Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Biomechanics is God’ Category

An eccentric psychosocial study reveals an abiding truth about women and indirectly validates a core Game concept.

Emotional arousal when watching drama increases pain threshold and social bonding

Fiction, whether in the form of storytelling or plays, has a particular attraction for us: we repeatedly return to it and are willing to invest money and time in doing so. Why this is so is an evolutionary enigma that has been surprisingly underexplored. We hypothesize that emotionally arousing drama, in particular, triggers the same neurobiological mechanism (the endorphin system, reflected in increased pain thresholds) that underpins anthropoid primate and human social bonding. We show that, compared to subjects who watch an emotionally neutral film, subjects who watch an emotionally arousing film have increased pain thresholds and an increased sense of group bonding.

Wew cads. Let’s lick our way to the sploogy goodness at the center of this study.

The shared experience of drama increases pain tolerance and bonding among (active or passive) participants.

Drama.

Drama queens.

Girls.

Shit tests.

Connecting the dots?

We used an emotionally intense made-for-TV film (Stuart: A Life Backwards; 90 min), based on a real-life personal story [38]. The film portrays the life story of Stuart, a disabled and homeless child abuse survivor, often in harrowing detail, and provides a disturbing insight into how a disabled child could end up being driven to prison, drugs, hopelessness, a life on the streets and eventual suicide. In all, 169 participants (101 females; mean age = 24.8 ± 10.2 years, range 18–72) watched the film in a small theatre environment in groups of varying size (mean 11.3, range 2–49). As a control condition, 68 participants (42 females; mean age = 29.7 ± 12.3 years) watched two documentaries (The Museum of Life, Episode One (BBC, 2010; 60 min) and Landscape Mysteries: In Search of Irish Gold (BBC, 2008; 30 min))

CH and other PUAs have long contended that the female shit test is a form of flirtation that women use to filter out weak defensive men and select for self-confident jerkboys, and as such should be viewed as an opportunity for, rather than an obstacle to, romance.

What this research highlights is the essential need of humans, and particularly of women, for drama as social glue and pain reduction. Women shit test male suitors to CREATE THE DRAMA THEY NEED TO SOCIALLY AND LATER SEXUALLY BOND WITH A MAN, and to reduce the pain of hastily acquiescing their vaginas to a passionate impulse.

The shit test is a dramatic fiction novel written by a woman on-the-fly, to bond her more strongly to you as the mutual seduction plays out to its welcome end. Men who take shit tests personally have a complete misunderstanding of it, thinking it’s a personal attack. When they act butthurt or spiteful in reaction, the bonding spell is broken; the woman has lost her partner in drama. But the man who knows that shit tests are a woman’s invitation to keep telling your story and ramping up her buying temperature with dramatic plot lines, twists, and temporary impasses, is the man who will laugh off her shit tests and amplify them to absurdity. Drama.

Seduction is manipulation, and manipulation is goal-oriented communication. To be complicit in one’s seduction is to know the destination but demand the scenic route. A woman wants the scenic route because that’s where the best stories are made and told.

Read Full Post »

It’s good to be alpha. Women will let you do things to them that would make Harvey Weinstein fertilize the nearest potted plant.

Beta males should watch this video below for real world proof showing how cute, “good” girls honestly and naturally react in the company of an alpha male. What gets lost in the moral panic about famous men groping women is that, like Trump said, the women LET THEM DO IT. Ben Affleck is to women what a random HB10 is to men: a passcode that unlocks the sexes’ most primal desires.

If you walked up to a girl like that as a total stranger and, after introducing yourself, drunkenly grabbed her all over like Affleck is doing here, I think you can guess what would happen to you.

Fame Game and Power Game are unstoppable arousal triggers and disinhibition stimuli of female sexual desire.

Untutored beta males and insol bitterbitches need to see this side of women, because it’s routinely hidden from social consciousness by anti-male propaganda and by women themselves who don’t want their depraved natures exposed to idealistic young betas who may be their provider hubby fall-backs in ten years time after the cock carousel has made them sore. That pussy pedestal requires a lot of good PR to keep its squeaky clean vajeen sheen.

Male power is both intimidating and intoxicating to women, and as I have argued (and others like commenter PA have as well) the rush of women into the workforce has undermined marriage and poisoned relations between women and the mass of betas who don’t glitter with fame and power, by exposing so many women to alpha male bosses.

Keep in mind that in women there is the natural pleasurable impulse to submit to a dominant man…it’s instinctual really… so when you read women who describe such men as “intimidating”, know that the intimidation psychologically strikes women much differently than it strikes men who would be the natural competitors or worker drones of powerful men. When a woman meets an “intimidating” man there is a part of her that is sexually and romantically aroused, and if conditions are right that part will flourish and manifest at the expense of the cautious part of her. When a man meets an intimidating man, he is aroused to fight, fold, or flee, all of these reactions serving in their particular ways to guard his honor, preserve his dignity, and spare his social status. Sometimes even spare his life.

Read Full Post »

Reader archerwfisher passes along a vagnette from the omnipresent sexual market.

Random, the other day I was thinking, “Maybe the Chateau is overdoing it, maybe being nice and sweet and a good guy isn’t such a bad route.” I stop at a grocery store, buy a few items, head back to my car. In the SUV next to mine, a cute blonde college age girl is getting in the driver’s seat. Long hair, dressed cute and not slutty, no visible tatts or piercings, in decent shape.

She’s accompanied by two similar aged guys, one white who looked like a boyfriend, one maybe white hispanic, and they look like dregs who would be getting arrested for shoplifting beer. The girl playfully locks them out and starts teasing them with a grin on her face. The white probably boyfriend’s witty, playful response? “We’re trying to get in the fucking car, unlock it.” She did so.

Aaaannd that is why Chateau Heartiste should be studied the same way you study a textbook to earn a certification.

The hottest girls in their fertile primes respond with the greatest intensity of arousal to jerkboys. This call-and-response never dies in a woman, it only fades away with her looks and shrinking repository of eggs. The specter of settling into a life of lonely spinsterhood scares many women straight into the arms of a reliable niceguy, but their fantasies always drift to the cocksure assholes who put them in their place and treated them with an amount of respect inversely proportional to the respect they demand from their beta borefriends.

If you’re a niceguy unwilling to better yourself, you have the option of hefting your blue balls for a decade and then relieving your psychological load in a woman on the cusp of Wall crashing. But most men don’t want to sit on the sidelines that long, waiting out their shot at love with an aging beauty. They want the YoHoTis — younger, hotter, tighter women — just the same as the jerkboys want them. If the niceguys want them bad enough, they’ll learn to love breaking bad.

Read Full Post »

Diversity™ heaps limitless miseries upon the host nation. You don’t need social science studies to tell you that, (you can just go to a diverse part of town and experience the joylessness, tension, annoyances, stress, and general aesthetic dreariness for yourself), but when the ¡SCIENCE! is available it sure is fun to rub it in libfruit faces.

Happiness in modern society: Why intelligence and ethnic composition matter

ABSTRACT

Recent developments in evolutionary psychology suggest that living among others of the same ethnicity might make individuals happier and further that such an effect of the ethnic composition on life satisfaction may be stronger among less intelligent individuals. Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health showed that White Americans had significantly greater life satisfaction than all other ethnic groups in the US and this was largely due to the fact that they were the majority ethnic group; minority Americans who lived in counties where they were the numerical majority had just as much life satisfaction as White Americans did. Further, the association between ethnic composition and life satisfaction was significantly stronger among less intelligent individuals. The results suggest two important factors underlying life satisfaction and highlight the utility of integrating happiness research and evolutionary psychology.

LIE: Diversity™ is our strength.
TRUTH: Diversity™ is our sadness.

Happiness (for White people) is a paler shade of settlement.

Multiethnic societies make everyone unhappier, but the clash of tribes hits the downscale hardest, who lack the excess cognitive chops to rationalize their unhappiness as the sweet price to pay for moral posturing and crappy ethnic food that gives you the shits for weeks.

Modern multitribalism may not pose the same threat to the survival and reproduction of individuals as it would have in the ancestral environment when encirclement by another tribe usually meant you were about to be killed or raped, but that doesn’t mean modern multiracial stews like the US don’t threaten the Darwinian fitness of individuals dealing with the consequences of the diversity. Bloody tribal warfare and pillaging still exist, but in a domesticated form; instinctive tribal nepotism, out-group aggression, and low trust are proxies for open war, and these interactional conditions pose incremental risks to the social and economic statuses, as well as the psychological health, of members within the multitribal society. One example would be, for instance, the nepotistic domination of the Ivies by one tribe and its affirmative actioned pawns which has pushed out the historical representation of the heritage tribe.

Or, Diversity + Proximity = War (by any means).

***

In related ¡SCIENCE! news, shitlibs are just as prone to science denialism as are cuckservatives.

Liberals and Conservatives Are Similarly Motivated to Deny Attitude-Inconsistent Science

We tested whether conservatives and liberals are similarly or differentially likely to deny scientific claims that conflict with their preferred conclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a study with correct results that were either consistent or inconsistent with their attitude about one of several issues (e.g., carbon emissions). Participants were asked to interpret numerical results and decide what the study concluded. After being informed of the correct interpretation, participants rated how much they agreed with, found knowledgeable, and trusted the researchers’ correct interpretation. Both liberals and conservatives engaged in motivated interpretation of study results and denied the correct interpretation of those results when that interpretation conflicted with their attitudes. Our study suggests that the same motivational processes underlie differences in the political priorities of those on the left and the right.

I would love to know which test studies the researchers used to determine how much libs and cons engaged in motivated interpretation, besides the one mentioned in the abstract (“carbon emissions”). I’d bet that libs more intensely deny or spin the science of race and sex differences than cons deny the science of global warming. My observation is that cons aren’t as egotistically and emotionally invested in denying global warming as libs are in denying innate sex-based psychological differences and racial disparities in average IQ.

***

A commenter reminded me of a relevant 2014 CH post about a study of spiders and diversity, which found that tribal homogeneity, contra conventional shitlib wisdom, increases individual diversity.

Summarizing, a lack of inter-group diversity…actually increases individual diversity, through the mechanism of amplifying preexisting personality differences among same-group members. In contrast, a lot of inter-group diversity (say, moving to a SWPL hipster enclave in a minority white city soaked in vibrancy that makes daily living an adventure in survival) produces a uniformity of thought and, CH will note, uniformity of aesthetic within groups, which is why we see SWPL hoods in nearly every major American city converging on the same farm-to-table Obama-loving liberal hypocrite norm.

Paradoxically, group cohesiveness creates more individual diversity, while inter-group diversity creates more intra-group uniformity. Diversity + proximity = conformity.

In other words, the diversity that really matters — diversity of thought and personality — flourishes in less racially diverse environs.

Diversity is our within-group sameness.

***

PS I’ve added the study findings discussed in this post to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list at the top of the front page of this blog.

Read Full Post »

East (and South) of the Hajnal line is the helical elixir that will save the White West.

When can targeted miscegenation do good? @Aquinas prompts this question with the following comment,

The admixture of a little Southern European basedness and tribalism is what will save domesticated nordics. They are over evolved toward pathological altruism. This is why so many alt right people are catholic.

A touch of Outer Hajnal White blood, ironically, will save Inner Hajnal Whites from their self-destructive excesses.

For those new to Hajnalianism, an explanation: The Hajnal Line is a geosociological concept. It’s a line that separates (more or less) NW Europe from Southern and Eastern Europe. Inside the line, White Euros (such as Germans and Englishmen) evolved extreme out-group altruism from selective pressures imposed by the manorial system and the Church’s ban on cousin marriage (out to the sixth cousin, I believe). Furthermore, inside the Hajnal Line there was a period of European history when the death penalty for violent and not-so-violent criminals was administered frequently and remorselessly, which had the effect of culling the impulsive predators from the NW European White genetic stock.

Unfortunately, we have a dire need for the services of those predators today.

If Inner Hajnal Whites are to survive, they may need the blood of Outer Hajnal Whites coursing through their veins. If you consider this ethnic cleansing or the counsel of an ethnicity traitor, be assuaged that a little interethnic White mixing goes a long way. The Cuckosphere wouldn’t need much. Think of it more as a vaccine. We’d be introducing a small dose of foreign agent to save the whole body.

Iambic Summary:

SOUL OF A POLE
PRAISE KEK FOR THE CZECH
SPAR LIKE A MAGYAR
TO SAVE THE WHITE WEST

Read Full Post »

Reports coming in from the field suggest a new form of marriage is appearing on the scene that capitalizes on late stage societal sanction of divorce theft. From Days of Broken Arrows,

I’m starting to notice a trend of older thirtysomething women marrying older guys, having a kid, and then almost immediately divorcing the guy. These aren’t rich guys, either, but average men who get nailed with child support.

This just happened to a guy I know and I don’t know how he’s going to deal with the financial fallout.

What these women are doing has to be some sort of racket. It’s one thing when couples meet and marry young, have a few kids and then split when the kids are teens because they grew apart. That I get.

But from what I’m seeing, these thirtysomething women (all pushing forty) are in and out of these men’s lives by the time the kids are 3. I’m posting it here because I think it plays into the main topic. Once they get past a certain age, these women don’t bond.

I did an online court records search and this is what my formerly happy-go-lucky friend is now facing:

Issue: DIVORCE LIMITED
Issue: POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
Issue: CUSTODY
Issue: VISITATION
Issue: SUPPORT
Issue: FEES

The sexual market in the US is warped beyond salvageability if shit like this is happening. So much wrong, where to begin?

DoBA is right that after a certain age women don’t emotionally bond with men like they could when younger. As the pool of eggs dries up, the reservoir of passion salts over. Men, too, lose some of this bonding ability with age but the difference there is that men can instantly regain the feeling of a strong bond if they date and marry considerably younger women. The bonding agent is called YHT — younger, hotter, tighter. You down with YoHoTi?

Misandry, not misogyny, is the law of the land. Literally. Look at that legal imprimatur for divorce theft. There’s even a line item for FEES, always a convenient catch basin to levy nebulous punitive damages against the poor schmuck who thought he was marrying forever.

The mate landscape is now so bad for American beta males that they’re wifing up late 30s Wall victims and aged feminist careercunts for one or two, max, years of tolerable sexual relief with a rapidly depreciating ASSet who will get her one kid with him after wasting her prime bangability on the cad carousel quaffing birth control pills like vitamins, and who will unceremoniously divorce rape him after the beta dupe has pitched in to help raise the little snotbag during the most inglorious, dull, and thankless years of its life between birth and toddlerhood.

No joys of fatherhood for you!

Only everlasting financial servitude and psychological destruction.

A sex market that rewards this sort of dynamic is irretrievably broken. We are spitting in the face of millennia of sex polarity, denying the God of Biomechanics his tribute. Instead of passionate love marriages with young women notarized by multiple children, we have socially expedient striver marriages in which haggard careerist shrews on perpetual headache mode diddle the bean to Fifty Shades of Gay and suck dry the resources and emotional commitment of beat-up fap-weary sex-starved limp beta noodleboys before chucking them to win cashmoneyshekels right at the moment fatherhood presumably gets interesting for the damned fools.

Gentlemen, beware the Fleece Marriage! (brought to you by an antagonistic state sponsored divorce theft apparatus and women responding to dystopian incentives).

I really wasn’t kidding when I said Game can save the West.

***

DoBA added additional context to the above story. I reprint his comment here,

I feel that I should have provided Heartiste with more background before I submitted this comment. Since this blog post will read by a lot of men in the future, I’m going to add some more info here pertaining to some comments here.

1). The man in question is by all definitions Alpha. Super-tall and good-looking with no shortage of women. Yes, he could have been “internally Beta,” but the Divorce Industrial Complex makes everyone Beta since Big Daddy Government and his child support collectors are Alpha by comparison.

2). The woman has requested as “pendente lite hearing,” which is a way she can get child support and custody before the divorce is settled. Translation: “Give me money, now.”

3). From what I gather, she had him evicted from their home. Or removed. Or something. Whatever the case, she’s still there and he’s renting a place in another Maryland town…in Prince George’s County. This is like being sent to hell. I don’t even like to drive through there.

4). I didn’t even think of this until I read some of the comments, but this woman does, in fact, have a bunch of female friends who are bad influences and likely leaned on her to file for divorce. I should know. I went out with one: Government worker, divorced, eternally single, makeshift “Christian” (i.e. frigid or mentally unstable), etc. In short, every negative stereotype about American women in one package. We went out once and I was warned about her by a guy who dated her but didn’t listen.

5). From the court records, it looks like this divorce has gone through something like a dozen hearings already. She first filed for divorce last October and they’ve been in court every month disputing something. A lawyer I happen to know charges $350 per hour. If this guy’s lawyer is charging (let’s say) two hours per hearing, that’s a LOT of money.

6). He’s now about 50 and she’s about 40.

In short, if you’re thinking about getting married, really think about what you’re doing. As someone who is divorced, I would say that you have to get in on the GROUND LEVEL with women. Once they’re about 33-34, you don’t know where the hell they’ve been and their anger toward men or neurosis about them will likely be taken out on YOU. From what I see, the best marriages are when the couples meet in high school or college.

That last paragraph is gold plated good advice. Single women get bitter and spiteful with age in a way that men don’t, because every added cock scours a woman’s soul while every added pussy gild’s a man’s soul. Bad relationship experiences accumulating over the years can ruin men and women, but men in my observation, when they bounce back, are more seamlessly able to reconstitute a loving relationship with a new woman minus the emotional baggage of past women who left him with bad memories. Women who have run through failed relationships tend to dump increasingly heavy loads of baggage on their new men.

tl;dr: younger women >>> older women.

Read Full Post »

A study of political bias in academia (accidentally) found that the more women there are in a college discipline, the more politically correct that discipline becomes.

Then Simmons analyzes disciplines, and finds sharp differences — largely consistent with previous studies about disciplines and political leanings. Humanities and social science fields tend to have higher politically correct rankings, while professional and science disciplines do not. The table that follows is in order of political correctness. Psychology is the only field where a majority of professors are politically correct. Four fields — finance, management information, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering — had no one who was politically correct.

Sociology and English were the other two disciplines in which the faculty were predominantly politically correct.

It’s not just the sex composition of the faculty that drives an academic discipline into the arms of Clown World. Psychology, Sociology, and English also have more female than male students. A female-skewed faculty plus a female-skewed student body is essentially a recipe-swapping club; where dykey cat ladies and their callow charges mutually reinforce their vapid religious beliefs and turn the university into a safe space where all emotions are validated and all uncomfortable facts are suppressed.

The menopausal cat ladies running the show in the soft disciplines are the ultimate conformist suck-ups and feelz addicts. Their First Amendment would read: “Does the speech make me feel good? It’s free. Does the speech rattle my cat carrier? It’s illegal.”

It’s an undeniable truth that women as a sex value emotions over facts, and men the opposite. It’s why male dominated disciplines like engineering and finance eschew political correctness in favor of telling it like it is. This problem of female skew exacerbating political correctness will only get worse because nationally colleges are now 60-40 women to men. Fewer male faculty and male students means the brake lines on poopytalk have been cut and the majority female campuses are careening over a cliffside of unscientific nonsense and overheated platitudes. When the rot reaches the engineering departments, it’ll be time to avoid driving over bridges.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: