Tag: science

It is science. And Martin Luther King’s dream remains just that, a dream that is not based on reality:

Unless it involves mocking President Trump’s supposedly “small hands,” there is nothing that horrifies our multiculturalist masters more than judging by appearances.

It is impossible, they claim, to infer anything about how someone is likely to behave by their gender or because they are from a particular ethnic group. Everyone is unique (but also, somehow, equal). Judging by appearances is not just superficial but plain evil.

It will be fascinating to see what they’ll make of the recently-published book by British academic Dr. Edward Dutton titled How To Judge People By What They Look Like, which argues that even within races and sexes you can, with a fair degree of accuracy, infer people’s personalities from appearances. You may even get an inside track on how smart they are by taking a good look at their physical characteristics, according to Dutton.

“You can’t judge people by what they look like! It’s drummed into us as children,” writes Dutton, an adjunct professor of anthropology at Oulu University in northern Finland. “It is utterly false.”

But Dutton makes a provocative case for resurrecting the ancient art of physiognomy—judging character from the face. He argues it should never have been dismissed as pseudo-science. Indeed, his research goes way beyond making inferences from the face. He writes:

We are evolved to judge people’s psychology from what they look like; we can accurately work out people’s personality and intelligence from how they look, and (quite often) we have to if we want to survive. Body shape, hairiness, eye width, finger length, even how big a woman’s breasts are . . . these and much else are windows into personality, intelligence or both.

So many people fail to understand that when I say the Alt-Right is inevitable, I am not merely engaging in rhetoric. I mean that quite literally and I am speaking in unvarnished dialectic. Just as communism is unviable because it denies economics and feminism is unviable because it denies biology, conservatism is unviable because it denies inequality. All of these unviable political identities have set themselves against science, history, and observable reality.

Remember, the red pill is reality.

As Dutton says in his book, the relevant research has been published in top psychology journals, such as Intelligence, Personality and Individual Differences and Evolutionary Psychological Science, as has his own research. This includes a study asserting that atheists tend to be less physically attractive and more likely to be left-handed than religious people and that they have objectively worse skin. Dutton, ever the evolutionist, opines that this is because we have been selected to be religious over thousands of years of evolution. Hence, those who are atheists reflect mutant genes in the brain and people with mental mutations are more likely to have physical ones. This explains their asymmetrical features and asymmetrical brains, leading to left-handedness.

You may recall that I was among the first to observe that atheists are neurologically atypical and that atheism is essentially a particular characteristic of being on the autism spectrum. It’s not a coincidence that you can often pick out an atheist by his appearance.

However, the link between psychology, personality, and intelligence on the one hand and appearance on the other involves considerably more than our genes, it also involves our choices and behavior. When we see a man who is slender and clear-eyed at 60, we can safely conclude that he is both intelligent and self-disciplined, just as we can reliably reach the opposite conclusion of a child who is obese at the age of 12.

The double poisoning in the UK was not the Russians nor was the toxin utilized the one originally claimed by the British foreign office, according to a top Swiss lab:

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.

The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.

Now, why would the British government be lying about this and why would it want to provoke a confrontation with Russia on a false basis in the first place?

From Sociobiology: The New Synthesis by E.O. Wilson

The availability and quality of food can also move groups along behavioral scales. Well-fed honeybee colonies are very tolerant of intruding workers from nearby hives, letting them penetrate the nest and even take supplies. But when the same colonies are allowed to go without food for several days, they attack every intruder at the nest entrance. In general, primates also become increasingly intolerant of strangers and aggressive toward other group members during times of food shortages.

I tend to doubt it is a coincidence that this unprecedented and uncharacteristic openness to immigration and disregard for national borders is entirely unrelated to the fact that the West is fatter and more overfed than ever before in human history.

With societies, as with individuals, lean is mean, hard, and dangerous. Fat is soft, weak, and defenseless.

Weather science is increasingly little more than historical fiction.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has yet again been caught exaggerating  ‘global warming’ by fiddling with the raw temperature data.
This time, that data concerns the recent record-breaking cold across the northeastern U.S. which NOAA is trying to erase from history.

If you believe NOAA’s charts, there was nothing particularly unusual about this winter’s cold weather which caused sharks to freeze in the ocean and iguanas to drop out of trees….

You’d never guess from it that those regions had just experienced record-breaking cold, would you?

That’s because, as Paul Homewood has discovered, NOAA has been cooking the books. Yet again – presumably for reasons more to do with ideology than meteorology – NOAA has adjusted past temperatures to look colder than they were and recent temperatures to look warmer than they were.

We’re not talking fractions of a degree, here. The adjustments amount to a whopping 3.1 degrees F. This takes us well beyond the regions of error margins or innocent mistakes and deep into the realm of fiction and political propaganda.

Homewood first smelt a rat when he examined the New York data sets.

He was particularly puzzled at NOAA’s treatment of the especially cold winter that ravaged New York in 2013/14.

It seems we need a fourth neologism…

Sexual harassment is what happens when a Gamma finally makes good in life:

Research over decades on thousands of men shows that those who harass or assault women often have a combination of two distinct sets of personality characteristics, and that these then become amplified by power, says Neil Malamuth, a professor of psychology and communication at the University of California, Los Angeles. Psychologists call these “hostile masculinity” and “impersonal sexuality.”

Men with “hostile masculinity” find power over women to be a sexual turn-on. They feel anger at being rejected by a woman. This is something that researchers believe probably happened to them a lot when they were young. They justify their aggression and are often narcissists.

Men with “impersonal sexuality” prefer sex without intimacy or a close connection, which often leads them to seek promiscuous sex or multiple partners. Often, but not always, this type of person has had a difficult home environment as a child, with abuse or violence, or they had some anti-social tendencies as adolescents….

“It’s not automatic; it’s not that power corrupts,” says UCLA’s Dr. Malamuth. “It’s a certain type of man who uses his power in this way.”

Dr. Malamuth says he has new, unpublished research that shows that men who are aggressive toward women are more likely to look for or create a situation where women are more vulnerable. So it’s no coincidence that they are the ones who seek out power—especially over young, beautiful women, who were the ones who tended to reject them when they were young. Then their natural aggression makes them more likely to achieve it.

“The bad behavior is a defense against being powerless,” says Dr. Kilmartin, of University of Mary Washington.

Narcissism, anger, frequent rejection by women, difficult childhoods, and anti-social tendencies. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The social scientists are still trying to spin this and blame it on more conservative and traditional men, of course.

Men who harass or assault women also tend to have sexist attitudes, such as an opposition to gender equality or a favoring of traditional roles for women, says John Pryor, a distinguished professor of psychology emeritus at Illinois State University.

But as we’ve seen, this simply isn’t true. Again and again and again, we’re seeing that the pattern of sexual harassment is based on male socio-sexuality, not ideology. The combination of childhood trauma, unattractiveness, low social rank, and intelligence with later-in-life success that provides power over others is a severely toxic one. Sexual harassment is what the actual revenge of the nerds looks like. Remember that even in the movie of that name, the gamma nerd “who thinks about sex all the time” seduces the cheerleader under the false pretense of being a literal Alpha.

Gammas never handle power well, whether they become the head of state, the head of a film studio, or just the manager of the sales department.

Anonymous Conservative explains how similar behaviors stem from very different sources:

My view of the Narcissist is their amygdala is too painful when triggered, and their brain is not able to handle the stimulation of it. The narcissists I have observed would actually see their brains melt down when triggered, and it would manifest in what looked like incredibly unpleasant physical symptoms, almost combining a seizure, and the gastrointestinal upset and sickness of a major illness.

The psychopath is the opposite. Their amygdala is not there, so they don’t really feel fear. I am reminded of the character Hannibal Lector in the book Hannibal. At a critical moment, man-eating hogs are released, and rush toward Hannibal, who is holding FBI agent Clarice Starling in his arms. But the pigs move around Hannibal, because he feels no fear, and the pigs detect it. Although the scene is fictional, that is how psychopath brains operate.

Now narcissists, out of necessity, eventually hack their brains by using a false reality to shut off that amygdala-pain. They develop the ability to force their brain to believe something untrue, just so their amygdalae will feel relief and their amygdala will not turn on. I am quite certain it begins in childhood. As children however, I am not sure if they force themselves to believe an untruth, and that eventually becomes more more common as their brain finds it relieves angst, or if the untruth, when contemplated, is so relieving their brain cannot tell it from the truth. From their amygdala’s perspective, that would feel the same as when we find believing a falsehood irritating, and as a result we seek relief when we default to truth.

But once a narcissist develops this hack, now their amygdala’s influence on the brain and behavior is very similar to how a psychopath’s amygdala influences the brain and behavior. It is as if the amygdala is not there. The psychopath just feels nothing, while the narcissist alters their beliefs until they feel nothing.

Interestingly enough, he concludes that narcissists are more dangerous than psychopaths, because psychopaths are too clueless to be able to conceal themselves or their deeds very effectively.