In this lecture, scholar J.P. Rushton talks about his genetic similarity theory:
The scariest part of the lecture is when Rushton imagines a person who goes around killing anyone who shares his genes. Those genes would disappear. Rushton is making the point that if killing people with your genes decreases fitness, then helping people with your genes enhances fitness.
But the terrifying corollary of Rushton’s argument is that killing people with different genes must enhance your genetic fitness. This is a powerful reminder that one should never equate evolutionary success with merit and worthiness. In many ways evolution favors the most evil parts of our nature.
The Lion of the Blogosphere uses the term “beta male rage” which he explains as follows:
The overwhelmingly vast majority of violent crime is committed by thugs.
Beta-male rage is rare, but is on the rise. It happens when a lesser beta male, with no history of violence, criminal behavior or thuggishness, surprises everyone by committing a violent crime.
By a lesser beta male, we mean a male who has below-average success with women. Beta-male-rage crimes are never committed by men with girlfriends or wives.
It’s interesting that beta-male rage is committed by the nerdy kids, but most of the victims are the popular kids and the alpha male jocks. In light of Rushton’s lecture, beta-male rage might be viewed as an evolutionary strategy. Those who can’t replicate their genetic prevalence though sexual success, might instead end up increasing their genetic prevalence by decreasing the genetic prevalence of those with different genes (alphas).
Pumpkin Person 
TImely, considering the recent anniversary of the inimitable Elliot Rodger.
To be honest, I’ve never really liked the term of “beta-male rage”, although I realize it’s mostly a term of art. Most men are “betas” (I would say roughly 4/5 of the white American population, of course it varies depending on the race), and most men end up with at least a few girlfriends and a wife by their early 30s (the more religious/conservative ones tend to marry earlier). Of course, these men practically never shoot anyone. Omegas (of whom a very small subset become beta-male ragers) make up roughly 5% of the male population (in my estimation), and they’re basically men with limited to no sexual experience well into their mid to late 20s.
Off topic
Something interesting links/ideas I’ve come across recently:
Are you familiar with this relatively new HBD blogger?: http://spawktalk.blogspot.com/
Interesting article by Scott Barry Kaufman about the relatively higher g-loadings of more culturally-loaded tests (of the culture-neutral tests, only the Raven Progressive Matrices comes close to being like Vocab, Similarities, and Information in terms of g-loadedness) http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-heritability-of-intelligence-not-what-you-think/
What are your thoughts about IQ being in a log-normal, rather normal distribution?
Speaking of Elliot Rodger, that most notorious of beta-ragers: he managed to disconfirm the theory in your last paragraph. He targeted his three dorky Asian room mates and random assortment of other people, not alphas,.
Compared to eliot, those dorky roommates were alphas
What are your thoughts about IQ being in a log-normal, rather normal distribution?
Basic abilities like speed & memory seem to be normally distributed
Crystallized skills seem to be log-normally distributed
Complex problem solving seems to be distributed like money. Some have thousands of times more than others
Are you familiar with this relatively new HBD blogger?: http://spawktalk.blogspot.com/
No, but his blog is interesting
The dude is claiming that republicans are smarter than democrats.
False. Killing less genetically similar people may also be bad, and your wording does not prove in any way that it’s good. For example, the act of assaulting another carries personal risk, which acts as a tax on violence. It is also unclear that just because something is genetically dissimilar, it’s a genetic competitor. E.g a lion that wiped out all trees would be worse off, since it would have less pray. In addition, for humans, going it alone is impractical, so there is value in having relationships with certain people – a coalition of sorts, even if the whole set of people is assumed to be existing in a zero sum environment. Note here the relationship to the evolution of cooperation in the prisoners dilemma.
Sent iphone
Someone know something about jews’ brainsize ?
IQ of the commenters:
Mugabe >160?
IC 152(pp formula)
Blasian >150? (reading Kant at 5?!)
kate >150? (Blasian estimation)
Pumpkin 135 (exceptional mathematical talent????!!)
alcoholicwisdom 130 (pp formula)
Lion-of-the-Judahsphere 120 (WAIS IV)
misdreavus 108
Kevin Orff 105
Anyone who disagree ?
I forgot some commenters:
Santoculto 125
Swank 115
Lion of the Judah-sphere*
Mugabe 99
I know a guy with 145 of IQ who go out get drunk(sometimes fight) and fucked every week at 16 years old. He also doubled a grade and have very low marks.
His IQ can be underestimated because he smoke a lot(not cigatet). He also play rugby(he have a rugbyman physics). He have a lot of friend.
He is one of the most “r” people that I know.
Cigaret*
The difference between ”be smart” and ”have a ( technical) intelligence”. I think when ( intelectual) intelligence is part of personal identity or personality, hormonal normative instincts are off. My pseudo-socialist brother are over socialized and very popular with women. I don’t know what ”their iq”, but he is far to be a honest and genuine intellectual or thinker, despise the fact that he is being very succesfull in public job exames.
He is technically smart, those who memorize well knowledge but unlikely to be the creator of new knowledge. And non-wise. Wisdom is a self knowledge, the capacity to create a realistic self image, strenghts and weaknesses and starting from this honest reality, search make judgment and interactions with this self criticism. Wisdom is extremely rare among human animal beings.
Pumpkin did you notice that Rushton have very archaic facial features ?
And comportement.
Pumpkin did you have a PhD in psychology ?
What do you think?
So you have one yes or no ?
(I have difficulties to understand your comment)
Pumpkin can you estimate the IQ of Eminem ?
That’s a good idea
They don’t share copies of your genes, there’s a chance they share a copy of your genes. If you’re talking about any unreciprocated act, unless the benefit is enormous, it’s maladaptive.
This is a powerful reminder that one should never equate evolutionary success with merit and worthiness
Unless you want to create definitions that do just that a la ‘adapating’ environments to your advantage.
And if you’re going to go with the pop-sci-evo-psych alpha-beta, then What is termed ‘beta-male,’ should be termed ‘omega-male.’ And no, it’s not a good evolutionary strategy. Omega males are omega because they are weak, and during our evolutionary history. And if we’re saying these omegas would have relied on being crafty, then we have to abandon the assumption that intelligence was heavily selected for once humans became modern. Historically, alphas were the brawniest and the smartest. The only real strategy that would make sense from an omega is rape, followed by fleeing the community. Attempting to kill alphas or whatever would be a waste of time.
Races & peoples or phenotypical demographic accumulations correlates with personality type similarities. People are less prone to kill a other people with similar personality.
But, generally, a tiny percentage of individuals who are directly agressive and prone to kill other people. Beta range theory and genetic similarity as fundamental factor to explain extra-group violence seems is in contradiction if men types demographic predominance have a important role in this behaviour.
Genetic similarity seems less important than personality types.. And, of course, empathy level too if highly empathetic people are virtually incapable to kill direct and consciously other people.
Pumpkin did you notice that Robert Sean Leonard looks like Rushton ?
Pumpkin do you think that european superior physical beauty have cultural or biological origins ?