# Bad choice, adoptive parents are abusive

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

They know their own, in all cases of adoption, suspect pedo.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/26/republicans-erupt-over-digs-left-amy-coney-barrett/

now Democratic activists are raising alarm about U.S. District Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two children from Haiti.

Nowhere in the Bible does it support adoption of non-genetic children, it’s legalised child-snatching. The Bible says go forth and multiply if you want more kids. The CHINOs are an embarrassment.

Adoption of non-kin children is Satanic. It destroys the child’s legal right to their own heritage, culture and family. Celebrities could sponsor the child at home with the extended family but it’s all about pride. Looking at the child outcomes, like IQ and personality and such are even inherited from the real genetic parents. If you’re not blood, you are not their parent. Stop virtue signalling, children aren’t objects to be passed around like Pokemon cards to whoever has the most money.

The proportion of adopted kindergartners being raised by a mother of a different race or ethnic group rose by 50% between 1999 and 2011. The proportion of adoptees with Asian backgrounds nearly tripled over the same time period. Paradoxically, the fraction of adopted students who are African-American seems to have fallen. What has not changed is that a large majority of adoptive parents are white, older, well-educated, and relatively affluent.

I don’t think abuse of kids is justified if they’re another race, either. We must hold Christians to the correct standards. The Biblical one of if you want kids, make them.

It’s imperialistic. They treat the kid like a handbag, it’s sick.

How dare they call this Christian?

Their parents are generally well-educated and affluent. They receive more time and educational resources from those parents than the average child gets from theirs. Yet they get into more conflicts with their classmates at school, display relative little interest and enthusiasm about learning tasks, and register only middling academic performance. About whom are we talking? Adopted children. This is the paradox of adoption in America.

This is the first study of adopted children’s school behavior that is based on independent teacher reports and makes use of a representative national sample of students from adoptive families.

Yet my analysis shows that adoptees do not do as well in school as one would expect from their highly advantaged home environments. The results call into question the widely held assumption that larger investments of money and time in children can overcome the effects of early stress and deprivation and genetic risk factors.

DUH.

Bad blood will out.

And the model minority thing is also propaganda, look at adolescent drinking/drug use/sexual promiscuity studies. There is no model minority, it’s just propaganda by the Boomers shaming the non-white kid into behaving. As you can see, when they’re not rigging the data by self-report, it doesn’t actually work.

Jayman used to blog about the non-existent parenting effect, even when they’re biologically yours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4403216/

At best they claim 2-5 IQ point different with within-race adoption white to white, which isn’t significant. It’s never the upper number.

Our analysis showed that, among the biological parents, each additional unit on the parental education scale was associated with 2.7 IQ points in the child, whereas among the adoptive parents, each additional unit of education was associated with 1.7 IQ points.

Can we stop coddling their ego please? I don’t care about adult feefees and ego over any child.

The residual difference between the IQs of the two groups of children was reduced from 4.4 to 3.4 when the difference between the biological and rearing parents’ education was included in the model.

https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/

Shared environment accounts for 0% of life outcome.

The high early shared environment influence shows that in youth, environmental factors can make a difference. These influences diminish and disappear with time, dashing hopes of lasting parental influence. Some voices – including preeminent behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin himself – often try to claim that the increasing heritability of IQ and other behavioral traits can be boiled down to “gene-environment correlations” (rGE). The idea being that people seek out environments to suit their genetic proclivities (which they do), and the influence of that environment leads to the final trait. This is a nice rosy idea, because it appears to leave the door open to environmental manipulation, if we could intervene in the “proper” ways. However, it is fantasy. We clearly saw in my earlier post that the “gene-environment co-variance” was often negative! One’s environment seemed to be “making” one the opposite of what one would expect. Our experiences don’t shape our political attitudes like we think they do. So is the case with IQ.

