Link: The evolution of female choice in seduction

https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-the-most-flamboyant-males-have-the-evolutionary-edge

True signals or GTFO.

boom suck it

In evolution, the carrier is the more valuable parent.  Inviolable truth.

If you aren’t a parent, evolutionally, your life is meaningless. Ouch.

The sex with costlier decisions has the power (right of refusal). The other proves their worth.

Also, parthenogenesis.

The blurred boundaries of science

http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/are-there-barbarians-at-the-gates-of-science

“As is often said, knowledge is the only natural resource that grows when used.”

…..No?
How can accumulated data grow? It is grown, acted upon, but no, it isn’t a plant growing by itself or a fountain of endless findings. Humans toil and add to it. It’s a body of information, no different than the growing discography of a singer.

Scientism creeps up in the most intriguing places. See;

“Some speak of the modern citizen as a “proto-scientist,” emulating, no doubt incompletely, some of the well-established practices of academia. It is no longer enough for experts to argue by means of what mathematicians fondly call “proof by intimidation.” The authority of science has been eroded by these public debates, a subject that deserves a separate discussion. One of the immediate consequences is that the scientific community will have to spend much more time engaging with policy makers and the public, not only communicating the products of research, but also the scientific method itself.”

Which is fine. Which is absolutely fine. Activism but we presume balanced, right? They explain themselves too.

Until….

“Science increasingly becomes a public good.”

correction ohuhno idiots

Hold the fucking phone, they aren’t priests.

You don’t get to be a priestly authority with a p-value.

They aren’t special and flawless, incapable of deception or falsehood. In fact, people like Popper warned against this. Scientists are no better than the common man. That’s the beauty of it. It’s about the findings, not the finder.

Every breach of ethics in history began with that presumption of moral virtue.
There is no normal, no moral standard in science. There would need to be a superhuman absolute to compare it to, a yardstick, and secular science denies this.

We’re doomed.

Link: Manwhores as poor husband material

She always goes for the nice perspective, doesn’t she? Never gives them a smack and the blunt truth.

hookingupsmart.com/2012/05/07/relationshipstrategies/can-a-manwhore-ever-really-settle-down-even-if-he-wants-to/

“In this culture, though, plenty of guys have lots of casual sex while young, fully intending to settle down later, marry and have a family. They may find the transition to monogamy especially difficult. The more women a man has had sex with, the lower the odds that he can be sexually gratified by one woman. Ever.

Understatements. That type often turn to porn within a marriage and maintain to the therapist (!!!) that it “doesn’t count” as cheating, Bible be damned. The addiction to novelty from the times of promiscuity have ruined him for the institution of marriage.

If the (wasted SMV) behaviour is bad, it doesn’t matter which sex does it. It’s bad for MMV. Definitively. No exceptions.
These market values are opposites and rely on opposing values and behaviours. If you spend one, you lose the other. It’s a tradeoff. You can never Have it All. It’s impossible. This parody of the Single Life is being sold to men now, as they began with Empowered Woman, they have moved to the more-profitable Eternal Bachelor. ‘Fully intending’ – based on? They were sold a myth, that sex is always good and causes no social damage. An obvious falsehood.

The genetic dead-ends I don’t care for, they got what they deserved. They wanted to be alone, they are.
On the other hand, there are plenty of decent men (who’ve never behaved in such a way) who can’t find wives, and it has to be repeated that these are different scales e.g. probably don’t try to attract your future wife (of high MMV) in a club setting (literally the modern SMP). It’s like going bird hunting underwater.

What to do?

No, he doesn’t need to think about it from his view (selfish). Culture already tells us to do that too much. He’s seeking. He’s in the position of need. The solipsism of that letter, ignoring his terrible treatment of the opposite sex he claims to cherish, betrays why he’ll end up dissatisfied whoever comes along, it’s always about him.

Think about it from his Perfect Woman’s perspective.

Assuming he met her tomorrow, how repulsed would she be? Perfect wife material for him, right there. What would she think. Isn’t that the most important thing, logically? The opinion of the one you want to attract? 

Why would she choose him?
Good women are at a higher premium in this age than good men. I’d bet a million dollars she’d Next him. For one with better pair bonding (biological fidelity) ability.

That physical/emotional disconnect the manwhores exhibit is very disturbing, a trait shared with serial killers, and to act on it betrays a cheapened view of her sex (rightly or wrongly). The cheating risk alone would be bad to a wife material woman, but the knowledge of comparisons, as a woman ages and her body changes with childbearing, is unbearable.

Why risk it?

Outside a film, exceptions aren’t made for the Monomyth Hero.

Men aren’t as special as they think they are. No trophies for trying.
Women are not a reward for XYZ. They have more at stake biologically than men, and we behave accordingly (with the Right to Reject).
Gen X men are seeing that. Gen Y on average sleep around less than their parents, but the promiscuous are very promiscuous and pull up the average. Those people are likely going to marry and suffer for their poor choices (of spouse or previous behaviour, haunting them like the Shags of Seasons Past), marry and divorce or die alone. I can’t summon the sympathy for people who chose this path, their belief in entitlement to another person is repugnant.

Cheap, easy sex is an addiction, sure as porn, drink and drugs. This is why players experience burnout as their dopamine system crashes, or simply don’t attract the same level of attention from their target women as they age into the “I could be her father” range.

Mother Nature has a sense of humour.

‘To settle’ is actually a good thing, a happy event leading to a life of contented domestic bliss. Feminists tainted it.

In strict answer, no.

Manwhores can never settle.

In the same way as slutty women, they will always pine for what they’ve had, if you’ll pardon my French, on the cunt conveyor belt.

p.s. There needed to be an equivalent of the cock carousel. Isn’t a nice thought, is it?

p.p.s. Look at the r-type delusion in the comments. When the data runs against their blind faith, the data must be wrong… even when it’s on women’s preferences, in which men have zero valid opinions. If you wanna find a manwhore, cite the data on their long-term ineligibility and how they can’t be trusted, and see who gets triggered.

Diversity makes a community more antisocial

http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/1/54.full.pdf+html

That’s the basic finding.

Antisocial needn’t be clinical, that’s the polite term for criminal aggressions; its milder form is very common, it has all the features of our modern multicultural low-trust society.

teadrinking sipping pretentious sarcastic bitch mmhmm not my problem lol

Obviously, as a side effect, happiness goes down, along with the number of school places, hospital beds, expendable council funds, available housing, number of people with a common language, general class of the area etc.

For some strange reason, liberals, who love their happiness studies, refuse to report/record that data…

High IQ, low common sense of minimum wage

http://www.unz.com/freed/capitalism-and-the-minimum-wage-i-got-mine-screw-you/

It’s a demographic problem. You could cite HBD.

Traceable by national IQ.

Being tied to economic prosperity. Civic participation. Prosociality.

On the abstract plane, it’s a social problem. Politicians give the proles what they want, disproportionate to their current contributions. They’re being treated as more important than they are, based on their historical value (prior to mechanization and the rise of IT).

The middle class are signalling to suppress the strivers from overtaking their own 1-2 kids.
The childless ones are signalling because a dumpy middle class blogger hashtagging about refugees like the modern fainting couch gets more social cred than a 12 hour a day factory worker. Which one gives back to the country?

The upper class abandoned noblesse oblige and the upper class by occupation prefer obscurity to the vagaries of fame. The lumpenprole expect gadgets made well and cheaply and will force the Government to regulate the manufacturers into oblivion in this quest.

A basic wage, guaranteed bribe income would come in, if there existed the funds.
No, producers are taxed to the hilt, as is.

It comes down to a basic fact: people are not the same.

The high IQ deserve 100% of the fruit to their labour, as does the low IQ.
By comparison, one has more, but only because one provided more.

Inequality is a natural law.