Pro-casual sex likely to be psychopaths + Chad myths

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/darwins-subterranean-world/201902/why-are-there-so-many-jerks-in-the-world

The Chad trope has no actual basis in psychology. Journalists lie.

http://www.epjournal.net/articles/bodily-attractiveness-and-egalitarianism-are-negatively-related-in-males/

Anti-equalism is politics, not personality.
Attractive men are likelier right-wing (genetic attractiveness) and they didn’t study personality but attitudes.
Political attitudes.

Left-wing men score ‘better’ on generosity games because they believe resources are infinite, this does not make them kinder people. Lab conditions are not reality.
Actually when competing in studies, socialists cheat.

Attitudes are not personality.
“People who tended to favor their group over themselves were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”
Measure of self-loathing or social desirability bias/lying.
The fatter men would score higher…

“People who preferred socialism more were scored as more altruistic/egalitarian.”

See the bias?
POLITICAL STUDY.

If anything socialists are more selfish, but they didn’t study sense of personal entitlement.

Attractiveness actually correlates to IQ which correlates to earnings. Extremes mean nothing for the population.
Some of the most bitter men are not lookers, saying hot men are ‘mean’ because they know the history and purpose of socialism is just blatant envy and disinfo.

SJWs always lie.

Despite the rigged method, “Results indicated a moderate, statistically significant negative relationship”
MSM lies, don’t trust headlines.

CHECK. What did they actually test?

“there was a strong tendency of raters to perceive that more attractive men and women would be less altruistic and egalitarian in real life.”
Bias. Attractive people have to reject more, from the one person asking they don’t see how often that person is pestered. Thinking there’s something wrong with a person saying No to you doesn’t make them mean, it makes the entitled show up why the source was right to reject. I’ve seen ugly women or slutty women try to force a man to date them or touch them, only to explode in rage at the simple assertion of a right to refuse.

“After all, why wouldn’t we expect for attractive people to be less selfish and more altruistic?”
Dehumanizing and bitter.
Control for SES, attachment style, parent/childhood quality?
Mean people can be typical narcissists and clean up well, their temporary attractiveness doesn’t make them mean.
Genuinely attractive are nice if you respect their rights. Due to wrong ideas about their stupidity, they have a low tolerance for controlling bullshit.

“In any case, I can’t pretend these results were too surprising to us, since we did after all hypothesize that most of them would be true.”
Not science. You’re supposed to not bias it?

“Our hypotheses were based on the theory that because attractive people tend to (a) be highly valued by others as mates and allies, and (b) benefit from inequality, they have reduced incentives to (a) increase their value to others by being altruistic and (b) support egalitarian norms.”
It’s an equalism study, Harrison Bergeron bullshit.

Egalitarianism is meritocracy. Equalism is not.

“Our results were also consistent with related research which has hinted at lower altruism among attractive people, and especially among attractive men.”
Context? [And no, it doesn’t, plus studies don’t hint].
“Why is this tendency more evident in men than in women?”
Then it can’t be sexual.
Why should you be forced to give your property away to others?
Burden of proof.

I can only speculate, but it may be related to the increased tendency of attractive males to pursue short-term, low-investment, low-empathy mating strategies.”
Wrong, more men see themselves married one day than women.
“Because they are more appealing to women as short-term mates”
Sexist and women are the less shallow sex in studies.
“attractive men are more likely to succeed with (and hence to pursue) such strategies”
Actually the most attractive men and women don’t sleep around, disgusted with other’s superficiality.
And hence to pursue – non sequitur. Men can think.
“Less attractive men, in contrast, need to be kinder and more high-investing in order to attract a mate.”
Look at the typical domestic abuse case. Not lookers. Criminals in general are uglier. This was found in the Victorian era.
Psychopaths, as covered prior, actually have a totally average IQ. They’re compulsive liars.
There’s also a confound of going to the gym (nurture) because genetic facial ‘hotness’ has nothing to do with your biceps.
Plus he’s implying all men fake being decent, which isn’t actually a Nice Guy.
Unless you mean r/niceguy
“Women also can pursue either short-term or long-term mating strategies, but unlike men, their strategy of choice seems unrelated to how attractive they are to the opposite sex ”
False. The sluttiest women are around 4-6 trying to poach 7-9. Sex is all they offer. The ugly mistress is actually more spiteful, having few sexual opportunities.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10508-006-9151-2
Men are more shallow, as as sex.
“On average, men ranked good looks and facial attractiveness more important than women did (d = 0.55 and 0.36, respectively), whereas women ranked honesty, humor, kindness, and dependability more important than men did (ds = 0.23, 0.22, 0.18, and 0.15). “Sex-by-nation ANOVAs of individuals’ trait rankings showed that sex differences in rankings of attractiveness, but not of character traits, were extremely consistent across 53 nations and that nation main effects and sex-by-nation interactions were stronger for character traits than for physical attractiveness.”

