The unstoppable tidal wave of evolutionary psychology continues! You aren't moral because you have a better soul. It's because of your brain architecture!
From washingtonpost.com
-----------------------
The results were showing that when the volunteers placed the interests of others before their own, the generosity activated a primitive part of the brain that usually lights up in response to food or sex. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.
No one can say whether giraffes and lions experience moral qualms in the same way people do because no one has been inside a giraffe's head, but it is known that animals can sacrifice their own interests: One experiment found that if each time a rat is given food, its neighbor receives an electric shock, the first rat will eventually forgo eating.
What the new research is showing is that morality has biological roots -- such as the reward center in the brain that lit up in Grafman's experiment -- that have been around for a very long time.
The more researchers learn, the more it appears that the foundation of morality is empathy. Being able to recognize -- even experience vicariously -- what another creature is going through was an important leap in the evolution of social behavior. And it is only a short step from this awareness to many human notions of right and wrong, says Jean Decety, a neuroscientist at the University of Chicago.
Psychopaths often feel no empathy or remorse. Without that awareness, people relying exclusively on reasoning seem to find it harder to sort their way through moral thickets. Does that mean they should be held to different standards of accountability?
"Eventually, you are bound to get into areas that for thousands of years we have preferred to keep mystical," said Grafman, the chief cognitive neuroscientist at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. "Some of the questions that are important are not just of intellectual interest, but challenging and frightening to the ways we ground our lives. We need to step very carefully."
----------------------
Anyway, this is why when I heard that Cho Seung Hui's parents are happy that he died, I though the whole hubbarb was absurd. The reasons why someone would gun down 33 are chemical.
Now...would it really be surprising if there are racial differences in moral reasoning? Because, if Africans do not have the psychology for long-term pair bonding, then why should they also have the psychology for group empathy? Beyond issues of IQ, wouldn't that easily explain the large amount of arm chopping in civil war Africa?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Biology and Belief
From livescience.com:
"environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.
For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said. A study of World Trade Center survivors after 9/11 reported that 38 percent grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attacks, as compared with only 13 percent who became more liberal.
The other factor that determines a person’s political beliefs is biology. Research by John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, showed that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. They also, of course, share more genes.
“Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics,” said Hibbing, whose studies were included in Jost’s analysis. While genetics are unlikely to “hardwire” people into being liberal or conservative, Hibbing said that genes could make people more or less likely to have certain values or react to situations in a particular way.
This knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.
“If you think your opponents are not just being willfully bullheaded but rather have a kind of biological predisposition toward a set of beliefs, you might not spend as much time beating your head against the wall trying to get them to change,” he said."
Usually I go to biological explanations of behavior to say that we shouldn't villify people for their actions, such as gay people. But, if people believe something because of their biology, then our prospects for living in peace will surely be questioned. If biology can fetermine political preference, and if the greatest predictor of political preference is church attendance, then is religiousity biologically determined?
I support reproductive policy to slow down the growth rate of low IQ people. Can we have policies to prevent people with subversive thoughts from reproducing? Shudder.
"environmental factors, or the types of situations people encounter in their lives, determine approximately half of their political preferences.
For example, when people fear death or terrorism, or are in a state of uncertainty, they tend to become more conservative, he said. A study of World Trade Center survivors after 9/11 reported that 38 percent grew more conservative in the 18 months following the attacks, as compared with only 13 percent who became more liberal.
The other factor that determines a person’s political beliefs is biology. Research by John Hibbing, a University of Nebraska political scientist, showed that identical twins share more political beliefs than fraternal twins. They also, of course, share more genes.
“Forty, perhaps 50 percent of our political beliefs seem to have a basis in genetics,” said Hibbing, whose studies were included in Jost’s analysis. While genetics are unlikely to “hardwire” people into being liberal or conservative, Hibbing said that genes could make people more or less likely to have certain values or react to situations in a particular way.
This knowledge could pave the way to a more tolerant society, Hibbing said.
“If you think your opponents are not just being willfully bullheaded but rather have a kind of biological predisposition toward a set of beliefs, you might not spend as much time beating your head against the wall trying to get them to change,” he said."
Usually I go to biological explanations of behavior to say that we shouldn't villify people for their actions, such as gay people. But, if people believe something because of their biology, then our prospects for living in peace will surely be questioned. If biology can fetermine political preference, and if the greatest predictor of political preference is church attendance, then is religiousity biologically determined?
I support reproductive policy to slow down the growth rate of low IQ people. Can we have policies to prevent people with subversive thoughts from reproducing? Shudder.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
What
Article on high school in MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18754326/site/newsweek/?GT1=9951
"Test scores, the usual way of rating schools, are in nearly every case a measure of parental wealth and education, not good teaching."
Despite Murray's op-ed in the WSJ, IQ is still horrifically denied in education policy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18754326/site/newsweek/?GT1=9951
"Test scores, the usual way of rating schools, are in nearly every case a measure of parental wealth and education, not good teaching."
Despite Murray's op-ed in the WSJ, IQ is still horrifically denied in education policy.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Smart Men and Dating
Smart guys usually don't do as well with women as dumb guys (unless they're loaded). David Deangelo, the dating guru, laid it out pretty fairly:
REASON #1: THEY'RE WRONG, BUT THEY CAN'T OR WON'T
SEE IT OR ADMIT IT.
REASON #2: THEY'RE BLIND AND ARROGANT
REASON #3: POOR SOCIAL SKILLS.
It BLOWS MY MIND how many smart guys I meet
that just don't GET IT when it comes to basic
social skills.
It's as if they have logically reasoned that
social skills are for lower beings who need to
play games... and not worth the time it would take
to learn them.
In fact, I believe that there are a lot of
smart guys running around this planet who don't
even have "social skills" and "be a cool guy that
people like" in their MENTAL MODEL of what it
could possibly take to be successful with women
and dating.
Social skills are just that... SKILLS.
They're not social INFORMATION.
They're not social THEORIES.
They're social SKILLS.
And you don't get them by THINKING about them.
You get them by GETTING them.
Excellent social skills are the foundation for
good communication with other humans... and if you
don't have good social skills, you dramatically
lower your chances for success with women.
REASON #4: THEY PSYCH THEMSELVES OUT.
REASON #5: THEY SEEK ONLY "INFORMATIONAL
SOLUTIONS"
REASON #6: THEY FOCUS ON LOGIC INSTEAD OF EMOTION.
NEWS JUST IN: Women don't feel ATTRACTION for
men who make them THINK.
Women feel ATTRACTION for men who make them
FEEL.
So what do most smart guys do when they first
meet a woman?
EXACTLY!
They get into a LOGICAL CONVERSATION.
I'm shaking my head right now...
Smart men try to engage women in LOGICAL
conversations and interactions because that's
where THEY feel comfortable... not knowing that
they're SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT by doing
it!
Get this: A monkey sitting at a typewriter will
type the collected works of Shakespeare before you
will make a woman feel ATTRACTION for you by
engaging her in logical conversation.
When you start a logical conversation with a
woman you've just met, you are basically taking
out a NEON SIGN that says, "I don't get it when it
comes to women" and putting it on your head.
Typical "logical" conversations include talking
about work, family, school, and jobs... discussing
politics, religion, weather... and anything that
has to do with math, science, or INTELLIGENCE.
On the other hand, if you start talking to a
woman and you say, "OK, so tell me something...
Why is it that all women say that they want sweet,
nice guys... but they all date sexy, selfish, bad
boys?" (and then make fun of any answer she gives)
Now you're having an EMOTIONAL conversation.
REASON #7: THEY'RE NOT USED TO THE CHALLENGE OF
THE MOMENT
Smart people usually have time to THINK about
things.
If you're taking a test, you can sit there and
work out the answers.
If you have a math problem, you can work on it
until you've figured it out.
If you're trying to fix something, you can keep
working on it until it's fixed.
Smart guys are used to being able to take at
least a LITTLE bit of time to prepare and show off
their "good sides" in most situations.
Not so with women...
If you don't know what to do at every step
along the way, you'll be shut down very quickly.
Women have an AMAZING "He doesn't get it" radar
system.
Women have all kinds of subtle and ingenious
tests that they throw at men to separate the "get
its" from the "don't get its".
And if you don't get it, then you're going to
fail one of these tests VERY quickly.
But the worst part is that you won't ever KNOW
that you were being tested... OR that you failed.
Smart guys aren't used to dealing with complex
EMOTIONAL and COMMUNICATION challenges in the
moment... and especially the "women and dating"
kind.
One of they keys to becoming more successful
with women and dating is learning to handle all of
the tests that women throw at you effortlessly.
But before you can learn how to deal with the
tests, you must first learn how to communicate on
an emotional level, how to demonstrate that you
have fundamental social skills, and how to keep
your cool in the moment.
MISTAKE #10: THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH FEAR AND OTHER
EMOTIONS
A smart guy's STRENGTH is his MIND.
His WEAKNESS is often his EMOTIONS.
Smart guys are often IMMOBILIZED by FEAR.
Totally stopped.
FROZEN.
And since many smart guys aren't comfortable
dealing with things they're not good at, they just
repress or RUN away from fear.
Many men would rather DIE in lonely isolation
than admit that they don't know how to deal with
their emotions... or, GOD FORBID, ask for help!
Hey, I went for YEARS like this.
I know what it's like.
But the reality is that any guy can learn to
handle and even MASTER his emotions (even fear)...
if he just takes the time and effort to learn HOW
to do it.
If this is you, then do yourself a big favor...
take the time. Take the effort.
Don't worry about what anyone else thinks of
you... it doesn't matter.
What matters is you doing the things that YOU
need to do FOR YOU.
...I think the reason why I'm so fascinated
with "The Genius Failure Paradox" is because I
have had to struggle with all of these issues for
a lot of years of my life.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm the smartest guy
on the planet...
But, I don't think mamma raised no fool.
And it always bothered the hell out of me that
even though I was so good at figuring things out,
I couldn't figure WOMEN out.
Something tells me that you know what I'm
talking about.
Well, after beating my head against the wall
for a few years... trying all kinds of crazy
"logical" stuff... I finally got the "bright" idea
to start studying guys who were "naturally" good
with women.
Of course, I found out that you could be both
NOT SMART and VERY SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN at the
same time.
I also learned that you can be SMART and VERY
SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN too.
By carefully studying what the "naturals" did
with women... and learning how they "thought"
about the topic, I began to realize that success
with women wasn't entirely LOGICAL.
Much of what I learned was very tough for me to
accept... because my logical brain just didn't
want to buy into it.
One thing I saw was guys pushing women away
from them... and having the women then chase them
in response.
Made no sense at all.
I saw guys tease beautiful women and make jokes
about them to their faces... and then watched
those women become "little girls" in response...
unable to maintain their composure and therefore
unable to maintain their manipulative power...
It took me quite a long time, but I continued
to learn, test, and refine what I was learning
until I personally figured out how to approach
women in any situation... get any woman's number I
wanted anytime I wanted... date any type of woman
I wanted...
...and most importantly, GET RID of that
"empty" feeling that I carried around my whole
life because I didn't know how to attract women.
Anyway, these ideas are interesting, and we can, to some degree, apply them to the asian-white-black dating issue. Also, it can illustrate how dysgenic trends can come about in a state with a welfare system.
REASON #1: THEY'RE WRONG, BUT THEY CAN'T OR WON'T
SEE IT OR ADMIT IT.
REASON #2: THEY'RE BLIND AND ARROGANT
REASON #3: POOR SOCIAL SKILLS.
It BLOWS MY MIND how many smart guys I meet
that just don't GET IT when it comes to basic
social skills.
It's as if they have logically reasoned that
social skills are for lower beings who need to
play games... and not worth the time it would take
to learn them.
In fact, I believe that there are a lot of
smart guys running around this planet who don't
even have "social skills" and "be a cool guy that
people like" in their MENTAL MODEL of what it
could possibly take to be successful with women
and dating.
Social skills are just that... SKILLS.
They're not social INFORMATION.
They're not social THEORIES.
They're social SKILLS.
And you don't get them by THINKING about them.
You get them by GETTING them.
Excellent social skills are the foundation for
good communication with other humans... and if you
don't have good social skills, you dramatically
lower your chances for success with women.
REASON #4: THEY PSYCH THEMSELVES OUT.
REASON #5: THEY SEEK ONLY "INFORMATIONAL
SOLUTIONS"
REASON #6: THEY FOCUS ON LOGIC INSTEAD OF EMOTION.
NEWS JUST IN: Women don't feel ATTRACTION for
men who make them THINK.
Women feel ATTRACTION for men who make them
FEEL.
So what do most smart guys do when they first
meet a woman?
EXACTLY!
They get into a LOGICAL CONVERSATION.
I'm shaking my head right now...
Smart men try to engage women in LOGICAL
conversations and interactions because that's
where THEY feel comfortable... not knowing that
they're SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT by doing
it!
Get this: A monkey sitting at a typewriter will
type the collected works of Shakespeare before you
will make a woman feel ATTRACTION for you by
engaging her in logical conversation.
When you start a logical conversation with a
woman you've just met, you are basically taking
out a NEON SIGN that says, "I don't get it when it
comes to women" and putting it on your head.
Typical "logical" conversations include talking
about work, family, school, and jobs... discussing
politics, religion, weather... and anything that
has to do with math, science, or INTELLIGENCE.
On the other hand, if you start talking to a
woman and you say, "OK, so tell me something...
Why is it that all women say that they want sweet,
nice guys... but they all date sexy, selfish, bad
boys?" (and then make fun of any answer she gives)
Now you're having an EMOTIONAL conversation.
REASON #7: THEY'RE NOT USED TO THE CHALLENGE OF
THE MOMENT
Smart people usually have time to THINK about
things.
If you're taking a test, you can sit there and
work out the answers.
If you have a math problem, you can work on it
until you've figured it out.
If you're trying to fix something, you can keep
working on it until it's fixed.
Smart guys are used to being able to take at
least a LITTLE bit of time to prepare and show off
their "good sides" in most situations.
Not so with women...
If you don't know what to do at every step
along the way, you'll be shut down very quickly.
Women have an AMAZING "He doesn't get it" radar
system.
Women have all kinds of subtle and ingenious
tests that they throw at men to separate the "get
its" from the "don't get its".
And if you don't get it, then you're going to
fail one of these tests VERY quickly.
But the worst part is that you won't ever KNOW
that you were being tested... OR that you failed.
Smart guys aren't used to dealing with complex
EMOTIONAL and COMMUNICATION challenges in the
moment... and especially the "women and dating"
kind.
One of they keys to becoming more successful
with women and dating is learning to handle all of
the tests that women throw at you effortlessly.
But before you can learn how to deal with the
tests, you must first learn how to communicate on
an emotional level, how to demonstrate that you
have fundamental social skills, and how to keep
your cool in the moment.
MISTAKE #10: THEY CAN'T DEAL WITH FEAR AND OTHER
EMOTIONS
A smart guy's STRENGTH is his MIND.
His WEAKNESS is often his EMOTIONS.
Smart guys are often IMMOBILIZED by FEAR.
Totally stopped.
FROZEN.
And since many smart guys aren't comfortable
dealing with things they're not good at, they just
repress or RUN away from fear.
Many men would rather DIE in lonely isolation
than admit that they don't know how to deal with
their emotions... or, GOD FORBID, ask for help!
Hey, I went for YEARS like this.
I know what it's like.
But the reality is that any guy can learn to
handle and even MASTER his emotions (even fear)...
if he just takes the time and effort to learn HOW
to do it.
If this is you, then do yourself a big favor...
take the time. Take the effort.
Don't worry about what anyone else thinks of
you... it doesn't matter.
What matters is you doing the things that YOU
need to do FOR YOU.
...I think the reason why I'm so fascinated
with "The Genius Failure Paradox" is because I
have had to struggle with all of these issues for
a lot of years of my life.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm the smartest guy
on the planet...
But, I don't think mamma raised no fool.
And it always bothered the hell out of me that
even though I was so good at figuring things out,
I couldn't figure WOMEN out.
Something tells me that you know what I'm
talking about.
Well, after beating my head against the wall
for a few years... trying all kinds of crazy
"logical" stuff... I finally got the "bright" idea
to start studying guys who were "naturally" good
with women.
Of course, I found out that you could be both
NOT SMART and VERY SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN at the
same time.
I also learned that you can be SMART and VERY
SUCCESSFUL WITH WOMEN too.
By carefully studying what the "naturals" did
with women... and learning how they "thought"
about the topic, I began to realize that success
with women wasn't entirely LOGICAL.
Much of what I learned was very tough for me to
accept... because my logical brain just didn't
want to buy into it.
One thing I saw was guys pushing women away
from them... and having the women then chase them
in response.
Made no sense at all.
I saw guys tease beautiful women and make jokes
about them to their faces... and then watched
those women become "little girls" in response...
unable to maintain their composure and therefore
unable to maintain their manipulative power...
It took me quite a long time, but I continued
to learn, test, and refine what I was learning
until I personally figured out how to approach
women in any situation... get any woman's number I
wanted anytime I wanted... date any type of woman
I wanted...
...and most importantly, GET RID of that
"empty" feeling that I carried around my whole
life because I didn't know how to attract women.
Anyway, these ideas are interesting, and we can, to some degree, apply them to the asian-white-black dating issue. Also, it can illustrate how dysgenic trends can come about in a state with a welfare system.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Beheading
I was just reading about decapitation in wikipedia. Apparently, three Christian girls were beheaded by Indonesian extremists in October 2005. Is cultural relativism fair? Does Islam really have the power to turn normally peaceful (genetically) southeast Asians into barbarians?
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
The Resolution to the Asian Issue
On the asian playboy blog: http://theasianplayboy.blogspot.com
We FINALLY have a post that sets it straight on the truth about why Asian men suffer and what they can do. Before you read, let me warn: I do believe in the philosophy of learning how to pick up (though I've studied it more out of academic interest than in personal application) women and change behavior to become more "alpha". However, I also believe that free will does not exist, and, to put it bluntly, that everything we do IS a chemical reaction in the brain. So, many racial disparities (behavioral, physical) ARE genetic in origin. So, even with pickup and whatnot, there is only so much we can do to alter general population distributions. Anyway, I'm going to post everything he said, as it is put very well.
---------------------------------
Hey guys,
It's Daniel Rose, author of The Sex Revolution Handbook (now called The Sex God Method). Formerly, I was a pickup instructor with Vin DiCarlo and other teachers. While I've still got a ton of passion for pickup, I've decided to concentrate at what I'm best at: sex. Right now, I am a professional sex coach. In The Sexual Confidence Bootcamp, I teach men how to become great lovers in intense, interactive workshops. Through a series of interactive exercises, my female assistants and I train men around the world to become Sex Gods.
Now as an Asian guy, I've always had a passion for helping out my Asian brothers. I think it's a shame how so many guys get caught up in the "Asian stereotype". Now -- what can we do to overcome this stereotype and to start having incredible sex with beautiful women?
Let's talk straight for a minute: Asian men do face stereotypes that they have to work against in the dating world. Before women even talk to you, many of them will make judgments about you based on your race. Some will think that you would not be able to satisfy them in bed. That you have a small penis. In short, that you are not SEXUALLY DOMINANT -- that you don't have the cojones to give her what she wants.
And this is certainly fucked up. But let me ask you, whose fault is this?
Is it Asian culture? Is it the American media? Is it the fault of multi-national corporations? The white devil? Is "The Man" just trying to keep Asian guys down? WHOSE FAULT IS IT THAT THESE STEREOTYPES EXIST AGAINST ASIAN MEN?
Let me clue you in: it is not the fault of the media, or the corporations, or even the white devil. If you are not having amazing sex with beautiful women RIGHT NOW...the stereotypes against Asian men are YOUR fault.
Let me explain:
When a woman talks to one Asian guy who is not sexually confident, she thinks "that guy was weird. I wouldn't sleep with him."
When she talks to TEN Asian guys in a row who aren't sexually confident, she thinks "Asian guys are weird. I don't sleep with Asian guys."
And if you lack sexual confidence, and you were one of the ten guys that girl came in contact with, then guess what: you just contributed to the Asian stereotype.
But, what should you do about this?
Should you get angry at women when they reject you because of the stereotype, and tell your friends how racist they are? Or, maybe you should organize a political march to protest racism against Asians? Or, maybe just post messages complaining about the stereotype on internet discussion forums all day?
You're welcome to do all these things...but nobody gives a shit. You can post messages on the internet all day...but nobody reads them. You can march around in circles and wave angry signs all you want...but nobody will notice you. In short, you can do all these things, but nobody will care. At the end of the day, the stereotype against Asian men will still exist.
So what can you do? Is there anything that you can do to fight the Asian stereotype that will actually matter?
Yes, there is. By making yourself Dominant and Sexually Confident, you will not only get yourself a great sex life, but fight the Asian stereotype as well.
Let me explain: before I met my girlfriend, she NEVER dated Asian guys. It was a rule that she had. Because no Asian guy she had come in contact with had ever been Dominant enough for her, she assumed that all Asian guys were not Dominant. Therefore, almost every Asian guy was ruled out off the bat.
Now -- most girls are not like this! While the majority of American girls do hold some stereotypes against Asian guys, for most girls it is not anywhere near this bad. My girl had just had an exceptionally bad experience with Asian guys.
However, when I approached her during the daytime, I somehow did not get "ruled out." She gave me her number. Why was this?
Because I drastically broke the stereotype for Asian men. I was Dominant and Sexually Confident -- and thus did not get caught in her "asexual Asian guy" filter.
But yet, once a few days had passed and she could not longer feel my sexual confidence... her old stereotypes began to return. She didn't return my phone calls, flaked on me, etc. because she didn't want to date an Asian guy.
However, once again Sexual Confidence pulled me through. I kept calling her for 3 months trying to get her to meet up (while dating other girls, of course). Finally, it paid off. I got her to come over my house, and I laid her on the first night.
And the rest is history. We've been together for a year and a half, and I've given her the most amazing sex of her life. We're completely in love, and she's fine with the fact that I'm seeing other girls.
But, an interesting thing that I found out: the benefits of the Sexual Confidence I developed don't accrue only to me. By giving my girl amazing sex, I actually changed her sexual preferences and made it so that she not only lost her negative stereotypes against Asians…she now actually prefers Asian guys.
How did I find this out? We're constantly cruising for people for various threesomes, so we like to point out people that we're attracted to at parties and clubs. I pointed out a few girls I liked, and she pointed out a few guys that she thought were hot. And wouldn't you know...all of them were Asian.
This coming from a girl who dated nothing but 200 lb. meathead white and Hispanic military guys before me.
Great sex is that powerful. If a woman experiences mindblowing sexual pleasure with an Asian guy...she subconsciously links sexual pleasure and Asian men. Thus, her sexual preferences in men are actually redefined. The stereotype is broken.
So...the best thing that you can do to fight the Asian stereotype is not to join political movements or write protest letters. It is to improve yourself, to make yourself Dominant and Sexually Confident. You must learn the sexual skills of a Dominant alpha male. You must learn how to talk dirty to her, to look her straight in the eye and command her to suck your cock. You must become sexually confident to manhandle a girl over your knee and spank her -- and know that she'll love it. You must be able to pin her hands behind her back and fuck the shit out of her while she cums uncontrollably on your cock.
If you can do these things, your Sexual Confidence will go through the roof. You'll naturally give a vibe that attracts women, and literally get women addicted to sex with you. Not only will this make your life enormously better, but it will help pave the way for other Asian men. Every girl who you give great sex to will be another girl whose stereotypes are destroyed.
This is the way to conquer negative stereotypes against Asian men for good.
-----------------------------------
Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I never intended this blog to be about pickup and seduction, but I find that many things people learn in the community can be applied to thinking about evolutionary psychology, race, and human interaction. It's all connected.
We FINALLY have a post that sets it straight on the truth about why Asian men suffer and what they can do. Before you read, let me warn: I do believe in the philosophy of learning how to pick up (though I've studied it more out of academic interest than in personal application) women and change behavior to become more "alpha". However, I also believe that free will does not exist, and, to put it bluntly, that everything we do IS a chemical reaction in the brain. So, many racial disparities (behavioral, physical) ARE genetic in origin. So, even with pickup and whatnot, there is only so much we can do to alter general population distributions. Anyway, I'm going to post everything he said, as it is put very well.
---------------------------------
Hey guys,
It's Daniel Rose, author of The Sex Revolution Handbook (now called The Sex God Method). Formerly, I was a pickup instructor with Vin DiCarlo and other teachers. While I've still got a ton of passion for pickup, I've decided to concentrate at what I'm best at: sex. Right now, I am a professional sex coach. In The Sexual Confidence Bootcamp, I teach men how to become great lovers in intense, interactive workshops. Through a series of interactive exercises, my female assistants and I train men around the world to become Sex Gods.
Now as an Asian guy, I've always had a passion for helping out my Asian brothers. I think it's a shame how so many guys get caught up in the "Asian stereotype". Now -- what can we do to overcome this stereotype and to start having incredible sex with beautiful women?
Let's talk straight for a minute: Asian men do face stereotypes that they have to work against in the dating world. Before women even talk to you, many of them will make judgments about you based on your race. Some will think that you would not be able to satisfy them in bed. That you have a small penis. In short, that you are not SEXUALLY DOMINANT -- that you don't have the cojones to give her what she wants.
And this is certainly fucked up. But let me ask you, whose fault is this?
Is it Asian culture? Is it the American media? Is it the fault of multi-national corporations? The white devil? Is "The Man" just trying to keep Asian guys down? WHOSE FAULT IS IT THAT THESE STEREOTYPES EXIST AGAINST ASIAN MEN?
Let me clue you in: it is not the fault of the media, or the corporations, or even the white devil. If you are not having amazing sex with beautiful women RIGHT NOW...the stereotypes against Asian men are YOUR fault.
Let me explain:
When a woman talks to one Asian guy who is not sexually confident, she thinks "that guy was weird. I wouldn't sleep with him."
When she talks to TEN Asian guys in a row who aren't sexually confident, she thinks "Asian guys are weird. I don't sleep with Asian guys."
And if you lack sexual confidence, and you were one of the ten guys that girl came in contact with, then guess what: you just contributed to the Asian stereotype.
But, what should you do about this?
Should you get angry at women when they reject you because of the stereotype, and tell your friends how racist they are? Or, maybe you should organize a political march to protest racism against Asians? Or, maybe just post messages complaining about the stereotype on internet discussion forums all day?
You're welcome to do all these things...but nobody gives a shit. You can post messages on the internet all day...but nobody reads them. You can march around in circles and wave angry signs all you want...but nobody will notice you. In short, you can do all these things, but nobody will care. At the end of the day, the stereotype against Asian men will still exist.
So what can you do? Is there anything that you can do to fight the Asian stereotype that will actually matter?
Yes, there is. By making yourself Dominant and Sexually Confident, you will not only get yourself a great sex life, but fight the Asian stereotype as well.
Let me explain: before I met my girlfriend, she NEVER dated Asian guys. It was a rule that she had. Because no Asian guy she had come in contact with had ever been Dominant enough for her, she assumed that all Asian guys were not Dominant. Therefore, almost every Asian guy was ruled out off the bat.
Now -- most girls are not like this! While the majority of American girls do hold some stereotypes against Asian guys, for most girls it is not anywhere near this bad. My girl had just had an exceptionally bad experience with Asian guys.
However, when I approached her during the daytime, I somehow did not get "ruled out." She gave me her number. Why was this?
Because I drastically broke the stereotype for Asian men. I was Dominant and Sexually Confident -- and thus did not get caught in her "asexual Asian guy" filter.
But yet, once a few days had passed and she could not longer feel my sexual confidence... her old stereotypes began to return. She didn't return my phone calls, flaked on me, etc. because she didn't want to date an Asian guy.
However, once again Sexual Confidence pulled me through. I kept calling her for 3 months trying to get her to meet up (while dating other girls, of course). Finally, it paid off. I got her to come over my house, and I laid her on the first night.
And the rest is history. We've been together for a year and a half, and I've given her the most amazing sex of her life. We're completely in love, and she's fine with the fact that I'm seeing other girls.
But, an interesting thing that I found out: the benefits of the Sexual Confidence I developed don't accrue only to me. By giving my girl amazing sex, I actually changed her sexual preferences and made it so that she not only lost her negative stereotypes against Asians…she now actually prefers Asian guys.
How did I find this out? We're constantly cruising for people for various threesomes, so we like to point out people that we're attracted to at parties and clubs. I pointed out a few girls I liked, and she pointed out a few guys that she thought were hot. And wouldn't you know...all of them were Asian.
This coming from a girl who dated nothing but 200 lb. meathead white and Hispanic military guys before me.
Great sex is that powerful. If a woman experiences mindblowing sexual pleasure with an Asian guy...she subconsciously links sexual pleasure and Asian men. Thus, her sexual preferences in men are actually redefined. The stereotype is broken.
So...the best thing that you can do to fight the Asian stereotype is not to join political movements or write protest letters. It is to improve yourself, to make yourself Dominant and Sexually Confident. You must learn the sexual skills of a Dominant alpha male. You must learn how to talk dirty to her, to look her straight in the eye and command her to suck your cock. You must become sexually confident to manhandle a girl over your knee and spank her -- and know that she'll love it. You must be able to pin her hands behind her back and fuck the shit out of her while she cums uncontrollably on your cock.
If you can do these things, your Sexual Confidence will go through the roof. You'll naturally give a vibe that attracts women, and literally get women addicted to sex with you. Not only will this make your life enormously better, but it will help pave the way for other Asian men. Every girl who you give great sex to will be another girl whose stereotypes are destroyed.
This is the way to conquer negative stereotypes against Asian men for good.
-----------------------------------
Anyway, take it for what it's worth. I never intended this blog to be about pickup and seduction, but I find that many things people learn in the community can be applied to thinking about evolutionary psychology, race, and human interaction. It's all connected.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Faith and Evolution
Dinesh D'Souza comments on Sam Harris:
"My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose. Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past."
Here is a man admitting that there is an evolutionary explanation of faith and belief in God: it was necessary for intelligent man to have the will to live. But, he also acknowledges that people all over the world continually embrace faith. Not because they're right, but because they feel good about it. Atheism isn't bad not because it's wrong, but because it makes life meaningless.
I have trouble believing something just because it makes my life convenient. I wonder why African Americans have embraced Islam as opposed to Buddhism or Hinduism.
"My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose. Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past."
Here is a man admitting that there is an evolutionary explanation of faith and belief in God: it was necessary for intelligent man to have the will to live. But, he also acknowledges that people all over the world continually embrace faith. Not because they're right, but because they feel good about it. Atheism isn't bad not because it's wrong, but because it makes life meaningless.
I have trouble believing something just because it makes my life convenient. I wonder why African Americans have embraced Islam as opposed to Buddhism or Hinduism.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Hunting or gathering?
As a vegatarian, I often come across the argument that meat eating is "natural," and is what we evolved to do, and is what drove man to become smarter. I looked this up on new scientist, and this is what they said:
"For 40 years, anthropologists have leaned toward the notion that rich, nourishing meat - brought home by hunters and shared out - played a crucial role in human origins. This would explain why evolution selected for larger, smarter hunters with lighter jaws and teeth: precisely the changes seen as Homo erectus arose in eastern Africa.
The hunter-driven scenario also included the formation of nuclear family groups, in which men hunted while women gathered plants and cared for their children, thus kicking off humans' social evolution as well.
But this picture may be wrong on several counts. To begin with, early men probably were not bringing meat home to the family. Most evidence of hunting by early African Homo erectus comes from archaeological sites containing both animal bones and primitive stone tools. But most of these lie next to rivers, the kind of predator-filled habitat that today's Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania call a "city of lions"."
Hmmm. We obviously have an HBD issue here. Because most of the pioneer fund thinkers posit that light skinned individuals are generally smarter because they evolved in cold climates, where intelligence was favored for hunting. But, there is actually no mainstream consensus on the diet of early man. Why? Because man evolved in different climates, and to acknowledge that would mean to acknowledge that race exists.
Anyway, I'm still going to be a veggy, because regardless of what man did 10,000 years ago, unnecessary suffering is simply wrong. After all, to condemn animals to a life of suffering due to low intelligence can also mean we can legitimately condemn African Americans to slavery because of our superior intelligence.
"For 40 years, anthropologists have leaned toward the notion that rich, nourishing meat - brought home by hunters and shared out - played a crucial role in human origins. This would explain why evolution selected for larger, smarter hunters with lighter jaws and teeth: precisely the changes seen as Homo erectus arose in eastern Africa.
The hunter-driven scenario also included the formation of nuclear family groups, in which men hunted while women gathered plants and cared for their children, thus kicking off humans' social evolution as well.
But this picture may be wrong on several counts. To begin with, early men probably were not bringing meat home to the family. Most evidence of hunting by early African Homo erectus comes from archaeological sites containing both animal bones and primitive stone tools. But most of these lie next to rivers, the kind of predator-filled habitat that today's Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania call a "city of lions"."
Hmmm. We obviously have an HBD issue here. Because most of the pioneer fund thinkers posit that light skinned individuals are generally smarter because they evolved in cold climates, where intelligence was favored for hunting. But, there is actually no mainstream consensus on the diet of early man. Why? Because man evolved in different climates, and to acknowledge that would mean to acknowledge that race exists.
Anyway, I'm still going to be a veggy, because regardless of what man did 10,000 years ago, unnecessary suffering is simply wrong. After all, to condemn animals to a life of suffering due to low intelligence can also mean we can legitimately condemn African Americans to slavery because of our superior intelligence.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Religion and Posthumanism
I was recently watching a debate between Sam Harris, author of the "End of Faith," and Reza Aslan, author of "No God but God."
This got me thinking to, as an atheist, where do I find a purpose? How do I satisfy the biochemical need for meaning that is imbued in most human's minds? It's difficult. Experience has shown that the overworked workers in the finance industry here in New York don't have the solution.
I look to posthumanism. I reject religion because I know that machines will become more intelligent than humans. That anything in the world can be explained by science. That there is no free will. That death is not inevitable. That our civilization will become God.
People frequently criticize Kurzweil for having such strong faith in his ideas of a singularity, that his belief system represents a religion of sorts. I disagree. We both point to the mountain of evidence (neuroscientific advances, mathematical progression of artificial intelligence) that point to the singularity, and say: no, this isn't faith. It's reason. Therefore, its not religion. Faith-based beliefs largely run CONTRARY to reason today.
But, what does posthumanism give me? A purpose: stay alive and work to bring about the singularity. Calming of my fear of death. Justification of my hedonistic lifestyle. A connection to the universe - the same things that religion provides. What I say, then, is that posthumanism is religion for the reasonable. It satisfies a genetic need in humans for something greater than themselves. Read the New York Times magazine article from a few weeks ago on how it evolved. Sexual selection, principle agent, how to deal with trauma while having a greater awareness of the world than animals.
Many opponents of atheists point to the brutality of communism and say hey: that's evidence of atheistic violence. I agree, but only to some extent. Communism filled the deep human need for meaning that we all have. And, any doctrine that satisfies this need, but also suppresses reason, is extremely dangerous. Because the people in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia all needed a greater purpose in life when religion is abolished. Where do they go? Nationalist ideology.
Anyway, what's my point? We are hardwired to believe in SOMETHING. I consider myself an intelligent, rational person. Yet, I was a staunch Hindu for many years. Why? Because I need it. Because it is difficult to find meaning in life unless I delude myself. Keep this in mind when you defend your beliefs-beliefs that are rooted in the chemistry of your brain. Sure, I may be deluding myself. But, I'd rather achieve transcendence and meaning from something rational and peaceful than books that say to stone adulterers.
This got me thinking to, as an atheist, where do I find a purpose? How do I satisfy the biochemical need for meaning that is imbued in most human's minds? It's difficult. Experience has shown that the overworked workers in the finance industry here in New York don't have the solution.
I look to posthumanism. I reject religion because I know that machines will become more intelligent than humans. That anything in the world can be explained by science. That there is no free will. That death is not inevitable. That our civilization will become God.
People frequently criticize Kurzweil for having such strong faith in his ideas of a singularity, that his belief system represents a religion of sorts. I disagree. We both point to the mountain of evidence (neuroscientific advances, mathematical progression of artificial intelligence) that point to the singularity, and say: no, this isn't faith. It's reason. Therefore, its not religion. Faith-based beliefs largely run CONTRARY to reason today.
But, what does posthumanism give me? A purpose: stay alive and work to bring about the singularity. Calming of my fear of death. Justification of my hedonistic lifestyle. A connection to the universe - the same things that religion provides. What I say, then, is that posthumanism is religion for the reasonable. It satisfies a genetic need in humans for something greater than themselves. Read the New York Times magazine article from a few weeks ago on how it evolved. Sexual selection, principle agent, how to deal with trauma while having a greater awareness of the world than animals.
Many opponents of atheists point to the brutality of communism and say hey: that's evidence of atheistic violence. I agree, but only to some extent. Communism filled the deep human need for meaning that we all have. And, any doctrine that satisfies this need, but also suppresses reason, is extremely dangerous. Because the people in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Pol Pot's Cambodia all needed a greater purpose in life when religion is abolished. Where do they go? Nationalist ideology.
Anyway, what's my point? We are hardwired to believe in SOMETHING. I consider myself an intelligent, rational person. Yet, I was a staunch Hindu for many years. Why? Because I need it. Because it is difficult to find meaning in life unless I delude myself. Keep this in mind when you defend your beliefs-beliefs that are rooted in the chemistry of your brain. Sure, I may be deluding myself. But, I'd rather achieve transcendence and meaning from something rational and peaceful than books that say to stone adulterers.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Why we went to war
Really, try to internalize and understand this quote. I become incredibly upset just thinking about it. Took it off from the comments board on parapundit.
“It's much easier to justify an invasion by claiming that you are deposing a dangerous dictator and bringing democracy to the oppresed Iraqi masses. When challanged on that point, you accuse your opponents of anti-Arab racism. It's a crude tactic, but it muted fully-legitimate questions about whether or not the Iraqis would even WANT to practice anything that the West would consider to be a legitimate form of representative government. In other words, the accusation of racism kept this line of questioning quiet for a time, and that's what they were after.”
On a totally different note, this is something you also have to remember, and take into account when thinking about my dating disparity post some time ago:
from wikipedia on sexual attraction:
"It has been shown that women prefer more masculine men during the fertile period of the menstrual cycle and more feminine men during other parts of the cycle.[8] This distinction supports the sexy son hypothesis, which posits that it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to select potential fathers who are traditionally masculine rather than the best caregivers.[9] Masculine facial features are characterized by a strong brow and a broad jaw whereas feminine features are less pronounced. Likewise, tall men might more frequently be considered sexually attractive than men of shorter stature."
“It's much easier to justify an invasion by claiming that you are deposing a dangerous dictator and bringing democracy to the oppresed Iraqi masses. When challanged on that point, you accuse your opponents of anti-Arab racism. It's a crude tactic, but it muted fully-legitimate questions about whether or not the Iraqis would even WANT to practice anything that the West would consider to be a legitimate form of representative government. In other words, the accusation of racism kept this line of questioning quiet for a time, and that's what they were after.”
On a totally different note, this is something you also have to remember, and take into account when thinking about my dating disparity post some time ago:
from wikipedia on sexual attraction:
"It has been shown that women prefer more masculine men during the fertile period of the menstrual cycle and more feminine men during other parts of the cycle.[8] This distinction supports the sexy son hypothesis, which posits that it is evolutionarily advantageous for women to select potential fathers who are traditionally masculine rather than the best caregivers.[9] Masculine facial features are characterized by a strong brow and a broad jaw whereas feminine features are less pronounced. Likewise, tall men might more frequently be considered sexually attractive than men of shorter stature."
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Fair Response?
John Smith
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 am
I knew the term “moderate Muslim,” was a creation of the West. It’s not that “moderate muslims,” condemn terrorism and mandatory veil wearing and death for homosexuals. Its that moderate muslims are actually a small part of the muslim population. Most muslims actually do support terrorism, oppression of women, and no rights for gays (even though its caused by low testosterone levels in the womb).
It’s great that the believers stick to their faith instead of “moderating it,” to bring it into concert with reason, logic, and modernity. Why advance into the 21st century when you already have an established worldview that worked 1,000 years ago?
Umar Lee
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 am
John, most of what you would consider the modern world, including the overwhelming majority of Americans, are not in favor of the normalization of homosexuality and this has been proved in elections across the country.
As fas as terrorism goes how can you argue that most Muslims support terrorism when the US invasion of Iraq has not created any major act of terror ( and only less than a handful of minor) attacks of terror in the US when there are over six million Muslims here at least? Surely, if most Muslims supported terror, there would have been thousands of attacks.
On the issue of women I think most Muslims do not approve of many of the backwards things in the Muslim World such as genital mutilation and honor killings; but we do hold to naturally-defined gender roles just as Orthodox Jews, Evangelical and Catholic Christians, and others do.
Your modern values also do not have such a great track record if we look around the world.
If you eliminate the evangelical Christians from the equation, then most of his points collapse. Unfortunately, they are Americans, and there's little we can do other than try to neutralize them in the near future.
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:03 am
I knew the term “moderate Muslim,” was a creation of the West. It’s not that “moderate muslims,” condemn terrorism and mandatory veil wearing and death for homosexuals. Its that moderate muslims are actually a small part of the muslim population. Most muslims actually do support terrorism, oppression of women, and no rights for gays (even though its caused by low testosterone levels in the womb).
It’s great that the believers stick to their faith instead of “moderating it,” to bring it into concert with reason, logic, and modernity. Why advance into the 21st century when you already have an established worldview that worked 1,000 years ago?
Umar Lee
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:24 am
John, most of what you would consider the modern world, including the overwhelming majority of Americans, are not in favor of the normalization of homosexuality and this has been proved in elections across the country.
As fas as terrorism goes how can you argue that most Muslims support terrorism when the US invasion of Iraq has not created any major act of terror ( and only less than a handful of minor) attacks of terror in the US when there are over six million Muslims here at least? Surely, if most Muslims supported terror, there would have been thousands of attacks.
On the issue of women I think most Muslims do not approve of many of the backwards things in the Muslim World such as genital mutilation and honor killings; but we do hold to naturally-defined gender roles just as Orthodox Jews, Evangelical and Catholic Christians, and others do.
Your modern values also do not have such a great track record if we look around the world.
If you eliminate the evangelical Christians from the equation, then most of his points collapse. Unfortunately, they are Americans, and there's little we can do other than try to neutralize them in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)