For a second, forget what gender you are. Also, forget any existing opinions on variances in biological gender traits you may hold – if any. Instead, quickly think about the many differences in reaction to the above title had it instead read:
Evolutionary Science 101: Are Females Smarter Than Males? Science Says Yes
How many mainstream science journals and liberal tabloids would proudly emblazon such a revolutionary finding across their front pages unapologetically? Take this to the bank: Science would periodically be more popular than sex as a chant of “the future is female” rose up like prayers to the deity.
It’s clear that science is becoming another academic safe space. Evolutionary science, in particular, is in danger of complete derailment by those who fear the implications of greater human understanding. The future of evolutionary science now revolves around two quivering phobias within the halls of academia: On one hand we have researchers petrified their character and findings will come under attack by political correctness hawks; on the other hand lurks a lynch mob of academic activists who, out of pure fear of the implications, are actively suppressing study into uncomfortable aspects of gender dimorphism and biological variance across racial groups. The former are now largely self-censoring to the detriment of overall scientific progress; the latter are becoming emboldened as bullying becomes normalized through official endorsement.
This article will treat one such landmark incident recently exposed in a Quillette piece authored a few weeks ago by Theodore P. Hill; Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech and currently a research scholar in residence at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Ted and two associates collaborated to produce a research paper which was first scotched from an agreed publication in the Mathematical Intelligencer, then subsequently published by the New York Journal of Mathematics (NYJM), only to be ‘memory-holed’ and replaced after publication. Ted’s published paper in its final form was entitled An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis (2018), which is now only available as an archived pdf ( HERE ).
After realizing his hard work had been unceremoniously assassinated on the podium – after publication, without precedent – Ted did some digging to identify those responsible. It was discovered that the paper had been targeted by an influential wife and husband team of activists at the University of Chicago. Professor Amie Wilkinson and her husband Professor Benson Farb – a member of the NYJM editorial board – had become confederate with Amie’s psychometrician and statistician father including Benson’s father-in-law. These personalities had taken exception to the social implications of Ted’s paper on purely ‘feminist’ grounds and had hatched a plot to murder his paper. At no time did any of these academic assassins approach the authors directly, preferring cowardice by exerting influence from behind the curtain.
Ted’s paper had dared to theorize about an evolutionary mechanism to explain the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMVH); probably one of the most controversial but solid fields of study in evolutionary science due to its relevance in understanding variance in human intelligence distributions. This area of study is vital for the fair application of gender-based social policy in the field of education; it is also vital for guiding workplace reform policy regarding merit-based recruitment practices where high-IQ individuals are required. Those who seek to impose artificial gender-based quotas on recruitment within public and private organizations, seemingly, need to suppress this field of scientific inquiry in order to fulfill a social engineering agenda. The extent to which such social engineering is simply the product of transgressive group-think, or more organized, itself probably deserves serious study on evolutionary grounds because a clear group strategy within a subset of the human population is becoming noticeable.
Ted’s story elucidates the extent to which a crusading lynch mob is wrecking the integrity of STEM within the education system of the western world, prompting some hard questions:
Is this lynch mob adopting a collective identity and actively pursuing a group strategy to eliminate their biological competition?
If so, did this group strategy arise mostly organically, or was it consciously precipitated by active social engineering?
If so, who are the parties most responsible for consciously catalyzing the rise of this lynch mob?
Like a viral infection followed by an antibody reaction, is the rising audibility of this group strategy actually the driving force behind the rise of the ‘Alt-Right’? (Amorphous and heavily male as this Hegelian reactionary group is, it is undoubtedly the antithesis of the lynch mob).
Is this antibody reaction, which is also becoming self-aware, supposed to sit back and allow the wholesale wrecking of academic freedom to undertake scientific inquiry?
We’ve seen the cost of such complacency on the social sciences in recent years. I say it’s high time to wage a counteroffensive in the name of titans like Galileo. We owe it to these brave men from skirmishes of old to carry forward the flame of truth, ensuring their great personal sacrifices were not in vain.
What Would Galileo Say About This?
Fear is a powerful motivator; some might say the most important evolutionary motivator of all as it underpins the development of the global food chain. Who’s eating who and who is successfully preventing themselves from becoming dinner is important stuff. But should fear have a place in scientific inquiry? Can we at least all agree that modern humans have an imperative to free scientific inquiry and theory from the irrational jaws of human emotion? Scientific truths shouldn’t have to account for feels. We need to throw away the adult diapers and embrace dispassionate scientific inquiry as a separate jurisdiction from the ethical and moral systems we eventually find influenced by scientific truth. Maybe this is just too much to ask of those who live in fear of being eaten so instead have decided to act as apex predators in the academic food chain. Perhaps this is evolution at work – eat or be eaten!
Galileo has been described by the likes of Einstein as the ‘father of modern science.’ He is undoubtedly a character who requires no introduction, yet the lessons of his life story and persecution, we are led so easily to believe, are lessons for a bygone era. Not so. Such lessons are timeless. Their relevance to the modern era should be as fresh as the red meat of a giant buffalo ripped from the bone by a pack of hungry hyenas able to pick him off based purely on numerical superiority. For most of his life Galileo probably felt like that buffalo, but as tasty as he was, the hyena has a formidable appetite. It is never satisfied. Along comes a new variety of hyena – one that shrieks like a Banshee.
Upon his death in 1642 the body of Galileo was refused burial among his relatives in the Basilica of Santa Croce. When the Church finally admitted its error almost one hundred years later his body was re-interred exactly where it deserved to be, but not before three of his fingers were unceremoniously removed from his remains – the middle finger of his right hand being currently on display at the Museo Galileo in Florence. Yes, the middle finger! Galileo was a pious individual who would probably object to such a post-mortem prank – as funny as we find this today – but this monumental finger of history has more value for me than to evince a mere chuckle; it represents the inability of decent people to defend the freedoms and honor of our strongmen of civilization within their own lifetime, against unworthy hyenas.
Should Theodore P. Hill and other prominent thinkers of this current era console themselves by the thought their progeny might at least get a chance to glare upon the embalmed middle finger of their forefather, flipping the bird towards the likes of the New York Journal of Mathematics? No, said forefather should have the satisfaction of seeing his persecutors reprimanded, chastised by their peers in academia, but also exposed to public ridicule for corrupting the legacy of men like Galileo.
But why is this not the case already? Why is Mr. Hill probably, right now, inserting a provision in his last will and testament to preserve all ten fingers upon his cadaver? It’s simple: Buffaloes are much stronger than hyenas yet they lack an effective group strategy capable of nullifying the well-developed group strategy of the hyena. The strong within society, out of necessity, must actively develop conscious group strategies against their would-be assassins who fancy themselves as apex predators. It’s only a cunning bluff. Group strategy is a seminal force in evolution (ie, bees, dolphins, hyenas), but like the shrieking feminist within academia, males need to literally ‘man up’ as a group, instead of standing idle while being steadily emasculated.
The Three Sins Of Theodore P. Hill – Arch Heretic
What were Ted’s great sins deserving of investigationem annihilatio ?
** Here are the three biggies:**
Ted had the kahunas to splash this little beauty (below) across page seven of his paper. I’ve labeled the graph for the enjoyment of the layman. This graph should be known as “The horror! The horror!” or the “Oh to be average!” icon. It’s crying out to be adopted as the logo of a men’s rights organization called Men Behaving Badly International (MBBI) – conciliatory women of good quality welcome for membership too because you’re evidently the world’s most valuable commodity based on high desirability (read Ted’s paper for the inside joke).
Nobody wants to be average, but then most people don’t want to be a bricklayer or a plumber either – no offense to the humble laborer; you’re more useful to society than a dozen shrieking feminists or a pack of high soy content urban trust fund babies. This graph displays what every intellectually honest and keen observer of society already suspects: There are a higher percentage of both really stupid males and really smart males in the overall population when compared to females on a like-for-like basis. Females hug the average more closely.
Contrary to the above graph which is generalized for the GMVH across all traits, the average male IQ is actually higher than the average female IQ. This is seemingly due to the effects of larger average brain size and higher testosterone levels, among others. Ted didn’t go this far in his paper, but the assumption that there’s a higher proportion of mentally deficient males than females does not seem to be the case (!), which can only evince a more shrill reaction from ‘feminists’.
Just go to a Chess tournament and have an unbiased look around. These differences between male and female brain development aren’t the result of discrimination against females by males, but rather a biological discrimination phenomenon. Males shouldn’t be forced to apologize for human biology and we definitely shouldn’t be made to believe disparities in performance are due to our behavioral discrimination against females. The truth is this: Males who play Chess are itching to meet competitive (desirable) females in the workplace but they’re simply left standing at the altar, no fault of their own – we don’t blame the victim. What male Chess player wouldn’t want a spouse he could practice competitively with for enjoyment and edification in their spare time?
There’s no need here to explain Ted’s highly technical mathematical models as they are above most people’s comprehension, including my own. It will simply suffice to repeat Ted’s introduction to this gender variability phenomenon where he simply quotes Charles Darwin:
In his research on evolution in the 19th century Charles Darwin reported "Throughout the animal kingdom, when the sexes differ in external appearance, it is, with rare exceptions, the male which has been the more modified; for, generally, the female retains a closer resemblance to the young of her own species, and to other adult members of the same group". – Page 1 of Ted’s paper.
