Obligatory Jordan Peterson Post

My fellow Canadian, Jordan Peterson*, has lately been trending in the sphere. Here he is giving a proper scuzzing to a scroungy British feminist named Cathy Newman, on the state run BBC 4.

The Tranny Republic known as Ontario has passed a series of laws penalizing anyone who might offend weirdos. Dr. Peterson, a tenured professor and licensed clinical psychologist, is one of the few people who felt compelled to speak out against this sort of overreach. Given that the social penalty for this sort of thing, in Canada, is being publicized as “worse than Hitler,” his e-cred immediately shot through the roof, and he now makes 50,000 USD per month on patreon, ostensibly for making youtube videos, which aim to teach young men not to act like complete faggots.

In the aftermath of her dreadful showing, Mizz Newman claimed to have been cyberbullied and harassed by Dr. Peterson and his rabid, hateful, Hitler loving followers. Scott Adams deconstructed this brave feminist heroine in a pretty good video of his own.

Dr. Peterson is usually described as “right wing” or a member of the “alt-right”. In fact, there is no evidence of any such thing. His politics are unknown. What he has proven is that he’s exceptionally good at holding frame in the face of typical feminist topic-shifting and fallacies.

We can make no real assumptions about his private life, other than the fact that he seems to be great at debating lunatics, and probably learned such skills in childhood. It doesn’t hurt that he’s handsome, erudite and able to hammer his points home with a soft voice. I assume that after the destruction of this feminist harpy, he’ll never be invited on a national tee-vee program again.

*Peterson lives in Toronto, but he grew up in Fairview, Alberta

Fucking Trigonometry

At some point, an otherwise useless feminist wrote an article entitled “Fuck Trigonometry,” suggesting that we ought to just skip over the subject entirely in school. She concluded this article with complaints about her husband.

Screen Shot 2018-01-06 at 10.57.35

Honeycomb responded to her in my comments section:

Screen Shot 2018-01-06 at 10.43.59

Students of mathematics, philosophy and physics often get hung up on definitions. It’s annoying, but it’s not for nothing. The first thing a successful student does, in encountering a new area, is to memorize definitions.

Imagine being a newly arrived freshman student at a big university, and being asked to understand this:

Screen Shot 2018-01-06 at 10.14.57

It happened to many of us as teenagers. The first week of the first course in the Calculus series requires incipient students to memorize that line. When it happened to me, I first copied it out, over and over and over. Within a few hours, I was able to put it into words, and within a couple of days, I was able to use it constructively. A week after we were all collectively panicking in Dr. G’s Calculus I class, those of us still in attendance were writing proofs with it, treating it as though it were a newly acquired tool, that we found in the bottom of the chest in the back closet.

Some people can’t understand it. It’s not that we’re any smarter than they are. Anyone who shows up to study Calculus is already done with trigonometry, where they were required to memorize all of this:


It’s thus fair to assume that any high-school graduate in America can study Calculus. He’s done this sort of thing before. Raw cognitive ability isn’t lacking in such people. Often they are simply unmotivated. Other opportunities (namely binge drinking and screwing strangers) avail themselves, and study is put on the back burner. The prospective student is thus weeded out. He either leaves university entirely, or he switches his major to something like literature or political science. This has a number of different benefits for everyone. It usually frees up the uninterested to pursue an area with which he is more comfortable, and it keeps the unmotivated from dragging down the rest of the class with insipid questions.

When you’re in high school and you’re taking mathematics, the whole thing seems pointless. Back when I was teaching remedial math it at a community college, I called it “faith-based trigonometry”. At this point, the trigonometry course is just a cumbersome addition to the geometry you learned a year prior. It’s just a proof-writing class, using identities one doesn’t fully understand as axioms. For those people who graduate high school and go on to study Calculus, it’s essential. If you’re in Calculus and you don’t know that cosine of pi over two is negative one half*, then you’re fucked. In fact, the values of all these trigonometric expressions end up becoming second nature, sorta like four times four equals sixteen.

Once you’re done with the last course in the Calculus series, you get to take your first course in what is called higher mathematics. (Marijuana not included.) For me, that course was called Introduction to Linear Algebra. The title itself is misleading. Every little kid learns how to solve systems of linear equations, right? No big deal!

One of my most memorable moments as a schoolboy came in this course, when we were all messing with matrices during practice time. The professor was someplace out of sight. Suddenly, I came across something that tied into a distant, old memory. At precisely this same moment, another student burst out shouting, from the back of the room: “Holy shit! It’s the half-angle formula!” As the realization spread, everyone started laughing and sighing, as though we were all patients in the university’s insane asylum.

Screen Shot 2018-01-06 at 11.10.41

What was once a pointless procession of symbols was suddenly illustrated, deeply and beautifully, exactly where none of us expected it to be.

*Caspar wins! (winning)

“Father Loss” (a/k/a ?)

Yet another study which illustrates the damage done by rulings from the hoaxers who run our divorce courts. Note that “Father Loss” is the politically correct euphemism for mother custody after a frivolous divorce. This state-of-affairs is, in the subtext, revealed as being every bit as damaging to a developing child as if the mother had simply murdered her husband.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Father loss during childhood has negative health and behavioral consequences, but the biological consequences are unknown. Our goal was to examine how father loss (because of separation and/or divorce, death, or incarceration) is associated with cellular function as estimated by telomere length.

METHODS: Data come from the 9-year follow-up of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a birth cohort study of children in 20 large American cities (N = 2420). Principal measures are as follows: salivary telomere length (sTL), mother reports of father loss, and polymorphisms in genes related to serotonergic and dopaminergic signaling.

RESULTS: At 9 years of age, children with father loss have significantly shorter telomeres (14% reduction). Paternal death has the largest association (16%), followed by incarceration (10%), and separation and/or divorce (6%). Changes in income partially mediate these associations (95% mediation for separation and/or divorce, 30% for incarceration, and 25% for death). Effects are 40% greater for boys and 90% greater for children with the most reactive alleles of the serotonin transporter genes when compared with those with the least reactive alleles. No differences were found by age at father loss or a child’s race/ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS: Father loss has a significant association with children’s sTL, with the death of a father showing the largest effect. Income loss explains most of the association between child sTL and separation and/or divorce but much less of the association with incarceration or death. This underscores the important role of fathers in the care and development of children and supplements evidence of the strong negative effects of parental incarceration.

Pull the full PDF (here)

Politically Incorrect Science

For weeks, I’ve hesitated about posting this, because I knew that if it got any replies, they’d be from angry manosphere types going all FUCK YOU MOM! Recently, however, I realized that if I can’t troll my own blog, then I might as well take it down. I subsequently acknowledged that I’m less interested in the focus of this article than in improving regular peoples’ ability to read serious research.

Months ago, on some other blog, I read the following:

Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercourse with

Linked to the claim was a discussion on a conspiracy theory web forum. A few links deep, however, there were a couple of serious journal articles. More generally, this claim has been bandied about since, as though it were unshakeable.

Just as a spoiler, the quoted claim above is wrong (and not only is it wrong, the opposite is true). Even so, something interesting is going on.

Can a woman’s prior sex partners influence the characteristics of her children with an unrelated male? That’s the question being asked in a 2014 study (pdf download), headed by Angela Crean (link) of the University of Sydney (Australia).


Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’). In the fly Telostylinus angusticol- lis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male. This effect was not observed when females were exposed to the first male without mating, implicating semen-mediated effects rather than female differential allocation based on pre-mating assessment of male quality. Our results reveal a novel type of transgenerational effect with potential implications for the evolution of reproductive strategies.

At least in fruit flies, previous matings seem to alter the phenotypical traits of children, conceived by a different father. This is a nongenetic transmission (paragenetic? – ya boy Boxer is not a Biologist, and doesn’t know the correct term). In plain language, no DNA is being recombined or stored. Even so, something appears to be happening that no one can sufficiently explain (yet).

Crean et. al. constructed a series of different experiments, in an attempt to control for environmental factors that would muddy the results. Well-fed fruit flies, for example, are larger than poorly nourished ones. Nutrition was safely ruled out by the researchers. There was also an attempt to filter out non-penetrative attempts at mating.

Screen Shot 2017-07-13 at 13.43.32

What we end up with is some evidence that the transmission of semen has some effect on children, despite the lack of any genetic transmissions. The researcher’s conjecture is that some unknown component in seminal fluid is effecting ovules (i.e. immature eggs). No one knows the mechanism of transmission. What was established was a statistical anomaly that our present understanding of heredity can not account for.

If a female fruit fly mates unsuccessfully with a large male, and then goes on to successfully mate with a small male, her offspring will have a significantly greater chance of displaying a large male phenotype, despite having no genetic legacy from the large male.

What this study shows is generally not the claims made by conspiracy-theorists and hardened MGTOW types in the ‘sphere, but it remains interesting. Namely: Something is going on with promiscuous female fruit-flies, and all the usual things that might cause it have been successfully ruled out.

What Crean et. al. hypothesize is only one of a handful of possibilities. There are similar studies suggesting an indirect epigenetic link — basically the stress of an immune response methylating DNA in the mother to activate various gene expressions. It’s something like common sense to suggest that if the stress of smoking cigarettes can influence gene expression, and it does (pdf download) then getting pumped full of strange jizz and STDs on a regular basis might also. Nothing definitive exists, though, and nothing is likely to be done to address this obvious question in the foreseeable future.

In an ideal world, we’d have qualified people trying to replicate these findings, testing for specifics, and eventually performing parallel research on mammals. In our current feminized milieu, that’s not likely to occur. The results of future tests would draw attention to, and invite criticism of, the hyper-promiscuous ‘you go girl’ cultural facets which we all know and love. Both men and women are supposed to be able to slut it up, and if (motherfucking science!) gets in the way of that, then it needs to be suppressed.


Screen Shot 2017-07-08 at 13.33.40tl;dr: I’ve often wondered why my Mormon aunties were able to have healthy kids until 45, and generally just assumed that it was a statistical quirk. In fact, there’s some motherfucking science! suggesting that women who start having kids early have an easier time having them late, too.

I subsequently assumed that if there was a correlation, it was caused by negative pressures (sluts who jack themselves up on synthetic hormone birth control, have abortions, and get their uteri scarred by HPV and gonorrhoea having a more difficult time conceiving). No, that’s not the whole story either.

In our study, peak fecundability was approximately 29–30 years among parous women and 27–28 years among nulliparous women. Among parous women, age was associated with increasing fecundability until age 30 years, after which it decreased; among nulliparous women, there was little increase in fecundability after age 20 and a marked decline starting around age 28 years.

Read the whole thing here:


Credit to Heidi (part of the award-winning Dalrock research team) for finding this article. Show her some love (here).