Comeback kings

I have a working theory that some denominational differences, like Calvinism and Arminianism, are differences in explanatory style (with Calvinism being optimistic to a fault). Dutton often cites Calvinism as an example of a highly adaptive ethnocentric religion. Basically it says everything that happens to you is ultimately a minor setback because you were born special and chosen and loved and better than other people. That’s pretty damn optimistic. You’d be inclined to find the silver lining in bad situations. Progressivism is also an example, which may explain its extraordinary resilience in the face of countervailing evidence. This may have something to do with the observed relations between leftism/activism/optimism/narcissism/hypocrisy and rightism/passivism/pessimism/autism/hypercriticism, respectively. Generally, an optimistic explanatory style is predicted by prole-tier IQ and k-selection (high religiosity, high extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness, etc.). These are incidentally also the predictors of fertility in the modern day.

So if you want white children despite societal pressures to the contrary, it pays to be a stupid, cheerful Calvinist. Intelligence, realism, and atheist individualism are boner-killers and clam-shutters. (Just reporting the facts here.) If you’re a hypercritical pessimist your personal genes are going to be bred out, so you’d better start investing your efforts into your retarded but happy and resilient nephews and nieces, because they are the genetic future of white countries.

Kansas City’s Super Bowl performance serves as an excellent example of how explanatory style predicts performance under pressure. From Seligman:

I found right away that I knew something the coaches didn’t. The optimism scores from the ASQ were totally unrelated to the coaches’ ratings of how the swimmers would do under pressure. But did these scores predict actual success in swimming?

To find this out, Nort and Karen rated each swim for each swimmer for the entire season as “worse than expected” or “better than expected.” The swimmers also rated themselves for the same thing, and it was clear that the coaches and the swimmers were on the same wavelength, since the ratings coincided perfectly. I merely totaled up the number of “worse than expected” swims for the season. The pessimists on the ASQ had about twice as many unexpectedly poor swims as the optimists did. The optimists lived up to their swimming potential, and the pessimists fell below theirs.

Would explanatory style work once again to predict the way people responded to defeat, as it had in baseball, basketball, and sales?

To test this, we simulated defeat under controlled conditions. At the end of the season, we had each athlete swim one of his or her best events all out. Nort or Karen then told the swimmer that his time was between 1.5 and 5 seconds (depending on the distance) worse than it actually was. So Biondi was told that he swam the one-hundred butterfly in 51.7 seconds, when he actually swam it in 50.2. We chose the amount of “failure” because we knew it would be very disappointing (one swimmer sat and rocked like a baby in a corner for twenty minutes afterwards), but undetectable as false. Each swimmer then rested and swam the event again as fast as he or she could. As we expected, the pessimists got worse. The performance of two stars who are also pessimists deteriorated in their hundred-yard events by a full two seconds, the difference between winning their event and finishing dead last. The optimists either held on or, like Biondi, got even faster. Several of the optimists got faster by between two and five seconds, again enough to be the difference between a lousy race and a win. The swimmers were, of course, debriefed afterwards.

So the Berkeley swimmers make it clear that explanatory style can work to produce success or failure at an individual level, just as the professional-sports data show this at a team level. Moreover, explanatory style works by the same means for both individuals and teams. It makes athletes do better under pressure. If they are optimists, they try harder and come back from defeat.

The Chiefs were 5-0 when trailing by double-digits this season, including three playoff games. Their performance under pressure was actually quite predictable if you’re aware of this body of research. Their comeback against the Texans was the only playoff game I caught this season and it was very impressive. I suspect the failure to understand performance under pressure is why Vox’s victory predictions are known as “the kiss of death”. His track record of incorrect NFL predictions is nearly perfect, well beyond mere chance, suggesting he senses optimistic resilience reliably and then bets against it.

What Every Coach Should Know

IF YOU ARE a coach or a serious athlete, you must take these findings seriously. They have several immediate, practical implications for you.
• Optimism is not something you know about intuitively. The ASQ measures something you can’t. It predicts success beyond experienced coaches’ judgments and handicappers’ expertise.
• Optimism tells you when to use certain players rather than others. Consider a crucial relay race. You have a fast athlete, but he’s a pessimist who lost his last individual race. Substitute. Use pessimists only after they have done well.
• Optimism tells you who to select and recruit. If two prospects are close in raw talent, recruit the optimist. He’ll do better in the long run.
• You can train your pessimists to become optimists.

The counterexample of the usefulness of optimism is Kobe’s insistence that his helicopter pilot do really dangerous shit to simulate the thrill of a buzzer-beating shot. He was extremely good in a clutch situation but that often requires a confidence bordering on mental illness.

You can take the test here to find out how optimistic you are. Refer back to the final paragraph the book summary to learn how best to apply your baseline temperament.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to Comeback kings

  1. Obadiah says:

    See also: Da ‘Pool, who have developed a reputation as the “Mentality Kings” of European football. This peaked when they overcame a 3-0 deficit late in last year’s Champions League semis against a powerhouse Barcelona team. They eventually win on to win the CL, and have not lost a single game this year in the main league.

    • Obadiah says:

      I suspect this sort of irrational confidence is a key character trait in Klopp’s evaluation of potential signings as a head coach (his recruiting and transfer resume has been extraordinary thus far)

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        Well, I imagine in context it’s trickier than that. You don’t want a team full of prima donas, and not all optimism is expressed as delusional self-confidence. Most optimistic people are secure (i.e. no daddy issues), clear-eyed, and well-adjusted.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >See also: Da ‘Pool

      I only watch proper American football while I sip my zero-calorie Monster but it sounds like a good example.

      • Obadiah says:

        >I only watch proper American football while I sip my zero-calorie Monster

        I watch European Footy on ultra-cutting edge VR goggles while strapped into my 360-degree deep-skin exfoliator hypergyro, polish dubtrance music droning through every inch of my hybernaculum nanocube. Occasionally, I’ll order my manservant Ahmed to refill my rainbow penis-flavored vita-paste sublingual injection manifold, chuckling serenely to myself about what a wonderful person I am as I watch Firmino dab on Southampton’s budget-priced defense.

        • Obadiah says:

          Occasionally I’ll begin to pass out from the G-forces of my constant rotation, but Ahmed is usually good about bumping the speed down a bit.

  2. Obadiah says:

    What optimism I had was not really innate, but was cultivated as the result of repeated successful application of accurately-modeled empirically-observed principles (at the height of my PUA phase it was like shooting fish in a barrel, but the barrel was rigged w/ c4 before the fish were ever placed in it). Calvinism has never appealed or made sense to me, for instance.

    My actual initial default state didn’t lean strongly optimistic or pessimistic, but is instead tentative, observant, and pretty anxious but at the same time eager to engage with the exterior world.

    >(Just reporting the facts here)

    Le preeminent world genius man complains about how bad he’z got it episode 9983572213

    >leftism/activism/optimism/narcissism/hypocrisy

    Narcissism maybe shouldn’t be grouped with the other Luciferic traits b/c it is actually arguably Ahrimanic at base– it’s a defensive reaction to severe childhood emotional trauma. Like the Jews, it’s a potently poisonous synthesis of Luciferian and Ahrimanic phenomena (opposite of Christianity, which is the virtuous resolution of Luciferic/Ahrimanic epiphenomena. I’m probably only about half making sense here)

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >What optimism I had was not really innate, but was cultivated as the result of repeated successful application of accurately-modeled empirically-observed principles (at the height of my PUA phase it was like shooting fish in a barrel, but the barrel was rigged w/ c4 before the fish were ever placed in it). Calvinism has never appealed or made sense to me, for instance.

      Optimism never made sense to me, being autistic and all, and pessimism is funny. So in my case I defaulted to as much realism as was attainable, which oddly enough resulted in some very dream-like conceptions of the world. I understand now that many of these were metaphorical, but at the time I took them literally, so there’s a sense in which too much realism is bad for your realism because it overloads your conscious mind and you start falling back on older types of thinking unintentionally.

      I can see the appeal of Calvinism but I think it’s false and driven by the same impulse as Judaism or any of the mud religions where the word for your tribe means “the people” and the word for the tribe next door means “evil subhumans”.

      >Le preeminent world genius man complains about how bad he’z got it episode 9983572213

      Tbh you wouldn’t believe the flack I’m getting from this one offline.

      >Narcissism maybe shouldn’t be grouped with the other Luciferic traits b/c it is actually arguably Ahrimanic at base

      Disagree.