The primary biological trait which seems to pack the culture war dynamite, predictably, is human intelligence. Obviously, this is due to IQ being the most important determinant of perceived social value in a modern, technological world, and especially for academics addicted to the smell of their own lovely scent. Likewise, in timeless fashion, even the human creation story in the book of Genesis enshrines the fate of human relations using the Tree of Knowledge metaphor – triggering a fall from grace into a disorder built on faulty gender relations as Adam laments: “The woman whom thou gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree [of knowledge], and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12). The Ancient Greeks also had a story about the first female releasing disorder upon the world; Pandora and her ‘box’ or ‘pithos’, within which only hope (Elpis) remained entrapped – maybe the reader can ponder upon the timeless musings of Greek literary use of sexual euphemism. How ironic that such valuable anthropological artifacts deemed ‘defunct’ still highlight perfectly the importance of gender relations when it comes to the human ability to harness knowledge to prevent social disorder.
Regardless of the explosiveness of the IQ dynamite (forbidden fruit, pardon the pun), it’s important to note for the sake of theoretical rigidity that this gender-based variability observation holds for 1) a vast spectrum of biological traits such as height, ape index, hand size (!), etcetera, and 2) it is observable across most of the animal kingdom with infrequent but interesting exceptions to this rule, particularly in the insect kingdom involving an inversion to the sexual dimorphism rule and its correlation with sexual cannibalism; reinforcing a suspicion that a biological gender war is indeed bubbling deep within organic life systems (perhaps the topic for a future article).
As rigid as the first moment Darwin penned it, the GMVH observation is as solid as the truth of heliocentricity championed by Galileo, and likewise, it has hurt the feely-feels of powers that shouldn’t be – academic misandrists and their cuckold sidekicks posing as angelic, benevolent feminists.
Ted’s proposed theory to explain the greater variability among one gender of a sexually dimorphic species, upon which he chose to formulate general mathematical principles to spur further debate, verbatim, was this:
“SELECTIVITY-VARIABILITY PRINCIPLE. In a species with two sexes A and B, both of which are needed for reproduction, suppose that sex A is relatively selective, i.e., will mate only with a top tier (less than half ) of B candidates. Then from one generation to the next, among subpopulations of B with comparable average attributes, those with greater variability will tend to prevail over those with lesser variability. Conversely, if A is relatively non-selective, accepting all but a bottom fraction (less than half ) of the opposite sex, then subpopulations of B with lesser variability will tend to prevail over those with comparable means and greater variability.” – Page 2 of Ted’s paper.
Even though Ted’s paper is highly academic, he has managed to vigorously wave a red flag at a bull – or since Ted is the bull, perhaps a pack of hyenas is more appropriate. We can clearly see that males of many species, especially mammals and birds, compete for the attention of the female who holds the ability to partake in the evolutionary process between her legs.
As a quick proof of concept, here are two great examples from the bird kingdom – now tell me Ted is wrong to look in this direction!
Clearly, the greater visual variability in attractive plumage only exhibited by the males is designed to attract the plain looking females. It's all about the nookie. At some point in time, only the males would have diverged from the norm in order to increase their chances of mating, thus they must have exhibited greater variability. In humans, when it comes to visual performance, women seem to be the ones investing more heavily on personal appearance, however, in the human species, discrimination for IQ – but also IQ correlations like wealth – has become most important to the equation, unlike with our feathered friends.
In human social science, the act of one gender exhibiting higher selection criteria (being picky) towards a future mate, is known as hypergamy; colloquially referred to as “marrying up” or “gold-digging.” Hypergamy is among one of the easiest social phenomena to observe, especially where a historical analysis of Western European culture versus Islamic culture is concerned. This is perhaps a topic for a future article because the manifestation of hypergamy between Islam and Christendom has been quite marked in modes of application over time; even more so among Jewish populations where the males were confined to mercantile professions and then these families were able to escape, for instance, a pogrom, while poorer families were not.
To show how deep this subject cuts into modern gender relations, from The Rational Male, here’s probably one of the most revealing excerpts I’ve read on hypergamy and the ‘my body, my choice’ era where feminists scowl at hypergamy as if it were a vicious slander:
“I recently saw a video of a fertility doctor who had either used his own sperm to fertilize women’s eggs, or completely random samples to father about 40 children. The women, the children (mostly female) were absolutely aghast that he was their father or some donor who they would never know had contributed to half their DNA. The idea that the selection and control of Hypergamy was taken from them was worthy of the death penalty. Yet this is exactly the control we expect men to relinquish in this age. We will pat men on the back for abandoning their evolved instinct to ascertain paternity. We’ll tell a man he’s a hero for wifing up a single mother and “stepping up to be a father” to a child he didn’t sire and at the same time pretend that fathers are superfluous. We’ll change ‘Father’s Day’ to ‘Special Person’s Day’ and tell men they’re insecure in their masculinity for preferring a son or daughter of his own – but try to remove that control from a woman, try to tell her that Hypergamous choice wasn’t hers to make and it’s tantamount to rape.” – The Rational Male.
If you liked that excerpt, you’ll be horrified by THIS exhibit.
The real bombshell which should hit home for feminists if Ted’s correct:
“Within human populations where females have historically experienced greater license to choose a mate/sperm sample, due to the correlation between economic success and intelligence, greater female discrimination has aided the males of our species to become more vigorous genetically, especially regarding IQ.” – Choróin Ó Ceallaigh
‘Choice’ is a word feminists love to sloganize, but the irony is that the birthrate of rabid feminists is extremely low compared with females lacking their same social antagonisms, which will only increase the pool of males available to those right-headed females actually seeking a male for mating purposes. Because the direction of future evolution, and especially male vigor, is decided by breeding rather than constant dry-womb kvetching about muh patriarchy, if Ted’s theory is correct (I’d wager it is), feminists are only plotting a future where males have an even larger variability in IQ in comparison to females. Too bad for the overall fertility rate though – R.I.P.
Ted’s theory (in genetic terms) translates into an extremely selective pressure on the genes within the Y-chromosome in particular, which is only transmitted through male lines. Recent studies on the link between the Y-chromosome and dimorphic differences in brain development are beyond the scope of this article, but if the readers dare delve into this arena the following study is a good place to start:
The Role of the Y Chromosome in Brain Function (2010).
“Conclusion: Despite its small size, and limited gene content, we have argued here that the Y chromosome may exert a considerable influence on brain function. As a consequence of its inheritance pattern, genes upon it may help to define male-specific brain phenotypes, and hence male-typical behaviors. . . . A major goal for future work will be to describe the brain functions of Y-linked genes in terms of their relevance to selective evolutionary forces acting on the chromosome, such as sexual antagonism. Further studies on the Y chromosome will provide insights into the biological basis of neural sexual differentiation (or lack thereof), and will clarify the molecular basis of sex biases in common neuropsychiatric disorders.”
Right there at the end, we see the real reason why removing academic activists is vital to human progress: The study of neuropsychiatric disorders is tied up with our understanding of sexual dimorphisms. Why should we choose political correctness over advances in medical science which could greatly alleviate human suffering by possibly opening up a world of treatments and cures for brain disorders? Maybe we should ask this question to the faculty, administrators and trustees of the University of Chicago, the “Free-Speech University” according to the Wall Street Journal. Don’t expect an answer any time soon – the devil protects his own.
Ted is a male . . . the most serious crime of all, but Ted DGAF.
The Best Retirement Present Ever
Clearly, Ted and his two colleagues are victims of gender discrimination in the workplace by a female activist and her accomplice husband with a different surname who you just know chants “yes zir” all day long like a parrot gagging for a cracker. Unfortunately, Ted’s two colleagues removed their names from his paper before publication, caving into the pressure because they fear to jeopardize their careers. But what about Ted? No, Ted wasn’t about to retire without making use of his middle finger before his joints seize up. Ted went full honey badger.
Ted seems to have learned the best lesson of all from the post-mortem Galileo, and he’s done so while still drawing breath. Persevering to bring this curious saga to light will pay dividends for posterity. However, this individual effort is merely one building block necessary to expose the hyenas preying upon academic freedoms, subsequently infecting our culture and hamstringing real human progress.
That group strategy I hinted at earlier is where you, dear reader, come into your own. Ted’s story is a weapon and there are many other examples out there requiring a home in an organized armory. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to ensure these weapons are constantly fired and reloaded on social media and in the public space, but also woven into future alternative media productions such as online video and prose. This is evolutionary war. Only through this group strategy can we earn a much-needed advantage by turning the tables of fear upon these hyenas. Females who care more about social harmony and family needs than selfish agenda, who value the future wellbeing of their sons, should be treated as the Chess Queens they are – MVP’s – and don’t forget this, men! Healthy families are the engine of human progress and the single most important driver of success or failure in human evolution. It’s a group effort, or it’s a dead end.
Ted’s episode will now get hung on the same immovable wall as the activist bullying of Jordan Peterson, James Damore, Cassie Jaye and Lindsay Shepherd (more ammunition). I can only imagine one retirement gift better for badger Ted than having a paper published in the NYJM, and that’s being the first person to have a paper published but then memory-holed by Orwellian activists. Undoubtedly, Ted’s paper will now be read by more people than any other NYJM paper, ever. Winning!
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” – a based male badger
Here’s the link to Ted’s archived paper and here’s the link to Ted’s Quillette article which contains far juicier intrigue than an episode of Game of Thrones. It’s well worth the read though I’d love to see a mini-documentary of Ted’s story set to a David Attenborough impersonator unlocking the faunal mysteries of the academic food chain. There has to be a talented YouTube badger out there somewhere looking for a project to bite into. Extra points if YouTube bans it. Dare to be famous, like Ted.