The “education gap” in dating is bullshit

Women prefer men to belong to either the same or a higher socioeconomic class. Men want women from the same or a lower socioeconomic class. In this context, it is often pointed out that today’s “high-achieving women” can’t find any suitable men. Susie’s got a PhD in Education, so she just can’t date some Joe Schmoe with a meager BSc in Petroleum Engineering.

I bet you can already see where this is going.

The issue is that comparing degrees nominally is ludicrous. There are two good reasons to get a degree. First, to get a good job. Second, to get an education. Those are not necessarily the same. An example of the former was given above: a degree in engineering. An example of the latter means studying a field that may not make you very employable, or at the least not directly, but which will train your mind. Think of fields like theoretical physics, pure mathematics, logic, theoretical philosophy, that kind of thing. If you get a degree in such a field from a highly selective university, you’re certainly smart, and you’ll be able to transition into a more applied field with relative ease. Or you could be like some of the people I studied with and have the option to get a Master’s in whatever you want and work in your dad’s company afterwards, or do a PhD in your field of interest for fun and retire right afterwards, living off your trust fund, because money is no concern for you.

However, when I consider that my local university churns out more graduates with Master’s degrees in Gender Studies, Cultural Studies, Sociology and whatnot than they graduate STEM majors, I can only laugh. Women are overrepresented in academia, but they flock towards worthless degrees. Even worse, plenty study at shit universities, yet they think they’ve got a Master’s or a PhD so any guy who would want them has to at least match their formal level of education. Give me a break! Getting a BSc in mathematics at a good university is hard. Getting a BA in Sociology at a garbage-tier university is a joke. Heck, getting a PhD in a non-STEM field is often laughable. In this context, I recall reading that the average IQ of PhDs in Education is around 110. If this is what you bring to the table, you are not very likely to make it through the first semester a good STEM BSc program. Yet, Susie with a PhD in Education surely looks down upon Jeff with his STEM BSc. Jeff doesn’t care, because he’s making bank and dates women ten years younger than Susie.

48 thoughts on “The “education gap” in dating is bullshit

  1. I have an IQ of around 110.

    Not smart enough for a STEM degree.

    Now what? Are you going to laugh at me because I chose to study politics and languages?

    I hope not. I just know my place, always have. And my girlfriend has a degree which is equivalent to mine.

    I had like 30 lays in my life and you’re correct, none of the girls were more intelligent than me.

    I had dates with more intelligent girls and they rejected me for lacking ambition (or so they said).

    Ah well, what are you going to do? I can’t change my IQ and genetics.

    I still find these posts very condescending.

  2. imo it seems men never care what class or status a woman is or is from, until they had a few that were above their own and see just how vile and conceited they can be.

  3. “theoretical physics, pure mathematics,”

    its actually relatively easy to get a great job with these degrees provided you don’t confine yourself to academia. And its not just for the “highly selective universities”. BCG, McKinsey, etc. regularly recruit at Vienna University of Technology (no-name university, internationally speaking), for example.

    1. You won’t work as a theoretical physicist, though, which was my point. Also, I’d be careful when using the phrase “relatively easy to get a great job” and MBB in the same sentence. If you train in such a field, you will be indirectly employable, compared to an engineer who will be directly employable.

  4. What do you think, sleazy, of all this affirmative action to get women into Stem and giving them stem jobs? I recall GE recently doing some initiative about the “stem gap”.

    For example : http://www.gereports.com/engineering-future-ges-goal-bridge-stem-gender-gap-2020/

    My prediction : while there may be solid women who have STEM smarts, the majority will get STEM jobs and get favoured, plum treatment and access.

    Then they can’t do the tech work and paradoxically, get promoted so they can do no harm as a manager or project manager. Essentially the Peter principle in play. Then said women become conceited and say “see women were built to be STEM leaders”.

    See Sleazy libtardism in your face, bro! It works!! /s

    1. Affirmative action for chicks in STEM is already happening. I’ve seen women getting promoted very quickly as well, and not because they were so great at their job. Give STEM a few more years, and it’s the same shit show as every other industry. At that point, China will eat our lunch. (I know cases of highly competent guys not getting a job they were the top candidate for because HR and “corporate policy” insisted on hiring more women.)

  5. “Susie’s got a PhD in Education…studying a field that may not make you very employable”
    People with degrees in education have among the lowest unemployment rates.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/25-college-majors-with-lowest-unemployment-rates/
    3.6% unemployment for education majors, vs 5% unemployment for engineering and math majors.

    People with PhDs in Social Sciences actually have lower unemployment than people with PhDs in Engineering and Computer Sciences: (1.9 vs 2.8 vs 2.1)
    https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf14310/

    Also, difficulty is subjective. Some people may find writing and social sciences easier, some people may find math easier. Neither is necessarily superior. We need all different sorts of people with different skills to keep the world going.

    1. You’re funny. If you work as a barista with your BA in Ed, you are employed. A better metric is how much you earn.

      The source you cited furthermore contradicts the point you are trying to make. Scroll to the end, and you’ll see that it is claimed that Astrophysics/astronomy has an unemployment rate of 0%. How’s that? It also links to further sources that corroborate my claim that Education is for idiots (“easiest degree to earn”).

      No, we don’t need millions of morons studying bullshit subjects to keep the world going. If we culled the herd by 10% every generation, we’d be a lot better off. The push for increased enrollment numbers was largely due to high unemployment. Put Joe and Jill with their barely average IQs into college, and their under or unemployment will be a problem for whomever wins the next election.

      Furthermore, the kind of “writing” your IQ 100 Sociology students produce is a genuine waste of everybody’s time. Also, it is utterly bizarre to assume that someone would struggle with social sciences but not with pure mathematics. What kind of meds are you on?

    2. @Jen D

      You’re wasting your time.

      I had this discussion with colleagues of mine who have the same background as me (literature degree, languages, etc.) and they told me they’ve suffered the same abuse from what I call STEM nerds.

      To them anything that’s not math, physics or sciencey is useless, worthless. That’s what Aaron and his followers think. We should all become engineers, scientists, mathematicians to be considered valuable people.

      Translators, copywriters, administrative employees, webdesigners, lawyers, butchers, etc. They’re all trash, parasites. If only they had studied STEMS!

      I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees the arrogance in some of your posts.

    3. Look up how many non-STEM grads are underemployed. People of your ilk love to make the argument that we also need musicians, songwriters, playwrights, and so on, but then look at the average graduate in those fields! If you made the humanities extremely selective, then they’d be valuable.

    4. “Also, difficulty is subjective.”
      No, it isn’t.

      “Some people may find writing and social sciences easier, some people may find math easier.”
      No.
      Intelligence does not cherry picks.
      Only people who are bad at math claim this.
      They say : “I am probably just better something else.”
      False dichotomy.
      It is hard to admit you are just dumb.

      PS:
      I have never heard someone working in STEM fields saying that they don’t understand literature or history.

    5. Great comment! To add to your last sentence: I have heard shitlibs claim they “understand” something but can’t explain it, often in the most hilarious contexts: quantum theory, calculus, Foucault. The first two they most definitely don’t understand, while French “intellectuals” write in a deliberately obscure manner so that they are impossible to understand, but instead allow you to read more or less anything into their words, not unlike poetry, but without literary qualities. Also, supposedly educated people often resort to bizarre theories to “explain” simple phenomena. You’ll find Econ majors who will dispute that money supply correlates with inflationary, and “explain” this by making various additional assumptions (pace of innovation etc.) that don’t even salvage their position if you just thought about it for a second or two, or people in Finance who believe that “this time, it is different” with regards to bubbles.

    6. Not being good at math = being dumb.

      Noted.

      It’s not that I wasn’t good at math, it’s just that it took me way more efforts than the future STEM nerds in my class when I was in high school.

