Oxytocin promotes patriotism

It is the love hormone because love also means protection.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3029708/

“Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.”

Have we found the hormone for the k-selected?

The higher oestrogen of women (general finding) depresses amygdala (stress) activity (this is written up on wikipedia if you want to link-follow) but oxytocin release increases amygdala stimulation over the top of the oestrogen signal, which is otherwise fine and generally neuroprotective (presumably so we don’t miscarry when a shadow looks like a guy).

So maybe the way to get women caring less about the ‘refugees’ and remember their personal safety is now their job, not a husband, is to pass out free oxytocin nasal sprays?

Or put it in the water supply?

I’m kinda serious. It’s crazy enough to work.
Compassion fatigue already set in years ago, ride the wave and reduce the maternal clucking of middle-age Boomers.

I wonder if military service induces oxytocin release for male-male bonding?

“Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.”

K-shift…?

Dare I dream?

It doesn’t mention that when ANY ingroup meets ANY outgroup, the natural result is competition because Darwin.
It isn’t a choice or a value judgement. War happens constantly, it is the norm. When modern food supply runs low, it’ll come back, roaring back, bigger and badder than ever. We’re in the experiment.
Race to survive, anyone?

You might remember there was a BS flurry in the MSM about a chemical that reduces ‘racism’ – this was it.

It doesn’t – because ‘ingroup preference’ (the positive social term, along with the lesser known and more genetic genophilia) is totally natural. They stupidly assumed they could extend the ingroup to literally everyone in the whole world. The brain resists this, that’s why they haven’t drugged us all by now.

 

Since among other findings;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4122242/

It increases patriotism for one’s culture and love of one’s family.

It changed freedom of association to genetic kin and love of the flag but not corporations.
It studies Asians which is a hiccup but hormones tend to have broad effects.

The men of society love strength in their social group of other men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25193946

It also leads to monogamy and fidelity – in MEN.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23152592

Ding ding ding K-type central.

“Together, our results suggest that where OXT release is stimulated during a monogamous relationship, it may additionally promote its maintenance by making men avoid signaling romantic interest to other women through close-approach behavior during social encounters. In this way, OXT may help to promote fidelity within monogamous human relationships.”

I would bet that sluts, the promiscuous with higher and higher N counts, with damaged pair bonding, release less.

More studies on whites and women needed but otherwise, great work.
Nature is literally against these ‘social engineers’, too kind a term, for penpushers and petty meddlers.

New fave GIF, will get a lot of use.

BTW the primary source of oxytocin in humans would be ..the nuclear family. You’d have to knock that out to bring multiculturalism in.

Link: ‘Sexual Orientation’ and ‘Gender Identity’ are meaningless

All this coming up. They’re still banging on the pedophilia drum.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/19/we-cant-protect-sexual-orientation-because-it-doesnt-mean-anything/

Not opinion, but a fact. There is no agreed-upon definition in academia.

This gets into arbitrary vagueness, it could literally be like 50 shades of grey. There could be 50 different terms for 5 things, each slightly different along a scale. The scale could be contracted or expanded, from 5 to 5 million terms, and people would still identify themselves along the Likert scale because that is how humans respond to scales in self-report. They fall prey to experimenter’s biases. Kinsey used it to justify his own fetishes. Including the mere use of Likert instead of checkboxes, intended to give firm results. How special do you feel? Do you identify as a snowflake?

In the most logical, hardest scientific terms, here would be the genuine definitions that would work in law (nothing less would work);

Sex (noun): chromosomal. Male, XY. Female, XX. Various genetic disorders would thus be accounted for under Both (still within the binary of a dimorphic species).

Gender: firstly, nothing to do with identity. Masculine, Feminine, Androgyne (both). According to Jung, everyone has both, which makes the last category meaningless, so everyone would fit into masculine or feminine based on their 51%+ score on something like…. The Bem Gender Inventory? Purely psychological, fluid and prone to change.

(Sexual) Identity: behaviour and its choice (see? nothing to do with gender and arguably, sex).

Sexual Orientation: which sex do you identify in sexual terms (physical attraction toward)? Male (sex as a noun), female (sex as a noun) or both (bisexual). If neither, you don’t have one, so it isn’t a valid question to answer, a simple N/A or blank would suffice. Note: non-physical attractions are invalid as all normal humans feel those (agape) and this is a polite descriptor of lust.

This last rules out invalid claims to orientation (based on age, a changing factor, species or other non-humans, or state of life, for example). Paraphilias (fetishes) are likewise discounted, as non-personal attractants by definition.

Social conditioning (inc. pornography) CAN change sexual orientation/identity, as most people know it:
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/02/16/porn-addiction-studies-sexual-orientation-versus-sexual-tastes/

This does not bode well for the future of Sex Ed at increasingly younger ages pushing abnormative sexualities. Maybe Putin knew something we didn’t? At the very least, porn should be credit-card subscriber-based only, cut off completely from children, the entire video model is truly as addictive as alcohol or drugs (maybe 21 in places);

http://yourbrainonporn.com/can-you-trust-your-johnson

99% of these people were adults and had had time to form a proper sexuality and relationships prior to their issues. This meant, that as one neuroscientist suggested, with the right help their brains could be returned to their previous sexual identity, even if the images they had viewed cannot be completely forgotten.

For a boy aged 10-14, with no previous sexual experience, there is no reset button. [DS: this is because the brain kills off or ‘prunes’ the disused connections] We could have future generations of young men who objectify women and have totally unrealistic ideas of sex and in some cases men who will have their brains re-wired by extreme imagery to the extent that they could be a risk to the women and children around them. We shouldn’t put our heads in the sand and await for some true scientific evidence. We need to do something now.

Who does that sound like?

Is this a better test (than erections) for sexual orientation?…………

It is a dangerous practice and any parent who encourages their child to indulge (separate from the debatable issue of masturbation), is frankly guilty of child abuse (as all future centuries will see it, like we see cocaine in Coca Cola for Victorian children now or other hard drugs in ‘cough medicines’): http://yourbrainonporn.com/why-shouldnt-johnny-watch-porn-if-he-likes

There’s a kicker though. The capacity of our teen to wire up new sexual associations mushrooms around 11 or 12 when billions of new neural connections (synapses) create endless possibilities. However, by adulthood his brain must prune his neural circuitry to leave him with a manageable assortment of choices. By his twenties, he may not exactly be stuck with the sexual proclivities he falls into during adolescence, but they can be like deep ruts in his brain—not easy to ignore or reconfigure.

Sexual-cue exposure matters more during adolescence than at any other time in life. Now, add to this incendiary reality the lighter fluid of today’s off-the-wall erotica available at the tap of a finger. Is it any surprise that some teens wire semi-permanently to constant cyber novelty instead of potential mates? Or wire their sexual responsiveness to things that are unrelated to their sexual orientation? Or manage to desensitize their brains—and spiral into porn addiction?

http://yourbrainonporn.com/pair-bonding-101-beware-novelty-as-aphrodisiac

Loneliness can make a person more addiction-prone (as a self-soothing or self-medicating behaviour?)

In short, the same reward circuitry in their brains that makes them want to fall head over heels also leaves them especially vulnerable to addiction. In contrast, most rodents don’t like alcohol. They have to be bred specially to use it. But both prairie voles and humans will drink, suggesting that similarities in their reward circuitry make possible a strong buzz.

…Bottom line: Drugs can hijack the bonding mechanism, and register as a sort of love-substitute.

I’ve never known a lonely man who didn’t have a self-soothing behavior to try and compensate (a lot of alcoholics, some porn addictions, a few other drugs, a LOT video games as a secondary ‘hobby’ – when it’s a time sink like TV) and periods that reminded them of their loneliness acted as weakness triggers to engage.

…It’s almost as if the reward circuitry of a pair bonder has a “little hole” crying out to be filled by a pair bond (even if the individual never bonds). In the absence of a mate, a pair bonder will look around for something else to fill that “hole.” Obviously, we humans often try to fill the “hole” with lots of friends, serial affairs, porn, drugs, alcohol, devotion to a guru or a cause, or whatever—all of which furnish, or at least promise, some neurochemical satisfaction.

The important point is that the brain mechanism that primes a pair bonder to bond is mechanical, not rational.

So no, they aren’t ever choosing to do these things. That is not a plausible answer. Addiction muddles the concept of motivation.

…Note: Pair bonding is not a moral strategy; it is a mating strategy, and arises from a subconscious brain mechanism. The vole example demonstrates that bonding is not a cultural phenomenon…..

Please read The Mating Mind for details.

According to biologist David Barash, normal pair bonder “sexual behavior is neither especially frequent nor especially fervent.”

Manosphere is wrong on marriage again….. (priorities change when children arrive).

The fact that pair bonders stay bonded without constant sexual fireworks suggests that the bond itself is normally rewarding.

K-types ahoy.

All of this means that much of today’s sex advice won’t work well for lovers who want to remain paired.

Including the manosphere (short-termism), while encouraging married men to cheat and bemoaning high divorce rates.

As far as male N sexual partners, more monogamous men (lower count) are happier:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201107/guys-where-do-you-fall-the-monogamy-spectrum because the novelty factor isn’t guiding/controlling them (impossible perfectionism, hedonic treadmill, they can literally never stop because boredom becomes akin to death).

But hey, they don’t want to be told that because they’ve already screwed up and out of spite they want other men to screw up too, much like slutty feminists who encourage good girls to go bad…. (In sum: the r-types deserve one another).

As the previous link makes clear, in behavioral context, it makes them less human (more like a hollowed-up sociopath they admire);

Such effects impact relationships. Constant novelty is one of the prime reasons Internet porn is a superstimulus for the brain. Erotic training that relies on novelty as aphrodisiac can condition users such that familiar partners quickly lose their luster—confining users affected to shallow hook-ups. Also, the non-climax aspects of sex (skin-to-skin contact, kissing, comforting stroking, playful behavior, etc.) may be too unfamiliar and subtle to register as deliciously rewarding. Unfortunately, these are the very behaviors that soothe the brain and help couples strengthen their bonds.

If you have any doubts as to the damage of these early influences, look up “psychological imprinting porn”

Video: What would a Social Justice society look like?

a few additions;

  • hard times increase grit in those genetically pre-disposed to it but this society wouldn’t last long, there would be an exodus of useful people and dysgenics of the remainder
  • the “sex education” in the UK is already excusing paedophilia so… there’s that
  • it would take once-great institutions and break them from the inside (like the Diamond technique at meetings and other cultural marxism tactics)
  • the best takeaway is the gradual erosion of pair-bonding, this is what they need to continue as a replacement for that natural validation