Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Science Validates Game’ Category

Piggybacking on the previous post (and perhaps modifying it), here is a research paper (h/t Irving) authored by Chateau VIP guest Satoshi Kanazawa which uncovered some ugly truths about sex differences in xenophilia (pathological love of foreigner).

For foreign conquest and alien rule, the evolutionary psychological perspective suggests that women should fear alien rule much less than men, but only so long as they are reproductive, because they then have a good chance of being spared by the conquerors and have the option of marrying into them. Accordingly, the analyses of the Eurobarometer data show that young women are much less xenophobic than young men, but the sex differences disappear around age 50. […]

Interestingly, a separate analysis (not shown) demonstrates that the interaction term between sex and age in a combined sample of all ages is not statistically significant, except for religion. It means that, at least for nationality and race, women do not gradually and linearly become more xenophobic over the life course. They suddenly become qualitatively more xenophobic sometime between the ages of 40 and 50.

The entire paper is a great read, beyond the salient finding quoted above. Kanazawa is a skilled messenger of evolutionary psychology, even when putting forth theories that are more speculative in nature than established fact. Kanazawa’s basic contention – that wars are fought ultimately for access to, or protection of, pussy – dovetails with the CH premise that the sexual market is the one market to rule them all.

Anecdotally, I have heard far more support for rapefugees, and more generally for open borders, from young White women than I have from any other group of people. (The men I know don’t bring it up, but a few of them, when forced into a conversation about it, hemmed and hawed or meekly cosigned their girlfriends’ opinions. Even the alphas are susceptible to this inglorious path of least resistance.)

The women might not truly believe what they claim to think about letting in Muslim refugees — CH Maxim [X] explicitly advises watching what women do instead of listening to what they say, for the two are quite often at odds, especially in a mate market context — or they might believe it only insofar as they are signaling their conformity to GoodWhitethink, and otherwise don’t feel very strongly about helping rapefugees and throwing open the borders to the third world.

Whichever it is, there is no doubt young, single women (and yes, this includes single White women) vote IN DROVES for the antiWhite leftoid candidate on the presidential ticket. Kanazawa would appear to be onto something regarding the evolutionary psychology underpinning the easy acquiescence of young fertile women to invasion by foreign conquerors. And, as is becoming dishearteningly more obvious, when invasion isn’t looming on women’s horizons, invitation extended to the foreigner to traipse into their White homelands will substitute nicely.

To swipe a page from the Alinsky playbook and pin a suitably baneful term on the phenomenon: women suffer from ignorant xenophilia, and the cure is (*smarmy liberal voice*) education.

I hope that I’m getting a skewed impression of women’s true feelings regarding border control and White demographic displacement, because if I’m not then the fate of our White nations is sealed, barring repeal of the 19th Amendment.

Alternately, a YUGE increase in the population of marrieds and decrease in the age of first marrieds would also improve the electoral prospects of proto-nationalists, because married women tend to vote like their shitlord husbands. Care of children and preservation of family has a way of focusing female minds.

On a hopeful coda, data analysis of profiles on the OKCupid online dating website tangentially contradict Kanazawa’s finding that maximally fertile White women fetishize foreigners more than do men. If dating preferences can be extrapolated to immigration preferences, then White women want to import swarths as much as they want to date swarths… which is to say, not much.

Related, Kanazawa has a shitlord face, for an Asian.

chaaaan

Woops, that’s not Kanazawa. Here he is:

Read Full Post »

This is a shibboleth-smashing study sure to give ugly feminists (but I repeat myself) and game-hating tradcons the hives.

Attachment Styles of Women-Younger Partners in Age-Gap Relationships.

Women have evolved to seek an older mate, however, research has shown negative opinions toward these relationships if the age-gap is significant. The most popular opinion is that women who date men that are 10 years or more their senior have an unhealthy relationship with their father. We investigated women-younger partners in age-gapped heterosexual romantic relationships to see if they differ in attachment styles when compared with women in similar-age relationships. We predicted that women in age-gap relationships will be predominantly securely attached, because it is evolutionary beneficial for women to seek older mates, and that there will be no significant difference in attachment styles between women in age-gap versus similar-age relationships. The common belief that the women who choose much older partners because of having “daddy issues” was unfounded in this study. There was no significant difference in attachment styles between the 2 groups, and 74% of the women in age-gap relationships were securely attached. Results are consistent with the limited literature on age-gap relationships regarding attachment style and relationship satisfaction. This study adds to the growing body of literature on attachment style and offers insight into the less-explored age-gap relationship dynamic.

