Why Do I Believe Fathering Does Not Matter?

1) Because my father didn’t love me. Just kidding. I love my dad and we have always been close, we still travel together now and have an Italian level of parental bonding, which is significantly higher than Anglo, despite him being Portuguese.

2) Many exceptional people lost their dads before birth or very very young. Andrew Jackson, Obama, Clinton, Bertrand Russell, Roger Waters, Newton, Leibniz, Sowell, and many others.

3) The most common mistake among contemporary humans when it comes to biology is to falsely attribute to upbringing that which pertains to inheritance (genetic, epigenetic)

4) In a study done in India, the outcomes were not harmed when the dad instead of leaving, died.

5) In a Scandinavian IVF Study where the parents are not genetic parents, the outcomes were not related to father presence.

6) This all makes sense, because the bad outcomes could be caused, parsimoniously, by either dads that leave having bad genes, option 1, or mums who select the types of dads who would leave having bad genes, option 2. Option 3 fathering matters does not survive Ockham’s Razor.

7) A personality study just came out and is going viral on Twitter saying personality does not reflect upbringing. This is just one in a long cascade of studies started by Judith Harris “The Nurture Assumption” and corroborated by Pinker and hundreds and hundreds of studies of every dimension you can possibly fathom, all of which show the same thing. Parenting matters less than we think it does, most of the similarities and correlations are hereditary, and peers often influence more.

8) Then why does Evo Anthro
@dr_aMachin
defend fathering for example in
@ChrisWillx
podcast and in her books? That depends. She mentions in the podcast that having parental figures that are male seems to substitute for the value in many cases. This is consistent with fathering being like language acquisition in Chomsky’s paucity of data hypothesis. We seem to learn language well even with very little input in deficient environments because we are programmed in ways to learn it (see Terrence Deacon works to understand how). Likewise, a few males seem to suffice despite not being the specific child’s father. Anna really doesn’t like that I’m bringing Harris and heritability to this equation, since she muted me when I asked her about it, Evo anthro to Evo anthro, and blocked me when I emailed her about it. She is for some reason not willing to engage, or to explain why, if I am wrong, I am wrong. This animosity is not common among academics, and I am very curious as to what will come of it. Everything I saw her say in the podcast is compatible with my conjecture.

9) Do you really mean it doesn’t matter 100%? Of course not, this is the internet, be charitable, I need memetic force. If Judith Harris can say “The Nurture Assumption” despite knowing that nurture does contribute at least a little, then I can say fathering doesn’t matter while knowing that it matters at least a little. The point is that the bulk of what we think is fathering is in fact a combination of heritable pre-programming, and some sort of good adult male influence, from whichever male adult is available, and a comparatively minuscule amount is actually our dads.

10) I don’t particularly want this to be true either. I have no horse in this race. As mentioned I love my dad, he’s my favorite living human, we’re friends, and we travel together, he raised me alongside mum until age 8, then split until 15, then again until 27, when I moved countries so living with him was no longer viable. I have no problems with dad. This isn’t personal. This is science. And science sometimes sucks.

So that’ my full case. I suspect fathering matters less than 15% of what we think it does, probably less than 10%. I believe this is a massive blow to the right-wing in politics because they have been saying “the absence of fathers in the home is the cause of (insert political problem here)” and that’s not true if the genetic + paucity Caleiro conjecture is correct.

If it is correct, the right-wing needs to adjust its policies to reflect that, and stop trying to convince dads to stay in the home as if that was going to change the kids. Other interventions might be more fruitful. Even if there are no other interventions, we should still stop lying to ourselves about it.

And someone who doesn’t trigger Anna must talk to her about this, because if I am wrong, she’s probably the most qualified person in the world to make the case that I am wrong, and why.

With paternal love
G

Previous writings of mine on facebook about this:
Fathers Don’t Matter and Conservatives NEED to Stop Pretending They Do. It’s Not About Race and Democrats NEED To Stop Pretending it is. Civilization Will Self Destruct if We Don’t Become Bioinformed
(Paper linked below)
So I hypothesized on Twitter that reactionaries and conservatives are wrong about intact families and fathers and that it was also possible that the reason the underclass has horrible outcomes and is screwed isn’t that dad never came back from the milkstore, but instead that dad and mum have bad genes and the child was doomed from birth.
So when reactionaries and conservatives say it’s about intact marriages and fathers they’re just being cowards who don’t want to talk about intelligence (g or iq), they are so concerned about being perceived as racist that they stopped talking about a variable that is not great but at least it’s nature (race, Ethnicity etc) and started talking about a nurture one (father presence, intact family)
Benjamin Reames sent me a study about in vitro fertilization with eggs or sperm that don’t come from the raising father or mother, after I expressed my concerns and my interpretation of the study is that not only my “nature and genes is what matters for fathers” hypothesis is right, but even I, determinist that I am, was still not as fundamentalist and radical as reality is.
If you know how to read the paper, you’ll know that when it says nature, it means genes and epigenetic zygote environment.
But when it says nurture, it actually means nurture culturally but also the biological stuff like nutrition, milk quality based on mother lifestyle, placentenary conditions, if the mum smoked before or during pregnancy and nursing all this stuff that changes the biochemistry of the baby develop. And for sperm donors, nature also means mother’s nature, measured by her (genetic) skill in choosing from the 5 characteristics available which sperm donor.
If my way of looking at this study is right, here’s the conclusion:
Civilization will not stop collapsing if cuckservatives like Ben Shapiro and friends continue pretending the correlated variable of father presence and intact family matter. It doesn’t. Not a lot. Not a little. Not at all. The Problem is genetic and nutritional all the way down, it is not at all due to anything else. All that matters is how good are the nutrients, toxins, and genes you receive.
The effect of fathers in the minuscule, super rare cases where it showed, I strongly suspect that is mediated via the husband controlling nutrition of the wife and thus altering the epigenetic environment of the kid.
The effect of nurture mothers can easily be explained by the fact that genetically less intelligent, conscientious women screw up their child’s diet more (say by feeding them vegan food) bad milk from their own badly cared for body, and bad intrauterine environment.
I was definitely, without doubt more nature over nurture than 99% of the population before, and 80% than people who studied evolution, bioanthro, Evo psych etc. But I wasn’t nearly enough on that side. Count me on team “everything is nature until proven otherwise” from now on.
So the political consequences are far and wide.
The current game of hot potato is:
The left and liberals pretend people are flexible plastic and if not a full blank slate at least a light gray slate. This is obviously, patently incorrect, dangerous, and causes all the imbecility of critical race theory and the worst evils of University students who try to reverse systemic oppression without ever understanding that is not cultural oppression it’s just that people are born different in personality, intelligence and so on.
The right pretends that cultural shift away from God, marriage, family values, and intact nuclear monogamous families is the right explanation for the growth of the underclass. That’s just false.
What is really happening is that people with bad genes, of all races, sexes etc, are reproducing, surviving, immigrating etc.
A child isn’t broken because dad never came back from the store. Instead a man with horrible genes would lie that he is going to get milk and never come back. A woman who let herself impregnate by such a man is statistically also a woman of bad genes, and thus the child is far more likely to have psychopathology, to be dumb, and to do all the bad things people with bad genes cause.
So while cowards on the left accuse the right of being racist and the right retracts itself into fetal position and tries to find cultural stuff to change, the real story, which is a story of good and bad genes regardless of race, and of good and bad biology regardless of culture, upbringing, or how often your parents go to church separate from their genes.
All the things we think are cultural are just indicators. Going to church won’t help your kids. Being born genetically as the type of agreeable conscientius person who goes to church will. But not if you insert someone else’s eggs in you. Not if another genetic guy passes on the genes to a kid you raised.
So quit the helicopter parenting immediately. Parenting doesn’t matter. Take time to yourself.
Specialize in the health of the woman during before and after pregnancy. Give her good meat, liver, vitamins, take away her cigarettes, booze and drugs. Make sure her milk is on point. After that, nothing you do makes any difference to a first approximation. Whether you’re a woman or a man.
Just feed the child good nutritious food.
We are physics and genetics. Culture is an afterthought. Upbringing is an afterthought. Rearing is an afterthought.
I didn’t make the game, I’m just watching it and letting you know the rules. I myself think the game is rather silly and I’ll leave the serving tiny molecules that don’t care about me or anyone for you guys at least for now.
The amount that parenting is hard and grueling, when observed in light of how irrelevant it is makes this whole ordeal seem like a horrific cosmic joke on the part of a spiteful, brute God, set on pointless effort.
Our civilization will continue to fall while genetic quality decays (in all genders, races, orientations and so on) and the only way to save it is to find ways for selection in mating to become more strict again and for people with good genes to have a ton of genetic children.
I was dead right on the Mormons ridiculous as it sounds. They’re indeed one of the key high reproduction groups that might save us all.
While the left pretends it’s about race, and the right pretends it’s about families, we are all doomed.
Andrew Yang is the only politician intelligent enough to even understand all that. To read the paper and know the science.
But even him with a third party has no chance of bringing this discussion into the forefront of policy. 90% of people are either too cowardly, too ignorant, or too idealistic to accept the level of harshness of our physical reality as physical beings in a Darwinian unforgiving biologically determined world.
We are racing to the precipice in our cowardice and ignorance, and only a bioinformed revolution can bring us back.
It’s not fathers, it’s genes.
It’s not race, it’s genes.
It’s not education, it’s genes.
The sooner we accept the brutal harsh reality, the sooner we can go back to improving the future of humanity and go actually forward.
-‐——
Since this is significantly more important than most of my writings, consider sharing this post. If you’re reading this from someone who shared it, it doesn’t mean they agree with me, don’t light up your pitch forks. It just means they think the discussion is worth having.

---

More Anti-Fathering Data Just Dropped
I’ve been making the case against fathering for a while. While american conservatives will try to argue that the reason there are problems in the inner cities or whatever is that families are now broken and fathers have left the home, I always kinda knew there was something biologically fishy about this.
When you study bio-stuff, anthro, psycho, or zoo, you learn to consistently assume people think things are less biologically determined than they are. The classic example is autism and intelligence, which are both more than 50% bio-determined.
I suspected the conservatives were wrong, and the thing that makes the children of men who go get milk and never return more promiscuous, criminal, impulsive, and so on was not the fact that the dad never returned, it was the fact that either the dad himself had impulsivity, propensity to crime and promiscuity, which was genetically passed to the kids, or, more complexly, that the mum had a proclivity to those things and also to select a dad who would leave. In short, the problem was biological, or what laymen call “genetic” (which includes some non-genetic hereditary stuff too).
I got some data supporting my thesis last year in a study on in vitro fertilized kids of single mums, who don’t have that much of a problem life, because the sperm wasn’t selected by natural processes but from an in vitro clinic. And they also included mums who raised zygotes from other females (if I recall, it is kind of blurry right now) in their bellies, which means that it is not that only highly conscientious mums have the stamina to go to a fertility clinic and that ends up causing a good behaving kid. Basically the genes of a single mum child matter more than the fact that she is a single mum.
New evidence just dropped in the discussion Diana S Fleischman had with Louise Perry she mentioned that in India they followed up on girls who had absent fathers because 1) They left completely 2) They worked away 3) They died .
The dead father ones did not have early onset menarch!
Maybe if you’re not into biology this will not strike you as shocking and awesome. But it totally is!
Early menarch is an indicator of fast life strategy, or what the internet calls (innacurately) r-selectedness sometimes, and it comes with things like impulsivity, promiscuity, high sociosexuality, propensity to crime and so on as correlates.
So what thatIndia study implied, much like the in vitro studies, is that the thing that matters about the kids is the genetics of the dad, not whether he is around! Dead people are totally not around and yet!
My fav human ever, for example, Bertrand Russell, both parents died in a car accident age 4, and despite being poly 90 years before it was cool, he was an absolute high brow victorian gentleman hard working guy, and not a gangster 📷
Anyway, you get the idea: Conservatives in the USA are WRONG about what matters to raise a good population, getting people to stay in marriages won’t solve the problem.
I don’t know what will solve the problem, but fathering isn’t it.