Human Biological and Psychological diversity

An important new academic paper was recently published.

Many evolutionary psychologists have asserted that there is a panhuman nature, a species typical psychological structure that is invariant across human populations. Although many social scientists dispute the basic assumptions of evolutionary psychology, they seem widely to agree with this hypothesis. Psychological differences among human populations (demes, ethnic groups, races) are almost always attributed to cultural and sociological forces in the relevant literatures. However, there are strong reasons to suspect that the hypothesis of a panhuman nature is incorrect. Humans migrated out of Africa at least 50,000 years ago and occupied many different ecological and climatological niches. Because of this, they evolved slightly different anatomical and physiological traits. For example, Tibetans evolved various traits that help them cope with the rigors of altitude; similarly, the Inuit evolved various traits that help them cope with the challenges of a very cold environment. It is likely that humans also evolved slightly different psychological traits as a response to different selection pressures in different environments and niches. One possible example is the high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people. Frank discussions of such differences among human groups have provoked strong ethical concerns in the past. We understand those ethical concerns and believe that it is important to address them. However, we also believe that the benefits of discussing possible human population differences outweigh the costs.

Notable quotes include:

Mainstream textbooks, for example, document many instances of human biological diversity. Despite this, the basics of human biological diversity are not integrated into the social sciences.

Evidence from a variety of disciplines, including genetics, anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology, indicates that human populations evolved distinctive features after spreading from Africa and settling in different ecological and climatic niches (Bellwood 2013; Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994; Molnar 2006; Wade 2014). Although such human biological variation is often ignored by social scientists, it is not really a matter of dispute among researchers in the relevant disciplines.

In a meta-analysis of racial and ethnic differences in self-esteem, Twenge and Crocker (2002) found a pattern of self-esteem differences (Blacks scored higher than Whites after the 1980s and Asians scored lower than both), but ruled out, a priori, the possibility that such differences were related to biology because, according to them, “racial and ethnic categorizations are socially constructed” and are not based on “shared biological characteristics” (p. 371). This means that an entirely legitimate and plausible hypothesis about the etiology of self-esteem differences was ignored, leaving only social or cultural hypotheses. It is, of course, possible that the differences are entirely environmental in origin, but it is not certain, and ruling legitimate hypotheses out a priori on flimsy arguments (see “Race and Human Populations” section) about the nonreality of human biological diversity potentially prevents researchers from fully understanding the causes of differences in self-esteem.

In a paper on racial and ethnic differences in violent crime rates, Sampson et al. (2005) asserted that biological differences among human populations do not hold “distinct scientific credibility as causes of violence,” and proceeded to adjudicate between three environment-only hypotheses about the causes of disparities in violence (p. 224). So, again, these researchers ruled out a priori a perfectly legitimate and plausible hypothesis and proceeded to approach the data with a self-imposed theoretical limitation.

I wonder why this academic blindness is so common? I also wonder why there are so few researchers willing to challenge the egalitarian orthodoxy despite plenty of empirical evidence to the contrary:

Rushton (1995), for example, forwarded an expansive account of population differences based on life-history theory. However, he was viciously attacked by many scholars (e.g., Barash 1995), and his work was quickly marginalized.

There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom of both behavioral and physical evolution of species in what most biologists would consider a relatively short time. 20 generations or so seems to be enough time for noticeable adaptations to occur, which is approximately 400 years in humans.

Thus far, we have introduced what we called the SEPP, and noted that we were going to recalibrate two of its basic premises. The first premise was gradualism, which contends that evolution by natural selection is a very slow phenomenon and that human populations have not had enough time to evolve meaningful differences. We argued that this position requires adjustment because (1) natural selection can differentially sculpt traits quite rapidly, as documented by many researchers (see “Background” section), and (2) there is copious evidence that human populations differ from each other somewhat physiologically and that natural selection continues to affect human populations (Hawks et al. 2007; Zuk 2013). Adjusting gradualism in this manner requires that we reconsider the idea of a panhuman nature. It would be remarkable, as we will discuss below, if human populations were completely similar psychologically despite having endured different selective regimes in different environments.

There are notable adaptations in humans which likely evolved during geologically short periods of time, such as cold adaptations in high latitudes or low oxygen adaptations at high altitudes. Other examples include darker skin in mid latitudes to protect from ultraviolet radiation or conversely light skin in high latitudes to enhance vitamin D production, or lactose digestion in adults in communities which domesticate milk producing animals.

