticize the ‘man-the-promiscuous-horny-hunter/woman-the-choosy-chaste-gatherer. It can’t be the case that men want sex more than women – why, if that were true, prostitution would exist. Ba-dum-bump. Among foragers, are men really the hunters, almost always? Of course they are: men have much greater upper body strength. Spears and arrows don’t launch themselves.

it is possible to argue against a too-simple version of that narrative. For example, in populations of European descent – the ones we’ve looked at – the rate of false paternity is low, around 1-2%, and has been for centuries. It is not the case that many women have children by alphas and trick betas into paying the bills.

Another approach would be looking at brains, trying to identify sex differences (or the lack of them) in brain structure. If men’s and women’s brains were indistinguishable, surely men and women be couldn’t be psychologically different. But that notion is a bit treacherous, since it assumes that we can detect all functionally relevant differences in the brain. We can’t – certainly not in living subjects, but not even in studies after death. How do you detect memories? Can we see the differences in the brains of border collies that make them want to herd sheep? Not yet. Fine discusses some work by Daphna Joel, a behavioral neuroscientist at Tel Aviv University. Joel thinks that there really aren’t differences between male and female brains. Oddly enough, other people, like Larry Cahill, can reliably identify a brain’s sex: no single currently measured feature is definitive (other than presence of a Y-chromosome) , but statistical approaches exist that can make that distinction almost perfectly. Women’s brains are smaller (even after adjusting for body weight), connectivity patterns are different, white/grey matter percentages differ, gene expression patterns in the brain are different, etc., etc. Daphna Joel is a bad source: she sees what she wants to see, and disregards the rest. Psychology seems to have a bad case of that, which is why we’re hearing about the “replication crisis”. Michael Inzslicht, a dealer in stereotype threat and ego depletion [and unicorns] , said ” As I said, I’m in a dark place. I feel like the ground is moving from underneath me and I no longer know what is real and what is not.”

The incidence of mental illness is not the same in the two sexes: dyslexia and autism are much more common in males, depression more common in females. Sex differences in brain structure ( could be differences in gross anatomy or down at the molecular level) must be responsible for these differences in disease incidence.


In talking about the effects of testosterone, Fine mention a kind of cichlid fish where dominance influences gonadal events – causation ( in part) goes from behavior to hormones, instead of hormones to behavior. Interesting. But is there evidence of a similar pattern in humans? No. Are humans so evolutionarily close to fish – in particular, cichlid fish – that any pattern we see in cichlids is an immediate heads-up, something that might be happening in humans? Christ no. Then what’s the God-damn point? If we’re talking logic and inference, there is none: Fine seems to think that random unconnected facts are just fine for confusing her audience, and of course she’s right about that. Or, more charitably and probably more accurately, they’re good at confusing her. Makes me miss ye olde-fashioned steel-making, pistol-packing, Cheka-loving Commies: one of them could write an entire book explaining how humans are really vernalized naked mole rats while still sounding intelligent.

If, in this book, Fine had at some point conducted a sharp analysis and found the hidden causal pattern in a web of data, or had a sound mathematical model that answered the key question, or even casually tossed off a few accurate thoughts about the central limit theorem or Simpson’s paradox, I’d have to think that she was a bad person – dishonest. I see no sign of that.

At the end of her book, Fine says that we’re all for sex equality. I can think of at least a billion exceptions to that statement – but let me say this: I’m for what works. Listening to Cordelia Fine is not going to make things work better.
----------
Stop the presses. Chateau Heartiste is commenting on the same Greg Cochran post here [link]. I've extracted the quote in the last quibcag from his commentary. Now, the illustration on that quibcag may confuse those of you who are not familiar with Ranma ½ (らんま½). Pictured is Ranma-chan, who is the female version of Ranma. Ranma fell into a cursed Chinese spring once, and since then turns into a girl whenever he's splashed with cold water. He turns back into a boy with the application of hot water. Now, in the picture, Ranma-chan is making a martial arts move, and she is a total master of martial arts. However, Ranma her/himself acknowledges that boy Ranma is a better martial artist than girl Ranma. It's just that bundle of physiological differences. This demonstrates that males are intrinsically better at combat than females, even if the female is the same person, transformed magically from a male. By the way, this is one of my two favorite animes — Ranma ½ (らんま½) and Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン). I recommend them both to you.
----------
Quibcag: Illustration by diami-mi. The second one is an old Johnny Quest still. Number three is Pepe and I don't know where the girl came from. Fourth is illustrated by Mori Ran of Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ). Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン). Fifth is illustrated, mostly, by our own Baloo. The sixth I found on the net, and the seventh is illustrated by Princess Mononoke (Japaneseもののけ姫 HepburnMononoke-hime, "Spirit/Monster Princess").  The eighth is Sensei, from Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"). And the final one is illustrated by Ranma of Ranma ½ (らんま½). More about that in the body of the post.

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Good Fences, etc.

One point I've tried to make here in many different ways is that once we advanced past tribal organization, the optimum system for human beings is a system of nations. Individuals are too weak to defend themselves against coalitions. Tribes are too weak to defend themselves against coalitions of tribes, i. e., nations. And nations alone are powerful enough to defend their constituent individuals from empires or, perish the thought, world government, whatever it calls itself — "globalism" is popular right now.

You can't be a citizen of the world, any more than you can be everybody's spouse. Divided loyalties aren't loyalties at all.

Stuart Schneiderman [link] has this to say about it:

Nationalists vs. Internationalists


Somehow or other we have been lulled into thinking that we must all become idealists and that our idealism should trump our patriotism.

We have been told, by thinkers on the left and right, that America is an idea and that belief in this idea is essential to becoming a citizen. I have variously offered my view that a nation is not an idea. A nation has borders and it has citizens. Some people belong. Others do not. Belonging has to mean something more than sharing a state of mind or believing in a bunch of dogmas. You cannot belong a nation while identifying yourself as a citizen of the world.

In two columns George Friedman—the only Friedman worth reading these days—has used slightly different terms. By his lights liberal democracy cannot exist outside of a defined nation. But, he does not see liberal democracy as an ideal. He sees it correctly as a set of practices. Historically, liberal democracies replaced monarchies. They could not have done so, Friedman argues, without a strong sense of nationalism, that is a sense of belonging to a nation.

Read the rest here:
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2017/03/nationalists-vs-internationalists.html

And Chateau Heartiste [link] says that when you eliminate borders, you get more borders, because it's a human thing. 

Dear Sh*tlibs, A Hall Monitor Is A Border Monitor On A
Smaller Scale

Recall a CH maxim about national borders: If you dissolve a nation’s borders, a million smaller borders
will take its place.
See, for example, any 7-Eleven check-out bulletproof plexiglass.
Borders are a feature of human nature. We want them, and if one disappears, another must rise. It’s the Law of Conservation of Border Control. We have a national border, or we have a lot of gated communities. Either way, borders win.
Which brings me to a tragicomic sidebar to that Rockville Rapefugees horror story. From the world’s newspaper of record, the Daily Mail,
Gboyinde Onijala, a spokeswoman for the Montgomery County Public Schools, said that staff at Rockville High will increase monitoring of the bathrooms.
First……Gboyinde Onijala.
Gboyinde Onijala.
In Rockville, Maryland, USA.
😂😂😂🤔
Second, the bathroom monitoring. Libs really love monitoring. Hall monitors, bathroom monitors….this is how sh*tlibs ensure a “safe school environment” without really doing a goddamned thing. Hey, libs, here’s a thought: how about monitoring your nation’s border so that you don’t have to creepily monitor your schools’ bathrooms for potential kidnappings and rapes by Squatemalan enrichment?
The lesson for libs is this: you can virtue signal to your black hearts’ content about open borders to the trash world, but if you eradicate national borders all you’re doing is creating pressure to move those borders inland and multiply them to protect your local fiefdoms. Think on it.
------------
Bathroom monitoring. Ah, yes. When traditional limits like borders and basic morality are sneeringly cast aside, they end up being replaced by bathroom monitoring and rigid rules of political correctness. And speaking of the Rockville atrocity, where are the feminists on this one? AWOL, that's where they are. Now, if a Black prostitute had accused a White frat boy, the feminists would be rioting in the streets. A 14-year-old White girl raped by Central American illegals, not so much, because that doesn't really jibe with the modern feminist narrative.
----------
Quibcags:  The first is illustrated by Hatsune Miku 初音ミク), sometimes referred to as Miku Hatsune., and the second by —I think her name is Yui — from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) .

Friday, March 17, 2017

Hot-Headed Bob Newhart

Many years ago, in an episode of Bob Newhart's Vermont show, several of the townspeople kept referring to Bob as "hot-headed." This was extraordinarily ludicrous, as it's hard to imagine a person less hot-headed than Bob Newhart in any of his incarnations. But that was for comedy and it was all in fun.

Right now we're going through a similar phenomenon with much less benign intentions and results. Trump is constantly being accused of things in much the same way. At the top of the list is the notion that he's "stupid." Leaving aside the impossibility of a stupid person accumulating that much money, you have to remember that for several decades now, the Democrats/liberals have called all Republicans stupid, especially Republican Presidents and Presidential candidates. It's just what they do. The last one they couldn't bring themselves to call stupid was Nixon, because he was so obviously intelligent that they had to settle for "unhip" instead. Meanwhile, of course, they've praised such mediocrities as Hillary, Biden, and Obama for their magnificent intellects.

Another accusation is "thin-skinned," which is absurd. He'd be a basket case by now if he were thin-skinned. The last time we had a President so hated and reviled by such a large group of people we had a civil war over it. And, frankly, Lincoln had a lot of it coming.

And we also have the constant cries that he'll get us into a war. Well, no. He's made it clear that he'd much rather cooperate with the Russians than fight with them, in contrast to war-mongering psychos like Hillary and McCain. The latter is right now trying to get us into a war with Russia over Montenegro [link].

Has anybody called him "lazy" yet? Just wait.

Finally, here's an interesting comparison with an earlier President:

Is Donald Trump a Jacksonian?

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Populism at the expense of liberty is no populism at all.

Guest post by Kuma Gogatsu:

One of the worst aspects of Socialism is the notion that we can take away free speech and thereby somehow make things better.

This has been tried again and again, particularly egregiously in Europe these days. The best example of this is Sweden. Tim Pool does a bang-up job talking about this after his visit to Sweden recently. There's plenty of information out there about him and plenty of journalistic hit pieces written about it.

The tl;dr verison of Tim Pool is very simple. Paul Joseph Watson challenged journalists to go to Sweden to prove or disprove Donald Trump's comments about the horrible things happening there and Tim Pool stepped up to the plate. Other journalists were referring to what Donald Trump said as 'fake news' and insisted that he not go to Sweden. Tim Pool was baffled by the notion of journalists being discouraged to disprove a story through facts. He went. The conclusion?

Donald Trump was right.

Full video HERE of Paul Joeph Watson interview with Tim Pool afterwards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkxA4BliUwM


If you don't have time to watch the video, the biggest takeaway for me was one simple thing that happens in Sweden that is part of Socialism with a capital S. If you post something inflammatory on Facebook, the government doesn't try to find you. No. The journalists, the newspapers, the media try to find you and get your face on camera. After that point, they make sure the government knows about your hate speech and you face up to two years in prison for it. Sometimes more, if you give too much evidence.

Now, someone might argue that Swedish prisons are so luxurious. That's a terrible argument when your rights are nonexistant. That's a terrible argument when you have mouths to feed and suddenly you're yanked from your job because you spoke out about wanting to protect your family. That's a terrible argument when every other form of Socialism ever practiced didn't actually have utopian luxurious prisons.

Beneath the surface of every notion of wonderful Scandanavian allure lurks the reminder that a viking wouldn't put up with any of this shit for two seconds. Nor would a Christian knight.

Modern Communists and Socialists have this notion of policing speech too. They think that it'll make things oh so much better by policing it, controlling it, advocating for it. There is this notion that privilege and identity politics has something to do with why we should be policing it because those voices are silenced.

We currently live in a nation where the nephew of a prominent rapper belonging to a minority group is able to tweet about pimping out the President's wife and get away with no criminal charges. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7COPGqVAAA4NDz.jpg
Thankfully, we also currently live in a nation where everyone can criticize a man who runs for public office repeatedly but we can't criminally charge him for the words that he says while he's running for President. Or even before he ran for President. Unlike France. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/20/marine-le-pen-trial-charged-anti-muslims-hate-speech

This is exactly why Communism and Socialism are bad. Populism at the expense of liberty is no populism at all.
-------------

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

MIddlebury — Mao would be proud

No, the leftist thugs at Berkeley and Middlebury, etc., aren't "acting like fascists." What they are doing is asking for fascists to materialize and set them straight. Fascists, you see, didn't go around shutting down freedom of speech with violence. Fascists showed up to fight leftists who were shutting down freedom of speech. It's only a matter of time, snowflakes, until by your behavior you bring into existence your right-wing counterparts, so to speak, who will send you to the hospital.

As for your charming shouts of "Hitler" at anybody and everybody who disapproves of your destructive agenda, remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? Maybe you jerks should stop crying "Hitler" before it's too late. But I hope you keep doing it until it's too late.

Anyhow, for those of us on the Real Right, your Hitler accusations have real utility, because you're helping us by pointing out who of our group is being the most effective at opposing you, by calling him "Hitler." Then we know who our best spokesmen are.

Greg Cochran reacts to Middlebury here [link].

SBPDL, in a slightly different take, says this [link]:


Charles Murray Attacked at Middlebury College by Anti-Mob White because he Failed to Mention 'Hidden Figures' Black Heroines in his book on Apollo Program

Before Charles Murray wrote The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, he wrote Apollo: The Race to the Moon

Curiously, Katherine Johnson nor any of the black women featured in Hidden Figures were mentioned in Murray's book. 

This is far, far more racist and egregious than writing anything about race, hereditary, and genetics in The Bell Curve

Thus, the underlying reason for the attacks on Murray at Middlebury College all revolve around his failing to note in his book on NASA and the Apollo program that it was actually black women who were responsible for every gain we made in the race to the moon. [Middlebury Professor Assaulted, Injured While Escorting Conservative Speaker, ZeroHedge.com, 3-3-17]:

Keep reading here: [link].

Vox day's [link] reaction is here:

SJW thugs injure professor

Violent anti-speech SJWs attack Charles Murray and Middlebury College professor: 
Middlebury College Professor Allison Stanger was injured by protesters Thursday evening as she was escorting a controversial speaker from campus. She was treated at Porter Hospital and released.

Charles Murray, a political scientist who has been criticized for his views on race and intelligence, was invited to speak on campus by a student group. He was greeted late Thursday afternoon outside McCullough Student Center by hundreds of protesters, and inside Wilson Hall, students turned their backs to him when he got up to speak.

College officials led Murray to another location and a closed circuit broadcast showed him being interviewed by Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics.

As Stanger, Murray and a college administrator left McCullough Student Center last evening following the event, they were “physically and violently confronted by a group of protestors,” according to Bill Burger, the college’s vice president for communications and marketing

Burger said college public safety officers managed to get Stanger and Murray into the administrator’s car.

“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus.
This almost makes me want to do a college speech tour, accompanied by dozens of armed, trained VFM. The Right needs to stop playing victim and start imposing its will. Remember, if they're not calling you Hitler, you're not even trying.
------------
Quibcags: #1 illustrated by a girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  and the other two by random illustrations I found on the net.

Friday, March 10, 2017

The Feminization of Everything

Not all that much of an exaggeration. You could say it started, or took a big jump, with the enfranchisement of women — the great accomplishment of the suffragettes. I had a blog post the other day on the problem of male v. female rule [link], with the conclusion that, bad as it may be, male rule is vastly superior to female rule. Males, you see, evolved from many, many generations of hunters, and they had to establish a hierarchy to make hunting work. And so evolution selected males for their ability to form hierarchies and function within them. Hierarchies of males, adult males, so males concentrate on rights that other males must respect and duties that are owed to  others. But females evolved to administer families — children and other, younger females. And administer them in all respect, from teaching them to walk and talk to running their hygiene. A quite different skill set than the hunters'. Women, then, are concerned about caring and self-esteem and other things that are quite necessary at the family/children level, but which are toxic obsessions at the sociopolitical level.  So a feminized politics is a degenerate politics that is self-destructive and not long for this world, because it'll be replaced by masculine politics. That's what's happening in Europe, you know. The nice ladies and feminized men who run many of the countries there — Germany and Scandinavia most prominently — are arranging for their own replacement by ultra-male barbarians from the Muslim and African world.

And speaking of that, caring is a female thing, and when did we first hear about politicians and whether they cared or not about one thing or another? It seems to me that it got started in a big way with Bill Clinton, who cared and cared and felt our pain. And he's a great example of the feminized male, who is either outrageously promiscuous or psychologically castrated. One guess which one Bill is. The male equivalent if "caring" is "doing one's duty" or "doing one's job." Trump is accused of not caring, which is fine with me, as long as he does the duty/job thing. A President could care like mad and do a lousy job, which seems to be okay with a certain type of woman. And "caring" is so important to women/feminized men that they care about anything, including stray cats and useless, malignant immigrants. If you don't want Tsarnaevs and Farooks, they accuse you of not caring. And when the immigrants kill some people, the care-ers are off letting some more in and don't want to hear about it.

And TV commercials. I saw two in a row the other day about how goddam dumb White heterosexual males are. One was that cutesy insurance commercial where the little girl sets her stupid dad straight using an adult male Negro's voice — don't buy any insurance from that outfit. And the other was still another insurance commercial where the smart woman rakes her stupid White male heterosexual husband over the coals for having said that men drive better than women. Feminized commercials in the worst sense.

Finally, restaurants are getting feminized. Where we used to have nice waitresses, we now have metrosexual waiters describing the patty melt. Not for male diners, for the most part, but for female ones. And what's on the menu? Sweet tea, for crying out loud. Tea was meant to be bitter. Is it the female sweet tooth that's driving this? And I got a salad the other day with cranberries on it, of all things? Another thing that's not meant to be sweet is a salad. Might as well pour powdered sugar all over it. And when you ask for a cup of plain coffee at Starbucks, they look at you like you're some kind of troglodyte. Don't you want some syrup in it? Some goddam herb from Guatemala? M&M's?

I'll go lie down now.
---------------
Quibcag: Illustrated by the gang from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), in drag.