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.

The dehumanization of sexism

the edgelords going round saying women aren’t human beings and shouldn’t vote because Vox Day was kidding about it (he couldn’t apply it to his own wife, she owns his balls) should probably look at the type of person who takes this seriously… this is your Spartacus

ultimateevil

behold

projection
entitlement
craven weakness
lust, pride, sloth, gluttony, all the mortal sin goodies in one ugly package
a psychotic ignorance of forensic fact i.e. HBD says you’re wrong, men are the violent ones
sex has nothing to do with state breeding programs, in fact, they’d likely ban it like 1984
as in more men would be virgin fathers (physically possible)
pro-white doesn’t work when you’re not white, expecting a white woman who only wants a white man means you’d get rejected, this guy is like the transracial ‘blacklivesmatter’ guy who refused to accept reality with predictable results
this isn’t about me, this is about everybody else! via me! – why can’t they do a goth phase seriously
patriarchy doesn’t give you sex on a plate, ever
actually the sexual revolution would be punished for
monsters are those who deny the agency of others but try to take the moral high ground on being good
his own father was degenerate, appeal denied, this whole thing is one FUCK YOU DAD FOR FUCKING MOM
sexual control is female because this is called civilization, you’re welcome to leave
men control which women keep their own babies with provision, and which do not
adultery laws protected women from bastard spawn competing with hers
neuroscience is also a thing, men are the psychopaths, case in point
these guys insulting women are the same guys selectively quoting the bible huh, they haven’t read it? Ruth? Mary?
like, the first serious thing God says to man is that he shouldn’t be alone
blood does out, as you can see by the crazy
I mean, at least he proved part of his own theory
classic blinkers on, his own sex is flawless, right? ignore, oh, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY.
God is not a man. Man is not a God. The Word is not mortal in origin.
seeing sex instead of a matter of quality (cross-sexual issue, deliberate ignorance)
observations are lucid, not awfully convenient in paving over personal insecurities
perceptions are often deluded when the source is broken, like a magnifying glass, everything they look at, looks broken
judges women by appearance, pretends to be deep
judges women by appearance, expects women to judge him by buried ‘character’
men of intelligence know women seek their own quality level, maybe stay in your own lane?
leagues are a good thing really, they save time
degenerate offspring don’t survive the next societal crush, exhibit A, not an issue
their parents don’t care, Malthus’ trap happens
if women don’t have rights they just abort all their pregnancies until the men and their line die off
you need us, dipshit
all these ‘harem’ (rape fantasy) societies oddly have first world living standards (with half the labour force) and forget that honour is a female concept
genetic suicide before genetic theft (rape)
death before dishonour
it’s better to be childless than have children with certain males
we see their genetic fruit, who wants to invest? a bad tree….
white men can afford to give us equal rights, inc to reject them, because they know they have the quality level to keep us interested
no other race can really afford to do this, their own women will reject them unless the women are kept ignorant and unable to provision themselves, like children (and arguably incapable of consent)
we are reminded of all this every month when we suffer periods
and little fuckheads like you take the piss, thinking we should all aspire to be porn whores
that’s the level for ‘mother of your children’
how many manly men in history ever bitched at women for our nature like that? our gift of maternity? not a single one, or at least not one who had the privilege of enjoying our body to breed their heir while we suffered damage and years of pain for it
back to him
you had money and literally zero excuse
you could’ve paid for a blowjob but nnoooooooo
nope, depravity is cultural, stop trying to sage you’re like 12
implies women are too dumb to use their power but somehow overpower all intelligent men intellectually

excuse me I just-
Go get 'em girlfriend

that one tickles me…. hits rather close to home, in purely logical terms it’s a simple preposition;
if women on top, neither stupid nor weak, asshole

there is no creature more evil and depraved than the one tripping revenge fantasies involving sex slavery and state control of sacred intimacy

disease metaphor? that’s funny, considering the male urethra’s microbiome is a major vector in STD transmission
>deserve, not how rights work

if women are evil you shouldn’t breed with them, conversation over

^thus, the true rationale of the genetic suicide

you don’t want evil/semi-evil babies, and what about taking after China, and aborting or murdering all the female ones? who is evil then? ah, but these guys just want to go like Genghis Khan, the rapist
what a role model when they claim to be so intellectual

all humans are animals, where the fuck have you been

seriously I wanna slap this kid through the veil
you know how some people are so weak AND evil that it brings out your inner bully?
If women think there’s something damaged with you, and don’t want your superficial affection on that basis, and then you try to murder them, they were right!

Attraction/repulsion cues vary less between sexes than r/K

hookingupsmart.com/2016/01/27/relationshipstrategies/sexes-share-the-same-relationship-delabreakers/

dealbreakers vary minimally between sexes, and much more between short-term vs. long-term mating strategies. The research comprises six studies and over 6,500 single Americans.

just getting that now rlly slow on the uptake moriarty

dealbreakersstrltr

I wonder who gets rejected by the LT strategists?

The rare times feminists hit on the truth

I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It’s like a tiny grain of sand within the pearl of lies. This refreshing collection took a while to add up.
I like to think of these as Original Feminists, back when they had standards that everyone held to.

12549027_1020301234682070_4174465352468957216_n

THANK YOU.
Honestly folks, it’s that simple. The person committing the crime is the criminal! The innocent person is the victim!
FINALLY.
940931_1022204501158410_829242774044190240_n

The term comes from a guy who wanted to fuck his own mother so badly he assumed every other man in the world must too. Mummy Issues is a thing as much as Daddy Issues. Same for penis envy and womb envy, it’s two sides of the same coin. If one is valid, so is the other.

12509509_1288432604641267_2059716406532880195_n

What often goes unmentioned is the reason for being gradual about it. The pure vitriol women get for putting down a gamma or lower upfront. Another aspect is how romantic relationships are not owed to anyone, and the bitchy type often lie in the beginning about their intentions (like some FWB women), amping up the friend element and leading into “we’re such good friends” and trying to segue into a girlfriend situation. As if we’re stupid.

cuntword

Irony that it took a man to point this out.

assaultanddrinks

It’s never ‘just a drink’. They think they’re buying you. Like a sex slave.
And they think you’re cheap.

At least whores are paid in cash, market rate, based on time and services rendered.
Hook-up culture is just hooker culture, fooling itself.

catcalling

The intended purpose is to make you feel bad because they know you’re out of their league. They know they don’t have a realistic chance so it’s like long-distance negging to prop up their delusions of alpha maleness. Those aren’t men, they act like teenagers. As if feeling SMV-inferior around someone is an excuse to verbally abuse them, they don’t dare pull that on other blokes at the bar or start on women walking with men, weaklings. It came from black culture and it’s hostile there too.
On the flipside, sex attackers often start with a catcall to test the intended victim, to get her to stop, come over here out of public sight, tell him your name so he can stalk you or they get a simple thrill from making a woman fear them, however temporary. The best thing you can do is ignore them or laugh, and that’s why so many women wear headphones nowadays. You don’t give strangers compliments, ever. Women aren’t dumb enough on the whole to try but desperate men think it’s fair game to judge while they’re standing in the street like losers and in addition, they think it makes them look less desperate for any female attention (no).

Solution? If you must express appreciation, a simple, single wolf-whistle.
That’s it. No words. No words are needed and you’ll screw it up.

12541115_1032880563445449_1806870584443679452_n

Literally me. Turns out they still blamed it on white men. For letting them in?

12573962_1020757527969774_4469542575472964008_n

There is no continuum or scale. It’s have or have not.
Sex is consensual. Without it, that’s the crime of rape. Whatever the sex of the initiator, I might add.

12615548_1021155484596645_2617871818339386548_o

There is a responsibility on men to know the difference between assertive and aggressive.
Former is romantic, latter is illegal (test: would you try those actions on a man who could physically equal you?).

12646809_1021597047885822_4040475063028680711_o

They rape women in hijabs. They raped women in petticoats. That’s like saying never buy anything nice and expensive in case you get mugged or burgled, it’s no way to live. This is the First World and we all have the right to show skin (including topless men) without being stoned to death. The responsibility for self-control lies with the tempted party. Feral males need to stop blaming women for their own weaknesses. Note: women groping stranger men is also wrong, the other side of Eve Teasing.

12647221_1022203891158471_6579726465610768773_n

Happened a lot during those days. Happens to this day when people have the excuse of alcohol (in studies, people act drunk with placebo drinks). They retain responsibility for their actions (including drinking within their limits) if they’re sober enough to enact them in the first place. Sober enough to do it? Sober enough to know better. Grabbing and kissing someone who isn’t interested ain’t right. Being in a club isn’t an excuse either, you wouldn’t be able to behave like that in a brothel ffs.

maleentitlement

Men can handle rejection as time saved. Boys take it personally.
Men have more experience of interpersonal rejection than women, usually. However, they also have more interpersonal opportunities as the approaching party.

means out of your league

I’ve heard some lower status men dispute the existence of leagues.
The veiled term men use for a woman out of their league is ‘high maintenance’, among others.

myreligion

Includes all belief, including political.
from the “You can’t call her Bruce!” pronoun people

objecticatoninmedia

Men say they’d be totally fine about male objectification until it happens.
Then they point and shriek like banshees because it makes them feel insecure…..
….. and how do you think we feel?

Get over it, like we do. Woman up. Stop taking it so personally. We probably aren’t comparing you to underwear models, because let’s face it, you’d lose.

takingitpersonal

Another stellar example of “You’re proving our point for us.”

We predict you’ll do XYZ when we use the male trigger word ‘misogyny’ in any context.

*XYZ happens*

Told ya so. 

Quit being so bloody predictable, if you didn’t feed them with instances of trolling or insults, they’d fizzle out and get real jobs.

Misogyny has recently made otherwise sensible men a laughing stock in the public eye, it practically makes them foam at the mouth whatever the bones of the argument being discussed. They lose it. Aren’t they meant to be the rational ones, as they claim?

What do years of PUA/game get you? What’s the result?

I was pondering what all this time and supposed secret knowledge allows the average male to obtain.

It seems that if they’re really onto something they should be able to play and keep out of their own SMV league.

Yet when you look for PUAs who settled and/or married, the women are generally… average? I don’t mean this in a bad way, I’m sure they’re lovely people, but considering the heartless emphasis these guys have placed on physical appearance, it doesn’t make sense. Can’t they keep a ‘hottie’?

Pictures posted without comment.

adam lyons and wife David DeAngelo and wife mystery and oompaloompa Neil Strauss and wife Nick Kho and wife Mike-Cernovich and wife

pauljankaandwife

That last one is Paul Janka, aka the only attractive PUA I’ve ever seen. He looks like a model, easily a 9 himself, and wouldn’t you know it, bagged a woman of similar attractiveness. And she’s English. *high 5*

You would expect such assortative mating purely based on chance, so what does their ‘game’ really get you? I don’t see the results, frankly. He has an interview up where he says this;

“Game teaches men to screen for sluttiness in women to find girls who are going to give us a blowjob in the next 45 minutes, but you need another filter to screen for character for marriage and for the mother of your children. The screening techniques of game are antithetical for screening for a mate.”

So far, so obvious. K-women won’t fall for that.

“And I think for a man to be successful at life he should recognise his youthful erotic nature, but as he ages he should transition into a more respectful relationship with a woman that perhaps resembles more what he has with his mother. Men who fail to do that might be cut off at the knees.”

aka die alone, as the bitches in the comment section attacked him for.

Convenient how they expect the Right Woman to ignore their background like a beta cuck marrying a former porn star. Why would a K-selected woman accept you given your former behaviour and animosity toward her sex (a game is adversarial)? A mother’s love is unconditional. You are no Oedipus. I think he’s giving average-looking guys unreasonable expectations there.

Link: Assortative mating and class

http://www.unz.com/jman/the-son-becomes-the-father/

Hardly any social mobility. No hypogamy. No hypergamy (the small-scale sociology theory seems to be wrong over many generations when you look at the genetics). I wasn’t expecting that. It shows psychology has its limits too, when they’re looking in the wrong place (teachers) and asking the wrong questions (how valuable is an education?).

What we see is clearly an argument for sexually selective Leagues. (Bear in mind, it would count MMV as well as SMV). It seems to be mostly genes.

The idea that this transmission of status over time has been as Clark found it squares well with another facet I discuss frequently on this blog: the fact that parenting doesn’t have much of a lasting effect on children’s outcomes.

Although parenting can let the team down if it’s atrocious (i.e. modern) and without instinct. But it seems later generations might have hope of regaining lost ground. Presumably there’s regression to mean in parenting quality, and since most people are totally forgotten by the 4th generation it’s no wonder we see no effect.

The interesting thing is that even the people who take me seriously on this point still believe that there’s something their efforts can do, beyond keeping their children fed, clothed, clean, and cognizant of the basic ways of the world. Steven Sailer frequently suggests that the outcome of poorer children, especially those of color (mostly Hispanics) would improve if they had fewer of them, and hence could afford to invest more in each, despite the fact that this doesn’t hold up in adoption studies.

It’s an oxytocin-based instinct, but it only seems that the majority of the affectionate instinct actually needs to be applied to the spouse (in both directions) to maintain the stability for the children. Another reason divorced parents are awful. Also, I wonder whether this would change the minds of any cuckolds saying they ‘don’t mind’ if a child isn’t theirs, as long as they raise them? This applies to women raising the children of former wives too.

This study found that “cultural transmission” (i.e., from parents) couldn’t explain the pattern seen in children (indeed, the parent-child correlation was negative once you removed heredity). The non-parental environment explained the variance, suggesting that other influences, such as peers, likely explain the results.

Why else do you think mothers care so much about who their child has for friends?
It can predict crime, drug use and all sorts (peer pressure).

This issue squares the matter with Gregory Clark’s results. That is, when you consider other facets, education per se doesn’t seem to mean much in the end. Apparently, you can’t teach moxie. This is revealed by the fact that every trait “going in” that shapes a person (and should be relevant to educational attainment) reliably shows absolutely no shared environment impact.

The Middle Class fallacy. Grit and resilience come into it too (the upper class have it, the middle class despise it).
You could put little Tarquin in the best school to ever exist, it won’t make him a genius.

…including one’s work preferences and interests, the presence or absence of mental disorders, and including the features of a person we think of as “character.” Parents leave no lasting effect on any of it, aside from what they bequeath to their children genetically….

The upper class try to teach their children life skills like grit too.
The middle class assumes it will just happen. Guess who wins.
We’ve all heard comparisons of our character or habits to deceased family members, right?
I would like to see hobbies compared genetically because birth order and sibling rivalry supposedly make children opt into different ones despite genetic similarity.

Who you choose to have children with is the most important decision of your entire life. No pressure. 

Indeed, when we consider the effect of measurement error (adding it to the heritability estimate and to the somewhat nonsensical negative gene-environment correlation values), the heritability of political attitudes and social values skyrockets, being upwards of 85% (74%) for views towards pornography in women (men). The heritability of overall political orientation, when accounting for measurement error, teeters on 100%!

Liberals and conservatives will be battling for a long time to come.

Bodes well for r/K.
I think this is why K-types seem so betrayed when divorced. Total speculation. I’m sure a lot of spouses cheated on would like to stone the 3rd party responsible. Religion is a good excuse to kill the competition.

(Hence the “shared environment” ≠ “all environment.”)

That needs to be made clear for the all  would-be sociologists.

But that’s all OK, yes? The whole point of education is to “shape” the raw individual beyond his/her genetic predilection, right? Wrong.

Education cannot change potential, it can only improve performance up to the ceiling OF potential, how many times do I have to say this?

The problem is that everything that comes out, the adultout comes, shows a shared environment impact that is also zero.

If your parents were screw-ups and couldn’t hold a marriage together, you’ll probably be a screw-up too. It’s the circle of life.

OK, so you might be willing to accept that you can’t shape your child’s personality or values. You can’t control his major life outcomes. You can’t even control how much money he will go on to earn. But surely you can do something useful, like leave your children a lifetime of happiness, right? After all, I believe, and advise, that a parent’s key duty, after ensuring that their children grow up healthy and safe, is to ensure that each has a happy childhood. Surely that must count for something, too,? It does, in the form of fond memories of childhood.

This is so brutal. So redpill.
The lesson is choose your spouse wisely and once you’ve got them, stick with them. You can’t choose your own genetic profile, but you can damn well choose theirs! (This is why women are so selective).

One’s lifetime of happiness boils down to genes and to the fickleness of luck.

yes lestat dancing happy cheery morbid black comedy

I’m one of the lucky people who can be contented in a shed.
It’s like when I was told Follow your Dreams and the money will follow! I was always like ‘but if you are happy, why do you still need the money to justify your decision?’, that art teacher did not like me, not one bit. School really is a prison but that’s news to nobody, frankly. You’re there to do a thing (pass grades) and finally they grant your release. Might as well game the system and learn other, more useful things with their resources while you’re there.

He will be who he will be. It’s only my job to help him get there, and pass on the legacies of all those who came before him. I did all I could do: I married well. Beyond that it’s in the hands of “fate”.

That’s the healthy parental attitude, not the Trophy Child, as I call them, where they need something to brag about like it’s a prize-winning pet or the Dead Dreams Model where the child is pressured to do what the parent wishes they had (a whole career, not little stuff).

The vagaries of the circumstances no doubt imbued good fortune on some and dashed the success of many others.

Whether your society (born into) was just and meritocratic, I’d wager.

But through it all, the thing that is at the root of continuity – DNA – remained the active ingredient to propagate lineages in their respective places through out the ages.
It is as it was said in the Richard Donner Superman films: “The son becomes the father, and father becomes the son.

Superman quotes now? Epic.

“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. 

I am at one with the Miranda.

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?

Oh God I made eye contact with the social fuckwit losers.

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?

sex with actual women mgtow infight

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.