Good husbands are hotter.

Biased researchers assume everyone is desperate and r-selected.

“Attractiveness as a result of having certain personality traits”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03333351

Reputation is important.

Surprising no one, alcohol increased male lechery.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-017-0876-2
The Bible did say not to get drunk.

Old men are more petty and embittered than young ones in rating women, who are fair and more realistic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10410621
“Both younger and older judges showed an attractiveness bias and downrated the social desirability of younger unattractive targets. Younger judges rated younger and older attractive targets as equal in social desirability. Older male judges rated older attractive targets as less socially desirable than younger attractive targets. Results are discussed in terms of cultural expectations of beauty.”
Classic projection, by being harsh on their own age group they felt better about their own aged situation.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1025894203368
“Physical Attractiveness and the “Nice Guy Paradox”: Do Nice Guys Really Finish Last?”
TLDR: No.
Do men like other men who aren’t douches? Women aren’t another species. They avoid Mean Girls too.
“Overall results indicated that both niceness and physical attractiveness were positive factors in women’s choices and desirability ratings of the target men.”

Facial attractiveness higher in the not-angry.
Weak men can think acting up by being angry or passive-aggressive will attract women. No. Abnormal behaviour is abnormal for a reason. Personality disorders, real or faked, aren’t attractive.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886914003626
“We find that “what is good is beautiful,” with personality reflecting desired traits as facial attractiveness. This phenomenon can also be called the “halo effect.” We can thus presume that personality traits may contribute to judging facial attractiveness and that the personality traits desired in a person are reflected in facial preference.”

Think about it, alpha males don’t have to be insecure.
Judging all men off American teens is ridiculous.

And bullies? Insane reasoning.

The equalist guy’s topic was already covered. This is why you must check up.

e.g.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071129145852.htm
“The study finds that individuals — both men and women — who exhibit positive traits, such as honesty and helpfulness, are perceived as better looking. Those who exhibit negative traits, such as unfairness and rudeness, appear to be less physically attractive to observers.”

Note: on a one-to-one personal interaction basis, not political.

“Nice guys finish last” – consider the source.

The ugly angry men are literally trying to claim they have a “great personality”. It’s absurd. Having a bad boy persona won’t make up for their genes.

The halo effect is based on something real. A true stereotype.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-015-9142-5
And rule-breakers are considered uglier.

Bad ‘boys’ are the balding smelly guy at the bar with a pot belly ten years after high school.

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/childhood-bullying-adult-health-wealth-crime-social-outcomes-longitudinal/
“Involvement with bullying in any role — bully, victim, or bully-victim — was associated with negative financial, health, behavioral and social outcomes later in life.”
They are at high risk of low IQ habits.
“Bullies were at high risk for later psychiatric problems, regular smoking, and risky or illegal behaviors, including felonies, substance use and self-reported illegal behavior. …All groups were at risk for being impoverished in young adulthood and having difficulty keeping jobs. Both bullies and bully-victims displayed impaired educational attainment. There were no significant differences across groups in the likelihood of being married, having children, or being divorced, but social relationships were disrupted for all subjects who had bullied or been bullied.”

The unstable men who try to make others (including women) absorb their anger are simply defective.
Bullies haven’t actually matured. They’re just weaklings, all groups have them. Low emotional intelligence.
http://www.keepyourchildsafe.org/bullying/consequences-for-bullies.html

“What happens to many bullies is that their social development becomes stuck at the point where they win power and prestige through bullying, and they tend not to progress toward individuation and empathy as adolescents usually do. They get left behind.” – Sullovan, Cleary & Sullovan

“They are more likely to commit acts of domestic violence and child abuse in their adult life”
“Bullies are more likely to commit crimes, with a 4-fold increase in criminal behavior by age 24. By this age, 60% of former bullies have at least one conviction, and 35% to 40% have 3 or more.
(Sources: Nansel et al., 2001; Olweus, 1992; Smith, 2010)”

The death penalty used to address this.
Emotional retards who can only be aggressive and have criminal kids. When they’re eventually losers, this is just the consequence of their anti-social behaviour.

Who wants to be like that? What woman wants a guy likelier to abuse her and their children?

Back to personality, EI also (as covered previously) predicts occupational success.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4873083/
“Research on personality has shown that perceiving a person as attractive fosters positive expectations about his/her personal characteristics. Literature has also demonstrated a significant link between personality traits and occupational achievement. Present research examines the combined effects of attractiveness, occupational status, and gender on the evaluation of others’ personality, according to the Big Five model. The study consisted of a 2 (Attractiveness: High vs. Low) x 2 (occupational Status: High vs. Low) x 2 (Target gender: Male vs. Female) between-subjects experimental design (N = 476). Results showed that attractive targets were considered more positively than unattractive targets, and this effect was even stronger for male targets. Occupational status influenced perceived agreeableness (lower for high-status targets) and perceived conscientiousness (higher for high-status targets).”

Perceptions. Not reality. And they’re probably judged by the average earner and comparatively less attractive, a bitter bias. Like the average woman who calls all better-looking ones slutty despite how that’s actually less likely.

Men are deluded about the importance of genetic looks and refuse to believe in their own ugliness despite world cues.
https://psmag.com/social-justice/louis-c-k-assortative-mating-men-overestimate-level-attractiveness-83197
“Generally, the fewer men at a level of attractiveness, the fewer total messages women sent. The fours, for example, constituted only two percent of the population, and they got only four percent of all the messages.”
As a group, women know their league and most of them are smart enough to date in it.
Men are rejected so much by an ignorance of their league.
Maybe in both sexes the exceptions are personality disorders e.g. histrionic, narcissistic, borderline entitlement.
“What about those with so-so looks? Women rated as twos received only about 10 percent of the messages sent by men. But men at that same level received 25 percent of the messages women sent. The women seem more realistic.”

Average and ugly men actually ignore average and ugly women.
They choose to be alone.

Deny assortative mating all you like, marriage studies prove it.

Melanin is an aggression hormone

Not just a pigment. Biologists know this. It’s found in countless other species.
We even know the reputation of black birds with witchcraft and death.

“Do pigmentation and the melanocortin system modulate aggression and sexuality in humans as they do in other animals?”

Click to access Rushton-Templer-pigmentation-aggression-sexuality.pdf

Remember the femme fatale is always black (haired*).

From the abstract:

“Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ).”

Yes, they look at IQ too.
It’s a reason Asians try to look paler (even the men).
The classic intellectual is pale. It’s status, it’s about money.
It’s also more ‘civilized’, as in less prone to criminality. This is key to collectivists, such as Asians.

*Historical references to black women e.g. Anne Boleyn, always referred to hair because black skinned people obviously didn’t naturally exist in Europe (they’d be referred to by geography, Moors are common descriptors). An African in Europe wouldn’t do well for many reasons including Vitamin D deficiency. Without imported sources, it can be fatal and the NHS guidelines do target Africans in Europe for warnings about this.
Italians were considered the most passionate women in the Middle Ages (and angry) due to their black hair, closely followed by dark-haired Irish women.
Spanish women were considered mongrels due to Islamic conquest, along with some Italians to this day. Northern Italians are what all Italians used to be, genetically.

