Here’s the basic idea: men will work harder (speaking of averages) to support better-looking wives. Similarly, he’ll want to have more kids with her (just ask his sperm), and work harder to support them.
The sub-elite classes are filled with fatties and single moms, and this goes quite a ways to explaining the abandonment of marriage by the men who have these loser women as part of their social milieu.
Unemployed and unemployable men, driven by mass brown world immigration, are doubtless a factor in declining marriage rates among the cognitive outcasts, but due diligence should be paid to female obesity and single momhood as equal, if not greater, contributors to the decline in social stability of non-elite whites. The only reason I can think that this tenderhearted Heartistian worldview is studiously overlooked is because it gives conservatives the hives to shift some blame onto women and their poor life decisions.
If the average amount of work effort per man increases, this has a real “rising tide” economic effect. This effect is independent of the economic toll of medical costs due to obesity (though they correlate, admittedly).
The analogous argument can also be made for mutation accumulation, which tends to make people ugly in da face. Again, this effect would be independent of the economic effects caused by lowering the average IQ by a standard deviation.
So…I wonder if we can begin estimating this sort of independent effect based on an estimate of the change in SMV due to weight increase. H/T Heartiste again:
He goes on about this a lot, and talks about how men are retreating to video games and porn. Similarly, women are dropping out (partly by becoming fat), so it’s a mutual hatred sort of thing that results in a vicious negative feedback loop.
Thanks to the nerds at OKCupid, we actually have some objective econometrics to work with:
What we have here is a nice distribution of male effort over the female attractiveness curve, which we know is a bell curve thanks again to the thards at OKCupid:
Why, that messaging distribution looks an awful lot like a bell curve with a huge negative skew! :-O
One begins to think the situation is, mathematically, less impenetrable than it appears. You may recall an opposite-looking skew from the distribution of white intelligence (due to dysgenics). IQ is usually taken to be a bell curve, which it (almost) is if you ignore the fat tail on the right and ignore the fact that the peak is ever-so-slightly left of the mean:
Running out of steam for this. It’ll have to be a part one, and of course I’ll never get back to it because I never finish any of these. But hey, maybe a miracle will happen this time :-P.