TELA GIRL AGE NA NA NA NA NINETEEN!
Audacious Epigone @AudaciousEpigon
| Intelligence | AvgAge |
| Real dumbs | 22.3 |
| Pretty dumbs | 23.4 |
| Normals | 24.2 |
| Pretty smarts | 25.3 |
| Really smarts | 27.0 |
It will surprise no one that IQ and age of first birth are inversely correlated. Table includes whites only.
Whites only, Tela Girl!
My guess, however, is that dumbies are more inclined to have children earlier than the smarties are. Occurring generation after generation, this would have an unmistakably dysgenic impact.
Worse still, even with Whites, there is a fear that fertility is dysgenic; that is, those in the lower classes (who presumably have lower average IQs) are reproducing more than those in the upper classes (who presumably have higher IQs). However, Ron Guhname has discovered evidence that the effect of IQ itself on fertility is in fact neutral; the reduction in fertility in the upper classes stems from the negative impact that education has on women’s fertility. Since women pursuing higher education often put off childbirth while in school (usually out of necessity), they have fewer children per lifetime than their less educated counterparts who receive less schooling (and presumably are more apt to become stay-at-home-moms). Of course, this does mean that certain traits are being lost from the gene pool, a fact that is important to the point I’ll soon make.
Children of teen mums tend to have worse life outcomes. A big part of the reason seems to be that teen mums have their kids with lower-quality guys, which may affect kids' outcomes through nature and/or nurture. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25165
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1052717266825961472
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1151467683218710528
Simple minds don't know higher things for entertainment. Higher education makes simple jokes & simple work, simple people unattractive, because only intellectual things stimulate the mind. But children are very simple as they are in the process of learning. They're less appealing!
![At Our Wits' End: Why We're Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (Societas) by [Dutton, Edward]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51TEwzCAq4L._SY346_.jpg)
Man, I can't wait to read this book. The author is on target, especially in terms of the restricted social contact high-IQ people have with each other. I administer IQ tests on a regular basis as part of my job; however, since I am administering them to federal pre-trial defendants as part of evaluations for competency and/or sanity, I get to see, day in and day out, how being on the left half of the bell curve can impact one's functioning in society. Believe me, I haven't run into too many defendants who would be sitting around discussing superstring theory, but for the lack of an "Idiot's Guide to Superstring Theory" that could teach to their specific learning skills.
Then, when I socialize with peers outside of work, these very statements (as identified by Mr. Miller) are made without a hint of self-awareness, by people who ought to know better. I feel like I'm in the episode of Seinfeld where the real world almost comes into contact with the Bizarro world; I want to take some of my high IQ friends and introduce them to my work clientele, for maybe a day or two, just to see how their world view changes should they deign to speak with someone 2-3 standard deviations below them on general intelligence (aside from, you know, getting their lawn mowed, having their oil changed, etc.).
Then, when I socialize with peers outside of work, these very statements (as identified by Mr. Miller) are made without a hint of self-awareness, by people who ought to know better. I feel like I'm in the episode of Seinfeld where the real world almost comes into contact with the Bizarro world; I want to take some of my high IQ friends and introduce them to my work clientele, for maybe a day or two, just to see how their world view changes should they deign to speak with someone 2-3 standard deviations below them on general intelligence (aside from, you know, getting their lawn mowed, having their oil changed, etc.).
SEE THAT GIRL YOU'VE ALL CONNECTED ME TO? I HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON* WITH HER. WHY? BECAUSE OF SOCIAL CLASS DIFFERENCES (I'M FROM A DIFFERENT SOCIAL CLASS THAN SHE), CULTURAL DIFFERENCES (I'M FROM A DIFFERENT CULTURE THAN SHE), GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES (SHE'S FROM THE NARCISSICSTIC, SOCIAL MEDIA OBSESSED, GENERATION ME GENERATION), AND GENETIC DIFFERENCES (I HAVE DIFFERENT PERSONALITY TRAITS THAN SHE). WE HAVE LITTLE TO SPEAK ABOUT AND LITTLE WE AGREE UPON WHEN WE SPEAK. IN FACT, I HAVE BETTER CONVERSATIONS WITH HER DAUGHTER (Her Daughter Who Happens To Be Attracted To ME) ! I REPEAT THIS TO YOU ALL AGAIN, BECAUSE I'VE NOTICED GIRLS WITH A CHILD, ESPECIALLY PART HAWAIIAN GIRLS WITH A CHILD LOOKING AT ME A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY AS THOUGH I MAY HAVE A CHILD OR I MAY BE WILLING TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM (AS THOUGH I'D BE WILLING TO BE A MOTHER FUCKER). NO, PLEASE DON'T THINK THAT! JUST AS I HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON WITH THIS GIRL I'D LIKELY HAVE LITTLE IN COMMON WITH YOU (YOU FORMER TEEN MOMS AND MOTHERS WHO HAVE HAD CHILDREN IN THEIR EARLY TWENTIES).
