Category Archives: Science

Radfems and MRA’s: Two Peas in a Pod

Noting that radfems reject the strong science proving the reality of biological gender, the fact is that radfems anti-science. So like the reactionaries in that way…must be horseshoe theory again.

Radfems are some of the most extreme ideologues out there. I see absolutely zero difference between radfems and the MRA’s, PUA’s, incels, and MGTOW’s. Radfems the other side of the mirror, that’s all. Radfems hate men like MRA’s hate women. Both screech that they are constantly under attack by the other gender. They both claim that their gender suffers from horrific oppression. They both propose extreme solutions to deal with the enemy, which happens to be the other gender.

Both deny that there are any good people of the other gender. And it appears that they both hate science when it gets in the way of their precious ideology. They’re both frighteningly angry all the time, but MRA’s anger is more dangerous because male anger is more physical. They both center your entire existence and the entire universe around the notion of gender. They both claim their own gender is an oppressed class. They both refuse to make allies with the other gender.

They both claim that the other gender does not suffer or that their suffering merits no importance. Both claim the other side has it easy and is not oppressed. Many of both seek to live lives as separately from the other gender as possible. They are both wildly ideological, with lists of 100’s of positions that every one in the movement must check one, and if even one checkmark is missed, that person is declared on the side of the enemy and is thrown out of movement. Ideological diversity is nonexistent in either movement. Neither group believes in the existence of nuance.

Both groups are examples of extreme solipsism – the whole universe is about them – their own bodies, that is, their gender. Both claim to be engaged in informed searches for the truth, but they are too weighted down with dogma to do that. Both lionize some of the worst haters around. Schopenhauer is Mary Daly. Nietzsche is Julie Bindel. Elliot Rodgers is Valerie Solanis.

Misandrists and misogynists are the same thing. Both groups are forms of Identity Politics. Radfem is female IP and MRA is male IP. They hate each other, but they are both just different forms of IP and they are much more alike than different.

Most sane people reject both of movements and think they’re both insane, just at different ends of the crazy spectrum. No one likes MRA’s for good reason, and radfems are not popular either. Even normal feminism is not popular. Only 14% women say they are feminists, though equal rights is a reasonable concept. This is because though equal rights is great, most feminists are fanatics, and their views do not line up with that of the average woman because feminist views are extremist.

15 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Masculinism, Politics, Radical Feminists, Science

Gender Is Biological and Given, Not Social and Constructed

The view of radical feminism and in fact all of feminism is that gender is socially constructed. From a radical feminist or radfem website:

There is no such thing as biological gender! Seriously dude, do you even know what radfem is? From your comments here you seem to think we are a bunch of sexless, genderless, manhating, violent women.

Sex is biological. We are born either male or female (with a small percentage intersex).

Gender is a social construct with attributable stereotypical traits, behaviours and presentation.

Please educate yourself on the basics.

All you have to do is wander around the planet a bit for while with your ears and eyes open to realize that that’s not true. Recent advances in neurology indicate that there are vast differences in male and female brains in terms of the number of structures effected, which typically differ in size, shape, etc.

Look also at the experiences of transwomen,  men who became women. On female hormones, their behavior and  thinking changed radically and even their entire view of the world became radically  different.

Some transwoman’s on those hormones have reported changes in emotionality and even entire worldview. I realize radfems reject biological gender, but these reports are very interesting. One transwoman was a very masculine, almost stoical, hard-type man. On the hormones, he reported that he was wildly emotional, all over the place all the time, and frequently out of sorts via being confused by all this mercurial emotionality. And this guy was John Wayne before. I figure the pills caused the changes. And one more thing, radfems will hate this too – he said he started giggling. A lot. Not sure if I have ever seen a man giggle.

Another transwoman was on the Reddit Redpill MRA group (I know you hate them but I read everywhere). He reported that on the hormones, the world felt very frightening and confusing and he has a strong sense of weakness and wanting to be protected, specifically by a strong, powerful figure. He also become quite emotional, often for little reason. He noticed that his “cis” boyfriend pretty much ignored the emotionality and this transwoman felt that men often ignored a lot of women’s emotionality because a lot of it was not based on much and its too tiring to respond to weathervanes all day.

I know feminists don’t believe any of this stuff, but those pills are very powerful and surely hormones can have some psychological effects? Isn’t this obvious evidence that gender is biological? Give a men female hormones and his behaviors, emotions, thinking and even epistemology change dramatically in ways that remarkably resemble stereotypical female behavior. How can feminists explain this away?

.

7 Comments

Filed under Biology, Feminism, Gender Studies, Neuroscience, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Science

Why Do Many Geniuses Have a Large Forehead?

You mean people with genius IQ’s over 140? I am not sure about those with 140–160 IQ’s. Their heads are surely larger than average, but whether you would notice it or not is dubious.

But quite a few super geniuses with IQ’s of 160–200 have extremely large heads. Christopher Langan had to special order a motorcycle helmet made specifically for him because his head was so big. The manufacturer told him that only 1 out of every 3.3 million people had a head as big as his. He has some videos on Youtube. If you look closely at him, you might notice that one thing that is remarkable about him is that he does indeed have a huge head.

This is where the term “egghead” comes from. If you get a chance, look up an old photo of the team that worked at the Manhattan Project to make the nuclear bomb at White Sands, New Mexico. There are 30-40 men in that photo. Look closely at them, and you will see that most of them have pretty big heads. In particular, look at how big their foreheads are. The larger forehead on very bright men gave an egg-shaped appearance to their skulls, which gave rise to the phrase.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biology, Intelligence, Psychology, Science

Shouldn’t One’s Confidence in Their Intelligence Validate Itself, Since Intelligence Is Defined in Some Spheres as the ‘Ability to Discern Similarities & Differences?’

Answered on Quora.

Well, I am supposed to have a genius IQ, but even I cannot understand what the person asking this question is trying to say.

First of all, if critical thinking is anything, it is intelligence.

Intelligence, more than anything else, is pure brain speed. And in fact, that is exactly what an IQ test tests for.

Let us say that I have a higher IQ than someone else. Mine is 147. The other person’s is 120, almost a full two SD’s below me. For some people around this level, I seem smarter than they are, but on the other hand, they are no dummies. We can communicate very well. It’s the difference between a smart person and a really smart person, which doesn’t boil down to a whole lot in the real world.

For others at ~120, I hate to say it, but I simply cannot see how I am smarter than they are, even at a near full two SD difference. Now why this is, I am not sure, but maybe we are comparing smart with very smart, and it’s hard to see a difference there.

Nevertheless, according to an IQ test, comparing me to the 120 IQ person:

  • I have a faster brain.
  • I have a better and bigger memory. I can remember more stuff and keep it around better.
  • My memory recall is faster and more accurate. I can pull stored knowledge out of my brain faster and more correctly.
  • I have better verbal and nonverbal analytical skills. I am better at “seeing the whole picture” and “tying it all together.”
  • I can analyze a problem in terms of vocabulary and make sense out it and see patterns and connect them together better and perhaps faster.
  • I can see patterns in objects in space and connect them up more faster and more accurately.
  • I can find the answer to a new problem that I have never seen before faster and more accurately.
  • My critical thinking skills work faster and more accurately.

Bottom line is simply that I have a faster brain. My brain also utilizes glucose better and faster. In addition, my brain itself may well be larger, and I may have more cells and especially connections.

I may not be more creative, and I may well have worse musical or artistic skills. These are all subtypes of intelligence.

My kinetic intelligence may well be worse. This is “physical intelligence.” It is a real thing. The best athletes actually have “intelligent bodies.” They are better and faster at moving their bodies the way they want them to than I am.

I may have worse social intelligence. Social intelligence is a very real thing. It is definitely a type of intelligence.

I may have worse street smarts, or crafty, foxy, sly, clever, or sneaky type intelligence. This “smart like a fox” intelligence is a very real thing, and it is a type of intelligence.

I may not be as wise. In fact, I may have little or no wisdom at all, and I may live my live in a completely idiotic or para-suicidal manner. Wisdom indeed is a type of intelligence.

I may well have worse mechanical skills. Mechanical skills are absolutely a type of intelligence.

I may have poor skills at higher mathematics. IQ tests only test low level mathematics. Quite a few very high IQ people barely got through high school math and struggled with Algebra 2 and Geometry, including me.

  • An IQ test does not test for artistic, musical, or creative intelligence. Not at all.
  • An IQ test does not test for kinetic intelligence of course. You would test that on a playing field of some sort.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test social intelligence at all. You test that out in the real world with real people, and they will be the judges of your social intelligence, not you.
  • An IQ test does not test crafty, sly, or street smart intelligence. Street smart people will judge you on that on their own, and they will always be right.
  • An IQ test is absolutely not a wisdom test! So many people cannot seem to figure this out as they constantly conflate raw intelligence and wisdom. They are two different things.
  • An IQ test does not test mechanical intelligence at all.
  • An IQ test absolutely does not test for higher math skills at all.

I hope this clarifies for people exactly what an IQ test checks for and how indeed it leaves out a number sub-intelligences which may well be very important for you and society.

Leave a comment

Filed under Intelligence, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science, Sociology

Why Do So Many Successful and Wise People Believe an IQ Test Doesn’t Mean Anything?

Answered on Quora.

It’s an Americanism. Americans hate the idea of intelligence in general. Supposedly everything is down to dumb luck or especially hard work. We believe that anyone can do anything if they only try. It is part of a mindset called “boosterism.” Want to get a college degree? You can get one if you work very hard! How about a Masters? If you work even harder, you can get a Masters!

Americans simply do not wish to believe that anyone is innately more intelligent than anyone else.

Of course that is an insane idea, and it is rooted in the ferocious anti-intellectualism in American life. It’s been here from the start. Check out De Tocqueville in Democracy in America. He said the same thing in 1850. Richard Hofstadter said the same thing in a seminal book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life a century later. In between there was H. L. Mencken saying the same thing.

Our anti-intellectualism is actually quite pitiful, but we pride ourselves on it. Why we are proud of being stupid is beyond me!

So an “Americanism” has developed that success is all down to grit and hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, Horatio Algerism, etc.

You don’t need a high IQ to be successful in America. Many successful businessmen have average IQ’s. Oglivy, the most famous ad-man who ever lived, had a 93 IQ. No one could believe it, so he kept taking the tests over and over, and he kept getting the same score.

A lot of high IQ people do dumb stuff, are social clods, and ruin their lives with idiotic behavior. Here we see the confusion of IQ and wisdom. These high IQ people who do this lack wisdom. But IQ tests don’t test for wisdom at all! It’s an intelligence test, not a wisdom test, and the two things are not the same.

In addition, we all know many average IQ people who are immanently sensible and have great common sense, street smarts, and social and people skills and seem to breeze through life this way. Many average IQ people are very wise.

Other than hatred for intelligence (which is IQ-hating is all about), another reason is liberalism. Unfortunately, different races score differently on IQ tests. For instance, Whites score 15 points higher than Blacks on IQ tests. Liberals believe in equality, so this result can’t be correct. It comes up with the wrong answer.

Instead we had a huge move by liberals to say that IQ tests didn’t matter, they don’t test intelligence, they only measure test-taking schools or book smarts (which is bullshit, but everyone believes it). It was also feared that if this got out, it could increase racism against Blacks. Also, people would not want to spend money to help Blacks on social programs if it was believed they were innately dumber. If they’re born dumb, why bother educating them? Waste of money.

To an extent, the liberals are correct to worry about how this information will be used. Most White racists are strong believers in IQ tests and differential intelligence among the races, and they use this to justify their racism all the way down to saying Blacks are too stupid to live alongside Whites, so Whites need a separate country. Almost all White racists are Libertarians because they think Blacks are innately stupid, so any money spent on them is wasted.

Due to all of this, a proven scientific fact, that Whites are smarter than Blacks on average, is disparaged and said to be a vicious racist lie. Merely stating this fact is sufficient to get one pilloried as a racist. You can have your career destroyed. James Watson’s career was ruined because he stated the truth about IQ and race.

This is quite pitiful because it shows that liberals in some cases have the same hatred of science that conservatives do. When you can be called a racist and have your career destroyed for stating a proven scientific fact, you are living in a pretty pitiful and truth-hating society.

Leave a comment

Filed under American, Anti-Racism, Blacks, Civil Rights, Culture, Intelligence, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, White Racism, Whites

Can a Person Have Above Average IQ 125-135 SD=15 and Still Be a Slow Thinker?

Answered on Quora.

That would not make sense at all.

IQ more than anything else (at least fluid IQ) is a test of raw, pure, brain speed and efficiency. Studies have found that as IQ rises, the brain works more efficiently.

If you have spent time around bright people, one of the most striking things about them is how lightning fast they are. This can be seen even in conversation. Have you ever met people so fast that they almost finish your sentences for you. You get halfway through the sentence, and they are already reacting to the sentence because they have actually predicted what the rest of the sentence is! That’s pretty damn smart.

Some very bright people have fast moving eyes. If you watch them when they talk, you see their eyes flitting all around very rapidly. Sometimes there are also a lot of micromovements with their faces.

In fact, I think I can see this even comparing a 110–115 IQ person to a 95–100 IQ person (I am guessing at their IQ’s). The latter are noticeably slower, and the former are often strikingly fast. The slower people are often very nice and pleasant, but they’re just not as fast. You have to admit it.

1 Comment

Filed under Intelligence, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science

Everything You Need to Know about the False Flag Fake Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018

The Russian government sent special CW teams to the site where the “chemical weapons” attacks took place, and they found no evidence of any chemical weapons use.

Here are quotes from two doctors from the Syrian Red Crescent Society saying that they have not treated anyone in Douma for chemical weapons exposure during the course of the war.

The Syrian Red Crescent is a separate organization that is not part of aligned with the government in any way.

Here are interviews with Syrian doctors from Douma saying there was no chemical attack. Unfortunately it is in Arabic. The doctor says that an airstrike set a fire which then suffocated a number of people. In this case, those dead people really were killed by Assad or his allies. This also explains the burned or singed extremities.

They also visited the area hospital and found no one being treated for chemical weapons exposure.

In addition, there is only one hospital in Douma, a government hospital and all the doctors all work for the state and have been getting salaries all this time. It was not bombed by Assad though he supposedly bombs every hospital he can. The physicians at this hospital reported that they treated no one for symptoms of chemical weapons exposure from April 6-8.

11:31 AM Twitter time = 9:31 PM in Syria? early tweet UOSSM uses only those same clinic images, but heard at least “6 people killed and 700 suffocation cases from a reported chemical attack on Douma, Ghouta; Largest area hospital destroyed. #SaveGhouta”

OK look, they claim the largest hospital in the area got destroyed, but there’s only one hospital in Douma, the employees still get paychecks from Assad (he pays state employees in rebel areas, even under ISIS rule!), and it has never been targeted. This is a straight up lie.

I am hearing that doctors at the hospital have been interviewed and they said they were treating some people for injuries when some White Helmets people ran in the hospital with video cameras yelling that there had been a chemical attack.

Above is a video of the events above with two Syrian doctors narrating. You can see the scene on their computer screen as it was all captured on video. The people are being treated, possibly for smoke inhalation, and a man runs in and starts yelling that there was a chemical attack. A film crew then comes in. You see later patients panicking when this group tells them that they need to be hosed down due to the chemical attack. You can see these people washing down the patients with hoses.

Unfortunately it is from the Russians, but it does quote two people, Yaser Abdel Majid, a doctor at the only hospital in Douma, as saying that they treated no one with chemical weapons symptoms in recent days. In addition, ambulance driver Amed Saur said that between April 6-8 they treated no one for chemical weapons exposure, only ordinary war wounds.

The reports from WHO that the attack took place are based on health officials who are part of the rebels. The official report of the health officials is as above.

This piece says that WHO’s evidence apparently came from the White Helmets, and Medicins sans Frontiers has no one on the ground in Douma.

From the website A Closer Look at Syria:

SAMS is the fraudulent acronym for the Syrian American Medical Society, reputedly founded in the US, in 1998, as a “nonpolitical, nonprofit, medical relief organization.”

Reports on unproven allegations of a chemical attack in Douma, the Syria city formerly occupied by the Army of Islam insurgent group, invariably rely on a key source: The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS). Together with the White Helmets, SAMS has been cited by the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN and virtually every Western media organization reporting on the incident. In Douma, SAMS staff have claimed that they treated more than 500 people for symptoms “indicative of exposure to a chemical agent.”

SAMS  is the Syrian American Medial Association. It was set up in the US. It is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and is reportedly funded by USAID. USAID = CIA. It’s been a CIA asset forever.

I have no response to claims about claims by US officials of chemical weapons being found in blood and urine samples. Remember that Iraqi WMD BS also relied a lot on these anonymous US officials.

This scene appears to be staged.

From the comments on the video above:

Absurd. I’ve been working a lot with gas cylinders. No Way it can pierce a hole into the steel reinforced concrete roof and stay undamaged….It hasn’t even DENTS. Further, it penetrated the ceiling but landed softly on the bed w/o breaking it.

The canister looks well rested after breaking the roof, probably because it made its way to the bed and is having a nap.

I repeat here: the gas bomb breaks concrete ceiling and hit a bed. NOT EVEN A SCRATCH on bomb. Clear paint. Parts of the bomb, which were made of thin metal, is not even bent. They brought this bomb in the house and put it to bed. Poor-made fake.

No way! The hell cannon shell was so tired from doing all that work – breaking the reinforced concrete roof and all – it decided to take a nap 🙂 I’m surprised it didn’t use the blanket, it looks chilly

On what idiots is this video calculated? The bomb broke through the concrete roof, but the hole was left, and the wooden bed was not broken. Dust is only on top of the bomb, but not across the entire surface of the bed. Do they think we are these idiots???

Indeed, the canister has dust all over it, but there is no dust on the bed?

From Caustic Logic‘s page:

And as some discussion on Twitter helps me decide (no expert), chlorine gas does not stain things the color that it appears. The color you see is from the optics of the gas molecules in light, not from a dye it contains and can leave behind. Rather, what it touches is affected however. At least in the presence of moisture (which is common all over), it’s hit with corrosive acid. The materials get oxidized, burned, bleached, damaged, rusted, or unfazed, depending. It doesn’t turn pale yellow green like an airbrush with that color of dye in it would do. I’m pretty sure this has to be a fake scene. (credit: Orbi, Kobs, McIntyre)

Chlorine does not turn everything light green or yellow as in this pic. This photo must be faked. It looks like they sprayed some green or yellow something on the bed.

Could that be put in a chlorine tank? Easily, if one has the sarin to start with. Is that what killed people? Not that girl who can be handles with no gloves and no repercussions. Not the people who lack cyanosis, much of the SLUDGE syndrome, etc. This isn’t chlorine or sarin, but something else, likely done somewhere else.

Look at two photos of the dead bodies. Whoops! The second one has a dead baby on top! Looks like someone decided that that photo would look better with a dead baby on top of it, so they threw one on there!

Information at this link shows that the victims could not be victims of a chlorine or sarin attack, there was no sarin attack because girl is handled with no gloves, and there was no attack by sarin or chlorine either because the victims lack symptoms of poisoning by either agent.

The “chemical weapons” bomb photographed at the scene does not look like the shells that Assad for his chemical weapons arsenal. They all had a certain look and were designed to be shot out of artillery. Furthermore, that bomb appears to be unexploded and it is hard to see how any chlorine could have come out of that shell.

Look at those two photos. The “chlorine gas” stains on the bed are brown in one photo and green in another? What?

Look at that huge hole in the roof. That bomb made that huge hole in that roof and then landed on that bed. But that bed is completely intact. It would have been smashed all the way through, right?

Now look at the bomb. It’s completely intact. We cannot see any breaks in the bombs’ seals at least from this view of the bomb. Now look at the cylinder. That cylinder is closed. That is where the chemicals would have had to have come out of if this was a real chemical weapons shell. Look at that guy with the gas mask. Not only does he have a staged expression on his face but he is wearing an old Soviet era gas mask. My understanding is that these gas masks that the rebels have aren’t even functional anymore:

This is from the Khan Sheikhoun fake attack. First of all, those photos are from a rebel field hospital base five miles from where they said the attack took place! Second of all, they are not using proper gear to handle those “sarin attack victims.” They are handling them with their bare hands! If that were a real attack, you can’t do that. The people handling the victims will get poisoned by the weapon themselves.

It looks like the rebels caught onto their lousy theater and tried to remedy some of it. This video is from the same location as the previous film showing the canister on the bed. Now it’s on the floor. Why? What happened? Did it move on its own? Now look it. It looks quite damaged and part of it is even burned. So they heard that their shell looked fake, so they damaged it and burned it some or substituted another canister. Only one canister hit that building supposedly.

Assad’s forces were advancing right in the area of the attack at the time. They have no gas masks or gear. Any forces advancing into a chemical weapons hit need that gear. A Russian TV video with a Russian reporter embedded with the Syrian Army. They were interviewing soldiers who said they were advancing into the area at the time of fake attack and you can’t use chemical weapons when your own army is advancing unless they have gas masks, etc. Maybe someone else can find it.

There is no way that a chlorine bomb hit killed 80 people and wounded no one. Chlorine is not even very lethal. I remember Al Qaeda used to use chlorine shells in Anbar during the Iraq War. Typically they would get 5 killed and 1,000 injured, something like that. It was always a figure like that.The stuff hurts you but it generally does not kill you, and you get rapidly better. It is more of a nuisance weapon than anything else.

“Backing the Ghouta Media Centre’s claims, SAMS alleged that a second attack with “mixed agents”, including nerve agents, had hit a nearby building.”

(note: it’s mixing sarin and chlorine in one weapon that would not work. This is what they allege killed many).

Because if they were allegedly used together in one weapon or one attack, the sarin part would largely be cancelled out by the chlorine, depending how well they mixed.

There are claims that sarin and chlorine was mixed in a bomb. However, if you do that, you chlorine cancels out the sarin and makes it not work, so there’s no point in adding sarin to a chlorine bomb as it works as well as a pure chlorine bomb. It’s a waste of sarin.

This link shows that chlorine gas not toxic enough to explain death toll.

Even a nerve agent attack less toxic than mustard still has only 2-3% kill rate. And it is so subject to varying wind and weather conditions for proper drift that it is best used just before dawn. Also when they are finding any sarin at all as in Ghouta 2013 and Khan Sheikoun 2017, the doses are very low. In Ghouta some had sarin in their blood, but the levels were too low to cause harm. In Khan Sheikhoun, very low levels of sarin were found in the area but not in any humans.

I believe the rebels released their bathtub sarin in both cases. The MI6 determined that the sarin used in 2013 was the bathtub sarin that the rebels had been making, and they said it did not match samples of Syrian government sarin that they had. This was relayed to the CIA, who informed Obama. This is the real reason the 2013 attack was called off – the CIA told Obama that Assad didn’t do it. The CIA did not assign blame to anyone – they simply said that Assad did not do it. See Seymour Hersh’s recent article which had to be published in Germany because not even the London Review of Books would dare publish his findings.

1 Comment

Filed under Democrats, Eurasia, Geopolitics, Government, Health, Journalism, Medicine, Middle East, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Russia, Science, Syria, US Politics, USA

Psychosis Is Bad for Your Brain

The problem of psychosis is not only the devastating social and societal effects it has on individuals and their effects on society. New research suggests that going psychotic is bad for your body itself.

These active psychotic processes seem to cause actual damage to the brain – consequently the negative symptoms seen later which may be a manifestation of that. In acute psychosis, you often get excess dopamine flooding out of dopamine neurons – in fact, L-Dopa, a dopamine drug given to Parkinson’s Disease characterized by dying dopamine neurons has the side effect of acute psychosis. It is thought that the excess dopamine flooding out of these neurons may damage these neurons or the connections.

Damaged dopamine neurons could cause the flattened affect, boredom and “staring at  your shoe for 10 hours” negative symptoms that occur later in the illness as some of these same symptoms are characteristic of Parkinson’s. Any major flooding you get out of neurons might damage the neuron. MDMA causes massive outflows of serotonin and it definitely damages serotonin neurons or more precisely the connections between them. The connections are damaged and become shorter and frayed. They do grow back but they typically don’t grow back to their full length and breadth. You get massive outflows of dopamine with methamphetamine also, and increasing evidence shows that this drug can also damage the brain, once again more the connections (dendrites) rather than the cells themselves.

You hear over and over how drugs kill brain cells but they don’t usually do that. It is more common that they damage the connections or they make it so a certain receptor on a particular type of cell does not work quite as well. Your brain cells are dying off all the time anyway, as they peak at age 23 and then drop off every year until death (this is why musical and mathematics prodigies peak very early in life – music and math benefit by high fluid intelligence or sheer brain speed.

Bottom line is being psychotic is bad for your brain. That’s as good a reason as any to get a handle on any active psychotic process.

Leave a comment

Filed under Amphetamine Psychedelics, Hallucinogens, Health, Illness, Intelligence, Intoxicants, MDMA, Mental Illness, Neuroscience, Psychology, Psychopathology, Psychotic Disorders, Science, Social Problems, Sociology, Speed, Stimulants

From Alchemy to Chemistry, with Rainbows

The name Chemistry is said to be derived from the Arabic word Kimia, something hidden or concealed, and from this to have been converted into Xyueia*, a word first used by the Greeks about the eleventh century and meaning the art of making gold and silver. Between the fifth century and the taking of Constantinople in the fifteenth century, says Dr. Thomson, in his History of Chemistry, the Greeks believed in the possibility of making gold and silver artificially; and the art which professed to teach the processes was called by them Chemistry. This idea, however, has long since been thoroughly discarded, and is now no longer heard of.

Revered Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, Introduction to Chemical Physics, 1881

My what a fine bit of trivia/pedantry I found here. The famous modern author, Thomas Pynchon, also has the name Thomas Ruggles Pynchon, but he is Thomas Ruggles Pynchon 5th to be precise. The 19th Century Thomas Ruggles Pynchon became president of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he taught chemistry and math.

We see here that the root of the word chemistry derives from alchemy, the process by which men for centuries tried to create gold and silver out of other metals via chemical means. The chemical process by which the alchemy was done was then called chemistry.  The original root is Arabic Kimia, hidden or concealed, as it was thought that the gold or silver was hidden somehow in ordinary metals and could be brought to the surface via chemical transformation.

When you open a copy of Introduction to Chemical Physics, the first thing you see, before the text even begins, are rainbows created via a chemical spectrometer.

rainbows

An illustration of rainbows in Principles of Chemical Physics, which appears before the text even starts.

When a material is heated to incandescence, it emits light that is characteristic of the atomic makeup of the material. Particular light frequencies give rise to sharply defined bands on the scale which can be thought of as fingerprints. For example, the element sodium has a very characteristic double yellow band known as the Sodium D-lines at 588.9950 and 589.5924 nanometers, the color of which will be familiar to anyone who has seen a low pressure sodium vapor lamp.

His descendant, the author Thomas Pynchon, is the author of one of the greatest works of modern English literature, Gravity’s Rainbow* (1973). Hence the descendant is foreshadowed by the ancestor, a man perhaps born a century too soon. And there is indeed a lot of science in Gravity’s Rainbow, much of which concerns the commercial applications of chemistry. So here the descendant offers a flashback to the ancestor and takes reverent bow at his gravestone.

* You know,  if you haven’t read it yet, you really need to read this book if you are into literature at all. It’s not easy reading at all. It’s on a par with James Joyce’s Ulysses and Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, and in fact, all three would be a good choice for the best English novels written since 1850. Don’t worry if you don’t understand what’s going on. Believe it or not, it doesn’t even matter if you understand what’s happening. It’s a magical mystery tour all the same. Just buckle your seatbelt, open the pages and sit back for the ride.

2 Comments

Filed under Arabic, English language, Linguistics, Literature, Novel, Science

Etiologies and Possibilities of Change in Male and Female Sexual Orientation

Huho: I’m surprised that the myth that you can turn gay exists post 1945.

Maybe it’s not a myth? Depends how you define being gay. There are heterosexual men by orientation who have chosen a gay lifestyle because they were terribly rejected by women or straight society. Apparently men don’t turn them on at all, but they go gay because women reject them and they want to have a sex life. Are these men gay? Are they straight? What are they? What determines orientation, attraction or behavior.

We only know that male sexual orientation is fixed at age 15. I report this a lot, but no one else does, and sites linking in to my articles about this often express disbelief and shock.

A large percentage of the  Cultural Right continues to insist that all gay people have chosen a gay lifestyle. The therapists around Saccarides and NARTH have always promoted a line that males apparently turn gay somehow or other in boyhood due to poor father identification.

They also insist that gay men can change their sexual orientation with their fraudulent therapy, yet science has now abundantly proven that all studies attempting to turn gay men straight or even bi for that matter, have failed. I remember one article I read that listed ~80 publications documenting the inability to change gay men.

If gay men can’t move at all, straight and bi men may not move either. And indeed the latest science that by age 15, males cannot even be moved around in their orientation – you can’t change a 10-90 gay man to a 20-80 gay man.

Heterosexual orientation cannot be increased in the lab and homosexual orientation cannot be increased. This goes for even the sexual orientation continuum, where they can’t even move a bit on the continuum.

They have not yet documented that straight men cannot be turned gay. We don’t know if heterosexual orientation can be decreased or if homosexual orientation can be increased because no straight man ever shows up in the lab wanting to turn gay.

There is however one tantalizing case in the literature of a straight college man who wanted desperately to turn gay who had tried for several years with no success. He hated women and  spent most of his time with gay men, but he couldn’t move his orientation. He had been trying and failing for several years when he showed up for therapy.

Straight men who go gay in prison nearly always revert right back to heterosexuality when they walk out that gate.

As I said though, if it works one way it has to work the other, otherwise you have to postulate heterosexual orientation as some weird weak force that can always be decreased and and never increased and homosexual orientation as some strange virulent virus that can always be increased but never decreased. That hypothesis fails even before testing, as it doesn’t make sense.

There wasn’t much evidence until recently that male sexual orientation is immutable past age 15 and that sexual orientation may even be fixed or rooted before then. This whole “born gay” business has not been going on very long. How long? 20 years? 30 years?

Homosexuals still insist that “sexuality is fluid,” while insanely saying that “gays are born gay.” They want it so all of them are born gay and can’t change, and all straight people can turn bi or something anytime they want. Clever, right? Gay sites still react with rage and fury when I say that male sexual orientation is fixed at age 15. Then start jumping up and down and yelling that straight men can turn bisexual at any age. Obviously the ideal situation for them is them all being stuck gay forever and us all being able to go halfway anytime we want. It’s so obviously self-serving that it is disgusting.

Gay politics is so insane that you could nearly diagnosis a Delusional Disorder for the whole movement in the DSM. Almost every single notion that they promote is a flat out lie.

A lot of women absolutely turn bisexual. Female sexual orientation is not immutable as men’s is.

I still get a lot of flak from SJW’s  who insist that male and female sexuality is fluid and people can move all over the place all through life on whatever whim of the moment they have, and this is wonderful because “no one cares” who’s gay and who’s not, so I guess if 50% of society turns gay, this is the greatest thing since Kleenex? Many pro-gay people continue to write “sexuality is fluid” at the same time they write “nobody chooses their sexual orientation” and “all gays are born gay.” In fact, these three contradictory notions are part of any Cultural Left discourses on sexual orientation.

There seems to be evidence that women’s attractions and even orientation can move around, and a fair amount of women move around through life. A lot of straight women turn lesbian, and quite a few lesbians turn straight. Straight women turn bi all the time. Teenage girls nowadays go through phases where they are straight, bi, lesbian, asexual, pansexual, etc. shifting between any one of these things to any of the  others all the time. A blob of mercury is easier to pin down.

Female sexual orientation is very poorly understood and a lot of lesbians seem to be lesbians of choice.

Current theories of how women arrive at a lesbian sexual orientation are irrational and even fail the smell test.

For instance, I like to go to porn movie sites. You know what they are. Pornhub, Xhamster, Xmovies. The videos are nice but I especially like to read the comments.  They’re almost better than the videos, which I often skip through and miss most of the video, only watching parts.

I have seen many cases of women cheering wildly for the dirtiest straight porn you could possibly imagine. Gangbangs, blowbangs, bukkakes, etc. with one woman and 26 guys, stuff like that. These videos show women engaging in the most perverse acts of wild heterosexuality with zero lesbianism. Face it, a woman doing that has a heterosexual orientation that is as strong as it can get. Attraction to men doesn’t get any stronger than that.

I followed a lot of these accounts back, and in many cases, these women cheering wildly for some gangbang with 10 guys are lesbians! Now this makes no sense to me. Lesbians, if the definition makes sense, are turned on by women and lesbian sex but not turned on by men and heterosexual sex. So it looks like a lot of lesbians are very much turned on by men and women engaging in wild straight sex with men, yet nevertheless insist that they are lez.

This makes no sense, and it implies that the decision to go lez is not based on what women are attracted to or turns them on. It’s probably more likely rooted in fear and hatred of men, and just coincidentally, vast numbers of “born that way” lesbians for some odd reason also have virulent hatred of phobic behavior towards men. Apparently they were born with a vicious hatred and terrifying fear of men! What sort of sense does that make?

The only thing that makes sense is that a lot of lesbians have tried men and had a lot of bad experiences with them, so they started hating and fearing men while going lez.
I’m sorry. If you are highly aroused by men and women having sex with men, how can you possibly be a lesbian? Someone lay this out for me.

Further, we have scientifically documented sexual orientation change of some lesbians in the lab. Some lesbians, predictably, are that way due to fear of men (documented by science). If they are motivated to change, these women can be changed by sex therapists who work with them to get rid of their fear of men. I have no idea what happens to the attraction to women. Gay sites go completely crazy, screaming and yelling, whenever I say that because it interferes with their “lesbians are born that way” lie.

3 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Political Science, Politics, Pornography, Psychology, Science, Sex, Women