Same-Sex Vs Opposite-Sex Parent-Child Relationships

Peacemaker Putin notes the importance of the same sex parent-child relationship.

The impact a Father has on his son cannot be overstated. Same goes for the Mother on the daughters. Modeling is powerful.

Behavioral modeling by children of parents is a bit of a sketchy proposition given what we now know about the large contribution of genetic inheritance and the relative paucity of shared environment (i.e. parental) effects on kids’ outcomes.

But in my opinion there is something to the notion that parents have different, and unequal, impacts on their same-sex versus opposite-sex kids’ development. Parents exert their influence (however little it can be quantified by current measurement systems) through two ways: presence and modeling (or what could be called “character appropriation”). The former is predominant in the development of opposite sex children and the latter on same sex children.

For example, a father’s presence shields daughters from becoming cock carousel femcunt mudskanks, and a mother’s presence guides sons towards social engagement. The parent-child interaction gets much more interesting and subject to vulnerabilities from disruption when the sexes are the same.

In the realm of modeling, fathers are a crucial decanter from which sons imbibe so many valuable lessons: toughness, grit, confidence, spirit, and the fulfillment of the all-important need of a son to look up to an older man. Mothers likewise impart their daughters with the wisdom of chastity and faithfulness, and the power of femininity and sexual guardianship.

The above formula requires unpolluted input variables. A slutty single mom isn’t going to impart anything good to her daughter, and a violent, disparaging, AWOL father will activate all sorts of negative gene-environment feedback loops in a young son’s spongiform brain.

Perhaps this presence-modeling theory of sex-differential parenting explains the social phenomenon of the association between longer-lasting marriages and birth of sons. Fathers instinctively and subconsciously know that their steady and reliable guidance will be a lot more critical to their sons’ positive development than to their daughters’.

Btw if CH is the first Shivmaester to come up with this theory, please feel free to lavish me with oodles of ego canoodles.

***

Commenter tteclod adds something with which I can find no fault,

CH: You may not have considered the interaction between heritable traits and learned adaptation of heritable traits, or at least didn’t say anything about it.

Let’s put it this way: the difference between the 90% heritable success and the extra 10% parental contribution is the difference between an A student and a B student, or a star athlete and an also-ran teammate. In a competitive environment (all of planet earth), these differences define social strata.

My son is smart. That’s genetics. My daughter is also smart, but not as smart as my son. Also genetics. However, the success of both my son and my daughter is augmented by my participation in the education of each, most especially because they are very much like me (nature) and I know how to be like me successfully (nurture). Without me, each child fumbles through life not knowing how to succeed except through learning from experience. That’s stupid. Every man knows it is best to learn from the mistakes of others, not his own.

Throw in incremental generational improvement in nature (slow) and nurture (fast), and you have the difference between r-selection and K-selection. K-selection assumes the opportunity to build incrementally upon civilizational augmentation of progeny, whereas r-selection hopes for some success among much failure. I prefer the putting my finger on the scale in favor of my children.

Is Cocaine The Game Drug?

From personal experience, I can tell you [REDACTED].

Candy is dandy, and liquor is quicker, but for pickup power-ups nothing beats the white stuff.

A commenter at West Hunter tangentially makes the case for cocaine as the premiere Game drug.

Weird thing is, the coke users are also assholes before they run out. Most accurate film depiction of cocaine: the folie a deux sequence in Boogie Nights where two talentless and tasteless porn morons imagine they are promising musicians. Whoever wrote that knows the secret of stimulant-induced mania.

About withdrawal: it’s the alcoholics who die, and to a lesser extent the benzo-ites.

Heroin addicts don’t die from withdrawal, but do when they quit and suddenly go back, thanks to dosage errors.

Coke heads die of CHF and the like…or they get killed by sober people who can’t stand their endless self-absorbed chatter. Think Sheen circa 2010.

Coke abusers are assholes, but as we all know chicks dig assholes. There’s a well-documented and field-proven effect of overconfident men stimulating the sexual arousal systems of women. Imperturbable self-confidence, irrational or justified, is lightning to a lass’s limbic lobe.

PUAs of the worthwhile sort impress upon neophytes the importance of cultivating a “strong frame” or “inner game”, which is jargon for self-confidence, whether conventionally warranted by external achievement or derived from internal mental machinations. Cocaine mimics — quite a lot more quickly — the effects upon one’s behavior and attitude of having a fertile Inner Game brainscape. It can therefore serve as a seduction accelerant if taken at the right dose (a bump’ll do ya, or so I’ve heard), albeit the benefits are a temporary boost that come with a load of bummer withdrawal symptoms.

A soberly developed Inner Game is far preferable, because it’s a self-regarding high that lasts longer than fifteen minutes, and when inevitable down times arrive the crash isn’t all the way to the cortical cellar.

That said, if you’re a frightened beta bunny who can’t quite summon his Inner Bear to approach and dazzle women, you could consider availing yourself of the alpha-channeling benefits of a small pharmaceutical intervention. Just try not to get used to it.

Children Do Not Inherit Their Intelligence Solely From Their Mother

Feminists suddenly embrace the idea of heritable intelligence when they think it can be shown that it’s passed on to the kids through the mother. Except this latest ignorant tabloid review of the available science is complete bunk. There is no evidence that IQ comes solely from the mother.

The premise defies common sense as well. Does anyone seriously believe a smart woman having kids with a functionally retarded man would not raise the odds of her kids being born a few avocados short of a guac bowl?

I wonder what Greg Cochran thinks of all this nonsense? The pop acculturated “””science””” and the alacrity with which the feminism-soaked media lap up any shitshow story that can remotely be twisted into an anti-White man narrative have become the norm rather than the exception. The omens of Western Decline accumulate by the hour.

***

Commenter Opinionator adds,

The purpose of this is to propagandize White women into mating with other races.

Bingo. I really don’t like going to this poisoned well very often, but it demands noticing. (((Who)) (((is))) (((pushing))) (((this))) (((race-mixing))) (((propaganda))) (((the))) (((hardest)))? It’s slapping us in the face. If you’re getting slapped in the face by the same hand over and over, will you be satisfied by chiding entreaties to ignore the hand and blame your inflamed cheek for putting itself in the way of the swinging hand? Maybe you would, but not for long.

“This will not end well”

There are a couple of must-reads that were published this week. The first, by Kurt Schlichter, warns leftoids that their eagerness to silence dissent will strike back at them with a fury. Schlichter feels the passion of the shiv. You can tell because his article is sharp, hungry for leftoid vitals, and remorselessly allergic to the supine “to be sure”-isms which typify cuckservative mewlings.

But then, those concerns apparently aren’t worthy of attention. The news covers, day in and day out, some overeating foreigner and drug lord baby mama who Donald Trump was mean to a couple decades ago, but no reporter ever asks our guy about his problems. And they don’t merely ignore him. They come after him, jamming things down his throat like gender neutral bathrooms and murderous Muslim refugees and Wall Street scams that mean he gets about .001% interest on that money he saved just like the experts told him to. And he’s expected to just take it.

This will not end well.

It will end either with leftoid retreat or leftoid heads on stakes. The choice of fate is theirs.

***

The second article comes from the now-famous Publius Decius Mus, who whacks another two-by-four against the fiveheads of plush cucks like James Pethokoukis.

Whenever you find an article that begins with the title, “The Conservative Case” for or against something, lock your door, check your wallet, and grab your gun. You know what’s coming is an unadulterated sell-out of everything “conservatism” purports to hold dear.

***

Pethokoukis, like a good AEI-nik, would presumably dismiss such concerns as “the politics of envy” or some-such. True Conservatives™ don’t care about income inequality! The aggregate is what matters!

Matters to what? “The Economy?” Oh. Gains accruing to techies and hedge fundies are more than enough to offset losses everywhere else and that’s apparently good enough for Pethokoukis, who—like nearly all economists—bases his case on a narrow economic analysis that ignores the broader political sphere. Here we find another typical misinterpretation of Reagan. The Gipper’s successful policies proved that it’s all about incentives. All hail Homo economicus!

True, incentives matter. What do open borders and trade-giveaways incentivize blue collar workers in the heartland to do? Give up and shoot heroin?

***

Pethokoukis makes the highly unoriginal point that “Google, Facebook and Uber” show the continued dynamism of the U.S. economy. This is like John Kerry praising Apollo 11 in his acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Can’t think of anything to say? Moon shot! Oh, you’re talking about the economy? Google! Is any cliché more tired at this point? Google—actually Alphabet—has made a few people rich but otherwise has depressed high tech wages in Silicon Valley by its relentless importation, and advocacy for same, of foreign programmers who will work for less and transform neighborhoods through over-occupancy. All this to make porn searches more efficient. Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook is even more aggressive about screwing American workers—fwd.usa, anyone?—and his company even more useless. Uber promises to turn unemployed American workers, and untold foreigners, into cab drivers. But you hail them through a smartphone, so it’s high tech! These, and dozens more that Pethokoukis could have mentioned but mercifully did not, are far cries from the robber barons of old, who electrified the nation, linked us by rail, road, sea, and air, and built our greatest monuments. In the process, they employed millions, created wealth for tens of millions more, and improved standards of living for people on every rung of the ladder.

But for Pethokoukis, the true measure of national success is “translat[ing] entrepreneurial daring into wealth.” […] And what about the people who aren’t entrepreneurs and can’t be? Are they just losers? Does the wealth ever get to trickle down to them? That is, in the form of something other than lower iPhone prices?

***

Like all conservative Hegelians, Pethokoukis is endorsing, if implicitly, rule by the administrative state. “Truth” derives from scientific principle, which is published in academic “studies.” For their own good, the voters should not be allowed to contravene said “truth.” If the people don’t like current, academically endorsed immigration and trade policies, then the people are wrong. Which is manageable, as long as the political class successfully conspires to thwart their will. But when a “demagogue” comes along who threatens to implement the people’s will, that must be stopped!

***

The actual, political truth is that men are free “of all but moral law.” And there is no moral imperative for or against immigration or trade. If the people want them, they may lawfully enact them. If they don’t, they may restrict either, to the extent that their preferences in the moment dictate. Even if a consequence is that their economy contracts.

An economist will gasp at this heresy against his faith. But politics is greater and higher than economics. A failing economy might be a merely economic problem but a failing society is fundamentally a political problem.

***

The left rules out-of-bounds any discussion of the cultural or political effects of immigration as “racist,” and the conservatives go along. Hence they can only talk about immigration in economic terms, as if human beings were widgets.

Beautiful. This was a shiv aimed straight at the heart of Cheap Chalupas. I wonder how our favorite econo-autist is doing? He’s been on a “DAS RACISS” rearguard action lately, content to polish the knobs of various open borders leftoid freaks like Esssra Klein and Noah Smith. The Trumpening making him butthurt?

The rest of the article is even better than the excerpts I’ve quoted above. The closing sentence is absolutely killer. Read it in full and feel the force of a righteous revolution bearing down on the complacent, arrogant, smug equalist leftoid Hivemind and their cuckservative suck-up lackeys.

Are Dissident Thinkers Targeted By The US Government As Enemies Of The State?

Every intimation is a conspiracy until reality proves otherwise. And reality is rapidly proving the existence of a government-corporate globohomo alliance conspiracy against dissident thinkers (aka the alt-right). whorefinder is on it (again),

Look, I am hesitant to bring this up, but I plan on shutting down my blog/disappearing the whorefinder moniker in the near future.

Why? I’ll explain in my final blog post when the time comes, but basically it comes down to two things: (1) Comey’s July 5th press conference refusing to recommend that Hillary be indicted and (2) I finally watched the documentary on Edward Snowden and read up on just what the U.S. government is currently doing to its own citizens via violating their Fourth Amendment rights.

I will expand upon it on my future final blog post, but understand that we–as in the Alt-Right—are under heavier surveillance than you can imagine. And it is the Alt-Right—-and not ISIS, Al-Queda, BLM, Black Panthers, immigrants, or dirty politicians—who are the targets. And that is truly frightening.

This slow-moving purge is just the start, especially if President Trump’s coronation is shut down by a coup or an assassination. Hillary foolishly named the Alt-Right as her enemy to the national public; she was hoping to polarize us into an enemy, but she gave us a head start.

Even if President Trump gets into office, this Deep State will hammer him in a way that will make Nixon’s takedown seem positively pleasant. And even if President Trump is successful at curbing immigration and clamping down a bit, the apparatus (as Snowden has shown) is still in place and will outlast him.

I’ll let you all know when the blog is disappearing. Watch your back brothers, and MAGA.

I predicted a crackdown of thought criminals by the social media companies would intensify one month before the election, and that is what appears to be happening. Trump is a threat to the global world order, but more importantly Trump’s rise and victory would be an utter invalidation of the leftoid HiveEgo. The human ego is the strongest force in the universe and to think it would cede mental territory without a fight to the metadeath is the height of naivete. Shiv artistes should be ready to upgrade to a scythe at a moment’s notice.

Do Women Prefer A Man With Money Or Looks?

If we artificially constrict the sexual market to include only money and looks as variables, we can get a pretty good idea of the emphasis that women (and men) place on both as criteria in opposite sex mates by using heavily filtered dating website data. (h/t chris)

Really what we want to do is observe people’s choices directly which is why dating websites are so useful to us. Here’s an example. What if I have a hypothesis that when choosing a mate, men care more about their potential partner’s appearance than her income and women care more about her potential partner’s income than his appearance. Imagine the following experiment. A woman/man can choose between communicating with two people. One earns $60,000 a year and is more attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. The other earns X dollars per year and is less attractive than 9 out of 10 people on the market. Every other observable characteristic about these two people is identical. We can use the information that tells us who individuals choose to communicate with to determine what X would have to be in order to make a woman/man prefer the less attractive person.

Researchers have done this* and find that for men there is no amount of income that the woman in the bottom ten percent in terms of appearance can earn to make men prefer her over women in the top 10 percent. That is, looks really matter to men relative to income. For women though, if the man in the bottom ten percent in terms of looks earns more than $248,500, they will prefer him over the more attractive guy earning $60,000. My students often interpret this result as saying that women really care about money, but that is not what it says at all—$186,000 is a huge difference in income. If women didn’t care about looks and only cared about money, the figure would be much, much lower. This says that despite the impression that on the marriage market women really care about income, the evidence suggest that they also care about looks. They just care about income too.

Men are the reproductively expendable sex (sperm is cheap and plentiful and has no expiration date) so it is no surprise that men’s attractiveness qualifications for a woman are so much less complex than the attractiveness criteria that women have for a man. What men want is a hot bod, a cute face, and a lot of residual reproduction value (aka youth). Anything more than that is gravy.

What women want is a far more extensive list of attractive male traits, because a woman can less afford to submit her rare and depleting resource of eggs to the inquisitive probings of subpar sperm.

The results of this study align with the real world observations of anyone who’s spent a day in his life outside the home interacting with women in human settings:

Women value money *and* looks.

Men value looks.

On paper, this means a very ugly man’s ugliness carries a $186,000 per year premium to access the same hotties that a good-looking man can get. Which also means that it is possible for an ugly man to buy his way into prime pussy. In practice, an ugly man can fake the appearance of wealth to cheat his way into prime pussy (while a good-looking man who is poor will have trouble getting past the first date if his Game is weak).

On paper and in practice, no amount of money will make an ugly woman attractive to men. So ladies it’s time to ditch those PhD in patriarchal deconstruction degrees for a gym membership and an MRS.

This is yet another study (as if one was needed) that repudiates the ONLY LOOKS MATTER queefiing chorus of quisling cuntboys. The bigger picture is even more unfriendly to the looks crü. When we examine the sexual market as it functions in reality — that is when all metrics and multivariate attractiveness traits are thrown together in the search for a lover — we discover (and science confirms) that men’s attractiveness to women is greatly influenced by nonphysical factors.

Men are visual.
Women are holistic.
The rest is commentary.

The Purges Are Activated

Social media monopolies have begun large-scale purges of any and all effective pro-Trump voices using their platforms. CH was blocked two weeks ago from Twatter. Today, Ricky Vaughn got suspended (until further review post-election?). Apparently, Scott Adams was kicked off as well.

The night of the long knives is right on cue, one month before The Trumpening. Leftoids have lost the argument. Now they reach for the only weapon they have left: silencing.

Ah, but this is legal censorship. These are private companies, the leftoid sneers. Yes, I suppose it’s “legal”, which goes to show what a tenuous concept the legality of censorship can be when the information gateways are owned and controlled by six companies sharing an identical globalism worldview and shitlib equalism ideology.

Alternative information mediums such as Gab.ai are one answer to Hivemind directed purges of thought criminals. But that solution could takes years to develop viable competitors to the crumbling Narrative Megaphone. Another counterattack is depriving the tech oligarchs of their money; targeting celebrities and driving them away would eat a big hole in Twatter’s ad revenue. Faceborg and Spoogle likewise would suffer loss of power if consumers left them in droves. But getting there from here is a mountain of a challenge. Most attention whoring Americans couldn’t unplug from the Faceborg if a gun were to their heads.

What I think it’s going to take is an anti-trust lawsuit by President Trump’s DOJ to break up these media behemoths (including NPR) and breathe fresh air into their hermetically sealed shitlib echo chambers. And maybe a scandalous Wikileak or two on the private lives (and public machinations) of some of our gated community billionaire oligarchs.