Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

A very interesting paper examines power relations in humans, and in so doing illuminates classic dichotomies between the behaviors of alpha males and beta males. Link.

This article examines how power influences behavior. Elevated power is associated with increased rewards and freedom and thereby activates approach-related tendencies. Reduced power is associated with increased threat, punishment, and social constraint and thereby activates inhibition-related tendencies. The authors derive predictions from recent theorizing about approach and inhibition and review relevant evidence. Specifically, power is associated with (a) positive affect, (b) attention to rewards, (c) automatic information processing, and (d) disinhibited behavior. In contrast, reduced power is associated with (a) negative affect; (b) attention to threat, punishment, others’ interests, and those features of the self that are relevant to others’ goals; (c) controlled information processing; and (d) inhibited social behavior. The potential moderators and consequences of these power-related behavioral patterns are discussed.

If you want to get over Approach Anxiety, feel more powerful. (Likewise, by the transitive property of the behavior-cognition-emotion feedback loops, if you want to feel more powerful, start approaching more girls.) Easier said than done? This is one of those studies where most of the useful gems of knowledge are tucked deep in the paper and only alluded to in the abstract.

Power influences human behavior. When you have it, you act differently, in accordance with the goals of someone who expects deference, gratitude, and reward. When you don’t have it, the world is a frightening place. You act like a trembling field mouse waiting for a hawk to swoop from the air and carry you off.

First, a relevant quote:

The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense that Energy is the fundamental concept in physics . . . The laws of social dynamics are laws which can only be stated in terms of power. (Russell, 1938, p. 10)

All human interaction can be stripped down to battles for power, on macro and micro levels. Power in this usage means the ability to influence our social environment to our personal advantage. The study authors define power as…

…an individual’s relative capacity to modify others’ states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments. This capacity is the product of the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others.

Resources and punishments can be material (food, money, economic opportunity, physical harm, or job termination) and social (knowledge, affection, friendship, decision-making opportunities, verbal abuse, or ostracism). The value of resources or punishments reflects other individuals’ dependence on those resources.

The perceived freedom with which individuals can deliver resources and punishments to others also influences the individual’s level of power. Beliefs about the exercise of power figure prominently in cultural values and morals…as well as attitudes within personal relationships. Beliefs about the freedom to exercise power can come into conflict with the actual resources and punishments the individual can deliver to others—a tension that we elaborate on later.

Emphasis mine. Game largely resides in the domain of social resources and punishments, ie mindfucking.

If social status is power, what is status?

Our definition also distinguishes power from related constructs. Status is the outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences in respect and prominence. Status in part determines the allocation of resources within groups and, by implication, each individual’s power. However, it is possible to have power without status (e.g., the corrupt politician) and status without relative power (e.g., a readily identified religious leader in line at the Department of Motor Vehicles). Authority is power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements, but power can exist in the absence of formal roles (e.g., within informal groups). Dominance is behavior that has the acquisition of power as its end, yet power can be attained without performing acts of dominance (e.g., leaders who attain their positions through their cooperative and fair-minded style). Thus status, authority, and dominance are all potential determinants of power as we define it.

In seduction, a man’s status, authority, and dominance are each alone highly arousing to women, but together they create the archetypal powerful alpha male which few women can resist. See: our President.

Let’s dig into the relevant meat of the paper that addresses, if obliquely, the power dynamics between alpha and beta males as pertains to pickup and approaching women.

Of the many objects of social attention, we will focus on three: rewards or punishments, other individuals, and the self. We propose that high-power individuals, who are disposed to approach, will attend to potential rewards rather than to threats and as a consequence will construe others through a lens of self-interest. In contrast, low-power individuals will be more sensitive to threats than rewards and will therefore construe themselves vis-a`-vis others’ interests.

Alphas don’t see women as a threat and expect good reactions (rewards) from approaching women, so they feel less inhibited. They are embodiments of male privilege, feeling entitled to rewards from women and seeing them as avenues to fulfill their self-interest. Naturally, women reward these entitled privileged men because women are attracted to confident men.

Betas see every interaction with women as a potential mine field of shame and humiliation and rejection, so they’re more cautious and fearful of approaching women. Betas are also overly empathic and concerned with women’s feelings; they are the opposite of entitled, always assessing their own actions for how they may impact others’ feelings. This is why PUAs say betas “live in their heads” which gets in the way of their romantic success.

A related prediction is that elevated power will increase the tendency to perceive rewards and opportunities in ambiguous acts and interactions (Hypothesis 6). One suggestive line of studies finds that men, who might be assumed to occupy positions of elevated power, perceive sexual interest in women’s ambiguous behavior.

Self-entitled men do better with women because they’re more likely to bust a move, perceiving sexual interest from women where there might not be any. This is an advantageous self-deception because 1. it motivates approaching women which increases his romantic opportunities and 2. it projects supreme self-confidence which is attractive to women.

A complementary prediction is that low-power individuals will perceive themselves as a means to the ends of high-power individuals, or as the instrument of others’ goals and desires. […]

We have posited that high-power individuals selectively attend to rewards and how others satisfy self-interests, whereas low-power individuals attend to punishment and threat and construe the self through a lens of others’ interests.

Alphas are a means to their own ends.
Betas are a means to others’ ends.

This has sexual market implications.

Betas need to be more selfish to succeed at attracting women.
Alphas can become too selfish and sabotage their relationships (platonic and romantic). Often, alphas could benefit from being more selfless.

The approach system modulates processes related to eating, offensive aggression, and sexual behavior. Power should therefore increase the performance of approach related behaviors in these and other domains. Power should prompt the performance of simple approach behaviors (Hypothesis 18), such as entering the social space of others and initiating physical contact. Indeed, high levels of touching behavior correlate with being male, being older, and having higher SES. Studies of adults and children indicate that high-status, powerful individuals are more likely to approach subordinates at interpersonal distances that indicate intimacy.

Game concept vindicated: kino escalation. Get physical sooner rather than later if you want to improve your meet-to-lay ratio with women.

…high-power individuals should be more likely to engage in aggressive acts (Hypothesis 24). Several research literatures lend support to this prediction. Across contexts (e.g., school playgrounds, hospital settings, and summer camps), high-status individuals are more likely to tease (rather than avoid the potentially offensive teasing in the first place), and when they tease, they do so in more hostile ways. In one study of heterosexual and homosexual relationships, the partner who was less committed to the relationship, and therefore more powerful, was more likely to bully the partner.

Bullying is a cue for power. This helps explain why women are attracted to, and stay with, assholes: assholery is a proxy for power, which in a man is a highly attractive trait.

We have not portrayed power in a flattering light. High-power individuals tend to act in ways that disregard conventions, morals, and the effects on others. Yet approach-related behavior can be of a more prosocial nature, and our analysis and the supportive findings of Chen and colleagues (2001) do suggest that high-power individuals will engage in behaviors that violate social norms in prosocial ways. Some of these behaviors include intervening in emergencies or helping others in distress, mediating conflicts, and expressing approval and affection.

I can think of one other, very topical, prosocial way that powerful men violate social norms: speaking ugly truth to globohomo power.

High-need-for-power individuals engaged in profligate gambling, drinking, and sexual licentiousness less often when two kinds of life events enhanced their accountability: having younger siblings and becoming a parent. In fact, the social responsibilities tied to having a younger sibling or being a parent led high-power individuals to engage in more prosocial, approach-related behaviors, such as involvement in voluntary organizations. More generally, we would predict that accountability would lead to less approach-related emotion, more attention to others, and more careful cognition in high-power individuals.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who isn’t a liberal, accountability regulates the expression of power. Relaxing accountability leads to more abuses of power (see for example, the modren American woman).

