Smart and SeXy

smart and sexy cover smaller

[This post is stickied on the main page. For the most recent post please scroll down]

Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary origins and biological underpinnings of cognitive differences between the sexes

The soft cover edition is available from Arktos media and Amazon. If you are on a budget you can also download it for kindle. Kindle unlimited subscribers can read it for free! You can read the review here.

This is probably the most heretical work I have ever or will ever put to writing personally, and probably one of the most heretical things from the perspective of progressives, feminists and any other member of the cathedral available anywhere. If you want a no-nonsense (i.e., no feminism) description of sex differences, then you will probably enjoy the information contained within. If you have questions about what exactly the gender differences in intelligence are, by what fairly exact biological mechanisms they come about, and what potential evolutionary narratives explain what we observe, then this is the book for you. After reading this book you will not only know the current patterns of sex differences in intelligence as shown by psychometric tests, but why and how the underlying biology explains the patterns we observe. At the heart of the differences is both genetic and hormonal elements which work in concert to generate what we see on an every day basis. It has taken years of work (since 2011) and hundreds of hours invested in reading hundreds of dry academic papers to compile the more than 300 sources included, but I did so you can have the evidence all in one place and explained in lay terms. And perhaps most importantly, to have the evidence for gender differences in intelligence without muddying the waters with the foul taint of feminism.

At the heart of The Red Pill and the Dark Enlightenment, when thinking about women, is a kernal which grows to support everything else; all the theory on game, marriage, etc. All higher level knowledge is dependent on it. The fundamental concept, or more accurately the anti-concept, is the rejection of Equality. Egalitarianism just isn’t so. Men and women aren’t equal and they aren’t the same. Knowing they are not equal allows correct understanding of the world and relationships from successful one night stands to successful marriages. The entirety of the manosphere and red pill are dependent on this insight. The Dark Enlightenment is also dependent on this insight, but they expand it to include not only sex differences but ethnic differences as well.

Having that level of dependence on that initial small kernal can present a problem when it isn’t sufficiently supported by evidence. Though there is this and that study which suggests in a minor way that gender equality is false, it is my view that such information as bolsters the rejection of egalitarianism when it comes to men and women is lacking sufficient centralization within the manosphere and neoreactionary community. There may be thousands of individual blog posts on the topic, but mostly each one only addresses a small part of the big picture and getting the entirety of the picture from these diffused writings can be more difficult than it needs to be. The known facts are sufficiently dispersed, unorganized, and lacking in coherence that it makes the kernal a source of vulnerability to criticism from the outside. It is, as it were, a chink in our armor that needs to be addressed.

You might think “there is plenty of evidence.” Sure, there is. But, in all honesty, do we (the community more than geneticists) REALLY understand the mechanism? How exactly, at the molecular level, does inequality between men and women come about? It is an important question, and until it is answered so rigorously and thoroughly that it can’t be denied this will always be a vulnerability in our position. This is why I wrote this book. It is meant to be the titanium plate to cover our chink in the armor. This book coheres the currently available data into a single place and a single narrative that is relatively easy to access and difficult to refute. Moreover, and unlike most feminist theories, it presents a testable hypothesis. The genetic explanation for sex differences in intelligence I propose is something that biologists and geneticists can design experiments to test in order to prove or disprove. By making this hypothesis known to the mainstream it forces scientists to directly test the hypothesis. At least that is my hope. Prior evidence suggests what the result of such testing will be.

Another point of this book is to attempt to put to rest once and for all the idea that disparities in achievement between men and women have a chiefly cultural origin; they don’t. The differences between men and women are almost exclusively due to biology. Once society accepts that women aren’t going to ever achieve at the same rate as men, we can stop wasting time and resources promoting women, via affirmative action, into positions and occupations they are not suited for; thus saving a lot of effort and wealth that is currently getting wasted. We might also be able to get the birthrate back up to a more stable level and thus avoid demographic problems.

Lastly, to a certain extent it is meant to be a handbook for those who might be faced with deliberation on the topic and who need to quickly reference one type of study or another to demonstrate biological reality. I have made herculean efforts to make this as readable as possible and I believe I have done a good job with this, but I have placed greater emphasis on including as much relevant information with proper citations to credible journals as possible. I wanted to give people knowledge of which studies they need to cite for their particular argument or discussion in one convenient and accessible place.

Who to thank?

I owe some twisted gratitude to progressive academics who through their push to shun and silence me in the name of political correctness gave me the motivation I needed to write this book contrary to their culturally Marxist fantasies. On multiple occasions I have been personally screwed over by people holding that ideology because I was so audacious as to merely mention I had read The Bell Curve and found the points within to be worth consideration. I didn’t even claim to agree with it, just that it is a hypothesis which needs to be taken seriously. That is, I was trying to be an objective biologist which is what scientists are supposed to do. What we are trained to do in fact. There were also several situations (probably more actually) where similar points, but about gender instead of race, met with pretty much the same result. Though it didn’t end up mattering very much, I was rejected from one graduate school because the chairman of the department found out I had a conversation with another professor about the bell curve (that professor actually brought the topic up!). That chairman then projected onto me an argument he had with his daughter’s teacher where apparently the teacher said or believed something sexist. The bell curve only briefly talks about gender differences (a couple pages out of 849)…  What the teacher actually did was never very clearly explained. This guy was mad, and it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said to him, and I got a nice rejection because of it. So ya, I got really pissed, and not for the first or last time. A string of situations just like this created a great resentment within me, which I am sure is quite true of many other people given the swelling of the red pill, the dark enlightenment and other internet phenomena. These prig prog “scientists” were being complete a**%^$!s about hypotheses which cover perfectly valid scientific questions, and which as I show in the book have a great deal of empirical support. If it hadn’t been for my naive faith in actual objectivity in science, and the subsequent confrontation with the progressive faith that actually exists in science that resulted, I almost certainly never would have cared enough to do any of this work. I may never have cared enough to find neoreaction. Yet those things did happen, and now neoreaction, the alt-right and the red pill have something available that they can use against left-wing creationists, should they desire to use it.

