Mass shootings in Texas

In the most prole parts of Texas, Odessa and Midland.

Shooter is said to be a white man in his mid thirties, who hijacked a mail truck.

Beta-males don’t hijack mail trucks, so this is some sort of alpha-male violence and not beta-male rage.

H.J. Eysenck was half Jewish

H.J. Eysenck, one of the two most important HBD researchers (the other being Arthur Jensen, also part Jewish) was half Jewish, a fact he hid for most of his life, according to this article.

We have proved beyond doubt that Eysenck was in fact half Jewish on his mother’s side, and therefore strictly Jewish according to Rabbinic law (Halacha). Using techniques and resources of Jewish genealogy, we discovered that his maternal grandmother’s birth name was Helene Caro. We then located her marriage certificate, which confirmed that both Helene and her husband (Eysenck’s maternal grandfather) Max Werner belonged to long-established Jewish families.

Without the contributions of Jews, HBD probably wouldn’t even exist. It was from reading the books and articles of Arthur Jensen and H.J. Eysenck at the Van Pelt Library at the University of Pennsylvania that I learned about the science of HBD (which at the time was not called HBD, that term was coined by Steve Sailer).

Women better than men in the bottom third of society

Comment from “SC”:

You underestimate how important it is that women are better than men in the bottom third of society.

An IQ 90, high C woman can still look after her own or someone else’s kids without killing them. An IQ 83, low C man is going to abuse or neglect those kids. An IQ 90, high C woman can still show up to her menial job every day, on time, for 20 years. An IQ 83, low C man might show up to work an hour late, drunk and high, and get into fights with his coworkers. To an employer she’s dependable and consistent. Furthermore, high A means she’s better at getting along with coworkers and customers.

Low IQ men have only one advantage over their female peers: physical strength. But with automation, men’s physical strength means less and less with each passing day. By 2100 we may find that men’s physical advantages mean almost nothing in daily life.

Then he adds:

… by age 20+ a lot of the low IQ boys have died from homicide, drugs, or drunk driving. Or they’re in prison and unable to be part of some IQ study.

SC assumes that women could have a 7-point IQ advantage over men at the bottom of society. I agree that women are smarter than men at the bottom of society, but I don’t know if it’s as high as 7 points (based on IQ having a standard deviation of 15 points). On the other hand, if the lowest-IQ males check out by being incarcerated or dead, then maybe we aren’t even measuring their IQs.

Lion was right about percent of U.S. population that’s Jewish

I’ve previously written that I estimated that 5% of the white population of the United States is Jewish enough to make Aliyah to Israel (which explains why there are so many people with Jewish ancestry in positions of power, because the percent of Americans who are Jews is higher than normally estimated).

This article about Jewish DNA backs me up. “3.5% observed in DNA test-takers living in the USA” are at least 25% Ashkenazi Jewish according to DNA tests.

Given that the USA is 69% non-Hispanic white, 3.5% divided by 0.69 comes out to 5.1%. Just as I estimated!

And this doesn’t even count Sephardic Jews.

* * *

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” –George Washington

How D&D players have changed

This comment from “anonymousse” is very interesting:

I’ve been involved with boardgame culture for about 10 years now (I’m older, so got into it a bit later), but was a wargamer from way back (30+ years).
In those 10 years, the culture has changed dramatically. Boardgames have always been a collection of several subcultures: 1) older all male history buffs who play complicated wargames, 2) mathematical types (again mostly male) who, in decades past, would have been playing chess or bridge, but now play mathematically vigorous games, 3) Dungeons and Dragons offshoots-fantasy and role playing type games (often fantasy setting, but not always).

Today, it seems that 3) (fantasy-not just fantasy setting, but fantasy play) is becoming more and more dominant. Far more women are involved than in the past, and FAR FAR FAR more homosexuals/trans/sexually odd folks. I’m really not sure why that is. The population of gamers has been replaced in the last generation -what used to be predominantly intelligent but nerdy men (math intelligence = mathy games, verbal intelligence = history/war games) has shifted to social and sexual outliers. I again suspect the whole Dungeons and Dragons crowd has morphed with Comic Book people and Cosplay people into a boardgame subculture that isn’t particularly into math/history, but is interested in ‘pretend play’ (i.e. D&D and its spinoffs). There is no fundamental reason that a hobby devoted to the interests of intelligent people would appeal to transvestites and homosexuals, and yet it has happened.

30 years ago, if you went to a game convention, it would a gaggle of skinny to slightly overweight nerdy males (older men into World War 2, or the kids in Stranger Things).

Today, if you go to a game convention, it will be a gaggle of morbidly obese (like riding scooters instead of walking), socially awkward (not just nerdy but suffering from social anxiety issues), rainbow clad militant homosexuals. 30 (or even 10) years ago, I would have taken my kids to a convention-full of nerds, but intelligent folks. Today, I wouldn’t want my kids to become part of the culture and wouldn’t take them to a convention. Again, I just don’t understand why the transition occurred.

I haven’t been to a gaming convention, so I was totally unaware of how things have changed.

The genetics of homosexuality

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/eaat7693

As an HBD blogger, I’ve always said, duh! of course gayness has a strong genetic component. Proven right again.

However, as attitudes towards gayness have progressed from something considered disgusting and gross to something considered awesome and prideful, of course more people of borderline sexuality are going to go over to the other team.

Women lack the urge to win

Commenter “toomanymice” writes in a comment:

My sister is something of a math whiz, but her career ambition was close to zero. I think lion is grossly underestimating the role female lack of competitiveness plays in these statistical differences. Even the ambitious women aren’t all that ambitious by male standards.

Wanting to be best, the drive to be high earning will have a snowball effect on all kinds of life choices. And conversely having little interest in either will have an anti-snowball effect.

I’m not denying men (at least at the top end) are smarter than women, just that the ambition disparity is a huge factor in life trajectory.

I don’t think I’m underestimating anything. Many times I’ve brought up what John Tierney wrote 14 years ago in the New York Times, that women lack the urge to win.

I’ve also repeatedly cited the boringness factor as the primary reason it’s so hard to find women coders. Even though higher male intelligence at the top-end would mean that the best coders would be men, there are a lot of women smart enough to code if they wanted to, but they don’t want to because they find it boring.

I don’t think that either of these things has anything to do with males outperforming females on the SAT. Girls do better in high school, even in math and science classes, so I would assume that they would also bring those same qualities to the SAT which everyone knows is very important, so I don’t believe that males are outperforming females on the SAT because they are studying harder for it.

White men are smarter than white women, more evidence from SAT scores

I specifically say “white,” because among blacks, the ability gap between men and women is much smaller. For evidence I cite this paper. Although it’s form 1988 using data from 1985, we know that these differences between races and sexes have not changed much at all over time.

It may actually be better to look at test scores from the 1980s, because I am pretty sure that since then, the ETS has been trying to jigger the test so that it’s more biased in favor of females and against males. (In fact, I suspect that the recent change in which ETS stopped reporting the multiple-choice verbal section scores independent of the written essay was intended to hide the fact that females score lower on the non-essay verbal section.

In the 1985 data, white males outperformed white females by 52 points in math and 8 points in verbal. (And black males outperformed black females by 31 points in math and 10 points in verbal, but black females far outnumbered black male test takers in 1985.)

The report is also kind enough to provide the standard deviations for every average, and we see that men have a higher standard deviation than women. (And we also see that blacks score the expected 0.96 standard deviations less than whites on the verbal section, and 0.97 standard deviations less than whites on the match section.)

On the one hand, the scores are biased against females because more females take the test, and the extra test-takers disproportionately come from the lower half of the bell curve. I believe this is the reason we see a females doing worse on the SAT from the 1980s onward compared to earlier times when college education was seen more as a male thing because women weren’t expected to have careers for their whole lives.

But on the other hand, the scores are biased against males, if we are only looking to measure aptitude rather than achievement, because females are almost surely putting more effort into preparing for the test. In all levels of education, females get better grades than males. This is even true in high school math and science classes. Girls get better grades than boys in high school math and science classes. (Because our society is gynocentric, no one cares about school being biased against boys. You hardly ever hear about it.) But this advantage does not carry through to the SAT because the SAT is more of an aptitude test than high school grades which are more heavily weighted in favor of conscientiousness (more studying and more time spent doing homework assignments) and agreeableness (telling the teacher what they want to hear and good behavior in class). But if girls are studying more than boys for their high school classes, then surely they are also studying more for the SAT, so I suspect that if studying had been equal, the male-female gap on the SAT would be even greater.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether the SAT measures intelligence, and whether the math or verbal section measures intelligence more.

The SAT measures g (the general factor of intelligence), preparation for the exam, and two ability factors independent of g, m (for math ability) and v (for verbal ability). If we could know every test taker’s true measure of g, v, m and prep, we’d be able to do a regression analysis and come up with a predictive formula which would look like this:

SAT-V = g*xv + v*yv + prep*zv
SAT-M = g*xm + m*ym + prep*zm

Men definitely have an advantage over women in m. It’s possible that women have a similarly high advantage over men in v, but because total verbal skills are a combination of g and v, and men have higher g, overall verbal ability is approximately equal between the sexes. I say it’s possible, I don’t know this for certain.

* * *

The next issue to address is whether this matters. I say that the overall difference between all men and women doesn’t matter, what does matter is differences within certain segments of the population. Based on what I wrote yesterday about men having a higher standard deviation of intelligence, the reality is that in the bottom third of the population, women are smarter than men, and when combined with women having higher conscientiousness and agreeableness, among the bottom third of the population women are much better citizens than men. But in the top third of the population, men are smarter than women. It’s in the top third of the population where all of the important activity takes place which advances civilization. The bottom third of the population just provides menial labor.

The higher standard deviation of male intelligence

How the New SAT has Disadvantaged Female Testers

It has been stated by many intelligence researchers that men have a higher standard deviation of intelligence than women. This is seen in the SAT data at the link above.

Female test takers are disproportionately likely to score between 800 and 1190 (and especially disproportionately likely to score between 800 and 990) while male test takers are disproportionately likely to score above 1190 and below 800.

Among people scoring 1400 and above (which is equivalent to 1350 for people who took the test before the scoring was re-normed in 1996 to make the verbal scores higher), males outnumber females by 1.29 to 1, even though fewer males take the test.

I believe that, overall, men are on average a little bit more intelligent than women, but if you only hang out with college graduates, then your perception of men being smarter than women is going to be more pronounced. On the other hand, if you don’t have any education beyond high school, and you only hang out with people similarly educated, then your perception might be that women are smarter than men.

Another hate-crime hoax

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/african-american-employee-s-office-vandalized-inside-education-department-n1045856

What’s interesting is that this news story has NOT become a big national news story. Maybe the media finally learned from Jussie Smollett that a crime like this is most likely either done by the “victim” herself, or another black person or SJW-type in the department trying to make a point about racism, rather than an actual white racist.