Could someone elaborate on the 'U?Neill haplotype'?

Anti-globalization? They may as well protest the earth revolving around the sun.

Did this study control for the IQ of each age group of the father?

Orion, your attempts to rouse me into a scientific debate about the realities of climate change are beyond ridiculous, not to mention contextually inappropriate. You are an exemplar of the kind of ubiquitous global warming zealotry that i was, in jest, mocking. I do not doubt the science of AGW, but that is irrelevant to this; my labeling children as "delightful little carbon based bundles of pollution" is clearly ironic and not indicative of my GW views. If you were as "literate" in interpreting user comments as you are interpreting AGW research you would not start these pointless gripes.

Scientifically heedless, Orion? I didn't make any scientific claims, but even so I doubt my individual decision to reproduce can be considered as gravely pernicious as you make it out to be. More to the point, my comment was in jest, continuing on the theme of ironic 'rebellion' against the academic left's environmental warnings in this discussion thread.

As a 19 year old GNXP reader, i pledge to continue the crusade against feminism, environmentalism and all things left wing by having atleast 3 children, delightful little carbon based bundles of pollution that they are

jaakkeli: HIGH FIVE! 
TGGP: LOL - my copy came from amazon last week. 
 
General comment re thread: "Amazon recommends"?

Daniel. 
 
You don't really know how old I am, either ;) Anyways, if you have doubts as to my opinion on the whole "game" just read my post higher up in this thread. 
 
I have found that the *more* high status the woman, to *more* the rules of game apply. And by "game" I mean the ability to demonstrate (and be) a socially cool guy that can emotionally connect with women. I don't mean being a dancing-monkey. 
 
In any case, this is all I'm going to say about this. We could argue back and forth by post and it won't solve anything. The answer lies in obtaining practical experience not rhetorical points on a thread. 
 
AJ

Wow. I know this will sound arrogant, DD, and really I want to avoid this at all cost since that's not my nature, and you are obviously a well-intentioned seeker-of-truth... 
 
.... but all I can do is suggest that you read "The Game" by Neil Strauss; anything by Erik Markovik; or anything by Lance Mason. 
 
Some field experience might also be useful.

Daniel Dare: 
 
Of course clothes are not about status: they're about COMMUNICATION. That's why emos and goths and counterculture types of various types have their uniforms of non-conformity. It signals that they're part of a group. 
 
Likewise wearing a nice suit in the right context says that you're to be taken seriously. Wearing well-fitting designer jeans that flatter you says something else in another context in which you may choose to wear them. Hell, wearing sackcloth and ashes will say something about you too. 
 
And if you don't believe that wearing X says Y about you... most people will impute that meaning anyways. I figure you might as well put some foresight into getting the impression right. It makes things easier for you.

randy: 
 
I don't wouldn't wear late model Hugo Boss to a venture capital company boardroom merely to impress the non-existent ladies there. 
 
Clothing is a means of social communication. It is a way of establishing your place in the hierarchy. Like a fast car, a stunning girl on your arm, a USMC tattoo, or an ugly battlescar, clothing says something about you without saying a word. 
 
The mere fact that you care/don't care about it says something as well. To men as well as women, high status and low.

>Hell, you should become a pickup artist, because I don't know which one's wisdom to trust. 
 
No chance: by figuring out, through detailed first-hand experiences, how easy it is to manipulate women, you'll lose respect for them. And that can't be easy to get back. I don't think I'd have the tolerance required either -- with slutty dopes, I'd probably end up spilling my drink on her "by accident" just to be rid of her company. 
 
 
On the contrary, agnostic, I have found a greater respect for women, since I now more fully understand them. That being said, I'm mostly past my 'slutty dope' phase, and (though it sounds cheesy) focus on women with both inner and outer beauty. 
 
It's weird, I've gotten far more protective of women than I ever was at the beginning, now that they fully open up to me. There's some Zen parable about coming full circle buried in there, I think. 
 
 
That guy is giving some kind of presentation, for crying out loud. I mean, there's disarming, and then there's anxiety-inducing. "We're investing our money in him?" 
 
LOL, well said! Still, that's probably the uniform of Silicon Valley. If so, wearing Hugo Boss might send the wrong idea. Clothing, like most forms of human social communication, is context specific.

> Men's suits are the most evil form of clothing ever invented. 
 
ummm.... chastity belt?

Spike: you're absolutely correct. 
 
And that goes for taking dating/relationship advice from women in general. They always tell you what they think they want, rather than what they really want... which they may not even consciously know, but only subconsciously respond to. 
 
The worst is when they tell you what they think they should tell you. That has no bearing on reality at all and woe betide the man who follows THAT advice.

>If anything, clothing and comportment is something that any decent systematically focused person can get behind, as long as they're able to get a good handle on self-assesment.  
 
I concur wholeheartedly. It's not hard AT ALL once you decide to do it. I've gotten style handbooks similar to the ones that have already been mentioned. I buy most of my stuff online or on ebay. I buy brand name clothes (formal and casual) and easy spend less than 25% of what most slovenly dressed people do. 
 
> the main downside is that everyone keeps asking if you are gay, because of the conditional probabilities. 
 
Yeah, that's been a bit of a downside... but I find that if you up the alpha, you do ok. Remember -- pimps and mobsters wear fur coats. 
 
It's funny... now that I'm dressing decently, I keep getting friends on facebook forwarding me requests from single girls they now... but I also get random dudes trying to friend me. Not cool. 
 
> that being said, the easiest way to dress better is to find a woman who is willing to invest time in dressing you...at which point you kind of defeat the purpose ;-) 
 
LOL. True... but if she wants you to herself, she'll probably dress you like a dork... or enough of a dork that other women won't bother looking at you. Much better is to spend a little extra time to figure out for yourself what you need. This has the added benefit of your woman being more attracted to you, even if you're not interested in (dating) multiple women simultaneously. No matter how maternal a woman is, you're better off being a man than a boy/son that needs babying.

> That's got to be incredibly rare -- go Asian dudes! 
 
I second the huzzah. Of note, a vastly disproportionate number of the anglosphere's best (learned) pickup artists are of South or East Asian descent. And short. 
 
Something about hitting rock bottom and having nothing to lose in the dating market (or anything for that matter) really gets you to focus and commit to achieving a goal.

Dayyam, she's one hottie. Not so much with the still pictures (though she's no chopped liver), but with the live motion clips you see her attractive traits more fully. She's got a feminine grace and mannerism that is truly rare. 
 
Thursday -- your Maria Bartiromo comparison is apt. MB falls into a similar category: okay in still image, but with the full-motion hotness that rockets her to the top. 
 
dougjnn: 
> What this woman signals to me is a straddle between femininity and confident assertiveness.  
 
I think you've hit the nail on the head. She's hot, but it's these extra intangibles that make her stunning. If she's like MB (my French is as rusty as my Sanskrit and Latin) she's got an intelligent thoughtfulness and a rapier wit. 
 
These are the kind of women I want to date on a regular basis. The rest of y'all can have your playboy bunnies.

> No, Jessica! No! 
 
Hey, those are pretty nails -- are they real? No? Well, they're still nice.

agnostic -- I think you're right. 
 
Compare the use of hip hop as an ironic accessory amongst the jet set vs. it's position as life and personal belief system amongst the ghetto food stampers.

It also explains why girls are impressed by guys doing *socially* excruciating things. 
 
I remember one time about a year ago I visited Manhattan on business. My buddy dared me to go talk to this ultra-hot blonde coed stitting by the window, working on her laptop at the back of the room in a jam-packed coffee-shop. She was sitting on a dias -- literally a pedestal. Not wishing to lose my bet, I waded through about 50 people and (within earshot of the 10 guys orbiting her but not doing anything) declared that I had come to flirt with her. She laughed and we talked for 20 minutes before I had to leave. 
 
I'm sure that had I done something socially easier she would have ignored me. If I had been drunk-guy at last call asking her to dance, for example, it wouldn't have been as effective.

I fail to understand how do they surely know who is virgin and who is not. I never believe statistics.

Jason Malloy: 
 
> AJ is correct that some women omit sexual encounters based on clever technicalities, but incorrect in implying that they are unique or worse, as some men inflate their numbers based on similar technicalities. Some guys will mark a sloppy french kiss down on their mental score card as another sexual conquest! 
 
LOL. That just seems bizarre.... but you may be right. My guess, though, is that if a guy genuinely has a score of 12, he's not going to add the sloppy kiss. But if the modal number is 1, then Mr. Modal can get a 100% increase in his kill count if said kiss is counted. 
 
You're right about being wary re: high numbers skewing the average. For every guy with 100, 500 or 2000, there have to be a *lot* of 1s to bring the average down to even 12 (which may even be an exaggeration!). 
 
Adam Gellin: 
 
Yeah, those uber-alpha girls are funny... funny-interesting, not funny-haha. Funny-sad are the girls who try to make the compromises in a calculating way in order to shoehorn as much alpha-ness in as possible. 
 
I can't blame them... but it just gets weird when you call it off with a needy medical resident after a couple dates... and then she sends you an email detailing (over the course maybe 1500 words) a) why she can't really have more than 2 kids, who must fit in at exactly X time in her residency so that she can claim maternity benefits; b) can't understand why a man who has so much going for him can't see what an amazing girl she is; c) how and why she wants to talk about it (obsessively, over the phone, ad nauseum). 
 
Girls like this *know* that they have to make compromises... but don't make enough of them. They *know* that the clock is ticking... and they worry about it... but they can't understand that they won't get what they want if they go about it the wrong way. Unfortunate for all concerned. 
 
Regarding your son: I hope he is happy. Perhaps that's the best to wish for him.

> I say he because the number of young men who say they have had many sexual partners opens an impossible gulf with the number of partners young women say they have had (the truth must lie somewhere between) 
 
I've found that most men are pretty accurate... but the real confounding factor is the fact that, for women, a lot of sexual activity "doesn't count", so it doesn't get recorded. E.g., "that time with the bellboy didn't count"; "that time I was on vacation didn't count"; "I was drunk"; and my all time favorite "I didn't love him." 
 
Not only is it not recorded, but women don't count these times it as part of their internal 'official tally'. They actually *literally* will themselves to believe these reasons. From a man's perspective, it's quite frankly weird. But perhaps understandable given her internal feminine drives and compulsions. 
 
I've seen men out there lead *extraordinary* lives as "the man who doesn't count".

Spungen: I think it's more a case of "I can't get any, so I will convince myself that it doesn't matter". 
 
See Aesop's parable of the fox and the grapes.

albatross: 
 
>Geez. I can't be the only one who sometimes finds himself unable to concentrate on a technical problem because of too much horniness!) 
 
You're not. 
 
>The other weird thing, for me, is that I don't seem to be able to stay interested in a girl that isn't pretty smart.  
 
I hear you. I've come to the realization that if I had to choose between a) a stunning, super-hot girl who is average in intelligence; or b) an average looking girl who is incredibly intelligent with a sexy sophistication, I would choose b everytime. 
 
Of course a stunning, super-hot girl who is incredibly intelligent with a sexy sophistication would be the best... and make her a billionaire's daughter, for good measure. And double-jointed.

MensaRefugee: In reading my previous post, I see the source of the confusion. I was defining "want" in the economic sense -- desire *plus* ability to pay. 'Ability to pay' in the context of this thread topic means doing the obvious things it takes to get that thing you desire.

> Er.. wasnt there a study a few years back that High IQ men were more likely to get married than High IQ women? 
 
Yup. See my comment re: the unmarried high-IQ women sacrificing family for career. Of the women in my class, I would guess that 30-40% were unmarried 10 years post-graduation. Moreover, a relatively high percentage of the marrieds were still childless at that time. 
 
It was hilarious, in a way, to hear them complain that they couldn't find a man... while not having the right attitude or putting in effort where it was needed. While they were going on lots of dates with man after man who didn't meet their elusive standards, many of my geeky male classmates had, quite literally, nothing at all. These women just wanted to be postergirls who had it all -- alpha job, alpha husband, alpha kids, alpha status. 
 
The men eventually achieved status commensurate with their abilities, and so did all right in the marriage department... but many of the women never got past the bizarre fusion of I-am-the-equal-of-any-man rhetoric and feminine oneupmanship. 
 
The ones who ended up being married were the more nurturing ones, the religious ones, and the more socially savvy/realistic ones. The ones who were above average in the looks department, and had a mature sexiness about them did very well. 
 
AJ

> The coach of said rugby team dated the (superhot) head cheerleader.... and ended up marrying her. 
 
LOL. Lest the moral police come after me, I should point out that I meant to say "captain".

> How many guys w iq 105 do you know who would feel comfortable w IQ 145 women. 
 
I don't have exact stats, but I do know that all the women in the high school gifted program that I attended who *wanted* to be married, are married. There are some who've deliberately sacrificed family for career, but that was a choice they made. Contrariwise, one of them is a stay-at-home mom. 
 
The men they're married to are, almost without exception, less intelligent than they are, though they are by no means dumb (they all have university degrees). These couples are all more or less happy. 
 
As for high intelligence being a non-asset.... I recall somewhere that intelligence is correlated with income (and hence success in our society) up to a certain threshold. After that point there is no correlation. Here, other factors such as drive, ambition, charisma, etc, become more important. 
 
Re: normies finding gifties dumb. Social awkwardness can mask intelligence. If you're a brilliant student of Elvish who doesn't know how to properly handle small talk with strangers, said strangers may think you're dumb. But social awkwardness isn't really a symptom of high IQ; it's a symptom of *introversion*. I suspect the example you cite was of a superbright fellow who was *also* an introvert. 
 
This brings up something I hadn't thought of in a long time. In high school, the team that consistently won the intramural rugby championship was a team of gifted students who called themselves "The Math Team". About a quarter of them actually *were* on the math team, lol. The coach of said rugby team dated the (superhot) head cheerleader.... and ended up marrying her.

In a contraceptive age, sex is not equal to reproductive success. I know guys who have had >2000 sexual partners but not a single child. Conversely, I know happily married couples who have only had sex with each other but are raising many children. 
 
It may be that the smarties are having reproductive success (in the evolutionary, biological sense) disproportionate to the number of sexual acts/partners. 
 
Still, in an absolute sense, dysgenesis in the modern setting is an incontrovertible fact.

Apparently being at the *left* tail of the bell curve doesn't have to hurt you either. 
 
Careful -- not for the squeamish.... 
 
http://www.villagevoice.com/nyclife/0707,altman,75787,15.html 
 
AJ

So many unwanted memories. Hossanahs to the Markoviks, Pabans, Masons and Cooks who are fixing the situation for those of us the right-hand side of the curve. 
 
LOL. It just occurred to me: The process of transforming oneself from uber-geek to suave, intelligent player is not much different from "delaying gratification in expectation of [massive] future reward." That's why all but the most committed fail... especially since uber-geeks like to think they're smart in *everything* they do and are unwilling to learn from the bone-heads who can't do vector calculus, read Sanskrit/Latin/Homeric Greek, or set up a corporation... but can inexplicably get a girl spiralling upward in sexual tension without putting in any effort.