http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=46e_1177179030
When the hell are people going to wake up?
"Mr. Wright preached black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as the story of the struggles of black people, whom by virtue of their oppression are better able to understand Scripture than those who have suffered less."
From the times on Obama's pastor.
Later, it says:
“The problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect 10 point plan,” Mr. Obama says in one of his standard campaign lines. “They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness — in the imperfections of man.”
He often makes reference to the civil rights movement, when liberals used Christian rhetoric to win change.
Mr. Obama reassures liberal audiences about the role of religion in public life, and he tells conservative Christians that he understands why abortion horrifies them and why they may prefer to curb H.I.V. through abstinence instead of condoms. AIDS has spread in part because “the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired,” he said to thunderous applause in December at the megachurch in California led by the Rev. Rick Warren, a best-selling author."
"The day after the party for Mr. Wright, Mr. Obama stood in an A.M.E. church pulpit in Selma, Ala., and cast his candidacy in nothing short of biblical terms, implicitly comparing himself to Joshua, known for his relative inexperience, steadfast faith and completion of Moses’ mission of delivering his people to the Promised Land."
Allright, so what the religious are trying to do is blame poverty and oppression on original sin? Are you serious? We're so far away from the truth it's mind numbing. The role between sexuality and spirituality has to be repaired? What about the lack of pair bonding in cold climates that is evolutionarily ingrained?
I can't believe it: take the worst elements of the right-blind faith, and the worst elements of the left-oppression rhetoric. Combine them. Then you have Obama. Man, that charisma is incredibly misleading. I was ecstatic in 2004 after the primary speech due to my Bush hatred(which hasn't gone away). But, I know how hatred of Bush can make us love some shady characters.
Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087%0A&em&en=d9e6f1a88c83208d&ex=1178078400
Sorry, having difficulty with hyperlinks.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Unrealistic Expectations for India
It's actually quite funny when we read in the popular and academic media social and political analysis that ignore human biodiversity. People are just blind to the truth. I see three possibilities:
1) They are aware of HBD but are part of the conspiracy to suppress it
2) They may have heard HBD arguments but are so committed to their ideals that their mind subconsciously suppresses it
3) They are totally ignorant of HBD and have never realized it
4) They have heard straw man arguments, and rejected HBD because of listening to people like Gould, Jared Diamond, or Al Sharpton.
People at the World Bank probably fit into 1. People like Kristof are probably 2. People like 3 are most people. People like 4 are psychology professors, ethnic studies professors. Personally, I think people need to start thinking seriously about intellectual honesty.
--------
Anyway, here is today's editorial on India by Nicholas Kristof:
"India is stirring after many centuries of torpor, and it has a chance of ending this century as the capital of the world, the most important nation on earth. You see up-and-coming cities like Hyderabad or Ahmedabad, and it’s easy to believe that India will eventually surpass China.
But here in rural Bihar state in northern India, there’s no economic miracle to be seen. And it’s difficult to see how India can emerge on top unless it takes advantage of its greatest untapped resource: its rural population.
The village of Khawaspur has no electricity. It has a school with 600 students, but — as is common in Indian state schools — many teachers show up only rarely. “We go to school, but the teachers don’t,” explained Doli, a second-grade girl.
On a typical day there will be just one or two teachers in the whole school, and the students learn next to nothing. “You have to bribe your way to be a teacher there,” explained Yogender Singh, who tutors children for payment.
No child I met in Khawaspur had ever been vaccinated for anything. And the local government hospital exists only in theory.
“There is a hospital,” said a villager named Muhammad Shaukat. “But there’s not even a door or a window. Forget about a doctor.”
That’s a common problem: the government pays for schools, clinics or vaccinations, but someone pockets the money and no education or health care materializes.
In a village in Gujarat that I visited on this trip, all the children were out of school because the teachers had decided to take a monthlong vacation. One sixth-grade student, Ramila, could not write her name, not even in Gujarati.
Another sixth grader, Janah, said that when it came time for exams, the teachers wrote the answers on the blackboard for students to copy so the exam results wouldn’t embarrass the school.
Then there’s the toll of malnutrition. India has more malnourished children than any country in the world and one of the highest rates of malnutrition, 30 to 47 percent, depending on who does the estimating.
Those malnourished children suffer permanent losses in I.Q. and cognition, and are easy prey for diseases. There is some evidence that widespread malnutrition lowers economic growth in affected countries by two to four percentage points a year.
So in the middle of this century, India will still be held back by its failure to educate, feed and vaccinate its children today. This failure will haunt India for many decades to come. Sure, China has many similar problems, with growing gaps between rich and poor and an interior that is being left far behind. But rural Chinese schools provide a basic education, including solid math and science skills.
India’s boom is real, and its overall growth rate puts India right at China’s heels. Its middle class is expanding, governance is improving, and the transformation is one of the most exciting things going on in the world today. The 21st century will belong to Asia, and young Americans need to study Asia, live in it and learn its languages.
But Indians refer to the “Bimaru” states — a play on the word “bimar,” which means “sick” in Hindi. The Bimaru states are Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, and Orissa deserves a spot as well.
In the Bimaru states, there is no boom. “We see nothing here,” said Vidya Sagar Gupta, a businessman who once operated many factories in northern Bihar. Now he has closed most of them down and is trying to sell his properties.
Electricity is unreliable, crime is growing, corruption is endless, the agricultural sector is in crisis, supplies are difficult to get, and criminal gangs and politics are so interwoven that it is difficult to foresee improvements, he says.
For anyone who wants to see this country succeed, a visit to rural India is a bitter disappointment. Ela Bhatt, who founded the Self-Employed Women’s Association, a union of poor women that now has nearly one million members, told me that India’s economy is profoundly limited: “It is like a car having one motorized tire, and the others are cart wheels.”
So in the great race of this century, the race to see which country will lead the world in 2100, I’m still betting on China for now. I’m having my kids learn Chinese, not Hindi (or Indian English, a remarkable language in its own right).
Until India’s economic boom becomes much more broadly based, and until Indian schools manage to teach their students, this country will continue to waste its precious brainpower and won’t achieve a fraction of what it should."
------
Wow. Now, don't you see how misleading ignorance can be? What if Kristof knew about the genetic diversity of India:
From vdare.com:
------
There appear to have been three major waves populating India.
Several tens of thousands of years ago, an early out-of-Africa wave left behind a substratum of modern hunter-gatherer tribes, and many of the 160 million Untouchables, at the bottom of the Hindu pyramid. They come in a variety of looks, from Caucasian to Negrito to Australoid. Thus they are hard to generalize about.
The second wave seems to have consisted of early Middle Eastern farmers. They now speak Dravidian languages and are most concentrated in the South. These typically small and dark Caucasians were largely ignored by the rest of the world—until the last two decades when word of their upper castes' impressive skills at math, science, and technology caught the attention of the business world. The center of India's burgeoning software industry is Bangalore in the southern highlands.
The last and most famous of the three waves were the Indo-European-speaking Aryan invaders—tall, light-skinned Caucasians from somewhere to the northwest. They introduced Hinduism and its accompanying system of social stratification: four major castes (plus the poor Untouchables), along with countless occupation-based inbreeding subcastes, all further divided by region.
-----
So, what you have is the expectation that all of India, with an average IQ less than 85, will be able to rule the world. Uh, I don't think so. Already, there are complaints about Indian engineers being under qualified for outsourcing projects. Bangalore and Hyderabad represent a very, very small fraction of India's population. To think that a country that still has female slavery can be the leading nation of the 21st century is laughable. Looking back a year ago, when I went to India and saw Bangalore, I started freaking out about Indians taking over the world and no job prospects for me. Oh, how misleading fancy malls and packed bookstores could be. Ha.
Also, check out this link http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/08/science_panic_i.html
To see the backwards rationalization that Indians use to justify their pride in their country, as well as make excuses for the sorry state of the nation.
1) They are aware of HBD but are part of the conspiracy to suppress it
2) They may have heard HBD arguments but are so committed to their ideals that their mind subconsciously suppresses it
3) They are totally ignorant of HBD and have never realized it
4) They have heard straw man arguments, and rejected HBD because of listening to people like Gould, Jared Diamond, or Al Sharpton.
People at the World Bank probably fit into 1. People like Kristof are probably 2. People like 3 are most people. People like 4 are psychology professors, ethnic studies professors. Personally, I think people need to start thinking seriously about intellectual honesty.
--------
Anyway, here is today's editorial on India by Nicholas Kristof:
"India is stirring after many centuries of torpor, and it has a chance of ending this century as the capital of the world, the most important nation on earth. You see up-and-coming cities like Hyderabad or Ahmedabad, and it’s easy to believe that India will eventually surpass China.
But here in rural Bihar state in northern India, there’s no economic miracle to be seen. And it’s difficult to see how India can emerge on top unless it takes advantage of its greatest untapped resource: its rural population.
The village of Khawaspur has no electricity. It has a school with 600 students, but — as is common in Indian state schools — many teachers show up only rarely. “We go to school, but the teachers don’t,” explained Doli, a second-grade girl.
On a typical day there will be just one or two teachers in the whole school, and the students learn next to nothing. “You have to bribe your way to be a teacher there,” explained Yogender Singh, who tutors children for payment.
No child I met in Khawaspur had ever been vaccinated for anything. And the local government hospital exists only in theory.
“There is a hospital,” said a villager named Muhammad Shaukat. “But there’s not even a door or a window. Forget about a doctor.”
That’s a common problem: the government pays for schools, clinics or vaccinations, but someone pockets the money and no education or health care materializes.
In a village in Gujarat that I visited on this trip, all the children were out of school because the teachers had decided to take a monthlong vacation. One sixth-grade student, Ramila, could not write her name, not even in Gujarati.
Another sixth grader, Janah, said that when it came time for exams, the teachers wrote the answers on the blackboard for students to copy so the exam results wouldn’t embarrass the school.
Then there’s the toll of malnutrition. India has more malnourished children than any country in the world and one of the highest rates of malnutrition, 30 to 47 percent, depending on who does the estimating.
Those malnourished children suffer permanent losses in I.Q. and cognition, and are easy prey for diseases. There is some evidence that widespread malnutrition lowers economic growth in affected countries by two to four percentage points a year.
So in the middle of this century, India will still be held back by its failure to educate, feed and vaccinate its children today. This failure will haunt India for many decades to come. Sure, China has many similar problems, with growing gaps between rich and poor and an interior that is being left far behind. But rural Chinese schools provide a basic education, including solid math and science skills.
India’s boom is real, and its overall growth rate puts India right at China’s heels. Its middle class is expanding, governance is improving, and the transformation is one of the most exciting things going on in the world today. The 21st century will belong to Asia, and young Americans need to study Asia, live in it and learn its languages.
But Indians refer to the “Bimaru” states — a play on the word “bimar,” which means “sick” in Hindi. The Bimaru states are Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, and Orissa deserves a spot as well.
In the Bimaru states, there is no boom. “We see nothing here,” said Vidya Sagar Gupta, a businessman who once operated many factories in northern Bihar. Now he has closed most of them down and is trying to sell his properties.
Electricity is unreliable, crime is growing, corruption is endless, the agricultural sector is in crisis, supplies are difficult to get, and criminal gangs and politics are so interwoven that it is difficult to foresee improvements, he says.
For anyone who wants to see this country succeed, a visit to rural India is a bitter disappointment. Ela Bhatt, who founded the Self-Employed Women’s Association, a union of poor women that now has nearly one million members, told me that India’s economy is profoundly limited: “It is like a car having one motorized tire, and the others are cart wheels.”
So in the great race of this century, the race to see which country will lead the world in 2100, I’m still betting on China for now. I’m having my kids learn Chinese, not Hindi (or Indian English, a remarkable language in its own right).
Until India’s economic boom becomes much more broadly based, and until Indian schools manage to teach their students, this country will continue to waste its precious brainpower and won’t achieve a fraction of what it should."
------
Wow. Now, don't you see how misleading ignorance can be? What if Kristof knew about the genetic diversity of India:
From vdare.com:
------
There appear to have been three major waves populating India.
Several tens of thousands of years ago, an early out-of-Africa wave left behind a substratum of modern hunter-gatherer tribes, and many of the 160 million Untouchables, at the bottom of the Hindu pyramid. They come in a variety of looks, from Caucasian to Negrito to Australoid. Thus they are hard to generalize about.
The second wave seems to have consisted of early Middle Eastern farmers. They now speak Dravidian languages and are most concentrated in the South. These typically small and dark Caucasians were largely ignored by the rest of the world—until the last two decades when word of their upper castes' impressive skills at math, science, and technology caught the attention of the business world. The center of India's burgeoning software industry is Bangalore in the southern highlands.
The last and most famous of the three waves were the Indo-European-speaking Aryan invaders—tall, light-skinned Caucasians from somewhere to the northwest. They introduced Hinduism and its accompanying system of social stratification: four major castes (plus the poor Untouchables), along with countless occupation-based inbreeding subcastes, all further divided by region.
-----
So, what you have is the expectation that all of India, with an average IQ less than 85, will be able to rule the world. Uh, I don't think so. Already, there are complaints about Indian engineers being under qualified for outsourcing projects. Bangalore and Hyderabad represent a very, very small fraction of India's population. To think that a country that still has female slavery can be the leading nation of the 21st century is laughable. Looking back a year ago, when I went to India and saw Bangalore, I started freaking out about Indians taking over the world and no job prospects for me. Oh, how misleading fancy malls and packed bookstores could be. Ha.
Also, check out this link http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/asiatech/archives/2006/08/science_panic_i.html
To see the backwards rationalization that Indians use to justify their pride in their country, as well as make excuses for the sorry state of the nation.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Free Speech, Again
Did NBC have a right to broadcast the video? If they show it, it offends the victims and glorifies the killers.
That is the wrong frame to approach the issue. The question should be: do I have a right to see the video? And the answer, of course, is yes. I do have the right to see the killer's psychopathic rantings. And, if I act violently based on that, I should have been identified before. I should have been given a psychological screening before I was sold a gun.
What does freedom mean if it does not include egregious behavior? That is how freedom dies.
That is the wrong frame to approach the issue. The question should be: do I have a right to see the video? And the answer, of course, is yes. I do have the right to see the killer's psychopathic rantings. And, if I act violently based on that, I should have been identified before. I should have been given a psychological screening before I was sold a gun.
What does freedom mean if it does not include egregious behavior? That is how freedom dies.
Islam and Oppression
I'm thinking about what Islamists mean when they fight against Western Imperialism and Oppression.
Honestly, I do not believe that the concept of oppression exists. What happens is groups with significant IQ differences come in contact through economic transaction.
Why would Islamists support the regime of Al-Bashir, perpertrator of the Darfur genocide, or the public executions of the Taliban, or the slaughter of innocents in Iraq?
How would Islamicsts react to Imperialist China? I am extremely curious to see how the Muslims will react to prosperous, infidel China surpasing US GDP.
Honestly, I do not believe that the concept of oppression exists. What happens is groups with significant IQ differences come in contact through economic transaction.
Why would Islamists support the regime of Al-Bashir, perpertrator of the Darfur genocide, or the public executions of the Taliban, or the slaughter of innocents in Iraq?
How would Islamicsts react to Imperialist China? I am extremely curious to see how the Muslims will react to prosperous, infidel China surpasing US GDP.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
How does free speech die?
"There's also another kind of violence though that we're gonna have to think about. It's not necessarily physical violence but that the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week, the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughter. ...[T]hat's a form of violence - it may be quiet, it may not surface to the same level of the tragedy we read about today and we mourn, but it is violence nonethesame."
Obama's latest messianic rantings on the Virginia Tech massacre, just disgusting.
Anyway, whenever there is hate speech, and someone is offended, that group is much more motivated to oppose the speech than anyone else, who will be accused of bigotry if they support blanket free speech. So, this happens for every ethnics group, and no one fights back, and viola, no more free speech.
It's similar to the political conflict in free trade. The overall consumer benefits from free trade, but the organized producer has the political motivation to go for protectionism. Happens over and over again, and voila, lots of protections. Luckily, there are other producers that need free trade to sell their products overseas, so they can fight back.
But, with free speech, Don Imus is most likely going to grovel to Al Sharpton rather than fight back. Imagine what things would be like if Don Imus decided he would take a hit? Knowing he would be fired anyway, why didn't he just go all out and say he was right to say what he did and that free speech must include the right to offend or its useless?
Gotta wonder.
Obama's latest messianic rantings on the Virginia Tech massacre, just disgusting.
Anyway, whenever there is hate speech, and someone is offended, that group is much more motivated to oppose the speech than anyone else, who will be accused of bigotry if they support blanket free speech. So, this happens for every ethnics group, and no one fights back, and viola, no more free speech.
It's similar to the political conflict in free trade. The overall consumer benefits from free trade, but the organized producer has the political motivation to go for protectionism. Happens over and over again, and voila, lots of protections. Luckily, there are other producers that need free trade to sell their products overseas, so they can fight back.
But, with free speech, Don Imus is most likely going to grovel to Al Sharpton rather than fight back. Imagine what things would be like if Don Imus decided he would take a hit? Knowing he would be fired anyway, why didn't he just go all out and say he was right to say what he did and that free speech must include the right to offend or its useless?
Gotta wonder.
Monday, April 16, 2007
What a terrible day
I really can't say much about what happened in Virginia Tech other than wonder at how such tragic things can happen.
However, there is one quick point I want to make. If anyone here remembers Sam Harris, the prominent atheist, he discussed the hypocricy of believers in his book The End of Faith:
"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No."
"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."
"If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man."
Tough quotes for a tough time. I don't want to come across as taking advantage of a tragedy to further my own agenda. However, listen to a quote from one of the students:
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/UPDATES01/70416020/1002
“I really have been thanking God that I didn’t go to class today,” she said. “I do think he was watching out for me today. I feel really blessed and thankful, but so sad and speechless about all the other people in the building and all the victims.”
Now, does this girl honestly believe that she was some saint? That God specifically chose her to live and the others to die? I don't think so. But, when people are in shock, the religious chemicals kick in to calm the soul and prevent suicide. And that's why people thank God rather than asking why it happened in the first place.
However, there is one quick point I want to make. If anyone here remembers Sam Harris, the prominent atheist, he discussed the hypocricy of believers in his book The End of Faith:
"Somewhere in the world a man has abducted a little girl. Soon he will rape, torture and kill her. If an atrocity of this kind is not occurring at precisely this moment, it will happen in a few hours, or days at most. Such is the confidence we can draw from the statistical laws that govern the lives of 6 billion human beings. The same statistics also suggest that this girl s parents believe at this very moment that an all-powerful and all-loving God is watching over them and their family. Are they right to believe this? Is it good that they believe this?
No."
"Only the atheist recognizes the boundless narcissism and self-deceit of the saved. Only the atheist realizes how morally objectionable it is for survivors of a catastrophe to believe themselves spared by a loving God, while this same God drowned infants in their cribs."
"If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.If He exists, the God of Abraham is not merely unworthy of the immensity of creation; he is unworthy even of man."
Tough quotes for a tough time. I don't want to come across as taking advantage of a tragedy to further my own agenda. However, listen to a quote from one of the students:
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070416/UPDATES01/70416020/1002
“I really have been thanking God that I didn’t go to class today,” she said. “I do think he was watching out for me today. I feel really blessed and thankful, but so sad and speechless about all the other people in the building and all the victims.”
Now, does this girl honestly believe that she was some saint? That God specifically chose her to live and the others to die? I don't think so. But, when people are in shock, the religious chemicals kick in to calm the soul and prevent suicide. And that's why people thank God rather than asking why it happened in the first place.
Nice Guys v. Bad Boys
Here is an msn mainstream article on bad boys and nice guys. Not sure if it does more harm than good in explaining the phenomenon.
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/dating/articlelhj.aspx?cp-documentid=21760>1=9309&wa=wsignin1.0
------
James Dean, James Bond. Colin Farrell. Hugh Grant in Bridget Jones's Diary. That high school senior with the leather jacket who'll probably be a senior again next year. What do they all have in common? They smolder. They smirk. They smoke. They are tragically troubled, fatally flawed. They are physically unable to call when they're supposed to.
They are bad boys. And goodness, how we love them.
"Our love affairs with bad boys sweep us off our feet time and time again," says Carole Lieberman, MD, coauthor of Bad Boys: Why We Love Them, How To Live with Them, and When to Leave Them (Dutton, 1997). "They can be unpredictable, dishonest, or downright mean, but scoundrels have always had an undeniable appeal to many of us -- an erotic edge of danger that's hard to resist."
Still, in real life and in real relationships, our love for bad boys -- and yes, also for the "nice guys" who hate them -- is actually quite nuanced. Read this good vs. bad boy guide to debunk some male myths and find out who really does finish first.
Why Do We Love Bad Boys?
The going (and rather creepy) theory -- usually advanced by nice guys complaining about the "jerks" who get their girls -- is that women must simply like to be mistreated. That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? There's actually much more to this seemingly paradoxical pull, such as:
Low self-esteem. True, some women do think, on some level: "I don't deserve someone better." (It comes in other versions, too, such as: "You're right, drugs are more interesting than I am," etc.)
Dear old dad. It's an Oedipal thing. That is, we have the sense that our fellas should not be like our fathers. As single New Yorker Janet, 30, puts it: "If a guy treats me well he reminds me of my father. I don't want to date my father."
Not so dear old dad. There's also the opposite scenario. "Did Dad abandon us through divorce? Was he emotionally unavailable? Abusive? Having an affair?"asks Dr. Lieberman. "Those kinds of scenarios drive us to prove we are loveable by making a hard-to-get bad boy love us."
"Homme" Improvement. "Women love projects," says Janet. "Bad boys suggest that alterations can be made."
Feeling special. "I used to think that dating someone who snubbed the rest of the population but nuzzled with me was quite a victory," says single woman Melissa, 25, of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Challenge, danger, adventure. We want them; bad boys offer them. (Who says we're the weaker sex?)
Quiz: Do You Need A Man In Your Life?
But Does That Mean "Nice Guys" Are Boring?
Not at all. "Nice isn't boring, boring is boring," says Rachel, 30, a single woman in Toronto. Why, then, do people tend to make the nice-equals-boring equation? Here's one theory: when "nice" is the only word you can think of to describe someone, they're boring. Hence the association.
More specifically, when we say someone's "nice" -- or even "too nice" -- we often mean that he's too nice...to the world. That he has too few opinions, too soft a spine, too little nerve. We prefer some sass, a bit of backbone, a little harmless mischief. "I tend to go for naughty-ish men, but it's not the naughtiness itself that attracts me," says Caroline, 39, a single Minneapolis woman. "It's an irreverent attitude, an iconoclastic gesture, or some other rejection of life's cookie-cutter expectations."
So sure, we like nice -- when "nice" means kind, compassionate, and thoughtful. After all, if you think about it, "thoughtful" can also mean "interesting."
Do Women Date Naughty Guys but Marry Nice Ones?
This notion sounds an awful lot like the irritating good-girl/bad-girl distinction that men continue to make. Still, it does contain a nugget of sense. Since women truly are conditioned to be "good girls," sometimes we feel uncomfortable with or guilty about that pure burning "I must have him!" feeling. That's why we sometimes seek out a bad boy to serve as the object of these desires, says Cleveland psychotherapist Belleruth Naparstek, creator of the Health Journeys series of guided imagery tapes. "In order for the deliciousness of pure lust to be 'okay,' it has to be for the symbolic bad boy who has nothing to do with the rest of your life. With him, you can crank up your animal impulses, worry-free," she says.
How Can You Tell Naughty From Nice?
Well, it's not always obvious at first glance. That is, the guy on the Harley might be a total marshmallow while Mr. Armani turns out to mean big trouble. "I dated this really intellectual writer guy who would gaze into my eyes. Eventually, I realized that he wasn't looking into my soul, he was trying to remember which one I was," says Paola, 43, a single woman in New York.
Says Rachel: "My college boyfriend's favorite color was black, he head-banged to Rage Against The Machine and he wrote angry poetry railing against the world. He also wrote me tender love poetry and drove 100 miles to pick me up when I was sick. Another ex had a massive tattoo of James Brown on his upper arm, mike stand and all. This is the same guy who takes his nephew to see Harry Potter and makes sure to call his grandma to tell her he loves her."
So don't judge a suitor by his personal style, or even his job or interests: Judge him by how he treats you. Not to mention others.
That's how Marjorie, 36, of San Francisco, knew her husband was a keeper: He has both bad-boy cool and nice-guy commitment. "My husband has a quick temper and barfly tendencies," she says. "He is also super-loving and unbelievably hardworking and resolutely determined to provide for his family." Wild and domesticated, naughty and nice...who says we can't have it all?
------
I wish I had a better grasp of understanding to figure this out, but they are basically getting at the woman's need to get the best genes for short term mating affairs.
David DeAngelo's Cocky and Funny?
Carlos Xuma's Alpha Man?
Mystery's Demonstration of Higher Value?
All various interpretations of the same primal feeling going on. And, this says nothing about race disparities in nice guy v. bad boy.
http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationships/dating/articlelhj.aspx?cp-documentid=21760>1=9309&wa=wsignin1.0
------
James Dean, James Bond. Colin Farrell. Hugh Grant in Bridget Jones's Diary. That high school senior with the leather jacket who'll probably be a senior again next year. What do they all have in common? They smolder. They smirk. They smoke. They are tragically troubled, fatally flawed. They are physically unable to call when they're supposed to.
They are bad boys. And goodness, how we love them.
"Our love affairs with bad boys sweep us off our feet time and time again," says Carole Lieberman, MD, coauthor of Bad Boys: Why We Love Them, How To Live with Them, and When to Leave Them (Dutton, 1997). "They can be unpredictable, dishonest, or downright mean, but scoundrels have always had an undeniable appeal to many of us -- an erotic edge of danger that's hard to resist."
Still, in real life and in real relationships, our love for bad boys -- and yes, also for the "nice guys" who hate them -- is actually quite nuanced. Read this good vs. bad boy guide to debunk some male myths and find out who really does finish first.
Why Do We Love Bad Boys?
The going (and rather creepy) theory -- usually advanced by nice guys complaining about the "jerks" who get their girls -- is that women must simply like to be mistreated. That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? There's actually much more to this seemingly paradoxical pull, such as:
Low self-esteem. True, some women do think, on some level: "I don't deserve someone better." (It comes in other versions, too, such as: "You're right, drugs are more interesting than I am," etc.)
Dear old dad. It's an Oedipal thing. That is, we have the sense that our fellas should not be like our fathers. As single New Yorker Janet, 30, puts it: "If a guy treats me well he reminds me of my father. I don't want to date my father."
Not so dear old dad. There's also the opposite scenario. "Did Dad abandon us through divorce? Was he emotionally unavailable? Abusive? Having an affair?"asks Dr. Lieberman. "Those kinds of scenarios drive us to prove we are loveable by making a hard-to-get bad boy love us."
"Homme" Improvement. "Women love projects," says Janet. "Bad boys suggest that alterations can be made."
Feeling special. "I used to think that dating someone who snubbed the rest of the population but nuzzled with me was quite a victory," says single woman Melissa, 25, of Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Challenge, danger, adventure. We want them; bad boys offer them. (Who says we're the weaker sex?)
Quiz: Do You Need A Man In Your Life?
But Does That Mean "Nice Guys" Are Boring?
Not at all. "Nice isn't boring, boring is boring," says Rachel, 30, a single woman in Toronto. Why, then, do people tend to make the nice-equals-boring equation? Here's one theory: when "nice" is the only word you can think of to describe someone, they're boring. Hence the association.
More specifically, when we say someone's "nice" -- or even "too nice" -- we often mean that he's too nice...to the world. That he has too few opinions, too soft a spine, too little nerve. We prefer some sass, a bit of backbone, a little harmless mischief. "I tend to go for naughty-ish men, but it's not the naughtiness itself that attracts me," says Caroline, 39, a single Minneapolis woman. "It's an irreverent attitude, an iconoclastic gesture, or some other rejection of life's cookie-cutter expectations."
So sure, we like nice -- when "nice" means kind, compassionate, and thoughtful. After all, if you think about it, "thoughtful" can also mean "interesting."
Do Women Date Naughty Guys but Marry Nice Ones?
This notion sounds an awful lot like the irritating good-girl/bad-girl distinction that men continue to make. Still, it does contain a nugget of sense. Since women truly are conditioned to be "good girls," sometimes we feel uncomfortable with or guilty about that pure burning "I must have him!" feeling. That's why we sometimes seek out a bad boy to serve as the object of these desires, says Cleveland psychotherapist Belleruth Naparstek, creator of the Health Journeys series of guided imagery tapes. "In order for the deliciousness of pure lust to be 'okay,' it has to be for the symbolic bad boy who has nothing to do with the rest of your life. With him, you can crank up your animal impulses, worry-free," she says.
How Can You Tell Naughty From Nice?
Well, it's not always obvious at first glance. That is, the guy on the Harley might be a total marshmallow while Mr. Armani turns out to mean big trouble. "I dated this really intellectual writer guy who would gaze into my eyes. Eventually, I realized that he wasn't looking into my soul, he was trying to remember which one I was," says Paola, 43, a single woman in New York.
Says Rachel: "My college boyfriend's favorite color was black, he head-banged to Rage Against The Machine and he wrote angry poetry railing against the world. He also wrote me tender love poetry and drove 100 miles to pick me up when I was sick. Another ex had a massive tattoo of James Brown on his upper arm, mike stand and all. This is the same guy who takes his nephew to see Harry Potter and makes sure to call his grandma to tell her he loves her."
So don't judge a suitor by his personal style, or even his job or interests: Judge him by how he treats you. Not to mention others.
That's how Marjorie, 36, of San Francisco, knew her husband was a keeper: He has both bad-boy cool and nice-guy commitment. "My husband has a quick temper and barfly tendencies," she says. "He is also super-loving and unbelievably hardworking and resolutely determined to provide for his family." Wild and domesticated, naughty and nice...who says we can't have it all?
------
I wish I had a better grasp of understanding to figure this out, but they are basically getting at the woman's need to get the best genes for short term mating affairs.
David DeAngelo's Cocky and Funny?
Carlos Xuma's Alpha Man?
Mystery's Demonstration of Higher Value?
All various interpretations of the same primal feeling going on. And, this says nothing about race disparities in nice guy v. bad boy.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Dating Disparity
In response to the comment on my previous post,
From Wikipedia,
"While men tend to go to Asia for sex tourism, women tend to head to the Caribbean, Southern Europe, and Africa."
White men are generally not attracted to black women. This is because they are more masculine than white women, who are more dominating and less feminine than asian women, which explains the popularity of Asian women. The reverse is true for female attraction to men.
The way you describe it, Asian men and black women are in the same boat.
I think you are attributing too much importance to "social power," "status," and "negative media stereotypes,"
If you look purely at dating arrangements in general, even within a single race, the dominating, charismatic guy does well, and the feminine girl does well.
Now, you look at which races correlate with which attributes: white men are more likely to be more dominating and charismatic than asian men (testosterone disparity-see other post). So, white men are more attractive to asian women than asian men.
Now, white women are more feminine than black women (in terms of facial structure, presence of long hair, obesity rates, less-fiesty personality) and therefore are more attractive to men than black women.
It's a tough break for black women and Asian men.
Now, this is something I really want to bring up because I see it referenced over and over again: the idea that negative media stereotypes determine our beliefs. I say no. I say that it is our stereotypes, which form in response to life experience and anecdotal/statistical evidence, that determine media bias.
If a movie was made in which an asian guy emasculated a black or white guy, it wouldn't make sense. Something in us would realize that its not right, that the movie is unrealistic. The movie wouldn't do well.
If there was a movie in which it was white people coming into a black neighborhood and making things less safe, people wouldn't buy it. It doesn't make sense. Why? Because whites don't committ crimes at the same rate as hispanics and blacks.
So now, we have the dating issue. In response to the BIOLOGICAL testosterone disparity between men of different races, certain ethnic stereotypes have formed which are largely true. So, the Asian guys are looked at as wimpy because, well, they are generally smaller and less aggressive. And frankly, if there was an Asian guy complaining that the white guy was stealing his chicks, its because he is not aggressive and built, not just because he's asian.
Sure, if two guys were exactly equal (in height, looks, confidence, humor, voice tone, body language, ...) and one was Asian and the other white, the girl may go either way, maybe picking the white guy because of status issues. But, that rarely happens. Usually the competition is between more dominant white males and more nerdy asians. Is it really surprising who wins?
Same thing with Black women. I love Tyra Banks, Ciara, Hale Berry, and many others. It's just that the AVERAGE black woman is fatter, more negroid looking, shorter haired (and less straight haired), less intelligent, and more boisterous than the average white, asian, indian, or hispanic woman. So, I generally don't find them attractive.
The same qualities universally attract women: confidence, humor, solid body language, intelligence, looks, ...
The same qualities attract men: cute face, hip to waist ratio, boobs, butt, and not being too aggressive, and not being fat. Are you telling me that certain races don't have this more than others?
It's just that certain races are more endowed with it than others. Blame evolution: read my previous posts on why.
But, to all the Asian men out there: do not fret. There is hope. Check out the Asian playboy blog
http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com
he has some tips on how to deal. Remember, its always the personality that wins. If you try to convince a girl based on how much money you make or how smart you are, she won't buy it. Yeah, Asian guys, I'm talking to you. But, if you demonstrate confidence and humor, she's yours. Asian guys have alot of approach anxiety. Reference previous posts on evolutionary psychology to figure out why the brain triggers anxiety chemicals more in asians than others. Get rid of approach anxiety.
Black women? It's a little tougher. Because attraction for women is more looks than personality based, genetics matters more than society. Lose weight, cut the attitude, try to grow some long hair that doesn't feel like brillo when we touch it.
Remember, all women, secretly, want to be dominated. If you don't believe me, ask the feminists why women who get beaten by their husbands keep returning.
Women don't respect a man that they can control.
Given that there are huge dominance disparities between races, do dating disparities surprise anyone?
From Wikipedia,
"While men tend to go to Asia for sex tourism, women tend to head to the Caribbean, Southern Europe, and Africa."
White men are generally not attracted to black women. This is because they are more masculine than white women, who are more dominating and less feminine than asian women, which explains the popularity of Asian women. The reverse is true for female attraction to men.
The way you describe it, Asian men and black women are in the same boat.
I think you are attributing too much importance to "social power," "status," and "negative media stereotypes,"
If you look purely at dating arrangements in general, even within a single race, the dominating, charismatic guy does well, and the feminine girl does well.
Now, you look at which races correlate with which attributes: white men are more likely to be more dominating and charismatic than asian men (testosterone disparity-see other post). So, white men are more attractive to asian women than asian men.
Now, white women are more feminine than black women (in terms of facial structure, presence of long hair, obesity rates, less-fiesty personality) and therefore are more attractive to men than black women.
It's a tough break for black women and Asian men.
Now, this is something I really want to bring up because I see it referenced over and over again: the idea that negative media stereotypes determine our beliefs. I say no. I say that it is our stereotypes, which form in response to life experience and anecdotal/statistical evidence, that determine media bias.
If a movie was made in which an asian guy emasculated a black or white guy, it wouldn't make sense. Something in us would realize that its not right, that the movie is unrealistic. The movie wouldn't do well.
If there was a movie in which it was white people coming into a black neighborhood and making things less safe, people wouldn't buy it. It doesn't make sense. Why? Because whites don't committ crimes at the same rate as hispanics and blacks.
So now, we have the dating issue. In response to the BIOLOGICAL testosterone disparity between men of different races, certain ethnic stereotypes have formed which are largely true. So, the Asian guys are looked at as wimpy because, well, they are generally smaller and less aggressive. And frankly, if there was an Asian guy complaining that the white guy was stealing his chicks, its because he is not aggressive and built, not just because he's asian.
Sure, if two guys were exactly equal (in height, looks, confidence, humor, voice tone, body language, ...) and one was Asian and the other white, the girl may go either way, maybe picking the white guy because of status issues. But, that rarely happens. Usually the competition is between more dominant white males and more nerdy asians. Is it really surprising who wins?
Same thing with Black women. I love Tyra Banks, Ciara, Hale Berry, and many others. It's just that the AVERAGE black woman is fatter, more negroid looking, shorter haired (and less straight haired), less intelligent, and more boisterous than the average white, asian, indian, or hispanic woman. So, I generally don't find them attractive.
The same qualities universally attract women: confidence, humor, solid body language, intelligence, looks, ...
The same qualities attract men: cute face, hip to waist ratio, boobs, butt, and not being too aggressive, and not being fat. Are you telling me that certain races don't have this more than others?
It's just that certain races are more endowed with it than others. Blame evolution: read my previous posts on why.
But, to all the Asian men out there: do not fret. There is hope. Check out the Asian playboy blog
http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com
he has some tips on how to deal. Remember, its always the personality that wins. If you try to convince a girl based on how much money you make or how smart you are, she won't buy it. Yeah, Asian guys, I'm talking to you. But, if you demonstrate confidence and humor, she's yours. Asian guys have alot of approach anxiety. Reference previous posts on evolutionary psychology to figure out why the brain triggers anxiety chemicals more in asians than others. Get rid of approach anxiety.
Black women? It's a little tougher. Because attraction for women is more looks than personality based, genetics matters more than society. Lose weight, cut the attitude, try to grow some long hair that doesn't feel like brillo when we touch it.
Remember, all women, secretly, want to be dominated. If you don't believe me, ask the feminists why women who get beaten by their husbands keep returning.
Women don't respect a man that they can control.
Given that there are huge dominance disparities between races, do dating disparities surprise anyone?
Friday, April 13, 2007
Marriage
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr13/0,4670,InterracialMarriage,00.htmlhttp://
"In some categories of interracial marriage, there are distinct gender-related trends. More than twice as many black men marry white women as vice versa, and about three-fourths of white-Asian marriages involve white men and Asian women.
C.N. Le, a Vietnamese-American who teaches sociology at the University of Massachusetts, says the pattern has created some friction in Asian-American communities.
"Some of the men view the women marrying whites as sellouts, and a lot of Asian women say, 'Well, we would want to date you more, but a lot of you are sexist or patriarchal,'" said Le, who attributes the friction in part to gender stereotypes of Asians that have been perpetuated by American films and TV shows."
"In some categories of interracial marriage, there are distinct gender-related trends. More than twice as many black men marry white women as vice versa, and about three-fourths of white-Asian marriages involve white men and Asian women.
C.N. Le, a Vietnamese-American who teaches sociology at the University of Massachusetts, says the pattern has created some friction in Asian-American communities.
"Some of the men view the women marrying whites as sellouts, and a lot of Asian women say, 'Well, we would want to date you more, but a lot of you are sexist or patriarchal,'" said Le, who attributes the friction in part to gender stereotypes of Asians that have been perpetuated by American films and TV shows."
Strippers = Jail?
Our societies' political correctness and sex aversion comes to a head at editorials that say we shouldn't worry about false accusations against the Duke players. Apparently, they were part of a white elite that "can go about they lives." Plus, they were hiring a stripper!
It is ridiculous that these players are still maligned because they hired a stripper and exploited a "poor working class black woman."
Exploitation does not exist. What exists is high IQ individuals employing replaceable low IQ individuals.
I feel cornered. One on hand, I despise political correctness and the liberals who are blinded by ideology to the serious disparities between races in their biology and behavior.
On the other hand, many supporters of the Duke players are also people who dislike Asians, Jews, and are are strong Christians. There are very few agnostics who don't buy into the equality rhetoric.
Someone who believes sex is ok and PC=speech suppression? Nonexistent. If anything, the logical people who sympathize with me are so interested in making money that they don't care about the world around them.
Even though I agree with many of Steve Sailer's points, I remember him criticizing feminists for discouraging monogamy. He said "Why do feminists have such a problem with monogamy?" I have a serious problem with society's double standards of male and female sexuality. I understand that Sailer was working within the context of AIDS prevention in Africa, but he doesn't take into account the rational person's dislike of dogmatic religion and how it has permeated into our sex aversion that causes many problems in society.
Being reasonable is lonely.
It is ridiculous that these players are still maligned because they hired a stripper and exploited a "poor working class black woman."
Exploitation does not exist. What exists is high IQ individuals employing replaceable low IQ individuals.
I feel cornered. One on hand, I despise political correctness and the liberals who are blinded by ideology to the serious disparities between races in their biology and behavior.
On the other hand, many supporters of the Duke players are also people who dislike Asians, Jews, and are are strong Christians. There are very few agnostics who don't buy into the equality rhetoric.
Someone who believes sex is ok and PC=speech suppression? Nonexistent. If anything, the logical people who sympathize with me are so interested in making money that they don't care about the world around them.
Even though I agree with many of Steve Sailer's points, I remember him criticizing feminists for discouraging monogamy. He said "Why do feminists have such a problem with monogamy?" I have a serious problem with society's double standards of male and female sexuality. I understand that Sailer was working within the context of AIDS prevention in Africa, but he doesn't take into account the rational person's dislike of dogmatic religion and how it has permeated into our sex aversion that causes many problems in society.
Being reasonable is lonely.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Society cowers
"I want to make sure that there are internships on Don Imus's show...he should raise money for scholarships for black students."
Some dude on hardball commenting on Don Imus controversy
What the hell is this bullshit? Take any black kid with the same SAT score and grades as a white or asian kid. Guaranteed, that black kid is getting double scholarship and getting into better schools.
Don Imus has been fired.
Free speach means NOTHING if offensive speech isn't allowed. Just as Bush is terrible to act against Cindy Sheehan, it is ridiculous that Don Imus can't even call women ho's and remain on air.
"Blacks were jigaboos, Sambos and Brilloheads. Women were bitches and, above all else, an endless variety of ever-ready sexual vessels, born to be degraded."
Yeah, like a white person can actually say that. Seriously, if you want to hear degrading language, turn on rap or reggaeton. Simple.
And jews are kykes, chinese are chinks, arabs are towelheads, mexicans are spics, and you know what? It's just a name. Can I say anything about black people anymore without being censured?
Despite my hesitations about the ability of democracy to survive given intractable IQ differences, and laissez faire economics in a genetic deterministic environment, I believe the one thing that is sacred about the United States that I WOULD DIE FOR is freedom of speech. And apparently, we are losing that.
I hate Louis farrakhan. But don't censure him. Debate him. I hate Al Sharpton-debate him. I hate Jerry Falwell-debate him. I hate Osama Bin Laden-show his tapes and challenge him to debate. Same with Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong Il, Basher Assad, Omar Al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez.
It is incredibly fascinating the LACK of attention paid to the Duke Lacross players who were acquitted. A black woman lying, trying to destroy the lives of these players. She's scott free and anonymous. Don Imus calls come girls nappy headed ho's, and he's gone. Fair?
I notice that there is also a similarity between this and race research. People say to avoid race research not because it is incorrect, but because it will lead to dangerous consequences. People are now censured because because.their remarks are offensive, not because they don't stand up to rational inquiry. Very dangerous line we are crossing.
Ok, I'm watching a debate between an asian chick and some black dude on the o'reilly factor on the use of the n-word.
Basically, she asks why the TOP 6 SONGS on the rap charts are all songs that denigrate women. She says that there are artists out there who don't denigrate women, but they're not on the top of the charts.
His response? That the white men who run the record companies put them on the top of the charts. I'm assuming that anyone who reads this blog has enough of an economic sense to realize the ridiculousness of that claim.
But, it indicates that there is a profound misunderstanding among African-Americans of how the world works:
If a firm has a higher hiring rate for whites than blacks, they attribute it to racism. But, they never realize the market truth that profit motive beats all racial considerations, that a firm that hires blind to race and merit alone will thrive in the market.
So, if being black correlates with low merit (low IQ), and a company hires based on merit, the company is rascist.
And the black panthers are calling for a guilty conviction of the Lacross team players after the DA dropped the case. He thinks the powerful rich defendants are skewing the system.
Some dude on hardball commenting on Don Imus controversy
What the hell is this bullshit? Take any black kid with the same SAT score and grades as a white or asian kid. Guaranteed, that black kid is getting double scholarship and getting into better schools.
Don Imus has been fired.
Free speach means NOTHING if offensive speech isn't allowed. Just as Bush is terrible to act against Cindy Sheehan, it is ridiculous that Don Imus can't even call women ho's and remain on air.
"Blacks were jigaboos, Sambos and Brilloheads. Women were bitches and, above all else, an endless variety of ever-ready sexual vessels, born to be degraded."
Yeah, like a white person can actually say that. Seriously, if you want to hear degrading language, turn on rap or reggaeton. Simple.
And jews are kykes, chinese are chinks, arabs are towelheads, mexicans are spics, and you know what? It's just a name. Can I say anything about black people anymore without being censured?
Despite my hesitations about the ability of democracy to survive given intractable IQ differences, and laissez faire economics in a genetic deterministic environment, I believe the one thing that is sacred about the United States that I WOULD DIE FOR is freedom of speech. And apparently, we are losing that.
I hate Louis farrakhan. But don't censure him. Debate him. I hate Al Sharpton-debate him. I hate Jerry Falwell-debate him. I hate Osama Bin Laden-show his tapes and challenge him to debate. Same with Ahmadenijad, Kim Jong Il, Basher Assad, Omar Al-Bashir, Hugo Chavez.
It is incredibly fascinating the LACK of attention paid to the Duke Lacross players who were acquitted. A black woman lying, trying to destroy the lives of these players. She's scott free and anonymous. Don Imus calls come girls nappy headed ho's, and he's gone. Fair?
I notice that there is also a similarity between this and race research. People say to avoid race research not because it is incorrect, but because it will lead to dangerous consequences. People are now censured because because.their remarks are offensive, not because they don't stand up to rational inquiry. Very dangerous line we are crossing.
Ok, I'm watching a debate between an asian chick and some black dude on the o'reilly factor on the use of the n-word.
Basically, she asks why the TOP 6 SONGS on the rap charts are all songs that denigrate women. She says that there are artists out there who don't denigrate women, but they're not on the top of the charts.
His response? That the white men who run the record companies put them on the top of the charts. I'm assuming that anyone who reads this blog has enough of an economic sense to realize the ridiculousness of that claim.
But, it indicates that there is a profound misunderstanding among African-Americans of how the world works:
If a firm has a higher hiring rate for whites than blacks, they attribute it to racism. But, they never realize the market truth that profit motive beats all racial considerations, that a firm that hires blind to race and merit alone will thrive in the market.
So, if being black correlates with low merit (low IQ), and a company hires based on merit, the company is rascist.
And the black panthers are calling for a guilty conviction of the Lacross team players after the DA dropped the case. He thinks the powerful rich defendants are skewing the system.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Watch This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8
Wow, pretty heavy argument between O'Reilly and Rivera-two guys I'm not a big fan of.
A drunk driver illegal immigrant kills 2 teenage daughters. Rivera makes an off point:
1) Illegal immigrants committ crimes at a lower rate than average citizens.
True, BUT the CHILDREN of illegals committ crimes at a higher rate than average citizens, plus, they remain in poverty and crime generations down the line.
Watch the clip, pick your side. You know who I'm with. It's simple-America has to maximize its fraction of population that are productive citizens.
Wow, pretty heavy argument between O'Reilly and Rivera-two guys I'm not a big fan of.
A drunk driver illegal immigrant kills 2 teenage daughters. Rivera makes an off point:
1) Illegal immigrants committ crimes at a lower rate than average citizens.
True, BUT the CHILDREN of illegals committ crimes at a higher rate than average citizens, plus, they remain in poverty and crime generations down the line.
Watch the clip, pick your side. You know who I'm with. It's simple-America has to maximize its fraction of population that are productive citizens.
Biology and Behavior
DON IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between -- a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women's final.
SID ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.
IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --
CHARLES McCORD: Do The Right Thing.
McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?
ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.
Al Sharpton wants his FCC license revoked? Massive protests? Come on! What about freedom of speech? What about debating him on what he said rather than preventing him from saying it? Sure, it wasn't the most sensitive, or even intelligent of comments, but if someone went on the air and said something about Indians or posthumanists I wouldn't freak out. The fact is, female basketball players are pretty manly, and especially black women players. He shouldn't have said it, and I know Don Imus isn't one for discretion. Give the guy a break, though. It sells. If I want to listen to Imus, why should the FCC take that away from me? They're curtailing my right to hear what I want.
A recurring theme of this blog is the influence of biology on behavior, in that the physical makeup of your body changes how you act. The mind and the body are connected. Kind of cliche.
Anyway, heres a study by psychology today:
"Although past research has shown that masculine features (strong brow ridges, wide jaws) attract women, females don't prefer them when choosing a long-term companion."
"They attributed poorer parenting skills and aggression to more masculine faces, and linked more feminine faces with better parenting, supportive behavior, and diligence."
"Males and females preferred men with less masculine features as dating partners for their daughters."
"Facial masculinity is related to testosterone levels, which have demonstrated connection with rates of infidelity, violence, and divorce."
Allright. So, now we have somewhat of an explanation for the "bad-boy," phenomena, where women profess a desire for a "nice guy," but always end up going for the tatooed biker. They use the tatooed biker to get quality genes for short-term mating, but the nice guy provider for long term child raising. I'm probably going to get hell for this, but it seems there is an interesting contrast between male and female mating strategies. For women, if they're going to sleep with someone in the short term, then the guy has to be a stellar rock star, dominant guy. If they're going to have a LTR with him, he doesn't have to be as high up there. Guys have the opposite dynamic. If I'm just hooking up with a girl, she can be a slut or not even that attractive. If I'm going to have a relationship with her, though, then she has to be worth my time. Girls must learn that while they want to "tame" the bad boy, they make for pretty lousy boyfriends and fathers. The world is not fair.
Now, the race card. Guess what-African Americans have more testosterone, and surprise surprise, take on the bad boy characteristics: "which have demonstrated connection with rates of infidelity, violence, and divorce."
Physiological explanation for black male looser behavior. But hey, girls are still willing to put out.
I heard on Tariq Nasheed's podcast the other day a woman calling in to complain about a guy she was with who got her pregnant and wasn't even there for the delivery. Now, sure we can complain about black men and their poor fathering skills, but that's old news.
As Tariq said, "the only thing worse than a looser nigger is the ho who's fucking with him." What I venture to say is that yes, the black women are to blame for their inability to distinguish the solid (rare) guys from the next dude.
But, what if the reasons are biological? What if the average black man is programmed to not be family oriented, and the black women, evolutionarily, subconsciously expect it? That the only reason why they complain is because society expects all the races to act the same when it comes to relationships, and they feel left out? Let's be honest: these drug dealing, jail living, basketball players get more tail than the nerdy black dude who will stick with the girl and provide. It's no coincidence.
Sexual selection provides the rationale. When women are able to take care of their young by themselves by gathering available food, they do not have to rely on a male figure to assist with raising the child. In this case, because of a lack of pair bonding, males instead compete purely for sexual opportunities and to mate with as many women as possible. They increase in testosterone levels and polygynous behavioral patterns. The women select the men WITH THE BEST GENES, NOT WHO CAN PROVIDE.
The mating mind talked about a study done in modern hunter gatherer societies (warm climates). The women admitted that the men were more trouble than help, and often ate more and consumed more care than they gave. Lack of cooperation.
And guess what? When things got colder, the women couldn't gather anymore (wurm glaciation period) and had to rely on men. Then, we have pair bonding, and so on. Testosterone levels aren't as high, and the men and the women have to cooperate to raise the kid.
Now, if people still don't agree with me and think that "love" is something that is beyond biology, I can simply point to the prarie vole experiment.
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2004/July/er%20july%2019/monogamy.html
"Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) have found that transferring a single gene, the vasopressin receptor, into the brain's reward center makes a promiscuous male meadow vole monogamous.
This finding, which appeared in the June 17 issue of Nature and drew national media attention, may help better explain the neurobiology of romantic love, as well as disorders (such as autism) of the ability to form social bonds. In addition, the finding supports previous research linking social bond formation with drug addiction, also associated with the reward center of the brain."
So, if genetics can explain a tendency to form relationships, why can it not explain the racial disparity in marital success?
See, that's why you can't expect all races to be the same. And that's why many of the founding fathers did not agree with slavery, but also didn't believe that African Americans and Whites could live in harmony.
And an article in today's SI advance mentioned the possibility of biology affecting our sense of morality. Apparently, the VMPC-ventromedial prefrontal cortex is important in making moral judgements.
"In the study, people were given hypothetical dilemmas: Would you throw a fatally injured person off a lifeboat to save everyone else? Would you kill a healthy hostage? Most normal people said no. Most people with VMPC damage said yes."
Now, following up on that, not only does biology influence behavior, but also BELIEFS. Oh wait, no? That all your beliefs are carefully reasoned out and not influenced by emotion? Bullshit.
I think the reason why people become more religious after a death of a loved one is because of a physiological change in the brain that makes people more disconnected from the material world.
I think the reason why people become conservative as the get older (you've heard the phrase: if you're young and conservative, you're heartless, but if you're old and liberal, you're an idiot, or something like that) is not because of a more realistic viewpoint, but because of a physiological change in the brain that makes altruism less attractive. It's probably because after one has children, (if asian or white) the brain zeroes in on the kids and focuses on giving them advantages in life. Worrying about starving children in Africa is less of a priority.
I, personally, find myself vaccilating between having disgust with the indulgent partying of New Yorkers, and loving every minute of it-depending on whether I'm in a good mood or not. In both cases, my logic is working and I reason it out-whether its okay that our rich throw money at status symbols while so much shit goes on in the world. Today, I'm neutral. Yesterday, I was listening to club music and thought it wasn't so bad.
Biology, Biology, Biology.
SID ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night -- seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That's some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and --
BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That's some nappy-headed hos there. I'm gonna tell you that now, man, that's some -- woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like -- kinda like -- I don't know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes -- that movie that he had.
IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough --
CHARLES McCORD: Do The Right Thing.
McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
IMUS: I don't know if I'd have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?
ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.
Al Sharpton wants his FCC license revoked? Massive protests? Come on! What about freedom of speech? What about debating him on what he said rather than preventing him from saying it? Sure, it wasn't the most sensitive, or even intelligent of comments, but if someone went on the air and said something about Indians or posthumanists I wouldn't freak out. The fact is, female basketball players are pretty manly, and especially black women players. He shouldn't have said it, and I know Don Imus isn't one for discretion. Give the guy a break, though. It sells. If I want to listen to Imus, why should the FCC take that away from me? They're curtailing my right to hear what I want.
A recurring theme of this blog is the influence of biology on behavior, in that the physical makeup of your body changes how you act. The mind and the body are connected. Kind of cliche.
Anyway, heres a study by psychology today:
"Although past research has shown that masculine features (strong brow ridges, wide jaws) attract women, females don't prefer them when choosing a long-term companion."
"They attributed poorer parenting skills and aggression to more masculine faces, and linked more feminine faces with better parenting, supportive behavior, and diligence."
"Males and females preferred men with less masculine features as dating partners for their daughters."
"Facial masculinity is related to testosterone levels, which have demonstrated connection with rates of infidelity, violence, and divorce."
Allright. So, now we have somewhat of an explanation for the "bad-boy," phenomena, where women profess a desire for a "nice guy," but always end up going for the tatooed biker. They use the tatooed biker to get quality genes for short-term mating, but the nice guy provider for long term child raising. I'm probably going to get hell for this, but it seems there is an interesting contrast between male and female mating strategies. For women, if they're going to sleep with someone in the short term, then the guy has to be a stellar rock star, dominant guy. If they're going to have a LTR with him, he doesn't have to be as high up there. Guys have the opposite dynamic. If I'm just hooking up with a girl, she can be a slut or not even that attractive. If I'm going to have a relationship with her, though, then she has to be worth my time. Girls must learn that while they want to "tame" the bad boy, they make for pretty lousy boyfriends and fathers. The world is not fair.
Now, the race card. Guess what-African Americans have more testosterone, and surprise surprise, take on the bad boy characteristics: "which have demonstrated connection with rates of infidelity, violence, and divorce."
Physiological explanation for black male looser behavior. But hey, girls are still willing to put out.
I heard on Tariq Nasheed's podcast the other day a woman calling in to complain about a guy she was with who got her pregnant and wasn't even there for the delivery. Now, sure we can complain about black men and their poor fathering skills, but that's old news.
As Tariq said, "the only thing worse than a looser nigger is the ho who's fucking with him." What I venture to say is that yes, the black women are to blame for their inability to distinguish the solid (rare) guys from the next dude.
But, what if the reasons are biological? What if the average black man is programmed to not be family oriented, and the black women, evolutionarily, subconsciously expect it? That the only reason why they complain is because society expects all the races to act the same when it comes to relationships, and they feel left out? Let's be honest: these drug dealing, jail living, basketball players get more tail than the nerdy black dude who will stick with the girl and provide. It's no coincidence.
Sexual selection provides the rationale. When women are able to take care of their young by themselves by gathering available food, they do not have to rely on a male figure to assist with raising the child. In this case, because of a lack of pair bonding, males instead compete purely for sexual opportunities and to mate with as many women as possible. They increase in testosterone levels and polygynous behavioral patterns. The women select the men WITH THE BEST GENES, NOT WHO CAN PROVIDE.
The mating mind talked about a study done in modern hunter gatherer societies (warm climates). The women admitted that the men were more trouble than help, and often ate more and consumed more care than they gave. Lack of cooperation.
And guess what? When things got colder, the women couldn't gather anymore (wurm glaciation period) and had to rely on men. Then, we have pair bonding, and so on. Testosterone levels aren't as high, and the men and the women have to cooperate to raise the kid.
Now, if people still don't agree with me and think that "love" is something that is beyond biology, I can simply point to the prarie vole experiment.
http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2004/July/er%20july%2019/monogamy.html
"Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN) have found that transferring a single gene, the vasopressin receptor, into the brain's reward center makes a promiscuous male meadow vole monogamous.
This finding, which appeared in the June 17 issue of Nature and drew national media attention, may help better explain the neurobiology of romantic love, as well as disorders (such as autism) of the ability to form social bonds. In addition, the finding supports previous research linking social bond formation with drug addiction, also associated with the reward center of the brain."
So, if genetics can explain a tendency to form relationships, why can it not explain the racial disparity in marital success?
See, that's why you can't expect all races to be the same. And that's why many of the founding fathers did not agree with slavery, but also didn't believe that African Americans and Whites could live in harmony.
And an article in today's SI advance mentioned the possibility of biology affecting our sense of morality. Apparently, the VMPC-ventromedial prefrontal cortex is important in making moral judgements.
"In the study, people were given hypothetical dilemmas: Would you throw a fatally injured person off a lifeboat to save everyone else? Would you kill a healthy hostage? Most normal people said no. Most people with VMPC damage said yes."
Now, following up on that, not only does biology influence behavior, but also BELIEFS. Oh wait, no? That all your beliefs are carefully reasoned out and not influenced by emotion? Bullshit.
I think the reason why people become more religious after a death of a loved one is because of a physiological change in the brain that makes people more disconnected from the material world.
I think the reason why people become conservative as the get older (you've heard the phrase: if you're young and conservative, you're heartless, but if you're old and liberal, you're an idiot, or something like that) is not because of a more realistic viewpoint, but because of a physiological change in the brain that makes altruism less attractive. It's probably because after one has children, (if asian or white) the brain zeroes in on the kids and focuses on giving them advantages in life. Worrying about starving children in Africa is less of a priority.
I, personally, find myself vaccilating between having disgust with the indulgent partying of New Yorkers, and loving every minute of it-depending on whether I'm in a good mood or not. In both cases, my logic is working and I reason it out-whether its okay that our rich throw money at status symbols while so much shit goes on in the world. Today, I'm neutral. Yesterday, I was listening to club music and thought it wasn't so bad.
Biology, Biology, Biology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)