Meta-Analysis: Sex-Based Differences Are Biological And Unchangeable

A recent meta-analysis of sixteen studies concluded that sex-based personality characteristics and preferences are biological, inborn, and unchangeable.

In related news, a million fluid transgenderist feminist lamebrains exploded simultaneously from the meaty intrusion of evidence-based SCIENCE.

According to a new study, differences between boys and girls are biological and not fluid, as transgender theory claims.

Research revealed in the Infant and Child Development Journal concluded that gender preferences in children are not so much the result of their environment and upbringing as they are intrinsic within the child. These findings contradict prevailing LGBTQQICAPF2K+ belief that gender is both externally directed and fluid. […]

Sixteen studies composed of 787 boys and 813 girls were documented. Researchers found that consistently “boys played with male-typed toys more than girls did, and girls played with female-typed toys more than boys did.”

This finding won’t surprise most parents, but it defies prevailing transgender theories that say gender differences are simply a “social construct.”

The same innate gender preferences were observed in a variety of contexts. “No significant effect of presence of an adult, study context, geographical location of the study, publication date, child’s age, or the inclusion of gender-neutral toys” made a difference, the data showed.

The scientists concluded that the data from these studies indicated “gender differences” have a “likelihood (of) biological origin.” In other words, before you were born you were a boy or a girl, and that’s not subject to change.

“The consistency in finding sex differences in children’s preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin,” the study says.

The God of Biomechanics laughs at your idiotic feminist ideals.

Just as what one sees in an ink blot or instinctively associates with a suggested word can indicate one’s internal psychology, so a child’s free, self-directed choice of toy can indicate his or her innate psychology. Researchers say such choices “appear to be the product of both innate and social forces.”

More and more, when social scientists say “appear to be the product of both innate and social forces” they really mean “appear to be the product almost entirely of innate forces but our freakqualist leftoid egos are fragile and we’re still holding out hope that a super duper secret replicable feminist study will rise from the grave one day soon to prove once and for all that NURTURE BTFOs NATURE MUHFUGGA!”.

The study also found male gender differences increased with age. “Older boys played more with male-typed toys … than did younger boys,” but “the same pattern was not found in girls.” Researchers speculated that this observation may be because of increasing social pressure on girls to break from innate stereotypes.

So boys became more boy-like with age, while older girls stayed as girl-like as they were when little.

I can think of a few reasons for this apparent disparity, in descending order of likelihood.

• Boy brains experience more profound changes going through puberty than do girl brains, because masculinization is a greater physiological and psychological change from the state of childhood neoteny than is the process of feminization. In other words, grown men are more different from their former childhood selves than grown women are from their former childhood selves. This results in the perception of older boys gravitating more strongly toward “boy-like” hobbies and preferences.
• Related to the above explanation, boys develop a powerful visuospatial center in their maturing brains (which girls do not) that further predisposes them to male-typed toys.
• Adult social pressure on girls to be second-rate boys (“early intervention gogrrl careerist shrikery”).
• Adult social pressure on boys to be less boyish (“toxic masculinity”).

If, say, genetic biological immutability accounts for 70-80% of sex-based preferences and aptitudes, then imagine how malevolently insistent, unremitting, and remorseless the Leftoid Equalist social pressures would have to be to overcome that innate predisposition and have an impact on the choices of growing boys and girls. Downright evil, really.

Read Full Post »

Diversity + Proximity = Hostile Work Environment

If I haven’t already, this 1996 study deserves to be added to the Diversity + Proximity = War reference list at the top of this blog’s home page. Executive summary: Demographically (i.e., racially and ethnically) diverse workplaces have lower cohesion, lower satisfaction, and higher turnover.

…high diversity prevents social integration and cohesion from forming on the team. In their absence, team members are unable to effectively process information…

…Group cohesiveness is positively related to performance. Three meta-analyses and several empirical studies found a slight to moderate positive relationship between cohesiveness and performance. This is a robust finding in an area that has long been studied…

…separated conflict into two types: relationship conflict (interpersonal incompatibilities, tension, animosity, and annoyance) and task conflict (disagreement among group members about task content)…Relationship conflict was detrimental to satisfaction and to members’ intent to remain in the group regardless of the type of task…

…The most consistent findings occurred when tenure predicted strategic persistence and change, and when demographic heterogeneity predicted turnover….there’s a direct relationship between diversity and turnover, in that similarities attract and those dissimilar may be 40 pressured to leave the team…

Diversity is not our organizational strength. At best, diversity is our neutral organizational variable; at worst, diversity is our disorder.

So why do our overlords foist it on us?

Because our cooperative homogeneity is our strength…and their vulnerability.

***

Commenter westray exposes the fundamental contradiction at the heart of modren anti-White leftism:

“Diversity Is Our Strength” right next to “All Races Are Equal” placards at any given lefty rally. And no lefty can see the self-cancellation. You could walk a 3 year old boy through that and he’d have a more clear understanding.

“These people are different, right?”

“Yes.”

“So are they the same if they are different?”

“No”

“If they are different will they do things the same way?”

“No”

“If they are different will they do things differently?”

“Yes”

“If people do things differently will there be different results?”

“Yes”

Sorted.

If Orwell were alive today, would he have spent the last years of his life saying “I told you so” over and over to whomever was listening?

Read Full Post »

Why The Left Can’t Tolerate Anonymity

COTW winner is williamk, adding this insight to a discussion about the ideological proclivities of anonymous realtalk forums like 4chan,

Any anonymous board is by its very nature Right Wing and pro-White. The chans are /ourguys/, they just have lots of energy and no clear, explicit goals, which leads to lots of entropy.

“You don’t have to believe in chaos. It’s self-evident.”

Anything anonymous inevitably turns Right Wing, because the only point of being Left Wing is for status, and you can’t win status anonymously, so left wing talking points quickly dissipate, there is no incentive to repeat the pretty lies of the left.

The less anonymous the forum, the less about truth and more about status-signalling the political discussion becomes. It’s why Left Wingers create and congregate in the most deanonymous discussion places, they quickly abandon anonymous places. They can’t hang with unvarnished discussion, and have no status to gain there, so they leave.

The /chan autists are /ourguys/. They just have too much disordered energy and don’t always operate with perfect long term strategy.

The (((drive))) to de-anonymize the web (via policy and threats of doxxing) is motivated entirely by the Left’s fear of maul-right realtalk and the mockery it makes of leftist virtue signaling. Anonymity is the Left’s thermal exhaust port, because anonymity provides a means of expressing truths free from witch hunts. Anonymity exposes the impotence of the leftoid mob.

Humiliating impotence is something the Left can’t tolerate without cracking up in a brain blast of cogdis.

For the record, I don’t think the chans are apolitical agents of chaos. They’re anti-Left agents of chaos. That’s what makes them truly dangerous to the corrupt existing order; disaffected, angry young White men can change the world like no other force on earth.

Read Full Post »

High Wage Truth Of The Day

Cheap labor is neither.

1. The imported peasant world labor is less productive than the native White labor.

2. The initial cost savings to BIGCORP are lost to negative social externalities.

Monopolize the profits, socialize the costs.

Cracker Jack writes,

It wasn’t long ago that liberal Democrats/media made the case that “cheap foreign labor” wasn’t cheap – it was an example of big corporations  profiting while society pays the cost.  Then big corporations/Big Judaism convinced the Democrats to abandon workers because those foreign laborers and their anchor babies vote Democrat 8 times each.

The forces of Globohomo Inc will and are pulling out all the stops to thwart the nascent rise of a White-aware political and social movement in America.

They have everything to lose if they fail to contain nationalist populism. They know this, which is why they’re resorting to lies and frame jobs and censorship and full throttle 24/7 Narrative agitprop. The media-democreep-oligarch partnership in crime will assure America’s decline into banana republicanism if their agenda isn’t exposed and stopped in its tracks.

Which means we Americans have to ask ourselves…do we want self-rule, or rule by BIGCORP overlords?

PS The armchair historian in me recalls that the demand for cheap labor and the sexual and political liberation of women were defining features of nearly every major civilizational collapse. If there was a notable exception to this rule, I invite the commenters to discuss it with the civil flair that is customary for Chateau comment threads.

PPS From an MPC Status Update (strapon will be triggered to a pungent menstruation):

‘The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) counted over 100 people killed or injured by alleged perpetrators influenced by the so-called “altright”-a movement that continues to access the mainstream and reach young recruits.’

“100 genuine deaths or injuries from the altright per year would make them about 14% as dangerous as toasters”

Ban toasters! Heh.

Read Full Post »

Lessons From Based Stickman’s Alt-Poon Pump And Dump Tour

A reader comments,

That’s Faith Goldy on the left, an increasingly based Canadian girl, who was kicked off (((Ezra Levant’s))) failing alt lite site “the rebel” for straying into JQ territory. I’m not sure if that’s alt lite cam girl Lauren Southron, but if it is, then, with the conquest of Brittany Petmyboner, it would appear that’s he’s in the process slaying the top tier of the right wing camgirl cadre.

It’s interesting to see how the outlaw bad boy lifestyle, and the accrued benefits, play out in real life. Based stick man (bsm) has been charged and probably has a record. He too to the streets and gained notoriety for engaging in political violence. Those two factors, the publick outing and the brush with the criminal law system, would ruin most of us. It would spell poverty.

Yet he manages to ride it out; parlaying his fame into a bit of shekels and smashing seriously good pussy along the way. But most of us can’t do that. If we went out and started crushing antifa/BLM goons at protests, we’d be charged, many of us would lose our jobs, and no one would care about our crowdfunding pages.

Lesson #1: Be an outlaw

Lesson #2: Don’t apologize for being an outlaw

Lesson #3: Act like you’ve been an outlaw before

Lesson #4: Don’t have a soyboy body

Lesson #5: Be preselected by women (or stay-at-home waifus)

Lesson #6: Whatever happens, your toes are still tappin’

Chicks dig jerkboys. You, too, can be the jerkboy chicks dig.

(Tradthots not exempt from the rules issued by the god of biomechanics)

Read Full Post »

Cheater Red Flags

Recent research has confirmed CH wisdom in the matter of which kinds of women are more likely to cheat.

To help, researchers from Florida State University have identified some of the key predictors for infidelity, based on a three-year-long analysis of the marital behaviours of 233 newlyweds.

Ok, great start, half-decent N. But as usual, the rag doesn’t link to the original study, so I don’t know if this is based on self-report answers. If it is, take the results with a flat of salt.

Surprisingly, they found that those who were satisfied with sex in their relationship were more likely to cheat on their partner, possibly because they “felt more positive about sex in general”, the study suggests.

Pomo poopytalk. This is the high libido effect, which in men means the Coolidge Effect.

Age, attractiveness and sexual history all have a crucial part to play, too, they found. In addition to those who were sexually satisfied in their relationship, younger people and less attractive women were also found to be more likely to be unfaithful.

Options = instability (younger people — really, younger women — have more options, so they have more temptations).

What about the seemingly contradictory finding that less attractive women are higher cheat risks? This is explained by the inherent instability of LSMV partnerships. Plain Janes are usually hitched to boring asexual beta mediocrities who are nonetheless reliable emotional tampons and open wallets. Beautiful women may get more attention (and have more tryst options), but they also are more likely to have a relationship with a high value man who gives them both the alpha fux and the beta bux, tamping down their urge to illicitly merge. Given the sexual market reality of men fucking “across and down” (and women dating “across and up”), it’s not surprising that average looking women would have both access to alpha males willing to pump and dump them *and* the motivation to seek out that exciting extracopulatory affair.

This is why, btw, sluts are more often than not less attractive than their peers. Sluts NEED to be slutty to get laid; no man will invest his energy into an unattractive chaste woman. Men WILL invest in chaste hot babes, because the payoff is so much higher.

And ladies, there’s useful info for you too.

The same was not true for men, who were conversely more likely to cheat when their partners were less attractive.

Men have to find that balance between a less attractive but no muss, no fuss woman, and a more attractive but harder-to-get woman. Men who choose the former are more apt to cheat to fulfill their desire for the latter.

The researchers found that men who had a higher number of short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage were less likely to stay faithful whereas women in this same category were less likely to cheat.

Sociosexuality 101. If you like to fuck around, marriage ain’t gonna stop ya. At best, it might slow ya down. As for the second part of that finding, I call bullshit. Every study I’ve seen to date has found the opposite — that women with lotsa cocksas under their felt prior to marriage were a much greater cheating and divorce risk in marriage.

One plausible explanation for the latter finding that isn’t explored by the researchers: women who had racked up many short-term sexual relationships prior to marriage got married later in life, when their SMV was well into its decline, inhibiting their ability to act on their urge to cheat.

The research did, however, find two techniques which could minimise the chances of infidelity occurring; ‘attentional disengagement’, and ‘evaluative devaluation’ of potential romantic partners.

Those with higher levels of attentional disengagement (avoiding thinking about a potential romantic partner’s attractiveness) and evaluative devaluation (downplaying the potential partner’s attractiveness in their mind) were less likely to cheat.

AKA meta-death.

Ironically, ‘evaluative devaluation’ is a fancy term for an Inner Game technique to help men approach hot babes. Mentally priming oneself to view women as interchangeable makes it easier to hit on any one of them, because “another is always right around the corner”. As Outer Game, evaluative devaluation takes the form of DQs (teasing disqualifications of girls for not meeting your standards), negs about girls’ beauty (“nice eyes, especially the left one”), and self-DQs (“hey now, don’t get the wrong idea, you’re not my type”).

***

Update

I located a link to the original study. A couple of additional thoughts I have now that I know better what exactly the study concludes about cheating predictors.

Another predictor of infidelity was attractiveness. A person’s own attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among women but not men—meaning less attractive women were more likely to have an affair.

Like I wrote above, less attractive women are more likely to have settled way below their ideal, which makes alternative romantic possibilities more enticing. Not so for men. Less attractive men are more likely to be in a relationship with the best looking woman they can get; one, because men aim high when they have to sacrifice their natural male urge to polygyny and two, because women are holistic mate assessors and will choose long-term lovers based on a multitude of male SMV factors that include but are far from limited to his physical looks. What this means in practice is that less attractive men are more *grateful* for their main squeezes, and thus less inclined to risk losing it all on an infidelity.

A partner’s attractiveness was negatively associated with infidelity among men but not women—meaning men were more likely to be unfaithful when their partners were less attractive.

Ok, this is cheating risk assessment based on partner looks rather than one’s own looks. And it comports with CH wisdom: men hitched to hot babes won’t risk losing them to a dalliance (and those men are already getting great sex since male sexual fulfillment is directly proportional to female lover beauty). But men hitched to unattractive women (or to women those men perceive being below the best they can get) will think a lot about cheating with more attractive women.

A person’s history of sex was a predictor of infidelity, too. Men who reported having more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were more likely to have an affair, while the opposite was true for women.

Another possibility occurred to me that may explain this study’s unintuitive (and stand-alone) finding that women who have more short-term sexual partners prior to marriage were less likely to have a marital affair. It could be simply that these are the lower value women who got pumped and dumped a lot by men, and when they finally found a doting beta to wife them up they were overjoyed at their good fortune and, like the men in LTRs with hot babes, wouldn’t dare risk it all on a momentary illicit fling.

Read Full Post »

The Deep State Is The Deep Left State

A former FBI agent exposes the machinery of the Deep State which helps explain how so many American institutions become left-wing over time. It’s insightful, inasmuch as it’s crucial to know HOW we got to where we are, so that we can figure out a remedy.

Former FBI Agent Jonathan Gilliam: Bureau’s Top Brass Climb Ladder by Ideology, Not Merit

“Go in and think like a liberal” was the advice two FBI agents gave Jonathan Gilliam prior to his taking an FBI entrance exam. […]

Gilliam, a retired Navy SEAL and former FBI special agent, spoke of left-wing political corruption across the federal government, specifically identifying the CIA and FBI.

Gilliam recalled that two FBI agents advised him to “think like a liberal” during his FBI entrance exam. “I was told by two FBI agents that did not know each other –  I was told, ‘Do not go in and take that test as though you are thinking like a SEAL.’ In other words, ‘If this happened, this is the way it should be done because this is the way a team works, and this is the way an investigation should be carried out.’ They said, ‘Don’t do that, you’ll fail. Go in and think like a liberal.’ And that’s what I did, and I passed.”

Think like a liberal: “My grandson says he wishes he had brown eyes and brown skin! Please clap.”

The FBI’s entrance exam illustrated how leftists use ideological filtering tools preferencing ideological fellow travelers, said Gilliam.

“These tests are written to recruit a certain type of person,” said Gilliam. “So what you end up having when you do that is, you’re gonna have – the CIA has the same problem, where it’s not that they have individuals bringing a skill set to the table; it’s that they’re bringing an ideology to the table that those that wrote the test want them to have.”

“The people who are like-minded, the people that get along are going to be the ones that stay there,” added Gilliam. “They’re not going to recruit people who don’t do what they do, who don’t think like they do.”

This explains why the various bureaucracies are so top-heavy with leftoids while the rank and file are less ideological — the striver leftoids are the only ones getting promoted by the smug leftoids already in charge.

Right wingers imo are simply more principled — or maybe more likable — than are Leftoids. The distinction shows up most clearly in employment practices, where righties seem to be constitutionally averse to ideology litmus tests to boost their ranks with those who share their worldview. Leftists otoh not only have no problem screening people for ideological conformity, they revel in it. They make it company policy. They set out to destroy those who depart from their ideology, no matter how small the particular point of disagreement.

(Ironically, the smaller the point of disagreement, the more viciously the leftoid will lash out and accuse you of heresy. It’s really best to let it all hang out if you’re gonna disagree with a leftoid; you gain nothing by pussyfooting around the disagreement, and the leftoid will be driven to impotent catatonia and perhaps even submission if you disagree fundamentally and unapologetically.)

The “deep state” network of leftists, said Gilliam, extends across various federal bureaucracies. He advised President Donald Trump to cleanse federal bureaucracies of politically corrupt leftists.

The Chateau Word of the Year is….CULL. As in, #CullTheMedia, #CullTheFBI, #CulltheDeepState, #CullAcademia, #CullAdInfinitum. There’s a lot of institutional culling of leftoids to do, and so little time remaining to do it before it’s impossible. We aren’t gonna change hearts and minds, but we can change personnel.

Culling can be accomplished many ways. There’s physical culling. Mass firings and what-not. (I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader what “what-not” means, and when the time would be right for its use.) There’s preemptive culling. This would involve altering recruitment and promotion requirements and exams to rid them of ideological filtering. There’s legalistic culling. Expanding anti-discrimination civil rights laws to include political or ideological affiliation would be an example of that. Finally, there’s passive culling, which would be creating work environments hostile to liberals by, say, mandating a physical assessment day heavy on the tests of strength, or requiring attendance to a “Western Canon” seminar for every Diversity Seminar a company requires for its employees.

President Trump, I know you’re reading. CULL. Remember this word. Drop it in your next tweet. I’d appreciate the shout-out.

“If you want to see the deep state, this is what you’re looking at,” said Gilliam. “It’s not just the FBI. It’s not just the DOJ. It’s also the State Department. It’s the IRS. It’s the DOD. It’s the VA. You want to look across the board and look and all of these.”

Bataan death march through the institutions.

“I don’t think that what we’re seeing in the FBI is just about the FBI,” said Gilliam. “What we’re seeing … is that this is a slice of the bigger picture. Right now, the president has the greatest time that he’s probably going to have in his presidency to pull back and unleash either another special counsel or a team of investigators to go in and clean up these upper echelons [of federal bureaucracies].”

I’m not a prayerful man, but I’ll say a prayer for Trump. His enemy is numerous, entrenched, and determined.

“You can call them deep state. You can call them globalists. I often call them communists,” said Gilliam of left-wing federal bureaucrat careerists.

The commie slur never goes out of style.

Ideological alignment allows otherwise disconnected people across federal bureaucracies to cooperate absent conspiracy, said Gilliam, using terrorist networks as an illustration of this phenomenon.

It’s a literal leftoid hivemind. They all think alike, so they proceed to the same goal without explicit direction. Such radical and independent thinkers, they are!

“You know how terrorist cells work. They have a financial group that raises money, you have planners, you have people who build the bombs, and you have people that carry the operation out,” said Gilliam. “They may never meet those people, but they belong to the same ideology.”

Inadvertently (perhaps), Gilliam has also addressed the JQ.

The Globohomo Ministry of Propaganda, like its bureaucratic brethren in various state agencies, won’t change from within. Change has to be forced on it from without, and that necessarily means CLEANING SHOP of all the leftoid freaks that currently run the show.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: You can chin-rub for ages over the nature of our national dissolution but the crux of the issue is that there are too many leftoids in positions of power. Remove them, and many of our problems go away with them.

Read Full Post »