Indeed, a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies attempted to test this idea. It sought to determine whether the increasing heritability of IQ could be explained by on-going environmental influence or genetic “amplification”; that is, the compounding of genetic effects over time. This is likely because the effect of each additional gene becomes more and more relevant as children grow up. Indeed, amplification is what they found:

Proponents of the efficacy of nurture – especially parenting – often repeat a few erroneous arguments. Here I will address them. One of them is the idea that parenting, while ineffective for most, may make a difference for individuals with certain temperaments. For example, perhaps the low IQ/shiftless/delinquent/criminal or otherwise poorly dispositioned might benefit from more authoritative parenting, say. It’s a nice idea to think about, but it doesn’t happen. This is essentially “Stolen Generations” wisdom. As we’ve seen in my earlier post, a massive review of twin and adoption studies found no significant shared environment effect on criminality in adults (well, modeling found a shared environment contribution of 0.09, which can generally regard to be non-significant given the enormous measurement error expected). Even an effect that operated on some children but not others would contribute to the overall average shared environment, which was negligible.

Edit, 6/5/14: [I wanted to expand on the above mentioned review of criminality (by Rhee & Waldman, R&W), particularly the appearance of a small but nonzero (though non-significant) shared environment finding. As we saw, the age the subjects are assessed seems to make a difference. As well, as discussed in my analysis on adolescent psychopathology below, the particular measure used – such who is doing the ratings – affect the values found. For example, self-ratings or ratings by parents tend to attenuate the heritability estimate, and both appear to inflate the shared environment estimate, at least in youth. The Rhee & Waldman meta-analysis is no exception. Here are the ADCE (A, or a2 = additive genetic variance; D, or d2 = non-additive genetic variance; C, or c2 = shared environment; E, or e2 = remaining variance) components as computed based on information given by different raters:

 Rating method a2 d2 c2 e2 Total no. of pairs in category Self-report 0.39 – 0.06 0.55 13,329 Other report (usually parents) 0.53 – 0.22 0.25 6,851 Criminal records 0.33 0.42 – 0.25 34,122

The total, or broad-sense heritability, H, is the sum of the additive (the narrow-sense heritability) and the non-additive genetic components. As we can see, when actual criminal records (a semi-objective metric) are used, as we’ve seen, the heritability shoots up to the usual range, at 0.75, and the shared environment estimate vanishes. The criminal record analysis also captures the largest number of subjects, bolstering its reliability. Parent reports, as seen below, inflate the shared environment measure. The self-report gives a negligible shared environment estimate, but reports a lower heritability estimate – which is not surprising, given that we can expect self-reported criminal behavior to be poorly reliable. It is unfortunate that R&W don’t separate out parents from peers and other non-relative raters in “other report.” Additionally, the adoption studies found a negligible shared environment impact of 0.05 between adoptive parents and adoptees. It is also too bad that R&W don’t cross tabulate the results by rating and age. But, as discussed below, adolescent shared environment effects maybe an artifact of unreliable raters anyway.

(For the record, the countries spanned by the studies in the meta-analysis include the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Australia, Denmark, and Sweden.)

The bottom line, it’s clear that when it comes to anti-social behavior, the 75-0-25 rule holds perfectly firm. Parents and parenting do nothing to create upstanding citizens, and heredity is considerably important. ***End Edit***]

But the eugenicists were wrong about everything, ignore the historic era of prosperity exactly one generation after their American sterilizations in the 20s… which they predicted.

Indeed, also supporting this is another massive meta-analysis of behavioral genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology (personality disorders). These captures various types of child misbehavior and dysfunction, including convenient diagnoses such as “oppositional-defiant disorder.” A look and the breakdown of their results is far more interesting than their main reported results. Typically, shared environment effects are seen in children (<18 years old). The main study reported this, but fortunately, they decomposed the type of measurements used. In addition to self-report and parental report, they also had teacher report, peer reports, and clinical diagnoses. The self and parental reports showed lower heritabilities (0.3-0.5) and significant (though small) shared environment components. However, when teacher or peer reports were used, they found much higher heritabilities, in the 0.65-0.8 range. As well, the shared environment impact vanished. Using clinical diagnosis also produced a zero shared environment impact. Considering the sheer size of this review, it’s clear that parental behavior dosen’t contribute to this malaise, even at these ages.

Adoptive parents can lie? Why do that?

