• Nature vs. Nurture: The Heritability of Political Ideology - Continued

Not by Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs:

Variance components estimates of political and social attitudes suggest a substantial level of genetic influence, but the results have been challenged because they rely on data from twins only. […] By doing so, we address the central concerns of critics, including that the twin-only design offers no verification of either the equal environments or random mating assumptions. Moving beyond the twin-only design leads to the conclusion that for most political and social attitudes, genetic influences account for an even greater proportion of individual differences than reported by studies using more limited data and more elementary estimation techniques. These findings make it increasingly difficult to deny that—however indirectly—genetics plays a role in the formation of political and social attitudes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00461.x/abstract
Full: http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/Not%20by%20Twins%20Alone.pdf

Their prior twin study found that heritability plays a notable role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the time period, or population sampled. This “extended family design” twin study, which included a longitudinal component, allowing for both the partitioning of any shared environment findings and accommodation of the effects of assortative mating and measurement error, found the same pattern of genetic influence. (Assortative mating is a pattern of mate selection and refers to the parents’ similarity at the time of marriage on any given characteristic. Rather than convergence mating (i.e., increasing similarity with time)).

  • Table 3 (above) displays the political phenotypes (such as attitudes towards the death penalty), along with their estimated additive genetic (A), unique (unshared) environmental (E), and shared environmental (C) influence for both males (M) and females (F). So, VAM refers to male variance in additive genetic influence on the phenotype; VEF refers to female variance in unique environmental influence, etc. Estimates in graysclae are NOT significant (i.e., nearly all of the shared environmental measurements).

When considering the effect of measurement error (R) (that is, adding it to the heritability estimate and the negative gene-environment (G) correlation values), the heritability estimate of attitudes, social values and overall political orientation soars.

Most noteworthy:

Hatemi et al: Attitudes toward gay rights and immigration are also among the items showing the highest degrees of heritability, so it would appear the issues widely perceived to be hot-button social issues are the very issues that tend to be strongly heritable, just as Tesser (1993) predicted.

Meaning that a substantial proportion of an individual’s attitude towards social issues such as gay rights and immigration are not accounted for by parental bias and/or cultural "learned" factors.

Influence from the nonshared (unique) environment is typically smaller than the genetic influence, at around 10% to 28% for individual traits, whereas, as is always the case with heritability studies, the shared environment (i.e. from being raised in the same household; how parents rear their children, community, etc) was insignificant in determining individual attitudes towards all traits measured. The shared environment measure only exists with minimal influence in adolescence and is found to have insignificant (or even statistically zero) effect on how we eventually turn out.

Clearly, and perhaps surprisingly to some, this means that it’s actually very difficult for parents to shape the prospective political beliefs of their children, as genes have a much larger impact. In fact the only trait which showed across the board low heritability and observed a more than insignificant influence from the shared environment, was political party identification.

Evidently, parents can control their children through incentives and punishments, but this doesn’t result in a fundamental change in personal orientation on any number of traits (intelligence, personality, political ideology, etc). Conversely, cultural norms and expectations are much more difficult to evade—children tend to be highly influenced by trends, or what other kids are doing, for instance, these would be the important effects from the “unique environment.”

With this data it is clear that conservatives and liberals will be battling for a long time to come. Perhaps most important is acknowledgement that, as a result of genes, people will possess different perspectives on a variety of social issues - in fact, we are all ‘born this way.’

A Comparison of the Sensory Development of Wolves (Canis lupus lupus) and Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris):

[…] The timing of sensory development in wolves is usually extrapolated from studies on dogs, since they are members of the same species. However, early developmental differences between these two subspecies have already been identified. […] This means that when wolves begin to explore at 2 wk, they are blind and deaf, and must rely primarily on their sense of smell. Thus, there is a significant alteration of how these subspecies experience their environment during the critical period of socialization. These findings lead to an alternative explanation for the difference in dogs’ and wolves’ abilities to form interspecies social attachments, such as those with humans.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.12044/abstract


Evident here are genetic differences in the early developmental process between two closely related subspecies. Dogs and wolves develop their senses at the same time, but wolves enter the critical period of socialisation much earlier than dogs; beginning to walk and explore their environment whilst still deaf and blind, unlike dogs:

uMass: “When wolf pups first start to hear, they are frightened of the new sounds initially, and when they first start to see they are also initially afraid of new visual stimuli. As each sense engages, wolf pups experience a new round of sensory shocks that dog puppies do not.” […] Meanwhile, dog pups only begin to explore and walk after all three senses, smell, hearing and sight, are functioning. Overall, “It’s quite startling how different dogs and wolves are from each other at that early age, given how close they are genetically. A litter of dog puppies at two weeks are just basically little puddles, unable to get up or walk around […]



Along with disparities between dogs and wolves, domesticated dog breeds also possess different personalities (as well as large intelligence variation) which originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years. These personality differences are not caused by the way in which the mother raises her puppies, they are inborn:

Even as the ears and eyes opened the breeds differed in behavior. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly.  Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive, even as three-week olds, that I had to wear gloves while playing with them; and finally, Basenjis, barkless dogs originating in Central Africa, were so aloof and independant. To judge by where they spent their time, sniffing and investigating, I was no more important to them than if I were a rubber balloon. When I later tested the dogs, the breed indeed made a difference in their behavior. I took them, when hungry into a room with a bowl of meat. For three minutes I kept them from approaching the meat, then left each dog alone with the food. Indulged terriers and beagles waited longer before eating the meat than did disciplined dogs of the same breeds. None of the shetlands ever ate any of the food, and all of the Basenjis ate as soon as I left.
The Manner Born: Birth Rites in Cross-cultural Perspective

The implications for human breeds races are interesting. In human newborns, for instance, Asian (Chinese) babies show different temperamental (“irritable”) patterns: They adapt to almost any position in which they are placed, rather than struggling and/or turning over. In the same studies they would briefly press the nose of various newborns with a cloth, forcing them to breath only with their mouths. Most white (and black) babies fight this by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands; reported as normal in Western paediatric textbooks. Although the Chinese babies would simply accept the cloth without a fight. A more in-depth post of these experiments (complete with video) can be found below:

Racial Differences in Newborn Behaviour
Noteworthy, is that the global fixation index (measure of genetic difference), between Asian dog breeds, such as the phenotypically-distinct Japanese Shiba and Korean Sapsali, is 0.154: Genetic variability in East Asian dogs using microsatellite loci analysis. This is nearly identical to the global genetic distance between various human groups at 0.155: An apportionment of human DNA diversity. This is also less than is observed between Europeans (English) and sub-Saharan Africans (Bantu) at 0.24: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications:

A Comparison of the Sensory Development of Wolves (Canis lupus lupus) and Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris):

[…] The timing of sensory development in wolves is usually extrapolated from studies on dogs, since they are members of the same species. However, early developmental differences between these two subspecies have already been identified. […] This means that when wolves begin to explore at 2 wk, they are blind and deaf, and must rely primarily on their sense of smell. Thus, there is a significant alteration of how these subspecies experience their environment during the critical period of socialization. These findings lead to an alternative explanation for the difference in dogs’ and wolves’ abilities to form interspecies social attachments, such as those with humans.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.12044/abstract


Evident here are genetic differences in the early developmental process between two closely related subspecies. Dogs and wolves develop their senses at the same time, but wolves enter the critical period of socialisation much earlier than dogs; beginning to walk and explore their environment whilst still deaf and blind, unlike dogs:

uMass: “When wolf pups first start to hear, they are frightened of the new sounds initially, and when they first start to see they are also initially afraid of new visual stimuli. As each sense engages, wolf pups experience a new round of sensory shocks that dog puppies do not.” […] Meanwhile, dog pups only begin to explore and walk after all three senses, smell, hearing and sight, are functioning. Overall, “It’s quite startling how different dogs and wolves are from each other at that early age, given how close they are genetically. A litter of dog puppies at two weeks are just basically little puddles, unable to get up or walk around […]



Along with disparities between dogs and wolves, domesticated dog breeds also possess different personalities (as well as large intelligence variation) which originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years. These personality differences are not caused by the way in which the mother raises her puppies, they are inborn:

Even as the ears and eyes opened the breeds differed in behavior. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly.  Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive, even as three-week olds, that I had to wear gloves while playing with them; and finally, Basenjis, barkless dogs originating in Central Africa, were so aloof and independant. To judge by where they spent their time, sniffing and investigating, I was no more important to them than if I were a rubber balloon. When I later tested the dogs, the breed indeed made a difference in their behavior. I took them, when hungry into a room with a bowl of meat. For three minutes I kept them from approaching the meat, then left each dog alone with the food. Indulged terriers and beagles waited longer before eating the meat than did disciplined dogs of the same breeds. None of the shetlands ever ate any of the food, and all of the Basenjis ate as soon as I left.
The Manner Born: Birth Rites in Cross-cultural Perspective

The implications for human breeds races are interesting. In human newborns, for instance, Asian (Chinese) babies show different temperamental (“irritable”) patterns: They adapt to almost any position in which they are placed, rather than struggling and/or turning over. In the same studies they would briefly press the nose of various newborns with a cloth, forcing them to breath only with their mouths. Most white (and black) babies fight this by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands; reported as normal in Western paediatric textbooks. Although the Chinese babies would simply accept the cloth without a fight. A more in-depth post of these experiments (complete with video) can be found below:

Racial Differences in Newborn Behaviour
Noteworthy, is that the global fixation index (measure of genetic difference), between Asian dog breeds, such as the phenotypically-distinct Japanese Shiba and Korean Sapsali, is 0.154: Genetic variability in East Asian dogs using microsatellite loci analysis. This is nearly identical to the global genetic distance between various human groups at 0.155: An apportionment of human DNA diversity. This is also less than is observed between Europeans (English) and sub-Saharan Africans (Bantu) at 0.24: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications:

A Comparison of the Sensory Development of Wolves (Canis lupus lupus) and Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris):

[…] The timing of sensory development in wolves is usually extrapolated from studies on dogs, since they are members of the same species. However, early developmental differences between these two subspecies have already been identified. […] This means that when wolves begin to explore at 2 wk, they are blind and deaf, and must rely primarily on their sense of smell. Thus, there is a significant alteration of how these subspecies experience their environment during the critical period of socialization. These findings lead to an alternative explanation for the difference in dogs’ and wolves’ abilities to form interspecies social attachments, such as those with humans.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eth.12044/abstract

Evident here are genetic differences in the early developmental process between two closely related subspecies. Dogs and wolves develop their senses at the same time, but wolves enter the critical period of socialisation much earlier than dogs; beginning to walk and explore their environment whilst still deaf and blind, unlike dogs:

uMass: “When wolf pups first start to hear, they are frightened of the new sounds initially, and when they first start to see they are also initially afraid of new visual stimuli. As each sense engages, wolf pups experience a new round of sensory shocks that dog puppies do not.” […] Meanwhile, dog pups only begin to explore and walk after all three senses, smell, hearing and sight, are functioning. Overall, “It’s quite startling how different dogs and wolves are from each other at that early age, given how close they are genetically. A litter of dog puppies at two weeks are just basically little puddles, unable to get up or walk around […]

Along with disparities between dogs and wolves, domesticated dog breeds also possess different personalities (as well as large intelligence variation) which originated through selective breeding in just the last few hundred years. These personality differences are not caused by the way in which the mother raises her puppies, they are inborn:

Even as the ears and eyes opened the breeds differed in behavior. Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly.  Shetland sheepdogs were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive, even as three-week olds, that I had to wear gloves while playing with them; and finally, Basenjis, barkless dogs originating in Central Africa, were so aloof and independant. To judge by where they spent their time, sniffing and investigating, I was no more important to them than if I were a rubber balloon. When I later tested the dogs, the breed indeed made a difference in their behavior. I took them, when hungry into a room with a bowl of meat. For three minutes I kept them from approaching the meat, then left each dog alone with the food. Indulged terriers and beagles waited longer before eating the meat than did disciplined dogs of the same breeds. None of the shetlands ever ate any of the food, and all of the Basenjis ate as soon as I left.

The implications for human breeds races are interesting. In human newborns, for instance, Asian (Chinese) babies show different temperamental (“irritable”) patterns: They adapt to almost any position in which they are placed, rather than struggling and/or turning over. In the same studies they would briefly press the nose of various newborns with a cloth, forcing them to breath only with their mouths. Most white (and black) babies fight this by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands; reported as normal in Western paediatric textbooks. Although the Chinese babies would simply accept the cloth without a fight. A more in-depth post of these experiments (complete with video) can be found below:

Noteworthy, is that the global fixation index (measure of genetic difference), between Asian dog breeds, such as the phenotypically-distinct Japanese Shiba and Korean Sapsali, is 0.154: Genetic variability in East Asian dogs using microsatellite loci analysis. This is nearly identical to the global genetic distance between various human groups at 0.155: An apportionment of human DNA diversity. This is also less than is observed between Europeans (English) and sub-Saharan Africans (Bantu) at 0.24: Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications:

Q

sturmbannfuehrer asked:

So, your latest post (nice one btw, thanks for all the work) mentions as a take-away point, that males are the population with a higher mean, yet I don't find that specific claim backed up anywhere in the post; the previous post (the one linked) seems to suggest there's no conclusion yet whether males do have a higher mean or just the ones with the lowest IQ got discarded from the sample. Any clarification on that?

A

Well - women are the "means" men are the "extremes" as exemplified by the latter’s overrepresentation in both tails of the distributions on seemingly any variety of traits. The way I phrased the general point holds well for the personality traits, but I see the confusion when it comes to IQ.

A preponderance of males in the most cognitively-demanding fields, despite only a small difference in standard deviation between the sexes is of course a result of this larger distribution. Physicists from the top research universities are not people that re two standard deviations above the mean, but more towards three-four standard deviations above the mean. Which is drawing from a very small pool of the population, the vast majority of which will be men.

The point being is that even small differences in the standard deviation will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out on the tail of the distribution, even if this small pool isn’t quite enough to significantly offset the standard deviation in the IQ distribution between the sexes. There is an article/paper that quantifies this somewhere, but I remember from it a figure of about one female for every five males at the high end.

To reference a few older posts, it is also poignant to note just how substantial the impact of IQ is within already gifted subpopulations, particularly for those majors which have actual cognitive thresholds.

Whatever samples are used, male IQ shows more variability at the tail ends, even if mentally deficient individuals (more likely to be males, as that study posited) are ousted. Maybe the four-point standard deviation between males and females is the high-end estimate. The mean could be statistically zero, but you’d still find males overrepresented at the tail ends.

I probably won’t be rewriting the original post to reflect all of this. The paper that measured the variability in personality traits becomes more relevant when you consider the effects personality traits have on life outcomes, which, similar to IQ, is rewarded in the labour market, independent of education. That is, measures of personality traits (again, more variable in men) alone will slightly impact life’s outcomes just as your interests and IQ will.

  • To make this into a lengthier reply, you can perhaps apply this variation argument in explaining Western innovation in science and engineering (all of which really have no peer) relative to that in the East, despite a difference in standard deviation favouring East Asians:

The problem is any sort of credible data for "racial IQ variation" is extremely lacking. This study used data from two nationally representative cohort studies and compared students of various of ethnicities who attend the same schools, and found that the the academic achievement gap among Asians (East, South, Filipino & Southeast) and whites (one big pool, as always) is attributed to academic hard work, motivation from cultural teachings, and general parental pressures, rather than advantages in tested cognitive abilities or socio-demographics, despite the E. Asian subgroup displaying a cognitive advantage.

This is all well and good, but with a relatively useless measure like high school GPA the study isn’t doing much here. Although when controlled for GPA, and particularly PISA assessments, are quite a nice measure of IQ, but both high school GPA and PISA definitely show some variation which can only be explained by differences in national educational system. Whereas "coaching" can not really improve performance on IQ tests.

Moreover, most studies of national IQ are quite crude, and subject to numerous methodological uncertainties, even if the overall results tend to correlate with PISA results. So it looks like we won’t be testing this racial IQ variation argument any time soon.

From prehistory Europe traded cultural and scientific innovations with the East, arguably developing parallel, with some deviations here and there. This of course was followed by the innovations of classical antiquity, then by a drop off after the fall of Rome, then complete Western dominance leading into the industrial revolution:
image

There has to be something going on here beyond cultural explanations, it’ll be mostly genetic, as it often is. It’ll be something that developed rather recently too. Consider work such as Gregory Clark’s Farewell to Arms comes. (See this post) Which with empirical studies finds that substantial evidence of the descendants of the rich replacing the poor in Britain leading right up to the industrial revolution, in what may well be population dynamics where positive traits (for commerce, long term planning, wealth accumulation, market organization, etc) replaced negative traits during what is really an accelerated period of human evolution. This phenomena (rich replacing poor) was also observed in other parts of Europe and East Asia. 

Considering that intelligence is polygenic (many genes involved, each with a very small effect) and that high intelligence is largely a consequence of possessing fewer rare deleterious mutations, perhaps natural selection (not just on cognitive ability) impacted East Asians and Europeans differently, resulting in the posited variation we see today - why not?

The cliché explanation that East Asians are well attuned for academic rigour and comprehending the great progress of mankind, but are less intuitive and creative (Satoshi Kanazawa posited (perhaps excessively) exactly this) may well just be enough. Going back to the influence of personality, apply this to explain underrepresentation of East Asians in leadership positions in the West, despite their high academic achievements, perhaps…

To go one step further, Northwestern Europe, had – unique in the world – a long history of avoiding inbreeding. Cousin marriages and tribal warfare now only exist elsewhere in the world. This was the work of Christianity as the Church instituted several restrictions on marriage and family systems (banning cousin marriage) that discouraged the large kinships that typify tribal societies - as we know the German barbarians that invaded Rome were close-knit and tribal extended families, and the breakdown of clan loyalties was fundamental for Christian universalism. As a result, the regions of Europe took a unique direction in its evolution which manifests today - altruism in Europe shifted from close kinship and spread around the whole society. Everyone in a country became related to everyone else, to some degree, and it goes toward explaining the low genetic differentiation among Europeans. The consequence of this is perhaps increased outgroup altruism - largely a product of NW Europeans.

There is data on this out there, and it (distinct evolutionary history) is absolutely the case. The distribution of genes influencing psychological traits in both Greece and Rome were different than they are today. Similarly, Europe, particularly Europe within the Hajnal line (as seen in the image below and which is also known to roughly tracks areas where there were low rates of inbreeding) underwent a different genetic pathway.
image

This is clearly a more lengthier reply than intended, but it’s relevant enough to publish.

Image source: Sex differences in the Brain: Fact or Fiction? (Youtube)
Biological Sex Differences in the Workplace: Reports of the End of Men are Greatly Exaggerated (As Are Claims of Women’s Continued Inequality):

Common examples of perceived workplace inequality – the “glass ceiling,” the “gender gap” in compensation, and occupational segregation among others – cannot be well understood if the explanation proffered for their existence is limited exclusively to social causes such as discrimination and sexist socialization. Males and females have, on average, different sets of talents, tastes, and interests, which cause them to select somewhat different occupations and exhibit somewhat different workplace behaviors. Some of these sex differences have biological roots. Temperamental sex differences are found in competitiveness, dominance-seeking, risk-taking, and nurturance, with females tending to be more “person-oriented” and males more “thing-oriented.” The sexes also differ in a variety of cognitive traits, including various spatial, verbal, mathematical, and mechanical abilities. Although social influences can be important, these social influences operate on (and were in fact created by) sexually dimorphic minds.
[…] Nonetheless, men will continue to dominate the scarce positions at the top of hierarchies as long as it is necessary to devote decades of intense labor- market activity to obtain them, even if women come to predominate in middle-management positions and even if men also disproportionately occupy the bottom of hierarchies. Men will similarly continue to dominate math-intensive fields, as well as fields that expose workers to substantial physical risks.
[…] Despite major changes in the workplace, many favoring women, some worry about residual areas in which men seem to retain an advantage. […] When men are perceived to be doing well, however, many observers take as borderline blasphemy any suggestion that men may be more suited to certain jobs because of their natural talents; instead, blame must rest on subtle or even invisible barriers. To do otherwise is to “blame the victim.” So, does the advancement of women in the workplace represent the “end of men”? No. Men will continue to dominate in certain areas based on their talents and tastes, just as women will dominate in others.
[…] Explanations for sex differences in employment that are based on purely extrinsic causes provide little insight into the complexity of workplace patterns. To be sure, women are not proportionately represented at the highest corporate levels. They have, however, reached near-parity among new lawyers and doctors. Similarly, women do not earn, on average, as much as men do, but women who perform the same work and display the same workplace attachment as men do earn approximately the same as comparable men.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251447 (the full paper is open access)

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples:




