20
21

ScienceEnjoy, another unbiased documented scientific report that reinforces TRP. (self.TheRedPill)

One_friendship_plz が 投稿

TL;DR If you don't want to take the advice from us, then go look at actual documented reports.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1617143/

Just here to shatter the beta, makes your heart sink when scientists can speak of cuckoldry as a matter of fact.

dominance has been suggested to honestly reflect male genetic quality.

Describing an Alpha so objectively..

Some researchers have suggested that the high mating value of dominant men is a result of their tendency to reaching higher socio-economical status and, therefore, gaining the resources that they may invest in their mate and offspring

Your status/income/career should be more important than women.

There is also evidence that males of high genetic quality have a tendency for lower parental investment (Waynforth 1998). In response, a mixed mating strategy may have evolved in females: they prefer genetically superior males as short-term or extra-pair sexual partners while, at the same time, they seek males who are more willing to invest in their offspring as long-term or social partners

Articles from 1996 and scientists already did research into the whole AF/BB and confirmed it. They also objectively mentioned the beta's purpose.

Lesson Learned

  • Scientists have already done all their research on cuckoldry and AF/BB, its already been officially researched. and confirmed.

  • Even if you're Chad, you're still viewed as a provider. Beta brings bucks and Chad brings fucks.

全 11 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]UnpluggedMan 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

Whenever actual science is done on such things, it always confirms exactly what any reasonably objective observer would've expected: Humans are animals. They have basically the same mating practices as other primates.

Any real scientist that isn't corrupted by the thought policing emanating from the humanities departments of academia knows this full well. They also know that every decent cognitive/neurological/behavioral study ever done on such issues shows clear biological differences between the sexes. They just don't like talking about it outside of a few niche contexts because they're scared of what it could do to their careers.

Meanwhile, those humanities imbeciles have carte blanche in spreading their bullshit. They have nothing to fear in doing so.

Basically, the humanities shit tested science. They claimed scientists would be terrible people if they didn't betray the principles of their own method and accept an unscientific bullshit model of human nature instead. Sadly, science as a whole has failed the shit test.

[–]Bsolof 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

Controversial evo psych researcher Satoshi Kanazawa writes at length about the truth about gendered IQ bell curves. While men have more spread between the lowest and highest IQ scores, women have always been reported as having a consistent spread in the middle or average territory - what all the researchers neglected to point out was that they lowered the bar for female scores and what they call the median for females comparatively lines up with the LOWEST male scores. Women not only have no representation in the genius levels of IQ - they don't even have any "mildly gifted" representation. The absolute highest scores for females trickle into the lower average range for men. Do you understand that their absolute best barely break even with our worst. Try to keep that in mind the next time you see their lips moving and sound is emanating out of their orifice.

[–]TRP VanguardYouDislikeMyOpinion 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

What I thought was a great article on the subject: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/02/sorry-girls-but-the-smartest-people-in-the-world-are-all-men/

Article from Oct 2, 2015

[–]Bsolof 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Excellent article. Thanks for passing that along. It still neglects to include the big Kanazawa reveal that women are given a 40 pt handicap when configuring IQ scores. A woman with a 150 IQ is the intellectual parallel with a man who marks at 110. It's horrifying. Do not ever let a female speak authoratatively to you about anything.

[–]Hamster_S_Thompson 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sounds improbable. That would mean a woman with 100 iq has really 60 pts. That's a down syndrome territory.

[–]mikesteane 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You still haven't referred to where we can check this. As Hamster says below, the 40pt handicap seems improbable.

[–]mikesteane 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

what all the researchers neglected to point out was that they lowered the bar for female scores and what they call the median for females comparatively lines up with the LOWEST male scores.

Can you give a reference for this please?

[–]Bsolof 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

That's a 30 subject study. That doesn't hold water. This should be the tipping point that gets the attention of the scientific community, for sure but we can't litigate our case to the public at large based off of a 30 person experiment. We know they're all cuckolding sluts but we need a more substantive body of evidence if we're ever going to really effect change on a broad level.

[–]One_friendship_plz[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually, you're right. I made it sound like it's a fact.
Got caught up in the moment, it's still interesting how there's 10's of other articles like this one, they just don't list how many subjects tested. But the articles are more useful than a lot of posts on here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1087598/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2213490

[–]always-be-closing -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's a 30 subject study. That doesn't hold water.

Why's that?

Because you have a doctorate conferred from a research institution and publications in this field where you know what n is reasonable for drawing conclusions?

we can't litigate our case to the public at large based off of a 30 person experiment.

We can and do.

Your criticism is absolutely facile: checking over how large a sample has to be to draw a statistically sound conclusion isn't something PhDs publishing studies in peer reviewed literature after securing grant funding happen to drop the ball on.

[–]Bsolof 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Did you read my comment in its entirety or are you puffing up out of hyper insecurity? My premise was - we need something more substantive if we ever hope to effect change with the swarthy plugged-in masses.