Scientific Proof That Women Love Drama

YET ANOTHER ♥♥♥♥♥♥ scientific study confirms gender stereotypes and validates core game concepts.

Research finds women feel happy when their husband or partner is upset.

The detailed study found that wives or girlfriends were pleased when their partner showed emotion because they believed it demonstrated a healthy relationship.

The survey, carried out by Harvard Medical School, also found that when men realised their wife was angry, the women reported being happier, although the men were not.

It revealed women most likely enjoyed spotting when their partner was dissatisfied because it showed his strong “engagement” or “investment” in their time together.

In short, women love to instigate relationship drama, and to wallow in drama, because it reignites the romantic spark. A stoic, self-satisfied, dutiful, honorable, provider beta male is BORING to women because he doesn’t show enough tingle-generating emotion or “connection” that makes women swoon. This explains why guys like Chris Brown can repeatedly nail hot strumpets like Rihanna.

Rightly or wrongly, women interpret men’s lower emotion and drama baseline as evidence of their withdrawing love and, potentially, withdrawn resources. Those female readers who say this is just evidence that people in general appreciate signs of commitment miss the appropriate sex comparison: it’s only women who feel happier when drama reassures them that they are loved. Men do not need drama to feel loved. Men need access to your pussies to feel loved. In fact, men feel worse when a relationship is going through a dramatic stage.

Many game principles and tactics — e.g., freeze-outs, backturns, negs, push-pull, dread inducement — operate under the premise that women crave drama and are particularly attracted to the men who can provide it. A woman’s need for drama as a sign of relationship health and empathic understanding can be co-opted and redeployed by players to increase women’s sexual desire for them. This study and the accompanying lessons are a great example of how the modern science of seduction and its applied game theory succeeds by harnessing women’s innate, natural, biological sexual and romantic predispositions for the benefit of satisfying men’s desires.

And, ultimately, for the benefit of women’s desires as well.

Read Full Post »

What Kristen Stewart’s Cheating Tells Us About Good-Looking Beta Males

People are asking my opinion of the Kristen Stewart affair. She cheated on her boyfriend Robert Pattinson with her movie’s director, an older, objectively less physically attractive married man whose wife is a model. Ok, here goes.

1. She’s cute.

2. She’s a horrible actress.

3. You can be the best looking man in the world, but if you’re a beta in your core (and there is evidence in his quoted words that Pattinson is an unreconstructed beta) you will suffer a higher chance of getting cheated on by your girlfriend if she spends any nontrivial amount of time with an alpha male who has the ATTITUDE.

4. This is more anecdotal evidence that male looks and youth simply aren’t as vital to revving women’s libidos as female looks and youth are to igniting men’s libidos.

In the modern West, betaness is a disease, and I aim to deliver the cure.

Read Full Post »

Gay Fitness (And Schizophrenia Genes)

Purely speculative time-waster post follows…

The push by evolutionary scientists to find an explanation for homosexuality is confounded by the seemingly obvious fact that homos don’t naturally reproduce (leaving aside lesbians and turkey basters for the moment). Many theories are then offered which supposedly account for the steady 2-4% rate of male gayness in most (all?) societies that don’t disobey the law of reproductive fitness. The most convincing of these theories that I have read include chimerism, multiple gene influence selecting for creativity that goes haywire, hormonal imbalance in the womb, and parasitical infection of the womb or early infant. The long-standing theory of the “gay uncle” who helps increase the fitness of his nieces and nephews has been debunked, from what I understand.

But what if the premise is wrong in a hairy male ass sort of way? What if gay men actually DO have higher reproductive fitness than straight men? Allow me to probe and unpack the issue. Say that, before the modern age of widely available contraceptives and social tolerance of openly DEDICATED gay men (not just tolerance of straight men getting their low status rocks off in young farmboy butt), gay men entered into relationships with women under heavy social and psychological pressure and bore more children than average with them than did straight men with their women. Say, too, that gay men have naturally tight game and thus attract the attention of more fertile babes than do straight men. Now posit that at some exquisitely sequined level of flaming gayness, the gay becomes so strong that the option to cavort with other men in a subterranean glory hole culture to the exclusion of having sex with women or marrying them as beards renders a certain percentage of gay men evolutionary dead ends.

Would this fitness dynamic not, over eons of selection, result in what we see today: a low, but steady rate of men born with the gay gene(s)?

If I’m right about this, then a gay gene or genes may actually exist and, ironically, the total acceptance of gays by wider society may result in the disappearance of the gay male population by relieving them of the external peer pressure and the internal guilt pressure to be with women, and thus to bear children with them and pass on their snarky DNA. Or: gay pride could mean gay extinction.

Again, just speculating… I happen to think Cochran’s germ theory is the most likely explanation, and if that’s the case, and the germ or parasite remains unidentified, the gay population will go on renewing itself for quite a few more generations. But once it is identified, and barring civilizational collapse it will be, you can bet your bottom dollar that all those right-thinking SWPL moms- and dads-to-be will, as per their usual MO in… ahem… delicate matters that directly impact their lives, hypocritically abort fetuses infected with the germ, or give the antidote to their newborns. Because, push comes to shove, parents want children who will give them grandchildren, or at least have the potential to give them grandchildren. The prime directives of human nature bow to no PC king.

On a semi-related note, is schizophrenia also fitness-increasing? That is, are schizophrenic or borderline schizoid men more attractive to women by dint of their charmingly aloof and intriguingly edgy personalities?

Koanic writes:

I’m skeptical of the whole mental illness thing. I think prolonged stress and depression, combined with dietary intolerances such as gluten common in Thals [ed: neanderthals, or neanderthal admixed Euro-descended peoples], can TOGETHER produce a severely bent mental state. And I think going “insane” in that situation can be partly a deliberate choice, and a worthwhile defense mechanism. E.g., adopting a Joker persona.

But that is not the same as being genetically predestined to “schizophrenia,” something I’m not even sure happens in a normal paleolithic environment.

I think the mainstream psychological consensus is bull. This whole “usual age for onset of schizophrenia thing” just strikes me as the age at which societally induced total despair sets in and people start cracking.

That I can definitely sympathize with. I meet a lot of Thals now that are under sick levels of despair and pressure. And I remember back in my blue pill days getting near cracking territory myself at times, what with health and social failure and threat of career failure, and trying to deal with all the conflicting messages about what I was supposed to be. It’s not a fun place to be, an interesting things start happening to your mind.

Readers may correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought alleles associated with schizophrenia have been found? Some schizoids may not be faking at all; their brains may be genuinely mis-wired, almost subhuman (or suprahuman, depending on your point of view).

An allelic connection to schizophrenia does not necessarily refute what Koanic wrote above; it could be the case that both alleles and societal despair push guys like Holmes to the edge. It could also be true that schizophrenia was not fitness-reducing in the cro-magnon environment (cro-magnons being the ones theorized to have bequeathed modern humans with mental illness genes; you may thank your local witch doctor for his gift) like it is today in the modern one.

Evidence for the latter contention is the DISTURBING fact that schizophrenics, particularly after they have snapped and gone postal, get lots of attention from young, fertile babes. While this is funny from the angle of watching the cognitive dissonance it elicits from feminists, it’s depressing to those white knights who can’t bear the thought that women they desire are apt to make some really horrible choices in mating partners (yes, mating; conjugal visits allow homicidal genes to spread). I mean, how the fuck do you write flowery poetry to the girl of your dreams when you strongly suspect she’d swoon for a mass murderer with orange hair?

So there’s your connection: schizophrenia and homosexuality — two genetic experiments that probably worked in the ancestral environment because men who inherited their characteristics were more attractive to women; but today, in the modern environment, are fitness reducing.

Discuss. And be sure to pepper your comments with lots of gay sex euphemisms. Top comments will get recognition for their creativity. You don’t want to be a bottom comment.

UPDATE

Looks like my theory that a little bit of gayness, not taken too far down the glory hole (i.e., not so gay that it drives the man to exclusive homosexuality), increases male reproductive fitness, has backup. Say hello to science!

Genetic factors predisposing to homosexuality may increase mating success in heterosexuals.

There is considerable evidence that human sexual orientation is genetically influenced, so it is not known how homosexuality, which tends to lower reproductive success, is maintained in the population at a relatively high frequency. One hypothesis proposes that while genes predisposing to homosexuality reduce homosexuals’ reproductive success, they may confer some advantage in heterosexuals who carry them. However, it is not clear what such an advantage may be. To investigate this, we examine a data set where a large community-based twin sample (N=4904) anonymously completed a detailed questionnaire examining sexual behaviors and attitudes. We show that psychologically masculine females and feminine men are (a) more likely to be nonheterosexual but (b), when heterosexual, have more opposite-sex sexual partners. With statistical modelling of the twin data, we show that both these relationships are partly due to pleiotropic genetic influences common to each trait. We also find a trend for heterosexuals with a nonheterosexual twin to have more opposite-sex partners than do heterosexual twin pairs. Taken together, these results suggest that genes predisposing to homosexuality may confer a mating advantage in heterosexuals, which could help explain the evolution and maintenance of homosexuality in the population.

I do say this is rather fascinating, Watson. A gay gene(s) might persist because heterosexual men who have, presumably, a recessive or single copy version of the butt pirate gene(s) have higher reproductive fitness (chicks dig them). My theory that gays in the past, when there was stronger social and psychological pressure to date women, had a leg up on straight men at attracting women and bearing more children with them because of their higher natural level of game, is buttressed by this study.

Here’s more evidence that a gene may be responsible for rusty star spelunking:

Male and female fruitflies have been engineered to switch courtship roles, through the manipulation of a single gene.

The study, which appears in Cell, shows how a simple genetic adjustment can cause a dramatic change in sexual behaviour. “It was quite something to see,” says Barry Dickson, who is one of the authors and is based at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

Humans aren’t fruit flies, of course, but these results are suggestive.

Read Full Post »

The Wall Survives Intact

Shiva the Detroyed Feminist locates a crumb of feminist hope amid a sea of feminism-crushing scientific studies and reality-assaulting dissonance:

I think this will win comment of next week:

This just blew open the “wall” theory. [ed: she wishes.]

sure, women may not be at the prime of their beauty in the future but they’ll still be in prime fertility at , say, 45.

Wow.

[ed: just wow.]

The schooling shall commence…

The wall is a function of women’s looks, which are, evolutionarily-speaking, a proxy for women’s fertility. Ovary transplant tech may extend fertility but it won’t do a damn thing for aging women’s declining looks. Men’s eyes don’t see women’s ovaries, they see women’s bodies and faces. Men are wired to respond sexually and emotionally to youthful female looks, not to a hidden working uterus. A 70 year old woman could be rejiggered to bear children thanks to the intervention of science, but she’ll still look 70 years old, and so men won’t be turned on by her. She will suffer the indignities of wall victimhood, having to settle for conceiving children with a turkey baster or a blind old goat who gets around on tennis balls. Tragically for feminists nursing delusions of sustained desirability, in the gene-governed sexual market where visual cues are men’s primary information medium it’s the proxies that matter, not the actual biowiring underneath.

There’s really no point to explaining the facts of life to feminists and other assorted grievance groups with real reasons to fear and loathe the truth — beyond its entertainment value as a button-pusher — because in three weeks’ time the same lot of them wander back into this happy hunting ground babbling the identical, debunked bromides all over again. Logic and reason hurt their wee egos for a brief spell, and then when enough time has passed for their self-medicated ids to baseline to normal and reconcile their cognitive dissonances, (say, ten minutes), they are right back to chanting pretty lies, sticking their fingers in their ears, and stamping their ascii feet. Never underestimate the lengths to which humans will lie to themselves and, consequently, to others to maintain an illusion of high sexual or social market value in the face of rapid deterioration or expendability.

If I had to put a number on it, I’d guess 80% of the human population is aggressively self-deceiving, with the number reaching close to 100% in backward societies and within certain ideological sects. With those numbers arrayed against you, it’s fruitless to battle for hearts and minds. The best you can do is mercilessly mock their pretensions to high holy hell, preferably in front of an audience, until some tiny illumination of self-preservation sparks in their limbic chimp systems and they sulk off to lick their ego wounds rather than face the psychic torture of further debasement on a public stage. Even the most blockheaded deluded dumbass will think twice about shrieking his or her stupidities when Total Ridicule is the only reward.

Read Full Post »

Chubby Chaser Olympics: The Most Special

A reader, whom I will assume for purposes of this post is not a troll, wrote:

I wanted to run a theory by you and get your thoughts, since a lot of what is said on your blog resonates with me. Awhile back you posted in “Do Fat Girls Get More Sex?” that 99 out of 100 men would choose a non-fatty over a fatty any day of the week. Now, don’t get me wrong – hogbeasts are a huge bonerkill for me – but (and I know this is anecdotal) I’ve known a LOT of men who profusely claim left and right that they prefer fatties. Your argument was that these guys are losers – and in the general case, I’d agree. But some of these guys have appeared, at least to me, to have a lot of game – they’ll flirt around with skinnier girls and the women will seem very interested. They’ll proceed to leave the hot girl and go home with some chubster.

First, I’d have a problem accepting your premise. I have not known a few men, let alone a lot of men, who claimed to prefer fatties. This sounds like feminist fantasy-speak, which is like Newspeak, except more implausible. Now, of the tiny number of men who I’ve come across who did claim they preferred fatties, all of them were nerdy, fat or possessed some other charmless personality flaw that would sufficiently account for their claimed preference. A classic case of inverted sour grapes as ever existed.

(Sour grapes is when a loser pretends that an unattainable hot chick is undesirable in some ridiculously unbelievable way to salve his ego. Inverted sour grapes is when a loser pretends that the ugly, fat chicks he can realistically get are the bees’ knees of beauty.)

As for these chubby chasers you “know” who supposedly “have game”, taking your word at face value, I have a few explanations:

1. They’re black men.

I don’t care who’s bothered by me mentioning this, if you’ve spent any time in mixed company or at da clubs, you can’t help but notice that black men, especially during end-of-night garbage hour, are the least discriminating race and will hump a fucking dirigible farting explosive helium gas if it meant getting their rocks off. For whatever reason — name your bogeyman: culture, genes, hormones — black dudes can seemingly get it up for the nastiest land whales a white or asian guy wouldn’t shake his flaccid dick at from ten meters. Does this mean black men *prefer* fat chicks? No. The mate choices of elite black men like actors and athletes attest to the fact that they will choose hot slender (dusky-white) babes when they can. But it does mean that, absent the choice, black men are more willing to spelunk belly folds and then rationalize it as a love for BBW, excuse me, curvy women.

(I do think, btw, that black men prefer a somewhat rounder, heftier rump on women. Baby got back, and all that. This is not the same as preferring a grotesque cottage cheese rippled fat rump roast.)

2. They’re men who missed out on the hottie and still have a leftover boner.

Let’s say these guys you know have game, and spent the night delighting slim girls with their charms. Sometimes, they aren’t going to close the deal. But their interactions with all those cute, thin chicks have left them with half-mast bonies, and now they are horny *and* halfway to ejaculating. In that state of groin, some men will be tempted to relieve themselves in chubsters who are 20 pounds overweight with egos which are 20 pounds underweight, and, more relevantly, who are easier to seduce. The men are already on an emotional high, so it’s a hop skip and jump away from positive nonsexual rapport with slender babes to negative sexual rapport with chubby chalupas. Younger men who have no state control are usually the worst perpetrators of the backup biggun bang.

3. They’re insecure men who lack the inner game to believe they really deserve the hotties.

This is my favorite explanation, because I have known men like this, and witnessed them in action. These are the guys who have great outer game, who can jive with the cute girls, get them pumped and laughing, and then….

booop booooop boooooooop

fizzle.

They lack the one necessary ingredient that separates the players from the poseurs: a rock solid belief in their value. They can’t close the deal when it matters. They know the tricks, and are socially savvy, and are probably pretty funny too, but when push comes to shove they balk and retreat to the demilitarized zone where they can practice their target shooting on 4s, 5s and 6s with no fear of territory loss. Why fat chicks? Think about this: One ONE-HUNDREDTH of the outer AND inner game you use on a hard 10 would be overkill on a chubby 4. The path of least resistance is an evil that some men will abide, and in doing so contribute to the plague of fat chicks thinking they will suffer no SMV consequences for their gluttony and sloth.

So my theory is that, evolutionarily, there might be something else going on here. What if this is an evolved response to cuckoldry? Fat women are, I’d wager, less likely to stray because they are inherently aware that they are sitting smack at the bottom of the SMV scale – and, of course, they get approached less. So, while it isn’t ideal to throw your seed into a fatty receptacle, it might be more likely to result in a child that is the product of your own genes. Perhaps some men have evolved to take advantage of this “benefit” in lieu of a different strategy?

Thoughts?

Your theory is interesting but I think my psychological (and biological) diagnoses above are more directly applicable. For your theory to have traction in the real world, we would have to presume the men who chubby chase are not, in fact, winners with game. Because winners with game would not be afraid of their women cuckolding them. Nor would they resort to fucking fat chicks when they have the goods to fuck hot thin chicks.

Losers, otoh, would be afraid of cuckoldry, at least subconsciously. So for your theory to hold water, chubby chasers would need to be low value men who correctly identify fat chicks as “sure things” from their gene’s-eye view. If anything, the greater likelihood of fat chicks to “accidentally” forget to use contraceptives (because they might not get the chance at sex again for a long while) mitigates against high value men risking a night of sloppy, ham-smashing passion with them.

Read Full Post »

Men Aren’t Attracted to High-Earning Women

The feminist and equalist gatekeepers of discourse are getting nervous that their house of lies is about to crumble in on them, thanks to the yeoman efforts of the alt-sphere. You can tell the heat is on them by the fevered pitch with which they churn out their copy, rife more than ever with sloppy logic, appeals to emotion and propaganda masquerading as fact.

An exemplar of this indisciplined genre is this Time article asserting that men are attracted to high-earning women, authored by Liza Mundy. The basis of her claim is the Hamilton Project which, she says, shows that men are more attracted to high-earning women.

Mundy makes the classic category errors of her type:

1. She conflates the marriage market with the sexual/dating market.

While there is overlap between the two markets, men bring to bear an adjusted set of criteria upon potential marriage partners. For instance, men will value chasteness and a low partner count history in marriage material women more than they will value those things in a sexual fling. (More tellingly, men tend to value looseness in short-term sexual prospects.) Men may also make cold, unemotional calculations that a woman of means can give their layabout asses a better life. For these reasons, plus more, the hottest woman a man meets is not necessarily the one he will wind up marrying. Often, men will marry out of expediency or a growing sense of weariness with the dating grind (it is a grind for a lot of men who don’t have the game to handle the particular challenges of dealing with lots of women on a regular basis).

2. She assumes men have unlimited options are are therefore marrying exactly the women they most desire.

If the highest income women are marrying at higher rates than the “bottom” 90% of women (and that’s a pretty big bottom), it does not necessarily follow from that statistic that the men those high-earning women marry are attracted to their marital choices. Or that the women are attracted, either. It could just as well be the case that those men are settling for aging, high SES women who are themselves letting up the gas on their hypergamy and relenting to the internal pressure to marry before they hit their physical expiry, a pressure which will be much more acute for women after a decade of higher education and career building.

3. She thinks that marriage is proof of physical attraction for men.

Again, there is nothing special about signing on the dotted nuptial line that reveals men’s raw desire better than their incorruptible boner reflexes. If (and that’a big “if”) men are marrying high-earning women at higher rates than they are marrying low income women, it could mean that one or both parties are settling to avoid loneliness, that lower income women are spurning men who want to marry them, that high income women are relaxing their standards for marriage, or that men are coerced by social conditions into marrying for reasons other than physical attraction or even love. It could be all of the above. If Mundy were truly interested to know which women high value men are attracted to, which women those in-demand men most DESIRE, she would strap a plethysmograph on a sample of men and measure their dick turgidity as they eat dinner with, talk to, and make out with hot poor babes and plain wealthy women.

Any guesses what that data would show? Mundy? *crickets*

4. She misrepresents the data.

The best I saved for last. Go to the link to that Hamilton Project study and read it for yourself. You’ll notice something peculiar; specifically, the graphs don’t mesh with her interpretation.

First, the marriage rates for men ages 30-50 in the top 10% of earnings are down to 83% today, from 95% in 1970. Fewer men of all income groups are getting married. If men are attracted to high-earning women, why aren’t more men getting married to the larger pool of these high earning women, a pool that has grown substantially since 1970? One theory: Educated, high earning women are the upgraded trophy second wives of divorced men. A smaller group of older, high status men are churning through a larger group of careerist women. Say hello to our brand new, serial monogamy, r-selection society.

Second, the graph for “Change in share of women married, by earnings, 1970-2011” shows that every income group of women, except for the top 1% of earners, experienced a decrease in marriage rates. Even the top 5% saw a decrease, albeit a smaller decrease than that experienced by women in the bottom 85% of earners. If men are attracted to high-earning women, then why are women in the upper quintile of earnings — real catches to men, according to Mundy’s theory — seeing a decrease in their odds of getting married?

The bottom line is that women’s earnings have only an indirect effect on men’s mate choices; namely, the higher a woman’s income, (and this goes just as much for women who went from zero income to minimum wage), the smaller her psychologically acceptable pool of prospective mates. And we see this reflected in the actual data, (as opposed to the data Mundy perceives). The top 1% of female earners are the only group of women who have seen a rise in marriage rates, and the explanation for this lies less in men’s physical attraction for them than in cultural forces, governed by underlying biological rhythms, altering the landscape of the marriage partner hunt.

The evidence for a direct effect of women’s earnings on men’s attraction is scant, and where such evidence exists, it tends to show that men are TURNED OFF by women who make more than themselves. At best, the direct effect on men of women’s high income is like lingerie on a dog — funny to think about, but completely neutral as a penis stimulant. At worst, a high income can actually hurt a woman’s chances with men, especially men who don’t make as much as her, and she will be exposed to men who use her for the lifestyle while saving their true animal lusts for the hot, poor ass on the side.

A comment by a high-earning woman to that Time article strikes me as an accurate portrayal of the reality on the ground for her kind:

scoutmom

Sorry Time, but as a single woman who makes well over 150k, I don’t buy this story for a second. In my personal experience, yes, I could easily go out there and get married. But, not to anyone I would consider a truly equal partner. In this recession, I’ve seen many men see me just as a meal ticket. It’s not that they are intimidated (well there’s a few of the insecure ones out there), but mostly they see me as someone who can solve all their financial problems. Here’s a profile of the last few guys who either asked me out or I went on a date with:

1. Stock boy at an office supply store – Um, at 42, don’t you think you should be doing something else with your life? And no, he didn’t lose his successful job elsewhere and had to take this. He considered this his career and marijana his hobby.

2. Father of 4 kids (that was OK with me) and had over 78k of credit card debt. He made it clear he was looking for a “financially stable woman to help him out.” Sorry sweetie, I’m no one’s sugar mama.

3. Elementary school PE teacher who never wanted to be more than that. I was actually really into him and we dated for a while, but in the end, when he found out how much I made, he couldn’t handle it and broke up with me.

4. A man who paid 42% of all his earnings to child support and alimony and was about to lose his job. I actually thought he was a cool guy and was OK to date him until he said, “well, I was really worried about losing my job and not being able to pay my mortgage and alimony, but now that you and I are together, I know I’ll be safe.” And FYI – he said this while downing 14 drinks in a bar on our second date. Nuff said.

These are just some of the situations that a successful woman who lives in Southern California is dealing with. And for those of you out there who think me not viable to date for other reasons, I am considered attractive by most people, and I used to do some modelling in my younger days. I am now 37, own my own 550k house, a car, portfolio, great relationships with friends and family and have an active social life. I just refuse to take on a partner who isn’t my equal in some way. I really don’t care how much money you make, but don’t expect me to pay for your financial mistakes or have to take care of a man who is mentally a little boy.

So, like the article says, I hide my career and income from men and dating profiles. It just makes me a target. I do not see this trend changing any time soon. Maybe I’ll try dating again when the economy gets better?

A target. That, Mzzzz Mundy, is a better descriptor of the kind of attraction some men have for high-earning women. Rich women aren’t lust objects; they’re prey objects. And the likelihood of being preyed upon is directly proportional to the rich woman’s ugliness.

Read Full Post »

Fertility, Intelligence And Religion

The perennial underground subject of the nexus where fertility, IQ, education and religion meet gets another go-round on the avant-garde right. You can read a couple of takes here and here. Bottom (literally) line: dysgenics is real, and it’s happening right now.

I have a thought on the issue that I haven’t seen addressed in any of these discussions. Perhaps smarts and dislike of, or cold indifference to, children are intertwined at the genetic level? Hypothesis: The genes that code for smarts also contribute a suite of personality alterations that result in reduced enthusiasm to have kids.

Maybe instead of all these calculated, or emergent, trade-offs accounting for lower fertility among the SWPL class — e.g. more schooling leading to more lost prime fertility years among women — the real reason for the dysgenic trend is that smart people just don’t get as much enjoyment out of kids as dumber people do. As a result, they use the contraceptive tech and cultural memes at their disposal to actively avoid the burden of children, especially when they are younger and the world is full of delights.

Maybe this, too, would explain why there are natural evolutionary limits on selection for high IQ. In small-ish numbers, high IQ confers a group benefit, but in larger numbers high IQ becomes fitness-reducing, if by fitness we restrict ourselves to the gene’s eye view of getting more copies of itself into future generations.

Anyhow, not a sermon, just a thought. My time around smart people, and my observations of their discomfort and/or boredom when in the company of children (particularly the men) leads me to believe they don’t really have a strong internal motivator pushing them in the direction of reproduction. Pushing them in the direction of sex, yes. But thanks to rubbers, the pill, and destigmatization, they are able to thwart the end goal of their genetic programming.

Read Full Post »