the “cult” of human biodiversity … again

mr. rational points out that part two of The Truth About the HBD Cult has been posted @nexxtlevelup (thnx, mr. rational!) — and that it’s as sad as part one was.

i only had a quick look at it, but i have to say i agree. again, afaics, nothing about what human biodiversity (hbd) is — or what might be wrong with any hbd data (i’m sure some of it is wrong) — just a lot of stuff about “shame” from self-help gurus. -?-

maybe i’ll take a closer look at the post later in the week — then again, maybe not — i’ll prolly have better things to do with my time. but if you’ve read it and want to offer an evaluation of the piece (not just mockery, please), here (in the comments ↓) is the place for you (since some comments don’t seem to be getting through @nexxtlevelup)!

previously: the first rule of the hbd cult is…

(note: comments do not require an email. cone of shaaaame.)

i call b.s.

dennis links to roissy who links to barking up the wrong tree who posts about a study which purportedly shows that human mate selection is more about “market conditions” than assortative mating.

possibly. but the researchers haven’t shown that in this particular study because the people they studied (speed daters) WERE ALREADY SELF-SORTED. see here:

65%+ of them were college graduates versus 20% of the population at large (“bhps” — british household panel survey — column). 83% of the men were in skilled or professional jobs while 86% of the women were — compared to 40% and 52% of the general population respectively.

as bruce said over @dennis’: “Key concept: range restriction.”

yup. these people didn’t have to worry about finding a “like” partner out of this sub-group of the population ’cause they were all already pretty alike. they could just pick the nearest warm body to mate with ’cause they had already self-sorted.

total b.s.

(note: comments do not require an email. no b.s., puuh-leeese.)