Discussion:
"What if Major Causes of Poverty Are Behavioral?"
(too old to reply)
Byker
2017-07-09 20:32:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sounds like a good reason to encourage distribution of birth control,
no? Make it free for everyone (like in the EU) and you get less poverty
(like in the EU) and fewer teenage pregnancies (like in the EU).
http://tinyurl.com/yaq8yh4t
Why is a U.S. soldier in Iraq safer than a young black man in Kansas City?
Because the enemy in Iraq isn't as dangerous as blacks in Kansas City...
Byker
2017-07-10 19:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449233/millennials-poverty-succes
s-sequence-must-be-followed
[...]
The success sequence, previously suggested in research by, among
others, Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution,
is this: First get at least a high-school diploma, then get a job,
then get married, and only then have children. Wang and Wilcox,
focusing on Millennials ages 28 to 34, the oldest members of the
nation’s largest generation, have found that only 3 percent who
follow this sequence are poor.
[...]
So one way to avoid poverty is to wait until after eduction and
marriage before reproducing. Interesting.
The more education women have the more likely
they are to delay childbirth.
Yup: "Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things
such as whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful
offspring, whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into
reproduction as they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly
dysgenic world—Idiocracy made flesh.":

-----------------------------
The Barren Wombs of Smart Women

by Jim Goad

A statistical analysis from England suggests that a woman’s IQ is inversely
proportional to her desire to breed. This, in turn, suggests that the world
will grow dumber with every new day:
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/23751/56/

In his book The Intelligence Paradox, London School of Economics researcher
Satoshi Kanazawa surveyed data from the United Kingdom’s National Child
Development Study.
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Paradox-Intelligent-Choice-Always/dp/0470586958

Controlling for variables such as education and income, he reached the
following conclusions:

• With each increase of 15 IQ points, a woman’s urge to reproduce is
diminished by 25%.

• The average IQ of women who want children is 5.6 points lower than those
who don’t want them.

• Among all 45-year-old women in England, 20% are childless, but this figure
rises to 43% among those with college degrees.

The paradox is that women who are measurably more intelligent based on IQ
tests are dumber in terms of evolutionary survival instincts. Kanazawa
writes:

If any value is deeply evolutionarily familiar, it is reproductive success.
If any value is truly unnatural, if there is one thing that humans (and all
other species in nature) are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary
childlessness. All living organisms in nature, including humans, are
evolutionarily designed to reproduce. Reproductive success is the ultimate
end of all biological existence.

Kanazawa’s findings correlate with a 2010 Pew survey that found women ages
40-44 with a master’s degree or higher are 60% more likely to be childless
than women who never graduated high school.

“Dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as they do
to defecation.”

Kanazawa is widely known as a “controversial” researcher, which is coded
speech meaning that his results cause significant discomfort among those who
swallow the reigning cultural dogma. In the past he has faced
disapprobation, ridicule, and even job dismissal for publishing studies that
claim black women are less attractive than women of other races due to their
higher testosterone levels, sub-Saharan Africa’s poverty is caused by low
IQ, intelligent men are less likely to cheat on their partners, and
attractive people are more likely to produce female offspring. He also wrote
that if Ann Coulter had been president in 2001, she would have dropped
nuclear bombs on the Middle East and won the War on Terror “without a single
American life lost.”

But it is specifically his research on race and intelligence that causes his
critics to dismissively snort that he is a zero-credibility genocidal
wackjob who peddles junk science riddled with huge methodological flaws that
raise the terrifying notion of eugenics that has long been debunked and
discredited because of, well, Hitler and everything.

Paul Gilroy, a colleague of Kanazawa’s at the London School of Economics,
says:

Kanazawa’s persistent provocations raise the issue of whether he can do his
job effectively in a multi-ethnic, diverse and international institution.

In other words:

His statistical findings do not jibe with our cultural dogma.

Despite all the jeers and catcalls, Kanazawa defends his research:

The only responsibility scientists have is to the truth. Scientists are not
responsible for the potential or actual consequences of the knowledge they
create.

The most egregious blasphemy one can utter in today’s insanely stifling and
repressive climate of intolerant egalitotalitarianism is to gently suggest
that genetics play any role in determining intelligence differences and
relative prosperity between individuals and social groups.

Yet (grab a hankie) that’s what the evidence suggests.

Despite the propaganda the media uses to try and blow out your eardrums, the
scientific consensus suggests that adult IQ is roughly 75-85% inherited. But
due to the currently taboo nature of this fact, Western researchers are
unlikely to even suggest such things publicly without sacrificing their
careers. The Chinese suffer no such ultimately dysgenic superstitions and
are forging ahead in their attempts to crack the code. This might be one of
the main reasons why the coming century could belong to them.

Further buttressing Kanazawa’s findings, global evidence suggests that high
IQ tends to be negatively correlated with total fertility rate. J. Philippe
Rushton’s r/K selection theory noted that parents who actually invested time
and thought in nurturing their children tended to have fewer of them…and
vice-versa.

Intelligent people have the reflective capacity to consider things such as
whether they’d have the economic wherewithal to raise successful offspring,
whereas dumber people tend to invest as much thought into reproduction as
they do to defecation. The end result is an increasingly dysgenic
world—Idiocracy made flesh.

Western sophisticates claim that the world already has enough people, and
many tend to see it as a matter of conscience to not breed. The problem is
that hordes of Third Worlders suffer no such ethical qualms. Paradoxically,
the pampered First World utopian ideal that the world should be intelligent,
sustainable, and filled only with children who are wanted could backfire and
create a planet crammed almost exclusively with emotionally, financially,
and intellectually deprived Third World bastards.

This wasn’t the case before feminism came along to empower women and free
them from childbearing’s oppressive shackles. It wasn’t the case until Big
Brother morphed into Big Daddy and financially penalized the intelligent for
reproducing as it gave handouts that encouraged cretins to spawn. It wasn’t
the case during the Victorian Era, when it wasn’t considered so déclassé for
wealthy and intelligent women to have children and when it’s estimated that
the mean Western IQ was nearly 14 points higher than it is now.

The grand irony is that by failing to breed, this new breed of woman will
breed itself out of existence.

Loading Image...
Loading...