SCIENCE Is Real: Male And Female Brains Are Astonishingly Different

Shitlibs like to say “Science is real” to taunt those who refuse to abjectly humiliate themselves by parroting blatant equalist lies. Well, science THIS, libcranks:

Sex Differences in the Adult Human Brain: Evidence from 5216 UK Biobank Participants

Sex differences in the human brain are of interest for many reasons: for example, there are sex differences in the observed prevalence of psychiatric disorders and in some psychological traits that brain differences might help to explain. We report the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain (2750 female, 2466 male participants; mean age 61.7 years, range 44–77 years). Males had higher raw volumes, raw surface areas, and white matter fractional anisotropy; females had higher raw cortical thickness and higher white matter tract complexity. There was considerable distributional overlap between the sexes. Subregional differences were not fully attributable to differences in total volume, total surface area, mean cortical thickness, or height. There was generally greater male variance across the raw structural measures. Functional connectome organization showed stronger connectivity for males in unimodal sensorimotor cortices, and stronger connectivity for females in the default mode network. This large-scale study provides a foundation for attempts to understand the causes and consequences of sex differences in adult brain structure and function.

Delving into the contents of this research paper reveals that the structural differences in brain architecture between men and women are astonishingly large and notable.

The subcortical structures examined were the hippocampus, the nucleus accumbens, the amygdala, the caudate nucleus, the dorsal pallidum, the putamen, and the thalamus (Fig. S1). Raw volumetric sex differences are illustrated in Figure 1. The male distributions were further to the right, indicating higher means, and wider, indicating greater variance.

***

We first tested for mean sex differences in overall cortical and subcortical brain volumes, adjusting each measure for age and ethnicity…A set of Bayesian t-tests…confirmed that the mean sex differences were very large, with extremely strong evidence in favor of the hypothesis that males differed from females on every overall and subcortical volume.

***

…in the motor and somatosensory regions in the parietal lobe, the frontal pole, and the parahippocampal gyrus, females showed relatively higher thickness but males showed relatively higher volume and surface area. In the superior temporal lobe and orbitofrontal regions, males showed relatively higher volume and surface area, but there was no particular sex difference in thickness.

And on it goes, SCIENCE putting the lie to every feminist and equalist cherished belief about the interchangeability of men and women (and, soon, the cherished belief about the interchangeability of the races). lmao libs ur all gonna die? sure. but first, lmao libs ur all gonna have psychotic breakdowns as everything you hold dear and into which you have invested your egos will be crushed to dust and blown away on the winds.

What are the practical effects of all these impressively large sex-based brain differences? We see these brain differences play out every day in our lives. Men are better at math, women are more verbal, men are focused thinkers, women are multi-taskers, men are creative, women are conformist, men are cooperative, women are subversive, men are more physically aggressive, women are more psychologically aggressive, men are more driven, women are more nurturing, etc.

This isn’t social conditioning. This is biology. Stark, immutable, relentless biology. The only way shitlibs can achieve their (inevitably short-lived) utopia is if they mass lobotomize enemies of ZOG:

Of course, there is overlap in sex-based brain structure, just as there is overlap between hot and cold and between desert and grassland. That doesn’t invalidate the existence of differing categories. If sex-based brain structure didn’t overlap, we wouldn’t have Amanjaw Marcuntte and David Fatrelle.

But the overlap serves to prove the validity of the categorization.

A recent meta-analysis of sex differences in amygdala volume (Marwha et al. 2016) found that, although males showed larger raw volume, after correction for total brain volume there was no longer an appreciable sex difference. However, in our study the amygdala was significantly, but modestly, larger in males even after adjusting for total brain volume (d = 0.18 bilaterally).

Eenteresting. The amygdala is involved with threat detection. Might this explain why women, with their itsy bitsy amygdalae, push for open borders and can’t perceive the threat from inviting millions of racially incompatible foreigners into one’s homeland?

Guess we’ll just have to do something about that, like pump women full of amygdala growth activators until their attitudes change and they vote more reasonably.

Read Full Post »

Women Love Sexist Men, And Here’s Why

This isn’t freshly trod ground for regular Chateau readers, but it bears repeating for the joy of triggering any wayward feminist cunts and their betasoy lackeys who stumble into this outpost of sexy chauvinism: SCIENCE continues amassing a trove of evidence vindicating the real world observation that women get hot n bothered for fun-lovin’ sexist men.

Women are hard-wired to find well-meaning sexist men MORE attractive because they think they will be protected and provided for, study findshttps://t.co/KDfxizQMho

— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) July 2, 2018

Yes, AWALT. Even feminists uncontrollably splooge for misogynist pigs.

Quite simply, women can’t trust male feminists to come through like men if times get tough. This basic mistrust of the masculinity of male feminists is toxic to female arousal.

Soyboys who cloyingly parrot feminist vagitudes and profess an abiding belief in the equality, sameness, and interchangeability of the sexes leave women emotionally cold, if not intellectually underwhelmed. And in the business of romance, the hindbrain owns the forebrain.

This is why careerist shrikes have such a hard time finding a man. They too want a man who will “provide and protect”, but their economic, occupational, and social success means that a vanishingly small pool of men can fit their bill. So they go alone to their cat graves, bitter and spiteful and leaning in to the lonesome last, tragicomic victims of their own hypergamy that evolved in an environment and sexual market in which women didn’t waste years of prime fertility pursuing the corner office.

You don’t have to beat women over the head with proclamations of their inferiority to bed them, but it helps to implicitly remind them of their vulnerabilities and dependencies through your unapologetic actions and self-entitled words. The ZFG jerkboy hypnotizes women because everything he does and says is the tacit antithesis of male feminism.

***

Cracker adds,

yeah, the fact that [male feminists] CAN actually get a feminist girl this way is the saddest part

they end up getting the crap girl and she makes his life a living hell from then after

Right, there are two ways a man can “get” a girl: expediently (she settles for him b/c she’s ugly or damaged and he’s in her orbit) or passionately (she swoons for him b/c his masculine energy is irresistible).

Men who “get” feminists expediently suffer for their laziness and cowardice. The bitter spiteful femcunt will unload every bubbling resentment she harbors onto one of these unlucky males, who will wind up in a minefield relationship spending most of the time dodging her incoherent rage and appeasing her increasingly lunatic demands, all for a once-every-six-months perfunctory ball-dribbling into the shallow end of her dry hole.

Read Full Post »

When The Sexual Polarity Reverses

Everything wrong with America in one snapshot.

Vagina dominator adds,

This is from a blog someone here (thanks) linked to called Dating Data where the woman in this picture produces her dating data like some autist from fourchan.

Questions:

1) Which one looks like a Predator and which one looks like Prey? Shouldn’t the man be the scarier looking one?

2) On the 10-scale, what is her number? Can she even be found on a female scale?

3) How big is her clit? Compared to one of your fingers, a dick, or a salami, for example.

4) Is it alright if we let the naggers have her or could that produce something unpredictably dangerous?

I’ve argued that a reversing sexual polarity is both a sign and an accelerant of civilizational decline. If we accept the premise that men vary from low to high T (or from lsmv to hsmv), and women vary from low to high E (or from lsmv to hsmv), then there are four ways men and women can match up:

1. low T male with low E female
2. low T male with high E female
3. high T male with high E female
4. high T male with low E female

The most stable relationship match is high T male with high E female. The sexual polarity is aligned for maximal attraction, as the God of Biomechanics ordains it.

The least stable relationship match is high T male with low E female. A man with options will scour for alternatives without a second wasted on guilt if he is somehow in the situation of dating a fat chick or a broad-shouldered feminist. Here, the sexual polarity wobbles on its axis, as attraction over time will run in one direction only (girl -> man).

The next least stable match is low T male with high E female. This relationship can work for a while if the low T male has compensatory attractiveness traits, such as wealth or charm. But his womanly disposition, “I’m With Her” mentality, and puffy soybody will put off hot babes who can get the whole package. As above, the sexual polarity wobbles, attraction running generally man -> girl.

Where it gets interesting is the low T male-low E female matches, which are increasing in frequency in our late stage weakening culture. This is the union of two lsmv losers who have essentially switched sexual polarities, the man being more like the woman and the woman more like the man, as exemplified in the above two photos. The low T male + low E female is also known as The Fuggernaut. Paradoxically, although this relationship is marked by reversed sexual polarity, it can often be stable (although not as stable as a properly aligned sexual polarity one would see with a high T man + high E woman). Its stability is a function of there being a begrudging acceptance that neither party will do better, and although reversed, the polarity does possess a weak attraction force. Low E women sometimes need the effeminate nurturing of a low T man, and low T men sometimes needs a rock-jawed ballcutter to be aggressive and lead them to unwhispered pleasures of the disfigured flesh.

In the long view, however, this last relationship match-up is deadly toxic to a healthy civilization, for it brings with it unseemly baggage like cuckoldry, slut pride, the relinquishment of paternity certainty as a founding principle of committed relationships, loss of male dignity, open borders cheerleading, pussyhat degeneracy, and infertility (crooked sperm and ossified cyst-splattered wombs don’t combine to be fruitful and multiply).

hsmv men + hsmv women bring good times
good times bring lsmv men + lsmv women
lsmv men + lsmv women bring hard times
hard times bring hsmv men + hsmv women

*hsmv = high sexual market value
*lsmv = low sexual market value

Read Full Post »

Ann Coulter Reads Chateau Heartiste

Ann unsheathes a mighty shiv this week in her column “Country Overboard! Women and Children Last!“. She touches on many themes explored here at Le Chateau, and comes suspiciously, deliciously close to restating certain, sharp phrases coined by yours cruelly.

Her column delves into the racket that is the refugee asylum system in the US, paying particular attention to the shitlib-anointed status of “oppressed” women from third world shitholes, reminding readers that the women are as much a shitproduct of their shitholes as are the men from those shitholes.

Aside from our immigration authorities missing little things like the Rwandan genocide, what is the argument for taking in millions of people from backward cultures, hotbeds of real racism, pederasty and misogyny — as opposed to the “microaggressions” that are the bane of our culture? 

It’s one thing to use quotas as a response to slavery and Jim Crow in our own country, but why do we have to have an immigration quota for “people who don’t live here, have never seen an indoor toilet, and rape little girls for sport”? 

Liberals act as if they are striking a blow for feminism by importing desperate women from misogynistic cultures to America. But, even to the extent they’re telling the truth, the women aren’t always victims only. They’re often co-conspirators. […]

Hmong girls in Minnesota are regularly gang raped by Hmong men, but the Hmong community — even the girls’ mothers — blame the rape victims, and the attacks go unreported. These aren’t cultures of strong women and criminal men. It’s more like criminal men and complicit women.

When shitlibs rescue Dirt World women from their Dirt World homelands, they neglect to consider that those Dirt World women give birth to Dirt Worlders, via the magic of reproductive gene transmission, who will recycle their Dirt World attitude and behaviors for generations, absent oppressive levels of miscegenation.

And the stone cunt truth is that in the primitive backward nations of the world, the women share the same suite of genes as their misogynistic men. You can’t remove the women from these cultures and expect them to behave like civilized SWPLs; their blood swims with the misogyny, infanticide, pederasty, rape, and female genital mutilation that evolved with them, and which these women will pass onto the next generation of male babies. And female complicity will likewise be passed on to their daughters, bedeviling policy makers all across the civilized world.

The more we import alien peoples from alien cultures into our homeland, the more stories like this one we’ll hear about (through dissident journalism sources):

In San Francisco, we had the young Indian sex slaves of pederast Lakireddy Bali Reddy testifying on his behalf. Once he was finally busted — not by our fantastic “democracy dies in darkness” mainstream media, but by a local high school newspaper — we found out his child rape victims thought they deserved it. They could not be coaxed to testify against him. Some took the stand on his behalf. They were all given asylum. We didn’t change them; they just moved here, without altering their belief in human slavery or the caste system one iota.

“Democracy dies in darkness” is more true than the Bezos Post would like to believe; the dark hordes streaming outward from their dark cultures will descend like a veil of darkness over the remaining Whiteopia redoubts, killing democracy and replacing it with tribalism, corruption, and the occasional mass murder machete rampage.

Americans are told we have to understand that it’s part of their native cultures. 

Exactly! It’s their culture. We’re not rescuing anybody; we’re bringing in diseased cultures. The alleged refugees don’t float above and apart from their societies. Feminists may see the world as the Boy team versus the Girl team, but in reality, it’s the Civilized team versus the Primitive team. Virtually every woman outside of the First World lives in an abusive society. We can’t take them all in. 

How did violent, backward, misogynistic cultures become our problem? Did we take a vote and agree to be the world’s charity ward?

Or the world’s daycare center.

Genes matter.
Race matters.
Culture matters.

We deny these cosmic truths at our peril.

Democrats who claim to be defenders of the weak, the marginal, and vulnerable are happy to toss our safe, functioning country aside — as long as they can wreck America (and get their housework done at the same time!). The left’s central political philosophy is based on resentment toward historical America.

Very, very close to my term of art “Heritage America“.

Nobody reads Chateau Heartiste…

Read Full Post »

Unhinged

We are witnessing two spectacular developments in American politics, both courtesy of President Trump’s ALPHA GAME.

One, the splitting of the Democrats into two antagonistic, ineffective, parties.

Two, the uncucking of the Republicans.

PS I bet Trump’s Viking Berserker Brad Parscale was a contributing producer.

Read Full Post »

Opening The Borders (To Shitlib Neighborhoods)

that one guy (the MPC-celeb?) emailed a NYBetaTimes article with a link to a study finding that….SHOCKER…White liberals aren’t so keen on open borders when the borders open directly into their wealthy homogeneous superzips.

SCIENCE: putting pseudo-“immigrants” into super white liberal communities makes the shitlibs favor immigration restrictions.

***

Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, published a book last year, “The Space Between Us,” suggesting that the ideological commitment of liberals in these and other similar communities may waver, or fail entirely, when their white homogeneity is threatened.

Not only is the upscale wing of the Democratic Party an unreliable ally of the left on economic issues — as I have noted in this column before and as Lily Geismer and Matthew D. Lassiter eloquently pointed out in The Times last week — but Enos demonstrates that the liberal resolve of affluent Democrats can disintegrate when racially or ethnically charged issues like neighborhood integration are at stake.

When the self-aggrandizement of the signal is challenged by the consequences of the virtue, the signal retreats.

Six years ago, Enos looked at nine townships southwest of Boston that were “overwhelmingly racially and politically liberal.” As such, these communities were a “test of the power of demographic change because these were people who, we might think, would be unlikely to change their attitudes in the face of immigration.”

There’s nothing more satisfying than getting a liberal to betray her own principles.

Enos and his colleagues conducted an experiment, which is described in detail in a 2014 paper, “Causal effect of intergroup contact on exclusionary attitudes,” published by the National Academy of Sciences. The results are thought provoking.

Testing the signal-to-lawnboys ratio.

Enos described the experiment as:

a randomized controlled trial testing the causal effects of repeated intergroup contact, in which Spanish-speaking confederates were randomly assigned to be inserted, for a period of days, into the daily routines of unknowing Anglo-whites living in homogeneous communities in the United States, thus simulating the conditions of demographic change.

Libs preen
Beans stream
Now not so keen
on a vibrant scene

To achieve this goal, during the summer of 2012, Enos dispatched “a small number of Spanish-speaking confederates to commuter train stations in homogeneously Anglo communities every day, at the same time, for two weeks.”

The stations were on two Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter rail lines into Boston — one starting in Worcester, the other in Forge Park — at nine stations in upscale, mostly white towns.

Enos reported that the Anglo commuters he studied had an average income of $143,365, and 88 percent had college degrees, compared with 30.4 percent nationally that year. The median household income for the country at large was $51,371 in 2012, according to the census.

Shitlibs act, despite their professed ideals, as if credentials and money are the traits of the virtuous GoodWhite.

Subjects were exposed to the same Spanish-speaking persons in a location near their homes for an extended period, as would be the situation if immigrants had moved into their neighborhood and used the public transportation.

The Spanish-speaking confederates reported to Enos that:

persons noticed and displayed some unease with them: for example reporting that “Because we are chatting in Spanish, they look at us. I don’t think it is common to hear people speaking in Spanish on this route.” After the experiment, the confederates reported that other passengers were generally friendly to them but also reported that they felt people noticed them for “not being like them and being Latino.”

After the perfunctory nervous niceties that shitlibs excel at when their all-White dreamscape is suddenly rattled by invaders from their nightmares, we get to the juicy stuff leaking from the lib-id:

Members of the treatment groups and control groups were surveyed before and after the two weeklong experiments in an effort to identify the effect of exposure to Spanish-speaking people. In both surveys, respondents were asked three questions about immigration along with other more general questions […]

How did the respondents’ answers change?

Treated subjects [ed: subjects exposed to increased diversity on their daily commutes] were far more likely to advocate a reduction in immigration from Mexico and were far less likely to indicate that illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain in this country.

WOMP there it is.

[The experiment] demonstrated that exclusionary attitudes can be stimulated by even very minor, noninvasive demographic change: in this case, the introduction of only two persons. […]

The good liberal people catching trains in the Boston suburbs became exclusionary.

Exposure to two young Spanish speakers for just a few minutes, or less, for just three days had driven them toward anti-immigration policies associated with their political opponents.

LMAO. When shitlibs virtue signal, the signal is typically a few orders of magnitude more powerful than the claimed virtue.

Segregation and White voting behavior was examined:

A white voter in the least-segregated metropolitan area was 10 percentage points more likely to vote for Obama than a white voter in the most-segregated area.

These voting patterns, according to Enos, reflect what might be called a self-reinforcing cycle of prejudice.

In the mid-to-late twentieth century, Enos writes, “whites — spurred by forces including their own racism [ed: aka pattern recognition] — abandoned the inner cities.” But, he goes on, that “is not where the story ends. Attitudes do not remain static.” In practice, the very fact of being segregated creates an environment in which hostile views “become even more negative and their political consequences even more severe.”

That’s not it. What happens is that Whites who have found their all-White elysium will want to protect it from the very real negative social consequences of Diversity™.

Prejudice may have helped cause segregation, but then the segregation helped cause even more prejudice.

The segregation reminded Whites just how good life can be without Diversity™, so their attitudes toward racial overrun hardened. ftfy.

Liberal democracies endorse diversity, Enos writes,

indeed, it is often considered one of our strengths and liberal individuals usually favor diversity as a matter of ideology and public policy.

The Equalism Ideology is a religion of secular degeneration, and should therefore not be used as the premise of public policy.

We often support diversity out of a genuine ideological commitment and because we rightly perceive that diversity can improve the performance of many organizations, such as universities and businesses.

Rightly perceive? There’s Enos’s (and his liberal friends’) problem right there: they have constructed a worldview based on a false premise. Namely, the false premise that diversity of race and ethnicity “improves performance”. Every real world observation and replicable study has found otherwise.

But, he continues, “looking across the world and even across states and cities within the United States, most of us would rather not live with some of the social, economic, and political consequences of diversity.” This is what Enos calls “the liberal dilemma.”

Or what I call “the liberal delusion”.

Not all of Enos’s findings are bleak. Group hostility, he writes, grows as the size of the immigrant population grows until it reaches a certain point and then begins to recede:

The relationship between the proportion of an out-group in an area and group-based bias is curvilinear: it becomes greater as the out-group proportion increases until reaching a tipping point and then starting to decrease. This means that when a group makes up a large portion of a place — for concreteness, say 40 percent — each additional person above 40 percent actually decreases group-based bias.

LOL is this guy pulling our legs? No shit intergroup hostility decreases when the outgroup becomes a majority; the beset-upon ingroup must trade in their hostility for appeasement when their numbers are insufficient to protect the homogeneity of their turf.

Ryan [Enos]’s book is brilliant and his findings dovetail with my belief that we’re in for a tough road ahead as the country diversifies, at least in the short term.

Liberals are very sanguine about the eventually of a happy, functional diversitopia. It’s always a “short term” tough road until we reach nirvana. 400 years of black dysfunction and inability to assimilate to White norms and values belies the shitlib hope of a “short term” bump in the road. Now of course, the smarter shitlibs know there will be no short term tough road, that instead it will take tens if not hundreds of generations of racial mixing to bring about their vision of a White-Asian elite ruling over a muddy peasantry of braindead consumerists. This is why the elites have begun pushing miscegenation so hard in entertainment, media, and advertising. They are acclimating Whites to accept their racial dissolution.

The Trumpening angle:

“But the polarizing rhetoric of politicians ‘politicizes’ the places where Americans live,” Sides, Tesler and Vavreck observe,

and people who live in places with a recent influx of immigrants then become more concerned about immigration. This unfolded in 2016: white Democrats voted for Trump in the highest numbers where the Latino population had grown the most.

Diversity + Proximity = War (by political means and then, later, by violent means if the political solution has failed).

Read Full Post »

All Human Beings Have Equal Worth

The Big Lie of Leftism, exposed. Courtesy of Jay in DC.

PS what man in his right mind would PoundMeToo that thing? (bill cosby) okay, besides him.

Read Full Post »