Accountability is enhanced by younger siblings and parenthood. This should send up a red flag. In European Christendom, White family sizes are shrinking and parenthood is delayed. The consequence will be powerful people expressing their power in less prosocial ways and with more self-gratifying impulsivity.

High-power individuals may be more likely to stereotype others or perceive homogeneity in their social worlds because those with less power inhibit the expression of their actual attitudes.

Weak, spineless soyboys and low value skanky pussyhatters cling to kumbaya universalism because they don’t have the balls nor the smv to express their true feelings.

When do the powerful fall? When their disinhibition becomes pathological:

The very individuals who might keep in check this pattern of [high-power individuals’] behaviors, those with less power, are constrained in thought, word, and action.

This analysis just as readily reveals the conditions for social change: The excesses of powerful leaders—their propensity for disinhibited behavior and stereotypic, error-prone social perceptions—

Virtue signaling leftoid equalists.

are certain to feed into the processes that lead to changes in leadership.

Hello, Deep State!

These speculations make contact with social psychology’s longstanding interest in authority and group dynamics, as seen in Lewin, Lippitt, and White’s (1939) early investigation of authoritarian and egalitarian playgroups; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif’s (1961) Robbers Cave experiment; Janis’s (1972) discussion of groupthink; and Emerson’s (1962) lasting observation that low-power individuals constrain the actions of high-power individuals by affording them respect and status and thus controlling their public reputation.

Rescinding the respect and status that low-power people accord high-power people will render the latter less powerful. Or, to put it in Heartistian terms, The Mocking Shiv will Save the West.

Read Full Post »

The American Library Association has been overrun by gloryholing nümales, rug munchers, and pussyhatters. (see slideshow)

ljl at that banal intersectionalist poopytalk at the bottom.

If Ben Franklin could have seen what would become of the American Library institution, he would have stayed in Paris, enjoying ze poolside.

The American Library Association is now staffed and overseen by submissive beta bitchboys, aggrocunt feminists, and ex-DMV employees, all of them intent on achieving final victory over the hated (and self-hated) White Man: corruption of his institutions, erasure of his history, and replacement by his lessers.

When weak men and abrasive women have captured the institutions, decay, desecration, and destruction of those institutions isn’t far behind.

Related: There is evidence (thank you, ¡SCIENCE!) that big goofy smiles — aka gloryhole faces — are associated with lower dominance and lower prestige.

Across four studies, the current paper demonstrates that smiles are associated with lower social status. Moreover, the association between smiles and lower status appears in the psychology of observers and generalizes across two forms of status: prestige and dominance. In the first study, faces of fashion models representing less prestigious apparel brands were found to be more similar to a canonical smile display than the faces of models representing more prestigious apparel brands. In a second study, after being experimentally primed with either high or low prestige fashion narratives, participants in the low prestige condition were more likely to perceive smiles in a series of photographs depicting smiling and non-smiling faces. A third study of football player photographs revealed that the faces of less dominant (smaller) football players were more similar to the canonical smile display than the faces of their physically larger counterparts. Using the same football player photographs, a fourth study found that smiling was a more reliable indicator of perceived status-relevant personality traits than perceptions of the football players’ physical sizes inferred from the photographs.

Another nugget of Chateau wisdom lovingly polished by the labcoats.

  • Betas smile too little and smile too much

Yeah, it seems contradictory, but betas never have a firm grasp on when and how often it’s personally advantageous to smile. They don’t smile when they walk into the bar or before they’ve started talking to a girl, and they smile too much once they are in a conversation with a girl. This behavior reveals their tormented beta soul: They are unhappy to be there until a girl’s presence makes them happy. Would an alpha relinquish his state of mind to another person? Especially a woman? No. His joy is self-generated.

When you go out to FMAC girls, try this face for best results:

In the big picture analysis, the efflorescence of gawping soyboys indicates a bifurcating sexual market featuring the cad haves and the incel have-nots. The open-mouthed betas are advertising their submission to the new paradigm whenever they get the chance, hoping an alpha will toss them one of his sloppy fifths and the manjawed shrikes who work with them won’t accuse them of a #MeToo infraction. This period of Western history, particularly in America, is notable for the appeasing prostration of its mass of beta males. The pendulum will eventually swing back to confident beta males in charge of the culture, and when it does it will swing with a vengeance, because we’ve gone much further down the road of anti-beta male degeneracy.

Also related: Richard Spencer’s Alt-Right website was de-registered by GoDaddy at the request of a butthurt black woman “civil rights” lolyer. Hey, how about that! Diversity isn’t so great for free speech! Corporations that cave like this to shrieking anti-White mobs ought to be de-registered from earth.

Read Full Post »

Gossip and salt and blame-shifting fault, that’s what older girls are made of.

Via reader Pepe, ¡SCIENCE! once again shits in the faces of feminists and pabulum spewing equalists.

This is not the place for this comment, but then again SCIENCE: Women are way less cooperative than men.

This goes against the leftist myth that the world would be a better place if women ruled.

“We confirmed a puzzling gender difference: men cooperate much more than women” [in a repeated Prisoner Game]. Also, cooperation doesn’t fade over time, as previously thought.

The numbers:

And from other study:

No doubt that men are the civilization builders, and no wonder why feminazis and manginas hate evo psych so much.

The Fuggernaut hates anything that disproves their belief that one day, soon, the Armies of the Disfigured will rise up to claim their equally distributed share of Facecock Likes.

The labcoat unearthing of the ancient wisdom that women are far less cooperative than are men is another step forward in the recent progression of scientific studies rediscovering the truths at the center of every stereotype. As usual, I was on top of this before the four eyes crowd…women aren’t cooperative, they’re (superficially) non-hierarchical, which is a different thing entirely (but shitlibs and femcunts are happy to confuse the two).

Besides the primary finding, there are two other results of interest to Chateau readers:

One, cooperation didn’t fade over repeated iterations of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game. I’d bet most of the test subjects were WEIRDO Whites, because there’s a racial confound to measurement of cooperativeness. If cooperativeness is partly heritable, then the disposition to cooperate will show durability even under the stress of PD games.

Two, men fight for dominant status, women are eliminationist. As I alluded to in a previous post about credentialism being inherently feminine and hierarchy inherently masculine, research shows men follow a “compete then cooperate” model and women follow a “compete and cast out” model. The two strategies exist because men and women have differing reproductive goals and sex roles. Men must gain status and then use that status to acquire fertile women and resources and to protect those resources from rape and pillage by competing tribes (which requires intratribal cooperation with other men).

Women don’t have the role of protecting the tribe from invading tribes or of accumulating resources to win the love of high value men, so their intrasexual strategy doesn’t require cooperativeness, but since men are attracted to young nubile women and are thus a persistent abandonment threat to women, the female intrasexual strategy does require competing against other women to retain a male provider. Ominously, because other younger women are a continual poaching threat, women will seek to eliminate them from competition rather than dominate them. Intrasexual female domination is useless from a Darwinian perspective because men aren’t attracted to dominant women (they’re attracted to sexy fertile women).

From a Game perspective, these studies basically reiterate CH’s Dread Game — the exploitation of a woman’s fear of abandonment for another hotter, younger, tighter woman via intimations of infidelity and wandering romantic interest.


The compulsion in women to gossip and tear down other women when they’re out of earshot can be exploited by the smart Gamesman. The idea is to raise, in absentia, the SMV of the other woman your girl is bitching about. By raising her competition’s SMV, by the zero sum property of female ego credits, you implicitly lower the SMV of the girl you’re talking to, and thus raise your own SMV. The relative SMV comparisons, now structured to favor you getting the bang, are a key element of pickup.

Read Full Post »

Male preselection, aka the observable reality that the desirability of men to women increases when men are desired by women, gets a boost from ¡SCIENCE!:

Men are more attractive when desired by other women, study finds

Published in the journal Scientific Reports, researchers from the Universities of St Andrews, Durham and Exeter believe that a man is given an “attractiveness boost” when he is desired by other women.

This is because he is perceived to be more kind, faithful and a better father.

Right observation, wrong interpretation. These cues may play a role in the additional desirability of preselected men, but they aren’t the primary reason for women’s arousal in the company of men who are surrounded by adoring women. The more honest explanation for the “mate copying effect” in women is that preselected men are proven HSMV commodities — the love of other women validates the preselected man’s sexual worth. Women need this validation because it’s a shortcut to determining if a man would be a quality mate. Why do women, but not men, exploit third party opinion to gauge a potential lover’s worth? Because women are HOLISTIC mate value assessors; women judge a lot more about a man than just his looks. Men predominately rely on their eyeballs to tell them which women are worth pursuing and courting.

The women were asked to rate how attractive they found each image before being shown the average rating given by the rest of the group.

Interestingly, when the women were asked to re-rate each image shortly after, their answer changed in favour of the social information.

On average, a participant changed their initial rating by around 13 per cent when rating the attractiveness of men’s faces depending on what other women had said.

In the zero sum sexual market, even a 1% edge can mean the difference between incel and normielove.

“Women appear to copy the mate preferences of other women but this might simply be because humans have a general tendency to be influenced by the opinions of others,” said research leader Dr Kate Cross.

A strong sex difference operates here. Women tend to be more influenced by group opinion.

A trait which is often seen in female birds and fish, the idea behind mate copying or The Wedding Ring Effect, is that by already being in a relationship or desired by other women, a man has already proven that they have some desirable characteristics.

When a woman sees an ugly man with attractive women, she thinks, “what does he have going on? I must find out.”

When a man sees an ugly woman with attractive men, he thinks, “she’s ugly, they’re gay.”

The findings are also supported by an earlier study from Oklahoma State University which found that 90 per cent of single women were interested in a man they believed was taken, while a mere 59 per cent wanted him when told he was single.

The “wedding ring effect” can be spoofed by single men in two ways: wear a wedding ring, or surround himself with female friends who will act as his wingmen completely unawares of their purpose to him if he chooses exploitation over honesty.

If you decide on the female friend strategy to boost your preselection score, don’t ruin the effect by acting like a gay-ass beta orbiter. You aren’t supposed to give women the impression that you’re a gay bestie helping your girls hook up with chads. You’re supposed to be *that guy* who’s socializing with women whom he may or may not be banging, while still keeping an eye out for fresh meat. And when the girl you’ve got your eye on asks about the nature of your relationships with your female company? “Oh them? They’re my caravan of migrants, always following me around.”

Read Full Post »


2016Avowed polyamorists are almost universally VLSMV (Very Low Sexual Market Value). This is especially true of polyandrous arrangements. The male facsimiles who volunteer to be shared by one (ugly) woman are so wretchedly unlovable that only the mentally diseased leftoid webzine Salon can identify with their cause.

2010Maxim #109: Consensual polyamory is a contrived hookup service for undesirable sexual market rejects.

2014Open relationships are almost never two-way.

One party to the “creatively ambiguous” polyamory agreement is getting the metaphorical shaft, and the other the actual shaft. The shafted is typically, but not always, the male (no need to sully the word “man”), whose role is as the eminently mockable “beta bux” (or beta hugs) available for service during those three weeks of the month when the female’s libido goes into hibernation. That he may live with his openly open-legged girlfriend doesn’t mean he’s getting the lion’s share of her vagina. But he is getting the lion’s share of her feelings and tantrums and moodiness. […]

Genuine, egalitarian, open polyamory for all practical purposes doesn’t exist among white Westerners. There’s always one or another party out in the asexual or anhedonic cold, nursing feelings of rejection and traumatic self-doubt. And if that party is a willing participant to his or her sexual/romantic exclusion, it’s a good bet he/she is psychologically broken, mentally unstable, physically repulsive, or suffering from clinically low sex drive. In other words, human trash.

Open relationship participants are almost always hideously ugly.

Polyamory is a mating ground for human rejects. Whatever else it offers, the open relationship ruse assists the comically low value sector of humanity to live amongst each other and experience pleasures of the diseased flesh.

True open relationships are predominantly polyandrous.

The general complexion of contractual open relationships — where all participants are voluntary and aware of proceedings — is one ugly to mediocre-looking woman on the pre-Wall fast track lavishing in the flaccid attention of two or more omega males. Invariably, the more masculine (and it’s all relative, so maybe it’s better to say “the less androgynous”) of the males would be the one who is actually porking her.

Illicit open relationships are predominantly polygynous.

“Open” relationships that form organically from the unspoken (and initially unacknowledged) impulses and romantic decisions of one or another partner nearly always manifest into polygynous arrangements: That is, illicit open relationships are distinguished by one high value alpha male discreetly juggling multiple concurrent female lovers. Pickup artists call the illicit open relationship the MLTR: Multiple Long-Term Relationship. Genghis Khan called it Tuesday. […]

In the real world, the openly polyamorous nirvana of ‘sex at dawn’ is really the circus sideshow abattoir of ‘sex before personal hygiene’.


Thank you, SCIENCE, for once again taking my balls on the chin.


PS If our society seems to be efflorescing with more openly proud polyamorous arrangements connecting ugly bluehairs with low T soyboys, that is likely because our society is filling up with more lsmv losers desperate for love and affection. Look around, is America currently an HSMV or LSMV nation? Obesity, pussyhattery, sluttery, and soylent grins are an epidemic.

HSMV men create good times.
Good times create LSMV men.
LSMV men create hard times.
Hard times create HSMV men.

Read Full Post »

Hot off the presses, a criminally patriarchal research paper has concluded that men with higher income and status have more reproductive success than women with high income and status have in industrialized nations. First, to set the table, an excerpt from the abstract:

It is concluded that an evolutionary perspective helps explain reproductive patterns in modern humans and may thus make a valuable contribution in the assessment of urgent contemporary problems.

The sexual market is the one market to rule them all, across space and time.
– Le 156% Heartiste

Female hypergamy, female education, female economic self-sufficiency, low female fertility…choose any four.

In terms of social and economic status, men date across and down, women date across and up. Industrialized societies filled with overeducated careerist shrikes make it more difficult for both men and women to find long-term reproductive partners. What the West has done is weaponize female hypergamy, so that the only winner in this zero sum mating game are the HSMV alpha males who can serially date and marry increasingly younger women.

In the modren West, overeducated, careerist women are DARWINIAN LOSERS. They now join the lonesome ranks of fat women, ugly women, and old spinsters. Lean in? Try barren quim.

Low status beta and omega males are bigger losers in this new world order than they were before under the rock solid pre-femcunt patriarchal system, because the women who would be theirs under the old rules have decided to skip past them for a shot at 1. the high status alpha or 2. a tub of ben and jerrys.

The biggest DARWINIAN WINNERS are the charming jerkboy cads and the sociopath hedge funders.

Post-America alpha males enjoy not only reproductive success (in an environment in which widespread use of contraceptives thwarts the ability to convert bangs into bangbinos), but sexual success:

Potential fertility — that’s a nerdy way to say “sexiness”. Men with high social and economic status in industrialized and primitive nations alike — HSMV alphas — monopolize the hottest babes, and probably more than their fair share of the plain janes too. The Pill and condom don’t thwart the sex act; those things just thwart the consequence of the sex act, and incentivize women to liberate their sexuality (which in practice means liberating themselves from beta males). Imagine how many little snot-nosed Heartistes (heartots?) would be running around creating kindergarten mayhem if the Industrial Contraception Complex didn’t exist.

How unequally is sex distributed in industrialized jizztopias? Very:

There are interesting eugenic/dysgenic possibilities to ponder from this knowledge. There is dysgenic selection pressure on high status women — at least as measured by income, social status, and their proxy, IQ — but eugenic selection pressure on their male counterparts, the HSMV alphas who are having more kids.

This isn’t a complete picture, though, because female mate worth is so much more tied into their physical beauty. Those HSMV alpha males are choosing less educated, less wealthy, lower SES “status” women who are younger, hotter, tighter, so by Darwinian calculation the end result is very eugenic: capable sons and pretty daughters. This is evidence that the West is beginning to pursue the patented CH BOSSS strategy of sexual market health and societal reinvigoration.

I’ve been warning about this stuff for a while, and I’m glad to see ¡SCIENCE! finally catching up with Heartistian observations. There was only ever going to be one effective response by men to the emergence of weaponized female hypergamy (and it wasn’t cuddly beta supplication).

Game will save the West….in one respect, by heightening its late stage contradictions and encouraging a change in course.


On the silliness of the “wage gap”:

…and the silliness of the feminist narrative about the “patriarchy”:


Some juicy excerpts from the paper linked in this post:

religiously homogamous couples have a significantly lower chance of remaining childless but a higher average number of children, even controlling for religious intensity…


In addition to the fact that close inbreeding carries genetic risks (discussed previously), this may also be the case (p. 485) for distant outbreeding, although the effects of outbreeding are far less clear…


…homogamy along certain characteristics has consequences as well. Particularly educational homogamy may be an undervalued risk factor, resulting in less permeability of social stratification and hence a stronger segregation of the social strata. This has negative consequences for “social cohesion,” increasing the tensions within a society.


In times of global mass migrations, the high prevalence of religious homogamy, together with its reproductive effects, may also have far-reaching implications because it may lead to the breakup of societies into “parallel societies,”

Word of the day: Homogamy.

It is the secret Truth that shivs miscegenation propagandists dead.

…empirical evidence for a fitness advantage over generations by reducing the number of children and investing more in fewer children is minimal or absent. Evidence suggests that on the one hand, low fertility increases the progenies’ socioeconomic position, but on the other hand, it reduces long-term fitness.


In addition, different strategies of maximizing versus optimizing fertility may lead to a conflict between the sexes.

Aka the modren sexual market. The battle of the sexes has never been more pitched than it is now.

Read Full Post »

Grab a kleenex feminists, because there are only two sexes and your idiotic deconstructivist ideals are laughable!

A machine learning algorithm was able to correctly predict with 80% accuracy the sex of study subjects from brain images. Highlights:


  • Neuroanatomical sex differences in youth is modeled using a statistical learning approach.
  • Results indicate the advantageous of multivariate analysis over univariate analysis.
  • Cortical thickness and mean curvature measures revealed sex differences that were unrelated to brain size.
  • Most discriminative brain areas were angular and occipital gyri and paracentral lobule.
  • The source code for the analysis performed in this study has been made available.


The algorithm was not able to distinguish more than two sexes, male and female. Sorry, freaks, you don’t have a poo poo platter of genders to choose from. You’re either man, woman, or mentally ill.

Sex differences are literally brain-deep and therefore invalidate feminist theory that the sexes are born the same but diverge in ability and preference due to “social conditioning”. Men and women have different brain architectures, notable in specific regions of the brain, and these differences are independent of brain size.

Interestingly, male and female brains show the most pronounced difference in the occipital lobes and the angular gyri. The occipital lobes process visual information (holistically appealing jerkboy vs visually stimulating HB). The angular gyri are involved in calculation (math) and in mental representation of spatial information (engineering).

Mm mm mmm mm mm. ¡SCIENCE! won’t take my salty balls out of its mouth.

PS If this machine learning research were directed to predict the race of subjects from their brain images, I suspect the results would be….AWFULLY revealing.

PPS Right on cue, scientists have discovered that DNA tests can predict a person’s IQ. Uh oh! Narrative collapse incoming!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: