/r9k/ - Images
Robots and mothers
/r9k/
Robots and mothers
/r9k/
>claims to be robot >not raised by single mother
![Chetty 2015 county-level: p25 mobility by loess/black-model prediction grouped by deciles of county percent single mother single_mother decile [0.0634,0.132] Tew single moms (0.132.0.15] (0.15,0.163] The lower economic mobility (aka staying poor) of blacks can be explained by the higher rate of single motherhood among blacks. -(0.163,0.175] (0.175.0.186) (0.186,0.2] CS { ー(02.0215] (0.215,0.239) (0.239,0.28] % blacks 8 -(0.28.0.544] many single moms "My analysis of the full set of observations at the commut ing zone-level and at the county-level suggest that percent single-mothers is tially stronger n percent black d predictor tha (or any of the other covariates found). Once we crudely control for single-motherhood the association between percent black and mobility is vastly reduced.. It ought to be pretty clear by now sin- gle-motherhood is capturing something quite powerful and that, contrary to Cohen's strong assertions, it is not well explained by race. If anything, single-motherhood mediates the black associa- tion much better than the reverse." * Children of single mothers stay poor.. e regardless of their race Franklin D. Madoff, Random Critical Analysis Blog loess black pred SINGLE MOTHERS DESTROYERS OF HOPE](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/162/284/ab5.jpg)
![Chetty 2015 county-level: p25 mobility by loess/black-model prediction grouped by deciles of county percent single mother single_mother decile [0.0634,0.132] Tew single moms (0.132.0.15] (0.15,0.163] The lower economic mobility (aka staying poor) of blacks can be explained by the higher rate of single motherhood among blacks. -(0.163,0.175] (0.175.0.186) (0.186,0.2] CS { ー(02.0215] (0.215,0.239) (0.239,0.28] % blacks 8 -(0.28.0.544] many single moms "My analysis of the full set of observations at the commut ing zone-level and at the county-level suggest that percent single-mothers is tially stronger n percent black d predictor tha (or any of the other covariates found). Once we crudely control for single-motherhood the association between percent black and mobility is vastly reduced.. It ought to be pretty clear by now sin- gle-motherhood is capturing something quite powerful and that, contrary to Cohen's strong assertions, it is not well explained by race. If anything, single-motherhood mediates the black associa- tion much better than the reverse." * Children of single mothers stay poor.. e regardless of their race Franklin D. Madoff, Random Critical Analysis Blog loess black pred SINGLE MOTHERS DESTROYERS OF HOPE](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/162/284/ab5.jpg)
/r9k/
Watching nature unfold
/r9k/
Oh my, going personal again?
/r9k/
Seems familiar
/r9k/
general /r9k/ redpill
![My brlant plarn how Mers Rights Activists will succeed I have a brilliant plan how we will win the war against feminism! We have to... be calm, polite and politically correct (just like feminists want us to) emphasize that women's rights are very important (just like every good feminist does) confirm that equality is very good (just like every good feminist claims, too) adeciust like every good feminist misogynists" or "hate group never use curse words (so that feminists don't get upset and label us "misogynists" or "hate group") never bring up the negative effects of women's suffrage (just like feminists never do) Sure, feminism is spreading worldwide and feminists achieve goal after goal by being aggressive, insulting, lying, fact-ignoring and hysterical, but we should follow the opposite strategy, we should be balanced, reasonable and cooperative True, radical feminism has now reached the highest levels of government, academia, judiciary and media both nationally and internationally, but we should rather write blog articles featuring yet more "well-founded arguments" against feminist demands/claims/stupidities than analyze the underlying mechanisms by which government, business and society become feminist and misandrist Last not least, we should call anyone who criticizes my plan "an agent provocateur" or "feminist shill". THAT'S HOW WE'LL WIN! P.S. Yes, this strategy hasn't worked for 100 years but l am sure it will soon. The first MRA group was founded 1926 ("Federation for Men's Rights") and had goals like 'equal rights for men, fairer laws' and 'more rights for fathers regarding paternity tests. Sounds familiar? These MRAs complained about how authorities side in favor of women, for example in situations like domestic quarrels. And how too many men sit in prison cells just because of mere accusations by women. Sounds familiar? They criticized that the government creates divorce incentives and thereby erodes marriage and family. Sounds familiar? They complained that women invent sexual accusations to win their divorce court cases. Sounds familiar? A British men's rights organization noted that "in the United States []woman-worship is a mania" (original quote fronm 刎 1927). Sounds familiar? Even the issue of what we now call MGTOW (men going their own way") was raised as it was feared that more and more men will abstain from marriage since women's character had been ruined by feminism. Sounds familiar? At the same time MRAs were emphasizing that they were not anti-women, just "anti-ultra-feminism" and against modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties" and who "want all the power of govemment without the responsibility men have to face" (original quotes from 1927) Sounds familiar? They denounced "the inability of a man to get a square deal in court", "gold-diggers", "money-hungry wives", "ruined homes", "children held as hostages to extract the last cent from worried fathers", "the rise of the shyster lawyer, the creation of a new class of parasites" and that "it is suicide for a man to marry" and that "a woman cannot lose in court" (all original quotes from the 1920s). Sounds familiar? MRAs repeat the same statements since the 1920s. Let me rephrase: MRAs hold probably the world record for being the most unsuccessful bunch of guys EVER. They repeat and do the same stuff over and over again.. since the Twenties of the last Century .since the lwenties of tne last Century .and already in the 1920s anti-feminists remarked that the problems had begun decades ago. MRAs failed to achieve anything in the last 100 years. Instead it all got worse year after year, while feminists got all their wishes fulfilled, most of them without even sweating, from harsher divorce laws to anti-men quotas in parliaments. And why have been MRAs losing for decades? Because they are stupid by assuming that they can win against feminists by repeating what feminists say. Or what feminists want them to say. that they can fight feminists with "better arguments when feminists even win with bad arguments or even with scientifically disproved nonsense. that they can fight the al complex" (divorce lawyers, anti-discrimination bureaus, women's programs, gender studies and so on) without a critical mass of upset men. . that they can win against feminists by fighting for equal rights when in most cases the problem is not a lack of equal rights but a reinterpretation and skewing of rights and duties by White Knight judges and politicians. (and many other stupidities) But most importantly: MRAs have been falling for 100 years because they notoriously ignore the main source offeminism: Womern. age.everyday.women. The female collective. The artificial distinction between "good women" and "bad feminists" is the biggest mistake made by MRAs. Most women support most feminist ideas, from custody laws to expansion of welfare for women. But since women usually don't participate in political discussions, the feminist/privilege-loving nature of women remains u MRAs to this very day Don't trust worthless affirmations like "I'm not a feminist" or "I, too, don't like these crazy feminists". Don't even trust your own judgment like "She's an intelligent woman, she would never support feminism". Instead check election stats and check polls that ask specific questions like "Should the government strengthen the rights of divorced women?" or that ask women to rank political issues by priority. Whatever women say and however they refuse to be labeled 'feminist, when election day comes you can be very sure that the majority of women will vote for the political party that l which fools eads to more feminism and more burden on men. That's why feminism infects everything so easily. And that's why it survived world wars and currency collapses without a scratch. And that's why it femastasizes every layer of society. And that's why it stays endemic. And that's why nearly every area with a high influx of women automatically becomes feminist. It's because feminism is ingrained in the nature of women. Even across party lines women form a "Whine Syndicate" with its 1st rule "When in doubt, support feminism". As long as MRAs ignore the depth and the age of the problem, they will lose for another century.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/162/275/983.jpg)
![My brlant plarn how Mers Rights Activists will succeed I have a brilliant plan how we will win the war against feminism! We have to... be calm, polite and politically correct (just like feminists want us to) emphasize that women's rights are very important (just like every good feminist does) confirm that equality is very good (just like every good feminist claims, too) adeciust like every good feminist misogynists" or "hate group never use curse words (so that feminists don't get upset and label us "misogynists" or "hate group") never bring up the negative effects of women's suffrage (just like feminists never do) Sure, feminism is spreading worldwide and feminists achieve goal after goal by being aggressive, insulting, lying, fact-ignoring and hysterical, but we should follow the opposite strategy, we should be balanced, reasonable and cooperative True, radical feminism has now reached the highest levels of government, academia, judiciary and media both nationally and internationally, but we should rather write blog articles featuring yet more "well-founded arguments" against feminist demands/claims/stupidities than analyze the underlying mechanisms by which government, business and society become feminist and misandrist Last not least, we should call anyone who criticizes my plan "an agent provocateur" or "feminist shill". THAT'S HOW WE'LL WIN! P.S. Yes, this strategy hasn't worked for 100 years but l am sure it will soon. The first MRA group was founded 1926 ("Federation for Men's Rights") and had goals like 'equal rights for men, fairer laws' and 'more rights for fathers regarding paternity tests. Sounds familiar? These MRAs complained about how authorities side in favor of women, for example in situations like domestic quarrels. And how too many men sit in prison cells just because of mere accusations by women. Sounds familiar? They criticized that the government creates divorce incentives and thereby erodes marriage and family. Sounds familiar? They complained that women invent sexual accusations to win their divorce court cases. Sounds familiar? A British men's rights organization noted that "in the United States []woman-worship is a mania" (original quote fronm 刎 1927). Sounds familiar? Even the issue of what we now call MGTOW (men going their own way") was raised as it was feared that more and more men will abstain from marriage since women's character had been ruined by feminism. Sounds familiar? At the same time MRAs were emphasizing that they were not anti-women, just "anti-ultra-feminism" and against modern women, who demand all rights and refuse all duties" and who "want all the power of govemment without the responsibility men have to face" (original quotes from 1927) Sounds familiar? They denounced "the inability of a man to get a square deal in court", "gold-diggers", "money-hungry wives", "ruined homes", "children held as hostages to extract the last cent from worried fathers", "the rise of the shyster lawyer, the creation of a new class of parasites" and that "it is suicide for a man to marry" and that "a woman cannot lose in court" (all original quotes from the 1920s). Sounds familiar? MRAs repeat the same statements since the 1920s. Let me rephrase: MRAs hold probably the world record for being the most unsuccessful bunch of guys EVER. They repeat and do the same stuff over and over again.. since the Twenties of the last Century .since the lwenties of tne last Century .and already in the 1920s anti-feminists remarked that the problems had begun decades ago. MRAs failed to achieve anything in the last 100 years. Instead it all got worse year after year, while feminists got all their wishes fulfilled, most of them without even sweating, from harsher divorce laws to anti-men quotas in parliaments. And why have been MRAs losing for decades? Because they are stupid by assuming that they can win against feminists by repeating what feminists say. Or what feminists want them to say. that they can fight feminists with "better arguments when feminists even win with bad arguments or even with scientifically disproved nonsense. that they can fight the al complex" (divorce lawyers, anti-discrimination bureaus, women's programs, gender studies and so on) without a critical mass of upset men. . that they can win against feminists by fighting for equal rights when in most cases the problem is not a lack of equal rights but a reinterpretation and skewing of rights and duties by White Knight judges and politicians. (and many other stupidities) But most importantly: MRAs have been falling for 100 years because they notoriously ignore the main source offeminism: Womern. age.everyday.women. The female collective. The artificial distinction between "good women" and "bad feminists" is the biggest mistake made by MRAs. Most women support most feminist ideas, from custody laws to expansion of welfare for women. But since women usually don't participate in political discussions, the feminist/privilege-loving nature of women remains u MRAs to this very day Don't trust worthless affirmations like "I'm not a feminist" or "I, too, don't like these crazy feminists". Don't even trust your own judgment like "She's an intelligent woman, she would never support feminism". Instead check election stats and check polls that ask specific questions like "Should the government strengthen the rights of divorced women?" or that ask women to rank political issues by priority. Whatever women say and however they refuse to be labeled 'feminist, when election day comes you can be very sure that the majority of women will vote for the political party that l which fools eads to more feminism and more burden on men. That's why feminism infects everything so easily. And that's why it survived world wars and currency collapses without a scratch. And that's why it femastasizes every layer of society. And that's why it stays endemic. And that's why nearly every area with a high influx of women automatically becomes feminist. It's because feminism is ingrained in the nature of women. Even across party lines women form a "Whine Syndicate" with its 1st rule "When in doubt, support feminism". As long as MRAs ignore the depth and the age of the problem, they will lose for another century.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/162/275/983.jpg)
