OLD CONTENT
www.viewzone.com/wideface.htmlFacial width-to-height ratio (WHR) is determined by measuring the distance between the right and left cheeks and the distance from the upper lip to the mid-brow. A high WHR means the width of the face is greater that the height -- in other words, a wide face.
During childhood, boys and girls have similar facial structures, but during puberty, males develop a greater WHR than females. Previous research has suggested that males with a larger WHR act more aggressively than those with a smaller WHR.
...
volunteer subjects estimated a higher aggression assessment to photographed faces with higher WHR ratios -- the greater the WHR, the higher the aggressive rating, suggesting that we may use this aspect of facial structure to judge potential aggression in others.
Another thing we already know. Furthermore:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23389425We present three studies examining whether male facial width-to-height ratio (fWHR) is correlated with racial prejudice and whether observers are sensitive to fWHR when assessing prejudice in other people. Our results indicate that males with a greater fWHR are more likely to explicitly endorse racially prejudicial beliefs, though fWHR was unrelated to implicit bias. Participants evaluated targets with a greater fWHR as more likely to be prejudiced and accurately evaluated the degree to which targets reported prejudicial attitudes. Finally, compared with majority-group members, racial-minority participants reported greater motivation to accurately evaluate prejudice. This motivation mediated the relationship between minority- or majority-group membership and the accuracy of evaluations of prejudice, which indicates that motivation augments sensitivity to fWHR. Together, the results of these three studies demonstrate that fWHR is a reliable indicator of explicitly endorsed racial prejudice and that observers can use fWHR to accurately assess another person's explicit prejudice.
I told you so.
Quick example:
---
The problem:
www.livescience.com/1785-study-chick-magnets-today-cavemen.htmlGuys with bulldog-like faces have been chick magnets throughout human evolutionary history.
A recent study of the skulls of human ancestors and modern humans finds that women, and thereby, evolution, selected for males with relatively short upper faces. The region between the brow and the upper-lip is scrunched proportionately to the overall size of their heads.
...
Men with "mini mugs" might have been most attractive to the opposite sex and thus most likely to attract mates for reproduction, passing along the striking features to the next generation and so forth, said lead study author Eleanor Weston, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in London.
medicalxpress.com/news/2014-02-wider-faced-dates-short-term.html
"Our study shows that within three minutes of meeting in real life, women find more dominant, wider-faced men attractive for short-term relationships, and want to go on another date with them," says psychological scientist and lead researcher Katherine Valentine of Singapore Management University.
...
"High male fWHR has previously been associated with surviving in hand-to-hand combat, aggressiveness, self-perceived power, and CEO's financial success," says Valentine. "Our study shows it's also a reasonably good indicator of perceived dominance – not only that, it piques women's interest in a face-to-face speed-dating setting."
...
"The fact that women wanted to see these men again suggests that our findings are robust – women aren't just saying they are interested, they're actually willing to be contacted by these men," says Valentine.
Thus, under natural selection, non-Aryans will have greater reproductive success.
This can be solved with state control over reproduction. If only the minority fraction of women in each generation who spontaneously prefer men with low FWHR are allowed to reproduce, bloodlines which sexually select for high FWHR (and hence for aggressiveness) could be phased out, following which bloodlines for high FWHR (and hence for aggressiveness itself) will phase out automatically as they fail to be selected by Aryanized women, thus Aryanizing the men too.
---
www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/02/20/are-alpha-males-worse-investorsA paper recently published by researchers at the University of Central Florida and Singapore Management University looks at the relationship between testosterone (a hormone associated with competitiveness and risk-taking) and investment performance. Using over twenty years of data on hedge-fund returns and thousands of images collected from Google, the authors find that fund managers with wider faces, a proxy for testosterone levels, tend to trade more frequently, invest in riskier securities and hold onto losing bets longer. As a result, between 1994 and 2015, high-testosterone fund managers (with an average facial width-to-height ratio of 2.10) underperformed low-testosterone ones (with an average ratio of 1.57) by 5.8% per year.
Is there anything investors can do to avoid testosterone-fuelled traders? One approach might be to seek out fund managers with long, thin faces.
Take one guess where the term hedge (verb) comes from in the first place:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedge_(finance)
The market values of wheat and other crops fluctuate constantly as supply and demand for them vary, with occasional large moves in either direction. Based on current prices and forecast levels at harvest time, the farmer might decide that planting wheat is a good idea one season, but the price of wheat might change over time. Once the farmer plants wheat, he is committed to it for an entire growing season. If the actual price of wheat rises greatly between planting and harvest, the farmer stands to make a lot of unexpected money, but if the actual price drops by harvest time, he is going to lose the invested money.
---
Huh? Then why are the wealthiest hedge fund managers Jewish?
---
Official answer:
Jews have undergone millenia of selective pressure for financial skills, which would probably include selection for ability to control their aggression when making financial decisions, thus a high fWHR Jew would probably outperform a similarly high fWHR non-Jew. Nevertheless, we should still expect among Jews the low fWHR ones outperforming the high fWHR ones, albeit perhaps by a smaller margin.
Real answer:
Tribal insider trading, duh!
---
Turns out their ability to do this isn't so good after all:
Jim Cramer (Jew):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer#Other_media_appearances
On November 13, 2005, Dan Rather interviewed Cramer on 60 Minutes. Among the topics of discussion were Cramer's past at his hedge fund; including his violent temper.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer#Performance_of_Cramer's_investments
On the March 11, 2008, episode of Cramer's show Mad Money, a viewer named Peter submitted the question "Should I be worried about Bear Stearns in terms of liquidity and get my money out of there?" Cramer responded "No! No! No! Bear Stearns is not in trouble. If anything, they're more likely to be taken over. Don't move your money from Bear." On March 14, 2008, the stock lost more than half of its value on news of a Fed bailout and $2/share takeover by JPMorgan Chase.
"Real answer: Tribal insider trading, duh!"
Yep:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Cramer#Admission_of_market_manipulation
Admission of market manipulation
In a December 2006 interview, Cramer described activities used by hedge fund managers to manipulate stock prices—some of debatable legality and others illegal. He described how he could push stocks higher or lower with as little as $5 million in capital when he was running his hedge fund.
Amazing how Cramer (Jew) is almost a caricature of what you described in your analysis, everything from his behavior down to his phenotype!:
Yet despite having zero data on Cramer, you were able to paint an accurate picture of his archetype. Proof that rationalism > empiricism.
---
www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/01/002.htmlBUFFALO, N.Y. – Research on the communication trait of verbal aggressiveness, which includes behavior like name calling, ridicule, insults, racial epithets and threats, has tended to focus on its social causes.
However, a new study by a team of researchers led by Allison Z. Shaw, PhD, assistant professor of communication at the University at Buffalo, has found that verbal aggression may have biological causes that can be identified by the ratio of length of a person’s ring finger (second digit) to the length of the index finger (fourth digit).
It is the first study to use the 2D:4D ratio – considered a measure of prenatal testosterone exposure – as a determinant of verbal aggression.
...
The team found that men and women with smaller 2D:4D ratio reported themselves to be more verbally aggressive.
---
As requested, here are some papers from the BlackPillScience subreddit:
Women who espouse feminist beliefs are just as likely to have fantasies of forced sex as are other women (Shulman & Horne, 2006)
www.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/eaq16u/women_who_espouse_feminist_beliefs_are_just_as/Hence why we see feminists promoting PUAs
The paper (access is restricted but here is the abstract):
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490609552336This study estimated a path model of women's forceful sexual fantasies. Constructs examined were childhood sexual abuse, feminist beliefs, sexual guilt, erotophilia, and sexual experience. The study clarifies how these factors mediate one another in relationship to forceful sexual fantasies and is first to examine the effects of feminist beliefs on forceful sexual fantasy. Adult women (N = 261) participated by completing an online survey. A path from sex guilt to forceful sexual fantasy, mediated by erotophilia, was found, wherein low levels of sex guilt and high levels of erotophilia were found to predict forceful sexual fantasy. A direct path between childhood sexual abuse and forceful sexual fantasy was also found. The resulting model is discussed in relation to previously‐proposed theories on the role of force in women's sexual fantasies.
The second phrase in bold says it all: the tormented child grows up to worship her tormenter. This is traditionalism. This is slavery.
---
"This is slavery."
A related study:
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165178117303815?via%3DihubRevictimized women with histories of intimate partner violence (IPV) rated men with larger fWHRs and higher values of actual aggression to be more attractive than did revictimized women without IPV histories. A reduced appraisal of threat signals as threatening and an attraction to wider-faced and more aggressive men might increase the risk for revictimization.
---
incels.co/threads/thugpill-being-nice-is-detrimental-to-life-quality-of-men-including-sex-life.49952/
The desire to expel unselfish members from the group.
Parks, Craig D.,Stone, Asako B.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 99(2), Aug 2010, 303-310
"An initial study investigating tolerance of group members who abuse a public good surprisingly showed that unselfish members (those who gave much toward the provision of the good but then used little of the good) were also targets for expulsion from the group...A fourth study suggested that the target is seen by some as establishing an undesirable behavior standard and by others as a rule breaker. Individuals who formed either perception expressed a desire for the unselfish person to be removed from the group."
To put it in simpler terms, being altruistic and friendly is just as likely to cause people to reject you as those who are completely selfish and purely look out for their needs only. The study found no significant difference. This contradicts the mainstream advice that having a "good personality" will cause people, including women, to like you. They will hate you just as much as someone who practically steals from them. This is also reflected in the workplace, as "agreeable" men (peaceful and friendly) are paid significantly less than their disagreeable counterparts.
"Overall, across the first three studies, men who are one standard deviation below the mean on agreeableness earn an average of 18.31% ($9,772) more than men one standard deviation above the mean on agreeableness. Meanwhile, the “disagreeableness premium” for women was only 5.47% ($1,828). Thus, the income premium for disagreeableness is more than three times stronger for men than for women."
So as we could see, the price of being nice when you are a man is a staggering 18% of your income throughout life. It is also far stronger in males than females. So this means that nice men in the first study would have been rejected even more often than the nice women. This suggests that nice men are rejected more often than men who are completely selfish and practically steal off of everyone. Now, let us focus more on the effects of being "mean" or "evil" on attracting a woman. "A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Largest Experiment Reveals about Human Desire" is a book by two neuroscientists that combines countless research by Alfred Kinsey and experiments found on the internet that has a data on over half a billion people to see what are the raw sexual desires of humanity. The book quotes quite a few unnerving conclusions of the sexuality of women based on many individual experiments:
“It turns out that killing people is an effective way to elicit the attention of many women: virtually every serial killer, including Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and David Berkowitz, have received love letters from large numbers of female fans” (p. 98).
“[Their] inner cavewoman knows Doormat Man would become Sabertooth Tiger Lunch in short order” (p .97).
Psychology Today had an article that confirmed and analyzed how women desire men who are violent, mean, and show criminal behavior, with much thanks to the book mentioned above.
"women demonstrate a strong erotic preference for dominant men. Or toward what’s now commonly referred to as alpha males—in the authors’ words, men who are 'strong, confident, [and] swaggering [as in 'cocky,' and the pun is intended].' Unfortunately, what these descriptors often imply is behavior sufficiently bearish, self-centered, and insensitive as to often cross the line into a physical, mental, and emotional abuse that can be downright brutal."
"there’s something in their native wiring that makes a great many of them susceptible to 'bad boys.'"
"many women (at least secretly, or subliminally) can’t help but be drawn toward cold-blooded, controlling, 'bad boys' whose dominance symbolizes quite the opposite of what in relationships they’re consciously seeking."
"many women experience as enticing the idea of surrendering to a powerful male figure because of its very riskiness. Curiously, such an acutely felt threat can actually be eroticized by women’s minds into exceptional sexual excitement so compelling that (at least on a fantasy level) it’s almost irresistible."
Sources: www.amazon.com/Billion-Wicked-Thoughts-Largest-Experiment/dp/0525952098
www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-news/Documents/Nice--JPSPInPress.pdf
psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/a0018403
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/evolution-the-self/201204/why-do-women-fall-serial-killers
Perhaps in the incel forums we could find some Aryanists?
Then again as with anti-PUAers, it appears many of those who post these types of studies actually only envy these types of men.
---
"Perhaps in the incel forums we could find some Aryanists?"
Their main complaint seems to be that too many women are only willing to give a chance to good-looking men. I have no problem with this. My problem is that too many women use the wrong definition of "good-looking" (Eurocentrism being one aspect of this). If women could be corrected to use our definition instead, I would want them to be even more idealistic about whom to date than they currently are. Incels, in contrast, want women to lower their standards, which means abandoning their idealism. Incels are fundamentally anti-idealistic, in this sense.
"it appears many of those who post these types of studies actually only envy these types of men."
Yes. Worse, they think any man who doesn't look hyper-masculine and who claims not to want to is being dishonest. It is impossible to communicate meaningfully with people like that.
And for the record:
incels.co/threads/i-hope-trump-wins-again-just-to-see-the-femoid-cuck-and-sjw-rage-and-pain.204639/
---
"if they (women) are Eurocentrists, they are not idealists, no?"
A woman who thinks, "I will not date anyone who does not look like my dream guy!" is an idealist (with respect to dating).
The same woman who additionally thinks, "My dream guy must be white!" is a Eurocentrist.
So it is theoretically possible for an idealistic woman to be a Eurocentrist.
"When you say "corrected to use our definition instead" what do you mean?"
"My dream guy must be a reincarnated Golden Age Aryan prince!"
"Demographically engineered?"
Unless we discover it can be done with pop culture influence alone!
---
"I this applicable to those who prefer high sexual dimorphism also?"
Which is why I said:
My problem is that too many women use the wrong definition of "good-looking"
I, unlike incels, want women to refuse to settle for anyone other than their dream guy. I just want their concept of what constitutes their dream guy to be drastically different than the currently popular concept.
"Only insofar as what she considers "white" features are congruent with Aryan features, such that she only perceives "white" men as having those features."
No. Idealism (in dating) simply means refusing to settle for less. This position contains no information about the content of the ideal. You are the one presuming that she prefers Aryan features, which may or may not be the case.
---
"But does this not mean that idealism,minus the Aryan ideal, when pursued on its own is bad?"
Yes:
aryanism.net/politics/white-nationalists/why-race-matters/
Jews too can be considered a product of racial idealism in this sense, though their selection process is much more complex, being steered by how Judaism has directed Jews to interact, always with Jewish tribal interests in mind, both with other Jews and with non-Jews.
From the above examples, it is evident that the term “racial idealism” on its own nowhere implies that the ideal itself is automatically a good one.
Home
Search
Login
Register