      Also, to stay on topic with what is mostly discussed on this blog. I remember the STEM nerds, no way any of them are getting laid on a regular basis.

      That’s why I can’t believe any of the guys saying things like “if you don’t have STEM degree, you’re dumb!”or “Lol at having an IQ of 100” (more or less) are doing so well with women.

      Most famous PUA’s don’t get laid regularly that’s for sure, but I also have huge doubts about the people commenting on here. From the way you all write, from the way you perceive people who are not science-minded, no way you guys are doing so good with women.

      I may not be good at math and I may not have a STEM degree but I’m 6’3, above average, relatively muscular, and I have a strong social intuition and empathy (this is where STEM nerds often lose), empathy that allows me to respect STEM nerds who excel at what they can do best. I never felt the need to attack them, but they always want to showcase their supposed superiority.

      If you saw me, you’d have no doubt about me getting laid. All the STEM geniuses I know thought… I wouldn’t be surprise if most people commenting on here looked like them. Mediocre looks + STEM semi-autistic mind = probably incel.

    7. What is your issue with STEM and people who are smarter than you? Believe in your false dichotomy (intelligence vs getting laid) all you want, but, fact of the matter remains that a high IQ is universally useful. Fluid intelligence will go down with age, but crystalized intelligence remains. As a consequence, people like you will only get dumber as they age, while the high-IQ minority you look down upon will not.

      By the way, I question that empathy and social intuition are necessary for getting laid. You’ll arguably get a lot farther by having no empathy at all and being of a rather calculating nature. Look up the “dark triad”.

    8. Intelligence does cherry pick in a way. Almost all models include 2nd order factors which could be subsumed under nonverbal and verbal intelligence. The two are correlated and therefore form a general factor but the correlation isn’t perfect.

      Jen is right, it is entirely possible to be good at math but only have average ability to understand text and articulate thoughts.

    9. If there were a perfect correlation between two variables, you could throw out one of them, so your argument does not hold water as this is not the gold standard. There is a positive correlation between multiple “intelligences”, because you’ll have “g” at the center, which stands for “general intelligence”. (No, “emotional intelligence” does not exist. It is a consequence of a particular combination of personality traits.)

      I would need to see conclusive proof that you could be two standard deviations above the mean for abstract reasoning (maths) but somehow only managed to have average text comprehension.

    10. There used to be a debate whether intelligence is a general factor or consists of multiple factors. At the core of the argument was lack of appreciation how factor analysis is heavily influenced by the sample.

      If you administer an IQ test to a sample drawn from general population then analysis will show the existence of one general factor. If you administer the same test to a sample of college students who mostly have above average IQ then multiple factor solution will show up instead.

      For the sake of argument lets assume that correlation between non-verbal and verbal intelligence equals 0.5
      Then it follows that:

      Person with 130 verbal IQ will most likely have 115 nonverbal IQ.
      Person with 130 nonverbal IQ will most likely have 115 verbal IQ.

      The two have identical general intelligence but the one can finish math masters degree program while the other will fail.

      Obviously 0.5 correlation is just an educated guess based on the fact that IQ tests measuring general ability tend to correlate between 0.6-0.8

    11. Average = IQ 100. I would find it hard to believe that there are many people with a “nonverbal” IQ of 130 but a “verbal” IQ of just 100. Also, referring to your example, the second guy can easily complete a Maths degree, but could just as well finish a degree in English. The first one could only do the latter. Look up studies on college major and IQ.

    12. 0.5 correlation only explains 25% of the variance which means that about 13 points of IQ variance is left unaccounted for. If expected verbal IQ is 115 then about one quarter of cases will have verbal IQ of 105 and below.
      If we use 109 instead of 105 as a cut-off, which is an official cut-off btw, then that number rises to one third.

      Also why not compare engineering to law and medicine as they are highly loaded with verbal IQ. One could also make a point that verbal ability is more predictive for getting a managerial role.

    13. I’ll have to side with Jen and Skepdick on this point.

      (this is an imperfect analogy, but bear with me) Understanding theories in social science (or even) philosophy is kind of like social intelligence.

      You can have amazing math skills and an iq of 180 but terrible social intelligence. It’s not a perfect analogy. But very similar. This is coming from someone (me):

      – Who bashes the shit out of social science as being bullshit (compared to hard science)
      – Who majored in a social science
      – I come from a line of famous scientists (in the hard sciences)

      But i’ll still tell you that no, a low IQ person will not be able to understand some of the more complex theories in sociology or psychology. Some of them require a pretty high IQ and ability to do abstract thinking.

    14. “famous scientists”

      That’s an exaggeration. I meant highly influential. As in hold high positions of power in hard science fields and institutions.

    15. Average = IQ 100. I would find it hard to believe that there are many people with a “nonverbal” IQ of 130 but a “verbal” IQ of just 100.

      You’ve got to factor-in personality traits in there. People with a 130 IQ come in many different personality types.

      – As skepdick pointed out, someone can have 130 IQ in non-math, and “only 115” in math

      – But factor in personality and preferred thinking modes (aversion towards maths, lack of concentration when trying to do math, etc)… Their ability (real world ability to do math) can fall to the level of a 100IQ person.

      That’s why some high IQ people become entrepreneurs vs engineers. How you prefer to apply that IQ makes a difference. The enterpreneur would rather come up with business strategies and cool marketing plans nobody could come up with.

      Guess what? That brings up another point

      The genius marketer coming up with an ingenious marketing idea (which generates billions for corporations) is probably smarter than your average stem graduate. Why didn’t he go to stem?

    16. I will admit that if we compare like-for-like, it’s true.

      – The average marketer is probably dumber than the average engineer.
      – The average sociology major is dumber than the average maths major

      But… a genius psychologist that comes up with a paradigm-changing view of the mind is smarter than your average code-monkey who came out of computer science.

      A genius copywriter that changes how marketing is done and quadruples the profits for an already successful company is probably smarter than your average physics major.

    17. There will always going to be some geniuses, and there will always going to be loads of ding bats everywhere.
      As much as I can laugh to psychologists, yes, there are different kind of intelligences. How those intelligences are developed it varies on the way the child was rised, obviously.
      I’ve met guys who studied an enginee degree just because they hated reading a lot and would rather spent their time crunching numbers… And then dropped out when they saw all those doorstoppers they had to study!
      I studied laws because I was too lazy and apathetic to make an effort to engage in maths. I just didn’t care and I never found them appealing. I just kept failing math and physics at high school, yet when I had to study them seriously to avoid getting stuck, I could just breeze away -and then I clicked the ‘self-destroy’ button in my head and I forgot about those boring maths. Now I deeply regret doing that.
      But I have to agree that all the humanities is chock-full of outright fucktarded people.
      Oh, and I find quite amusing how some guys get so triggered when you say their careers are shit -or at least not so intellectually challenging as others. Stop being so thin skinned, guys.

  6. What’s your opinion on healthcare fields such as nursing? The job market is on the rise and pay pretty good in big cities.

    1. That’s an excellent field to be in, at least in the US and UK. In Europe, there are large differences between countries. In some, pay is decent and the profession is respected, in others it’s the exact opposite.

  7. Sry, this is just in German, but there are some subtle tongue-in-cheek parts:
    https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/fachkraeftemangel-ingenieure-haenderingend-gesucht-ld.1291542

    It’s an article about how Switzerland does not have enough engineers.

    “Doch auch im benachbarten Deutschland werden Ingenieure allmählich rar. Mit der demografischen Entwicklung dürfte sich die Situation weiter zuspitzen.”

    I’m actually impressed. This is a rather to the left tilting newspaper. Yet they point out to demographic changes (GIMMEGRANT OVERLOAD) causing less and less qualified workforce.

    “Allerdings besteht eine erhebliche Differenz zwischen den geforderten und den tatsächlichen Eigenschaften der Job-Kandidaten, wie Rudolf Minsch von Economiesuisse an einer Medienkonferenz ausführte. Oft mangle es ihnen an Weiterbildung, an ausgewiesenen Erfolgen oder an sozialen Kompetenzen.”

    So engineers lack social competence 🙂 Uhm, I guess you can’t have it all.

    “Im Urteil von Minsch sind zugleich bei der Ausschreibung des Studiengangs vermehrt auch die Sinnhaftigkeit und die Bedeutung der Ingenieurs-Tätigkeit hervorzuheben. Dies würde seiner Ansicht nach dazu beitragen, vermehrt auch Frauen anzusprechen. Hier besteht offenbar noch grösseres Aufholpotenzial: Lediglich 16% aller Erwerbstätigen im Ingenieurwesen waren 2015 Frauen. Bereits bei den Abschlüssen weist die Schweiz im Vergleich mit anderen Ländern einen ausgesprochen geringen Frauenanteil auf. Auch Teilzeitstellen sind rar.”

    Ufff, as I said, leftist news paper. So no part time offers? Well how about paying engineers so much that their women won’t have to work, instead of trying to get women into such jobs?
    (Besides, where is the push to get more men to work as midwifed? This will ramp up birth rates I’m sure… \sarc)

    I make six figures p.a. in finance and I certainly add less value to society than an engineer.
    Technically I could feed a family of three, maybe four. I haven’t studied mind you.
    An engineer here in Switzerland enters at 80k-ish maybe 90k. Aaand that’s about it for the next few years.
    Admittedly, I hat a rather speedy career, but I went from 40k in to six figures in three years.
    I mean, I don’t complain, but from an overall society view, this is not sustainable to underpay engineers as it is now.

    “Laut Daniel Löhr, Vizepräsident des Berufsverbandes, besteht auch bei den Löhnen Handlungsbedarf. Das jährliche Medianeinkommen (die Hälfte verdient weniger, die andere Hälfte mehr) eines Ingenieurs liege heute bei 117 000 Fr. «Eigentlich müsste es 150 000 Fr. betragen», gibt sich Löhr überzeugt.”

    Median income is 117k? Not sure who pays this. As long as entry salaries are much lower than in finance it’s going to be difficult.

    “Probleme ortet Minsch ausserdem im Mathematik-Unterricht. Bereits in der dritten und vierten Primarklasse verlören durchaus fähige Schülerinnen und Schüler ihr Interesse an Mathematik. Hier laufe etwas schief.”
    –> “durchaus fähige Schülerinnen und Schüler” now how the fuck is this being assessed?

    But yes, math sucked big time when I was in school. Ten years later I actually like it, thanks to Khan Academy.

    1. Great article! For the left, everybody is the same, so if some low-IQ minority can’t keep up, it’s because of the patriarchy, or something like that. Therefore, everybody who fails is “durchaus faehig”.

  8. The university workloads in the STEM fields can be brutal. Aside from having the necessary work ethic, you had better be smart enough to handle the material. If we do not have enough engineers, the two solutions that come to mind are to pay them more and spend more time emphasizing math and science education earlier on in schools. I doubt the solution is to press gang more women and minorities into the STEM fields, especially if they are not interested or not capable.

    My first degree is in the liberal arts so while I do not completely dismiss the liberal arts, the reality is most businesses are not frantically begging for gender studies and literature graduates. A friend of mine with a bachelor’s degree in sociology ended up as a plumber so at least he saw the writing on the wall. Given the issues in replicating a lot of social science research, you would think a lot of practitioners would be in a state of utter and complete panic.