[ego]

The problem of somewhat unreliable measurements (noise), especially coming from self-report, was illustrated in my earlier posts. Averaged peer ratings serve to adjust for this problem to an extent both by providing more proper social context by which to make accurate comparative ratings and by cancelling out fluke readings. Indeed, one behavioral genetic study, which attempted to investigate the idea of a “general factor of personality” (GFP), akin to g for cognitive ability, found that when using the combined scores of self and peer ratings, the heritabilities of the Big Five personality traits shot through the roof, with the additive heritable component being:

• Extraversion:           0.86
• Openness:              0.92
• Neuroticism:            0.59
• Agreeableness:       0.85
• Conscientiousness: 0.81

This demonstrates that more accurate measurements consistently push up the heritability estimate (even pushing them towards 100%), giving us the basis of the 75-0-25 or something rule.

As for the sixth dimension of personality, “honesty-humility”, the H component of the six factor HEXACO, evidence of its high heritability is also established, as we saw previously. Indeed, a recent post by Peter Frost (Evo and Proud: Compliance with moral norms: a partly heritable trait?) discussed a twin study from Sweden that looked at various forms of dishonesty, such as fraudulently claiming sick benefits or evading taxes. And sure enough, these particular behaviors showed considerable heritability. There is a desperate need for cross cultural behavioral genetic analyses. Many dimensions of personality systems like the HEXACO (as imperfect as they are) are likely to systematically vary from culture to culture.

Adoption is dyscivic. It’s AA for bad parents.

The usefulness of behavioral genetics – indeed, the single most powerful and solid area of all social science – is highly evident. But behavioral genetic methods can be used to address several long-standing questions. Here we see it’s clear that parents don’t leave much of an impact on our behavioral traits. But what about people who aren’t parents? Here I will look at two sets of important people, spouses and peers.

It is no secret that spouses correlate on behavioral traits. This, assortative mating, is a powerful force, as we’ve seen previously. There are two aspects where spouses are highly correlated – the things you don’t talk about in a bar: politics and religion. Some have assumed that a good bit of this is because spouses grow more similar with time. But is this the case?

This is where the “extended twin” design comes in handy. One large study (N > 20,000) in particular looked at precisely that. By including twins, their spouses, and parents, etc, they were able to directly measure assortative mating. What did they find? Spouses were correlated for several traits. But the traits they were most correlated in were political orientation and religiosity. Social “homogamy” (having the same background as your spouse) couldn’t explain this, as the correlation between MZ twins and their co-twin’s spouse were consistently higher than that of DZ twins, and so on. As well, spouses weren’t influencing each other, as the correlation between spouses was not affected by length of the marriage (even when only couples married <2 years were examined).

The neocons marrying lefties are kidding themselves.

And leagues clearly exist, assortative mating is genetic.

The study was also able to lay to rest another persistent myth. We’ve heard that we choose spouses like our opposite sex parent (like our mothers for men and like our fathers for women). Anyone who’s remotely genetically informed should be able to see that this could just be due to choosing mates like ourselves. And so is the case. As the authors put it:

there was no evidence for the sexual imprinting hypothesis. Twins’ partners were not significantly more similar in any trait to the twin’s opposite-sex parent than to the twin’s same-sex parent or a DZ co-twin of either sex, nor was there even a trend in this direction

These results were also consistent with the Peter Hatemi et al extended twin study on political attitudes featured previously.

The similarity between spouses has nothing to do with mutual influence, but assortment. At least this bit is common sense. I suspect few long married individuals will believe that they changed their spouse.

On that note, a key theory put forward by the woman who first elucidated the non effect of parents, Judith Rich Harris, was that the unique environment “influence” might be boiled down to peer influence. Staffan did a nice recap of Harris’s theory (see The Nurture Enigma – How Does the Environment Influence Human Nature? | Staffan’s Personality Blog). We all have heard of peer pressure. And indeed, peers seem to be an important force when it comes to language and behaviors like smoking initiation. But do peers really have this great influence, as Harris posits? Well, as I posted over at the Lion of the Blogosphere:

Most research into peer effects is confounded by the same thing that standard parenting studies are: inability to control for the effect of heredity.

And:

A behavioral genetic study (on the Add Health data) that looked specifically at GPA and found that 72% of the similarity between U.S. high school students and their peers could be explained by genetic factors. In other words, school performance and the apparent peer “influence” is really just kids choosing to associate with kids of similar intelligence and motivation:

A behavior genetic analysis of the tendency for youth to associate according to GPA

Peers seem like a fine avenue to get excited about, because it seemed like a vehicle through which parents could assert some influence. But, when you really consider it, peers can’t really be all that important in the long run, because if there were systematic effects of peers on adult outcomes, it’d turn up in the shared environment, which it doesn’t. One could posit that the effect of peers is completely random, but if that were true (aside from the major violation of Occam’s Razor that presents), why worry about it?

The “75-0-25 or something” rule is robust and reliable. This instructs that should we find some major deviation from this, it can be taken to be a sign something is seriously amiss. We saw that with male homosexuality (see Greg Cochran’s “Gay Germ” Hypothesis – An Exercise in the Power of Germs). Now I will discuss two curious exceptions to this pattern.

One rather astonishing example was the heritability of social trust.behavioral genetic study out of the Netherlands found that the heritability of trust in others, as measured by:

The trust-in-others and trust-in-self scales were designed to include three items that were central in existing scales … thereby capturing items with positive valence (“I completely trust most other people”) and negative valence (“When push comes to shove, I do not trust most other people”), both of which explicitly used the word “trust”, and an item that captured the broad behavioral implication of the trust: the intention to accept vulnerability, as explicated in one of the most widely-accepted definitions of trust … (“I dare to put my fate in the hands of most other people”)

…found no significant heritable influence on these. The extent that people trusted, at least as captured by these measures, was virtually entirely a function of the unique environment.

homogeneous environment > high trust

not hard

This was a puzzling result. The clear pattern of the high heritability of all behavioral traits was established, as I’ve discussed. So how could a propensity to trust not also be influenced by genetic factors? One explanation touted around was that trust is contingent on experience; if we found people trustworthy, we would trust. If we didn’t, we would not. While that might sound convincing, the trouble is that the same could be said for many other behavioral traits. Is general trust less socially contingent than say bigoted feelings against some groups, like homophobia (which is at least 54% heritable)? That seems rather unreasonable.

One key question: how do they assess “trust”? Just how good was their measurement? Measurements in social science need to meet three basic criteria: they need to be reliable (that is multiple testing instances of the same individual should give roughly the same results), they need to be “valid” (that is, be predictive of some real-world outcome), and they should be heritable. This trust measure clearly fails on the third criterion. However, the study authors claim the test-retest correlation was good, so it is reliable. But what about the second? Does this trust measure actually predict anything?

To find out, I looked at a study that sought to answer that very question. This study, done in Germany, looked in detail at the reliability and the validity of their measurement of trust, a measurement very similar to the Dutch study. The noted a key point, one HBD Chick will appreciate. That is, trust is multi-faceted. There is trust in institutions, which is distinct from trust in known others, which is distinct from trust in strangers (I’d imagine HBD Chick would break it down one more, and separate “known others” into family and non-family). But more importantly, to question of validity, they assessed this by the correlation between trust in strangers and trusting behavior in the “dictator game.” They found a correlation, but only with trust in strangers.

But their correlation was very small (Spearman’s $\rho$ = 0.17) – and this is with a game which itself has questionable relation to trust behavior in the real world. I suspect that their instrument is not predictive of any trusting behavior in the real world. It’s worth mentioning another (fairly small) study of the heritability of trust from Australia found a non-insignificant heritability, though a smallish one (0.14-0.31).

