« Dystopian robotic future part 4: runaway population growth | Main | Are fuel standards the next No Child Left Behind? »

August 28, 2012

Comments

Is "alphaness" hereditary, I mean, is it sure that this eleven hatchlings will all become mini-alphas too? Also, I'm not sure if I would call these guys alphas or just mere thugs. The problem is not the alphaness, but the low IQ of the new generations.

Maybe there should be a one-child policy, but only for poor people. (Rich/smart and middle class people should be motivated to have more kids, perhaps with tax breaks, or, I dunnow. How do the Mormons do it?)

Dumbo!

There are things you can do:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/tennessee-baby-machine-is-state-inmate-758094

He has a mere 24 kids, and can't make more because he is in lockup without marital visitations since 2009. So that's a plus. His generalized criminality explains his sex appeal to the ladies.

I think HBD-aware people need to be strong advocates of prison for failure to pay child support.

Men's Rights Advocates should disappear on this one.

The ability to jail non-payers of child support until they are so old they are impotent is one of my planks.

Yes it would clip the wings of these guys but they don't need to be out making more while not supporting the ones they have.

Truly excellent men can keep having children and afford to support all of them.

" ..and chose not to have abortions." - Half Sigma


Abortion is mostly for the dregs of womanhood so why are many otherwise normal, middle, and upper class women, so fixated on "abortion rights" one has to ask. The answer is they're terrified of being impregnated by a beta. Nothing disgusts women more than the prospect of beta offspring. That one mistake fills them with so much dread that something that effects a miniscule number of women is their number one issue. Kevin Federline has fathered five children by three beautiful women so being a deadbeat is no impediment towards fatherhood. Just be alpha.

Pretty much agree with everything you're saying. But I'm tired of men like this being described as "alphas." That implies that they're some sort of super-smooth womanizers that have no woman can resist.

In reality I think the formula to 30 kids by 11 women is really simple. Have really low standards and sleep with ghetto women. I shudder to imagine what some of the "seduced maidens" look like.

[HS: There are photographs in the article, and they are good-looking enough for ghetto women. I've seen much uglier riding the subways.]

I'd imagine that anyone with a middle-class income, decent looks and not socially awkward could also bed a bunch of ghetto or trailer park water buffaloes.

[HS: Ghetto women aren't interested in sex with middle-class beta males.]

In contrast what if these men's standards were that of the median sorority girl at a state university. Very good chance that these ghetto thugs would never be able to land a girl meeting that standard, and if they did they'd only be able to impregnate them if they committed to a monogamous relationship.

Certainly they wouldn't be able to knock up 11 girls with attractiveness levels of the median sorority girl at a state university.

Saying that "alpha" genes are out-reproducing implies that these men are some sort of Roissy-like PUA superheroes. They're not, they simply have very low standards, high impulsiveness and seek out partners with the same characteristics.

Let's accept the original image of tribes of 50-100 people with the eligible males and females split more or less evenly.

Any healthy child bearing aged female is fair game so 100% of them are fucking.

50% of the guys, the omegas, get crossed out right off the bat as incel. Too ugly, weak, pussy, whatever.

10% would be Alphas. These would be the most attractive - not just by looks and strength, but by ability and ingenuity which are vital survival skills in a time when there was no social "safety net" , more on that later. They fuck most of the females.

A large chunk, 40%, are beta males. Now without modern welfare and social support, it's difficult to be a single mom. That's where the betas come in. The women allow them to take care of them, and use sex to repay them, but their hormones allow them to be in tune with their cycles so there's more chance she will fuck the beta when she's NOT ovulating, while being horny for alpha cock when she is. This isn't a perfect science, so let's say that half the betas manage to impregnate their women with their inferior genes.


So all in all, you have the 10% alphas, plus half the betas at 20%, so 30% managing to reproduce. Vs 100% of females, ignoring all early deaths for whatever reason.

Therefore, male genes have more than 3 x the selection pressure behind them. This is why females go insane with lust for alpha type men because rising to the top of the male status hierarchy is brutal and the competition weeds out men of lesser status and hence inferior genes.

Hardly what I would call Alpha. All he managed to do is spew his wadd into a large number of women who almost certainly are of abysmal quality.

How many grandchildren is he likely to have? How many great-grandchildren?

Surely far less that Yitta Schwartz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/nyregion/21yitta.html

The key to spreading your genes is not just to have a lot of children. You must also convince those children that it's a good idea to spread their genes.

Desmond Hatchett is not really in a position to do that.

[HS: If the male offspring have his natural "game" combined with lack of future-time orientation, they will father massive numbers of children.]

I see. This must be the only era where the poor unwashed masses have outbred the rich..../sarcasm

Mr. Hatchett is the poster boy for our campaign to stop dysgenic breeding. Liberals will say that it's not the children's fault that their parents are so irresponsible, while conservatives maintain that the current system promotes rather than discourages these practices. Both are right - the children should not be punished for the sins of their parents, but all the "safety net" goodies incentivize bad behavior, which only seems to get worse.

I think the best solution is to pay women for not having children. Here's how it could work - all females between, say 15 and 42 or so could show up twice a year at their local "No More Bad Breeding Office" (or pick another name if you like) and take a simple urine or serum pregnancy test - if it's negative, they get a check on the spot, and see you again in six months! And there would be substantial cash bonuses for permanent sterilization - why, we could even let the guys in on the act by paying them for vasectomies. I don't know what the right amount of money should be, but, given the potential direct and indirect savings from this program, there should be a lot of cash on the table. And the beauty is that it would be completely voluntary. Well-off people who wanted children would still have them - the money wouldn't mean that much to them. And these are the folks who should be breeding in the first place.

Betcha that not one of Desmond's progeny will be willing to take care of him when he gets old.

If you believe in the meaning and power of genetics as recent posts suggest, why don't you get involved in genetic engineering rather than merely moan and gripe about it?

[HS: Genetic engineers are no doubt the computer programmers of the future. They will get paid a decent (but not elite) salary out of college, but then they will get fired when they no longer know the latest stuff, and be unemployable.]

"If the male offspring have his natural 'game' combined with lack of future-time orientation,"

That's a pretty unlikely "if." How often does it happen that the son of a champion athlete is himself a champion? Usually that son is pretty good but it's rare for him to be champion quality. It's statistical regression.

Note also that he is limited by the fertility of the girls he impregnates. 24 children by 11 girls means a TFR of about 2. So the natural result of his behavior is for underclass males to become more thuggish and irresponsible but the total population won't increase all that much. It's not like he can go out and knock up orthodox Jewish girls.

Although the growth rate of world population is slowly declining, the annual increase in absolute numbers gets ever larger. This is because the BASE keeps increasing. To see this, note that a 5% increase of 2 billion people is 100 million people. A 2% increase of 7 billion people (today's world population) is 140 million people.

If humans had commonsense, world population would now be declining to match the decline in such key natural resources as oil and potash.

"That's a pretty unlikely "if." How often does it happen that the son of a champion athlete is himself a champion? Usually that son is pretty good but it's rare for him to be champion quality. It's statistical regression."

If you have extreme centralization of male fertility, the mean matters less. It doesn't matter if his male offspring on average are beta males. What matters is that at least one or two of them are alpha since they can end up disproportionately reproducing in an environment with highly centralized male fertility.

"So the natural result of his behavior is for underclass males to become more thuggish and irresponsible but the total population won't increase all that much."

The total population of their genes increases greatly.

If 5 females each get married monogamously and have 1 child, this total population of 5 children would be the same if those 5 females each got impregnated by the same man. The total population of children is the same, but in the latter case, the total population of the man's genes who sired all the kids is higher, and the population of the other men is nonexistent.

"Alpha" traits are partially hereditary, as are all behavioral traits.

And as with all heritable traits, regression to the mean is at play. The sons of these men (and I'll wager that, as per Kanazawa, they have a disproportionate number of sons vs daughters) will be like their fathers, but less so, on average.

Of course, I blogged about this:
http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/dysgenic-fertility-among-blacks-apparently-yes/

Overall Black fertility is dysgenic, but the main problem comes from women, likely primarily because the less intelligent overwhelmingly breed with men like these.

It's worth keeping in mind that this is pretty typical West African behavior—evolutionary forces selected for low paternal investment and high levels of polygyny (with extreme loser and winner men).

Jail should never be the solution for men who are just deadbeat dads (and not otherwise criminal). It is far more humane to offer to sterilize them in exchange for relieving them of their debt.

You got one thing wrong: black women don't choose to forego contraception. Any PP worker will tell you that black men won't allow it.

....after reading this, this is why I have no respect for women...never had a girlfriend, don't like women, definitely not gay...I just see the downfall in Humanity...ever walk the streets of Manhattan or go to a bar, and observe women and who they like? Lol. The world is doomed. Worse thing, since women have become more powerful in America, it has coincided with the overall downfall of things. Good luck to all of you!........lol..........

In an environment of extreme centralization of male fertility, the mean or average matters less. Variance becomes more important. It doesn't matter if most of your male offspring are mentally retarded or end up in jail if a few of them are good at polygynous behavior.

Half Sigma is correct that this does not bode well for the future.

There is some hopeful thinking out there that genetic engineering will come online just in time to reverse the crash in IQ and decent beta male qualities. But even if this were true, it wouldn't mean a society of relatively free and decent society of high IQ and beta male types that are free and have their own rights and ability to pursue their own interests. It would probably mean power hungry, sociopathic elites breeding high IQ slaves to serve their needs.

Mike Judge hit the nail on the head in the opening scene of 'Idiocracy'.

"HS: There are photographs in the article, and they are good-looking enough for ghetto women..."

If you like neck tattoos.

[HS: Men from the ghetto must like them.]

"....after reading this, this is why I have no respect for women" -- John the Baptist

Neither do I. Then, again, I don't have much respect for men, either. My philosophy was not sacrificing standards for a piece of tail. Standards referring more to character than looks. I can accept a plain jane with a brain but I won't tolerate a tramp regardless of how she looks.

But it really shouldn't matter that most women (or men) are crappy. As long as you're the kind of guy that a decent woman will want then a decent woman will want you. If you choose well and behave yourself then it should only take one. And you'd think there would be at least a few decent folks out there.

I'm reminded of Spengler -- "At all times and in all places, the men and women of every culture deserve each other." That's true in the general sense as well as the particular. After all, the flesh market obeys the laws of supply and demand. It's just that some buyers make poor choices.

As I've mentioned, Rushton came up with a very similar theory published in his book in the 1990s. Civilizizaton was built by K genotypes (betas?), but once civilization is established, selection pressures relax and the r genotypes (alphas?) spread like wildfire because they breed so prolifically. Rushton invoked this model to explain the rise and fall of civilizations, and probably it explains why there's been no increase in brain size since the advent of agriculture (and possibly a decrease)

Do a post on the guidos, I am familiar with NAMs, but not with guidos.

[HS: Have you read the Wikipedia article on guidos?]

"This demonstrates my point that in a world of non-marital sex and childbearing, children are disproportionately fathered by alphas,"

The guy you mentioned is not a real Alpha; he is an Omega who passes as an Alpha because of the way our society is set up. In a decent society he would be lucky to get one woman.

Here is an explanation of what I am talking about above.

I found this at the Coalpha Brotherhood site. It makes some sense.


All of you in the PUA community have been grossly misusing the terms "alpha", "beta", and "omega". These terms have real scientific meaning that refers to the status of males in relation to other males. It has nothing to do with the opinion of females, but male status usually does imply certain mating rights and mating strategies. This is best understood by reading Jane Goodall's books on chimpanzee behavior. Human behavior is very similar to chimp behavior, and it is easier to view these issues objectively by looking at another species.

Among chimps, the alpha male is dominant and has mating rights with any female he chooses, whether she approves or not. Betas have similar rights as long the alpha and other betas don't object. Omegas have no mating rights at all. So how do they reproduce? They are forced to use the miserable procedure of having to seduce females to get sex. Unlike alphas and betas, omegas must be skilled at the art of seduction. Females will only mate with them when they prove their seductive skills.

So all these PUAs are pure omega. Why do they call themselves "alpha"? Because lying is what they do best. Being a successful omega is all about falsely puffing up one's chest. But in reality they are the very lowest of men. Bonecrker explains it well:
“Badboys” are pussies, not alpha males. The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around.

The multiple sex partner thing is the omega male’s gig. You usually see all sorts of deviant behavior going on, in addition to this. Although he is getting laid, he is powerless in relationships as well as every other aspect of his life. No one respects him, not even the psycho chicks who screw him.
http://fedrz.wordpress.com/the-book-of-bonecrker/

So what is happening now in the femisphere? Simple, the alphas and betas have lost control, and omegas and women are running things. The usual mating rights assigned to higher males has been thrown out. All that is left is seduction, and here omegas rule. Alphas and betas have no seduction talent because their ancestors never had a need for it. By impressing other men, alphas and betas of the past simply won mating rights. Women were pressured to marry these men, and the enforcement of marriage meant that women had to consider more than seduction skills when judging a partner. In strong societies, omegas were the sexual losers because alphas and betas enforced rules against seduction, rendering it useless as a sexual tool. We are in the opposite situation today

"The beta-male genes which are the fundamental building blocks of advanced civilization are rapidly being replaced by alpha-male genes."

Beta-male Mexicans in America often have many children by one beta Mexican wife/babymama.

They will be a large part of America's future gene-pool.

Insider: I see. This must be the only era where the poor unwashed masses have outbred the rich..../sarcasm

The difference is that in previous eras Natural Selection was still in play to cull the herd. In modern Western societies welfare programs keep most of the unfit alive long enough to reproduce themselves.

HS: it’s pretty stupid to expect that someone like Hatchett can afford to even pay for one child let alone 33 of them

---

Not that the facts are much better, but he has only 30 children. He is 33 years old.

sabril,

The children of pro athletes are far more statistically likely to become pro athletes themselves then an average child. The story of the Mannings isn't that odd.

Twain,

Evolution is amoral. "Alpha" is whatever leads to your genes being passed on, period.

"These are not the genes we want in the future generation, but they are the genes we are going to get. People are not prepared for how bad things are going to be in another twenty years."

Yeah, but this is also the fault of people like you, Half Sigma, who forgo marriage and a family for a career. If people like you - high IQ college grads - were getting married and having 3-4 children, it would counterbalance the dysgenic breeding habits of people like Desmond Hatchett.

This can't go on indefinitely, however. The state cannot subsidize illegitimate NAM babies while people like HS go through life childless, because that will result in a situation where the workforce is not productive enough to sustain a welfare state.

"Thuhg lyfe 4 evah, yo!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4PolAobNEM

Ed Norton, Fuck...

Play at 2:00 are those people guidos?

"Yeah, but this is also the fault of people like you, Half Sigma, who forgo marriage and a family for a career. If people like you - high IQ college grads - were getting married and having 3-4 children, it would counterbalance the dysgenic breeding habits of people like Desmond Hatchett."

No one should have children. Imposing life is the ultimate crime. I didn't need to read Schopenhauer or Peter Zapffe or the teachings of Buddha to know that existence is suffering -- this was made clear to me, when, at age 17, I failed to make the All Suburban League football team. My dream of an NFL career, my life long goal, was dashed before I left high school. This is the nature of reality, boredom punctuated by disappointment.

***there is no legal way to stop people from having children.***

Economist Eric Crampton points out that there are a number of conditions attached to welfare - you could make contraception another one.

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2012/08/coercion-everywhere-welfare-edition.html

"not so fast."

CH,

Kate Rothschild is one-quarter Jewish (half-Jewish Rothschild father and non-Jewish Guinness heiress mother). That's your example of an orthodox Jewish woman?

No where else on the planet earth, in no other country, are so many underclass NAMs supported to such a degree as ours. That's one reason why I'm not a liberal, I don't believe European style social welfare is suitable for the underclass (especially blacks) in our country.

It's one reason being at the bottom sucks so bad in this country. We make things so livable for the scums of the earth, then we give them affirmative action... and for what? They already have athletic/alpha genes for their children, that's why they don't care who it is they impregnate.

"This is the nature of reality, boredom punctuated by disappointment."

Speak for yourself. I certainly don't find life boring. If your life revolves around ego gratification, then it will be disappointing. But not everyone is driven by personal and material gain. You're projecting your materialistic worldview on to everyone else.

"The easiest way to tell if a man is alpha is to observe if he has the respect and cooperation of other men, especially other men in general (i.e. he has power and respect in society, not just socially). You very rarely see a “badboy” meet these criteria. When you do, it’s usually an alpha fooling around to get laid.

Alpha males don’t usually get the chicks. They get the best chick and she tends to stick around and beat the shit out of any other girls who come around".

I'm wondering how NAMs fit into this paradigm. NAMs are neither collective nor intelligent in any productive capacity.

"Therefore, male genes have more than 3 x the selection pressure behind them. This is why females go insane with lust for alpha type men because rising to the top of the male status hierarchy is brutal and the competition weeds out men of lesser status and hence inferior genes".

@ Conquistatador

Then why do we have a lot ugly and dumb people?

I think female hypergamy was engineered to solve this issue.

" Imposing life is the ultimate crime."

I think it was Mark Twain who said I don't remember being consulted about coming onto this planet. That's one of my favorite quotes. If your parents act like they did you a favor by bringing you onto this planet just say that.


"Evolution is amoral. "Alpha" is whatever leads to your genes being passed on, period."

These people were not allowed to become "Alphas" in the past.

In chimp culture you became an alpha by winning the respect of other males. Few men respect Hatchett, but the other males have allowed this guy to become an Alpha because the morals of traditional society don't exist.

What is the term that describes successive generations getting uglier? US population seems to trend there as well(anecdotally), not just dumber, but uglier. It may be prudent to just not have children at all if you live next to NAMs and proles, although, that is getting more and more difficult with each passing day.

"This demonstrates my point that in a world of non-marital sex and childbearing, children are disproportionately fathered by alpha...The beta-male genes which are the fundamental building blocks of advanced civilization are rapidly being replaced by alpha-male genes"

To whatever extent these fluid terms can be operationalized, this claim is empirically false. The Audacious Epigone, myself, and the Inductivist have all previously used the GSS to show that non-promiscuous men father considerably more children than promiscuous men (and non-paternity rates have been measured and are insignificant).

But I'll go one further here, and test the suggestion that *the trends* are favorable towards promiscuous male genes.

The GSS allows us to compare two different, large cohorts of men, when they were ages 33-47: those born between 1946-1964 (Boomers), and those born between 1965-1981 (Generation X).

For present purposes we can define "betas" as married men with no more than 2 lifetime sex partners, and "alphas" as unmarried or divorced men with 20 or more lifetime sex partners.

For Boomers, beta men averaged 2.22 children, while alpha men averaged 1.43 children (-0.79 children). For Generation X, beta men averaged 2.28 children, while alpha men averaged *1.02* children (-1.26 children). So over the span of one generation, betas have almost doubled their (already substantial) reproductive lead over alphas.

Of course, maybe this is all going to change with Millinnials; except we already know that this generation is less sexually irresponsible than previous generations.

I didn't even control for ethnicity. The U.S. genes of the future are less promiscuous and more religious.


Variables: MARITAL, NUMWOMEN, SEX, CHILDS, AGEREC, COHORTREC

"The children of pro athletes are far more statistically likely to become pro athletes themselves then an average child."

Assuming that's true, so what? I'm not saying that genes have no influence on fecundity, just that the influence of cultural memes on fecundity is far far stronger.

Do you think that all (or even most) of this man's sons will go on to father 25 children each? If you do, you are an idiot. Even if his sons are twice as fecund as average men in his community, he will have far fewer descendants, all things being equal, than the likes of a Yitta Schwarz.

Do the math.

If there's an upside, it means there'll be less competition for the elite classes in the future, though the process will be a gradual drift over generations. Perhaps we'll see a more recognizably castelike and endogamous upper class; a genetic coming apart would seem especially likely in the event of voluntary eugenics coming on the mainline, to the (great) extent to which it has not already through clinics and sperm banks near Ivy League schools and the like.

Typo in last para, he has 30 children, not 33 (his age is 33).

I completely agree about the mothers of Hatchett's children being irresponsible. This is why I think that men should be able to get financial abortions. Not because I think getting one makes you a swell guy, but simply because allowing it to be otherwise creates a game-theoretic hole which weakens eugenic evolutionary pressures.

Paternity law also needs a serious fixing up; men are often often not given the opportunity to challenge paternity. Or husbands cannot dispute the legal paternity (liability?) of children born to his wife during their marriage.

Though I don't seek to make common cause with the men's rights movement, I think these are men's reproductive rights, and they are not being asserted because nobody cares about men, not as they relate to this issue.

Also, rather than use these awkward categories (which together describe less than 30% of men), it's better to simply use sex partner number as a continuous variable.

The correlation between promiscuity and number of children for Boomer men ages 40+ is -0.4. The correlation between promiscuity and number of children for Gen X men ages 40+ is -0.10.*

In the semi-near future we can expect male birth control to become cheap and effective, and we should expect a much stronger inverse correlation, as only men who find a traditional family life rewarding will want to have children. Some promiscuous men who have no future orientation, will continue to impregnate women with no future orientation. But a large number of men will understand the benefit of avoiding a lifetime of child support debt for children they would have no emotional attachment to.


* Here's a large list of variables that correlate with sex partner number for comparison.


http://www.thebigquestions.com/2010/12/14/bars-versus-churches/#more-5370

[HS: (1) Men don't completely know how many children they have; (2) high social class men can have lots of sex but NOT get any women pregnant because the higher classes are good at using birth control. On the other hand, the correlation between having been threatened by a gun and having lots of sex is definitely leading to a more violent next generation.]

"Kate Rothschild is one-quarter Jewish (half-Jewish Rothschild father and non-Jewish Guinness heiress mother). That's your example of an orthodox Jewish woman?"

it's my example of a rich uberSWPL nominal jew spreading her legs for a primitive rapper thug, and cuckolding her beta male provider in the process. now maybe she's not orthodox, but neither is she the ghetto trash some like to believe are the only kinds of women who fall for these r-selection morlocks.

"Speak for yourself. I certainly don't find life boring. If your life revolves around ego gratification, then it will be disappointing. But not everyone is driven by personal and material gain. You're projecting your materialistic worldview on to everyone else."

agreed. i'll take this boring, disappointing reality any day over the alternative.

"On the other hand, the correlation between having been threatened by a gun and having lots of sex is definitely leading to a more violent next generation"

As the *very post* you are appending demonstrates "having lots of sex" means less children, not more children. Excluding combat vets, fecund men are not more likely to have encountered gun violence, but they are less likely to have ever been in a fight.

You're grasping for dysgenic straws, but most GSS variables suggest that U.S. breeding patterns are eugenic:


Predictors of # of children, for men

Premarital sex wrong .20
Self-rated religiousness .19
Age first marriage -.18
Homosexuality wrong .18
Watch pornography -.18
Military service .17
Gives to charity .15
Time spent at church .15
Income .14
Pro-choice -.13
Job satisfaction .11
Empathy for the less fortunate .10
Ever been punched -.10
Liberalism -.10
Proud to be an American .09
Depression -.08
Ever cheated on spouse -.07
Rated cleanliness of house .07
Time spent at work .07
Been arrested -.06
Happiness .06
Better off than parents .05
Volunteer work .05
Trust in others .02
IQ -.04
Education -.18
Time spent at bars -.21


Other than lower IQ this bears little resemblance to the self-centered dystopia in Idiocracy. The future looks Mormon! It looks like traits like high education and IQ are going to get weeded out because they cause people to stop having children. But traits like honesty, work ethic, and conscientiousness will increase because they cause men to raise and support larger families. Also tolerance of homosexuality, pornography, and abortion might decrease because people that are emotionally outraged by non-reproductive sex are more likely to have *reproductive* sex.

"Of course, maybe this is all going to change with Millinnials; except we already know that this generation is less sexually irresponsible than previous generations." - jason


lol wut? I'm a millennial and this couldn't be further from the truth. Single motherhood is astronomical for the under 30 crowd. Even if alphas don't impregnate they do monopolize sex.

@ sabril

Yes the average female lives the life of a 10/10 male. Sex anytime she wants, guaranteed reproduction (two thirds of our ancestors are female), sex with men way out of her league, etc. Women have never been at a disadvantage anywhere in history. I'd even say matriarchy is the state of nature. Guys would murder their best friends if it guaranteed them sex with a female 7. Men really are the weaker of the two genders (except the highest status men). Places like Saudi Arabia are brutal on women because persevering patriarchy is unnatural and hard.

"Abortion is mostly for the dregs of womanhood so why are many otherwise normal, middle, and upper class women, so fixated on "abortion rights" one has to ask. The answer is they're terrified of being impregnated by a beta. Nothing disgusts women more than the prospect of beta offspring. That one mistake fills them with so much dread that something that effects a miniscule number of women is their number one issue. Kevin Federline has fathered five children by three beautiful women so being a deadbeat is no impediment towards fatherhood. Just be alpha."

Then why are men more likely to be pro-choice and women more likely to be pro-life? Can't anyone on this blog back up their opinions with reasoning and evidence?

Blacks, Mulatto and hispanics are the genetic future of America. Sexual selection now follows the jungle laws of Africa. Just use your eyes and count the number of white females of all social latter loosening to any black alpha male. I hope you all enjoy the ugly future women of this country have steered this once civilized country into.

Just look at who ann coulter, conservative, is dating. Eons of genetic selection, gone in one generation.

"Men really are the weaker of the two genders (except the highest status men)".

I see it. Take a walk in a city and observe. A lot of men appear less confident these days, while women walk with an air of arrogance. Betas and Omegas are out like insects in a summers day at the park.

conquistador:
"Yes the average female lives the life of a 10/10 male. Sex anytime she wants,"

but not commitment and love anytime she wants. you have to put yourself in the heels of women. sex is not as important to women as it is to men. women simply put less value in sex and more value in extracting long-term commitment. and that's where the playing field levels and the hand belongs to men.

"Men really are the weaker of the two genders (except the highest status men)."

you're getting warmer. the sexual market hierarchy goes like this:

=>alpha male (most options, most freedom to fulfill his desires)
=>alpha female (her good looks make it easier for her to rope alpha males into commitment. but not always)
=>beta female (with feminine charm and an eye toward the tick tock of the clock, she can reasonably hope to get a beta male to commit)
=>beta male (sexually expendable. has to work harder than beta female for sex, but does bring his resources to the table as a lure)
=>omega female (fatties, uglies and aged cougars here. but there's always a desperate loser man willing to service them, if only for a few minutes)
=>omega male (the lowest of the low. homeless bums. head cases. the retarded. the severely ugly. can only get sex by paying for it, if then)

hope this clears up the sexual status hierarchy of humanity made in god's image. heh.

Then why are men more likely to be pro-choice and women more likely to be pro-life? Can't anyone on this blog back up their opinions with reasoning and evidence?" - Alex


Umm what? Women are overwhelmingly pro choice. Do you see a lot of men at pro-abortion rallies? Where are you getting this crap? Are you female? That would make a lot of sense.....

"Umm what? Women are overwhelmingly pro choice. Do you see a lot of men at pro-abortion rallies? Where are you getting this crap? Are you female? That would make a lot of sense....."

How long would it take to Google this?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127559/education-trumps-gender-predicting-support-abortion.aspx

Always Illegal:
Men: 16%
Women: 21%
Sometimes Illegal:
Men: 58%
Women: 52%
Always Legal:
Men: 23%
Women: 26%

To be fair, the best conclusion to draw from this is that men are more moderate on abortion, whereas women are more likely to take the "always/never" position.

Either way it's a pretty even split by gender.

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wtitcbfwlughh4p4pnglmw.jpg

@ Alex

Men are indifferent about abortion. We don't give a shit about whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice. It certainly doesn't make or break our support. Contrast that with women to whom the abortion debate is extremely important and came into major prominence alongside feminism and sexual empowerment. You're can't see the forest for the trees when you cite statistics.

I agree with HS on a few points, actually. Women respond to alpha traits. It doesn't matter what social status the woman has, she will respond to an alpha. More importantly----men will respond to an alpha, too. So, the fact that this guy was from the ghetto has less to do with it than you all believe.

----

So really, if this is the future, then an important skill betas need to learn---and one that betas should have learned in college---is to avoid being 'king of the losers.' Betas sometimes attempt to befriend lesser betas and omegas to boost relative status. However, this tactic provides an illusory ego boost.

Betas are better off taking a status hit by befriending a popular alpha than they are being 'king of the losers.' A beta who can act as an alpha's right hand is in a strong position in any social circle. People don't realize that status can be conferred; if you hang around with only alphas and you can actually get them to befriend you, you'll notice a status runoff.

Some people may scoff at getting sloppy seconds or at getting girls who 'don't want to go after an obvious player because he'll just cheat,' but others who heed this advice will find themselves getting laid, getting married, and having children. Not only that, but they will have rich social lives. Having alpha friends opens up a ton of doors that loser kings never get to even see.

The worst part about this is that 30 children with 11 women means -- each of these women -voluntarily- had TWO OR THREE CHILDREN with this man.

How does that work? "I know he has 27 children with 10 other women, but... he just makes me feel so special. He's so sexy." It's like the Rationalization Hamster Olympics.

@ Insider

How many Alphas to we have again per your last discussion? You said there weren't many. You need to wish those betas good luck finding one.

All I can say that there are a lot more alpha and high beta women than men these days. It's a tough game for a lot of guys trying to socialize with women who are more dominant.

Yes, Kate Rothschild was not what I had in mind when I referred to Orthodox Jewish girls. Regardless of whether she is 25%, 50% or 100% Jewish, it's clear that she was not raised from birth into the Orthodox Jewish way of thinking.

The fact is that if a black alpha thug wanders into Kiryas Joel or Williamsburg with the idea of picking up girls, he's not likely to get very far in talking to them, let alone having sex with them, let alone impregnating them. They've been raised from birth to believe that spending time with unrelated men is wrong; that sex outside of marriage is wrong; that it's wrong to have illegitimate children; and that it's wrong to marry outside of their group. They also know that these activities are likely to get them shunned by their families.

The bottom line is that for some things, culture has a bigger impact than genes.

[HS: Hasidic women will not talk to any non-Hasidic men at all.]

@ Insider

You raise a few interesting points that warrant more discussion. For one thing you're right that most "friendships" are useless. Outside of childhood people only befriend others who they think can help them move up the social hierarchy. Socialization isn't about what you say but what value you bring. I know a guy who fantasizes about throwing acid in women's faces yet this guy isn't a "creeper" he's actually very popular with the ladies. He has male model looks and a macho demeanor. The more value you have the less the rules apply. The one problem with associating with higher status people though is that if you aren't seen as a social equal in some way (money, looks, fear that you'll kick their ass) you'll be the butt of snide little jokes and disparagement. That's not healthy and probably why loser men socialize with other low status men because an unspoken caste system is at play. The one upside with hanging out with your "betters" is that sometimes you can pick up on their good habits mainly fitness. I know several dweebs who socialized with alpha type men through work and got into fitness as a result and it improves their lives immensely. For anyone struggling socially I'd tell them life isn't about being a "good person" but about power. Power = looks, money, status. That's all there is to it. Simple

"The bottom line is that for some things, culture has a bigger impact than genes." - the ice queen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUc77Dn8Me0

"Power = looks, money, status"

It's more of a woman thing nowadays. Female hypergamy is at a all time high.

"I know several dweebs who socialized with alpha type men through work and got into fitness as a result and it improves their lives immensely."

This is a personal anecdote, so HS commentators, if you don't want to know more about me, don't read on:

I was an athlete in college (soccer), so I always lifted and was fit, but the reason I started using anabolic steroids after graduation was that the 'natural' limit for men is quite small, or at least it seems to those of us who were raised on super-pumped up action heroes/GI Joes/sports stars.

The kind of fitness activities most high status guys/girls are into are SWPL-approved triathlons, yoga, marathons, etc. Girls on Facebook are always bragging about training for their half marathon/marathon.

The guys who are seriously into bodybuilding/powerlifting (serious enough to juice, that is) tend to be a little 'maladjusted'; I go to a 'hardcore' gym, and the guys I know all have issues. I do, too, I guess -- short (5'9") for a college educated white guy, never felt like I got enough praise from my parents, struggling with my orientation (I broke it off with my fiance because I couldn't promise her I was actually 100% hetero)...

So, yeah, SWPL fitness is good, but there's a dark and pretty weird side to gym culture.

"Power = looks, money, status."

those matter, but you are leaving out the most important component of power:

attitude.

"The bottom line is that for some things, culture has a bigger impact than genes."

ok, no argument there. if the religious indoctrination, proscriptions and punishments are strong enough, the expression of the innate sexual natures of women within that culture can be constrained. throughout history, most men, and women!, knew that women's sexual nature was more dangerous than men's sexual nature, and thus more in need of external control.

Matt in RTP,

What's the relative prestige of a 10k vs. a Marathon or Half Marathon in SWPLdom?

I think I would max out on 10k; it requires enough endurance and is a prestigious track event, while marathons have potential risks.

Matt, do you look "shredded"?

@ Black_Rose,

10ks are the baby steps to a marathon. When you run a marathon, that is almost, almost as good as a trip to France. Maybe it is on par with a weekend in San Francisco in terms of SWPL cred.

Once you have run a marathon, you can consider yourself a real SWPL athlete, and you have special dispensation to eat high carb foods (sugary lattes, artisanal donuts, fried Indian food) because you are 'carb loading' and 'in training'.

Yes, I am quite lean now. To really get that diced look, I use clenbuterol, a bronchodilator. It really impresses guys more than girls, I think.

'The one problem with associating with higher status people though is that if you aren't seen as a social equal in some way (money, looks, fear that you'll kick their ass) you'll be the butt of snide little jokes and disparagement.'

Yeah, you'll probably take some shit. And? Your ability to react to 'tests' is a huge part of social proof. So yeah, the alpha will give you shit from time to time, and yeah, you can't retaliate in kind or lose your cool. But you must retaliate in one way or another. Finding the best way to do so is what cements your status as 'one of the' cool kids, even if you aren't quite 'the' cool kid.

And I also agree with you about getting into fitness. The fact that you're in proximity to several alphas sparks a natural desire to compete and better yourself. You will become the best version of yourself possible.

Now, honing in on what you said about 'bringing value,' I believe that's true, but again, I don't believe that it's what you think it means. It mostly boils down to being relaxed in all social situations (even if you have to fake it), listening, and constantly -contributing- to the group discussion (just saying many things when more than two people are around in the group---it really doesn't matter what you say, it matters that you're relaxed and giving off a good vibe).

I also don't agree that most friendships are useless. I've experienced several genuinely good 'human bonding' moments with lots of individuals on a friendship level, be they alpha or no. The thing people don't tend to realize (or want to realize) is that alphas, once you get in good with them, are extremely good friends. Sure, they're attention hogs, but they also generally are the ones who care about -everyone- having a good time, who check in on -everyone- to ask how they're doing. Alphas are the ones who will instantly throw down with that guy in the bar who decides to fuck with one of his friends---i.e. you. And Alphas will also talk you up whenever they can. The benefits are endless, and all it takes it just befriending one or two.

"For anyone struggling socially I'd tell them life isn't about being a 'good person' but about power. Power = looks, money, status. That's all there is to it. Simple."

Even if you're the richest, handsomest, most charming person in the world, the Grim Reaper will eventually take it away, and then what? The answer to that is the real meaning of life. If you don't know the answer, don't assume that life is one big ego trip.

It's one thing to say that good looks and money make men attractive to women, it is quite another to say that all life is about. If there's no God and no afterlife, then life is whatever you want it to be about.

"ok, no argument there. "

Fine, but please try to respond to the points I actually make -- as opposed to the points you wish or imagine I make.

Even taking up your point, I will note that even with your counter-example, the educated white girl did not make babies with the black rapper thug. In the larger scheme of things, it's unlikely that Desmond Hatchett genes will make much headway into the gene pool of educated white people. But this doesn't really matter, since the genetic future of America does not hinge on the genes of educated white people, or even poor black people for that matter.

The genetic future of America hinges on ultra-religious people like the Amish; the Hasidim; the FLDS; and so on.

Matt in RTP

clenbuterol? I don't see how that would improve physique.

"Yeah, you'll probably take some shit. And? Your ability to react to 'tests' is a huge part of social proof. So yeah, the alpha will give you shit from time to time, and yeah, you can't retaliate in kind or lose your cool. But you must retaliate in one way or another. Finding the best way to do so is what cements your status as 'one of the' cool kids, even if you aren't quite 'the' cool kid." - Insider


What works in theory doesn't work in practice as the link shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPbaQ0qh-u4

Moreover what you're proposing is so pathetic and degrading I can't even believe you're serious. You'll feel like shit because you got dominated by other men and women fill find you even more repulsive. Socializing by being the group bitch is like a prag in prison who gets by sucking cock. It's f'n humiliating.

@ Scott

I'd like to extract as much pleasure from life before I drop dead. You see there is a difference even between people when they face death. Some can embrace it knowing they lived a fulfilling life while others are drowning in sorrow and regret. Humanists like you can't grasp this since you believe all life paths are equal.

"Even taking up your point, I will note that even with your counter-example, the educated white girl did not make babies with the black rapper thug."

in the state of nature, she likely would have. so perhaps you can thank the gods of prophylactics for averting that disaster.

"In the larger scheme of things, it's unlikely that Desmond Hatchett genes will make much headway into the gene pool of educated white people."

agreed, for now. my problem was with your original assertion that such things *never* happen among the "good girl" subset. there are strong cultural controls among the swpls, and likely genetic controls against outbreeding, that limit the damage desmonds can do. but don't for a second think that rich swpl chicks are immune to the allure of the alpha thug.

"The genetic future of America hinges on ultra-religious people like the Amish; the Hasidim; the FLDS; and so on."

there is good evidence emerging (see: cohort reaction time studies) that dysgenia is in progress. so while we may be looking at a more religious future, we also are looking at a dumber future. i predict great class divides that dwarf what we have now.

@ Insider

Dude, your idealistic view of Alphas is so wrong. Many Alphas don't associate with anyone beneath them. At least the ones I know here in NYC. Most of them work in high power finance, BIGLAW and fortune 500 companies. They have a competitive streak and very big egos. Their social circles are exclusively with other Alpha males and they keep it that way. Any Beta or Omega trying to strike up with them, be prepared to be shot down as if they were walking up to a beautiful woman and asking for her number.

The whole Alpha, Beta & Omega rating system is only used by frustrated chumps who like to speculate with it, and also PUAs who use them in their belief system. Like one comentator said, the top guy such as the CEO is neither Alpha or Beta. In many cases, he ultimately acquires the most desirable women when the least is expected. A guy I knew met his girlfriend who worked for a temp agency. She saw his resume and called him up for an interview, and that's where it all happened.

"agreed, for now. my problem was with your original assertion that such things *never* happen among the "good girl" subset. there are strong cultural controls among the swpls, and likely genetic controls against outbreeding, that limit the damage desmonds can do. but don't for a second think that rich swpl chicks are immune to the allure of the alpha thug".

I see a few rich SWPL chicks with NAM nerds, or beta NAMs. The Alpha thugs usually get prole bitches. SWPL girls usually dislike Asian men, unless they're Alpha, which is even a smaller subset than the NAMs they usually date.

'Moreover what you're proposing is so pathetic and degrading I can't even believe you're serious.'

Uh......let's just pretend that youtube video wasn't offered as evidence of anything having to do with real life.

For some reason you keep equating 'befriend' with 'become someone's bitch.' I assure you, there's a wide gulf of difference between the two. To befriend an alpha, you have to come off as highly socially adept, which involves being relaxed in all social situations and putting off a chill, fun vibe. That adds value to any group.

But yes, the alpha of the group is going to toss shit your way sometimes. It's your job to respond in a way that re-establishes your value to the group. If you can't do that, then yeah, you'll be a bitch by continuing to hang around, because the value tests will just escalate from there.

It's pretty easy to outwit alpha behavior. If an alpha says something you're wearing is stupid/gay/blah blah blah, a practiced 'thanks man, you're obviously a fan,' will suffice. Granted, you have to say it in a way that doesn't indicate that you're rattled and also indicates that you're joking. If you do it right, the alpha laughs...which means the alpha is subtly saying 'I chose a good ally,' which makes women like you more, because the alpha approves of you.

I mean, all this talk about high IQ and you people really can't figure out how to tap dance around stupid alpha macho crap? Take 10 minutes out of your day to apply higher thought to social situations instead of calculus. It'll work wonders...

sabril, check the GSS for how negative the Orthodox Jewish attitude is to their children marrying a black. Although Orthodox also oppose marrying a white gentile, they are much more negative to the idea of their kids marrying a black.

"In the larger scheme of things, it's unlikely that Desmond Hatchett genes will make much headway into the gene pool of educated white people."

Hot, educated white women may screw around with a ghetto thug, but they aren't likely to have kids with him because going into a LTR isn't doable with most blacks. Black men are generally too unstable, too low status (even if promoted to a cushy AA job), and their friends and family are too dangerous to form a meaningful romantic relationship with.

Last but not least, the kids produced in BM-WF coupling are too ugly and different looking for all but the lowest quality white women too stand being seen in public with. They're so different that it makes it almost impossible for a white woman to get a quality white guy after the black father eventually leaves for more promising pastures because men, in general, don't want to date women who already have kids and a white guy can't even pretend that a half-black kid being carried around by his wife is his.

The negative effect of birthing a half black kid outweigh has on a white woman's SMV is normally too high for a SWPL white women to consider anything more than a fling with a black guy.

'Dude, your idealistic view of Alphas is so wrong. Many Alphas don't associate with anyone beneath them'

Alphas hang out with several people beneath them---how else would anyone know that they were an alpha? In fact, alphas thrive on hanging around people who validate them as an alpha.

Alphas are the core of social groups. That's how groups tend to work. There's nothing idealistic about it, it's basic tribal organization.

And yeah, if you're lame expect all cool social circles to reject you. So don't be lame.

@ TUJ

Did you know that women who identified themselves as Jewish would only date White gentiles as an option? You see Jewish men with Asian women, Hispanic women and maybe even Black women, but that's really pushing it. Jewish women would never date an Asian man. I have come across a few Jewish women with NAM husbands. It's not as rare as you think. The only rarity is a non-Asian woman with an Asian man, which of course is a heated subject that I've been bringing forth not to HS' and some of the Asian comentators' liking. He seems to have sympathy for their plight when it comes to the mating ritual.

"In the larger scheme of things, it's unlikely that Desmond Hatchett genes will make much headway into the gene pool of educated white people."

Sub-Saharan African genes have already made it into the Southern European and Jewish, including Ashkenazi, gene pools. And Ashkenazim are the smartest group on the planet. This is from thousands and hundreds of years ago, when there was less contact, when people were more tribal and racist, and when blacks had even lower status than today. Black genes will likely increase in the white gene pool due to contemporary circumstances.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1001373

"We analyze genome-wide polymorphism data from about 40 West Eurasian groups to show that almost all Southern Europeans have inherited 1%–3% African ancestry with an average mixture date of around 55 generations ago, consistent with North African gene flow at the end of the Roman Empire and subsequent Arab migrations. Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry with an average mixture date of about 32 generations ago, consistent with close political, economic, and cultural links with Egypt in the late middle ages. We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed. For the Jewish admixture, we obtain an average estimated date of about 72 generations."

"in the state of nature, she likely would have."

In the state of nature, he would live 2 thousand miles away from her. He would be running around the jungle with a spear. There would be no opportunity for sexual contact between them.

"your original assertion that such things *never* happen among the 'good girl' subset."

Please show me where I made such an assertion. Please quote me. Failing that, please admit I never made such an assertion and apologize.

I engage only with people who respond to what I actually say. I am not interested in engaging with people who dishonestly attack strawmen.

So please show me where I said it or apologize for lying.

"Although Orthodox also oppose marrying a white gentile, they are much more negative to the idea of their kids marrying a black."

That's interesting, I would have guessed it would be about the same. In either case, totally unacceptable.

Perhaps what's going on is that when you seriously adhere to a traditional religion, it immunizes you to some extent against the Cult of Negro Worship. From a rational perspective, any reasonable person should be virulently opposed to his child (most likely his daughter) marrying a black person.

"Sub-Saharan African genes have already made it into the Southern European and Jewish, including Ashkenazi, gene pools."

Assuming that's true, so what?

Let's do the math: After 72 generations, Jews have 4% black blood. All things being equal, and given the rates of current mixing, it could easily take another 72 generations to get to 8%.

Meanwhile, in just 10 generations, and if current trends continue, American Jews will easily outnumber American Blacks by 100 or 1000 to one.


Sabril: YHBT.

"Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry (...). We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed." -- RS

We should draw a distinction between African and sub-Saharan African because North Africans are overwhelmingly caucasian. We should draw a further distinction between sub-Saharan African admixture from Ethiopia and other sub-Saharans because Ethiopians, although technically sub-Saharan, are over 40% caucasian due to ancient "back to africa" migrations approximately 9K and 40K years ago. Not to mention, that's approximately where the "out of africa" migrations came from to start with. So the african and sub-Saharan admixture isn't exactly negro.

And finally, all humans have 99% of their DNA in common. So that 4% admixture includes the 99% of DNA that was already the same anyway. When you crunch the numbers the real admixture of dissimilar DNA is not 4% but 0.04%. And since the African and sub-Saharan African admixture was caucasian and partially caucasian the admixture of dissimilar DNA would have been much less than that. Probably around 0.02%. You're looking at 1/50 of one percent of dissimilar DNA. Not that any admixture is acceptable ie. "death of a thousand cuts" and all that.

***

"That's interesting, I would have guessed it would be about the same. In either case, totally unacceptable." -- sabril

I remember you going back several years to the old Guy White blog. You've always seemed intelligent. But I'm curious about that comment. Is it the "death of a thousand cuts" or is there something else?

"Did you know that women who identified themselves as Jewish would only date White gentiles as an option?"

The intermarriage rate among non-Orthodox Jewish women with white gentile men is very high; over 50% according to most studies and it would be even higher if Orthodox Jewish marriages were excluded. Orthodox Jews marry other Jews at rates of 97%.

Btw, Russian Jewish immigrants have low intermarriage rates with white gentiles, and the Russian Jews also have very negative attitudes towards blacks like the Orthodox.

Here is some data on the low level of Russian Jewish intermarriage even though the Russian Jews are not as religiously devout as Orthodox Jews:

Russian American Jews: A Bright Spot for Jewish Peoplehood

http://ejewishphilanthropy.com/russian-american-jews-a-bright-spot-for-jewish-peoplehood/


According to the study while the overall intermarriage rate for non-Orthodox Jews continued to increase, Russian Jews living in the eight county New York area experienced an unprecedented decrease in intermarriage, from 17% in 2002 to 13% in 2011. That is an almost 25% drop. At a time when there was no significant Jewish immigration from the Former Soviet Union, the total number of Russian Speaking Jews increased from 202,000 in 2002, to 216,000 in 2011.

As one of a small number of Russian-speaking Jewish communal professionals, I’m used to hearing all sorts of stereotypes regarding our community being unresponsive to Jewish educational efforts, as being apathetic, deeply secular and allergic to synagogues. Yet, somehow when it comes to Jewish continuity, a bright spot of sorts was achieved; and if there is one rule for creating real change, it is the importance of being able to spot a bright spot and build on it.

""Levantine groups harbor 4%–15% African ancestry (...). We also detect 3%–5% sub-Saharan African ancestry in all eight of the diverse Jewish populations that we analyzed."

The study is flawed. Almost no other study on Jewish genetics show Jews having more than a fraction of a percentage of African DNA.

In Ashkenazi Jews, there is a small amount (1.5%) of East Asian DNA that presumably comes from Hellenic Jewish admixture with Anatolian Turks who carry an East Asian genetic signature.

Regarding Southern European admixture with Africans, Dienekes has shown that sub-Saharan African admixture with Southern Europeans is low and studies indicating more than 1% African admixture in Southern Europeans tend to be flawed:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2011/03/analysis-of-1000-genomes-hapmap-3-data.html

Similarly, Spanish show African admixture (1.6%). This is also probably due to both North and Sub-Saharan African elements, but the absence of appropriate North African references makes the distinction impossible.

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/08/4-population-test-and-east-eurasian.html

That paper ignored the Eastern ancestry in North Europeans, and used the CEU (a population of mainly North European origin) instead of Sardinians, hence generating inflated estimates of African ancestry in Southern Europeans.

Now that the Central/East Asian ancestry in northern Europeans seems to be recognized by some of the co-authors of the earlier paper, and using the Reich et al. (2012) framework, the different processes superimposed on the African-East Asian axis can probably be disentangled. Hopefully, we won't have to wait too long for the full treatment. Maybe it can go to the arXiv too!

http://dodecad.blogspot.com/

The comments to this entry are closed.