The article also goes over some of the common, and false, arguments against race being a biological construct including lewontin’s fallacy, which I have previously covered myself.

A final argument often forwarded against the use of racial classifications is that the genetic variation between human populations is small and dwarfed by the genetic variation within populations (Lewontin 1972; Templeton 2013). Therefore, so this argument goes, racial classifications contain almost no meaningful biological information. There are two counterarguments to this. First, if one focuses on the correlational structure among multiple genetic loci instead of serially examining single loci or averaging over multiple loci, then there are clear and biologically informative differences among human populations (Cochran and Harpending 2009; Edwards 2003; Tang et al. 2005). In other words, different human population groups are recognizable by their genetic profiles but only if one examines a pattern of genetic loci. Tang et al. (2005), for example, reported evidence that self-reported ethnicity corresponded very closely with genetic clusters derived from 326 microsatellite markers. Other studies have found similar power to detect accurately people’s ancestry (Guo et al. 2014; Moreno-Estrada et al. 2014). Of course, this would be impossible without sufficient genetic information to distinguish among human populations.

Importantly, it highlights the reality that personality and psychology also has a biological component, and this varies across races:

The human brain is the same as the human body in this regard and is not somehow immune to natural selection. Or, as Nicholas Wade (2014) succinctly noted, “brain genes do not lie in some special category exempt from natural selection. They are as much under evolutionary pressure as any other category of gene” (p. 106). It is almost certain that human populations vary psychologically in interesting, important, and scientifically meaningful ways because they were subject to different selective regimes (Rushton 1985; Wade 2007). To preview one example briefly, natural selection may have slightly dialed up the general intelligence knob on Ashkenazi Jews (i.e., an adjustment on an existing adaptation), who score roughly 110 on standardized intelligence tests (Cochran et al. 2006; Lynn 2011). Whether humans share a universal psychological profile depends upon the question one is trying to answer. If, for example, one wants to know how humans learn to recognize siblings, the concept of a panhuman psychical nature is probably fruitful (Lieberman et al. 2007). If, however, one wants to know why the Ashkenazim prosper in many societies, often despite virulent anti-semitism, then the concept of a universal psychical profile is not only wrong, but it also positively prevents researchers from accurately answering the question (because it leads to a fruitless exploration for sociocultural causes which cannot be the entire story).

Citing specific studies with specific genes, the authors discuss some personality traits which seem to vary over different populations, quite likely due to the genetic differences mentioned, including collectivism (east Asians) vs. individualism (NW Europeans) and Ashkanazi Jewish intelligence.

For additional information on the likely evolutionary pressures which led to an increase in pro-civilizational traits in Europeans, I recommend A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World by Gregory Clark. One of these days I am going to get around to doing a full review of this book.

By political necessity, the article is very conservative with its discussion of racial differences. However, it is a useful step in the right direction in gaining a mainstreamed understanding of the reality of race. The article calls out the social “scientists” who categorically rule out biological causes of racial differences as being unscientific. These “scientists” do so for no particular reason other than personal ideological preference. The article further proposes future research more openly and directly pursue possible biological explanations. Despite the obvious qualification that the article doesn’t go far enough in honestly admitting the primacy of biology in racial differences, it is still an important contribution in advancing the our understanding of human nature by addressing the largest problem currently extant in the academic community: Left-wing bias in favor of (false) universal egalitarianism.

We are not naive about the obstacles a Darwinian approach to human biological diversity faces. We hope only to start a candid discussion and to forward some suggestions about how to proceed with this paradigm. Doubtless, some will continue to resist the notion that human populations differ in biologically meaningful ways. But it seems clear to us that biological diversity is the rule across the vast tapestry of life. It is true among plants, among animals, among humans, and among human populations.

Read full article here.

Share Button

Polarity shift #3

In February of 2016, the BBC ran a fake news article about women being better software programmers than men based on a study which had not actually been published, and of which the authors did not intend to release the data. Of course, since that is bullshit, the BBC has changed the title of the article several times, and now it only claims that gender bias exists. Still bullshit. Or if there is gender bias, it is against nerdy Asian/Indian/white guys rather than Strong Women of Color. Below are some polarity shifted excerpts from the original article. Editorial notes in []:

Computer code written by white men has a higher approval rating than that written by women – but only if their gender is not identifiable, new research suggests.

The US researchers analyzed nearly 1.4 million users of the open source program-sharing service Github.

They found that pull requests – or suggested code changes – made on the service by white men were more likely to be accepted than those by women.

The paper is awaiting peer review.

This means the results have yet to be critically appraised by other experts.


However the team was able to identify whether roughly 1.4m were male or female – either because it was clear from the users’ profiles or because their email addresses could be matched with the Google + social network. [This sample is probably bad, the methodology sucks hard. Github by default does not identify gender so self-identifying gender means a lot of self selection of the sample, with results that could be skewed far from the norm.]

The researchers accepted that this was a privacy risk but said they did not intend to publish the raw data. [Emphasis mine, this is a huge red flag. They could have made the whole thing up.]


“Our results suggest that although white men on Github may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless,” the researchers concluded.

“I think we are going to see a resurgence of interest from white men in not only coding but all sorts of tech-related careers over the next few years,” she said.

“Knowing that white men are great at coding gives strength to the case that it’s better for everyone to have more white men working in tech.”

“It was white men who came up with almost every new idea in computer science in the first place, we owe it to them to make sure that we encourage and support white men in the software industry,” Dr Black added.

While not as egregious as my previous polarity shift, you could just as equally not expect anything so openly pro-white male to be published on any mainstream fake news site like the BBC. I actually missed this when it first came out, but a twitter link recently made me aware of it. You can see a complete take-down of the fake news here:

  • There are obvious issues in attempting to identify someone’s gender online
  • There are far more male users on GitHub then one could argue that men are in fact far better at coding because far more are actually doing it and many women are missing in action. Perhaps the small number of women who get involved are marginally better on average, but they would still be vastly outnumbered by men who are equally or more capable.
  • The media have cherry-picked data from the study which also showed clear bias towards those openly identifying themselves as female in many areas.


Anyway, the real villain here is not Dr Black but of course the BBC who not only promote such propaganda, but exaggerate the “findings” of these studies to a greater extent than even those behind them. Using the wonderful Newssniffer site, we can see the BBC actually used a slightly more reasonable headline in its very first version of the article, which read “Women may write better code, study finds”. However, just 35 minutes later someone decided to remove the term “may”, thus throwing all caution out the window and moving fully away from journalism and into feminist activism instead.

Read the whole thing. It is an excellent exposé on the process of generating fake news in the MSM.


Share Button

Autism and the Extreme male brain

A new excerpt from my book, Smart and SeXy has been published on

Increased fetal testosterone affects brain morphology, which results in increasing sexual dimorphism in a variety of brain regions. Excessive testosterone triggers super-normal male-typical development of the brain. This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that ASCs have a heavy male bias. It is theoretically easier to transition from normal male testosterone levels to excessive levels than it is to go from normally low levels in females to excessive levels. Further evidence for this theory includes recent research showing that women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, a condition which leads to elevated levels of Androgens in the fetal environment, have a 59% increase in the risk of having children with an ASC.i In support of this idea, in traditional autism, the gender disparity ranges from 4:1 to 8:1 male to female sufferers depending on the study. For Asperger’s specifically, the ratio may be as high as 11:1.

Read the rest at

Share Button

115 lb female “Fire Fighter”

There was a reddit thread in /r/fitness in which a 115 lb woman somehow qualified to undergo fire fighter training. Here is her original post(archive):

Hey Reddit!

So I accomplished a huge dream and kicked ass at my PAT today for fire school. I’m pretty short at 5’2 and 115lbs. I was the third person to finish out of a group of mostly guys on a 2 mile walk with an SCBA on in under 30 minutes which was brutal. As well as an obstacle course per se right after (climbing 5 story w high pack, raising 2.5 hose up, keiser sled, charged hose drag, dummy drag) that I completed in under four minutes with a 7 min time limit.

I am just wondering what exactly can I do to improve on my endurance and still be able to build strength? Should I run for a certain time and do weights after? Or maybe just do weights one day and run the next? I’d like to put on some muscle but not sure if cardio will make that difficult..

I was doing crossfit for a couple months before training with a fire dept who helped set up a course for me such as dummy drags and tire drags with a hose.

Fire school doesn’t start for another month so I just want to prepare while at home over xmas and can’t go to a crossfit gym or train with the fire dept where I’m at.

Thank you for any advice!!

EDIT: [this was added sometime after I interacted with the thread]

Thank you to those who actually gave sound advice!! There are some great replies on here I’ll definitely be trying out workouts suggested to help prepare myself even more!

I blew by men over twice my size who struggled immensely by not being prepared. It’s about heart and who’s willing to do the work to get themselves to that level.

I of course responded to this insane nonsense.

You are too small to carry someone out of a burning building. Your presence in a job you aren’t suited for risks the lives of people in very dangerous situations. The other fire fighters will not be able to depend on you to carry 100s of pounds with either the strength or endurance necessary, so it also puts their lives in danger.

Get out before someone dies because you aren’t up to the physical demands that are required. It isn’t your fault you aren’t suitable to be a fire fighter, you weren’t built for it. But it will be your fault for knowingly endangering your community and fellow fire fighters because of whatever stupid “girl power” propaganda you have been fed.

Many commenters responded to this common sense to inform me that I was an “asshole” and an “idiot” for pointing out the realities of human nature. For example:

It’s assholes like you that beat down the dreams of women willing to try that piss me off the most. Just because there are physical and mental differences between men and women doesn’t mean we don’t have a part to play. The ones willing to put up with your sort of shit and try are way more motivated than some guy who’s had this whole process made a lot easier by societal expectations.

Industries need to change and that includes professions like firefighting. It may be that she couldn’t ever carry your conceited ego down flights of stairs, but being small and feisty is certainly a trait that is worth a hell of a lot! Especially if she’s brace enough to enter buildings most of us would run from.

Stop letting your ‘facts’ about the differences between men and women blind you to the fact that we are tough, we care more, and we fight the status quo.

The only part you play is slowing down the men doing the actual work and making them work harder than they otherwise would have to. They have to pick up the slack for everything you can’t do because they are basically down a man.  “Small and feisty” translates to tiny, shrill and obnoxious bitch. I am not sure in what circumstances or by whom such traits are valued, but it isn’t in fire fighting. And not in wives for that matter. Lastly, I am advised to stop letting facts get in the way of the righteous fight for social justice because tiny women “care more”. Care more about larping as men than the potential victims of house fires is what I guess she meant. When past elites came up with the idea of negative eugenics, it is people like this they had in mind.

This comment thread generated quite a large amount of controversy as hyper-triggered SJWs fought tooth and nail with semi-motivated realists. I had a couple more comments, and there were a large number of other comments by other users both for and against my hate-fact mean-truth. Probably a 35/65 percent split (sigh, but it is better than it used to be in my experience). Unfortunately, thought-crime is illegal in weimerica and all of these comments were nuked, I was banned from /r/fitness (lol), and the entire comment thread was locked. There is no way for me to directly link to these comments since they have been removed, but if you go to the original thread and follow the instructions at “unedit” you can restore them for your viewing pleasure. You will have to scan for them though.

One enterprising user posted the following video, which demonstrates male vs. female ability in situations mimicking that of a fire fighter on the job using an actual female “fire fighter” alongside amateur males (this was also removed):

I was banned so quickly I didn’t have a chance to cite additional research. I fully intended to once I triggered enough people. In my book, Smart and Sexy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences Between the Sexes I actually devoted a chapter to physical differences because those too are actively denied in our culture with great negative consequences. And this is despite how much more obvious these differences are compared to the admittedly much more subtle mental differences. Our culture refuses to believe our lying eyes. I also didn’t even get into the financial waste of spending millions of dollars installing female bathrooms into fire stations in a major city such as Los Angeles. There were only 27 Female “fire fighters” in LA at the time this money was spent. Anyway, here are some excerpts from “Smart and Sexy” on female strength, endurance, and proneness to injury (all studies used are listed at the end of this post):

Differences in physical strength, endurance, and athletic proficiency are an order of magnitude more striking [than mental differences]. The average woman has only 52% of the upper body strength and only 66% of the lower body strength of the average man. Similar numbers are found when comparing muscular endurance. Another way to consider this difference is to look at the overlap in strength distributions between genders. When such a comparison is made, it turns out that only the strongest 2.5-5% of the female distribution overlaps with the male mean strength. Mirroring this, only the weakest 2.5-5% of male distribution overlaps with the mean female strength. One study which measured hand grip strength found that 90% of females had less hand grip strength than 95% of male group. The strongest control group female was surpassed by 2/3rds of the male control group. In the same study, female athletes who specially trained for sports they played were also considered. Even these athletically elite females only managed to reach the 25th percentile of untrained males on average. Seemingly though, cognitive dissonance knows no bounds because there are feminists who would deny this reality in the face of unambiguous and overwhelming evidence; not to mention plain common sense.

Percentage of Males and Female with a Given Handgrip Strength or More


The graph above compares maximum male and female grip strengths. At any given strength level the percentage of males or females who were able, when exerting maximally, to reach at least that minimum level of force or greater is shown. For example, all volunteers could exert more than 150 Newtons worth of force so 100% of males and females could exert that level of force or more. As the minimum required force increases, progressively fewer people have the strength to exert that force. Dotted lines are used to compare the strongest 5% of females (shaded area) to the male curve. It can be seen from this comparison that just over 90% of males are stronger than 95% of females. In other words, the strength differences between males and females are so large that their distributions barely overlap even at the tales. Neither males nor females in this group engaged in special athletic training.

Comparison of the Hand Grip Strength Distribution between Typical Males, Typical Females, and Elite Females

Above is a graph comparing the distribution of hand grip strength between typical males, typical females, and highly athletic females (i.e., elite females). Each distribution is divided into quartiles and each quartile is bounded by a horizontal black line. The grey area denotes 50% of the overall population (25th percentile to the 75th percentile). As can be seen from the graph, the strongest typical female is weaker than the male mean. Among the athletically trained female population, only the far tale of the distribution overlaps with the male mean. This indicates that even with training few women are able to attain a strength comparable with the untrained male population. This comparison does not include an athletically trained male population, but it can be expected that there would be little to no overlap with the female cohort if such a population was included. The shape of the curves were added as a qualitative representation of the relative population density at a given maximum strength where greater width indicates more of the population has that strength.

Data from Leyk, D., Gorges, W., Ridder, D., Wunderlich, M., Ruther, T., Sievert, A., Essfeld, D. (2007) Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 99:415–421

… [lack of physical aptitude in military recruitment, non-italics are a direct quote from a study listed at the end of this post]

At the time of enlistment, a seventeen-year-old female is expected to do thirteen push-ups, compared to thirty-five for males, while for forty-one-year-olds, the numbers are six and twenty-four, respectively. A seventeen year-old girl is expected to run two miles in nineteen minutes, forty-two seconds or less, which is twelve seconds more than a forty-one year old man gets. A forty-one-year-old woman has to “run” two miles in twenty-four minutes and six seconds, almost five minutes more than a man receives.

More than 50% of female trainees in the marines are unable to do even three pull-ups. Instead they are required to do a “flexed arm hang” for a minimum 15 seconds; a much less stringent requirement. Over all age ranges, women can only do about one third the number of pushups compared to men; 30 vs. 10. Men average 2-4 fewer minutes per mile on long distance running tasks (7 vs. 10 minutes for a 1 mile run and 16 vs. 20 on a 2 mile run). Women can only do 40 sit ups on average compared to the male mean of 60. Female recruits also tend to be less physically fit on average (i.e., they are fatter). One of the most remarkable reductions in standards is the lowered minimum throwing radius expected of women throwing grenades. Women are only expected to be able to throw a grenade 25 meters compared to 35 meters expected of males and many can’t even throw it that far. What happens if a female combat troop muffs her throw and gets everyone around her killed? That incurring this level of increased danger to troops is accepted is incomprehensible, and yet that is how things are actually done today.

…[female proneness to injury in the military]

 Beyond simply having less physical strength, the female body also appears much less suited to strenuous physical exertion. Multiple studies have all found similar results: Women are consistently and significantly more likely to be injured. During basic training, it can be expected that 50% of female recruits will develop some sort of injury compared to 27% of men (i.e., they are 1.8 times more likely to be injured). Women are 2.5 times more likely to develop injuries that lead to significant time loss from training. More than 50% of women are prevented from ever completing their training because of some sort of injury. This pattern has been stable since the 1970s.

Women are several orders of magnitude more likely to incur some specific injuries. For example, 1 in 367 female military personnel can be expected to suffer a pelvic stress fracture compared to only 1 in 40,000 men. This is unsurprising given that the female pelvis has evolved to accommodate childbirth, not heavy load bearing or other stresses. More generally, stress fractures occur about 10 times as often in women than men in the military. Depending on the study, ACL ruptures are between 2.4 and 9.7 more likely in women than in men. Overuse injuries, defined as an injury that results from extended, repetitive use of a specific body part, occur in 68% of women compared to 48% of men. The cumulative result of all of these injuries is that women must go to the doctor and seek medical care at 9.2 times the rate of men.

All these extra injuries constitute a huge additional immediate cost to military operations and can be expected to increase with additional female involvement in the military. However, the extra costs do not end in immediate medical costs. Injuries which cause sufficient damage result in physical disability discharges. Such discharges entitle the person who receives it to financial benefits for the rest of their lives. Consistent with their higher rate of injuries generally, women are 64% more likely to receive a physical disability discharge. And this was without them ever being intentionally exposed to combat situations at the time these studies were done. One year saw female disability discharge be as high as 140 per 10,000 female military personnel. In the same year, male disability discharge was only 80 per 10,000 male military personnel, despite the fact that they are more commonly exposed to dangerous and/or physically demanding tasks. Disability costs take up an absolutely staggering amount of the military budget. In 2001, 21 billion dollars was paid out in compensation to disabled military service personnel when all services are considered. 25% of this disability compensation budget is made as direct cash payments and this was the level of payments before the recent Iraq and Afghanistan wars even took place.

As a side note, I also summarized an anecdote recounted in Jared Taylor’s book “Face to Face with Race” [highly recommended] which digressed long enough to talk about a specific female fire fighter:

Strength isn’t the only problem, either. Gender differences in bravery and risk-taking also matter. Jared Taylor, in his book Face to Face with Race, digresses from the general focus of the book to discuss the story of a female fire lieutenant who was hired and then promoted, in complete disregard for any sensible, merit-based physical standards. The hiring and promotion of this woman, like most female fire fighters, was done by the fire department to meet politically inspired quotas. When her crew arrived to a fire, instead of doing the standard procedure of dragging the heavy hose into the house, breaking down the door to the room on fire, and putting it out, she became afraid and reminded the crew that she was in command and ordered them not to enter. They were to try to put it out from the outside. Of course this didn’t work and it wasn’t until a male chief from a different crew showed up, relieved the cowardly woman of command, and ordered the firefighters to do the correct thing that the fire was put out. Later, the female fire fighter had a nervous break down as a result of her now widely known incompetence among the other fire fighters. She was reported to have started hitting herself repeatedly as part of this. She also became enraged at the fire department and sued them for “discrimination.”

Its funny how anyone who spends genuine effort and time trying to learn about the realities of a situation like female fire fighters or military personnel, they automatically become an asshole, an idiot, and a moron. And then they get banned from polite society (and reddit sub-forums).

Bonus, the dutch version of survivor where the give men and women different islands with completely expected results:

Studies used in the sections quoted from the book:

Miller, A. E., MacDougall, J. D., Tarnopolsky, M. A., Sale, D. G. (1993) Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1993;66(3):254-62.

Meyer, L. G., Pokorski, T. L., Ortel, B. E., Saxton, J. L., Collyer, P. D. Muscular Strength and Anthropometric Characteristics of Male and Female Naval Aviation Candidates. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.

Leyk, D., Gorges, W., Ridder, D., Wunderlich, M., Ruther, T., Sievert, A., Essfeld, D. (2007) Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes. Eur J Appl Physiol (2007) 99:415–421

Browne, K. (2007) Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars. Sentinel. ASIN: B000W94H5I

 (2014) Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail pull-up test. Associated press.

Jones, B., Bovee, M., Knapik, J. (1992) Associations among body composition, physical fitness, and injury in men and women army trainees. National Academies Press. Body Composition and Physical Performance: Applications For the Military Services.

Frum, D. (2013) The Truth About Women in Combat. Daily Beast.

Jordan, B. (2014) Data Predict Spike in Female Troop Injuries.

Springer, B.A., Ross, A. (2011) Musculoskeletal injuries in military women. Borden Institute.

Bell, N.S., Mangione, T. W., Hemenway, D., Amoroso, P. J., Jones, B. H. (2000) High injury rates among female army trainees: a function of gender? Am J Prev Med. 2000 Apr;18(3 Suppl):141-6.

Department of the Army (2011) Prevention and Control of Musculoskeletal Injuries associated with Physical Training. Department of the Army.

Share Button

Why the US military will lose

I was watching a youtube video yesterday when the following US Army recruitment video came up:

This is a joke. Or would be in a sane world. The US Army cares more about affirmative action than actually winning anything. Lots of minorities and women are featured here, which is dumb enough on its own, but a black woman is the most prominently featured. Black women are the worst possible demographic for the role of competent computer security expert. Blacks in the US have an average IQ of 85, well below the minimum level for this field and a standard deviation lower than the white average. In addition, women in general are much less suited towards technical and mathematics roles. Black females are literally the least suited demographic to this role available and the military is dumb enough to actually try to recruit this group to this role. Its like they are trying to lose.

Or maybe they just made this video with affirmative action hires to avoid the inevitable uproar from university snow flakes who at any other time would be calling for the complete dissolution of the military. If I were part of the military brass, I would declare all demographic information of the troops top secret so leftists would never find out it was entirely filled out with all White, Northeast Asian, and maybe Indian (with a dot) males.

Share Button

Trump’s Neoreaction Connection?

This is what winning looks like. Winning hard.

Peter Thiel, a major backer of Neoreaction founder Curtis Yarvin’s (moldbug’s) Urbit project, gets a seat right next to Donald Trump at a tech company meeting with the president elect. See above picture. Thiel has been a supporter of Trump for some time and even gave a speech for him in October. And before that at the republican national convention. He is also more or less an official advisor of Trump.

Neoreaction has a number of different strains, but perhaps the most important is a form of post-libertarian futurism that, realizing that libertarians aren’t likely to win any elections, argues against democracy in favor of authoritarian forms of government. In this guise, it’s a heretical offshoot of Valley nerd culture, and has particular associations with Thiel. Mencius Moldbug (real name Curtis Yarvin), the “founder” of neoreaction, is a Bay Area programmer whose start-up, Urbit, is backed by Thiel.

Some remarks by Trump on Thiel:

“I won’t tell you the hundreds of calls we had asking to come to this meeting,” Trump said early on, acknowledging Thiel’s advisory role. “Peter was sort of saying, you know, that company is sort of too small.”

“I want to start by thanking Peter,” he continued, “because he saw something very early, maybe before we saw it, and of course he’s known for that in a different way,” perhaps in reference to Thiel’s early support of his candidacy.

Thiel, he added, is “a very special guy.”

He saw something early. You mean like neoreaction and Curtis Yarvin? You mean like CEO of America Trump? Maybe I am reading too much into this, but neocameralism calls for a CEO of America. Both Trump and Thiel are CEOs with experience. They seem to get along well and do so publicly. Very, very few heads of large companies publicly supported Trump during his campaign (were there any?).  Thiel has a direct connection with the founder of neoreaction in the form of giving him large amounts of money. He obviously believes in Moldbug’s technology ideas if he is willing to give him money. Why should we think that support stops with technology?  Honestly, can you say these are bad choices for the new neocameralist joint-stock company of America?


Thiel oddly has a Christian connection as well. Apparently he is quite fond of J.R.R Tolkien’s works and has named a number of his companies after things in those books:

Because he is a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings. So far, he has set up six firms (Palantir, Valar Ventures, Mithril Capital, Lembas LLC, Rivendell LLC and Arda Capital) that take their names from Tolkien’s creation.

Tolkien very specifically wrote those books with Christian metaphysics in mind. This is a synchronicity worth considering.

Edit 2:

According to politico, Steve Bannon, who was instrumental in Trump’s campaign and continues as an important advisor, is also a fan of Moldbug’s writing. However, nothing conclusive appears in the article itself. They could have just made it up.

Share Button

Smart and SeXy Kindle edition is now available for USD 6.95. Kindle Unlimited subscribers can download for free

Arktos has prepared and made available the kindle version of Smart and Sexy. Obviously this is available at a much cheaper price than the softcover version. However, the softcover version is also at a discounted price of USD 18.48 for the time being. I personally prefer having real paper to look at when I am reading, but it is hard to beat more than a 50% discount at USD 6.95. For those of you who wanted to take a look at Smart and SeXy, but thought it was too expensive, hopefully this option will be more amenable to you.

Share Button