Self-reliant people more satisfied in life

Shocker.

https://www.livescience.com/63094-conservative-meaning-of-life.html

Meaning is personal to each of us. However, a new study published June 15 in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that some people might be better at finding that meaning than others — and the difference may come down to politics.

According to the study, which compiled survey results from more than 50,000 participants in 16 countries, people who identified as political conservatives were more likely to find meaning and satisfaction in their lives than liberals were.

Political conservatives tend to be happier than liberals, a finding that has been labeled the ‘happiness gap’ in media reporting,” a team of psychologists from the University of Southern California (USC) wrote in the new paper. “One conservative commentator even described it as ‘niftily self-reinforcing; it depresses liberals.'”

 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

Having servants makes you happier

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/07/18/1706541114.full

No shit, someone alert Buckingham Palace.

SCIENCE.

 

Turns out, money can buy happiness.

 

You think Elon Musk launders his own underwear?

They say you all have the same number of hours in a day.

Bull-SHIT.

I’ve met these people who think their shit doesn’t stink.

These self help gurus don’t clean their own shithouse.

Yet they deflect and shame you like you’re lazy. Four Hour Workweek from Mr Expensive Tuition.

One of the most stressful life events, moving, can be ‘outsourced’!

https://paseattle.com/2016/08/20/moving-heres-personal-assistant-can-smooth-transition/

Why do you think they love immigrants so much?

Illegal wages – slave labour.

Nobody points out blatant classism.

Show me one working class politician.

 

Globalization exists so they can abuse foreigners across borders because abusing locals is more legally challenging.

 

Cinderella is literally about a woman marrying out of the need to do housework.

That’s the fairytale.

That’s the magical thing.

 

Give conservative women a housekeeper, dammit!

It’s cheaper than a divorce!

White woman isn’t a slave, the heartwarming folklore tale.

Buying Marital Bliss: Time-Saving Purchases Promote Relationship Satisfaction

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53939

If it turns your head, “help” is why rich women have more energy for sex.

It isn’t the fucking spirulina smoothies.*

Most men don’t do manual labour anymore, most women still do. Studies only look at the middle class for this stuff.

They don’t get it. The woman on her feet for at least seven hours has it harder than the social-media browsing office worker. Who cleans the cleaner’s house? Why do women claim they can’t afford more children? When are men “run off their feet”? Why do women take longer to save for retirement while men work over-time, where are they, what are they doing in those prime dinnertime hours? Whose work uniform of clothing, haircare and make-up is more expensive? Whose ‘trims’ cost far more despite literally removing less hair per trip? Add up what women do against what they’re expected to do. It isn’t lazy.

Disagreements about chores are a primary source of relationship conflict: both men and women become frustrated working a “second shift” at home. Using data from nine studies of cohabitating working adults in committed relationships (N = 4,316), we provide the first empirical evidence that couples who make time-saving purchases in a typical month report greater relationship satisfaction. We also document why and when buying time promotes relationship satisfaction: Time saving purchases enable couples to spend more quality time together, protect couples from conflict, and are most likely to promote relationship satisfaction when couples are faced with controllable (vs. uncontrollable) stressors. These findings suggest a relatively simple solution to a critical source of marital conflict: spend money to buy time.

The Industrial Revolution caused a lot of divorces.

Suddenly, the sexes worked apart.

*Scum drinking scum.

https://www.livescience.com/48853-spirulina-supplement-facts.html

Teenagers used to work in place of immigrants but state schools refuse to let them go below the age of eighteen now. Also their minimum wage is lower, which is slavery. The anti-social habits of modern teens are the typical depressed habits of the unemployed, who feel useless.
Middle-class frat brats holding tiki torches can be laughed off. What terrifies the Left in its nightmares is a working class capitalist demo. Wages, work hours, immigrants being held above the law (protected class is against the tenet of blind justice). Offer all three and you’ll win any election.
UBI ignores how adult mortality is most predictive at retirement and how unemployed people are almost all depressed. This isn’t pocket money from parents, these are adults. Infantilization is an abuse tactic. The poor are already infantilized are not knowing what’s good for them, high time preference (unlike spoiled brats?) and degenerate sinners (criticism of welfare queens instead of deadbeat sperm donors, who made them).

Poor people binge-drink, middle-class people are alcoholics.
Poor people are crazy, middle-class people have intermittent explosive disorder.
Poor people are stupid, middle-class kids have dyslexia, ADD, on the non-existent “spectrum” everyone is on.*
Poor people are fat, middle-class people are victims of a sedentary office environment.
Poor rape victims must’ve been prostitutes, middle-class ones are real victims.etc.etc.etc.

*If everyone is on the DISABILITY spectrum, no-one is.
Logically, if one metric of psychiatry applies, so does IQ. Doesn’t that fit the symptoms better?

Sluts unhappy monogamously

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/10/sexual-partners-and-marital-happiness/573493/

Ah, he finally included men!
And look at that, virgin men at marriage (1 sexual partner, the marital spouse) are the happiest group of all!

Looks to be 73%! In the current year!
Logically, if you want your fellow men to be happy, you’d ask them to be chaste.
Is that in the Bible anywhere?
What would Jesus do?

Next he needs to do a divorce study and control for the other spouse e.g. yes 6% of virgin brides divorced but were their husbands virgins too? Otherwise it’s like studying half a swimming pool for depth measurements.
It is interesting he misreports this data in part, you don’t look purely at the self-reports like single data points, you compare the group by sections – i.e. all the men to men and all the women to women.
The drop for both sexes is comparable, implying the cause of both is the same (and it is, weakened pair bonding).
Men begin with more monogamous satisfaction and women a lot less, significantly less as a sex, so to compare their promiscuous ratings without controlling for that is intellectually dishonest. The drops are comparable.

Pictured:

WAS THAT SO HARD???

Basic descriptives, so simple a 5yo could see it.
There is little difference within women to push the female-centric finding he clearly wants to.

I’m going to be skeptical on this “study” as any other.

“In this latest study, women who have had one partner instead of two are about 5 percentage points happier in their marriages, about on a par, Wolfinger says, with the boost that possessing a four-year degree, attending religious services, or having an income over $78,000 a year has for a happy marriage. (In his analysis, he controlled for education, income, and age at marriage.)”

Five percent, I hate to say it, is well within chance. It’s barely significant, almost suspiciously close enough to make me suspect p-hacking… and “about”? Science, guys. Education, class (income) and religiosity would have more of an effect, especially combined. This is important information that shouldn’t be swept under the rug. It suggests breeding is a huge factor in the choice to be pure or the resultant satisfaction.
Men, by valid comparison, have a sheer drop of satisfaction far greater than women, look at that gradient!

Dat gradient, easier to see for normies with boxes I am too lazy to go back and colour-code.

Which box is bigger? None of the inter-female drops rival than initial male gradient of 1 sexual partner to 2, I checked.

If this is glaringly obvious to anyone with the slightest semblance of mathematical training (IE I am not a sperg) on first sight, why miss it out?

Men experience a VAST drop in happiness that seems to be almost double (about TEN percent! huge!) the female 1-2 drop and he just ignores that? He goes on about the half-drop instead? Are you kidding me?

This is why sociology isn’t a real science, kids. This bullshit.

Going back, you can see why his legends aren’t labelled properly.

Yes, that is Papyrus because people who don’t labels their legends must be punished.

It doesn’t even start at zero to exaggerate sizes, get your life in order.

So why the narrative focus on female sluts? Why nary a mention of manwhores? What bias, right?

Do you care about the science of your own marital happiness or the badfeels of shame for bad choices?

“In an earlier analysis, Wolfinger found that women with zero or one previous sex partners before marriage were also least likely to divorce”

Why hasn’t he published the data I KNOW he collected on the men? That isn’t scientific, they’re divorced FROM men, aren’t they? Or were all the divorced women he counted lesbians?
Are Americans really stupid enough to think male virgins don’t exist?! They try to suggest the virgin grooms were actually lying based on the survey writing but it doesn’t wash.

It suggests something important, however triggered broflakes might get that opening one hobbit-hole closes another.

Men happier under Patriarchy? Who’d have thunk it, right?

“And Wolfinger acknowledges that, because of a quirk in how the survey was worded, some of the people reporting one partner might have meant “one partner besides my spouse.”

Weaseling out of results you dislike?
Who wrote the survey? The spirit of Imhotep?

“The median American woman born in the 1980s, Wolfinger writes, has had only three sexual partners in her lifetime, and the median man six.”

So as science keeps telling us, men are the sluts. It’s simple mathematics.
Well, logically, how likely are chaste women to marry the slutty men in the first place? Isn’t that rather important than randomly assuming they’re all shacking up eventually to Have it all?

“They have never been interested in sex without commitment, and once married, they may be more committed to their spouses, and therefore happier.”

aka normal
Study the pair bonding in their brains, I dare you.
Ah, but sociologist, useless!

Scientists should be studying virgin brides and grooms as role models of pair bonding glue to help out the other lot with specialized marital therapies but noooooooo. Heaven for-fend they admit Christians might be superior! Moral authority, with a biological basis? The sluts might have their feelings hurt!

It could be that, Wilcox told me, “having more partners prior to marriage makes you critically evaluate your spouse in light of previous partners, both sexually and otherwise.”

Yes, promiscuous men have low marital satisfaction whoever they marry, because they were sexually spoiled.

as the University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen puts it, “you could have a lot of sexual partners not because you’re good at sex, but because you’re bad at relationships.”

Obviously promiscuous people are bad in bed, why run from a good thing? It can’t always be the other party’s fault, can it? Just survey promiscuous women, (they have) and you’ll find they don’t even orgasm once. There is a notable deficiency in sexual skill (prowess) compared to those same women with other, less slutty men.

Almost like monogamy evolved or something….

http://brembs.net/hamilton/

If only we had a parental unit investment formula…

“Moreover, this analysis is not peer-reviewed; it’s just a blog post.”

Yeah, submit it to any journal and they’ll insist on seeing your data, like how I want to.

Something doesn’t add up. One man ‘researches’ how women keep being the problem despite ignoring male data on contributions to the by default mixed sex problem….. hmmm….. and also ignoring other much bigger causes of divorce such as adultery and domestic violence…. where’s the red pill data on those? Why doesn’t it exist?

If you really want a controversial study, cross-cultural study of marital and sexual satisfaction versus castration status (circumcised or unmutilated) includes measures of sexual and bodily insecurity and mental proclivity to adultery.

Picture a boulder in a pond if you reported the truth on that one.

The best Peterson video

To be fair to the guy, when he isn’t explaining why Maleficent is your bitch of an aunt.

Happiness is the marketing gimmick of the 20th century.

Unhappy with your teenage marriage? Buy this toaster!

Your wife is busy and you turned forty? Buy this sexy car!

Notice how this advice is only required for the stunted humans of today. It is simple but used to be a classic truth. It is not scientific. It is proscriptive common sense. Science is never proscriptive. It never tells you do this, do that, go there, marry them, breed. It can report probabilities and differentials, that is all.

In the “assume we got a can opener” economy, there are no top-down solutions.

If you hate yourself, the government can’t come in and fix you short of a lobotomy.

Or a pill that does the same exact thing…

We are in impossible debt.

Impossible.

Imaginary levels.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/impossible

If “buying shit we don’t need” made us happy, we’d all be under a palm tree in a knitting circle wearing tie dye holding hands singing Kumbaya. We’d be the happiest Pollyanna on PCP motherfuckers in human history.

We’re slowly learning why greed is a sin and the one that makes people miserable.

Whatever you do in life is never enough.

Shit, shoot yourself if that’s the case, right?

But the solution isn’t the opposite. The solution to problems in life isn’t death.

This is important, it’s a classic male error. It drives their suicide risk.

The solution to materialism isn’t minimalism. It’s savvy consumerism, one category at a time. You invest in yourself and objects in your life serve you. Owning less restricts your options, especially for intangibles like artwork or one-off perfume for women. Little things, small luxuries can mean a lot to us. Subjectively, there is nothing wrong with that. It’s one of the best parts of life, we connote sentimental memories with external triggers (sometimes visiting a place, hearing a song). You like an ugly little trinket box everyone hates? You go. You love that little thing. It isn’t stupid, it’s an object. It fulfills its purpose in your life, it doesn’t represent anything. Stop reading into everything. Sometimes a trinket box is just a trinket box, it isn’t a void of parental affection. That’s crazy making.

In psychological terms, it is pathologically neurotic. You will become hysterical living like that.

Humans need roots, heritage, position, purpose, meaning, work to do, hopes, dreams, comfort and finally, satisfaction. Don’t look at happiness studies, it’s superficial crap. Look at satisfaction with (factor). Much better.

On saving the world and other delusions

a repost, but a worthy one

http://thefutureprimaeval.net/on-saving-the-world-and-other-delusions-2/

The nerd’s sense of measuring everything here is a big handicap when it comes to assessing life meaningfulness. Our instincts for impact evolved in a world where only a few dozen people had real agency in your world; you were part of what we’d perceive as a small ingroup by default, and it wouldn’t be too crazy to think you could be one of the most respected and influential people in the known world…

It’s difficult to believe in the sanctity of your own life without a soul.