Differences in complex social behaviors can have purely genetic causes even within the same species

An article came out about cooperation between an African tribe and a type of bird called the honeyguide. The bird spots bee hives and guides the human to it, the human knocks it down, breaks it open and shares it with the bird. The tribesman and birds communicate via a series of chirps and calls. For example, there is one special call a tribesman can use to signal to a bird that he would like to look for honey. There is another special call the honeyguide can use to get the attention of a tribesmen when they have a hive they would like cracked open. Now, in the case of the tribesman, it is possible to culturally transmit the details of the various calls down the generations. The honeyguides, however, are very much like the cuckoo which lays its eggs in the nests of other birds. This means it isn’t possible for direct cultural transmission of the calls and likely indicates that in the case of the birds, the transmission of call knowledge is purely genetic. To quote the popular mechanics article:

There’s still some mystery as to how exactly young honeyguides learn to recognize the Yao tribesmen’s calls. Like the European cuckoo, honeyguides are nest parasites. Adults will surreptitiously lay their eggs in other bird’s nests and those birds raise the young honeyguides. This pattern rules out the possibility that the honeyguides are learning how to interact with humans through parental training.

Bolding was mine. While I will agree that exactly how this is done is unknown, mystery is a bit too strong of a word. There are really only two possible explanations. Either they are learning it from other honeyguides a few years older, or it is being genetically transmitted. Even if certain aspects of the behavior, like what specific type of call, is being learned from peers, the overall behavior has to have a strong genetic component. Otherwise why aren’t the other birds in the area copying the honeyguides? It would be a very easy source of food.

This isn’t the first time that a complex behavior was observed which really could have no other explanation than genetic. Most notably in Darwin’s origin of species. In it he described the tumbler pigeon which had the following complex behavior:

The short-faced tumbler has a beak in outline almost like that of a finch; and the common tumbler has the singular inherited habit of flying at a great height in a compact flock, and tumbling in the air head over heels.

No other pigeon showed this behavior (i.e., it was singular). And pigeon breeders kept different varieties close together so if it could be learned it probably would have. There is really no other choice but to conclude that the tumbling behavior was and is genetic. The tumbler pigeon was undoubtedly the same species as the other domesticated species. It could breed with and produce viable offspring with those other varieties, yet small and particular genetic differences were more than enough to generate wildly unique behavior. If this genetic determination of complex behavior via only a very small fraction of the genome is possible in pigeons, it is also possible in humans. The outrageously greater violent criminal activity in Blacks, for example.

Share Button

Kami, The HIV Muppet

I was recently browsing a subreddit I just discovered called /r/bertstrips. It seems that the focus is to have screen shots of sesame street and to caption them with racist, inappropriate, malicious, or otherwise mean intentions of the characters. Some of them are pretty funny. Well, I found one posted featuring Kami, the HIV muppet:

R1sEOLKNow, many of the characters are given perverse or otherwise degenerate attitudes, beliefs, and preferences in the comics which are not present in the show. I expected this to be just another example of artistic license on the part of comic makers. Imagine my surprise when I found out that Kami, the HIV Muppet is a real character that is really depicted on the show as having HIV and debuted way back in 2002. Not only that, but prominent celebrities and political leaders have made appearances with the HIV muppet including former president Bill Clinton, Laura Bush (ok, not a political leader but close enough), Whoopi Goldberg, and Oprah Winfrey. See previous link. Apparently Kami is a “bipartisan” supported character in that both cuckservatives and liberals are in favor and supportive of it and have made appearances with it. You can see a video clip of Bill Clinton with the HIV muppet below:

I found the concept of the HIV Muppet to be absolutely astounding. HIV is a serious disease and should never be taken lightly. While it is true that merely touching a HIV+ person will not result in a transfer of the disease, you would be at quite a high risk should they get injured and start bleeding. High enough that you need to take substantial precautions against becoming infected yourself. Young children (3-7) who would watch sesame street could not really be expected to suddenly recognize the extreme risk should a HIV positive person start bleeding and the risk of transmission experience a large spike. Normalizing and downplaying HIV to children is so irresponsible I can’t even fathom it. If you go back to that reddit comment thread, you will see that most of the commenters there had exactly the same reaction I did. First, complete surprise the character exists at all, then disgust and abhorrence at the sadistic irresponsibility of its creation and promotion. It takes a lot to disgust the kind of community which enjoys bertstrips; leave it to leftists.

Moreover, this character was originally and/or mainly intended for a South African audience where around 1 in 9 people is infected with the disease. I try to avoid conspiracies, but if my main concern was population control in Africa, Kami is exactly the kind of character I would create. Normalize and trivialize HIV to African children so that you can boost infection rates and subsequently lower the population. Of course, it could just be a typical example of the leftist tendency for feelz before realz. To them, the most important thing is people’s emotions. Legitimate and medically necessary precautions are, to them, invalidated if it happens to make someone feel bad.

Intentional or not, if I were a black South African (the target group with the highest HIV rate) I would be hopping mad that this propaganda is going on. Instead of advocating sensible precautions, that population (and very specifically children!) is being encouraged to increase contact with HIV infected persons as much as possible. If blacks still think that the liberal elite is their ally, the creation, use, and promotion by prominent personalities of this character should cure them of that delusion. It won’t, but it should.

Of course, this is not the first nor will it be the last time cultural Marxists attempt to normalize HIV to save the feelings of the few at the cost of increasing the risk to the many. Recently there was the controversy about allowing gay men to donate blood. In the west, gay men are the main carriers of the disease and have substantially greater infection rates than the rest of the population. Banning them from giving blood is a simple and straightforward precaution. Yet, that may hurt gay men’s feelings so leftists rally against it. Unsurprisingly, much of this nonsense protesting takes place at universities. (I didn’t make a big deal about Kami being female because the main audience is South Africa, where infection patterns are more gender balanced, mainly as a result of the African inclination for heterosexual anal sex. However, having her be female in the West makes little sense because it is very much a disease that mostly affects gay men.)

In addition, most states in the US have, in my opinion, a completely lax attitude to HIV+ health workers. Were I running things no one with HIV would be allowed to work in the health care field at all, and probably others as well. Health care workers and patients are both commonly exposed to sharp objects such as needles and scaples that can and do create wounds to facilitate transmission of the disease. In reality testing workers is on a voluntary basis and even knowing a worker is HIV positive is not grounds for dismissal. According to the CDC, there have been 58 confirmed and 150 possible cases of transmission of HIV from an infected health worker to a patient. It says in the last link that there has been only one confirmed case since 1999. Nice try, but reporting cases of HIV transmission from a healthcare worker to a patient is voluntary. Translation: Progs are almost certainly obfuscating the issue by not reporting it when they discover it has happened because they care more about the feelings of gays than they do about the general health of the population. The feds are encouraging them in this by intentionally keeping reporting voluntary. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that there have been quite a few more cases than 1 since 1999, but of course no sensible person would bet against me because that would just be stupid.

 

 

Share Button

Lesbians are Sub-standard, Imitation Men

For the most part, I consider lesbians/feminists to be essentially the same group because of the degree of overlap. At least if you restrict the meaning of “feminist” to include only those actively and fervently going out to protest or causing various problems with some intensity. I consider a woman who mentions in passing she is a feminist, but makes no effort otherwise, to be a “real” feminist about as much as I consider a “Christian” who has never actually read the bible, and thus knows less about it than myself as an atheist, to be a real Christian rather than just a status signalling churchian. Lots of people merely pay lip service to the norms of their community whether it is feminism, Christianity, or any number of other cliques just so they can fit in. Believe it or not, such behavior is not intrinsically good or bad. In a healthy culture this is exactly how you want most people to behave; we just don’t have a healthy culture. I suspect a lot of women claiming to be “feminist” fall into this category or at least are fairly passive about it and think more about make-up and shoes than women’s lib. However, I also suspect there is  a category of “real” feminists (i.e., the radical “true” lesbian feminists) and they are the ones who take leadership roles in spreading degeneracy and misleading otherwise normal, but psychologically vulnerable, women. Fortunately, not all women are susceptible.

Leftoid click-bait title aside, however, I do feel that female sexuality is probably more “fluid” than male sexuality. There is an evolutionary reason why this might be the case. As we know, both men and women have duel mating strategies. In the case of women, they have the alpha/beta dichotomy where alphas can provide good genes* but rarely provide good commitment whereas betas may provide commitment and provision but not good genes (in terms of the reproductive potential of offspring). In the ancestral environment, high tier women might have, while young, secured alpha commitment, but mid-tier women or older high tier women would have probably received very little, if any, material support from the alpha as he moved on to younger women. These women might try to move onto a beta to pay for these illegitimate children, but there is no guarantee they would be successful and even if many succeed, there are probably many more that completely fail in the second part of the strategy for whatever reason. Even betas occasionally realize providing for another man’s children isn’t a good deal and would rather spend their money on booze and whores. In ancient polygamous societies it may actually be impossible for the woman to move on anyway even if her and her children have been made a very low priority by the resident alpha. In the context of the ancestral small tribe in the jungle where no-one knows paternity, all men might have been inclined to completely ignore women past a certain age and their children. Lesbianism could provide a benefit to abandoned and neglected women psychologically and materially.

(Without digressing too much, men are unlikely to have this middle ground softening of selection pressures without the burden of child-rearing which means what we get is either complete genetic failure or complete heterosexual males without all that much in between. Sexually antagonistic selection probably explains the persistence of male homosexuals.)

For under-provisioned single mothers, it might make sense for two women to “pair” together to pool resources in raising their collective children. Clearly this is less than ideal compared to a monogamous, heterosexual nuclear family, but it may be a step up materially from raising children completely alone. They would get some benefits from division of labor. This could explain why female sexuality appears more fluid and why lesbianism might even have a modest positive selection pressure so long as the “lesbians” in question are still getting pregnant consistently. And in fact, self-identifying “lesbians” are more likely to get pregnant than straight women. Go figure. A woman having sex with another woman does not appear to stop her from having sex with men as well. Now, this last piece of evidence begs the question of whether lesbianism exists at all as a distinct thing (except in a minority of cases), or whether what we are actually looking at is a spectrum of promiscuity; greater promiscuity in women translating into more sex with whoever happens to be around. I think this may be likely for many cases, but that isn’t the focus of this post. Like I said before, I am more concerned with the exceptional “true” lesbians who populate the leadership and role-model levels of the feminist movement.

When women pair-bond, it is likely that one of the women assumes the “dominant” masculine role while the other assumes a “submissive” feminine role. Now the dominant woman isn’t a man, and can’t completely fulfill the role, but from the perspective of the submissive, she is probably better than nothing at all when the sub’s alpha/beta dual strategy fails in the second stage. What inclines one woman to be more dominant? Well, one thing might be a higher than average (for women) level of testosterone during fetal development[PDF]. Higher levels of testosterone in women during the critical development periods masculinizes them. I know of two specific conditions which can cause this, but I doubt they are the only possible causes out there. One is polycystic ovary syndrome and the other is congenital adrenal hyperplasia. (I also want to note that androgen insensitivity syndrome might also contribute, by a separate mechanism, individuals somewhat similar to a “true” lesbian. Except in this case, the person in question actually is male but for all outside appearances looks female. There is no way to know what influence such individuals may have historically had on the feminist movement since before recent times there was no way to know they had this condition. And even after we could know, it is private medical information the “women” would probably be hesitant to reveal). As I have already outlined, there may be evolutionary reasons why partially masculinized women may be favored. In an environment where men rarely commit, women must take on the brunt of the child-rearing duties and they are likely better at providing if they think and act a bit more like males and if they collaborate with other women in similar situations. This is probably related somewhat to the greater testosterone levels in black women. Black men are notoriously poor providers on average, both in America and Africa, so the race as a whole has developed more masculine women because it presumably helps those women provide for their children alone. (And which is in a feedback loop with female preference for higher T masculine cads).

Anyway, because lesbianism doesn’t have a strong enough selection pressure against it, or maybe even a modest positive one, the trait can stay stable in a population at above zero frequencies. It may even be analogous to the way sickle-cell anemia interacts with malaria. The sickle cell trait gene, when in a heterozygous state, provides protection from malaria but is crippling when in a homozygous state. In the same way, female attraction to other females may provide insurance against male abandonment without preventing reproduction when expressed in a partial manner while being reproductively crippling when completely expressed. The benefit of the former may, like in the case of sickle-cell, outweigh the cost of the later on balance and keep the trait present in the population. If true, however, that means that completely expressing “true” lesbians are born at some small but non-zero frequency and are in some sense “crippled” with respect to their evolutionary fitness. It is these “true” lesbians who completely express lesbian preferences who have been and are the real earth-movers in the feminist movement; at least this is what I suspect.

But you have to ask, why are these “true” lesbians not simply content to date other women and otherwise remain fairly quiet? Presumably enough women are partially expressing that they shouldn’t have too much trouble pair-bonding with the “true” lesbian being dominant and the partially expressing woman being submissive. If the “true” lesbian doesn’t have much trouble pair-bonding, what the hell is her beef with society in general? What makes her so mad that she feels she must destroy everything? I would venture to guess that the reason is masculinization does a lot more than simply create attraction for women. A key aspect of the male experience is competition within masculine hierarchies. It is this competition which allows men to demonstrate their high value to each other and especially to women they potentially want to mate with. Anything that masculinizes the brain will create a need and desire to be successful in these male status hierarchies. “True” lesbians are masculinized to such a degree that they also try to engage in male hierarchy jostling and competition. The problem is that though they are masculinized compared to other women, they are still women. They do not possess the same innate physical or mental capability of even the most beta men. Almost every time they attempt to compete with men, they almost invariability end up near the bottom of the established male pecking order. They are, therefore, masculine enough to recognize and desire to compete against men, but feminine enough that they are almost guaranteed to completely fail at every attempt. They are, in effect, sub-standard imitation men.

The idea that the “true” lesbian leaders of the feminist movement are essentially defective men seems to be tentatively confirmed by recent research  (though they say it a bit nicer). The abstract:

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

My longstanding impression that the main activists in feminism tend to be highly masculinized women seems to be corroborated. Also, I am not alone in this perception:

A survey by Scharff (2012) found that amongst a demographically diverse sample of young women sourced from Germany and the UK, 30 out of 40 women rejected feminism as a consequence of their belief that the ideology is unfeminine, associated with lesbianism, and encourages man-hating. Feminism was also found to be strongly associated with unattractiveness and lesbianism by young men and women alike

The study sample, taken from attendees at a feminist conference, had a large over-representation of lesbians. 45% of the responders were attracted to women vs. 5.6% in the general population. Feminists attending a feminist conference are thus 4.5 times more likely to be attracted to other women than the general population, apparently. Though there is probably a fair margin of error here, I suspect the overall trend is very real.

The feminist activists are at least partially motivated by female solipsism. They project their own atypical experience and feelings onto normal woman and imagine all women want to compete in masculine hierarchies and are resentful of their failure. They aren’t really capable of understanding that normal women have very little in common with masculinized lesbian feminists and do not feel the need to compete against men or feel resentful that they are unable to.

Another possible explanation of why feminism represents a minority position amongst women is therefore that the activists who shape feminist attitudes and beliefs are themselves generally more physiologically and psychologically masculinized than is typical for women (Wilson, 2010). This might for example explain their belief in sex-role interchangeability, as they may perceive the behaviors and interests of sex-typical women as incomprehensible and at variance with their own more masculinized preferences in terms of child-rearing and status-seeking. This might then lead them to infer that women in general have been manipulated to become different from themselves by external forces, as embodied by notions of social constructions or gender systems

As I mentioned before, and is gone over in detail in the article, many women do not identify as feminists. This is true even when they agree with some or all of the goals of feminism. This is known as the feminist paradox and the consensus seems to be that normal women view feminists as manly lesbians and don’t want to themselves be seen as unfeminine. If activist feminists are in fact mostly manly lesbians, say because of higher levels of testosterone exposure, then this paradox can be explained. Those women really are a breed apart and normal woman don’t want to associate with them. Who could blame them?

In conclusion and summary, feminist activists (i.e., lesbians) in general were exposed to too much testosterone, probably during fetal development, which made them masculine enough to feel compelled to compete in ways similar to men and be a part of the masculine hierarchy. Unfortunately for them, they are still women and though their brain is masculinized somewhat it isn’t very masculine relative to real men. As such, they invariably are placed in the very bottom of the masculine hierarchy when they try to legitimately compete in it. This of course builds resentment and they seek any method to push themselves up. Specifically, they are still feminine enough to use means not generally accepted from men by other men. They can be socially manipulative similar to normal women and can act up in ways that men would never allow another man. Men have some sort of chivalrous instinct which usually prevents them from striking down duplicitous and disingenuous feminists. How lesbian feminists behave is thus a sort of hybrid masculine/feminine strategy. They use it, and male passivity towards women generally, to manipulate cultural institutions to artificially place themselves higher in the male hierarchy than they could have ever achieved through honest competition. They want to compete in the male hierarchy and are compelled to try something, anything, to boost their status within it because of their masculinization and they achieve boosts through artificial means like affirmative action and quotas engineered through primarily feminine social manipulation. Clearly their hybrid strategy has been extraordinarily effective in degenerating our society into the crumbling farce it is today.

It is ironic that what leads to the dedicated propagation of destructive feminism is actually a dash of masculinity. A trait which is good and beneficial in men becomes highly toxic and destructive when it appears in women. Unfortunately, given the evolutionary pressures I described it is likely that lesbian feminist harpies will always appear in every generation. Even if we create a new reactionary order these “women” will always be a destabilizing influence. If and when we create a new order, the problem of excessively masculinized women will have to be proactively addressed lest we get a repeat of feminism all over again. Their influence over society must be curtailed as a primary necessity. I’ll leave it to you to consider how that might be done. Perhaps we should exile them all to lesbos.

——————————————————————————————–

I will end with a mildly interesting anecdote which isn’t meant to be persuasive evidence of this idea, though it may be somewhat relevant. I was playing pool in a bar with my brother one time when a group of women sat down at a table near where we were playing. I scoped them out to see if any might be worth approaching. I observed that two of the girls seemed closer than you would expect from friends (i.e., they had their hands on each others thighs). After four or five beers I autisticly went up and asked if they were lesbians. Things were awkward for them, I just didn’t give a damn. I did not condemn them or anything like that, but one of them did get pretty mad (based on non-verbal ques). I think she was still in the closet and didn’t like the overt attention. We talked for a little while then I went back to play pool. Later I was going to the bathroom when one of the lesbians walked by and intentionally chest bumped me. I staggered slightly but she just bounced off me and nearly fell. And this when I wasn’t even paying attention and she was fully conscious of what she was doing. Surprised, I said “What the hell is your problem?” If looks could kill I would be dead, but after a second she just walked off without saying anything. I laughed because after the initial surprise I immediately realized she was mad that I pointed out she was a lesbian and she wanted to chest bump me in anger and frustration. My brother and I still laugh about the lesbian chest bump story every time it comes up. Now, you guys might say I’m a dick, and you are right, but I don’t care.

I imagine that is the type of experience many of these lesbian feminist activists have (figuratively or literally). Not the specific situation, but attempting something competitively with a man (chest bump) and it being almost completely ineffectual (she bounced off harder and farther than I moved) which is probably what makes them so mad.

High quality is determined by instincts and evolution, not reason or preference for civilization. Resources can indicate high quality, but so can great charisma, as well as physical attractiveness. The instincts of women seem to consider all such traits holistically. The only thing that is important is the potential for the children of these men to inherit the traits that enable them to reliably reproduce themselves.

Share Button

The Silver Lining of the Ebola Outbreak

Before I begin with the main topic of this post, I want to write a disclaimer. The Ebola outbreak constitutes a horrible tragedy and I think it is in everyone’s interest that no expense be spared by wealthy governments around the world in attempting to contain the outbreak and reduce the number of casualties in Africa or elsewhere. As a rule, I am opposed to foreign aide for a variety of reasons, not least because it distorts the markets in the recipient countries and makes it harder for local workers. However, the Ebola outbreak is an exceptional case. The risk of a worldwide pandemic is not negligible and the consequences for it getting out of control are immense. Therefore it is actually in everyone’s interest to contain the outbreak and cooperation makes sense. Richer countries should spare no expense fighting it and should not expect for the recipient countries to give anything back for the help. After all, they would be spending the money to protect themselves as much as to help the afflicted countries.

That said, there is a cold logic that suggests the outbreak could in the long term have positive benefits to the afflicted countries, though obviously paid for at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. For a variety of reasons, the disease will disproportionately affect the poor and uneducated relative to the rich and educated:

  1. The rich can afford better care if they do become ill.
  2. The rich can afford to isolate themselves from others both within cities but especially by moving to homes they own in isolated areas.
  3. The educated know how the virus is spread and can behave in ways that directly minimize risk.
  4. The educated will not fall prey to quack cures and preventions of the disease.
  5. The educated wouldn’t break into a quarantine facility and steal bloody blankets and other contagious material to bring back to their slum.

Since intelligence is heritable, and wealth roughly correlates with intelligence, then it can be surmised that a virus that selectively targets the least wealthy (and thus least intelligent) fraction of a population will have a profound positive impact on the average intelligence of the population once everything is said and done. The virus in effect acts as a genetic bottleneck which changes the overall constitution of the current and thus future population. Since the uneducated won’t be around to have more children, a greater percentage of future children must come from the rich and educated which for both genetic and environmental reasons will also be more prone to education and higher socioeconomic status. With a greater percentage of educated people, these countries will likely have greater potential for economic achievement in the future. The economic benefit will probably materialize at least several generations down the road after the direct negative impacts of the virus are overcome.

It has been proposed that this mechanism might be what made both the renaissance and the industrial revolution possible for Europeans. In the case of the renaissance, it was the black death that immediately predated it that selectively killed off the least capable people in European society. Other diseases served the same purpose in British slums for some generations prior to the industrial revolution. It is possible that Ebola could serve as the precursor for an African renaissance.

Beyond increasing the smart fraction of the population, the second effect would result from the overall decrease in the population. When population size suddenly contracts, you also drastically decrease the labor supply. With a smaller supply of labor (which coincidentally happens to be smarter and more productive on average), businesses must offer more competitive salaries and benefits to persuade good employees to work for them instead of someone else. Competition between businesses for good employees puts a lot of bargaining power on the side of labor. So not only do you have greater overall wealth thanks to the increased smart fraction, that wealth also has to be more evenly distributed amongst the population.

At this point, it is too early to tell how bad the epidemic will eventually get. As of writing this post, there is a total of around 3000 confirmed cases and an official death count numbered about 1900. However, it can be expected that the information available seriously underestimates how many cases there are both because of the poor organisation in the African countries and because of the desire of health officials to limit panic. It is my hope that health officials do manage to contain the outbreak and limit further infections and suffering. Achieving the benefits outlined above aren’t worth the tremendous human costs. However, like a hurricane this virus is a force of nature and once it gets out of control (and this seems likely now) there may not be much those officials can do. If so, then the only thing left to do is for individuals to educate themselves on how to avoid infection and look at the silver lining of an event we may have little control over.

Share Button