Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • Male and Female Loyalty Bias = Our Moral Bias

    (women are devoted, and men are loyal) —“Men marry and fall I love with a women with the belief that he will be the most important part of her life. This is the start of the destruction of so many marriages. Once the female has children her first loyalty becomes those children. The males loyalty still lay with the female. This creates a dangerous dynamic were the Male tries increasingly to become the females first priority to no avail.”— Eric Bumpus 

    ADAPTABILITY VS LOYALTY: ECONOMICS OF RELATIONS

MALE.........................FEMALE 
Greater Loyalty and .........Greater Adaptability and 
Lower Adaptability ..........Lower Loyalty

    Evolution varied the same theme. We are compatible but we are neither identical nor equal. Therefore:  I’m going to state it pejoratively: men mistakenly marry a wife under the presumption of the same priority he was treated by his mother. Women marry a husband with the presumption that her children will be given the same priority by the man as she gives them. Both of these are false presumptions. Men are loyal to tribe, fellows, wife, and children. Women are loyal to children to the exclusion of all others. This reflects genetic differences in morality. Males and conservatives tend to value all six Moral Dimensions relatively equally. Women and liberals tend to value Harm/Care almost exclusively. The fallacy of equality is one of the greatest catastrophes since the invention of false gods, and marxist pseudoscience.

  • Male and Female Loyalty Bias = Our Moral Bias

    (women are devoted, and men are loyal) —“Men marry and fall I love with a women with the belief that he will be the most important part of her life. This is the start of the destruction of so many marriages. Once the female has children her first loyalty becomes those children. The males loyalty still lay with the female. This creates a dangerous dynamic were the Male tries increasingly to become the females first priority to no avail.”— Eric Bumpus 

    ADAPTABILITY VS LOYALTY: ECONOMICS OF RELATIONS

MALE.........................FEMALE 
Greater Loyalty and .........Greater Adaptability and 
Lower Adaptability ..........Lower Loyalty

    Evolution varied the same theme. We are compatible but we are neither identical nor equal. Therefore:  I’m going to state it pejoratively: men mistakenly marry a wife under the presumption of the same priority he was treated by his mother. Women marry a husband with the presumption that her children will be given the same priority by the man as she gives them. Both of these are false presumptions. Men are loyal to tribe, fellows, wife, and children. Women are loyal to children to the exclusion of all others. This reflects genetic differences in morality. Males and conservatives tend to value all six Moral Dimensions relatively equally. Women and liberals tend to value Harm/Care almost exclusively. The fallacy of equality is one of the greatest catastrophes since the invention of false gods, and marxist pseudoscience.

  • I am, unfortunately, firmly convinced, that women vote for whomever they are lea

    I am, unfortunately, firmly convinced, that women vote for whomever they are least not attracted to – and like everything else, merely justify it. Those who vote by party, vote economically.

    Pandora was the horror the ancients warned us of.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 16:57:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1007668440595947522

  • KNOW THIS BUT WE HAVE GONE FROM PEERAGE TO ASHKENAZI TO -1SD IN JUST SIX GENERAT

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470YOU KNOW THIS BUT WE HAVE GONE FROM PEERAGE TO ASHKENAZI TO -1SD IN JUST SIX GENERATIONS….

    Through nothing more than expanding the underclass.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 12:34:00 UTC

  • KNOW THIS BUT WE HAVE GONE FROM PEERAGE TO ASHKENAZI TO -1SD IN JUST SIX GENERAT

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289613000470YOU KNOW THIS BUT WE HAVE GONE FROM PEERAGE TO ASHKENAZI TO -1SD IN JUST SIX GENERATIONS….

    Through nothing more than expanding the underclass.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 12:34:00 UTC

  • YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL (Again, my argument

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihubhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihub35 YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL

    (Again, my argument is that (((they))) have reversed sexual dimorphism and this accounts for (((their))) performance in articulating nearly anything – at the cost of female cognitive biases.)

    —“Sex differences in cognitive ability level and cognitive ability pattern or tilt (e.g., math > verbal) have been linked to educational and occupational outcomes in STEM and other fields. The present study examines cognitive ability tilt across the last 35 years in 2,053,265 academically talented students in the U.S. (SAT, ACT, EXPLORE) and 7119 students in India (ASSET) who were in the top 5% of cognitive ability, populations that largely feed high level STEM and other occupations. Across all measures and samples, sex differences in ability tilt were uncovered, favoring males for math > verbal and favoring females for verbal > math. As ability tilt increased, sex differences in ability tilt appeared to increase. Additionally, sex differences in tilt increased as ability selectivity increased. Broadly, sex differences in ability tilt remained fairly stable over time, were consistent across most measures, and replicated across the U.S. and India. Such trends should be carefully monitored given their potential to impact future workforce trends.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 12:33:00 UTC

  • YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL (Again, my argument

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihub35 YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL

    (Again, my argument is that (((they))) have reversed sexual dimorphism and this accounts for (((their))) performance in articulating nearly anything – at the cost of female cognitive biases.)

    —“Sex differences in cognitive ability level and cognitive ability pattern or tilt (e.g., math > verbal) have been linked to educational and occupational outcomes in STEM and other fields. The present study examines cognitive ability tilt across the last 35 years in 2,053,265 academically talented students in the U.S. (SAT, ACT, EXPLORE) and 7119 students in India (ASSET) who were in the top 5% of cognitive ability, populations that largely feed high level STEM and other occupations. Across all measures and samples, sex differences in ability tilt were uncovered, favoring males for math > verbal and favoring females for verbal > math. As ability tilt increased, sex differences in ability tilt appeared to increase. Additionally, sex differences in tilt increased as ability selectivity increased. Broadly, sex differences in ability tilt remained fairly stable over time, were consistent across most measures, and replicated across the U.S. and India. Such trends should be carefully monitored given their potential to impact future workforce trends.”—

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihub

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 12:33:00 UTC

  • YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL (Again, my argument

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289617301241?via%3Dihub35 YEARS: UPPER 5% MALES > FEMALES MATH, FEMALES > MALES VERBAL

    (Again, my argument is that (((they))) have reversed sexual dimorphism and this accounts for (((their))) performance in articulating nearly anything – at the cost of female cognitive biases.)

    —“Sex differences in cognitive ability level and cognitive ability pattern or tilt (e.g., math > verbal) have been linked to educational and occupational outcomes in STEM and other fields. The present study examines cognitive ability tilt across the last 35 years in 2,053,265 academically talented students in the U.S. (SAT, ACT, EXPLORE) and 7119 students in India (ASSET) who were in the top 5% of cognitive ability, populations that largely feed high level STEM and other occupations. Across all measures and samples, sex differences in ability tilt were uncovered, favoring males for math > verbal and favoring females for verbal > math. As ability tilt increased, sex differences in ability tilt appeared to increase. Additionally, sex differences in tilt increased as ability selectivity increased. Broadly, sex differences in ability tilt remained fairly stable over time, were consistent across most measures, and replicated across the U.S. and India. Such trends should be carefully monitored given their potential to impact future workforce trends.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2018-06-15 12:33:00 UTC

  • Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores

    –“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.

  • Fat Tailed Male IQ Scores

    –“Hey Curt, how would you explain the fat-tailed, high-standard-deviation distribution of male IQ scores from an evolutionary/natural selection/sexual selection standpoint?”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos I can’t take time to make a complete list but here are the most obvious factors: (a) hierarchies are necessary for decision making, and outliers facilitate hierarchy formation. (b) intelligence appears to be (very) high causal density (ie: fragile) (c) intelligence as we understand it requires time (vulnerability) even if it succeeds at condensing time. So there is equal demand for impulsivity( short reaction times). (d) habituation of advantages in large numbers is lower cost than intelligence in large numbers. (e) brains are 11x as expensive as muscles. (e) there is very little value to female intelligence (equality). Intelligence is only as valueable as it is combined with aggression and physical ability. otherwise intelligence at the cost of aggression and physical ability just leads to defeat by ‘cheaper’ group strategies. And yes that means what you think it does. Updated: Well, as the comments suggest, intelligence is to some degree an advantage for the group, even if women don’t select for it (much at all). Also, the “crazy high risk uncle” is extremely valuable for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Also, the ‘lunatic’ is advantageous for the group, even if women don’t select for it. Women select for what we consider ‘sports team members’ – at least as best as they can obtain. My point was that there is a reason it’s an outlier phenomenon: it’s expensive, it requires high causal density, women counter-select for it, and there is a limit to the value of the distribution.