The situation with trust is unclear. But this brings me to another example of a feature for which the heritability estimate appears to be trivial. That is the female G-spot. A study on about 1,800 female twins from Britain found that the heritability of the reported presence of a G-spot wasn’t significant. The result was virtually entirely unshared environment. Debate has raged on as to whether or not the female G spot exists at all, but that is to be expected, since research into human sexual behavior is among the most difficult to conduct properly. But, the result from this study indicating that the G spot isn’t heritable is puzzling. If the G spot was a real anatomical feature, and one that wasn’t universal, then one would expect a rather significant heritable impact. The finding that it’s not heritable points to one of two conclusions. One, perhaps the G-spot is in fact universal, but only some women have “discovered” it. That seems rather implausible, given the rather significant variation in heritable morphological features of sex organs in women. The second possibility is that the G-spot in fact doesn’t exist at all, and women who claim to have one are mistaken. That seems more likely, but I wouldn’t want to completely dismiss the claims of women who state they have such a feature. The mystery remains.

The findings of behavioral genetics, particularly the highly significant impact of heredity and the absence of shared environment effects, in addition to the complete failure to find reliable environmental sources that contribute to the “unique environment” component of the variance, calls into question virtually every pet environmental theory that has been put forward. It guides one to be suspicious of most “environmental” explanations of behavior. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that these environmental influences don’t exist. I am not saying that if they do exist, we won’t be able to ever find them. I am also not saying that development doesn’t require a complex interplay between genes and environment. Try going without food, water, air, or speaking to another person if you don’t believe me. I am also not saying that the secular changes in human traits that are brought about by gross environmental changes don’t happen. The increase in average height over the past century disproves that. But what I am saying is that you should be doubtful of most pet theories of how the environment influences us, especially those that promise we can control, or sometimes even predict it. For as we see, that’s far from an easy task.

# “Where are the real men?” Where are the ‘good’ men? Dead, mostly

This has applications for men but it’s mostly women I’m reaching here. Quick n dirty explanation.

The most common complaint from redpill women is about the lack of real men. Even in movies, they’re rare. Now, SMV-wise, women have more to complain about in this century than men, because women aren’t the leading sex in general, we rely on men to lead the way and we support them in this. If they can’t lead, they won’t lead and everyone is aimless. I believe this is the other reason real women can’t stand whining MGTOWers – they still don’t get it, they still don’t step up to the plate (even exclusively, selfishly for themselves) and expect women to act like Mommy with the apron strings and do his bloody laundry or something. To a woman, a man is either a lover or a son. We have a natural disgust, visceral disgust, for men who act like boys. Evobio could fill in the blanks on that one. Genetic fitness, parental investment and just being straight up pathetic etc.

Let’s get this out of the way: age group. Let’s assume young for sperm quality but adults. Immediately, a minority of men in an aging population. Basic education, more still. Can support themselves, getting slimmer. Not damaged/perverts/crazy, tiny group. Of this group, some will be gay, others will be already married or unavailable.

No! Some of you say reading this, There are more men than ever before!

And you’re right. It’s all about demographics.

Go to any major city and it seems like there are more men than women. This is accurate. The crybabies are responding to a simple fact: the sexual marketplace is elastic. We know this from social disasters like easy contraception and abortion (about a quarter of UK deaths recently). The average woman has a bigger bargaining chip for what She Wants, than the average man. We can get jobs. We don’t need male support to have a basic living. This is new. So when you walk up to Ms Average, she probably isn’t being arrogant, she simply knows her value (which you hate) and your chip isn’t high value enough (because another man’s IS). You’re competing with the Invisible Man, who is at least her social equal. Women are social beings. She’s looking for a net contributor to her life. It’s the socio-sexual hierarchy. You need to be worth the effort, since women give up more (youth, fertility, beauty) by choosing to swim in the SMV. PUAs try to lie about their value which is no long term strategy and means you have to keep leaving like a con artist skipping town. Pretend you’re Miss Average. Let’s assume you’re a 5, nice, basic education, support yourself. Middle of the road on everything. When a man approaches you, why is he doing it? He doesn’t move in your social circle. Why not? He’s lower class. He’s even lower on the scale than you. This is literally the only way he can meet women. How should you respond? (Pity leads to clingers and stalkers). What if he’s fake, cocky and half-sneering at you, clearly thinking you’re beneath him, despite how you’re average, know you are, and he is no oil painting himself to need to be doing this?

This response.
It’s trying to avoid the mantrum of insults when you reject the fucker.

Note: mantrum = male tantrum, usually when you say no to anything he wants. It’s entitled, it’s like a little boy (see above disgust) and it’s inappropriate behaviour for an adult. Boundaries are normal and healthy and nobody owes you anything.

The demographics skew toward Asian men (globally and in cities like London), so white men are at a premium and have automatically higher value. Genophilia and human nature means the white women want white men. Nobody should be more pissed off about multiculturalism than the manosphere, specifically the EU ‘refugee’ migrant Crisis. Let’s ignore the violent possibilities. You see all those military age men? Millions of them? Which women do you think they’re gonna go after? What will happen to the SMV of Europe now, where all the white women at?

Pro: Our value will skyrocket. Con: As will rape rates.

There are lots of socio-sexual issues of our time, I’m not downplaying that. One of them is delusions of grandeur from men raised on supermodels and porn who actually think they have a chance playing pro out of their league (forever, on a consistent basis, despite the rarity of those women IRL for similar reasons to marriageable men above). Yes, there are leagues. In Europe, we call those classes. It isn’t based on money or your passport, stop embarrassing yourselves bragging about being American or something like it’s exotic.

How many beautiful women are there in your country? How rare are they? How rare are you? The difference is the odds you have of getting one.

Women are suddenly responding to market demands in our favour for the first time ever. However, intersexual competition is ferocious, because the worthiest men are like 0.0001% or another ridiculous number. It’s like chasing a unicorn (at least men don’t have it as bad because they’re the sex that can make offers, imagine if you had to wait for that model to ask you out).

However, most women don’t want SMV. We want MMV. You don’t wanna be that dumb bitch who wasted her best decade ‘waiting’ for her ‘boyfriend’ to propose, she bought a lemon, it’s a sunk cost. It used to be that MMV skewed male (see video Economics of Sex), because men were rare, thanks to all those pesky things called wars culling the populations. Wars used to be eugenic. Let’s take a closer look.

Prior to World War, there were no exemptions. If you were young, you didn’t stay home. They threw you out there. Sink or swim. Then exemptions crept in with rich cowards, liars and people faking injuries. I heard that the bravest men who ever lived died on the battlefield, blown to bits by grenades or gored on barbwire and this is true, we’ve all heard the stories, their family got the accolades and Victoria crosses to prove it. What does that mean genetically? What happened to their line? What happened to the line of the men who stayed home while the others cats were away, surrounded by lonely wives? I’m guessing a lot of cuckoldry for the brave men who did make it home. It’s like the people who ask Where did the British Empire go? The men who made it died protecting it. When they died, nobody wanted to fight anymore by default, so it failed. It just stopped.

It’s faster for me to quote myself for a moment;

He’s right that the quality of men dropped before the quality of women. I feel the manosphere forgets there is another half to the equation. Post-WW, the few surviving men lived it up. Then the Sexual Revolution just happened on by shortly thereafter because women felt left out and wanted some of the attention. Men lost their motivation because sex is practically all they want from women and…. yup, that’s pretty much it.

Men gave up first. They gave up on the white picket fence for a few easy lays. They made their bed. They ruined women (and themselves) for marriage. They continue to ruin women’s MMV. If you contribute to the problems caused by sleeping around, by sleeping around, you don’t get to complain about the karmic consequences that affect you later. You ate the cake. Cake is gone.

The manosphere mocks women for saying “Where have all the good men gone“? Answer: They’re Peter Pans at home playing video games and watching porn, the Lost Boys, which hardly reflects well on men as they think it does, while all the time most of their discussions feature “Where have all the good women gone“? without a trace of self-awareness.

Either Husband Material doesn’t exist (statistically unlikely) like a unicorn or he does exist, he’s incredibly rare but he expects his social equal at minimum. In socioeconomic terms, the assortative mating of Upper Class to Upper Class.

These whiners who acknowledge their value in their troubles never have a high value. They can’t swim in those waters. Can you imagine them at a formal dinner? For an hour? They’d probably get drunk and ask how much the host makes. They have no class. They think James Bond is made by the cut of his suit or his bloody watch. You could put James Bond in sackcloth and he’d work it into social graces (with men too). How many of these losers could, while going on about insane confidence? How popular are they with other men?

What women are bemoaning is the number of decent men on their social level. They know the competition is too fierce for the few clustered around the top that remain. They pine for the Olden Days when there were a larger pool of decent men, likelier for them to snag one, who actually made an effort and men for whom their private life was not also their public life. They had class.

It’s all about class.

You watch a romcom and look at the most popular. What is their class level? By apartment? By income? By lifestyle (not debt)? They’re always beautiful people (high SMV already), youngish (fertile), educated (not stupid), who are well-travelled and well-spoken. It screams good taste. It’s lifestyle porn. The romance is just the plot. How many of those films would succeed if the guy was a dropout doing drugs and playing video games? Do you think she’d be swooning to a swell of orchestral music then? Really?

Likely, he’s already hit the Wall. Bitching about the drop-off in attention – to younger men. What have they got? Hustle? Women value class over experience. Especially when that experience is self-destructive binge-drinking and game marathons. Who wants to marry that? Can you imagine them as a patriarch?

The Disney Princesses don’t marry the manservant, do they? The clownish side kick, does he get respect? All these manboys are discussing their Princess, which is sweet in a clueless way, failing to realize that even if she exists, even if they met her, she would be well within her rights to reject him, because he ain’t no Prince Charming.

Hell, he can’t even manage the charming part.

p.s. Charming is a trait that applies to all. If you are a man who cannot charm your fellow man, you cannot be charming. It’s grace, it’s etiquette and breeding. It has nothing to do with being nice or a pushover. Their social prowess alone is intimidating.

# Whiny “friendzoned” orbiters actually conniving sneaky bastards

If you have to call yourself nice, you’re not nice.
Everybody is basically nice, it’s nothing special.
It’s like having a sense of humour, most people do.

http://www.scienceofrelationships.com/home/2015/7/27/whos-hot-whos-not-time-will-tell.html

They tried to trick (let’s say for argument) the hot woman into finding them desirable, and failed.

In a new study4 the research team asked a sample of 167 couples how long they had known each other (as acquaintances) before they started dating. What they found was that for couples who knew each other for very little time (less than 1 month) there was a very strong correlation between each other’s attractiveness level (ranging between .53 and .72). But for couples who knew each other 9 months or more before dating, the correlation between partners’ attractiveness was basically zero.

Friend Goggles.
Like to like-like.

A similar effect was found when the researchers asked couples if they were “friends” before dating (I put the word friends in quotation marks because it’s always possible that one partner could be secretly crushing on their friend). For those couples who were friends before dating, there was a much lower correlation between their attractiveness levels. So the take home point is that people are less likely to match their partners’ attractiveness level if they knew each other for a long time before they started dating….

This is hardly the rule, however.
What usually happens is rejection, but these studies only study on the couples where the offer was met with acceptance.

Another implication might be that the best strategy to date someone “out of your league” is to become friends with them first and be patient.

Yes, leagues totally exist, contrary to what some whiny men have complained on here. Science!

One of my childhood friends calls this “playing the long game.” However, we do not have any data yet about whether this is an effective strategy.

Trans.: It only works on stupid people who don’t know or appreciate their own SMV.
That’s why the orbiters whine. And the mark gets insulted. The whole friendship was a lie, a sneaky fuckers-style sexual strategy (kleptogamy) to blind the woman to her own perceptions of sexual attractiveness.

It might work but only a small percentage of the time. Hopefully future research will help us discover whether “playing the long game” is generally successful, or if some people are more successful at it than others.

In the successful cases, the bridge between SMV must be small, in my observation. Like, 2 points MAX.

From the woman’s perspective, being the mark of such a loser is incredibly insulting (from SF link);

When low-status males have no chance of accessing females via traditional routes such as fighting or signalling their prowess, they may attempt more deceptive means of getting a mate.

Assortative mating applies to long-term pair bonding i.e. marriage. So all the guys in the manosphere below a 7 (standard bearer for attractive) expecting to marry a supermodel are never going to marry.

