Abnormal brain function after drugs

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

And lower IQ.

Duh.

Since the time of Oscar Wilde, the media has tried to push drugs as something only intelligent people “try”. OK, “Try”, first off, that’s not possible.

You are a biochemical in/out machine. There is no Try. This isn’t a fucking cheese sample.

Try to put porridge in your gas tank. It isn’t supposed to be there. It throws the otherwise working parts off. Can you arrange a deep clean for your brain? No.

One meal can give you food poisoning or an infection that won’t quit. This is easy to diagnose because it’s gut. One instance of drug use can and does damage you. It may not kill you, but like puffing on one fag doesn’t instantly KaPow you with lung cancer, it does always damage you.

Something something artistic 2deep4u Byron. I’m sure the pre-existing mental illness and self-medication had nothing to do with it.

Nope. There is no evidence for that ‘genius’ connection, it’s purely anecdotal. The lazy people want to blame the drugs for less-than-ideal performance failure, a common form of self-sabotage. Do smart people sabotage out of peer pressure?

They commonly cite openness, a personality trait that smart people can be ever so slightly higher on. This is because it basically looks for intellectual curiosity, it’s a confound of the variable.

No, it doesn’t mean that ‘open’ people are smart, it isn’t truly connected.

Not to mention, but I’m gonna-

People self-rate on openness, can you imagine if we did that with IQ?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805551/

Relatively little is known about the neural bases of the Big Five personality trait Openness/Intellect. This trait is composed of two related but separable aspects

Intellect was also correlated significantly with scores on tests of intelligence and working memory capacity, but the association of Intellect with brain activity could not be entirely explained by cognitive ability.

instead?

Look at a related variable, something easy to measure. e.g.

The higher someone’s IQ, the older they are when they lose their virginity.

I don’t think they’re smoking pot. Somehow. This is just the new trendy thing to smoke anyway, look at tobacco rates for how much Millennials despise something with health warnings attached. Tricked their grandparents though.

Look at the cluster of finding. Look at related variables.

They might just say, Oh that’s it, no other effects on a person?

In adults you can damage the frontal connections. This happens with any addiction including porn and is called hypofrontality, there is reduced activity in the reasoning… levels (which are where most of the IQ stuff happens).

Well, why would pro-abortion anti-natalists be telling us to do it?

http://www.parenting.com/fertility/infertility/smoking-marijuana-may-morph-sperm-affect-fertility

This along with advanced paternal age.

Both increase mutations.

It isn’t women trying to conceive who need to be teetotal and off drugs for as long as possible (ideally never starting), there is far more cause for men to do it. Look up advice for men trying to conceive, it says exactly this.

If anything, the rules are more stringent for men.

Why?

Because it’s their sole contribution to the baby-making process.

The work comes years beforehand.

This is genetic.

Since men process sperm repeatedly, constantly, any damage from any point in their life is present and consequent on their present sperm. However, it’s hard to discern clear medical causation beyond a few months because we’ve yet to find a suitable method, not because it isn’t there. FYI, you can’t really use sperm beyond ten years, more like five would be pushing it. It isn’t a magical technology.

Sperm is purely epigenetic in men because it is one of the few body parts that constantly refreshes with a completely new code, new switches off or on. It would be immoral to damage and mutate babies deliberately to prove this.

 published in the Human Reproduction journal — researchers looked at sperm samples of 1,970 men from various fertility clinics in the United Kingdom. The scientists examined how smoking and drinking habits, as well as other lifestyle factors, such as BMI, medical history and the type of underwear worn, affected sperm

Okay, you might think, but most of them are fine?

You don’t have any particular medical problems? You can afford to?

Not so.

Of the men studied, 1,652 produced “normal” samples of sperm, meaning that more than 4 percent of their sperm was the right shape and size. The remaining men’s sperm was shown as “abnormal.”

A lot of men have rendered themselves infertile and don’t even know it.

There’s no such thing as free love, look at the Boomers suddenly getting pathogenic cancers.

Is it any coincidence that such drug use is common among already-low IQ populations?

How about the undeniable link to high time preference, inversely associated with IQ?

___________________________________________________________

The ONLY link found of IQ to drug use is childhood IQ.

https://www.thefix.com/content/iq-and-drug-use

Yep, they’re basically lobotomising themselves.

Fridge horror?

Once the neurons are pruned, they’re dead. They’re gone. You cannot get them back.

Is that because drugs=good or some other explanation, like a society that hates smarts and teaching systems that imprison them until they’re eighteen?

Where’s the adult (25+, in brain terms) IQ connection?

Anyone?

Modern parents spend more time with children now than in 50s

Yeah, don’t take your history lessons from adverts.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/modern-parents-spend-more-time-actively-engaged-with-children-than-50-years-ago/news-story/f7f9dc36605a5da378ef56754c9ba8f5

A spread between parental units is also better for the child’s development. Too much mother is as much a problem as too little.

The mother in the tender years (0-5ish) and the father for about 10 years after that to teach them the basics and keep them grounded, but overall children do need approximately as much quality time with each parent, and it’s terrible when men ‘want’ children just to say they have them but want to skip out on spending time with them. They aren’t a lamp. You can’t just pay for them and leave them there and expect them to be fine. Abandonment is more than financial, it’s giving up leisure time to extra-house priorities, which should come far lower. Family comes before friends, and nights out drinking don’t even really become a college student, let alone a Patriarch. I’ve seen men happy to spend time with a mongrel for hours at a park than five minutes with their spawn.

It doesn’t matter how much money he pulls in if his heart is made of ice. Women shouldn’t procreate with such monsters.
However, such parents will be abandoned once the resentment has festered by rights. They won’t get that replacement kidney or the good nursing home and won’t they be shocked? Their children built a whole life without them too!

dean winchester supernatural evil smirk lol laughing amused

Neither should the children always come first (for some things yes but balance it), that right actually belongs to the spouse, oft-ignored in pop culture like they’re boring to encourage affairs (by clubbing, drinking, bad influence friends). Without a secure spousal relationship, the children will suffer and doing it this way avoids spoiling them or making them arrogant. Happy wife, happy life. Better children too.

It’s common to see posts about maternal abandonment as if a man is a walking wallet. Aside from being a sexist reduction of the Patriarchal role, paternal abandonment has a much more far-reaching effect on the life of the child.

Patriarchs don’t just get to sit around at home while wifey makes them a cocktail and that’s a bizarro-world American Dream anyway. Nobody has that life, even billionaires. They are both workers in the home. He does DIY, she cooks, she cleans, he changes diapers. The 50s advert postcard image is just that – a mirage. Rich people hire help. That’s the trick. Outsourcing. Time is $$$.

Most women don’t cuckold

Buss is a #1 resource of social studies, whatever your opinion of this website. However, I would feel more comfortable if paternity tests were compulsory, we have the technology.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/03/13/relationshipstrategies/death-to-the-dual-mating-strategy-theory/

Women high in mate value can get it all from the same man

High SMV women aren’t being “entitled”, they know their value (and lower value men can’t stand it, no amount of parlour tricks can bridge a certain scalar gap).
I don’t understand the redpill trope of marrying a good girl (high SMV/MMV) later on. You cannot “Have it All”, nobody can. No good girl I’ve ever known would want a washed-up burned-out player (they mentioned the STDs, it was a very big deal, and the sexual comparison/trust issues). It’s the closest the manosphere gets to feminist delusion and it’s worrying. It’s like those types (virgin MGTOW poseurs no doubt) are just bitter that women still have options (when attractive enough) and could dare to reject the “player”. Or can’t they perceive female selection rationale from a female perspective?

10-12% of women pursue a dual mating strategy

It is no coincidence that this minority is the same size as the number of women who identify as promiscuous, seek short-term flings and go for bad boys who don’t commit.

And make up the majority of college hookups on campus. There is only a hookup culture among a minority, most students stuggle with simple dating.

In short, the men who diligently rehearse their pickup lines in hopes of getting laid are aiming for a small minority of women with probable low mate value who select exclusively for good genes indicators. Which would explain the very high failure rate of “manufactured” players.

I would add the players have no intention of marrying these women. Failure rates just demonstrate how short-term people (r-types) can’t pretend they’re K. Promiscuous people should never get married, for everyone’s sake. You don’t have to, no one is making you.

 

Fatherhood is crucial to humanity

http://www.livescience.com/9652-dads-key-making-human.html

Puts societal dysfunction in a whole new light, doesn’t it?

Some 95 percent of male mammals have little to no interaction with their children. Homo sapiens are one of the most notable exceptions, leading some scientists to think fatherhood is an important part of what makes us human.

Most theories for the family involvement of fathers invoke the familiar “Man the Hunter” characterization, in which dad protects and provides for his young.

Tender years feminist myth. Men have higher cognitive flexibility.

While fathers do play key roles in securing the physical health of their children, they also can be important for the optimum development of psychological and emotional traits considered to be primarily human, such as empathy, emotional control and the ability to navigate complex social relationships.

Daddy Issues just got much funnier.

Unlike many other animals, humans need their fathers well beyond the act that leads to conception, researchers are coming to realize.

I’m posting this one to annoy the feminists who hate-read this blog. Hello.

Breasts are beautiful

This post is a pure celebration of breasts primarily in art, with some random opinions hither and thither.
There are many breasts.

XIR38609Portrait of a Woman revealing her breasts by Jacobo Robusti

 A breast is often a synonym for woman’s power of creation. It’s a common motif in art (yes, this is another art post, with a twist).

 fornarina raphael
Detail, Fornarina by Raphael

You could say a nipple twist.


Typical example of a 17th century theatre costume

The connection with sex has been ushered in by modern times and began as a reaction by Victorian modesty values.

marie dress 18thc
Marie-Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan, Princess of Lamballe by Joseph-Siffrein Duplessi

The 18th century had low cuts and was renowned as a time of debauchery where orgies were quite commonplace on the heels of publications like This Misterie of Fucking from the late 17th and sexual self-improvement L’Ecole des Filles. Erotica was invented (I recommended Fanny Hill to begin with) and a flourishing market for erotic materials such as carved stone dildos (green jade from the Orient was a popular choice and remain so) and these were mechanized in the 19th century (here’s one operated by hand crank) in a way the steampunks would lose their mind over if they knew. Expanding shipping routes broadened horizons on that front.

mary_robinson_as_perdita_by_john_hoppner_1758_1810Mary Robinson as Perdita by John Hoppner

The neckerchief (gathered, ruched fabric seen above) arose to partially veil the frequent pop-outs caused by the tight-laced corsets demanded by the time when following the fashionable bustline. Courtesans and other prostitutes were the celebrities of the time (has anything changed). With this constraint of voyeurism from a former era, it led to the Victorian emphasis on the arse and the emergence of the bustle.

A bared breast in the 19th century was tied to Pagan values because pagans tend to go skyclad (naked). However, in the 18th century it was associated with chastity in art. The innocence of baring, as a child and height, as youth. Women would rouge their nipples. Here’s a recipe. The pale pink or as we call it now when naming a fabric, the blush of youth. Women still buy blusher… (I think it’s aging, since the nipples darken after childbirth).

06705-jean-droit-1932-a-la-hussarde-18th-century-costumes-hprints-com
A la hussarde by John Droit 1932

In religious portrayals, it took from the Catholic Church’s change of heart on the Madonna. She became a key figure and some Orthodox families are still headed and defined by their Matriarch for this reason.

danae
Typical chamber painting: Danaë
by Antonio da Correggio

They found Renaissance “chamber paintings” kept in bedrooms or sometimes a wardrobe behind clothes to keep from the wife and associated topless females with masturbation, the reason they were commissioned.


Sleeping Venus by Giorgione

These examples of former chamber art became quite famous and emulated until the establishment barred them from public show by refusing to purchase under (im)morality laws.

Olympia by Manet

The Victorians weren’t fans of the practice of masturbation these vanities encouraged and the public, common men were now allowed to see them for a small fee under arts exhibitions headed by Queen Victoria. Equality: miners and barons allowed to ogle at the same pair of tits.
Art was a moral battleground and the Academy deemed these messages unacceptable (politically incorrect). The portrayal of nude females was confined mostly to the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood outcasts, who hated them anyway, with a mind to portray women as both pagan (creative, fiery muses of men) and chaste, innocent (associated to their sex in a positive Christian way for the time). Potentially, they included so many nudes to piss off the Academy. Trolling par excellence. The combined interpretations taken up explains….

Lilith by Collier

The sex appeal was acknowledged to the viewer, as the choice to remain chaste.

                                           Serena, Found of Savages by Kennington

Can’t you see how sexual those women are? One is even holding a HORN.

the pearl
The Pearl by William-Adolphe Bougeureau

Virgins were sexy. There were urban legends about them which remain to this day, on par with unicorns. UNICORNS. (Modern beautiful virgins are like bloody unicorns). Virgins are still sexy (to men, whose opinion is The Word on sexual allure of normal women). It guaranteed paternity and makes a marriage almost divorce-proof (statistics and charts).


The Goddess Diana with a Lion by Angelo Von Courten

Women were powerful, and sex wasn’t a factor in it at all. In fact, sex diminished these women’s power. Promiscuous women were fallen and lost (kind view) or evil temptresses (femme fetale view kept today), who enticed men by plying their illegal trade as prostitutes by what they wore and the male spaces they chose to frequent (taverns, bars).

Picture is unrelated. It made me laugh.

A single woman in a bar? Pros. This is where we get the negative connotation of single.

The typical reaction. And they talk about Slut Shaming now.

Typical advertising, breaking the taboo on Victorian necklines. 1890. To this day, a woman with her top open is said to be asking for a come-on.

I wonder where she desires us to look. 1904 postcard. Wish you were here!

Hardcore Pornography of the day. Even whores had limits.

I call this phenomena The Tumbling Breast.

Just the breasts are depicted on partial display.


If you’re thinking “that sounds very feminist”, you are correct. This is the line the original feminists used to gain power, that female power was NOT rooted in sex and sexuality whatsoever! And lending women say, The Vote, wouldn’t lead to such immorality because women were the superior, purer, fairer sex acknowledged by the Classical Ancients (who the Victorians emulated in NeoClassicism).
It is Modern ‘Feminism’ which sexualizes and objectifies women because it is profitable; they charge for contraceptives, abortion and fertility treatments when it’s too late. ‘Sex-positive’ feminists are funded by companies. There is no profit in chastity. A few minor feminists have caught on, and coined the term Virgin Shaming. It hasn’t taken off because most feminists are deceptive. Feminist women in the 1960s began it wholesale to pass off the guilt they felt in the Sexual Revolution, from The Pill invented by men, onto other women who were competition for husbands later on (if everyone does it, men can’t preferentially choose the type of woman I can never be again, same with STDs at present, commented as positive to “get over with” again again and again although sluts in college are uncommon and it’s natural for a woman to be ashamed of her promiscuity, that’s why they downgrade, distort or try to redefine it as if the hymen doesn’t exist) and men caught on, who use it to this day to pressure a girl into why she should sleep with him because she needs to ‘lose it’ or be a loser (yep, that includes rape). Thanks, feminism!

As for the public argument of double standards on breast baring…
A few men rebelled and began walking around topless because miners who did real jobs needed that time to cool off and everyone said “fair enough” and soon male nipples were acceptable and remain thus. However, this doesn’t work for women because they’re erotogenic and connected to vaginal or clitoral nerve stimulation in the brain.

Class dismissed, thank you for not masturbating until you finished here first.