Confrontations like these have made me, and many others, heavily motivated to discredit feminism because their beliefs don’t match the facts and they witch hunt anyone and everyone who points that out. The best way to do that is with hard data and if I didn’t do it, I feared nothing else so comprehensive would have come out for years. Or if it did, it would be hidden in esoteric academic texts in obscure journals and even then it would be dressed in evasive and overly-qualified language. In fact, I would argue that there has been more than enough data available to discredit feminism for a very long time but paywalls for publicly funded research (don’t get me started on that) and a wide dispersion of everything relevant with substantial credibility has made it difficult to pull everything together. There are many, many papers which touch on the subject but none that I have been able to locate that brings it all together. And they definitely don’t come close to calling out progressives. Most try to appease the leftist mobs. To do this right takes an outsider, and it takes someone with an audience. I have a marginal audience, but the biggest help with spreading the information lies with my ties to the other neoreactionaries who have a much larger following. Likely, it will spread to the manosphere blogs due to the porous nature of the divide between neoreaction and that community. Or not, only time will tell.

Blog vs. book

There are a number of bloggers who write for years then decide after the fact to convert their posts into a book. In my case, I actually went the other direction. I had already had this book in progress for several years prior to starting this blog in 2014. A number of posts on this blog (not all) were either direct offshoots from work on this project or were indirectly inspired by my work on the book and later integrated as they were highly relevant to points I was making. Some changed little, while others changed significantly in the move. For the most part, my posts are shortened versions of what appears in the book and have less evidence, citations, and topics as a result of needing to make them stand alone away from the rest of the text. However, the most important part of the book, in my mind, is the large numbers of studies collected together from a wide variety of fields and which constitute the evidence for the biological origins of sexual dimorphism in intelligence. This includes both IQ test studies and the impact of the genetics and hormones on the brain and intelligence. This evidence is exclusive to the book. If you would like a taste of the content of the book before deciding whether or not you want it, I recommend you take a look at the following posts:

Career women are dysgenic

How standardized testing undervalues men

stereotype threat and pseudo-scientists.

Share Button

Smart and SeXy reviews

Smart and Sexy has been out for a few months and some reviews are starting to trickle in. Most have been positive so far, which I find encouraging. One reviewer even sent me some private messages about writing a book after reading it, which I discussed here. In this post I wanted to share a few of the reviews that have come in on Amazon. First we will start with the user I talked with in the previous post. On Amazon UK, he left the following review:

Excellent book. Takes the time to explain genetics terms that one has heard but never fully understood. Provides a wealth of evidence to support his position. Details the manner by which swathes of academic experts knowing or unknowingly espouse positions that are easily falsifiable. Describes in a rational and empirical voice the differences which exist between the human sexes that the ancients and our recent ancestors knew which have been increasingly obfuscated and hidden since the end of the second world war.

Difficult to think of any criticism of the book. The title is perhaps too clever for its own good, it does not explain what the book is about very clearly for a random person browsing books, although given how controversial the contents are perhaps that was the intention.

6/5, a fantastic work.

A nice review. As far as the title goes, I am guilty as charged. The title is most definitely appropriate given the content. Intelligence and sex are very inter-related for evolutionary reasons which I discuss. Unfortunately, I now realize, most things with that title are either romance novels (female version of porn) or bras. It may cause some confusion when people only see the cover or title. Oh well, I am not going to worry too hard about that. Still, it is kind of funny.

Here is another amazon review:

Perhaps the greatest book ever written by a man. If Mr. Kaine started a religion, I’d be it’s first member. Like the previous reviewer said, you either need a bit of an understanding of introductory chemistry/genetics or are willing to learn. He does a decent job explaining many of the concepts. I initially planned on selling the book to someone I knew once I was done reading it, but being that it’s filled with so much profoundness, I must hang onto it with dear life.

Thank you Roderick Kaine for making my train ride to work a pleasure every day.

This is definitely a glowing review, but also an exaggeration. While I like to think it is good, “the best” strikes me as a little over the top. Not least because it is merely a very detailed explanation of what everyone already knew 100 years ago, except that it is also supported by modern research and evolutionary understandings. A large part of why it is important is the culture it was published into. That is, a culture full of a multitude of lies and delusions about gender. Also, the part about the religion is interesting. Never really thought about doing that, and certainly wasn’t trying for it in this book. Now that he mentions it, though, it is true that cult leaders get the chestiest choicest of their female followers….

On the same page there is another, more down to earth, review:

Basically, it is what it says it is. It talks about the differences in smarts between men and women. It explains what they are and what causes them and has plenty of citations. I learned a lot of things I didn’t know before, and won’t be taking complaints about “wage gaps” very seriously anymore. In fact, one of the more interesting parts of the book was where he talked about the gender differences in tax payments vs. government benefits. Women, apparently, pay far fewer taxes while accepting far more benefits from the government than men. A double whammy. Perhaps we should start talking about the “tax gap” or the “benefit gap” whenever people start complaining about that bogus 75 cents to the dollar statistic.

The biggest problem with this book, if you can call it that, is that it is very information dense which can make it a tough read at times if you don’t have any background in this stuff. But I guess that is the point and it is good to know you get your money’s worth.

As this user notes, I talk about more than just intelligence differences; I also talked about the real world effects that are caused by them. In this case, intelligence has a large impact on earning potential. Usually, having a higher intelligence increases income and since most of top 5% is male, most of the top earners are male as well. When this fact combines with high-tax welfare states, you get a lot of gender disparity favoring females in terms of taxes paid and benefits received. I heavily cite the recent research that focused on New Zealand for this section, but I also tried to demonstrate similarities of the Kiwi situation to other western countries; as much as was permitted by the data I could find. Spoiler: The US has the exact same pattern, it is just harder to find because almost no one comes out and says it directly (except me).

