Post: #51

Heartiste, whoever he is, is a clever blogger. But he's right on the threshold of Stormfront territory. Like one tweet today:

"Keep pushing, Orwellian leftoids, and pretty soon the reconstituted white pride won't be loveably ironic anymore"

https://twitter.com/heartiste/statuses/3...2161979392

Post: #52

(03-14-2013 08:35 PM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  You asked me to show a genetic component to introversion, and I did.

No I asked for science to back up your claim. You showed me the result of one study (which I might add was improperly referenced and shaky at best). Anyone can produce a study that agrees with whatever they desire to make themselves an expert of at the moment.

That said study was all you could conjure tells me you are merely stating a personal belief that you are now retroactively trying to provide some ground for.

Post: #53

Yep I exhausted myself by going to the first excerpt of the first link on Google. Ok, you win, there's no genetic component for introversion or anything else.

Post: #54

(03-15-2013 08:36 AM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  Yep I exhausted myself by going to the first excerpt of the first link on Google. Ok, you win, there's no genetic component for introversion or anything else.

That's really the only way you can argue with that mentality.

Post: #55

Vicious wins the pointless thread derail of the week award.

I'd post a scientific study to back this finding but it's still in progress.

Post: #56

I'm not asking for much.

Remain in your comfortable rabbit holes where no-one will question whatever claims you spout gentlemen. It's a big bad world out there.

Post: #57

(03-15-2013 09:50 AM)Vicious Wrote:  I'm not asking for much.

Remain in your comfortable rabbit holes where no-one will question whatever claims you spout gentlemen. It's a big bad world out there.

Haha.

I train in a tough mixed race BJJ/MMA club where I'm the lone WN and everyone knows it. I went to a hysterically liberal college where everyone knew I was the lone radical lunatic as well. Please, tell me about the big bad world, its hard knocks, and how sheltered I am.

Post: #58

It's a more comfortable reality that introversion is a genetic trait instead of something you can get over.

Quote:...

The catch, of course, is that 99% of nerdy guys self-identify as introverts and make a whiny victim mentality out of it. “Ohh I can’t learn pickup because I’m an introvert, you don’t understand it’s scary to me to approach I just can’t do it…well back to world of Warcraft!”

That’s bullshit. Go out and for 6 months make a serious effort to be more talkative and social and accept invitations from people and try throwing a party and approach a couple hundred chicks and party with friends in clubs etc.

If you do all that and THEN decide “I don’t enjoy this at all and want to go back to Warcraft and not talk to anyone”, then you’re an introvert.

You have to push yourself to the extremes on both sides to learn who you are. If you aren’t willing to do that and you’re just hiding inside your victim mentality bubble giving yourself an easy excuse not to break outside your comfort zone, then you’re full of shit and will never really know yourself or live up to your potential as a man in life. But your lvl99 Paladin will look super cool with its new armor set. Lol

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/2...ent-415600

Post: #59

(03-15-2013 10:52 AM)reino341 Wrote:  It's a more comfortable reality that introversion is a genetic trait instead of something you can get over.

That's not the issue. This thread is now doubly hijacked. Roosh's introversion was never raised as an obstacle he needs to "get over"--it was just mentioned as a quality he bears comfortably, and that makes his game different.

Post: #60

I heard height has no genetic component, either. Tall parents have tall kids because they feed them a lot of vitamins.

Facial appearance has no genetic component, as well. Kids look like their parents because plastic surgery that is performed while they are still in the crib.

Even skin color is not based on genetics. It's a little known fact that children of all races are born white, but are then painted to match the color of their parents at the hospital.

Yeah, genetics, they mean basically nothing. I mean, even the sexes are totally the same. Behavioral differences between men and women are all cultural. I guess we can all go home now. Since genetics are irrelevant that means game is pointless, as there is no incentive for a man to spread his own seed, since all genetic material is equal and only cultural and environmental factors matter.

Post: #61

(03-13-2013 02:15 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Guy on internet claims he has tight game... yet has oneitis for blogger who banned him

Best .gif ever.

Post: #62

(03-15-2013 11:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I heard height has no genetic component, either. Tall parents have tall kids because they feed them a lot of vitamins.

How come every thread becomes a height thread?

Post: #63

(03-15-2013 11:16 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 02:15 PM)Roosh Wrote:  Guy on internet claims he has tight game... yet has oneitis for blogger who banned him

Best .gif ever.

That is really funny.

Watch how Roosh moves his water glass as he is laughing.

Or is that Vodka?

Roosh?

Post: #64

(03-15-2013 11:17 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I heard height has no genetic component, either. Tall parents have tall kids because they feed them a lot of vitamins.

How come every thread becomes a height thread?

It's a defense mechanism. People blame their genes, something they can't do anything about, in order to not confront the fact that they are too lazy, weak or cowardly to do something about their situation.

Post: #65

(03-15-2013 11:29 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:17 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I heard height has no genetic component, either. Tall parents have tall kids because they feed them a lot of vitamins.

How come every thread becomes a height thread?

It's a defense mechanism. People blame their genes, something they can't do anything about, in order to not confront the fact that they are too lazy, weak or cowardly to do something about their situation.

You should get the word out to the race trolls that if they weren't so lazy and cowardly they could do something about their skin color.

Post: #66

Quote:Or is that Vodka?

Roosh?

It's silver tequilla.

Post: #67

(03-15-2013 01:52 AM)Vicious Wrote:  That said study was all you could conjure tells me you are merely stating a personal belief that you are now retroactively trying to provide some ground for.

The reason why you lose this argument is that you are trying to defend the indefensible. I do not need to mention any scientific papers to prove you wrong, because you are already in the worst possible position.

(03-14-2013 07:57 AM)Vicious Wrote:  Genetically introverted? I'd love to see the scientific support you can muster for the notion that introversion is genetically.

Genetically what? Did you mean "genetically determined"?

You are trying to make the point that introversion has no genetic component, which is absurd. You make an excessively strong statement, but you have to keep in mind that extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on you.

Saying that introversion is 100% genetic is also absurd. Saying that there is a genetic component and an environmental one is much smarter and much more devious, but it also conveys zero information. The weaker a statement is, the more invulnerable it becomes. That is what makes strong statements fragile.

Heartiste writes on HBD, and HBD upsets lots of people, for obvious reasons. Saying that HBD is true is obviously a weak statement. Saying that it is false is a very strong and very fragile statement. Given that each tribe underwent different selective pressures in the past, why would all humans have equal characteristics? It is extremely unlikely, it is actually impossible.

Tribes of humans are like breeds of dogs. Yes, all dogs came from the same genetic material, from wolves, but artificial selection produced countless species of dogs, and the existence of phenotypical differences is what makes different breeds identifiable. Is it "breedism" to say that a pit bull is more aggressive than a chihuahua? No, it is a fact. Is it "racism" to say that Ghanaians and Nigerians are physically stronger than the mongoloid Native Brazilians? No, it is a fact, it is why the Portuguese took Western Africans to Brazil to serve as slaves.

Post: #68

Vicious, for your consideration and enlightenment:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/11...1839933411

Quote:Individual differences in social introversion-extraversion were examined in a large sample of twin girls and found to be highly heritable. Genetic factors accounted for more than half of the within-family variance, measured by Gough's Adjective Check List and the Fels Behavior Scales. The results for this population support previous studies by Gottesman, Eysenck, Vandenberg, Freedman, and others, who reported similar heritabilities for social introversion-extraversion in other populations, tested with other measures.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...75?LI=true

Quote:Personality test data from the California Psychological Inventory were collected on 99 pairs of identical and 99 pairs of fraternal adult male twins. Heritabilities were computed for all 18 scales and compared to the heritabilities for “pure” scales with overlapping items omitted. Two of the pure scales. Responsibility and Femininity, had zero heritabilities, whereas all of the full scales had moderate to high heritabilities. It was concluded that item overlap has contributed significantly to previous failures to find evidence for the differential heritability of personality traits as measured by the CPI. CPI items were classified into genetic or environmental categories and separate factor analyses of items in these categories revealed more differences than similarities in factor structure. The genetic personality factors included Conversational Poise, Compulsiveness, and Social Ease. Environmental factors included Confidence in Leadership, Impulse Control, Philosophical Attitudes, Intellectual Interest, and Exhibitionism. Compared to the genetic factors, each of the environmental factors accounted for only a very small percentage of the variance.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...55?LI=true

Quote:A sample of 42 like-sexed twins between the ages of 6 and 14 were diagnosed for zygosity by extensive blood typing and given theWISC and the Missouri Children's Picture Series. The importance of genetic variance for performance on the WISC subscales and MCPS personality scales was evaluated. Eleven of the scales indicated statistically reliable genetic contributions to score variance. Previous findings on the heritability of intelligence test scores were again confirmed. Full Scale IQ heritability was estimated at .77, with Performance IQ at .82 and Verbal IQ at .48. Within the domain of personality-relevant attributes sampled, these results provide additional support for the heritability of inhibition, social introversion-extraversion, or other-person orientation. Observed heritabilities are consistent with hypotheses of genetic contributions to score variance on activity level and aggressivity. These data raise the possibility that test measures of maturity and of masculinity-femininity show important heritabilities. The congruence of these results with reports of earlier investigatiors are discussed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8776880

Quote:The genetic and environmental etiology of the five-factor model of personality as measured by the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) was assessed using 123 pairs of identical twins and 127 pairs of fraternal twins. Broad genetic influence on the five dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness was estimated at 41%, 53%, 61%, 41%, and 44%, respectively. The facet scales also showed substantial heritability, although for several facets the genetic influence was largely nonadditive. The influence of the environment was consistent across all dimensions and facets. Shared environmental influences accounted for a negligible proportion of the variance in most scales, whereas nonshared environmental influences accounted for the majority of the environmental variance in all scales.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007...65?LI=true

Quote:The influence of genetic factors for two personality dimensions was analyzed using data from 12,898 unselected twin pairs of the Swedish Twin Registry. The heritability index was 0.50 (men) and 0.58 (women) for psychosocial instability. Corresponding figures for psychosocial extraversion were 0.54 and 0.66. Thus, about half the phenotypic variation may be attributed to genetic factors.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.11...ated=false

Quote:Twin studies of personality are consistent in attributing approximately half of the variance in personality to genetic effects, with the remaining variance attributed to environments that make people within the same families different. Such conclusions, however, are based on quantitative models of human individual differences that estimate genetic and environmental contributions as constants for entire populations. Recent advances in statistical modeling allow for the possibility of estimating genetic and environmental contributions contingent on other variables, allowing the quantification of phenomena that have traditionally been characterized as gene-environment interaction and correlation. We applied these newer models to understand how adolescents' descriptions of their relationships with their parents might change or moderate the impact of genetic and environmental factors on personality. We documented notable moderation in the domains of positive and negative emotionality, with parental relationships acting both to enhance and diminish both genetic and environmental effects. We discuss how genetic and environmental contributions to personality might be more richly conceptualized as dynamic systems of gene-environment interplay—systems that are not captured by classical concepts, such as the overall heritability of personality.

Post: #69

It's sad to see men to put their credibility on the line for an indefensible position. There's no shame in backing down when you're wrong.

Post: #70

Vicious made the classic mistake of demanding scientific proof

Quote:The first and most common misconception about science is that it can “prove” things. Science has never proven anything, nor can it. On a deep enough epistemological level, nothing can be proven.

In sixteenth century Europe, had you looked up the classification of what a swan was, you would see that scientists had listed these animals as white birds who lived in lake regions. But as Australia was colonized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, men discovered black swans.

And just like that, old science had been overturned and replaced with the new; classifying swans no longer referred to their color since if black swans exist, who is to say there are not purple swans out there in the universe, somewhere?

The same process of new science replacing the old is not an extraordinary phenomenon. Particularly notable examples include the Copernican revolution, where the Earth was no longer held at the center of the universe, the Newtonian revolution, where Aristotilean physics was replaced by Newton’s Laws, and the Einsteinian revolution, where the General Theory of relativity replaced Newtonian Laws of physics.

The reason new science constantly replaces the old is because science can only disprove theories, but never prove them. Science is merely an effort at clarification, and nothing more.

Think of how vast our universe is. In order for a scientific theory to be proven with absolute certainty it would have to be tested in every corner of the universe to prove that the theory in question is true. How could such rigorous testing even be possible?

For example, the proposition, “All men are mortal.” How do we know for sure that there isn’t some planet in the universe where men would never die while living on it?

We do not for sure, and we cannot know for sure, but that does not mean the statement “all men are mortal” is not approximately true or useful. Science is thus based on a pragmatic approach, whereby all beliefs are nothing more than approximations of what we believe to be true, and the role of science is to try and disprove old theories, so that they can be replaced with an updated theory that presents a better description of reality.

http://www.returnofkings.com/5855/game-d...ed-science

Post: #71

[quote='Samseau' pid='394599' dateline='1363368120']
Vicious made the classic mistake of demanding scientific proof

Quote:The first and most common misconception about science is that it can “prove” things. Science has never proven anything, nor can it. On a deep enough epistemological level, nothing can be proven.

Human cells are real. Gravity is real. Hydrogen exists as an atom. Science can conclusively prove many things.

I would like to see you somehow rationalize away the existence of gravity. That would be a laugh!

Post: #72

Great post, scorpion. The only thing I'd have to comment on is that often the criteria for personality traits in studies like that, particularly for extraversion, don't always match up with what people mean when they refer to it in casual conversation.

Post: #73

HBD is only disconcerting when it's used for negative race trolling and obsessing over who's fucking with whom.

In addition I fail to understand hating on those who travel abroad to get poon. It's not just about Asia or Eastern Europe. Some people do better in certain areas of the globe or within their country.

My version of Thailand is England. I find I need minimal game there compared to work I put in here in Canada. Every two or so years I'll visit London on my way to Eastern Europe. I'll get my pussy in London, and take it easy in EE.

On the flip someone might find EE to be pussy paradise, and England to be vaginal purgatory.

The beauty of globalization is that with a descent bankroll, access to the world's vagina is at the tip of your cock.

Post: #74

(03-15-2013 12:22 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Vicious made the classic mistake of demanding scientific proof

Quote:The first and most common misconception about science is that it can “prove” things. Science has never proven anything, nor can it. On a deep enough epistemological level, nothing can be proven.

In sixteenth century Europe, had you looked up the classification of what a swan was, you would see that scientists had listed these animals as white birds who lived in lake regions. But as Australia was colonized in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, men discovered black swans.

And just like that, old science had been overturned and replaced with the new; classifying swans no longer referred to their color since if black swans exist, who is to say there are not purple swans out there in the universe, somewhere?

The same process of new science replacing the old is not an extraordinary phenomenon. Particularly notable examples include the Copernican revolution, where the Earth was no longer held at the center of the universe, the Newtonian revolution, where Aristotilean physics was replaced by Newton’s Laws, and the Einsteinian revolution, where the General Theory of relativity replaced Newtonian Laws of physics.

The reason new science constantly replaces the old is because science can only disprove theories, but never prove them. Science is merely an effort at clarification, and nothing more.

Think of how vast our universe is. In order for a scientific theory to be proven with absolute certainty it would have to be tested in every corner of the universe to prove that the theory in question is true. How could such rigorous testing even be possible?

For example, the proposition, “All men are mortal.” How do we know for sure that there isn’t some planet in the universe where men would never die while living on it?

We do not for sure, and we cannot know for sure, but that does not mean the statement “all men are mortal” is not approximately true or useful. Science is thus based on a pragmatic approach, whereby all beliefs are nothing more than approximations of what we believe to be true, and the role of science is to try and disprove old theories, so that they can be replaced with an updated theory that presents a better description of reality.

http://www.returnofkings.com/5855/game-d...ed-science

Samseau I've always enjoyed your posts but that's really stupid what you're saying. So should we refer to swans as certain codes?

Yo that's one beautiful xkj432499## right there.
I love eating 59434jj#$ but only if it's raised eating kj24932j.

Post: #75

(03-15-2013 02:00 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  HBD is only disconcerting when it's used for negative race trolling and obsessing over who's fucking with whom.

Which is pretty much what Heartiste and his commentators do: race troll.

Bad as he is, it's nothing compared to Gucci Little Piggy, who seems to wake up every morning looking for a way to take a shit on black people.

Roosh brings a humility to his writings. He'll talk about his fuck-ups and missed opportunities. He'll even admit where his books might be outdated or incomplete. And he brings an open mind. Guys like Heartiste don't have an open mind. He has all the answers and he's on a jihad to make sure everyone knows them.