Dysgenic fertility

Chateau Heartiste, always a great source for the Dark Enlightenment, reports:

Convicted criminal offenders had more children than individuals never convicted of a criminal offense. Criminal offenders also had more reproductive partners, were less often married, more likely to get remarried if ever married, and had more often contracted a sexually transmitted disease than non-offenders. Importantly, the increased reproductive success of criminals was explained by a fertility increase from having children with several different partners. We conclude that criminality appears to be adaptive in a contemporary industrialized country, and that this association can be explained by antisocial behavior being part of an adaptive alternative reproductive strategy.

Moral: For civilization to continue, female sexual and reproductive activity has to be placed, legally and socially, under the control of fathers and husbands. In actual practice, we tend to treat fertile age women as children, as their bad behavior does not have the legal and social consequences it would have for adult, but whereas a badly behaved child will be hauled off to the responsible adult, and the responsible adult asked to keep him in line, the badly behaved female is not hauled off to her father or her husband.

Tags:

54 Responses to “Dysgenic fertility”

  1. This might also be an argument for criminal penalties to become harsher over time.

  2. Alice Finkel says:

    Dysgenic fertility plays a much larger role in collapse of civilisation than soil erosion, climate change, and all the other bugaboos of the green doomer left.

    Read more from Richard Lynn’s “Dysgenics,” free at archive.org in multiple formats for download:

    https://archive.org/details/Dysgenics-Richard-Lynn

    • Thanks for the link and I will check out his book when I get time. However, I have communicated with him and I believe (please correct me if the book proves me wrong) he has not taken the message of CH to heart.

      In what I have seen, he monitors dysgenic fertility by looking at females, seeing poorer or dumber females have more babies.
      But it stands to reason that when women cheat, they do so with men who are on average substantially smarter or more articulate than average. If 10% of the babies are wrong about their fathers, and their true fathers average 30 IQ points higher, it could be an average of 1.5 IQ points per baby. That’s a bigger effect, I think, than most of what he discusses. I just made those numbers up, the reality could be lower, but it still seems substantial compared to what he looks at.

    • I appreciate that the post is about criminals getting laid more, but I’m guessing smart criminals get laid more than dumb ones. And smart non-criminals get laid more than dumb ones too.

      • peppermint says:

        …where “get laid” means sex with contraception and abortion, because if the mom thinks it’s a guy who could pay child support

        • What I’m suggesting is actually in large measure the opposite. I believe there’s a fair amount of evidence women will often marry the beta supporter, but have sex with the articulate alpha on the side, particularly on the days they are fertile. Arguably, this is sizeable force toward evolving for more articulateness and moxy.

          • And I think its a force totally left out of Lynn’s speculations on dysgenics, and other such analysis I’ve seen (but I haven’t looked much). Its plausibly the dominant force.

            I’ve long believed that human speech/language likely evolved so remarkably rapidly for such a complex adaptation through sexual selection, because articulate guys get laid more, a big spur to articulateness.

            • jim says:

              I’ve long believed that human speech/language likely evolved so remarkably rapidly for such a complex adaptation through sexual selection, because articulate guys get laid more, a big spur to articulateness.

              I have long believed that human speech evolved so rapidly, because tribes led by men who could give orders, take orders, and understand orders massacred other tribes and enslaved their women.

          • jim says:

            My female blood relatives are all high IQ high socioeconomic status, and this is not what I observed during their youngest and hottest years. It appeared to me that the people they were fucking were
            a. Dumb as posts.
            b. Fucking numerous women with my female relatives pretty low on the list.
            c. Only marginally employed in very low pay jobs.

      • jim says:

        I don’t think smart criminals get laid more than dumb criminals. Recall that one of the reasons that girls don’t do science and engineering is that they find the guys in the engineering department unattractive.

        Observing my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives, I would say that they mostly fucked people from the shallow end of the gene pool, the dumb side of the bell curve, while planning to marry people from the smart side of the bell curve, once the booty calls stopped coming.

        • The question is, who they had their kids by. My experience is, women are very motivated to find fathers they feel are extremely smart, if they don’t think the guy is a loser in some other way. And I think there’s data on their stepping out and forgetting their birth control preferentially when they are fertile.

          They may be quite capable of playing the field for a while, while on contraceptives, then settling down with some guy they think is a good provider, and finding some other guy they think can provide exemplary genes, which in my experience means someone they think will make smart babies.

          Anyway, what I’m proposing is certainly plausible seeing all the data I’ve seen to date. The notion that evolution is proceeding disgenically is pure speculation. I don’t think any of the arguments are taking cuckoldry into account at all, and it almost certainly favors evolution for intelligence rather strongly.

          Also I suspect you are wrong on the criminals. Being dumb for a criminal means you are pretty damn dumb, I doubt you are taking that into account adequately.

          • jim says:

            My experience is, women are very motivated to find fathers they feel are extremely smart,

            When high IQ high socioeconomic status are looking to settle down and get married, they look for smart men. But during their younger and hotter years, that is not what they are looking for.

            That is their rational mind overruling their natural instincts. Their natural instincts are, in this environment, dysgenic.

        • Also, btw, your high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives, if they married at all, probably married high IQ guys, so stepping out on them would provide relatively little benefit in IQ terms.

          However if your low IQ low socioeconomic status maid or secretary were to slip one over on her low IQ low socioeconomic status hubby, that might be a 50 IQ point dinger.

          • jim says:

            However if your low IQ low socioeconomic status maid or secretary were to slip one over on her low IQ low socioeconomic status hubby, that might be a 50 IQ point dinger.

            If she fucked her employer, yes, but if she fucked the guys my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives were fucking in their hottest years, probably get dinged in the wrong direction.

          • jim says:

            My one female relative that got married, stayed married, and had kids, was high IQ, and married a high IQ high socioeconomic status husband. But if she cheated on him with any of the numerous guys she slept with when she was young and hot, would be fifty IQ points lower. Those guys were dumb as posts, and they had more hot chicks running after them than you could shake a stick at.

        • The women realize they are on birth control.

          They do different things when they are looking to have kids.

          • jim says:

            Among high IQ high socioeconomic status females, some do different things when looking to have kids, some continue to follow their tingles, and continue to screw marginally employed males, and so wisely never have kids, and a few continue to follow their tingles and have kids regardless.

            But it is mighty obvious that their tingles are pointing them in the wrong direction.

        • Forgive me if I don’t find your anecdotal evidence convincing, especially as it pertains to a small fraction of the population, is seemingly biased because you have emotional attachment to the people observed, and furthermore you don’t actually know who is the genetic parent of whom or what their IQ. For all you really know this behavior could well be driving evolution for IQ, rather than serving disgenically. (The argument that it is socially bad because bad for kids, future, social stability etc. I find more compelling.)

          But I’m curious why you don’t find the argument at least mildly interesting:
          their sexual behavior evolved for a purpose, and furthermore was likely being practiced to an extent at the same time humans greatly advanced in IQ. You seem to reject the hypothesis that it was to slip a genetically superior biological parent in on a duped provider beta. What do you think it was for and how did we get so much more articulate than apes in the first place?

          • jim says:

            Girls are attracted to men who behave in a manner that in the ancestral environment, indicated high status, men who are unafraid of the consequences of their actions. In our society, these men, men who behave like that, tend to be low IQ. They are not indifferent to the consequences of their actions because they are so powerful they do not have to care. They are indifferent to the consequences of their actions because stupid.

          • jim says:

            See this post for what women go for:

            He had holes in his walls and bedding fit for a homeless person.

            That is the man my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives spent their hottest years on, uncomfortably aware that they were pretty low down on his list of girls to call for booty.

            Sparkles also tells us he was inarticulate

            We just stand at their beckon + call for reasons we’re not entirely aware of.

            He didn’t spoil me with gifts, pickup the tab at dinner, or compliment me at all. He was the kind of guy that asked you for nude pictures, spiritually ignored your texts and made you question your worth. I’d still send a text knowing I’d get a one-word answer

            She does not tell us that he was stupid, but, in the case of the men my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives wasted their youth on, they were as thick as two planks glued together, as well as being almost homeless.

          • Jim, first off the link you cited, the woman says he only flew once, to an Academic Decathlon. That suggests strongly he’s not an idiot, in fact is highly intelligent and self-made, ie doesn’t come from a rich background, or he would have flown more. He also figured out exactly how to attract women, which is something few guys are smart enough to do.

            Second of all my experience, from the other side of these interchanges, is the opposite of yours. Women cream for me precisely because they appreciate I’m really smart, and they want my genes for their kids. They not have not infrequently toldl me so, as well as showing me. Often women often of the same social class and presumed age as your relations. In fact, wouldn’t shock me if I’d banged one of your relations but the subject of crusty old uncle never came up.

            I find it totally weird that you are arguing that female hypergamy harms the genes. You haven’t said why you think it evolved, unless I missed it, but the obvious answer is to try to get superior genes. I’m pretty sure this is also the CH position, and its also the CH position that smarter and fitter men figure this out and adapt to it.

            Everything you are talking about is behavior that isn’t apparently reproductive at all. Do you doubt the women you are referring to would be behaving somewhat differently if they didn’t have birth control and/or the possibility of abortion?

            Nothing you talked about relates to cuckoldry, which is the main force I am proposing may be for positive. Its not hard for me to envisage women stepping out with guys they think are smarter than beta hubby.

            I find what you are saying not very plausible, but anyway we can probably agree its very very far from demonstrated.

            • jim says:

              Jim, first off the link you cited, the woman says he only flew once, to an Academic Decathlon. That suggests strongly he’s not an idiot, in fact is highly intelligent and self-made,

              Most normal people fly many times. He is not self made – he is almost homeless.

              Which is pretty typical of the men my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives spent their youth and their hottest years on.

              I find it totally weird that you are arguing that female hypergamy harms the genes

              No weirder than that in our environment, our food preferences cause us to overeat the wrong foods.

              You haven’t said why you think it evolved, unless I missed it, but the obvious answer is to try to get superior genes.

              Obviously females want the high status guy, because the high status guy has superior genes. But in the modern environment, their algorithm for detecting the high status guy misfires horribly.

              If their algorithm was working, they would find the corner office in a high tower extremely sexy. They don’t. They would find engineering degrees sexy. They don’t.

              They find high social skills sexy, with presumably correlates with general intelligence. They find boldness sexy, which negatively correlates with intelligence.

              High status in the male status hierarchy, the corner office, they don’t find sexy. The pop star is sexy, the guy who got the corner office at an extremely young age, not sexy. Their pussys, attuned to the old stone age where there were no corner offices, cannot tell the difference between someone who is so successful he is on top of the male status hierarchy, and someone who is so stupid he fails to pay attention to it (and therefore lives close to homeless)

          • You are also arguing that IQ is anti-correlated with men’s ability to appeal to women, ie that high IQ is counterproductive of ability to solve the most interesting and pressing problem a guy faces. If this was true it would mean the definition of IQ wasn’t very useful, since its supposed to pertain to solving generic real world problems. And the problem is also of most interest to the underlying motivation system.
            Aside from being implausible, this is insulting to us smart guys who aren’t afraid to look a woman in the eye.

            At the same time as you are arguing that women have been evolved to make mate selections that lead actively to worse genes.

            Based on not very much evidence, some anecdotes.

          • (1) The guy flew once, to an Academic Decathlon. He loved to read and wanted to teach history to urban high school students. That all says he is high IQ, and from very deprived background, and has/is overcoming. Meanwhile, I imagine he is putting himself through school. His lack of material circumstances I view as a good thing. I question your judgment of character. This guy is way better than the girl, she would indeed be lucky to have him, and if I were her father I’d think so too.
            (2) Its true that refined sugar is a temptation and the crowd-think government and medical system and capitalist interests selling food they could produce cheaply have cause some degree of ill health and this is to some extent likely an example of how evolved desires can go awry in the modern world. However, most of the smart people I know figure out to eat healthier after a while.

    • Instapundit just posted this from an anonymous reader:

      ” I am familiar with a massive ongoing multi-generational genetic study. . . . (Please don’t mention either it or my name.) The participants were predominantly “greatest generation” and their kids’ generation. Middle-class and white a bit more than the general population. It was looking for hereditary cancers (not too common, maybe 10% or so, last time I checked).

      But, of course, in the process of all this, they discovered so-called “false paternities”. (Their rules prohibited them from divulging this info to participants.) Anyway, the overall false paternity rate for this bunch from the “Leave it to Beaver demographic” was about 16%.

      16%. One in six. In middle America. Not your mom, of course, nor mine, but hey, that’s going to be a lot of data to discuss around the dinner table.

      Just thought you might enjoy some numbers!”
      —————-
      If 16% of the middle class white American population is mistaken about their paternity, then the choices made by their mothers and the nature of the actual fathers very likely dominate the alleged greater fertility of lower class women in determining whether evolution is dysgenic or eugenic, and again, I believe Lynn is ignoring this dominant term. I can’t imagine the women are choosing stupider men than their husbands to step out with, but I don’t know of an assay to settle this dispute.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “I can’t imagine the women are choosing stupider men than their husbands to step out with, but I don’t know of an assay to settle this dispute.”

        You could try looking at say… the rates that engineering majors at MIT get laid vs the rates that frat guys who major in business at directional state U get laid.

        • Even if it turns out true that the average MIT engineering student gets laid less than the average frat guy, that still wouldn’t tell you much about whom wives are choosing to father their children.

          Also, even if they are choosing business majors, its likely the smarter and more enterprising business majors, and these may well be 20 IQ points higher than their husbands. Its also likely to be the dumber husbands they choose to cuckold.

          I’m pretty smart, and I got laid a lot, and I’ve known other smart guys who got laid a lot. Intelligence won’t get you laid by itself. The guy still has to make the right moves. But its a canard that smart guys aren’t also athletes or swordsmen. You want to get laid a lot more than you are right now? Publish a well respected book or play the violin in Carnegie Hall. I guarantee either will improve your standing with women, so long as you don’t forget your game while you’re achieving other goals.

          • jim says:

            During their hottest and most fertile years, my high IQ high socioeconomic status female relatives were banging men who were at the shallow end of the gene pool, the wrong end of the bell curve, boys who were nearly homeless and none too bright.

            Then, later, when the eggs were running out, then they belatedly tried to cultivate high IQ high socioeconomic status males.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            natphilosopher says:

            “Even if it turns out true that the average MIT engineering student gets laid less than the average frat guy”

            Even if?

            You’re simply not living on the same planet as I am.

            “Also, even if they are choosing business majors, its likely the smarter and more enterprising business majors, and these may well be 20 IQ points higher than their husbands. Its also likely to be the dumber husbands they choose to cuckold.”

            This is also from another planet. On this planet women generally only marry a man with a higher IQ than she has (to whom she’s not attracted). How do we know she’s not attracted to him? Because he’s marrying a women that men universally consider unattractive – old, slutty women. Men with options don’t marry undesirable women and women don’t find men without options attractive – even if that means that a man with options wouldn’t be attracted to her. The modern world has fundamentally broken women’s mate seeking algorithms.

            Apply that same pattern to extra-pair mating and you’ll realize that she’s not cheating on her too nerdy and dependable for her husband with a more nerdy and dependable man – she’s cheating on him with a guy who’s lower IQ.

          • (1): You guys are talking about sex, I’m talking about reproduction. They differ in the minds and actions of women equipped with birth control. Tell me something to make me believe women don’t preferentially marry or cheat for the purpose of reproduction with smarter guys because nothing you’ve said seems relevant and everything I know says they do.
            (2) I have been told by many women they were interested in me because of my genes or because of specific accomplishments of mine. One of my young beautiful dates literally ran an accomplishment by her divorced Mom, who actually approved of the liason (and of course, this helped with my wives’ parents too). I know various other way high IQ guys who get laid a lot. My Mom’s best pun: I married Dad for his genes, he married me for my bathing suit. You guys seem to be observing MIT from afar. I was employed there.
            (3) Yes, you need game. But smart guys are more likely to develop good game than dumb guys, or smart is useless. Find a better definition of smart if you don’t realize this.
            (4) Smart is correlated with athletic. Its correlated with rich. Its correlated with music performance. Its correlated with poetic. A guy who has muscles, unless he works on a farm, has demonstrated his ability to pass the marshmallow test. You don’t think these things are good for attracting women?
            (5) You guys come across like sour grapes who like to think you are smart, but can’t manage to get laid. Get a life.

            • jim says:

              You guys seem to be observing MIT from afar. I was employed there.

              One of the reasons chicks don’t want to go to MIT is that they don’t want to be surrounded by nerds.

              A hot lawyer chick I know very well wanted to go to a top law school largely to meet high socioeconomic status high IQ socially skilled charismatic lawyers. Went there, became a successful lawyer. Everyone around her (mostly males, because the job requires extreme smarts) is terrified of her because of affirmative action and sexual harassment. They would rather have sex with girls who cannot destroy their careers. She came to perceive them as low status. So she spent her fertile years fucking criminals, stony broke ski bums, and stony broke rock climbers. No longer fertile, though her mother irrationally believes otherwise.

  3. bub says:

    I have another solution. Moldbug’s patchwork. Kick out the felons, and those likely to become criminals. Sent them to Africa, or a bad area of the US. Your areas will be pristine. The bad areas will be forced to deal harshly with criminals, and decrease their reproductive success, however they can.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      If we’re overthrowing the entire order why not just go with some very simple and obvious criminal justice reforms, too? The only reason these don’t exist now is because progressives use criminals as an unofficial militia.

      Beatings by the cops and posses of responsible citizens for budding criminals.

      Public whippings for first violent offense (after a trial that takes place within days of the offense – not years).

      Public executions for second violent offenses.

      No “domestic violence” laws – which only serve to let women indulge in a taste for violent men by having the state act as her father / big brother.

      Three years of that and crime would be back at Victorian levels.

      • Tend to agree with Mr. Johnson here. Crime isn’t really that much of a problem so long as the police, or some cohesive group of citizens, are incentivized to stamp it out.

      • Korth says:

        It works in Singapore.

        • jim says:

          We can easily reduce crime to levels indistinguishable from zero. There is no reason we should be at greater risk of being mugged than eaten by lions.

          But even if we reduce crime to indistinguishable from zero, women screwing bad boys is still a problem.

          It is not only that we don’t want women to fuck Jeremy Meeks. We don’t want them fuck Baron Byron either.

          • I don’t understand why not. Presumably if women are cheating, its to achieve some evolutionary end which seems likely to be selecting better genes for their children, not worse. It seems very plausible to me this is how humans got so smart in the first place.

            It strikes me the women are probably better judges of how to produce effective offspring than you are, because if they were choosing to produce inferior offspring the tendency would probably have gone away long ago.

            • jim says:

              In the current environment, their selection criteria are misfiring, probably because maladapted to an environment of emancipation.

              My female relatives are all high IQ high socioeconomic status, and during their youngest and hottest years they generally fucked men who were semipermanently unemployed, and when employed, had jobs folding sweaters.

            • jim says:

              It strikes me the women are probably better judges of how to produce effective offspring than you are, because if they were choosing to produce inferior offspring the tendency would probably have gone away long ago.

              In the ancestral environment (where the legal and social status of women was similar to that of dogs or cattle) their instincts doubtless produced the correct results.

              In our environment, not working.

              One of my commentators produced the following conjecture: In the ancestral environment, the alpha male acted alpha, and any fake alpha, whether pretending or deluded, was killed.

              In our environment, fake alphas are not killed. So men who are sincerely deluded that they are alpha are naturals, who clean up.

              In the ancestral environment, the guy in the marginal job was low status because when you got fired, they tended to put a spear through you, so he was apt to cringe and grovel before people in higher status jobs. In our environment, that he genuinely does not give a shit about his boss or the customer or the police or such, makes it easy for him to act alpha.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Look at Africa to see the results of the survival environment allowing women to sexually select men.

            Yeah, “better” genes – for sprinting, violent impusivity, primitive musicality, penis size and 160 fewer ccs of brain matter – just enough missing to literally never invent writing.

          • Steve, those Africans presumably figured out language and I’d guess money. And I doubt the women in the ancestral environment had the kind of choice they do in an urban society. Their hubby probably kept a better eye on them in Africa 50K ago than a modern one would, and maybe was less afraid to exercise discipline. You seem to feel humans have made evolutionary progress since leaving Africa, have you considered the possibility that sexual selection might be a big part of it.

  4. sunshinemary says:

    For civilization to continue, female sexual and reproductive activity has to be placed, legally and socially, under the control of fathers and husbands

    This is true, but there will need to be responsible husbands and fathers to control the women, then, and not all social groups have an abundance of men willing and able to play this role.

    • jim says:

      I am pretty sure that if dads were selecting who would dance with his daughter at her coming out party (and therefore be in a position to request her hand in marriage) the guy who got the corner office at a young age for landing the coca cola account would get more invites out of the blue than the guy in jail for kidnapping, rape, murder, and cannibalism.

      My female relatives were high IQ high socioeconomic status, and planned to marry someone high IQ high socioeconomic status – once they were through having fun with attractive guys who were extremely low IQ and zero socioeconomic status. (Very slight attachment to the workforce, and what attachment they had to the workforce was retail jobs of the sweater folding variety)

      I am not aware that any of their lovers were in jail for kidnapping, rape, murder, and cannibalism, however many of them probably should have been sent to workhouse for chronic vagrancy.

  5. Steve says:

    Hot chicks getting it on with dumb guys is not the problem. Hot chicks being significantly dumber than cold chicks is the problem.

  6. Fxkv says:

    I can’t understand the last sentence of the post.

  7. re-akcc says:

    Uncivilized men are something we all know – brutish, violent, rough, dirty, lying bastards who nobody likes. But what are uncivilized women like?

    Let me share my 2 cents on this question:

    My grandmother (from my mothers side) is now 86 years old. My entire memory of her is of a person who cannot control her feelings at all – she cries about 10 times a day, she gets angry at every single detail, and has an uncontrollable urge to command people. I know nothing of her youth in detail, only some rough details: she was born and raised in a rough mountainous area by an uncle (mother died in childbirth), and she had one illegitimate child before she married my grandfather. Grandpa was a decadent man, but kept her in order with pure physical violence. As soon as he left the house, she used every opportunity to talk trash about him, to cry, to engage in long speeches of self-pity and gossip … and when he came home, it was quiet. She got in a fight with every single neighbor they had, but maintained a fascinatingly good friendship with one girl who was living as a tenant in their home – the girl is very low IQ, with a boyfriend who is in jail for petty crime, she is a mother of their child, and is living on welfare, spending money on cigarettes, cell phones and jail visits. My grandmother loves her and feels for her more then for her own daughter.

    Grandfather died last year, and since then she’s been behaving better, because she’s treated like a disobeying dog – she senses that people around her do not respond to hysterical behavior, and she’s more quiet.

    My mother and my uncle, her son, are both person of high IQ (engineers and mathematicians) and stable personalities (family, kids, good jobs), so I am concluding that my grandmother is not genetically insane or unstable. She is a woman who was never CIVILIZED in the full meaning of that word – she never learned to keep her mouth shut, to keep her feelings under control, to take a few deep breaths before bursting into anger, to mind her own business and let the men do men’s work. She never learned to control her evolutionary mechanisms of attention-whoring and inciting the most intense negative feelings in people.

    Evolution gave us men testosterone. We can use it to chop wood or run to help a friend in need, or we can use it to kick someone’s head in for the fun of it. Most of us learn to control it well. Evolution gave women jealousy, envy, violence, self pity, arrogance and absence of perception of their real social status and position. If that part of woman’s behavior is nor properly controlled an corrected on time, she is beyond control and socially useless for the rest of her life.

  8. Sean says:

    I just finished reading this book. This is a fascinating read and written in 1910. It’s fascinating to see how the problems of yesterday are still and even worse today. The author talks a lot about genetics and how it impacts the human species.

    https://archive.org/details/sociologymoderns00ellwuoft

  9. Wait a moment… How do we know the children in question were fathered by the crooks? The odds are that their whores were even more promiscuous.

Leave a Reply