Objective: Men vary more than women in cognitive abilities and physical attributes, and we expected that men would vary more in personality too. That this has not been found previously may reflect that (a) personality was measured by self-reports that confound target sex with informant sex, and (b) men actually vary more but accentuate personality differences less than women.
Results: Higher male than female variability was found in each sample for informant reports of Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Men but not women were overrepresented in both tails of the distributions of several personality traits.
Conclusions: According to liability-threshold models of mental disorders, this may contribute to men’s overrepresentation in some kinds of deviant groups.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00784.x/abstracthttps://ppw.kuleuven.be/okp/_pdf/Borkenau2013SDIVI.pdf





These papers affirm old truths in relation to sex differences, but to ensure the take home point is clear - whenever a society singles out individuals who are outstanding or unusual in any way, the statistical contrast between means and extremes comes to the fore. Male and females may have a large overlap and differ only slightly in their means. Still, the most outstanding individuals will tend to come from the population with the higher mean, which is found to be males on a variety of traits.
The screen shot above is taken from this video lecture by Margaret McCarthy, which goes in-depth about the evidence for human and non-human sex differences in behaviour and in the brain (starting at around 28:10 for humans).
Previous post:
Sex Differences on g and non-g Intellectual Performance Reveal Potential Sources of STEM Discrepancies
Image source: Sex differences in the Brain: Fact or Fiction? (Youtube)
Biological Sex Differences in the Workplace: Reports of the End of Men are Greatly Exaggerated (As Are Claims of Women’s Continued Inequality):

Common examples of perceived workplace inequality – the “glass ceiling,” the “gender gap” in compensation, and occupational segregation among others – cannot be well understood if the explanation proffered for their existence is limited exclusively to social causes such as discrimination and sexist socialization. Males and females have, on average, different sets of talents, tastes, and interests, which cause them to select somewhat different occupations and exhibit somewhat different workplace behaviors. Some of these sex differences have biological roots. Temperamental sex differences are found in competitiveness, dominance-seeking, risk-taking, and nurturance, with females tending to be more “person-oriented” and males more “thing-oriented.” The sexes also differ in a variety of cognitive traits, including various spatial, verbal, mathematical, and mechanical abilities. Although social influences can be important, these social influences operate on (and were in fact created by) sexually dimorphic minds.
[…] Nonetheless, men will continue to dominate the scarce positions at the top of hierarchies as long as it is necessary to devote decades of intense labor- market activity to obtain them, even if women come to predominate in middle-management positions and even if men also disproportionately occupy the bottom of hierarchies. Men will similarly continue to dominate math-intensive fields, as well as fields that expose workers to substantial physical risks.
[…] Despite major changes in the workplace, many favoring women, some worry about residual areas in which men seem to retain an advantage. […] When men are perceived to be doing well, however, many observers take as borderline blasphemy any suggestion that men may be more suited to certain jobs because of their natural talents; instead, blame must rest on subtle or even invisible barriers. To do otherwise is to “blame the victim.” So, does the advancement of women in the workplace represent the “end of men”? No. Men will continue to dominate in certain areas based on their talents and tastes, just as women will dominate in others.
[…] Explanations for sex differences in employment that are based on purely extrinsic causes provide little insight into the complexity of workplace patterns. To be sure, women are not proportionately represented at the highest corporate levels. They have, however, reached near-parity among new lawyers and doctors. Similarly, women do not earn, on average, as much as men do, but women who perform the same work and display the same workplace attachment as men do earn approximately the same as comparable men.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251447 (the full paper is open access)

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples:




Objective: Men vary more than women in cognitive abilities and physical attributes, and we expected that men would vary more in personality too. That this has not been found previously may reflect that (a) personality was measured by self-reports that confound target sex with informant sex, and (b) men actually vary more but accentuate personality differences less than women.
Results: Higher male than female variability was found in each sample for informant reports of Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Men but not women were overrepresented in both tails of the distributions of several personality traits.
Conclusions: According to liability-threshold models of mental disorders, this may contribute to men’s overrepresentation in some kinds of deviant groups.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00784.x/abstracthttps://ppw.kuleuven.be/okp/_pdf/Borkenau2013SDIVI.pdf





These papers affirm old truths in relation to sex differences, but to ensure the take home point is clear - whenever a society singles out individuals who are outstanding or unusual in any way, the statistical contrast between means and extremes comes to the fore. Male and females may have a large overlap and differ only slightly in their means. Still, the most outstanding individuals will tend to come from the population with the higher mean, which is found to be males on a variety of traits.
The screen shot above is taken from this video lecture by Margaret McCarthy, which goes in-depth about the evidence for human and non-human sex differences in behaviour and in the brain (starting at around 28:10 for humans).
Previous post:
Sex Differences on g and non-g Intellectual Performance Reveal Potential Sources of STEM Discrepancies

Biological Sex Differences in the Workplace: Reports of the End of Men are Greatly Exaggerated (As Are Claims of Women’s Continued Inequality):

Common examples of perceived workplace inequality – the “glass ceiling,” the “gender gap” in compensation, and occupational segregation among others – cannot be well understood if the explanation proffered for their existence is limited exclusively to social causes such as discrimination and sexist socialization. Males and females have, on average, different sets of talents, tastes, and interests, which cause them to select somewhat different occupations and exhibit somewhat different workplace behaviors. Some of these sex differences have biological roots. Temperamental sex differences are found in competitiveness, dominance-seeking, risk-taking, and nurturance, with females tending to be more “person-oriented” and males more “thing-oriented.” The sexes also differ in a variety of cognitive traits, including various spatial, verbal, mathematical, and mechanical abilities. Although social influences can be important, these social influences operate on (and were in fact created by) sexually dimorphic minds.

[…] Nonetheless, men will continue to dominate the scarce positions at the top of hierarchies as long as it is necessary to devote decades of intense labor- market activity to obtain them, even if women come to predominate in middle-management positions and even if men also disproportionately occupy the bottom of hierarchies. Men will similarly continue to dominate math-intensive fields, as well as fields that expose workers to substantial physical risks.

[…] Despite major changes in the workplace, many favoring women, some worry about residual areas in which men seem to retain an advantage. […] When men are perceived to be doing well, however, many observers take as borderline blasphemy any suggestion that men may be more suited to certain jobs because of their natural talents; instead, blame must rest on subtle or even invisible barriers. To do otherwise is to “blame the victim.” So, does the advancement of women in the workplace represent the “end of men”? No. Men will continue to dominate in certain areas based on their talents and tastes, just as women will dominate in others.

[…] Explanations for sex differences in employment that are based on purely extrinsic causes provide little insight into the complexity of workplace patterns. To be sure, women are not proportionately represented at the highest corporate levels. They have, however, reached near-parity among new lawyers and doctors. Similarly, women do not earn, on average, as much as men do, but women who perform the same work and display the same workplace attachment as men do earn approximately the same as comparable men.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2251447 (the full paper is open access)

Sex Differences in Variability in Personality: A Study in Four Samples:

Objective: Men vary more than women in cognitive abilities and physical attributes, and we expected that men would vary more in personality too. That this has not been found previously may reflect that (a) personality was measured by self-reports that confound target sex with informant sex, and (b) men actually vary more but accentuate personality differences less than women.

Results: Higher male than female variability was found in each sample for informant reports of Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Men but not women were overrepresented in both tails of the distributions of several personality traits.

Conclusions: According to liability-threshold models of mental disorders, this may contribute to men’s overrepresentation in some kinds of deviant groups.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00784.x/abstract
https://ppw.kuleuven.be/okp/_pdf/Borkenau2013SDIVI.pdf

These papers affirm old truths in relation to sex differences, but to ensure the take home point is clear - whenever a society singles out individuals who are outstanding or unusual in any way, the statistical contrast between means and extremes comes to the fore. Male and females may have a large overlap and differ only slightly in their means. Still, the most outstanding individuals will tend to come from the population with the higher mean, which is found to be males on a variety of traits.

The screen shot above is taken from this video lecture by Margaret McCarthy, which goes in-depth about the evidence for human and non-human sex differences in behaviour and in the brain (starting at around 28:10 for humans).

Previous post:

  • "All cultures are created equal"

Consider this. The Conquistadors were, in a sense, Old World invaders from the future. Civilisation largely arose first in the Middle-East, which then influenced later European and Chinese civilisations, whereas the Amerindian civilizations arose independently; developing agriculture and technology by their own accord.

New World-Old World differences in cultural evolution:

Figure 2.C.1 illustrates the fact that, while the evolution of overall cultural complexity occurred later in the New World than the Old World, and never attained the same level, the evolutionary process towards greater complexity apparently operated at roughly the same speed in both areas. The evolution of more complex cultures began about 9000 years ago in the Old World, and took roughly 5000 years to plateau. In the New World, the evolutionary process began only about 5000 years ago, and was still increasing when the conquest and subsequent collapse of New World cultures began. So, while beginning more recently than the Old World, it appears that the evolution of cultural complexity moved at about the same pace in both the New World and the Old.
http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Archaeo/14-1a-peregrine.pdf

In this quantitative estimate, New World civilisations were 4,000 years behind the Old World in a measure of cultural complexity, based on a basic ten-item scale, each comprised of three-point scales. Amerindian civilisations were likely less advanced than the Akkadian Empire, 4000+ years ago. The Mayans had writing, but developed metallurgy rather late. The Inca had tin and bronze, but not written records. The Akkadians had both – as well as making use of working animals and the wheel. Around 4600 years ago Sumerian writing had largely developed. Similarly, the Egyptians had started to build their large temples and funeral monuments around 4600 years ago too. So, put one way, Columbus arrived in the New World from at least four thousand years in the future.

What about sub-Saharan Africa? By 1500, the Yoruba and the Ibo had developed stable states and produced bronze figurines, comparable to the Danube Valley civilisations of Old Europe circa ~7,000 years ago. Even so, excluding some use of iron, sub-Saharan Africa (minus Ethiopia) was well behind the most advanced Amerindian civilizations circa 1492. With this estimate, using the same Old World civilisations for comparison, the Portuguese sailors essentially arrived from at least 7,000 years in the future, possibly much further. Imagine that.

aeonblacksun:

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked 
Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
There is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.
In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.
It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the “human species” has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species.
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

“Officially debunked” - by who? All of the data in genetics, archaeology and palaeoanthropology point to the African landmass for the origin of modern humans as well as the deepest lines of the genus homo. It’s also where 4 out of 5 great ape species are found (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans).
At least have a look into the authors of these Russian studies that constantly get thrown around. Anatole Klyosov is a bit of a crackpot. He links Slavs to Aryans, and Aryans to my blog’s namesake, Arkaim, which has become surrounded by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Although the steppes is undoubtedly where the Indo-Europeans (the population that crushed Old Europe, imposed their language everywhere (excepting the Basques), and ultimately contributed to the genome of modern Europeans) originated, this is not true of their entire genome, as Klyosov seems to want to prove.
Most important here is that the current data does not state that we directly ascend from today’s West Africans. Modern humans originated in Africa, but not from modern sub-Saharan Africans. This has just always been interpreted, not stated.
Perhaps people are unaware, but the blacks that we know today did not exist until relatively recently, as Peter Frost (see some of his studies here & here) notes:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

There is no racial continuity between the recent “black” skulls of  East Africa and prehistoric East African remains. The concept of an African race, unchanged from times immemorial (or at least post-expansion Out of Africa) seems persistent among Afrocentrics as well as the people who continually post these studies. There’s more going on here.
I’ve said this a few times now, but those "black" Pygmies of Africa show more genetic differentiation from the Mandenka people (West Africans) than Eurasians do from the same "black"  West Africans. Think about that. The current data posits that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa and that they further diverged accordingly on their trek out of Africa.
Archaic admixture characterises modern humans, and a portion of archaic admixture in modern sub-Saharan Africans is from an extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, BUT, only introgressed into sub-Saharan Africans crica 35,000 years ago - after any estimated date of expansion out of Africa. This means that not only was there genetic differentiation among the ancestors of modern Africans and Eurasians prior to the Out of Africa expansion, but also that very divergent genes from archaic humans introgressed into two different populations post-expansion out of Africa. The genome of Africans differs greatly from that of non-Africans.
There’s more to discuss, but a lot of it is expanded on in the text links above, excepting choice phrases such as "officially debunked" and "disprove." aeonblacksun:

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked 
Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
There is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.
In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.
It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the “human species” has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species.
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

“Officially debunked” - by who? All of the data in genetics, archaeology and palaeoanthropology point to the African landmass for the origin of modern humans as well as the deepest lines of the genus homo. It’s also where 4 out of 5 great ape species are found (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans).
At least have a look into the authors of these Russian studies that constantly get thrown around. Anatole Klyosov is a bit of a crackpot. He links Slavs to Aryans, and Aryans to my blog’s namesake, Arkaim, which has become surrounded by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Although the steppes is undoubtedly where the Indo-Europeans (the population that crushed Old Europe, imposed their language everywhere (excepting the Basques), and ultimately contributed to the genome of modern Europeans) originated, this is not true of their entire genome, as Klyosov seems to want to prove.
Most important here is that the current data does not state that we directly ascend from today’s West Africans. Modern humans originated in Africa, but not from modern sub-Saharan Africans. This has just always been interpreted, not stated.
Perhaps people are unaware, but the blacks that we know today did not exist until relatively recently, as Peter Frost (see some of his studies here & here) notes:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

There is no racial continuity between the recent “black” skulls of  East Africa and prehistoric East African remains. The concept of an African race, unchanged from times immemorial (or at least post-expansion Out of Africa) seems persistent among Afrocentrics as well as the people who continually post these studies. There’s more going on here.
I’ve said this a few times now, but those "black" Pygmies of Africa show more genetic differentiation from the Mandenka people (West Africans) than Eurasians do from the same "black"  West Africans. Think about that. The current data posits that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa and that they further diverged accordingly on their trek out of Africa.
Archaic admixture characterises modern humans, and a portion of archaic admixture in modern sub-Saharan Africans is from an extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, BUT, only introgressed into sub-Saharan Africans crica 35,000 years ago - after any estimated date of expansion out of Africa. This means that not only was there genetic differentiation among the ancestors of modern Africans and Eurasians prior to the Out of Africa expansion, but also that very divergent genes from archaic humans introgressed into two different populations post-expansion out of Africa. The genome of Africans differs greatly from that of non-Africans.
There’s more to discuss, but a lot of it is expanded on in the text links above, excepting choice phrases such as "officially debunked" and "disprove." aeonblacksun:

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked 
Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
There is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.
In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.
It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the “human species” has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species.
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

“Officially debunked” - by who? All of the data in genetics, archaeology and palaeoanthropology point to the African landmass for the origin of modern humans as well as the deepest lines of the genus homo. It’s also where 4 out of 5 great ape species are found (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans).
At least have a look into the authors of these Russian studies that constantly get thrown around. Anatole Klyosov is a bit of a crackpot. He links Slavs to Aryans, and Aryans to my blog’s namesake, Arkaim, which has become surrounded by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Although the steppes is undoubtedly where the Indo-Europeans (the population that crushed Old Europe, imposed their language everywhere (excepting the Basques), and ultimately contributed to the genome of modern Europeans) originated, this is not true of their entire genome, as Klyosov seems to want to prove.
Most important here is that the current data does not state that we directly ascend from today’s West Africans. Modern humans originated in Africa, but not from modern sub-Saharan Africans. This has just always been interpreted, not stated.
Perhaps people are unaware, but the blacks that we know today did not exist until relatively recently, as Peter Frost (see some of his studies here & here) notes:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

There is no racial continuity between the recent “black” skulls of  East Africa and prehistoric East African remains. The concept of an African race, unchanged from times immemorial (or at least post-expansion Out of Africa) seems persistent among Afrocentrics as well as the people who continually post these studies. There’s more going on here.
I’ve said this a few times now, but those "black" Pygmies of Africa show more genetic differentiation from the Mandenka people (West Africans) than Eurasians do from the same "black"  West Africans. Think about that. The current data posits that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa and that they further diverged accordingly on their trek out of Africa.
Archaic admixture characterises modern humans, and a portion of archaic admixture in modern sub-Saharan Africans is from an extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, BUT, only introgressed into sub-Saharan Africans crica 35,000 years ago - after any estimated date of expansion out of Africa. This means that not only was there genetic differentiation among the ancestors of modern Africans and Eurasians prior to the Out of Africa expansion, but also that very divergent genes from archaic humans introgressed into two different populations post-expansion out of Africa. The genome of Africans differs greatly from that of non-Africans.
There’s more to discuss, but a lot of it is expanded on in the text links above, excepting choice phrases such as "officially debunked" and "disprove." aeonblacksun:

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked 
Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.
They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.
There is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.
In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.
It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the “human species” has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).
There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species.
A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

“Officially debunked” - by who? All of the data in genetics, archaeology and palaeoanthropology point to the African landmass for the origin of modern humans as well as the deepest lines of the genus homo. It’s also where 4 out of 5 great ape species are found (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans).
At least have a look into the authors of these Russian studies that constantly get thrown around. Anatole Klyosov is a bit of a crackpot. He links Slavs to Aryans, and Aryans to my blog’s namesake, Arkaim, which has become surrounded by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Although the steppes is undoubtedly where the Indo-Europeans (the population that crushed Old Europe, imposed their language everywhere (excepting the Basques), and ultimately contributed to the genome of modern Europeans) originated, this is not true of their entire genome, as Klyosov seems to want to prove.
Most important here is that the current data does not state that we directly ascend from today’s West Africans. Modern humans originated in Africa, but not from modern sub-Saharan Africans. This has just always been interpreted, not stated.
Perhaps people are unaware, but the blacks that we know today did not exist until relatively recently, as Peter Frost (see some of his studies here & here) notes:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

There is no racial continuity between the recent “black” skulls of  East Africa and prehistoric East African remains. The concept of an African race, unchanged from times immemorial (or at least post-expansion Out of Africa) seems persistent among Afrocentrics as well as the people who continually post these studies. There’s more going on here.
I’ve said this a few times now, but those "black" Pygmies of Africa show more genetic differentiation from the Mandenka people (West Africans) than Eurasians do from the same "black"  West Africans. Think about that. The current data posits that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa and that they further diverged accordingly on their trek out of Africa.
Archaic admixture characterises modern humans, and a portion of archaic admixture in modern sub-Saharan Africans is from an extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, BUT, only introgressed into sub-Saharan Africans crica 35,000 years ago - after any estimated date of expansion out of Africa. This means that not only was there genetic differentiation among the ancestors of modern Africans and Eurasians prior to the Out of Africa expansion, but also that very divergent genes from archaic humans introgressed into two different populations post-expansion out of Africa. The genome of Africans differs greatly from that of non-Africans.
There’s more to discuss, but a lot of it is expanded on in the text links above, excepting choice phrases such as "officially debunked" and "disprove."

aeonblacksun:

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

Greg Jefferys explains that, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990′s to remove the concept of Race.

They see no genetic proof substantiating an African precedence in the Homo sapien tree, and maintain that “a more plausible interpretation might have been that both current Africans and non-Africans descended separately from a more ancient common ancestor, thus forming a proverbial fork”.

There is absolutely nothing plausibly African turning up in any test tubes.

In fact, the researchers made note of their repeated absence stating “not one non-African participant out of more than 400 individuals in the Project tested positive to any of thirteen ‘African’ sub-clades of haplogroup A”.

It is now scientifically irrefutable fact that the “human species” has been found to contain a substantial quantity of DNA (at least 20%) from other hominid populations not classified as Homo sapien; such as Neanderthal, Denisovan, African archaic, Homo erectus, and now possibly even “Hobbit” (Homo floresiensis).

There are numerous other examples of where two separate species (for example with different numbers of chromosomes) can also produce viable offspring, yet are considered separate species.

A very recent paper on Y-chromosomes published in 2012, (Re-Examing the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasians) in the Light of DNA Genealogy written by Anatole A. Klyosov and Igor L. Rozhanski) only confirms the denial of any African ancestry in non-Africans, and strongly supports the existence of a “common ancestor” who “would not necessarily be in Africa. In fact, it was never proven that he lived in Africa.”

Officially debunked” - by who? All of the data in genetics, archaeology and palaeoanthropology point to the African landmass for the origin of modern humans as well as the deepest lines of the genus homo. It’s also where 4 out of 5 great ape species are found (chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and humans).

At least have a look into the authors of these Russian studies that constantly get thrown around. Anatole Klyosov is a bit of a crackpot. He links Slavs to Aryans, and Aryans to my blog’s namesake, Arkaim, which has become surrounded by all sorts of conspiracy theories. Although the steppes is undoubtedly where the Indo-Europeans (the population that crushed Old Europe, imposed their language everywhere (excepting the Basques), and ultimately contributed to the genome of modern Europeans) originated, this is not true of their entire genome, as Klyosov seems to want to prove.

Most important here is that the current data does not state that we directly ascend from today’s West Africans. Modern humans originated in Africa, but not from modern sub-Saharan Africans. This has just always been interpreted, not stated.

Perhaps people are unaware, but the blacks that we know today did not exist until relatively recently, as Peter Frost (see some of his studies here & here) notes:

"True" Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).
http://www.arthurhu.com/99/17/sexratio.txt

There is no racial continuity between the recent “black” skulls of  East Africa and prehistoric East African remains. The concept of an African race, unchanged from times immemorial (or at least post-expansion Out of Africa) seems persistent among Afrocentrics as well as the people who continually post these studies. There’s more going on here.

I’ve said this a few times now, but those "black" Pygmies of Africa show more genetic differentiation from the Mandenka people (West Africans) than Eurasians do from the same "black" West Africans. Think about that. The current data posits that early modern humans were already divided into different populations in Pleistocene Africa and that they further diverged accordingly on their trek out of Africa.

Archaic admixture characterises modern humans, and a portion of archaic admixture in modern sub-Saharan Africans is from an extinct member of the Homo genus that broke away from the modern human lineage around 700,000 years ago, BUT, only introgressed into sub-Saharan Africans crica 35,000 years ago - after any estimated date of expansion out of Africa. This means that not only was there genetic differentiation among the ancestors of modern Africans and Eurasians prior to the Out of Africa expansion, but also that very divergent genes from archaic humans introgressed into two different populations post-expansion out of Africa. The genome of Africans differs greatly from that of non-Africans.

There’s more to discuss, but a lot of it is expanded on in the text links above, excepting choice phrases such as "officially debunked" and "disprove."

(via thorrway)

Genetic and environmental influences on the positive traits of the values in action classification, and biometric covariance with normal personality:

Virtually all human individual differences have been shown to be moderately heritable. Much of this research, however, focuses on measures of dysfunctional behavior and relatively fewer studies have focused on positive traits. Using a sample of 336 middle-aged twins drawn from the Minnesota Twin Registry who completed the VIA inventory of strengths, we detected significant genetic and non-shared environmental effects for 21 of 24 character strengths with little evidence of shared environmental contributions. Associations with a previously administered measure of normal personality found moderate phenotypic overlap and that genetic influences on personality traits could account for most, but not all, of the heritable variance in character strengths.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656606000791
http://psychfaculty.gmu.edu/kashdan/publications/genetics_positivetraits.pdf

This assesses traits collected from the values in action (VIA) project — a vast questionnaire which identifies and classifies the positive psychological characteristics of human beings — to find out whether the core strengths of character are more a product of genes or environment. Here, consistent with prior studies of heritable psychological traits, the heritable (genetic) and non-shared environmental factors for these traits are found to be significant, whereas the shared-environmental (e.g. influence from parents) was insignificant.

  • Table 1 (above) displays the character descriptors, along with their estimated additive genetic (A) and non-shared environmental (E) influence. CI = 95% confidence interval. MZ & DZ = correlation among monozygotic (identical (same genes)) & dizygotic (fraternal) twins.

Steger et al: Correlations among MZ twins are generally large, with some exceptions, whereas correlations among DZ twins are generally small to medium. These results would lead us to expect substantial genetic effects, and this is what we observe when we Wt ACE models. Two scales exhibited weak evidence of shared environmental effects: open-mindedness, c2=.10 (95% confidence interval [CI]: .00, .49), and love of learning, c2=.18 (95% CI: .00, .56). Because there was so little evidence of shared environmental influences, we tested AE models for each of the scales.

As can be seen in Table 1, the estimates of additive genetic factors (A), ranging between .14 (14% genetic influence) and .59 (59%), with a median estimate of .42 (42%), indicate a level of genetic influence similar to that observed for other psychological traits (Bouchard, 2004). Lower bounds of 95% confidence intervals were greater than zero for 21 character strengths. There is also substantial evidence of non-shared environmental influence (E) on variability in character strengths, with estimates ranging between .41 (41%) and .86 (86%; median=.58, or 58%).

Moreover, we are each constructed from a genetic blueprint, from this we are then born into a world of unique (non-shared environmental) circumstances that we cannot control in our most-formative years. A large portion of the variation in complex human behavioural traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or the shared-environment, that is, influence from our parents, community, teachers, general upbringing and so forth — the factors which most often influence governmental policy and social reforms. In fact, the research has consistently shown that this environmental factor is very small. It only exists with minimal influence in adolescence and has close to zero impact on how we eventually turn out. The complex interactions of genes and the unique environment mean everyone possesses different perspectives, dissimilar personalities, and varied capacities for decision-making. All human behaviour is the result of physical processes that occur in the brain and it is NOT completely random.

Continued:

ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here. ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE
We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace. 
Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 


"find they’ve invaded our workplace"Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…
Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.
We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…
For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.
Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.
More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here.

ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE

We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace.

Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 

"find they’ve invaded our workplace"

Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…

Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.

We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…

For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.

Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.

More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here.

Q

mynationalistpony asked:

You're full of shit - You start at a premise (homosexuals are broken) and work backwards with research that suits you. Like most 'rightists' you're not actually interested in truth unless it's one that comfortably supports your ego. So, 'my thoughts' are that until you learn some gosh-darned humility and stop making assertions about what's 'maladaptive' that you just *know* are true, you're not worth contributing info to.

A

I’ve never posted about this topic until now because I simply hadn’t absorbed the full scope of research - the gay uncle theory; environment only; feminisation of the brain in pre-natal development - for years I’ve traced through them all. The latter of which I subscribed to for sometime actually, but the discordance of homosexuality between twins makes it unlikely that the pathogen is acquired in utero. It’s probably in adolescence.

You’re right, there is no concrete evidence that homosexuality is a pathogen (that’ll tend to be the case if you haven’t looked for it), likewise, evidence across the board for any kind of fitness payoff to homosexuality, at either the individual or group level, is not available. Exclusive homosexuality as an evolutionary maladaptive trait is an absolutely rational position to take. Although, while you’re at it why not make a case for group selection causing high levels of blindness or kidney failure? After all, it makes perfect evolutionary sense to assume that these could actually have some form of fitness payoff. Sounds about right.

I actually address subjects with humility in the vast majority of posts. It’s only when people like you come along I speak with more conviction. See your comment in the notes of this post - I’m now clearly prompted to respond in a similar manner.

You’re uneasy with words such as disease, pathogen, and infection. Those aforementioned gay rams are the darlings of social scientists, who themselves start at the premise that observation of homosexuality in sheep is a product of evolution and a natural, healthy state of affairs. Indeed, at first sight they seem to function as sheep rather well, apart from one minor detail - disinterest in actually reproducing.

Reduction in fitness is the prime indicator of a Darwinian disease state. How else would you like this to be dressed up?

Q

mynationalistpony asked:

"Is there positive evidence for your theory?" "There is no positive evidence. There is no positive evidence for any explanation, really." - Greg "Germs" Cochran on his theory

A

Yep. It’s actually an issue of where there is no other explanation. None of the evolutionary models are quantifiable, or are just downright absurd. Further research is desperately needed. Best we start looking for it, and by “it” I mean starting with the slight possibility that homosexuality is in fact abnormal.

Research up until now has consisted of social scientists observing a sheep who shows zero interest in mounting an ewe in heat that is tied to the fence directly in front of it, and instead of correctly assuming that it is a dud, that there is something wrong with it’s damn mind, we are given the “gay uncle” theory.

This is of course because in humans it is now correct to assume so - they are born this way, homosexuality is not a choice - so it ought to be genetic, but nothing else ought to be, of course - the explanation for intelligence variance among the same social science circles? That’s just an environmental thing…

Let me hear your thoughts though, surely they can’t be anymore absurd than suggesting that such an evolutionary maladaptive and fitness-reducing trait like homosexuality was in fact not selected for. Nature has a huge incentive to ensure sexuality functions right. Prove me wrong.

The existence of "gay genes" is now moot - the twin studies show discordance and low heritability, the GWAS studies come up with statistically zero. They’re gone.

This is not to say that genetics does not have some influence, that’s true of every human behaviour, such as your fascination with animated ponies, for instance. Genes in fact play a role in infectious diseases, meaning they are often a necessary component - i.e., you must invoke pathogens to explain something like tuberculosis. Imagine if this was the case with homosexuality. Shocking. Such possibilities are quantifiable. They’re plausible. They aren’t easily ruled out - the same cannot be said for the evolutionary models. They beg for research.

I do understand your concerns though, if homosexuality is indeed caused by an infection it would have broad implications. For instance, the prospect of being able to prevent it through some sort of vaccine would give credence to homophobic attitudes, which ironically are much more heritable than homosexuality itself.

Genome-Wide Association Study of Sexual Orientation in a Large, Web-based Cohort:

We sought to clarify some of the questions surrounding the possible genetic underpinnings of sexual orientation by releasing a web- based survey to the large 23andMe database of over 180,000 individuals and conducting the first ever genome-wide association study (GWAS) on sexual orientation. In parallel, we also sought to explore other non-genetic phenotypes associated with sexual orientation. By leveraging data collected from dozens of 23andMe surveys on ~1000 conditions and traits, we aimed to understand the relationship between sexual orientation and non-genetic phenotypes, including previous findings on substance use and mental illness. Research has shown that lesbians are more likely than heterosexual women to have alcoholism and alcohol-related problems (3). A number of studies have also found that women with same sex partners are more likely to have psychiatric disorders, including major depression (4) and men with same sex partners are more likely to have anxiety and mood disorders (5).

Results: Our GWAS results did not identify any genetic loci reaching genome- wide significance at p < 5 x 10 -8 among men or women. Among men, the peak (non-significant) hit was in chromosome 8q12.3 (chr8:63532921 in NKAIN3 , p= 7.1 x 10 -8 ). We did not find evidence of an association between sexual identity and SNPs on the X chromosome in men, women or the samples combined at genome-wide significance. We calculated that the study had 80% power to detect a genome-wide significant association with an odds ratio over 1.7 in women and over 1.3 in men for a minor allele frequency of 0.3.
http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Drabant-Poster-v7.pdf

This study, from personal genomics company, 23andme, had access to the genomes of over 23,000+ participants that had completed a survey on sexual orientation. By using GWAS analysis it by and large rules out any sort of sexually antagonistic selection for homosexuality. Sexual antagonistic selection is the phenomenon of a reproductive advantage aiding one sex while disadvantaging the other. With this it had been posited that a combination of traits that influence homosexuality were selected for as they were advantageous in promoting female fertility. Along with E.O. Wilson’s "gay uncle" hypothesis, these theories have been used as explanations for a supposed evolutionary (positively selected for) origin of homosexuality.

The gay uncle theory posited that homosexuality evolved as a way to help siblings produce extra nieces and nephews, because providing for a cousin would still incur a gene survival advantage, for instance. Not only does this not even happen, it’s also impossible. The relationship coefficients don’t work. Nephews and nieces are only half as closely related as your own kids, so you’d need four extra to break even, rather than two, as with your own kids.

Considering how evolutionary maladaptive and fitness reducing a trait such as complete disinterest in sex with the opposite sex is, a lack of evidence for adaptation in these theories should not seem such a surprise. The current most likely explanation, as spearheaded by physicist and genetic anthropologist, Gregory Cochran, argues that it is highly likely that the biological root of exclusive homosexuality is caused by an infectious agent, likely a virus. Continued below:

  • Brains vs. Brawn

Exceptional Evolutionary Divergence of Human Muscle and Brain Metabolomes Parallels Human Cognitive and Physical Uniqueness:

… We found that the evolution of the metabolome largely reflects genetic divergence between species and is not greatly affected by environmental factors. In the human lineage, however, we observed an exceptional acceleration of metabolome evolution in the prefrontal cortical region of the brain and in skeletal muscle. Based on additional behavioral tests, we further show that metabolic changes in human muscle seem to be paralleled by a drastic reduction in muscle strength. The observed rapid metabolic changes in brain and muscle, together with the unique human cognitive skills and low muscle performance, might reflect parallel mechanisms in human evolution. We further conducted muscle strength tests in humans, chimpanzees, and macaques. The results suggest that, while humans are characterized by superior cognition, their muscular performance might be markedly inferior to that of chimpanzees and macaque monkeys.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001871
This set out to assess the currently unknown role of metabolic changes in species evolution. Crucially, human brain function, for instance, accounts for about 20% of total calorie consumption.
  • In the image, PFC = prefrontal cortex (front of the brain; implicated in planning complex cognitive behaviour, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behaviour).

Metabolic changes and increased cognitive ability are paralleled by a drastic reduction in muscle strength in human evolution. Increased calorie demands for muscle mass were seemingly traded off for greater cognitive ability, perhaps early modern humans were able to use their intelligence to achieve things that previously required brute force, or it was just a matter of efficiency — increased intelligence; lower basal metabolic rate.

  • On a related note, archaic admixture with Neanderthals may have played a part in this:

Neanderthal ancestry drives evolution of lipid catabolism in contemporary Europeans:

Although Neanderthals are extinct, fragments of their genomes persist in contemporary humans. Here we show that while the genome-wide frequency of Neanderthal-like sites is approximately constant across all contemporary out-of-Africa populations, genes involved in lipid catabolism contain more than threefold excess of such sites in contemporary humans of European descent. Evolutionally, these genes show significant association with signatures of recent positive selection in the contemporary European, but not Asian or African populations.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140401/ncomms4584/full/ncomms4584.html

This finds that Neanderthal genes involved in the metabolic breakdown of fats to release energy are as many as three times more common in contemporary humans of Europeans descent. Since the concentration of various lipids (fatty acids) in the brain that were not found in Asians or chimpanzees, this suggests they are of recent selection among Europeans. Those of European descent also show differences in the function of enzymes that are known to be involved with the metabolism of fat in the brain.

The implications here are what fatty acids do in the brain and how changes in lipid concentration may have altered the brain composition in those of European origin:

sciengemag: “We think it’s a very strong effect with very profound physiological changes,” Khaitovich says. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t see it in the brain tissue.”
The gene variants may have boosted metabolism, perhaps helping Europeans and Neandertals break down fat more rapidly to get energy to survive in colder climates in northern Europe.

Introgression with archaic humans characterises modern human evolution. Through introgression, only a small amount of admixture with Neanderthals was required for early Europeans to take an evolutionary shortcut and inherit any advantageous genes — such as adapting to Europe’s colder climate, for instance — rather than slowly adapting to a new habitat over tends of thousands of years.

More in this press release: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140402100056.htm