  9. the first thing on my mind would be studentloans. most off the women cant even pay back their own studentloans so their education is nothing but a liability to me. besides i would be more interested if she spend those hours in the gym instead. higher education means more feminist brainwashing and inflated ego’s. you dont have to be smart to get a degree, you just have to put down the money. women value things like this in a partner so they assume their sexual market value would go up as well. while in reality most men would be more impressed by a nice body figure instead off a degree. besides even if she has a good job the chances are she’ll stops working the moment she gets children so most if not all finances will be on the man’s pay anyway.

  10. In countries where higher education is “free” (funded by taxpayers) women graduates tend give poor return on investment, because they work less hours and drop out of the workforce early to have kids (and later return to work at lower rates). I remember reading this was a problem in the UK public health sector.

    1. Actually, what I meant to say, expensive education on women probably has a poorer ROI than men generally, but at least in private higher ed they are only wasting their own money.

    2. women’s education is largely a waste of money. women as a group still aren’t paying a net tax. they cost society more then they will ever earn. so the women are independent talk is all bs. they are still dependant on men. the government is just in the middle now. ugly women will never get men to give their resources willingly so they need the government to enforce the redistribution of money. that’s what the feminism bs is all about. money for women and more power for the government. education use to be payed for here for the most part. now it’s all studentloans. boy’s are dropping out and most the girls get worthless degrees. the whole educational system is made for girls today and still they can’t pull their own weight. most won’t be able to pay back their loans so in the end men will pay for it anyway. western society is doomed.

  11. What is your opinion on professional qualifications as opposed to academic qualifications? Some are very difficult to complete, highly paid after completion and has a high employment rate. I am not talking about accounting qualifications like CIMA but mostly about other professional qualifications like that for Actuaries and Finance?

    1. That’s certainly a good idea, but you’ll have a hard time completing those certificates if you don’t already work in the field. Some may even have a certain number of years of working experience as a prerequisite.

  12. @Neutralrandomthoughts, I wasn’t going to mention names but yes those two and actuaries qualifications was what I meant.

    @Aaron, but you’ll have a hard time completing those certificates if you don’t already work in the field.

    Isn’t that a good thing?

    1. @Don.
      Strictly talking about finance now:
      Yes, from experience they are a nice to have. They might get you in somewhere.
      Content wise from what I heard they are of little value (compared to just gathering experience).
      If you consider investing time into obtaining them to get a pay raise at the same place you are currently at, the chances are low.
      The biggest salary jumps in finance come from job hopping. So since you are going to job hop anyway, and you’ll get into the new job through connections, you have to carefully assess, if these two are worth their time (3yrs for CFA, I think). I’m sceptical.

  13. @aaron

    MS does not correlate with inflation. at least not the official MS statistics. you need to track the real numbers to track inflation properly. I think only 1% of economists, including self-taught like you, really understand the MS. I dont believe you do. hint: libertarianism doesnt understand the MS. I dont even understand why youre suddenly a fan of that, when libertarianism doesnt care about race, like you do. They want open borders?

    second, I see you made a foray into hbd, but you focus too much on IQ, like the unz guys. hint: IQ is not as important as ability to postpone instant gratification(connected to visualization of future) and being able to sit still. if you lack these it automatically lowers IQ greatly. IQ-ism lacks scientific validity.

    1. You seem very confused. Smarty pants, do official inflation numbers track inflation accurately? If you want to discuss any of the issues you raise seriously, then please present a proper argument. Merely claiming that I don’t understand something without fleshing out your arguments does not really work. If you think it does, based on real life experience, it is because people just don’t bother engaging with you as they sense that you don’t really care.

      Your statements about IQ is downright ludicrous. Who is better off, a moron with an IQ of 80 who is able to sit still, or a guy with an IQ of 130 who fidgets? Further, visualizing the future is a complete crock of shit. For instance, there is a very recent paper (2017) by Joseph Kable and Trishala Parthasarathi that shows that people who visualize future rewards does nothing to improve impulse control. In fact, they are less able (!) to delay gratification.

      “IQ-ism” lacks validity, you say? Okay, then tell me what you’d rather have: a son with an IQ of 80 “who is able to sit still” (LOL) or one with an IQ of 130. If IQ is such a bullshit concept, then surely you’ll be able to raise a retard to become a successful adult, amirite?

  14. @aaron

    my bad. I made some errors in expounding my arguments. But I did notice the following. you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and you appear gullible, or under the influence of confirmation bias. Kind of sad since you appear to be well aware of this bias in dating in general. But I guess being an expert in one area does not qualify you for the other. Furthermore you are a bag of contradictions.

    First:

    >Smarty pants, do official inflation numbers track inflation accurately

    a typical austrian response. There actually a huge flaw in austrian economics though, its just as flawed as keynsian, because it takes CB gospel as fact.

    it goes like this: Central banks do QE and say its money printing. Austrian then says printing leads to inflation, therefore QE leads to inflation. Keynsian says QE leads to economic growth because its money printing.

    But what happens in reality? Theres absence of inflation for many years, so the Austrian goes into wild conspiracy theories about gov manipulating inflation statistics to reconcile theory and reality. I on the other hand went back to basics, instead of being gullible I asked myself whether QE is really money printing as CB tell me. following this line of thinking leads to an alternative economic theory and I can make some predictions. QE will never lead to hyperinflation, but it can cause a stagflationary depression, which is the current forecast for the next few years,decades. Youre lucky, your PM/BTC hoard will probably still do okay, ceteris paribus. A wildcard would be true helicopter money. But now we know the emperor is without clothes.

    Second: your IQ-ism blinds you. IQ is probably the least interesting component of hbd, I used the wrong words, as you said impulse control is much more interesting and the right words, just that can leads to wildly different IQ-test outcomes, seeing as IQ-tests are just a one-time measurement. or interesting is stuff like ingroup/outgroup preference. high/low trust(the white ppl in eastern europe are low trust, explaining their actions to refugees) and even altruism(guess which ppls are most altruistic, although nazi germany is kind of a counterexample that is hard to explain unless you incorporate r-k theory too) or finally hereditarianism of political views. Have you noticed that socialism works in europe but not usa. or democracy in taiwan, but not china. If theres a certain self-selection it explains tons of stuff in the world. after all, we like to be with people similar to us.

    And thats also why IQ-ism is problematic. If we define race as difference in dna+behavioral effects, it seems like grouping by skin color is a very bad method. there are actually probably 4 black races each with 2%+ dna differences, and khoisa, aboriginals, and pygmees are also different black races I would think and I would estimate multiple different caucasian races, just based on observed behavior.

    Then to talk about your contradictions. You imply IQ is hereditary, but have you noticed high IQ ppl, lets count you with it, dont actually reproduce alot. IQ is negatively correlated with reproduction. Furthermore your blog is aimed at promoting MGTOW, so by your own logic, its dysgenic. Do you have children? I dont think so. Because you were so blinded by IQ-ism, you missed this vital con to IQ.
    Yes IQ is correlated with a better lifes outcome for oneself, but what does it matter if you dont reproduce. I think you have checked out and given up. Your tone is quite hateful lately.

    1. Just briefly:

      1) Inflation measures are highly contested. Look into dubious concepts such as “hedonics”. This was what I was hinting at, so your reply misses the target. You could have easily avoided this by asking me to clarify my position, instead of jumping to conclusions.

      2) It’s easy to assume that, based on a few statements, person X belongs to category Y, thus he has to believe everything people in Y believe in. Don’t make that mistake.

      3) If you throw out IQ, you’ll have to throw out essentially everything the social sciences have come up with, as it is the most convincingly established concept they’ve ever come up with. Please read up on IQ because your conception of it is downright bizarre.

      4) Socialism does not work in Europe. People with options are checking out in record numbers, moving to places where they don’t get taxed 50% of their income.

      5) IQ is partly hereditary, presumably largely so. Look up r/K selection theory to figure out why high-IQ people don’t reproduce a lot.

    2. Sorry mate, I don’t know all the words you used, so, just one simple question.
      How can you make such a statement?

      “But what happens in reality? Theres absence of inflation for many years,”

      Inflation just means that shit gets more expensive, no? (let’s not even bother about the “why”)

      And you seriously want to tell me that every goddamn year you got a pay raise of the very same percentage your fix costs are going up? (Public transport, health care, etc)
      Or you mean to tell me that the prices stay as they are?

      You can call it what you want, but it just doesn’t add up when from one year to another with the same amount of money you cannot buy the same things you did last year.

  15. @aaron

    Youre right. reading your reply, now I wonder why I’m making these comments. I guess I was triggered to talk about my amazing inflation theory that even Bernanke/Yellen/Draghi don’t get. But who am I kidding. I struggled in computer science, im not that smart. you know what, you strike me as an anarcho-capitalist instead of libertarian/austrian. but that doesnt make that much sense either since you are very race-aware unlike them.

    Youre right I dunno why Im talking about IQ. it doesnt really matter to me whether its true or not. if its true all the better for me since Im asian. I just thought to add my 2 cents on it, but I didnt get these ideas myself, but from an american “trading” buddy, who introduced me to hbd, r-k, alternative eco theory, conspiracy, politics, frogtwitter(mena) and neorx(do u know bout this?). But Im too busy I dont read that stuff nor delved deep. I just read his summaries. So my comments are not really well-built.
    I didnt get what you mean by RK and high IQ reproducing less. I asked him and is it true that high IQ does high investment in fewer offspring which is K and low investment in many is R. But I dont see how IQ is connected exactly.

    He doesnt believe IQ and behaviour is fully hereditary btw. nor that IQ determines a persons worth. Also mentioned that linking Race and IQ strictly is problematic because of ethnic subgroups. 100-IQ nigerian Igbo or low IQ-Chinese in some area. we are both originally liberals so I guess we are more moderate. Still you seem like a lite version of him in other ways…lol. Hes way more anti-muslim than you, as far as I know. While I like to avoid conflict so I try having no opinion(is that an asian hbd trait?)

    btw he linked the following articles
    http://nypost.com/2017/05/13/childish-men-are-to-blame-for-women-having-kids-late-in-life/
    “nymag by scum for scum”
    http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2017/05/ideas-from-islam/
    “author is a moron”
    https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/chenchen-zhang/curious-rise-of-white-left-as-chinese-internet-insult
    this last one is funny because Im asian but not really alt-right or anything but it seems like conservatism seems a natural fit for asians. And its funny how you nationalist white guys “worship” the rise of China. especially neorx do I heard. I guess Im well positioned as asian male to profit once I get my life in order. I get it now, youre just ranting, this is not close to my heart, but it is to yours. But dont let the anti-zionism with the ((())) of zh and bps comments get to you. btw zh is wrong on some and right on some other. I know Israel is an ethnostate, my buddy told me, and it may seem unfair, but you know becoming a real german anti-semite seems a dangerous repeat of history. Im pretty sure this K-shift will lead to more conservatism anyway, so you don’t really need to push with it or it may get too extreme, more than during the 1930s

    Its funny to me that me, him and you all have had an interest once in game, economics, politics, and science. told me some confusing stuff about the nature of conciousness.

  16. @Neutralrandomthoughts

    I track multiple MS. and while the domestic US $ seems to be growing so far, but it set to shrink once ratesstair step up GDP will stair step down and inflation will stair step up. The international-$ based on its reserve status appears to have been shrinking, this leads to global trade suffering. The proof is that the $ is raising in value in many export dependent developing countries, not just China. Its not really a yuan-deval. its a $-MS shrinkage. As Chinas CB correctly diagnosed, the problem is the credit-based reserve currency. The explosion in global trade was also an explosion in international-$ MS which has gone in reverse since 2008.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *