Curt Doolittle

Theme: Sex Differences

  • Why Are White People Very Innovative?

    GREAT QUESTION

    White people have:

    (a) desire for heroism regardless of disruption of the dominance hierarchy
    (b) desire for signaling regardless of disruption of the dominance hierarchy.
    (c) freedom to act regardless of disruption of the dominance hierarchy.
    (d) slightly more action bias (more likely to expend calories than not) If you look at the data by race in females in particular, it’s obvious.
    (e) relatively high IQ’s, time and resources to act with.
    (f) higher (but not as high as south west eurasians : semites) verbal facility.
    (g) and especially, while small, higher ‘neuroticism’ (worry) which correlates with (and causes) higher creativity.

    While many other cultures have some of these properties, no other culture (race, or subrace) has this combination of traits.

    Creativity requires ability, incentive, opportunity, resources, and time.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-are-white-people-very-innovative

  • People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more

    People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more about maximizing quality that reduces the cost of our existential differences to the marginally indifferent. ALL HUMAN GROUPS CAN TRANSCEND IF WE STOP LYING ABOUT IT —“Q: Do animals experience racism?”— **YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS** But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations. All animals demonstrate both **(a) kin selection bias** (genetic persistence), (c) **fitness bias (quality**). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out. Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it). Humans demonstrate eery possible bias IMAGINABLE. With malse less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductie cost. The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic). The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrine and developmental.) There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility. The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums. Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity. Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.) So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes. However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less. DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists. The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind. The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty. Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy. Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary. Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures. Cheers.

  • People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more

    People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more about maximizing quality that reduces the cost of our existential differences to the marginally indifferent. ALL HUMAN GROUPS CAN TRANSCEND IF WE STOP LYING ABOUT IT —“Q: Do animals experience racism?”— **YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS** But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations. All animals demonstrate both **(a) kin selection bias** (genetic persistence), (c) **fitness bias (quality**). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out. Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it). Humans demonstrate eery possible bias IMAGINABLE. With malse less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductie cost. The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic). The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrine and developmental.) There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility. The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums. Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity. Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.) So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes. However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less. DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists. The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind. The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty. Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy. Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary. Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures. Cheers.

  • People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more

    People love their little lies. Stop with the fallacy of equality and worry more about maximizing quality that reduces the cost of our existential differences to the marginally indifferent. ALL HUMAN GROUPS CAN TRANSCEND IF WE STOP LYING ABOUT IT

    —“Q: Do animals experience racism?”—

    **YES, SINCE “RACE” AMOUNTS TO KIN AND FITNESS**

    But let’s look into this since Marxist – Postmodern pseudoscience has done such a wonderful job spreading falsehoods to the postwar generations.

    All animals demonstrate both **(a) kin selection bias** (genetic persistence), (c) **fitness bias (quality**). Otherwise they would be evolutionary dead ends – and eventually die out.

    Humans, who are reproductively indifferent from other animals, demonstrate both kin, and fitness bias. (And we can measure it).

    Humans demonstrate eery possible bias IMAGINABLE. With malse less discriminatory than females, for obvious reasons of reproductie cost.

    The differences between the races provide genetic(reproductie) class (social and reproductive, and economic/cooperative (social, reproductive, and economic).

    The differences between the races are largely pedomorphic (endocrine and developmental.)

    There is indeed a maximum degree of pedomorphism that humans find attractive, which appears to correlate with peak early fertility.

    The races demonstrate different degrees of pedomorphism while retaining adult maximums.

    Evolution has only so many inexpensive channels (series of mutually dependent genetic causal relations) to work with and the cheapest and fastest is that which controls rates and depths of maturity.

    Asians have greater pedomorphism, but lower adult maximums. Whites have next greater pedomorphism but higher adult maximums. Northern europeans are about equally attractive across genders, slavs biased toward female, east asians toward female, and the rest of the world physically male, particularly Africans whose men are physically amazing, and the rest of the world is biased male (steppe and desert) or in the case of southeast asians, balanced with shallower but faster maturity. Although there is great variation within groups, the distribution tends to hold at the race, subrace, tribe and clan levels. (We can measure these things, however it’s pretty obvious to anyone who travels the world.)

    So while every group has some more preferable traits among some of its members, and less preferable traits among other members, what is preferable remains constant across all peoples. And by and large, with universal demonstration, our reproductive social desirability produces a hierarchy of genetic, reproductive, social, intellectual, and economic distribution of races, tries, clans and classes.

    However, this really amounts to *how successful has each race, subrace, tribe, and clan been at the elimination of its undesirables?* Because, painfully or not, that is what separates the most successful peoples (east asians and europeans) from the less.

    DATA DOESN’T LIE. PEOPLE LOVE TO LIE. EQUALITY IS JUST ANOTHER ABRAHAMIC PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of the underclasses, JUST AS ABRAHAMIC RELIGION WAS A LIE for the purpose of reversing evolution in favor of pastoralists.

    The fact that we humans are marginally indifferent for the purposes of cross kin class cooperation, does not mean we are equal in class or cross-class value to ourselves, one another, our polities, all polities, or the future of mankind.

    The bottom is about five or six times as damaging as the top can compensate for. Which is why some countries cannot exit poverty.

    Evolution is not kind. The universe cares nothing for us. We are a convenient accident in the galactic suburbs made possible by improbable coincidences and the tendency for life to form as yet another means of preventing entropy.

    Each of us is more or less sensitive to differences, some of us temporal and some of us intertemporal. This sensitivity reflects reproductive differences in necessities and there mirrors largely the distribution of male and female brain structures, cognitive, and personality biases. Some people are simply more ‘discriminating’ than others are. Some’s discrimination is limited and some is broad. There are evolutionarily obvious reasons for the distribution of our sensitivity to differences. The least able less, the more able more. Because reproductively that’s necessary.

    Some more discriminating about now and interpersonal frictions and opportunities, and some of us about intergenerational frictions and opportunities. And that is largely what demarcates political preferences, moral biases, personality traits, and brain structures.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-17 13:57:00 UTC

  • Simple version: Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth a

    Simple version: Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth and rates, is reproductively desirable. Symmetry and preservation of ideal ratios is reproductively desirable. Races, subraces, and tribes evolved in different environments where different rates and depths of maturity were beneficial, and some where they were harmful. All races, subraces, and tribes contain members who retain juvenile traits, and who have the ideal proportions. Some races and subraces and tribes contain a larger percentage of those with juvenile traits and ideal proportions. In most cases features correspond with genetic and social class. The size of the underclass determines the distribution of favorable traits. (Too many people at the bottom is harmful) East asians and western europeans were in the most favorable conditions to evolve such traits, and reduce the size of the underclasses. In other words: it’s not about how races look, it’s about the number of people in each race, subrace, or tribe who are less desirable. 😉

  • Simple version: Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth a

    Simple version: Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth and rates, is reproductively desirable. Symmetry and preservation of ideal ratios is reproductively desirable. Races, subraces, and tribes evolved in different environments where different rates and depths of maturity were beneficial, and some where they were harmful. All races, subraces, and tribes contain members who retain juvenile traits, and who have the ideal proportions. Some races and subraces and tribes contain a larger percentage of those with juvenile traits and ideal proportions. In most cases features correspond with genetic and social class. The size of the underclass determines the distribution of favorable traits. (Too many people at the bottom is harmful) East asians and western europeans were in the most favorable conditions to evolve such traits, and reduce the size of the underclasses. In other words: it’s not about how races look, it’s about the number of people in each race, subrace, or tribe who are less desirable. 😉

  • Simple version: Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth a

    Simple version:

    Retention of juvenile traits and slowing of reproductive depth and rates, is reproductively desirable.

    Symmetry and preservation of ideal ratios is reproductively desirable.

    Races, subraces, and tribes evolved in different environments where different rates and depths of maturity were beneficial, and some where they were harmful.

    All races, subraces, and tribes contain members who retain juvenile traits, and who have the ideal proportions.

    Some races and subraces and tribes contain a larger percentage of those with juvenile traits and ideal proportions.

    In most cases features correspond with genetic and social class.

    The size of the underclass determines the distribution of favorable traits. (Too many people at the bottom is harmful)

    East asians and western europeans were in the most favorable conditions to evolve such traits, and reduce the size of the underclasses.

    In other words: it’s not about how races look, it’s about the number of people in each race, subrace, or tribe who are less desirable. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-01-15 19:19:00 UTC

  • Are White People Really The Most Beautiful Race Or Do We Just Think That Because We Grew Up Being Told That?

    —-”Are white people really the most beautiful race or do we just think that because we grew up being told that?”—-

    Well, sort of, yes. And we can measure it. However…. let’s explain why. Because it’s very interesting.

    In general, humans favor a certain set of ratios, and in general, humans favor pedomorphism(retention of juvenile features) – for obvious reasons of fertility and fitness – especially since we take so long to mature, and because of that can demonstrate our fitness due to our behavior, easily.

    Ratios and pedomorphism are selection criteria for healthy growth through symmetric development over a long time period.

    This generally means more ‘aquiline’ features (fine features) and lighter coloring. It’s not a mystery why ‘whiteness’ spread in at least two if not three phases. It was a selection preference AND a geographic utility. (The math is pretty simple really.)

    All populations contain more and less pedomorphic individuals. All populations (races, subraces, tribes, clans) contain a distribution of individuals with hyper mature (masculine) and hyper immature (feminine) features. In general the middle and upper classes are more attractive than the working and underclasses, but only loosely. So to say all white people? No. More white people than other peoples? Yes.

    It is harder to evolve-out (remove) certain features, and easier to evolve-out (remove) other features through the process of pedomorphic evolution.

    Whites have for some reason, achieved somewhat less pedomorphic evolution than east Asians, but whites have achieved that evolution from a LATER version of man under greater outgroup competitive pressure than east Asians. There is too much uncertainty about White development compared to the current clarity of East Asian development.

    Africans have low pedomorphic evolution, Arabs a touch more, Central Asians a touch more, Mediterraneans a touch more, West asians a touch more, Germanics a touch more, Slavs more, Indians cover the entire spectrum, and east asians have the most.

    Arguably Indian women with low Dravidian contribution are only marginally indifferent from Scandinavian women. And low dravidian contribution Indian men and women like european men and women, have developed symmetrically with men and women equally attractive across the class spectrum.

    (In general, the problem for the world is the steppe and desert people who did not go through sufficient ‘genetic grinding’ under cold weather agrarianism. And in africa there is high value to early maturity since the continent, in disease gradient alone, is extremely hostile to human life.)

    And we can measure the correlation between physical (facial) features and development, by a rather obvious endocrine analysis: testosterone levels. (We aren’t very different from wolves and dogs really. A few endocrine pathways produce profound differences. )

    In a perfect fantasy world men could have African physiques, Northern European appearance and brains and east asian fat distribution, and women could have northern european appearance, and height, east asian brains , body size, longevity, fat distribution, scent, and hair-density.

    I could state the opposite by race, subrace, and ethnicity (or tribe), but it would be too uncharitable. However, a gander at the distribution of features in indigenous Australian women and a gander at the physique of certain southeast Asian men, will demonstrate that the distribution of features in a population can work both very positively and very negatively.

    One of the ways to interpret the attractiveness of at white populations is that *whites successfully killed off large portions of their underclasses, as well as previous generations of european inhabitants, and are a predominantly middle class race* East asians evolved in isolation and killed off vast portions of their underclasses, but more importantly **close gene pools can correct better than diverse gene pools** and the han are the largest subrace, and the han, koreans, and japanese are extremely homogenous.

    Diversity is always and everywhere a bad thing. It makes correction of weakness, defect and error difficult. No matter what Abrahamic religions, Marxists, Postmodernists, and Academic Pseudoscientists propagandize.

    (Understand this research has been suppressed actively since the second world war. But technology has finally made it possible, and other countries are now providing the information that western peoples suppressed for almost a century.)

    Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. They have to survive the market for verification for generations across entire populations. (Yes, really).

    At present the intermarriage between lower quality white males, and average quality east asian females is doing something very nice in that particular gene pool, because both east asians and europeans have something to positive to contribute to the gene pool.

    Genes can’t lie. Science isn’t kind. Reproduction is just another economy analyzable and explicable by economic criteria.

    I hope this was helpful.

    I work regularly to end denial of our differences, so that we provide institutional solutions to our differences. Markets are always better than monopolies. And large states are always monopolies that compete at the expense of some group or other of their people.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-white-people-really-the-most-beautiful-race-or-do-we-just-think-that-because-we-grew-up-being-told-that

  • Are White People Really The Most Beautiful Race Or Do We Just Think That Because We Grew Up Being Told That?

