Amazing. Leading into a maze.
Under-stand. See what is under.
Woful = woeful, woe + ful => woman, woeman (wretched man, the wretched one, the wretched sex)
In managerial economies like ours, high remuneration tends to accrue to positions held in depersonalizing organizations (cf. The Organization Man by W.H. Whyte). It is therefore surprising that few intelligent people, if the concept of meritocracy is accurate, are facing a motivation obstacle that prevents them from sacrificing personality to remuneration.
The concept of meritocracy ought to be further reviewed. For one thing, it may not be true that a degree is a sure sign of intelligence, insofar as we are now seeing women widely outperforming men in academic achievements while IQ testing does not predict it. – All in all, those who take in earnest the Pygmalion effect (the influence of expectations on performance) are implicitly rejecting the concept of meritocracy as they claim school results depend on third parties’ expectations rather than IQ.
Which, by the way, makes John Stuart Mill’s idea of granting plural voting to intelligent people as deduced from education – ‘The distinction in favour of education, right in itself, is further and strongly recommended by its preserving the educated from the class legislation of the uneducated’ (Considerations on Representative Government) – nonsensical. Do the Millists of our days, then, advocate weighting votes according to IQ?
Veil Down in the West: A Woman’s Convenience
A couple of more quotes from literary documents supporting the thesis of my essay Le Voile en Occident here (en français).
She took those rooms for the pleasure of going there with her veil down, and imagining she was a heroine. She had a passion for secrecy, but she herself was merely a sphinx without a secret. (Oscar Wilde, The Sphinx Without a Secret)
Though it was midsummer Hetta entered the room with her veil down. She adjusted it as she followed Ruby up the stairs, moved by a sudden fear of her rival’s scrutiny. (Anthony Trollope, The Way We Live Now, 1875)
May I not ask you to lay aside your veil, so that we may look at each other fairly? (Ibid.)
The Veiled Lodger, in The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (1927) by A. Conan Doyle: The lodger keeps her veil down at all times to spare people the sight of her scars.
‘A machine-like footman.’ (The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes) ‘Tis how a footman ought to be. Anything beyond machine-likeness would be obtrusive.
It is not being misanthropic to prefer being served by machines. Do not let the condition of our present feudal society think of yourselves as misanthropes.
Drop man from service. The habit of dealing with humans for purely monetary-functional transactions erodes our humaneness.
In terms of service Chinese dealers are closest to the perfection of the machine. This is why I patronize their businesses.
Amusement and recreation are necessary to relax from work; they are not leisure, which is an end in itself.
In Thomas More’s Utopia, the workday lasts six hours. But everybody works. Whereas, for Thomas Aquinas, the surplus of work for some (above, say, six hours) allows others to live a contemplative life (vita contemplativa) – in other words, a leisure life (See Sebastian de Grazia, Of Time, Work, and Leisure, 1962). It is this very notion of leisure life that has vanished from Western conscience, which disappearance makes the idea of the slavery of machines for the sake of living a leisure life sound quite… utopian.
Time-starved and as good as dead.
In our society many a man has no place intended to him as a man – only as manpower.
London subway, Dec. 24, 2014. A prerecorded female voice tells you to ‘alight here for the museums.’ But all museums are closed Dec. 24, 25, & 26 each year – you know why.
According to Marshall McLuhan, colonization has detribalized Africa through the introduction of the written medium. According to Cheikh Anta Diop, colonization has retribalized Africa, where great unified empires existed.
Old-fashioned vs mass-fashioned.
The great man’s mistakes are closer to the truth than the little man’s exactitude.
The craving for dignity, in a deterministic world, leads to absurd work ethics – to an unproductive show of make-feel-worthy.
On a plane with x-axis capacity and y-axis wealth I say we shall find a bell-shaped curve, because mediocre individuals are capacious enough to unite against the highly capacious and prevent them from competing. Not allowed to compete! [However, the main problem, as hinted above, is motivation – motivation obstacles. Competition is time-consuming and its rewards unlikely to compensate great minds for the time lost away from enjoying the company of other great minds through books, and their own inner dialogue, thinking, contemplation, leisure.]
According to Kant, it does not take intelligence to know one’s duty, i.e. the moral law, whereas it takes intelligence to thrive in the world, to be worldly wise. Kant thereby disqualifies this kind of self-serving smartness (Klugheit) as in no way being a noble virtue and in no way central in mankind’s calling. As to Schopenhauer, he considers true intelligence as unselfish, as he posits a trade-off between Wille (will) and Vorstellung (‘representation,’ insight). The genius is detached from nature’s pursuits, finding no higher enjoyment than his own insight at representing the world in his mind, that is, in his own genius.
Perverted into compliance.
What best characterizes the present age of information is that it’s not an information age.
There must be something wrong with the so-called ‘extraversion-dominance’ dimension of psychology (one of the Big Five), as the organization man must be both extraverted/other-oriented and dependent/submissive in his life as a hierarchical team worker. Or it shows the dramatic extent of the strain the organization exerts on our nature.
Cities are no less pestilent than villages. Yet in cities one’s relationships are limited to people one cares to see, whereas in villages one is expected to socialize with all other villagers; the pestilence of social life is thus transferred from interpersonal relationships to some holistic crowd effect, in which the injury comes from unknown passers-by.
Most pets are castrated, sterilized by their owners. Remember we are a domesticated species. A self-domesticated species.
Ubiquitous mass media pornography is externalized delectatio morosa.
Assignment: Carry out big-data survey on scholars’ writings in scientific journals compared to their published books in order to assess the extent of publishers and editors’ intervention in the latter.
The specialized scientist’s worldview is unbalanced. As his worldview manifests itself even in his work as a specialist, the specialist’s work itself is unbalanced. The cold objectivity of facts and figures, so much flaunted by the specialists, is imbalance.
The specialist is an unbalanced man. His activity is knowledge as toil. Toil is what unbalances man’s development. Leisure ensures the balanced development of man’s faculties.
Morals has been replaced by priming, but the latter does not escape the objections addressed to the former, as scientists inevitably sneak priming in their writings.
In developing countries the role of the importune beggar is played by the street peddler.
‘All men are equal’: the legal axiom defies science. It is based on purely moral grounds and at the same time the recognizance of this moral axiom as being the fundation of the civil compact has become, or is becoming, though history, universal. Literally it only means that ‘all men are equal before the law’ but the qualification is immaterial for that the law should treat as equals people who are unequal according to nature is at defiance with nature. Where is the scientific evidence that ‘all men are created equal’? By opposing the civil state to the state of nature, Hobbes stressed the necessary humbling of natural urges before the civil law for the maintenance of civil order and peace, which, in religious terms, compares to the humbling of the natural man before the law of God. As it imposes an absolute restraint on nature, the law may be called moral and any breach of compact is abhorrent to the moral law. The restraint is absolute in the sense that if one is free to contract with others in the way that best suits his own interest, he is not free to violate, in his interest, a contract. The latter is incompatible with civil order. A person caught in the act of breaking his word is not allowed any longer to pursue his interest until a sentence has been served.
If science primes us (psychologically) to indulge in tendencies that are being surmounted by progress, then science becomes an impediment to progress and will be left behind.
When work is through, status via work will be no option anymore.
What is the ultimate cause (vs proximate cause, i.e. sudden rush of air in the lungs or whatever) of human babies being the only species born crying?
Civilization means psychoticism because mass media conditions maladaptive sexuality, and the psychotics, according to H. Eysenck, are the least conditionable.
Admission of the naturalistic fallacy (the tendency to grant indicative statements the value of injonctions) implies that our aims are determined outside natural life. Darwinian theory, thus, gives no account of our aims, and Darwinists who warn against the naturalistic fallacy downgrade their own work and pursuit. And those among them who, like R. Thornhill, do the same while insisting on applying the experimental test to all propositions are inconsistent in the bargain.
I have a doubt on Ronald Fisher’s ultimate explanation of equal sex ratios. Fisher’s principle states that, when females are scarce, siring a male will be selected against as more males will not mate, and vice-versa. It is the vice-versa that disturbs me, because males are polygynous. ‘Whichever sex is in excess will have lower reproductive success, in average,’ yes: for two sexes having equal reproductive strategies…
I have a doubt also on some claims about parasites and evolution. Predators do not weed out the genetically slower individuals but those individuals that are made slower by parasites (for instance, susceptibility to predation is increased thirty times for infected fishes, according to one study). Being free from parasite indicates a better immune system, but I should think parasite infestation has a random dimension too: in some cases it depends on where the individual has been (the wrong place at the wrong time), what he has eaten, etc. If randomness is high, how can selection mechanisms, in the predator-prey interaction, generate adaptations?
The world is not within man’s reach – the world in the physical sense: stars and galaxies. Our thriving on a speck of dust lost in infinity cannot conceal its (our thriving’s) indecorum. We must leave room to a one better suited than us to explore and know the world: Der Geist.
Biology will become anecdotal because the most important for Der Geist will be to know Itself. In biology Der Geist will find what It is not, not what It is.
The profound meaning of political freedom is that political ideas do not matter in the least. The program will apply and Der Geist will awaken.
Subsidizing children amounts to a windfall. It is because children are one’s highest stakes in the system that governments subsidize reproductive success while burdening all other forms of success.
Crime novels are read by practical people who have no time and no patience for things remote from their self-interest. Not because these novels are easier to read – they are not – but because practical people always keep in a corner of their minds the more or less conscious idea that one day to kill someone will be necessary to safeguard their interests.
Lucretius’s ‘unalloyed empiricism’ (Milord Matt Ridley): yet the idea that the world is made of two things only, atoms and void, was not empirical but speculative.
In business they’re always talking about having ideas, but the ideas they have in business are of the kind a thinker would be ashamed to have.
How to pronounce the word ‘read’ when reading it is at times impossible to know before the end of the sentence.
It seems that scientific marketing has been so efficient that only those who underwent some religious conditioning (in part inconsistent with mass marketing) are now capable of being critical toward the current state of the society.
When I was young I was feeling a need for religious belief and I would see the scientist who lacked that need as a defective mind, same as I would see a man without sexual needs as unmanly.
I remember very well that when I used to be an avid reader of classic philosophy I couldn’t shift to more recent material without being highly disappointed by their content, I mean by the thinking evidenced in it. No matter how noted the authors were, Ivy League professors and all, they couldn’t rise any high in my estimation.
Love eternal: about the fourth or fifth time it comes in your life you start wondering. Women as transient objects of love eternal.
Google has decided they wanted to help you search things on the Web. So you start typing a name and their engine completes it, with the closest Hollywood star or soccer player, when you’re looking for a biologist… Am I the only one to think this will reinforce herd mentality?
Mexican film La sexorcista (Satánico Pandemonium) (1975) by Gilberto Martínez Solares takes place in a convent during Mexican colonial times (there are still black slaves, some of them escaping from slavery into convents and monasteries, where they are hardly treated better, and there is plague in the country too). Although the title is a bit of a ‘catcher,’ the film, about a nun falling into sin and consequently becoming a serial murderer is subtle and profound. Once one devotes her life to God in the way a Catholic nun does, that is, relinquishing the most demanding urges of nature, the slightest slip can lead one astray and into the deepest regions of despair and madness via a terrifying logic. If she loses in the slightest the firmness of her faith or faith in her firmness, and realizes in what grave she has buried herself alive, she becomes demented – a demon. Yet the apparences can be preserved, including through murder, and the horrible irony of the film is that by accepting to live in utter deception of others the criminal nun is offered the highest honors, the leadership of her community, whereas the confession of her crimes would have brought her into the hands of the Inquisition and to death after atrocious abuses. It is made plain, however, that her reward will corrupt the whole community and beyond: under the guise of devotion and unbeknownst to them, the believers will be paying honor to Satan, into whose sheep they have been turned.
‘Israel does not suffer from rape’
About the fantastic claim that Israel does not suffer from rape (made by Tobias Langdon, in his essay Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think in Britain’s Hostile Elite, Unz Review online, May 16, 2017)
According to Tobias Langdon, as an ethnostate Israel’s blessings include Israeli women’s being spared from rape.
According to A Natural History of Rape (2000) by Randy Thornhill and Craig Palmer, rape is at least two different things, 1/rape by a sexual predator (his victims being unknown to him), 2/rape by a relative (including incest on children) or by a known person, that is date rape; and the second category is the commonest by far – very far. Yet rape by migrants is of the sexual-predator category.
(I also believe that the first category has always been more reported than the second one, and if it is found that a statistical increase in rape is due in part to more victims reporting, we will also find that this reporting concerns in large part family or date rapes.)
Rape, being a sensitive issue, comes handy for propaganda. Shock value of violent murders and rapes can cloud the reasoning and then one would swallow anything unsupported by statistics. And I don’t find statistics as much as shock-value cases in anti-migrant internet literature.
As to the fantastic claim that ‘ethnostate’ Israel ‘doesn’t suffer from this crime’ (rape) as she does not allow third-world immigration, it is preposterous, on three counts:
1/The claim assumes that family and date rape does not exist in Israel.
2/That there is no third-world immigration in Israel is not true, as Black Ethiopians and other third-world nationalities have immigrated to and settled in Israel.
To be sure, the numbers of Black people and third-world immigration in Israel may be considered negligible. But as Langdon notes, there are 20 percent non-Jewish Arabs with Israeli (however second-class) citizenship: hardly an ethnostate! Israel is not as ‘sane’ as Langdon likes to, perhaps craves to believe.
3/& finally rape rates in Israel are said to be rather high. [There are problems with international rape statistics, however. For instance, in the article here (wonderslist) about ‘Top 10 Countries With Maximum Rape Crime,’ I can see no reason why Canada has 14 times (!) more sex assaults than similar country USA. Canada: 460,000 assaults each year for a population of 36M =1277 per lakh; USA: 293,000 assaults/year for a pop. of 323M =90.7 per lakh…]
Tobias Langdon is one case of delusional thinking about Israel, combined with an ingrained repulsion toward colored people – that same repulsion that led one of my Twitter contenders to make, in the heat of an exchange, the fantastically preposterous claim that all rapists in Israel are Blacks (see Tweet Anthology 2 here).
Nor was ever the U.S. an ethnostate, as the economy of the South was based on slavery (on the paper, however, it could be said it was, yes, as slaves were not citizens). Neither slavery America nor apartheid Israel are ethnostates. Both are exploitative caste states.
Of course, that ruthless exploitation could be a political aim is not considered proper today, except perhaps to the most unabashed supremacists. For all others, an unarticulated desire to enslave a whole class of people in order to make one’s own life easier would translate as a perceived need, an actual anxiety to defend one’s civilization – where there’s nothing to defend but a heritage of exploitation and misery for the greater number.
It is because of the earnest possibility of such a collective desire for enslavement and exploitation that academia tends to reject IQ studies, as inferior IQs would be deemed a sufficient reason to enslave, say, the Blacks, however shocking this is to our moral sense. Liberals are often snubbed as moralists, but morality is no more to be dismissed from the fabric of man than are man’s lower instincts.
If there exist statistics that demonstrate high rate crimes of Black and other people of color, then I’d like to see them. What some are wont of doing on the internet is tweeting shocking cases of rape and murder, say once every week or two, when heinous crimes happen in the U.S. alone at the rate of dozens a day. So as these highly motivated militants can’t bring more than such numbers of cases to my attention, then I say to myself, wait, I am deeply nauseated by these Black on White crimes, but what about the figures now? Again, if there are figures…
The figure I know is Black inmates in American prisons. There’s no reason to suppose, like many liberals, that this high percentage is per se a proof of racism in American society rather than, say, the criminal nature of the Black man, as the opponents of those liberals would have it. Once this is being said, I have heard that the greater part of these inmates have been sentenced for drugs and I think that changes everything, because even if that might prove one of the Black man’s natural tendencies, I wouldn’t exclude that Blacks are being targeted on purpose by pushers having all the means of scientific marketing at their disposal, especially knowing that they are working in prison, that is, are just like the slaves of old and just like the Black peons of the Jim Crow regime (where they were not allowed to diversify their crops, to take just one instance). This is a pattern.
Some thoughts after reading Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After (2006) by Bella DePaulo, PhD.
For a ultimate cause of ‘matrimania’ (marriage mania), I’d be tempted to look into evolutionary psychology. Bella DePaulo uses a meaningful phrase: ‘intensive coupling,’ or ‘intensive nuclearity,’ and I think it is key to understanding matrimania. Intensive coupling is the current form of mate guarding. Women’s emancipation has made it necessary that both partners couple more intensely than ever in the past, when the relative social isolation of the woman would guarantee some stability to the couple, as mate poaching would be obstructed by women’s reclusion and minority status.
The corollary of intensive coupling is the emotional value attached to coupling, which, as DePaulo observes, has not always been so exclusive in the past. Another corollary is the delusions she describes under the word ‘singlism.’
What she says about the fifties in America (‘Consider … the Americans who were newly wedded in 1956. No Americans on record married at a younger age than they did, before or since. Half the 1956 grooms had not yet reached the age of 22.5, and half the brides were 20 or younger’) also triggered various reminiscences. I see the American fifties as an era of profound change marked by ‘hidden persuaders’ (Vance Packard), ‘affluence,’ ‘reversed sequence’ and the rise of the ‘technostructure’ (Galbraith), ‘managerialism’ (Burnham), and I am led to hypothesize the intervention of technocratic power (more efficient than that of churches!) in normalizing marriage in the American society. There may have been two incentives in that direction for these technocratic ‘persuaders.’ One is social control, as by and large single males would be seen as sexual predators and single females as feebly-inhibited nomads (from eugenicist Charles Davenport – and my understanding is that eugenics was still okay at the time). The other is consumption at the levels required by the newly achieved affluence. DePaulo stresses the response already made to Japanese scholar Masahiro Yamada’s contention that ‘single parasites’ consume less, yet I am not quite convinced that singles consume as much as couples; data should not be too hard to find on that score.
Yamada’s indictment of singles based on their consumption patterns or consumption levels is revealing of a tendency of capitalist societies toward ‘democratorship’ (from German Demokratur: Demokratie-Diktatur).
Evolutionary psychology postulates that we are replication machines for our genes (Dawkins): the goal of life is reproduction. EP scholars insist that the phrase ‘struggle for life’ is actually a misnomer, since survival is in fact at the service of reproduction. The phrase ‘reproductive success’ is key to their understanding of social relations. Now, as DePaulo says, some singles have children (and more and more people with children are singles); but this is still a way to maximize/optimize one’s reproductive success, if one’s partner turns out to be abusive, violent &c. She underlines that many singles and their children are better off single than in pair. But then they are in a typical EP pattern, whereas childless singles are not, and are rather, in that view, well, if the former are successes, then the latter are – the contrary of successes (and unhappy).
One EP scholar (Kanazawa) has come with an ‘intelligence paradox,’ trying to explain why intelligent people tend to commit ‘the greatest crime against nature’ (in his own words), namely voluntarily not to reproduce. Having read his book, in fact I can say this doesn’t even describe intelligent men by and large, only (or more likely) intelligent women. Still, in one other book (Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters, 2007, Kanazawa & Miller), he points to a productivity peak for scholars happening later in life in the case of singles than in the case of marrieds. He sees it as a confirmation of the EP view that once you reproduce you’ve done what you were called for in this life (by your genes) and you now concentrate on giving your children the opportunities to reproduce in the best conditions in their turn.
For a more thorough discussion of Kanazawa’s intelligence paradox, see here.
With Singled Out, Bella DePaulo almost made me think good of Oprah Winfrey (I can’t say I know Oprah Winfrey well, it’s just I have no warm notions of TV personalities generally speaking). But I have just been reading she is involved with a cult called A Course in Miracles (a course allegedly dictated by Jesus to a female medium, starting in 1965) and has put her large notoriety at its service. No doubt this has contributed mightily to the cult’s affairs.
In Order by Accident (2000), Miller & Kanazawa claim that, faced with unemployment, women evidence a tendency to join cults. I am pretty sure that cult membership also counts singles in larger proportions.
DePaulo sends a pique to those Americans who see themselves as adventurous and yet dare not go alone at the restaurant. Well observed!
In my experience, in restaurants that ambition to be fashionable, service to singles is extremely poor and as customers abandon themselves to the goodwill of the waiters the experience can be quite unpleasant. It’s as if these restaurants have an anti-single policy that they implement through bad service. They do their best to spare their ‘normal,’ or ideal, paired customers the inconvenience of being seated near a single – looser by definition in the dictionary of singlism.
Alternately, it may be no policy from the management but come from the staff themselves. As union is strength, waiters might hesitate to be inconsiderate and mean to pairs, while it’s fair game with singles, and they release it! If the waiter intends to be mean with a pair, Madame will insult him in soft voice while talking to Monsieur and making sure the waiter hears and his pride is hurt, while the single remains silent, doesn’t even whisper, because then they’re looked upon as having bats in the belfry.
Try the burger parlor.
According to Dr Satoshi Kanazawa (London School of Economics) in his book The Intelligence Paradox: why the intelligent choice isn’t always the smart one (2012), general intelligence is, in evolutionary terms, the faculty to deal with “novel and nonrecurrent adaptive problems.” He argues that in the African savanna where humanity’s ancestors evolved till the relatively recent (at evolution scale) advent of agriculture, the use of general intelligence was limited to such one-off, isolated problems, and consequently selection pressure upon the development of intelligence did not exist in the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). He further contends that in our modern man-made environments the capacity to deal with novel and nonrecurrent problems has become of utmost importance, yet this capacity, i.e. general intelligence, is not the best way to solve the general adaptive problems mankind still faces. The most important of these general adaptive problems is optimizing one’s fitness via mating, the coping with which relies on specific regions of the brain different from those in charge of intellect: namely, those in charge of emotions, or instincts.
There is something quite intuitive in the idea. Often enough people perceived as extremely intelligent tend to be derided by their peers as geeks or eggheads. Culture and mass culture frequently display funny characters who are very intellectual and at the same time awkward in many respects, such as Murray in the TV series Riptide; among my circle of school friends, to call someone “Murray,” based on the series, was one way to mock, though not with an altogether spiteful intent, an awkward guy, especially one who would fail to achieve anything outside the classroom.
Yet, no matter how intuitive, such a view runs counter to one tenet of evolutionary psychology (EP) – a field to which Kanazawa’s book belongs –, namely that high-status males are more reproductively successful than other males. In the view of EP, the Murrays of the world are the greatest womanizers, because it is general intelligence that has become the principal highway to status in our modern man-made environments. (For a broader discussion of EP findings on reproductive inequalities, see xxxii and xxxiii, or better all my posts from xxvii on.)
By presenting Kanazawa’s intelligence paradox in the terms above, I don’t do him justice, although that would render rather well his book’s subtitle “why the intelligent choice isn’t always the smart one,” but I have found myself in a quandary since I have wished to discuss his book, because of several inconsistencies.
The intelligence paradox is based on what Kanazawa calls “the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis,” that reads as follows: “Less intelligent individuals have greater difficulty comprehending and dealing with evolutionarily novel entities and situations that did not exist in the ancestral environment than more intelligent individuals. In contrast, general intelligence does not affect individuals’ ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities and situations that existed in the ancestral environment.” (p. 56)
Given this hypothesis, the intelligent choice is out of reach of the smart brain whereas neither the smart nor, by definition, the intelligent choice is out of reach of the intelligent brain, although the intelligent brain may or may not make smart choices (smart is defined as the way to cope successfully with “evolutionary familiar situations”). So far, so good. But the negative relationship I have being talking about (that intelligent people are geeks wanting in smartness) is clearly alluded to in the title of chapter 12: “Why Intelligent People are the Ultimate Losers in Life.” Relying on the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis, intelligent people should not be the ultimate losers, since their intelligence “does not affect their ability to comprehend and deal with evolutionarily familiar entities.” Moreover, if the hypothesis is true there should be no “intelligence paradox” at all, because smartness and intelligence would then be two uncorrelated abilities, whereas both the notion of a paradox and the idea that intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life imply a negative relationship. Let us look at some of Kanazawa’s contentions in more detail.
According to Kanazawa, the intelligence paradox predicts that more intelligent people are more homosexual than the general population because homosexuality is not natural, it is not common among animals nor among contemporary tribes of hunter-gatherers: “Even though some form of homosexuality is observed in many species, the basic biological design of all mammalian species is heterosexual reproduction, and exclusive or predominant homosexuality is rare in nature.” (p. 127) Kanazawa then says the data shows homosexuals are more intelligent.
He does not say, unless I’m mistaken, that it is the exclusive homosexuals that are more intelligent, which is in fact what the paradox predicts, not that occasional homosexuals, or bisexuals, are more intelligent, because such behaviors being observed in many species, as Kanazawa acknowledges, one may argue they’re natural. This is what Robin Baker says: Homosexual behaviors are quite common among animals. Moreover, most homosexuals, Baker argues, are bisexual, only a minority of them are exclusive homosexuals (see xxviii). The reason why exclusive homosexuality even exists is the same as why schizophrenia (according to Baker) exists, both at about 1% of the population: Both occur, namely, inside a process of mutation-selection balance. A gene mutation occurs that makes people exclusive homosexuals or schizophrenics and, as most of these individuals do not reproduce, selection prevents the mutation being forwarded.
Other than exclusive forms of homosexuality are in fact strategic, they are a way to deal with familiar adaptive situations, and one finds these behaviors among animal species quite frequently, so the intelligence paradox would not predict that people engaged in such behaviors are more intelligent. In fact, the intelligence paradox cannot even predict that exclusive homosexuals are more intelligent if it does not predict at the same time that schizophrenics are more intelligent, nor that any people affected by severe genetic mutations that would make them unfit for the ancestral savanna are more intelligent.
Certainly Kanazawa’s most astonishing contention is that the intelligence paradox predicts that intelligent people consume more drugs, alcohol and cigarettes because such consumption is not natural. On this score, he finds the results “somewhat equivocal” (p. 176), still he is inclined to consider the prediction realized. On this particular point, I would first like to quote one of Kanazawa’s mentors (named twice in the book’s acknowledgments), Dr Richard Lynn, in his book Dysgenics (2011): “Cigarette smoking (…) is, like alcohol consumption, an expression of weak self-control over immediate impulse gratification.” As I explain in xxx, the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment shows that children with self-control are more intelligent for they get higher status later in life and intelligence is the principal highway to high status today. So, if the intelligence paradox predicts that intelligent people drink, smoke and take drugs more than others, it can safely be dumped.
However, does the paradox really predict such a thing? According to Kanazawa, smoking did not exist before the culture of tobacco, nor drinking before the advent of brewery and distillation, nor taking drugs before the development of refining techniques, in a word they could not exist before agriculture and were nonexistent in the African savanna. Yet, many tribes of hunter-gatherers are familiar with psychotropic substances they encounter in the course of their foraging activities, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms, so the dependence on agriculture seems erroneous. I am not categorical that our ancestors in the savanna knew such substances and consumed them; I am merely doing what EP scholars do when they try to describe the life of our ancestors, taking contemporary tribes of hunter-gatherers as the closest approximation.
The vocabulary of psychotropic and stimulating substances used by hunter-gatherers is quite extensive. In the Spanish language alone, I know the following terms, most of them being taken from the vernacular languages of Amerindian tribes: achuma, ayahuasa or ayahuasca, bacuey or macuey (aphrodisiac), chamairo, chamico, cochizpacle, cocoyome, cojoba, colorín, curupa, frijolito (“little bean”), gasparito, jabí, jícore, masacoate (name of a Mexican boa which flesh was consumed by Indians as an aphrodisiac), ñorbito (aphrodisiac), paricá, peyote, pillunchuca, sumarique, señí, tacualispacle or clacualispacle (aphrodisiac), xtabentún, yagé. For more details on some of these words, see my glossary of Aztequismos (here) and Americanismos I (here) and II (here) (Spanish and French).
If taking such drugs predates agriculture and was familiar in the EEA, the intelligence paradox cannot predict what Kanazawa says it does.
Kanazawa predicts that “more intelligent men (but not more intelligent women) value sexual exclusivity” (p. 97) – “having one sexual partner in a committed relationship” (p. 101) –, and the data proves him right. More intelligent men value sexual exclusivity because it’s not natural, since polygyny was rampant in the savanna, whereas for a woman, sharing her man with other women or not, she was supposed sexually exclusive to that man. Intelligent men are decent Murrays. So far, so good.
Yet, Kanazawa also finds that more intelligent men have more extramarital affairs (figure 7.2, p. 108), and here is his explanation: “Note that the Intelligence Paradox is about individual preferences and values, what people desire and want in their heads; it’s not necessarily about what people actually do. If people have complete choice over their behavior, they are expected to pursue what they desire and want, but they do not always have such complete choice. And, when it comes to sex and mating, men have very little choice.” (p. 109) In other words, Dr. Kanazawa is telling us intelligent men desire to be monogynous but women force them to be polygynous.
He means that a man “has no realistic choice to say no” to a woman (p. 105). This is a rather audacious step from the finding of evolutionary biology regarding the differential biological costs of reproduction which imply males’ somewhat indiscriminate sexual outlook compared to females’ choosiness. I say it’s audacious because evolutionary biology also posits that males are urgent and females coy, which is not altogether the same proposition. In biological terms, if a male is not urgent – not proactive – no female will choose him. A man, thus, may be thought to always have the choice either to enter the arena (the lek) in the hope of being chosen or remain outside and attract no attention at all. Still, a man can desire to be monogynous, i.e. faithful, yet be induced into temptation and succumb to it in the course of his social interactions with many persons of the other sex, occasions allowing for the succumbing, without our being justified to call his behavior proactive in the proper sense. That would be, then, the lot of intelligent men, namely to be seduced by women, to be chosen by women without wanting to be chosen, and succumb because of males’ universal urgency.
So the question is: Are more intelligent men, although they desire to be monogynous and as a consequence are not urgent with women once they have got a partner, more likely to be chosen and induced into sex by women? According to Kanazawa, the answer is yes. As to this, I repeat here what I have said under the head of addictions, that more intelligent men also have more self-control, so if to begin with they desire to be monogynous although it’s not natural, they also are in a better position to resist succumbing, albeit that, too, is not natural.
But a more important question perhaps is about the attractiveness of intelligent men. According to Kanazawa, they are more attractive: “More intelligent individuals – both men and women – are on average physically more attractive than less intelligent individuals.” (p. 106). The source of this assertion is Kanazawa (2011) and Kanazawa & Kovar (2004), that is, papers from the same. As a complement, “more intelligent individuals – both men and women – are significantly taller than less intelligent individuals. And, once again, women prefer taller men as mates.” (p. 107) (Note that Kanazawa elsewhere says Asians are “slightly more intelligent than other races.” (p. 124). As Asians are also shorter than other races, his findings on the relationship between height and intelligence must apply inside one race and not across races.)
As to intelligent women’s attractiveness, here is another distinct statement by Kanazawa, which he does not relate to the previous assertions even though they likely bear on the discussion: “modern British people are not very endogamous on intelligence [the talk is about the British because one of the three studies used by the author is the British National Child Development Study (NCDS), the other two being from US; these studies sometimes contradict one another, like in the case of correlations between IQ and smoking already mentioned]. More intelligent men do not appear to marry more intelligent women in the contemporary United Kingdom.” Given the fact that more intelligent men are supposed to be more attractive and that at least their status is no obstacle to attracting a partner (when it’s not the very reason that attracted the partner in the first place) because it is more likely to be high than not, one is entitled to conclude from this study that intelligent women are not physically attractive on the whole, contrary to quote p. 106 from the previous paragraph.
As to men’s attractiveness, I invite the reader to read my essay xxxii. I add two remarks. 1/ Kanazawa et al.’s papers on attractiveness are based on judgments on photographs, “by two different judges.” I suggest that such minimal tests may not be very convincing, especially since it is known that women’s appreciation of men’s attractiveness varies during the course of their menstrual cycle. Thornhill and Palmer write in their Natural History of Rape (2000): “Perret et al. (1998) report that women in their study found men’s faces that were slightly feminized more attractive than men’s faces that were highly masculine. Highly masculine faces show greater effects of testosterone. This is interpreted by the researchers as a female preference for men who will invest in women. However, the same research group found that women who are not on the pill (i.e., are having ovulatory cycles) and are at the fertile point of their cycle prefer the most masculinized faces.” (pp. 203-4). The study alluded to posits a cyclic variation of individual women’s preferences through time.
2/ Kanazawa finds more evidence for his stance in the following: “The evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey F. Miller has consistently argued that women preferentially select men with higher levels of intelligence to mate with. … There appears to be some evidence for this suggestion. … more intelligent men are significantly more likely to have ever been married and to be currently married at age 47 than less intelligent men.” (pp. 184-5) This overlooks the irrelevance of marriage (or any other form of pair-bonding) to assess women’s sexual preferences, according to the springboard model (see xxxii) and the phenomenon of cuckoldry. Among Darwinian scholars, I have found so far that only Robin Baker does not overlook the predictable consequences of human sperm competition and female sexuality. Especially when intelligent men “are not very endogamous on intelligence” are they likely to be cuckolded by their partners because, as we shall see next, intelligent women are less eager to want children, consequently less eager to look for sexy sons’ genes outside their pair.
In this discussion, Kanazawa surmises that more intelligent men value sexual exclusivity because it’s not natural, but I think it depends more on how a male fares in sperm competition. If a male is uncompetitive, he would waste his time and energy in affairs, so he’d better invest in mate-guarding and parenting, like the good Murray he is. The fact that more intelligent men value sexual exclusivity proves my point right, that more intelligent men are meagerly endowed, virilely speaking.
Incidentally, when EP scholars talk of high-status men in the past, they show us an emperor with his harem, in the present for aught I know they may be talking of a restaurant manager, who is perhaps more likely to cuckold his employees than the reverse. Perhaps, then, one should not equate high status with elites; these would be two radically distinct concepts. In the classic of sociology The Children of Sanchez by Oscar Lewis, we have the example of a “high-status man,” Sanchez, whose job is to buy food for a restaurant in Mexico City. Hardly a high-status job, yet this man provides resources to three women living in different places of the same squalid barrio.
The overlooking of elite men’s poor virile endowments by most EP scholars so far may be due to some kind of sycophancy, the will (probably unconscious) to avoid presenting elite people in an evolutionarily unpleasant light. The sycophancy derives from certain notions about virility and manliness. If a high-status man fails to take advantage of his high status by inseminating many women, why care about status to begin with? Why be rich rather than poor, since it’s so much more trouble earning money than feeding on charity or welfare? The “unpleasant” is that high-status men are not emperors with harems like in the past; a good deal of them are (but sometimes I’ve got my doubts, especially after reading EP books) quite decent fellows, and that’s the shame, you see. By the same token, they may be suspected to be weak. Are weak elites true?
As to the question of why be rich rather than poor, I think the intelligence paradox predicts that, all men on the savanna having to hunt and forage, intelligent men are slackers.
As we have already seen, more intelligent individuals have more homosexual partners than less intelligent individuals (although I have contended this is not predicted by the intelligence paradox). They also have, on a declarative basis, more heterosexual partners (p. 137). The figures are: very bright Americans (IQ > 125) (5% of the US population) have had 9.98 heterosexual partners; bright (110 < IQ < 125) (20% of the US population) 9.79; normal (90 < IQ < 110) (50% of the US population) 8.9; dull (75 < IQ < 90) (20% of the US population) 7.92; very dull (75 < IQ) (5% of the US population) 7.10. Murray Bozinsky is a myth. You may call him a geek, or any person who looks like him a “Murray,” but he cuckolds you in your back. There are the haves and the have-horns!
Yet, as the figures here are based on individual statements, some of the statements may be deceptive. I should think the dull and very dull especially may have a tendency to under-declare their numbers of mates, because, as Kanazawa explains in chapter 5, they tend to be more conservative in politics, so under-declaring would be a way for some of them to display greater consistency between conservative ideas and their behavior. Same thing, perhaps, for intelligent people, who would think they would appear as lacking consistency if they did not over-declare their numbers of mates.
Male urgency patterns also depend on one’s time allocation. Men who work more have less time to court women (outside work, that is; please let me know if the workplace is the greatest sex club available, I need to know for productivity choices). Who works more: organization men or the leisure underclass?
A Parenthesis on the Clark-Hatfield Experiment
The Clark-Hatfield experiment is dealt with by Kanazawa (pp. 102-4) to explain female choice and men’s taking it as it is. It shows that 75% of male college students approached by an unknown attractive woman (a confederate in the experiment) who ask them if they would like to have sex with her the same night respond “yes,” comparing to 0% of female students approached by an unknown attractive man making the same proposal. I find the experiment silly. Men with a little knowledge of life, a little knowledge of women and courtship would have much reason to suspect the woman’s motivations. Some of the guys surely thought it was a hidden camera TV show. Some others may have been thinking the woman was a prostitute (I know a couple of streets in my city where unknown women ask you to get laid with them), some others that she was a schizophrenic intent on killing them, some others that it was a third-type encounter with an extraterrestrial, and all these were the least nincompoops of the batch. Apparently, none of the guys tried to embrace or kiss the woman on the spot, whereas she, if deemed sincere, would have been eager to respond.
Intelligent people are the “ultimate losers in life” because they fail more often to have “as many children as one can potentially raise to sexual maturity so that the children themselves can reproduce,” (p. 178), which is the definition of optimizing one’s fitness, “an evolutionary familiar goal.” In the discussion, Kanazawa only deals with data of children raised by the respondents, so all children begot by men outside their bonds are ignored, which is by itself problematic since it has been argued that more intelligent men have more affairs and presumably beget more children outside wedlock.
The picture below shows figures 12.3 and 12.4 (pp. 182-3). (Click to enlarge)
Before dealing with the intelligence component in these tables, some general considerations on fertility. According to Baker (Baby Wars), in industrial countries about 10% of people are infertile, roughly the same number of men and women. I’m not sure if this includes people who could have children but decide not to; the present figures show a greater number of childless people, so the sample must be warped or Baker’s figures must be wrong — or alternatively the number of people who remain deliberately childless, if not included in the 10%, must be high.
As a matter of fact, on these tables 444 women out of a sample of (444 + 2210) = 2,654 have not had children at age 47 (which means, for all practical purposes, that they will never have: “99.7% of women and 96.5% of men complete their lifetime reproduction by the time they are 45” p. 181). Cross-calculation gives the proportion of 16.7% of women being childless. For men, the figures are 475 men out of 2,319, which gives us 20.4% (same remark as for women). One woman out of six, one man out of five remain childless.
If we follow evolutionary psychologist David Buss, the difference in figures between childless women and childless men should be greater, with much more childless men than childless women: “The primary reason men are so much more given to violence, and specifically to the violence of murder, is that the stakes of the mating game are so much higher for men than for women, because there is much more variability among men than among women in reproductive success.” (The Murderer Next Door, 2005). The present figures do not seem to support this statement, because if the variability does not depend on the number of childless people, men and women as pairs, taken broadly, have the same numbers of children respectively: If a woman has two kids, the man has two kids. If variability does not depend on childless individuals, it depends on putative fathers who are not the biological fathers of the children they raise (10-15%), on the number of single mothers (X), and on the number of men who remarry and make more children (X). I don’t know if these latter phenomena can account for a much greater variability among men than among women in our societies. In any case, there (still) is more variability among men.
Two other tables (pp. 179-80) show answers to the question “Do you ever want children?” (asked at age 23). According to these tables, 10.6% of women and 10.95% of men say they do not want to have children. Seemingly, physiological causes of infertility (infections etc.) and failure to attract mates account, thus, for only half cases of childless men.
Among the individuals who say at age 23 they do not want to have children, more intelligent individuals, both men and women, are in relatively greater numbers. Kanazawa shows that intelligent men change their minds before they reach 45 and make as many children as other men (so they’re not “ultimate losers” after all), but intelligent women don’t change their minds (or they do but men don’t want them!).
The reason more intelligent men do not, at age 23, desire to have children may be due to the high costs of parenting I exposed in my essay xxxiii (How To Make Successful Children Without Parenting) and the reason they change their minds, whereas intelligent women do not, perhaps is because men don’t want status to get a mate (and children) but rather they want a mate (and children) to get status – they fear ostracism (see the Cyberball experiment: no matter how trivial the context, how low the stakes, ostracism generates great stress).
In the case of intelligent women, if it’s not only that men, no matter how intelligent, are not particularly interested in them (and we have seen that men may not be endogamous on intelligence), it might be due to some particularity of female sexuality. No matter how you take it, the burden of parenting is greater on women (although it has become absurdly heavy on men these days – but then, again, men will accept the burden if they think it can help them avoid ostracism). Now, something evolutionarily advantageous (or required) is pleasurable. Sex is. People derive enjoyment from sex in order for their genes to replicate (routine sex is hardly pleasurable because it is a by-product of sperm competition), but reproduction (gene replication) can be thwarted by contraception. If having children and having to have routine sex is viewed by a hedonistic intelligent woman as likely to prevent her from enjoying sex, she will not have children. Intelligent women are not reproductively successful because they’re more polyandrous. Studies show they’re indeed more testosteronized (cf. Nyborg). There is truth in the conservative view that a life of pleasure alienates the individual from family life. This being said, many other considerations beside sexual “emancipation” may conduce one to deliberately avoiding parenting, and, considering the above figures, it seems that such a deliberate choice is not so rare.
All in all, I do not think Kanazawa is justified, because a few intelligent women remain deliberately childless, to end his book by the question: “Why is the tendency [intelligence] to commit the greatest crime against nature [voluntary childlessness] the ultimate gauge of human worth?” He has not shown with sufficient clarity that such a breach against nature is really the crime of the intelligent; he has even brought forth data to the contrary. As to his questioning the value people place on intelligence, it is all the more irrelevant given that intelligence has become the main highway to social status.
Intelligence has become the main highway to social status – to a point. Very intelligent people may easily be barred from every opportunity by coalitions of less bright people as it is more difficult for them, due to sparse numbers, to form coalitions with as intelligent people as them.
Pure science does not pay as much as applied science, so the applied scientist must be more intelligent than the pure scientist because the former’s status is higher.
Another stimulating book that I recommend is Waistland: The (R)Evolutionary Science behind our Weight and Fitness Crisis (2007) by my friend Dr Deirdre Barrett from Harvard Medical School. (I call her my friend because I wish her well.) I am not going to discuss the book’s content, though; I just want to show its jacket (picture).
On this jacket you can see a prehistoric man standing on a big, bright-colored double cheeseburger. The book deals with the fact that we are not prepared to cope with an environment of abundantly available fatty foods and that this has provoked a major fitness crisis. The picture of the prehistoric man on the burger appears both on the front cover and the spine, so you can’t put the book in your library without seeing the flashy burger, even if only peripherally, when you look at your library unless you drop the jacket before.
This troubles me a lot because Deirdre writes: “Even more analogous to Tinbergen’s dummies, the exaggeration of visual elements in addictive foods often plays a role in hooking us” (p. 33) and “Food ads increase both immediate and long-term consumption of junk food.” (p. 90).
As I have repeatedly said in my series on advertising, advertisers today rely heavily on the effects associated with peripheral vision, in which peripheral stimuli are not treated by regions of the brain involved in conscious processes, so even if you think you never look at the burger in your library it will not escape your peripheral attention when you look in the direction of your library, and you’ll be the more easily hooked that you will not be mobilizing rational defenses.
At the same time that Deirdre warns against exaggerate visual elements and visual food ads that make us addict to junk food, she flashes gaudy burgers at her readers in this fashion! How is this possible? How can publishers treat their authors with such disregard and contempt? How can authors accept it and let their message be drawn in the dirt by publishing houses’ marketers? I am dissatisfied with my friend because she now looks like a fool.