Beware the betrayal of the overly polite

lifehack.org/359226/science-says-you-need-wary-overly-polite-people-heres-why

The Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Beijing (AMACL) just released their findings that those who are“excessively polite” are considerably more likely to betray peers or comrades than those who are not effusively polite. The researchers at AMACL engaged in an in-depth study of Diplomacy, a strategy-oriented game in which players simulate pre-WWI Europe.

…As it turned out, there emerged rock-solid examples of betrayal that AMACL observed in their report. Perhaps most shockingly, the scientists discovered one of the most predictable signs of imminent backstabbing is sudden changes in conversational tone. Conversations would morph from average or uneventful to contain “patently evident positive sentiment, structured discourse and overt politeness”.

remember this when we're beyond all hope

We always knew.

lifehack.org/307945/10-signs-that-youre-dating-emotional-psychopath

1. They Lack Empathy

2. They Lie All the Time

3. They Humiliate You in Front of People

4. They Crave Attention but Don’t Give Any

5. They Always Place the Blame on You

6. They Isolate You

7. They Blackmail You

8. They Never Show Remorse

Despite all of the bad things they do – and the frequency with which they hurt you – emotional psychopaths rarely show remorse. The words “I’m sorry” aren’t in their vocabulary, no matter the situation. In fact, they’re more likely to try and convince you that the problems in your relationship are your fault.

called gaslighting

9. They Have a Sadistic Sense of Humor

Everyone has a different sense of humor, but emotional psychopaths are on their own level. They find humor in things that most people find unlawful or disgusting. While it may only seem strange at first, it evolves over time and becomes creepy and disturbing.

10. They are Extremely Charming at Times

And they wonder why they’re single.

Psychopaths, ingrouping and empathy

http://www.biosciencetechnology.com/articles/2013/08/new-findings-spur-debate-are-some-psychopaths-curable

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

jk I always knew

I wonder if AC has seen this;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201208/did-anders-breivik-train-himself-become-sociopath

Biofeedback can teach you all sorts of fun things. Murder, tantra, how to catch a bullet with your teeth…

He also denied that he was racist, insisting he was fighting against anti-European racism carried out by “the Norwegian media and the Marxist elites”. He said: “I am not a racist. I am an anti-racist.” Indeed, the Turkish-named owner of the local bar near the farm where Breivik constructed his bomb said that Breivik was friendly to him in a way that some locals were not.
…Sociopathy is not a mental illness and I do not believe that Breivik is mentally ill. Sociopathy involves among other things a callous disregard for the feelings of others. Breivik’s astonishingly callous behaviour in his killing spree, and his awful coldness in the courtroom are indeed shocking, but this armour of self-control has chinks in it,
…Breivik tells psychiatrists that his meditation dulls all emotions – “from happiness to sorrow, despair, hopelessness, anxiety, fear”

This is why you should never meditate, btw. The Buddhist non-intervention is a sweet veneer on callous apathy.

…There were hundreds of thousands of such men doing this throughout Eastern Europe during the second world war – ordinary men who loved their families and had close friendships round the ‘staamtisch’ of their cosy local pubs. Sociopaths? – Not at all, because most had good working histories, long-standing relationships and many other features of normality which are incompatible with the diagnosis of sociopathy. If they became sociopaths, it was a context-specific sociopathy, an acquired disorder like a temporary infection that allowed them to behave with insouciant bestiality.

Oh look, the rabbits are projecting again.

Why are the traditionalists rejecting Roosh V as a disgusting degenerate?

He wanted to become the MSM face of PUA and he managed it. He doesn’t seem to like what that means – personal criticisms when you make your personal life public business.

Note: I was neutral on the guy until I researched this, because I limited myself to reading his cultural critiques. Now I want to throw up. I have a strong stomach and I feel nauseous typing this up for you all. You have been warned.

Welcome Jury, to the public trial of one Daryush Valizadeh, better known as Roosh V.

Take a good, long look at the defendant.

roosh v Daryush Valizadeh

Drink it in. International playboy. Did he seriously get a nosejob?

He slags off female appearance for a living despite giving no advice in this area to men (as if looks don’t matter – only for men, conveniently!) while simultaneously calling all women superficial and having no advice to give, clearly.

Recently, he’s tried to hop the fence between degenerate r-type and respectable K. Except those pesky K-types won’t let him. He likes to think he would have got away with it too, if it hadn’t been for those darn feminists! Let’s take a look at why he is barred from every group of genuinely traditional people and so must make his own using words he obviously doesn’t understand, from entries he wrote on his public blog (mostly titles, for time) that you may you look up at your leisure and pause to consider what would happen to this male in the Patriarchy he craves.

rooshrespectsnothing

If you’re like us, your reaction to that hard-won proof (I suffered for you, like Jesus) will be a hard redpilling of this Roosh’s true nature, whatever words he calls himself as this farce continues.

In the Patriarchy he desperately desires, he’d be strung up from a lamp-post for defiling somebody’s virgin daughter.

I think of this whenever I see a mob baying for blood online

As people with a conscience, soul and sense of decency, we may only hope the Patriarchy returns and he gets what he wished for. K-shift is coming, degenerates.

One day genetic engineering will prove us victors

Video: The true time cost of entrepreneurship (and overnight success)

It isn’t part-time.

It isn’t 4 hours a week.

It’s a mindset that plagues you every waking hour.

This guy should be famous in redpill self-improvement circles. (Well, I guess they want a part-time get rich quick scheme some of them but the rest of them yes).

This guy needs to be famous. He isn’t a household name because he tells the truth. It is hard. It takes decades of work. In convenience culture, this cannot be true to us, we feel. And when you GET there…

I’ve had that. Be nice to nice people, gracious to gracious people and so on, treat as you find, but the bulk of messages you get from weak connections will be chancers, the exceptions. The two main types of user are casual and malignant.

The best response to the fake nice shirty ones trying it on casually is actually;

I was working every single time you were out having fun. You got memories, I got paid. That’s the price of success and why by now you’ll never be able to catch up to me. But sure, ‘luck’, it was also luck I got better grades than you too, huh?

The reformed bullies are funniest. It’s like a script. Don’t think it’s about you, hence I’m posting the generic script.

Hey, remember me? (they’ll mention where they sat in a class) Listen I’m so sorry about (awful things I did) I was just a kid and I’m really ashamed of it now and I’d like to make amends and I saw (successful thing you’re doing) and I wanted (contact, connection, time, free stuff), it’s (compliments, often back-handed, like allusions ‘luck’) and I’d like to be friends.

The bolded phrase is the entire reason for their correspondence. If their sweet nothings are so good or you make an excuse they really mean it (that’s your vanity talking) say you forgive them but you don’t want them to contact you again. Oh, they’ll contact you again. Bullies can’t stand the victim taking control away. A sincere person would not reply, not even to snidely infer you’ll be sorry (I hope you can find it in your heart….)

It’s like, honestly? You think I’m stupid? Do I have doormat stamped on my forehead? I want you to fuck off and die you abusive piece of shit, you set the terms and chose to start on me. How dare you try and patch this over and further screw me now I’m finally out of school and your clutches. That’s a healthy response to abuse, you are not a bad person for it.
However, if you ignore them, read their messages but resist the urge to reply (reply to a designated vent friend), the mask usually comes off again. Something like…

OMG you’re so ungrateful, (what did they do?) you were always such a (spoiled brat) that’s why nobody liked you and (achieving thing) doesn’t matter because you’ll always be a loser to us.

They still think you care what they think. Just reply: Grow up.
Block them. Done.

When someone’s first impulse is to use you, and emotionally blackmail you with things they have done? That is a sociopath. 1 in 50. They are immature and the best response is to outclass them.

Shocker as low time pref predicts ability to maintain relationships

Proxy studied: credit score.

http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/10/07/relationshipstrategies/you-may-want-to-add-this-to-your-online-profile/

Commitment = ability to choose the long term over the short term.

What a shock.
Also a proxy for class. (Class similarity predicts longevity too, another surprise considering assortative mating).

“Credit scores are widely used in a variety of contexts as an indicator of reliability and ability to honor and maintain a broad range of commitments, such as rental and employment relationships, not just those involving debt and credit.”

Time preeeeeeeference.

The honor is IN the maintenance. Sure, I guess you married her with the best intentions, but that doesn’t change the fact you slept with the secretary, you know?

We know that impulsivity predicts poor relationship skills, and low credit scores may reflect impulsive spending behavior. In fact, one of the primary characteristics of Dark Triad males is impulsivity. (Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011).

What matters here isn’t the brevity of their relationships (which might be agreed upon) as much as the fact they cannot maintain them. It isn’t an ability in their repertoire. They fall short, they fail.

Another study found that “Individuals who have intercourse in the context of hookups are differentiated by high impulsivity, low concern for personal safety, low dependency, their erotic approach to relationships and an avoidant attachment style.” (Paul, McManus and Hayes, 1999)

Anything other than secure attachment style is relationship hell for the other party. They’re afraid of emotional intimacy (and commitment, which is like emotional prison for them because of it).

Clearly, the inability to defer gratification through saving should be a massive red flag.

I love how attention whores brag about their shitty relationship skills. They wouldn’t do that with any other ability, like driving. Maybe maths, since these people aren’t especially bright. Stupid people tend to pair off again. Most couple’s fights are over money (generally, the man’s job, I should point out).

And blogging (public!) about a woman’s sex life without her permission is about as bad as posting a guy’s small penis selfie to his boss and colleagues: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2015/09/28/politics-and-feminism/a-normal-male-reproductive-strategy/ These are the same type who’ll go on about a woman’s reputation and how important it is, totally flouting the trust placed in them (they’d make such wonderful husbands, that 4 and 5) to have a sexual connection.

The male will compromise his standards for short-term mating, but not abandon them altogether. He attempts to maximize quality given the tradeoffs required by his overall goals.

Furthermore, the vast majority of men want to marry. They seek a monogamous lifelong partner. Research shows that when asked how many sexual partners a man wants in the next five years, the median answer is 1. (See the research HERE.) Marriage is by far the most successful way for men to pass on their genes.

Actually, the masculinity of what was called ‘sexual congress’ was bound up in the virility of the Pagan Gods. It was said The embrace of a god is never sterile or some such. It had nothing to do with the sex act itself. A man who has sex with 3 women and gets 2 pregnant is batting 66% reproductive recombination average. Hell, a virgin who marries and has children with one woman has a 100% success rate. A man who beds 500 women and bears no heirs (the male incentive, legacy) is a genetic failure. A man who beds every single, fertile woman on the planet with no heirs is judged impotent (not the same as infertility originally, because he could physically have children but the problem was …psychological). It used to be grounds for divorce if a man refused or didn’t want children with his wife, in a time when women didn’t have much going for them under Patriarchy (which always sides with the K-selected legacy producers aka future taxpayers). Everyone has a personal fertility rate, and in their heart of hearts, most of us don’t want to be genetic suicides.

This is why humans are monogamous. It guarantees not only paternity, but male virility (when in the state of nature, the baby or the mother would die or be killed/aborted without his protection). Evolutionary strategies around fitness ONLY APPLY WHERE THE PEOPLE INVOLVED REPRODUCE. It’s like if I applied the archeology of dinosaurs to the Bible, it’s embarrassing, please stop. Evobio comes down to maths, much like game theory. Think of all the sterile sex going on. You think Evolution counts that? It’s a blip in the history of mankind, like men who couldn’t get it up. Nature is culling those people. They are self-selecting OUT of the gene pool. Let them! 

The topic of hypergamy again. ~big sigh~

Oh, now you guys finally give a shit about sociology? Now you think it’s real? Why isn’t it part of the subject called sexology then, genius? What’s the socio- in sociosexual hierarchy all about? They aren’t the same or the topics would be merged. Stop misusing the words again, Christ on a bike, read a book. A textbook. Or make up your own words instead of poaching a thing the means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to prove.

Expecting a woman not to care about social status (read; keeping her safe) is like a fat feminist expecting Ryan Gosling (he’s popular, right?) not to care about physical attraction (read: to get it up). See? It all fits. Quit buying into the undercurrent Narrative that the sexes are meant to be the same. Is/Ought is a guillotine that murders reason. If they were meant to be the same, evolutionally, then sexual dimorphism in our species wouldn’t have happened.

The drop of arranged marriages is actually nixing marriages of social advantage.

…Today most people marry their approximate social equals, and in much of the world hypergamy is…in slow decline.

This is bad for men. The same men who tried to leverage their status (often inherited) into a better quality of wife (works both ways, don’t it?). And patriarchs (fathers) who would only give away their property (daughter) for the best price?
Which sex is more likely to ‘trade up’ (ugly term) after marriage? Clue: which sex had practically all the active profiles on Ashley Madison?

Which one usually has the problem maintaining their end of the relationship (up to marriage vows)?

…Roughly 10-20% of both men and women are promiscuous, though the most promiscuous men are more promiscuous than the most promiscuous women. (Research HERE.)

They believe it doesn’t affect their future prospects (it does with K-women aka wife material).

Futhermore, the opposite of hypergamy is hypogamy, which simply means that men tend to marry down. As hypergamy has declined with assortive mating and the egalitarian marriage, so has hypogamy. The marriage and divorce statistics contradict any notion of hypergamy as guiding female choices today….

I quibble with this when it comes to divorce settlements but the general point is true.

Here are the reproductive strategies [DS: that is not a moral license] Jared Rutledge and Jacob Owens employed to get sex:

Rape

Here’s an example from one of their podcasts (H/T: Wj):

Young Jay (Jacob), after describing a woman as manipulative:

It was really fun cuz we had sex in the shower. Hospital sex is weird! And when she is drugged, it’s strange, but it’s really cool.

Papa Jay (Jared): Could she give consent?

Young Jay: Uh-oh! (Laughter)

Papa Jay: You might have violated some California laws.

Young Jay: That is mah bad. That is mah bad.

Papa Jay: Good thing we don’t live in California. (Much laughter.) 

Projection. Scum. I bet he thinks it’s rape when a man is drunk though.

For the record, the mother of the patient, referred to as “A.” is planning to bring charges against her daughter’s rapist.

Physical Abuse

Jared admits to “wailing on a woman with a belt” and “gagging her with my dick.”

Holistic Game also tweeted this dating advice: “Bitches get stitches.”

See it all HERE.

It’s like they’re doing the jury’s job for them.
See, the problem with jokes is that some total retard is going to do it, thinking you were serious. And that could count as incitement if it’s on a somewhat serious platform like a blog, certainly in Europe. These twits don’t bother to check the laws of the countries they travel to as sex tourists and complain when they get done.

No one is faulting the men for promiscuity. With the exception of the hospital patient, the women described appear to have consented to sexual relations with Rutledge and Owens.

It’s freedom of association. They were literally two-faced (the common stereotype I have no doubt they accuse of women). I doubt those women would’ve done if they had known the other side and that’s why the blogs didn’t use their real names (what social proofing, are they doing something to be ashamed of?). At least guys like Roosh have the balls to use their real name (although he lies about it while travelling which would beg legal questions about consent). A future question on the scene might be “are you a fuckboi or PUA”? for legal protection in case he turns out to be (you laugh but it could happen, nobody likes misrepresentation and those cases are pretty cut and dried).

I. Of the 50 women Rutledge had sex with, only 3 qualified as “carousel riders.”

He found that the rest were seeking monogamous relationships, in some cases agreeing to casual sex in order to get that. He exploited that opportunity.

See what I mean?
That right there is a social contract, folks.

oh shit damn fuck hell no give up dean winchester shrug

The rest is quite pathetic.

“…Women want to be swept up in an emotional whirlwind, and the more I tried to keep my “Alpha cool” the more they responded with flakiness or coldness.”

I know teenage boys with more common sense. “If I don’t show I like her – she’ll think I don’t like her!” actual quote, I was very proud of that one.

They assume you’re politely fading them out. They tend to follow. And being honest, did either look Alpha? Come on. SMV-wise. Come on.

On the manosphere;

“There’s a tremendous amount of ego, and a lot of anonymity.

…They didn’t hear the hurt, they didn’t see my mom cry when she learned how many people I’ve had sex with. They don’t see what the judgmentalism they are still engaging in did to myself and other people.

I am not going to be on my deathbed having engaged in these kinds of judgments anymore, this breaking people down into their component parts. [DS: breaking people down and using their broken-ness to manipulate what you want out of them, leaving them broken – those are the actions of a sociopath] It’s unhealthy for me, and it causes irreparable and widespread damage to other people.”

She knows she raised a scumbag. She sounds like a nice woman and he let her down (and by extension, her sex, which she also let down by producing and raising him, yes women think like that, on that scale of complexity). It’s little better than a drug problem, with a similar rate of disease. If you are aware enough to see the societal decay, you have a civilian duty to never contribute to it, maybe try to repair it. Social problems happen in shockwaves. Never be the rock.

Enjoying the decline is about not causing undue pain to yourself – or anyone else.

This article ends badly, the red-pill isn’t twisted, this information used to be considered Common Sense (e.g. women and men are different creatures) and should form a reaction/reminder to unrealistic PC lessons. A balm to the bruise. Twisted people are using it as a shield to hide behind and hide their abuses of the human condition we all share. I’ve written here this has become a ‘disturbing trend’ and one we here blogging might become known for.

Ironically, real sociopaths with low time preference (called ‘successful’) are almost always married, and quite happily. They slot right into the role, overjoyed to fit in for the first time ever and have a safe outlet for their personal doubts. Those men are not sadists and their wives love them. They make good husbands.

Shark eyes, the amygdala and You

First, a joke —

http://neurologicalcorrelates.com/wordpress/2010/11/04/the-reptilian-stare-psychopaths-pupil-dilation-just-before-they-attempt-to-murder-you-may-be-a-function-of-target-detection/

dis gonna be good anticipation pull up a chair listen watch

…This gets into the bowels of the brain, the reptilian brain, so to speak, to the roiling, evolutionarily archaic areas that operate in that primeval brew of neurotransmitters, heavy metals and glyco-fiber, the brain stem.

Glyco-fiber should not be part of a balanced diet.

The locus coeruleus is, for one thing, blue, apparently, from melanin that is located in the substantia nigra radiating out.

Who says blue isn’t found in nature?
pron.: nigh-gr-uh

(For more explanation, here is a terrific Youtube neuro class, about 18 minutes. ) But, more to the point, this evolutionarily archiac little bundle of neural controls is key in how we respond to danger, or what we perceive as danger. Where the brain detects a threat, the amygdala and limbic system are activated and transmit signal to projections leading to the locus coeruleus. …

The wiring from the locus coeruleus goes up through the midbrain to connect with the amygdala and other areas. The brain midline defects apparently found in psychopaths (here) seem to provide a wide open highway for the reptilian signals . ….

THE HILLS ARE ALIVE

WITH THE SOUND OF SMUGNESS

WITH SCANS YOU CAN CHECK

FOR A THOUSAND YEARS

The Manosphere is not as Shallow as You Think, or Girls, Don’t Stress Out About Your Looks

Problem being, if you have the looks where you get approached with paid modelling offers (real photographers), you tend to get a bitch shield because the other men approaching are either 1. creeps who have no sense of boundary or rudeness who might actually be rapists or 2. PUAs pretending to have the same ignorance of boundaries to build kino (assault) and fake rapport (repulsive).

Both only want one thing and it has nothing to do with a sweet personality, that’s why all women above a certain level are said to be bitches by these men, they don’t understand it’s situation dependent. We can smell that desperation like a shark smells blood and being rude makes them go away and stop wasting our time as quickly as possible, and who cares what they think because they’re rude to begin with?
The looks/personality thing is a trite dichotomy designed to make ugly people feel better, model-level people are really sweet in my experience…. as long as you aren’t trying to use them. This is crucial. It’s like a rich man is attuned to gold diggers. It’s fair to protect and guard your best asset.

It’s a laughable Demonstration of Lower Value when various men complain about women being ‘cold’ or having a bitch shield. Usually this is because they stupidly decided to neg her and she matched his bitchy tone. It isn’t a ‘test’. She’s giving you shit because she wants you to leave her alone. You interrupted her finite time and you aren’t even being nice about it. That alone merits rudeness. They assume this rejection (that’s what it is) happens to all men in all situations (meanwhile the real Alphas are laughing at them) and it comes down to a huge Fundamental Attribution Error. 

I like to explain it to men thus: imagine if women were the approaching sex and crazy Lindy West-alikes kept stalking you, verbally antagonizing you to get a rise, and physically assaulting you under the pretense that you must be interested because you must be a slut (as a hot person)? You’d be rude too.