    —-”Are white people really the most beautiful race or do we just think that because we grew up being told that?”—-

    Well, sort of, yes. And we can measure it. However…. let’s explain why. Because it’s very interesting.

    In general, humans favor a certain set of ratios, and in general, humans favor pedomorphism(retention of juvenile features) – for obvious reasons of fertility and fitness – especially since we take so long to mature, and because of that can demonstrate our fitness due to our behavior, easily.

    Ratios and pedomorphism are selection criteria for healthy growth through symmetric development over a long time period.

    This generally means more ‘aquiline’ features (fine features) and lighter coloring. It’s not a mystery why ‘whiteness’ spread in at least two if not three phases. It was a selection preference AND a geographic utility. (The math is pretty simple really.)

    All populations contain more and less pedomorphic individuals. All populations (races, subraces, tribes, clans) contain a distribution of individuals with hyper mature (masculine) and hyper immature (feminine) features. In general the middle and upper classes are more attractive than the working and underclasses, but only loosely. So to say all white people? No. More white people than other peoples? Yes.

    It is harder to evolve-out (remove) certain features, and easier to evolve-out (remove) other features through the process of pedomorphic evolution.

    Whites have for some reason, achieved somewhat less pedomorphic evolution than east Asians, but whites have achieved that evolution from a LATER version of man under greater outgroup competitive pressure than east Asians. There is too much uncertainty about White development compared to the current clarity of East Asian development.

    Africans have low pedomorphic evolution, Arabs a touch more, Central Asians a touch more, Mediterraneans a touch more, West asians a touch more, Germanics a touch more, Slavs more, Indians cover the entire spectrum, and east asians have the most.

    Arguably Indian women with low Dravidian contribution are only marginally indifferent from Scandinavian women. And low dravidian contribution Indian men and women like european men and women, have developed symmetrically with men and women equally attractive across the class spectrum.

    (In general, the problem for the world is the steppe and desert people who did not go through sufficient ‘genetic grinding’ under cold weather agrarianism. And in africa there is high value to early maturity since the continent, in disease gradient alone, is extremely hostile to human life.)

    And we can measure the correlation between physical (facial) features and development, by a rather obvious endocrine analysis: testosterone levels. (We aren’t very different from wolves and dogs really. A few endocrine pathways produce profound differences. )

    In a perfect fantasy world men could have African physiques, Northern European appearance and brains and east asian fat distribution, and women could have northern european appearance, and height, east asian brains , body size, longevity, fat distribution, scent, and hair-density.

    I could state the opposite by race, subrace, and ethnicity (or tribe), but it would be too uncharitable. However, a gander at the distribution of features in indigenous Australian women and a gander at the physique of certain southeast Asian men, will demonstrate that the distribution of features in a population can work both very positively and very negatively.

    One of the ways to interpret the attractiveness of at white populations is that *whites successfully killed off large portions of their underclasses, as well as previous generations of european inhabitants, and are a predominantly middle class race* East asians evolved in isolation and killed off vast portions of their underclasses, but more importantly **close gene pools can correct better than diverse gene pools** and the han are the largest subrace, and the han, koreans, and japanese are extremely homogenous.

    Diversity is always and everywhere a bad thing. It makes correction of weakness, defect and error difficult. No matter what Abrahamic religions, Marxists, Postmodernists, and Academic Pseudoscientists propagandize.

    (Understand this research has been suppressed actively since the second world war. But technology has finally made it possible, and other countries are now providing the information that western peoples suppressed for almost a century.)

    Stereotypes are the most accurate measurement in the social sciences. They have to survive the market for verification for generations across entire populations. (Yes, really).

    At present the intermarriage between lower quality white males, and average quality east asian females is doing something very nice in that particular gene pool, because both east asians and europeans have something to positive to contribute to the gene pool.

    Genes can’t lie. Science isn’t kind. Reproduction is just another economy analyzable and explicable by economic criteria.

    I hope this was helpful.

    I work regularly to end denial of our differences, so that we provide institutional solutions to our differences. Markets are always better than monopolies. And large states are always monopolies that compete at the expense of some group or other of their people.

    Cheers.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-white-people-really-the-most-beautiful-race-or-do-we-just-think-that-because-we-grew-up-being-told-that

  • “What is the single highest return a polity can invest in?” A: Human gamete mark

    “What is the single highest return a polity can invest in?” A: Human gamete markets –Julian le Roux