Male beauty correlates to right-wing position

Strong men aren’t much into helping the weaker competition, since your genetic looks are an advertisement.

(You could argue lifting weights is ‘lying’ about your natural somatoform and strength level, much like applying excess makeup to alter bone structure, fake masculinity and fake femininity, much like muscle implants or breast implants give off false cues about fertility and chemical dimorphism.)

PDF:

http://www.ehbonline.org/article/S1090-5138(16)30390-7/fulltext

You might disagree with my use of the term ‘male beauty’ but if we’re studying female constantly it follows there must also be a standard for men even if you prefer to call it handsomeness… it’s still beauty.

I love how the method is biased but the result came shining through.

“Both the simple and complex social bargaining models received partial support: sociopolitical egalitarianism was negatively related to bodily formidability, but unrelated to other measures of bodily/facial formidability/attractiveness; and a formidability-wealth interaction did predict variance in support for redistribution, but the nature of this interaction differed somewhat from that reported in previous research. Results of the experimental manipulation suggested that egalitarianism is unaffected by self-perceived formidability in the immediate short-term. In sum, results provided some support for both the simple and complex social bargaining models, but suggested that further research is needed to explain why male formidability/attractiveness and egalitarianism are so often negatively related.”

Now a study about the women, to make it scientific.

Video: The psychological idea of God

Convert an atheist to hierarchical norms today!

See: Why mockery?

Signalling is Freudian signifiers.
>Checkmate, atheists.

People who claim Freud was wrong about sexuality still get the most ripe interpretations of inkblots despite sleeping around. Stop flirting with Wicca and commit to Christ.

egocentrism is fine, a weak superego is terrible

A lot of supposed nihilists are just Freudians with no clue how to interpret.

Speaking of impossible memes (because you find nihilism to have meaning) – cognitively.

How is a meme qualitatively different from an idea?

Meme is such a pretentious way to discredit any faith by coaching it in pseudo-Darwinian paradigms. Thoughts do not guide behaviour, it is values and those arise from cultural principles. Religion shows the shifts in paradigm of cultural dominance over time.

Today my pill is so red it shifts into the UV spectra.

Iconography is not the territory.
Virtue signalling is the modern Pietism. These basic bitch Pharisees.
Remember to self-flagellate with your Father’s disappointment today!

Freud! Sexual theory, inversion

http://www.bartleby.com/278/1.html
I think people don’t read Freud because they assume they know what he will say.

Stay tuned for traps, queers, degeneracy and genetic aspersions.

It’s like asking a Communist for a good book on capitalism. Psychodynamics is the natural enemy of postmodernism. Everything you do is loaded with meaning, nothing you say matters. It isn’t perfect but it has use. It digs down into motive, unlike, say, the gay triangle of CBT, where thoughts magically pop out of nowhere ~dynamic unconsciousness screams into the void~

“Degeneration.—This term degeneration is open to the objections which may be urged against the promiscuous use of this word in general. It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. Indeed, Magnan’s classification of degenerates makes it conceivable that the highest general configuration of nervous accomplishment need not exclude the application of the concept of degeneration. Under the circumstances it is a question what use and what new content the meaning of “degeneration” still possesses. It would seem more appropriate not to speak of degeneration: (1) Where there are not many marked deviations from the normal; (2) where the capabilities and the capacity to exist do not in general appear markedly impaired. 6  15″

Hello, DSM 5.

n.b. The ICD is the DSM only stronger. It’s a huge, honest list of insurance codes. They don’t pretend to care about you, pay the man and take your pills.

A momentary pause for memes that get funnier the more psychodynamics you know.

     

