The lefties know.
This is why you keep contacts. Quid pro quo.
Carnivore/Anglo diet kills Africans.
We should deport them from the West, for their own sake!
The lefties know.
This is why you keep contacts. Quid pro quo.
Carnivore/Anglo diet kills Africans.
We should deport them from the West, for their own sake!
LOOK AT HOW DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE ON A GENETIC LEVEL
HBD is still BS tho–
LOOK AT THE EVOLVED DIFFERENCES
LOOK AT THE VISIBLE GENETIC EVIDENCE OF EUGENIC SELECTION
LET’S EUGENICALLY APPLY THIS TO INCREASE THE FITNESS OF THE WIDER SOCIETY BY ENGINEERING
but don’t call it eugenics.
If you don’t actually use the word ‘eugenics’, it’s all fine.
Okay let’s say one line about this logically.
If you ignore the eugenics thing, and apply this to absolutely everyone, the baseline drops again and it becomes meaningless as a positive selection factor, so pushing the ‘it’ll help everyone!’ rationale would literally never work; you’re simply moving the average with no heed to negative consequences, further, the other innate factors (all billions of them) would in fact, become more prominent by comparison, as one genetic factor was removed from the equation and they moved up the effect size ranking.
Another case of bigoted statistics, I know.
Quantifiers ruin all the liberals’ fun.
Pressure (caused by a failure of men).
This argument was advanced most explicitly by Anthropologist Elizabeth Cashdan of the University of Utah in a recent paper (link is external) in Current Anthropology that is ostensibly concerned with changing female body shape. Cashdan believes that the optimal female body shape is not the hourglass figure of a Marilyn Munroe or a Scarlett Johansson with narrow waist and large breasts. In most societies, women actually have wider waists and such figures are more attractive to men in subsistence societies, such as the Zulu (pictured) where food is scarce and also in countries like Denmark and Britain where there is greater equality between men and women.
Youth (less developed breasts) and oestrogen (broader pelvis, disproportionately). The hourglass’ sole advantage is seeing that a woman probably isn’t pregnant, it’s her relative lower risk of fertility to a pelvic-heavy pear shape.
In societies where women are under pressure to provide for their children, increased testosterone production increases their stamina, strength, and competitiveness. However, along with stress hormones, testosterone also increases the amount of fat stored about the waist, thereby reducing stereotypical femininity of the figure.
Cortisol fat. It’s called cortisol fat.
… When they compete with each other for jobs, they are more interested in seeming competent than in looking sexy….
The only reason women act like men, is because men dropped the ball. Men failed us. We’re picking up the slack, even in the economy (who wants to be a wage slave, seriously?).
Such a neat match between body and behavior (or phenotype) and what is required for competitive success is really an adaptation.
It’s a circular process. Men become more feminine (xeno-estrogens?) and women respond, which allows men to fall further and further, lower and lower until we get to Pajama Boy.
One thing is certain, if/when women go back to our former ways, the guys don’t get to complain when we act like women either (aka not drinking or sleeping around with them). Expecting us to act like men whatsoever in the first place was ridiculous.
Stefan is knocking it outta the park recently. Highest quality redpill stuff.
Who turned him onto us? Anyone know?
TLDW: Social engineers are child abusers.
In one word, it comes down to Legacy. The legacy is the future.
You either have one, or you don’t. You eat the cake, or you keep the cake.
But it doesn’t last forever. Never kick the pup because the pup grows up.
We are reaching that tipping point. I saw a comment, I think it was on Vox Day’s blog, pointing out that by recreating the conditions of Weimar Germany in every system, it’s predictable what would happen next. But neolibs don’t listen to history, they’re on the Right Side… *snicker*
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. This causes the economy to tank eventually and we’ve been building up bubbles ever since (look at the time you went off the Gold Standard to cover for it, LOOK) because men buy most of the shit needed for a family from a position of surplus and women, while easier to sell to, must buy on credit.
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. Answer: Pump and dumps, pretty much. Not Asia. Not S. America. You chucked them, or some other guy did, and now they’re psychologically ruined by it.
Maternal instinct isn’t a myth. It’s much like paternal drive in men. Some have it, some have it strongly and some do not have it at all. Women are dumb enough to freely admit where they lie there, oblivious to how it affects their long-term value: are you pro-choice? They can only answer for themselves and only the women who state the rape/cancer exception are permissible.
Gold Standard in America: 1971. I’m sure that’s a maaaa-ssive coincidence.
UK: 1934. WW1 made us broke. However, we had similar problems:
The crisis was seen as a national humiliation.
Belyaev hypothesized that the anatomical and physiological changes seen in domesticated animals could have been the result of selection on the basis of behavioral traits. More specifically, he believed that tameness was the critical factor. How amenable was an animal to interacting with humans?
Belyaev wondered if selecting for tameness and against aggression would result in hormonal and neurochemical changes, since behavior ultimately emerged from biology. Those hormonal and chemical changes could then be implicated in anatomy and physiology. It could be that the anatomical differences in domesticated dogs were related to the genetic changes underlying the behavioral temperament for which they selected (tameness and low aggression). He believed that he could investigate these questions about domestication by attempting to domesticate wild foxes. Belyaev and his colleagues took wild silver foxes (a variant of the red fox) and bred them, with a strong selection criteria for inherent tameness.
…The domesticated foxes were more eager to hang out with humans, whimpered to attract attention, and sniffed and licked their caretakers. They wagged their tails when they were happy or excited. (Does that sound at all like your pet dog?) Further, their fear response to new people or objects was reduced, and they were more eager to explore new situations. Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their “musky fox smell.”
Essentially, you can’t isolate one “trait” in breeding from its pairs, the behaviour emerges from certain genetic clusters. Even eye-colour is heavily complicated (Mendelian genetic squares are outmoded beyond genetic diseases). Same applies to people – the appearance seems to betray the character.
e.g. off the top of my head, testosterone manjaw and interpersonal aggression – the connection is real and cannot be broken, they are mutual outcomes of the same genetic material cluster, you cannot have one without the other
The people worrying about eugenics “deleting” “undesirables” aka The Hitler Problem least understand it. The undesirable quantities, if ethically selected, would be universal human preferences. How practical is this?
Easiest of the changes is to reduce dysgenics (less disease, mental illness, ugliness, premature death and suffering) et cetera and I have never met anybody against THAT. This would raise the genetic quality, eugenic by default.
FI FYI: anti-racism “consensus” http://www.unz.com/pfrost/sometimes-the-consensus-is-phony/
I highly recommend this. You won’t see dating the same way again. One of those topics everyone has a passing interest in.
Selection pressures on mate preference in humans. How do we seek novelty?
Wit, intelligence, kindness, and fitness – the sort of things most people wonder about when applying evolution to humans.
“If these quirks influenced the sexual choices that shaped the mind’s evolution, then the mind could be viewed as an entertainment system that appeals to the psychological preferences of other minds. Just as some books become best-sellers for their contents rather than their covers, our ancestors attracted mates by displaying interesting minds, not just shapely bodies and resonant voices. Our minds may have evolved as sexual ornaments, but ornamentation is not limited to a superficial appeal to the senses. As far as sexual selection is concerned, creativity can be ornamental. Consciousness itself may be ornamental.” Chapter 5, Ornamental Genius
This is so wrong I’m not going to bother attempting a full breakdown, it would be a book. Suffice to say, this is why evolutionary psychology exists, but sure, ask a philosopher on a subject they have zero qualification for. What about the Calhoun experiments, which his site has documented? He must be either joking or too stupid to see the connections.
Clue is in the name, Natural Selection, the 19th century term, applies in a State of Nature, an 18th century term that Darwin was referencing. A state of man, as in The State, will change variables e.g. land resources (housing), cost of living/unemployment/benefits, mate availability (cultural). Each culture reinforces a different reproductive strategy: Europe (white-majority) has future-time orientation (reinforced by cross-cultural studies of time perception), we reach an equilibrium with the amount of resources we have (now economy, used to be sheer territory for agrarian usage). We avoid tragedy of the commons, and genetic (racial) homogeneity allowed us to cooperate with our kin into prosperity (most of our history, Christianity was a useful meme for this). Low time preference.
He seems to think humans should be this constantly replenishing organism like a virus (let’s leave 8 children per woman in Africa, huh?) but we used to have those numbers because few would survive to adulthood. Technology and crucially, MEDICINE, have allowed us to invest more as parents (Trivers) to compete in a high-IQ demanding society. Quality of children is vital in the First World. As long as we don’t mess up the Malthusian trap by say, letting in African ‘boat people’ en masse or destroying the successful host culture until it breaks, the developed world will be stable.
Has he even read On Origin? Descent of Man? Natural Selection? Nope. He’s going by what school taught him, how redpill…..
Another point I need to make;
Female animals DO use drug contraceptives or otherwise control their estrus (hidden in humans) all the time, e.g.
The Ancient Romans had a contraceptive so successful they used it to extinction;
Silphium was an important species in prehistory, as evidenced by the Egyptians and KnossosMinoans developing a specific glyph to represent the silphium plant. It was used widely by most ancient Mediterranean cultures; the Romans considered it “worth its weight in denarii” (silver coins). Legend said that it was a gift from the god Apollo.
This philosopher Roosh is citing doesn’t know jack about the relevant subjects and to anyone with a brain it shows.
Another counter-example or few, explain these;
r/K Selection Theory and amygdala damage in neoliberals. Conspicuous by omission. http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/the-theory-2/
Liberal fertility rates. Covered spectacularly well here: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/expectations-and-reality-a-window-into-the-liberal-conservative-baby-gap/
Neoliberals are by no means the standard bearers of fertility, I believe he thinks this way due to urban living.
As for altruism, someone please force-read him: http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572
The West is experiencing increasing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion_fatigue
Those neoliberals and SJWs are already genetic dead-ends. Reproduction is a genetic arms race. They have lost. Anti-natal policies will do that.
When evolutionary pressures come back into play (they always do: war, famine, epidemic, etc. all the old favourites) what will happen? The victor experiences a ‘Baby Boom’.
When those selection pressures occur, on an infinite timescale it becomes a question of WHEN, what do you think happens to the human mind? Do you assume it just stays the same in your infinite wisdom of grosser biology?
Everyone is nice when resources are plentiful (Hence I reff’d r/K), it’s the ‘fat and happy’ stereotype of the glut (yes, that’s what that is). When resources become scarce, fight or flight become a reality. The nicest sweetest kindest neoliberals with a heart of gold would gut the granny next door if they were starving, the mindset is totally different, primal and beyond conscious control.
Many people seem to believe that we human beings never arose from nature the way every other living thing did, that we are somehow “beyond,” removed from, nature. But this is a very unfortunate – even a tragic – misconception. Like all other living things, our ancestors were sculpted by Darwinian evolution to survive, reproduce, and thrive within a certain kind of environment. And when we live in environments, such as modern cities, that are drastically different from the environments that we’re biologically adapted for, we become subject to various “evolutionary mismatch” effects that can be extremely detrimental to our physical and emotional health.
http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v16/n5/full/nrn3918.html Latest research. Latest in a long line.
Research in animals and humans has revealed some of the structural, functional and molecular changes in the brain that underlie the effects of stress on social behaviour. Findings in this emerging field will have implications both for the clinic and for society.
European history, for instance, is filled with instances of shipwrecked crews and passengers who resorted to cannibalism—even if it meant murdering someone. But, those who were rescued, including the ships’ officers, never had charges pressed against them, as long as they assured the courts that a lottery had been held to determine who would die for the sake of the larger group
The classic example being: if you were in a plane crash would you eat the dead if it meant you could live?
Everyone’s answer is yes if they’re honest and self-aware.
When the axe is to the grindstone, your “fairweather friends” will leave. Humans doling out charity means nothing when they aren’t hard up themselves. If they can afford to give, what is the value? It becomes another trinket and status signalling shows us this, a vapid ploy from arrogance. This is a part of the Bible people misinterpret, it recognised this biological reality.
The people who eschew children would generally make bad parents (no instinct for example) and they choose to spend those resources on themselves, the ultimate in short-sightedness as children are the original pension (they look after you when you can’t work, maybe you babysit the grandchildren, a model older than the State and found in other primates). As it is, since the Sexual Revolution, pro-feminist anti-natal generations have encouraged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_trap and have only themselves to blame when there aren’t enough tax-paying kiddies to pay their Social Security and other pie-in-the-sky social projects. (Boomers: You failed as humans, you failed to have enough kids to carry things on. It’s basic and you failed. Nothing else matters if there’s nobody to hand the baton to before you die.)
Corporal punishment used to root out the liars and the other genetic deformities (mental illness, serial killers, rapists etc). http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/politically-incorrect-paper-of-the-day-death-penalty-eugenics.html
If evolution was in effect, it would have been impossible for the “veneer” of civilization to develop.
Civilization developed from pockets of successful tribes, we know it’s possible because we’re here, doofus. Humans are social animals, and one theory of intelligence is that it developed to enhance our ability to lie. Deception keeps civilized society afloat (white lies).
There is no veneer specifically made for humans.
Humans have a thick cerebral cortex. Birds? Not so much.
The stories of man can’t help but include a puppet master that is controlling all our behavior. Before it was god, now it’s genes.
Roosh: People who believe in evolution victim-blame the organism when it acts outside the confines of evolution.
It’s almost like there’s a part of the brain recently-evolved which can suppress our baser instincts
The brain’s prefrontal cortex is thought to be the seat of cognitive control, working as a kind of filter that keeps irrelevant thoughts, perceptions and memories from interfering with a task at hand. Now, researchers have shown that inhibiting this filter can boost performance for tasks in which unfiltered, creative thoughts present an advantage.
Any concept based in evolution is unfalsifiable if you demand a fucking time machine before you believe anything. Good methodology in evopsych rules this out.
“Evolutionary psychology” is an approach and a set of theories, not a single hypothesis, so no single experiment can falsify it, just as no single experiment can falsify the theory of evolution or the connectionist (neural network) approach to cognition. But particular hypotheses can be individually tested, such as the ones on the relation of symmetry to beauty or the relation of logical cognition to social contracts, and tests of these are the day-to-day activity of evolutionary psychology. Journals such as Evolution and Human Behavior are not filled with speculative articles; they contain experiments, survey data, meta-analyses, and so on, hashing out particular hypotheses. And as I mentioned above, over the long run the approach called evolutionary psychology could be found unhelpful if all of its specific hypotheses are individually falsified.
They aren’t. They’re fodder for other subjects like genetics and neurology.
Evolution is an ongoing process. http://www.livescience.com/45685-human-evolution-not-over.html
Roosh has bought into the neolib frame that they are the end and future of the world.
Disappointing from a redpill. He’s trying to post-hoc rationalize his overt fertility clock.
Yes, you wasted years of your life running after skanks and no decent wife material would touch you with a bargepole. You made that choice and must live with it (player burnout). You sneered at beta males off having kids. That door is probably closed to you now, in triple digits. #RedpillRegret