[Blackpill] Racepill Part 6 - Why women are inherently racist, Koinophilia and Neoteny

Weed

Weed

ded srs
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
13,797
Online
42d 13h 6m
How many racepills does it take to prove racepill
Did you even read the thread ? Where did I say women ONLY want white men ? What do those studies suggest ?
just fucking lol
Just be white
 
Last edited:
13k

13k

only the ugly can be incel
★★★
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Posts
2,733
Online
0
Edit: only thing I'd add OP is that too much neoteny in men is bad. It is why Asiancels get cucked by whitecels.
you are absolutely right. That's also what articles I've read about neoteny showed. Basically it goes like this;

for women: more neoteny is always good.

for men: neoteny is good in moderate levels. full lips, less hair loss, small nose, big eyes, compact face they are plusses. But too much neotenous features (retention of fat in certain parts of body, shorter height) can be bad.
 
CrackyChanFan

CrackyChanFan

Recruit
★★
Joined
May 8, 2018
Posts
136
Online
5d 6h 19m
This will not be a white man's world for much longer. Lothrop Soddard pretty much predicted the whole of modern race politics back in 1920. Stoddard argued the only way to save white supremacy was to end all immigration from non-white countries and implement eugenics programs in white countries to improve the quality of teh white race. The East Asians are better educated, smarter, more hard working and, during this century, will become wealthier and more technologically developed than whites.

Meanwhile the population of Africa is exploding. The changes in the climate will make Sub-Saharan Africa difficult to live in; there will be a slow exodus to Europe (a continent with a declining white birth rate for its higher IQ middle and upper classes). The only demographic of white people that tend to have a replaceable number kids are the low IQ working and underclasses. This can already be seen in my country (UK) where by far the worst performing demographic at school and poor, white working/underclass class boys.

No doubt there are many minority incels who are bitter towards whites and, in particular, white Chads; thus, many of you are happy to see my people decline, and, probably, be murdered once we have lost all power.

I suspect the Han Chinese (and possibly Northern Indians?) will take the throne as the world's most powerful ethic group, replacing those of Northern European origin.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_Tide_of_Color_Against_White_World-Supremacy
 
Soul_Synarchy

Soul_Synarchy

Temp. Banned
★★
Joined
May 5, 2018
Posts
662
Online
0
This will not be a white man's world for much longer. Lothrop Soddard pretty much predicted the whole of modern race politics back in 1920. Stoddard argued the only way to save white supremacy was to end all immigration from non-white countries and implement eugenics programs in white countries to improve the quality of teh white race. The East Asians are better educated, smarter, more hard working and, during this century, will become wealthier and more technologically developed than whites.

Meanwhile the population of Africa is exploding. The changes in the climate will make Sub-Saharan Africa difficult to live in; there will be a slow exodus to Europe (a continent with a declining white birth rate for its higher IQ middle and upper classes). The only demographic of white people that tend to have a replaceable number kids are the low IQ working and underclasses. This can already be seen in my country (UK) where by far the worst performing demographic at school and poor, white working/underclass class boys.

No doubt there are many minority incels who are bitter towards whites and, in particular, white Chads; thus, many of you are happy to see my people decline, and, probably, be murdered once we have lost all power.

I suspect the Han Chinese (and possibly Northern Indians?) will take the throne as the world's most powerful ethic group, replacing those of Northern European origin.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_Tide_of_Color_Against_White_World-Supremacy
Interesting stuff, the rise of East Asia is very legit but I doubt that means an end to western dominance. At worst it means global power will be more equally shared between the two. Africa is only a threat to itself and the Elites of this world won't just cuck their power away to others, especially Jews which are only really safe in a western setting. The KKK guy you are mentioning was linked to the Elites of his time if you dig deep into it.
 
Blackpill101

Blackpill101

Banned
-
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Posts
3,610
Online
0
Being born on earth naturally makes you a racist. Racism is completely justifiable.
 
V

VinnyVan

Recruit
★★★★
Joined
May 15, 2018
Posts
397
Online
0
Not wanting to date outside your race is not racism. Racism is irrational hatred of other races. It's when a jew wants to flood white countries with brown people and when a brown man wants to racemix just to "get back" at the white man who did nothing to him.


 
Fungi

Fungi

Turkcell/neet/they are killinğ me
-
Joined
Dec 17, 2017
Posts
195
Online
0
Even if you live in a non white country, people who are paler than you will mog you because for thousands of years being brown meant working under sun like a slave and being poor while being pale meant that you stay indoors and have a higer payin job that you do inside. This reality was coded into foid genes and their primal brains will hardly know better
 
bkdreamkb

bkdreamkb

unemployed and alcoholic
★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
837
Online
1d 2h 35m
bbcel

bbcel

Recruit
Joined
Feb 12, 2018
Posts
89
Online
0
Painful, but very real.

I have always known this, the empirical experience of being black in (specifically) the middle class shows me this every day.
 
microDongCityUSA

microDongCityUSA

Major
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 21, 2017
Posts
2,437
Online
4d 9h 45m
 
Last edited:
S

subsaharan

Officer
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Posts
539
Online
0
This thread ventures way more into the pseudoscience territory than previous threads in this series.

Men (overall) generally exclude black women at rates on par with those of women (overall) when it comes to Asian men, so saying women are more racist by tallying up the various different ethnic/racial groups excluded instead of specifying which groups are excluded and to what extent may not be the most honest way of looking at it.

But that's not why I'm making this post. This is:

C-Neoteny
Many of you have this misconception that neoteny is having subhuman recessed chin and weak jaw. But that isnt true.
View attachment 17470
View attachment 17475

wiki says;
Neoteny is the delaying or slowing of the physiological (or somatic) development of an organism, typically an animal. Neoteny is found in modern humans.

It is directly linked to human attractiveness.
A quote from the study Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implication

".....A youthful or neotenous face is one that combines a high ratio of neurocranial to lower-facial features with a small nose and ears and full lips. The appendix gives a summary of a number of studies of neoteny and facial attractiveness"
"....In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females
.....Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females"

Long story short, neoteny is also associated with bigger frontal cortex in humans. Take a guess what are the most neotenous nations ?
Japan and northeast asia.
Outside Northeast Asia, the most neotenized people are of Northern European (Nordic, Celtic, Germanic) origin.

The more neotenous a race, the more intelligent and higher cranial capacity and neuroplasticity.
View attachment 17471

View attachment 17472
View attachment 17473
View attachment 17480


TLDR:
Women are biologically wired to seek out men of most powerful race. Women are gatekeepers to the reproduction and natural selection. Race is much less important issue for men than women Ethnic males are in disadvantage not only because their phenotype and features is considered ugly but also their race is associated with lower status and IQ.


References and Quotations:
The Evolution of Human Sexuality
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230563619_The_Evolution_of_Human_Sexuality_An_Introduction

Pierre L van Den Berghe, The ethnic phenomenon
https://lesacreduprintemps19.files....henomenon-1987-by-pierre-l-van-den-berghe.pdf

Pierre L van Den Berghe, Does Race Matter ?
https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2006/SOC766/um/Does_race_matter_PVDB.pdf

Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implication
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/...httpsredir=1&article=1601&context=fchd_facpub

Richard Lynn RACE DIFFERENCES IN INTELLIGENCE 2006
https://www.velesova-sloboda.info/archiv/pdf/lynn-race-differences-in-intelligence.pdf
I believe mate preferences do have biologic underpinnings, but the above is mistaken. How could neoteny or IQ account for women's racial preferences when, as you noted, Asians, on average, have both the most neotenous craniofacial features and the highest IQ? How does that make any sense, given that they are the most excluded by women?

It also seems inconsistent with the literature, which suggests neoteny is an important trait for female beauty. The trend is for facial masculinity for male beauty, which is inversely related to neotenous facial anthropometrics.

Moreover, another bit of incoherent theorizing may be found in trying to associate mean group IQ with the extent of mean neoteny physiognomy. In full disclosure, I've spent the bulk of my posting career across the intarwebz debunking Pioneer Fund race realist claims on the interpretations and implications of group differences in IQ.

For instance, in the Lynn pdf you linked, on page 50-52, in the subsection entitled, "Intelligence of Bushmen," Lynn goes on at length about how the San people of the Kalahari have a mean IQ of 54 and then speculates how this shows the cognitive threshold necessary to survive the Kalahari desert is one that an 8-year-old white kid could easily surpass. Instead of critiquing the absurdity of this line of thinking, which has been done before, I want to draw attention back to your neoteny claims -- because it turns out, that the IQ-of-54 San people are more neotenous than Caucasoids, on average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans#San_people :
Ashley Montagu said that the San have the following neotenous traits relative to Caucasoids: large brain, light skin pigment, less hairy, round-headed, bulging forehead, small cranial sinuses, flat roof of the nose, small face, small mastoid processes, wide eye separation, median eye fold, short stature and horizontal penis.


Where do they fall on the female preference algorithm? Closer to the most-neotenous-and-highest-IQ-yet-most-excluded "Mongoloids"? Closer to "Negroids"?

tl;dr: neoteny is a pretty shitty theory for explaining women's attraction preferences
 
13k

13k

only the ugly can be incel
★★★
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Posts
2,733
Online
0
This thread ventures way more into the pseudoscience territory than previous threads in this series.

Men (overall) generally exclude black women at rates on par with those of women (overall) when it comes to Asian men, so saying women are more racist by tallying up the various different ethnic/racial groups excluded instead of specifying which groups are excluded and to what extent may not be the most honest way of looking at it.

But that's not why I'm making this post. This is:



I believe mate preferences do have biologic underpinnings, but the above is mistaken. How could neoteny or IQ account for women's racial preferences when, as you noted, Asians, on average, have both the most neotenous craniofacial features and the highest IQ? How does that make any sense, given that they are the most excluded by women?

It also seems inconsistent with the literature, which suggests neoteny is an important trait for female beauty. The trend is for facial masculinity for male beauty, which is inversely related to neotenous facial anthropometrics.

Moreover, another bit of incoherent theorizing may be found in trying to associate mean group IQ with the extent of mean neoteny physiognomy. In full disclosure, I've spent the bulk of my posting career across the intarwebz debunking Pioneer Fund race realist claims on the interpretations and implications of group differences in IQ.

For instance, in the Lynn pdf you linked, on page 50-52, in the subsection entitled, "Intelligence of Bushmen," Lynn goes on at length about how the San people of the Kalahari have a mean IQ of 54 and then speculates how this shows the cognitive threshold necessary to survive the Kalahari desert is one that an 8-year-old white kid could easily surpass. Instead of critiquing the absurdity of this line of thinking, which has been done before, I want to draw attention back to your neoteny claims -- because it turns out, that the IQ-of-54 San people are more neotenous than Caucasoids, on average:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny_in_humans#San_people :




Where do they fall on the female preference algorithm? Closer to the most-neotenous-and-highest-IQ-yet-most-excluded "Mongoloids"? Closer to "Negroids"?

tl;dr: neoteny is a pretty shitty theory for explaining women's attraction preferences
Men (overall) generally exclude black women at rates on par with those of women (overall) when it comes to Asian men, so saying women are more racist by tallying up the various different ethnic/racial groups excluded instead of specifying which groups are excluded and to what extent may not be the most honest way of looking at it.
Incorrect

Women are much more racially selective and will exclusively date white men.

Screenshot-2018-4-29 Microsoft Word - Feliciano-PAA2008 doc - 80046.png

Only 16% of white men men say they'd only date whites while 46% of white women say "only white men"
also;

White men exclude black women at: 53% (93% of 68)
while white women exclude indians and middle easterns at: 70%


this trend goes for not only white men, but also men of other races.
racisswhitewomen.png


Regardless of what stat you take, findings are consistent. Women are more racially selective than men.

About neoteny,
How could neoteny or IQ account for women's racial preferences when, as you noted, Asians, on average, have both the most neotenous craniofacial features and the highest IQ? How does that make any sense, given that they are the most excluded by women?
It also seems inconsistent with the literature, which suggests neoteny is an important trait for female beauty. The trend is for facial masculinity for male beauty, which is inversely related to neotenous facial anthropometrics.
More neoteny is almost always good for women, but it is more ambiguous for men. Some Seotenous features such as full lips and small nose are also considered attractive.

"The appendix gives a summary of a number of studies of neoteny and facial attractiveness. Virtually all of them find that neotenous facial proportions, as defined above, contribute to female attractiveness. Results for males are equivocal.

Below I present three studies addressing the topic of neoteny and female facial attractiveness. Data for males are included for purposes of comparison

Indices of neoteny and facial attractiveness. A neotenous face is one that retains youthful traits or presents markers of youth in an exaggerated form relative to others of the same age.

Thus a face with unusually large eyes, small nose, and full lips in relation to face height will have a low predicted age according to Equations I to 3 and a high index of neoteny according to Equations 4 to 6.

For all attractiveness subgroups and both sexes, making faces less neotenous via positive cardioidal strain makes them less attractive.

Thus there is a limit to how far increasing neoteny results in increasing attractiveness, and that limit is reached sooner for males than for females."


Neoteny being always bad for men is a PSL meme. It depends on how it is manifested.

Neoteny is positevely associated with percieved attractiveness(not as much for men) and intelligence.

San people are a small tribe in bumbfuck of africa.
They are more negroid like you said, hence the low IQ.

8708388-3x2-700x467.jpg
 
Last edited:
allbluee

allbluee

Slowly fading away
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
839
Online
4d 23h 59m
>For real, I have only recently realized I am only attracted to caucasian phenotype. I realzied every single female I found attractive (regardless of skin color) has WHITE phenotype

YEP.
men have preferences, women have standarts.
 
S

subsaharan

Officer
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Posts
539
Online
0
Incorrect

Women are much more racially selective and will exclusively date white men.

View attachment 18675
Only 16% of white men men say they'd only date whites while 46% of white women say "only white men"
also;

White men exclude black women at: 53% (93% of 68)
while white women exclude indians and middle easterns at: 70%


this trend goes for not only white men, but also men of other races.
View attachment 18685

Regardless of what stat you take, findings are consistent. Women are more racially selective than men.



I'm familiar with the Feliciano stated preference stats. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the statement per se, but suggesting that it's a rather crude way of framing it. Hell, even saying "more racially selective [in dating]" is more nuanced than saying "more racist"

Saying "more racist" implies 1) deliberate or intentional hostility of 2) a uniform magnitude across racial outgroups IMO. But when it comes to dating patterns, (1) is probably infrequent, and (2) may also untrue, even if stated prefs seem to indicate uniformity (Lin and Lundquist's example on stated vs revealed prefs for Middle Easterns to follow). Hence insisting on nuance. My thoughts on the matter are best summed up by something Lin and Lundquist mentioned in their discussion section about who can afford to be racially selective:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/673129

We are hesitant, however, to conclude that men are less race conscious than women, given that men and women confront a differing terrain of demand and supply in the dating market. On the basis of the fact that women receive many more messages than men and that there are more men than women populating dating websites, men may simply be less able to be as selective as women can. Furthermore, since women’s own social status has been historically more dependent on that of their partners because of the norms of patriarchal tradition (Spickard 1991; Root 2001), it may still be more socially acceptable for men to date out-groups than for women.
Also, as stated, caution is warranted when interpreting Feliciano's stated preference stats. I know you read this Lin and Lundquist study so I presume you saw when they pointed out that:

Preference is an elusive concept. One could certainly make the argument that stated preference is closer to one’s true preference because it is less contingent on the perceived opportunity and cost structure. On the other hand, if one’s preferences are informed by stereotypes, how one reacts to that person’s profile and online dating persona may reflect a “truer” preference because it is based on more accurate information. The contrast between perception and reality is most salient in the case of Middle Eastern Americans. While previous studies on dating profiles (e.g., Robnett and Feliciano 2011) indicate that white daters tend to exclude Middle Eastern American daters in their stated racial preferences, our preliminary analysis shows that white daters do not avoid interacting with Middle Eastern American daters at all.
I suspect an exaggerated broad rule, if a hyperbolic generalization had to be distilled, is Just Be White PASSING (or look white enough).

Another reason for the nuance and precision is it turns out when looking at all racial groups stratified by gender, it is black women who actually have it the absolute worse (also from Lin and Lundquist):

Furthermore, because gendered racial formation theory juxtaposes the racialized experience of minority women with that of their minority male counterparts, it has the potential to obscure the magnitude of distinctions. For example, an implicit suggestion of gendered racial formation theory is that Asian men’s marginalization is equivalent to that of black women. Our results, however, make a strong case that the discrimination against black women is the single largest marginalization of note.


You state,

About neoteny,

More neoteny is almost always good for women, but it is more ambiguous for men. Some Seotenous features such as full lips and small nose are also considered attractive.
"Some [n]eotenous features such as full lips and small nose are also considered attractive" ON WOMEN. Do you have a source to suggest that these are consistently preferred features in MEN?

I see you next quote-mined this paper by Jones et al. 1995, but the paper overall casts considerable doubt on the importance of neoteny in men, as they highlight in their conclusions:

The results presented in this paper suggest that neotenous features are indeed criteria of female attractiveness even when age is controlled for. Specifically,
1. Women whose facial proportions make them look younger than their actual age (as measured by regression equations predicting age as a function of facial proportions)are perceived as more attractive by male raters from five populations (but see n. 4).
2. A sample of U.S. female models has significantly more neotenous facial proportions than a sample of U.S.female undergraduates and a strikingly low predicted age, about 7 years, according to regression equations predicting age as a function of facial proportions.
3. Cardioidal strain, a mathematical transformation shown by earlier research to provide a good model for changes in facial proportions during the course of maturationa nd to affect the perceived ages of faces, also has an effect on female facial attractiveness according to U.S. raters. The effect is nonlinear, suggesting that neoteny is a component of attractiveness only up to a certain point.
4. Results for male attractiveness in the above studies are weak and/or inconsistent.
Why would you consider a "weak and/or inconsistent" factor as a main explanatory factor for female mate preferences?

You state,
San people are a small tribe in bumbfuck of africa.
They are more negroid like you said, hence the low IQ.

View attachment 18684
One of the most genetically distinct populations known, with almost 100,000 people, = "Small tribe"? But never mind that, do you have ANY source to show that, under systematic statistical analysis, neoteny across EXTANT HUMAN POPULATIONS is associated with IQ? And are you implying neoteny only matters when you've already predetermined the racial hierarchy that you want to retrofit a neotenous hypothesis onto? If so, how can it be used as a primary sorting mechanism to distinguish or explain the IQ of racial groups (and the supposed subsequent mate prefs that follow) if you've already relegated its explanatory power as post hoc / ad hoc by being confined to racial categories already decided by other means?
 
Passing

Passing

Babyface Blackcel IT'S OVER BRO
Joined
Jun 15, 2018
Posts
93
Online
0
This site has really opened my eyes, high iq post?
 
Mansnob

Mansnob

Banned
-
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Posts
22
Online
0
If this is true then why do so many white men get cucked by black guys??
 
starcrapoo

starcrapoo

Ricecel currently living in hell (SF bay area)
★★
Joined
Mar 8, 2020
Posts
656
Online
23d 10h 19m
Very true. East Asians and Scandinavians have a high occurrence of "cute" people or people with neotenous facial features moreso than any other groups of people. The two groups are also the smartest people.

Germans/Anglos aren't exactly Scandinavians and don't look as cute.
 
AlexanderTheGreat11

AlexanderTheGreat11

ナンセンス
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Posts
31,852
Online
182d 19h 21m
Macrocephalus

Macrocephalus

Neoliberalism is why I don‘t have a gf
★★★★★
Joined
Apr 24, 2019
Posts
1,496
Online
18d 20h 10m
Threads like this really are must-read. They put in words what everyone here already knows providing solid evidence
 
OwlGod

OwlGod

‎literally dying
★★★★
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Posts
1,380
Online
22d 9h 14m
I'm familiar with the Feliciano stated preference stats. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with the statement per se, but suggesting that it's a rather crude way of framing it. Hell, even saying "more racially selective [in dating]" is more nuanced than saying "more racist"

Saying "more racist" implies 1) deliberate or intentional hostility of 2) a uniform magnitude across racial outgroups IMO. But when it comes to dating patterns, (1) is probably infrequent, and (2) may also untrue, even if stated prefs seem to indicate uniformity (Lin and Lundquist's example on stated vs revealed prefs for Middle Easterns to follow). Hence insisting on nuance. My thoughts on the matter are best summed up by something Lin and Lundquist mentioned in their discussion section about who can afford to be racially selective:

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1086/673129



Also, as stated, caution is warranted when interpreting Feliciano's stated preference stats. I know you read this Lin and Lundquist study so I presume you saw when they pointed out that:



I suspect an exaggerated broad rule, if a hyperbolic generalization had to be distilled, is Just Be White PASSING (or look white enough).

Another reason for the nuance and precision is it turns out when looking at all racial groups stratified by gender, it is black women who actually have it the absolute worse (also from Lin and Lundquist):





You state,



"Some [n]eotenous features such as full lips and small nose are also considered attractive" ON WOMEN. Do you have a source to suggest that these are consistently preferred features in MEN?

I see you next quote-mined this paper by Jones et al. 1995, but the paper overall casts considerable doubt on the importance of neoteny in men, as they highlight in their conclusions:


hi
Why would you consider a "weak and/or inconsistent" factor as a main explanatory factor for female mate preferences?

You state,


One of the most genetically distinct populations known, with almost 100,000 people, = "Small tribe"? But never mind that, do you have ANY source to show that, under systematic statistical analysis, neoteny across EXTANT HUMAN POPULATIONS is associated with IQ? And are you implying neoteny only matters when you've already predetermined the racial hierarchy that you want to retrofit a neotenous hypothesis onto? If so, how can it be used as a primary sorting mechanism to distinguish or explain the IQ of racial groups (and the supposed subsequent mate prefs that follow) if you've already relegated its explanatory power as post hoc / ad hoc by being confined to racial categories already decided by other means?
hmm

you indeed won!
 
Hail The Bloatlord

Hail The Bloatlord

What joy we had in the locust summer
★★★
Joined
Aug 26, 2018
Posts
4,756
Online
78d 13h 58m
Bumping it because it's worth reading
 
Cybersex is our hope

Cybersex is our hope

Banned
-
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Posts
3,511
Online
24d 7h 9m
The more neotenous a race, the more intelligent and higher cranial capacity and neuroplasticity.
So why women are more neotenous than men but absolutely not smarter than men?
All the studies I've read shows IQ is directly linked to status and achievement in life. (even though it still doesnt explain majority of equation when it comes to wealth and status.)
not only that IQ and Good looks have positive correlation
Too high IQ is correlated with social handicap hence sexual insucess
In full disclosure, I've spent the bulk of my posting career across the intarwebz debunking Pioneer Fund race realist claims on the interpretations and implications of group differences in IQ.
Race realism pseudoscience? Oh fuck off already lol
 
Last edited: