[Please post all off-topic comments in the most recent open thread. They will not be posted here]
For all the talk we hear about neuroplasticity, it seems IQ, at least as measured by the Wechsler, is incredibly stable. According to a study by Erik Lykke Mortensen and his colleagues, there was an astonishing 0.89 correlation between WISC full-scale IQ measured at age 9.5, and WAIS full-scale IQ measured at 23.5 in a sample of 26 low birth-weight kids. That’s absolutely colossal. To put that in perspective, when a sample of 16-year-olds (n = 80) took the WAIS and WISC within an interval of one to six weeks, the correlation was 0.88 (WAIS-R manual, pg 48).
In other words, WISC IQ measured at age 9.5 predicts a young adult’s current WAIS IQ about as well as his WISC IQ measured a few weeks ago!
Wechsler IQ appears to be much more more stable than even height! For example, the correlation between adult height and height at age 13 was 0.7 in a sample of Copenhagen men.
And given the moderate to high correlation IQ has with everything from lifetime income to occupational status, its long-term stability is even more compelling. A psychologist can give a 9-yea-old an hour’s worth of silly games involving cartoon pictures, jig-saw puzzles, blocks, and funny riddles, and from that predict the trajectory of his life better than his teachers and parents. They are modern day prophets. The cartoon drawings of black children on the WISC-R are their tarot cards. Indeed the South Asian woman who gave me the WISC-R at age 12 even dressed like a fortune teller.
And yet they’re also scientists. Intelligence researchers were the ones who invented correlation, factor analysis, and other techniques scientists in all fields depend on, and they invented IQ tests, one of the single most stable, predictive, and fascinating measures science has ever seen.
Of course you can dismiss the study I cited above because the sample was not large and representativeness enough, but Steve Hsu independently reported similar data, from other tests:
From fig 4.7 in Eysenck‘s Structure and Measurement of Intelligence. This is using data in which the IQ was tested *three times* over the interval listed and the results averaged. A single measurement at age 5 would probably do worse than what is listed below. Unfortunately there are only 61 kids in the study.
age range correlation with adult score
42,48,54 months .55
5,6,7 .85
8,9,10 .87
11,12,13 .95
14,15,16 .95The results do suggest that g is fixed pretty early and the challenge is actually in the measuring of it as opposed to secular changes that occur as the child grows up. That is consistent with the Fagan et al. paper cited above. But it doesn’t remove the uncertainty that a parent has over the eventual IQ of their kid when he/she is only 5 years old.
Another study of 141 adults found a near perfect 0.9 correlation between WAIS full-scale IQ measured at age 50 and 70 (a 20-year interval!).
Of course none of this conclusively proves IQ is as immutable as height or as solid as a rock. It could be that society is forcing stability on the brain by giving mental stimulation only to those who show promise young.
Pumpkin Person 
no such study peepee.
dreary found a .5 correlation.
between age 11 and age 90.
0.67 after correction for range restriction and on a much less g loaded test than the Wechsler. Height only correlates 0.7 from 13 to adulthood.
If the crap test used in Deary’s study found 0.67 correlation, Wechsler would probably correlate 0.77 from 11 to 90. That’s absolutely colossal when you consider all the environmental and biological changes that happen over that age span. Wechsler IQ is much more stable than height.
everybody shut up.
i’m getting married.
Some people would find that indian woman’s picture very offensive.
I do. I’m convinced PP would open a human zoo if he could.
Another thing I find offensive is that all the pictures and videos on his blog have such poor resolution and are usually ugly. I don’t know if it’s intentional or if he really doesn’t perceive differences in image quality. Either way, it hurts my sense of aesthetics.
Nobody cares what you two pussies find offensive, just saying.
Still salty I see.
About what? You’re the who ran away.
No, I don’t run away, I’m just being the bigger person because I’m an adult and you’re a child so I can’t waste much time on your trolling and your imaginary dragons. You know, it’s like when Mug of Pee name drops me every second comment, I don’t run away, I’m just being an adult. Try that someday.
Ya so grown up. Playing with nerf guns and bumping Taylor swift.
Right, adults have fun too.
Melo, I find your language and attitude very offensive. There are a lot of people triggered by this photo but are too intimidated by the host to speak.
Adults don’t have fun with nerf guns.
at age 9.5, and WAIS full-scale IQ measured at 23.5 in a sample of 26 low birth-weight kids.
why are you even posting this garbage?
i know more about hinduism than you do.
sad!
so 18 is a adult?
if you think people stop maturing at age 18 you ave autism.
Other study found 0.88 correlation from 9.5 to 23.5 though small atypical sample. Another study found 0.9 correlation from 50 to 70.
The truth is pumpkin, IQ is a social construction. Nothing more than Life magazine or the beatles 27 no.1s. Until scientists from the future time travel and give us a way to OBJECTIVELY measure someones intelligence we won’t know anything about it other than what we know from the new york times. The other day there was a gigantic controversy when the jews published an article by Reich stating that IQ differences could be linked to genes. Hahaha. Reich is so stupid. He can’t see that penguins, fauna, creepy crawlies and sabre tooth tigers all have the potential to be as smart, if not smarter than any man if raised in the middle class. So dumb.
hilarious but FALSE.
i give up.
that position which is least ridicul-able
is the truth
mel told me.
oprah = mel.
In a July 2014 televised interview with British talk show host Michael Parkinson Thorpe came out as gay…
MEL GIBSON WAS BORN IN Peekskill, New York, U.S…..
SAD!
Mel on Oprah
A black man who defends hbd? Jive turkey. Have some pride, sucka.
“sucka” is funny, but it was the italians who coined the term.
there are goodfellas and suckers.
this is a partition of men.
…
the criminal in a criminal society is what?
a criminal?
one possessed of wisdom.
you know…a wiseguy
and this is different than the man of virtue, who is possessed by wisdom.
reich is a fraud. though he may not know he is. MAY not.
his first claim to fame was showing that “african americans” are more susceptible to prostate cancer than “european americans” because genes.
why is this a VERY un-interesting finding?
rr knows.
“why is this a VERY un-interesting finding?
rr knows.”
One meta-analysis shows no difference in PCa mortality; diet explains most of it. it’s only incidental that these ‘genes’ ‘correlate’ to PCa in black Americans.
”because genes.”
because ONLY genes, so it’s a autoimune disease…
Pumpkin how do you think someone from the future would test on the WAIS if he time travelled back to our time and took the test?
the same as someone who ate Cap’n Crunch.
Since africa will have the most population by end of century. Im guessing a randomly selected person from the future could test as a mental retard thus fulfilling the prophecy of Idiocracy that only the dumbest reproduce and Mountain Dew Camacho becoming the president of da unitddd stz
THANKS BILL.
Bil gates would score very high on an IQ test and very high on a useful idiot test.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
I bet the correlation between an IQ test and a useful idiot test isn’t as low as you would think.
Why is Bill Gates so retarded. I just don’t get it. If Mel Gibson, an actor from australia born to a super religious dad can work out jews try to mind control people, why can’t bill gates?
Unlike Bezos, Gates is donating all his money to helping a barbaric race of man he has no familial or cultural ties to.
Hes doing it and if you asked him why he would say it is ‘good’.
Has Bill ever thought strongly about what is ‘good’ for americans or for jews?
I doubt it.
THEY DONT BELIEVE IN IT BILL. ITS LIKE THE IRAQ WAR OR RUSSIA. ITS ALL LIES. THEY PRETEND TO. BUT THEY DONT.
Why are liberals so retarded? Pumpkin keeps saying liberals are smarter than conservatives.
Why is it smarter to help barbarians?!!
If a chinese man in 970 AD felt sorry for mongols he’d be considered mentally ill.
If you want to know how a legitimate retard thinks heres a good story. Me and my dad were walking down town and saw a gypsy begging for money. My dad felt sorry for the gypsy and I told him to keep walking. Later on we sat down and I asked my dad why he felt sorry for the gypsy. He said its because the gypsy ‘could be me or you if we had bad luck/crack cocaine mother/ghetto booty name etc etc’. I then said why do you assume the gypsy is me or you but with ‘bad luck’? Why do you just assume inherent ‘good nature’ in someone you don’t know?
People with low IQs, tend to treat all people like friendly ponies to be petted.
Women do it out of female empathy instinct.
Idiots do it because of brainwashing or lack of sense.
But pumpkin thinks you are ‘smart’ (?!) if you feel empathy for the gypsy.
This is the difference between a social liberal or conservative I believe.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages6.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F32100000%2Fmy-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-32105494-1920-1200.jpg&f=1
How my dad sees people on the street.
People who are con artists aren’t necessarily high IQ (look at most gypsys for instance). They’re just really good at noticing and exploiting embarrasing and awkward traits in other people, like:
1. Naivete (of course)
2. Greed
3. The average person’s intense desire to be liked/popular/avoid ostracism
4. Over-trustingness in others (distinct from naivete)
5. Docility
6. Inattentiveness to one’s surroundings and personal effects due to stupidity/childishness/inebriation/nervousness/confusion/etc.
7. Vulnerability (due to circumastances or a dependent personality)
8. Excessive empathy
9. Etc..
I’ve noticed low IQ people who are good at taking advantage of these traits in others. It’s pretty funny when they come up to me asking me to take them somewhere because their car broke down and their child is sick (“fool me on, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me!)
Whenever you see people with intellectual disabilities presented in culture, its actually accurate to say they immediately assume goodness in people.
I would suggest people with good minds actually may have the reverse a priori belief. Out of street smarts, or out of general knowledge/travelling.
prostate cancer is a “disease of civilization”.
and more than that. there is a very simple procedure which reduces the risk of prostate cancer to zero however long one lives…
castrati’s prostates disappear.
Such fatalistic views presuppose IQ to be a measure of a stable and durable trait—the cognitive strength or level of g—of individuals. IQ levels are expected to stick to people like their blood group or height. But imagine a measure of a real, stable. bodily function of an individual that is different at different times. You’d probably think what a strange kind of measure. IQ is just such a measure.
Carol Sigelman and Elizabeth Rider reported the IQs od one group of children tested at regular intervals between the ages of two years and seventeen years. The average difference between a child’s highest and lowest scores was 28.5 points, with almost one-third showing changes of more than 30 points (mean is 100). This is sufficient to move an individual from the bottom to the top 10 percent or vice versa. In a 2011 report, Sue Ramsden and colleagues showed how individual IQs in the teenage years, in their sample, varied across the mean between minus 18 and plus 21, with 39 percent of the total sample showing statistically significant change. What a strange measure indeed!
…
Others have shown how factors like physical exercise that improve sense of well-being also improve memory and cognitive test scores. All of these results suggest that experience with an appropriate cultural tool and/or a boost to self-confidence or other measure of well-being enhances test-taking ability.
Such results suggest we have no right to pin such individual differences on biology without the obvious, but impossible, experiment. That would entail swapping the circumstances of upper-and lower-class newborns—parents’ inherited wealth, personalities, stresses of poverty, social self-perceptions, and so on—and following them up, not just over years or decades, but also over generations (remembering the effects of maternal stress on children, mentioned above). And it would require unrigged tests based on proper cognitive theory. (Richardson, 2017: 102-3)
Mae Wan Ho also discusses environmental variables that increase ‘IQ’ scores:
http://www.academia.edu/5853864/No_genes_for_intelligence_in_the_fluid_genome
1) IQ tests test a physiological measure.
2) IQ is stable by adulthood.
3) Therefore IQ tests test some kind of physiological measure.
…except physiological measures/variables are not stable. So whatever IQ tests ‘measure’—if it’s physiological—can not logically be stable.
Horrible argument.
IQ test scores (‘g’ scores) cannot, logically, be a stable measure but be physiological measures since physiological measures are not stable (nevermind that, as far as I am aware, there is no physiological measure of the brain that corresponds to the number of IQ points one gets). It’s because IQ tests are not mechanistically related to physiological variables in the brain, i.e., they’re not construct valid.
Carol Sigelman and Elizabeth Rider reported the IQs od one group of children tested at regular intervals between the ages of two years and seventeen years. The average difference between a child’s highest and lowest scores was 28.5 points, with almost one-third showing changes of more than 30 points (mean is 100
It’s not especially stable until around 9 or 10, and then only on the wechsler or other equally comprehensive measures
Still evidence against said assertion about “stability”. If IQ tests test physiological measures, how is it ‘stable’ since physiological measures aren’t stable?
References in this paper
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959354314551163
I also remember reading that different psychologists often came up with different IQ scores from a person’s results on the same test.
In my opinion, if stability was this high, it would largely plead for a non-biological hypothesis just like we never unlearn to ride a bike or our vocabulary. Even people with severe amnesia don’t unlearn these things.
So I don’t know how much of the pretended stability comes from publication bias and selective quoting or what the differences in a person’s IQ across time mean in quantitative terms. Both are compatible in a way. A 30 points difference on a 170 points scale can only result in a high correlation between test results at different ages.
What do you remember from your interaction with the weird psy Pumpkin ?
I passed an IQ test when I was 12 too but I discovered the fact when my mum told me at 19 I passed Mensa tests. Now I understand most people would remember such a moment but I remember only what I have intelectualized. The only thing my mum told was that I could study and do whatever I intended. Now, I have asked her if she remember the score and she said she was told every score was on the ceiling and the psy asked If I had already be shown the results. I don’t understand how I couldn’t keep in my memory that moment and my mum said we had an interesting conversation the three of us . I loose 99% of everything I experience . That’s a bit sad.
I remember it in great detail because i found it so fascinating.
125 when 12
108 when 21
113 when 28
Doesn’t seem stable in my case.
Went down by 17 points in 11 years.
otherwise
Decreased speed is a decrease in white matter volume.
I just cannot hold an manipulate items in my head.
I can use my perception to reason well.
I have good linguistic understanding.
You’re an extreme case involving pathological upbringing, hospitalization, and medication.
so your saying things could improve 🙂
Flynn Effect may be [also or fundamentally] a effect of school/literacy universalization…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy
P1) Physiological processes aren’t stable
P2) IQ tests test physiological processes
P3) IQ is stable
C) Therefore IQ doesn’t test physiological processes
Think of IQ as more analogous to physical abilities than physiological processes. Height is very stable and it’s a physical ability in that taller people are able to reach higher things.
Where’s the error in my reasoning?
I think you’re making the wrong analogy: intelligence is a mental ability so is analogous to physical abilities, not physiological processes.
You’re saying it’s ‘stable’. IQ supposedly tests physiological brain properties, i.e., a process that constantly changes. IQ is supposedly stable. Therefore IQ cannot test a physiological process.
If IQ tests test physiological processes then it’s impossible for them to be stable since physiological processes are not stable.
That’s the whole point with testing the brains of people who have known IQ scores—to see what physiological processes underlie said so-called mental abilities. I’ve established that it’s impossible for these physiological processes to be stable so I’ve refuted your main point in this article.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.
Source: Wikipedia
I also don’t know what you mean when you say physiological processes are not stable. Which ones? Not stable over how long? What are the stability coefficients when measured decades later?
“Which ones?”
All of them.
“Not stable over how long?”
However long until an environmental change occurs.
“What are the stability coefficients when measured decades later?”
I don’t know.
But maybe this is different for southern europeans pumpkin. You yourself said the scientific evidence was that they were inferior.
IQ tests don’t test physiological processes?
Physiological processes in the brain are probably too complex to be measured on a simple rank order scale. IQ tests measure mental abilities largely caused by physiological processes & physical structures of the brain.
Physiological processes are NOT rank-ordered.
In sum, no physiologist would suggest the following:
(a) that within the normal range of physiological differences, a higher level is better than any others (as is supposed in the construction of IQ tests);
(b) that there is a general index or “quotient” (a la IQ) that could meaningfully describe levels of physiological sufficiency or ability and individual differences in it;
(c) that “normal” variation is associated with genetic variation (except in rare deleterious conditions; and
(d) the genetic causation of such variation can be meaningfully separated from the environmental causes of the variation.
[…]
A preoccupation with ranking variations, assuming normal distributions, and estimating their heritabilities simply does not figure in the field of physiology in the way that it does in the field of human intelligence. This is in stark contrast with the intensity of the nature-nurture debate in the human cognitive domain. But perhaps ideology has not infiltrated the subject of physiology as much as it has that of human intelligence. (Richardson, 2017: 166-7)
I’ll write an article on this and send it in a day or two.
Okay sounds good
I can’t wait.
”Where’s the error in my reasoning?”
starts from yourself.
”I’ll write an article on this and send it in a day or two.”
Where is your button ”off”**
Vocabulary is a very proxy to general ”intelligence” or ”general” intelligence” or IQ.
Tell me anecdotally someone who have a huge amplitude of its vocabulary…
Intelligence as well mostly all biological aspects have a limited development, at least in quantitative aspects [even i also believe in qualitative..].
Tell me anecdotally someone who have a huge amplitude of its vocabulary…after the period of biological maturation [after 20 years old].
”P1) Physiological processes aren’t stable”
It’s call disease or entropy.
”P2) IQ tests test physiological processes”
”i study muscles, so everything is about muscle”.
Dynamic or relatively variable, in ”normal’ conditons, is not exactly the same than ”unstable” or possibly chaotic.
”P3) IQ is stable”
Again, when IQ varies too much it’s may you have some disease in your brain.
”C) Therefore IQ doesn’t test physiological processes”
define physiological processes.
“Where’s the error in my reasoning?”
There’s plenty of errors.
1) you’re forgetting neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity is literally non stability of a trait’s given value.
2)As we age our plasticity decreases significantly as does the malleability of IQ, which explains it’s increase in stability.
3)Also, Pumpkin is full of shit. IQ is not stable in the slightest, as I’ve said before it does not have 1:1 repeatability.
4) There are in fact stable physiological systems:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24689902
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14583231
5) Make up your mind, Is IQ inaccurate because it’s unstable(no 1:1 repeatability) or is it inaccurate because it’s stable?
1) I was talking in general.
2) ‘Malleability of IQ’?
3) OK
4) ref 1: “Physiological stability is a dynamic state of a living organism characterized by the maintenance of one or more physiological parameters within ranges of values that vary only slightly in the presence of elements that can disrupt stability. It is an adaptive response reflecting the physiological balance of the living organism.”
Doesn’t refute a thing I said.
ref 2: “We conclude that for many individual indicators of physiological responsiveness to stressors there is moderate stability over time …”
Doesn’t refute anything I’ve said either; the physiological system is not stable; I said nothing about responses after said environmental stimuli.
5) If it’s ‘stable’ then how does it test ‘physiological process’ since physiological processes are not ‘stable’?
To be clear the points I made were not numbered to mirror yours, I was simply compartmentalizing each thought for better digestion.
2) another way to say Neuroplasticity
I also don’t think you got the point of my comment, bulletin 5 was the conclusion, and was a question, not a statement, so please answer it before you ask a question. Is IQ inaccurate because it’s stable? Or is it inaccurate because of its non stability? At this point you have tried to argue both. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
4) if your claim is that physiological processes are unstable, as in chaotic, then yes, both references refuted your point.
I wasn’t making “points”, I made an argument (which you didn’t address).
“2) another way to say Neuroplasticity”
“At this point you have tried to argue both.”
IQ isn’t ‘accurate’ because it’s not construct valid.
IQ is supposedly stable; IQ tests physiological processes (unstable), therefore IQ tests cannot logically test physiological differences.
“4) if your claim is that physiological processes are unstable, as in chaotic, then yes, both references refuted your point.
Not at all. They’re not evidence for your point. Physiological systems are not stable.
1) points, as in each point in your argument. Stop being autistic.
2) Your argument for its lack of construct validity was based on the instability of IQ tests. So again which is it? I’ve already proven IQ is construct valid. Its also unstable so it does follow other physiological systems.
4. Yes. Sorry but the studies say otherwise. Are you going to cry about this too?
“1) points, as in each point in your argument. Stop being autistic.”
They’re premises with a conclusion.
“Your argument for its lack of construct validity was based on the instability of IQ tests. So again which is it? I’ve already proven IQ is construct valid. Its also unstable so it does follow other physiological systems.”
I’ve never provided a true argument against construct validity.
You’ve not proven IQ is construct valid; P-FIT is not construct validity.
So it’s unstable, meaning physiological processes aren’t stable and are dynamic, changing based on the environment.
“4. Yes. Sorry but the studies say otherwise. Are you going to cry about this too?”
Cry about it? Nope, just like on Friday I’m going to laugh about it because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
ref 1: “Physiological stability is a dynamic state of a living organism characterized by the maintenance of one or more physiological parameters within ranges of values that vary only slightly in the presence of elements that can disrupt stability. It is an adaptive response reflecting the physiological balance of the living organism.”
Doesn’t refute a thing I said.
ref 2: “We conclude that for many individual indicators of physiological responsiveness to stressors there is moderate stability over time …”
Doesn’t refute anything I’ve said either; the physiological system is not stable; I said nothing about responses after said environmental stimuli.
1) ok.
2) PFIT is construct validity. No amount of kicking and screaming will change that.
3) Afro, the babies crying again, I think he shit himself this time. You might want to come change him.
2) No it isn’t.
3) Nope. Still mad about that EP argument eh?
Not at all. They’re not evidence for your point. Physiological systems are not stable.
I think both of you agree. Physiological processes are never stable and unresponsive to environmental fluctuations like height in adulthood. But they’re stable in the sense that fluctuate within a narrow range unless the organism needs to adapt to unusual conditions.
I must agree that the evidence shows that IQ is definitely not stable like height, the correlations are misleading and it’s the spread of the individual scores that matters, and it’s substantial.
So in this sense, it has the behavior of a physiological trait. But it has to be expected, taking an IQ test, or any test requires consciousness, which is the consequence of physiological processes. The true question is whether IQ is measured independently of all the states of consciousness like stress, motivation etc. The literature is clear: it’s not.
If most people have enough self knowledge, included talent and motivation to self-understand a little bit, most of them will take note how intractably stable they tend to be in both personality and cognition.
And again, even if the EXTREMIST behaviorists were right about their beliefs at least that ”humans are super behaviorally plastic and similar”, it’s still doesn’t mean that it’s not biological or genetic// or fundamentally environmental.
A hypothetical ”hyper-adaptive behavior” OR ”hyper-environment-sensitive organism” would be both genetically determined.
But hyper-sensitive/weak organisms seems contradicts RR’s theory about human evolution, that we evolved to be athletes.
About height, all european people’s today have a ”good” nutrition BUT we ”still” have differences among them where northern, southeastern and northeastern europeans tend to be taller than southern europeans.
https://www.disabled-world.com/calculators-charts/height-chart.php
Just a example.
Again and again: people who don’t understand people [true autists regardless their social success] tend to love study about… people.
Unstable physiological processes = diarrhea; tachycardia; bipolar disorder; schizophrenia; etc
but… even in this cases, all them are PREDICTABLE = / = unstable or possibly unpredictable.
Even when a organism don’t work exactly well it doesn’t mean it will not find a way to balance again.
Even in cases of real diseases, we know almost diseases symptoms are caused by organism imunological responses.
2)Yes.
3) The first citation provides a sound definition of a “stable physiological system” the variability between an interval. I asked you if you meant chaotic, you never answered. The second citations showed examples of stable physiological systems. As far as environmental stimuli are concerned, the brain is experience dependent and is constantly involved in the environment.
2) how?
3) Physiological systems, by their very nature, are not stable and are variable. If they were ‘stable’ we wouldn’t have evolved. Think of what drives our physiological systems (cells), they’re not stable. Physiological systems are not stable and your little cursory Google search of, I assume “stable physiological systems” doesn’t cut it.
You don’t know anything about physiology.
2) Why don’t you address the previous posts? I explain it extensively there.
3) Ah, it seems you’re conflating chaos with variability. Physiological systems are variable but also stable. It’s quite humorous because my search was all it took to debunk your statement, it shows how little you actually know the literature, and how bad your reading comprehension is to misinterpret it this badly.
2) gimme link.
3) my statement is not debunked. Physiological systems aren’t stable and are variable by their very nature. If I do more sprint intervals I’ll increase my Vo2 max. As an example, it changes based on activity level. It’s not stable.
Your little cursory search didn’t debunk anything.
ref 1: “Physiological stability is a dynamic state of a living organism characterized by the maintenance of one or more physiological parameters within ranges of values that vary only slightly in the presence of elements that can disrupt stability. It is an adaptive response reflecting the physiological balance of the living organism.”
Doesn’t refute a thing I said.
ref 2: “We conclude that for many individual indicators of physiological responsiveness to stressors there is moderate stability over time …”
Doesn’t refute anything I’ve said either; the physiological system is not stable; I said nothing about responses after said environmental stimuli.
Get back to the construct site.
“Your little cursory search didn’t debunk anything.”
Obviously it did. Afro even agrees, and he’s right, we both are taking about the same thing. It’s just the combination of your autism and deficient reading ability is causing you to rant like a 5 year old.
Afro.
“The true question is whether IQ is measured independently of all the states of consciousness like stress, motivation etc. The literature is clear: it’s not.”
Which is expected. Human intelligence cannot function without motivation or stress or emotion.
I was watching a documentary once and they interviewed chris langan and rick rosner. I think i saw it on a plane trip. Anyways i now think these two people must be frauds seeing as its obvious they were tested on their middle classness. What makes ruck rosner so middle class though? If scientists can figure that out we might be able to breed a race of super middle class prople like rick and chris who can use their minds to save the world from [redacted by pp, April 23, 2018]
if it were so reliable peepee would have to conclude that there is no bw gap. when the blacks were children they scored as high as whites in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study.
so peepee can say the high reliability is only within population. but what population?
the long-term stability of many traits is uncompelling evidence of the fixed nature of these traits. why?
because most people are lazy.
whatever lifestyle they have adopted at 20 will in many ways resemble their lifestyle at 40 with regard to intellectual development.
so-called fluid intelligence is thought to peak in the early 20’s and crystallized intelligence is thought to peak much later, perhaps in the 50’s.
but activities focused around learning begin to rapidly diminish in the 20’s, and activities focus around acquiring new knowledge diminish after the 50’s (after one’s career has peaked).
these are just averages, and some people peak later. others peak earlier. it’d be interesting to assess the lifestyles of the outliers….do those who peak later continue to engage themselves in pursuits that others abandon? maybe.
muggy says men who win to win women are johns.
but men are johns by nature. they evolved big brains to win women, goes one of the current in-play theories. so the quid pro quo simply is a fact of life. if the purpose of the big brain is to win women, then everything that comes from the big brain…evolutionarily…would be for the purpose of winning women.
another trait that seems fairly fixed is attractiveness….
civilization’s ideologies seem to build themselves around the male’s desire for sex and re-directing the pursuit from directly winning a woman to ‘winning’ other games that are productive for society at large, and the more ‘winning’ done, the more women the male gets.
while a woman wanting you ‘for you’ is indeed a powerful motivator and what men want…it’s just a fantasy.
there is no you.
there is just what she can experience through you.
women follow orders on what is and is not worthy of sex, i.e. the ‘going rate.’
whatever/whoever meets or exceeds the price receives the validation.
but as far as raw physical desire is concerned — women can feel that for most anything. they’ve even done studies and verified that what women say ‘turns them on’ versus what actually arouses them are in completely different ballparks. the standard for true arousal is much much lower than what they state — in the studies at least.
but civilization represses this and ensures women only act on this impulse when the price is right.
so this notion of wanting to be ‘liked’ and ‘admired’ for you is fantasy. a fantasy created by civilization.
the truth is the men and women want to fuck and without these ideas would fuck almost randomly.
don’t believe me?
the fact that there is so much variation on all the traits considered to be ‘classically attractive’ is a strong cut against this supposed ‘natural’ selectivity.
the fixed nature of ‘attractiveness’ arises from the fact that most men aren’t willing to do what it takes to win. putting in the initial work is terrible, probably even humiliating.
but the reward for having ‘made it’ is immense: once you make it, you can be both lazy and well-fed.
a high IQ allows the same thing — laziness, your compensation starts to outpace your actual effort, your mind works FOR YOU.
being attractive, the same —- your lifestyle, body, appearance WORK for YOU.
and being rich…blah blah blah, the same.
why are ruling classes so lazy?
because they were willing to put in the necessary work to become lazy.
and by work i mean unethical risk-taking and borderline if not outright criminality.
this is why the noveau rich are despised — everyone knows that the most honest way to be truly rich is to inherit. all other means are despicable.
Its good to see more commentators copying animes style. Very refreshing.
Trollolololol!!!!😂
many traits are stable because of the games people choose to play. if people chose progressively more difficult games to play as their lives moved on, the traits would show less stability.
there is an incentive to play these games.
and the irony is that the reason why people choose not to play these games is the very reason why they should play these games, but the difference here is the ability to see that via what eggheads like lion call ‘future time orientation.’
but as expected, like the loser you are, you’ve taken issue with the dish rather than the food and outed yourself as the thing that i always knew you were: desperate to be ‘in’
Swank, youve made a number of posts suggesting I have a dire need to be socially approved and accepted….
hahahaha.
When pumpkin says you have high social IQ, i have to laugh at pumpkins social iq.
Philosopher Swank thinks you’re black
Even people with high social IQ can misread others if they’ve recieved wrong data
I honestly think you have to be retarded to think im black after everything ive said.
You do.
You don’t fool me.
Who whines about politics to a psychiatrist?
A captive audience…
One who is paid to listen and analyze.
Hahaha indeed.
If you aren’t black then you definitely are some species of sexually frustrated white guy.
but in support of swank’s theory. i had a yuge crush on a girl in college. she was tall, maybe even 5’11”. but she was unavailable. why? she had an ecuadorian boyfriend who was shorter than she was but 6 pack. maybe he was her beard. but he was a white ecuadorian. his parents owned a banana plantation. she was a spanish major so that was part of it too. i checked out her fb profile once a long time ago. apparently she never married. lesbian?
maybe one of the reasons for jewish men achieving beyond what their IQs predict is that jewish mean tend to be short and scrawny.
but men are johns by nature. they evolved big brains to win women, goes one of the current in-play theories. so the quid pro quo simply is a fact of life. if the purpose of the big brain is to win women, then everything that comes from the big brain…evolutionarily…would be for the purpose of winning women.
I like this theory actually, especially since it wasn’t initially formulated to explain why men have bigger brains than women like the other just-so stories of evo psych do.
It started with the observation that the human brain is very expensive to maintain, that most of our mental abilities appear to be futile for survival and that human intelligence didn’t have the characteristics of a fitness trait but looked more like a tool for mate competition.
So the sexual dismorphism in brain size could count as an independent verification of the theory since there is more sexual competition between males.
“but men are johns by nature. they evolved big brains to win women, goes one of the current in-play theories”
Haha man. This is Geoffrey Miller’s theory.
yes and here comes the circle back to religion…free will…the choice to utilize something made for the flesh for something ‘higher,’ the pursuit of technological advancement.
the rules keeping the minds of men occupied on things other than women and compensating them for their labor are necessary for an eventual paradise on earth where everyone will be free to self-actualize, so say the myths….
is it that crazy? i don’t know…
Isaac Newton died a virgin.
that’s a real martyr.
people who should know evo-psych is bs advocating it. sad!
inequality begins with private property which begins with agriculture. scarcity and economic insecurity and the specialization of labor and social class begin with agriculture. this is a small fraction of human history. chimp ladies are sluts. the beta male gorillas are just as successful at reproduction as the grey back.
afro and swank make the typical HBDer mistake of assuming that the way things are is as they have always been and must be.
prostitution is no older than agriculture and pastoralism.
if you work hard to getta da money to getta da women…you’re a mangina.
afro is 100% mangina. i knew this already.
afro shaves his body hair and bathes in lotion. definitely mangina.
Mug of Pee, I’m not saying this is a scientific theory but it provides a good explanation to why most mental abilities are unnecessary to survival.
I’m not denying that evo psych is BS.
afro shaves his body hair and bathes in lotion. definitely mangina.
LMAO! I haddn’t seen this line. I have naturally smooth skin and I moisturize because I’m black. Duh!
ah, well, let’s see a pic of geoffrey miller’s wife or significant other to test the veracity of his theory
Wife? Lol! I’m 99% sure he’s gay.
Geoffrey Miller:
LMAO!
prostitution as in ‘the formal practice’ of quid pro quo…
but….
time is money.
any time or attention (the thing women crave the most) spent on a woman is quid pro quo. and afaik all sexual encounters in all societies require time or attention from man to woman, unless you’re Zeus. even rape is a concerted effort.
so…
you’re a john.
you work hard to build yourself up, sure. but after you build yourself up, there’s no more need to work. who works harder? the man who endures 5 years of hell and never has to worry again, or the man who just wanders around PRETENDING he doesn’t even want what every man wants. it takes hard work to be lazy.
civilization just raised the price and the amount of work necessary.
do you think the men you routinely hold up as sexy gods didn’t work hard?
this is the cult of the virtuoso in the realm of interpersonal attraction…hiding the brushstrokes. even robert mitchum had an eye lift! rudy valentino pinned back his ears!
if it looks, sounds, seems too good to be true…..
it. IS.
then again, maybe afro’s people have had a bad influence on my thinking.
maybe chimp ladies are sluts, but they still barter for sex!
The researchers found that she-chimps put out more often for males that shared food with them at least once, compared to stingy males who never offered meat.
By tracking association patterns between pairs, the scientists found that males didn’t just give meat to females they hung around with often. They specifically gifted food to those that they ended up copulating with. Additionally, factors such as rank and age also did not explain the connection between giving away meat and mating success.
https://www.livescience.com/3462-chimps-barter-sex.html
dinner and a movie is genetic.
who cares if this is true…it’s more interesting than HBD. the stability of dinner and a movie over evolutionary time.
gay?
oh…well sorry guys, his theory is obviously retarded and wrong.
Diogenes stood outside a brothel, shouting, “A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore is like poisoned honey! A beautiful whore . . . ” Men entering the house threw him a coin or two to shut him up. Eventually Diogenes had collected enough money and he too went into the brothel.
organisms and organs (like the human brain) can do things which were not explicitly selected for.
these are called “spandrels”.
it may be the human brain was selected for survival. it just came with a lot of spandrels.
peepee claims the human brain differs from others in its ability to change its behavior, yet at the same time claims IQ is fixed. this is a contradiction.
as far as i can tell ugly rich men with beautiful wives are a small minority of ugly rich men.
it seems people are generally matched in everything.
according to an economic analysis of online dating preferences, something around a 600k income differential compensates completely for combined severe deficiencies in height, race, and looks relative to a good-looking, tall, white man.
the most severe deficiency?
RACE.
the second most?
HEIGHT.
the least?
LOOKS.
i called this a long time ago when i said being black was like being short, just worse. and i knew this without having to consult any study.
so….in theory, a man who makes > 1 million a year or who has a net worth north of 5 million should be able to find a beautiful woman….online.
i called this a long time ago
You sure did!
I’ve long thought you have a very high social IQ because you were a lot more accurate at analyzing my motives than other commenters who tried to do so.
I wonder where muscle fits in the equation. My guess is there’s a muscle X height interaction, in that x lbs of extra muscle adds to dating success above y inches of height, but subtracts below it. I also wonder if the same traits that help men succeed with women also help them succeed professionally, and in terms of getting respect from other men, or if a different equation is required.
Muscularity is most important.
This will seem counter intuitive to people who believe that women like thin ripped bodies best.
Women like power best.
Even the “not too big” bodies of fitness models can only be obtained with steroids.
Muscles first, leanness second..
Also the golden ratio is nonsense….the ratio to turn heads in the modern age is 1.7-1.8. Shouldee to waist.
Thanks to gay men and hollywood for that.
So with a caveat….don’t bother with it unless you’re prepared to juice.
And if you do juice….your view of humanity will never be the same.
And yes professionally it also works wonders.
Here’s a social IQ tip….
If a lot of men engage in a dangerous risky illegal activity, it’s ecause it WORKS.
Height is only attractive to the extent it allows for more, muscle. Tall lanky men are only preferred by women who can’t get more facially attractive specimens.
Lee Preist and Franco Columbu were womanizers.
But….they weren’t a match for Ahhhhnallld.
Height is only attractive to the extent it allows for more, muscle
So you think women prefer a lean 250 lb 5’5″ body builder over a lean 200 lb 6’3″ model physique?
I don’t think so
No ive seen plenty of girls go with lanky tall guys over a similar looking shorter guy. I actually think its even better to be a bit fat than too thin in general, but height is no.1 for most of the girls Ive met.
Im not particularly tall, just average. I do a little cheat and wear lifts in my shoes. Women love it.
Those are just generalities.
Some people do look better thin. And some look better fat. But almost all men look better with muscle and broad shoulders.
By far the worst race to be as a man is not black but east or south asian. There are many east and south asian women that don’t even date their own race.
The number one way a short man can compensate is not muscle or even looks, but power and social status. If a woman thinks you are dangerous in some way or famous/popular you should be fine.
I think charisma is also important for some women.
I’ve only read swanks anime like post now….hes wrong. There are plenty of men that get laid repeatedly on looks alone without provisioning anything. In fact there are lots of men who are criminals or general scum that get laid a lot more than beta office worker drones or rich guys.
I would be considered an very good looking guy but most people would call me a selfish asshole in terms of giving hahaha.
Okay, if the shorter man was similar looking then that doesn’t address the point.
And no you’re wrong about weight. Leanness brings out the angularity and masculinity in a face. Fatness makes you look like a girly man.
Rockstars are rail thin and get laid. The broke musicians who get laid look like the rock stars.
And no the worst race to be is still black.
An Asian man who tats himself up and roids will do great. Not as well as me, but still better than a black man.
A black man who manages to snag a thin cute normal white woman really is a superstar.
If your lifts are less than 3 inches then women don’t love the lifts, you just have a confidence problem.
Funny how jews promote black men so much but don’t promote muslim, latino, indian or oriental men.
Theyz trollin people. Theyz jus trollin.
You didn’t really read anything.
Any attention from male to female is “provisioning”
This is how I know you’re a loser who never gets laid.
Women rely on men for happiness and calmness.
That is why they like confidence. They are extremely frightened of any and everything.
Yeah my gaydar is going wild looking at Geoff Miller. He has the pervert look a lot of gay men have.
You’re so good looking you have to see a psychiatrist and whine about your political beliefs…..
Good looking men don’t see psychiatrists for anything more than filling a script for fun pills.
Ha just kidding…they have women who will get all of that stuff for them and women who will listen to their problems for free.
Funny how you can easily tell if someone is gay just by looking at them sometimes. AESTHETICS DONT LIE.
That said it is observable that some people are better at interpreting/appreciating aesthetics more than others. This is immortalised in the film Mozart where Salieri can see Mozart is a genius but is powerless to match him.
What determines this aesthetic sense of judgement?
My personal opinion is that a lot of aesthetic matters are objective. In my opinion morality can be seen as objective when judged aesthetically.
“Any attention from male to female is “provisioning””
Retard.
You are living in cloud cuckoo land. There are a lot of ‘beefy’ or ‘stocky’ looking guys that do ok with women because they look more masculine than a rail thin nerd. Girls love rugby players for instance more than soccer players or hockey players.
Rock stars get laid from social status and charisma. Not their bodies. You sound like youre geoffrey miller’s assistant or something trying to shoehorn everything into a pretty simple model of attraction.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.royalvegascasino.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fwww_royalvegas_com%2F2015%2F09%2FEngland-Rugby-team1.jpg&f=1
This guy on the left, will do much better than someone who had axl rose’s body but wasn’t a rock star and had no charisma all things equal.
any woman who wanted to eat out and see a movie in the theater would have HIV, herpes, and hep c.
A woman is nothing until a man looks at her. Sad but true rules of civilization. Ones that you aren’t aware of, apparently.
Are you a black virgin?
God dayum, son.
however you pay for sex, it’s stupid and evil.
only manginas get up early in the morning for pussy. sleep is more important.
why don’t y’all look up sexual behavior differences over time, place, and culture. pay special attention to primitive cultures.
there are a few societies where the father is expected to have zero role in his children’s support. there’s one in nepal and another in china. i have read the seychelles is also matriarchal.
in these societies the mother’s male relatives take the economic role of the father.
show me a gold-digger and i’ll show you an unattractive woman who thinks she’s attractive.
people are matched for social class, class background, intelligence level, physical attractiveness, relative height, interests, personality, etc. short men need to pick on short women.
marrying up and marrying down simply does not happen very often. and when it does the marriage won’t last.
a black virgin who can’t read.
i said muscularity FIRST. leanness SECOND.
you then said that being a little fat is preferable to being too skinny…fat and skinny don’t speak to muscle mass, turdburgler.
so muscle mass equal, leanness wins out over fat.
which is why you showing the photo of all the allegedly ‘fat’ athletes with additional muscle mass also misses the point just like talking about stocky/beefy men misses the point.
and i didn’t say rock stars. i said BROKE MUSICIANS who have ZERO status get laid because they look like rock stars.
and i say attraction is simple because it IS SIMPLE.
there’s a lot of it that is just random chance, and the rest is very very easy:
be MUSCULAR
be LEAN
be TALL
have a DEEP VOICE
smell GOOD
dress WELL
women follow directions on who to have sex with. those directions can be found in all of media. look like those images and you will get attraction.
women make it complicated with nonsense about ‘everyone likes different things.’
what they mean is that they sacrifice some traits for others to find a man who has sufficiently limited options to stay with them.
THAT’S IT. THAT’S ALL. SIMPLE.
that’s your problem. you attribute way too much inner life to people.
people don’t consciously do conspiracies!
they HONESTLY JUST BUY IN
women TRULY BELIEVE THE STUPID SHIT IN MAGAZINES IS GREAT.
the Pope REALLY IS CATHOLIC
hat tip to swank. i now know i can have any black woman i want. just offer her some kfc.
chimps have ginormous balls. the darwinists explain this as resulting from “sperm competition”. this means lady chimps are “sperm urinals”. they do it with everybody.
from what i know the rule among savages is serial monogamy. after the child is old enough to be raised by “the village” the parents separate and hook up with some else.
fat and skinny don’t speak to muscle mass, turdburgler
but they do peepee.
ask rr. weight gain from “overnutrition” is always accompanied by gains in muscle mass as well as fat. but it varies with the person how much muscle he puts on.
fat people are strong.
they sacrifice some traits for others to find a man who has sufficiently limited options to stay with them.
then they’d never be into rich guys. according to swank.
swank is obviously a woman. he contradicts himself.
So you think women prefer a lean 250 lb 5’5″ body builder over a lean 200 lb 6’3″ model physique?
I don’t think so
Being of lower class and Italian ancestry, Swank probably grew up around girls like Snooki who were into short buff dudes, so Swank may be unaware of how other women think. When a blog full of ladies were asked whether they preferred tall and thin or short and ripped, some of them agreed with Swank, but most didn’t. Of course this is a very small sample of unknown representativeness, but here are some of their replies:
tall. just because I’m tall though : ) but even if I wasn’t… a short, ripped guy looks.. well different. haha
Personally, I would prefer a tall guy. I like guys to be taller than me (I’m 5’8″) Plus, “ripped” is kinda scary if it’s too over the top.
i personally love love love tall and thin guys…it makes it awkward because I’m 5’2 but when tall guys walk into a room they just take over the room…to me at least…lol
i’d go for the tall guy because I’m tall (5’9″) and like to wear heels which puts me up around 6′! and I don’t like being taller than my guy
tall and thin personly I really hate it when my guys shorter then me(im 5’5) and sometimes hen a guys ripped he looks like he’s tryin to hard
I think muscles on short people look silly, like they are trying to prove something … I say tall and skinny is more attractive. If the person is short, I rather see them “in shape”, not overly muscley.
fat people are not necessarily strong. they’re stronger than the leaner version of themselves, and this is mostly because of the extra water floating around in their fat bodies (lean body mass increases include a lot of water, which fat people have more of).
so yes, in the absence of the muscularity associated with a weight training program, the ‘muscle gainz’ associated with just being fat versus being lean are not enough to make one more attractive than their lean self. unless we want to argue obese people are yugely attractive.
then they’d never be into rich guys. according to swank.
probably not for anything long-term, which is what the ‘stay with them’ implies…women are most attracted to men who have the most options based on all the factors i mentioned, but they pick their MATES based on who is likely to stay. as you yourself said: people match for long-term arrangements and marriage != attraction and sex.
the truth, not up for debate, beyond question
in the present day
….women fuck up, men fuck down, and both marry across…
…muscularity is most attractive on a man…
…followed by height and leanness…
keep it simple because it is simple. people are simple. sorry.
because women are so forthright about what actually gets them going…?
guys……lol…….
it’s really perfect.
pumpkin posts a bunch of things women say.
i post a real time actual interaction.
i’m sure if pumpkin talked to that woman after and she said ‘omg, no, it was just interview, lol, i think muscles like that are gross! hahaa’ pumpkin would say, ‘see!’
Women like muscles, obviously. But you said:
Height is only attractive to the extent it allows for more, muscle.
WRONG!
Tall lanky men are only preferred by women who can’t get more facially attractive specimens.
WRONG!
Lol no I’m right…you just can’t read between the lines of what those women are saying.
No, you just have no experience with upper class women because such women don’t seek legal advice from their cousin Vinny:
PP, no guy is buff by accident. All those guys that many people would find too muscular have no problem getting girls and they would stop growing if it reduced their sexual value only slightly.
No guy ever complains that girls don’t look at him because he’s too muscular and there is a reason for this. Even if pro bodybuilder types are definitely not what women like the most, there are so few of them that demand far exceeds supply.
You know it’s like when some news articles say a majority of women like dad bellies over perfect abs. That might be true, but you better get ripped because even if women who like perfect bodies are a minority, guys with perfect bodies are a much smaller number.
That’s why I’ve always laughed at these “studies”, hit the gym and got laid.
All those guys that many people would find too muscular have no problem getting girls and they would stop growing if it reduced their sexual value only slightly
Not necessarily:
“I have had alot of chicks tell me that they prefer my mates builds which is the fitness sort of look where they are not skinny but not big.”
And believe it or not, guys have other motives for getting huge beyond just impressing women.
Anyway, I don’t dispute that women like muscles, but contra Swank, they also like height independently of muscles.
Upper class women aren’t any different in what makes them salivate beneath the waist, hoss.
I’m hated precisely because it is so easy for me to get clients.
In fact I’d say the smarter, more educated women are MORE slutty….
In fact I’d say the smarter, more educated women are MORE slutty….
Haha. I cosign.
Ladies in the street but freaks in the bed.
I don’t know where PP got this idea that upper class women have different tastes from lower class women. In fact, a lot see thuggish guys as a forbidden fantasy and like to be fucked savagely. I can testify.
Women of all classes like tall and muscular guys, but lower class women seem more likely to like short muscular guys.
I don’t think any type of women is into short and muscular guys. But since lower class guys are shorter, the lower class muscular guys are shorter too. It’s just a coincidence, not a specific niche of the dating market.
I bet all those girls who date short muscular guys would prefer their man taller and as muscular. But women care much less about looks than men. So nuscles help getting chicks who aren’t into muscles because it gives charisma and it looks cocky so it’s still attractive in a non-aesthetic sense.
rr and swank cannot be real people. they are the stereotype of the vain italian american male.
rr said he literally wanted to have the physique of a silver back gorilla. like john cena i guess.
this tendency is an old one.
Guappo historically refers to a type of flashy, boisterous, swaggering, dandy-like men in the Naples area.
Nah….
Height is interesting in that it’s a powerful amplifier. But the independent effect is almost nil and probably boils down to the male taller norm.
But tall AND muscular is in a league of its own. Because to put up appreciable muscle on a tall frame is very difficult.
Height is interesting in that it’s a powerful amplifier. But the independent effect is almost nil and probably boils down to the male taller norm.
Lawyers can never admit when they’re wrong. Swank probably advises other up and coming Vinnies at the local pizzeria:
“You might be completely wrong, but never let the jury know that you know you’re wrong!”
let’s ask santo what he likes.
let’s ask santo what he likes.
gays guys prefer muscle. But straight women want a guy they can look up to, literally and figuratively.
in Pumping Iron franco says arnold beat him because arnold was taller. i know nothing about bodybuilding, but franco looked just as good…and he won the next two mr olympias after arnold retired.
boils down to the male taller norm.
this is correct. 4″ taller is the ideal. or so i have read. if you’re shorter than she is it’s a non-starter even if you look like a greek god.
this may be part of the desire for “provisioning” also. a man who makes less than you do is not the norm given the so-called “gender pay gap”, hence un-attractive for the same reason.
but there are countries where the gender wage gap is very small. i wonder if any pathologies like polygamy or bastardy are greater in these countries.
i agree with afro. just as there are gay “chubby chasers” there are likely such straight women. but there are a lot more fat men than buff men.
That’s not true. When you were right about the twin study data I said so. On this you’re just clueless…like most men.
That selective quoting…
“On the other hand alot of chicks admire my build compared to my mates so i wouldnt worry about it too much its more about being social and talking to chicks, being big and having a good body is one thing but if you dont put yourself out there and go out and meet new chicks you will have blue balls the rest of your life.”
And believe it or not, guys have other motives for getting huge beyond just impressing women.
Sure, I don’t go to the gym to impress women, I don’t need to. My fiancée loves my body, but there is so much more about me that she loves that she wouldn’t mind if I got a little chubby. However, it’s my face and body that caught her eye first and it’s my smile that made her fall into my arms and she still can’t get enough of it after all this time.
But, although I have the same build as the fitness model types as the guy you quoted’s gym mates, I know exactly what he’s referring to when he talks about admiration. Like turning heads anytime you show a bit of flesh or wear tight clothes, seeing girls devouring you with the eyes or even asking to touch after a couple drinks in a club. So even if a guy doesn’t workout to impress women as the primary goal, it’s a strong incentive, obviously.
And it’s not just about women, being fit is hard work for most people and it requires many personality traits that are appreciated in the workplace, so employers don’t fail to notice it, beside the charisma that a bigger body confers.
Anyway, I don’t dispute that women like muscles, but contra Swank, they also like height independently of muscles.
Sure, taller is always better, but at equal height, muscular is better than not muscular, a little too big is better than a little too thin, way too muscular is better than way too fat and way too thin.
Sure, taller is always better, but at equal height, muscular is better than not muscular,
And at equal muscle, tall is better than not tall. That’s the point Swank and I disagree on.
And equal muscle, tall is better than not tall. That’s the point Swank and I disagree on.
I definitely think height is more important. Because maybe 90% of women want a man taller than themselves.
However, most women would take a guy that’s only 5cm taller than themselves but musclular over a guy that’s 10cm but slim or fat.
However, most women would take a guy that’s only 5cm taller than themselves but musclular over a guy that’s 10cm but slim or fat.
Agreed.
With regard to a fling I don’t think it much matters at all. I used to say, well maybe if the height differential is yuuuge. But nope, too many counter-examples seen.
For something long-term it comes down to the height of the woman. I’m average short, so a woman around my height is still pretty tall for a woman, so they’re more willing to bend the rules.
For a really short guy…yeah, non-starter.
And really, look at Arnold and Franco. To me that is an all other things equal situation….so yes, Arnold won. But Franco really was impressive. Extremely strong. Even Danny Padilla was impressive and he was a midget.
There are plenty of tall men who can’t get laid. Plenty of short guys who can’t get laid. But the amount of muscular and lean men who can’t get laid is near zero.
At equal muscle as in pounds or proportion?
Cause it takes much more raw muscle to fill out a tall frame the same way as a muscular short one.
So it wouldn’t be equal muscle if the proportions are the same. Equal proportion would favor the tall guy.
At equal muscle as in pounds or proportion?
I meant pounds. For example Lee Priest is 5’4″ and 200 lbs at competition weight. I think most women (and most employers) would prefer a guy who is 5’7″ and 200 lbs and prefer even more a guy who is six feet and 200 lbs.
They may even prefer a guy who is 5’4″ and 150 lbs to Lee Priest.
Nah. I think you guys are both wrong. Height is less important and it’s just the male taller thing. As in…once the man is taller I think it almost doesn’t matter.
It’s not my shortie. genetic interests either.
Think about it.
Height is yuugely heritable.
Most variance in a populous is genetic.
While small women may have also been favored, if tall men really were, significantly more successful, the exerted effect would be more pronounced from them and we wouldn’t see so much genetic variation in height.
That there are so many shorties cuts against any strong selective pressure.
Now….let’s look at the capacity to build muscle. Despite what steroid pumped fitness athletes say…genetics mostly comes down to symmetry and muscle insertions…but the amount of muscle men can put on doesn’t differ by that much.
Look at hunter gatherers….all the men have that lean muscular build, not a ton of variation.
IIRC the heritability of it was fairly low. Like .3 or something. At any rate much lower than for height….suggesting stronger selection.
But there’s been selection AGAINST muscles in the last hundred thousand years.
I know, it seems counter intuitive. But I think it’s because you really aren’t conceptualizing the presence 200 pounds at like 5’5 has. You encounter a lot of tall people so that’s easy to get an idea of. The amount of people who are 5’10 and 220 is just very small. Mike Tyson had those dimensions. Iron Mike intimidated people much much taller AND heavier than he through physical presence. In fact, the only people who avoided being outpsyched were people who were both taller and heavier….similar in proportion.
Even the women who prefer short muscular guys do not nessecarily think they’re marriage material. How do you explain to your upper-class parents & tall lanky siblings that your husband looks like Lee Priest?
Lol no….big muscles have been prized all throughout civilization and human history.
Even the women who prefer short muscular guys do not nessecarily think they’re marriage material. How do you explain to your upper-class parents & tall lanky siblings that your husband looks like Lee Priest?
There is no explaining to do. Short and muscular guys like him are very rare, chicks who date him are probably thinking “yes he’s a dwarf, but damn look at these muscles!”. Or they probably don’t even mind his height if they’re shorter than him.
“But there’s been selection AGAINST muscles in the last hundred thousand years.”
Source?
Pre-humans were more robust than AMH & richard Klein said if a guy from 80 kya walked into his class, only thing people would notice was how well built he was
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100226151130AAYXW3x&guccounter=1
Of course part of the slimming may be malnutrition from agriculture, not genomics. Research the timeline
Rather than respond to every point swank made, Im just going to go for the killshot and say swank has aggravated short man syndrome. That is all.
Peace.
LMAO! That short dude ego booster… Unfortunately, very few miniature men are 19th century French emperors. And by the way, Napoleon was a notorious cuck, his first wife Joséphine slept in every bed in Paris when her short beau was campaigning in Italy and Egypt.
afro is such a hack it’s sad.
napolean (5’7″) may not have been short in his own time and place. hitler was 2″ taller and stalin was 1″ shorter. churchill was also only 5’6″. or so says the interwebs.
at the time americans were the world’s tallest people. george washington really was 6’4″. this really is about nutrition and hybrid vigor.
francois hollande…exact same height as napolean.
putin is also 1″ shorter than napolean.
today the average frogman is between 5’8.5″ and 5’9.5″.
so napolean was likely above average height in his own day…if he really was 5’7″.
and corsicans are shorter than frogmen. so he was even taller for a corsican.
So Constant tells us that Bonaparte was slightly over 5 feet 2. But the valet is of course talking of French feet and inches. This is equivalent to 5 feet 6 inches and a half in the English system, the average height of a French male at the time. Bonaparte was neither tall nor short.
Napoleon was short compared with other French aristocrats.
Louis XVI was 1.90m
Louis XIV was 1.82m
François I was 1.98m
Napoleon and his 1.69m of majesty were probably the shortest to seat on the French throne for centuries.
PP,
With regard to muscle size, you’re right (and I’ve argued the same https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/04/homo-neanderthalis-vs-homo-sapiens-sapiens-who-is-stronger-implications-for-racial-strength-differences/ )
However, though we have more evolutionary transitions than other primates in the study, it did not lead to more muscles nor muscle components (which is a strike against the “scala naturae”):
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/brv.12121
afro has no national pride…it’s sad
afro forgot charlemagne who was 3m tall, but was actually a german. sad!
afro also forgot degaul at 6’5″.
RR,
tell me a personal example about how ”phyisical processes” are ”unstable” or pattern-inconsistent
tell me how your ”IQ” is unstable
Vo2 max changes depending on activity level.
More STABLE the RR’s stubborness…
If the height average difference between male and female is 12cm and the sd is 7, then more than 90% of females are shorter than average men height. So if the criteria is having a man at least 5 cm taller, it’s far less discriminating than muscle. Nobody seems’to believe women like pretty faces with symmetry ?
Personnaly I feel too tall and stocky and I would switch my’rugbyman look for a footballer one of a magician had proposed me when I was 15. Women like both looks . They feel more protected with a bear than a jaguar maybe.
It is if women suddenly wanted shorter men that height would be an extremely discriminating criteria. It would be like women only dating men with 25 cm more than themselves .
There are evolved women who transcende mundane white/or another TRASH world and thanks for this women civilization appeared. Recently i read a very interesting paper showing that ”low-status primates” are more inventive than ”alphas”. Unfortunately i’m not finding this paper but it’s seems just the reality at least among humans. Alphas in the end of day are useless troublemakers parasites.
Seems majority of them, and fundamentally the high status alphas.
Three sets of photographs of men’s bodies were shown to raters who estimated either their physical strength or their attractiveness. Estimates of physical strength determined over 70% of men’s bodily attractiveness. Additional analyses showed that tallness and leanness were also favoured, and, along with estimates of physical strength, accounted for 80% of men’s bodily attractiveness. Contrary to popular theories of men’s physical attractiveness, there was no evidence of a nonlinear effect; the strongest men were the most attractive in all samples.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1869/20171819
Our study found no significant difference in the proportion of variance accounted for in our model by penis size and height (6.1% vs. 5.1%)…The shoulder-to-hip ratio, however, accounted for a much larger proportion of variance in attractiveness in our model (79.6%). (SHR/SWR is a measure of upper body muscularity/strength)
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/17/6925
i mean, the height thing is easy to figure out. a lot of the reason why you rarely see a man with a taller woman is because men are just normally taller than women. if height didn’t matter and people mated randomly…idk, mean difference of five and let’s assume male and female sds of height average to like 2.2 (the male one is around 2.5 and the female one is lower) inches. so it’s var(x-y) = var(x) + var(y)….so 2.2^2 x 2 = sqrt(9.68) = 3.11.
So then we just set the difference to zero, which is 5 inches away from the mean…5/3.11 = -1.60, which means we’d expect 10.96% of couples where the man was as tall or shorter than the woman by chance.
the real number is around 7.5%…..(although in this article they say the random chance would be 10.2%…so back of the envelope, whatever)
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-common-is-it-for-a-man-to-be-shorter-than-his-partner/
the article makes a big deal out of it, but i’m actually shocked that there’s not really that much difference…
in fact, i may have UNDERSOLD how unimportant it is.
“In conclusion, we have shown that all previously documented preference patterns for partner height are at least qualitatively realised in actual pairings. We note, however, that compared to random mating the magnitude of these effects was generally low, suggesting that mating preferences were only partially realised. These results are in line with a recent study that showed that traits considered strongly related to attractiveness, such as height, are not necessarily strongly related to actual pairing”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546926/
“Interestingly, however, men’s reported sexual behavior only partially reinforced the preference data. Consistent with the idea that women prefer relatively tall men, the shortest men in the sample reported fewer partners than other men. These findings confirm that height is relevant on the mating market. Across most of the height continuum, however, there was little variation in mean or median number of reported sex partners. Further, men between 5′7″ and 6′3″ (170–191 cm) varied little in whether they had more than 5 partners, had more than 14 partners, engaged in extra-pair sex, or were currently single.”
“Height and body mass are traits that may be useful cues about health, social status, and heritable fitness. These qualities are valued by women, suggesting that tall men would have more sex partners, whereas short men would have fewer. Surprisingly, however, taller men did not report substantially more sex partners than men other than very short men.”
and lol very short men (midgets under 5’4!) only reported 2 fewer sexual partners — a difference of 5 versus 7.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474704915604563
ahhhhhh…..
The study sounds like pseudoscience. Rating men from photographs != real life interaction. Here’s some REAL research:
you’re ignoring the other study that looked at thousands of actual pairings, i see….
lol damn i’m good. phew. hot dog.
number of sexual partners != attractiveness
You claimed black men were least desired, yet they have the most sexual partners, at least according to lynn (though he sometimes gets his citations wrong):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1006633632359
Also swank, the women in your photograph study did not even know the height of the men. They just saw photographs of men standing alone.
And most importantly swank, your photo study found height DID predict attractiveness independently of perceived strength.
Granted, perceived strength was more than twice as independently predictive, but even holding perceived strength constant, height was moderately predictive.
lol it wasn’t “more than twice” as independently attractive. muscularity ALONE accounted for 70% of the variance in attractiveness ratings. when LEANNESS AND HEIGHT were added, they only explained an additional 10%. it wasn’t “moderately” predicative at all, stop lying.
in the other study, height only accounted for 5.1% of the variance, while SHR accounted for ~80% of the variance in attractiveness ratings — and in that study, they used LIFE SIZED 3d models.
“most importantly,” here is what I said: Height is interesting in that it’s a powerful amplifier. But the independent effect is almost nil and probably boils down to the male taller norm.
and the data on ACTUAL PAIRINGS bears EXACTLY THIS OUT.
The relevant figures are the standardized beta coefficients. For every 1 SD increase in perceived strength, attractiveness increases about 0.8 SD holding height constant. For every 1 SD increase in height, perceived attractiveness increases about 0.3 SD (average across the different values in table 5) holding perceived strength constant.
Click to access 10.1098%40rspb.2017.1819.pdf
i mean, damn dude…
be MUSCULAR
be LEAN
be TALL
Height is only attractive to the extent it allows for more, muscle.
“Contrary to popular theories of men’s physical attractiveness, there was no evidence of a nonlinear effect; the strongest men were the most attractive in all samples.”
so i say, so it is…exactly
you, on the other hand…
it’s behind a paywall, so i can’t see any of that…not that it matters much…
because going with that…getting a fitness model body automatically puts one in the 1/100 level of attractiveness.
getting to 6’4 doesn’t even get you to the top 10% of attractiveness.
so let’s put it to the test!
-2 SD height = -.6 SD attractiveness + 2SD strength = +1 SD attractiveness
+2 SD height = .6 SD attractiveness + 0 SD strength = .6 SD attractiveness
therefore…the 5’4-5’6 (depending on the SD you use) athlete (fitness model territory is more than 2 SD) is more attractive than the 6’3-6’4 normal guy.
😀
and if it’s 70% variance by strength, wouldn’t it be “about” .83 SD?
and it’s not just height that adds the extra 10%…it’s height AND LEANNESS…so i don’t know where you’re getting the .3 for height alone, unless the paper shows that height explains 9% of the variance and leanness only 1%, which seems a bit far-fetched.
depends whether they meant perceived strength alone explained 70% independently or dependently. That is, taller leaner guys may have been perceived as stronger, that’s why you need to see how one variable changes holding others constant which is the point of standardized beta coefficients. Anyway, the paper clearly supports your claim that muscle is most important, but you overplayed your hand by saying height has no independent effect. It has a moderate independent effect.
depends whether they meant perceived strength alone explained 70% independently or dependently.
it was independent.
but you overplayed your hand by saying height has no independent effect
nice try bumpkin:
“Height is interesting in that it’s a powerful amplifier. But the independent effect is almost nil and probably boils down to the male taller norm.”
almost nil != zero.
and that EXACTLY is borne out in the studies.
the 10% is the COMBINATION of leanness and height.
Note the OTHER study that is CONSISTENT with what I say: SHR accounting for 80% of the variance, with height ALONE only accounting for 5%…which makes the correlation .22 or so.
so no, you’re wrong — even with your .3 figure — to assert a “moderate” independent effect.
“+0.30. A weak uphill (positive) linear relationship”
http://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/
Almost nill was a revision of your original statement
And 0.3 is not almost nill. It’s about the same as the correlation between law school grades & LSATs
To me almost nill is less than 0.1
I’ll let you have the last word
first of all, it’s most likely .22
” For example, a correlation coefficient of 0.2 is considered to be negligible correlation while a correlation coefficient of 0.3 is considered as low positive correlation” (table 1).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576830/
regardless, .3 is NOT a moderate anything correlation.
so who is more right — the actual correlation is around .2, which would be considered NEGLIGIBLE, i.e. ‘ALMOST NIL.’