[NOTE FROM PUMPKIN PERSON, March 8, 2017: The following is a guest post by commenter Afrosapiens.  Afrosapiens wanted to respond to one of my most controversial blog posts,  Women have a genetic need to be dominated and men have a genetic need to dominate.  The views expressed below belong to Afrosapiens and do not necessarily reflect those of Pumpkin Person.    I decided not to edit Afrosapien’s post, but I did remove a few parts for brevity and accuracy which explain the occasional ellipses.  To learn more about Afrosapiens, the author of the following guest post, see here]

 

…intimate relationships really are my forte, no bragging here, thinking about it brought back lots of memories and had my fiancée and I going into deep talk about our relationship, our past romances and those of the people we know.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to play Dr. AfroLove, this is or this used to be an HBD blog so I’m going to explore the notion of dominance while formulating short evolutionary hypotheses that I won’t back with scholary references, I just don’t have the time and the risk of confirmation bias is just too strong. The reader must also be aware that this post is entirely subjective, it is a work of a narcissistic guy who sees himself as perfection made man. So don’t be surprised if the definition of a dominant male amazingly looks like a description of himself.

I’ll articulate my essay in two main points. I’ll first try to demonstrate how and why most women are attracted to socially dominant men by exploring the three main aspects of it: competitiveness, risk taking and challenge taking. In a second part, I’ll explain how a man’s social standing determines his ability to dominate his lady in the private sphere by exploring three relevant factors which are possessiveness, control and of course, sexual dominance (I’ll try not to be too graphic).

 

I-SOCIAL DOMINANCE

In this essay, social dominance is not understood as class or race hierarchy, it only includes dominance within each person’s own social network. The best examples of social dynamics at play are found in high school and college times, not because of nostalgia but because secondary and post-secondary institutions randomly select individuals representing the full spectrum of variation in personality and who are on top of that undergoing the peak of hormonal activity of the late teens and early twenties. The age of competitiveness, risk and challenge taking.

1-COMPETITIVENESS

One of the most acknowledged masculine trait is competitiveness, although it is best expressed in sports, boys hate to lose every time they face confrontational situations, even the most trivial ones. On the other hand, girls tend to care much less, and get no shaming for losing. As far as attraction, it is pretty clear that girls prefer winners over losers whereas most men are intimidated by too confident women. It is also obvious that there are winner physiques (jocks and bimbos) and loser physiques (nerds and neurotic bookworms).

As expected, it’s most likely the jocks who attract the bimbos and are confident in their ability to handle them. Winner physiques often command respect by their impressiveness that screams “don’t f**k with me” but a joyful, attractive person that carries a cool aura can be just as dominant by being so popular that getting in trouble with them would be mere social suicide.

When natural charisma is not enough to assert dominance, men retort to threatening behavior and violence. But most often, dominance signaling is expressed in playful situations such as playing sports, pool table, drinking games et caetra. The many girls that I met told me they found nothing sexier than watching men playing ball or strength games and that the winners often aroused non-platonic effects on them. But when the confrontation goes from playful to conflictual, women more than men have the ability to ease the situation and be excellent mediators, hence their superior verbal and emotional abilities.

All of the above makes sense evolutionary wise, of course or bodies were naturally selected for hunting efficiency. But sexual selection probably played a major role with females falling for the men who demonstrated optimal athletic ability and as result, better meat acquisition potential. This likely at least explains in part the evolution of mankind from barely bipedal apes to Usain Bolt, eradicating the inefficient brutish Neanderthals. Heuristically, we can still observe that thousands of years after our survival stopped depending on hunting and gathering, people are still crazy over sports, whether as players or spectators. Another anecdotal confirmation of this hypothesis comes from my past in modeling when I was told that my sprinter morphology represented the ideal body type for underwear shootings.

2-RISK-TAKING

Aside from competition, one other mean to assert domination is taking risks. Some call it sensation-seeking, assuming that people take risks for personal reasons. In my opinion, there is a lot of dominance signaling in risk taking and it’s even more true that people (mostly men) often need an audience to do bad ass things whereas they would have played it safe if alone. By taking risks, you’re telling 1) I’m stronger than danger, death, law… 2) I dare you to do like me, if you’re a real man. In this domain, women keep a very low profile. In fact, they are absolutely not supposed to take risks, they are supposed to care for the children and partner and to be pacifying forces in the community.

I am personally very obedient when I have direct contact with authority. But when I’m left “unsupervised” with peer pressure on top of that, I get indescribable satisfaction from challenging the laws of the State and nature, of course I don’t do life threatening things nor do I take the risk of ending up in jail. But throwing food on pedestrians from a balcony (when intoxicated), tumbling as a goal celebration, jumping from a freakingly high cliff into the sea, racing on the highway or climbing rocks and trees are things that I enjoy. And I do not do just for the thrill of it. Although I know my mamma hates it, I know my lil’ mamma loves it like “damn Afro, you’re hero, and it’s sooo hot” and my male friends will obviously take the challenge or they are pussies.

Taking risks has been crucial for evolution as there is simply no progress in safety. Humans would probably never have left the East African steppe if none of them had been daring enough to cross rivers and mountains, try new plants, new insects, hunt new game… In fact, there is no evidence that early human migrations were triggered by survival pressures and there is one restlessness genetic allele that has been found in higher proportion among new world natives and nomadic peoples.

Nowadays in our man-made, successful risk-takers often get unanimous admiration and even though failure generates contempt or laughter, but a wise person will always say “at least he tried” which is still better than being a f*aggot who stays in his safe zone. This is the Olympic spirit.

3-CHALLENGE-TAKING

The last notion that I want to discuss is challenge taking. In this sub-section, it takes a slightly different meaning than in the two previous ones as it deals with setting personal challenges. I’m talking about the very manly mindset of being ambitious, wanting to make the impossible possible. Of course, women do have ambition but it never reaches the megalomaniac levels seen in men. Also, ambitious women scare men because social ambition distract them from their traditional household duties.

I used the phrase challenge taking instead of ambition because this tendency is expressed in very trivial situations and not just big lifelong schemes. Repairing your girlfriend’s pearl necklace is an instance of making the impossible possible, fixing things around the house as well. In hunting and gathering times, elaborating new tools, better shelter, painting buffaloes in caves were instances of making the impossible possible. All these apparently trivial advances were the precursors of art and technology.

I guess many of you guys will assume that the man at the apex of the evolution is the guy doing silly statistics on his wheelchair. I don’t think so. This man is still the handyman, craftsman or artist, these men turn women on and generate admiration, math geniuses ? Not so much… Why ? Because people just don’t see the actual concrete point of working out extremely complex problems, it is boring and unnecessary for survival. Moreover real math geniuses are rare, most people who are good at maths are just good at using calculators. Now if you indeed believe that you are at the apex of evolution because you’re a nerd, well don’t wonder why you’re not at the apex of your couple or of the sexual market.

II-PRIVATE SPHERE

No, humans aren’t nerdy apes, they are athletic and playful Mr. Fixit. And whether you are indeed a nerdy ape or an athletic playful Mr. Fixit will determine how your girl will rate you. For your girl to let you dominate your relationship, she needs to admire you, you have to be her hero, the one who beats up the other guys, who’s afraid of nothing and makes miracles happen. If your girl has little admiration for you, if she finds you lame and useless, she will express it by invading your natural territories which are possessiveness/jealousy, control and sexual dominance.

1-POSSESSIVENESS

When we think about possessiveness or jealousy, what comes to our minds is the hysterical crises that our chicks went into after coming across an explicit picture or message that we didn’t have the time to erase or even see before she cracked our cellphone codes. Well, that’s impressive, sexy, funny or whatever way you react to that kind of drama. But believe me, girls forgive and forget… If you’re the man in the house.

It’s no surprise that polygyny is a much more sustainable model of society than the opposite. I’ll ask all the feminist readers to skip this part but here’s the truth, your chick(s) is/are your property and you have to let them know, and let the other guys know too. Even if you trust your girl, you have to set limits to what is an acceptable behavior or dress as well as dissuading the other guys of having misplaced intentions, for the sole sake of respect. I’m not talking about buying her hijabs nor even imposing her a strict and modest dress code, there are just limits that vary from culture to culture. If your girl loves and respects you, she will accept your rules, if she doesn’t, man up (show her you’re worth it) or dump her.

On the other hand, you’re not really supposed to tell her what you’re doing and who you’re seeing. And she won’t ask if she doesn’t think it’s worth losing the best man on earth arguing over some side business. Actually, many girls are turned on by knowing that their man is desired and so sexually competent that he exports surpluses outside the home. Men did not evolve to be monogamous, think of Genghis Khan’s or some African Chief’s and merchant’s hundreds of children, the Turkish harems, the Concubines of China’s nobility or les Liaisons Dangereuses à la Cour de France. It’s only the best men that keep the girls and spread their genes.

At the same time, no society can be stable if men are just waging a sex war for the conquest of women. In addition to that, and this will be my last word for this part: fidelity and commitment is the most precious gift you can make to your lady, so put a ring on it dudes.

2-CONTROL

Everybody knows the hardest part of a relationship is to make it work, make concessions, try to accommodate each partner to enjoy the shared feelings as much as possible. And the final aim of this struggle is to gain control over your partner so that they become perfection to you. This goal, in my opinion, should never be achieved, it would literally kill the fun of arguing over small and not so small things.

We can easily measure who dominates a relationship by seeing who’s making more concessions and who’s deciding things in the household. Of course, it’s never sane when one has complete authority over the other like in a parent-child relationship. Also, I doubt we can talk about love when both partners don’t care about what the other does, that’s just ok for fuckbuddies. There must be a balance that has to favor the male, if he has balls.

In that matter, I’ve had varied experiences, especially one which was with an older (married) woman. Well, it was special, I was basically just her pretty little thing ready to do whatever to please her, I stuck around because we had amazing sex and she sort of cast a weird spell on me. but I was actually burning inside, feeling completely emasculated, it had never happened to me before and I made a promise to myself that it never had to happen afterwards. I do better with young girls.

Now the question is, how to assert dominance in the war for control ? You think of violence ? We’ll get back to it later on. The best way to gain control over your relationship is to have these “I don’t take you seriously” or “you’re just looking for attention” attitudes that I got on lock. This how you get away with senseless drama with some “you got it going on tonight”, “alright, let me give you a kiss”, “come into my arms baby” or simply a smile of amazement and incredulity that says “naaah, you just can’t seriously hold that against me” and “I’m not arguing over something so stupid”. And most often, you “win” an argument just like that because your girl has much consideration for you and you make her feel silly. But sometimes it doesn’t, and that’s when it gets serious.

Yelling, saying things that none of us mean, slamming doors, breaking things… It can become really infernal. Be the smartest and concede when you think it’s going too far, you’re not losing. Violence is an attribute of manhood that is meant to be used on other men, not women, not the one who carries your progeny and keeps your home clean. Moreover, I don’t know how women could be attracted to strength if it was meant to be directed against them. But you have to remind her that you have this option.

Hitting walls, doors and furniture or breaking things is silly, instead, destroy the punching bag like it raped your mother. Acknowledging that you backed down, your girl will normally come to you, feeling sorry for taking things this far and she’ll also notice all the chaos that your strength is able to provoke. And… And… The sight of you sweaty with bulging veins everywhere might actually turn her on, and if you’re like me, all that madness might have aroused something in you too. That’s how we get to the last point, sexual dominance.

3-SEXUAL DOMINANCE

Alright, let’s try to keep it safe for work for that last part. I know people have an infinite variety of turn ons when it comes to intimacy and I just can’t tell who’s into what by the way they carry themselves in life. There is one thing I know for sure though: the bed, or wherever you like to do it, is the ultimate place where you can achieve complete dominance over your lady, and that’s what the majority of women expect you to do, or at least those who let me visit their inner parts. Yes, even the nasty MILF wanted to be my thing once we went horizontal.

Honestly, I just don’t know what a guy can enjoy in having his lady doing the job. Being waken up kindly on a Sunday morning by your girl waiting for you to take charge once you’re out of the haze is definitely exciting, but following the orders of a mean dominatrix must be a sign of derangement. Anyway, what a man has to do is to take charge, being all over and all inside, triggering insane sensations, moving her like a doll. That’s how you’re a bedroom hero and women are just as addicted to good sex as men are. Also, and I might cross a limit, but many women fantasize about being raped. None ever told me that obviously but it’s some sort of urban legend and I noticed that the angrier I am, the better they like it. If that legend is true, you perfectly fulfill that desire by being rough and caring about her pleasure at the same time.

Beyond the carnal aspect of sexual dominance, being a beast in the bed is just another way to make her feel your strength and how small she is under you. It relieves frustrations, strengthen the bond and the pleasure you gave to her might even get her to reconsider her position on something you’ve been quarrelling about some time before. Also, I think it’s good to talk after sex. Unless you’re intoxicated saying “goodnight” or “I’m going out” once it’s over is not just rude, it’s a missed opportunity to discuss whatever comes to your mind at that very moment when the two of you feel like one.

CONCLUSION

…I won’t be systematic to the point of saying that all males are genetically inclined to dominate and that all women have to be submissive. However, as androgenes make men taller than women on average, they also make them more dominant on average. They give us the physique, the voice and the mindset. But since there is a large degree of overlapping, a minority of males will be submissive whereas a minority of women will be dominant.

I don’t know how biased this essay is, it’s personal, I grew up in a macho country (France) and evolved in macho social circles and institutions (nobility, military school, Catholic Church, Grandes Écoles, law and business) so many of my views can sound very archaic, or even prehistoric. Whatever you think about it, I’m waiting on you to storm the comments section with scholary references and alternative hypotheses…

 

Can’t believe it’s March already.  That’s so depressing, the winter’s just flying by.  But at least this weekend is FREEZING cold so I can enjoy my signature hot chocolate, but unfortunately I can’t find any good horror movies or dark dramas to watch.

So much in the news.  Trump claiming Obama wired wiretapped him.  I don’t buy it.  I think Trump just made the whole thing up or it’s some right-wing Alex Jones type conspiracy theory.  Even though I don’t think Trump’s especially bright, based on the simplicity and repetitiveness of his vocab and sentences and the smallness of his head, he has brilliant reptilian instincts when it comes to ethnic genetic interests.  He knows tens of millions of working class whites look at Obama as some foreign dark skinned Muslim boogey man, and so he can make up anything he wants about him and the masses will rally around Trump.

Meanwhile Queen Oprah (the woman who elected Obama) has been rocking the media with her chic dark rimmed glasses and 40 lb weight loss, and Weight Watchers stock is on fire.

So many Wallstreet geniuses lost their shirts betting against the most influential woman on the planet and North America’s FIRST and ONLY multibillionaire black.    The conventional wisdom was that the company was going nowhere, but I could picture Oprah just marching into the Weight Watchers board room with her super-human energy, charisma, stratospheric cranium and likely 140 IQ and ordering all those Ivy League MBAs to start making her some money or their out on their ass.

Oprah was recently interviewed  by David Rubenstein who apparently has a talk show now (everyone wants to be the next Oprah, even people who are already billionaires) and he asked her if she would ever consider running for President.  Her reply:

I never considered the question even a possibility, I though, ‘Oh gee, I don’t have the experience, I don’t know enough.’ But now I’m thinking, ‘Oh. Oh.’

The studio audience went wild.  It was amazing how prepared Oprah seemed in this interview. It seemed like everything he asked, she had thought of a hundred times and the wise rhetoric just poured out of her like rain.

Even though it was obvious Oprah was joking, the sheer power of her words is such that the possibility of her running for president made non-stop headlines around the World for 24 hours straight until her best friend of 40 years,  Gayle King Bumpus stepped in to pour rain on the parade, saying Oprah will NEVER run for resident, NEV-AH, and Gayle said she’d bet her own children on that fact.

I agree with Gayle.  People run for President because they want the kind of status and adulation that Oprah already has.  But after years of recovering from the horror of childhood sexual abuse, Oprah has achieved an incredible happiness and inner peace.  Why would she want to go into the dirty game of politics when she can relax on her $100 million Santa Barbara estate overlooking the Ocean and the mountains and read a good novel while sitting under one of the thousands of trees in her yard?

 

It’s a common view among Afrocentrists that the black skinned aboriginals of much of Oceania and South Asia are part of the same black race as sub-Saharan Africans.  Educated people tend to dismiss this as absurd pseudoscience because if you look at the modern human branch of the phylogenetic tree below, you’ll notice that Africans are anything but related to Oceanians.

Notice how the African man and the Oceanian woman (pictured below) are the two most distantly related living modern people on the above tree, even though they’re the two who look the most alike.

And notice how the East Asian woman and the Oceanian woman are the two most closely related living modern people on the above tree, even though they’re the two who look the least alike and have evolved to opposite climate extremes.

Before scientists knew about DNA, they would have grouped the Oceanian with the African which makes a lot more sense intuitively, and yet today we’re told by academic elites to ignore our instincts and listen to the DNA.  This is a classic example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and when it comes to DNA, even experts know only enough to draw the wrong taxonomic conclusions.

It turns out that although genetic similarity is a good measure of how recently you shared a common ancestor with someone, it’s a poor measure of how much you resemble them biologically.  The reason is, evolution needn’t change very much of the genome to create a new race, or even a radically new kind of species, yet at the same time, huge changes in  millions of trivial parts of the genome have virtually no effect.  As Scientific American notes “the secret is to have rapid change occur in sites where those changes make an important difference in an organism’s functioning.”

So my humble advice for biologists is to forget all about genetic similarity when grouping organisms into taxanomic categories like species, genus, or even race, and instead just look at morphology like they used to in the 19th century, because attempts to sort life forms by DNA leads to absurdity.  Take the phylogenetic tree above: notice that one of the earliest modern humans (mitochondrial Eve pictured below) is closer on the tree to homo heidelbergensis (a sub-human primate pictured to Eve’s right, below) than she is to the living modern women from East Asia and Oceania, even though the latter are part of her species and the former is not.

This is because genetic similarity, especially neutral genetic similarity (genes that are not selected for) serves as a molecular clock telling us how long since two individuals shared a common ancestor, but it tells us little about how much of the actual phenotype of that common ancestor they both still share genetically.  It’s the latter that should be used to group organisms into taxonomic categories, not the former.

Failing to grasp this concept is leading to all kinds of absurdities.  Many years ago I was horrified to learn that many scientists are now classifying humans as a type of ape.  I know humans are primates, but surely we’re not apes.  We don’t swing from trees, or have fur, or prognathous faces, and unlike apes, we speak, walk on two legs, write novels, use computers and go to the moon.  Surely there’s a quantum leap between humans and apes and no one with any common sense would put us in that category.

“Nope,” said the scientists, “we’re apes.  We’re close to them of the phylogenetic tree.”

“Yes,” I tried to explain, “but that’s only because we share an ancestor with them recently.  The phylogenetic tree only measures time since divergence, it doesn’t measure how much meaningful change occurred in that time.”

According to the famous pediatrician Hans Asperger, a dash of autism is needed to be a good scientist, but with autism comes communication difficulties and a lack of social awareness,  and classifying humans as apes is a linguistic travesty that discredits the entire field of biology.

Another borderline autistic decision occurred when scientists decided to classify birds as dinosaurs, once again focusing myopically on the phylogenetic tree and ignoring the amount of meaningful change that has occurred between the two types of animals.

I am trying to create a list of the World’s 100 most influential living people, ranked in order of influence from 1 to 100.

Time magazine already has a similar list, but their list is not ranked, and is so absurdly politically correct, incoherent and celebrity focused that I feel they need competition. Forbes publishes a list of the most powerful people in the World, but as Condi Rice once said, power means nothing unless you can turn it into influence. So I am trying to create a list of people who have actually had a real impact; people without whom the World would be a very different place. It could be a good impact or a bad impact.

The list I’m trying to create is inspired by Michael Hart’s list The 100, except his was the most influential people of all time. This list is going to be The Living 100: The 100 most influential LIVING people of all time. But I have to hurry up, because a lot of the people on my list are quite old and could die any day now.

Below is a list of over 160 nominees I am considering, but I need to narrow it down to just 100.  Please share your thoughts in the comment section, on who belongs on this list and who doesn’t.  You can also suggest nominees I didn’t think of.  They can be from any country, work in any field, be famous or obscure, good or evil; the only criteria is that they’ve had a huge influence on history and that they’re still alive.

THE NOMINEES

Tim Berners-Lee: created the world wide web, the most transformative invention of our time.

Mikhail Gorbachev: played a key role in the fall of the Soviet Union

James Watson: co-discovered the structure of DNA

George W. Bush: President of the United States during 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war

Vladimir Putin: According to commenter Tenn “has changed the world’s geopolitical landscape more in the last five years than has any other individual.”

The neocons: Considered the brains, drive and visionaries behind the incredibly transformational foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr: ran America’s most powerful media outlet during a period of incredible political change

James Alexander Thomson: derived the first human embryonic stem cell (SC) line

Abe Karem: invented the predator drone, transforming the nature of warfare

Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer: Created the first genetically engineered organism

 

Hu Jintao: presided over the rise of China

George Soros: Instrumental in advancing leftist policies in America and Europe

Anthony Kennedy: According to commenter Tenn, “US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, as the swing vote on the court has, for many years now, had more power over US law than any other person, including sitting presidents.

An example? Citizens United. Those on the left often deride this case as the one that ascribed personhood to corporations and allowed them unlimited amounts of political spending. Kennedy’s was the vote that swung the decision to the right.

Another example? Obergefell vs Hodges, the decision that legalized same-sex marriage in every US state. Again, Kennedy was the deciding vote; though this time he sided with the left.

Time and again, it’s been his vote that’s chosen the court’s outcome. The rest of the justices tend to vote along ideological lines. Kennedy’s less predictable.”

Paul Berg: contributed to basic research involving nucleic acids

Walter Gilbert: did pioneering work in devising methods for determining the sequence of nucleotides in a nucleic acid.

Alain Aspect: According to thebestschools.org, Aspect settled a 70-year-old dispute between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein over the basic understanding of quantum physics by demonstrating the fascinating phenomenon of entanglement (non-local instantaneous interactions between particles, which Einstein rejected for propagating physical influences faster than the speed of light). Aspect’s work is foundational to the field of quantum computing.

Oprah: Created confession culture & new a more intimate form of media communication, paving the way for social media and reality TV. Broke the taboo over discussing sexual abuse, leading millions of victims to recovery. Even back in the 1980s, popularized a genre of talk show that’s been credited with mainstreaming LGBT people. Played the decisive role in electing the first black president and first lady of the United States, who brought health care to millions of Americans. Her televised book club has been credited with making literature accessible to millions.

Barack Obama: First black in recorded history to ever be the most powerful human on the planet. Brought dignity and status to over a billion blacks. Brought healthcare to millions of working Americans. Saved the world from war with Iran.

Stephen Spielberg: His movies captured the imagination of the World and his film Schlindler’s List had a profound impact on how global elites view the ethical burden left by WWII

Alan Greenspan: influenced the economy of the World’s powerful country and the peak of its power

Tu Youyou: found a treatment for Malaria that saved millions of lives

Donald Trump: the man who ended political correctness

Bill Gates & Paul Allen: played a key role in launching the computer revolution

Ted Turner: launched the 24 hour cable news revolution

George Lucas: According to Trevor Butterwoth of Forbes.com: “Lucas founded Industrial Light and Magic in 1975 to bring his vision of Star Wars to life. ILM went on to revolutionize special effects in the movies, pioneering motion control camera techniques and spearheading the computer-generated imaging revolution in the 1980s. Perhaps more important, Lucas’ original trilogy of movies redefined the economics of the movie industry.”

Ben Bernanke: Chairman of the Federal Reserves during the 2007-2008 financial crisis

Xi Jinping: presiding over the rise of China

Yao Ming: brought status and confidence to millions of males in one of most powerful regions of the World by defying stereotypes about East Asian men

isamu akasaki hiroshi amano and shuji nakamura: invented efficient blue light-emitting diodes, which has enabled bright and energy-saving white light sources.

Bernard Munyagishari: Accused of playing a prominent role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide

Alec John Jeffreys: Considered the inventor of forensic DNA profiling

Margaret Heafield Hamilton: Played a key role in putting humans on the moon

Colin Powell Played a decisive role in shifting American public opinion in support of the Iraq war

Gloria Steinem: The mother of feminism

Ian Wilmut: first person to clone an animal

Angela Merkel: played a major role in changing the demographics of Europe

Bashar Hafez al-Assad: in power during the Syrian refugee crisis

Phil Gramm: According to Time magazine, “He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.”

Richard Severin Fuld, Jr.: was CEO of Lehman Brothers around the time the financial crisis emerged.

chad hurley steve chen and jawed karim: created youtube which revolutionized media

Henry Kissinger: According to Wikipedia, “Kissinger played a prominent role in United States foreign policy between 1969 and 1977. During this period, he pioneered the policy of détente with the Soviet Union, orchestrated the opening of relations with the People’s Republic of China, and negotiated the Paris Peace Accords, ending American involvement in the Vietnam War.”

Howard Kohr: executive director of the AIPAC during a critical period of U.S. foreign policy

Steven J Rosen: One of the top officials at AIPAC during a critical period of U.S. foreign policy

Bradford Parkinson: The father of the Global Positioning System, which revolutionized how we navigate

Steve Wozniak: A major pioneer in the personal computer revolution

Khalid Sheikh (Shaikh) Mohammed: considered a mastermind of the September 11th attacks which dramatically changed the World

The dancing Israelis: Their behavior on September 11th 2001 inspired countless conspiracy theories.

Deng Xiaoping: the man behind China’s economic development and the creator of the one child policy

Jimmy Wales: Changed the way the World shares knowledge

Sheldon Adelson: helped make the U.S. Republican party incredibly pro-Israel

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein: brought down a U.S. president and inspired a generation of journalists

George Romero: created Night of the Living Dead in 1968 and the culture has been obsessed with zombies ever since

Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Christopher “Biz” Stone, Noah Glass: the founders of twitter

DJ Clive “Kool Herc” Campbell: the father of hip hop

Eminem: did for rap music what Elvis did for rock; brought it to a mass white audience.

Madonna: paved the way for an entire generation of provocative female performers such as Lady Gaga and helped make sluttiness culturally acceptable.

Paul McCartney: the leading living member of the most influential rock band of all time

Phil Donahue: pioneered the provocative daytime talk show, the most important counter-culture movement of the late 20th century

Yang Lan: Considered the Oprah of China

Howard Stern: revolutionized American radio and helped make American culture more vulgar and sexual

Nigel Farage: played a key role in the British exit from the European Union.

Manmohan Singh: presided over the rise of India

The Dalai Lama: shaped the spirituality of millions

Ricki Lake: helped mainstream gays by hosting one of the more edgy Oprah style talk shows in the 1990s

Aishwarya Rai: The woman who put Bollywood on the map

Rain: as one of the most worshipped people of all time, he’s inspired millions of young people in the influential region of East Asia

Steve Sailer: iconic blogger who explored taboos and launched a revolution against political correctness

 

Mark Zuckerberg: created the most influential social networking forum

Queen Elizabeth: brought dignity to England for decades

Rupert Murdoch: his global right-wing media empire has changed the World

Jimmy Carter: negotiated a peace between Israel and Egypt

Larry Page and Sergey Brin: dominated the way we search for information in the 21st century

Bill Clinton: President of the World’s most influential country at the peak of its influence

Dick Cheney powerful Vice President during the transformative Bush administration

Barbara Walters: trail blazer and iconic role model for women in media; helped make news more celebrity focused

Mark Burnett: the father of reality TV

James Flynn: Did more to challenge the science of psychometrics and racial differences in IQ than anyone on the planet

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt: Their 2007 book The Israel lobby is credited with influencing the Obama’s administration policy towards Iran

David Plouffe: played a key role in electing Barack Obama president

Diana Ross: helped pave the way for blacks in popular culture. Inspired a young Oprah and Michael Jackson to dream bigger.

Leon Panetta: director of the CIA during the rise of cyber warfare

Noam Chomsky: influenced the field of linguistics and shaped the left’s view of U.S. foreign policy

Karl Rove: played a key role in electing George W. Bush president

David Axelrod: played a key role in electing Barack Obama

Efraim Halevy: served as director of Mossad during a period of great change

George H.W. Bush: President of the United States during the peak of its power, presided over a war, Vice President to the transformative Ronald Reagan and father to the transformative George W. Bush

Gregor Gysi: Wanted for more ethnic diversity in Europe, and with the refugee crisis, he got it.

 

Gerald Levin: consolidated mass media in America

Norman Pearlstine: influential media editor

Michael Eisner: influential media mogul

 

abu bakr al-Baghdadi: the leader of Isis

Richard Dawkins: revolutionized the way we think of evolution and helped cause the decline of religion

 

Edward Witten: influential physicist

 

satoshi ōmura:  discovery and development of various pharmaceuticals originally occurring in microorganisms

Tsai Ing-wen:  Taiwanese politician currently serving as the President of the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan

 

Jin Liqun:  President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald:   prove the existence of neutrino oscillation and that neutrinos have mass

Guo Pei:  best known for designing dresses for Chinese celebrities, and in America for Rihanna’s trailing yellow gown at the 2015 Met Ball

Sonia Gandhi: presided over the rise of India

 

Malala Yousafzai:  Pakistani activist for female education and the youngest-ever Nobel Prize laureate

Kailash Satyarthi:  According to Wikipedia “Indian children’s rights and education advocate and an activist against child labour. He founded the Bachpan Bachao Andolan in 1980 and has acted to protect the rights of more than 83,000 children from 144 countries.”

Amitabh Bachchan: helped put Bollywood on the map

Abhishek Bachchan: helped put Bollywood on the map

Larry King: influenced the media for decades

William Dean Singleton:  American newspaper executive. Founder and executive board chairman of MediaNews Group

Paul Krugman:  influential economist and pundit

Gregory Mankiw:  best known in academia for his work on New Keynesian economics.

Tom Glocer:  former CEO of Thomson Reuters and Reuters

 

Harvey Levin: creator of TMZ

Katie Couric:  The woman who destroyed Sarah Palin’s political ambitions

 

Ehud Barak:  PM of Israel during a critical time

Billy Graham: helped shape the U.S. evangelical movement

 

Bob Dylan:  Inspired the World’s most influential generation with his counter-culture music

Tony Blair:  Dragged Britain into war with Iraq & brought Clinton style third way politics to the UK

Jean Chretien:  By opposing the Iraq war, he made Canada the moral authority of the World

Ellen DeGeneres:  First openly gay mass talk show host

Jerry Springer:  Made America more vulgar and sexual

Bill Maher: broke taboos and promoted atheism

Bill Cosby: helped make blacks mainstream & culturally acceptable

Rush Limbaugh: leader of right-wing talk radio

Al Gore: popularized Global warming

 

Clarence Thomas: spent decades on the Supreme Court of the World’s most influential country

ruth bader Ginsburg: spent decades on the Supreme Court of the World’s most influential country

Hillary Clinton: played a key role in American policy for two decades, first as a politically active First Lady, then as an influential U.S. Senator, then as a Secretary of State, and also inspired countless girls with her historic run for President.

 Judith Miller: Helped convince America Saddam Hussein was a threat

John Carpenter: His 1978 classic Halloween created the modern day slasher film

Dieudonné: Blurring the line between humour and hate in France

 

Milo Yiannopoulos rose to the top of the alt-right universe thanks to his incredibly high verbal IQ, flamboyant gay enthusiasm and the fact that he is fanatically pro-Trump enough to appeal to the masses yet pro-Neocon enough to appeal to the elites who manipulate those masses.

However his career appears to have imploded after the media learned he made the following comments that appeared to some to be defending pederasty:

In the homosexual world, particularly, some of those relationships between younger boys and older men — the sort of ‘coming of age’ relationships — the relationships in which those older men help those young boys to discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock

This was an incredibly stupid comment on two levels:  First, there’s a huge difference between young people needing adult role models and mentors who understand what they’re going through, and those adult role models having sex with them.  When you’re young your sexuality is still developing and any kind of deviant or traumatic experience can permanently affect it.

Secondly, if he’s going to have a theory that disgusting, he should at least be smart enough to keep it to himself.

Verbal IQ allowed Milo to rise to the top, but a lack of Theory of Mind IQ appears to have caused him to come crashing down.

I’m reminded of a great quote from the late great J.P. Rushton who told me:

All of us have successes.  All of us make mistakes.  But high IQ people tend to get further ahead in life, partly because they make fewer mistakes.

One of the reasons the correlation between IQ and MEASURABLE cumulative life-time earnings might be as high as 0.5 is that free market punishes dumb mistakes.  Milo just lost an incredibley lucrative book deal and he’s lost his massive platform at the well funded Breitbart.

My first clue that Milo’s Theory of Mind IQ was not that high was when he described Trump as one of the smartest people in the country; “he’s so, so clever” Milo gushed.

“You know when you talk about intelligence, there are so many different parts to it, ” a wise mentor once told me. “It’s memorization, it’s pattern recognition, it’s…”

The speed of the brain?

“That’s only one part of it!” my mentor said:  “If you want a single umbrella to cover ALL of intelligence….” he said, slowly, carefully, spreading out his arms as far as they would reach to convey the utter vastness of the entity he was describing, “then it’s the ability to adapt; to take whatever situation you’re in, and turn it around to your advantage.  That’s really what intelligence is”

Here we see Milo used one part of intelligence to get to the top (verbal IQ), but his lack of another part of intelligence (Theory of Mind IQ) derailed his success.  In order to get to the absolute top of America, you can’t just be a one-trick pony.  You must be able to adapt.

When I was a young child (I’m now in my 30s), I was VERY conservative, which is odd because I grew up in a liberal household.  Usually the children are more liberal than the parents but in my home it was just the opposite,  and it created a lot of conflict from a young age.

Because the Ontario media was so obsessed with J.P. Rushton I ended up believing in HBD, but because my family was so liberal, I was very uncomfortable about HBD views, and I wanted to know that there were at least some blacks who didn’t fit the racialist stereotypes.

But sadly, everywhere I looked, the oppressive racialist stereotypes were being fulfilled.  From my distorted immature perspective, a lot of black celebrities seemed to fulfill the stereotype that blacks were good at music, dance and sports, rather than more substantive pursuits.  Even witty black celebrities like Bill Cosby and Eddie Murphy fulfilled the stereotype of blacks just being clowns there to amuse whites.  And gangsta rap was the embodiment of the most violent and sexual of black stereotypes.

And then I started watching Oprah and for the first time in my life, here was a black person who just exuded intelligence and dignity.  And while she could be incredibly entertaining, much of the time she discussed serious issues in an articulate way. Despite being fat, she was so dignified in how she carried herself, crossing one obese panty hosed leg over the other with lady-like precision; putting her finger on her chin pensively as she listened to her guests.  Despite her chronic overeating, when it came to hair and makeup, she was meticulous.  “Word in the ghetto is Oprah got the best hair,” joked Eddie Murphy.

November 1988 Ms. magazine observed:

 in a society where fat is taboo, she made it in a medium that worships thin and celebrates a bland, white-bread prettiness of body and personality…But Winfrey made fat sexy, elegant — damned near gorgeous – with her drop-dead wardrobe, easy body language, and cheerful sensuality.

But while  my feminine side was admiring Oprah, my masculine side had joined the cadets and this made me extremely homophobic because in the cadets at the time (I’m sure it’s different today), it was taboo for a guy to even touch another guy in any way (not even tapping him on the shoulder) and they were constantly calling one another “fags” and “queers”, and wanting to fit in, I subconsciously internalized this homophobia and became very hostile towards gays.

One afternoon while watching Oprah, the audience was full of male body builders as well as women with very short hair died white.  Another show about gays I thought with a sigh.

And Oprah was no longer the fat best friend America had fallen in love with, but a svelte, more militant Oprah.

There was a nerdy conservative intellectual who was very much opposed to gay marriage, arguing that we can’t let gays marry because the definition of marriage is a man and a woman, so if it would be like, the definition of water is H2O, so if we start calling vinegar water, that changes the definition.

“Are you implying that heterosexual is to water and gay is to vinegar?” asked Oprah.

“No of course not,” he huffed condescendingly “that’s just an analogy”.

But the climax of the show was when some redneck woman wearing a cowboy hat stood up in the audience and said “gays are constantly flaunting their gayness and I’m tired of it!”

There was a quiet smattering of applause from the few anti-gay people in the studio audience that day.

And then, in one of the most powerful moments in TV history, Oprah walked right up to her and said “you know what I’m tired of?  HETEROSEXUAL MALES RAPING AND SODOMIZING YOUNG GIRLS. THAT’S WHAT I’M TIRED OF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

By the time Oprah had finished her sentence, almost the entire audience of gay body builders and bleach white haired lesbians were standing up screaming and applauding hysterically.  It was total pandemonium, and one of the most electric things I had ever seen.

Part of the reason the reaction was so enthusiastic was that Oprah seldom gave political opinions in those days, so to hear the World’s most influential woman give one that was so succinct, loud, powerful and graphic, and on behalf of an oppressed minority other than her own, just brought the house down.  In that moment, my homophobia was cured.

Later in the show, a black woman stood up and said “I just want to say homosexuality is wrong because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”

Emboldened by the pro-gay audience, Oprah cut her off dismissively: “Okay I hear what you’re saying, but I have to move on.”

Unfortunately the nerdy homophobic conservative was not happy with the direction the show had taken and wanted to knock Oprah off her high horse, and sensed his opportunity:

“Oprah who among us, who have been raised by a mother and a father, woud trade that for being raised by two men?”

“But isn’t a child better off there than in a home where there’s abuse?” Oprah replied.

“Oprah, you can’t compare a worst case scenario.  Isn’t a child better off there than in a burning building?  You could come up with a hundred scenarios. Oprah don’t be absurd!”

Rather than trying to defend an awkward argument, Oprah had the cognitive adaptability to shift gears completely, by saying “I wasn’t trying to absurd, sir”

The tone in her voice made it clear that he had crossed the line, and the nerd walked it back by saying “well, that’s just the way it seemed to me”

Big brained Oprah then cleverly used her power which he did not have, by cutting to commercial break.  Intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt any situation you’re in to your advantage, but part of adapting to a situation is having the lateral quick thinking and executive brain functioning to change the situation into a more favorable one, rather than perseverating on the one you’re in.

The notion that autism is the opposite of schizophrenia can probably be traced to scholars Bernard Crespi and Christopher Badcock, who marshalled quite a bit of support for their incredibly elegant model in 2008:

Autistcs are often non-verbal while schizophrenics talk constantly.

Autistics tend to have a spatial IQ > verbal IQ profile, and a fluid IQ > crystalized IQ  profile, while schizophrenics tend to have a verbal IQ > spatial IQ profile and a crystalized IQ > fluid IQ profile.

Autistics tend to have good local brain processing and lots of short range brain connections, while schizophrenics tend to have good global brain processing and lots of long range connections.

Autistics tend to be hyperlexic while schizophrenics tend to be dyslexic.

Autistics tend to have hyper-glutamatergic neurotransmission with high rates of epilepsy, while schizophrenics tend to have hypo-glutamatergic neurotransmission

Autistics tend to pay less attention to gaze while schizophrenics have so much gaze sensitivity, they get paranoid everyone is looking at them

Autistics have reduced shared attention, while schizophrenics have delusions of conspiracy

Autistics tend to have reduced personal agency while schizophrenics have megalomania, delusions of reference

Autistics tend to have hypo-activation of BA8,44,46 in functional imaging studies, while these tend to be hyper-activated in schizophrenia

Autistics tend to have reduced activation of resting brain network while the schizophrenic resting brain network is increased

Autistics tend to have larger brains (at least in childhood), while schizophrenics have smaller brains

Autistics tend to preserve grey matter as they age, while schizophrenics show rapid grey matter loss.

Autistics have a larger more reactive amygdala while schizophrenics have a smaller amygdala

Autistics have relative right-hemisphere dysfunction while schizophrenics have relative left-hemisphere dysfunction

Autistics seem to have increased structural brain asymmetry while schizophrenics seem to have decreased structural functional asymmetry

Autistics suffer from literalness, inability to deceive, while schizophrenics suffer from delusional mentality, magical ideation

Autistics have reduced imagination and less symbolic play as kids while schizophrenics have complex social delusions and enhanced imagination in psychotic savants.

Autistics suffer from repetitive behavior, resistance to change, and focus on one or few aspects of the environment.  By contrast schizophrenics suffer from reduced filtering of stimulus relevance, loose associations and enhanced creativity.

Autistics tend to have relatives that major in the technical sciences while schizophrenics tend to have relatives that major in the humanities and social sciences.

If this model turns out to be scientifically correct, instead of just based on selective interpretation of the literature, then I think these two gentlemen deserve the Nobel Prize, which would be especially great since Crespi is a Canadian.

Their theory has certainly inspired a lot of the ideas on this blog, including controversial ideas Crespi and Badcock would probably be horrified by.

For more on their BRILLIANT research, I suggest you watch this great lecture by Crespi:

Most of the most prolific commenters are in moderation anyway so I’ve decided to just return to full moderation.

 

[Update Feb 6, 2017: I just did an internet search of others who had posted on similar topics to this in the past and iconic blogger Steve Sailer deserves enormous credit for many of the ideas in this post]

There are at least four major types of masculinity.  Two of them mental and two of them physical.

1. Cognitive masculinity

This is characterized by having a spatial IQ > verbal IQ, and a math IQ > Theory of Mind IQ.  If you have extreme cognitive masculinity you become autistic.  One of the great mysteries is why some autistics are billionaire computer Geniuses and Nobel prize winners and so many others are severely mentally retarded.  Perhaps it’s because if your verbal IQ is too much lower than your spatial IQ, then you can’t learn language and if you can’t learn language, you can’t function at all in human society, but a little autism appears to be a good thing.

By contrast if you have very little cognitive masculinity, you will rely on intuition instead of logic which is good up to a point, but if you travel too far down that road you become a delusional schizophrenic.

2. Emotional masculinity

This is where I’m lacking.  People are always complaining that I am too nice and too moral for my own good and at work I have so much trouble firing people because like a woman, I worry so much about what will happen to them and have way too much compassion for others, including animals and even plants (which makes no sense since plants can’t feel pain).  Ideally a leader needs to be tough and devious and not let people take advantage of him, but you don’t want to be too emotionally masculine because you’ll be a psychopath.

One reason women like “bad boys” is because they’re emotionally masculine.  I was watching a documentary about my favorite horror franchise Halloween, and while most of the hard-core fans were guys, a few were blond blue eyed very sexual women who were such huge fans of the series that they flashed their breasts to the camera asking “see anything you like?” (a reference to a nude scene in the original Halloween).  When asked why they loved the films’ iconic serial killer Michael Myers so much, one woman gushed “there’s something so masculine about him.”

Nobody cared about actor Michael C. Hall when he played David in Six Feet Under but once he played Dexter the serial killer, he suddenly became a sex symbol, even though the former was a much better show.

3. Vertical masculinity

This is simply how tall you are.

4. Horizontal masculinity

This is simply how muscular and robust you are

Masculinity and evolution

As humans evolved from the apes, we became less masculine emotionally and horizontally, but more masculine vertically.  This is probably because it’s a more efficient design because being tall and thin consumes fewer calories than being short and robust yet gives you more speed and reach, though less strength.

Masculinity and social class

There are also social class differences in masculinity with the upper class being more vertically masculine and the lower classes being more horizontally masculine.  This may help explain the negative correlation between IQ and weight/height ratio.

I noticed this when I went to the gym with an extremely wealthy co-worker.  While most guys there were trying to lift the heaviest weights possible, he would only lift pathetically light weights with lots of repetition because he felt that at a height of 5’8″, he would look disproportionate if he gained muscle.

While the lower classes believe the more muscle the better for all men, the upper classes only approve of muscle on men of a certain height and perhaps only up to a point.  Some in the upper class consider it worse to be short and muscular than it is to be short and scrawny or even short morbidly fat.  I find this very weird but perhaps it’s because the upper class having higher IQs, have a greater sensitivity to abstract concepts like irony or perhaps it’s just class genetic interests discriminating against physiques that reflect blue collar gene pools.

Many guys in the HBD-o-sphere worship Alpha males and are totally ashamed of their own nerdiness.  I find this annoying because back when I was in high school (I’m now in my 30s) I was somewhat popular with the “cool” kids because they loved my impersonations of the teachers, but I always wanted to hang out with the nerds.  To me nerdiness represented intelligence.  I viewed nerds as more highly evolved and genetically superior.  The problem was I don’t look like a nerd, and nerds were interested in talking about HARD sciences and science fiction, and I was interested in the social sciences and horror films.

But it’s not surprising that nerds feel inferior to “alphas” because according to J.P. Rushton’s theory, as humans became more evolved, they developed a K reproduction strategy (lower birth rates but higher survival rates) and with that came lower self-esteem, because if you only mate with one woman, you don’t need the ego to pursue numerous partners.  Further, as humans migrated North, there was more need for technological intelligence to build shelter, tools and clothing and less need for the social IQ to pickup women, so the social part of the brain began to shrink, to make room for more technical processing.

The low self-esteem combined with scrawniness, glasses and social obtuseness makes nerds feel they can’t score with women  but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Economist Peter Orzag is an example of a guy who is a complete stereotypical nerd, yet always has a gorgeous woman on his arm, and is ranked by the media as one of the sexiest guys in Washington.

The SFGate gushed:

Any dude who can snag ABC newscaster Bianna Golodryga while banging wealthy shipping heiress Claire Milonas, and running the country’s budget is a man.

This must infuriate the dumb jocks who probably shoved him in his locker in high school.

One reason women like him is that he’s extremely self-confident, and women don’t expect that from a nerd so they’re pleasantly surprised.  If you’re a nerd, a little bit of alpha goes a long way.

I’m friends with a guy who despite being tall and athletic, never had much success with women.  One Halloween he was desperate for a costume so he dressed up like a nerd with exaggerated glasses and a pocket protector.  To my utter astonishment, women at the very upscale bar we were at could not stop hitting on him.  It occurred to me that women grade guys on a curve.  When he was a jock he was only average in height and athleticism for a jock so women ignored him, but when he became a nerd he was in the top 10%.