On personality and social maxxing.

lordoftheincels

Well-Known Member
Staff Member
I observe women, its like they are always high or on drugs. Estrogen is like a self-soothing drug that makes them overly sensitive and self absorbed.

Testosterone is an extension of the estrogen molecule and is almost the same exact molecule. Males tend to be very sensitive and anti-social. But are more miserly and full of rage.

In any case, there are some differences here. A man of testosterone always wants to be seeking, doing, building, or exploring. It does not give the same kind of high like estrogen does. The estrogen molecule causing a sitting. A desire to bask in the sunlight, like a turtle, reptile, reptilian mindset.

So here we have two people that have no actual interest in each other. The woman desires silence and just to sit and do nothing. The man desires silence and just to explore and build.

Then the woman says to men "just be natural". When their natural nature is just to lust. Conversations are a human absstraction that no other species has. It is manufactured to be an illusion, to separate oneself from nature. Therefore social maxxing, and "muh personality" are extensions not based on nature.
 

Zenomobean

Well-Known Member
What I took from this = women are lizards that need to bask in heat to survive. Makes sense considering my own mother can spend a baffling amount of time lying in the same spot of sun. So I am reptile spawn, cool.
There's no doubt that their are biological differences and social averages between male and females but it's pretty strange to assume that all one gender are going to only do specific activities, e.g. enjoying to explore and make things is a pretty widely adopted behaviour.
I liked this post though it was funny thinking of women as reptilian sun worshipers.
 

lordoftheincels

Well-Known Member
Staff Member
The human brain is both a mix of mammalian and reptilian components as it is a mix of male and female components. The giga masculine male is an ultimate soldier, even MasterChief 117 has a feminine side, the giga masculine male would be an unstoppable war machine and a maximal threat, obviously more feminine males would have ganged up on such a male and so it would have become extinct.

This is why I dont buy the 1 in 17 chad/incel stat of 8000 years ago. The weaker males surely would have ganged up on the alpha if there was no benefit on their end. There is no way a strong alpha could defeat 17 other males, even if they were somewhat weaker and more feminine.

Scientists report that they cannot easily determine brain sex during scan of most brains, however 10% of brains have a gender that can be easily determined. This can also be attributed to the modern state of the masculine woman and the feminine male - 100 years ago brains most likely had a less vague sex.
 

Zenomobean

Well-Known Member
Well that's unsurprising considering we are related to do to our shared cellular evolutionary starting point.
Why do you think it would have been less vague 100 years ago? It's a bit hard to make an assumption on that as obviously we can't go back and scan people to make note of this and if it's changed, maybe with future studies they can determine if it's changing the way that you think it is.
 

lordoftheincels

Well-Known Member
Staff Member
Zenomobean said:
Well that's unsurprising considering we are related to do to our shared cellular evolutionary starting point.
Why do you think it would have been less vague 100 years ago? It's a bit hard to make an assumption on that as obviously we can't go back and scan people to make note of this and if it's changed, maybe with future studies they can determine if it's changing the way that you think it is.
Males are numales with political views indisquinguishable from women. They are gigacucks that shame their own gynic sex drive.

100 years ago you'd never hear of males going around shaming males for lusting for women. And most women were more feminine. But N. Tesla said they were masculine. So maybe 200 years ago more likely.
 
Top