Current and past human selection

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#2
Refuting the incel wiki
They tried arguing against feminist social darwinism but they failed badly.

https://archive.is/pFsjF
There is little evidence that female mate choice is beneficial for humanity. Rather, a significant share of women seem to desire anti-social men
They are assuming these traits would be bad for humanity when in reality they are badly needed, how else are your society supposed to win wars and combat crime?

Compassion is now mostly a vestigial evolutionary trait evolved when we were small genetically close tribes, in a modern society being too compassionate is not only an individual liability but also a societal liability since it makes it harder to rid society of it's human burdenhs.
and overall mating success is not associated with various health markers at all.[15]
The study only looked at Salivary immune function, Oxidative stress and Semen quality. It did not look at factors such as obesity or physical fitness.

On the contrary, there is some evidence that certain types of female social equality are potentially dysgenic, at least in terms of intelligence, as intelligence is negatively correlated with fertility among modern samples of Western women.[16]
That is not exactly a new issue. In the following study the number of siblings someone had was negatively correlated with IQ even back in 1895

1617477880732.png


https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/0160-2896(85)90004-2

This data however is before the rabid increase of involuntary celebacy, it's unclear what the relationship between IQ and overall fertility will be when a significant portion of the male population are no longer able to reproduce.

Of course relying on female sexual selection alone probably isn't ideal but that's is what we have now and it's not really something we can realistically change any time soon.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#3
Physical attractiveness and intelligence
Studies show that intelligence is positively correlated with good looks refuting incel ideology.
In the United Kingdom, attractive children are more intelligent by 12.4 IQ points (r = .381), whereas in the United States, the correlation between intelligence and physical attractiveness is somewhat smaller (r = .126). The association between intelligence and physical attractiveness is stronger among men than among women in both nations. The association remains significant net of a large number of control variables for social class, body size, and health.
1617532285441.png


1617532341216.png


1617532809463.png


https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.003

https://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/i2011.pdf
 

Bee

Active member
#4
agree with OP ngl. Height and face can legitimately predict your immune response.

Being 6'1 gives best immune response and is also women's most preferred height in a partner jfl:



"Taller men are generally preferred by females and they also have higher reproductive success10. It has been suggested that height may signal status and dominance. In this study we revealed a potential additional benefit associated with stature, as height was positively related to the ability to mount an immune response against a novel antigen. Interestingly, however, this relationship was curvilinear, such that heights of above approximately 185 cm were inversely associated with antibody response."

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06223
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#5
Online Dating Mysteries Revealed
(Nov. 12) -- Want to get an online date? Keep your messages short.

For men, whites are the most likely to get a response online; Indians the least likely. Among women, Middle Easterners garner the most responses; black women the fewest

Those are among the not-always-politically-correct findings unearthed by the statisticians at OkCupid, a free online dating site started by a group of Harvard graduates armed with math degrees.

The 5-year-old site boasts 1 million active users -- comparable to Match.com and eHarmony, two services that require paid subscriptions. Like Match.com, OkCupid users can look at any profile they want -- something eHarmony doesn't allow subscribers to do. Like eHarmony, OkCupid's workhorse is a statistical algorithm driven by how users respond to a range of personal, political and religious questions. But unlike eHarmony, which bases questions on the founders' research, OkCupid takes the participatory approach adopted by YouTube and other Web 2.0 sites. Almost all of the questions are submitted by other users, who wind up answering an average of 233 of them.

OkCupid also takes an extra step the other sites don't: sharing information about users' online dating behavior. Earlier this year, the site created a blog to post research, drawing on data from the site, a la Google. Here's a sampling of what the numbers show so far.

Keep Messages Short
The average guy on OkCupid gets one response for about every five messages he sends to different women. Factor in the effort it takes to tailor a message to a specific profile, and brevity is more efficient in landing a date. OkCupid's research suggests that the optimal message length for a guy is 200 characters, or roughly one minute of typing.

For women, it doesn't matter. They get a 40 percent response rate no matter how much they type. Why? The company believes that guys -- not surprisingly -- put much more emphasis on a woman's picture. A woman doesn't need to worry as much about what she says, just that she gets on her potential date's radar. So why waste time? OkCupid recommends women write even shorter messages of about 50 characters when initiating contact.

Interestingly, when looking at same-sex contacts, women-to-women messaging patterns resemble men-to-women behavior, while men-to-men patterns are more consistent with women-to-men message behavior.

Not All E-mail Is Equal
OkCupid analyzed about 500,000 first-contact messages and found these to be among the best strategies for getting a response:

-- Be specific. Mention something in the profile of the person being contacted

-- Avoid net-speak like "ur," "r u," "B4," etc.

-- Don't compliment physical characteristics.

-- Act modest, especially men.

Your Race Matters
The numbers also show that attraction isn't color-blind. To wit:

-- Among males, white guys get the most frequent responses (29 percent of the time) and are least likely to respond (40 percent).

-- Indian men have the worst luck, getting responses only 20 percent of the time.

-- Among females, black women are the most likely to write back to a guy (34 percent) but the least likely to get a response if they initiate contact (34 percent).

-- Middle Eastern women get responses almost half the time, the most of any ethnicity. And even though white guys are pickiest about whom they write back to, they're most likely to respond to Middle Eastern women (47 percent of the time versus an overall response rate of 40 percent).

-- Pretty much across the board, whites are viewed as the most attractive group. This is how different ethnicities answered the following question: "Not to be racist but which ethnicity do you find to be most attractive?"

race-dating.gif


Your Religion (or Lack Thereof) Matters, Too
Using the word "atheist" actually improves the chances of getting a response; invoking "god" leads to worse-than-average response rates.

-- Agnostics, atheists and Jews of both sexes have the highest match percentages across the site, i.e., they're most likely to find someone they're compatible with. Muslim men and women and Hindu men are the least compatible groups. Christians are in the middle of the pack.

-- Jewish men are more compatible than Muslim men with Muslim women.

Some Other Interesting Results
Europeans are more open than Americans to acting out a rape fantasy with a partner. Within the U.S., Wyoming (of all places) and Nevada are the kinkiest states.

-- West-coasters enjoy casual sex most; Midwesterners the least.

-- People living in warmer states report higher levels of self-confidence.

-- Zodiac signs have no bearing on compatibility.

web.archive.org/web/20100118050917/http://www.sphere.com/article/revealing-the-mysteries-of-online-dating-even-the-politically-i/19261774
 
#10
Ashkenazi-Jewish intelligence
Whether Ashkenazi Jews have higher average intelligence than other ethnic groups, and if so, why, has been an occasional subject of scientific controversy.

Studies have generally found Ashkenazi Jews to have an average intelligence quotient (IQ) in the range of 107 to 115, and Ashkenazi Jews as a group have had successes in intellectual fields far out of proportion to their numbers. A 2005 scientific paper, "Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence",[1] proposed that Jews as a group inherit significantly higher verbal and mathematical intelligence and somewhat lower spatial intelligence than other ethnic groups, on the basis of inherited diseases and the peculiar economic situation of Ashkenazi Jews in the Middle Ages. Opposing this hypothesis are explanations for the congenital illnesses in terms of the founder effect and explanations of intellectual successes by reference to Jewish culture's promotion of scholarship and learning.

Evidence for a group difference in intelligence
The most direct evidence of a difference in intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews comes from psychometric tests. Different studies have found different results, but most have found well above-average verbal and mathematical intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews, along with slightly below-average spatial intelligence,[2][3] producing an average IQ score in the range of roughly 107 to 115, well above the general mean of 100.[4][5][6][7] Cochran et al. calculated an average IQ of 112–115,[1] and Murray & Entine found 107–115.[8][7][9] A 1954 study found that 24 of the 28 (86%) children in the New York public school system who had an IQ of 170 or higher were Jewish.[7] One study found that Ashkenazi Jews had only near-average visual-spatial intelligence, about IQ 98, while a 1958 study of yeshiva students demonstrated that they had an extraordinary high verbal intelligence (which includes verbal reasoning, comprehension, working memory, and mathematical computation) as their median verbal IQ was found to be nearly 126.[6]
Another kind of evidence is that Ashkenazi Jews have had success disproportionate to their small population size in a variety of intellectually demanding fields, such as science, technology, politics, law, and commerce.[10][11] Only about 2% of the U.S. population is of full Ashkenazi Jewish descent,[1] but 27% of United States Nobel prize winners in the 20th century,[1][4] 25% of the winners of the Fields Medal (the top prize in mathematics),[8] 25% of ACM Turing Award winners,[1] a quarter of Westinghouse Science Talent Search winners,[8] and 38% of the Academy Award-winning film directors[6] have either full or partial Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Jews comprise up to one third of the student populace at Ivy League universities,[10] and 30% of the U.S. Supreme Court's law clerks.[11] In Great Britain, Jews are overrepresented among Nobel prize winners by a factor of 8.0.[4] In Hungary in the 1930s, Ashkenazi Jews comprised 6% of the country's population, but 55.7% of physicians, 49.2% of attorneys, 30.4% of engineers, and 59.4% of bank officers.[6]

Proposed genetic explanations
Assuming that there is a statistical difference in intelligence between Ashkenazi Jews and other ethnic groups, there still remains the question of how much of the difference is caused by genetic factors.[12]

"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence"
"Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence",[1] a 2005 paper by Gregory Cochran, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending, put forth the conjecture that the unique conditions under which Ashkenazi Jews lived in medieval Europe selected for high verbal and mathematical intelligence but not spatial intelligence. Their paper has four main premises:
  1. Today's Ashkenazi Jews have a higher average mathematical and verbal IQ and an unusual cognitive profile compared to other ethnic groups.
  2. From roughly 800 to 1650 CE, Ashkenazi Jews in Europe were a mostly isolated genetic group. When Ashkenazi Jews married non-Jews, they usually left the Jewish community; few non-Jews married into the Jewish community.
  3. During the same period, laws barred Ashkenazi Jews from most jobs, including farming and crafts, and forced them into finance, management, and international trade. Wealthy Jews had several more children per family than poor Jews. So, genes for cognitive traits such as verbal and mathematical talent, which make a person successful in the few fields where Jews could work, were favored; genes for irrelevant traits, such as spatio-visual abilities, were supported by less selective pressure than in the general population. Given the high heritability of IQ, 800 years is more than sufficient time for the selective pressure on verbal and mathematical intelligence to produce a 16-point increase in IQ.
  4. Today's Ashkenazi Jews suffer from a number of congenital diseases and mutations at higher rates than most other ethnic groups; these include Tay–Sachs disease, Gaucher's disease,[13] Bloom's syndrome, and Fanconi anemia, and mutations at the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. These mutations' effects cluster in only a few metabolic pathways, suggesting that they arise from selective pressure rather than genetic drift. One cluster of these diseases affects sphingolipid storage, a secondary effect of which is increased growth of axons and dendrites. At least one of the diseases in this cluster, torsion dystonia, has been found to correlate with high IQ. Another cluster disrupts DNA repair, an extremely dangerous sort of mutation which is lethal in homozygotes. The authors speculate that these mutations give a cognitive benefit to heterozygotes by reducing inhibitions to neural growth, a benefit that would not outweigh its high costs except in an environment where it was strongly rewarded.
Other scientists gave the paper a mixed reception, ranging from outright dismissal to acknowledgement that the hypothesis might be true and merits further research.[14]

Other proposed genetic explanations
The enforcement of a religious norm requiring Jewish fathers to educate their sons, whose high cost caused voluntary conversions, might explain a large part of a reduction in the size of the Jewish population.[15] Persecution of European Jews may have fallen disproportionately on people of lower intelligence.[14]

Criticism of the genetic explanations
In medieval Ashkenazi society, wealth, social status, and occupation were largely inherited. The wealthy had more children than the poor, but it was difficult for people born into a poor social class to advance or enter a new occupation. Leading families held their positions for centuries. Without upward social mobility, genes for greater talent at calculation or languages would likely have had little effect on reproductive success. So, it is not clear that mathematical and verbal talents were the prime factors for success in the occupations to which Jews were limited at the time. Social connections, social acumen, willingness to take risks, and access to capital through both skill and nepotism could have played at least as great a role.[12]
On the other hand, controversial research by Gregory Clark concluded that social mobility has been consistently low but non-negligible throughout history, and that social mobility was no lower in previous centuries than it has been in recent times.[16]
In the history of Jewish culture, the emphasis on scholarship came before the Jews turned from agriculture to urban occupations. This suggests that premise #3 of Cochran et al. may have the causal direction backward: mastery of written language enabled Jews to thrive in finance and international trade rather than the other way around.[12] Similar cultural traditions continue to the present day, possibly providing a non-genetic explanation for contemporary Ashkenazi Jews' high IQs and prevalence in intellectual fields.[12]

Some genetic studies have suggested that most Ashkenazi Jewish congenital diseases arose from genetic drift after a population bottleneck, a phenomenon known as the founder effect, rather than from selective pressure favoring those genes as called for by the Cochran, et al. hypothesis.[12][17] In one example, the mutation responsible for Tay–Sachs disease arose in the 8th or 9th century, when the Ashkenazi Jewish population in Europe was small, just before they spread throughout Europe. The high frequency of this disease among Ashkenazi Jews today might simply be the result of their not marrying outside their group, not because the gene for Tay–Sachs disease confers an advantage that more than makes up for the fact that the disease usually kills by age three.[12] However, an examination of the frequencies and locations of the genes for 21 Ashkenazi Jewish congenital diseases suggested that six of them do appear to result from selective pressure, including the mutation for Tay–Sachs disease.[17] There is still no evidence one way or the other about whether the reason for this is increased intelligence for commercial skills or something else.[18]
Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker suggested that "the most obvious test of a genetic cause of the Ashkenazi advantage would be a cross-adoption study that measured the adult IQ of children with Ashkenazi biological parents and gentile adoptive parents, and vice versa," but noted, "No such study exists, so [Cochran]'s evidence is circumstantial."[19]

Proposed cultural and historical explanations
One type of explanation for higher intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews is differences in culture which tend to promote cultivation of intellectual talents.
For example, after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jewish culture replaced its emphasis on ritual with an emphasis on study and scholarship.[20] Unlike the surrounding cultures, most Jews, even farmers,[1] were taught to read and write in childhood. Talmudic scholarship became a leading key to social status. The Talmudic tradition may have made the Jews well suited for financial and managerial occupations at a time when these occupations provided new opportunities.[12]
Other proposed cultural explanations:
  • Talmudic scholarship was so respected in European Ashkenazi Jewish ghetto society that outstanding (though often poor) scholars were highly sought after as husbands for the daughters of even the wealthiest merchants, who could afford to support the married couples. A father who made it possible for the groom to devote himself to Talmud study was performing a mitzvah. This attitude provided selection pressure in favor of intellectual aptitude, and enhanced social mobility.[14][21]
  • Ashkenazi Jews (as well as other ethnic Jews) were marginalized by discrimination, and therefore had to put more effort to survive and be outstanding.[22]
  • The rise of Islamic civilization created demand for educated professionals with intellectual skills. According to Eckstein and Botticini, between 750 and 900 AD, nearly all the Jews in Mesopotamia and Persia left farming and moved to the big cities of the Abbasid Caliphate, where they specialized in jobs more lucrative than farming. Jews had a clear advantage in these professions as a result of centuries of literacy.[citation needed]
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#12
63% of women will not have sex with a man who had sex with another man
In one survey of 1,015 women ages 18-44 from Glamour, it found that 63% said they won't date a man who has had sex with another man, even if he is straight/bicurious or bisexual. Hypocritically, 47% of the women say they've been attracted to another woman, and 31% of them have had another sexual experience with another woman. Of those women:

93% said they'd kissed

85% said they'd touched a partner's breasts or genitals

63% reported receiving oral sex

55% reported giving oral sex

Other research has shown that women won't date bisexual men. In the study "Swipe Left on the Bi Guys: Examining Attitudes Toward Dating and Being Sexual With Bisexual Individuals":

In qualitative research conducted in a midsized American city, Callis (2013) found that the many nonbisexual participants would not date a bisexual person, and that important differences emerged along gender lines. For example, eight out of 13 heterosexual women versus only two of 13 heterosexual men stated that they would not date a bisexual man or woman, respectively. Among the seven lesbian-identified participants, only one indicated that she would not date a bisexual woman; however the majority reported knowing lesbians in their community who refused to date bisexual women. This aligns with the experiences of bisexual women in the study who reported particular difficulty finding lesbian women willing to date them. Four out of eight gay male participants shared that they would not date a bisexual man. Callis (2013) noted that participants’ rationale for their decisions closely aligned with well-documented stereotypes about bisexual people. For example, heterosexual women reported concerns that bisexual men would be more likely to have an STI or be unfaithful. Heterosexual male participants, however, cited stereotypes about hypersexuality in their willingness to date bisexual women, noting the potential for “more sex” or the opportunity to experience a threesome with another woman.
In a quantitative, online study of heterosexual men and women, Armstrong and Reissing (2014) also found evidence for gender differences in attitudes toward engaging in casual sex, dating, or a committed relationship with a bisexual person. All participants expressed negative attitudes toward engaging with bisexual people, and this negativity increased with the commitment level of the relationship. However, across all three relationship types, women reported more negative attitudes than men about partnering with a bisexual person. Specifically, women endorsed concerns that reflected stereotypes about hypersexuality and the presumed instability of a bisexual orientation, such that a bisexual male partner may “become gay in the future,” would be unsatisfied with a female partner, and would cheat on them with, or leave the relationship for, a man. Such results parallel the work of Mohr and Rochlen (1999), who found that cisgender men were more accepting of female bisexuality than cisgender women, and the work of Yost and Thomas (2012) who found that cisgender men were less accepting of bisexual men than bisexual women.
In the research paper's experimental design of 224 straight women, 120 straight men and 96 gay men:
rather than asking participants to self-report attitudes toward dating and being sexual with bisexual individuals in general, this study utilized minor deception to assess attitudes toward dating specific hypothetical individuals. Participants were asked to complete a survey about online dating in which they were shown dating profiles of men and women randomly depicted as either straight, gay, or bisexual. They were then asked to rate the profiles on how sexually and romantically attractive they found the individuals, how much they would like to date and have sex with the individuals, and how masculine or feminine they found the individuals.
To measure whether participants attended to the sexual orientations listed on the profiles, they were asked at two points during the survey to report the sexual orientation listed on the profile they previously viewed (one question came after a male profile, and one after a female profile). Results indicated that 12.5% (n=28) of heterosexual women and 20.8%(n=20) of gay men failed to report the correct sexual orientation of the male profile, and 22.5% (n=27) of heterosexual men failed to report the correct sexual orientation of the female profile. However, removing these participants did not ultimately change the significance of the MANOVA analyses for heterosexual women, (F(10, 2726)=7.61, p<.001; g2=.03, heterosexual men, F(10, 1288) = 5.34, p < .001, g2 = .04), or gay men, F(10, 1034) = 1.21, p = .28; g2 = .01. Therefore, the decision was ultimately made to include these participants in the analysis.
Here's the abstract:
Dating and maintaining romantic relationships can often be difficult for bisexual people due to binegativity and related negative stereotypes. The current study utilized an experimen- tal design to investigate attitudes toward dating and being sexual with bisexual individuals. A convenience sample of 440 participants, including 224 heterosexual women, 120 heterosexual men, and 96 gay men was recruited to complete an online survey. Participants were shown seven cisgender male and seven cisgender female dating profiles with various sexual orientations. Participants rated each profile on measures of attractiveness and masculinity/femininity. Results indicated that heterosexual women rated bisexual men as less sexually and romantically attractive, less desirable to date and have sex with, and less masculine compared to straight men. No such differences were found for heterosexual and gay men’s ratings of female and male profiles, respectively. These results support previous research findings that indicate more negative atti- tudes toward dating bisexual men than bisexual women. The current study also provides further understanding as to how negative attitudes influence sexual and romantic attraction to bisexual individuals. Areas for future research are discussed.
Here are the results. Apparently women are less attracted to men in general than vice versa, but yep, women hate bisexual men:



In another study, they found the same exact results:


This shows that straight women are a lot less willing than straight men to date bisexual men and less willing to date bisexuals than even lesbians. It even finds lesbians are less willing than gay/bisexual men to date bisexuals of the same gender. It also finds that bisexual women are less willing than bisexual men to date or have sex with or engage in sexual/romantic activities with bisexual men although slightly more willing than bisexual men to enter relationships with bisexual men. It also finds that bisexual women are more willing to date/have sex with/enter relationships with/engage in romantic or sexual activity with other bisexual women than with bisexual men whereas bisexual men are more willing to date/have sex with/enter relationships with/engage in romantic or sexual activity with bisexual women than with other bisexual men.

TL;DR So it's women who have homophobic dating preferences (they won’t date bisexuals but men will) yet feminazis complain about men simply watching lesbian porn.
 
Top