Link: Self-sabotage and fear of success

https://www.mentalhelp.net/blogs/do-you-fear-success/

It should go without saying that none of us can change the things we do not know about. If they do not want to know about it how can they want to change. After all, nothing is wrong in the mind of this type of individual. How can that be? How do the explain all the bad things that happen to them? The answers to these questions is that they engage in a variety of rationalizations: 1. They blame others, 2. They blame their fate or karma, 3. They blame racism, 4. Religious prejudice, 5. Sexual orientation, 6. Age, 7. Married or non married status, 8. The economy, 9. The President. 10. The weather and so it goes on and on.

So many directions with that.

But I’ll just let it mellow.

Study more, better grades

Based on:

“Education is wasted on the lazy and stupid, and they’re the same people. That’s Dunning-Kruger. They’re blind to what they’re missing because they’re missing it!
“If someone works harder than you, they deserve to beat you! Add up hours studied and you’ll find female (and male) conscientiousness isn’t bias, they activate with their IQ the traits which help them. The guy or girl “winging it” the night before deserves to fail*. Low IQ don’t have the IQ to know what they’re NOT doing! That isn’t everyone else’s fault! If there are systemic forces against men in some fields, the same must be true of women in other fields because that is how systems work, ya dummies!”
“..It just so happens by nature that there are more lazy men! So yeah, they fail! Confound!

You’re supposed to control for prevalence without ignoring the population. It’s like the IQ studies conducted by men that exclude stupid, lower class men to push the middle-class male genius narrative because the former dwarfs the latter mathematically if they don’t rig it.

(They also don’t control for education and class because they’re faking, like saying ugly people are intelligent in spite of correlations).

Another example of ignoring half: promiscuity/divorce risk studies that never look at men. That is scientism, like ignoring cooling data. They have looked but refuse to publish because it hurt their feelings. I’d like to see an atheist/divorce risk study.

You cannot ignore the left half of the bell curve, men overpopulate it!

Muh Bell Curve (ignores 50%).

They’ve simply never survived in these numbers before because responsibility is the new leprosy in a decadent West. It makes a lot of sense actually. No prior society (that didn’t collapse) ever had to tolerate this much stupid and it shows.”

I decided to drag up a study or two for the idiots who’d dispute it.

First, look at the materials put out to businesses.

https://www.ets.org/s/workforce_readiness/pdf/21334_big_5.pdf

“Of the five main personality factors, Conscientiousness has been shown to be the most consistent, significant predictor of workplace performance.10, 11, 12, 13, 14 For example, meta-analyses on the prediction of job performance from personality dimensions have demonstrated that broad measures of Conscientiousness predict overall job performance,15, 16 even controlling for cognitive ability.17, 18 

AKA you can’t cry sexism, conscientious men (like Christians) do fine. Actually, that might be why. There are plenty of conscientious men so it isn’t an exclusive thing, the averages only vary slightly.

In addition to overall job performance, broad measures of Conscientiousness have been shown to predict a number of other valued workplace behaviors, such as organizational citizenship 19, 20 and leadership 21

Emotional Intelligence.
https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/emotional-intelligence-eq-ei-studies/

as well as undesirable behaviors such as procrastination, 22 to name a few.

Conscientiousness is the best noncognitive predictor of performance across a wide variety of job types and work outcomes.”

NON COGNITIVE PREDICTOR OF PERFORMANCE.

Mr “Emotional Intelligence isn’t real”.

You have emotions. You have intelligence. You have an EI score, like it or not.

17 Hough, L. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008). Personality testing and industrial-organizational
psychology: Reflections, progress, and prospects. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 272–290.
18 Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. [doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262]”

reference A

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00048.x

we framed the article as a series of 7 questions. These 7 questions deal with (1) personality and multidimensional models of performance, (2) personality taxonomies and the five‐factor model, (3) the effects of situations on personality–performance relationships, (4) the incremental validity of personality over cognitive ability, (5) the need to differentiate personality constructs from personality measures, (6) the concern with faking on personality tests, and (7) the use of personality tests in attempting to address adverse impact. We dovetail these questions with our perspectives and insights in the hope that this will stimulate further discussion with our readership.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220014617_Personality_Testing_and_Industrial-Organizational_Psychology_Reflections_Progress_and_Prospects

reference B, 85 years of research

http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/Schmidt-and-Hunter-1998-Validity-and-Utility-Psychological-Bulletin.pdf

This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures.

Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.

And when you look for a genetic connection ‘cos genes, like hips, don’t lie.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188690500382X
“The heritability of conscientiousness facets and their relationship to IQ and academic achievement”

“Our findings confirmed positive associations between IQ and the facets of Competence and Dutifulness (ranging 0.11–0.27), with academic achievement showing correlations of 0.27 and 0.15 with these same facets and 0.15 with Deliberation. All conscientiousness facets were influenced by genes (broad sense heritabilities ranging 0.18–0.49) “

Whew, up to 50%!

The idea of a smart douchebag is a myth to keep them appeased, or at best, they’re only mildly above average (1-2SD), true genius can cooperate (and self-regulate) but idiots can’t perceive anyone above them.

Your IQ isn’t an excuse to be antisocial.

Why aren’t men fighting for the West?

They’re drugging themselves with male victory soma – steroids.
If they feel the complacency (and entitlement) of the victor, why bother?

(The testosterone released by compulsive masturbators has the same effect, teenage boys used to have more motivation when it was discouraged, SJWs noticed).

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-02904-7_12

Testosterone is the dominant hormone in both male and female brains.

regulates the turnover of the social monoamines, dopamine and serotonin.

They’re happy pills, indirect happy pills.
For people too proud to admit they’re depressed.

The hormone also has many other actions in the brain; thus the social brain’s main chemical, without exaggeration, is testosterone

Peterson told you none of this.

 investigate social dominance and trustworthiness behaviors

Whatever I say, they’ll insult me.

Losers.

….

Actually, why do I care what they think? Who else does?

Fine. If you need to get energy from drugs, and don’t see that as a problem to be dropped at some point, you’re as bad a degenerate as the people you insult. Why do you think they’re doing it??

(Also: why r-types do drugs. There’s nothing intellectual about it. To avoid negative consequences, they get high or drunk or laid again, to avoid the experience’s outcome and the need to learn from it).

Guardian test, they’re doing it. For the “energy” = narc supply.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/31/rise-in-middle-aged-men-taking-steroids-to-feel-more-youthful-experts-say

But women don’t care about looks, huh….. keep telling yourself that.

At best, you’re the Beautiful Ones. Still unfit and not masculine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9624002?dopt=Abstract

Studies in animals have implicated the amygdala in emotional and social behaviours, especially those related to fear and aggression. Although lesion and functional imaging studies in humans have demonstrated the amygdala’s participation in recognizing emotional facial expressions, its role in human social behaviour has remained unclear. We report here our investigation into the hypothesis that the human amygdala is required for accurate social judgments of other individuals on the basis of their facial appearance. We asked three subjects with complete bilateral amygdala damage to judge faces of unfamiliar people with respect to two attributes important in real-life social encounters: approachability and trustworthiness. All three subjects judged unfamiliar individuals to be more approachable and more trustworthy than did control subjects.The impairment was most striking for faces to which normal subjects assign the most negative ratings: unapproachable and untrustworthy looking individuals. Additional investigations revealed that the impairment does not extend to judging verbal descriptions of people. The amygdala appears to be an important component of the neural systems that help retrieve socially relevant knowledge on the basis of facial appearance.

r-types

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12948440

Basolateral amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex are implicated in cue-outcome learning. In this issue of Neuron, Schoenbaum et al. show that, following basolateral amygdala lesions, cue-selective neurons in orbitofrontal cortex are more sensory driven and less sensitive to the motivational value of an outcome, suggesting that predictive value coding in orbitofrontal cortex is dependent on input from basolateral amygdala.

They’re conditioning themselves for pathological altruism.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/why-does-shunning-make-locusts-leave/

By making your brain happy, you make it dumber.

It’s the illusion of safety. Your body assumes the threat is dead.

Your body also produces less of a thing when you supplement. Basic biology.
So men and women shouldn’t take any sex hormones unless they produce zero.

If your levels are normal (for your AGE, Peter Pan), you’re poisoning yourself.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosterone_and_human_aggression_or_180520

 Yet others still have suggested that hypogonadal males (a.k.a low testosterone-producing males) who had their testosterone increased saw no jump in aggressive behaviour, and in fact became more friendly, energetic and, well, happy.

Cucks.

If you’re being treated badly, the chemical suffering is vital to fixing that. It’s like cutting off nerves, they’ve deadened their sense of injustice.

Notice how when men get power, they become over-friendly and obliging?

Ah, they say, but wouldn’t this also occur in women?

 The result: the women who had received testosterone without knowing became fairer, more generous and had increased efficiency in social interactions, while the other group (those who had been told that they were receiving testosterone) behaved much more unfairly. In sum: one group acted they way they thought testosterone should affect humans (and it wasn’t pretty). But the reality was much different. Case and point, ladies and gentlemen.

Notice how many pathological altruist women are high-T? And middle-class?

You’re buying the chemical fake equivalent of class. I cannot think of anything more indicative of a loser.

I used to think it was the broke guy with a sportscar.

If anyone’s doping T, it should be women. It makes us nicer and better looking. When we produce less naturally, no loss.

It’s always the “inferior” men who abuse women, isn’t it? They seem to be lacking in T.
In civilization, status is conferred to men who cooperate. Killers get wiped out quickly.

What is success?

He has achieved success who has lived well, laughed often, and loved much; who has enjoyed the trust of pure women, the respect of intelligent men and the love of little children; who has filled his niche and accomplished his task; who has left the world better than he found it, whether an improved poppy, a perfect poem, or a rescued soul; who has always looked for the best in others and given them the best he had; whose life was an inspiration; whose memory a benediction. B A Stanley, 1904.

Immediately Tesla springs to mind.