> Most men will answer "yes", when asked if they will help defending their country from the invader.

not true any longer: around 25-30% answer yes

so your virtue intro is a usual BS

you can argue all day, but you will never be a woman

Sadykov is mansplaining again

And the other paragraphs?

(skipped)

If you have different experiences, say from the refugee camp, or from your parents, or whatever, then the explanation is that these populations are more deviant than normal populations. And of course they are -- your parents have to be fucked up somehow, and refugees in general, according to your own descriptions, are even more fucked up group in general, hence fucked up female refugees.

So your impression is wrong. If women lacked "virtues" they wouldn't be able to maintain families, nurture kids, and so on -- everything would have broken down. It's impossible basically.

It's true that an average women isn't "ideal", like an average person won't be super smart, super healthy, super beautiful, and so on. There is a normal distribution for these things. But for sure average women doesn't live from a "dysregulation episode" to a "dysregulation episode", because otherwise BPD wouldn't be a diagnosis, it would be the norm.

>They are lying. The reason barrier troops were invented.

You are literally contradicting yourself from yesterday:
https://lj.rossia.org/users/nancygold/314171.html?thread=4019003

I'ts pretty obvious that the answer is "it heavily depends".

As a man sacrificing oneself in a conflict where your side is vastly outnumbered, been losing for years, and the only thing they are likely to lose is some political ideals like national sovereignty, and some nebulous thing as "association with the free world", then of course the will to fight won't be outstanding. Situation would be completely different if the sides were evenly matched and the possibility of victory wasn't a pipe dream. Or if the threat of executing of their loved ones was present.

Same for women -- in an average situation a woman will be "averagely" loyal, which is loyal enough for families to function, kids to grow up fed, and so on, but if her man turned out to be especially shitty (impotence, violence, joblessness, low status etc), or the new men is especially good in comparison, then of course the chance of switching her man would rise significantly. That doesn't mean that an average woman doesn't feel love, and isn't loyal in regular situations. Certainly this is a far cry from prostitutes with personality disorders who can't feel love or intimacy at all.

Regarding questionnaires -- I'm not going to delve deep into psychology, but I know for sure that these questionnaires aren't simple. If for example the subject answers are contradictory it will detect it, and the questions could be veiled in a way that it's hard to know what is the purpose. Also, data collection could be anonymous, with only gender being present, which decreases desire to do performative lying. And these "virtue" characteristics have been thoroughly studied -- their presence has been verified after decades of research, they are a quantified thing. Instead of relying on some folk bullshit understanding, you should have maybe read couple of books or research papers. But you choose to generate self-serving beliefs (even those that contradict your "beliefs" from yesterday).

>You are literally contradicting yourself from yesterday

I can't believe there is a living person somewhere who's dissecting Sadkov's daily shitposts, finding "contradictions" in his "beliefs".
You're so fucked in the head insect of the tipha-zoo that I'm observing your degenerative remarks with true morbid curiosity.

You've been consistently upset by it. What's your deal?

Why not? Don't you like humiliation, you bitch retard?
I just want you to be a better person.
My deal is that you stop enabling Sadkov and return to your therapy and medication.

You are such a kind person, but shouldn't you also return to your therapy and medication, instead of trying to improve both me and Sadkov?

Sadkov is hopeless. You're still borderline, but the chances are diminishing.

I realized you are correct. Sadkov also hasn't been feeding me properly as of late with his half-hearted replies. I'm out for some time.

Take care, darling. You deserve better.

For individuals with with traits

- lying, manipulation
- lack of remorse

it is indeed natural.

Cognitive rigidity is the inability to change your thinking or behavior in presence of new evidence. What you demonstrate isn't cognitive flexibility, it's a symptom of BPD:

PROMPT: what's the name of psychiatric diagnosis when individual can't form a single consistent view, but generates multiple contradicting ones, depending on situation

The behavior described, where an individual cannot form a single consistent view but generates multiple contradicting ones depending on the situation, is a key characteristic of identity disturbance, which is a core symptom of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD).
Individuals with BPD often experience an unstable or often changing sense of self, and their interests, values, and feelings can shift rapidly. This manifests as:
- Inconsistent self-image: A distorted and unstable self-image or sense of self.
Shifting beliefs and values: Dramatic changes in goals, values, and aspirations depending on the context or situation.
- "Black and white" thinking: A tendency to view things in extremes (e.g., all good or all bad), which often results in unstable relationships that swing from extreme closeness to extreme dislike.

Average conversation with Sadkov:

- Things are black and white
- Things are greyish, with statistical distributions and conditions for state changes. Here is the evidence.
- Things are white and black

>Because "female virtues" were invented by men to keep the women in check.

So you are saying that women are all cold-hearted actresses who do performances to accommodate societal expectations, but are all ASPD prostitutes on the inside?

Men invented "nurtureness-interpersonal warmth" type traits? Men invented girls choosing dolls? If men invented these, why are these so cross cultural? Culture drifts and the other cultures for sure would have had different "inventions" given sometimes 15000 years of separation between cultures. Who invented "male virtues" then? What about sexual selection? Are you full nurture on nature-vs-nurture "debate"?

As someone who has been limited by his biology from childhood in terms of social functioning, you like no other should know that most of this shit is strictly biological, and not socially constructed, if circumstances are regular. If the "module" doesn't function correclty you wouldn't be able to fake "nurtureness-interpersonal warmth" -- you would be struggling like autists trying to behave normal.

Faithful trad wive is significantly different dimension to the subject of what you call "virtues" we discussed the last week.

Women's reproductive value falls sharply in their 30ies, some experience menopause this early, with the corresponding hormonal changes. Of course the would be a change in behavior on average once there is no reason to attract mates for reproductive purposes.

I don't see an argument here.

"most cis women are FtMs" "most men aren't manly enough, therefore would be MtFs, but don't have balls for transitioning"

Make that make sense. Most humans are androgynous / trans in the making according to you.

>Reality makes no sense

if one doesn't think but comes to convenient conclusions as soon as possible.

this is called stirring up shit (with the original idea to avoid work for a living)

as you keep repeating it over and over again - does it make you happy? if yes, in what way?

That being said of course there is a significant cultural component, but it's absurd to claim that this component explains is the entirety of the phenomenon.

The cultural expectations of women also "evolved" and if they didn't mesh well with feminine biology and life circumstances they wouldn't have survived in the form we see them today.

>And the only animal virtue is the number of healthy offsprings.

Yeah, try to get healthy well fed offspring if food provider isn't sure that the offsprings are his. Or of a mother doesn't love her children and only performs child care out of fear of being punished.

>Because "female virtues" were invented by men to keep the women in check.

I can even accept this interpretation btw. It doesn't matter in principle what is the nature of the behaviors - biological, or comes from culture brainwashing. The fact is that this "firmware" is well integrated in people by the time they are adults, and no convincing is going to change their nature. A female full of "virtues", empathy, nurturedness, interpersonal warmth isn't going to change and become an ASPD prostitute, the moment someone says it's allowed.

>But do you really care about what this old process wants?
>Or maybe you would rather prefer enjoying your life?

This is entirely deviant bullshit, Sadkov. Normal people can't escape their nature that way and optimize their "life enjoying profit". For them being true to their nature is the "profit".

Why should they block anything? The quality of life of members of a healthy family with healthy parents and kids is orders of magnitude better than yours. Evolution designed us to lead this kind of lifestyle and rewards it heavily.

PROMPT: What are the behavioral gender differences that are strongly present in cross cultural studies?

Of course. This is a complex and nuanced area of research, but cross-cultural studies have been crucial in distinguishing which behavioral differences are relatively consistent across societies (suggesting a potential interplay of biological and deep-seated cultural factors) from those that are highly culture-specific.

It's critical to preface this with two key points from the research:
1. **Within-group differences are larger than between-group differences.** This means that the behavioral variation among individual men is huge, and the variation among individual women is also huge. The average differences between the genders, while statistically significant in some areas, are often small to moderate. You cannot predict an individual's behavior based solely on their gender.
2. **Culture modulates the expression of these differences.** A difference that is strong in one culture may be minimal in another, especially in more gender-egalitarian societies.

With that in mind, here are the behavioral gender differences that show the **strongest and most consistent** presence across diverse cultures, according to meta-analyses and cross-cultural studies:

### 1. Aggression
This is arguably the most robust and universal gender difference.
* **Finding:** Across virtually all cultures, men are more likely to engage in **physical aggression** and **violent criminal behavior**. The difference is largest for severe violence and appears early in childhood, with boys engaging in more rough-and-tumble play.
* **Cross-Cultural Consistency:** This pattern is found in crime statistics, ethnographic records, and observational studies worldwide.
* **Nuance:** The difference in **verbal aggression** and **relational aggression** (e.g., gossiping, social exclusion) is much smaller and less consistent, with some studies showing women equal to or higher in these forms.

### 2. Mate Preferences and Sexual Attitudes/Behavior
Evolutionary psychologists point to this area as having strong cross-cultural consistency.
* **Finding:**
* **Men,** on average, place a higher value on youth and physical attractiveness (cues to fertility).
* **Women,** on average, place a higher value on economic resources, status, and ambition (cues to the ability to provide and protect).
* **Cross-Cultural Consistency:** This pattern has been demonstrated in dozens of countries, from urban America to rural tribal villages. It holds even as societies become more egalitarian, though the magnitude of the difference can shrink.
* **Related Finding:** Men generally report a greater desire for more casual sex and a larger number of sexual partners than women do.

### 3. Personality Traits: The "Big Five"
When looking at broad personality dimensions, some consistent differences emerge.
* **Finding:**
* **Neuroticism/Emotional Sensitivity:** Women consistently score higher, particularly on the sub-facets of anxiety and vulnerability to stress. (Note: "Neuroticism" here is a psychological term for emotional reactivity, not a pejorative).
* **Agreeableness:** Women consistently score higher, especially on the sub-facets of compassion and tenderness.
* **Extraversion:** The overall difference is small, but it breaks down differently. Women tend to be higher in warmth and gregariousness, while men tend to be higher in assertiveness and dominance.
* **Cross-Cultural Consistency:** These differences are found across many cultures, though the size of the gap varies.

### 4. Communication and Social Focus
* **Finding:** A strong and universal finding is that **female friendships and social networks are more focused on emotional sharing, self-disclosure, and providing social support.** This is often termed "tend-and-befriend" in contrast to the male "fight-or-flight" pattern.
* **Cross-Cultural Consistency:** From childhood, girls' social play is more cooperative and centered on verbal communication, while boys' play is more often about competition and group dominance hierarchies. This pattern of women investing more in maintaining intimate, dyadic relationships is widely observed.

### 5. Childhood Play and Activity Preferences
This is one of the largest and most early-emerging differences.
* **Finding:** Across cultures, boys consistently show a strong preference for toys like trucks and weapons, while girls show a preference for dolls and domestic items. This is observed even in young primates, suggesting a biological predisposition that is then amplified by culture.
* **Cross-Cultural Consistency:** This difference is remarkably resistant to socialization, appearing even in children whose parents try to provide gender-neutral toys.

### Important Caveats and What is NOT Universal:

* **The Gender Equality Paradox:** Interestingly, some of these personality and preference differences (e.g., in agreeableness or interest in people vs. things) are often *larger* in more gender-egalitarian, prosperous countries (like Norway) than in less developed nations. One theory is that when basic survival needs are met and people have more freedom of choice, innate preferences can be expressed more freely.
* **What Varies by Culture:** Many stereotypes are **not** cross-culturally universal. For example:
* **The tendency to smile more** is not a universal female trait; it's highly dependent on cultural norms about emotional expression.
* **Interrupting in conversation** is not consistently male; it depends on cultural rules about turn-taking and status.
* **Mathematical ability:** While small differences in top-tier performance are debated, average mathematical aptitude shows no significant gender difference in many cultures, and the gap has closed dramatically in Western countries, showing it is highly susceptible to educational opportunity and social expectations.

In summary, the most robust cross-cultural gender differences point towards a pattern where men, on average, are more physically aggressive and risk-taking, with a focus on competition and status, while women, on average, are more invested in nurturing relationships, are more agreeable, and have a social focus on emotional support and intimacy. These differences are best understood as probabilistic tendencies with deep roots in our biology and evolutionary history, which are then powerfully shaped, amplified, or suppressed by cultural norms.

These are literally "virtues" you've been talking about:

* **Agreeableness:** Women consistently score higher, especially on the sub-facets of compassion and tenderness.
* A strong and universal finding is that **female friendships and social networks are more focused on emotional sharing, self-disclosure, and providing social support.** This is often termed "tend-and-befriend" in contrast to the male "fight-or-flight" pattern.

Especially notable:

**The Gender Equality Paradox:** Interestingly, some of these personality and preference differences (e.g., in agreeableness or interest in people vs. things) are often *larger* in more gender-egalitarian, prosperous countries (like Norway) than in less developed nations. One theory is that when basic survival needs are met and people have more freedom of choice, innate preferences can be expressed more freely.

Agreeableness isn't about agreeing btw. Cucking your man is a mating strategy that exists, yes, but it wouldn't make a woman low on agreeableness.

And extra-pair mating is not the same as whoredom, Sadkov.

Regarding its prevalence:

>and then proceed to cuck you with your best friend.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2013.2400

"Using two independent methods, we estimate that over the last few centuries, EPP rates in Flanders (Belgium) were only around 1–2% per genera"

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.23046

"Based on the analysis of 68 representative genealogical pairs, separated by a total of 1013 fertilization events, we estimated that the historical EPP rate for the Dutch population over the last 400 years was 0.96% per generation (95% confidence interval 0.46%-1.76%)."

And even if we take pre-civilized data, with larger rates, it still isn't majority of women, but a minority.

Agreeableness != loyalty

But these are correlated positively:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-therapy/201608/how-your-personality-predicts-your-romantic-life

"Personality psychologist Portia Dyrenforth and colleagues (2010) published a study of 20,000 couples in three countries—Australia, England, and Germany—finding that high agreeableness and conscientiousness (as well as low neuroticism) in self or spouse were associated with marital satisfaction. Low agreeableness and low conscientiousness have been found to specifically predict sexual risk-taking. In a study of more than 16,000 participants from 52 countries, the researcher David Schmidt of Bradley University found that low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness predicted infidelity.

Rick Hoyle and his colleagues at the University of Kentucky (2000) analyzed findings from 53 studies on the relationship between three types of personal risk-taking sex—casual sex with strangers; unprotected sex (without a condom); and having a large number of partners—and found that low agreeableness (which often manifests as high hostility) predicted all three behaviors. Further, low conscientiousness predicted involvement in unprotected sex."

>As soon as they find a better sugar daddy,

Data shows it happens in <1% of cases during the last 1000 years. So you are kind of wrong with your wild generalizations.

>Lack of Agreeableness requires some force securing your safety.
>So women maintain Agreeableness while it suits them.

And you base this opinion on what? You are saying women don't have elevated agreebleness, and it's all due to safety concerns. This is a breakthrough finding, if it's not pulled out of your ass, but has evindence behind it.

I don't see how all women are ASPD-like prostitutes, given that prostitutes are largely individuals with personality disorders:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13559

"Only two studies explored personality disorders (PD). Iaisuklang and Ali33 concluded that 9% of SWs had antisocial personality disorder (APD). Ranjbar et al.24 found that 80% of SWs had a diagnosis of PD, with borderline PD (23.3%), antisocial PD (13.3%), and histrionic PD (13.3%) being the most common."

>I took this observation out of my ass.

I don't see how that "observation" implies that women maintain their agreeableness due to safety concerns.

Modern populations aren't threatened by tribal raids, unlimited beatings, famine, and so on. Women have careers. They aren't as dependent on men as you like to present it, and won't turn into decomposing matter.

Average modern woman != maladaptive Sadkov-like parasite.


And despite more egalitarian nature, and comfortable environment in the west, gender differences persist.

More so Agreeableness isn't a characteristic you manifest situationally, say being nice to strong and influential people and cold to weak ones. That's more towards psycho-like behavior. You are nice to everyone (doesn't imply equally nice). So you won't be maintaining that consciously.

Agreeableness (and all other Big 5 personality traits) is also recognized to be mostly stable throughout lifetime. So you are really making a scientific breakthrough here.

>As soon as they find a better sugar daddy, you're out of the equation."

Here you also boil down feminine relationship experience into scheming that optimizes for resources. Like nothing else exists. Only switching between sugar daddies (good number of women earn more than their men btw).

What about involuntary "falling in love", attachment, bonding, and other similar phenomena? Don't exist? Women are rational schemers who pretend like prostitutes pretend, and are driven only by lust and resources? All this love crap is made up shit by some conspiracy / idealists for some unfathomable reason?

Well, you should know that your brain isn't typical, and you shouldn't project your internal states and experiences on others.

And how many times do I have to link this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9formation_professionnelle ? You are a whore ffs. Your world view has to be distorted form the norm one way or another.

Do your clients sometimes tell you or ask you to say “I love you”?

Can you imitate a prostate orgasm?

>I do have empathy and care about my friends.
>Is that love?

No.

I mean, not romantic love for sure

>I do have empathy

I vaguely suspect it has the same relation to average person's empathy as your "hysteria" (dysregulation episodes) to average woman's emotional swings. But who knows...

> Guess love is like prostate orgasms.

I think love is more like happiness: like, you are either happy or not. can be longer moments. It can be more or less intense - like, very happy, less than that, all the way down to totally unhappy.

I'll necro revive couple of yesterday's comments:

>And the society is guilty for giving me life,
>they failed on populating planning.

You blame society for something that hasn't been invented yet.

It's very difficult to predict how the brain would develop from DNA even now. Unknown how to force total embryo testing on the population. And polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was only invented in 1983, and remained in top labs for years after that, and remained prohibitively expensive even longer. And of course data on various disorders hadn't been collected. So you can't blame anyone that they didn't exclude you from the living.

>Therefore we have transmaxxing.

Transmaxxing makes transitioning a choice to a significant degree. Therefore you made a choice to have issues with employment, and other issues associated with that.

"not my fault" regarding employability sound much less convincing.

Trans not hellbent on parasitic lifestyles choose to build a career first.

Depends on how you define them...

Lead hunter that invented a new trap for birds, and displaced a less smart vice chief of the tribe due to political clout.

No Bill Gates will appear in Sadkov's world model, because he was an unmanly looking nerd, and would have transitioned and became a cute trans prostitute.

You will never be a woman.