“Degeneration.—This term degeneration is open to the objections which may be urged against the promiscuous use of this word in general. It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. Indeed, Magnan’s classification of degenerates makes it conceivable that the highest general configuration of nervous accomplishment need not exclude the application of the concept of degeneration. Under the circumstances it is a question what use and what new content the meaning of “degeneration” still possesses. It would seem more appropriate not to speak of degeneration: (1) Where there are not many marked deviations from the normal; (2) where the capabilities and the capacity to exist do not in general appear markedly impaired. 6  15  That the inverted are not degenerates in this qualified sense can be seen from the following facts:  16  1. The inversion is found among persons who otherwise show no marked deviation from the normal.  17  2. It is found also among persons whose capabilities are not disturbed, who on the contrary are distinguished by especially high intellectual development and ethical culture. 7  18  3. If one disregards the patients of one’s own practice and strives to comprehend a wider field of experience, he will in two directions encounter facts which will prevent him from assuming inversions as a degenerative sign.  19  (a) It must be considered that inversion was a frequent manifestation among the ancient nations at the height of their culture. It was an institution endowed with important functions. (b) It is found to be unusually prevalent among savages and primitive races, whereas the term degeneration is generally limited to higher civilization (I. Bloch). Even among the most civilized nations of Europe, climate and race have a most powerful influence on the distribution of, and attitude toward, inversion. 8  20″

Nurture theorists got nothing on this man.

“Innateness.—Only for the first and most extreme class of inverts, as can be imagined, has innateness been claimed, and this from their own assurance that at no time in their life has their sexual impulse followed a different course. The fact of the existence of two other classes, especially of the third, speaks against the assumption of its being congenital. Hence, the propensity of those holding this view to separate the group of absolute inverts from the others results in the abandonment of the general conception of inversion. Accordingly in a number of cases the inversion would be of a congenital character, while in others it might originate from other causes.…..

The Relation of Bisexuality.—Since the time of Frank Lydston, Kiernan, and Chevalier, a new stream of thought has been introduced for the explanation of the possibility of sexual inversion. This contains a new contradiction to the popular belief which assumes that a human being is either a man or a woman.”

Unfortunately, Freud appeared to have predicted all this gender binary business.

“The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex.”

Sexuality is fluid down generations. Evolution. No naturalistic fallacy about bonobos here, plz.

“Psychic hermaphroditism would gain in substantiality if parallel with the inversion of the sexual object there should be at least a change in the other psychic qualities, such as in the impulses and distinguishing traits characteristic of the other sex. But such inversion of character can be expected with some regularity only in inverted women; in men the most perfect psychic manliness may be united with the inversion. …”

Lesbian neuroscience testosterone studies. 2D:4D ratios. The homosexual male’s femininity is a parody, a social role. They had no trouble hiding it when it was illegal.

He did write a whole book on Leonardo assuming he was homosexual, the reason moderns assume it, so he may be slightly biased in favour of the male purely because his own mother abandoned him to a nanny. We call this attachment issues in child psychology but it’s essentially Freud Pure.

“The conception which we gather from this long known anatomical fact is the original predisposition to bisexuality, which in the course of development has changed to monosexuality, leaving slight remnants of the stunted sex.”

Kinsey hasn’t got shit on Freud.
~confetti~

“A spokesman of the masculine inverts stated the bisexual theory in its crudest form in the following words: “It is a female brain in a male body.” But we do not know the characteristics of a “female brain.” The substitution of the anatomical for the psychological is as frivolous as it is unjustified. The attempted explanation by v. Krafft-Ebing seems to be more precisely formulated than that of Ulrich but does not essentially differ from it. v. Krafft-Ebing thinks that the bisexual predisposition gives to the individual male and female brain cells as well as somatic sexual organs.”

Sounds epigenetic.

“These centers develop first towards puberty mostly under the influence of the independent sex glands. We can, however, say the same of the male and female “centers” as of the male and female brains; and moreover, we do not even know whether we can assume for the sexual functions separate brain locations (“centers”) such as we may assume for language.  33  After this discussion, two thoughts, as it were, remain; first, that a bisexual predisposition is to be presumed for the inversion also, only we do not know wherein it exists beyond the anatomical formations; and, second, that we are dealing with disturbances which are experienced by the sexual impulse during its development. 11  34  ”

Number of abuse victims studies. Sheer quantity, cannot be ignored.
And have you ever met a gay guy that loves his father?
Fuck you, Dad!” the lifestyle crisis.

Traditionally, all fathers asked of their sons was to produce another heir….

crude compensation or coping mechanism
another thrilling round of-

“The Sexual Object of Inverts.—The theory of psychic hermaphroditism presupposed that the sexual object of the inverted is the reverse of the normal. The inverted man, like the woman, succumbs to the charms emanating from manly qualities of body and mind; he feels himself like a woman and seeks a man.  35  But however true this may be for a great number of inverts it by no means indicates the general character of inversion. There is no doubt that a great part of the male inverted have retained the psychic character of virility, that proportionately they show but little the secondary characters of the other sex, and that they really look for real feminine psychic features in their sexual object. If that were not so it would be incomprehensible why masculine prostitution, in offering itself to inverts, copies in all its exterior, to-day as in antiquity, the dress and attitudes of woman.”

The original ‘are traps gay?’

To round off by repeating one section considering our current knowledge of the microbiome and the possible role of Gay Germ theory.

“It has in fact become customary to designate all morbid manifestations not of traumatic or infectious origin as degenerative. ”

How about you read the thing before taking an SJW’s word for it?

Their definition of homophobia and privilege are also deeply Freudian.

Low birth rate caused by birth control, explained

If we’re talking evolution and society, we need to review everything in light of r/K.

Slut shaming was prosocial. Bring back bachelor tax (we already have it in welfare parent tax for non-parents).
http://shylockholmes.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/the-birth-control-basilisk.html

More sex than ever, fewer babies. Doesn’t take a genius to work out.

It tends to cull r-types, birth control was designed for married K-types to curb in line with their natural instincts and environmental needs.
“3. People have a very strong, uncomplicated desire to love and care for the children they have.”
K-types only.
It’s impossible to discuss sex without sexual strategy.

And yet people do.

” A strong desire to have sex ensures children are produced with fairly high regularity, because birth control is either non-existent or unreliable. ”
R-types only.
Ks limit their sexuality for monogamy, once pair-bonding has been achieved with a suitable mate. In human terms, after marriage.
Most of the sub-replacement fertility in Europe is due to the low marriage rates. It’s good that people aren’t reproducing out of wedlock.

“The whole idea of it being a contentious question whether you chose to have kids or not is, as far as I can tell, a shockingly recent question. If the only way you could so choose would be to either a) not get laid, or b) rely on methods that require practice, discipline in the heat of coital moment, forward planning and/or health risks, the discussion would be largely moot.”

Still no mention of marriage as related to procreation.
This, from a traditionalist.
People are that decoupled. Thanks, sexual revolution!
Birth control is K-selected, the problem is that it didn’t account for the Revolution that messed with marriage.
If everyone having sex is married, it becomes a matter of family planning.
If anything with marriage goes awry, the r-types win out because the Ks aren’t even hopping the first hurdle of the big white wedding day. Plus they’re limiting.
The man who invented The Pill intended for it to help spouses who wanted to enjoy sex but not bankrupt their pre-existing families. We could also limit birth control to those who’ve already bred like it used to be but that’s too sensible. Chemical BC causes many health problems in women, there’s medical grounds to restrict it.
The Pill as a theory is K-enforcing since it imposes their pattern on the r-types.

Never including IQ as a factor in to who is/should be allowed birth control by the state is also an issue.
Age to a lesser extent. You don’t finish developing until your twenties.

IQ results between the sexes – the problem

I never got around to explaining this scientifically.

TLDR this picture. Understand this picture and you’ve pretty much got the gist.


Aside from sampling bias that it’s mostly men taking the tests.
Ideally, there’d be a vast study controlling for factors of class, education, mental health, anything that affects IQ and THEN, from that data (cross-cultural obviously) a comparison between the sexes.
Historical comparisons don’t work because women couldn’t attend full schooling, and were legally blocked from college.
https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php
Random error would be like what you had for breakfast that morning or a bird outside distracting you from the test. Those are confounds. Systemic error is the bias. Bias is a mathematical concept and it’s baked into the method design. That’s why me and everyone else who knows their stuff will read the methodology and critique that in light of the data results.
IQ also rejects many valuable parts of intelligence like grit or EQ (that women score well on), as well as the fact you can be taught it or improve your score, which flies in the face of the premise of IQ as a construct of ‘g’, as natural intellect. While very valuable and predictive of life outcomes, it is only a piece of paper and its greatest value is for academia.
The ‘Muh Male IQ’ crowd never suggest a corroborating test.

What confirmation bias?

“Finally, one of the best things you can do to deal with measurement errors, especially systematic errors, is to use multiple measures of the same construct. Especially if the different measures don’t share the same systematic errors, you will be able to triangulate across the multiple measures and get a more accurate sense of what’s going on.”

Those measures would include crime rates between the sexes, psychiatric suicidality and biological longevity.
On all those metrics, men lose. So much for ‘superior sex’ arguments.

Repost but good:
If you take the evolutionary biologist approach and control for the size of the body, women are actually more intelligent.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40999617_The_role_of_height_in_the_sex_difference_in_intelligence
If you look at what’s more valuable to the brain, it’s white matter. Women have greater wm volume.
The Gender War is SJW propaganda because it’s anti-natal.
http://thisiseuropa.net/overcome-men-vs-women-attitude/
If the men saying ‘no brother wars’ don’t cooperate with women and have no one to breed with, they might as well be Milo.
If men don’t want to cooperate with women, they’re not men. They’re boys rebelling against Mommy. This applies vice versa, there’s a serious issue with someone who can’t grow up and mature into their duties. That’s not to say every man must be drafted or every woman needs to breed, but the sexes must support one another’s efforts while respecting civil liberties because those liberties make civilization.
The sexes are different, neither is superior. We’re supposed to be dimorphic, not androgynous, holding one sex to the standard of another is silly. Limiting them to that standard is also backward. Men can go into the arts, women into the sciences, it doesn’t make them lesser men/women. A pair of twins, one male and one female, are more alike than they ever could be different. The sexes are more alike than the races and if you look at the antagonists on the Gender War, they’re doing it to avoid the topic of a Race War by open competition.

The common ‘difference’ found between the sexes is approximately 3-4 IQ points in the averages. That’s it. That’s also tiny and well within chance based on factors like the aforementioned sampling bias. They’re clutching at straws. The data from meta-analysis (not single studies, which mean nothing in social science) is abused in bad faith too. They use it to claim something no data has ever nor will ever show to avoid their Burden of Proof i.e. they claim women are stupid. If you look at the data on retardation, a totally different question from 100-point moving averages, it’s clearly men that take the gold, especially the ones who claim their own mother, by their own logic, is stupid. Yes. Too stupid to abort.

When it comes to geniuses, these guys are trying to claim they’re Einstein by association.
That is retarded. Claim to be Hercules at least, he was male too. Aim high in your delusion.
They tend to ignore the fact there are also female geniuses, historically and currently. This is too much for their tiny
downstairs brain.
I could apply the sampling bias of the high-IQ tests but it’s common sense at this point, I won’t insult you. If you look at the only use for high-IQ tests, it’s to show off. Men take more of those by default and the types of intelligence included in IQ have a heavy maths bias, which girls excel at before puberty hits us over the head (earlier than boys nowadays) and we lose ground forever since academics are competitive.
Then go on to look at the way and reason these high-IQ studies are conducted – by men in academia, for men in academia. As in, these dicks are testing themselves. I’m sure there’s no way that could possibly be dodgy. Men are over-represented in the STEM tenures of academia, this would suggest they do better in academia. But is someone who needs the state teat truly intelligent?
They never study private sector workers. There’s also a heavy class bias, upper-middle only. Again, is this externally valid?
Does it have external validity?
Look at the front page of Google for this topic.

This comes up. This level is the best they can do.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
“By just looking at those figures, it seems to corroborate the conventional wisdom that has been known for decades: the average IQs are about the same and males are a bit more variable.”
Remember variable in stats doesn’t mean wrong, necessarily.


A grand total of two points. Don’t build your spaceships to escape the cooties just yet.
At most, this biased page can find a single paper that claims what?
“In this paper, which looked at adult IQs, a five point higher IQ was found for males over females and the standard
deviations were found to be equal.”
Five. 5% as 5/100 average. 1/20. Mountains out of molehills.
But WAIT! There’s more!
This is intellectually dishonest. It misses out the basic reason for p-values – statistical significance.
Just because you have a number, doesn’t make it relevant.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/intro.htm

But girls can’t do maths, right?


Most IQxgender findings are ‘statistically insignificant’, literally. They rarely report this.

As in, they are not scientific and to claim their hypothesis as they claim them is also unscientific.
“Inferential statistics are used to make generalizations from a sample to a population.”
OK, what is the sig. value in psychology, since it’s IQ? Always .05 or 5%. P-hacking to scrape this level is common but results cannot be replicated (called the replicability crisis – or fraud if you’re normal).
“In the behavioral and social and sciences, a general pattern is to use either .05 or .01 as the cutoff. The one chosen is
called the level of significance. If the probability associated with an inferential statistic is equal to or less than .05,
then the result is said to be significant at the .05 level.”

1% is for medical disciplines like neuroscience. They don’t use it in studies for brain differences between the sexes because they can’t meet that standard. Dwell on this fact. They typically have to lower the standard of proof to publish.
Type 1 and 2 errors also come in but that’s why we have meta-analysis (that these so-called high-IQ twerps don’t use, single studies only).
The common anecdotal Muh MENSA is also disingenuous, since, aside from who takes the test (and results should be controlled for that, they aren’t because that reduces the male score) they don’t bother to find out that just because you qualify for MENSA, doesn’t mean you have to join. Mind-boggling, I know. Women don’t signal on this, we don’t go round citing an IQ number.
The iq page with only two studies (please) concludes “Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15” – so age is an unrecognised factor? Another confound! If it’s endogenous to sex i.e. nature, it would apply at all ages!
Look up as many bell curves as you can find.

Notice which is literally higher along the Y, by volume?
Now the typical ‘curve’ they use has super-old data, e.g.

Racially Scottish 11yos in the 1930s. Yes, that is totally relevant to the 21st century and all of time and culture. How will women ever recover?
It doesn’t control for race either, which would further splinter the results.
As a final note on this section, comparisons are silly because the data is normalized i.e. what happens when you grade on a curve.
The raw data is compressed to fit the Gaussian distribution and make 100 still mean 100.

Most of the Flynn effect is scoring modern test-takers too high and comparing them to old test-takers as if the tests were equally difficult. Neither do the tests really compare to one another, even their boundary labels differ. Anything outside the total bell is ~wrong~…

Look at enough curves and you become good at spotting this.

It’s deceitful to claim that just because two lines are not exactly overlapping, that the representative groups are totally distinct. A conflation, a non sequitur and false equivalence, logically.

This type of curve, very common among the intellectually dishonest, is the standard form of representing differences as a hypothetical example in textbooks. Note there is no legend, there is no X-Y bar and not even a title or a dataset given. It’s a hypothetical example to demonstrate statistical differences between demographics in a population. It isn’t serious, note the extreme gradient that no known dataset would imply.

To the men who claim Muh Superior Male IQ

Sorry, no, you can’t sit on your ass playing video games and watching porn and pretend to be better than us.
THAT is a real difference:

But men famously object to being judged off their height – oh, like IQ is nicer???
Looking at the age confound, various known metrics of intelligence (many not included in IQ) DO vary by life stage.

They never look at vice and virtue in reality. Men represent many of the worst attributes of humanity, along with the best, and I think we know which group outnumbers which.

Then again I would say that.

The atheist men linking this stuff never link to anything that makes them look bad.

You can also compare the metric of testosterone balance, 2D:4D, since they mistakenly attribute it to that hormone the ovaries also make (they don’t know this).

I should also point out that the further you go from average, the more impossible it is to measure accurately (so there are no negative IQs even though logically there should be, and the tests tend to peter out around 145-175, anything beyond 180 and especially 200 cannot be measured in IQ).

Immeasurable genius – because it isn’t genius. Those are polymaths and IQ is inapplicable as a norm test.
0.000000021% of the global population. Many people claim to be polymaths but cannot prove it with their actions. Even on current population numbers, it’s unlikely there is a single polymath living in the world today.
http://polymatharchives.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

7000000000*0.000000021  = 147, assuming all races have equal potential to polymathy, excluding class, education etc etc.

An increasing number of genes are shown to affect IQ and vary by race. I’ve yet to see ONE re the sexes.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5679-Three-genetic-variants-linked-to-IQ-and-they-vary-by-race

Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.
http://rocketscienceofwallstreet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/nassim-nicholas-taleb-against-gaussian.html

Note: Henri Poincare was better than Einstein.


If we’re treating the less-intelligent like second-class citizens, that’d be mostly male.


Just because it looks scientific doesn’t mean someone, somewhere isn’t fucking with you.


Don’t make your reputation worse with bad statistics.


It isn’t any more scientific than a Venn diagram of people who like cake versus pie.

It’s ironic the dumbasses of the male population are trying to explain their superiority using maths they don’t understand. Further, in all their wisdom, believe women won’t notice, despite higher EQ…