# Women care about looks, stop deluding yourselves guys

We care AS MUCH, sometimes more. The manosphere needs to get over itself on this one. Everytime I hear a man bitch that women don’t care about looks online, you can tell he’s an ugly motherfucker. It’s like a feminist whining about attention paid to pretty girls, it’s pathetic. Stop. Is/Ought.

O rlly? *I’m* the little bitch if I’m the tenth woman in a row to turn down your offer?
It’s almost like people don’t like giving away their valuables at a loss.

Sperm = cheap
Eggs = expensive
Sex = valuable to men, women? Not so much. The one who cares less holds the power, right?

Research: http://psychologyofattractivenesspodcast.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/overconfidence-when-we-think-were-more.html

You’re swallowing what your grandmother told you – “looks don’t matter” (to women) and passing it off as your original belief because it serves your ego in sheltering you from the reality. It’s in the same category as JBY (Just Be Yourself) for advice that requires a disclaimer about a book long and a series of asterisks listing exceptions longer than the Game of Thrones book series. If random people keep pulling this weird, twisty lip face when you discuss dating, you’re probably ugly.

Don’t take my word for it, do the damn work and find out your number: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/an-easy-way-for-men-to-find-their-10-scale-value/ You’ve got a range of 1-2 based on external factors and the desperation of the prettier party.

This doesn’t make us women shallow anymore than not fancying landwhales makes you shallow. It’s nature. Everyone fancies attractive people. It’s evolution, it’s health, and it’s about the health of potential offspring.

Even when it comes down to the r-types, we have the Sexy Sons hypothesis. This overwhelmingly strong female attraction to appearance might dictate the bulk of their psychology, it’s that powerful. The stated exception is gold diggers, because plastic surgery is expensive and they’re rarely natural lookers themselves. The money overwhelms their disgust reflex and they’ve usually been around the block before settling.

Why do you believe women are special snowflakes when it comes to options? It’s ridiculous. Given two equally appealing choices, everybody, male female or alien would go for the more physically attractive. This was often swept under the rug because women had little historical say in mate selection (the betas and lower are the ones bitching about this now for that reason, they lost their power) and arranged marriages, complete with veil, meant if they knew they had a negative opinion of their husband-to-be, she had neither time nor purpose to point it out. It wasn’t as if women were expected to enjoy sex, was it? The woman’s sexual desire wasn’t a factor in the historical equation, so very little was written about it. Then courting came around, then dating and now hookup culture, where it’s plain to see if you pay attention. Look at any male model’s instagram account. Same as a woman’s, isn’t it?

Of course people care about looks when it comes to the opposite sex, that’s the difference between friends and more – do you find them physically attractive? It’s almost like boys in the manosphere haven’t heard the two ladders metaphor. This defines a big difference between male and female attraction mechanisms. If a woman fancies you, you’re on the prospect ladder. If she finds you ugly (that’s the brutal truth, it’s yay or nay) – you’re on the friend ladder. You ain’t never getting off, and the Friendzone is such a big deal online, because the boys in question refuse to believe women have eyes.

And dare to exercise a personal choice in whom to date.

You’re probably average, no shame in it, get over it. What do you think the Brad Pitt rule is about? Do you honestly think that guy needs a single bit of Game to have women interested in him? Pre-fame and money? Christian Bale met his wife when he was dirt poor and she traveled round with him. Any guesses why, children? [Clue: everybody has a personality, that doesn’t count as an answer.]

The starving artists stereotype is always drop-dead gorgeous. As is the hot nerd. And the hot librarian. And the hot businessman. And the hot gamer. It isn’t the context/skill/status that makes them hot, but adds to pre-existing hotness. And all pure stereotypes that appeal to women sexually, are already 10s….

What was I saying?

Gee, I guess that’s a MASSIVE coincidence…

You can’t convince women to be turned on by losers (genetic or otherwise), neither can feminists or SJW freaks. Attraction isn’t a negotiation. I’m saying this to help you. Women didn’t lie, your mother probably lied but she has vested self-interests, it’s usually the media who lied to you. The world has always been this way. Prince Charming isn’t the Hunchback, he’s a physical specimen of 10 like the Princess. The Beast turned into a hottie at the end to match his fiancee. Look at all romance plots written by women, the guy is never ugly.