The Flaw In Assortative Mating Theory

In a word: Credentialism.

Credentialism, as defined by CH, is a system where the signaling value of a credential exceeds the content value of the acquired knowledge implied by the credential.

Keep this definition in mind, because it will explain a lot about the shortcomings of assortative mating data.

Assortative mating is the theory that people pair up according to social class, which in modern America is nearly synonymous with educational class. Proponents of assortative mating theory speculate that a cognitive elite — and perhaps soon a racial elite — is evolving from the observed mate choices of the upper classes to marry solely among themselves. Sort of like an “educated class inbreeding”. The mechanism by which educated class inbreeding happens is through meeting one’s mate on college campus, or later at the office or within social circles, both of which tend to be segregated by smarts and its proxy, college degree.

The more generations that pass through the filter of selective breeding for credentials, the likelier that a distinct race of übermensch becomes a permanent piece of the American social scene. A Bindi-style caste system is not far behind.

The flaw in assortative mating theory lies in its major premise: That credentials are as accurate a gauge of smarts and knowledge and social class now as they were in the past.

There’s no doubt women have flooded academia, and now outnumber men on campus by a nontrivial margin.

The fact that the female representation in college has risen so dramatically in such a short time period tells us that genetics are not the driving factor. Women did not suddenly become smarter, nor did they become smarter than men, during their rise to higher ed prominence. No, what happened instead is one-parent families became unaffordable in The Disunited States of Diversity, and, more pertinently, the average college degree lost a lot of its value.

Crudely, women have flooded into college to earn shit degrees like Communications, English, Education, and Women’s Studies.

Liberal arts degrees are useless degrees, because everything you’d wind up doing in a cubicle job with such a degree can be learned in two weeks if you have half a brain. In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt that they must pay off by marrying in their dried-up 30s a no-game-having, scarcity-mentality, provider beta male.

The uselessness of humanities degrees to real world value creation is exacerbated by the diversity industrial memeplex, which has further eroded the college cachet by the necessity of dumbing down and grade inflating the degree programs that vibrant students swarm into on the largesse of creator class endowment money.

What you are staring at is the twisted face of credentialism, the college debt racket and status whore end game that proves nothing except that women can be gifted conformist suck-ups in the stampede to earn a parchment declaring them competent at arranging client meetings, thinking inside the box, and mingling with white collar men who satisfy their hypergamous desire.

Empty, status striving credentialism is the reason assortative mating theory is flawed. Men and women aren’t matching up by IQ or class; they’re matching up by credential. Except that, on average, the men’s degrees are actually worth the paper they’re printed on.

Assortative credentialism is the more precise term for the marriage trend that we observe took off after women stormed the campus citadel. Conflating runaway credentialism with IQ misses the fact that today’s paper pushing woman with a communications degree was yesterday’s equally competent secretary with a high school degree, and perhaps even yesteryear’s farmhand mother with sharp instincts for survival.

So there will be no genetic überwench class. This isn’t to say an evolved cognitive elite is impossible; rather, what appears to be happening is less IQ stratification than a perverse reiteration of the patented CH BOSSS (Boss-Secretary Sexual Strategy) sexual market mechanism to reduce wealth and class inequality. The high school grad secretary of yore has been replaced by the college grad secretary of today. And as long as she stays thin and pretty, she’ll catch the eye of that high status man, and GSS data will erroneously pick this up as mate sorting primarily based on college experience or IQ.

There’s another flawed premise bedeviling assortative mating theory: It’s not really assortative MATING as much as it is assortative MARRYING. Whatever marriage trends we see between degreed SWPL women marrying degreed SWPL men are happening later and later in life, late 20s to early 30s. But before then, during those prime female nubility late teens and 20s, marriage rates are low among the “inbred educated class”. However, women aren’t waiting fifteen years in stark celibacy before assortatively marrying. There’s plenty of Pill and rubberized reproduction-thwarted mating going on between ages 15 and 30. The mating is what really animates men, moreso than the marrying. And women *are* assortatively mating, if by assortative we mean women are choosing to fuck sexy alpha cads who aren’t interested in footing the living expenses bills for women with feminist studies expertise who delight at the prospect of earning a paycheck to throw back mimosa-fueled single lady brunches.

Like I’ve said, it’s no coincidence that charismatic jerkboy game rose to prominence at the same time female college attendance and credentialism skyrocketed.


Audacious Epigone adds his pence to the assortative marrying topic.


  1. Sure men get the lion’s share of STEM degrees, but even that doesn’t really mean they’re worth it necessarily


    • STEM degrees, in my experience, are a bit of an odd bird. They serve a signalling function because one must have at least some innate geeky/tinkerer streak to complete one; it is impossible to fake that over five years of grueling engineering cirriculum. But technical degrees also, unlike most of the soft degrees out there, provide real vocational training (albeit inefficently). The effect of promoting STEM education has been to dilute the signaling aspect, and indeed large proportions of STEM grads, who have a marginal economic case relative to alternatives, leave a technical career path later on, while the true nerds persist simply because working in tech is so cool (for them). You can see this in the blip of degrees in the 80’s; the push for women in engineering faded because so few women have a geek streak and most of the women I encountered in engineering college in the 80’s ended up as project managers. The situation has since normalized and women engineers coming out of college though fewer in number, are real tech heads and not pretenders while women who want to go into project management get degrees in project management.


    • on October 7, 2014 at 4:16 pm Hexadecimally Inclined

      Credentials have become such important status symbols that we put far, far too much faith in them (STEM degrees included) as pathways to success… let alone as reliable markers of ability.

      The massively overgrown higher-ed establishment depends on people buying into the degree myth, and it has to keep standards low enough to keep enrollments high enough to justify its gargantuan size.

      It’s good at selling the myth. As more degrees get handed out, every degree is worth less, so there’s a race for higher and higher degrees. Now the USA has something like 2 million more Ph.D.’s than it can properly employ:

      A degree might still signify something, but that something becomes less significant all the time.


      • Very true.
        Owing to the very narrowly focused nature of the American education system, there are a lot of academics who may know everything there is to know about their particular little corner of the field, but are completely, hopelessly, cluelessly lost just as soon as they have to step outside of it by a nanometer.


  2. In two more words: Affirmative Action


  3. If we don’t stop this God-damned Ebola, then EVERYTHING we talk about Chez Le Chateau won’t even amount to Whistling Dixie.


    • Dude stop listening to Alex Jones. It’s more scare hoax propaganda. Remember the bird flu in 2006? The world health organization officially declared it a pandemic at the time. Then it disappeared. It’s all lies like global warming climate change bullshit. All communist lefty lies.


      • There’s also the bird flu, MERS, and hundreds of other tropical diseases, most of which do not do very well outside their native habitat, which most often means central Africa or southeast Asia.


      • I wish it was lies, but I’m in touch with a guy from the Liberty Organization in Sierra Leone and he says that people are dying like flies, around him. He is helping to work on the containment, elimination of the bodies and treating the infected…


  4. Degrees in the Humanities and related subjects are worse than useless for an additional reason: Although proportionally low in number, those ‘graduates’ who do subsequently achieve positions of influence in arenas like media and HR are in a position to perpetuate the poison they themselves have imbibed. I have in mind the Equality fallacy, feminism, AA, anti-family attitudes and all of the other grotesque manifestations of PC.


    • Also a funny side note, the women’s studies professor making a living off impoverishing her students probably does more to damage her (mostly female) student’s life than those evil menz! 6 figures in debt and no job prospects…


  5. Zombie, I invariably agree with you but not in this instance (ebola). I believe that in six months time people will be asking ‘what was that virus thing we were all so worried about some time ago?’
    Think about it. How many doomsday scenarios have we faced over the last decade or two, from global warming to avian flu, that disappeared without trace?


    • IS, Ebola isn’t worth the risk. HIV killed the better part of 1M people in the USA, and HIV was incredibly difficult to catch [anal recipient, blood transfusion recipient, used needle recipient]. But Spain is now saying that EBOLA HAS GONE AIRBORNE.


    • this guy makes the argument that ebola is airborne…its seems plausible


  6. >In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt

    I read a very insightful comment somewhere making the case that in many instances these degrees are doubly worse than useless. Saddling women with debt as you mention is one reason, the other is that employers are inclined to view holders of Grievance Studies or Hyphenated-American Studies degrees as walking lawsuits, primed to impose their radical professors’ notions of social justice on any employer (or prospective employer) who doesn’t next their resume.


    • Walking lawsuits indeed. I cannot credit how stupid I was but I actually said at a Regional Corporate meeting that I wouldn’t hire one of them for that reason. I got away with it but it must surely rank as the dumbest thing I ever said.


    • “In fact, these degrees are worse than useless, because they saddle women with a mountain of debt”

      true in many cases but have you seen how many grants and scholarships there are for women? especially single moms.

      my buddy’s sister went to dental hygienist school without paying a dime of her own money. she can’t keep a man and she’s a terrible mother but the schools gave her a “scholarship” because she was a female who was living in “hardship”.

      hardship of her own doing.

      i can see the need for that kind of thing if you’re a mom who was abandoned by her husband or widowed or something but that isn’t the case for most single moms anymore. most of them just can’t get their shit together so they look for someone else to fix everything for them. really rattles my cage. that chick probably got subsidized daycare and housing too.


      • that adds to the idea that “credentials” are no longer a good indicator of social value, intelligence, etc.

        women like the one you mentioned wouldn’t have been in college finishing degrees a decade or more ago but now with dumbed down curriculum and government aid, anyone can get into college and get a degree.


      • women like the one i mentioned


    • Ay-yup. A girl I knew graduated with a self-invented degree in Radical Feminist Social Insurrection or some such bilge, and when first looking for jobs after college she would name the degree thusly on her resumes. She couldn’t even get an interview. So she changed it to “Liberal Arts,” and within a few weeks found a job. Mz. Feminist eventually wound up on SSI and every other form of gubmint tit you care to name, so her degree was beyond useless, QED.


  7. It’s not that obtaining these BS degrees signal intelligence, it’s that the admissions criteria of these colleges are filtering people roughly based on IQ.

    The SAT and ACT correlate very highly with IQ. Women who go to Stanford are on average much smarter than woman who go to San Francisco State University, given their higher SAT scores. Their major doesn’t matter.


    • Exactly. It’s not having the degree, it’s where the degree is from. As sort i’ve marrying is what counts to women. If I see some Harvard Law grad girl marrying a Harvard Law guy, I admire that. I don’t care if she fucked some state school jocks on the way. You might care, but I dont.

      [CH: no one cares what you care about. men will care about what affects them personally. and men don’t generally find overeducated feminist skanks worthy marriage material.]

      Liked by 1 person

    • on October 7, 2014 at 1:48 pm The Man Who Was . . .

      And, the women who go to San Francisco State are smarter than those who can’t get into university at all.

      You got in (IQ), and you stuck it out (conscientiousness). That is all that is required for credentials to work as signals.


    • The assortative mating theory must overcome a few items CH describes.

      1. Rate of marriage resulting from college hook-ups (declining).
      2. Rate of fertility from college-met couples (declining).
      3. Introduction of low-IQ individuals into high-IQ via low barrier-to-entry fields of study.
      4. Condoms and the pill.

      Also, not within THIS PARTICULAR CH list, but in previous statements,

      1. Introduction of historically less productive genetic heritage into historically exceptional gene pools.
      2. Tolerance of homo-erotic pairings exclusive of heterosexual pairings.

      The better system was British imperialism supported by a strong and wealthy mercantile class.

      1. Men must be either well-bred (inherited wealth and power) or accomplished (acquired wealth and power) to marry well.
      2. Women must be well-bred (powerful fathers or, more rarely, grandfathers) or physically attractive and perceptively clever and socially engaging.

      Within such systems, education for men naturally follows success or, for both, breeding, and women have better odds for social status change by virtue of overall fitness, rather than pure intellectual capacity, which is favored for education and social advancement – but not reproduction – in the current system. Our current system both favors the one female trait, intelligence, at the expense of another, beauty, and reduces social climbing.

      It’s the evil step-mother (feminism) versus Snow White (good girls).


      • The argument is not that high IQ men and women are having flings at elite colleges and having bastard babies in between semesters.

        Getting into Harvard or Stanford puts you on a trajectory to hang out with fellow elite people for the rest of your life. After college you’ll move to one of the hubs for elite people like SF, NYC, DC, or LA, and will be friends with a bunch of elite people and may meet your spouse among that circle of friends. You’ll get a job at an elite institution like Google or Goldman Sachs and may meet your spouse there.

        Look at the smartest and most successful people in the tech industry and look who they have kids with. Sergey Brin’s wife went to Stanford and Yale. Sergey Brin’s mistress worked at Google. Larry Page’s wife was a med student at Stanford. Jeff Bezos’s wife went to Princeton. Zuckerberg’s wife went to Harvard, etc.

        This isn’t just a trend among the ultra-elite tech CEOs. If you work in the tech industry you’ll recognize that this type of assortative mating is the default among software developers.


      • Of those men, only Bezos has four children; the rest have 2 or less. Interestingly, Bezos father was a unicyclist and now owns a bike shop. He fathered Bezos while his mother was a teenager. Bezos mother left his father at age 2. Since Bezos is 50, that puts the split at the late 60’s, i.e.: women lib. So, imagine a world where Bezos has siblings.


      • If you work in the tech industry you’ll recognize that this type of assortative mating is the default among software developers.

        Yeah it’s also because most of the companies only hire from a very shallow pool of people. And there aren’t nearly enough women to go around as it is.

        It used to be that a software developer had a small staff have lesser skilled workers, but those days are long gone.


  8. Fyi, women should have no fear of becoming over educated or too successful. Women have next to no chance of limiting their hypergamous pool by being credentialed or highly paid themselves. Most highly successful people are men. You will always be outnumbered.

    [CH: restriction of range error. also psychological projection error. don’t ever change HB4.]


    • This must be a joke. When a woman becomes successful in a masculine sense, financially and career-wise, then she is limited to men who are even more successful than her because it’s very hard for women to feel attraction for men of lower status. And yet very successful men don’t care about your masculine success — they want to fuck beautiful women, plural. So if you’re average, HB5/6, then your future is cats and a masculine-type success that will seem increasingly hollow as you age, your home barren of children. Never go full-retard.


      • femx is beginning to feel the cold finger of father time tapping her shoulder. her white noise nonsense is supposed to help her forget he’s standing right behind her draining her SMV point by point with every passing hour.


  9. Being an historian, I often wonder where I stand when discussion of the humanities comes up. Sometimes people have a knee-jerk reaction and automatically assign me a spot in line for the coming guillotine; the truth is that I push the “red pill” little by little in the classroom, though it’s a delicate process. Right now the goal is to emphasize non-Western aggression and imperialism. If I am convincing students that the West isn’t uniquely imperialistic, I am undermining the narrative to some extent. However, there are days where I push it. Eventually I will get canned but since I’m deliberately staying clear (adjuncting) I can skip under the radar.

    The difference in difficulty between a solid history phd and an English one are ridiculous. English is about as feminized as a subject can get at this point. As for the “studies” courses, all of those courses are basically pet classes of Bogomil professors looking for narcissistic supply.

    There was a time in which the humanities were there to cause people to question what it means to be honorable, ethical, and upright, and to value Western civilization and her ideals; they are being turned into mutual masturbation exercises for the worst sorts.

    If I didn’t have children I would have fled this nation a while ago. Of course I might not be able to stay away and watch everything crumble either.


    • on October 7, 2014 at 4:36 pm Just Went Rogue

      I salute you sir, for attempting to insinuate the truth into your classroom. Every little bit counts.


      • What color are you?

        If you are gonna show the flag in the back yard of the enemy I suggest you up armor with some SPF 4.


    • on October 8, 2014 at 12:51 am Goddess Kalifornia Surfer

      “There was a time in which the humanities were there to cause people to question what it means to be honorable, ethical, and upright, and to value Western civilization and her ideals”

      Certainly Western Civ has some great ideals, but all cultures have strengths and weaknesses, positive and negative.

      Very often strengths and positives taken to extremes result in weaknesses and negatives.

      “If I didn’t have children I would have fled this nation a while ago.”

      I have kids and I left. I do come back to visit family sometimes, like now. My children learn more through traveling the world than they ever would sitting in an American public or private school.

      Sometimes I worry that I’m not giving them enough stability but what sort of stability is there in mainstream American life anyway? It appears most American parents my age are divorced, if they bothered to get married in the first place.


  10. The meteoric rise in tuition costs has also a lot to do with lobbying by financial interests to make student debt virtually impossible to discharge and thus the willingness to lend any amount of money to any one for any degree. Too much money chasing too few resources = massive inflation.


  11. on October 7, 2014 at 1:44 pm The Man Who Was . . .

    This post is fundamentally flawed. All that needs to happen is for the relatively smart women to end up mating with the relatively smart men and so on, down to the relatively stupid. Even crappy, useless degrees function reasonably well for such signalling purposes: the women with the better credentials tend to be smarter than those without.


    • perhaps i was less clear than i could have been. what isn’t happening is any *increase* in assortative sorting by IQ; the deluge of women into shit degree programs when in the past they would’ve moved on in life as relatively bright high school graduates doing office admin work is proof of my contention that assortative mating theorists are missing a piece of the puzzle.


      • The other missing piece of the puzzle is that the elites are [probably?] not having children at replacement rates of fertility, so while assortative mating is a very real problem, it is [probably?] increasingly a dwindling problem.


    • In any society, women tend to migrate to places where they hope to snag a rich man. The university is no exception. They aren’t really planning to get educated — hence the shit degrees they tend to get — they’re hoping to run into a man who has a degree that’s actually useful. The only degree that really means anything at all to a non-femcunt woman is the MRS degree.


  12. “Empty, status striving credentialism is the reason assortative mating theory is flawed. Men and women aren’t matching up by IQ or class; they’re matching up by credential.”

    Well, direct evidence shows that you’re wrong. IQ, specifically verbal IQ, is the single strongest trait that people assortatively mate on. This is stronger than religion and politics – themselves pretty powerful (although I suspect some of the correlation there is attenuated by measurement error; IQ tests are less noisy than behavioral ones).

    See this (open access) review by Robert Plomin and Ian Deary:

    Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings.


  13. White people…..

    Whites – Saturday Night Live:


  14. “So there will be no genetic überwench class”

    In some areas there may still be, for example where female doctor marries male doctor. In the UK about 60% of medical students are female which produces some interesting side effects. There’s a shortage of GPs (general practitioner = family doctor), because most women GPs only work part time. They’re also running out of surgeons as the old boys retire, because surgery is a very male discipline, and now they have fewer males in the surgery recruitment pool.


  15. I made up a fake university name for white people who ask where I went to school.


  16. CH’s critique of Assortative Mating Theory (AMT) is interesting, but I wonder what theorists are saying or implying that today’s credentialing standards are the same as the ones used in the past.

    I will use only one example to keep readers’ eyes from glazing over: an excerpt from a research paper about educational AMT.
    “In particular, future research should investigate the possibility that the structure of educational systems themselves, and the precise hierarchy of available credentials, could impact the tendency to marry across an apparent boundary [i.e., hypergamy / hypogamy]…”.

    This particular author/theorist goes out of his way to question credentialing standards; this is, of course, necessary for intellectual integrity when one’s paper does not directly call those standards into question.

    Are there any authors out there promoting the idea that credentialing standards have been stable?


  17. “no-game-having”

    You mean “gameless”.


  18. on October 7, 2014 at 6:07 pm Goddess Kalifornia Surfer

    “Crudely, women have flooded into college to earn shit degrees like Communications, English, Education, and Women’s Studies.”

    Those women rarely mate with surgeons, scientists, engineers or other STEM men. They tend to mate with men who have similar degrees or artsy/creative musician types or the manager at their local Walmart.

    Liberal Arts is not useless unless its your sole degree. If you major in STEM but take a minor in Linguistics or History, that can help you.

    The problem is majoring solely in a Liberal Arts subject without any STEM at all, which has been the mistake many, perhaps most, American university students have made since the 80s.

    Major in STEM with a minor in Liberal Arts, or start your own business, and you’ll be ok.


    • on October 7, 2014 at 6:25 pm Goddess Kalifornia Surfer

      “Those women rarely mate with surgeons, scientists, engineers or other STEM men. They tend to mate with men who have similar degrees or artsy/creative musician types or the manager at their local Walmart.”

      Actually I had to rethink that. I know a lot of female Liberal Arts professors married to doctors. And local newspaper columnists married to engineers.

      To me “assortive mating” means mating according to similar values more than it does SES (socio-economic status). There is overlap there, but sometimes not.


  19. CH: I think you are right about the value of the credentials but wrong about the assortative breeding, and perhaps wrong about the intelligence of men vs women.

    I believe the data measures assortative breeding by credential, you may be right about that, but I expect that proxy *understates* the extent to which the assortative breeding is by actual intelligence. Smart guys prefer smart women and can tell them from their credential: they use their own intelligence to improve on credential as a measure.

    [CH: smart guys, like dumb guys, prefer hot women. but smart guys are just better at rationalizing their second choices.]

    And likewise smart women prefer smart guys.

    [it’s true that the female preference for a smarter mate is stronger than the male preference for same.]

    And there is data that indicates this. Guys who have a kid and live with him, have an increase in pay averaging 6% from having the kid, in spite of the fact that this imposes costs on their employer.
    This strongly suggests women are choosing to have kids with guys who are about to get raises, ie they can tell who is actually going somewhere.

    Also I’ll offer up an alternative theory as to why guys are doing so crummy in school and in the work force these days. Vaccination. In animal experiments, you inject the aluminum from the US vaccine series (scaled for weight) into mice, the boy mice get really stupid, and the girl mice less so. Its mostly the boys who get autistic, and ADHD. There’s a lot more evidence on this. I suggest you take seriously the possibility that the modern vaccine series is maybe costing the average boy 15 IQ points and the average girl 5. This theory makes a prediction, and I don’t happen to know the answer so if someone does please let me know, namely that boys are doing better relative to girls in the Swedish system than in the US. Of course, even if that’s true there might be other reasons.


    • on October 8, 2014 at 12:42 am Goddess Kalifornia Surfer

      Philosopher:Smart guys prefer smart women and can tell them from their credential: they use their own intelligence to improve on credential as a measure.

      CH: smart guys, like dumb guys, prefer hot women. but smart guys are just better at rationalizing their second choices.]

      – Beyond looks, smart guys look for smart women to raise a family with.

      [CH: lemme set it to ya straight. smarts are way down on the list of things men desire in women, behind looks, fmeininity, maternal instinct, and submissiveness.]


      • Let’s not forget, most men don’t get to choose, i.e. their ideal partner (what they want) is far different from their optimal partner (what they can get). What you hear then is a lot of rationalizations.

        [CH: it’s more precise to say most men exercise limited choice. but then, so do most women, the difference being that the average woman can exercise a wider discretion of choices than the average man.]


      • CH: In the modern world with birth control, I expect men select somewhat different traits in women they choose to father a child with, to those they simply bed, with intelligence/accomplishments rather higher up the list. But I don’t think either one of us has much data. However I agree that sexual selection by women is a vastly bigger driver of evolution than sexual selection by men. Most any women can get pregnant if she really tries, even without resorting to a sperm bank. Men have more trouble.

        However, I expect sexual selection by women of smarter men considerably outweighs the alleged fact that dumber women have more kids than smarter ones. Some feminist prof recently analyzed data and found the average guy who has a kid gets a 6% pay raise along with (on average), while women who have a kid take a 4% pay cut on average. Now I have no doubt both of those are weighed down by the costs imposed on the employer (for example, an extra dependent on the health care) and that the women’s figure especially reflects mothers choosing to invest in their kid rather than their job (for example, by working less hours or choosing a lower stress job over a higher paying one so they can be home with Jr.). I also have extreme doubt that the boss is just giving out a raise because hubby joined the old boys club as fem prof seems to think. so assuming the numbers are right it seems clear that women are selecting men going places for children, and the amount the average male father’s IQ is higher than the average male’s IQ is likely to be rather more than the amount the average Mom’s IQ may as is sometimes argued by lower than the average woman’s.


  20. Studying English as a means for employment is a mistake, I agree. This is the discipline Lena Dunham pursued and would have, like so many of her gluttonous contemporaries, failed spectacularly had it not been for mommy and daddy getting her a TV show, press coverage, and now a wretched excuse for an autobiography. It has in recent history been thoroughly feminized and degraded.

    Yet literature fondles me in places Arch Bishop STEM or Father Business Degree cannot. One of the reasons I subscribe to this blog is your weaponized command of the English language against the malignant carcinoma of the modern world. I’d argue it’s not a fundamentally useless degree.

    I’ve managed to landed a communications position at a growing oil and gas company with the credential, and I won’t have student loans, but in all likelihood I won’t make a living writing. If I do, it can’t be said for sure the time spent among future starbucks baristas and wal-mart managers will contribute at all to that.


  21. on October 8, 2014 at 1:05 am Pijama Wearing Ninja

    I agree with you about credentialism, but I disagree with your conclusion about assortative mating. Women allegedly have a narrower distribution of cognitive ability which means that even with parity in how exception the men and the women are in the intellectual realm, there will be a discrepancy in cognitive ability the more exceptional the man is.

    Plus, it’s not like Princeton graduate women aren’t smarter than high-school dropout women, even if the graduate chick is some women studies graduate.


  22. If you attend Big State or Fancy Private, or even 2nd tier state it is unlikely you will graduate in 5 years without a 105+ IQ. And in fact, if you were to limit your mate selection to those that finished it in 4 years, you are probably guaranteed at least a 115 regardless of the degree.

    Lastly, I will add that women face a problem in that they have a visceral hatred to any civilization building work outside of caregiving which doesn’t pay well. Credentialism by women is driven many from the misguided notion that they need to work (a reality b/c they pushed the marriage age up with grrl pwr) and the resulting competition for make work jobs.

    Men don’t need to go to college to make a decent living because there is always a need to do things while exposed to the elements which requires less formal education. Hence the 2:3 male to female ratio


  23. “[CH: lemme set it to ya straight. smarts are way down on the list of things men desire in women, behind looks, fmeininity, maternal instinct, and submissiveness.]”

    Sure, when they’re looking for someone to fuck.

    When you’re looking to mate with someone, smarts are toward the top of the list. No one wants a dumb kid.

    [CH: no one wants an ugly daughter either. looks are still #1 on the list of men’s mate criteria in marriage partners. femininity still trumps female smarts too. female smarts only comes into play in a noticeable way when the difference between hers and his is large, say 20IQ points. assortative mating on IQ is better understood as assortative mating by convenience. most men will meet women who aren’t too inconvenient to get at. and then, even within a higher IQ milieu, men will first strive to wife up the best-looking smart woman they can get. you will never NEVER meet a man who chose a woman to date primarily on her smarts rather than primarily on her looks. this is why an ugly woman flashing a graduate degree won’t get any prettier or more desirable to any man who isn’t a complete loser settling for whatever he can get.]


  24. Perhaps we’ve found another type of woman who, like the single mom, who should be avoided by men at all costs. Call her the credentialist bachelorette. She carries baggage like the single mom in the form of spiraling college debt which you end up subsidizing, by either paying for everything during the relationship, or outright paying the debt itself once married. Unlike the bastard spawn you can kick to the curb once it turns 18, the debt may last into her golden years, according to a recent Beta times article.


  25. As per usual, my dear Chateau, genius.