There’s nothing psychologically unhealthy about an older man seeking a much younger woman or a younger woman loving a much older man. “Daddy issues” is just the butthurt bleat of envious beta males and bitterbitch aging females desperately trying to pathologize a natural expression of love and passion-inducing sexual polarity.

This is yet more laboratory proof from the whitecoats affirming the field observations of the common man; in this case, that women place less emphasis on men’s physical attributes than men do on women’s physical attributes, and more emphasis on other attractive male traits like personality, social status, resources, dominance, self-possession, confidence, and maturity.

So men, go ahead and fall in love with that barely legal beauty. You have less to worry about her motivations than you do about the jealousy and resentment you’ll provoke in everyone else who can’t stand to see you happy.

Read Full Post »

♂😎SCIENCE😎♂ swoons for Game once again, or rather, for the biomechanical truths explored here at the Chateau. Via reader RedEleven, a slew of studies examining the role of biological sex differences in gaits and other physical motions (there is such a thing as throwing like a girl).

There’s a lab in Canada that does motion capture studies of people and has collected data and produced animations that show distinct differences in the male and female gait.

This interactive flash applet lets you adjust the masculinity-femininity of a wireframe animation.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/BMLwalker.html

This WebGL version allows you to rotate the wireframe and toggle between dot mode and skeleton mode:

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Demos/webgl_walker/webgl_walker.php

And here’s an excerpt from one of the studies they published:

“A framework is outlined that can be employed to obtain gender and other characteristics of the agent from human motion patterns and subsequently use this information to synthesize motion with particular, well-defined biological and psychological attributes.”

And from the discussion section:

“For instance the exaggerated male walker has wider shoulders than hips whereas in the female walker this ratio reverses. Male walkers display considerable lateral body sway whereas this is not the case for female walkers. Hip motion in male walkers is 180 phase shifted with respect to the hip motion in female walkers. The position of the elbows is very different in male and female walkers. Men tend to hold their elbows away from the body whereas women hold them close to the body. In general, the exaggerated man seems to attempt to occupy much more space than the exaggerated woman — a display not unique to the human species. ”

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Text/WDP2002_Troje.pdf

There’s also an experiment that let’s you guess the gender of these 15-point figures as they walk, run, throw a ball, sit down, etc – based on data capture from real life.

http://www.biomotionlab.ca/Experiments/BMLmdsex/

That first biomotion link provides a few minutes of amusement if you adjust the sliders to MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE.

Male-Female: All the way to the male.
Heavy-Light: All the way to heavy.
Nervous-Relaxed: All the way to relaxed.
Happy-Sad: All the way to happy.

There you go, gentlemen. Mimic the walking motion of the MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE:

Elbows out.
Lateral sway in the upper body.
Knees high and out on the leg up-swing.
A little bit of bounce in your step. (“Get air” in your walk.)

In other words, lope like a pimp nigra.

j/k, but only sort of. Fact is, an alpha male gait that will turn on women is going to somewhat resemble a pimp roll. But Hwhyten it up. You don’t need to go the full gorilla to have an effect on lovely lady loins.

And whatever you do, don’t sashay your hips. Unless you’re John Scalzi, who is all about the swish.

BONUS: If you hoist iron, the resulting growth in your muscles and neural connections will naturally conform your gait into one that is more alpha male than beta male.

The second link is even funnier to watch in MAXIMUM ALPHA MALE MODE, (if not as educational), because it’s a full skeleton instead of a dot skeleton. You can practically see the silverback hair and prominent brow ridge.

How did you do on the “guess the sex” biomotion test at the last link? Your venerable Chateau host got 8/10 on the first sequence and 17/20 on the second sequence. Not bad considering the only clue to the sexes was a dot figure performing different motions. Do I know this because real world sex differences in gait and physical motion shape my impressions? Or do I know this because I was born with a mental template deep in my hindbrain that subconsciously informs my instinctive impressions? It’s probably both: Our genes create our sex differences, and our culture organically reinforces our genetic imprints.

Conclusion: The sexes are intrinsically, innately, immutably… biomechanically different!

Feminists, male and female? You there?

*crickets*

What about MAXIMUM ALPHA FEMALE MODE (i.e, how would an HB10 walk)?

Set the dot skeleton sliders in the first link to:

100% Female.
80% Light.
80% Relaxed.
80% Sad.

Try it, and I think you’ll agree that this female gait is the sexiest to male eyes.

Why? Because sex differences in mating psychology are telegraphed through our gaits. The HB10 is at her sexiest when she’s walking with:

– a 100% female gait
– a light step, but not so light she looks like a flaky slut
– a generally relaxed gait, but with a hint of nervousness that suggests vulnerability
– some perceptible sadness, because a 100% happy woman looks too strident and chirpy to properly ping those male radars for vulnerable faire maidens.

I hope this post has been as informative to open-minded readers as it has been hurtful and distressing to equalist fruit cups.

Update

Commenter mendozatorres notes that the more “male” the dot figure, the greater the “crotch thrust” and the wider the man-spreading! Spread those legs out, men, and let your hog light shine! The women want a show. And, vice versa, when the figure goes from male to female, the crotch area sways more, like a pendulum tantalizingly swinging a basket of fruit at its end.

***

From commenter “its me”:

50/75/25/75 – effeminate homo/hipster walk lzozlzolzzolzzolzzozlz

It’s lzozlol because it’s true.

PS Fat-woman-who-has-given-up-on-life walk: 75/0/100/100. She looks like she’s ready to fall through the earth.

Read Full Post »

A long time ago , CH criticized “Sex at Dawn” writer, Christopher Ryan, for his beliefs that jealousy is a social construct (or a recent, malleable, adaptation) and his presumption that polyamory is the natural state of de-Christianized, de-programmed white Europeans.

But there is also the powerful emotion of jealousy, a painful emotion which is not socially constructed, but is instead a visceral hindbrain reaction in the majority of men to thoughts of their women fucking other men. Did jealousy really evolve in just the last 10,000 years, or has it been with humanity for eons? It is possible that jealousy is a more recent evolution in the human psyche, and perhaps there are population group level differences in how much jealousy is experienced as a motivating impulse. (Maybe Africans feel less jealousy than Asians toward cheating partners.)

Whatever the evolution of jealousy, it is clearly an indicator that men DO give a fuck about paternity, and are NOT Ok with promiscuous women as long term partners who have been chosen to carry their young. If virginity weren’t valued by men, there would be no market for it. But in many large scale societies, not only is there an implicit market for virgins, there is an overt market for them.

I don’t need a laboratory or multiple Pee Aich Dees to know that men feel more more white hot jealousy for a sexually cheating girlfriend or wife, and that women feel more jealousy for an emotionally cheating boyfriend or husband. One would have to have been born and raised in an SJW reeducation camp to believe otherwise.

These are the observed CH ugly truths that discredit feminism and its parent ideology, equalism, and drive their adherents crazy with rage.

Which is why, once the equalist liars are twisted into a rictus of butthurt, I like to ease the shiv in further, whispering to them in their death agonies, “Give up, you don’t stand a chance! Let’s end this here! It will be easier for you, much easier. You’ll see it will be over quickly.” And, since the anti-human leftoids pride themselves on their fellowship with ¡SCIENCE!, nothing quite delivers the killing blow like enlisting the aid of their godhead to betray them to their last breaths.

Apropos, here’s 💋SCIENCE💋 telling us that, yes, CH was right again: Men and women feel jealousy differently, and this difference is best explained by a biological, innate cause.

Highlights

• Strong sex differences in jealousy responses across measurement paradigms
• Sex differences in jealousy responses not subject to moderation or mediation
• Noteworthy sex differences in a nation with high paternal investment expectancy
Findings contradict explanations derived from social role theories.
• Findings support evolutionary predictions.

Despite some controversy about sex differences in jealousy, data largely support that sex differences studied with the forced choice (FC) paradigm are robust: Men, relative to women, report greater jealousy in response to sexual infidelity than in response to emotional infidelity. Corresponding sex differences for continuous measures of jealousy typically have been less robust in the literature. A large sample of Norwegian students (N = 1074) randomly responded to either FC or continuous measure questionnaires covering four infidelity scenarios. Large, comparable, theoretically-predicted sex differences were evident for both FC and continuous measures. Relationship status, infidelity experiences, and question order manipulation (activation) did not consistently influence the sex differences for either measure, nor did individual differences in sociosexual orientation or relationship commitment. These large sex differences are especially noteworthy as they emerge from a highly egalitarian nation with high paternal investment expectancy, and because they contradict social role theories that predict a diminution of psychological sex differences as gender economic equality increases.

There will never be a polyamorous culture, legalized or de facto, in European-derived nations that doesn’t end in tears. Feminism, as per usual, is a crock of shit and a belief system that, contrary to its stated intent of enlarging the moral universe, strips humans of both sexes of their humanity.

Read Full Post »

Chateau Heartiste, 2009:

Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

¡SCIENCE!, 2015:

Resisting Connection Following Social Exclusion: Rejection by an Attractive Suitor Provokes Derogation of an Unattractive Suitor

Social psychologists theorize that individuals seek connection following rejection. However, accepting connection from a low status other may imply that one is of similarly low status, which may call into question one’s prospects for future acceptance. Thus, we hypothesized that rejection would lead individuals to distance themselves from a low status other even when the low status other is accepting. In two studies, single, heterosexual, female participants received simultaneous acceptance/rejection feedback from one physically attractive man and one less attractive man. As predicted, rejected individuals derogated their rejecters as indicated by a decreased desire for affiliation and more negative evaluations. Moreover, participants rejected by the attractive man also derogated the unattractive man even when the unattractive man offered acceptance. These data may shed light on specific circumstances under which rejection leads to antisocial behavior.

It’s a bit circuitous, but the relevance of this study to CH Maxim #101 becomes clear once we accept the premise that “five minutes of alpha (male)” is to women, for all practical purposes, a rejection. “Five minutes of alpha” is an aesthetic interpretation of a one night stand or a short fling that ends without any commitment extracted by the woman from the man. A woman WILL feel the sting of commitment rejection in much the same way a man will feel the sting of sexual rejection; and yet, the fleeting pleasure of an alpha male’s attention can ruin a woman for all promise keeper beta males to come after.

This is what the study uncovers, in its sphere of examination. Women “rejected” by the alpha male were more likely to be a bitch to the lesser/beta male. That sting of rejection the women felt from the alpha, and the ensuing bitterness about it, redounded to the betas a hundredfold.

Conclusion: If you are a beta male… STOP DROP AND MOLD yourself into an alpha male. Also, the more alpha fux a woman has accumulated over her prime fertility years (without commitment from any of them), the worse she’ll behave toward any beta males unfortunate or stupid enough to take on the role of her sloppy sixtieths.

Again, we see the wisdom, first dropped at CH and later confirmed by 😎SCIENCE😎, that men who want admiration, devotion and loyalty from a lover would do well to avoid dating (or god forbid marrying) any woman who could challenge them in the bed post notch department. Virgins aren’t prized the world over for no reason.

But, please, feel free to pump and dump those “dick is abundant and low value” try-hard feminists and add to their future beta husbands’ misery.

Read Full Post »

A study (lovingly, via Cheap Chalupas) examining people’s changing impressions of wine quality when they believe the wine they’re drinking is expensive, provides, in a roundabout way, confirming evidence for the game concept of “fake it till you make it”, or what CH has more accurately restated, “fake it till you create it”.

From the SCIENCE ❤️ GAME files,

When consumers taste cheap wine and rate it highly because they believe it is expensive, is it because prejudice has blinded them to the actual taste, or has prejudice actually changed their brain function, causing them to experience the cheap wine in the same physical way as the expensive wine? Research in the Journal of Marketing Research has shown that preconceived beliefs may create a placebo effect so strong that the actual chemistry of the brain changes.

The science of biomechanical feedback loops is in its infancy, but it’s already uncovering some very eeeenteresting facets of human behavior. The brain-body connection, and how willful changes in the one can subconsciously alter manifestations of the other, has big implications for the study of seduction, aka game.

At this point I hardly need to spell it out for the regular readers. Preconceived beliefs, firmly adhered, can gradually alter the chemistry of the brain. In Game terms: Preconceived belief in one’s allure to women — aka sexy overconfidence — can create brain changes which turn the inner belief into outer reality.

It’s the same phenomenon we see with deliberate changes in body language, where assuming the posture and mien of a charming alpha male will increase your subjective feelings of well-being and even your testosterone level! This will, in turn, increase your attractiveness to better-looking women.

Granted, these effects are sometimes temporary and fleeting, but even a temporary boost in “alpha maleness” can mean the difference between a desiccated “you’re such a nice guy” brush-off and a fiery dance floor twirl leading to a night of debauchery.

And, temporary improvements in your sexy masculine vibe will, given enough of them accumulated over a long enough period of time, eventually become permanent fixtures of your being. Success with women builds upon itself, just as failure with women compounds the problems that drive women away. For this reason, it’s so important to get your son or friend up and running with Game while they’re open to self-improvement, before bad habits, self-pitying defeatism, negative female feedback, or tradconism consign them to a fate worse than death: settling for a fat wife.

Update

Via Randall Parker, a study found that mildly intoxicated people look more attractive to the opposite sex. Alcohol gives you a relaxed, confident, happy glow. Chicks dig it.

Read Full Post »

Not too long ago, a couple of “””academic””” feminists tenured at a New Scandinavia university compiled a study which they asserted disproved all the preceding studies which showed that women’s mate preferences change according to their ovulation cycles. You see, feminists don’t much like the idea of a set-in-stone mate choice algorithm making mockery of “female empowerment”, so this news was greeted with relieved, rapturous chants by lay(less)-feminists.

The feminist “””scientists””” used, or claimed to use, meta-analysis to disprove the theory of ovulation cycle shifts in female mate preferences. Meta-analysis is all the rage in the HBD (human biodiversity) set, but the technique is not without its flaws. I, for one, came to have my doubts about its efficacy when meta-analysis studies started to crop up that were 180 degrees at odds with the hundreds of individual studies purportedly examined in the relevant meta-analysis.

Now it turns out my doubts about the accuracy of meta-analyses have some foundation. A more recent study was published in response to the anti-cycle shift feminist meta-analysis and reconfirmed the original theory that women do indeed crave alpha male cock more when they are ovulating. Abstract:

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women’s mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.’s meta-analysis—some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden’s (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal—that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers’ reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

Somewhere, a shiv twisted. And an old feminist hag wept.

Moral of the bitch slapping: You can’t fully trust social or psychological science research coming out of universities these days, because the vast landscape of academia is stocked with feminists, leftoids, and their sycophant weaklings. There are no Realtalkers around to keep these freaks honest. My humble suggestion: Get out in the field and learn for yourself through direct experience what women are like. Later, leaf through the non-feminist scientific literature to amuse yourself with the loving complementarity between your personal observations and the laboratory data.

This latest salvo against the forces of sex equalism makes one wonder if the meta-analysis findings regarding obesity, exercise, and parental influence are equally as flawed by researcher bias or incompetence.

As for any game lessons to be drawn from this post, recall that CH has tackled the topic of female cycle shift preferences many times. While it’s easy to get too deep in the thickets of tracking women’s ovulation cycles for maximum seductive impact, it does help to mix up your sexual signaling strategy to keep women off-balance and wondering if you’re a charming player with Voltarian lovemaking skill, or a dependable provider with visions of a suburban familial fiefdom.

Bottom line: Chicks dig an unpredictable man.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,470 other followers

%d bloggers like this: