The fake male co-founder

https://www.fastcompany.com/40456604/these-women-entrepreneurs-created-a-fake-male-cofounder-to-dodge-startup-sexism

That is one interesting social experiment.

To state the obvious.

Misogynistic men only trust other men with their money.

It’s wrong but they have every right, because it’s their money.

The Chinese rent white men for their privilege.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/29/china.rent.white.people/index.html

Studies have shown competence is assumed where it is undeserved.

Blame stock images IDK.

Such men consistently over-estimate their competence.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-28/confessions-of-a-confident-mediocre-man/8562708

Surely it’s the arrogance effect? In the modern world we call this vice a virtue.

“a natural tendency to overrate their past performance on maths tasks by 30 per cent”

It’s terrifying how many men rate themselves as good at maths and then I have to explain 12yo level shit.

This finding is old. There are also far more compulsive liars in the male group, which somewhat explains it. In their minimizing terms, this is bluffing, like lying on a CV (illegal).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

OLD.

These people are the reason we blind exams. These people.

Like Is she flirting? studies all over again. Men don’t really do meta-cognition, by comparison.

This is why we have all the psychometrics. Either you can do it or GTFO.

The masculine traits are the capitalist ones: taking risks, being rude or arrogant, stepping on others, ruthless ambition, Crusaderism, many that are probably antisocial if not tempered by other stuff.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12848221

“A meta-analysis of 45 studies of leadership styles showed that women tend to exhibit many of the character traits associated with effective leadership — such as effective communication, a tendency to empower subordinates, and creative problem solving — and are more likely to adopt effective leadership styles than men.”

They’re selecting the cocky guy who relies on underlings to do his work for him. No wonder so many companies are tanking. Everyone, male or female, hates them. They’re drains, they parasite off the productive. A minority in every group or company do the bulk of the work, remember.

The problem is seeing masculinity as successful without anything to back it up on the project.

We need to upgrade our primal brain that says this man is leading us into battle.

Another part of the problem is seeing everything as gendered.

So there’s no Scientists trying to make the world a better place. Yay!

There’s male scientists trying to make the world a better place.

….

OK, everyone else go home and fuck the cure for cancer?

Like, what do you hope to achieve here? Rah-rahing your pompoms for part of the group?

Why do they have to do that? Ruin everything?

Supposedly, accounting for this bias statistically (with mathematical models and quotas) makes companies more efficient and meritocratic.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/workplace-gender-quotas-incompetence-efficiency-business-organisations-london-school-economics-lse-a7797061.html
“Quotas can work to weed out incompetent men.”

Everyone should be overjoyed by that.

Less stupid people with power, who cares if they have a banana or fig down there?
You’d have to be really insecure to identify strongly with someone who shares a single pair of chromosomes.

HBR has noted incompetent men being promoted on the basis of bravado is an issue for companies.
https://hbr.org/2013/08/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men
Bravado and popularity over actual performance metrics.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/men-and-women-biased-about-studies-stem-gender-bias-opposite-directions/
“The new study’s authors reasoned that men especially might devalue the evidence because it threatens the legitimacy of their status in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Men might also be critical because of prior beliefs that gender bias is not a problem in STEM.”
But they’re proving any bias by believing that female competence is a fairytale.
Those women take exactly the same exams.
Oh, it hurts their ego? Broflakes.

“Men rated the research quality of the abstract less favorably than did women in both samples. This gender gap was especially large for STEM faculty, potentially suggesting that evidence of bias might threaten men in STEM seeking to retain their status.”
“When reading these results, a male scientist might think, “oh my gosh…if we’re going to fix this equality issue, that almost necessarily means that there’s going to be fewer opportunities for men,” said Ian Handley, lead author of the new PNAS paper and associate professor of psychology at Montana State. Handley suggested that discounting evidence more likely reflects a subtle, unconscious process than overt sexism.”
Read Freud, there’s no subtle.
They just lie about it.
The depressing thing is that STEM helps everyone and there’s literally a shortage of talent.
We can’t afford to lose any talent.
People who took it for the money though, can fuck right off.

“This mixed literature tempers the paper’s claims about strong gender bias. But obviously, the paper’s central goal was not to systematically review literature on gender bias, but rather to present studies of reactions to evidence of bias.”
“Based on the best current data, remaining challenges include sexual harassment, bias in teaching evaluations and science mentoring, and gender stereotypes about innate genius and creativity.”
That last one is part of the Genius Famine.

Women can’t be the ‘crazy’ sex and also suddenly the less creative one when studies show they’re linked.

“The new PNAS study shows that men, on average, are less likely to believe this evidence of gender bias where it exists. And that’s a concern, considering men are the current majority of STEM professors. But it’s also a concern if the evidence of gender bias is overhyped. Overhyped claims could make these fields unattractive to women or even make people less likely to believe evidence of bias when it does exist.”

Be honest in science, the musical.

Link: Inferiority: the opposite of genius

http://paulcooijmans.com/genius/inferior.html

I don’t expect those who pretend to care about the IQ dearth to read around.
I post these things for the intellectually honest.

Hating women

It may seem strange to include this specific form of hatred with the list, but a fact is that many inferiors have a deep hatred of women, which makes it a characteristic of inferiority.

If we’re examining personality traits of inferiors, it is completely valid as a behavioural marker.

Just as with geniuses, most inferiors are men. The ultimate in this are feats like the burning of widows, or demanding women to spend their lives indoors or walk six metres behind their husband, covered from head to toe with their genitals cut up beyond all repair.

In addition, rape is standard behaviour of inferiors, typically resulting in the conception of multiple children with many different women. Relevant in this respect is that imprisoned males in Western countries conceive more children than do males on average, mirroring the phenomenon that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies the males with the most offspring – as confirmed by modern D.N.A. studies – are those who have made the greatest number of kills in tribal warfare.

Uncivilized breeders who can’t cooperate to literally save their lives, sound like any type of selection we know?

Don’t hate me cos you ain’t me.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/11/07/estrogen-boosts-brainpower-actually/
“We feel more stress, but we cope better. This explains how we put up with stupid men.”

It’s useful to define a thing by NOT, in computing as in people.

It’s logical that if they didn’t hate, they couldn’t rape. It’s selected for, but let’s not go naturalistic fallacy and pretend a First World society can stand for it.

Intelligent people are capable of working with those they dislike without wanting to brain them and drag them back to the cave. Something about not being a monster.

The ‘trick’ to redpill is to accept things you don’t like because reality won’t change.

IQ results between the sexes – the problem

I never got around to explaining this scientifically.

TLDR this picture. Understand this picture and you’ve pretty much got the gist.


Aside from sampling bias that it’s mostly men taking the tests.
Ideally, there’d be a vast study controlling for factors of class, education, mental health, anything that affects IQ and THEN, from that data (cross-cultural obviously) a comparison between the sexes.
Historical comparisons don’t work because women couldn’t attend full schooling, and were legally blocked from college.
https://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measerr.php
Random error would be like what you had for breakfast that morning or a bird outside distracting you from the test. Those are confounds. Systemic error is the bias. Bias is a mathematical concept and it’s baked into the method design. That’s why me and everyone else who knows their stuff will read the methodology and critique that in light of the data results.
IQ also rejects many valuable parts of intelligence like grit or EQ (that women score well on), as well as the fact you can be taught it or improve your score, which flies in the face of the premise of IQ as a construct of ‘g’, as natural intellect. While very valuable and predictive of life outcomes, it is only a piece of paper and its greatest value is for academia.
The ‘Muh Male IQ’ crowd never suggest a corroborating test.

What confirmation bias?

“Finally, one of the best things you can do to deal with measurement errors, especially systematic errors, is to use multiple measures of the same construct. Especially if the different measures don’t share the same systematic errors, you will be able to triangulate across the multiple measures and get a more accurate sense of what’s going on.”

Those measures would include crime rates between the sexes, psychiatric suicidality and biological longevity.
On all those metrics, men lose. So much for ‘superior sex’ arguments.

Repost but good:
If you take the evolutionary biologist approach and control for the size of the body, women are actually more intelligent.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40999617_The_role_of_height_in_the_sex_difference_in_intelligence
If you look at what’s more valuable to the brain, it’s white matter. Women have greater wm volume.
The Gender War is SJW propaganda because it’s anti-natal.
http://thisiseuropa.net/overcome-men-vs-women-attitude/
If the men saying ‘no brother wars’ don’t cooperate with women and have no one to breed with, they might as well be Milo.
If men don’t want to cooperate with women, they’re not men. They’re boys rebelling against Mommy. This applies vice versa, there’s a serious issue with someone who can’t grow up and mature into their duties. That’s not to say every man must be drafted or every woman needs to breed, but the sexes must support one another’s efforts while respecting civil liberties because those liberties make civilization.
The sexes are different, neither is superior. We’re supposed to be dimorphic, not androgynous, holding one sex to the standard of another is silly. Limiting them to that standard is also backward. Men can go into the arts, women into the sciences, it doesn’t make them lesser men/women. A pair of twins, one male and one female, are more alike than they ever could be different. The sexes are more alike than the races and if you look at the antagonists on the Gender War, they’re doing it to avoid the topic of a Race War by open competition.

The common ‘difference’ found between the sexes is approximately 3-4 IQ points in the averages. That’s it. That’s also tiny and well within chance based on factors like the aforementioned sampling bias. They’re clutching at straws. The data from meta-analysis (not single studies, which mean nothing in social science) is abused in bad faith too. They use it to claim something no data has ever nor will ever show to avoid their Burden of Proof i.e. they claim women are stupid. If you look at the data on retardation, a totally different question from 100-point moving averages, it’s clearly men that take the gold, especially the ones who claim their own mother, by their own logic, is stupid. Yes. Too stupid to abort.

When it comes to geniuses, these guys are trying to claim they’re Einstein by association.
That is retarded. Claim to be Hercules at least, he was male too. Aim high in your delusion.
They tend to ignore the fact there are also female geniuses, historically and currently. This is too much for their tiny
downstairs brain.
I could apply the sampling bias of the high-IQ tests but it’s common sense at this point, I won’t insult you. If you look at the only use for high-IQ tests, it’s to show off. Men take more of those by default and the types of intelligence included in IQ have a heavy maths bias, which girls excel at before puberty hits us over the head (earlier than boys nowadays) and we lose ground forever since academics are competitive.
Then go on to look at the way and reason these high-IQ studies are conducted – by men in academia, for men in academia. As in, these dicks are testing themselves. I’m sure there’s no way that could possibly be dodgy. Men are over-represented in the STEM tenures of academia, this would suggest they do better in academia. But is someone who needs the state teat truly intelligent?
They never study private sector workers. There’s also a heavy class bias, upper-middle only. Again, is this externally valid?
Does it have external validity?
Look at the front page of Google for this topic.

This comes up. This level is the best they can do.
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/sexdifferences.aspx
“By just looking at those figures, it seems to corroborate the conventional wisdom that has been known for decades: the average IQs are about the same and males are a bit more variable.”
Remember variable in stats doesn’t mean wrong, necessarily.


A grand total of two points. Don’t build your spaceships to escape the cooties just yet.
At most, this biased page can find a single paper that claims what?
“In this paper, which looked at adult IQs, a five point higher IQ was found for males over females and the standard
deviations were found to be equal.”
Five. 5% as 5/100 average. 1/20. Mountains out of molehills.
But WAIT! There’s more!
This is intellectually dishonest. It misses out the basic reason for p-values – statistical significance.
Just because you have a number, doesn’t make it relevant.

http://psc.dss.ucdavis.edu/sommerb/sommerdemo/stat_inf/intro.htm

But girls can’t do maths, right?


Most IQxgender findings are ‘statistically insignificant’, literally. They rarely report this.

As in, they are not scientific and to claim their hypothesis as they claim them is also unscientific.
“Inferential statistics are used to make generalizations from a sample to a population.”
OK, what is the sig. value in psychology, since it’s IQ? Always .05 or 5%. P-hacking to scrape this level is common but results cannot be replicated (called the replicability crisis – or fraud if you’re normal).
“In the behavioral and social and sciences, a general pattern is to use either .05 or .01 as the cutoff. The one chosen is
called the level of significance. If the probability associated with an inferential statistic is equal to or less than .05,
then the result is said to be significant at the .05 level.”

1% is for medical disciplines like neuroscience. They don’t use it in studies for brain differences between the sexes because they can’t meet that standard. Dwell on this fact. They typically have to lower the standard of proof to publish.
Type 1 and 2 errors also come in but that’s why we have meta-analysis (that these so-called high-IQ twerps don’t use, single studies only).
The common anecdotal Muh MENSA is also disingenuous, since, aside from who takes the test (and results should be controlled for that, they aren’t because that reduces the male score) they don’t bother to find out that just because you qualify for MENSA, doesn’t mean you have to join. Mind-boggling, I know. Women don’t signal on this, we don’t go round citing an IQ number.
The iq page with only two studies (please) concludes “Male and female mean IQs are about equal below the age of 15” – so age is an unrecognised factor? Another confound! If it’s endogenous to sex i.e. nature, it would apply at all ages!
Look up as many bell curves as you can find.

Notice which is literally higher along the Y, by volume?
Now the typical ‘curve’ they use has super-old data, e.g.

Racially Scottish 11yos in the 1930s. Yes, that is totally relevant to the 21st century and all of time and culture. How will women ever recover?
It doesn’t control for race either, which would further splinter the results.
As a final note on this section, comparisons are silly because the data is normalized i.e. what happens when you grade on a curve.
The raw data is compressed to fit the Gaussian distribution and make 100 still mean 100.

Most of the Flynn effect is scoring modern test-takers too high and comparing them to old test-takers as if the tests were equally difficult. Neither do the tests really compare to one another, even their boundary labels differ. Anything outside the total bell is ~wrong~…

Look at enough curves and you become good at spotting this.

It’s deceitful to claim that just because two lines are not exactly overlapping, that the representative groups are totally distinct. A conflation, a non sequitur and false equivalence, logically.

This type of curve, very common among the intellectually dishonest, is the standard form of representing differences as a hypothetical example in textbooks. Note there is no legend, there is no X-Y bar and not even a title or a dataset given. It’s a hypothetical example to demonstrate statistical differences between demographics in a population. It isn’t serious, note the extreme gradient that no known dataset would imply.

To the men who claim Muh Superior Male IQ

Sorry, no, you can’t sit on your ass playing video games and watching porn and pretend to be better than us.
THAT is a real difference:

But men famously object to being judged off their height – oh, like IQ is nicer???
Looking at the age confound, various known metrics of intelligence (many not included in IQ) DO vary by life stage.

They never look at vice and virtue in reality. Men represent many of the worst attributes of humanity, along with the best, and I think we know which group outnumbers which.

Then again I would say that.

The atheist men linking this stuff never link to anything that makes them look bad.

You can also compare the metric of testosterone balance, 2D:4D, since they mistakenly attribute it to that hormone the ovaries also make (they don’t know this).

I should also point out that the further you go from average, the more impossible it is to measure accurately (so there are no negative IQs even though logically there should be, and the tests tend to peter out around 145-175, anything beyond 180 and especially 200 cannot be measured in IQ).

Immeasurable genius – because it isn’t genius. Those are polymaths and IQ is inapplicable as a norm test.
0.000000021% of the global population. Many people claim to be polymaths but cannot prove it with their actions. Even on current population numbers, it’s unlikely there is a single polymath living in the world today.
http://polymatharchives.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-inappropriately-excluded.html

7000000000*0.000000021  = 147, assuming all races have equal potential to polymathy, excluding class, education etc etc.

An increasing number of genes are shown to affect IQ and vary by race. I’ve yet to see ONE re the sexes.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?5679-Three-genetic-variants-linked-to-IQ-and-they-vary-by-race

Taleb, a certifiable genius, objects to Gaussian distributions.
They’re only designed to handle simple, normative datasets.
http://rocketscienceofwallstreet.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/nassim-nicholas-taleb-against-gaussian.html

Note: Henri Poincare was better than Einstein.


If we’re treating the less-intelligent like second-class citizens, that’d be mostly male.


Just because it looks scientific doesn’t mean someone, somewhere isn’t fucking with you.


Don’t make your reputation worse with bad statistics.


It isn’t any more scientific than a Venn diagram of people who like cake versus pie.

It’s ironic the dumbasses of the male population are trying to explain their superiority using maths they don’t understand. Further, in all their wisdom, believe women won’t notice, despite higher EQ…

Layers reach nouveau irony

Credit: Respect women memes

I can see why, thot is being applied to any woman regardless of sluttiness.

The original rule is no SC dog filter selfies. That is fair. That is 100% pure thot.

What’s happened?

Including the ones who just choose to look pretty instead of fat. How’s that for shooting yourself in the foot as a sex? Especially the one cued by evolution to prize appearance. Sounds like a feminist black ops, tbh, if they had the brains to smear on a cracker.

You’re normalizing sluts. You’re making the Kardashians seem average.

You’re pushing girls to tumblr to complain about being called thots.

Don’t do tumblr, kids.

If it’s an insult ugly girls use to demean pretty girls, don’t use it on pretty girls who dindu nuffin, idiots.

It’s becoming like the male overuse of cuck. I blame myself.

A shrink on sexual harassment “can’t you take a compliment?”

It’s odd how men will admit women are sensitive about their appearance then continue to attack us on it.

Yeah, that’s bullying. Even in school, that is not flirting.

A delightful, common sense explanation.

In before autism;

If you DON’T ‘believe’ in sexual harassment – go to a gay bar on a Saturday.

See how long you last.

That is a woman’s life.

Men are lecherous pigs, regardless of sexuality. What does a lecherous woman look like? A man.

Since any reading this and disbelieving are cowards, simply ask every woman you know and care about (assuming any stuck around you) about their experiences. There are always experiences, regardless of ‘age’ and seeming ‘fuckability’. Don’t talk over them excusing it, just ask the question, shut up and listen.

Actually, 9/10 male rudeness is the inability to shut up and listen. There are studies.

OT Rape accusations imply guilt. A totally honest man needn’t fear them.

https://www.jeunesepayne.co.uk/single-post/2016/11/07/Sexual-Harassment-%E2%80%9CCan%E2%80%99t-you-take-a-compliment%E2%80%9D

“When someone shouts across the street at me “show us your cunt”, or even just wolf-whistles, it’s not because they think it’s going to make me feel good.

It’s a reminder that they could overpower and attack you. R-types don’t care for rule of law, Ks are respectful (either ignoring you in public or getting introductions the decent way).
I saw a very right-wing blog post an article about how the author could easily rape any woman he likes.
In quite graphic detail and practically frothing at the prospect. I don’t read that blog anymore.
This was supposed to scare us all straight (and into agreement with him).

Rape isn’t funny to women, it appalls us (ESPECIALLY the conservative ones), it’s worse than murder. Imagine getting castrated, male power stripped and stolen. Rape is worse for women, at the very least for the conception aspect. A man joking about rape is an r-type trying to pass for K (strong). Those are the worst.

When women see a man seriously laugh (not from shock, but enjoyment) at domestic abuse or whatever sexual ‘prank’ is going on, it would be like watching a woman laughing at a man gored on barbed wire in WW1. Our thought is always the same: what if that were me?

This is why women choose compassion in mate selection studies.

Which sex has the blacker humour?

“Can’t you take a joke?”

Is civilization a joke? They make me wonder.

This is why the right wing’s reputation suffers. Manwhores cosplaying Patriarchy. They seem to think it means concubines and slavery, rather than monogamy and industry.

As for the genuine conservatives…

If they can’t fuck it or kill it, they’re probably going to insult it.

It’s not a well-intended or genuine interaction. They’re not even under some misguided impression that such comments will make me want to have sex with them.

Some are truly that stupid.

Thought process as follows:

If I make her hate me, it’ll remind her of my mother/her father.

Presuming all fathers are incompetent (r-selected) as his. Another layer of insult.

Resent women? No! I simply happen to crush and abandon them all by sheer coincidence!
Distrust women? Sure! They made me leave them! Projection’s only real when women do it!

It’s simply an exertion of power. The aim is to get approval or laughter from others, and discomfort or gratitude from me.

That is better known as sadism.

It is caused by degenerate media, especially the supernormal stimuli of HD streaming online porn.
I guarantee you 100% of those males are porn addicts, the female leches too. The testosterone has to go somewhere, they lack the impulse control (hypofrontality) and time preference to do something good with it.

A compliment is something you would feel comfortable giving a man, woman, or child because you believe it would make them feel good. You’re not boosting anyone’s self-esteem by reminding them that, by society’s standards, “you look acceptable enough for me to fuck”.”

There is always the insult that your primary value is whether they’d use you as their whore.

They’re calling you a whore.

That’s what no woman will admit.

You’re soliciting women on the street. As a whore. But at least whores can charge.

They refuse to accept they’re being rude but they wouldn’t say it if children were present. They desperately want attention but project this onto the provocateur (and looking good isn’t an excuse for anything, is it?) although differing tastes apply, so you can’t even hide your attractiveness since they’ll always be someone Into That. [cough pervert cough]
In conclusion, blame porn. Speaking to people like that (a whore) might not even be acceptable in a purely sexual, private interaction. If they’re smart, they’d leave immediately. It’s demeaning, dehumanizing and morally bankrupt, like the source.

Provocateur is a word I use deliberately… it’s never applied to men, is it?
There’s no such thing as Adam Teasing and Taharrush ‘games’ go after… which sex?

Misandrist women avoid men but misogynistic men seek out women.

Hello, the bulk of MGTOW.

They seek women out to punish them [1]  for what is perceived (projection) as the other’s wrongdoing. It’s never them, never examine the self!!!

Sexual predators, sexual sadism.

I guess womb envy comes into it somewhere but mention that after they play the feminist ‘Penis Envy’ record for the millionth time and suddenly the concept might be shaky? [SJWs lie, r-types lie, logic is a lie to them, thinking is K]

1 Who are you? You can’t lose the chub and get a good job, get out of anyone’s face. At least join a church or Greeenpeace or something. A useful Crusade.

I know, I know.

“Yes, but –

What about men?”

…What about the men?

Where are the men when this happens? [2]

Women exist, women are the fair sex. Women will be sexually harassed as long as we live. Men need to police other men, we certainly can’t.

Think too of the racial and class angles.

Is this acceptable as a way to treat people in the first world?

2

Sign of an r-type male: when you defend a woman from attack (and attack it is), you get accused of White Knighting. Yes, but White Knights are a good thing (Ks) and protect other Ks from monsters…

They never speak to men that way, knowing the odds of an altercation. Cowards to boot. Sexual competition makes the rabbit flee. At times, they’ll use the term incorrectly (in defense of another r) as a compliment of her sexual quality (lie) to get her into bed. It uses triangulation, the common manipulation tactic. Are those men crazy? Probably male borderline, it’s under-diagnosed. It would explain their romantic or intimacy issues that can be masked socially to some extent. R-types fear intimacy because it leads to responsibility and commitment, turn-offs. R/K does neatly align with attachment conditions (anxious-avoidant, secure)…. with the Mother (Freud wins).

Another sign “why are women so easily offended?” [3]

Only the ones around you.

Hm.

Yes, it’s definitely us…

all three billion of us, currently. And they say women can’t do maths?

3

Prelude to gaslighting, All women are crazy bullshit. Pathologizing a problem makes it go away!

See also the classic “why won’t women-” do whatever Lord Fauntleroy wants?

Narcissistic entitlement brewing up to rage. Histrionic, effete rage.

Comic: Intersectional Feminism

United we stand…

the real joke?

They’re all claiming to be the Biggest Victim. They’re literally all losers.

Cultural Marxism is finally turning on its henchman and proving, among other things, that multiculturalism doesn’t work. There will always be competing genetic interests. The intersectionalists are calling for segregation. Just like the trans-acceptance ones wanted to end the very concept of ‘Woman’ as an exclusive signalling claim.