Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences between the Sexes
Smart and sexy is the definitive book on sex differences in intelligence. With over 300 citations of peer reviewed scientific articles, it describes the latest science on cognitive differences in the sexes without being hampered by political correctness or feminism. Reviews and excerpts are included below.
Availability:
and 
Interview:
My podcast interview with Red Ice Radio
Live interview with Davis Aurini
see also my review of Cordelia Fine’s testosterone rex with Red Ice Radio
Reviews:
Counter Currents: Why most high achievers are men [Deutsche Fassung] [Traduction Française]
Amerika [Also take a look at my interview with Brett Stevens.]
Excerpts:
Pseudo-science and bias in the academic establishment
Autism and the extreme male brain
Physical differences between the sexes
How expensive are women? (An analysis of taxation by gender)
Related Blog posts [Similar to book content, but not as detailed]:
Career women are dysgenic
How standardized testing undervalues men
Please also stop by reddit and subscribe to /r/darkenlightenment and /r/thedailymoldbug. Follow me on twitter and Gab. You can email me at Atavisionary AT gmail DOT com or send me a message through the contact form. You can also check out my list of recommended books.
Find other great dissident right content with the two Atavisionary RSS feeds: Atavisions and Prolific Atavisions. In addition, download the free ebook Smart and Sexy to learn what, how and why there are biologically based cognitive differences between the sexes
Hi,
do you know this one?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184
“An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis” by Theodore P. Hill
See also
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/
https://medium.com/@Soccermatics/pitfalls-of-being-a-white-male-mathematician-e1df7795ae0f
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314943073_A_Theory_for_Gender_Differences_in_Variability
By the way, thanks for your book, thanks for your work!
Hey, thanks for the links. I recall the Reeeing which occurred when this came out. Very unfortunate that someone attempting to explain the empirically verified pattern we see every day around us gets screwed over like that. Still, the result was a complete backfire since way more people know about this paper as a result.
I am a mere statistician, not a chemist or even a neuroscientist. But I suspect you have got one or two things wrong. For instance the review at counter-currents.com instances ” Females have proportionally more white matter in this particular region than males, making for better communication between hemispheres” (quote from review, not book). This seems to refer to the 2013 study by Ingalhalikar and Smith: but this study did not actually measure whether males and females showed the supposed differences inpractice, such differences as were found were small and not all paths were examined.
Equally your use of general intelligence scores leaves something to be desired. And your willingness to use cranial size as a measure of anything to do with brain function is worrying: phrenology next ?
I suggest you actually read the book before drawing any conclusions. The review is a decent summary, but doesn’t do the thesis full justice.
As far as that particular study, it was the only one of 2 or 3 FMRI studies I used in the book because of issues which have been noted for that type of work. I only used it because it seemed consistent with other, non-fmri, studies. In my opinion, that raised my confidence in it above the threshold needed for inclusion. Either way, it was ancillary to the other information provided and explored.
>Equally your use of general intelligence scores leaves something to be desired.
Care to explain why that leaves something to be desired? A branch of research which has been repeated and confirmed for over 100 years? The only part of social science with even close to that consistent track record of real-world predictions?
Lastly, besides the fact there has been a number of studies on the relationship between cranial size and iq, it would be extremely counter-intuitive for smaller brains to be smarter than larger brains at population scales.