Sunday, August 28, 2016

Diversity indoctrination fail

The negative impact of mandatory diversity training:
According to a recent study published in the Harvard Business Review, mandatory diversity training programs in corporations not only fail to achieve their goals, they also have a negative impact on the hiring of females and underrepresented racial and ethnic groups.

After studying more than 800 companies across the country, Harvard sociologist Frank Dobin and Tel Aviv professor Alexandra Kalev found that companies made no gains in the proportion of white women, black men, or Hispanics in management and that the proportion of African American women and Asian American employees actually declined five years after the implementation of mandatory diversity training programs.

“We were quite surprised at first, because some of the most popular and costly programs — mandatory diversity training for instance — tend to backfire and this is what the quantitative data show,” Dobin wrote in an email to The College Fix.

“But when we began to interview managers to understand why popular programs don’t work, it began to make sense. Social scientists have long known that if you try to control people’s thoughts and behavior, they rebel. That’s what we find — programs designed to reeducate managers or stop them from discriminating directly tend to backfire,” Dobin noted.
I don't think it's merely people mulishly digging in their heels and being resentful of being lectured about how horrible they are. I suspect that if you are an annoying person constantly telling people that everyone else thinks women and minorities make inferior employees, they are going to weigh that evidence versus that of the clueless person hectoring them who claims otherwise, and then they are quite reasonably going to reach the conclusion that those people must be right, since you're observably an idiot.

Saturday, August 27, 2016

If she's a little TOO eager

It's probably because there is something very wrong:
If she’s acting desperate, it’s because there is something about her that’s broken. If you aren’t escalating and she already wants sex, it’s a cloak and dagger. Even if you don’t see anything, you aren’t safe. Herpes and other diseases often can’t be seen, but can still be caught. Condoms can protect you, but the risk still exceeds the reward. There are seven billion people on earth. You can find one that isn’t afflicted with a lifelong condition. She wants you to become what she is. That way it cuts your options down from everything, to almost nothing. That almost nothing of course includes her.
Pay attention to red flags. And above all, pay attention to your instincts. If something is telling you to eject, don't hesitate. Get out, and get out fast. You can figure out why later.

Friday, August 26, 2016

Burn the coal

Well, you know the rest.
When Louise Chesney’s besotted fiancĂ© Paul whisked her off to Jamaica to plan their dream beach wedding, she couldn’t have been happier.

She was so in love and says she couldn’t wait to marry her perfect man.

Yet just days into their holiday, handsome local hotel worker Caffrey Brown caught her eye. And one night, after Paul had retired to bed with a headache, they shared a kiss.

Weeks later, Louise, 24, stunned family and friends by calling off her engagement to heartbroken Paul, 48.

She claims Caffrey, 25, had promised to marry her instead, and love-struck Louise began to plan a life with him in the UK.
Hey, she was lucky, she didn't end up dead. But read the whole thing for the punchline. For some reason, many white women don't seem to grasp a simple fact about black men: they don't support their women. Their women support them.

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Guide to the Androsphere

The Southern Poverty Law Center chronicled it in a cursory manner four years ago:
The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general.

The so-called “manosphere” is peopled with hundreds of websites, blogs and forums dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general. Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts, they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express. What follows are brief descriptions of a dozen of these sites.
At the time, the only two that mattered were In Mala Fide and Roosh. Obviously, it has expanded greatly since then.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Straining at a gnat

And missing the camel. A psychologist fails to grasp the concept of "economic incentive":
Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

How to explain? I find that these data are consistent with what I and others have seen clinically. When men and women seek couples therapy and then subsequently divorce; or, when either partner seeks individual therapy about a marriage conflict that ends in divorce, it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.
The difference is that in a marital breakup, a woman gets cash and prizes. In a non-marital breakup, a woman gets nothing.

This indicates that since there are 2.3 marital breakups initiated by women for every marital breakup initiated by a man, the divorce rate could be reduced by 39.4 percent by removing the economic incentive from women.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Alpha Mail: the Gamma mindset in fiction

A reader recognizes a fictional portrayal of Gamma:
Although I certainly don't share all your views I will always acknowledge and appreciate that I owe a lot to your development of the gamma concept. As a recovering gamma the fact that I recognized myself in your description of the typical gamma mindset and behaviour gave me a powerful incentive to work my way out of gamma territory and self-absorption and to choose the path of self-honesty and realistic feedback. In this respect I also owe a lot to the articles of Nick Krauser, who took up your gamma concept and developed some further interesting views on it.

So I was fascinated when I read a short story by T. C. Boyle yesterday and found what I now recognize as a masterful description of the thought-process of a gamma mind. The gamma we're dealing with here is a man overwhelmed by his envy on another man going for the same woman and beating him in the process, leading to obsessive and delusional white-knight-fantasies. Maybe you check it out sometime. It's called "Termination Dust" and contained in the short story collection "After the Plague".
I love to receive this sort of feedback. It's great to see men, whether they agree with me or not, choosing the painful, but ultimately rewarding path of self-honesty and reality over their Gamma delusion bubbles.

I shall have to look it up, as it sounds potentially illuminating.

Monday, August 22, 2016

It's not her fault, blame evolution

Now scientists are excusing female infidelity with science:
What drives women to cheat is a subject that has been long debated over the years. And now scientists are suggesting women have been programmed by evolution to pursue affairs in case they decide to leave their partners.

New research claims this 'mate switching hypothesis' particularly applies to childless women whose loved one can affect their ability to raise offspring. The theory that affairs are women's natural back-up plan challenges the accepted notion that humans are intended to be monogamous. It suggests humans have evolved to constantly be on the lookout for better long-term partners that their current ones.

David Buss, Cari Goetz and their team told the Sunday Times: 'Lifelong monogamy does not characterise the primary mating pattern of humans. 'Breaking up with one partner and re-mating with another - mate switching - may more accurately characterise the common, perhaps the primary, mating strategy of humans. For our ancestors, disease, poor diet and poor medical care meant few lived past 30 - meaning experimenting to find the most suitable partner may have been key to survival.

Scientists claim people would pick partners with the highest chance of survival, but have someone in reserve in case that person died.
That's certainly a novel excuse. "This isn't what it looks like! I'm only trying to prepare for your inevitable death!"

Of course, the reduced attractivness that is concomitant with the aging process tends to get in the way of this partner-replacement theory.