As you know, we live in a society. There’s a meme that’s been going around the last few years to the effect that midwits are the problem with society. To wit:
As I’ll show, this is a form of misogyny posing as anti-intellectualism. It’s informed by a few threads of incorrect understanding.
1) The Nazi theory of racial intelligences
2) The paradoxical relationship between GFP, IQ, and r/k-selection
3) False positives in identification of spiteful mutants
The Nazi theory of racial intelligences
Something most people don’t know is that Nazis were extremely opposed to IQ research because they were ideologically opposed to the idea of individual differences within races. They believed in *group* differences in intelligence, and paid particular attention to the difference between the “Jewish” style of intelligence versus “German intelligence”. However, they believed that insofar as two people were equally expressing German genetics, they were equally intelligent.
The German style informs what is now memed as the superiority of “grug” style thinking: highly instinctive, ethnocentric, visuospatial, and concrete. The idea behind meming this as superior is that most kosher sandwiches can be defeated by rejecting the premise, informed by the healthy instincts which are a German’s birthright. The Jewish style informs what is now memed as inferior “midwit” style thinking: highly abstract, academic, subversive, verbal, and counterintuitive. And especially neurotic.
The paradoxical relationship between GFP, IQ, and r/k-selection
In the average ranges of IQ, from about 50 to about 130, there is a positive correlation with the general factor of personality. These traits are well-described by what was just described as “Jewish” traits, and are associated with academic and career achievement: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientious, openness, and a medium level of neuroticism. These are also strongly correlated with being a woman. And a slow life history strategist.
However, IQs above 130 are predicted by many of the same things that also predict low IQ: testosterone, low conscientiousness (impulsiveness), disagreeableness, and introversion. The exceptions to this trend are antithetical to the Nazi theory of German intelligence: the >130 IQ Pepe would tend to be higher in Openness and Neuroticism than the 120 IQ midwit, and therefore more abstract, more subversive, more academic, and more counterintuitive. Really, the only thing the Nazis got right is that Jews tend to have a strong verbal tilt and are subversive.
The paradox is that these outlier high IQs are only found in populations that have undergone heavy k-selection, which selects for high GFP. K-selection requires male group solidarity, which promotes competence and privileges male reproductive preferences over female. Femininity and GFP are correlated because when male sexual selection preferences dominate the mating market men will choose mates who are higher in GFP. K-selection is also prerequisite for IQ selection due to the complexity of civilization. Therefore high IQs will only be found in high GFP populations. Spearman’s differentiation hypothesis tells us that when a population becomes high in GFP it will tend to have a higher standard deviation as well (similarly, higher sexual dimorphism) and thus more variance in life history strategy. This will occur unless there’s strong negative selection against outliers of any sort, such as in Finland or Japan. This higher variance results more extreme high-IQ outliers with “grug” traits like high mutation load, left-handedness, autism, and so on.
Much of this is covered in this video:
What we need to understand from this is that “midwits” = high GFP people with medium-high intelligence = women.
False positives in identification of spiteful mutants
This is where I need to take issue with something Dutton has been getting wrong, which is his identification of post-WWI spinsters in Britain with spiteful mutants. This is incorrect. It’s logically incoherent to suggest that spinsterhood produces spiteful genetic mutations, unless we’re treating it as an epigenetic “just so” story. Rather, spinsterhood creates an openness to spiteful narratives, which are then repeated. Slow life history strategists, namely women, are much more sensitive to the presence of spiteful mutants in their environment because they’re much more specialized for their culture. Any subtle shifts in their culture will then produce anxiety. Being effectively banished from polite society by something that wasn’t their fault or predictable (the deaths of all the officer class, the gentry’s most eligible bachelors) would have made them pretty salty.
So the correct understanding is that post-WWI spinsterhood created a massive audience for spiteful narratives, not the spiteful mutants themselves. Those were already in existence, but they wouldn’t have had an audience.
The new underclass of spinsters would then have repeated and promoted the spiteful narrative in an attempt to influence the political environment, since political engagement is a single-factor model that predicts life history strategy very well (ref. Woodley’s latest theory).
The main takeaway from this entire line of thought is to differentiate between signal creators and signal repeaters: people who create spiteful narratives and people who are extremely responsive to social cues. More broadly, you can hate the culturally mediated narcissism of women today and still love women for the agreeable, impressionable creatures they are. And you’re still allowed to hate people with actual, genetic narcissistic personality disorders, provided you can discern the differences.
For more on the cultural boundedness of narcissism, see “The Narcissism Epidemic” by Jean Twenge (the brilliant author behind iGen), my recent post on what they don’t teach you at the white knight academy, and the new article under “prerequisites” in the sidebar: The deeply held conceits of the Last Man are a rational hedge against loss in a society where trust is deteriorating. If you have trouble understanding the right disposition to NPCs, think about the difference in The Matrix (AKA The Narrative) between the agents (spiteful mutants) and the people who are enmeshed in the Matrix’s narrative. “They’re not agents, but they could turn into agents at any moment.”