The last and longest Amazon review I want to include is from the German language site. Unfortunately, I do not speak German so I have to rely on google translate and that leaves a lot to be desired. Overall it seems pretty positive. If anyone would like to provide a better translation in the comments, I would appreciate it. [EDIT a reader emailed me with their own translation which is somewhat better, I have replaced the google translation with this one. I appreciate that reader who wishes to remain anonymous]

Roderick Kaine has a solid scientific training and keeps pace with the times. His book is another milestone with the intent to combat decadent outgrowths of our society using scientific facts. A major problem is the current problematic role of women that expresses itself in feminization of society, declining birth rates and Gender Mainstreaming.

Kaine has written a book that explores the nature of women. Women are analyzed biologically in all respects and compared to men. The result is significant differences that has [sic] , with regards to an exaggerated equalization, negative consequences for everyone involved.

Whoever manages to read, after a well-written introduction and brief outline of the topic, the following 60 pages containing a sophisticated biological (genetic) analysis, will be amply rewarded. The facts and hypotheses presented by Kaine are fulminant in every respect.

They concern the differences in intelligence and performance, the consequences of equalization, the consequences for our survival and many other issues.
Women and men are much more different than one might believe. They complement each other perfectly if they play the roles designed for them by nature: Men care for supply, women for offspring. With regard to this, there are only to possibilities: Either we live according to these roles or we die.

Who has never asked why women are underrepresented in the natural sciences, why 40% of women in academia never have children, why there are more stupid men than women and why women earn less? These questions and others are answered solidly by Kaine.

The book consists of rougly 250 pages which contain many scientific remarks. The last two thirds of the book are especially readable and thrilling. This book is a classic and an armoury at the same time.

Share Button

New comments policy

When I first started this blog, I had a lot of issues with spam comments. As part of handling that, I made it so that comments from new users had to be approved before appearing. After the first comment was approved, if they used the same credentials, they could post and automatically have the comment appear.

Since then, I have installed some plugins that better handle spam and it catches pretty much all of it now. I feel pretty safe by just allowing comments to appear without approval because it shouldn’t result in 100s of spam comments now. So, until circumstances change, all legitimate comments should automatically appear.

Share Button

Race Hustlers on Reddit are spreading misinformation on /r/”science” again


/r/science on reddit is having a race hustler thread where cathedral academics are telling everyone the same tired nonsense that differences in outcomes between groups are caused by SES and discrimination by white men. I decided it would be valuable to post an excerpt from my book which discusses the left wing bias in academia because there is a lot of it and I don’t think these people should get a free pass on spreading misinformation like this. If you have a reddit account, I think it would be a good idea to go in and counter these false claims. There is plenty of evidence that IQ differences have genetic causes, and that thread should be littered with links to it.

Since the probability that my comments will be removed is high, I decided to make a copy of them here [edit: I checked and as expected the comments are already removed. Check out this site which saves all the removed comments. Notice a pattern? Edit2: Apparently this thread was made because high level progressives in science journals or media demanded it in order for the sub to have advance access to new announcements of interesting research. In other words, spread our ideology and we will give you insider access and other perks.]:


IQ is the single best studied and understood psychological trait. It has been studied for over 100 years and has consistently found that the black/white IQ gap on average is about 15 points. It has also found that the male distribution is significantly more variable than the female curve. What this means is that among the smartest people, those most likely to do well in science, the population is about 2 males for every 1 female. Intelligence level has been shown to be mostly determined by genetics. You can see a large compilation of studies and findings which demonstrate how strongly genetic intelligence and other traits are here. These innate IQ differences explain the differences in outcomes of different populations of humans without needing to resort to unfalsifiable and unscientific concepts like “white privilege” or bias.

I gave you enough links above to start on this. Instead of repeating this easily findable information, I am going to talk about the progressive/far left wing bias that exists in academia. This bias seriously undermines the credibility of race and gender hustlers who try to use credentialism to support untrue opinions about white/male privilege. For an independent opinion, see the website of liberal social psychologist Jonathon Haidt where he and others admit to and discuss the problems caused by this progressive bias.

I wrote a book on gender differences in intelligence called smart and sexy, and it cites hundreds of studies which together confirm and explain why gender differences in outcomes exist and that they are mostly biological in origin. You can find a wealth of data in there for biological mechanisms. However, I also took the time to analyze the current state of academia and what I found was extremely troubling. Below is an excerpt of a section of that book. Remember that the focus of the book is on gender, but this left-wing bias also applies to claims about race.  Citations for all my claims will be at the end.

Saying that the academic community has a large progressive bias is a very strong claim and such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. So what is known about the “scientists” who publish “research” in politically charged areas? Diederick Stapel was previously a highly regarded and influential Dutch social psychologist who did a lot of work on stereotype threat until it came to light that he “routinely falsified data and made up entire experiments.” Another example of his politically biased work was a “scientific” article which sanctimoniously claimed to find that meat eaters were more selfish and less agreeable than vegans. Unfortunately, it is impossible to be surprised by outspoken priggishness from vegans and their sympathizers.

Thanks to this media attention, Stapel is now the most notorious charlatan in the field of social psychology, which is saying a lot for what appears to be a regularly fraudulent and pseudo-scientific discipline. Social Psychologists as a group do not make the data they collect available for outside review 2/3rds of the time. This stinginess with data is actually against the ethical rules established by social psychologists themselves and suggests that there are likely many more Stapels out there who simply haven’t been caught. A survey by the Harvard business school found that 70% of social psychologists admitted to cutting corners in reporting data, 30% reporting unexpected findings as if they were expected from the start, and 1% admitted to falsifying data.

Another meta-analysis of papers published in high-tier psychology journals found that 50% of papers surveyed contained at least one statistical error and 15% contained an error so severe that the conclusion drawn would have had to have been reversed.i, ii A meta-analysis which looked at whether or not positive results from stereotype threat studies could be replicated found that almost half could not, and that a further 25% were confounded by methodological issues.iii Methodological issues, especially in determining statistical validity, have even been used by one Social Psychologist to publish in a major, respected journal that he had proven the existence of psychic ability. His finding used standard statistical practices in psychology and resulted in heavy criticism by professional statisticians of both the specific paper and the psychology community generally.iv

This high publicity criticism led to a fair degree of soul searching among the psychological community and led some researchers to undertake the task of evaluating how widespread these problems are. One analysis reviewed articles from the last 100 years in the top 100 journals based on the impact factor; a measure of the level of influence a paper or journal has on the field. It found that in that time, for the highest impact journals, only 1% of all research findings in psychology had ever been replicated. Of that 1%, only 14% were in fact direct replications. The rest tested similar hypotheses under different conditions. However, successful replications themselves have to be received critically. Half of the 1% of replications had authors from the original study; this is troubling because the presence of the previous author greatly impacts the chance of positive replication and implies bias might be playing a role. 92% of replication studies with an author from the original paper confirm the original result, while only 65% of replications by independent researchers confirm the original finding.v

Problematic methodology isn’t the only issue in psychology. Ideological bias is rampant in the humanities generally, but especially in social psychology; both among individual researchers and among the journals publishing papers. Beyond the lack of objective critical evaluation of papers, the field itself is essentially an ideological and political echo-chamber that is considerably more left-wing politically than the general population. 80% of social psychologists identify as liberal, while only 3 out of 1000 identify as conservative. Contrast this with the general population which is 40% conservative and only 20% liberal; the remainder being moderate or apolitical. Looking through all social sciences, the ratio of liberals to conservatives varies from 8:1 to Were these sorts of numbers occurring with an ideologically designated protected class, these same social psychologists would be the first to use it as incontrovertible proof of discrimination.vii, viii

Considering what is now known about the biological origins of cognition and intelligence (discussed in more detail in future sections), it is generally difficult to take claims of discrimination seriously when underrepresented groups also display relatively lower intelligence profiles. However, in this case there is no reason to think that conservatives as a group have an intellectual profile below the general population. Social conservatives tend to be a little lower in intelligence relative to liberals, but free-market conservatives (libertarians) tend to be smarter than liberals. Being very partisan, either liberal or conservative, tends to be associated with high IQ as well.ix Increased income levels, which are a proxy for IQ, also moves people right ideologically.x In other words, there is nothing that biologically determined intelligence can do to explain the lack of conservatives, and even moderates, in the humanities.xi

In a survey of social psychologists, it was found that conservative respondents feared negative consequences from revealing their political affiliation and that they were right to do so as liberal respondents expressed willingness to discriminate against conservatives in approving papers, grant proposals, and hiring decisions.xii The more liberal a social psychologist is or the more consequential the decision would be for the conservative, the more willing liberal social psychologists are to discriminate.

The temptation . . . to advance a political agenda is too often indulged in sociology, especially by activist faculty in certain fields, like marriage, family, sex, and gender . . . Research programs that advance narrow agendas compatible with particular ideologies are privileged . . . the influence of progressive orthodoxy in sociology is evident in decisions made by graduate students, junior faculty, and even senior faculty about what, why, and how to research, publish, and teach . . . The result is predictable: Play it politically safe, avoid controversial questions, publish the right conclusions…

[Compared to conservative sociologists] Politically-correct sociologists enjoy certain privileges in a very politically conscious and liberal discipline. They can, for example, “paint caricature-like pictures based on the most extreme and irrational beliefs of those who differ from them ideologically without feeling any penalty for doing so,” and “can systematically misinterpret, misrepresent, or ignore research in such a manner as to sustain [their] political views and be confident that such misinterpretations . . . are unlikely to be recognized by [their] colleagues” [Social science researchers believe] “that social science should be an instrument for social change and thus should promote the ‘correct’ values and ideological positions”vi

With this sort of cultural climate, exploring gender differences, or even just acknowledging that such differences exist is extremely difficult for professional scientists to do today. The pattern of ideologically driven academics significantly undermines the ability of an objective outsider to trust the conclusions coming out of certain fields, especially when it is related to such a politically charged subject as gender (and race) differences in test scores. It is quite clear that the overwhelming majority of researchers working on this topic possess a politically desired outcome of these studies. The great potential for this systemic Lysenkoism to motivate the production of inaccurate results and interpretations contrary to reality can’t be overestimated. The objectivity of the field in concluding stereotype threat is a real and large effect phenomenon in particular is highly questionable.

Calling cynical skepticism of the social sciences “anti-intellectual,” a common criticism directed towards conservative thinkers, is only so in the sense that these “scientists” have misdefined the word “intellectual” to describe their political ideology and therefore themselves. It is quite conceivable that the modern attitudes described as “anti-science” attributed to conservatives are fundamentally merely a non-inevitable reaction to what can only be described as pseudo-science being published by leftist activists in academia; and stereotype threat is just one example of peer-reviewed pseudo-science.xi

Certainly in some cases there are conservatives that legitimately hold anti-scientific views, such as in the case of evolution generally. But when it comes to evolution of the human species specifically, many liberals are just as anti-scientific as the most hardcore creationist. The main difference is that the left, being dominant in state institutions and having ample government funding, has the power to enforce idealism contrary to reality while most conservatives do not have symmetric influence. This asymmetry in power makes leftist anti-reality beliefs of far greater concern and consequence than the equivalent conservative anti-reality beliefs.

For the average person, it isn’t so hard to notice some of the more egregious examples of leftist pseudo-science. Since most people do not have the time or energy to independently evaluate every pronouncement from every field coming out of the scientific community, it is more efficient (and natural) to use a quick short-hand, or stereotype, to extrapolate from a more narrow range of data for which they do have time and interest to look into. If their interest happens to be in an area replete with pseudo-science, and that’s likely because politically controversial areas are both the most likely to be interesting and to contain pseudo-science, then they have found themselves an extraordinary indicator of dishonesty which they then extrapolate from.

As a consequence of general distrust, society is more likely to develop unreasonable movements like that against vaccinations. It is not reasonable for the scientific community to expect the average person to evaluate every single scientific finding themselves. They have real lives that do not, and should not, have to deal with academic politics. Therefore, scientists need to do a better job rooting out bias, and especially liberal bias, in their fields so the public can actually trust what they say. If academics want to be trusted, they first must be trustworthy because trust, for institutions as much as individuals, must be earned.

I don’t mean to be misinterpreted when I point out these biases in scientific research. To their credit, the main people who have identified and raised alarm about the bias against non-liberals in academic papers have themselves been liberal social psychologists such as Jonathon Haidt. In fields that are outside of the social sciences or on the periphery, real bravery is often demonstrated in their defiance of orthodoxy. Perhaps my favorite treatment of Cultural Marxism came from a paper which starts by stating “putting aside political correctness” and then continues on to discuss multiple heretical topics and never references it again. Political correctness is mentioned only long enough to dismiss it as the irrational and fallacious sentiment that it is. This is a hopeful sign, but it must be noted that no serious efforts to actively alleviate the problem within the social sciences beyond talking about it have so far been undertaken.

I have a great respect for science generally and see it as the best method so far developed by humans to separate truth from fiction, at least when the core principles of scientific philosophy are actually followed. But the scientific establishment is still a human institution and therefore fallible. The community at times moves unacceptably far away from its core principles and this usually happens when research topics might have strong implications for an over-arching political ideology. The Lysenkoist effect of an overwhelmingly liberal character is just one problem. Another is that senior research scientists often spend as much or more time begging for money than they do actually trying to discover truth. Whether or not they actually get money is often dependent on how much they publish which creates an incentive to publish even if the research isn’t very good. Conforming to the political biases of other researchers thus constitutes a quick way to look better with lower quality research.

From the state of academia, it can be taken that the discrimination hypothesis has a great deal of influence on our current culture and the determination of public policy through the publication of questionable research. If the discrimination hypothesis is only partially true or largely wrong in the present, then social policies based on it are likely to be largely ineffectual and possibly harmful. Intelligence researcher Dr. Wendy Johnson has stated the importance of this possibility with reference to X linked intelligence succinctly,

Values create the emotionally charged climates pervading discussions of sex differences, making it difficult to evaluate scientific data objectively. Values are extremely important and appropriately form the basis of many actions and social contracts. But the laws of nature are not responsible to us or to our values and may not conform to them. It is important to understand the laws of nature as completely as possible within our circumstances in order to actualize our values as we intend. We can only develop coherent and realistic actions and social policies that will actualize our values if we understand the laws of nature as they exist.ii

Wicherts, J. Bakker, M. (2011) The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods. 43(3): 666–678.

Franklin, K. (2011) Psychology rife with inaccurate research findings. Psychology today.

Stoet, G., Geary, D. (2012) Can stereotype threat explain the gender gap in mathematics performance and achievement? Review of general psychology. Vol 16(1), 93-102

Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboon, D., Van der Mass, H. (2011) Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi: Comment on Bem. Journal of Personallity and Social Psychology. Vol 100(3). 426-432.

Makel, M., Plucker, J., Hegarty, B. (2012) Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur? Perspectives on psychological science.Vol 7(6). 537-542.

Redding. R. (2013) Politicized Science. Society. Vol 50(5), 439-446

Haidt, J., Post-Partisan Social Psychology.

Tierny, J. (2011) Social Scientist Sees Bias Within. New York Times.

Kemmelmeier, M. (2008) Is there a relationship between political orientation and cognitive ability? A test of three hypotheses in two studies. Personality and Individual Differences.Vol 45(8), 767–772

Morton, R., Tyran, J., Wengström, E. (2011) Income and Ideology: How Personality Traits, Cognitive Abilities, and Education Shape Political Attitudes. Univ. of Copenhagen Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 11-08. Available at SSRN: or

Duarte, J., Crawford, J., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., Tetlock, P. (2014) Political Diversity will Improve Social Psychology. Behav Brain Sci. Vol 18. 1-54

Inbar, Y. & Lammers, J. (2012).  Political diversity in social and personality psychology.  Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 496-503.

Abramowitz, S. I., Gomes, B., Abramowitz, C. V. (1975), Publish or Politic: Referee Bias in Manuscript Review. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5: 187–200. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00675.x

Ceci, S. J., Peters, D., Plotkin, J. K., Alan E., (1992). Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. Methodological issues & strategies in clinical research., American Psychological Association, 687-704

Crawford, J. T, Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., Cohen, F.  (2013).  Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 163-174.

Munro, G. D., Lasane, T. P. and Leary, S. P. (2010), Political Partisan Prejudice: Selective Distortion and Weighting of Evaluative Categories in College Admissions Applications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40: 2434–2462. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00665.x

Rothman, S., Lichter, S. R., Nevitte, N. (2005) Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty. The Forum. Vol 3(1). Article 2.

Harvard sex row and science. BBC News. Jan 18, 2005.

Lallensack, R. (2014) UW to host first feminist biology post-doc program in the nation. The Badger Herald.

Pinker, S. (2009  Letter from Steven Pinker to Aarhus University in defence of Prof. Nyborg, December 9, 2009.

Nyborg, H. (2013) Danish Government Tries to Censor Science it Doesn’t Like. American Renaissance, November 14, 2013

Thompsom, J., (2013) Helmuth Nyborg gets Watson’d. Psychological Comments.

Nyborg, H. (2003) “The Sociology of Psychometric and Bio-behavioral Sciences: A Case Study of Destructive Social Reductionism and Collective Fraud in 20th Century Academia.” The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen.

Nyborg, H., The Greatest Collective Scientific Fraud of the 20th Century: The Demolition of Differential Psychology and Eugenics. The Mankind Quarterly. University of Aarhus (Retired, 2007)

Share Button

“Do you have any advice on writing a controversial, non-fiction book?”


I had a reader send me a message about book writing after he purchased and read my recently released book, Smart and Sexy:

Dear Sir

Surely you get a lot of correspondence such as this, so hopefully you won’t mind if I begin by thanking you for your book (I wrote the first review on and for the subreddit. It was good to find a place where the rationalism that breaks the taboos of Western society is not tainted by the emotional vitriol of simple hatred or conspiratorial explanations.

If you are willing to offer me some advice with regards to writing a non-fiction book it would be gratefully received. I am not an academic, so I could not hope to write something similar to your work. However I wonder if I might publish a shorter work perhaps of a similar length and style to ‘The Manipulated Man’.

Having looked into publishing non-fiction a year ago, the advice seemed to be consistent: Write a book proposal, find an agent interested, hope they find a publisher. Agents are looking for accredited academics, or public personas with a media presence, willing to endure media appearances to promote the book. None of these things applied or appealed to me. I certainly did not want to be the regressive left’s piñata.

I was aware that there would be no money in writing the book, and given the controversial flavor the truth has these days I saw no personal benefit alongside a fair degree of personal risk. Knowing the West cannot be saved as the values it defines itself by are what has caused its downfall, I thought there was little point attempting to publish a book that no one would read, that would change nothing, and many might hate me for writing.

Circumstances have changed for me in the last year, and having read your book I would like to contribute a work that might be of use for people and civilizations that come after me.

It is always nice to be appreciated.

He has given me some more specific details in later messages and we have been having an on-going conversation. That isn’t so relevant in general. However, I think that sharing my experience in a general way might be helpful for others considering whether or not to commit to a big project like writing a book. Here is my generalized response with respect to my experience with writing a non-fiction book:

As far as my own experience, I don’t think it was typical. I will elaborate a bit, but your mileage may vary. You might also look through my interview with since I talked about my experience and motivation there too.

I am not, nor have I ever intended to be, a professional writer. Life is funny sometimes. I intentionally took the bare minimum of English or writing classes needed for my degree, which if memory serves is a total of 2. Freshman and sophomore English. This has a strong bearing on how valuable or necessary these sorts of classes are. Probably not very. Obviously, there is an innate IQ threshold that comes first, but given that practice makes perfect. In my experience, getting better at writing is mostly about practice with reading and writing. Commenting on reddit was where I got most of my practice with writing. Reading requires finding and reading good writers. If you are smart, you will know them when you see them. (At the risk of sounding cliched, I actually really love the style of writing in books, fiction and non-fiction, from the 1800s and early 1900s. There is a quality of style in there that is absent today).

The book was a work of passion that I felt needed to be made and I was doubtful anyone else would take the time to do it. In the beginning it was nothing more than a slowly increasing collection of notes and citations used to argue with people on the internet. It wasn’t until it really started to grow that I seriously considered turning it into a book. Once I decided this, I more consciously started collecting data and citations.

Early versions of the “book” were nothing more than (1) comments I had written, mostly on reddit, that were related to the topic, (2) Study information (titles, authors, journals) that I wanted to read that I thought might be relevant and (3) bullet point notes from studies I had read completely and listed what I thought was important. As I went through (2) to generate more (3), I usually got anywhere from 5-15 more studies at stage (2) for each one study I took notes on and got to stage (3). Every study was like going down the rabbit hole in Alice in wonderland. Each one was a real chore in and of itself, and it was very daunting to think about how many more needed to be read both with certainty and in potentiality based on previous expansion rates.  I persevered, however, and after years of effort finally got all the studies at stage (3) because over time I eventually got every useful one listed.

I won’t lie, this was a very, very time consuming process and I don’t believe I ever want to do it again. Thinking back, I am still a little amazed I was able to stick it out. It takes a lot of dedication to go through. Fortunately, what most people wish to write probably won’t require anywhere near this level of research (300 or so peer reviewed science papers) so I wouldn’t get too hung up about that. This was probably very particular to this and only this book.

At this point, I launched wholeheartedly into (4) the “conversion” phase as I like to call it. Basically, in order to be a book, all the randomly organized data, commentary, thoughts, what have you, has to be written as a flowing narrative from beginning to end. Narrative isn’t exactly the right word since that has more to do with fiction, but it conveys my meaning here suitably well. Going from A to B to C had to make sense and feel natural. Comments and posts had to be rewritten or adjusted to fit in with the structure, bullet point data had to be pulled together based on topic, bullet point data then had to be written in sentence/paragraph/section form, transitions from one topic to another had to be smoothed over, and even the order of different topics had to be considered strategically. Several whole sections were moved around as this process went forward and I realized better organization structures.

Keep in mind that (1), (2), (3) and (4) were all happening pretty much at every point except in the very beginning and the very end. The relative focus on each one adjusted over time from almost 100% (2) and (3) to 100% (4) with (1) just happening randomly here and there based on my mood and morons to argue with. Morons are very, very helpful for providing motivation to work. They are the secret sauce that pushes you forward. If you want to write something, I highly suggest finding a topic that people are commonly wrong about and willing to engage you on. It is a helpful trick to convert the resulting conversations and research into a book. They also might inspire you (because you want to prove them wrong so bad) to go down a research avenue you wouldn’t have considered otherwise.

I found the division into stages of completion to be very useful to actually getting things done. It was psychologically very helpful to know and feel that I had “completed” something, even if only a small part of one stage. It also helped me focus more easily because I would zoom into and only focus on the very particular task at hand and know I would get that neurochemical reward after each “completion.” Otherwise the quantity of things needing doing at early stages would have simply been too overwhelming. I believe any writer could adopt a similar strategy to help them get through the massive project. Take that basic structure and tailor it to your own needs and project.

Like the reader said, a lot of non-fiction writing goes as such: Writer has an idea for a book; he sends proposals to publishers/agents; if interested the parties negotiate a contract often including an advance for the writer; the writer is given a deadline for completion and submits it when ready. Deadlines are both good and bad. On the one hand, you have a timetable keeping you on track and working. On the other, it could possibly limit how much you can include because at the end you just have to have it done and don’t have time to waste looking through things that may not end up being useful.

My book had an unorthodox beginning, so this wasn’t even a considered possibility way back then. Even after I took the possibility of publishing more seriously, I wanted to take my time and research at my leisure when I had time outside of the rest of life to do so. You can just write the book completely at your own pace and then try to get it published, which is what did. In the past that would have been risky because it would really suck to do all that work then never get it published. However, this is starting to change a bit thanks to amazon self publishing. Now anyone can publish their book without paying any costs up front and without worrying about rejection through this service. Well, except you want to get a review copy to make sure everything looks right which is like 7 bucks, and if you suck at art like me you will need to hire a designer to make the cover. I recommend upwork for stuff like this. Amazon also has pretty much the best royalty arrangements you can get anywhere including with traditional publishing so if you end up successful you will get paid way more. Best of all, if your content is especially controversial you don’t have to worry about pleasing anyone before making it available to the public.

The catch is that if you go this route you will have to do all the marketing and advertising yourself. That isn’t easy, and it requires a different set of skills than just writing. If you self-publish, be prepared to research and do a lot of work in this area. You will probably want to set aside an advertising budget.

If you go with a publisher, which is what I decided to do, they will work to promote your book for you. They obviously have lots of experience with this, or they wouldn’t be in business. Typically, they also already have a readership base they can make aware of your book. Even if you have a blog like me, I am quite sure that my readership base and Arktos’ only has so much overlap so it is helpful to have access to that community in addition to my own. If you are writing from the standpoint of reaction, then you already have a list of potential publishers who shouldn’t mind the content being controversial in that direction. Arktos, who I went through, Castallia house publishes Sci Fi mostly, but also has 2 non-fiction titles, and manticore press are three possibilities. There could be more, but I leave that to you to research.

At the end of the day, you have to make a decision to self publish or go with a publisher. Both have pros and cons. At the very least, though, it should be a relief to know that even if rejected by every publisher you can still make your work available.

Share Button

Nazi Shooter on the day of the presidential debate?


Yesterday there was a “Nazi” shooter in Houston. The same day as the presidential debate. Within a couple of weeks of the alternative right being denounced by one of the candidates in which one candidate tried to smear it as being Nazi. At this time there was a major escalation of coverage along similar lines throughout the media. All this is very coincidental. It reeks of a false flag event. There is no way to know for sure, but the timing is so perfect you really have to wonder.

I sit here and wonder about who actually goes out and buys Nazi imagery and items. Even if you are mad at the current state of race relations it seems like a lot of bother to invest in that kind of stuff. It is risky as well even for a true believer since it would make it much easier to be found out.

All I am saying is that it is hard for me to put my mind in the place of a person who is exactly as the media describes this guy. It just doesn’t seem like someone would actually do this the way it is described. It is also very hard for me to understand how something not being orchestrated could be so perfectly timed for the political convenience of the Hillary campaign. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think it is something that should be considered. You can see in the above wiki that there are a series of known examples of this sort of stuff being done so it isn’t beyond question. Anyway, I leave you to think about it.


Share Button

Learning from the mistakes of others

Cat Lady by  Lisa Monica Nelson

Cat Lady by Lisa Monica Nelson

No affiliation with See more artwork at this website.

I found this daily mail article written by a career woman expressing her regret at abandoning her young love and thus leaving herself alone and childless at 42. As a young woman she apparently was in what most would consider a pretty good relationship, but abandoned it.

It all seemed so simple to my naïve, 19-year-old self. I was, I smugly told myself, the girl who had it all.

So why, 20 years later, do I find myself  single, childless and tormented by the fact that I have thrown away the only true chance of happiness I ever had?

Now I am 42 and have all the trappings of success – a high-flying career, financial security and a home in the heart of London’s trendy Notting Hill. But I don’t have the one thing I crave more than anything: a loving husband and family.

‘My father warned me not to throw this love away. But I was sure I’d find Mr Perfect around the corner’

You see, I never did find another man who offered everything Matthew did, who understood me and loved me like he did. Someone who was my best friend as well as my lover.

Today, seeing friends with their children around them tortures me, as I know I am unlikely ever to have a family of my own. I think about the times Matthew and I talked about having children, even discussing the names we would choose. I cannot believe I turned my back on so much happiness.

Instead, here I am back on the singles market, looking for the very thing I discarded with barely a backward glance all those years ago.

I know I can’t have Matthew back, and it hurts when I hear snippets of information about his life and how content he is. Fifteen years after I ended our relationship, he is happily married.

What is particularly sad about this case of “It just didn’t happen” is that it almost did except that she completely sabotaged herself. From her description, she had everything she wanted. What made her throw this away?

The following year, we bought a tiny starter home in Grays, Essex, which we moved into with furniture we had begged, borrowed and stolen. We giggled with delight at the thought of this grown-up new life.

I was in my first junior role at a women’s magazine and Matthew worked fitting tyres and exhausts, so our combined salaries of around £15,000 a year meant we struggled to make the mortgage payments. But we didn’t care, telling ourselves that it wouldn’t be long before we were earning more and able to afford weekly treats and a bigger home where we could bring up the babies we had planned.

But then, the housing market crashed and we were plunged into negative equity.

Struggling should have brought us closer together, and at first it did. But as time went on, and my magazine career – and salary – advanced, I started to resent Matthew as he drifted from one dead-end job to another. I still loved him, but I began to feel embarrassed by his blue-collar jobs, annoyed that, despite his intelligence, he didn’t have a career.

Ahh, so she got enamored with the artificial status conferred by her patently useless make-work role at a women’s magazine. Why do I say artificial? Here is a typical cover of a women’s magazine based on image search results:



Women’s magazines appear to focus almost exclusively on high time preference beliefs and actions. Fake diets that work in 8 hours (?!). Clothes and fashion that instantly boost status. Get rich quick schemes. Short and low intensity exercise with supernatural results. It seems to be her belief that the generation of this sort of inanity is high status. In reality this is a morally dubious practice of tricking the gullible out of money with promises of easy fixes that are clearly false. Her life’s work has been to generate false hope and she left the love of her life, abandoning the opportunity to start a family, to pursue this. Just stop and think about this for second…. Can you imagine a sadder existence?

Even worse is that she compares this to her ex-boyfriend’s jobs which, whatever the pay level, are indispensably necessary for the continuance of a functional civilization. She views herself as the higher status one. Her confusion about the relative merits of various activities was, and is, quite extreme and undoubtedly shared by many women. Her article gives no indication that she ever realized how truly pointless, and probably harmful, her career has been for other women.

Even though she was wrong about her status, perception was enough and her hypergamic instincts kicked in. As such she pressured her boyfriend to get a “real job.” He obliged:

I encouraged him to find a career and was thrilled when he was accepted to join the police in 1995. It should have heralded a new chapter in our lives, but it only hastened the end. We went from spending every evening and weekend together, to hardly seeing one another. Matthew was doing round-the-clock shifts, while I worked long hours on the launch of a new magazine.

It turns out that engaging in real and useful work requires sacrifice. Even though her original demands were met, she was not content because unfortunately it caused a shift and another part of the relationship had to be neglected in order to satisfy her demands. She could not accept that any part of the relationship be less than perfect even though this was merely an unwanted infringement of reality on her life when meeting her own apparent desires. And so she broke up with him. What did she do?

I moved into a rented flat a few miles away in Hornchurch, Essex, and embraced single life with a vengeance. By now I was an editor on a national magazine. Life was one long round of premieres and dinner or drinks parties.

She implies without mentioning that she probably became a huge slut, and probably bedded many men perceived as high status at these various parties. Her actions and perceptions betray a great deal of pride and vanity. Her life was only about her and maximizing her perceived status to other people. Throw in a great abundance of high time preference pleasure seeking and there probably isn’t much else to know about her.

The years rolled along and she kept Matthew as a beta orbiter as much as possible. Stringing him along always with some faint hope that his broken dream of marriage to her might someday become a reality. Of course, even Matthew would eventually figure out that wasn’t going to happen and thoroughly move on. He found himself another girl and ran with it.

I hated the fact Matthew was suddenly putting another woman before me. How dare she come between us! Over the next few weeks, I’m ashamed to say I vented my spleen at both of them in a series of heated phone calls.

I was completely irrational. I didn’t want Matthew back, but felt upstaged by Sara.

Unsurprisingly, after one particularly nasty argument, Matthew put the phone down and refused to take any more of my calls. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I would never speak to him again.

At least she eventually realized that she was completely in the wrong (well, sort of). Too little, too late. It is hard to understand how women can feel justified in expecting men to just sit around waiting for them for years without any giving on the part of the woman. Selfishness on this level is not attractive and not desirable.

So once again I am on my own, my mind full of ‘if-onlys’. If only I’d stayed with Matthew, we’d almost certainly be married with children.

Or, maybe Matthew wasn’t the right man. I will never know  the answer, but my decision to leave him has definitely cost me the chance of ever becoming a mother.

Now I can only look back and admonish my selfish, younger self.

Another woman’s life ruined by her own selfishness, vanity, lack of perspective, and heavy doses (undoubtedly) of feminist propaganda about what roles are most conducive to happiness in women. I walk away from reading this with the distinct perception that this woman has only partially grasped why a multitude of her life choices led her to the unhappy state she is currently in. She certainly understands that she made a mistake. She does not understand, or refuses to admit, how harmful her decisions were to others. Matthew most of all, but also his other girlfriends. At best she realizes she was “irrational,” but never admits that anything she did was actively wrong. She certainly doesn’t understand how her career itself was utterly pointless and probably harms other women with a variety of unrealistic ideas and claims. I suppose I can understand how difficult accepting that would be in the face of the portions of her mistakes she has already accepted. She is not one to be envied.

However, I actually have some respect for this woman because even in partial admittance of her mistakes and how she came to them she at least opens up the door for younger women to learn from those mistakes. Without the personal investment in this life, hopefully they will be better able to see the fuller scope of the problems and thus more readily avoid them. This article and those like them have the potential for helping many people. That at least can be appreciated. Whether anyone actually takes it to heart is another matter entirely, however. Potential is much less than action.

[note: originally I was going to go a slightly different direction with this post, so the URL is different from the title. Just ignore that]

Share Button

Twitter annoyance


I haven’t heard anyone specifically mention this, but it is quite an annoying issue I have noticed with twitter. I will be looking at a tweet I find interesting, and before I have a chance to commit to clicking on a link and/or retweeting the whole tweet (or right before/during the point when I am trying to interact with it), it just completely disappears off the screen. Ostensibly because the app has updated to more recent tweets. Sometimes I am able to locate it again, although this always takes a great deal of effort. Other times no amount of effort pays off and it apparently disappears into the ether. This happens all the time, at least when using the phone app. Clearly this updating nonsense that makes whatever you are actually trying to look at disappear is less than stellar for the user experience. Updating the displayed tweets should, in my opinion, require some sort of input from the user before taking place. It also seems like something ripe for abuse for things twitter decides shouldn’t be seen.

Today I was particularly annoyed because someone had made an intriguing image clearly demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Washington post and specifically a Chris Cilliza which disappeared when I tried to retweet. A few days ago this “journalist” wrote a column saying everyone needed to stop talking about Hillary’s health. Then today admits that maybe it is a real concern after all. I tried to find this image again by scrolling up and down the recent traffic but it was gone, gone, gone. I decided I would remake a very similar image myself just so I would have the opportunity to share some version of it:


Even more strange was that instead of retweeting my intended target, this tweet by Benjamin Netanyahu got showed up and was retweeted instead. Nothing particularly outstanding about this tweet, but I must say it is a very, very odd thing for that particular thing to be retweeted instead of the one abut blatant hypocrisy of the Washington post with respect to Hillary’s health and candidacy. And to describe this in more detail, there was literally zero time between when I clicked the retweet button and the intended target was replaced by this. I tapped my finger down when it was the Washington post image, and by the time my finger was lifted it was the Netanyahu tweet.

Share Button