Science continues lavishing hungry, wet kisses all over game and core Chateau Heartiste concepts. A huge study has come out which pretty much confirms what any man who has lived a day in his life already knows: men and women are fundamentally different in many important aspects, and this has ramifications for how to bed women.
The data, pulled from 10,000 American men and women who took a questionnaire that measured 15 variations of personality traits, records that men and women feel and behave in very specific (and gendered) ways.
Men are more:
– Dominant
– Reserved
– Utilitarian
– Vigilant
– Rule-conscious
– Emotionally stableWhile women are more:
– Deferential
– Warm
– Trusting
– Sensitive
– Emotionally “reactive”
Well, duh. But if you ignore, or choose to disregard, the obvious, then you will pay the price in the sexual market. Reality does not suffer fools or ideologues gladly.
Of course, yer ‘umble narrators were on top of this AMAZING REVELATION INTO SEX DIFFERENCES long time now, based on nothing more academic than simple observation of reality and direct experience with the subject matter, remarking only half-jokingly that men are more closely related to male chimps than they are to female humans, or that women are comfortable doing social activities with each other that you will never catch men doing.
Here’s another study showing that men have a higher density of synapses in the temporal neocortex — a region of the brain involved with social and emotional processes — than do women. It would be fascinating to watch a feminist try to explain how cultural conditioning causes women to have fewer neocortex synapses than men.
The verdict is in: there are biologically innate sex differences in the brain that manifest, on average, in different personality traits, different temperaments, different mannerisms, different predilections and, most relevantly to the practiced seducer, different desires.
Let us raise our steins in a toast — here’s to hoping all the world’s feminists read these studies and simultaneously blow a cervical aneurysm from rapid blood pressure rise. Chin chin!
lzozozzo
womenz are far mor elkely to perform in porn than men are
also,
women are far more likely to publish the scerteive tapings of assocking sessions published by secrteiev tapers of butthex like tucker max rheymes with goldmn sax zlzozloz
also,
women are far more likely to sell their bodies than men, thusly objectifying themselves, and also reducing men to mere money and thusly objectifying and deosuling menz lzozlzoz
LikeLike
lozozlozoz
womenz are also far more liekly to abort their unbron childrenz with over 50,000,000 dead by WOMAN’S CHOICE in the last fifty years.
50,000,000 DEAD BY WOMENZ CHOICE!!! as abortion is the ultimate neoocon neocon war against the unbornz lzozlzozoozoz
hey Heartsiste!!! you are also like tom lykies leykes in that all your common sense wisdom is later proven by studeies and science lzoozozoz
LikeLike
lzozozlzo
to sum it ALL UP feminism is about WELATH TRANSFER
1. Ben Beranke floats the theory that women = men.
2. Ben Bernanke notes that men own more than women.
3. BEn Bernanke funds fmeisnsimsmsm classes fit fiat dollzrz he illegally prints that teach women to transfer assetts from men while letting tuker max rhymes with goldman sax butthex them and deosul them in sectrieve tapings of butthex sessions, thusly ocnverting them into instruemnts of wleath transfer insetaed of the exalted wives mothers grandmothers they oculd have benenen ..
lzozozoozzloz
LikeLike
50 millinio dead babies.
more asckokcing equals less babies… benrnkakes rpints the fiat curency to make sur eless dead babnies
all hail the asscokc by benrmake, then tape it liek tucker max bechause it rhyems with goldnam sasx… benrnake wantys no mlore dead babies
more fiat currency equalsd less dead babhiez…
llzloozlzozzolloolzozl
LikeLike
What T&A might look like:
http://adventuresoftna.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html
LikeLike
Don’t forget: Men have penises, women have vaginas.
LikeLike
They sell themselves. I love that we are emotionally stable.
LikeLike
women are far more likely to sell their bodies than men, thusly objectifying themselves, and also reducing men to mere money and thusly objectifying and deosuling menz lzozlzoz
No, men are just as propense to sell theyr bodies as women.
We just call our prostitution a different name: wage working.
Prostitution is what being a beta provider is about.
LikeLike
Poor Larry Summers, too bad he didn’t read this blog.
And just a little appetizer, remember the bitch’s reaction to being told that maybe women don’t be liking all that math stuff.
“When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” awww, hie to ye fainting couch, fair maiden.
LikeLike
Someone should tell that delicate flower that such maladies used to be categorized in the medical journals under “Female Hysteria”.
LikeLike
Someone should have told Summers to sack up and point out that feminism isn’t a real field of study. I don’t understand why they let those bitches have that level of power.
LikeLike
“Female Hysteria”
aka, “The Vapors”
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-female-hysteria.htm
The common treatments for female hysteria also reflect the gender relationships of the times when the “condition” was prevalent.
Doctors would administer “pelvic massage,” or manual stimulation of the female genitals, until the “afflicted” individual reached a
state of “hysterical paroxysm,” now understood as an orgasm.
It was not generally considered possible to cure hysteria, so an “afflicted” woman would need to seek this form of treatment on a regular basis.
A variety of devices were invented to make this treatment process more efficient and more comfortable for both the patient and the individual
administering treatment.
Fucking scamming cunts.
LikeLike
It always amazes me that we have study after study, all basically showing the exact same thing – men and women are different in fundamental ways which leads to fundamental differences in behavior. Of course every rational person already knows this – unfortunately, we are talking about women (feminists) who display their irrationality every day by not accepting what is clearly apparent to every child.
Of course, I don’t expect this study to have any more impact than any of the others which do not fit into a feminists vision of the world.
LikeLike
The whole point of such reactions is to maintain the illusions needed to prop up their ideology from the onslaught of cognitive dissonance. You can’t be a lefty without propping up the artificial underlying world view since those illusions don’t stand up to objective scrutiny.
LikeLike
There is the rare student of game who is at least as fanatical in reality conquering beliefs. And there are anti-gamers who are the same.
There are those who deny that money is an attraction trigger, and those who deny that game is an attraction trigger.
Real loonies with non-masculinized brains who think emotively and have no respect for or concept of logic or empirical reasoning.
LikeLike
You tell my 10 year old self that someday we’d live in a world where this isn’t obvious to everyone, and he would have laughed hysterically. The sad part is I still have converstations with women that beleive the hype, it’s mind boggling.
LikeLike
You are right when you say that physical, material evidence such as that presented in the study regarding the temporal neocortex presents a big problem for the feminists.
What i wonder about is if all the attempts at social engineering we see around us (in commercials, movies, etc) in which the standard meme is that women are more dominant, smarter, and even more emotionally stable will ultimately have its intended effect despite these physical differences between men and women. If is does not, I will enjoy seeing the feminist social engineers getting their panties in a knot.
LikeLike
Brains, at least rat brains, are plastic enough that environmental stressors can lead to observable physiological differences. The same is likely true for humans, as well. It would be interesting to see if observable changes in the neocortex result from the hormone treatments transgenders go through.
[heartiste: doubtful. the sex differences were seen across the board, in numerous subjects, and in infants as well. Occam’s razor should tell you that the harmonious explanation for brain sex differences is genetic/prenatal and not post-natal environmental.]
LikeLike
The problem with using TG’s as a control group is that they are fundamentally different upstairs than regular folks in the first place, nearly all of them having felt as if they were in the wrong body from a very young age. This phenomenon, recounted in many real transition stories, points definitively in the direction of prenatal/genetic and not post-natal/environmental/cultural causes for the behavioral, psychological, and cognitive differences between TG’s and normal folks.
LikeLike
Hey, it’s possible for genetic switches to be flipped resulting in female genitals on a man or vice versa. Jamie Lee Curtis a testosterone insensitive XY even. If those switches can be flipped for your downstairs blueprint, no reason that the same can’t happen in the brain.
LikeLike
Jamie Lee Curtis is a *what*?
LikeLike
Biologically male but testosterone has no effect on her so she looks female. Came out a few years ago, Wikipedia has a few links.
She always did look a little masculine…
LikeLike
Well, it used to. Snopes has an article saying that it’s more of a trumor: http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.asp
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, the MSN article does not list either the author or title. The link goes the PLoS home page, not the paper itself.
Link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
And cite:
Del Giudice M, Booth T, Irwing P (2012) The Distance Between Mars and Venus: Measuring Global Sex Differences in Personality. PLoS ONE 7(1): e29265. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029265
LikeLike
The female author of the MSN piece couldn’t resist snarky comments on the study’s conclusions, including reference to some supposed contradictory “consensus” view (no details provided).
The many recent “science confirms game” posts are good as far as they go- they are additional confirmation of the evo-psych worldview on which game is based- “sperm wars”, “red queen”, etc. I wonder if there’s some way to track what impact they actually have on the national culture/dialogue, to change the lockhold certain feminist concepts have on MSM debate and coverage. Academic articles and MSM puff-piece surveys like this have limited effect, for different reasons- obscurity and shallowness, respectively. Most of the well-argued points in the manosphere remain effectively underground.
The only recent piece I can remember that poked into the mainstream was teh Charllotte Allen article in the Weekly Stardard, just under a year ago. It was thorough, fair and — most important- -took the right views. Unless and until more of that comes about, I think the “science confirms” blurbs won’t change much.
LikeLike
why do liberals hate science so?
LikeLike
People hate science when facts contradict views that are required to uphold ego positions.
Yareally for instance refutes all scientific studies that show women sexually attracted by signs of wealth. If the conclusion is “wrong”, then the science was “biased”.
Women orgasm more and harder for wealthier men. Women shown the same picture and given two different backstories will rate the man said to be richer as more sexually appealing. Either by self reporting or measuring physiological response, women respond to wealth with sexual attraction.
But yareally will tell you that money is not, can not, and has never been an attraction trigger, and that the only real attraction trigger is confidence, and that money itself can only ever be a proxy for the real thing, which is nothing but pure confidence.
LikeLike
“I wonder if there’s some way to track what impact they actually have on the national culture/dialogue, to change the lockhold certain feminist concepts have on MSM debate and coverage.”
It’s called google ngram.
For instance:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=evolutionary+psychology%2C+feminism&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=3
LikeLike
I think that one of the biggest differences between men and women that is useful to be mindful of because of its relevance to game, is that women are more nuanced communicators than men. Men have to learn game before we pick up on and start utilizing to our advantage things such as: body language, shit tests, subtle teasing, button pushing, boundary testing, hoop-jumping-through, and the like.
Females seem to do these things innately. This is, in my estimation, the most important thing to be taken from “game”: that I, as a male, was not wired to communicate in a manner that incorporated mind games into basically all communications. It has to be learned and reinforced through practice.
LikeLike
The reason men are not wired that way, is because historically, those mutants that have been so, have been selected against. It is only our dysfunctional, dead end culture that rewards evolutionarily inferior traits,
[heartiste: technically, there is no such thing as a rewarded evolutionarily inferior trait; only those traits that are more or less successful at getting themselves replicated.]
such as men wasting effort learning to talk like women
[women are the gatekeepers to sex, so any talking that you disapprove of is simply men giving women what they want.]
instead of securing the resources needed by women to do their part in going forth and multiply..
[provider betas have become devalued by mechanization and big daddy government safety nets.]
The cultures that will wipe us off the map (unless “we” change) don’t suffer from such weaknesses.
[change will only come when it is too late.]
LikeLike
It’s part of the theory of general purpose neocortex (check out a book called On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins). Basically, the “CPU” of the brain in the neocortex, of which you have a fixed amount. It can be assigned to general purpose cognition or to specific tasks, such as social cognition.
In civilized society, the arrangement has long been for men to compete for status in the highly varied economic realm, thus requiring a bias towards general purpose cognition. However women compete for status through very specific social games, this requiring a bias towards social cognition. This model can go a long way towards explaining why men are better at many intellectual tasks than women: too much of their valuable neocortex is tied up in social-cognition modules.
Game allows men to use general purpose neocortex to do social cognition. Initially, you do it consciously, resulting in very linear behavior that tends to come off a bit flat and awkward. With practice, it becomes subconscious, and a far more complex and natural pattern of behavior. But it’s largely general purpose neocortex rather than domain-specific (as in women and naturally sociable men) that is used by men who’ve learned game.
At least, I think that’s how it works.
LikeLike
Fucking kewl summary, Ian.
LikeLike
Nice post, Ian. I’m gonna check out that book.
LikeLike
No, because other men would beat your ass for being annoying. Pussy is the only reason to consider playing these games.
LikeLike
Please also note that this directly contradicts a 2005 study known today as the consensus view, conducted by a (female) professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, which found that men and women are actually markedly similar, even in areas such as self-esteem, leadership and math ability, all of which have been male-skewed historically.
Duly noted. :-p
[heartiste: i’ve noticed that almost all the contrarian studies which go against the scientific consensus on sex differences and confirm the femcunt talking points come out of u of wisconsin. that place must be infested with feminist wackjobs. i’d take anything they say with a flat of salt, especially when they’re the only ones selling it.]
LikeLike
Wisconsin also has some surprisingly restrictive gun laws, considering it’s fly-over territory… obviously the mangina capital of the US, or the men just don’t pay attention to anything except the Packers.
LikeLike
The obese genderless cheesehead troll in the “discount doublecheck” commercial is an accurate stereotype of Wisconsin.
LikeLike
Union territory. ‘Tis the Midwest’s answer to upstate New York.
LikeLike
Good stuff. I´d like to see that questionnaire though. And some statistics. Mostly so I can shut up people coming with the “its all nurturing” angle.
LikeLike
Almost 20 years ago Simon Levay in “The Sexual Brain” discussed how among neurologists this was universally understood. He also flat out said that anyone in his field can look at a human brain and quickly tell whether it was from a male or a female. They are not physically the same.
He also stated that with many homosexuals there were physical differences between those and a normal brain. Oh, and he is gay himself.
He discusses the problem with most in academia refusing to even look at simple facts though stops short of stating what he thinks is the cause.
Much of the information in the book was used in a special by I think the Discovery Channel in the late 90’s called IIRC “Brain Sex”. It was an informative program that did a good job of not bowing to political correctness. One of most vivid examples of the differences between the sexes was showing test subjects hooked up to a scanner showing the live brain activity. Then they would give the subjects tests to solve. It was obvious both how similar members of the same sex’ brains worked and how different the brain activity of men versus women. They literally do not work the same way.
Although neither the book nor the TV program presented information that was helpful in the pursuit of Game there was plenty of facts that devastate many of the arguments of its critics.
LikeLike
Science has also scientifically proved that water is wet.
Your appeal to the results of questionnaires works insofar as it brings others to the truth they already instinctively intuit. But your dependence on sociology’s selective conclusions is all so much question begging, the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost.
See, the question begging goes both ways. If you promote certain studies and ignore the rest, so can feminism. You are better off meeting people where they live, i.e., appealing to their personal experience rather than the “scientific” certitude of faux-authoritative sources. We don’t care what Four Out of Five Dentists Recommend nearly as much as what our reliable dentist says about our teeth.
That’s who you are — the resident expert who has established a testimonial credibility that comports with our experience and cannot be matched by nerds in labcoats proclaiming their discovery of the location of the clitoris. You might think, what’s the harm buttressing testimony with scientific study? Aside from hinting at the poor foundation of your philosophy, relying on the work of others undermines your own authority by giving deference to superiors and the implied superiority of their methodology. When the feminists site their own contradictory studies, you will have no recourse but rhetoric, hoping your Nuh-Uh!! is bigger than their Yeah-Huh.
More importantly, aggregating questionnaires is not, in fact, a superior method to the one that made you famous: keen observation based on real-life experiences in the face of conventional wisdom, which in most cases is based on the very brand of studies you site. If I did a “scientific study” by asking women what they think are the qualities of “Mr. Right,” would that poll bring us closer to or further from the truth?
You articulate one fundamental gospel better than any other: social life is not what it seems, and it certainly is not what conventional wisdom pretends it to be. Questionnaires, and the studies derived therefrom, are a way to confirm the opposite. They ask people how things “seem” to them. Your use of these studies unintentionally works at cross-purposes to your goal, making pretty lies perish.
“Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?” Take this typical story, for example. Which is the better response to its bundle of lies? “Well, other studies say…” or “Just shut the fuck up already”? One is an infinite regress about the validity of authority, an argument about methods and limp-dick clinical trials. The other is a bold declaration of authority, a re-frame, an alpha staking out his territory by saying, “I know what I’ve seen, take it or leave it.”
Who says it is more important than what is being said. That you cite scientists rather than self is an indication of intellectual beta regression.
LikeLike
Excellent point… no matter the preponderance of evidence, most people and nearly all women merely believe whatever comfortably scritches their personal biases… so engaging the debate just enables their hamsters.
LikeLike
No point engaging the hamsters with facts – they must be starved. The only way to do that is by taking away the life-giving affirmation provided by clueless betas, who, on the other hand, can be swayed by the facts.
That’s the mission here. Never forget that the fembot fortress walls were constructed with and still are held together by a fine paste made from the ground up bones of many, many, hapless, clueless betas.
LikeLike
Agreed… we preach the word, not for the hooting of the peanut gallery, nor for the rationalizations of the grand pooh-bahs… rather in the off-chance that an occasional circumspect and objective onlooker might hear and be made wise.
LikeLike
I consider it to be a method of attacking from multiple angles.
With these “Science confirms game” articles, we have an appeal to authority, designed to sway those in the audience who respond to this method most.
With articles concerning contemporary events unfolding in a manner consistent with the theoretical conclusions of game (take for instance, the articles on the SMV failure of Demi Moore and the SMV obliteration of Sinead O’Connor) we have arguments founded on appeal to logic.
Finally, the game advice columns, and the witty, polemic style of writing found on this site offer an appeal to emotion.
Ethos, logos, pathos – It’s all here at the Chateau.
LikeLike
I’m all about “attacking from multiple angles,” except that it dissipates one’s forces and tempts us to lose focus. The appeal from experience isn’t just one different/equal approach among many, including the appeal to scientific authority. I am saying it is a superior, and therefore much more persuasive, approach that must always trump our recourse to omegas in labcoats.
“Ethos, logos, pathos”: +1 for the Aristotle Rhetoric reference (everybody, read it!).
Now let’s get back to Aristotle’s a posteriori epistemology as well. We’ve strayed too far into the Platonic a priori end of the pool in the last, I dunno, five hundred years. The modern physical sciences, and the eliminativist materialism it is based on, like to pretend they are operating under the sovereignty of the senses when they’ve only subverted the term to make it fit their a priori assumptions. There is nothing less experiential than abstracting the world severely enough to make it fit into mathematical quantities.
In other words, trust what you see, feel, hear, touch, and taste above all. Sociological studies are one marginal step above horoscope reading. If it ropes a few dolts into the fold, fine, I guess. But theirs will be an unreliable motivation leading to a tenuous loyalty.
LikeLike
Keep in mind that CH is engaging in a social argument rather than a scientific one. If you look at how narratives are built in the media and social circles, it’s commonly based on these sorts of “scientists say” and “X% of Y” piecemeal appeals to authority. As the author has pointed out elsewhere, this type of stuff can be “chick crack” and is a great way to sell ideas (especially sexual stuff) which may be abhorrent if it began with “in my experience…”.
In today’s post, he links to a study which was reported on in Glamour magazine and then blogged about on MSN. Zero academics would take this mode of argument seriously, but that’s hardly the point. Most women do not have a strong hierarchy of ideas, and psychology studies get filed in the same drawer as dumb shit like new age astrology.
[heartiste: leaving aside the issue of effective modes of argument for reaching women, the study was not done by glamour or msn. those outlets simply reported on it. the study itself is scientifically rigorous and you can find it on the PLOS website. someone above posted the direct link, i believe.]
LikeLike
King A
That was maybe the best comment I’ve ever read. You’re good people in my book, brother.
kidbourbon
LikeLike
OT but photos of Ron Paul’s wife 50 years ago show she was a solid 9 on her wedding day.
That guy’s an alpha who happened to stay in love with his wife.
LikeLike
By the standards of contemporary politics, Ron Paul is darned near a saint. I bet Paul and John and those guys could clean up pretty well amongst female members of their congregations as well, had they been so disposed.
LikeLike
I respect Ron for staying married, but his wife was a 6 at best on her wedding day.
LikeLike
Both men & women, customs, societal shaming, & social mores were different back then. Women KNEW how to cook & bake from scratch. They were concerned for their family. That, and it didn’t hurt that my grandpa would backhand you out of the dining room chair before you could apologize if you belched at the dinner table.
LikeLike
Agree with post but, oddly, the British Daily Mail today has a story that shows how that strange society is producing men similar to women in terms of wanting to sell themselves (it is normal for females to be for sale):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2085565/ITV-Take-Me-Out-New-scandal-winner-Wen-Jing-Mo-reveals-prostitute.html
[heartiste: nothing new or interesting in that article. male gigolos have been a staple of many cultures for a long time. usually the gigiolo sells himself out to gay men or lonely middle-aged housewives who are paying for the emotional company more than the sex. male gigolos don’t exist in nearly the same numbers as female prostitutes, although it would be interesting if a study were commissioned to find out whether the ratio is changing.]
LikeLike
And remember, feminist studies is not a rigorous field of study. It’s an incestuous credentialist power grab. And they’re all commies and they fucking love abortion.
LikeLike
The differences between the sexes are still miniscule compared to the similarities.
[heartiste: so certain r u? the differences seem to me to be quite pronounced and, in the areas where they operate most intensely, very influential over behavior and mating choice.]
Once the genome is better understood, exactly how independent the two are, will probably become clearer; but there is obviously an awful lot of on the looks of it advantageous traits of one sex, that seems to be limited by their detrimental effects on the opposite one. In many other species, the differences are much, much more pronounced. But this blog is focusing specifically on the area where the sexes are different, the reproductive area.
[feminist cunts fear innate brain sex differences because they know it would put the lie to almost every shibboleth of feminist orthodoxy. every feminist presumption — from “unequal” pay to math and engineering representation to disparate impact and outcome — would crumble and blow away like dust.
and then the feminists would be left with nothing to rail against except their own miserable existences and repulsiveness to men.]
LikeLike
“The differences between the sexes are still miniscule compared to the similarities.”
WTF does this even mean? People say similar things about people v. pigs or between the races. Heck, the differences between floating stardust and me are miniscule: we are both made of basic elements and compounds partly forged in the heart of a sun. Those elements and compounds are largely eternal, or at least until this universe goes poof. Those elements and compounds interact and engage in new combinations. Etc.
Fucking twaddle, I know, but there you go. So is the original comment.
LikeLike
Not twaddle, bro. They minimize because it hurts them to accept la différence.
Check out the bizarre posts of “J. Richards” at MajortyRights in this thread.
Big white knight chimp-out on this very subject! In his warped mind, Jews are spreading disinformation about “brain sex” to divide the sympathy of white men and women.
LOLZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZOZZ
LikeLike
“Miniscule” has a very definite denotation. You’re entitled to your own opinion… but not your own dictionary.
LikeLike
The difference between men and women is that they are men and women.
Now slap a feminist tonight across the face as you fuck her from behind in her husband’s bed while he whimpers on the couch about “not wanting to tie her down and prevent her enraptured expansion of self”.
Bonus: cum on his pillow and make her lick it up.
LikeLike
Uhmmm…what?
LikeLike
Want to hear a feminist scream twice?
Fuck her in the ass, and wipe it on the drapes.
LikeLike
HAHA
LikeLike
A glaring contradiction in your brand of “bioconservatism”: if you allege that women are cognitively inferior to men,
[heartiste: straw-woman.]
you are unintentionally supporting the conclusions of the feminists when they claim that women should be given free everything by the government, because they were “congenitally unlucky” to be born women.
[false implication based on a false premise.]
What you promote is essentially a right-wing version of the tired muscle mysticism of the left; it’s the ancient false dichotomy of mind vs. body playing out time and time again, through the pages of history.
[just the opposite. i’m claiming that there is no dichotomy, the mind is part of the body.]
Accept the fact that human beings are integrated units of matter and consciousness, and that the differences between men and women are physiological, not cognitive.
[cognition is a function of physiology.]
LikeLike
> the differences between men and women are physiological, not cognitive.
Some cognition is even a function of temporary physical state.
Power Posing (http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/10/1363)
Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance
The results of this study confirmed our prediction that posing in high-power nonverbal displays (as opposed to low-power nonverbal displays) would cause neuroendocrine and behavioral changes for both male and female participants: High-power posers experienced elevations in testosterone, decreases in cortisol, and increased feelings of power and tolerance for risk; low-power posers exhibited the opposite pattern.
Thinking on your back: Solving anagrams faster when supine than when standing (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0926641005000741)
we found that subjects solved anagrams significantly faster when supine than when standing. With anagrams characterized as insight problems, our finding suggests that insight may be influenced by body posture.
LikeLike
The brain is the seat of cognition. Being around high status people causes a change in behavior. Changes in behavior must be produced by the brain. For the brain to do *anything* a physical change *must* occur. Therefore these articles are stupid and obvious. You could just as easily say that daydreaming about, I dunno, flying pigs produces a physical change. Yes, the science behind precisely what change occurred is useful, but could everybody please stop acting like its noteworthy that a change has occurred in the first place?
LikeLike
Actually the point of those studies is precisely the reverse. If you stand in an alpha posture, your testosterone levels will rise for awhile.
In other words, you can make a conscious decision to change your physical position which causes a corresponding change in your subconscious.
If simply changing the position of your body changes the way you think, it stands to reason that changing the body you have will also change the way you think. This is before you even consider differences in the brain itself.
LikeLike
I am a first time commenter, go gentle 🙂
As a women who had this feminist stuff rammed down my throat from not only both of my parents, but school, I find this stuff sad to the point of throwing myself on the floor and crying.
I find myself trying to claw back the mindset and mannerisims that I should have had, that were hardwired and God-given..but were then beaten out of my mind, heart and body over and over again.
As you have pointed out, Women are made to be deferential. Knowing this, having it proven over and over again, should give some of you compassion on us.
The horrible creature we have become, we sought after for the approval of those we loved or trusted. Truly the “American Women” that makes us all shudder is a self-destruction that many did out of love. Many did because the lies were sweet tasting, but remember most of us heard them from the cradle.
It is a terrible thing to find you were created for so much more, to know that truly your life could have been so much sweeter and even though you try with all your might to live it the right way, parts of you are damaged beyond repair by lies. Instincts and practices inherent to the art form of being feminine torn from you and disabling you and generations to come.
My only hope lies with Jesus the Christ and the fact that He can redeem me and all that I have done in ignorance and with knowledge. I look at my children, free completely from this damage that so has inserted itself into my very veins and Praise Him for helping me use the hardness that has descended on me to protect them FROM it.
I think I would have so enjoyed growing up a sweet young lady. How very sad.
Carlotta
LikeLike
Sister-woman, your words are a balm to my soul… many’s the day when I fear the parousia is our only chance out of this mess.
LikeLike
“I look at my children, free completely from this damage that so has inserted itself into my very veins and Praise Him for helping me use the hardness that has descended on me to protect them FROM it.”
You should write a “how to” book. Pray to the Holy Spirit for inspiration.
Think about it.
LikeLike
How very kind of you. Thanks. I am a writing and am about to jump on the blog wagon soon. I appreciate your encouragement. I will do something along the lines of “What your Mother SHOULD have taught you”.
LikeLike
Sorry, that should be “a writer” LOL. Need…more…coffee….
LikeLike
Some of us are waking up. Pray for us 🙂
LikeLike
D’ya have to be so over dramatic? Makes me think you’ve got much bigger problems than an overdose of feminist ideology.
LikeLike
Lighten up, Francis. You’re talking to a self-aware Christian women now, not one of the usual pump n’ dumps.
LikeLike
Thank you John Norman Howard. I am deeply humiliated to have thought the way I did and I am trying to learn wherever I can. Reading this blog and Vox Day’s blog really woke me up even more. I read Athol’s as well. It is a little spicey 🙂 But I am trying to change the way I do things so I provide a good example for my daughters and I just didn’t have anything to go off of. My Husband is enjoying the changes immensely 🙂
I will go back to lurking. I had, I admit, and emotional reaction to this and had to comment.
Thanks for all the encouragement everyone.
LikeLike
Check out Grerp’s blog too: http://grerp.blogspot.com/
LikeLike
Yes, I do have to be dramatic because it is life and death. Don’t you get that? Murdering the feminine in women murders the masculine in men. I think that is a big freakin deal. And if you didn’t pick up on it, I am a women and we are known to be a bit dramatic (at least those of us who are fun). Don’t be so redundant.
LikeLike
With respect, Carlotta, I personally found Christianity far too feminist for my taste. I prefer, if any, a faith with the goal of mastering and perhaps even surpassing Nature rather than suppressing it.
For people of a Christian flavor, I’d recommend going all the way back Abrahamic or if you have to have a lot of structure, at least Bnai Noach style Christianity or with an adapted version of your ancestral faith.
I agree though, that it is life and death…not just that but existence and non existence. Those of us ill suited to the new world order have found ourselves with considerably fewer children than we would have under more real circumstances. On the one hand, I feel that many years of my life were stolen from me, but on the other, I feel extremely fortunate to have awakened while I was still barely young enough to enjoy it.
Don’t waste to much time with regret. You know better now, so focus on giving yourself the things others didn’t or couldn’t give you. Beating yourself up is a useful phase, but don’t get stuck there.
LikeLike
They should be reading this to the girls in womens’ studies courses. I hope you can still enjoy the fruits of what you have seen in yourself. May God be with you and lead you to happiness.
LikeLike
Thank you Tyrone. God is using it to help me.
And like I said, the hardness actually helped me when I decided to stay home with my Babies instead of farm them out and I was slammed by everybody. It got worse as I decided to homeschool. I could care less, because I know whom I serve and I know what I am doing is right. And I know that most of them are full of…crap 🙂
LikeLike
Why don’t you take a cooking course, learn to knit, or take up some other feminine hobby? It isn’t too late to learn those skills you wish you had been taught.
LikeLike
Hi Lara! I left the workforce, became a Wife fulltime, had a bunch of babies and decided to homeschool them. I am trying to learn to cook and knit in my spare time LOL. Which isn’t much. Would have been much wiser to learn this growing up instead of playing stupid soccer, cheerleading and other stuff I never use everyday. I am learning quick because I am teaching.
I haven’t given up, just really, really, really pissed about the illusion I ALMOST fell to. Like I said, Praise be to God. Or I would have woken up middle age with a career, some cats and alone. Shudder.
I read these types of blogs because I realized that there is still more to purge. Part of the education.
LikeLike
“I find this stuff sad to the point of throwing myself on the floor and crying.”
Don’t. Hold your head high, never apologize to the femanzis, and then own them.
LikeLike
Working on it Rickb223. Pissing off women everywhere I go LOL. But I am also helping those trying to find there way back. Thanks for your encouragement!
LikeLike
“there are biologically innate sex differences in the brain”
If, by ‘biologically innate sex differences’, you mean ‘it’s all in the genes’ (and of course you do!), then you are wrong. The brain wires itself. See Norman Doidge.
[heartiste: i mean genetic and/or biological. genes affect things like hormone levels and how the brain wires itself. for example, if you have the genes for high intelligence, your brain will wire in a direction that confers higher IQ when it is tested for such.]
Your behavioral insights are spot-on. But don’t keep selling yourself short by hedging your bets on a theoretical framework that stands every chance of being supplanted. There are signs of a usurper to the existing, mainstream paradigm. You don’t have to believe me, but don’t invest too much in the existing beastie. Just speak the truth is all you need to do.
Neurons and glia are two different types of brain cell. They are distributed differently in men and women, and there are compelling references available discussing this and how it impacts on behavior. The brain of the provided-for sex will always be wired differently to the brain of the provider sex. Be patient, and stop betting on the wrong horse, especially when there is a more likely contender in the running.
You are welcome to contact me privately if you want to explore the alternative in more detail.
LikeLike
No shit the brain wires itself. But it does so using a complex program that’s carried in genetic information. To suggest otherwise would be to overthrow 60 years of biological orthodoxy.
And of course male and female brains are wired differently. Wiring produced behavior, therefore different behavior requires different wiring. Read a good book and your brain wiring changes. I’m changing your brain wiring right now.
You should read some more evolutionary psychology. David Buss’s Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Pinker’s The Blank Slate, Kurzban’s Why Everyone Else Is A Hypocrite are all good places to start. And everybody should read my new favourite book, The Dictator’s Handbook, at least if you want to get all ideological about this stuff.
LikeLike
nobull, intersted . PLS pass he info to personaldevilopment at gmail dot com.
Thanksabunch.
LikeLike
Hamster Special of the Day: Jane Fonda describes herself as a feminist and says she realized she didn’t need a man when she was 62 and hopes younger women will realize this sooner apparently:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2085797/Jane-Fonda-realised-did-need-man-life-aged-62.html
[heartiste: hilariously transparent. prison inmate: “i realized i didn’t need drugs when they locked me up and made it impossible for me to get drugs. i hope all prison inmates will realize this soon.”
lol.]
LikeLike
Old hamsters, like soldiers, never die… they merely fade away.
LikeLike
chcicke chickens never die, they only go to hell and recoop lzozlozlozlzo
LikeLike
Or…prison inmate:”I realized i didnt need pussy after 20 years of being locked up with smelly men…”
LikeLike
“Jane Fonda describes herself as a feminist and says she realized she didn’t need a man when she was 62”
Funny how she realized that ONLY after her pussy dried up to the point of hosting cobwebs. Where was that realization all through the 70’s when she was cock hopping?
LikeLike
Any parent with a boy and girl child who bothers to pay attention knows this. For the few feminists who might have children this scares them so much that they either refuse to see it or try to root the differences out.
LikeLike
I’ve often wondered how PC egalitarians and nurture > nature types reconcile their beliefs when they become parents and nature shows them in no uncertain terms that nurture is the red-headed stepchild in the equation’s relationship.
LikeLike
I truly think they do not allow themselves to see it. If they begin to, the behaviors are “wrong” and they attempt to discipline them away.
LikeLike
Agree totally. My Husband took me aside and made sure I understood in no uncertain terms that my Son’s characteristics were male and not be be punished but instead, I am to help him have self control with them. I appreciated it. Because after having all girls, having a boy really drove home the point that we are all idiots to think gender means nothing. In the WOMB there were differences.
LikeLike
Simple: they don’t have kids. Or if they do, they only have one so they never get a comparison.
Then they tell the rest of us how we should raise ours.
LikeLike
it’s absolutely clear to this mom who raised both boys and girls. boys use of legos–building complex fantastic creations characterized by bilateral symmetry. girls–making flat forms that looked like sheet cakes.
boys use of fisher-price circus train– move train slowly when laying on floor to observe movement of pistons on the wheels. girls–happily move animals and figures on the train, never once looking at the wheels.(my daughters get annoyed when i point this out. i tell them wait til you’re a mother.)
LikeLike
Very good observation.
Seeing the mechanisms in toys was something I found meditative and interesting as a kid. I guess this also partially explains why boys (myself included) find video games so immediately engrossing.
Push button – thing happens. Push other button – other thing happens.
Figuring out tactics and techniques for when to push what buttons = crack for boy brains.
LikeLike
another observation–make of it what you will.
oldest son’s first word–‘wheel’
LikeLike
For a revisit to an earlier story, Sinead O’Connor tried to commit suicide. Tragic example of hitting the wall and now trying very hard to get attention.
LikeLike
Courtney Stodden update
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2085391/Jason-Alexander-gropes-Doug-Hutchinsons-bikini-clad-teen-bride-Courtney-Stodden.html
LikeLike
Stop linking to the daily fucking mail. It starts with the relevant link and then I find myself reading some bullshit about the kardashians and other stupid english TV whores.
Seriously, please stop!
Otherwise, yeah, femtards are wait for it… fucking retarded. Keep reminding them that with science or social observation or anything. Everything works against them anyway.
LikeLike
A comment from the paper:
A similar pattern of crossover sex differences has been found in openness to experience, with males scoring higher on the “ideas” dimension and females on the “aesthetics” dimension of this trait.
Men tend to be more intellectually curious, women more likely to appreciate creativity.
[heartiste: interesting. that matches real world observation.]
LikeLike
Well I should hope it does Heartiste, they’re attempting to observe the real world.
Papers like that aren’t science, at least not in the model-building explanatory sense. Too much stamp collecting not enough theory.
LikeLike
One of these guys deserves beta of the year 2012, with no need to see other entries for the rest of the year:
http://widget.newsinc.com/_cfvp/playlist16x9_player.html?CID=507&WID=2333&VID=23561942&freewheel=90046&sitesection=dailycaller_top_non_sty
The other guy even tells the TV cameras that he’s the alpha and says the cuckold has the personality of “someone who wants to serve others”.
And no, this at least isn’t a Daily Mail link.
LikeLike
I watched the first 30 seconds. You can instantly till which guy is the bitch from the body language.
How can people let that happen to themselves?
LikeLike
Yes, amazing what having cajones can prevent…
LikeLike
After a couple of minutes, dude that’s f*cked-up… Jon’s clearly missed to boat on kids and is now hatin’ life. Tell me she and Ian don’t bang and make him watch for their jollies.
LikeLike
The hyperbole of the title reminds me:
I’ve noticed a few entries here that suggested that men and women evolved in competition with eachother. As an example, the claim may go that women became deceptive in response to male physical strength. That premise doesn’t make sense to me, on an intuitive level, though I’m hard put to explain why. Can anyone tell me how it could be possible for two halves of one species to evolve in competition, or if I’ve misconstrued some passing comments?
[heartiste: men and women have competing reproductive goals. spread the seed vs hoard the egg. dupe the womb vs dupe the wallet. love em and leave em vs tease em and bleed em.
that’s how you get the evolution of sex-specific traits designed to fool prospective mates.]
LikeLike
The primary force in evolutionary biology is gene-level competition. Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins if you get a chance. Basically, our genes try to get themselves carried on, regardless of the cost to an individual, species or ecosystem.
That which can replicate, will replicate, regardless of consequences.
LikeLike
“The primary force in evolutionary biology is gene-level competition.”
Key word there is primary; group selection, although less significant, is still a factor. Just like “nature vs. nurture”, it’s the interaction of the 2 that produces the observed results.
LikeLike
Yeah, you want to be careful about group selection though, it’s a very subtle force understood by just about no one. E O Wilson’s bringing abook out about it soon, and even with two Harvard mathematicians backing him up people are still breaking out the pitchforks.
LikeLike
LOL at the last tweet.
Another LOL found today:
LikeLike
Why women will never rule: http://www.bnowhere.com/2008/05/guy-code-or-why-women-will-never-rule.html
LikeLike
I truly cannot think of something more terrifying then being under the rule of a women, especially during her period. YIKES!
LikeLike
I have made this point elsewhere.
Sex not only predates race, it predates mammals and a bunch of small wriggly shit I can’t name. Sex is a more fundamental division than our own mammalian evolution.
When will cladistics catch up with uh and the Chateau?
LikeLike
Don’t ignore the most likely result of this study.
Science shows men are different from women. THEREFORE MEN MUST CHANGE!
Because women are always right.
LikeLike
Is that what you really think or is it a joke? If you think so, I don’t think it’s right.
LikeLike
Next time I’ll send a man to walk ahead of my comment with a red lantern so people will know sarcasm is coming.
LikeLike
Dude…
LikeLike
It’s as if our species has evolved two distinct and complementary sexes. Bizarre!
LikeLike
Or like someone designed it that way. Weird.
LikeLike
Designed–yes. It looks like it. One of the most pertinent indication of design is the fusing of 2 and 3 chromosomes in human genome. This is something that is unique to humans. No matter what anyone says, it looks spliced (some people claim that because the rudiment of telomeres is present, the fusing was a result of mutation, but similar mutations end on the heap of discarded experiments as a rule). This is one factor that decidedly separates us from other species. Now to the differences between sexes…
If you read bible, you know that Abraham was an high ranking official in city of Ur, in Sumer. He brought with him stories that got later condensed and created a backbone of the Genesis edifice. The actual Sumerian mythology is far more colorful.
It tells of Anunaki (Anu – place in heavens; na.ki – came on earth). They were also called “lofty ones” which is translated as “gods”. Yet, it may have been a simple reference to their physical characteristics. They were very tall and their craniums were elongated upward.
They had several castes and ranking within them, The main caste was what in modern parlance would be described as elite. There was another caste, i.gi.gi who were functioning as messengers between Anu and Ki (daimonoi or angeloi in Greek, same thing originally, the difference was in appearance, but both meant messengers). Then there was a worker caste that was put on job of mining metals.
The story goes that the miners had in their contract that the initial conditions will be improved after some time. But the elites really did not care much about it, having good times. The miners revolted and it was so violent that some unfortunate deaths was the result. Enlil, one of the top ranking Anunaki got down there (Ab.zu or Ab.zim – meaning “on the flip side”, some translate it as “hell”, and i may as well have been for the miners), to negotiate. There seem to be nothing Enlil can propose to placate the rebels. Then someone from their side came with an Idea. “Why don’t we make workers out of the indigenous ‘blackheads’?”
“Blackheads” is often translated as savages or troglodytes or apes.
Enlil and Ea, two top ranking Anunaki, set themselves to work. They got Ninhursag (their sister) to function as a surrogate. One of the lower ranking Anunaki suplied “male esssence”. The result, a.da.mu (worker), sprung to life. But the problem was that the creation of more a.da.mu was rather a complicated matter, so it has been decided that he was to reproduce, over strong objections of Enlil, who opined that it would not end well.
The “female essence” was provided by the daughter of Enlil, Inana (Ishtar). If you read some Sumerian mythology, you’d know that she was an epitome of sluttiness. For the reproduction to work, they had to introduce some catalyst that is referred to as “ba”. It has several meanings in Sumerian: rib, mud, or can be interpretted as simply a matter or a substance. On some Sumerian seals the whole affair is depicted as follows:
Enlil and Ninhursag sit and hold in their laps naked male and female of a smaller stature. There is some lab equipment laying about reminiscent of a chemical or biology lab. On the side there is a tree (tree of life?) and on some seals, there are two intertwined snakes (double helix?), plus another symbol that would be somewhat familiar to those that study kabala.
So, in summary, though contraintuitive from the biological perspective as the female chromosomes are default, the first batch was set as male for the sake of replacing the miners, males being naturally stronger. Only after a while, the female was produced to take a care of the manufacturing being replaced by nature.
Enlil was correct in his assessment. Whether the problem was inherent in not well thought through design specs or due to a poor choice of the “essence” material for females, it did not take long to manifest. The “blackhead” females were susceptible to mate with lower ranking Anunaki (the first sin, reaching for the forbidden fruit? In bible the Anunaki that mated with human women are referred to as Nephilim), despite that it usually resulted in birthing deaths due to offspring being larger than is normal for the species. In time, as the dilution took place, the problem was somewhat mitigated, though the human females still had hots for the genetic material originating from Anunaki. There has been a marked difference in the behavioral patterns between the Anunaki origin lineages and pure humans, the Anunaki descendants carried traits that would be considered alpha in our frame of reference, while the pure human lineages were beta, servants by design. And the females are still propagating the essence of Inana.
Yes, there is a great degree of speculation contained above, but the Sumerian myths are what they are and I reflected them accurately.
LikeLike
You know, don’t worry — I consider myself a cultural ally of Christianity. I was raised Catholic. I get it. But there are more up-to-date genetic textbooks you could read.
LikeLike
OT, let’s get back to Alpha of the Week/Month/Year.
Alpha Old Guy Edition:
Gaston Glock’s Got Game:
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2011/09/21/gaston-glock-and-his-lovely-new-wife/
LikeLike
I just want to comment on the link you made to an article on “social activities”.
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/separate-species/
Obviously you are right that they are wired differently, I’d like to think out loud about why, I figured I’d put my thoughts up here.
I think this is not due to a predilection to lesbian sex, or a sense of being non-sexual when rubbing baby oil over every crevice. I’ll lay out the argument first, then the “why” and “what” I think is going on here.
Based in no small part on your own articles, I see that women are far more Amoral than men, in the sense that where men (generally) use their conscience as a guiding principle, women use their conscience as an obstacle to their own passions. Which is why they are so adept at rationalization. I’m not sure, but I believe this process allows them to submit more effectively to the desires of their alpha male, while giving them a bit of brakes on their own weakness towards external and internal motivators.
The herd like, more docile nature of women implies also that they are both easier to civilize (that is, they will obey the mores of society), and easier to “de-civilize”. They will go along with whatever is going on by society, or in this case, the sub-society of the girls in question. That’s because they are malleable to external pressure. However, they are also more malleable to INTERNAL pressure. Namely, the pleasure they would get in semi-sexual contact.
The woman would rationalize the civilizing mores of the external societal pressure and go along with it, she would also rationalize the internal pressure to have semi-sexual contact.
In the case of these girls, they are simply more feral than the men in their society.
But here’s an example of feral men:
from http://www.michaelyon-online.com/death-in-the-corn-part-i-of-iii/page-2.htm
“On Thursday nights, the ANA have what the Brits call “man-love” night, or “man-love Thursdays.” Interestingly, Iraqis would sometimes say that a man is not a homosexual unless he has sex with other men when he is over thirty. At that age, they say, a man should stop, or else he’s a homosexual, which is a perversion of faith. I recall reading Ahmed Rashid’s fantastic and prescient book Taliban, which was published before the war. Mr. Rashid described a tank battle waged between warlords over the services of a young boy. Boys are for pleasure, women are for babies, they say. Such is this land, Jurassic Park. I called Mr. Rashid at his home in Pakistan a couple years ago, and he sounded increasingly pessimistic about the region. He has written another book titled Jihad!, which I brought with me but traded with Major Adam Dawson, the British officer in charge of Gib, who had another fine book called Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics, by Martin Ewans.
”
Note the rationalization the men are using for their actions. It’s known that men in prison use the same garbage, i.e. it’s not gay sex if you are the one doing the raping. I think the Romans also had some similar rationalization, that it is only disgraceful if you’re the one in the “feminine” position.
What you saw the women do, you would not see the men do. Because the women in this case would have a drive to submit to the external social pressures of not being a lesbian. At this time.
But as that social pressure get’s removed, which we clearly see, the woman will be a lot more likely to just go at it as the men in the above paragraph.
I don’t know if we’ll see gay sex orgies among common men in the West. There are outlets for sexual and emotional pressure that exist here, that probably don’t exist there. But it’s something to be aware of.
LikeLike
I don’t know why you’re using the future tense. We do have gay sex orgies. Pretty much any man who wants to have sex with other dudes can get it, no strings attached, free of charge, anywhere in the country. In San Francisco and a few other spots they’re gettin’ it on in public.
But of course it’s not much harder to score female pussy, so the West lacks Islam’s large population of “totally not gay” boy-rapists. Our gay sex orgies are confined to the men who really do have brains wired to lust after other men.
If those Afghan warlords were Detroit gang leaders (sorry, “community activists”) they’d be having fights over strippers instead.
LikeLike
Sorry, my cervix is still thankfully intact.
[heartiste: time to increase the voltage.]
Hope you understand that men and women are all different from ONE ANOTHER.
[and, as the science — as well as simple open-eyed observation — shows, men and women differ from each other, on average, as sexes. but you keep telling yourself otherwise. watching you flail is mighty entertaining.]
There is no such thing as men being this way and women being this way, we are diverse.
..Which I am thankful for, because I don’t know if the world can tolerate another person like you on it.
[careful, your blood pressure is rising…]
LikeLike
“Hope you understand that men and women are all different from ONE ANOTHER.”
Not as different from one another as you think. Between men & womyn? Yes.
Men stand to piss. Women squat.
Men can write their name in the snow. Women can’t.
Between men? Not as diverse as you think.
Between womyn? Yeah. Because they don’t know what the fuck they want. Femcunts want to be like men. Other women don’t.
LikeLike
“heartiste: time to increase the voltage.”
filed under “h” for toy.
LikeLike
The book, Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy Bauemeister is brilliant and covers all of these topics explicitly and delves into feminism in a way that I’ve never encountered from any other biologist/psycholigst.
LikeLike
The famous book should have been titled: “Men are from Mars; Women wish they had a Penis”.
LikeLike