SCIENCE! Finds Neurological Proof For The Stereotype Of Female Hysteria

Once again, SCIENCE! affirms Chateau Heartiste maxims and squats lumply on feminist mythology while unloading a phallus-shaped deuce. A deep state study finds that there’s a neuroanatomical basis for the observed sex-based difference in emotion regulation.

As expected, males significantly scored higher in emotion regulation ability than females did. More importantly, we found the sex differences in the neuroanatomical basis of emotion regulation ability. Males showed a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and regional gray matter volume (rGMV) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. In contrast, females demonstrated a stronger positive relation between emotion regulation ability and rGMV in an anatomical cluster that extends from the left brainstem to the left hippocampus, the left amygdala and the insular cortex. The present study provides the first empirical evidence regarding the sex-linked neuroanatomical correlates of emotion regulation ability. These findings may help understand why there is a higher prevalence of affective disorders in females and maladaptive behaviors in males.

SCIENCE! and CH: dancing the duet of fated lovers. This study literally discovers neurological proof for the truefact stereotype that women are more hysterical than are men. State control…it’s a man thing. You women just wouldn’t understand.

I gotta wonder how self-deluded feminist are gonna spin this latest out-take from the HARDASFUCK sciences?

RANDOM MANJAW: “well, you see, that’s just the patriarchal culture influencing female fetuses and changing their brain wiring.”

THE SHIV OF PRIVILEGE: “is the patriarchal culture also influencing female fetuses to become raving lunatic feminists?”

PS The last line in that study abstract is lethal thoughtcrime (literally). Mood (affective) disorders largely afflict women because their brain structure provides a more fertile (heh) environment for hysteria and related emotional malfunctions to flourish. Men, in contrast, have a sex-specific brain architecture that predisposes them to the opposite: emotion-less disorders that characterize ailments like autism, psychopathy, and anti-social behavior.

PPS The Game relevance should be evident. Tap into a women’s roller coaster emotions and you can guide her to expressing herself in the way that matters most to *your* emotional needs.

Read Full Post »

Swagger Or Brood, But Don’t Look Happy

Men love women who look happy. Women love men who look…. take a guess.

Women find happy guys significantly less sexually attractive than swaggering or brooding men, according to a new University of British Columbia study that helps to explain the enduring allure of “bad boys” and other iconic gender types.

Of course, if you were to ASK the typical woman in a public setting surrounded by her family and peers which kind of man she would rather date, she’ll say the smiling happy man. Women are loath to publicly admit romantic preferences that would expose the disturbing nature of their sexuality. But any man who’s lived a day in his life knows the special appeal that swaggering douchebags or mysterious brooding artists have to women.

In a series of studies, more than 1,000 adult

Nice N.

participants rated the sexual attractiveness of hundreds of images of the opposite sex engaged in universal displays of happiness (broad smiles), pride (raised heads, puffed-up chests) and shame (lowered heads, averted eyes).

The study found that women were least attracted to smiling, happy men, preferring those who looked proud and powerful or moody and ashamed. In contrast, male participants were most sexually attracted to women who looked happy, and least attracted to women who appeared proud and confident.

Careerist, manjawed feminists extolling the lean-in philosophy wept. Men prefer deferential, submissive, vulnerable women. I.e., feminine women.

“It is important to remember that this study explored first-impressions of sexual attraction to images of the opposite sex,” says Alec Beall, a UBC psychology graduate student and study co-author. “We were not asking participants if they thought these targets would make a good boyfriend or wife — we wanted their gut reactions on carnal, sexual attraction.”

The sexual market is the prime market because (among other reasons) it operates on the level of the human subconscious, where instinct and “gut” forge behavior before the frontal lobe pitches in to rationalize that based behavior as freely chosen and socially appropriate.

Overall, the researchers found that men ranked women more attractive than women ranked men.

Fashy coda! Affirms the “sperm is cheap, eggs are expensive” maxim. For those cucklets who insist that women only value men’s looks, remember that women are predisposed to valuing VERY LITTLE of men, even decent-looking men, BEFORE those men have approached and displayed their masculine boldness.

It’s been covered here at the Chateau many times…women are the more discriminating sex, and that extends to women’s perceptions of men’s looks. Which is implicitly good news for less Hollywoodian men, because if women only consciously value the top 5% in male looks then the reality that far more than 5% of men are dating cute girls proves that women must subconsciously value other traits in men. This study indirectly highlights a selection of those other attractive male traits: confidence, cockiness, inscrutability, danger, and dominance.

***

Nikolai adds an insightful comment about women’s seemingly weird attraction to shame-faced men.

This is the second study I’ve seen where ‘ashamed’ or ‘guilty’ was the second most popular look for men. I think I know why this is.
When I first started seeing multiple women, dates would ask me about it and I would look shamefaced. This would prove what I was up to and I was surprised to find that they reacted positively, like those female teachers who can’t help adoring the naughty boy.
Of course, haughty and nonchalant would have been even better. That’s why ashamed only comes in second.

Anything that communicates “I’ve been a bad bad boy” will fire up a woman’s libido.

Read Full Post »

Did Humans Evolve To Have Tighter Game?

Given the recent news of a discovery suggesting that Neanderthals may have been more advanced than previously thought, it’s time to revisit the possibility that Neanderthals were out-competed by  proto-Sapien Cro-Magnons because the former were missing some valuable, survival trait other than intellectual horsepower.

We humans may have evolved to have tighter Game. Reader Feta explains:

I don’t know if this study has been discussed here before, but take a look if it has not:

“The Neanderthal correlation”

“No, I found that Neanderthals lacked genes linked to successful socialization and management skills. They could count perfectly well, but they couldn’t deal with groups. Socialization genes came from Sapiens”

Does this imply that alphas are the advanced “monkey” in the classic evolution pic? Betas/gammas usually are not bad with logic, but don’t fair well when it comes to “Sapiens characteristics” (i.e.,socialization)? If this is what the study says, then Game is an attempt to jump a great distance ahead in the evolutionary process.

Yes, that’s implied. When Neanderthals and Sapiens simultaneously occupied the same territories, it was the socially awkward beta nerdo Neanderthals who, despite their numeracy and great strength, succumbed to the Sapiens who had the tight Game (i.e., social skills) to form cooperative militias that could take out Neanderthals, monopolize their megafauna prey, and… wait for it… even bed Neanderthal women!

Game, far from being solely the primitive manipulations of sex-obsessed cads, was the next step in human evolution! Game can save species on the brink of extinction.

I like the coda to that article linked by Feta:

“You’re trying to tell me …” I said, but my mental censor blocked the idea.

“That human mathematical intelligence came from Neanderthals? That’s what the data say. The Cro-Magnons had the social skills. But that isn’t all.”

I stared at her. I couldn’t tell that to the research council.

As usual, she couldn’t read the warning look on my face. “The hybridization was successful in the Stone Age, but the environment has changed. I found that modern culture selects for socialization but against the Neanderthal traits for mathematics and intelligence,” she said, and looked down. “I don’t know how you’ll survive when our genes are gone.”

It’s possible then that Neanderthals picked up some beneficial “Game genes” from interbreeding with Cro-Magnons, but the intervention was too little too late to save them from the race annihilation we currently can see happening in Sweden, Britain, Germany and swaths of America.

Theory: too much sexual or cultural selection for Game genes will corrode the modern civilization that fewer Game genes helped create. When social savvy genes crowd out math and high impulse control genes… welp there go your highways, sewage treatment plants, and circuit boards.

Read Full Post »

Options = Instability: Another Heartiste Maxim Externally Validated By SCIENCE!

Options = Instability. A Chateau maxim as universal and relevant to life satisfaction as the famed CH aphorism Diversity + Proximity = War. The O=I theory was introduced in this original press post:

Where you have options, you have trouble sticking by one person. A man dating a girl (or girls) will feel on top of the world and suddenly all those single women traipsing around the city look like much easier targets to approach. His loins will quiver with excitement. A woman transplanted from a less populated region of the country to the big city will become enthralled with all the extra attention from men who are probably much better at playing the game than the men she left back home. Her ego will quiver with expectation.

…and fleshed out here, with accompanying scientific confirmation:

[T]here is an inherent sex difference in the destabilizing force of increased options. A man with more options than his partner is a less destabilizing force to his relationship than is a woman with equally more options than her partner. This phenomenon results from the greater hypergamous drive of women, who are less satisfied than are men with sub-par lovers, and from the biological reality that risk of female infidelity is a graver threat to relationship harmony than is risk of male infidelity for which there is no chance of “reverse cuckolding”.

Think of the relationship permutations this way:

Man with options + woman with fewer options = man with peace of mind and wandering eye + happy but anxious woman + lovingly prepared home-cooked meals.

Woman with options + man with fewer options = unhappy woman with wandering eye + happy but anxious man + microwaved dinners.

Man with options + woman with options = stable relationship. Both are happy and infidelity or rupture risks are minimized.

Man with few options + woman with few options = stable relationship. Both are unhappy yet infidelity or rupture risks are still minimized.

I don’t need my knob slobbed by ¡SCIENCE!, but I won’t turn down a freebie blowie if 💋SCIENCE💋 just can’t get enough of my Renaissance Meat. So once again, to the lab-coats (via VIP commentator chris):

Scientific proof that options creates instability.

In the interests of weeding out the mathematical complexity, there were three values calculated. Assuming you were taking the survey, they would correspond to (1) how well your actual partner matched your ideal (2) what percent of possible real mates out in the world are better overall fits, and (3) how much more or less desirable you are to others, relative to your partner. These values were then plugged into a regression predicting relationship satisfaction. As it turned out, in the first study (N = 260), the first value – how well one’s partner matched their ideal – barely predicted relationship satisfaction at all (ß = .06); by contrast, the number of other potential people who might make better fits was a much stronger predictor (ß = -.53), as was the difference in relative mate value between the participant and their partner (ß = .11). There was also an interaction between these latter two values (ß = .21). As the authors summarized these results:

“Participants lower in mate value than their partners were generally satisfied regardless of the pool of potential mates; participants higher in mate value than their partners became increasingly dissatisfied with their relationships as better alternative partners became available”

Implied in the CH Options = Instability formula is the premise that the available options are desirable; options don’t mean much if what you have now is decidedly better than the alternatives. Few people will trade up from a filet mignon to a burger, so the existence of millions of attainable burgers doesn’t register as a menu of options to our subconscious minds if we’re currently dining on filet mignon. (If you’ve dated a really pretty girl, you’ll know that, at least for a while, the world of women outside her presence seems to recede into invisibility. Some call that love.)

Instability follows from options when the options are instinctively perceived as worthwhile substitutes. From this truism, we can deduce the effectiveness of a powerful Game principle: Dread. If you are a man who is, or is subjectively perceived to be, lower in sexual market value than your girlfriend/wife, then you can help stabilize your relationship and increase the happiness of you and your partner if you ACT LIKE you are a man with many desirable and attainable options you’d trade up to if circumstances allowed.

That is, it’s sexy to act more like an untrustworthy man than a trustworthy man. Why? Because women LOVE LOVE LOVE men who are loved by other desirable women. And an untrustworthy man signals his desirability to many beautiful women. This principle is why it’s so common to see physically unattractive men dating hot babes “out of their league” strut like a cuntquistador who could drop his current lover on a dime if she ever gave him trouble. Platitudists may not appreciate this facet of human sexual behavior, but it’s real and it works.

CH Maxim #77: If a man acts as if his life is full of willing women, then women will be more willing company.

Read Full Post »

SCIENCE!: American Women Are Becoming Less Feminine

Longtime Chateau guests know I’m keen to *preen* when the pretext is right. But sometimes even an egregious preening can’t sufficiently convey the tumescence of my stroked ego when SCIENCE! lands a study in my lap that grinds me to completion.

A recurrent theme at CH is the personal observation that American women are becoming less feminine. As it so happens, CH was right! A new study finds that, hey, American women are becoming less feminine.

Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

The Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) is one of Sandra Bem’s most notable contributions to feminist psychology, measuring an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI (34 samples, N = 8,027), we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. Additional analyses used data collected in a previous meta-analysis (Twenge 1997) to document changes since the BSRI’s inception in 1974. Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d  = −.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 (94 samples, N = 24,801) found that women’s M rose significantly (d  = .23), with no changes in women’s F, men’s M, and men’s F. Women’s androgyny scores showed a significant increase since 1974, but not since 1993. Men’s androgyny remained the same in both time periods. Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity. However, it is also possible that the scale items do not match modern gender stereotypes. Future research may need to update the BSRI to reflect current conceptions of gender.

This is yuge… (news, as well as study sample size.) The implications in the study’s findings about the transformation of the American sexual market are profound. If American women are becoming less feminine, then American men will find them less attractive, especially as long-term investment vehicles for marriage and family. And that is what the data show; the overall marriage rate is down and the age of first marriage is up, coinciding with the period during which women have lost their feminine charms.

Men are dropping out because women are leaning in. Way to go, feminist harpies!

In the big picture, female femininity has declined over the last generation or two because of feminist indoctrination and social signals encouraging and celebrating the abandonment of femininity.

In the bigger picture, widely and cheaply available birth control, abortion, obesity, processed food toxins, and female economic self-sufficiency have all conspired to denude women of their femininity and to impel women to adopt masculine posturing.

In the biggest picture, the loss of American women’s femininity is exactly what one would expect to see in a culture that is unmooring from its historical K-selected, predominantly White biomechanical foundation (patriarchal, high paternity certainty, slender women with low cock counts) and drifting toward an r-selected, increasingly nonWhite society (matriarchal, low paternity certainty, muscular and obese women with high cock counts) similar to the African sexual market norm, (where men more than anywhere else in the world are “dancing monkeys” for women and the women toil in the fields and bring home the bacon while crapping out kids from behind-the-bush trysts with multiple fathers).

When men’s sexuality is maximally restricted, and women’s sexuality is released of all constraints, the inevitable result is a dispiritingly corporate romantic market of supplicating male lackeys and aggro “slut positive” careergrrl chubsters whose very financial independence (government gibsmedats by any name) obviates the need to be more pleasing and feminine to attract beta male providers with tight resource sharing Game.

An unfeminine androgyne is the New World Woman, and she is letting men know they aren’t worth her effort to please, (and her unkempt vagina has seen lots of action DEAL WITH IT).

PS Would have loved to have seen this study controlled for race (if it hadn’t been). Mass invasion of nonWhites must certainly skew raw femininity/masculinity scores in one direction or another.

PPS Another SCIENCE!❤ CH knob job: Storytelling ability increases a man’s attractiveness as a long-term romantic partner.

Read Full Post »

The Sexual Market Is The Prime Market

Forget the free market economy. The sexual market is the one market to rule them all. As if my preening weren’t already supremely ostentatious, here’s a recent SCIENCE! study confirming another Heartiste axiom: every human interaction and transaction is downstream from the existential struggle to find a quality mate, fuck, and procreate.

Fewer romantic prospects may lead to riskier investments

Encountering information suggesting that it may be tough to find a romantic partner shifts people’s decision making toward riskier options, according to new findings from a series of studies published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

“Environmental cues indicating that one will have a relatively difficult time finding a mate can drive people to concentrate their investment choices into a few high-risk, high-return options,” says psychological scientist Joshua Ackerman of the University of Michigan, lead author on the research. “This is true even when the decisions people are making are not explicitly relevant to romantic outcomes.”

I’ve received some scoffing from spergy types projecting their spergitude onto this ‘umble outpost of love concerning the assertion often made here that the sexual market governs, consciously or subconsciously it doesn’t really matter, the machinations and ultimately the outcomes of the more palpable activity that takes place in the economic market. But here we have a study proving the truth of the CH observation that ripples and undercurrents of sexual compulsion and romantic desperation are the “invisible loin” that guides all human behavior in the secondary market of the economy and its supporting markets (like academia).

“This is exactly opposite from the pattern of investing we would predict if we assumed people were using an economically ‘rational’ decision strategy,” Ackerman explains. “From an evolutionary perspective, if the options are to do whatever it takes to find a romantic partner or risk not finding one, the more rational choice may be to do whatever it takes.”

This is a stone cold truth that no libertardian like Alex Tabbarak or Cheap Chalupas will ever get. Humans aren’t rational actors; they’re rationalizing actors. And what they rationalize are choices, in all spheres of transaction, that directly or indirectly improve their chances of landing that alpha male or that hot babe.

In a second online study, 105 participants read a newspaper article discussing demographic trends in the U.S. They then evaluated stock packages with equivalent values (e.g., 100 shares in 8 companies, 200 shares in 4 companies, etc.) and chose which package they would invest in.

Again, the data showed that both male and female participants who read about unfavorable sex ratios opted for riskier investments, choosing more shares in fewer companies, than those who read about favorable ratios.

In practice, “riskier strategies” for women amounts to what we see today on college campuses, where women outnumber men 60-40. The zeitgeist is a sexual pornucopia for a few alpha men getting the milk for free without buying the cow, and a lot of disappointment and depression among marginally pretty women who thought they could turn that fling into a thing.

The fact that sex ratio had an impact on decisions that were not directly linked with mating success suggests that sexual competition elicits a general mindset geared toward achieving the largest possible reward, regardless of the risk involved.

Polygyny, as is the norm throughout Africa, can induce the same risky investment strategizing from men as can an unfavorable sex skew. When a few men lock up many women, each individual man has an incentive to throw caution to the wind to be one of those few winner men.

As such, the researchers argue, these findings could have implications for decision making in domains as diverse as retirement planning, gambling, and even making consumer purchases.

Executive Summary: The meaning of life is to fuck.

Read Full Post »

NPR Dweebs Agree With Heartiste: Chicks Dig Alpha Male Body Language

From deep in the Le Chateau crypt (2007), a post about common beta male body language mistakes:

Closed body language

Guys who are confident that nothing in life can touch them have very open and smooth body language.  Nervous guys who are always afraid of fights, of being sucker punched, of conflict, will defensively scrunch up their body as if they were psychologically warding off blows.  Guys who fear nothing open their arms, expose their chests, and generally project the look of someone who never worries about being caught off-guard.  In that vein, avoid shoving your hands in your pockets, crossing your arms, standing with a narrow stance, looking around the room with darting eyes, slouching, or grabbing one forearm with your hand.

Recently (2016), from an NPR broadcast,

To Catch Someone On Tinder, Stretch Your Arms Wide

[…]

In these experiments, the researchers compared young adults’ closed, slouched postures against open, or expanded, ones.

“An expansive, open posture involves widespread limbs, a stretched torso and general enlargement of occupied space,” says Tanya Vacharkulksemsuk, a social psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley and lead author on the study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For the 144 speed daters, Vacharkulksemsuk says, “expansiveness nearly doubles chances of getting a yes [to see each other again.]” […]

Separately, she and her colleagues had three men and three women create two dating profiles each on a popular dating app. (All six participants were white and heterosexual). Their profiles were identical in every way except the pictures in one profile were all expanded postures, while its twin had all contracted poses.

The participants swiped yes on every potential suitor — 3,000 in total — for 48 hours. “Profiles that feature expansive photos were 27 percent more likely to get a yes,” Vacharkulksemsuk says. Expanding made both men and women more desirable during speed dating and in the dating app. The effect was more pronounced for men, however.

Bolded to twist the shiv in feminists’ spotted hides. Sorry, feminists, dominance displays benefit men more than women! (You can tell how badly this shiv hits the shitlib bone by the alacrity with which the NPR writer avoided deeper examination of this equalist narrative-busting caveat.)

These postures convey power and openness, says Vacharkulksemsuk. “The information packing in that nonverbal behavior is social dominance, and where that person stands in a hierarchy,” she says. And, presumably, the person high in the pecking order is sexy. Alphas are scarce and in demand.

The reader who forwarded the NPR link asks, “Do you ever get tired of being right?”

No.

Read Full Post »