The Gutenberg printing press was staggeringly disruptive: it dropped the price of a book from a full year’s wage, to about the price of a chicken. “The raw price of books fell by 2.4 per cent a year for over a hundred years.”



Women demonstrated a desire to control their partners & more likely to use physical aggression than men. 1000 students in UK (similar results: Arbach, 2015) Evidence against male control theory, based on the idea of patriarchy.

Women demonstrated a desire to control their partners & more likely to use physical aggression than men. 1000 students in UK (similar results: Arbach, 2015) Evidence against male control theory, based on the idea of patriarchy.,%202014%20Testing%20predictions%20from%20male%20control%20theory.pdf

Happiness regarding marriage

  Save as PDF
Last weekend, @profpauldolan spoke at the Hay festival in the UK, and some of his remarks were picked up by the BBC, the Guardian, and the Independent, and then repeated dozens of times in outlets across the world, including US reporting from FOX News to local TV stations. 1/
I’m no “happiness expert” and don’t have strong ideological feelings about whether everyone should be getting married or not, but I have done a ton of research with the American Time Use Survey (ATUS), which he said he based his statements on. And the claims felt weird to me. 2/
First of all, there’s this statement: that when a married woman’s spouse is not “in the room,” she’s “fucking miserable.” I know that this information isn’t included in the ATUS, so I reached out to him. He has since retracted this statement and will correct it in his book. 3/
The Guardian corrected that statement, but didn’t touch the others he made. So I got a copy of his book and looked at the evidence he presents to back these up. 4/
Obviously, he’s taking a bit of license in speaking about men “calming down” when they get married, but the evidence does support significant observed differences between married and unmarried men in terms of health, life satisfaction, and so on. 5/
I can’t tell where the claim that women “die sooner” when they get married originates. In the book, he puts it this way, going from there being evidence of benefits to marriage to saying there “really do not appear to be any health-related reasons to marry if you are a woman.” 6/
The citation in that second paragraph crucially does not say that there are no benefits to women marrying, only that they are *not as large as benefits to men*. An older article he cited earlier claims that unmarried women have 50% higher mortality rates than married women. 7/
Next, the claim that “healthiest and happiest population subgroup are women who never married or had children.” The ATUS lacks data on *ever* having children, but I can compare never/ever married with and without children in the household. This doesn’t back up his claim. 8/
I don’t think that a mean of a 0-to-6 happiness scale is the most meaningful measure, but I use it to be consistent with the data underlying 9 figures in Prof. Dolan’s book. I can more generally look at happiness over the life course by gender and marital status, as I do here. 9/

My overarching observation is that across most categories, people seem to have about the same level of happiness. But ATUS data suggest:

❌ married women aren’t “fucking miserable”
❌ women who never married or had children aren’t the “happiest population subgroup”


And there is evidence that marriage is related to health benefits for women (though it’s by no means convincing), contradicting the claim that married women “die sooner.” 11/
So there does not appear to be evidence supporting *any* of the dramatic claims in the press. While one has been retracted, I believe that all of them should be retracted and corrected. And I would be glad to walk @profpauldolan or any journalist through any of this. 12/12
Some more thoughts. First, this figure shows a five-year moving average happiness level for each category by age. One observation is that the lines for married men and women look similar, while unmarried men tend to be a little less happy (on average) than unmarried women. 13/
Marriage decisions are related to other factors, so I’m not sure how useful this comparison is. But also, I think marriage proponents (like @NickWolfinger and @WilcoxNMP) would agree that marriage has changed a lot over the past decades. Like these huge shifts in prevalence. 14/
Given such changes, we probably want to avoid comparing all unmarried women of all ages to all married women of all ages. But even if we deal properly with age, marriage is still endogenous. So are married people happier because they’re married, or for some other reason? 15/

To wrap this up: I didn’t explicitly state this above, but the problem with the “spouse in the room” statement was that it was based on misreading a key variable, as I explained here. In an email, Prof. Dolan said he believes I’m correct about this. 16/16

Gray ‘serial millennial myth debunker’ Kimbrough@graykimbrough

Unlike @NickWolfinger, I don’t have a dog in the fight over whether married people are happier than unmarried people. But building off of what he’s pointed out, Paul Dolan’s argument using ATUS data that many outlets have picked up is even more misguided than I first thought.

View image on Twitter

“women prefer muscles that are hard to build to be larger than muscles that are easy to build.”

Women’s size preferences for muscles on a man’s body: 1. Obliques 2. Glutes 3. Abs 4. Biceps 5. Shoulders 6. Triceps 7. Calves 8. Delts 9. Quads 10. Pecs

Bodily attractiveness is an important component of mate value. Musculature—a crucial component of men’s bodily attractiveness—provides women with probabilistic information regarding a potential mate’s quality. Overall musculature is comprised of several muscle groups, each of which varies in information value; different muscles should be weighted differently by attractiveness-assessment adaptations as a result. In the current study, women and men (N = 1,742) reported size preferences for 14 major muscle groups. Women’s reported preferences provided only partial support for our hypotheses that women will prefer muscles that most reliably differentiate between potential mates to be larger; men tended to prefer larger upper-body muscles. We discuss possible interpretations of these mixed findings. Ultimately, our findings suggest that attractiveness-assessment adaptations are sensitive to the information contained within specific muscle groups and they highlight the potential for additional research on the nuances of bodily attractiveness assessment.


we find that in mammals it is not just males who commit infanticide but frequently also females

Killing rivals’ offspring is a violent form of competition. In our new article ( – open pdf: we find that in mammals it is not just males who commit infanticide but frequently also females, but…


Costs and benefits of fat-free muscle mass in men: relationship to mating success, dietary requirements, and native immunity

“Sex differences in muscularity translate into the average man being stronger than 99.9% of women…The sex difference in upper-body muscle mass in humans is similar to the sex difference in lean body mass in gorillas, the most sexually dimorphic primate”


On average, men have 61% more muscle mass than women (d=3), a sex difference which is developmentally related to their much higher levels of testosterone. Potential benefits of greater male muscle mass include increased mating opportunities, while potential costs include increased dietary requirements and decreased immune function. Using data on males aged 18–59 years from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and including other relevant variables, fat-free mass (FFM) and/or limb muscle volume (LMV) are significant predictors of the numbers of total and past-year self-reported sex partners, as well as age at first intercourse. On the cost side, FFM and LMV are strong positive predictors of daily energy intake and strong negative predictors of C-reactive protein and white blood cell count, measures of native immunity.


Consanguinity is rampant in Indian M population just like the global Ummah, Arabs and pakistanis.

Consanguinity is rampant in Indian M population just like the global Ummah, Arabs and pakistanis. First paternal cousin is the preferred mode, 2nd cousins in 1/4 to 1/3 cases with regional variations, no surprises they’re so sick and try to spread sickness


An analysis of consanguineous marriage in the Muslim population of India at regional and state levels.

Bittles AH, et al. Ann Hum Biol. 2000 Mar-Apr.


Consanguineous marriage is widely favoured in a large majority of the world’s Islamic populations. According to recent estimates, the resident Muslim population of India is over 100 million. However, apart from a few numerically small or geographically defined surveys, little is known about their patterns of marriage preferences since partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947. This study seeks to determine the prevalence and patterns of consanguineous marriages contracted among Indian Muslims at regional and state levels during the last two generations. Data from the 1992/93 Indian National Family Health Survey (NFHS) were used in the analysis. The NFHS was a nationally-representative survey of ever-married women aged 13-49 years, conducted across 25 states of India. Of the initial 9845 respondents, 8436 were included in the final weighted analysis sample. Overall, 22.0% of marriages were found to be contracted between spouses related as second cousins or closer, ranging from 15.9% in the eastern states to 32.9% in the western states of India. In all parts of the country first cousin marriages were the preferred form of consanguineous union, and in four of the five regions paternal first cousin marriages predominated. Despite predictions to the contrary, there was no evidence of a significant change in the prevalence of consanguineous unions over the course of the study period, which extended from the late 1950s to the early 1990s.