I wonder if the staggeringly high rates of domestic abuse in lesbian relationships comes from the fact that lesbians blend feminine emotional volatility with the masculine tendencies towards aggression that make them so good at anything athletic. (This Accurately Describes Her. She's Temperamental And Emotionally Unstable Like A Female, But Responds With Male-Like Pugilistic, Physical Ferocity To Any Criticism Or Opinion She Doesn't Like. She Says She Isn't Homosexual (Lesbian), But She Seems To Have Many Psychological Characteristics In Common With Homosexuals (Lesbians). In Any Event, I've Never Before Met Anyone Like Her.)
I THINK SHE WAS EXPOSED TO A LOT OF TESTOSTERONE IN THE WOMB! READ BELOW TO LEARN WHY I SUSPECT THIS!
Prenatal testosterone is a robust predictor of both tomboyism in childhood and lesbianism in adulthood. Whether you like it or not .
We can even create butch lesbian rhesus monkeys by manipulating hormone levels during gestation.
THE GIRL IS MECHANICALLY INCLINED. SHE FIXES CARS, FIXES APPLIANCES AROUND THE HOUSE, AND CONSTRUCTS THINGS FROM SCARP MATERIALS.
Replying to
"Homosexual men exhibited spatial and verbal abilities that were more typical of heterosexual women, while homosexual women exhibited spatial abilities that were more typical of heterosexual men."
I DIDN'T TAKE THE PICTURE BELOW! I DON'T TAKE PICTURES OF FEMALES!
See That Manly, Unattractive Girl That I'm Seen With? She's Not My Girlfriend. She's A Business Partner Who I'll Soon Be Parting Ways With. I'm Stuck With Her For The Time Being, I'll Be Leaving Her Soon. She's Not My Equal In Any Respect. In Fact, I Equate The Time I've Spent With Her To That Of The Time I've Spent Around Inmates From Black Ghettos In The LA County Jail. Yes, Personality And Behavior Wise She's Equivalent To A Lower Class, Low IQ, Tactless, Crass, NIGGER From The Ghetto! And She's Nearly Unbearable. My Time SPENT With Her Has Motivated ME To Make Behavioral Adjustments So That I Can Avoid People Like Her In The Future. (She's The Product Of Poor Genes, A Poor Prenatal Environment (The Mother Was A Meth Addict), A Poverty Stricken Background, And Below Average Attractiveness. If You SPENT Enough Time Around Her You'd Recognize This. Her Disposition And Personality Are Characteristic Of A Person With A Psychological Impairment. Plus, I Have A Reputation To Maintain.
http://evostudies.org/2012/03/why-caesars-wife-must-be-above-suspicion-mates-function-as-honest-indicators-of-status-and-prestige-by-ben-and-bo-winegard/ She Makes Me Look Bad.)
"women are influenced by viewing men with attractive females..attractiveness of the female influenced women’s attractiveness judgments of men..being shown with a less attractive female caused women to downgrade attractiveness ratings they assigned to men"
Another Reason I Gotta Get Away From Her!
"A man with an unattractive wife is perceived to be more moral." www3.acrwebsite.org/assets/PDFs/Pr
"a man who dates an unattractive woman experiences a moderate decrease in status, whereas a woman who dates an unattractive man experiences only a trivial decrease in status...having an unattractive mate hurts a man’s status more than it does a woman’s"
NIGGER
**IN THIS BLOGPOST I MENTIONED THE GIRL'S PERSONALITY TYPE BEING SIMILAR TO THE PERSONALITY TYPE OF THE NIGGERS I'VE HAD TO INTERACT WITH IN L.A. COUNTY JAIL. WHY ARE THEY SIMILAR? BECAUSE POVERTY, VIOLENCE (AGGRESSION PRONE DISPOSITIONS), HARDHEADEDNESS, A LOW IQ, AND LACK OF EDUCATION CONSPIRE TO CREATE A SIMILAR PERSONALITY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE RACE OF THE PERSON HAVING TO ENDURE THESE SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND GENETIC ATTRIBUTES. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE BIOSOCIAL FACTORS MAKE ONE NARCISSISTIC, UNREALISTIC, OPTIMISTIC, BALLISTIC, AND INSOLENT (DISRESPECTFUL, RUDE, CRUDE, DUMB, LOUD, OBNOXIOUS, BRASH, SELF-AGGRANDIZING, SELF-DELUDED, TACTLESS, CLASSLESS, ETC.). (SHE HAS A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER IN ADDITION TO HAVING A LOW IQ. I THINK IT COULD BE A COMBINATION OF BIPOLAR PERSONALITY DISORDER AND ADHD. I BELIEVE THE ADHD RUNS IN HER FAMILY. SUPPOSEDLY BOTH OF HER BROTHERS HAVE THE DISORDER. AT ANY RATE, PEOPLE LIKE SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE CHILDREN!)
https://www.amren.com/news/2013/06/federal-statistics-support-stereotypes-about-miscegenation/
White females with mulatto children are significantly less educated. They perform significantly worse on the ASVAB test. They average a higher body mass index [BMI]. In personality test scores they are, on average, more difficult, more quarrelsome, more stubborn, and less dependable. They are significantly more likely to say that they “lie and cheat often.”
DISOBEDIENT WITH THE WRONG INGREDIENT! NON-BLACK GIRLS THAT HAVE RELATIONSHIPS, RELATIONS, AND EVENTUALLY CHILDREN WITH BLACKS TEND TO FIT THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION. THIS IS WHY THEY GET WITH BLACKS TO BEGIN (THEY COME FROM A SIMILAR LOW SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND POSSESS SIMILAR PERSONALITY TRAITS). IT'S JUST NON-NIGGERS WITH NIGGER TENDENCIES CREATING MORE NIGGERS.
She's Got Some Of The Bipolar Disorder Characteristic Of Annie Wilkes In Stephen King's Misery As Well As A Touch Of Schizophrenia. Why Do I Believe She Has Schizophrenia? because She Rambles To Her Self For Hours On End Like The Schizophrenic Homeless People You See In The Streets.
Relationship between parental income and a selection of psychiatric disorders. Nearly every disorder is more common among people whose families fall lower on the socioeconomic ladder. The one exception is anorexia, which is more common among the affluent. stevestewartwilliams.com/p/parental-inc
New Diagnosis. She Suffers From Schizoaffective Disorder.
https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1335117374559809536
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1333403280093810689
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1333403280093810689
That Girl (The One That I'm Seen With) Has Physical Deformities And Those Physical Deformities Are A Result Of Her Prenatal Environment, Which Reflects Her Low Socioeconomic Background! Both Of Her Parents Are Meth Addicts And Her Mother Had A Number Of Abortions Prior To Having Her, Which Increased The Testosterone Levels In Her Womb As Well As Smoked Meth While The Girl Was Gestating In The Womb! Read Above!
I'M GOING TO HAVE THIS GIRL SEEN BY A NEUROSCIENTIST IN CALIFORNIA SO THAT SHE CAN GET HER HEAD CHECKED! SHE'S LEFT-BRAIN DOMINANT. SHE'S NEVER WRONG OR AT FAULT BECAUSE THE LEFT SIDE OF HER BRAIN IS ALWAYS FABRICATING REASONS IN HER FAVOR FOR DOING AND SAYING WHATEVER SHE DOES AND SAYS! SHE'S ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF PEOPLE THAT CAN'T SEE FLAWS IN HERSELF AND DEFINITELY CAN'T ADMIT TO HER FLAWS*, SHORTCOMINGS, AND WRONG DOINGS! (I'VE MET ONLY 2 OTHER PEOPLE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE THAT RAMBLE AS MUCH AS SHE AND THEY'VE BOTH BEEN HERE IN HAWAII. THE 1st IS KALANI MY HOMELESS ROOMMATE AND THE 2nd IS A PART WHITE, PART HAWAIIAN, PART CHINESE 48+ YEAR OLD WOMAN FROM WAIMANALO NAMED SHIRLEY! THERE MUST BE SOMETHING ABOUT HAWAIIAN CULTURE AND HAWAIIAN GENES THAT LEAD TO LONG-WINDEDNESS! IN FACT, IT'S MORE THAN LONG-WINDEDNESS IT'S ACTUALLY TALKING TO THEMSELVES. THEY'LL RAMBLE ON EVEN WHEN NO ONE RESPONDS TO THEM! I'VE NEVER MET PEOPLE LIKE THIS IN MY LIFE EXCEPT THE HOMELESS ONES I'VE PASSED BY ON THE STREET! SHE KEEPS ON PASSING ME BYE!)
*"NIGGA, FLAAAAAAW LESS!" - CALL THAT NIGGA SUGA BUGA #BITCH
*"NIGGA, FLAAAAAAW LESS!" - CALL THAT NIGGA SUGA BUGA #BITCH
As soon as you understand that your mind is mostly a prosecutor making a case that was decided by your guts, you can understand why 99% of arguments are unedifying.
Your emotions lead the charge and your reason is simply a tool to align your brain and your heart.
http://www.nature.com/news/the-split-brain-a-tale-of-two-halves-1.10213
https://neuwritesd.org/2015/08/27/two-brains-in-one-head-the-story-of-the-split-brain-phenomenon/
DON'T LET YOUR LEFT HAND KNOW WHAT YOUR RIGHT HAND IS DOING, PIMP!
SHE DOESN'T REASON LOGICALLY. SHE REASONS TO WIN THE ARGUMENT EVEN IF THAT INCLUDES DISREGARDING THE FACTS AND DEFYING LOGIC.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
This lopsidedness, according to Mercier and Sperber, reflects the task that reason evolved to perform, which is to prevent us from getting screwed by the other members of our group. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave. There was little advantage in reasoning clearly, while much was to be gained from winning arguments.
Among the many, many issues our forebears didn’t worry about were the deterrent effects of capital punishment and the ideal attributes of a firefighter. Nor did they have to contend with fabricated studies, or fake news, or Twitter. It’s no wonder, then, that today reason often seems to fail us. As Mercier and Sperber write, “This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up.”
https://medium.com/@TACJ/the-enigma-of-reason-by-dan-sperber-and-hugo-mercier-577a7a3e1027
Reasoning does not exist to enable solitary humans to engage in rational inference (and in any case, animals are perfectly capable of performing rational inferences without — as far as we know — performing explicit reasoning[1]). Instead, the true purpose of reason is to provide us with justifications. Reason is less about making rational decisions than it is about providing excuses for decisions that we have already made.
Reason evolved in humans because we are social animals, basted from birth in a rich swamp of social communication. When we do something, we need to be able to justify it. If we can justify our actions, our status and prestige within our social group grows. Thus, the confirmation bias (which M&S call the “myside bias”) stops being evidence of individual irrationality, and becomes evidence of social rationality. When we are defending our position from interlocutors, we have every incentive to overweight evidence and arguments that support our existing position, and simultaneously play down evidence and arguments that contradict our existing position.
As M&S put it:
We produce reasons in order to justify our thoughts and actions to others and to produce arguments to convince others to think and act as we suggest.
They call this the “interactionist perspective”, in contrast with an alternative point of view I can’t remember because I didn’t actually highlight where they draw this distinction. I suppose the interactionist perspective is in contrast with the traditional view that reason developed to enable individual humans to hold accurate beliefs.
https://twitter.com/EPoe187/status/1343003031986712579
One is only alarmed by inconsistencies in narratives if one believes that reason is an instrument used chiefly to discover the truth. It's not. It is instead an instrument used by the passions to enhance an organism's fitness by defending and promoting advantageous ideologies.
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1330480971544662016
"How come you can prove a thousand times, using Facts and Logic, that something is stupid, and yet people will keep doing it? for basically all of history, using reason would get you killed...In giving humans reason at all, evolution took a huge risk" slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/boo
