Estrogen and lifelong brain health, testosterone fraud

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109339

Estrogen facilitates higher cognitive functions by exerting effects on brain regions such as the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Estrogen induces spinogenesis and synaptogenesis in these two brain regions and also initiates a complex set of signal transduction pathways via estrogen receptors (ERs). Along with the classical genomic effects mediated by activation of ER α and ER β, there are membrane-bound ER α, ER β, and G protein-coupled estrogen receptor 1 (GPER1) that can mediate rapid nongenomic effects. All key ERs present throughout the body are also present in synapses of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. This review summarizes estrogen actions in the brain from the standpoint of their effects on synapse structure and function, noting also the synergistic role of progesterone. We first begin with a review of ER subtypes in the brain and how their abundance and distributions are altered with aging and estrogen loss (e.g., ovariectomy or menopause) in the rodent, monkey, and human brain. As there is much evidence that estrogen loss induced by menopause can exacerbate the effects of aging on cognitive functions, we then review the clinical trials of hormone replacement therapies and their effectiveness on cognitive symptoms experienced by women. Finally, we summarize studies carried out in nonhuman primate models of age- and menopause-related cognitive decline that are highly relevant for developing effective interventions for menopausal women. Together, we highlight a new understanding of how estrogen affects higher cognitive functions and synaptic health that go well beyond its effects on reproduction.

Men dosing testosterone are called meatheads for a reason, they would logically throw off their other hormones and functionally retard themselves. Because this ONE time, you can trust the pill people. No IQ studies in testosterone supplementing men, I guess there’s a good reason. They just forgot?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4330791/

The results are, unfortunately, controversial and puzzling. Dosing, timing, even the application route seem to considerably affect the outcomes. 

You’re not trying to rig it at all, huh?

Reduction to dihydrotestosterone by 5-alpha reductase increases the androgen activity; conversion to estradiol by aromatase converts the androgen to estrogen activity.

Holy shit.

That’s hilarious.

Recently, the non-genomic effects of testosterone on behavior bypassing the nuclear receptors have attracted the interest of researchers. This review tries to summarize the current understanding of the complexity of the effects of testosterone on brain with special focus on their role in the known sex differences.

Not known.

a very important study in rhesus monkeys showed that pharmacological castration reduced and testosterone supplementation normalized anxiety levels (Suarez-Jimenez et al., ).

on the other hand, in both men and women, testosterone supplementation leads to improvement of depressive symptoms (Pope et al., ; Miller et al., ). However, not all interventional studies confirmed the anti-depressant effect of testosterone. At least in one published randomized controlled trial, the effects of testosterone were comparable to placebo effects (Seidman et al., ). Similarly, not all observational studies show a consistent picture. At least in one small study, depressive women had higher testosterone (Weber et al., ).

Another experiment on intact rats revealed that the effect of testosterone on depression is dose-dependent (Buddenberg et al., ).

Over the counter won’t work.

During the productive ages and even in early adulthood, men generally outperform women in spatial abilities (Linn and Petersen, )

Even for a few years you’re in college? Is that it?

Spatial thing is probably due to error, thus would be discounted under a valid method.

Error rate as well as the reaction time negatively correlated with testosterone (Hooven et al., ).

In another study, actual testosterone was not associated with spatial abilities, but prenatal testosterone correlated positively with spatial abilities in women (Kempel et al., ).

Congratulations, you’re on the female level. Apply your non-toxic internet cream.

In line with these findings is the lack of an association between actual salivary testosterone levels and mental rotation in men and women (Puts et al., ).

Actual science, no replication issue.

However, in a large observational study analyzing spatial abilities in adult men from various age categories, low testosterone was associated with better spatial visualization (Yonker et al., ).

Actual science, no replication issue.

Plus multiple ages in ADULT men, important.

Good work.

In a very interesting study, it was found that in men, the pubertal concentrations of testosterone are negatively associated with mental rotation in the adulthood (Vuoksimaa et al., ). In the same paper, the comparison of twins is reported. The twin with higher testosterone scored worse in the mental rotation tests. The results are contradictory, but may depend on the test used for the assessment of spatial abilities.

Counting fluke correct answers and not errors to force a finding is scientism. Bad method.

When virtual Morris water maze was used, a positive correlation between testosterone and spatial navigation was found in women, but not in men (Burkitt et al., ). The size of the corpus callosum seems to add complexity in the relationship between spatial abilities and testosterone (Karadi et al., ). This might be one of the causes for negative findings in studies where some of the determinants are missing (Kubranska et al., ). Another cause is likely the selection of the tested population. In gifted children, a negative correlation between salivary testosterone and spatial abilities was found (Ostatnikova et al., ).

FFS.

Negative findings are real science.

And that’s important.

In Chinese men, the accuracy in mental rotation tests was comparable to Americans, but the reaction times were longer indicating that cultural differences could add to the variability of published results (Yang et al., ).

No they didn’t rush the test out of boredom. Lower error rate, I’d bet.

Last but not least, genetic factors likely modulate the effect of testosterone. We have previously shown that at least in gifted boys, genetic polymorphisms influencing testosterone metabolism affect also its relationship to mental rotation (Celec et al., ). Especially, the CAG short tandem repeat in the exon 1 of the androgen receptor gene seems to be important for the action of testosterone and its metabolites (Nowak et al., ). Despite all complexity, the current picture indicates that the association between testosterone and spatial abilities is curvilinear and sex-dependent.

aka more is NOT better and it’s genetic, morons

In women higher testosterone is associated with better mental rotation, in men lower testosterone is associated with better spatial abilities. This seems to be true both for actual testosterone (Moffat and Hampson, ) and for prenatal testosterone (Grimshaw et al., ). Supplementation of testosterone in older men results in improvement of spatial abilities, but it is accompanied with changes in estradiol metabolism and it is likely that this interferes with modifications of spatial abilities (Janowsky et al., ).

They only studied spatial, not global, I checked.

Even in rats, testosterone administration affects the strategy of the animals in spatial tasks (Spritzer et al., ). However, the interaction between testosterone and mental rotation tests is bidirectional. It has been shown that mental rotation testing affects testosterone, at least in women (Durdiakova et al., ).

Doing smart things causes the brain to…. adapt? Really?

Does our pulse increase when we run? Some Sherlock Holmes do a fucking study.

MRI

Moreover, participants with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome presented with female-like neural activation pattern in the parietal lobe, indicating that gonadal hormone exposure rather than genetic sex itself plays role in brain functions (Van Hemmen et al., ).

Supplementing won’t work, you’re worse than the trannies. They don’t claim brain benefits.

The menstrual cycle and thus the involvement of sex hormones, including testosterone, in spatial abilities was further confirmed by Pletzer et al. In their study, error rates linked with deactivation of inferior parietal lobes and prefrontal lobes were higher during luteal phase for verbal tasks, while in the follicular phase, spatial abilities in females were confirmed (Pletzer et al., ).

One of the major factors that might explain the differences between the results of various studies is the variability of the examined populations. As mentioned above, the cultural differences, sex and age have all been shown to impact the physiological effects of testosterone. 

Duh.

Standardization in this area would surely improve our understanding of the neuroendocrinology of testosterone. More systematic research using the whole spectrum of available tools and looking at the various physiological aspects is needed. However, to be able to publish such research, journals should accept manuscripts based on the design and not on the results. Otherwise, the publication bias that is obvious in the so far published literature will continue to be a big issue. Many researchers in this field complain about negative results that are very difficult to publish in the relevant journals. The number of such unpublished observations and experiments is unknown. But based on our humble experience, the negative results will probably be more common than the published positive ones. And if the contradictory published findings are added, the picture gets even more confusing. Large systematic research projects with more cooperation between the most productive research teams is definitely needed.

You can’t because the low IQ men will complain if you publish negative findings.

e.g.

https://ohsu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/testosterone-influences-spatial-cognition-in-older-men-2

Testosterone plays a role in the organization of behavior during development. The authors examined whether testosterone could play a maintenance role in behavior as well. In a double-blind manner, verbal and visual memory, spatial cognition, motor speed, cognitive flexibility, and mood in a group of healthy older men who were supplemented for 3 months with testosterone were assessed. The increase in testosterone levels to 150% of baseline levels resulted in a significant enhancement of spatial cognition, but no change in any other cognitive domain was found.

You’ll be slightly more able to parallel park. Like when you were young.

Louder for the slow:

no change in any other

cognitive domain was found

NO IMPROVEMENT IN MEMORY

NO IMPROVEMENT IN MOTOR SPEED

NO IMPROVEMENT IN COGNITIVE FLEXIBILITY

NO IMPROVEMENT IN MOOD.

Did I stutter?

Testosterone supplementation influenced the endogenous production of estradiol, and estradiol was found to have an inverse relationship to spatial cognitive performance. These results suggest that testosterone supplementation can modify spatial cognition in older men; however, it is likely that this occurs through testosterone’s influence on estrogen.

I’m sure the health effects will be golden.

Feminine brain, youthful brain

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/womens-metabolic-brain-age-around-three-years-younger-mens-180971425/

Predictable.

“New research suggests that women’s brains stay energized well into old age, making their brains appear about three years younger than men’s of the same chronological age.”

Given

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/estrogen-boosts-brainpower-actually/

Linked in first:

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/29/1815917116

Men didn’t evolve to live long, so it isn’t so much remarkable that women live longer with healthier brains but men,  to be competitive with other men in youth and war, age terribly simply because so few would survive there’s no evolutionary pressure.

Some tough choices ahead for the cooties crowd.

Stick to imaginary phantasms of 20th century masculine superiority solely intended to run up credit debt or actually be healthier.

Here comes the academese:

“Researchers remain uncertain why such metabolic differences exist”

EVOLUTION.

“It’s not that women’s brains seem to age slower than men’s,”

Literally is.
Watch the twist.

“Rather, it seems that women’s brains start off at a younger age when they reach adulthood, and they keep that throughout the remainder of their adulthood, basically buying them a few extra years.”

Not how it works. At all.

It’s like saying you start a race at the finish line, words have meanings.

If they’ve reached adulthood, they’ve reached adulthood. You can’t change the meaning to be quantum. Women mature faster (partially from earlier puberty and slower, longer sum development time because of that) and go on to metabolically age better because testosterone is known to burn out the system.

Gradual puberty + lower T = good for long-term brain health.

aka Not women’s fault. Help your fellow men. Maybe that explains why celibates like Tesla (who, let’s face it, probably didn’t masturbate), who kept their T-levels low as a result, lived longer and stayed lucid. Maybe that’s why monks live longer too, staying sharp. Male chastity has observable benefits.

The autobiographies of genius seem to evidence longer average puberty, too. The sensitive kid who’s a later bloomer?

The Victorians called masturbation self-abuse because the compulsion/addiction would tend to be co-morbid with other mental problems, including depression. How many porn addicts are depressed?

And what do they do to self-soothe because (someone) tells them it’s unanimously ‘good for you’?

Even nuns tend to live longer which does point to lower testosterone being a pre-requisite for a long life, neatly explaining why male levels gradually lower. It isn’t like evolution is picking on men. Aggressive animals have shorter lifespans across species. This is the price of being the protector/provider sex.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/men-too-much-testosterone-linked-to-shorter-lifespan-112213

“Overall, men with circulating testosterone levels between 9.8 to 15.8 nmol/L range tended to live the longest.”

Men are entitled to know what their healthy levels should be, study them!

Men age faster cognitively, he’s like a magician trying to switch your attention onto women when there’s a medical problem with men.
Assuming they want to live long and prosper.

Like, sorry, if that’s a sexist assumption.

“Previous studies have found that aging women often exhibit stronger reasoning, memory and problem-solving skills than males of the same age. But it’s unclear whether this trend is related specifically to metabolism or to a different aspect of brain function.”

Hormonal interaction.

“This might mean women are a little bit more resilient to certain aspects of brain aging in general, but it could also introduce certain vulnerabilities,”

Lying liar. Not even one example? How can you try to spin a youthful brain as a bad thing?

Women aren’t so much MORE resilient (although oestrogen helps) but men are MORE fragile.

HELP THEM.

“Having a younger brain for longer could make the brain more vulnerable to certain things as well.”

Still no mention of men? This isn’t a woman’s issue, there’s nothing new here as stated, women already perform better as a known overall finding*, he totally ignores what men need because it involves admitting they aren’t the best at something….

These arrogant men are sex traitors. Their ego won’t let them admit men need help. So have fun with higher neurodegeneration risk because one guy won’t admit he’s not #1 at everything.

Men are not the control group, it’s the mean between both groups.

Basic category error and erroneous maths.

Hubris is a deadly sin. Treating male ill-health like it’s normal will literally kill men.

OT but relevant:

If we took men as the control, the shorter male lifespan is not only normal but hinted at being desirable, you don’t want to change the norm, with women being unusually longer-lived (greater distance from norm). Actually, the average is between the groups, again. The difference from the norm is smaller, easier to broach and bring those below it up to speed.

*Because unlike IQ studies, they can’t conveniently ‘exclude’ the left-side of the male bell curve to skew their findings dishonestly. This happens after they sample from middle-class academia pupils largely from suburban populations, a huge bias/filter itself.

Sure, throw other men under the bus and blame women for biology. Sexism both ways!

Reminder:

Right-wingers are different

It’s that time of year for a study-dump. Read until the end.

Better-looking (on AVERAGE):
https://sputniknews.com/viral/201801311061239797-physically-attractive-people-right-wing/

“Good-looking individuals are more likely to have right-wing political views than less physically attractive people, according to a university study.
The authors of the report, Rolfe D. Peterson from the US Susquehanna University and Carl L. Palmer from the Illinois State University, examined the connection between physical attractiveness and political beliefs, applying multiple surveys measuring people’s attractiveness.
“More attractive individuals are more politically efficacious than their peers and more likely to identify as conservative and Republican than less physically attractive citizens of comparable demographic backgrounds,” the report read.”

Comparable demographic background, an important control.

Better-looking again:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/effects-of-physical-attractiveness-on-political-beliefs/D5214D0CAE37EE5947B7BF29762547EE
PDF at: https://about.illinoisstate.edu/clpalme/Documents/Peterson%20Palmer%20The%20Effects%20of%20Physical%20Attractiveness%20on%20Political%20Attitudes.pdf

“Controlling for socioeconomic status, we find that more attractive individuals are more likely to report higher levels of political efficacy, identify as conservative, and identify as Republican.”

SES control is important.

Better-looking:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272716302201

“Politicians on the right look more beautiful in Europe, the U.S. and Australia.”

How to tell May isn’t really right-wing.

They should also study disease load (emphasizing STDs, which do affect appearance) compared to partisanship.

Support meritocracy, oppose the cult of equalism:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597814000223

“Higher self-perceived attractiveness (SPA) increased support for inequality.”

Self-perceived, relative.

Have a ‘look’:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886916312028

“The political sympathies of scholars can be accurately assessed from photographs.”
“In contrast to politicians, Right-leaning scholars were not more attractive.”

The scholars haven’t hired image consultants.

What, do you think a man buys an expensive suit just for the suit?

“Right-leaning scholars were better groomed.
Controlling for grooming, Left-leaning scholars were more attractive”

This is supposed to be looking at genetic attractiveness, true attractiveness, not clothing/haircare/make-up?
Okay, I’ll let them have that one. They’re better at faking it, a trait of narcissism.

Less likely to cheat when expected to cooperate:
https://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/socialists-are-cheaters-says-new-study

Neurologically different:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/

“Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults”
We found that greater liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate cortex, whereas greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”

So they’re more gender neutral in the brain?
https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20050121/intelligence-may-be-gray-white-matter#1
Because the same IQ can still be produced by structural differences between the sexes.

“Researchers found major differences in the amount of gray and white matter in the brains of men and women of the same intelligence, suggesting that men and women may derive their intelligence in different ways.”

“”These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior,” says researcher Richard Haier, professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine, in a news release. “In addition, by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive impairment diseases in the brain”

Again, the same IQ score.

SAME.

Man Card isn’t a MENSA card, accomplish something.

Sexual dimorphism didn’t stop at the neck.

But white matter is generally more important for HIGH IQ:
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/412678/brain-images-reveal-the-secret-to-higher-iq/
White matter could only be imaged recently.

“They found a strong correlation between the integrity of the white matter and performance on a standard IQ test.”

Although grey matter can matter too, white matter cannot be denied EITHER:
https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/17/9/2163/272753

Positive relationships were found between FSIQ and intracranial gray and white matter but not cerebrospinal fluid volumes. Significant associations with cortical thickness were evident bilaterally in prefrontal (Brodmann’s areas [BAs] 10/11, 47)

IQ so real you can scan someone’s brain, almost.

and posterior temporal cortices (BA 36/37) and proximal regions.

Sex influenced regional relationships;

Before any sexist bitch goes to twist this, different does not mean inferior. This is a study of intelligence, NOT stupidity.

You can’t prove a negative and individuals are not groups?

The obvious pointed out? Okay, let’s continue.

women showed correlations in prefrontal and temporal association cortices, whereas men exhibited correlations primarily in temporal–occipital association cortices.

K.

An idiot reading that would assume women are smarter, prefrontal doesn’t always mean smarter, necessarily, it’s just a group-level skew of structural difference. However, it does explain the higher female average.

Again, average.

In healthy adults,

important distinction, many brain studies are conducted on the undeveloped (teens) or pathologies

neither of which generalize to a HEALTHY, ADULT population

[sorry for the smart people tuning in, idiots twist what I type]

greater intelligence is associated with larger intracranial gray matter and to a lesser extent with white matter.

Plot twist: both matter.

Almost like we evolved.

Variations in prefrontal and posterior temporal cortical thickness are particularly linked with intellectual ability.

PF – registered as female strength, generally.
PT – registered as male and female strengths, generally.

This isn’t better/worse, it’s apples/oranges.

Even race overwhelms sex as a confound in IQ (so does class, education etc).

Sex moderates regional relationships that may index dimorphisms in cognitive abilities, overall processing strategies, or differences in structural organization.”

Trans. sex differences real yo.

Overall, key word.

Moderates, may index, differences. As in, these processes still occur but like a road trip, each take different paths different enough to map but not distinct enough to be unrecognizable.

Reminder

Estrogen, which men also NATURALLY produce, also boosts brainpower.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/estrogen-boosts-brainpower-actually/
Study here but my commentary explains it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4104582/
Whereas, everyone knows, testosterone (which women also produce) correlates to violence.
Nothing is all-good, all-bad in hormones.
“A moment of silence for all the women in history who married dumber men.”

They should study political economic wing and compare it to natural/un-supplemented hormone levels.
As in, a man who ‘needs’ steroids for vanity is less of a man.

They should also look at whether men going onto steroids drop in IQ score because it competes with their organic estrogen that makes them handle stressors better.

[Update: after checking, they did. Here it is.]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608708/

“long-term high-dose AAS exposure may cause cognitive deficits, notably in visuospatial memory.”

“These results remained stable in sensitivity analyses addressing potential confounding factors.”
The dumb jock stereotype is true!

WAIT.

It gets better!

Actually, it causes brain damage!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25986964
This is amazing!


Fake masculinity is really bad for men. You can’t cheat code becoming a man.

CONCLUSIONS:

Long-term AAS use is associated with right amygdala enlargement and reduced right amygdala rsFC with brain areas involved in cognitive control and spatial memory, which could contribute to the psychiatric effects and cognitive dysfunction associated with AAS use.

The MRS abnormalities we detected could reflect enhanced glutamate turnover and increased vulnerability to neurotoxic or neurodegenerative processes, which could contribute to AAS-associated cognitive dysfunction.

Now the right amygdala enlargement sounds like the natural conservative difference but understand it’s rooted, not in experience and genuine masculine virtue, but chemical dependence. Without the drugs, it’ll shrink right back and possibly atrophy.

This would be like congratulating a tall guy who took HGH for his superior genetics. No. It’s a superficial, fake result.

The cognitive control is impaired, that’s regression. The meat head stereotype is true, biologically. Useless.

I wonder how many male suicides were on steroids? Both groups happen to be middle-aged men in fear of the Wall.

Whatever the details, it makes them biologically vulnerable compared to their natural state, the opposite of fitness.

Ironically, they’re more vulnerable to microplastics and xenoestrogens. 

To further screw the point in… that brain region explicitly mentioned?

Right amygdala rsFC study:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3997418/
“In high HA scorers, we also observed stronger right amygdala rsFC with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC), which is implicated in negative affect regulation.”
It’s a girly brain thing to do with harm avoidance. [aka common sense]
“may represent a vulnerability marker for sensitivity to stress and anxiety (disorders).”
So the meat head with reduced volume (therefore not conservative*) is dumber, senses dulled by drugs and more likely to fail to get the brain signals to avoid trouble. Sounds like a future in handcuffs. They can’t perceive danger nor regulate negative emotions like anger or shame after rejection. Basically, they’re future chimp-outs waiting to happen, whatever their race**. Less able to CONTROL emotions, the broflakes.***

Hair-trigger temper calling out people for looking at him.

The guy who picks on people but never actually expects to get hit.

Will grab a woman and be shocked she slaps him. That’s the one.

*because, again “greater conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala.”

[as referenced above]

yet they have less?

So steroids make men more left wing. It isn’t the correct area and type to be considered otherwise.

ISN’T SCIENCE FUN, FELLOW RED PILLS.

ACCEPTING FINDINGS EVEN WHEN WE DON’T LIKE THEM, BRO.

My guess is it messes with their sexual reward system and produces impotence, porn addiction, dissatisfaction.

https://www.simplymedsonline.co.uk/blog/how-does-anabolic-steroid-use-affect-erectile-function/

Steroids do cause impotence (PC term is ED). Does it lower sperm count?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4744441/

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER.

“Anabolic steroids abuse and male infertility”

I am good at this.

“Infertility is defined by the WHO as the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse and a male factor is present in up to 50 % of all infertile couples. Several conditions may be related to male infertility.

Substance abuse, including AAS, is commonly associated to transient or persistent impairment on male reproductive function, through different pathways. Herein, a brief overview on AAS is offered. Steroids biochemistry, patterns of use, physiological and clinical issues are enlightened. A further review about fertility outcomes among male AAS abusers is also presented, including the classic reports on transient anabolic steroid-induced hypogonadism (ASIH), and the more recent experimental reports on structural and genetic sperm damage.”

hypogonadism = tiny balls

“In layman’s terms, it is sometimes called interrupted stage 1 puberty”

You’d have to be a moron already to think supplementing that shit makes you manly.

Nice muscles bro, shame you hit rewind on puberty!

They impair their body’s ability to naturally produce testosterone in future…. idiots.

Darwin Award category?

Big Pharma’s best customer? Like Israel’s Viagra use. Israel and America, top consumers.

https://www.haaretz.com/life/MAGAZINE-israeli-porn-is-booming-and-the-industry-insists-it-s-about-more-than-just-sex-1.5472336

(((Coincidence)))

**Logically we should restrict steroid use to lower the crime rate. We can’t have gorilla people chimping out and blaming da drugs.

***There are few things less masculine than a man who throws tantrums because Hulk RAGE entitlement. The mantrum has neurological correlates, as we can see.

As for the ACC lefty brain finding:

https://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog//know-your-brain-cingulate-cortex

..I didn’t forget.

“Through these connections, the ACC is thought to be involved with a number of functions related to emotion including the regulation of overall affect, assigning emotions to internal and external stimuli, and making vocalizations associated with the expression of states or desires.

No comment.

The ACC also seems to contribute to the regulation of autonomic and endocrine responses, pain perception, and the selection and initiation of motor movements. Additionally, there are other areas of the ACC that are involved in various aspects of cognition ranging from decision-making to the management of social behavior.”

And about sexual potency….

I order these for a reason.

Right-wingers more sexually satisfied:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8943/study-conservatives-have-better-sex-lives-liberals-amanda-prestigiacomo

“A new YouGov survey, which asked over 19,000 participants from the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark about both their politics and their sex lives, has found conservatives to be happier in the bedroom than liberals, with those identifying as “very right-wing” found to be the happiest.”

So much for the benefits of slutting. Muh experience. Yes, experiencing a burning sensation.

If you want a better sex life, don’t be a manwhore.
Chastity is a virtue. Less stress when single, hot sex when married.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/02/right-wing-people-more-likely-to-be-happier-with-their-sex-lives/

Sluts reee.

I deserve an Ig Nobel for all this connection-making. It could save the West.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/baby-bust-fertility-is-declining-the-most-among-minority-women

While I’m putting out fires imagined by shrill men.

Click through.

BAFFLED, JENKINS!

Tall women live longer than short ones

https://www.upi.com/amp/Health_News/2019/01/22/Study-Body-size-may-influence-longevity-in-women-but-not-in-men/6731548193467/

And from what I know previously, short men tend to outlive very tall ones, unsure about medium to slightly tall height.

The thin finding is ‘duh’ but the height one is surprising.

I guess it’s genetic?

Maybe leg men know best.

I’d like to see a more detailed study comparing within and between race but I won’t hold my breath.

Protective disgust

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-filthy-firstthe-common-disgust-disease.html
Shaming someone for being evolved is really counter-intuitive.

“By analysing participants’ responses, researchers were able to identify the six common categories of disgust, which each relate to regularly occurring types of infectious disease threat in our ancestral past. Historically for example, eating rotting food could have led to diseases like cholera, close contact with unhygienic people could have transmitted leprosy, promiscuous sexual practices could have put an individual at risk of syphilis and contact with open wounds could have led to the plague or smallpox infection.”

Syphilis was germ warfare from American Indians, actually. Modern.
And basically all infectious diseases qualify as STDs. Depending how they’re caught.

“The results confirm the ‘parasite avoidance theory‘, in which disgust evolved in animals, encouraging them to adopt behaviours to reduce the risk of infection. This behaviour is replicated in humans where disgust signals us to act in specific ways, which minimise the risk of catching diseases.”

Slut shaming is just civilized. It’s the reason the disgust-numb largely died out. Dead amygdala, dead host. e.g.
https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/130/7/1715/327525
“However, very much unexpected was the disproportionate deficit in recognizing disgust, which was significantly larger than the deficit observed for recognition of fear.”

Disgust is a survival instinct, not to have it is biologically wrong. It’s as wrong as a psychopath with no conscience (they also feel no disgust at violent or diseased stimuli, this is why they’re promiscuous). Something is missing.

A grid-down would be funny because all the rich sluts on anti-virals would look like something from a zombie movie. STDs mutilate the appearance and without modern meds suppressing it, it would ruin the face.

Hell, a weakened immunity from a minor blackout would cause a vulnerability in the immune system to allow any former diseases to seize control (old age also does this). Sluts never survive dangerous turns of history for that reason, picked off by the wages of sin. People have forgotten, not really informed by ‘educators’. Brummel died in an asylum, a disgrace.

“Interestingly, the survey results showed that there were gender differences in reactions to the disgusting scenarios that were presented, with women rating every category more disgusting than men. This is consistent with the fact that men are known to indulge in riskier behaviour than women, on average. The categories women in the study found most disgusting were risky sexual behaviour and animals carrying disease.”

Science confirms what all women knew – male sluts are more disgusting than female sluts.

Women need to be discerning as a sex, this isn’t surprising. Birth defects, miscarriage and infertility aren’t fun.

This corresponds to an evolutionary view of the emotions which are for action; emotions make us do things that put us in a better state with respect to our survival and reproduction.”

We spot them.

And we shun them.

K-select women especially.

“Researchers say the findings could be used to develop instruments for measuring disgust, to investigate how disgust might vary across cultures and to understand how moral disgust, for example, relates to disease disgust.”

It’s been done.

Relevant, sexual disgust at stupidity.

https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/men-who-have-tattoos-think-it-impresses-women-study-says-it-doesnt/

Low IQ markers are repulsive, really?

Women answer politely to conform about attractiveness, hook them up to lie detectors and they’d say they hate tattoos.

I’ll post it separately.

Link between mental health and ….bad health

The types of “health” are related, really? Shook over here.

If only there were a physical connection we could see like some kind of fleshy vehicle of testable units, a body of some description. No, we’re floating blobs of consciousness in a cloud of feels, aren’t we?

Mutation (genetic) load is true, at least somewhat but who dares to directly study it? Instead we are left with related variables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048500/

The lifespan of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter compared to the general population. This excess mortality is mainly due to physical illness. We report prevalence rates of different physical illnesses as well as important individual lifestyle choices, side effects of psychotropic treatment and disparities in health care access, utilization and provision that contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.”

Detailed.

“Nutritional and metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, viral diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy complications, stomatognathic diseases, and possibly obesity-related cancers are, compared to the general population, more prevalent among people with SMI.”

People with mental problems can’t take care of themselves, really?

Not to be harsh but, is this news?
I searched, not one mention of fitness.

Ability to reproduce (here it would be impotence for age in the male) and carry (childbearing without issue for age, the female) is a significant component of it (organism fitness, for the nerds at home).

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html

“struggle for existence”, he repeated in description
the vindicated theme for this post

“Besides modifiable lifestyle factors and side effects of psychotropic medications, access to and quality of health care remains to be improved for individuals with SMI.”

#sigh

Enough of that for now.

And they’re exponentially more expensive.
https://www.healthcatalyst.com/understanding-risk-stratification-comorbidities/
I dislike this fact but…. the information is out there. We can’t help by lying.

There isn’t just one thing causing the “mental” disease and another separate thing causing the “bodily” disease.
It’s all genetic! At least, moderately genetic.
And remember I said exponential risk of suck?

“Charlson Comorbidity Measure: The Charlson model predicts the risk of one-year mortality for patients with a range of comorbid illnesses. Based on administrative data, the model uses the presence/absence of 17 comorbidity definitions and assigns patients a score from one to 20, with 20 being the more complex patients with multiple comorbid conditions. It is effective for predicting future poor outcomes. This method is explained in further detail below”

You cannot fight math. You will lose.

#struggle4life

poor outcomes = death, more or less

This is tough to read like the IQ link. I wouldn’t blame you skipping all this. You cannot unsee it.

“One thing all of these models have in common is that they are based, in some degree, on comorbidity. Understanding comorbid conditions is a critical aspect of population health management because comorbidities are known to significantly increase risk and cost. In fact, a study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports that care for patients with comorbid chronic conditions costs up to seven times as much as care for those with only one chronic condition.”

Twice the condition can be seven times the cost. I’ll leave you to think about that.
Is this systemic injustice?
No!
The body is complex, various conditions interact with one another. Not killing the patient by accident due to Condition B to treat Condition A needs time and more research and more money!

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html

“Expenditures and gaps in health care delivery are not evenly distributed across the population, however. To improve health care quality and reduce costs, policy-makers must focus on particular subgroups who are at greatest risk. Persons with mental health and medical comorbidities represent just such a population.”
“The pathways causing comorbidity of mental and medical disorders are complex and bidirectional.

What I said.

Medical disorders may lead to mental disorders, mental conditions may place a person at risk for certain medical disorders, and mental and medical disorders may share risk factors

Yup.

It’s all healthcare, people!

ALL OF IT.

For instance, low IQ can also ’cause’ someone to more likely get heart disease.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heart-intelligence/low-intelligence-among-top-heart-health-risks-study-idUSTRE61903L20100210

Here’s a clunker of a line.

“When mental and medical conditions co-occur, the combination is associated with elevated symptom burden, functional impairment, decreased length and quality of life, and increased health care costs.”

This upsets me. Just world is a fallacy.

Bear in mind the IQ/depression link in the last post:

“At the same time, major depression is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.”

If the economy is making people of a certain IQ band effectively useless, they’re going to be depressed.
Especially if “their” jobs owed by their home country are outsourced to visa people.

“Exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as trauma, abuse, and chronic stress are all associated with both mental and medical disorders, and responsible for much of the high rates of comorbidity, burden of illness, and premature death associated with chronic illness.”

It’s sad. It’s sad to read about. That is a harrowing existence.

But stress shouldn’t be lumped in with trauma and abuse.

“Many of the most common treatments for diseases may actually worsen the comorbid condition.”

You tell me where the solution is because I don’t see it.

A society of hospital patients (don’t forget aging demographics).

Over to Oz.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-men
Mental disorders were more common among people with chronic physical conditions (28.0%) when compared to people who did not have a chronic physical condition (17.6%).
The data is usually out there. Tough to find but present.

Another!
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh40/109-117.pdf

This article briefly reviews the associations
among alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dysregulation of the brain’s and
body’s stress system (i.e., the limbic–hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenal axis) might serve as a common mechanistic
link to explain some of the relationships among these
frequently comorbid conditions. Finally, the article examines
the role of sex differences in stress circuitry. These differences
may explain why men and women differ in their risk for
developing comorbid alcoholism and stress ­related disorders.”

Addictions play into it too, because of course they do.

And you can’t really blame sexism for an individual’s brain circuitry.

Let’s look at one more substance and how it alters development (i.e. when children/teens/young adults use it).

An interaction of marijuana and low IQ they won’t study so here’s something odd.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/correlation/2017-aas.pdf
“Psychotic patients who used cannabis frequently before illness onset have higher genetic predisposition to schizophrenia than those who did not”
“Our study supports an association between high SZ-PGRS and frequent cannabis use before illness onset
in psychosis continuum disorders.”

Before someone points to this classic arse-covering exercise,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens
I linked because you wanted info on school shooters and pot use is a major factor.
Naturally the drug use wouldn’t change IQ because the IQ is the causative factor in having a childhood addiction problem.
However the study compares ongoing users to abstaining, not ongoing addicts to a twin who never did the stuff, there is no control group, making this link pointless so don’t try to send me it. I’ve seen it.

When the brain is developing, there is a permanent loss of functioning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/10/new-study-shows-smoking-pot-permanently-lowers-iq/

And abnormal function. Like with any drug to any developing organ.

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

For the ‘self-medication’ lie:
“The use of marijuana did not correct the brain function deficits of depression, and in some regions made them worse.”

“Of additional interest, those participants who used marijuana from a young age had highly abnormal brain function in areas related to visuo-spatial processing, memory, self-referential activity and reward processing.”
No, they cannot perceive themselves accurately.

This whole drug study in children (<25) thing is like breaking someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat and wondering why they can’t sprint. You wouldn’t give them alcohol and tobacco, why give them anything else that’s an addictive drug and think it’s fine? Why not nice and “natural” opioids next?

[ I googled this as a joke and fuck you, America.
nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html
axialhealthcare.com/opioid-use-safety-children/
druggy parent trash pushing it on the kids? That’s low. ]

Why not the ankles too? Why not?

I firmly believe some of these kids have the misfortune that their parents are their worst enemy in life.

Anyway.

“The study found that early marijuana use was also associated with lower IQ scores.”

Associated. Which first? The lower IQ or child drug abuse?

“With past research suggesting a genetic role between marijuana use and depression, Dr. Osuch and her collaborators at Western University’s Robarts Research Institute also conducted genetic testing on participants. They discovered that a certain genetic variation of the gene that produces Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) was found in greater proportion in youth who used marijuana from an early age. BDNF is involved in brain development and memory, among other processes.

Could be a race-based finding, unclear.

“This is a novel finding that suggests this genetic variation may predispose youth to early marijuana use,” said Dr. Osuch.”

So how many of you heard about it in the MSM?

Funny how they trust none of the political news but all the scientism rationalizing living like a CA Democrat member.

It doesn’t have to be good universally for you to do it, like smoking tobacco, just admit it can be bad for society and move on. Denial of biology makes it more annoying and a full ban more likely. Shaming normal people for being “squares” is what all druggies do including alcoholics.

Why link that here?

What would drug use increase, in the organism? Mutation rate. The genetic load (whatever it was) becomes heavier. So to do that before reproducing, knowing the adverse effects, the child/ren will be worse off as well. So much for “doing no harm” and “victimless crime”. Eventually parents will be sued by their children for bad lifestyle habits that damaged their personal genome (and their children’s genome etc). It’s coming.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/15/lawyers_unaware_children_can_sue_parents_for_support.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/adult-children-sue-mom-bad-parent/story?id=14407409

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-haired-teen-sues-his-parents-for-2m-for-being-born-ginger/

I warned you, cannot unsee it.

Video: It isn’t sexism, it’s evolution

If you hate being a man so much, get a sex change (if you think it’s so easy). [1]

Lindybeige:

“How do you get a man to do a dangerous job?”

“Easy! Tell ’em it’s manly.”

[2]

I’ll spend the rest of my life recovering from that secondhand burn.

1 It’s like the guys who say being a single mother or housewife is easy…. then be the parent at home. You can do that but you won’t because you know you’re lying. Or become a nanny if kids are so easy to take care of “properly” and women exploit the system for easy money. Anything with a lot of time and money you’d be jumping to do and you don’t.

2 Patriarchy manipulates more men than Satan. March off to war and abandon your family for the glories of trenchfoot because Churchill’s banker friends wanted to make more money off your bullet-ridden corpse! Even now “manly” is how America sells its servitude – even to women!

Progress!

The people who’d oppose the title are essentially schizo on evolution, they’re tradlarping: “I’m redpill and there are sex differences but if women don’t act exactly like a man and do their ‘fair share’ [3] they hate men….  [4] except when they outdo men at ‘male things’, those bitches.” They’re borderline cases. They’re hopeless.

They think being traditional is easier than being modern. [5] I’ll wait here while the real trad people laugh at that.

It’s very simple logic e.g.

If women are helpless in a fight (inc. a rapist), they can’t be drafted.

Fact, policy consequence. There’s a specific context and application.

Wanting a taller, stronger male to lift furniture is not sexist, it’s prudence.

And you can always say no.

These guys act like any time a woman asks something they must acquiesce.

No. Grow up. Learn to politely say no.

3 Socialists. Lazy goddamned socialists.

4 A person who hated men wouldn’t care if you knew that fact so…. what? What is this as a train of thought? Projection?

Actual misandrists go on marches and stuff, they’re very open about it. Disagreeing with a man or refusing to put up with his effeminate impossible bullshit is not sexism. It isn’t about your sex, it’s your shitty personality, and if you’re going to blame your entire sex for this, who really hates men?

(it’s projection, said so)

And y u never mention race or class?

Classically, and presently, bigger struggles within the male world.
Ah, but picking on women has no consequences, they’re just cowards.

Nagging turns a woman’s nether regions into the Sahara.
Crying about things is what babies do. Women are not sexually attracted to it.

5 Fake K-types are just too lazy to embrace r-selection so they wanna leech off the juiciest steak of self-sufficient people by throwing around words like Community and Masculinity. Instead of having a family of their own and earning their own keep.

You know, like a real man.

As soon as it gets a little bit difficult, they’ll run away.

That’s why no woman wants them too. They’re dead weights.

Women are the picky sex in this species and any man who complains about this is just further advertising why she was correct.

It sounds like this

Person A: you’re getting fat.

Person B: I can’t believe you just said that! [6] I’m down to fifty Oreos a day!

And if they thought that was actually a good point. They didn’t really listen and understand the interaction.

6 Another tell.

Women deal with problems by talking, a man who cannot listen is worthless.
We don’t mind dealing with normal men with indoor voices, the guy who won’t listen, all bitchy with rationalizations? That’s low IQ and everyone hates dealing with them, it isn’t that they’re men, it’s that they’re annoyingly stupid.

At least other men don’t have to put up with the sexual side of the low IQ men – but women do, and it’s the worst part of them. It’s more obnoxious than all the other parts put together.

Men don’t believe this unless they rarely see it e.g. walking up to a woman and trying to force a conversation when her man is standing right there. We fume too, on the inside. The modern lack of manners hurts men more. Because the stupid ones have no leash.

Women assume any man walking up to them is too stupid to actually hold a conversation, otherwise they’d meet you a normal way (not the ghetto trash method). The worst are when the woman understands his point better than he does i.e. she correctly anticipates a come-on and says she isn’t interested to spare his blushes then he misinterprets this kindness and tries to gaslight her into thinking it wasn’t that (nobody is fooled) and she must be vain (when he walked up to her based on looks).

If no one ever “gets you” become a goth, you’re not complicated, you’re dumb.

India and China must go to war because they killed their women. Don’t do it, America. The lazy guys were genetic dead-ends anyway, don’t listen to them. They want other mens’ lines to die out too with utter chaos and ruin so “if they can’t have it, no one else can”.

It’s sexism to expect women to act like men or vice versa, yes there are exceptions but generally.

Monogamous men disempower bad women because they can’t use their one biochemical psyops weapon – orgasms. SJWs fear good husbands.

So who does Patriarchy fear? The fornicators. They’re weakened physically and compromised in society.

What kind of “Revolution” happened in the 60s? Why? It weakened the men.  They wanted to party and have it all than found a family.

The men who complain about being “manipulated” by women are always sluts, aren’t they? It’s like the gambler who goes to casinos and wonders what happened. It’s almost like people with weak impulse control suffer consequences for it – and society is damaged too.

If they want equality of outcome, well, both sinners should be punished.

Idiots. They got what they wanted and still moan.

Same guys who complain birth rate – as bachelors.

First comes love, then comes _____….. 

Those “men” are quite simply, simple.

The answer was bitchy videos on Youtube about “Western” fertility, obviously. And of course they always fucked (they’re scared of the word “fucked”*) women on the Pill, obviously. [7] “Spermjacking” isn’t really a thing, you donate sperm, that’s a choice. Society is not responsible for where you stick it.

*banged, smashed, screwed, the tells of a Peter Pan manchild

they brag about being really bad in bed with violent metaphor

Patriarchy basically opposes the cult of individualism and the delusion that the damage of hedonism is contained to the person doing it. No, the wastrel abuses their family with their hedonism. They’re a bad son/brother/father/husband.

7 If they knew ANYTHING about the subject, they’d know it’s the economy. Men can’t afford to marry and support a housewife, financially.

Fertility rate is connected to GDP.

Do you see why Trump is so important?

Homework: so when I complain about national debt oppressing us, how many future children do you think it’s murdering?