Richard Dawkins on race realism

He is a biologist, mind.

Advertisements

Do men have hormone cycles?

http://www.popsci.com/do-men-have-hormonal-cycles

wide-eye-omg-shock-gents

Duh. Men are mammals. Obviously they do.

No excuse for gaslighting neither.

“Endocrinologist Peter Celec of Comenius University in Slovakia, thinks that men have a straight-up monthly hormonal cycle too. In 2002 he published a study showing that both men and women experience roughly lunar rhythms of testosterone; the levels in men’s saliva peaked dramatically on day 18 of a 30-day cycle. Celec’s findings have not been replicated or accepted in the field, yet he remains convinced: “I have searched the literature for negative findings, but I have not found anything.”

The powder-dry witticism at the end slayed me.

I won’t ruin it.

[chuckles in science]

r/K and Trivers’ Parental Investment Theory

I assume you know r/K, here is a paper direct from the source on the latter.
You’re smart enough to draw the connection here.

http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/Documents/trivers.pdf

Promiscuity is bad for males.

triverspromiscuity

Science. Evolution.

GTFO, haters. Either swallow the redpill data or quit pretending to care about the truth.

shrug lol toldyaso fuck you batemanhappy bateman

Also, evobio arguments about fertilization don’t apply to sterile sex.
For the same reason a man’s opinion on periods is baseless, they aren’t really having it.

DAT Table 7.1

Video: Greg Johnson’s ‘In defense of prejudice’

counter-currents.com/2016/02/in-defense-of-prejudice-video/

Pattern-seeking, also called patternicity, is innate to mammals.

It is a survival instinct.

We can no more switch it off than our perception of colour.

Ignore the patterns at your own peril.

When you recklessly imperil the lives of those around you, they’re going to perceive two threats.

Original Threat + Traitor

Where there one concept, there is its opposite.

Where there is loyalty, there is disloyalty.

Where there is safety, there is danger.

Endangering others? Makes you responsible too.

Scorpion and the Frog. A snake doesn’t change its nature.

As for the mathematics, this is truly probabilistic. I haven’t seen this application before but it’s dead-right. This is why social science has proven (and hates to admit) that stereotypes are mostly true. Prejudice being acting according to these, where there is individual information to the contrary that they are ‘not like that.’ Self-preservation and precaution (Christian prudence) are the psychologically healthy reactions to logical assessments of risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naive_Bayes_classifier#Probabilistic_model

Video: Sluts and Cheaters

In both cases, it’s an over-represented minority of whores being pushed for drama in media.

Men learn to cheat from porn. And the absence of fathers.

Women learn to cheat from TV and films. And the absence of fathers.

Both sexes are subject to cultural brainwashing. It encourages us to sin, in other words. Do whatever is worst for us.

About 25% of each sex sounds about right, and those people are cheating within the group, with each other. The norm is for everyone else with a conscience.

Both sexes can be broken when it comes to pair bonding aka monogamy.

The sperm competition thing is a vestige of our monkey cousins, same as rape conception rates. Naturalistic fallacy.

Sperm actually competes with itself. You don’t need samples from two or more men for this to occur.

Women aren’t biologically programmed to be sluts, that’s a misread on a gross level, an excuse to absolve them of responsibility, just like men aren’t biologically programmed to be promiscuous either. Humans have agency and choice. It is a CHOICE. There is a dual mating strategy in humans, but the monogamous people greatly outnumber them (3:1 at most), so if we’re programmed to be anything, it’s monogamous, and the rest of our biology (long gestation time, one fetus at a time, large brains, long growth period) supports this. If anything, the promiscuous people are evolutionary throwbacks, as low-IQ people are to high-IQ in a modern society because they’ve yet to all die off, when in the state of nature, they’d have died come the first winter.

Sluts don’t have many friends. Male or female. Naturally, they’re exposed to predation or starvation. They’re less successful elsewhere in life due to the high time preference and unpopularity.

This may be natural, to them, but it’s not adaptive. Quite the opposite.

50 shades is the mommy porn of middle aged women, it’s like saying men who watch porn don’t fancy real women. It’s a supernormal stimuli, it has no bearing on this question. It’s like asking Dickens what his favourite app was.

He’s dangerously close to the retarded muh fitness test alpha male genes BS. The words are correct but in that order they are illogical. That isn’t what they mean. The manosphere concept is a deliberate misread to sound smart (but it’s science) and feel better about themselves, like the charisma equivalent of fat acceptance.

Oh dear, he’s dumb. Women have far, FAR lower libido than men. It’s this thing called testosterone. The feminists are faking, as studies have been flagging up. They can’t fuck like a man.

The arousal patterns are physical protection. They have nothing to do with attraction, as brains scan show. They’re rape protection because, little known fact, rape can make a woman infertile. The internal damage can cause scarring and it’s genetic death, THAT’s why women lubricate in response to practically anything, it’s in the same realm as evolved protection by blinking in front of a light, the knee hammer test and your fingertips wrinkling in water. It doesn’t mean anything, people read into it because it involves sexual parts.

Or to put it in a male context, if you get a random boner while you happen to be looking at a man, are you gay?
No. No you are not.

Most young people don’t want casual sex, they want pair bonding and use sex as a socially acceptable means of securing it. Men too. This is why journalists shouldn’t cover science. Interview an expert.

Women desire physically stronger men when fertile because they are fertile AKA in danger and in need of protection. From rape. It doesn’t need to be sexual but if they want to reproduce of course it would be. They can seek out the protection of male family members too. It’s an instinct of self-preservation, to hide behind the biggest male, the sexual aspect is reflected in the overall stronger frame of men, not some BS about strong sperm.

Lying about evobio results buys into the feminist frame. They use the excuse “but sex is natural” while they steal your husband. Those bitches. They say marriage is about love, as a convenient excuse to divorce by saying “I fell out of love”. They lie.

Cheating is a dealbreaker because it betrays an inability to pair bond, the whole thing was one way from the loyal participant’s end. They were cheated in this way more, and that’s worse.

Why is he talking about tribes like that? Sure, in Africa. The ones that remained 3rd World shit holes until some explorers came along recently. Africa is a Matriarchy. In African tribes they still behaved like slutty monkeys. In Europe though, around the Ice Age? Monogamy. People even buried together. So hold the fucking phone right there.

Thankfully, most of the world isn’t Africa. But most of the global population is. Because they’re sluts.

Most tribes were advanced, they evolved into us. They buried their dead and cooked food. The few tribes we base our idea of a tribe on? Those are the low-IQ subgroup, not the iconic examplar. Best way to describe;

He’s arguing for a return to standards. Marriage is that standard, it keeps both parties happy with an exchange that fulfills their needs. The way to argue it, isn’t to lie for a cheap laugh.

p.s. Tbf, if men had no choice over their dicks as the ‘we’re supposed to sleep around’ crowd say, every woman would pass the boner test no matter how ugly (no disgust response) and ED wouldn’t exist.

Dogs can control who they jump, birds request permission. Human man has no excuse. Rapists are the lowest quality men because so inferior are they to the competition, they must force it to have any chance of passing on their genes. The brain can suppress the lusts that fog the mind, this is a sign of a healthy mind that doesn’t binge eat or sit around all day, habituated in childhood this self-control parenting leads to delay of gratification, an ability that predicts life success. Frontal lobe – evolution. Makes us human. When under-developed, the compulsions function like addictions, and the patient is, for all intents and purposes, subhuman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypofrontality

e.g. effect on ADHD/ADD

“By adulthood, most of the symptoms have lessened or the individual has managed to control for the symptoms through other means.”

Because the frontal lobe has fully matured by this stage (and it no longer functions as an excuse in adults btw).

Shocker as low time pref predicts ability to maintain relationships

Proxy studied: credit score.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/10/07/relationshipstrategies/you-may-want-to-add-this-to-your-online-profile/

Commitment = ability to choose the long term over the short term.

What a shock.
Also a proxy for class. (Class similarity predicts longevity too, another surprise considering assortative mating).

“Credit scores are widely used in a variety of contexts as an indicator of reliability and ability to honor and maintain a broad range of commitments, such as rental and employment relationships, not just those involving debt and credit.”

Time preeeeeeeference.

The honor is IN the maintenance. Sure, I guess you married her with the best intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact you slept with the secretary, you know?

We know that impulsivity predicts poor relationship skills, and low credit scores may reflect impulsive spending behavior. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of Dark Triad males is impulsivity. (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).

What matters here isn’t the brevity of their relationships (which might be agreed upon) as much as the fact they cannot maintain them. It isn’t an ability in their repertoire. They fall short, they fail.

Another study found that “Individuals who have intercourse in the context of hookups are differentiated by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic approach to relationships and an avoidant attachment style.” (Paul, McManus and Hayes, 1999)

Anything other than secure attachment style is relationship hell for the other party. They’re afraid of emotional intimacy (and commitment, which is like emotional prison for them because of it).

Clearly, the inability to defer gratification through saving should be a massive red flag.

I love how attention whores brag about their shitty relationship skills. They wouldn’t do that with any other ability, like driving. Maybe maths, since these people aren’t especially bright. Stupid people tend to pair off again. Most couple’s fights are over money (generally, the man’s job, I should point out).

And blogging (public!) about a woman’s sex life without her permission is about as bad as posting a guy’s small penis selfie to his boss and colleagues: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/09/28/politics-and-feminism/a-normal-male-reproductive-strategy/ These are the same type who’ll go on about a woman’s reputation and how important it is, totally flouting the trust placed in them (they’d make such wonderful husbands, that 4 and 5) to have a sexual connection.

The male will compromise his standards for short-term mating, but not abandon them altogether. He attempts to maximize quality given the tradeoffs required by his overall goals.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men want to marry. They seek a monogamous lifelong partner. Research shows that when asked how many sexual partners a man wants in the next five years, the median answer is 1. (See the research HERE.) Marriage is by far the most successful way for men to pass on their genes.

Actually, the masculinity of what was called ‘sexual congress’ was bound up in the virility of the Pagan Gods. It was said The embrace of a god is never sterile or some such. It had nothing to do with the sex act itself. A man who has sex with 3 women and gets 2 pregnant is batting 66% reproductive recombination average. Hell, a virgin who marries and has children with one woman has a 100% success rate. A man who beds 500 women and bears no heirs (the male incentive, legacy) is a genetic failure. A man who beds every single, fertile woman on the planet with no heirs is judged impotent (not the same as infertility originally, because he could physically have children but the problem was …psychological). It used to be grounds for divorce if a man refused or didn’t want children with his wife, in a time when women didn’t have much going for them under Patriarchy (which always sides with the K-selected legacy producers aka future taxpayers). Everyone has a personal fertility rate, and in their heart of hearts, most of us don’t want to be genetic suicides.

This is why humans are monogamous. It guarantees not only paternity, but male virility (when in the state of nature, the baby or the mother would die or be killed/aborted without his protection). Evolutionary strategies around fitness ONLY APPLY WHERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED REPRODUCE. It’s like if I applied the archeology of dinosaurs to the Bible, it’s embarrassing, please stop. Evobio comes down to maths, much like game theory. Think of all the sterile sex going on. You think Evolution counts that? It’s a blip in the history of mankind, like men who couldn’t get it up. Nature is culling those people. They are self-selecting OUT of the gene pool. Let them! 

The topic of hypergamy again. ~big sigh~

Oh, now you guys finally give a shit about sociology? Now you think it’s real? Why isn’t it part of the subject called sexology then, genius? What’s the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy all about? They aren’t the same or the topics would be merged. Stop misusing the words again, Christ on a bike, read a book. A textbook. Or make up your own words instead of poaching a thing the means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Expecting a woman not to care about social status (read; keeping her safe) is like a fat feminist expecting Ryan Gosling (he’s popular, right?) not to care about physical attraction (read: to get it up). See? It all fits. Quit buying into the undercurrent Narrative that the sexes are meant to be the same. Is/Ought is a guillotine that murders reason. If they were meant to be the same, evolutionally, then sexual dimorphism in our species wouldn’t have happened.

The drop of arranged marriages is actually nixing marriages of social advantage.

…Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is…in slow decline.

This is bad for men. The same men who tried to leverage their status (often inherited) into a better quality of wife (works both ways, don’t it?). And patriarchs (fathers) who would only give away their property (daughter) for the best price?
Which sex is more likely to ‘trade up’ (ugly term) after marriage? Clue: which sex had practically all the active profiles on Ashley Madison?

Which one usually has the problem maintaining their end of the relationship (up to marriage vows)?

…Roughly 10-20% of both men and women are promiscuous, though the most promiscuous men are more promiscuous than the most promiscuous women. (Research HERE.)

They believe it doesn’t affect their future prospects (it does with K-women aka wife material).

Futhermore, the opposite of hypergamy is hypogamy, which simply means that men tend to marry down. As hypergamy has declined with assortive mating and the egalitarian marriage, so has hypogamy. The marriage and divorce statistics contradict any notion of hypergamy as guiding female choices today….

I quibble with this when it comes to divorce settlements but the general point is true.

Here are the reproductive strategies [DS: that is not a moral license] Jared Rutledge and Jacob Owens employed to get sex:

Rape

Here’s an example from one of their podcasts (H/T: Wj):

Young Jay (Jacob), after describing a woman as manipulative:

It was really fun cuz we had sex in the shower. Hospital sex is weird! And when she is drugged, it’s strange, but it’s really cool.

Papa Jay (Jared): Could she give consent?

Young Jay: Uh-oh! (Laughter)

Papa Jay: You might have violated some California laws.

Young Jay: That is mah bad. That is mah bad.

Papa Jay: Good thing we don’t live in California. (Much laughter.) 

Projection. Scum. I bet he thinks it’s rape when a man is drunk though.

For the record, the mother of the patient, referred to as “A.” is planning to bring charges against her daughter’s rapist.

Physical Abuse

Jared admits to “wailing on a woman with a belt” and “gagging her with my dick.”

Holistic Game also tweeted this dating advice: “Bitches get stitches.”

See it all HERE.

It’s like they’re doing the jury’s job for them.
See, the problem with jokes is that some total retard is going to do it, thinking you were serious. And that could count as incitement if it’s on a somewhat serious platform like a blog, certainly in Europe. These twits don’t bother to check the laws of the countries they travel to as sex tourists and complain when they get done.

No one is faulting the men for promiscuity. With the exception of the hospital patient, the women described appear to have consented to sexual relations with Rutledge and Owens.

It’s freedom of association. They were literally two-faced (the common stereotype I have no doubt they accuse of women). I doubt those women would’ve done if they had known the other side and that’s why the blogs didn’t use their real names (what social proofing, are they doing something to be ashamed of?). At least guys like Roosh have the balls to use their real name (although he lies about it while travelling which would beg legal questions about consent). A future question on the scene might be “are you a fuckboi or PUA”? for legal protection in case he turns out to be (you laugh but it could happen, nobody likes misrepresentation and those cases are pretty cut and dried).

I. Of the 50 women Rutledge had sex with, only 3 qualified as “carousel riders.”

He found that the rest were seeking monogamous relationships, in some cases agreeing to casual sex in order to get that. He exploited that opportunity.

See what I mean?
That right there is a social contract, folks.

oh shit damn fuck hell no give up dean winchester shrug

The rest is quite pathetic.

“…Women want to be swept up in an emotional whirlwind, and the more I tried to keep my “Alpha cool” the more they responded with flakiness or coldness.”

I know teenage boys with more common sense. “If I don’t show I like her – she’ll think I don’t like her!” actual quote, I was very proud of that one.

They assume you’re politely fading them out. They tend to follow. And being honest, did either look Alpha? Come on. SMV-wise. Come on.

On the manosphere;

“There’s a tremendous amount of ego, and a lot of anonymity.

…They didn’t hear the hurt, they didn’t see my mom cry when she learned how many people I’ve had sex with. They don’t see what the judgmentalism they are still engaging in did to myself and other people.

I am not going to be on my deathbed having engaged in these kinds of judgments anymore, this breaking people down into their component parts. [DS: breaking people down and using their broken-ness to manipulate what you want out of them, leaving them broken – those are the actions of a sociopath] It’s unhealthy for me, and it causes irreparable and widespread damage to other people.”

She knows she raised a scumbag. She sounds like a nice woman and he let her down (and by extension, her sex, which she also let down by producing and raising him, yes women think like that, on that scale of complexity). It’s little better than a drug problem, with a similar rate of disease. If you are aware enough to see the societal decay, you have a civilian duty to never contribute to it, maybe try to repair it. Social problems happen in shockwaves. Never be the rock.

Enjoying the decline is about not causing undue pain to yourself – or anyone else.

This article ends badly, the red-pill isn’t twisted, this information used to be considered Common Sense (e.g. women and men are different creatures) and should form a reaction/reminder to unrealistic PC lessons. A balm to the bruise. Twisted people are using it as a shield to hide behind and hide their abuses of the human condition we all share. I’ve written here this has become a ‘disturbing trend’ and one we here blogging might become known for.

Ironically, real sociopaths with low time preference (called ‘successful’) are almost always married, and quite happily. They slot right into the role, overjoyed to fit in for the first time ever and have a safe outlet for their personal doubts. Those men are not sadists and their wives love them. They make good husbands.

200 Blog Posts – Everything You Need to Know (To Start)

This gallery contains 16 photos.

Originally posted on JayMan's Blog:
At long last, I reach my 200th blog post. It’s been a quite a ride! Blogging on human biodiversity – or simply humanity – has taught me a great deal. Since the start, I hoped that I could offer some meager contribution to mankind with this blog. I will…