Empathy can be bad for you

https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/05/13/empathy-can-be-hazardous-to-your-health/120471.html

https://psychcentral.com/news/2014/11/07/compassion-can-drive-aggression/77067.html

It can also cause aggression.

Oxytocin, huh. Well, logically neurohormones are the reason asking for tolerance for generations has caused backlash.

People aggressing on behalf of others has been widely researched, but Buffone and Poulin say “the idea that empathy can drive aggression absent of provocation or injustice is quite novel.”

Aggressive activists. Nope, never heard of it.

Fun fact: many conditions characterized by lack of empathy e.g. autism, narcissism/histrionic or borderline, will claim to be more empathetic than other people. They have higher personal emotionality and instability, then assume this makes them superior, because obviously, their emotions > everyone else (what you might recognize as low empathy mindset).

You can’t justify violence. No, not even against baby Hitler. You’re still an abuser. It goes to show how violent they are that they’d rather slaughter a baby than teach it (nurture hypothesis) or prevent its conception.

Behavioural genetics continues to rustle SJW jimmies

http://uk.businessinsider.com/genes-play-role-in-antisocial-personality-disorder-2016-9

role?

A role?

Yes, like water has a role in osmosis.

“And a new study has begun the task of identifying which genes are most likely involved in ASPD, with significant success.”

Please start on borderlines and histrionics and narcissists. We can clear Parliament. We can do it.
Suck on your socialization hypothesis.

“This seems to be the first time researchers have made this leap with a personality disorder.

But just as interesting are the concerns the researchers express about how their research might be misused. “

Here we go. The guilt-trip.
The findings stand by themselves, it is a choice how we use them.

…In the past, claims about specific genes and violence have been — in the researchers’ words — “misused” by prosecutors as evidence that defendants are violent. And as more studies like this one link specific genes to the potential for violence, that danger only grows.

It revokes neither legal agency (you chose to act on it) nor commits crime (the act) on its own grounds (that would be like arresting redheads). Being born isn’t a crime, they’re being misleading.
This is about racial profiling, among others. Prediction is the trigger word. They can’t say it shouldn’t be studied but they want to.

Some people have the brain structure of psychopaths – they are not psychopaths.
Some people have a blue-eye allele – they do not have blue eyes.

This is simply a filter for early on in the process that might save lives, like estimating their height from a footprint.

Also, the amused expression on this woman typifies the K-type reaction to violence.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/walmart-customer-posts-footage-of-fatal-shooting-2016-9

She wants the party to start already. I don’t post about Ks enough but they rarely make the news.

Adult temper tantrums

Called it.

Seen At 11: Adults Throwing Temper-Tantrums Could Be Suffering From Disorder

h/t Anonymous Conservative

I know plenty online will be laughing at this, but consider how many men are triggered by a woman’s refusal to send nude photos like a whore and you’ll understand why this problem isn’t limited to SJWs. These adults should be held legally responsible for causing a public nuisance. It’s antisocial behaviour.

Expectation violation = Rage

Terms like ‘intermittent explosive disorder’, this already exists.

They are selfish and lack empathy. When attempts to control their environment fail, their emotional maturity drops back to toddler levels. Don’t blame the parents, these are adults we’re talking about and much like a toddler, these are also manipulation attempts trying to force other adults to acquiesce to their demands.. There are no excuses. If you can vote, you can sort your shit. This needs to be publicly recognized as controlling behaviour.

Link: The eugenics of the death penalty

Moreover, eugenic effects.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html

That’s why Brits (and many Europeans) are such pushovers, aggression has been bled out of us en masse. Years of painful torture and executions (interesting history) will do that to a gene pool. Especially the Islanders (Queensberry rules, chaps) who seem to naively believe the rest of the world gives a flying monkey’s about our imagined standards.

Science makes complete sense, it is people who are wrong!

The whole purpose of prison was a genetic death, where they weren’t allowed to further contribute their genetic material to future society, depriving them any legacy (including voting); giving them conjugal visits and their spawn State assistance (doing their role of Provider better than they did) entirely defeats the point. This is why they were sometimes released – if they were castrated.

The international events begin to make sense

Video: When male feminists drop the mask of sanity

4:52-5:17

That’s it.

That’s what they’re really like.

Such progress, with the whorephobia and insulting an innocent woman to get at a man.

If you think they would never do this to a woman, you would be wrong.
I have experienced this in real life when I dare disagree with them, a man boy.

There are misogynists in the world, but most of them hide behind the label ‘male feminist’ like a boy hiding behind his Mother’s apron. They blow their top because there are women they can’t control or fool.

I’ve noticed they’re even cowards when doling out threats. Instead of laying claim to it “I want to/will X” they will make it passive and say something like “I hope X happens to you” so cancer is common, also being raped, or “You do X” like suicide to cover for the fact they want to murder you (subtle) or some projected self-loathing like “If you died, nobody would come to the funeral” – they like that one. I laugh at that because ‘if’, like yeah, we could die…. or we could choose not to.

Pointing out this passive-aggression is the source of all their lives’ problems goes over well. I usually make it clear their conceit (disagreeing with me is a capital crime) doesn’t match their averageness. They hate being reminded of their averageness.

My advice for redpill women out there?

There is only one thing you can do. Let them run. Let everyone watch what a disgusting person they are, as they threaten to rape you and torture you (in public) in ways no sane person could come up with on the fly, and maybe film it. For the police. Seriously. They can lash out. If they demand a response, mildly amused mastery in your voice at their “true misogyny” is the way to go. Poker face. It confuses them that you aren’t scared, they erotically get off on your fear.

I’ve seen feminist groups ostracize men on the basis of these performances against me. In disgust. They’re that bad.

APA says video games increase aggression, limit to children

I disagreed with the headline (sent it by someone else) but the reason behind it (get the rot away from children, for new games) is quite a noble intention. They aren’t trying to limit them to adults.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-08-apa-link-violent-video-games.html

Except for the word violent, replace in your mind with ‘competitive’, what the games really teach, and the rabbity reasons behind this become clear. The oestrogen-laden beta males are learning some genuine skills and values.

“No single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or violently,” the report states. “Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior. The research reviewed here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor.”

Cause/effect.
A-types will naturally vent with video games as a hobby, but it doesn’t cause the temperament. Channels it.
Hang on, don’t these people want to give teachers the right to let kids play video games so they don’t have to teach? What’s up with that bullshit, children shouldn’t have broad access to screens like that, everyone knows it’s bad for them. Steve Jobs wouldn’t let his children use iPads. The Silicon Valley types are least likely to allow their children to clock high numbers of hours on technology they made. Is it educational or not?

APA has called on the industry to design video games that include increased parental control over the amount of violence the games contain…..

Fair. If you’re young enough that your parents are buying games they should know what they’re playing.

… In addition, the resolution urges developers to design games that are appropriate to users’ age and psychological development, and voices APA’s support for more research to address gaps in the knowledge about the effects of violent video game use.

This is good. A clear divide between children’s games, teen games (probably mobile) and real/adult gaming as an industry. No excuse for censorship because we’re all adults here.

The task force identified a number of limitations in the research that require further study. These include a general failure to look for any differences in outcomes between boys and girls who play ; a dearth of studies that have examined the effects of violent video game play on children younger than 10; and a lack of research that has examined the games’ effects over the course of children’s development.

Girls might be at fault? Really? Research away. I would love to see Anita explain that, considering little girls show more interpersonal aggression overall.

Children under 10 shouldn’t be playing any video games unsupervised.

How long is a piece of string.

“For example, how do depression or delinquency interact with violent video game use?”

Let the poor things have some outlet or you’ll complain when they actually kill someone because the pressure built up. They don’t usually have a social life, support network or family.

“As with most areas of science, the picture presented by this is more complex than is usually included in news coverage and other information prepared for the general public.”

I feel this was a direct jab at Anita.