How to make over $5000/mo from fake news

How much money can you bring in by making stuff up and putting it on the Internet? “I make like $10,000 a month from AdSense,” Paul Horner, a prolific, Facebook-focused fake-news writer told the Washington post among a growing group of Macedonian teenagers who see fake-news sites as a way to make easy money from American gullibility, the most successful can make about $5,000 a month, BuzzFeed reported.

In 2016, the churn of fake news was a daily onslaught of fabricated or exceedingly misleading news stories designed to elevate or demonize presidential candidates, mixed into the flow of true or mostly true stories about the election. The stories were designed to be believed and shared. On Facebook, they were seeded into conservative bubbles through hyperpartisan media organizations with enormous numbers of Facebook followers.

“Honestly, people are definitely dumber,” Horner told The Washington Post in a wide-ranging interview. “They just keep passing stuff around. Nobody fact-checks anything anymore — I mean, that’s how Trump got elected.”

Horner said that Trump fans were especially gullible — “his followers don’t fact-check anything ” — and kept pushing the envelope, seeing how far he could take the joke until someone called him out. That didn’t happen, and Trump fans kept falling for and propagating fake news over and over.

What exactly is fake news

Fake news can refer to deliberately fabricated stories, often with the purpose of making money for the creators. (Think of those Macedonian teenagers looking to strike it rich on the gullibility of American audiences reading about politics.) It can also refer to comedy or satirical news, faked for the purposes of entertainment.

Fake news can now also refer to the phenomenon of a news source publishing something that is inaccurate but is still believed and shared by readers. This includes sites such as Gateway Pundit, which, in the weeks before the election, regularly published outright false stories that became talking points on the conservative Internet. And as the boundaries between “fake” and “unreliable” have become more permeable, conservatives have begun saying that the mainstream outlets they already don’t trust should be called “fake,” too.

Gab, which was founded as a “free speech” social network, is popular with conservatives and white nationalists (who are complete idiots). Pizzagate, the outlandish conspiracy theory about child trafficking in a D.C. pizza restaurant, is a regular trending topic among Gab’s users.

Pizzagate has been the most extreme example (directly related to fake news) so far of what happens when news can mean anything you want it to. A man showed up at a Washington pizza place on Sunday with an assault-style rifle and fired shots. A suspect, 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch of North Carolina, was arrested. Police said Welch told them that he went to the Comet Ping Pong restaurant to “self-investigate” the absurd Pizzagate conspiracy that he read about on the Internet. Pizzagaters claim that Comet Ping Pong is the headquarters of a secret pedophilia ring involving Democrats, specifically the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Another example is Dylann Roof — the autistic white nationalist who shoot up a black church. Roof exploded: “Y’all are raping our white women. Y’all are taking over the world.” Then Roof shot them. “I had to do it” because nobody was doing anything about “black-on-white crime” and “it’s not too late to take the country back from blacks.”

Fake news is everywhere

What do the Amish lobby, gay wedding vans, white genocide and the ban of the national anthem have in common? For starters, they’re all make-believe — and invented by the same man.

Paul Horner, 38, who runs a network of viral fake-news sites (he calls them satire), has been making a living off the practice for years. The money comes from ads, provided by the self-service ad technology of companies such as Google and Facebook. It is a business model that has changed little over the years, David Carroll, an associate professor of media design at the New School and an expert in advertising tech, told us. “Anybody can make a site and put ads on it,” he said. “They can easily set up a business, create content, and once it is viral, it drives traffic to their site.”

“Trumps campaign manager posted my story about a protester getting paid $3,500 as fact. Like, I made that up. I posted a fake ad on Craigslist.” He explained that he wrote such stories because he wanted to make fun of Trump supporters’ beliefs, and he thought people would fact-check them. But then the stories just took off.

No need to waste money

Although hoax sites vary in sophistication, a quick tour of the usual suspects makes it clear that you don’t really have to put much thought into the design or functionality of the site — in other words, they can be cheaply made. A fake-news site does not need you to stay for long. They just need you to click, and they need a way to spread their work. A fake-news share from within the Trump campaign could earn the lucky hoaxer as much as $10,000 in extra revenue, provided they have taken full advantage of the ad services available to them. That’s a “huge economic incentive to create stories that they want to distribute.”

Targeting idiots 

There are a lot of variables that factor into exactly how much a viral hoax story can make for its creator. But if you take Facebook shares as an indirect indicator of how widely viewed some of these sites might be, you start to understand why, if optimized properly, fake-news sites targeting hyperpartisan audiences can be lucrative.

For certain conservatives, “fake news” now means “liberal bias,” even as the other side uses it to describe an exaggerated or completely untrue statement from the president-elect. So with that bit of information you can set up your network. To get traction, set your marketing campaign demographic to 35 -65 white males conservatives. Geographically, the south is going to have the best bet for white nationalism. Set the income below 40k/year and education level to high school or lower. Utilize audience insights and the reporting tab in Ads Manager to zero in on more autistic and stupid people. The first thing an advertiser should understand about Facebook is its psychology. Since Facebook is essentially an online social platform, you need to create very personal campaigns to penetrate into the mind-set of the people. Engagement is crucial. Get involved in conversations. Talk about a Rape Crisis in Europe, a white friend losing his job to Affirmative Action or how white people are being killed by the truck load in South Africa (remember these people are complete idiots and will never check anything). Of course, sometimes, you may have to cook-up some bogus statistics or link to another bogus article to support your claims but don’t worry, most of your audience is functionally illiterate.

Spread It Like a Virus

Facebook campaigns that motivate users to share content are the most successful because then followers become your brand advocates and people don’t trust anything more than a friend’s opinion. Keep the “virality” factor in mind when creating concepts and ideas for a Facebook marketing campaign.

Bonus Tip: Network

Get your site linked with Stormfront, Returnofkings or other sizable networks of stupid people i.e. the alt-right. Just offer them something like $20/mo or a few beers to link to your website. You want an audience of mostly sad, unemployed morons/racist who will go from one site to another in your network clicking on anything that might make them feel good and reinforce their beliefs. For a site/network owner this is a goldmine. In fact, many white nationalist websites are not even owned by whites!

How long before Google and Facebook crackdown?

So why are Google and Facebook just taking action against this use of their ad services now? Well, for one thing, those companies profit off the viral sites — legitimate or hoax — that use their services, too.

“Google has more of an incentive to make information reliable,” Carroll noted, because Google’s business is based on providing accurate information to people who are looking for it. Facebook, though, “is about attention, not so much intention.” It’s generally good for Facebook’s business when something goes viral on the site, even if it’s not true.

In short, each company could “lose revenue if it shuts down a huge number of fake sites,” he said. The announced crackdown on fake-news sites using the companies’ ad services, at least “show an initial willingness to sacrifice some of their own revenue” to address the growing problem of bad information in their networks.

But Horner has now said that with the rise of Trump, fake news has reached a whole new level. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/17/facebook-fake-news-writer-i-think-donald-trump-is-in-the-white-house-because-of-me/

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/17/people-are-definitely-dumber-thanks-to-facebook-a-viral-fake-news-writer-is-making-10000-a-month/

The average doctor uses techniques 17 years out of date

One of the main problems with medical treatment in the United States is the so called “Standard of Care”. This is the medical equivalent of building codes in construction. Most doctors are businessmen and have a job/career to protect. If he deviates from the standard of care, even if he knows it’s bogus in a particular case, and something goes wrong or the patient sues, he’s up shit creek without a paddle as he deviated from the medical consensus (where have we heard that word before?) standard of care. I’ve found cases where the standard is 100% against what studies show.

Modern Medicine is a wonderful monopoly-wonderful for them, shit for patients. Once a determination is made of the patient’s ability to pay, the treatment plan is designed which will extract the maximum amount of money prior to the patient being cast aside to die in pain. The requirement for education is merely a barrier to entry, which actually means they have to do LESS education overall. If there was no barrier, they would have to constantly learn to improve their techniques to compete with other entrants. I’ve seen one study that said the average doctor was using techniques that were about 17 years out of date. And generally the older the doctor, the more out of date the treatment. So if medical doctors are our shepherds of health, why are Americans so unhealthy, and why don’t doctors know what is the real root causes of illness? They keep making shifting statements that don’t actually prevent illness (cholesterol is bad!). Ronald Reagan had a German doctor Hans Nieper, MD come to the US to treat his colon cancer (likely with laetrile). It was actually illegal here at that time. Ronald Reagan died I think 17 years later..not of cancer.

I’m amazed how often there will be an incredible study that finds a surprising result, and they just don’t give a damn. A perfect example is that Desiccated thyroid (which Hillary Clinton is taking) was found to reduce heart attack- the number one killer in the US by 80%. No follow up study was ever done to confirm or refute. Witch hunts were often done for doctors prescribing Desiccated thyroid, but its OK for Hillary Clinton. Sounds about right.

If a cancer cure was discovered today that completely dismantled the cancer treatment system, the medical establishment would have no choice to fight it unless they were ready to lose tens of thousands of jobs and billions in revenue.

Doctors don’t have to be evil hateful people in order to make selfish, self-enriching decisions that are not in the patient’s best interest. Dentists (who already have an extremely good income, with regular, steady customers) were using their clout to try to shut down teeth whitening facilities, saying that only a state licenced dentist should be able to whiten teeth. The US Supreme Court recently ruled this illegal.

 

 

The Origins of Civilization – 4000 Years Of World History

Why don’t Africans get credit for starting civilization?

Rand-McNally-Histomap-of-4000-Years-of-History

Their legacy seems to have been removed by Europeans who then plundered them and their land, to introduce their own philosophers who, all of a sudden, knew all about the Sciences, Arts, Mathematics, Astronomy, Poetry, Music, Philosophy in short.

In Planet of the Apes, Ape slaves, who outnumbered their masters, plotted the overthrow of their oppressors, and killed their masters or evicted them to the wild. Speechless, animalistic humans are then hunted and enslaved by an advanced society of apes. Eventually we discover that humans had once dominated the planet until their complacency allowed the more industrious apes to overthrow them.

Why are so many scientists STUPID?

Historically, physics and mathematics have often overlapped with philosophy, and many great scientists engaged with philosophers to advance their own thinking. (Einstein’s work can be studied alongside that of Kant, for example.) The physicist behind the theory of relativity was also a philosopher of science and, as Hall points out, Einstein reconfigured our concepts of space and time—itself a philosophical undertaking. What distinguishes modern science from other forms of knowledge such as philosophy is that it explicitly forsakes abstract reasoning about the ultimate causes of things and instead tests empirical theories through controlled investigation. Science is not the pursuit of capital-T Truth. It’s a form of engineering — of trial by error. Scientific knowledge is not “true” knowledge, since it is knowledge about only specific empirical propositions — which is always, at least in theory, subject to further disproof by further experiment. Many people are surprised to hear this, but the founder of modern science says it. Bacon, who had a career in politics and was an experienced manager, actually wrote that scientists would have to be misled into thinking science is a pursuit of the truth, so that they will be dedicated to their work, even though it is not.

Why is all this ancient history important? Because science is important, and if we don’t know what science actually is, we are going to make mistakes.

The vast majority of people, including a great many very educated ones, don’t actually know what science is.

Since most people think math and lab coats equal science, people call economics a science, even though almost nothing in economics is actually derived from controlled experiments. Then people get angry at economists when they don’t predict impending financial crises, as if having tenure at a university endowed you with magical powers. Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors’ urges to look “more scientific” by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge.

Because people don’t understand that science is built on experimentation, they don’t understand that studies in fields like psychology almost never prove anything, since only replicated experiment proves something and, humans being a very diverse lot, it is very hard to replicate any psychological experiment. This is how you get articles with headlines saying “Study Proves X” one day and “Study Proves the Opposite of X” the next day, each illustrated with stock photography of someone in a lab coat. That gets a lot of people to think that “science” isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, since so many studies seem to contradict each other.

This is how you get people asserting that “science” commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is “scientific” because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. While it is a fact that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads, all else equal, to higher atmospheric temperatures, the idea that we can predict the impact of global warming — and anti-global warming policies! — 100 years from now is sheer lunacy. But because it is done using math by people with tenure, we are told it is “science” even though by definition it is impossible to run an experiment on the year 2114.

It’s very profitable for those who grab some of the social prestige that accrues to science, but it means we live in a state of confusion. It also means that for all our bleating about “science” we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our “pro-science” people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). we also have a very anti-scientific mindset in many areas.

For example, our approach to education is positively obscurantist. Nobody uses rigorous experimentation to determine better methods of education, and someone who would dare to do so would be laughed out of the room. The first and most momentous scientist of education, Maria Montessori, produced an experimentally based, scientific education method that has been largely ignored by our supposedly science-enamored society. We have departments of education at very prestigious universities, and absolutely no science happens at any of them.

Our approach to public policy is also astonishingly pre-scientific. There have been almost no large-scale truly scientific experiments on public policy since the welfare randomized field trials of the 1990s, and nobody seems to realize how barbaric this is. We have people at Brookings who can run spreadsheets, and Ezra Klein can write about it and say it proves things, we have all the science we need, thank you very much. But that is not science.

Modern science is one of the most important inventions of human civilization. But the reason it took us so long to invent it and the reason we still haven’t quite understood what it is 500 years later is it is very hard to be scientific. Not because science is “expensive” but because it requires a fundamental epistemic humility, and humility is the hardest thing to wring out of the bombastic animals we are.

Philosophy is not for everyone, and many are perfectly happy to live their lives without trying to figure out what, exactly, Heidegger is saying. Philosophy does not give us the certainty that math or experimental science can (but even then — as many philosophers would point out — these fields do not give us as much certainty as is sometimes claimed). But that doesn’t mean that philosophy is worthless, or that it doesn’t have rigor. Indeed, in a sense, philosophy is inescapable. To argue that philosophy is useless is to do philosophy.

Seemingly every day, you can find examples of people displaying stunning cultural illiteracy — people in positions where that simply should not happen. The great philosophical tradition that our civilization is built on is left largely untaught. Even “liberal arts” curricula in many colleges do not teach the most influential thinkers. If our elites aren’t being taught this great tradition, then it should come as no surprise that some subset of that elite — experimental scientists and their hangers-on — don’t know it.

That’s part of the problem. But it’s just a part of it. After all, as a group, scientists have an obvious objective interest in experimental science being recognized as the only path to valuable knowledge, and therefore an interest in disdaining other paths to knowledge as less valid. People who listen to scientists opine about philosophy ought to keep that in mind.

And then there’s another factor at play. Many, though certainly not all, of the scientists who opine loudest about the uselessness of philosophy are public atheists. The form of atheism they promote is usually known as “eliminative materialism,” or the notion that matter is the only thing that exists. This theory is motivated by “scientism,” or the notion that the only knowable things are knowable by science. Somewhat paradoxically, these propositions are essentially religious — to dismiss entire swathes of human experience and human thought requires a venture of faith. They’re also not very smart religion, since they end up simply shouting away inconvenient propositions.

Fundamentalism is not a belief system or a religion, it’s a state of mind. There can be fundamentalist religion, fundamentalist atheism, fundamentalist socialism, fundamentalism libertarianism. What all of them have in common is, in David Bentley Hart’s words, “a stubborn refusal to think.” The fundamentalist is not the one whose ideas are too simple or too crude. He’s the one who stubbornly refuses to think through either other ideas, or those ideas themselves.

Sadly, many of our greatest minds give us an example of this state of mind.

To be a “free” person in our civilization requires an understanding of precisely those ideas. Yes, that means also understanding critiques of those ideas, but we’ve gone too far in the other direction. We’ve reached a point where our elites don’t even understand the basic concepts that make our civilization run. A civilization is nothing but institutions, and institutions are nothing but ideas in motion — in our case, institutions such as human rights, liberal democracy, free market capitalism, the scientific method, and so on.

Writers report on “studies” that they’re not numerate enough to understand. And the ability to understand data, to query it, to manipulate it, can be taught. A specific science (computers!) should not be a basic part of the liberal arts curriculum, but a strong foundation in mathematics and statistics should definitely be.

Economics and sociology are valuable, as long as you understand the processes by which they arrive at their findings, and the limits of those processes. This is the hard work of epistemology, which is the study of how we decide which things are true and which aren’t, and how we prove things, which might be the most important discipline today as well as the most understudied.

Sources

http://theweek.com/articles/608112/what-liberal-arts-education-should-mean-21st-century

http://theweek.com/articles/443656/how-botched-understanding-science-ruins-everything

The stupidity of complaining about affirmative action

Nice article I edited to fit here:

There’s really no great mystery about bureaucracies. Why is it so often that the best people are stuck in the middle and the people who are running things—the leaders—are the mediocrities? Because excellence isn’t what bureaucracies are about. Bureaucracies are about keeping the routine going. Bureaucracies HAVE TO be run according to rigid rules. The head of Bureaucracies are commonplace, ordinary, usual and common. They have no genius for organizing or initiative or even order, no particular learning or intelligence, no distinguishing characteristics at all. Just the ability to keep the routine going. What gets you up in a bureaucracy is a talent for maneuvering. Kissing up to the people above you, kicking down to the people below you. Pleasing your teachers, pleasing your superiors, picking a powerful mentor and riding his coattails until it’s time to stab him in the back. Jumping through hoops. Getting along by going along. Being whatever other people want you to be, so that it finally comes to seem that, like the manager of the Central Station, you have nothing inside you at all. Not taking stupid risks like trying to change how things are done or question why they’re done. This is the perfect description of the kind of person who tends to prosper in the bureaucratic environment. Obviously becoming self employed or an entrepreneur is the normal reaction to this situation but most people can’t really think so they descend into rather silly and vindictive diatribes.

I tell you this to forewarn you, because I promise you that you will meet these people and you will find yourself in environments where what is rewarded above all is conformity. I tell you so you can decide to be a different kind of leader. And I tell you for one other reason. As I thought about these things and put all these pieces together—the kind of students I had, the kind of leadership they were being trained for, the kind of leaders I saw in my own institution—I realized that this is a national problem. We have a crisis of leadership in this country, in every institution. Not just in government. Look at what happened to American corporations in recent decades, as all the old dinosaurs like General Motors or TWA or U.S. Steel fell apart. Look at what happened to Wall Street in just the last couple of years.

Finally—and I know I’m on sensitive ground here—look at what happened during the first four years of the Iraq War. We were stuck. It wasn’t the fault of the enlisted ranks or the noncoms or the junior officers. It was the fault of the senior leadership, whether military or civilian or both. We weren’t just not winning, we weren’t even changing direction. What we have now are the greatest technocrats the world has ever seen, people who have been trained to be incredibly good at one specific thing, but who have no interest in anything beyond their area of exper­tise. What we don’t have are leaders

Anyone who’s been paying attention for the last few years understands that the changing nature of warfare means that officers, including junior officers, are required more than ever to be able to think independently, creatively, flexibly. To deploy a whole range of skills in a fluid and complex situation. Lieutenant colonels who are essentially functioning as provincial governors in Iraq, or captains who find themselves in charge of a remote town somewhere in Afghanistan. People who know how to do more than follow orders and execute routines.

We have a crisis of leadership in America because our overwhelming power and wealth, earned under earlier generations of leaders, made us complacent, and for too long we have been training leaders who are brain-dead. Being a good leader now means being a good follower. What we don’t have, in other words, are thinkers. People who can think for themselves. People who can formulate a new direction: for the country, for a corporation or a college, for the Army—a new way of doing things, a new way of looking at things. People, in other words, with vision.

The Hereditarian Theory of Intelligence Is Stupid

Can we really increase our intelligence? The answer is yes.

A renowned article published in the journal Nature by Price and her colleagues challenged this immutable view of intelligence. The study had 33 adolescents, who were 12 to 16-years-old when the study initiated. Price and her team gave them IQ tests, tracked them for four years, and then tested them again with the same measurement tools. The fluctuations in IQ were outstanding: not about a couple points, but 20-plus IQ points. These changes in IQ scores, according to the researchers, were not random — they tracked elegantly with structural and functional brain imaging. Thus, there is also an important group of scientists that maintain that many of the changes in IQ are correlated to changes in the environment, particularly schooling.

“It’s analogous to fitness. A teenager who is athletically fit at 14 could be less fit at 18 if they stopped exercising. Conversely, an unfit teenager can become much fitter with exercise.”

Furthermore, there is also a certain number of studies that have shown brain changes after several kinds of educational regimens. The study about Tokyo taxi drivers is a especially distinguished one. Scientists conducted memory, visual and spatial information tests and took brain scans using MRI of 79 male trainee Tokyo taxi drivers at the beginning of their training regimen. At the beginning of the study, no variance was found in their brain structure or memory. Three to four years later, however, scientists found a considerable increase in grey matter in the posterior hippocampi, among the 39 trains who performed as taxi drivers. Naturally, this change was not observed in the non-taxi drivers. Thus, this kind of studies suggest that the brain can change to accommodate new knowledge, so future programs for lifelong learning are possible.

What we immediately notice is a long list of enormous variations in the tested IQs of genetically indistinguishable European peoples across temporal, geographical, and political lines, variations so large as to raise severe doubts about the strongly genetic-deterministic model of IQ favored by white spermicide and perhaps also quietly held by many others.

Consider, for example, the results from Germany obtained prior to its 1991 reunification. Lynn and Vanhanen present four separate IQ studies from the former West Germany, all quite sizable, which indicate mean IQs in the range 99–107, with the oldest 1970 sample providing the low end of that range. Meanwhile, a 1967 sample of East German children produced a score of just 90, while two later East German studies in 1978 and 1984 came in at 97–99, much closer to the West German numbers.

These results seem anomalous from the perspective of strong genetic determinism for IQ. To a very good approximation, East Germans and West Germans are genetically indistinguishable, and an IQ gap as wide as 17 points between the two groups seems inexplicable, while the recorded rise in East German scores of 7–9 points in just half a generation seems even more difficult to explain.

To sum up, it is not fully clear What intelligence is, and hence How to directly increase it. Nonetheless, we can consider intelligence, for practical purposes, as a starting point in life. Naturally, we are born with certain capacities and particular features, but it is later in life when we discover and develop them, regardless of our individual genetic background. Thus, instead of frustratingly trying to increase your “G” factor (since we do not have a general consensus and determinant scientific evidence yet), what you can do is focus in your multiple crystallized intelligences: the ability to use skills, knowledge, and experience. If you are a scientist, observe and analyze information; if you are a philosopher, organize it and turn it into knowledge; if you are an artist, interpret it. Different areas of intelligence have different weights of importance in each person’s occupational life, and you can definitely get better at specific activities through practice and discipline.

Is homosexuality cause by virus during pregnancy?

A virus can do all kinds of things including causing stupidity in people, see: virus-could-be-making-you-dumber/

I’ve long suspected the “gay” flipped sex-designation attraction region of brain (flipped being descriptive in that males and female brains regions that form the basic response the opposite sex, resemble the opposite sex’s brain region) was due to a virus, since the numbers of affected individuals is almost the damn same as the numbers for genetic predisposition to a virus type conditions. Aka, it takes a virus-open-doorway to allow them to invade and alter the brain during pregnancy.

I know the “bisexual” behaviors resemble the child’s impulse control type lack of emotional and behavioral conditions. The brain technically takes until the middle 20s to fully and normally “mature” and form critical decision making abilities commonly attributed to being an adult. The child formation is anything that ends up lacking the fully coherent brain interloops or has blocked pathways or otherwise degraded connectivity across the emotional-frontal cortex loop/interconnection feedbacks, without that being well connected the brain’s patterns will be more stunted in the impulse control and your basic adult human maturity will be lacking… aka the peter pan syndrome will be present, lacking any desire to take on responsibility and desire to always be distracted by shiny toys.

If you know any gay males, you’d know they have severe impulse control issues. So much that they often had/have way too many short term sexual encounters per year with different people, meaning hundreds of partners within a few years and that is usually fairly consistent for their entire lives. I forget the studies since it was so long ago but the ones that covered pre-HIV epidemic gay behaviors showed that it was common for SF gay guys to have more than 100 partners per year, many times the normal behavior is the point and where I got that first idea that the inhibited maturation of the brain would explain their behaviors.

If I had time, I would do the DNA analysis and pin down the genetic/chemical pathways that develop the parts of the brain — showing that a minor alteration in the genes being expressed along the regulatory pathways during the critical development periods of the male and female brain.

This would show that the brain, depending on the genes and environmental impact of toxins and viruses and bacteria and fungi toxins and genetic shifts, fails to develop the region of the brain according to the male or female control genes depending on when the obscuring/obstruction process occurred during fetal or childhood development. Depending on the type of “gay/bisexual” attraction and asexual patterns the person ascribes to in their life, I’d argue the various factors would suggest environmental toxins like estrogen mimickers for turning male brains more into female brains… full on gay attraction would suggest much earlier shifts in the development stage that would suggest natal infection or a neonatal infection with viruses that are known to alter the hormones too, not only that but the more virus and other immune load that a male has during development the more the immune system will down regulate testosterone to allow the immune system to be stronger, since testosterone inhibits and blocks some of the immune system’s full functionality. An solidly research example of this is aging in men, lower their health is the lower their testosterone is but take anyone with poor health and put them through a solid healing process and exercise routine and they get back their testosterone but it does lower their immune system function too.

Internet Forum Psychology explained

I enjoy the company of those who effortlessly set themselves apart from all the typical wastes of skin that infest Internet Forums. Congratulations on earning yourselves a mention in my post, you’ve earned it. In all honesty, dealing with the typical forum/blog crowd day in, day out does grow a little tiresome sometimes. Let’s take a closer look at them.

At the bottom of the pecking order, you have the insecure people. The insecure females display the trait much more prominently than the males, and often find themselves easy prey to the petty leaders and smart assed followers commonly found in the forums. Due to being of an impressionable disposition, members of this species will often find themselves subject to the will of those above them, and subsequently leave the forums in anger, feeling downtrodden and shamed, or become a pawn to the “leaders.” It is more common for the males of this species to attempt to join forces with those they perceive to be dominant, as the females tend to be more withdrawn and hormonally redundant.

Next, you have the leaders. The leaders are quite adept at formulating scathing one-liners and pseudo-arguments to throw at members of weaker species, but when confronted by a passionate, confident and sometimes burnt-out individual, the leader will beat a hasty retreat shortly after getting in a parting shot in a vain attempt to save face. While the leaders may fool their followers with “courage” displayed during the most trying of times, they always fail to fool themselves. This results in the leaders losing enthusiasm for their forum spamming antics and a gradual decline in the amount of time spent attacking others until the leader finally gets a life of his own, leaving his followers hanging. Perhaps not surprisingly, female leaders are practically non-existent. Followers on forums show all the common characteristics displayed by followers in all walks of life. They rely almost completely on the “strength of character” exhibited by their leaders, and any time their leaders appear to falter, the followers grow weaker.

There have been reports from my correspondents hidden within various internet forums that the weakening and eventual departure of forum leaders often results in the followers growing to hate themselves and ultimately reaching a near death state before the intervention of my colleagues and the localized counselors. Followers derive a moderate amount of skill at spouting one-liners from the examples set by the leaders, but fear not if you are attacked by one, as they are very easily defeated. An interesting fact to take note of is that female followers are more tenacious than their male counterparts. My team of behavioral psychologists attributes this to deep-rooted anger felt by the females due to their self-perceived inferiority.

The hater is arguably the king of Internet Forums. Empowered by rage, haters are easily able to overcome all adversaries with a plethora of offensive, yet deep, meaningful retorts. These comments made by haters often bear within them an alarmingly dense concentration of truth, which serves as a painful reminder to the target of his/her personal failings. Other species have been witnessed attempting to pass themselves off as haters in order to appear substantially less appetizing in the eyes of members of stronger species. It is to be noted that these fake haters can be spotted by their awkward, badly timed attempts to instigate flame wars. A true hater leads his life harmoniously, joining the forum battles only when the opportunities present themselves.

Female haters are shunned by the male haters, who promptly identify them as fake haters due to their lack of emotional purity, eagerness to please and inconsistency in their ability to uphold the directives of hate. *The directives of hate print themselves out in Dr House VISION, like Robocop’s prime directives* .

The Internet Forum administrator is a remote, scared individual with a grossly disproportionate amount of power. While he may try to convey a facade of intelligence, this is easily exposed by naturally stronger species and when threatened by a member of such a species, the administrator will hastily delete the profile of his opponent so as to save face and appear powerful in the eyes of the weaker, impressionable females. Female administrators “earn” their status by sharing images of themselves nude with the male administrators and subsequently sleep their way up. This is a common promotional strategy employed by millions of women worldwide in order to ascend rank-based command structures rapidly. Despite the innovation of the said techniques, the greatest responsibility a female administrator can ever have is that of a lowly enforcer, sworn to enforce the rules and terms of service the misguided male administrators dictate.

Oakland sucks

Everything moves too slowly, is too boring, or too dangerous. Oakland is strange in that everything gets shut down at 9pm. You wonder, “why the fuck do they close down so early?” then you get swarmed by weirdos, drunks and druggies, all whom magically appear at 9pm, and you know why.

Oakland is probably the most ghettoized city in the US. The black women are all fat and Whoopi Goldberg ugly. The latinos are run down and super overweight. Oakland is also tattoo and white hipster central. Hipsters have nothing to live for and no big dreams to accomplish. Their only goal is that of a nihilistic aesthetic where they ask themselves if they appear interesting to the mirror mirror on the wall.

Oakland also has lots of lesbians and man-hating, tatted-out, hipsterish or punk girls with a chip on their shoulder. Oakland has the highest number of lesbian couples per capita in the country. I was just at the grocery store and I saw maybe five lesbian couples per aisle. San Francisco might be a gay man’s paradise, but Oakland has the largest and most diverse queer female population I’ve ever witnessed. It’s a race to be the biggest freakshow on the block for the sole purpose of standing out aesthetically but not intellectually. The best analogy I can give you is walking through the zoo and viewing the animals on display. Lots of butch looking girls, short hair, dirty, unapologetic, etc. Basically the exact opposite of SoCal (hot chicks, beaches, sunny weather year round etc).

The main thing Oakland has going for it is it’s more diverse (ethnically) than SF. Oakland all in all sucks though. It’s trying to come back but it has a long way to go. Many parts of the city feel kind of iffy and it still has that blue collar kind of feel even though certain areas are becoming hipster.