Smart and SeXy

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

The soft cover edition is available here. If you are on a budget you can also download the E-book. You can read the amerika.org review here and the counter-currents 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

Women’s Olympic Soccer Team loses 0-7 playing teenage boys 14 years old (or younger)

You can read about it here or here.

Honestly, I am not particularly surprised by this outcome. In my soon to be released book on intellectual differences between the sexes (Titled “Smart and Sexy“), I spent a short time evaluating past research on the differences in strength, endurance, and other physical aptitudes such as proneness to injury. Let’s just say that though the intellectual differences are there and substantial, they don’t come close to the physical differences. A lot, but not all, of this research I used in the book was performed by the military in the doomed desire to integrate women into the military. I think they stopped doing it as much, or at least stopped releasing it publicly, once it became clear that they weren’t getting the “right” answers.

I’ll only mention one of the studies here (a non-military one), but suffice it to say all the relevant research comes up with similar stuff. One interesting study was a comparison of hand-grip strength between normal males, normal females, and athletic trained “elite” females. The results of the study showed that the entire distributions of normal males and normal females barely overlapped at all. 90% of the male population was stronger than 95% of the female population. Below is a graph I made for the book that uses data from the study (There is a typo in this image file in the last sentence which is already fixed in the book. This graph doesn’t contain the elite females data set is all it is saying.):

male female grip strength graph

Elite females did better than normal females, but even then only their extreme outliers reached the 50th percentile of the normal male distribution:

men women elite women compare hand grip strength no textThe above pseudo-distributions are divided into population quartiles by the black horizontal lines. In other words, each horizontal zone covers 1/4 of the population. The shape was added just to look nicer for the book and show that it is indeed a distribution.

Elite, athletically trained males were not included at all. Honestly, I think the above provides all the information you really need to know. If elite females do that badly compared to normal males, you can just imagine what a comparison to elite males would show. I am not sure if the authors didn’t bother with this for the above reason, or if they did get the data and decided it would be a little too controversial for their taste.

So that is the kind of things the research tells us. Once that is established you can start considering the anecdotes as being normal or the rule rather than exceptions to be discounted. One of the examples I used in the book was that of the 200th ranked male tennis player who beat the top ranked Williams sisters, while smoking cigarettes and drinking beer right before the match and during the intermission. (Sorry to use a forum post, but that article was the funniest and appears to have been deleted from its original source. A quick google search can find better, and more boring, articles). Not to mention that the Williams sisters were black while Braasch, the male tennis player, was white. As black women, they almost certainly had more testosterone than women of other races but that wasn’t enough.

If this soccer match had happened before getting into the editing and formatting phase of publication I likely would have used it as well. It  is a better example. Males who had barely started puberty blowing out a top ranked adult women’s soccer team is a very difficult anecdote to ignore. 13 and 14 year old boys aren’t anywhere near reaching their physical prime, which won’t be until they reach around the age of 22 or so. We have every reason to believe these kids are going to get a lot better. Currently, Australia’s women’s soccer team is ranked 5th in the world, and is expected to be a serious contender for the gold medal at the next Olympics. Apparently it isn’t the first time this team has lost to boys much younger than themselves (see original links).

At first you might wonder why the people running all this, who are almost certainly progressive, are allowing such blatant proof of crimethink to go ahead. The simple answer is they have no choice. There are no women’s teams available who are at a high enough level to train with. If they want a chance of doing well at the Olympics they have to play against skilled opponents and the only ones available at a satisfactory level (not too high and not too low) are teams comprised of teenage boys. Though obviously even thirteen and fourteen year olds, properly trained and skilled, are more than a match for a top adult women’s team. Maybe they would have better luck if they played against ten year olds.

So what we have is a fair number of publicized examples of female physical inferiority in physical endeavors, not to mention common sense and experience, as well as a fair amount of research confirming that these anecdotes aren’t just stereotypes, misogyny, or whatever else. These are real differences. Yet we are still opening up combat positions for women in the military which will introduce unnecessary extra danger to everyone involved. Life threatening danger. The fact that this stuff is all out there and easily accessible, yet I find my opinion here to be in the minority, makes me wonder how the world has become as insane as it is. This isn’t rocket science, anyone can easily understand this merely from personal interaction. Yet you are going to lose your job if you mention it publicly under your real name. What the hell kind of world are we living in?

Share Button

“You are not open-minded”

I have had this post on the back burner for some time (I have a number of those actually). A while ago a thread on reddit talked about an extremely flawed study which found that black and white children raised in Germany after world war 2 had the same IQ. Well, not really but that is what prig progs want it to show.

I got into a conversation with a leftoid who had so much cognitive dissonance that not only did he himself point out the flaws in the study and why it didn’t technically show this, he still held firm that it qualified as good evidence that black and white IQs are the same on average just so long as you adjust the environment. Unfortunately this user has since deleted his comments and I didn’t bother saving them all at the time so I just have what I happened to copy over then. Sorry. However, this post isn’t strictly about that one study so summarizing the exchange should be sufficient.

There were two major confounding influences which caused problems for the general application of the findings of this study (and this user pointed this out himself). He quoted the following from the study:

The mothers of the children studied were white German women, while their fathers were white and African-American members of the US occupation forces. In contrast to results obtained in many American studies, the average IQs of the children studied were roughly similar across racial groups

White and black G.I.’s in Germany were not equally representative of their respective populations, since about 30 percent of blacks, compared to about 3 percent of whites, failed the preinduction mental test and were not admitted into the armed forces

The equal IQs were from people who were only half black, and their fathers were unrepresentative because the army didn’t recruit people who failed IQ tests. The blacks who made it to Germany from America in WWII were highly unrepresentative and had been specifically filtered by IQ tests. All of the potential black fathers were above the 30th percentile of the black IQ distribution. In addition, as I will show in my soon to be released book, intelligence is to a large extent X linked which means that when there are big differences in IQ between parents, a child is much more likely to resemble the (white and German) mother than the father. In other words, these results are not surprising, but do not invalidate or even contradict the vast amount of research done over the last century which shows blacks to have about a standard deviation lower IQ than whites. It is a very specific set of circumstances which led to a superficially contradictory result. Further consideration reveals that these kids do not represent blacks in general to any great extent. The consensus from studying racial differences in intelligence are quite clear: 30 years of racial iq studies [pdf]

What is weird about all this is that the guy who I was talking to knew all this was problematic, pointed it out himself in his own comments even, yet still argued with people that these flaws were irrelevant and the study showed that it was all environment. When faced with some opposition from myself and a few others, he eventually resorted to a common leftist shaming tactic which I am sure most of us are familiar with. He had no good arguments with which to defend his position and thus resorted to insulting his opponents character rather than admitting that the flawed study is more or less useless for his position. Here is the excerpt of his comment which is relevant and my response:

“You didn’t read it with an open mind at all”

I love it when leftists pull the “you’re not open minded” card. It shows such a lack of self-awareness it is amazing. There is a difference between rejecting a clearly very flawed study, which in your own comments you showed it to be, and being closed minded. Closed minded is seeing that the preponderance of evidence does not support your preferred happy talk version of things and sticking to the happy talk anyway. Especially if the happy talk is easier as it is the politically “correct” opinion. Open-mindedness is accepting the truth, however difficult it may be and however much people may hate you for it.

I originally planned to link to his comments directly so you could see everything he said, but unfortunately he deleted them. Probably because he realized he looked stupid. Anyway, I have found that some version of “You aren’t open-minded” is an extremely common leftist ploy when they can’t figure out any logical or rational way to defend their beliefs. (Though religious people use it too; stop doing that!) I have met many people in person who do the same thing and say the same damn phrase verbatim even. The problem isn’t that their idea is asinine and indefensible, the problem is that whoever just wont give the idea a chance or a try. They aren’t capable of being objective and thus their opinion should be dismissed. The problem is you as a person. This disingenuous way of shifting the focus of attention from their nonsense to your person is an unfortunately effective method of switching from defense to offense without having to do any rigorous intellectual work. They don’t even have to justify the claim about your person because being open or closed minded is such an ambiguous idea (and with connotations conveniently preset to leftist advantage) that most people immediately allow the topic to be changed and start defending their character when the accusation is in no way warranted. Don’t let leftists (or anyone else) get away with this tactic. Recognize it for what it is and immediately steer the conversation back to their asinine beliefs. Keep them on the defensive. You can point out what just happened explicitly and turn it back, or just ignore it like the shit test it is and make another criticism of their idea directly. Keep on point and keep focused.

I really hate the not open-minded “criticism” because it implies that you have very little knowledge of the subject under debate. It directly insults your integrity and is a very deep sign of disrespect that in better days would have led to an ass-kicking. When found together, ignorance and strong opinion do imply closed mindedness, but very often the ignorance ingredient isn’t actually present and there is little reason to think the “closed-minded” person is not knowledgeable about the subject matter. Often it is the accuser of closed-mindedness who has the smaller degree of knowledge and/or is manifestly losing the debate. Why else would they use this tactic rather than just pointedly defending their position? Even in circumstances where the accusation is true, it is no less of a logical fallacy and shouldn’t be engaged in. Don’t do it yourself, and don’t allow others to do it to you. With greater knowledge you would expect firmer stances on any given issue. If you know why something will or will not work, then you are much more likely not to be compromising about it and you shouldn’t compromise. If your mind is to be changed then it will result from honest, rational argumentation on part of the person trying to change your mind. Not from deceitful sophistry and changing the subject.

Edit: See more comments on this post here.

Share Button