      • Obadiah says:

        >Disagree

        Maybe itz fundamentally a Lucifer trait despite having a “negative” deeper core.

        >Tbh you wouldn’t believe the flack I’m getting from this one offline.

        Intelligence and realism aren’t really clam-concealers, but atheist individualism definitely is.

        Agree w/ take on Calvinism, at least wrt to it’s appeal to it’s followers. Calvin himself seemed to have been on his own little weird negative internal purity-spiral thing.

      • Obadiah says:

        Intelligence and realism aren’t actual clam-closers in and of themselves but they’re being artificially pressured against by the whole demonic social structure such that the current sweet spot for comfy adaptibility is the midwit useful idiot technocrat type intelligence (high IQ and low AH in other words)

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          That isn’t true though. Those people you’re identifying as adaptive aren’t having sex or babies and even their marriage rates are rapidly degrading to Fishtown patterns.

          • Obadiah says:

            I might be wrong about the current adaptibility-sweetspot, but am not wrong about int and realism being inherently repulsive qualities.

            • Obadiah says:

              It’s more like, “this would be the optimal sweetspot if technocrats had the will to breed”

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Agreed. Not inherently, just for the foreseeable future.

            • Obadiah says:

              “Atheist Individualsim” itself isn’t really a ‘core trait’, but the emergent effect produced by a combination of intelligence, poor or stunted character development, and social obliviousness (my earlier narcissism would be a combo of int, poor character development and social perceptiveness)

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              *They hated his message*

              “Contentiousness doesn’t make you a winner.”

              “Shut up!”

  3. Daniel says:

    your retarded but happy and resilient nephews and nieces […] are the genetic future of white countries.

    So you’ve resigned yourself to a future where white people are slaves.
    Because that’s what “retarded but happy people” are.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      It already happened. The dumb, happy children have been born with the genetics they will always have and are growing up.

      • Daniel says:

        So that’s it, we’ve become the Chosen People’s cattle, to be sacrificed at (((their))) convenience.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Only if I accept your premise, which I don’t.

          • Daniel says:

            Your premise is that “retarded but happy people” are not subject to enslavement.

            A cursory reading of world history would reveal it to be bullshit. And, by extension, your entire chain of reasoning.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              That is not my premise because that is not the negation of your premise.

            • Daniel says:

              Major premise – stupid people are enslaved by smarter people
              Minor premise – white people will continue getting dumber
              Conclusion – white people will be enslaved

              The negation of the major premise is that stupid people are NOT enslaved by smarter people.

              Are you assuming that everyone else is just as affected by dysgenics ?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Well, yes, obviously they are, but that’s not necessary for the question at hand.

              Your original premise is that dumb, happy people are slaves. This is not correct even if we take it as an approximation. Historically, low intelligence is correlated with slavery, that part is true. But so is R-selectedness and thus low personality factor: disagreeableness, neuroticism, etc. Africans are low in GFP, Jews are very high in GFP (Woodley has a study on the latter), and Jews tend to be slavers while Africans tend to be slaves.

              Therefore it is not true to say that dumb, happy people are slaves.

            • Daniel says:

              Wait, what ???
              Jews are not neurotic and disagreeable ???
              You’re retarded.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              No, I just happen to know more about this than you.

              Click to access 1488.pdf

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              In the future when someone cites a paper in support of their point, keep in mind it wouldn’t hurt you to Google it before losing your continence.

            • Obadiah says:

              This is actually the first time I’ve heard of the GFP, but it seems to predict low neuroticism, which obviously isn’t true for Jews. So the Jews might be characterized by a uniquely-tailored combination or balance of high GFP, neuroticism, and dark tetrads traits that specifically optimizes their group’s ability to do Satan’s work.

            • Obadiah says:

              Hey, my little picture is the wrong color.

            • Obadiah says:

              *This is my first time hearing about the GFP, but it seems to predict low neuroticism, which obviously isn’t the case for Jews. So it might be accurate to say that Jews are characterized by a unique balance of high GFP-traits, high neuroticism, high AH and high dark tetrad traits (among other things) that is specifically-tailored to optimize their ability to do Satan’s work.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >This is my first time hearing about the GFP, but it seems to predict low neuroticism, which obviously isn’t the case for Jews.

              You’re allowed to open the pdf you know. The actual numbers for neuroticism are in there. There are two good cases in Daniel’s favor to be made here, but I’m going to make you guys at least download the damn thing instead of doing your homework for you.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I’m sorry, that was passive aggressive. I just ate a pizza and the salt gets to me sometimes.

              There’s a chart in there showing neuroticism. The two cases I mentioned are:

              1) Jews have a much higher standard deviation, so they will account for almost all of the extremes.
              2) Atheists could be interpreted as heavily Jewish, per Kevin MacDonald’s theory (which I believe) of Jews having dual strategy represented by two genetic clusters: a secular, outward-facing group and a religious core group of breeders.

            • Obadiah says:

              >2) Atheists could be interpreted as heavily Jewish, per Kevin MacDonald’s theory (which I believe) of Jews having dual strategy represented by two genetic clusters: a secular, outward-facing group and a religious core group of breeders.

              ^Yeah, the stereotypical “neurotic cosmopolitan nebbish Jew” is generally not going to self-describe as being religious.

              Also the way they measured individuals’ traits for that study was by having people self-rate their perceived levels of certain adjective-words on a scale. One of the key traits of people w/ actual high trait neuroticism is self-deception (tolerance of cognitive dissonance, which is what produces the actual neuroticism).

              Per Pera et al (2016; University of WordPress.com, Blerghsville Campus) A Neurotic will consider himself two-overwatch ranks higher than he actually is. So when he looks at a test displaying words describing neuroticism asking him to self-rate for these qualities, he’s going to say “no, that’s not me”, and rate himself low in that trait. Notice how Neuroticism is by far the lowest self-reported trait for all seperate religious groups across the board in that study?

              And that’s my conspiracy theory for why muh Jewish stereotypes are still true.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              The actual reason for the stereotype is ethnocentrism.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Negative ethnocentrism, to be specific. This sort of person is going to act very petty toward outsiders, hence also the stereotype of Jewish penny-pinching. However, Jews are very charitable and prosocial to institutions that support Jewish interests (positive ethnocentrism).

              See also: African Americans complaining about hurt feelings for gibs.

            • Obadiah says:

              >However, Jews are very charitable and prosocial to institutions that support Jewish interests (positive ethnocentrism).

              Yeah but Inter-tribal charity doesn’t preclude them from having neurotic traits. I’m basically saying that they tend to display the GFP traits, as well as neurotic and dark tetrad traits.

              Per the magic google machine box:
              “Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than average to be moody and to experience such feelings as anxiety, worry, fear, anger, frustration, envy, jealousy, guilt, depressed mood, and loneliness.”

              ^As we all know, Cainite world-parasite occultist people definitely don’t experience moodiness, worry, anger, frustration, envy and jealousy, and definitely killed Jesus because they’re relaxed, prosocial, laid back and open to experience and stuff.

              I’d really like to see the question/test that the study used for people to self-assess with.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              You’d also be interested in the breakdown of NE Asian social neuroticism and general neuroticism, since they are also very ethnocentric and high in GFP.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              “So why is it Good to cast nonwhite actors in historical films like the recent one about 16th Century queens where there are black and Chinese playing Scottish aristocrats, but it is Bad to change the race of the covers of classic books?

              Because in the Good case, some nonwhites got paid, but in the Bad case, no nonwhites got paid.

              It’s all about who gets paid.”

              https://www.unz.com/isteve/who-got-paid/

          • Fox says:

            If they “measure” personality factors by self-assessment, why not measure intelligence by asking the participants how smart they are?

            I don’t see why one would need to involve personality factors to answer the question “stupid + content = more slave-like ?”
            I would rather think about the real-life effects of stupidity, contentness and esp. of both in combination, and that line of thinking quickly leads one to “yes”.

            – dumber people are easier to fool and therefore, easier to enslave (“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” [Goethe])
            – content people have no motivation to do anything to change their situation (“The greatest enemy of freedom is a happy slave” [?])

            • Fox says:

              I read the paper you linked to. The table you posted is the result of 2.2 (called “Sample 1”). Here’s what the paper says about the participants:
              “Participants were asked their religious affiliation. Participantswho identified as Protestant (n= 1,675), Catholic (n= 925), Jewish(n= 34), or None/Atheist/Agnostic (n= 962) were included in theanalyses”
              “Sample 2” :
              “First, five Jewish categories distin-guished in the data file (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Recon-structionist, and ‘‘Other’’) were recoded to from one category(n= 98). Roman Catholics (n= 933) and Atheist and Agnostics(n= 112) were also included. To reduce the large number of Protes-tant categories to a manageable number, the two denominationswith the largest sample sizes, Baptists (n= 466) and Methodists(n= 303) were chosen to be included in the analyses.”

              The neuroticism results form that sample are:
              Jewish: 2.11 (.68)
              Catholic: 2.11 (.62)
              Methodist: 2.01 (.63)
              Baptist: 2.06 (.64)
              Agnostic/Atheist: 2.03 (.69)

              The third Sample has the greatest numbers and does show a consistent pattern one could call “GFP” (aforementioned group has the highest scores in all 10 personality dimensions, often considerably higher than the other groups).

              How was this data generated?
              “The SAI instructs participants to rate the self-descriptiveness of statements using a five-point scale,but the Project Talent administrators dichotomized the responsesbased on the degree of agreement with the statement (e.g., state-ment describes me extremely or quite well = 1; statementdescribes me fairly, slightly, or not very well = 0) prior to the sum-ming across items.”

              The only thing this “GFP”-pattern shows is that some people are just generally more likely to rate themselves highly – whether it’s because they have a more extreme perception of themselves than others, or whether they tend to ascribe “positive” attributes to themselves more than others (most of the 10 points were “positive” traits), is another question.

              “Extreme perception” would point towards neuroticism / instability, while positive overattribution would point to narcissism.

              If you want to “get” personality differences between such groups, read things like “Albion’s Seed” or E.A Ross’s “The Old World in the New”.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              I trust Woodley’s grasp of statistical sampling more than I trust yours.

            • Fox says:

              C’mon, the sample that showed low neuroticism had only N=36 cases, while the one with a little above average neuroticism had N=98 (and those even came from 5 different sub-groups of that group).
              And the third sample didn’t even ask for neuroticism, and the authors equated its subscore-interrelatedness with that of the actual personality “tests” (and thus called both “GFP”).

              Hence, the case for neuroticism specifically being lower in that group is not supported by that study even if we assume that the methodology used is sound.

              + the methodology is not sound at all
              + observable reality shows different trait distritubutions anyway (no one in his right mind calls blacks neurotic, for example)
              + the whole discussion is inane since it does address the question “dumb + happy = more slave-like?”

              Why do you have to argue with three commenters on your blog about something like this?

              OT: WTF who named that document “1488.pdf” ?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Possibly Woodley himself. He’s down with the doomerspeak.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >(no one in his right mind calls blacks neurotic, for example)

              Blacks are actually higher in neuroticism than other groups, likely because they lack positive ethnocentrism while being high in negative ethnocentrism.

              >+ the whole discussion is inane since it does address the question “dumb + happy = more slave-like?”

              I addressed that in the thread with Daniel.

              >Why do you have to argue with three commenters on your blog about something like this?

              Because the truth in this case runs counter to the memes which shape our intuition and this crowd over-relies on intuition, often at the expense of empiricism.

            • Obadiah says:

              >I trust Woodley’s grasp of statistical sampling more than I trust yours.

              Woodley’s grasp of stats is all well and good, but I don’t trust current Westerners’ and in particular Jews’ ability to be honest w/ themselves and each other, nor do I trust them to be accurate in self-assessing their own pathological traits.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Believe it or not, we have studies on the accuracy of self-reports. We can argue this all the way to epistemology but ultimately we have to either trust these particular scientists to be honest and competent or not. And I trust Woodley’s judgment in both association and methodology.

            • Fox says:

              1. It’s not intuition but direct observation – one’s own and that of others.
              The self-assessment personality “tests” are a non-direct means of “observation”, and one passing through one of the most biased filters possible + taking place in a sterile, artificial setting (which is the complete opposite of real social situation*).
              If the results of an inferior method contradict those of a superior method, it’s reasonable to view the former with suspicion, not the latter.

              2. “we have studies on the accuracy of self-reports”
              And we have many more studies on things like “Dunning Kruger” and the narcissist’ marked tendency for self-aggrandizement + an ocean of direct, personal experiences that show how many people like to boast and otherwise exaggerate and have very one-sided views of themselves.
              (you yourself wrote a few months back that most people who regard themselves as “introverts” are in reality extroverts who lack social contact)

              3. If you call the less direct, less “real-life” method empiricism, then empiricism doesn’t have much to do with reality (ie is not at all what it is being sold as).

              4. “we have to either trust these particular scientists to be honest and competent or not”
              One major reason why I don’t trust Woodley (in that sense) is that he’s overapplying his models to a ridiculous degree, and treats his statistical constructs as if they were real-world phenomena. There’s a special kind of retardation one has to have to be an academic.

              * there was one study in which students from the North and the South were called into an office for a fake “test”, and on the way to the office, an assitant would bump into them and not apologize. The Southern students reacted far stronger than the Northern ones.

            • Obadiah says:

              >Believe it or not, we have studies on the accuracy of self-reports.

              I would post all the insane and nefarious stuff that ‘studies’ have shown us over the years, but I really shouldn’t have to do this.

              Also, not all information being self-reported is created equally. People are much more likely to be honest about vanilla questions such as “are you a boy or a girl?” than they are with often-sensitive info having to do with a person’s complicated pathological mental state or self-concept (for instance, see how long and often awkward and nasty a process it was for uncle Obadiah to unclusterfrack his narcissism?).

              >1. It’s not intuition but direct observation – one’s own and that of others.

              Yeah, I’m not just pulling stuff out of my butt and relying on the received cultural stereotypes regarding Jews (which developed organically over time for a reason): of the 15 or so Jews I know IRL about half of them didn’t display neuroticism, but the other half were indeed stereotypically neurotic, emotionally-intense, loud, pushy Jews of various dark tetrad skews from apparently-non-extant to one guy who was extreme/full dark-tetrad. A small sample size to be sure, but ~50% is definitely a much higher incidence than what we’d find in genpop wypipo even with the constant psychic and sociological abuse that le combine advisors are so wont to pile onto Christians/recent Christian-descended folks

              (OT: interestingly, that psychopath Jew’s surname was “Grable”, meaning “ditch or grave digger”. Since honest back-breaking grave-digging isn’t a profession that bottleneck-survivor German Jews are typically known for having, the name begins to take possible nefarious overtones i.e. professional disposer of victims’ bodies)

              > ultimately we have to either trust these particular scientists to be honest and competent or not.

              I remain skeptical of Woodely’s methodology in this study because relying on people to self-report accurately and honestly about sensitive stuff like personal emotional pathologies isn’t really a great method for obtaining scientifically-accurate results (as Fox said, direct impartial empirical observation of these people [preferably in various contexts where they are not aware they are being observed] would be a much better way of accurately ascertaining their true trait levels).

              Relying on people with a pathology rooted in tolerating cognitive dissonance to accurately and consistently self-evaluate isn’t a good method. The schizophrenic *knows* that the little old lady down the hall who died 3 years ago has his whole apartment bugged and is listening to his every word (though neuroticism obviously isn’t as severe a pathology as schizophrenia. A better example would be a tranny, who despite their enormous suicide rate would almost certainly be more likely to answer dishonestly about whether they were having suicidal ideation on a test given in a controlled environment that they knew other people were going to look at).

            • Obadiah says:

              >Since honest back-breaking grave-digging isn’t a profession that bottleneck-survivor German Jews are typically known for having, the name begins to take possible nefarious overtones i.e. professional disposer of victims’ bodies

              Or, you know, his ancestors could have just been in charge of burying people normally for the Jewish community. But that guy’s level of psychopathy sends my mind in a bad direction.

            • Obadiah says:

              I’ll bet Woodley is a Libertarian, because his methodology commits the same error as Libertarianism does: assuming that other people are rational and honest.

            • Obadiah says:

              *that Libertarianism does

              Haven’t had muh Bangz

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      See “At Our Wits End” by Ed Dutton, et al.

  4. Obadiah says:

    So

    Watchu sayin is

    If the current order persists, itz all retarded eloi, retarded morlocks, and uber-morlock roffschilds from here on out until the Lamb returns in fire and glory?

    It’s amazing how many different permutations, variations and ways of expressing the same basic core premise you’ve generated over the years.

  5. Obadiah says:

    I like how the Time Machine is supposed to take place like a million years into the future but simply ends up portraying the contemporary reality of “Dark Triad Priest-King Supermen rule hierarchical social structure populated by (often-literal) livestock cattle-class of retarded neotenoids and enforced by ferocious, deliberately-bred warrior caste while confused genetic relic from previous era tries to navigate the madness and not get eaten”

    • Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

      So, you noticed that too. When I saw the 2002 version, I was low-key cheering for the Darwinistic, dream-controlling albino melon, who was secretly ruling over that African-repressing archaeo-futurist dystopia from his lair deep beneath the Earth. Liked that guy a helluva lot more than the morally idealistic professor who somehow thought that universities shouldn’t prepare people for the harsh realities of living in a society.

  6. boneflour says:

    I don’t remember the details, but there was this big Harvard biotech startup ring, and the interviewer was asking about the surprising amount of successes from his incubator.

    He basically said that a ton of these startups fail, statistically, so everyone going into his thing better be irrationally optimistic about their chances. And he cultivates that mindset with his people.

    Because the chances are so slim, only the people with the massive optimism to put in MAXIMUM EFFORT stick around to succeed. Most everyone else taps out early or invests only a reasonable amount of effort… When really, you need a combination of insane belief and crazy work ethic.

    You know, like Naruto. Or that guy from Black Clover. Anime Is Real!

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      What people need to take away from this is that there’s a role for uber-realist NEETs…a support role to chad k-selected Calvinists. So long as you’re acting to increase the reproductive survival rate of those idiots, you’re a net positive. But that is a hard truth for most wannabe geniuses because they are not actually prosocial.

      • bicebicebice says:

        “But that is a hard truth for most wannabe geniuses because they are not actually prosocial.”

        REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE *blocked* :D:D:D but in reality, why would these two types paths cross? or rather, where? surely not on the internet and surely not at the gym *snorts*

        also 49 comments geez get a podcast or summath reading is for faggots // regards thugmug & crew

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          We have one recorded, Boneflour just hasn’t released it yet.

          >but in reality, why would these two types paths cross?

          Whenever a trait is distributed on a bell curve, it indicates there’s a group-level genetic balancing act. Basically you need both types to have a viable genepool, therefore linke men and women they will always be together in societies that intend to survive.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          More to the point, I think the trouble with altruism today is not that it’s become overextended and universalist, but rather that it’s become extremely parochial. “Leapfrogging loyalties” is a good example, where so-called “altruism” is actually war conducted on the slightly genetically dissimilar in the in-group. E.g. Feminists don’t actually care about women being raped (see Rotherham), they care about destroying the reproductive success of people just slightly dissimilar, because their empathy horizons are microscopically small.

        • boneflour says:

          pODCAST iS rENDERING bOYO, uPLOADING sOON™

  7. boneflour says:

    “These sheeple with their little lives. They can’t even perceive reality directly! It would burn their eyes out. But I know the truth. Show me TRUE KNOWLEDGE!”

    –optimism is hands down more adaptive than gritty realism–
    –science says atheists should get religion and not thinky too hard–
    –smart people are dumb–

    “GAAH! TURN IT OFF!”

  8. bicebicebice says:

    “Whenever a trait is distributed on a bell curve, it indicates there’s a group-level genetic balancing act. Basically you need both types to have a viable genepool, therefore linke men and women they will always be together in societies that intend to survive.”

    I wonder how much more diffcult globalism has made this, or rather, took care of “that problem”… one big sape groupe where femininazis allow the intruding male to kill off their children justl ike lions and apes do, except that in the animal world the new male has real measurable unironic more power than the previous one… but hey if the televitz told me so!

    “More to the point, I think the trouble with altruism today is not that it’s become overextended and universalist, but rather that it’s become extremely parochial.” It hazn’t even begun! (positive procrastinative outlook).gauging how fucked things truly are before you begin is what it sounds like, it is also what it is. prudence not blind pride, if societes must always rise and fall don’t be a janitor in a ITZ

    will the podcost feature corona? exciting! no spoilers please

  9. Obadiah says:

    >69 responses

    Hee hee hee heheh

  10. Pingback: Re: Jewish neuroticism | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s