Does amygdalotomy make men more alpha?

omfalos · 2019-03-12T17:23:30+00:00

What exactly does an amygdalotomy do, and what are some other promising brain regions for psychosurgery? Can beta males be transformed into fearless,...

[–]admiredpanda0121 points22 points23 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GoTransOrRope15 points16 points17 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SadFatElephant13 points14 points15 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+]omfalos[S] -7 points-6 points-5 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]SadFatElephant14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nigrum-Turcam2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]omfalos[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]SadFatElephant11 points12 points13 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]northstar1618012345 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]omfalos[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]northstar1618012345 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]omfalos[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]northstar1618012345 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]omfalos[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheHatim4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

Lol that is not how evolution or sexual selection works.

Women look for the best fit male... the one with the best combinations of ability, strength, ability to acquire resources, etc

So in other words if Jeff Gordan may be the best race car driver today, but if someone comes along and one-ups him the next day, he becomes the Alpha. Then if Jeff Gordan wins again, he regains his Alpha position again.

Women don't just look for good genes, they ask you to prove it. PROVE they're winning genes. And then after those inter-male competitions happen they pick out the top dog (or the best they can get.)

The reason that women don't just choose 'good genes' is that it would make evolution crash to a screeching halt. The human landscape is shifting so much every decade that diffeernt traits predict survival differently. So in the 50s being a good soldier may have made a man an amazing breadwinner, but in the 90s when technology hit all of a suddden being a tech-savvy brainiac made you the most money in IT (giving your children the best chance of survival)... in 2020 that trend will likely intensify. Of course we still have behaviors left over from ancestral times... so like... 1000s of years ago muscles were important and women still have that leftover programming even though muscles really don't help your chance of survival at all in 2019. Not attraction is shifting toward intelligence (if it didn't humans would still be dumb.) Look at the beautiful wife Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs have/had, and they're all kind of a nerds. But 50 years ago when tech skills weren't in such high demand those genes wouldnt have been as considered such high quality to women. Women want you to PROVE your success. A successful skinny nerd will be more attractive than some loser who makes 15k/yr but looks like Brad Pitt.

This is why I tell guys on this sub to stop worrying about dumb shit and just carve out your own niche and be successful.

[–]baronhold2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xbruxism0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

comments like these are why i i fucking hate this sub. if it wasn’t for the science i wouldn’t even read this dogshit.

like, instead of doing thing that would make them more attractive to women, they just sit around bitching how it’s not fair.. it's fucking retarded... like growing up i wasn’t that good with women.. but through EFFORT i gradually improved myself to the point where now i can literally have any girl i want. Like i sleep with pretty much every girl i want to, every girl i want to date i end up in a relationship with.. i cant remember a time when a girl said 'no.' maybe like 2010. and i was NOT born like that… not even close

if chicks ‘only care about looks’ THEN IMPROVE YOUR FUCKING LOOKS. Have you never seen like.. Queer Eye or some male makeover show where some loser is transformed into someone who looks awesome. Also... women dont even care about looks as much as you think.. it’s more about social dominance and status. Women want winners… not losers who sit and complain how it’s not fair.. they want guys who are willing to do the things necessary to fucking WIN.

“so why do you come here if you hate the sub so much” i like the studies. If you use these studies it's literally a blueprint of how to be rolling in pussy. But these people have no idea how science works so they try to make it seem like it's all genetic and there's nothing they can do. HA. I’m an ACTUAL scientist and it’s mind-blowing how people misinterpret these papers to fit their views to say shit that it never said.

And furthermore these dues complain that it’s nt fair that woman only care about looks… so go date a fat chick. you want hot girls but you dont care about what THEY want. it’s fucking selfish. if you’re a 3/10…. go date a 3/10… but they won’t do that… why? because they want hot girls but don’t care about giving them something in return. so i dont need to ‘go be chad’… i make chad look like a little bitch. and it took work.. rather than sitting and crying on reddit about how unfair women are because they dont want to date fucking unattractive males. if you want attractive women, go become attractive or shut the fuck up.

[–]baronhold2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

So, am I an incel or a cuck? Make up your mind. You are pathetic if you think that people gather here to listen to your sermons, or that people who gather here lack relationships with opposite sex and want to fix it. And you keep missing the point massively:

Women want you to PROVE your success. A successful skinny nerd will be more attractive than some loser who makes 15k/yr but looks like Brad Pitt.

The point being that none of those two will be loved unconditionally, or for their "personality", or for their good moral values, or because a woman just enjoys their company. None of them will be loved because a woman adores them, and not what they provide for those women (i.e. either utility or decorative asset). And in this context, a woman's preference towards one or the other - is negligible. Add a third agent - a guy who's neither hot nor successful, but treats her, her friends, her relatives, and all people around her right - and he will lose 99% of the time.

Lauren Sanchez is 49 and has a weird thing going on with her face, especially eyes. If she's your personal hotness benchmark, I have some bad news.

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Lots of cucks are celibate. But if I had to guess between the two I’d guess Incel because women won’t even have a cuck relationship with dudes holding bitter attitudes like these. It’s not even Omega Male attitudes.. it’s like Zeta-make attitudes

The dating market is fair. 3s date 3s, 4s date 4s, 10s date 10s. Are you interested in a fat ugly girl who is “nice”? Or some horseface who is just respectful to your family.

NICENESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTRACTION.

If someone was as unshallow as the expect women to be, it wouldn't be an issue, because there are plenty of ugly girls available that would LOVE the attention. They're all available. And like I said those girls will date unattractive men. And they'll love you for you. But they won't do it. Because THEY want to be shallow but they don't want women to be.

Besides... women do not actually want your money anyway. They want YOUR CHILDREN to have money. Big difference. They want to know if they have children with you you will be able to provide them with a good life so they’re not going to get sick and fucking die because their dad can’t afford to provide them with nice things. "Omg women are such horrible shallow creatures because they don't want their kids to grow up living in a cardboard box!" They want their kids to go to private schools, and go to a good college so they can have a good life for themselves.

I don’t get the issue.. unattractive women will date unattractive men. So go scoop up all those amazing specimens with spectacular personalities. Here you are dude: https://i.imgur.com/7DYlPSe.jpg She has an amazing personality, great moral values, will be respectful of your friends and family and love you for who you are. But if you aren’t attracted to her? Then shut the fuck up and stop bitching when women do the EXACT SAME FUCKING thing you do. Fucking hypocritic Zeta-males.

And the money isn’t even true. I’ve dated ultra hot women when I was totally broke. They loved me to the moon and back. I know a homeless kid who has swag and gets girls left and right.

“Will never love you for you”.. omg fucking get over it dude. You won’t fall in love with a 60 year old crackwhore no matter how amazing “nice” she is.

So you are JUST as shallow as women. But you want women to stop being shallow so you can get hot girls without being hot yourself. So go improve yourself so you're more attractive to women or just date girls in your league. It's that simple.

ALSO ALSO.. women DO care about moral values, someone they can spend time with, etc.. but they’ll only give that guy a chance if he’s not a complete loser.

Bottom line: men are just as shallow as women, probably more. If they weren’t, none of this would be an issue.

And I don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about. I’ve been in plenty of relationships with absolutely beautiful women who “loves me for me”... and I loved them for who they were too... but attraction is just necessary. Get over it. You’re not gonna date someone you’re not attracted to. Period. If they were attractive but shitty people I may have fucked them, but I’d have no interest in a relationship with them. And I think this stuff is overblown anyway.. when I was younger I was jobless, and even when I went out looking like shit I still met tons of hot girls and now that I’m successful I don’t really notice much more attention from girls. I mean probably some but it’s not insane.

And in this context, a woman's preference towards one or the other - is negligible. Add a third agent - a guy who's neither hot nor successful, but treats her, her friends, her relatives, and all people around her right - and he will lose 99% of the time.

That shit isn't even true. Women marry these types of dudes all the time.

Prior studies suggest that when women are not in their fertile phase, "we tend to interpret women's preferences as reflecting those for cues to the characteristics that make a man a good long-term partner," Moore told LiveScience.

https://www.livescience.com/10073-women-prefer-chill-guys.html

[–]abaxeron0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I’d guess Incel because women won’t even have a cuck relationship with dudes holding bitter attitudes like these.

You know nothing about my attitudes.

The dating market is fair.

gang members reported a significantly greater average number of sex partners during the last 30 days than the non-gang members reported for the same period (M of 1.67 to 1.22, respectively); one-tailed t-test, t = 2.16, df = 118, p < .025. […]

two gang leaders […] reported 11 and 10 partners, respectively, [within the last 90 days] […]

In contrast, no non-gang member in the study reported more than five partners within the last 90 days.

Current top non-sticked post.

fertility rate: ... "bad boys" statistically get 25% reproductive advantage over "bad girls" (and 64 percent over "nice guys")

Marriages, mean no.: "Bad boy (over bad girl) advantage" - 15% (35% above "nice guys")

Mean no. of reproductive partners: "Bad boy (over bad girl) advantage" - 21% (71% above "nice guys")

Sweden, 30 years worth of data.

It is fair in the sense that all participants are voluntary agents. It doesn't change the fact that when women get beaten into bloody pulp by their thug partners, they go to the government and make me pay for it.

Are you interested in a fat ugly girl who is “nice”?

I've actually tried to wife one. Turned out crazy under closer inspection. "I'll use Tarot cards to choose between these job positions" level of crazy. Despite being a geophysics major.

Or some horseface who is just respectful to your family.

No problem with that.

NICENESS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ATTRACTION.

Depends on your gender. Men are romantically responsive and grateful to women who treat them well.

If someone was as unshallow as the expect women to be, it wouldn't be an issue, because there are plenty of ugly girls available that would LOVE the attention. They're all available.

My data and experience show otherwise.

And like I said those girls will date unattractive men. And they'll love you for you. But they won't do it. Because THEY want to be shallow but they don't want women to be.

Women are shallower than men. (from this comment). There are much more women who prefer to stay single than to date... ew.... THIIIIS - than there are men with this attitude.

Same trend in non-online-dating data.

So, maybe some guys could pair with uglies by lowering their standards. But waaaay not all of them.

A breaking point here could be at the end of women's reproductive window, a phenomenon known as "baby rabies". But no, none of those women who tried to trap anything at this point in their lives - actually love their husbands. Friggin' NONE.

Besides... women do not actually want your money anyway.

Yes they do. Otherwise they wouldn't defend division of assets during divorces of childless couples. They do.

They want YOUR CHILDREN to have money.

THEIR children, not mine. If I take a woman with a child from the first marriage, she'll expect me to pour resources into that child.

So go scoop up all those amazing specimens with spectacular personalities. Here you are dude: https://i.imgur.com/7DYlPSe.jpg She has an amazing personality, great moral values, will be respectful of your friends and family and love you for who you are.

OR she will syphon my money to fix her teeth, have a couple new tattoos, and a college degree, and then dump me and branch-swing to someone with more money and higher standards.

Then shut the fuck up and stop bitching when women do the EXACT SAME FUCKING thing you do.

In the US, women have been the primary initiators of divorces at least since 1867. In case of divorce, chances of a woman being the one who initiated it - grow with her wealth, assets, and education; wealthy, educated, and "assetful" women are also more likely to remarry.

Women don't do "EXACT SAME FUCKING THING"; women do worse. Full stop.

Fucking hypocritic Zeta-males.

Fuck off and calm down you hysterical piece of cunt.

Bottom line: men are just as shallow as women, probably more.

No.

https://www.livescience.com/10073-women-prefer-chill-guys.html

human behavioral ecologist Fhionna Moore....

First, scientists recruited 39 healthy young male students from the same university and measured their cortisol and testosterone levels from saliva samples they provided. The researchers next had 42 straight female students from a different university rate photos of these men for attractiveness, masculinity and health.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

gang members reported a significantly greater average number of sex partners during the last 30 days than the non-gang members reported for the same period (M of 1.67 to 1.22, respectively); one-tailed t-test, t = 2.16, df = 118, p < .025. […] two gang leaders […] reported 11 and 10 partners, respectively, [within the last 90 days] […] In contrast, no non-gang member in the study reported more than five partners within the last 90 days.

Women don’t like pussies.. what can I say. They don't want some dude who's going to get beat up, and they don't want to have a child with genes of a guys who's going to get beat up (in other words, they don't want their kids to get beat up) But if given the choice between a gang member and say… Barack Obama.. who’s a real Alpha Male, the REAL Alpha wins every time. In the male pecking order it goes Alphas, Jerks, Betas.. with Jerks / Bad Boys being in the middle. They are NOT the top pick for girls. And that could just mean that Gang Members are just more promiscuous (which is statistically proven.) Just becasue they're fucking girls doesnt mean they're fucking high-qualitiy girls. The types of girls who sleep with gang members are mostly hood rats.

Or some horseface who is just respectful to your family.

No problem with that.

Okay, then I’m sure you’ll have no issue finding one. But at the end of the day you’re more attracted to hot women, and if you say there’s a 99.99999999999999% chance you’re lying and a 0.000000000000001% chance some crazy anomaly of human nature in which case science would love to study you.

Depends on your gender. Men are romantically responsive and grateful to women who treat them well.

Fair enough. So are women… just not while they’re ovulating. Women love nurturing men when they’re not likely to get pregnant lol. more info

A breaking point here could be at the end of women's reproductive window, a phenomenon known as "baby rabies". But no, none of those women who tried to trap anything at this point in their lives - actually love their husbands. Friggin' NONE. That’s not true at all.

There two sides to human mating strategy… attraction and love. sex and caring. Women actually love nurturing guys they just don’t want to fuck them. it’s not as black and white as that since those two things exist on a spectrum, but a guy who’s 100% attractive but 0% nice/ nurturing she will want to fuck, but never love. a guy who is 0% attractive but 100% nice/nurturing she will fucking LOVE, but never want to have sex with him. that’s basically called THE FRIEND ZONE.. where a girl loves you but doesnt want to have sex with you… but in real life it’s more like a guy is 20% attractive, 80% nurturing… and ideally women try to get into relationships with guys who are attractive AND caring/nice/nurturing… but they will fuck a hot bad boy who isn’t that nice. men are the same way.. a girl that’s 100% hot but 0% nice/nurturing.. he’ll fuck her, but never fall in love… a girl that’s nurturing but not hot he might love as a friend, but not want to have sex with her. Yes to an extent men value ‘niceness’ more than women.. but nurturing ness is important to women… again for both sexes there’s a dual mating strategy… good genes / good parents

Sweden, 30 years worth of data. I could have told you this. Criminal offenders have higher testosterone.. and women fuck men with higher T.

THEIR children, not mine. If I take a woman with a child from the first marriage, she'll expect me to pour resources into that child.

Yep. And she would be a really bad mom otherwise. And if you love her, you should have no issue with that. But it won't happen becasue you care about the survival of your genes as much as she does.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I have no idea who Fhionna Moore is, but it’s WELL established that women want masculine men when they’re likely to get pregnant, nurturing men when they’re possibly pregnant. But IDEALLY they want to find both qualities in one guy. They want a man who can be masculine AND nurturing. The ideal guy for a woman had all the positive qualities. A guy who is socially respected, has high status, but is also a good person who is using that power for good. Like an eminant research who is using his intelligence and status to better the world. Or someone like Steve Jobs who made the world a better place with his company. Maybe not the perfect example but A guy who makes decent money and can provide a good life for their children together, but also is caring. But if they can’t find it in one g they’ll employ a dual mating strategy where they’ll date the nurturing guy and fuck the masculine guy. But dual mating startegy arangments like that are more common in low socioeconomic status communities. n other words, low class chicks. You know.. likely the ones from your gang member study.

[–]abaxeron0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They don't want some dude who's going to get beat up, and they don't want to have a child with genes of a guys who's going to get beat up (in other words, they don't want their kids to get beat up)

And instead they give birth to children who'll get beat up by their own dad, the same man who'll beat those women themselves. What an astonishing, rational, fair, and balanced strategy. Not to mention that you're pretending that the stereotype "law-abiding citizens are pussies" is true, which it isn't (a lot of gangsters haven't attended the gym since high school, have zero proper training in martial arts, and quite often don't have anything resembling military background).

Considering that reproductive success of "bad boys" among men is more prominent than among women, at least some of the overlapping cannot be attributed to "hood rats" (if "bad boys" have 2 times more sexual partners than "bad girls", then at least half of those partners are not "bad girls").

Okay, then I’m sure you’ll have no issue finding one.

You're still under the impression that I'm single and not fine with that.

So are women… just not while they’re ovulating. Women love nurturing men when they’re not likely to get pregnant lol.

The studies on "ovulation/preference" phenomenon have huge problems with reproduction..... Pardon the pun.

Criminal offenders have higher testosterone.. and women fuck men with higher T.

Violent criminal offenders have higher T than non-offenders. Not the case for property offenders (as far as I'm aware). Property offenders (thieves) still get advantage over "nice guys" (just not as huge as violent offenders). Same study, table 3.

The same study mentions another study from UK that demonstrated 10% of the most antisocial men fathering 27% of children by the age of 26. That paper from UK also got recently mentioned here on BPS.

I have no idea who Fhionna Moore is

A woman. A woman exploiting her academic position to defend the gynocentric dogma.

There two sides to human mating strategy… attraction and love. sex and caring. Women actually love nurturing guys they just don’t want to fuck them. it’s not as black and white as that since those two things exist on a spectrum, but a guy who’s 100% attractive but 0% nice/ nurturing she will want to fuck, but never love. a guy who is 0% attractive but 100% nice/nurturing she will fucking LOVE, but never want to have sex with him.

Both of these 'things on a spectrum' are "what I can get from him" (pleasure/resources). Not "how I can build alliance with this person on mutual respect and assistance". Using the word "love" for it is.... just inappropriate.

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Considering that reproductive success of "bad boys" among men is more prominent than among women, at least some of the overlapping cannot be attributed to "hood rats" (if "bad boys" have 2 times more sexual partners than "bad girls", then at least half of those partners are not "bad girls").

Yep SOME of the overlap can't be attributed to hoodrats, but 95% of it can. I can't explain this shit dude. I get paid way too much to sit and explain stats on reddit. Just because there's s correlation doesnt tell you how the data is distributed. NUMBER OF PARTNERS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT QUALITY OF PARTNERS. There's a personality trait called 'conscientiousness'... and sleeping around is an attribute... 'thugs' are low on this and so are the women sleeping with them which skews the distribution. a guy who's a 7 has access to women who are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... but someone who's a conscientious 7 will likely just date and marry another conscientious 7 whereas an unconscientious 5 will sleep with 5, 4, 3... so the 5 will actually have higher numbers than the 7, although the 7 would have been able to fuck all the girls the 5 fucked and more. They're fucking girls under their league which raises their numbers on these shitty surveys. That's why 'number of partners' doesnt tell you much. I know guys who think they're huge pimps because they fuck every uggo in the freakshow... whereas me, i only sleep with girls who are super hot. One friend tried to act like like he was a huge pimp to me telling me all the girls he slept with and i know all these girls... I'm sitting there like "so you're a pimp because you've slept with all the girls I've rejected?' See how numbers doesnt tell you much?

The link between conscientiousness and promisciuty is well-established, you can google it is you'd like.

And instead they give birth to children who'll get beat up by their own dad, the same man who'll beat those women themselves

Dude you come off as a bitter kid and i suggest you work on yourself. The amount of women who actually get 'beat' and have their kids 'beat' is barely worth mentioning. Most women will ABSOLUTELY NOT stand for this. It's NOT the norm. It DOES happen, but it is NOT most women.

I keep telling you THERE IS A PECKING ORDER. Nice guys are at the bottom, Bad Boy/Jerks are SLIGHTLY above them.... then REAL MEN are above all of them. Again.. think Barack Obama... etc. Do you know how many girls i've seen talking about how fucking hot Barack Obama is? Do you think he's slapping around bitches?

And nice guys aren't so 'nice' .. in real life they're manipulative fucking weirdos who are always trying to do shit for people to like them. They get girls all these gifts and wait on them hand and foot and SWEAR they want nothing in return because they're terrified of being perceived as wanting sex and when the girl gives them nothing in return like they ask for they turn into bitter resentful chodes and go on reddit complainig about how unfair it is and how and women only like jerks and they're so nice....

Dude I'm VERY nice to women. If one of the girls I date or sleep with or date called me for ANYTHING, I would be there in a heartbeat to help her. Every girl I've slept with i'm like... cool with for life. If you watched me walk into a room you'd see me flirting with every hot girl in the place and them responding positively. People are usually stunned at how women and I interact. I have a lesbian friend who hates me beause she says i take all her girls lol. And I am VERY nice and respectful to women. The difference is I'm NOT AN ASS KISSER. I'm not coming from a place of wanting to kiss their ass... I'm coming from a place of genuine love for them as human beings. Despite what you think, women LOVE when guys are nice to them. They just don't like when beta males kiss their ass. There's a HUGE difference between genuine kindness and ass-kissing supplication.

The types of girls who go for guys that hit them are generally low self-esteem head cases. I've lose girls from being an asshole. They eventually got fed up with my bullshit and bounced. And I'm not talking about smacking around (I've never done that)... i'm talking about like... not paying enough attention to them or giving them an attitude too much.

HIGH SELF ESTEEM CHICKS DON'T DO THIS.

And you keep bringing up 'beating' Physical violence in a negligable factor in most human interactions and humans dominance heirarchy. The human dominance heirarchy is mostly made of confidence and intelligence. All the guys at the TOP of the pecking order are inteligent. I mean in real life it's a number of factors, but in humans intelligence is the best predictor. In males there's a pecking order.... at the top is the CEO .. at the bottom is the kid in the mailroom. Women ideally go for the CEO... not some fucking loser thug selling crack. YES, that guy is more attractive than some some little sissy bitch with his tail hovering around her in her friend zone because he's too chickencshit to make a move.. but the "thug" is nowhere NEAR the top. The types of girls who go for "thugs" are fat white chicks and there ARE studies on that (not finding them) .. and fat white chicks are

The thug statistic is skewed anyway because low-class from both sexes people sleep around more. People from wealthy areas are more likely marry and have children. if you want the citation google 'consciousness and mating success' or 'personality and mating success'... people LOW on conscientiousness (people who are impulsive dirtbags) just sleep around more. Women AND men.

Like uou point out that that gang members get more action... how many gang memebers live in your area? what are you from fucking Compton? Bro, I know chicks that are going to Ivy League schools.. .they're not out there fucking gangsters because they're just 'sooo hawt'... they're fucking intelligent, good looking guys WHO ARE GOOD TO THEM. Note I didn't say "little bitches that re waiting on them hand and foot".. because there's a difference between GENUINE nice guys and little asskissing niceguy bitch boys.

The studies on "ovulation/preference" phenomenon have huge problems with reproduction..... Pardon the pun.

I know all about this study. It's not a "huge problem with reproduction"... there was that one study that failed to find a link and the media is having a shitshow... you know because one study gets to debunk literally decades and decades of very solid findings. I WORK in academia. I publish papers. You can't debunk hundreds of studies with one paper. Sorry. It's been observed in every goddamn species. EVERY. Rats, chimpanzees, monkeys. When the female of that species is ovulating they go crazy trying to f--- the alpha male(s). But I do think the ovulatory shift thing is less pronounced in humans than other mammals since we're more monogamous, and i think that's what that study was picking up

But as far as the theory, I seen it with my own eyes every day. I'm on the "Alpha Male" side of the spectrum and for 3 weeks of the month my female friends are normal, then for that ONE week they literally try to rape me. It happens EVERY month like clockwork. I can set my calendar to it.

You're still under the impression that I'm single and not fine with that

you are single and you're not fine with that. even if that weren't the case you're nowhere near satisfied with your sex life. i will literally eat my hat on webcam if I'm wrong.

Violent criminal offenders have higher T than non-offenders. Not the case for property offenders (as far as I'm aware).

yea and people with high testosterone are more cooperative if being cooperative is the thing that needs to be done to get laid... test increases mating behaviors.. whatever they may be.. it does NOT increase violence, unless violence is necessary for reproductive success

A woman. A woman exploiting her academic position to defend the gynocentric dogma.

Ad hominem. Discredit the argument, not the person.

Both of these 'things on a spectrum' are "what I can get from him" (pleasure/resources). Not "how I can build alliance with this person on mutual respect and assistance". Using the word "love" for it is.... just inappropriate.

OH FUCKING WELL. You have the SAME goals she does... to spread your genes and ensure the survival of your children. If you wanna get technical "love" doesnt exist for EITHER exes... they're pairbonding chemicals meant to keep you together long enough to raise a child. You'll do better once you drop the bitter little attitude and realize that humans are all equally selfish and all want the same things.

[–]abaxeron1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]trafficon870 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Carkudo2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chrisvacc1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SophisticatedBean 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Title	Does amygdalotomy make men more alpha?
Author	omfalos
Upvotes	22
Comments	37
Date	March 12, 2019 5:23 PM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/BlackPillScience
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/BlackPillScience/comments/b0afpf/does_amygdalotomy_make_men_more_alpha/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/BlackPillScience/does-amygdalotomy-make-men-more-alpha.221696 https://theredarchive.com/post/221696

Comments