El Chauvinisto: Using Logic With Women Is Illogical
Your Ad Here

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Using Logic With Women Is Illogical

I'm writing this today to try and help my fellow man. Many have fallen into the false assumption that women's brains work the same as ours. Unfortunately they're wrong (I know, it's hard to believe). They're used to debating fellow men on such subjects as politics, economics, war, women, and why MenAreBetterThanWomen, amongst others.

They're burning themselves out. They, like all men, don't half-ass anything.

It's like a Major League All-Star team playing against the Sarasota Girls Softball troop. Risking injury for what?

It doesn't matter how many home runs we hit, how many K's we rack up, how many runs we score, or how huge our payroll is. We play hard no matter what. All that matters is that we play "fair." But how can we when we're so much better? We can't.

No matter how dirty the Sarasota team plays (spiking, bean balls, etc.) we're still expected to lose out of "chivalry." We'll be called heartless and unfair (gay, small dick, hasn't been laid) if we don't. This is because the Sarasota team, and it's parents, function solely on emotion. To them, a win constitutes not being mercy ruled. And if we don't give them a 43 run advantage (female affirmative action) we're "cheating." The fact that we agreed to the 43 run advantage (female affirmative action) is, in essence, the Sarasota team admitting to their inferiority. Take that to heart.

We're using too many resources on a fucking Bush League team when we should be using them to contemplate how to ensure the peaceful, successful, and healthy progression of MANkind.

It doesn't matter how many times we tell the Sarasota team and it's parents that no matter how hard we try, we can't lose. They'll never get the fact that we're just that good.

Using logic with women is illogical for the same reasons.

Many times I've been told not to "sink down to their level" or to "take the high road." Fuck that. Women don't use logic, therefore they DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT.

You have to use emotion in order to efficiently communicate with a woman. Things like, "get lost...FATTY!" That's the only shit they'll understand. Doesn't matter how many times the All-Stars win while playing fair, we'll only win if play the same game Sarasota plays. Unfortunately, that game is the emotional one. It's like speaking Italian to someone who is fluent in Pig Latin. Not gonna work.

A relatively new member at the MABTW forums made a post that I'll partially quote here,
He said:

Gents, I am sorry.

I am apologizing for my inability to stave off the Shrew Trolls that float through posting like a dog turd in a rainstorm.

There was a time, when Necro posted more often out there, when I fought the invading Femi-Troll tide with words of wisdom, with words of philosophy, truth, and fact. (Don't forget logic and common sense)

But........I have noticed I am losing my intellectual edge. I am being ground down by the sheer.......stupidity of the Troll posts.
They post so much, they talk SO much, they are SO incredibly dense, that I have resorted to simplistic insults.

What happened? What changed? WHERE did I go wrong!
I think he, like most men, feels that "resulting to simplistic insults" is below him. It is, to an extent. But only when knowingly dealing with another man.

We can throw facts at women all day. Has that ever worked in the past? Fuck no. That would require logic.

Simplistic insults are to women as logic is to men...obviously. Use their only weapon against them. All they'll be able to do is say something like, "good one, was that to make up for your 'size' asshole?"

I'd rather have them call me childish and leave than think they're right and stay. That's logic.

Your Ad Here


  1. Man-Truth in the Land of the Blind and Blighted FemiNazi.

    It takes only a man of sharp sight, and no bullshit, of which the Chauvinisto PROVES again:

    "Give up not the fight, because it is hard, be not tainted by the ignorance of the masses, tie not thine OWN hands with the wisdom of children and females, but beat thine enemy with ALL at your disposal"

  2. Spot on.

    - Sgt. Reyes

  3. Sgt Reyes deep throats donkey cocks and swallows!

    Steve Blinkhorn is a controversial psychometric researcher and gender scholar who has been repeatedly implicated in many attempts to deliberately falsify evidence. He is widely known for maintaining a strong ideological kinship with gender feminism and the liberal Keynesian economics of the social welfare state. Blinkhorn is also a staunch advocate of the extreme social constructionism propagated by the late Harvard palaeontologist S.J. Gould, another fellow socialist academic suffering from a severe bout of left-wing infantile psychosis. It has been fully established by much of the scientific community at large that much of his research has been thoroughly discredited by all leading proponents of hereditarianism and evolutionary biology. Many of the studies that have been produced by Blinkhorn have actually been derided by many scholars as both methodologically unsound and characterized by frequent distortions of whatever available scientific evidence is on hand. To illustrate, it was widely believed by a number of British psychologists, as determined by the mechanical technique of establishing coefficients of co-variation by means of electromagneto-encephalography (EM-EEG), that brain electrical activity could be reliably associated with psychometric differences in measured intelligence; the mathematical determination of “string length”, interpreted as average evoked potential, is expressed in terms of evoked potential component amplitude, and often under the parameters of such brain wave features as latency, contour length, variability, and zero-crossings. The major premise of those investigations involved in gathering together such empirical observations is based on the null hypothesis that people of high intelligence would have more reliable brain electrical responses to stimuli generated by the outer environment. Many within the academic community argued that the string length of the average brain electrical potential demonstrated an unmistakably positive correlation with both reaction time and differential abilities in mental capacity.

    In his desperation to provide documentary evidence of a positive correlation between brain evoked potential and psychometric intelligence, Blinkhorn, as well as fellow left-wing colleague D.E. Hendrickson manufactured evidence for a 1982 study which purportedly demonstrated that such an association was an objectively quantifiable phenomenon. Most of the evidence gathered by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson was deliberately falsified, with much of the data being wilfully invented in order to further bolster claims of a direct causal relationship between average brain-evoked potentials and mental ability. The English psychologist of German extraction, Hans Eysenck, who is also celebrated as the great radical libertarian defender of hereditarianism, along with colleague P.T. Barrett, subjected much of the documentary evidence collected by Blinkhorn and Hendrickson to rigorous scientific scrutiny in two studies produced in 1992 and 1994 respectively. They failed to replicate any of Blinkhorn’s findings on string length measure of individual differences in average evoked potentials. In numerous instances, Eysenck and Barrett had actually managed to reverse the same association that had previously been established by Blinkhorn and co. Therefore, I submit that Blinkhorn is an academic charlatan; he is a pseudo-intellectual fraud who should, under no circumstances, be trusted by anyone seeking a rigorously scientific explanation of observed gender-based differences in human intelligence.

    Blinkhorn’s rather quite inane and laughable criticisms of the research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005) are easily disposed of once all of the dust has settled. The most powerful evidence in favour of the meta-analysis produced by Lynn and Irwing (2004) is the fact that it is based on 57 representative general population samples that consist of a total of 80,928 participants. Much of the available evidence for greater male mental ability in childhood clearly reveals that there is a marginal male intellectual superiority up until the onset of early adolescence. When the child reaches the fifteenth year of his physical development, his level of general intelligence increases by 5-10 IQ points; both female intellectual development and cranial capacity remains roughly static throughout the period of her adolescence beginning with the onset of her first menarche. In full confirmation of this, a study was conducted by M. Y. Quereshi and Rainer Seitz (1993) on the basis of those raw scores obtained through the administration of a comprehensive battery of psychometric tests (WPPSI, WISC-R, and the WPPSI-R) to children under the age of 6 years. On all three tests, it was shown that pre-pubescent males actually scored considerably higher than the average female. Through this avenue of psychometric testing, it was clearly demonstrated that males are significantly more intelligent than females (p < 0.05). Moreover, the fact of substantial gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence on the WISC-R in favour of male intellectual dominance was also further reinforced by the researchers Lynn, Raine, Venables, Mednick, and Irwing (2005). Boys obtained a significantly higher full scale IQ by 5.8 points; in addition, boys also obtained a higher performance IQ by 6.5 points and a higher mean verbal IQ by 1.0 points. Furthermore, it was mathematically calculated through a rigorous methodological analysis based on a series of complex statistical computations that boys possess a significant advantage on measures of Spearman’s operationalization of fluid intelligence, otherwise known as “g”. According to the fundamental statistical methodology of principal component analysis, it was determined that boys had an advantage over girls on Spearman’s g by 6.15 IQ points. The raw test scores underlying this figure are finally converted into a series of point-biserial correlations. The resulting numbers are then entered within the full matrix of subtest correlations where these are subjected to a further factor analysis. By subsequently determining the sex loading on g, one finally ends up with a positive correlation between sex and g of .224, the equivalent of 6.9 IQ points. It is this evidence which fully establishes the developmental aspect of Lynn and Irwing’s theory of female intellectual inferiority, namely that a marginal sex difference in mental capacity exists giving males the advantage until the 14th year. At the age of 15, a significant cognitive difference between males and females is manifested much more visibly; the statistical mean of male intelligence gradually increases to its adult value of anywhere between 5-10 IQ points in favour of male intellectual superiority.

    Moreover, there are further lines of converging evidence from four adult samples of gender-based differences in intelligence (n = 11,896) which confirm that men are intellectually superior to women by about as much as 10 IQ points or two-thirds of one standard deviation. The researchers Colom, Juan-Espinosa, Abad, and Garcia, on the Spanish standardization of the WAIS-III, found considerable sexual dimorphism in human intelligence on two separate studies conducted in 2000 and 2002. They mathematically calculated the male lead over the female in intelligence to be 3.6 IQ points, a finding which they have modestly described as being “negligible”. Furthermore, H. Nyborg (2005) has argued that higher level of male intelligence in general as well as the wider mean distribution directly create those conditions necessary for an “exponentially increased male-female ratio at the high end of the g distribution”. According to Nyborg, this also goes a long way towards providing an explanation for the universality of male patriarchal dominance for untold millennia. Consistent with this body of accumulated data, Canadian investigators D.N. Jackson and J.P. Rushton, in a large standardization sample (2006, where n = 102, 515), reportedly found a male advantage in mental capacity of 3.6 IQ points amongst 17 year olds.

    Additionally, Blinkhorn has foolishly criticized Lynn and Irwing for not adopting weighting by sample size, as well as excluding the Backhoff-Escudero study (1996). By resorting to such mud-slinging, Blinkhorn further manifests his complete ignorance of meta-analytic technique as a means of correcting error and bias in research findings. After submitting a number of psychometric tests to a rigorous methodological analysis, Lynn and Irwing managed to isolate a number of moderator variables that could produce differing estimates of gender-based differences in mental capacity. The two researchers found a strong amount of evidence for two such variables; variables which could possibly skew the results for any investigation into sex differences in psychometric intelligence. These were, respectively, (1) the kind of test administered and (2) the tendencies of some universities to selectively recruit brighter men or brighter women. Because of the presence of these strong moderator variables, many of the studies provided biased estimates of the sex difference in psychometric intelligence. A logarithmic graph constructed by Lynn and Irwing and organized around d-score values demonstrates that the Mexican study itself is heavily biased and helps produce a significant underestimate of gender-based differences in mental ability, ultimately making it a statistical outlier. Given the high probability of bias in this sample, to weight it by its sample size (n = 9,048) would produce a serious underestimate of the population sex difference in IQ. Therefore, the authors adopted the methodological principles of meta-analysis as laid down by R. Rosenthal (1995), and taking the median estimates, including that of E. Backhoff-Escudero, ended up with a measure in Cohen’s d, which is the difference between two group means divided by the standard deviation of either population group, expressed mathematically as d = M1 – M2 / O (the pooled standard deviation). The Cohen’s d extracted in this situation is .31; this dividend favouring males is again converted into a 4.6 IQ point difference which accurately reflects prevailing trends within the general population sex demographic itself. As determined by Messieurs Lynn and Irwing, these calculations demonstrate that there is a preponderance of evidence clearly showing that they have produced an under-estimate in gender-based differences in psychometric intelligence and definitely not the overestimate as Blinkhorn preposterously imagines.

    Interestingly enough, Blinkhorn, by employing a similar methodology, uncovers a marginal male intellectual superiority to the mentally inferior female. According to his method, by adjusting the standard deviation of 15 IQ points to 10 IQ points, and weighting the corresponding figure by sample size will inevitably produce a mean difference of 1.5 IQ points (10 x 0.15) still favouring the vastly more intellectually superior male.

    Anyone who employs the study of Ian Deary et al (2003) as a means of establishing that there are no gender differences in intelligence either has an ideological axe to grind or has simply not read the paper in its entirety. The study by Deary et al is a study of population sex differences in IQ variability pertaining to a small number of individuals living at a particular socio-historical conjuncture before the Second World War. As the authors clearly point out, its findings are absolutely not generalizable to any group of individuals living before or after the time of the study and is not even applicable to other population demographics. Deary et al says:

    The SMS1932 data apply to people whose main educational and occupational attainments occurred from just before the Second World War until retirement in the mid-1980s. Therefore, the distributions of IQ scores represent this specific cohort without necessarily generalising to prior or subsequent cohorts.

    The Deary et al study itself happens to be based on considerably antiquated data (an IQ test administered to 11-year-olds in 1932!) at a time in the 1930s and 1940s when the initial tests constructed by Sir Cyril Burt (another fraudulent charlatan like our dear Steve Blinkhorn) and Lewis M. Terman were strongly biased in favour of females. However, the original Stanford-Binet underwent a series of successive re-standardizations involving the subsequent introduction of gender-neutral items replacing those terms already biased towards both female verbal ability and emotional intelligence. From the 1950s onwards, the tests themselves have become gradually free of bias; even within the frigid atmosphere of gender neutrality enforced by the burgeoning political correctness of the twenty-first century, psychometric testing itself still clearly demonstrates a considerable degree of male intellectual superiority over the cognitive deficiencies of the inferior female.

    From what I understand, the main objective of the Deary et al study is to purportedly reveal the existence and underlying basis of whatever significant differences already exist in the standard deviations between males and females, given the fact that the male variability hypothesis had been long established by a general consensus emerging like a mist from the decadence of late Victorian times. It would seem that the basic idea of the paper is to show that boys, during their childhood development phase, tend to overpopulate the high and low extremes of cognitive ability. Because the findings only apply to gender-based differences in human cognition during childhood, the authors clearly state that their study in no way contradicts the research of Lynn and Irwing, scholars who have vigorously shown, through much of their research, that there are sex differences in innate mental capacity from mid-adolescence to early adulthood. To quote the authors verbatim:

    The SMS1932 data apply to childhood and so do not address the debates concerning sex differences in abilities in later adolescence, adulthood, and old age (Hedges & Nowell, 1995). For example, Lynn (1994, 1998) suggests that any male–female mean difference becomes more marked after age 16…

    Consistent with this line of reasoning, the authors also admit that N.J. Mackintosh (1998), an academic with strong gender feminist proclivities, agreed with Lynn (1998) that males score significantly higher than females on the Wechsler intelligence test which, even on an international level, is still one of the most commonly administered tests. Further bolstering this claim, a scientific paper produced by A.R. Jensen and C.R. Reynolds (1983) found, on the basis of results obtained from the WISC-R, that the male IQ was 103.08, with a corresponding standard deviation of 14.54; women had a somewhat lower IQ of 101.41, with a corresponding standard deviation of 13.55. Jensen, the great pioneer in understanding race-based differences in mental capacity, typically dismissed male intellectual superiority over the female as being the direct product of a somewhat marginal phenomenon. However, on a deeper level of statistical analysis, the colossal significance of such numbers can be readily seen by immediately converting them into z-scores. This is accomplished by means of the equation z = x (raw score) – mu (mean population score) / sigma (standard deviation). By plugging the numbers from Jensen’s statistical research into the equation itself, we find that there is a 55% probability that the average male is more intelligent than the average female. Alternately, there is a 45% probability that the average female is more intelligent than the average male. Ergo, men are intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female because there are more average men who happen to be much smarter than the average for mean female intelligence.

    The proportion of white to gray matter in the male and female central nervous system is largely irrelevant to those scientific facts which lucidly and abundantly demonstrate female intellectual inferiority. Consistent with the research of Haier et al (2003), it has been shown that men have bigger brains than women (d = .30-.35) and have 15% more neurons than the female brain (Packenberg and Gundersen, 1997). The presence of a significantly greater quantity of neurons within the male brain means that men can process and systemize considerably more information and at a much accelerated pace than the retrograde functioning of the primitive, lesser evolved female brain.

    Lastly, the“file drawer” effect is the belief that only those papers which prove the existence of gender-based differences in intelligence get published. Those papers that reveal little or no gender difference in mental capacity are presumably archived with little or no recognition from the academic community. This is sheer nonsense. That there is no bias operating here, especially when it comes to the published research of Lynn and Irwing (2004, 2005), is evident from the fact that even Blinkhorn himself observes, in his frequently hysterical rantings, that virtually none of the published literature focusing on Progressive Matrices deals with gender differences. The existence of a large number of studies in print, propagandizing the notion that there are null sex differences and touting the standard ideological pap of second wave feminism, simply undermines the so-called file drawer effect. The fact that 21 out of 22 population samples (with the sole exception of Backhoff-Escudero) based on IQ differences between the sexes has shown that men are more intelligent than women simply proves to a sceptical world, dominated by the false egalitarianism of an omnipresent liberal establishment, that male intellectual superiority is a universal phenomenon that must be dealt with at once.

    In short, the fact that women are both intellectually and biologically inferior to men is a fact that is fully substantiated by a tremendous amount of experimental data; it is a fact that was first recognized by Paul Broca in 1861 and subsequently confirmed by the great evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin in 1871 and 1874. Of all the major statistical analyses of gender-based differences in mental capacity produced during the present day, 21 out of 22 studies demonstrate that men exceed women in average mental capacity on all psychometric measures of g. Thus, it is impossible that any amount of radical social constructionist theory can ever undermine the fact that the average male is considerably more intelligent than the average female. The notion that males and females are roughly equivalent in mental capacity is not grounded on any firm scientific basis whatsoever. It is a falsehood propagated by generations of gender radicals who have taken the high road of Ms Wollstonecraft’s Folly; they are benighted fools, filled with all the naiveté of a child, who have become fiercely ideologically motivated by the cardinal tenets of Marxist sociological analysis and feminist rhetoric through a gradual process of media-directed brain-washing. Those who continue to propagate the lie that women are the intellectual and biological equals of men are dangerous revolutionaries who have no interest in the substance of external reality or the results of empirical observation itself. Only those people interested in reinforcing their own personal bigotry would dare say that women were the equal of men; the notion of equality between the sexes is not founded on any kind of scientific reasoning whatsoever.

    Today, men are intellectually superior to women; and far into the foreseeable future, men will always be intellectually superior to the mentally inferior female.

    We should stop believing what we wish to believe; we must break the crystal bubble by trying to see the world as it is; this is the beginning of modern conservatism.


  5. Commander Scott is a babbling moron.

  6. C'mon, they can't even do 2 things at a time.

  7. It's far better to do nothing at all than fuck up 50 tasks at once,Anon.

  8. I could not agree with you more! And your mom is the biggest idiot LOL
    am sure that you got some of her stupidity...