Gynocentrism

Divorce : Stupid Smart People

divorce
Comments (15)
  1. tim says:

    “However, when your margins of error are that high, it is a pretty good indication that you need a bigger sample set. Can you imagine if a political poll had a margin of error that big? “Oh, yeah, we had Romney ahead of Obama by 5% in 2012, but the result was within the margin of error!” ”

    Respectfully, I would like to point out that this is *often* the case. The standard for political surveys is (plus/minus) 1% and sometimes higher, and single-percentile leads are often reported by the press.

    For example, here is Gallup’s last poll before the 2012 election. Gallup reported it as Romney leading by 1%, but farther down you’ll find that the margin of error is 2%. The headline at the top ought to be “Polling inconclusive, Error>Measured Difference, Watch the New to Find Out Who Wins!”. The article concludes by declaring it a “statistical tie”, but that’s all the way at the bottom, right before the poll is described in detail. It should have been the opener.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney-obama-gallup-final-election-survey.aspx

    Your underlying point (“Look at the error! If it’s big, you need more data!”) is spot-on, and unfortunately journalists and even some statisticians (e.g. the people running Gallup, apparently) can’t figure this stuff out.

    1. TFCNU says:

      Point taken. Perhaps I should have chosen a better example. I’m a politics nerd, so it’s what came to mind. I think Gallup likely had some serious sampling issues with that poll. They shouldn’t have been 5 points off (3-7 points with the MOE) that close to the election. However, there are increasing problems everywhere with conducting political polls. Here in Canada pollsters whiffed on a couple of provincial elections and they way underestimated the Conservative vote in the last UK election. It’s harder and harder to do a good telephone survey. The confounding part is that we’ve seen big misses both left and right which flies in the face of a lot of the easy explanations. In this case though, the sample just isn’t big enough and we know why: he got lazy and used existing data.

      1. tim says:

        Fair points. it’s a great article.

        I just wanted to point that one thing out. It leaves your point intact and perhaps even mroe relevant. That’s interesting about political polling in Canada.

    2. Jessire Nagy says:

      Divorce is plenty rewarding, & not only do lawyers additionally compose the biggest licensed block in the majority of legislatures, many judges are also laywers. When David C. Morrow was writing an essay in 1983 about the phenomena frequently happening in the divorce industry, he wrote many state government representatives seeking statistics on their legislatures to be applied in the anti-lawyer newspaper entitled ‘The Truth.’ He learned that these sleazy licensed villains comprise a hefty amount who are also senators, barristers, professional legislators, & assembly bodies. Little has changed since that time.

      The issue of many laws is to incentivize females to divorce with guarantees of estate & material resolutions, mortal assistance, child custody, & inheritence profit while judges neglect their own orders in instances of females violating them, & reject to support the fathers’ rights. So, to increase the amount of money to their even then inflated profit, lawyers expropriate offspring of feasible security & bid copious females to take their youth through perennial procedures of continuous weddings & transient affairs, making the child injustice epidemic anti-masculinists beguile to lament.

      The prestidigitation of anti-masculinists, which promotes the goals of the legal system, is to encourage that most females remain infantile with havoc & symbiotic on the welfare state while dupe to do the contrary. Because they can readily use from the next abundance, this Breeds the acclaimed “empowered” women that they don’t require male help & has given women more governmental free stuff & stolen men’s pensions. The matriarchy falsely fronted as the “patriarchy” permits women to live immature sexual lives, without consideration for the bad results for men, but also for condition of children. The causatum is to ramify men to be forsaken suitors, worthy only of service for the probable protracted ex-wife, & offspring misused & abortable. Then the father will be blamed for all the problems because he allowed himself to be interpreted as incompetent by traditional standards, especially with the factor of him being the natural protector of the offspring.

      These minimal paragraphs typifies how the effeminate/anti-science/anti-truth “patriarchy” is basically enacted by femalehood’s collectivism. You really have to question why it is that sociopaths breed, & why such meanings of sociopaths are basically non-existent & other meanings altered, when females are the ones choosing these enactments they apparently identify with their conceit so well. Their enactment of this is a model of the present cycle of false “patriarchy” contrived by matriarchy, which was earlier set in motion by females because they are the choosing repository from which their fastidiousness for their particular phenotype springs, which, in turn, is transmitted in the human breeding pool, repeating the cycle. Do I really have to repeat the ’50 Shades Of Garbage’ that females subscribe to? It’s due to the intrinsically wild animal-like nature & hidden meanness of females to coerce/denounce, usually vicariously, what is too intricate for them as “bad”, consequently huddling with males that can act like them &/or are stupid like them, which then occludes & misuses what isn’t like them, & then those who aren’t like them will often, often barely noticing of the series of actions that influenced it, become maladjusted.

      Phenotype incorporates biobehaviour in the similar way as how a bird building its nest is influenced by a combination of the mental & cultivated inheritance from successions’ interaction with it’s environment & other association.

      A male-centric paradigm shift predicated on male logic would rid of much corruption in society & create a corrective congenital substratum. In other words: don’t give rights to females & make them slaves (possibly apprentices as the minority ones) to a science-absolutist-based/masculine society so as to guard that it does not become occluded. I vaticinate that most of them would rejoice in such chores anyway.

      Citation: ‘How Women Manipulate – Essays Toward Gynology’ by David C. Morrow, pg. 66

      1. Jessire Nagy says:

        OH SHIT, I ACCIDENTALLY POSTED THIS TWICE.

  2. Mr MGTOW says:

    Let me guess Mr. Rosenfeld as a PhD in bullshit, a baby-boomer perhaps.

    1. TFCNU says:

      PhD in sociology from the Unversity of Chicago in 2000. So gen x, but otherwise, you’re spot on.

      1. john Lord says:

        That’s interesting. Gen exers usually seem to be a little more rational about these things.

  3. Pellaeon says:

    Thanks for the post! I have very little practical knowledge about how to properly critique a study’s research methods, so seeing it spelled out so clearly is really helpful

    1. TFCNU says:

      Glad you found it worthwhile. For me it’s the equivalent of wanting to take apart a piece of machinery to see how it works. The media is so bad at reporting this stuff. If it isn’t behind a pay wall, I go to the source. You get a much clearer understanding, even with good research.

  4. Pellaeon says:

    Sorry for the double post – just as I submitted my comment an idea came to mind. Would it possible for a MGTOW with research experience to crowd fund his own study to finally get us some academic evidence that looks on the right directions?

    Obviously there would be issues publishing it on any mainstream avenues… But it could still be posted independently and pointed to. In my mind, it matters less if anyone outside the red pill community is convinced by it’s claims and more that it expands our own knowledge.

    For the right kind of study, I would probably pitch in.

    1. TFCNU says:

      You mean on divorce? Or more generally? There are some red pill friendly academics out there. Murray Straus’ work around domestic violence is excellent and what he’s faced is scary. If you haven’t seen this before, prepare to be angry:
      http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf.

  5. Debar Dogma says:

    They cannot publish anything that admits the obvious truth that women benefit from divorce more than men. These lamestream media rags continue to show themselves for what they are – feminist ideologue pandering vassals.

  6. Jessire Nagy says:

    The issue of many laws is to incentivize females to divorce with guarantees of estate & material resolutions, mortal assistance, child custody, & inheritence profit while judges neglect their own orders in instances of females violating them, & reject to support the fathers’ rights. So, to increase the amount of money to their even then inflated profit, lawyers expropriate offspring of feasible security & bid copious females to take their youth through perennial procedures of continuous weddings & transient affairs, making the child injustice epidemic anti-masculinists beguile to lament.

    The prestidigitation of anti-masculinists, which promotes the goals of the legal system, is to encourage that most females remain infantile with havoc & symbiotic on the welfare state while dupe to do the contrary. Because they can readily use from the next abundance, this Breeds the acclaimed “empowered” women that they don’t require male help & has given women more governmental free stuff & stolen men’s pensions. The matriarchy falsely fronted as the “patriarchy” permits women to live immature sexual lives, without consideration for the bad results for men, but also for condition of children. The causatum is to ramify men to be forsaken suitors, worthy only of service for the probable protracted ex-wife, & offspring misused & abortable. Then the father will be blamed for all the problems because he allowed himself to be interpreted as incompetent by traditional standards, especially with the factor of him being the natural protector of the offspring.

    These minimal paragraphs typifies how the effeminate/anti-science/anti-truth “patriarchy” is basically enacted by femalehood’s collectivism. You really have to question why it is that sociopaths breed, & why such meanings of sociopaths are basically non-existent & other meanings altered, when females are the ones choosing these enactments they apparently identify with their conceit so well. Their enactment of this is a model of the present cycle of false “patriarchy” contrived by matriarchy, which was earlier set in motion by females because they are the choosing repository from which their fastidiousness for their particular phenotype springs, which, in turn, is transmitted in the human breeding pool, repeating the cycle. Do I really have to explain the ’50 Shades Of Garbage’ that females subscribe to? It’s due to the intrinsically wild animal-like nature & hidden meanness of females to coerce/denounce, usually vicariously, what is too intricate for them as “bad”, consequently huddling with males that can act like them &/or are stupid like them, which then occludes & misuses what isn’t like them, & then those who aren’t like them will often, often barely noticing of the series of actions that influenced it, become maladjusted.

    Phenotype incorporates biobehaviour in the similar way as how a bird building its nest is influenced by a combination of the mental & cultivated inheritance from successions’ interaction with it’s environment & other association.

    A male-centric – phallocentric/androcentric – paradigm shift predicated on male logic would rid of much corruption in society & create a corrective congenital substratum. In other words: don’t give rights to females & make them slaves (possibly apprentices as the minority ones) to a science-absolutist-based/masculine society so as to guard that it does not become occluded. I vaticinate that most of them would rejoice in such chores anyway.

    Citation: ‘How Women Manipulate – Essays Toward Gynology’ by David C. Morrow, pg. 66

  7. The Mad Pirate says:

    Hey Barbarossa ! You would love to shredd this article based on a bogus preprint “study”. http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/02/13/why-women-are-probably-the-best-coders-on-github/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *