Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Vanity’ Category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read Full Post »

A reader can barely contain his (her?) excitement.

Holy cow, CH! Do you realize what a smash a “rise of the sex robots” movie would be? How prophetic, how powerful,  how promotional of shiv-right values? I hope you’ve got something in the works, or at least a treatment copyrighted. Nobody has foreseen the dystopian ramifications the way you have,  as far as I know. Nobody is better talented to tell the tale. And certainly nobody deserves more to profit from his unique insights. Get scribing, my man!

M7

I preen. It’s funny you should mention this now, M7, because I’ve recently been mulling the idea of a dystopian fright-fi book about a lovelorn beta male who genuinely falls in love with his Class Sharapova sexbot, and whose satiation tragically compels him to spurn the surprising affection of a flesh and blood plain jane who yearns for a family. My idea was for the story to focus on the uncanny intimacy that develops between the two main characters as their love (or maybe just his love, as the AI would not have yet progressed to undetectable emulation of human emotion), disturbing in concept yet tender in execution, pulses against a backdrop of civilization rapidly yielding to a cataclysmic sex market disruption that dwarfs the schism online porn and obesity had caused the prior generation.

It’s not like the real world isn’t serving up daily reminders that sexbots are coming, sooner than we care to think.

Certainly there have been a few movies that have tackled this subject, if tangentially or farcically. Her, Austin Powers, Blade Runner, Cherry 2000, The Stepford Wives, and the underrated indie psych-thriller Ex Machina come to mind. But none of these movies, except maybe Her and Ex Machina, really explored the sensual and psychological possibilities of sexbot love in context with the cultural upheaval that sexbots would doubtlessly unleash on advanced hedonistic civilizations. That’s where I hope to fill the gap, so to speak.

Read Full Post »

Scott Adams seems to think so.

Cartoonist-turned-pundit Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, told Breitbart News in an interview on Sunday that the mysterious “Godzilla” of persuasion, to whom he ascribes Hillary Clinton’s polling success, is behavioral psychologist Robert Cialdini.

Cialdini, who refers to himself as the “Godfather of Influence,” is a professor and bestselling author who specializes in the art — or, perhaps, the science — of persuasion. In 2012, he was part of a “dream team” of behavioral psychologists that advised President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, and helped propel that effort to victory despite slow economic growth, high unemployment, turmoil in world affairs, new terror attacks, and a motivated (though IRS-crippled) Tea Party opposition. […]

Adams told Breitbart News that he believes that Cialdini may have sat out the Democratic Party primary — or perhaps worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders — then joined the Clinton effort once it became clear she would be the party’s nominee.

While Trump had been more effective at using persuasion techniques, he said, “the Clinton persuasion game went from non-existent, which I reported on for months, to solid-gold, weapons-grade, almost instantly, as soon as Bernie Sanders dropped out.”

Sanders had been outperforming expectations, and Clinton had been underperforming expectations. “Wherever you see somebody exceed expectations by that much, either they are a persuader, like Trump is, or they have somebody helping them,” Adams concluded. […]

Adams explained: “Clinton stopped talking about her boring policies, and details, and her experience, and she went to pure persuasion. She went to the bigger scare,” which was the image of Donald Trump with his finger on the nuclear button.

FYI, this confirms my suspicion that Scott Adams is a reader of Game websites, and has probably stopped by the Chateau for a visit or ten. Robert Cialdini is an intellectual father of early Game principles that have withstood the test of time, (a substantial body of Mystery’s and Tyler Durden’s work and in-field experimentation exploited Cialdini’s knowledge from his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion).

I won’t put too fine a point on it: If Cialdini is now working for TheCunt, like he did for the Gay Mulatto, then The Trumpening is imperiled. Game is an awesomely powerful seduction tool, whether used to bed women or bed voters, and Cialdini would be a presumed master of the craft. I’ve no doubt that his input could very well have been responsible for recently shifting the polls so dramatically in TheCunt’s favor in such a short time. Game isn’t called accelerated seduction for nothing.

Trump is himself no slouch in the Game department, but he has a tendency to get mired in the thickets of interpersonal affront, and can be sloppy about message discipline. Trump needs to nail down his state control. These are the classic flaws of The Natural, btw, so I’m not surprised by their evidence in Trump whose biography provides ample evidence that he is a natural shitlord, aka the social hub alpha male who did well with the ladies from the get-go.

Trump’s strong character suits are an earthy humor and an honest, straight-shooting conversationalist style. These are big pluses that nonetheless can be easily twisted by the media hate machine into meanings completely at odds with what Trump intended to convey. We see that happening more now, as expert persuasion artists like Cialdini are beginning to inform the globalists how to effectively counter Trump’s strengths.

Trump has to know that the foes he is battling now are not trifling betas like ¡Jeb! or Rubio or spergy try-hards like Cruz or shell-shocked cuckservatives who just can’t even. He is up against the most lethal psy ops campaign I believe we will witness in our lifetimes. (Because if it gets any more lethal than it already is, the rhetoric will yield to hot lead).

Cialdini and the persuasion techniques that he and others have written extensively on may very well have been a lynchpin in the Gay Mulatto’s election wins. Game is all too powerful. It frightens manlet newbs, cucks, tradcons, and feminists for good reason: it’s a refutation of mortal MUH GENTEEL CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES and MUH SEX EQUALISM, replaced by the immortal God of Biomechanics.

If Cialdini has now brought the accumulated knowledge of the Game community to Hillary’s campaign operations, it bodes ominous for a smooth Trump Train ride to victory. Although it would serve as a jarring confirmation of Game principles and stroke my already tumescent ego to greater heights, it saddens me to think Game forefathers may have vaulted Obama (& perhaps TheCunt?) to the Presidency. Sadden, because those Game principles are rightly the property of the alt-right and the sundry shitlords who are currently engaged in a winning meme war against a century-old enemy drunk on entrenched power.

Some shiv-righters in this fight may not like it, but those tail-blazing original PUAs were far more shitlord than shitlib, in practice if not in their personal politics or their dress code. You have to be to have bucked the reigning equalism ideology and feminist fuggernaut so flamboyantly, and to take what you want without politely asking for it first.

This is why the alt-right needs to reclaim Game for its movement. They are the natural inheritors of it, and they prove that daily as gleeful practitioners of Game tactics (whether they realize it or not) in their rhetorical slash and burn of decades-old shitlibboleths. TheCunt may have put together a “dream team” of seduction experts, but even a player with tight Game can be defeated in the field. You either have tighter Game than him, or a stone cold taste for sadistic — some might say un-Christian — mockery.

Hillary herself is no threat. A sickly, black-hearted, corrupt old lady who can’t finish a sentence without lying and whose Parkinson’s has robbed her of the ability to think on her feet away from a teleprompter can be cowed into submission by a mighty Trump blow. Those puppetmasters who surround her are the real threat; notice how Hillary has faded from making news herself, as psy ops surrogates do all the bidding of Cialdini & Co. Trump’s real fight is with them; Hillary is merely their shell entity, their cipher.

Knowing this, Trump has to take the Game to them. This means more self-discipline than maybe he is comfortable undertaking. But the prize is great — the political equivalent of bedding an HB10 — and I’m confident that Trump’s love of winning beautiful women, and beautiful voters, will convince him to sharpen his shiv.

Read Full Post »

alt-rock

Walking on the shiv’s edge.

FYI, the Chateau guest list includes dissident musical talents.

(whorefinder: rape against the machine!)

Read Full Post »

acolyte

This womanizing whelp is learning the three Rs: reading, writing, and rakishness.

Read Full Post »

Hey, I beat shiv master Ann Coulter by two days.

(Ok, technically I didn’t “call it” for Trump, but my endorsement is like my love for a woman… when she gets it, she’s won everything before she knows it.)

Read Full Post »

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

Fewer romantic prospects may lead to riskier investments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Executive Summary: The meaning of life is to fuck.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,606 other followers

%d bloggers like this: