Love=Chemicals

From the email of badboy lifestyle:

----------------
Differences Between the Brains of Men and Women

I usually write about hard core pickup advice, however this week I will write about something that intrigues me, and because it's so cool, I wanted to share it with you..

A couple days ago, I happened upon some very interesting research. It dealt with the differences of the brains of men and women when they fall in love. Finally an explanation! What is Love? In nature everything has a specific purpose. What is the purpose of Love? For all of you who were totally in love with your girlfriend, you know the feeling. She becomes the center of your life, whole world fades out. They did CT and PET brain scans of couples who were in love longer than 6 months. They found out that when these couples are in love, the brain shut down in several areas. The things that were inactive were parts used for logical reasoning, parts that process negative emotions, social reasoning and part of the brain who's homework is reading people's intentions and emotions. It looks like love is not just blind, but dumb & retarded too! The brain shuts down the parts that use reason and logic, so you cannot make logical decisions. Nice. It looks like nature has created a protective mechanism, that will make sure that we make babies, no matter how much we don't want to. Nature made sure that we as a species continue growing. So love is going to last and make you stay around a girl enough long for the kid to grow up. I'm assuming it's around 2 years. Every long term relationship I have ever had became dry after 2 years.

There were two facts found in this research that really impressed me. That makes total sense as it's so true in the field (usually theories and real world never match).

1. They did CT scans of the brain when women and men were sexually aroused. When men get aroused, a few sections for pleasure were activated, and logic, and most other functions still worked. In the female brain, when they got aroused, their brain shut down completely (Logical reasoning, emotional control). This makes so much sense. It explains every last minute resistance I have ever had in my life. You are going through hours of Logical resistance. " we shouldn't be doing this", "Its too fast", " I am not that type of girl" and then you turn her on, and it's game over.... she is totally yours. She forgets everything and all of those excuses she used an hour before never existed. Remember this next time you are in bed with her and you are getting logical resistance.

2. That woman is more likely to mate with her partner when something wild happens. They go through something dangerous, her brain starts to produce high levels of Dopamine, which is stimulating the production of Testosterone.

This explains the experiences of all of my dates and why my dates are so successful. I usually take girls on something wild for the first date. Things like go-carts, target practice, roller coaster rides, or anything else that's fun to me. I always make my dates physical and challenge. This research shines a new light on this, and explains a lot to me. I noticed after riding go carts, how they are shaking, like adrenaline is rushing through whole her body, and you just needed to make them little bit comfortable, and they were ready to be taken home. This goes with my rule "Give her a Ride"
--------------------

Iraq

From today's NYtimes editorial on Iraq:

"Consider this all too familiar horror: yesterday, police said they pulled six bodies from the Tigris River about 25 miles south of Baghdad. They were handcuffed and showed signs of having been tortured. And five, including a child, had been beheaded."

Now, how the hell are we going to create a Western style democracy out of these barbarians? They deserved Saddam.

Nice try, Saletan

But the damage has been done. I doubt you now have much power to either make people forget about the genetic evidence OR make people think you gave them a fair balance of the issues. Your apology isn't very useful.

And the entire title of the piece "Created Equal." Well, what about for an atheist who thinks that humans aren't special creations of a loving God, but rather selfish genes that randomly evolved tailored to their unique environments 100,000 years ago. How can we believe that they were all created equal when the exact quality that we use to distinguish ourselves from animals (and say we're better than them): intelligence, shows huge disparities between the races

Oh well. Honestly, anyone who knows anything about these HBD guys know that they have shady backgrounds. After all, it's only people without much credibility that DON'T have anything to LOSE by talking about this stuff. Watson had credibility, he spoke, and got fried. After seeing that, are you surprised that the only people who have treaded on this territory in the past have been intellectual outcasts?

It's unfortunate that serious science can't take place because no one wants to venture there. So, we have to rely on the Rushtons, Lynns, and Jensens(who is actually well respected).

An odd world we live in.

After all, John McCain just said we're winning in Iraq, Mitt Romney said the failure of black education is a civil rights tragedy (while torture is acceptable), Mike Huckabee thinks Jesus was too smart to run for public office, Tom Tancredo thinks NASA is responsible for our deficits, Ron Paul raised a ton of money from military personnel after advocating Iraq withdrawal, Guiliani agonized over the veracity of the bible, and a former actor with no original ideas has a shot at the presidency.

If only Hillary Clinton had a chance to defend herself.

Singer on Watson

He recently commented on Watson's comments. As a bioethicist, not a psychometric expert, all he said was:

"Finally, no matter what the facts on race and intelligence turn out to be, they will not justify racial hatred, nor disrespect for people of a different race. Whether some are of higher or lower intelligence has nothing to do with that."

Which is fair. But, from an animal rights advocate, we have to question what he means by treating all races with equal respect.

Singer Offers Hope

Most of us in the HBD movement have either been worried over the political implications of the recent torrent of race-intelligence media events, from Watson, to NYtimes, to Slate. Or, others have simply not cared to much and have just been happy that their viewpoint has been validated, such as on gene expression

Honestly, I haven't seen too much in terms of viable solutions, given how terrible human beings can be. But, when looking through some old animal rights propaganda, I found the old Singer essay that has the potential to SUBSTANTIALLY assist the liberals in re framing their political philosophy to deal with racial differences in intelligence. Here's a substantial chunk from his work (caps I added for relevant emphasis):

--------------
When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that by whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand.

This is a possible line of objection to racial and sexual discrimination. It is not, however, the way that someone really concerned about equality would choose, because taking this line could, in some circumstances, force one to accept a most inegalitarian society. The fact that humans differ as individuals, rather than as races or sexes, is a valid reply to someone who defends a hierarchical society like, say, South Africa, in which all whites are superior in status to all blacks. The existence of individual variations that cut across the lines of race or sex, however, provides us with no defense at all against a more sophisticated opponent of equality, one who proposes that, say, the interests of those with I.Q. ratings above 100 be preferred to the interests of those with I.Q.s below 100. Would a hierarchical society of this sort really be so much better than one based on race or sex? I think not. But if we tie the MORAL principle of equality to the FACTUAL EQUALITY of the different races or sexes, taken as a whole, our opposition to racism and sexism does not provide us with any basis for objecting to this kind of inegalitarianism.

There is a second important reason why we ought not to base our opposition to racism and sexism on any kind of factual equality, even the limited kind which asserts that variations in capacities and abilities are spread evenly between the different races and sexes: we can have no absolute guarantee that these abilities and capacities really are distributed evenly, without regard to race or sex, among human beings. So far as actual abilities are concerned, there do seem to be certain MEASURABLE DIFFERENCES between both races and sexes. These differences do not, of course, appear in each case, but only when averages are taken. More important still, we do not yet know how much of these differences is really due to the different GENETIC ENDOWMENTS of the various races and sexes, and how much is due to environmental differences that are the result of past and continuing discrimination. Perhaps all of the important differences will eventually prove to be environmental rather than genetic. Anyone opposed to racism and sexism will certainly hope that this will be so, for it will make the task of ending discrimination a lot easier; nevertheless it would be DANGEROUS TO REST THE CASE AGAINST RACISM AND SEXISM ON THE BELIEF THAT ALL SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES ARE ENVIRONMENTAL IN ORIGIN. The opponent of, say, racism who takes this line will be unable to avoid conceding that IF DIFFERENCES IN ABILITY did after all prove to have some GENETIC connection with race, RACISM would in some way be DEFENSIBLE.

It would be folly for the opponent of racism to stake his whole case on a dogmatic commitment to one particular outcome of a difficult scientific issue which is still a long way from being settled. While attempts to prove that differences in certain selected abilities between races and sexes are primarily genetic in origin have certainly not been conclusive, the same must be said of attempts to prove that these differences are largely the result of environment. At this stage of the investigation we cannot be certain which view is correct, however much we may hope it is the latter.

The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically-based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that the genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.

It is an implication of this principle of equality that OUR CONCERN FOR OTHERS OUGHT NOT TO DEPEND ON WHAT THEY ARE LIKE, or what abilities they possess—although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do. IT IS ON THIS BASIS THAT THE CASE AGAINST RACISM AND THE CASE AGAINST SEXISM MUST BOTH ULTIMATELY REST; and it is in accordance with this principle that SPECIESISM is also to be condemned. IF POSSESSING A HIGHER DEGREE OF INTELLIGENCE DOES NOT ENTITLE ONE HUMAN TO USE ANOTHER FOR HIS OWN ENDS, HOW CAN IT ENTITLE HUMANS TO EXPLOIT NONHUMANS?

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? THE QUESTION IS NOT, CAN THEY REASON? NOR, CAN THEY TALK? BUT, CAN THEY SUFFER?

The capacity for suffering—or more strictly, for suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness—is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language, or for higher mathematics. Bentham is not saying that those who try to mark "the insuperable line" that determines whether the interests of a being should be considered happen to have selected the wrong characteristic. The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way.

The racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species.[4] The pattern is the same in each case. Most human beings are speciesists. l shall now very briefly describe some of the practices that show this.

our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. To avoid speciesism we must stop this practice, and each of us has a moral obligation to cease supporting the practice. Our custom is all the support that the meat-industry needs. The decision to cease giving it that support may be difficult, but it is no more difficult than it would have been for a white Southerner to go against the traditions of his society and free his slaves: if we do not change our dietary habits, how can we censure those slaveholders who would not change their own way of living?

Our practice of rearing and killing other animals in order to eat them is a clear instance of the sacrifice of the most important interests of other beings in order to satisfy trivial interests of our own. To avoid speciesism we must stop this practice, and each of us has a moral obligation to cease supporting the practice. Our custom is all the support that the meat-industry needs. The decision to cease giving it that support may be difficult, but it is no more difficult than it would have been for a white Southerner to go against the traditions of his society and free his slaves: if we do not change our dietary habits, how can we censure those slaveholders who would not change their own way of living?

what is this capacity to enjoy the good life which all humans have, but no other animals? Other animals have emotions and desires and appear to be capable of enjoying a good life. We may doubt that they can think—although the behavior of some apes, dolphins, and even dogs suggests that some of them can—but what is the relevance of thinking? Frankena goes on to admit that by "the good life" he means "not so much the morally good life as the happy or satisfactory life," so thought would appear to be unnecessary for enjoying the good life; in fact to emphasize the need for thought would make difficulties for the egalitarian since only some people are capable of leading intellectually satisfying lives, or morally good lives. This makes it difficult to see what Frankena's principle of equality has to do with simply being human. Surely every sentient being is capable of leading a life that is happier or less miserable than some alternative life, and hence has a claim to be taken into account. In this respect the distinction between humans and nonhumans is not a sharp division, but rather a continuum along which we move gradually, and with overlaps between the species, from simple capacities for enjoyment and satisfaction, or pain and suffering, to more complex ones.

Indeed, when one thinks only of humans, it can be very liberal, very progressive, to talk of the dignity of all human beings. In so doing, we implicitly condemn slavery, racism, and other violations of human rights. We admit that we ourselves are in some fundamental sense on a par with the poorest, most ignorant members of our own species. It is only when we think of humans as no more than a small sub-group of all the beings that inhabit our planet that we may realize that in elevating our own species we are at the same time lowering the relative status of all other species.

In case there are those who still think it may be possible to find some relevant characteristic that distinguishes all humans from all members of other species, I shall refer again, before I conclude, to the existence of some humans who quite clearly are below the level of awareness, self-consciousness, intelligence, and sentience, of many non-humans. l am thinking of humans with severe and irreparable brain damage, and also of infant humans.
(my comment: or pygmies or australoids, with average IQ<60)


(A possible justification of the division between imbecile and dog)
"
. . we respect the interests of men and give them priority over dogs not insofar as they are rational, but because rationality is the human norm. We say it is unfair to exploit the deficiencies of the imbecile who falls short of the norm, just as it would be unfair, and not just ordinarily dishonest, to steal from a blind man. If we do not think in this way about dogs, it is because we do not see the irrationality of the dog as a deficiency or a handicap, but as normal for the species, The characteristics, therefore, that distinguish the normal man from the normal dog make it intelligible for us to talk of other men having interests and capacities, and therefore claims, of precisely the same kind as we make on our own behalf. But although these characteristics may provide the point of the distinction between men and other species, they are not in fact the qualifying conditions for membership, to the distinguishing criteria of the class of morally considerable persons; and this is precisely because a man does not become a member of a different species, with its own standards of normality, by reason of not possessing these characteristics.
"

The final sentence of this passage gives the argument away. An imbecile, Benn concedes, may have no characteristics superior to those of a dog; nevertheless this does not make the imbecile a member of "a different species" as the dog is. Therefore it would be "unfair" to use the imbecile for medical research as we use the dog. But why? That the imbecile is not rational is just the way things have worked out, and the same is true of the dog—neither is any more responsible for their mental level. If it is unfair to take advantage of an isolated defect, why is it fair to take advantage of a more general limitation? I find it hard to see anything in this argument except a defense of preferring the interests of members of our own species because they are members of our own species. To those who think there might be more to it, I suggest the following mental exercise. Assume that it has been proven that there is a difference in the average, or normal, intelligence quotient for two different races, say whites and blacks. Then SUBSTITUTE "WHITE" for every occurrence of "MEN" and "BLACK" for every occurrence of "DOG" in the passage quoted; and substitute "HIGH IQ" for "RETIONALITY" and when Benn talks of "IMBECILES" replace this term by "DUMB WHITES"—that is, whites who fall well below the normal white l.Q. score. Finally, CHANGE "SPECIES" to "RACE." Now retread the passage. It has become a defense of a rigid, no-exceptions division between whites and blacks, based on l.Q. scores, not withstanding an admitted overlap between whites and blacks in this respect. The revised passage is, of course, outrageous, and this is not only because we have made fictitious assumptions in our substitutions. The point is that in the original passage Benn was defending a rigid division in the amount of consideration due to members of different species, despite admitted cases of overlap. If the original did not, at first reading strike us as being as outrageous as the revised version does, this is largely because ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT RACISTS OURSELVES, MOST OF US ARE SPECIESISTS. Like the other articles, Benn's stands as a warning of the ease with which the best minds can fall victim to a prevailing ideology.

-------------------------

So, food for though. All the hypothetical situations that Singer has given for race relations are now in front of us, and we must confront them.

Animal rights really is the natural result of the race realism movement.

I do not think oppressed minorities will be happy with this piece, but at least this natural philosophy shows we have SOME alternative to hitlerism and Jim Crow and slavery. I hope.

Saletan's Failure

So his three articles are done and available here but I'm not too impressed with his social philosophy of how to get by knowing racial differences in intelligence. Steve Sailer pointed to some analysis here and I'll add some comments:

Just his title: All God's Children
That is itself immediately shows our need to justify human equality using religion.


Here are his axioms, with my comments:
1. Individual IQ can't be predicted from race.
2. Subgroup IQ can't be predicted from race.
3. 3. Whitey does not come out on top
4. Racism is elitism minus information (didn't understand what he meant by this other than allowing the use of IQ to judge people instead of their race)

5. Intermarriage is closing the gap: NOT a good thing. If all the smart people in the world intermarried with dumb people, then if you know anything about normal distributions, there will be much fewer really smart people in the next generation!

6. Environment matters (sure but that's avoiding the crucial issues)

7. IQ is like wealth: As in it's not a measure of human worth. I agree, but in a world where IQ really is crucial to job success, and we live in a world of hyper consumption, eh, things get complicated.

8. Life is more than g: Sure, I guess

9. Children are more than an investment: Sure, but tax dollars aren't infinite

10.Genes can be changed:

AH HA! NOW we get to the crux of the matter, the ENTIRE reason why I became interested in this stuff in the first place. NATURE/GOD IS CRUEL. HUMANITY IS NOT PERFECT. And we should use technology to make us the best species possible! I think that knowledge of HBD will hopefully drive is sooner towards the singularity
at which point the world will become much more interesting.

Hang tight, it should be a wild ride. Machine AI will laugh at us in 30 years for being so prudish about this topic.

It's Obvious

That Barack Obama has 50% white genes in him. I guess his dancing skills came from his white side.

The end times come eventually

So, perhaps the first sign of progress at this slate article.


Anyway, I went to a gay club out of curiosity and was trying to observe the power distribution and how the game was different there compared to men and women. Very interesting.

Vegetarianism and Biology

If the left is able to pre-empt the release of this racial information by NO LONGER basing their liberal ideals on human intelligence equality, then could this herald a new era in animal rights?

Peter Singer would agree. He has always contended that it is the capacity to feel pain, not intelligence, that should justify liberal ideals. Because there is a chance that racial differences could be genetic. So, why shouldn't animals, if not given any legal rights, at least be given the right to life?

I am a hardcore racist-I believe that racial differences are genetic, and significant in origin. But I am also a serious vegetarian, believing that the unnecessary slaughter of animals for food is cruel and a blight on our civilization.

The HBD community always responds: well the difference between humans and animals is, well, that we're human! That makes us better than them by default!

Uh, not really, unless you resort back to religion. Everyone in the conservative groups LOVE to bash the vegetarians. But, you know, what happens if you follow the logic of your beliefs?

Or are you trying to act all macho by chowing down on meat?

Update

The DNA article is now the 2nd most emailed article on the nytimes website, and the 7th most blogged about.

half sigma has some more comments on the issue in response to his new readership.

Steve Sailer is less optimistic. Understandably so, since he's been around for most of the HBD movement and has seen little penetration into modern discourse.

We shall see. Maybe I was a little hyperoptimistic. But again, this understanding will gradually penetrate society. We won't be able to proclaim victory at a certain point in time.

However, this is a step in the right direction and the speed is even accelerating. I suppose I have to keep blogging for now!

Update:

Yeah, the reaction was a little overblown and premature. It's sometimes easy to underestimate the power of entrenched beliefs.

Don't despair, though. It's just a question of time when this information gets out. Hopefully we don't have to wait the 15 years for gene sequencing to finish.

The end times are coming

I think the New York Times just crossed a pretty serious line. Honestly, it will be very hard to go back from here to the old days of denying the validity of race and intelligence, and IQ.

Check it out here

----
Some notable quotes from the article:
"There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,”

"Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans."

"But the incident (referring to Watson) has added to uneasiness about whether society is prepared to handle the consequences of science that may eventually reveal appreciable differences between races in the genes that influence socially important traits."

"Yet even some self-described liberals argue that accepting that there may be genetic differences between races is important in preparing to address them politically."

"“Regardless of any such genetic variation, it is our moral duty to treat all as equal before God and before the law,” Perry Clark, 44, wrote on a New York Times blog. It is not necessary, argued Dr. Clark, a retired neonatologist in Leawood, Kan., who is white, to maintain the pretense that inborn racial differences do not exist."
(Again, we return to the motif of RELIGION being NECESSARY to guarantee equality of humanity, but I digress)


"Race, many sociologists and anthropologists have argued for decades, is a social invention historically used to justify prejudice and persecution. But when Samuel M. Richards gave his students at Pennsylvania State University genetic ancestry tests to establish the imprecision of socially constructed racial categories, he found the exercise reinforced them instead."
-----

The most mind boggling thing about the article? The online version links to GNXP here which then links to Malloy's defense of Watson here

Also, the article links to Half Sigma
who then links to his well articulated response to the article .

Honestly, I am sitting on the edge of my seat here. A critical mass of people are going to be reading these blogs, potentially. This means that potentially millions of people are going to read Malloy's defense of Watson and confirmation of the race differences in intelligence.

Who knows, maybe we can even emerge from pseudonymity!

The next few years could potentially define us as a species by how we handle this devastating truth.

Stop watching reality TV, people. There are interesting things happening in the world.

Random thought, but what if this big revelation follows the same path as what happened when the seduction community became public? That these ideas would permeate into average minds but not stick? I doubt it. Too much riding on old ideas.

How to create artificial scarcity

Girls are master social manipulators. While us guys were playing sports as kids, they were gossiping. Because, from an evolutionary perspective, the main value the women bring to the table is eggs, they are experts at making guys clingy and extracting resources from them. I got an email from badboy lifestyle with some examples:

-------


Make Her Clingy

There's a great quote that people use in show business "Always leave them wanting more." Think about all of the best movies you've seen, the best rides at the amusement park, the best clubs you've ever been to. Was it easy to get in? Did you get in right away? Was the wait sometimes longer than the event? This leads to my next topic. Make her clingy.

Girls are Masters of doing this. They are able to make any guy desperate and needy for more. Actually not any, but most of them.

They simply have skills to make guys wait.

Did ever happened to you that for some reason, you feel needy during date with her?

That’s how they create feeling of value and control. They make you clingy, needy, desperate, then they realize how needy you are, and then they dump you. Go figure.

You as a player, you must take control over this, and make her needy.

You must turn the tables on her.

Yes, that is big secret of all players around world. Did you notice how some guys are able to make woman chase them? I will reveal you secret that Is going to make them chase you.

It’s a time for you as a man, to start making them crazy about you.

I am not going to give you the secret so easily. You will need to think about it for a second.

Tell me,

-When you are with a girl on a date, who is the one who says “I must go home now” (first one who end date? You or she?

-When you are kissing her during first few dates, who stops kissing? Let me guess she?

-When you are Text-messaging back and forth, who is the one who ends?
She?

I hope you can see what I want to say here. They are smart, they are sneaky. Its very powerful weapon.
---------

It's just as simple as artificial scarcity.
DHV-neg-time constraint - the holy grail of the initial pickup, according to Mystery Method.

It even works for guys with little social value, but for those with it, it's devastating.


----------

So your 3 new rules you going to use on first date are >

1)When you kiss her for very first time, be the one who pulls back first (stops kissing)

You can kiss her again later, but try to be the one who is putting on the brakes first. Remember, give a little, and then pull away. Almost like a game of tag--once you've tagged them, retreat.

Basically, you kiss her for first time, kiss her very good for few minutes, and then slowly stop kissing her, pull away, and keep smile on your face while still looking in her eyes. Ask her, so what kind of music you listen? Continue conversation. Keep her hungry for more kissing.

2) Don’t be too available. So even you are enjoying date with her, but you see its almost not possible you going to get her home that night, end a date, and make her clingy for more. But make sure she was enjoying date a lot. Then end it.

This kind of behaviour drives them crazy. Basically, you are sending message to her brain, you need me, more then I need you!

Friend of mine had this problem that he was milking dates. He would stay with girl forever and chat for 3 hours with her, and did nothing. Eventually, date became boring, and she decided to go home. He never got chance to see them again. In almost a year, he wasn’t able to get the second date. I told him to try this: When date is on Peak (peak of fun & energy) end it. Just tell her something urgently came up, and you must go.

If you look at core of this method, its push-pull. You give her something (fun) and then you take it away.

People go crazy when you do this kind of stuff to them.
----------------

The theory is really quite simple. Sometimes it can get a little depressing that all these social phenomena are easily explained with selfish gene theory. But hey, what can you do?

Iraq's Potential

Can anyone really be surprised that Iraq is a mess after watching this video?

What a terrible combination: neocons + political correctness.

Denial of Watson deeply disturbing

From today's NYT editorial in the times:

----
"Africa is still dirt poor — with an average annual income per capita of merely $600 and 300 million people living in poverty. Every year, nearly a million children die of malaria and more than two million die before they are a month old.

Nobody can know for certain whether Africa south of the Sahara might be on the cusp of shaking its endemic destitution and starting up the ladder of development. But it has its best chance in decades, and it would be a crime not to try to grasp this opportunity."
----


Can you comprehend that statistic? By the time you finish reading this blog, 10 more children will be dead because of malaria. And guess what? High commodity prices aren't going to do it. Increasing our aid budget won't do it. The peace corps won't do it. Africa will not grasp this opportunity. And it is a crime, just not in the way the NYT sees it.

Well, Watson was the one who said it best (taken from the interview ):

-------
He says that he is “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”, and I know that this “hot potato” is going to be difficult to address. His hope is that everyone is equal, but he counters that “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”. He says that you should not discriminate on the basis of colour, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented, but don’t promote them when they haven’t succeeded at the lower level”. He writes that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”.
-------

Yeah, that's the truth, and it's a sad, politically incorrect, taboo truth.

But it must be said, and children are dying now from very preventable diseases because Africa does not have the intellectual power to cure them. Infants, who have no knowledge of political correctness or Gould's straw men - are the ones who suffer because Jeffrey Sachs and the ivory tower can't bring themselves to realize that IQ matters.

To anyone who reads this and becomes upset, like many haters in the past: do yourself a service and read the full defense of Watson's statements here.

Then, I'm willing to take all criticisms. Only after you have read the science behind race.

To anyone who doesn't agree with me but thinks their time is too precious to waste on "racist" propoganda:

Villify and hate me all you want (which is the reason us HBD have been driven to pseudonymity).

But realize, that kid is going to DIE. And all your conferences and hate mail is not going to do a god damn thing about that.

Do you really give a shit about those dead children? I really don't think so. I really think that you're more concerned with creating the APPEARANCE of caring about them than actually giving a shit about them by shouting down Watson and preaching hope and social engineering at conferences and in development class. You preach hatred towards those who ask the difficult questions.


In fact, your hatred actually CONDEMNS the child to death because you are not willing to ask the hard questions about africa. Therefore, we get stuck with the status quo. China moves in and africa probably will soon be worse off (if you have any doubts, ask the Darfur victims, who constantly get attacked by military hardware financed by China).

The children die, you can go home and go christmas shopping guilt free because you've done you're daily dose of spouting PC rhetoric and shouting down those who think otherwise.


Shame on you.