/r9k/
/r9k/ - genetics
/r9k/
It's hard to swallow if you can't into logic
!["Findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group's importance to her. In contrast, men's ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e. attached to the group identity)." For women, group importance is mainly determined by the degree to which the group fulfills relational needs [personal friendships], while men place a greater importance on the collective identity that groups offer." "only men were willing to sacrifice for their group "men place a greater importance on group memberships and large collectives." "women prefer talking about relationships, while men prefer discussing less personal topics such as politics'" "women appeared to be only relationally focused, showing very low levels of collective attachment, whereas men were both relationally and collectively focused" "Whereas women's unprompted definition of 'commitment' focused on being 'people-concerned and 'available', more males (and top managers) defined commitment as being task-oriented proactive, innovative, adding value, and being ready for challenge. This evidence is suggestive of sex differences in relational and collective attachments to organizations, and may at least lead to perceptions of women's lesser commitment to companies." "Women were significantly more likely to trust an outgroup member who shared a potential crossgroup relationship connection .] In fact, for women, there was no significant difference in trust toward the ingroup member and the potential relationship target. [.] Men trusted ingroup members significantly more than outgroup members regardless of cross-group relationship connections." Loyalty, patriotism, heritage? What are these strange meaningless words? Gratitude for the society men built? Lol, l'd rather eat broken glass Sacrifice to help the group, tribe, nation? Hahahaha, in your dreams. Long-term consequences? But think about the kids! They're crying!! Importing millions of foreigners? Spreading my legs for invaders? Yes, Yes、YESSS!! Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust (Maddux, Brewer) Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups (Seeley, Gardner, Pennington, Gabriel)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/162/270/68b.jpg)
!["Findings showed that the extent to which a woman was relationally attached (i.e. felt close to the other members of her group) was sufficient to explain the group's importance to her. In contrast, men's ratings of group importance depended upon the extent of both relational and collective attachment (i.e. attached to the group identity)." For women, group importance is mainly determined by the degree to which the group fulfills relational needs [personal friendships], while men place a greater importance on the collective identity that groups offer." "only men were willing to sacrifice for their group "men place a greater importance on group memberships and large collectives." "women prefer talking about relationships, while men prefer discussing less personal topics such as politics'" "women appeared to be only relationally focused, showing very low levels of collective attachment, whereas men were both relationally and collectively focused" "Whereas women's unprompted definition of 'commitment' focused on being 'people-concerned and 'available', more males (and top managers) defined commitment as being task-oriented proactive, innovative, adding value, and being ready for challenge. This evidence is suggestive of sex differences in relational and collective attachments to organizations, and may at least lead to perceptions of women's lesser commitment to companies." "Women were significantly more likely to trust an outgroup member who shared a potential crossgroup relationship connection .] In fact, for women, there was no significant difference in trust toward the ingroup member and the potential relationship target. [.] Men trusted ingroup members significantly more than outgroup members regardless of cross-group relationship connections." Loyalty, patriotism, heritage? What are these strange meaningless words? Gratitude for the society men built? Lol, l'd rather eat broken glass Sacrifice to help the group, tribe, nation? Hahahaha, in your dreams. Long-term consequences? But think about the kids! They're crying!! Importing millions of foreigners? Spreading my legs for invaders? Yes, Yes、YESSS!! Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust (Maddux, Brewer) Circle of Friends or Members of a Group? Sex Differences in Relational and Collective Attachment to Groups (Seeley, Gardner, Pennington, Gabriel)](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/162/270/68b.jpg)
/r9k/
Robot's jesus
/r9k/
we are all equal
![A meta-analysis1 of 57 studies? of sex differences in general population samples showed that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 5 IQ points. The scientists wrote: "[From] 15 years onwards [.] males consistently obtain higher means than females and all of these differences are statistically significant" and "The advantage of boys begins to appear at the age of 14 and increases in size among adults. A graphical representation of the meta-analysis: Adult lQ Distribution in the Raven Progressive Matrices Female Male 2x more mentally retarded females than males 2x more males than females at IQ 130 approx. 15x more males than females a 145+ -4 .3 -2 -1 2 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 36 52 68 84 100 116 132 148 164 0.003 0.135 2.275 15.866 50.000 84.134 97.725 99.865 99.997 STANDARD DEVIATIONS WECHSLER I STANFORD-BINET I CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE A meta-analysis of 15 studiest of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5-11 years boys have an advantage of 3.2 IQ points. Paul Cooijmans5 writes "In the high range, my own observation to date is that at or above the 98th percentile [Top 2%, IQ 130-1 there are about twice more males than females, while at or above the 99.9th percentile [Top 0.1%, IQ 145+] there are about 15 times more males." A survey' of 1142 women found that 37% were willing to swap their IQ in order to be their ideal dress size. And 41% would rather have bigger breasts than a high IQ "Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis" by Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing, University of Ulster University of Manchester 257 studies, 31 countries, 195 tests,80928 participants. 15 studies, 11 countries, 42 tests, 60168 participants Founder of six I.Q, societies,administrator of "The Glia Society" and "The Giga Society",constructor of high-range mental tests creator of the world's hardest I.Q, test MyVoucherCodes (UK) survey, 1142 women aged 18-25, conducted during National Eating Disorder Week B-But all my female primaryschool teachers told me that women' are as intelligent as men. Now l am confused. Does that mean lcan't become the most cutest brain'surgeon anymore?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/001/162/266/a5b.jpg)
![A meta-analysis1 of 57 studies? of sex differences in general population samples showed that males obtain higher means from the age of 15 through to old age. Among adults, the male advantage is 5 IQ points. The scientists wrote: "[From] 15 years onwards [.] males consistently obtain higher means than females and all of these differences are statistically significant" and "The advantage of boys begins to appear at the age of 14 and increases in size among adults. A graphical representation of the meta-analysis: Adult lQ Distribution in the Raven Progressive Matrices Female Male 2x more mentally retarded females than males 2x more males than females at IQ 130 approx. 15x more males than females a 145+ -4 .3 -2 -1 2 40 55 70 85 100 115 130 145 160 36 52 68 84 100 116 132 148 164 0.003 0.135 2.275 15.866 50.000 84.134 97.725 99.865 99.997 STANDARD DEVIATIONS WECHSLER I STANFORD-BINET I CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE A meta-analysis of 15 studiest of child samples on the Colored Progressive Matrices showed that among children aged 5-11 years boys have an advantage of 3.2 IQ points. Paul Cooijmans5 writes "In the high range, my own observation to date is that at or above the 98th percentile [Top 2%, IQ 130-1 there are about twice more males than females, while at or above the 99.9th percentile [Top 0.1%, IQ 145+] there are about 15 times more males." A survey' of 1142 women found that 37% were willing to swap their IQ in order to be their ideal dress size. And 41% would rather have bigger breasts than a high IQ "Sex differences on the progressive matrices: A meta-analysis" by Richard Lynn and Paul Irwing, University of Ulster University of Manchester 257 studies, 31 countries, 195 tests,80928 participants. 15 studies, 11 countries, 42 tests, 60168 participants Founder of six I.Q, societies,administrator of "The Glia Society" and "The Giga Society",constructor of high-range mental tests creator of the world's hardest I.Q, test MyVoucherCodes (UK) survey, 1142 women aged 18-25, conducted during National Eating Disorder Week B-But all my female primaryschool teachers told me that women' are as intelligent as men. Now l am confused. Does that mean lcan't become the most cutest brain'surgeon anymore?](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/162/266/a5b.jpg)
/r9k/
we are all equal
/r9k/
we are all equal
/r9k/
we are all equal
/r9k/
we are all equal
/r9k/
roasties on /r9k/
/r9k/
