Monday, August 4, 2014

So Loooooone Lei, So Loooooone Leii, So Loooooone Leeiii (Tha Po-Lease)

https://twitter.com/ApeActionAfrica
 https://twitter.com/SavingGorillas
https://twitter.com/SavingGorillas
https://twitter.com/IPSConservation
"Planet Of The Apes" - Coon (The Con Federation)
 Sep 13
World’s Largest Primate, The Mighty Eastern Gorilla, Eaten to Near Extinction By Rwandan Refugees
WE EATON OVER HERE!
"In The Streets I Done Turn Into Go-Rilla!" - Joe Moe
"A 5 Star Gorilla Crip!" - M. Minister 
"IMMA FAMILIA GORILLA!" - U.N.L.V.
 "Really A Gaiili[?] For Those That Don't Know That Mean Gorilla In Swahili!" - Mr. Newton
You See Human Males, Particularly Blacc Ones, Behaving The Same Way When They Perceive To Have Been Insulted (Slighted) Or When Their Status Is Challenged By A Rival Male(s) Or When They're Among A Group Of Males And Trying To Establish Dominance Or Their Position In The Pecking Order (Establish Their Status Among Male Acquaintances, Male Rivals, Or Male Strangers).

Percy "Perceived To Be" Percival Miller! 
"MONKEYS HIT THE GROUND[?] WHEN GORILLAS IS ON THE PROWL!" - Treali Deuce McCallister!

 http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/08/11/i-have-developed-something-of/
On hearing, one June afternoon in 1860, the suggestion that mankind was descended from the apes, the wife of the Bishop of Worcester is said to have exclaimed, ‘My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known.’ As it turns out, she need not have been quite so worried: we are not descended from the apes, though we do share a common ancestor with them. Even though the distinction may have been too subtle to offer her much comfort, it is nevertheless important.

 "Monkey Shit Is Not Alloooooowed! So Getcho Monkey Ass From Aroooooound Me!" - Ralo Da Piiiiiimp

"Know Thyself, Know Thy Enemy!" - Gorilla Zoie

"WE GORILLAS NOT MONKEYS!" - Parkside Piru Cillie Cider!

I'M GOING TO UPDATE MY SHOCK THE MONKEY POST LATER TODAY. I'M GOING TO ADD SOME PICTURES AND PASSAGES THAT YOU MIGHT LIKE. (I'LL DO THIS TOMORROW (11/30). I UPDATED IT IN THE MONKEY POST ABOVE. I WASN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIT THE WRITING AND PHOTOS IN THE MONKEY POST INTO MY SHOCK THE MONKEY POST SO I CREATED A NEW POST FOR IT, THE MONKEY POST ABOVE.) MONKEY SEA MONKEY DEW. MONKEY SEADOO.

"IMMA FAMILIA GORILLA!" - U.N.L.V.

THIS GORILLA (KOKO) HAD A GREATER (MORE POSITIVE) IMPACT ON THE HUMAN SPECIES THAN ANY ATHLETE, ARTIST, ACTOR, ACTRESS, MUSICIAN, COMEDIAN, ETC. EVER HAS OR EVER WILL! ESPECIALLY THE NIGGERS!
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/06/gorillas-koko-sign-language-culture-animals/
http://news.janegoodall.org/2018/06/22/dr-goodall-remembers-koko-the-gorilla/

https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1059119814214598656

Scientist's obituary on Koko, the famous gorilla lady, goes as far as to imply that she could understand spoken English language.

"Gorilla Warfare" - Mikey Black
Niggers Are Like Apes (We're All Apes, But They're More So). Don't Believe ME? Watch!

LONELINESS AS A RESULT OF OSTRACISM, EXCLUSION, AND SOCIAL ISOLATION. CHIMPANZEES EXPERIENCE SIMILAR EMOTIONS AS WE HUMANS AS A RESULT OF SIMILAR SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/when-inclusion-costs-and-ostracism-pays-ostracism-still

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/choke/201203/dealing-the-pain-social-exclusion
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"social isolation was a predictor of mortality on par with smoking, obesity, elevated blood pressure, and high cholesterol" ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P
Back On The Track (Back On Track)!
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201302/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-time-cure/201303/shunning-the-ultimate-rejection-part-ii

 Aug 31
If there's a kid at school sitting alone at lunch, go ask if you can join them. Inclusion changes lives.

"HUMANS ARE SOCIAL BY NATURE AND CRAVE BEING A PART OF A GROUP (ANY GROUP). WE'RE INHERENTLY DRIVEN TO BE INCLUDED AND IF WE'RE NOT, IF WE FIND OURSELVES EXCLUDED AND ISOLATED, WE EXPERIENCE ADVERSE PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS." - Peter Dagampat Ph.D.

 Sep 16
Matt Lieberman Retweeted Diego A. Reinero
Nice to be included!
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
The Social Leap “loneliness in late adulthood is deadlier than smoking. Indeed, once you’re over 65, you’re better off smoking, drinking, and overeating with your friends than you are sitting at home alone.” amzn.to/3oGXbVI
In 2009, peace activist Sarah Shourd and her two companions were hiking in the mountains of Northern Iraq - an area that was, at that time, peaceful. They followed recommendations from locals to see the Ahmed Awa waterfall. Unfortunately, this waterfall was located at the Iraqi border with Iran. They were arrested by Iranian border guards on suspicion of being American spies. The two men were put in the same cell, but Sarah was separated from them in solitary confinement. With the exception of two thirty-minute periods each day, she spent the next 410 days in an isolated cell.
In Sarah's words:
In the early weeks and months of solitary confinement you're reduced to an animal-like state. I mean, you are an animal in a cage, and the majority of your hours are spent pacing. And the animal-like state eventually transforms into a more plant-like state: your mind starts to slow down and your thoughts become repetitive. Your brain turns on itself and becomes the source of your worst pain and your worst torture. I'd relive every moment of my life, and eventually you run out of memories. You've told them all to yourself so many times. And it doesn't take that long.
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1084904395211386880
Sarah's social deprivation caused deep psychological pain: without interaction, a brain suffers. Solitary confinement is illegal in many jurisdictions, precisely because observers have long recognized the damage caused by stripping away one of the most vital aspects of a human life: interaction with others. Starved of contact with the world, Sarah rapidly entered a hallucinatory state.
 The sun would come in at a certain time of day at an angle through my window. And all of the little dust particles in my cell were illuminated by the sun. I saw all those particles of dust as other human beings occupying the planet. And they were in the stream of life, they were interacting, they were bouncing off one another. They were doing something collective. I saw myself as off in a corner, walled up. Out of the stream of life.
In September 2010, after more than a year in captivity, Sarah was released and allowed to rejoin the world. The trauma of the event stayed with her: she suffered from depression and was easily led to panic. The next year she married Shane Bauer, one of the other hikers. She reports that she and Shane are able to calm one another, but it's not always easy: they both carry emotional scars.

The philosopher Martin Heidegger suggested that it is difficult to speak of a person "being", instead we are typically "being in the world." This was his way of emphasizing that the world around you is a large part of who you are. The self doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Although scientists and clinicians can observe what happens to people in solitary confinement, it is difficult to study directly. However, an experiment by neuroscientist Naomi Eisenberger can give insight into what happens in the brain in a slightly tamer condition: when we are excluded from a  group.
One Is The Loneliest Number!

Imagine throwing a ball around with a couple of other people, and at some point you get cut out of the game: the other two throw back and forth between themselves, excluding you. Eisenberger's experiment is based on that simple scenario. She had volunteers play a simple computer game in which their animated character threw a ball around with two other players. The volunteers were led to believe that the other players were controlled by two other humans, but in fact they were just part of a computer program. At first, the others played nicely - but after a while, they cut the volunteer out of the game, and simply threw between each other.

Eisenberger had the volunteers play this game while they were lying down in a brain scanner (the technique is called functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI). She found something remarkable: when the volunteers were left out of the game, areas involved in their pain matrix became active. Not getting the ball might seem insignificant, but to the brain social rejection is so meaningful that it hurts, literally.


Why does rejection hurt? Presumably, this is a clue that social bonding has evolutionary importance - in other words, the pain is a mechanism that steers us toward interaction and acceptance by others. Our inbuilt neural machinery drives us toward bonding with others. It urges us to form groups.

This sheds light on the social world that surrounds us: everywhere, humans constantly form groups. We bind together through links of family, friendship, work, style, sports teams, religion, culture, skin pigment, language, hobbies, and political affiliation. It gives us comfort to belong to a group - and that fact gives us a critical hint about our species' history.    

The Brain: The Story of You. Eagleman, p. 144-147

Jay Van Bavel, PhD
@jayvanbavel
Relationships are key to our happiness and well being At any age, there is a 14% higher risk of dying early associated with loneliness and a 32% higher risk of dying early associated with social isolation. Building healthy relationships is one of the best things you can do for yourself. nytimes.com/2024/07/11/opi
 NO LOVE

I'm Gonna Die Prematurely Because NO ONE Likes ME And I Have NO ONE As A Friend!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/sunday/popular-people-live-longer.html
The results revealed that being unpopular — feeling isolated, disconnected, lonely — predicts our life span. More surprising is just how powerful this effect can be. Dr. Holt-Lunstad found that people who had larger networks of friends had a 50 percent increased chance of survival by the end of the study they were in. And those who had good-quality relationships had a 91 percent higher survival rate. This suggests that being unpopular increases our chance of death more strongly than obesity, physical inactivity or binge drinking. In fact, the only comparable health hazard is smoking.
...
This may be why we remain so attuned to popularity today, even when we’re not consciously thinking of it. Research in psychology and neuroscience has begun to reveal a number of automatic physiological responses to unpopularity. For instance, our popularity may have an effect on our DNA.

https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1474075479594258435

https://www.amazon.com/Loneliness-Psychosocial-Prevalence-Psychology-Motivations/dp/163482640X/

 George Slavich and Steve Cole, experts in the field of human social genomics at the University of California, Los Angeles, have described our genomic material as being exquisitely “sensitive to social rejection.” They study what happens immediately after we’ve been left by a romantic partner, excluded from a social event, rejected by a stranger or even simply told that we may be judged by others we care about. Within 40 minutes, they and other researchers have found, these experiences affect the expression of individual genes, determining which parts of our DNA are turned on or off (called epigenetics). Even imagining that we might lose our connection to the herd, they have found, can change how DNA behaves.

How Loneliness Undermines Health

The structure of modern societies exposes large numbers of people to circumstances where it is difficult to fulfill social needs and avoid loneliness. With increased loneliness comes vulnerability to anxiety and depression that are associated with leading killers such as heart disease, drug addiction, and suicide.

While the psychological effects of social isolation are fairly obvious, health researchers have labored to establish the mechanisms through which loneliness increases the risk of early mortality. Loneliness increases stress hormones. This is partly because close social interaction releases oxytocin, an anti-stress hormone. Loneliness also increases inflammation that features in diverse serious illnesses, including heart disease and cancers.

Lonely people often suffer from a lack of meaning that derives from social integration and community involvement. They are prone to hopelessness and are not good at recovering from setbacks.

Loneliness is associated with poor nutrition, bad sleep habits, smoking, and failure to get adequate exercise or medical attention. It is alarming that around half of Americans report feeling lonely. This is a grim statistic, considering that loneliness increases the risk of premature mortality by 65 percent.

https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1628766477330403332
Rob Henderson Retweeted
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"By far the biggest medical surprise of the past decade has been the extraordinary number of studies showing that the single best predictor of health and wellbeing is simply the number and quality of close friendships you have." penguin.co.uk/books/444270/t
 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/well/live/having-friends-is-good-for-you.html
In fact, the researchers found that “those with close social ties and unhealthful lifestyles (such as smoking, obesity and lack of exercise) actually lived longer than those with poor social ties but more healthful living habits,” Mr. Robbins wrote. However, he quickly added, “Needless to say, people with both healthful lifestyles and close social ties lived the longest of all.”
You're Only Lonely If You Feel Lonely. So You Can Be A Loner, But If You Feel As Though Your Social Life Is Satisfactory You Won't Feel Lonely! It's All In The Mind Folks! You're Only Lonely If You Allow Yourself To Feel Lonely!

 Sep 6
Very interesting read about links between loneliness and mental health problems
https://www.nationalelfservice.net/populations-and-settings/loneliness/tackling-loneliness-in-people-with-mental-health-problems/
 PSYCHOLOGICAL PAIN IS SIMILAR TO PHYSICAL PAIN BECAUSE BOTH TYPES OF PAIN ARE A RESULT OF THE SAME NEUROLOGICAL PATHWAYS (ARE THE RESULT OF THE SAME BRAIN WIRING). CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH SOURCES OF PAIN CAN BE RELIVED IN THE SAME WAY (EITHER BY TAKING PAIN MEDICATION OR ILLICIT DRUGS (OPIUM) OR DRINKING ALCOHOL; I PREFER ALCOHOL!)!

 Jan 22
Opiate of the masses: Social connection, the pleasurable, subjective experience of feeling close to other people, is mediated by opioids.

 29 Dec 2017
Happy pill not invent yet, so just treat mental health actual serious for now.


https://www.amazon.com/Cry-Unheard-Insights-Consequences-Loneliness/dp/1890862118
Michael McCullough
@ME_McCullough
Social loneliness produces a subjective craving not unlike the food craving we experience after many hours of not eating. It may also activate brain areas related to craving.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqrcanPgGyI
Going Ape Social Climbers S01E03 Full Episode Tune
36:45-40:30 (39:55 There I Go Again! That's ME Crawling On All 4s!)


The fewer social relations as person has, the shorter the life expectancy, and the worse the impact of various infectious diseases. Medically, protective relationships can take the form of marriage, contact with friends and extended family. church membership, or other group affiliations. Moreover, the process of becoming isolated from your significant other - going through a divorce or having severe marital problems - is also associated with worse immune functioning. To continue these themes, people who score high on loneliness scales have been found to have relatively depressed immune function. Moreover, social stressors tend to be more immunosuppressive than noninterpersonal stressors.
This is a fairly consistent pattern that cuts across a lot of different settings. Moreover, these general findings are based on some careful prospective studies and are seen in both sexes and in different races, in American and European populations living in urban and rural areas. Most importantly, this effect is big. The impact of social relationships on life expectancy appears to be at least as large as that of variables such as cigarette smoking, hypertension, obesity, and level of physical activity. People with the fewest social connections have approximately two-and-a-half times as much chance of dying as those with the most connections, after controlling for such variables as age, gender, and health status.

This is very exciting, and we can readily apply steps 1 through 4 to these studies  - socially isolated people are more stressed, for lack of social outlets and support (step 1); this leads to chronic activation of stress responses (step 2), leading to immune suppression (step 3) and more infectious diseases (step 4). Nice, but there are lots of other ways to get from social isolation to poor health. What if the problem is that socially isolated people lack that someone special to remind them to take their daily medication. It is known that isolated people are less likely to comply with a medical regime. What if they're more likely to subsist on reheated fast food instead of something nutritious? Or more likely to indulge in some foolish risk-taking behavior, like smoking, because there's no one to try to convince them to stop? There are many lifestyle patterns that could link social isolation with step 4 and bypass 1 through 3 entirely. Or what if the causality is reversed - what if the linkage occurs because sickly people are less likely to be able to maintain stable social relationships?

Despite these counterinterpretations, it looks as if the linkage between social isolation and poor health is at least partially mediated through the psychoneuroimmune cascade of steps 1 through 4 that we've outlined. For one thing, the careful studies have controlled for variables such as smoking, diet, or medication compliance. Even stronger support comes from primate studies: social isolation impairs the immunity and health of monkeys, and animals put into stressful environments that would normally suppress their immune system are buffered from that happening if they are in the company of friends. Just as in humans - but without the human confounds of medication, Big Macs, alcohol, and smoking.

An extreme version of social isolation is, of course, the loss of a loved one, and a common scenario in literature is of the one left behind - the grieving spouse, the bereft parent, even the masterless pet - now pining away to an early death. A number of studies suggest that bereavement does indeed increase the risk of dying. This does not appear to be the case among all grieving individuals, however. Instead, it appears that the person has to have an additional physiological or psychological risk factor coupled with the bereavement. In one carefully controlled prospective study, the parents of all the Israeli men who died in the Lebanese war were followed for ten years afterward. Loss of a son did  not affect mortality rate in the population of grieving parents in general; however, significantly higher mortality rates occurred among parents who were already widowed or divorced. In other words, this stressor is associated with increased mortality in the subset of parents with the added risk factor of minimal social support.

Sometimes the additional risk factor can be immunological. This is seen among HIV-positive people. When comparing individuals matched for severity of the disease, those who are in the process of grieving for a lost loved one show a more dramatic decline in immune function in the aftermath than those not grieving.

Insofar as there is a link between bereavement and increased mortality, we once again have to consider whether this is due to steps 1 through 4. Once again, the psychoneuroimmune sequence: an elderly man loses his wife and has an increased risk of dying in the next year. An obvious interpretation would be that the stressor of bereavement (step 1) activates his stress-response (step 2), causing enough immunosuppression (step 3) to make him sick (step 4). However, there are the obvious alternative routes - he doesn't bother to eat healthfully, takes to drinking, doesn't take his medication. Perhaps he drives more recklessly than he would have otherwise. Sometimes the confound is more subtle. People tend to marry people who are ethnically and genetically quite similar to themselves. Intrinsic in this trend toward "homogamy" is a tendency of married couples to have higher-than-random chances of sharing certain genetic disease tendencies, which make it more likely that they will get sick around the same time. Thus, a variety of alternative routes might explain the bereavement literature, though it still remains unclear how much these plausible confounds come into play.

...

Social support is certainly protective for humans as well. This can be demonstrated even in transient instances of support. In a number of subtle studies, subjects were exposed to a stressor - having to give a public speech or perform a mental arithmetic task, or having two strangers argue with them - with or without a supportive friend present. In each case, social support translated into less of a cardiovascular stress-response. Profound and persistent differences in degrees of social support can influence human physiology as well: within the same family, there are significantly higher glucocorticoid levels among stepchildren than among biological children.

As noted in the chapter on immunity, people with spouses or close friends have longer life expediencies. When the spouse dies, the risk of dying skyrockets. Recall also from that chapter the study of parents of Israeli soldiers killed in the Lebanon war: in the aftermath of this stressor, there was no noticeable increase in risk of disease or mortality - except among those who were already divorced or widowed. Some additional examples concern the cardiovascular system. People who are socially isolated have overly active sympathetic nervous systems. Given the likelihood that this will lead to higher blood pressure and more platelet aggregation in their blood vessels...they are more likely to have heart disease - two to five times as likely, as it turns out. And once they have the heart disease, they are more likely to die at a younger age. In a study of patients with severe coronary heart disease, Redford Williams of Duke University and colleagues found that half of those lacking social support were dead within five years - a rate three times higher than was seen in patients who had a spouse or close friend, after controlling for the severity of the disease. 

Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers. Sapolsky, p. 142-145, 165.

Solitaire!
Image
https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1290316503582035970
I Have No Friends.  
https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1305871956751929344
Foe Realz!
Steve Stewart-Williams
@SteveStuWill
Who we spend time with at different ages (US) • Adolescence: parents, siblings, and friends • Early- to mid-adulthood: co-workers, partners, and children • Later years: partners, plus more and more time alone bit.ly/2IF5Hnx HT
@EOrtizOspina
@OurWorldInData

 http://methalashun.blogspot.com/2014/05/dont-cry-for-me-argentina-aint-nobody.html
You Can't Hold The Beliefs I Hold Concerning Race And Religion (That There Are Racial Differences Resulting In Different Behavior And Different Life Outcomes And That God Has No Part To Play In Any Of This Because God Doesn't Exist), Announce Them To The World,  And Expect To Be Liked And Accepted By People. Why? because These Beliefs Are Anathema To Most People (Unacceptable) Since They're Contrary To The Myths, Legends, And Folklore (i.e.Wive's Tales, Common Sense, And Intuition) That They've Been Inculcated By Our Culture To Believe And Are Ultimately Unpleasing To The Mind (i.e. These Beliefs Don't Provide The Upbeat, Positive, Optimistic, Encouraging Thoughts That We've Evolved To Seek In Beliefs And Ideologies).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/to-beat-the-blues-visits-must-be-real-not-virtual-1464899707

What A Fucked Up Family Picture!


"Imma Untamed Gorilla" - J Man471 (Bompton)
"UNTAMED...UNCHAINED" - CHALE MANE
"A Gorilla, Untamed! Nigga Know My Name!" - M.S.G.

"My Technique Is Gorilla...Imma Fuckin' Gorilla!"- Mac Minister Dogg

One of the most pronounced physical differences between the sexes is in muscle mass. Men pack more muscle fibers into any given species in the body and have 80 percent more muscle mass in their upper body than women, and 50 percent more in their legs. As far as upper body strength, this translates to a three-standard-deviation difference in strength. That is, again, of a thousand men off the street, 997 would have a stronger upper body than the average woman. 

"The differences in upper body strength are about what you see in gorillas," Geary says. "That's very big. Gorillas are the most sexually dimorphic of our close relatives. The males are about twice the size of the females. So the overall size difference is more than in humans, but the difference in upper body strength is similar." 

The reason for the similarity to gorillas reflects how sexual selection has shaped human (and gorilla) athleticism. If you want to know whether the male or female of a given species is bigger and stronger, one piece of information is particularly useful: which sex has the higher potential reproductive rate.  

Because of a long gestation and breastfeeding period, a female gorilla can produce only one offspring about every four years. Male gorillas collect and defend harems of females and have a much higher potential reproductive rate. But for each male gorilla that has a harem, several other males are frozen out of breeding altogether. The result is that male gorillas compete fiercely for access to multiple females, and this "male-male competition" takes the form of fighting, or at least posturing to fight, and natural selection accentuates traits that make gorillas better fighters." (The Sports Gene)
 
"I Come Go-Rilla...Kill Foe Village Uh" - Ike Dola Tha Hoe Controlla




SONS OF THE CONGO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWBNOEugSlg
 Pay Special Note To The Gorilla Like Dominance Display At The 0:08 Mark (The Beating On The Chest, The Swaying To And Fro, And The Stomping On The Flo!). This Is Further Proof That Russell Is More Closely Related To The Western Gorilla Gorilla Than Any Of The Other West African Basketball Playing Cohort! The Gorilla Like Posturing Comes To Him Automatically And Instinctively In His Play! (I Was Waiting For Him To Finish Off His Act By Uprooting The Basket Or At Least Uprooting A Basketball Fan From His/Her Seat And Dragging Him/Her Across The Flo!)

"Planet Of The Apes...Straight Gorillas!" - Da Gunman

 Retweeted
Mar 21 
Replying to
Good researchers hope to understand human diversity, not the mistaken idea that some living people are closer to our common ancestors.
http://www.academia.edu/14225650/Paradoxes_of_Dehumanization

"Beatin' My Chess Like King Khan!" - Kublai

"Gorilla Like Mighty Joe [Joe Frazier]...Donky Kong I Mean." - Macnificent The Great
RUSSELL WESTBROOK OR TOM JACKSON (ESPN NFL COUTDOWN HOST) THINKING.




HMM. 
ME TRYNA FIGURE OUT HOW IMMA GET IN THE CLUB, MICHAEL EAVES!

RUSSELL WESTBROOK EATON OR TOM JACKSON (ESPN NFL COUNTDOWN) EATON.

"SHAKE THAT MONKEY" - SHOWT DAWG
"Put That Monkey On That Banana!" - T Y (THAI) $1 SIGN









Walkin' Buy LOVE! (After I Was Sodomized By A GanG Of NIGGERs! They Ran Thru ME, Then Ran ME Off!)

"Somethin' To Run Thru!" - Treali Deuce McCalister

"SASQUATCH PIMPIN'" - DON PERIGNON
https://instagram.com/p/0_dQX_ySYK/?taken-by=chrisryanphd
Bill Walton In His HEYDAY Dicking Ryan Down! "Dick 'Em Down, Big Fella!" - Bill
Dugum Dani!

 "...We Blacc Gorillas..." - Spider (Monkey) Loc


"100 CRIP!" -DA GUNMAN 
PHOTOS TAKEN FROM THE FOLLOWING BOOKS:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Apes-Natures-Mirror/dp/0713724889
http://www.amazon.com/Cousins-Relatives-Barrett-Louise-Dunbar/dp/0563551151
http://www.amazon.com/Among-Great-Apes-Adventures-Relatives/dp/B006OHYRL6
http://www.amazon.com/World-Atlas-Great-their-Conservation/dp/0520246330
http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Evolution-Revealed-Douglas-Palmer/dp/1845334744
RES ERECTUS

The individual fish in a school do not recognize one another; they do not need to. But the individual chickens in a pecking order do recognize one another. If you form a new flock by putting together ten unacquainted hens or roosters, a power struggle will begin immediately. A pair of birds will peck at each other, or threaten to do so, until one concedes defeat, thus establishing a dominant-submissive relationship between them. Once that has been established there is no longer any need to fight: the one with the lower status simply gives way to the one with higher status, and peace reigns. The flock has become a smoothly functioning superorganism. Dominance hierarchies are beenficial not only to the winners (who thereafter get first access to food and mates) but also to the losers (who thereafter get beaten up less often and less severely). Both winners and losers get the advantages of being members of a group. An isolated bird is a sitting duck, so to speak, for predators.

The pecking order in chickens depends on their recognizing each other and remembering their past encounters, but their memories are nowhere near as good as that of the proverbial elephant, the one who never forgets. Chickens get mixed up if their flock numbers more than ten (dominance hierarchies are unstable in larger flocks), and a flockmate that takes a vacation is soon forgotten. If you remove a chicken from the flock and put it back in a week, it will resume its place in the hierarchy, but after a three-week absence it will have to reestablish its rank all over again. So a chicken's mental lexicon for chickens doesn't contain many pages and the ink fades quickly. But who would have expected a chicken to have a mechanism for recognizing individuals and behaving appropriately to them?  

Now let's take another step downwards in brain size. How about paper wasps? Yes, paper wasps, which live in colonies and construct communal nests (those papery gray things you sometimes see attached to tree branches or the eaves of houses) have dominance hierarchies. Colonies are founded anew each spring by females that survive the winter; several females that overwinter in the same hideout will cooperate in starting a new colony. But the cooperation is at first of a belligerent sort: in the early days they interact aggressively with one another. Soon a dominance hierarchy emerges and there is a sharp reduction in fighting.

Among paper wasps, the payoff for being the alpha female is considerable: she gets to be the chief egg layer of the colony. The others lay an occasional egg, but Alpha tolerates no nonsense: if she spies an egg that isn't hers, she eats it. Before long the ovaries of the other wasps recede and they stop trying. They become workers in the nest, helping to rear Alpha's children. They stay because a paper wasp can't survive on its own and because there is always the possibility that Alpha might die and they can move up in the hierarchy (in which case their ovaries will grow back). Also, there is a good chance that Alpha is their sister, so the young they help to rear might be their nieces and nephews.

Believe it or not, there is evidence that paper wasps are capable of some sort of limited recognition of individual nestmates. But recognition, strictly speaking isn't necessary: dominance hierarchies in this species may be established and maintained by means of feedback loops.

...

Here's how positive feedback loops could produce dominance hierarchies in paper wasps. Assume that winning and aggressive encounter causes some change - hormonal, perhaps - in the winner. This change signals her status to potential rivals and thereby makes her more likely to prevail in future showdowns. By behaving in a certain way and/or emitting the right kind of pheromones, she exudes the wasp equivalent of self-confidence. The wasps below her in the dominance hierarchy might be responding to these signals, rather than remembering what happened the last time they made the mistake of dissing Alpha.

Positive feedback loops of this sort are not restricted to species with wasp-size brains. They are observable in animals that are clearly capable of remembering every member of their group - wolves and monkeys, for example. According to the evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson,       
The identity of the leading male in a wolf pack is unmistakable from the way he holds his head, ears, and tail, and the confident, face-forward manner in which he approaches other members of his group. He controls his subordinates in the great majority of encounters without any display of overt hostility...Similarly, the dominant rhesus [monkey] male maintains an elaborate posture signifying his rank: head and tail up, testicles lowered, body movements slow and deliberate and accompanied by unhesitating but measured scrutiny of other monkeys the cross his field of view.
...

The unhesitating scrutiny with which the alpha male looks at the other monkeys in his group is a mark of his status. In the hierarchical power domain, looking directly at another is a challenge. If two individuals - monkeys, apes, or humans - happen to make eye contact, the lower-ranked one indicates submission by looking down or away. If he maintains eye contact, he's responding to the challenge by issuing a challenge of his own.

In the previous chapter I described a mental module that Simon Baron-Cohen called an "eye-direction detector" and which I will rename, for compactness, the "gaze detector." The gaze detector tells you where someone is looking - in particular, whether someone is looking at you. What you do with that information depends on what kind of relationship you have with the other person - or, to put it in Bugental's terms, which domain of social life is currently in play. In the hierarchical power domain, prolonged eye contact means "I challenge you." In the mating domain, it means "I love you." In the first case it can lead to a fight; in the second one, to sex.


Briefer glances also have different meanings in the two domains. In the mating domain they are used in flirting. In the hierarchical domain, they are a sign of what the ethologist Michael Chance has called the "attention structure" of a group. The alpha male in a primate group is not distinguished by HOW MANY GLANCES HE DIRECTS TOWARD THE OTHERS BUT BY HOW MANY GLANCES HE RECEIVES: he receives by far the most. In general, high-ranked individuals are looked at more than those in lower ranks. Because the lower-ranked individual has to yield to a higher-ranked one, he has to keep track of where his superiors are and what they are doing. If these glances should happen to result in eye contact, he quickly averts his eyes.

"Y U OVER THERE LOOKIN' AT ME...STANDIN' HERE!"- EAST COAST CRIP!

Rank in primate groups is not a simple matter; several factors are involved in determining an individual's status. Males and females generally have separate hierarchies, with all or most of the males able to dominate all or most of the females. Another important factor is kinship. An individual who has high-status relatives in the group can call on their help in a dispute with the members of other families.

It pays to belong to a powerful family. A recent study of baboons living in a game reserve in Botswana showed that these monkeys are keenly aware both of family connections and of power hierarchies within their troop. The researchers made auditory tapes of the baboons' noisy altercations and then pieced together sequences that sounded (to a baboon)  as if one animal was asserting dominance and the other was yielding. The baboons who heard these phony sequences appeared to be more disturbed or puzzled (judging by how long they looked in the direction of the sounds) by sequences that involved status reversals - either a low-status animal getting the best of a high-status one from the same family, or an animal from a low-status family getting the best of one from a high-status family. But they were clearly more troubled by the latter type of reversal. The researchers concluded that baboons classify other baboons both by individual rank and by family, and that they understand that changes in the rank ordering of families are more disruptive.



 All Of The Lower Class Black And Brown Kids Beat ME! They Beat ME In Basketball And Beat ME Up! I'm Just A Weak Lil Wimp (A Beaten Beta, Leanne)!

The results of this experiment also show that baboons can recognize individual members of their troop by the sound of their voices as well as by sight. Either form of recognition will lead them to the lexicon page for the particular baboon - a page that contains, not only information about their own kinship with that individual, but also information about its kinship with others in their troop.

Now we come to the chimpanzee. Dominance in this species depends not only on physical power and family connections, but also on alliances between nonrelatives. When two chimpanzees come to blows, explained the Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal,
A third ape may decide to enter the conflict and side with one of them. The result is a coalition of two against one. In many cases the conflict extends still further, and larger coalitions are formed...Chimpanzees act selectively when intervening in a conflict between other members of the group. All the group members have their own personal likes and dislikes which dictate how they act. The choices they make are biased choices, which generally remain constant over the years. This does not mean to say that relationships in the group do not change; indeed, this is the most fascinating aspect of chimpanzee coalitions. Why should C, who has supported A against B for years, gradually begin to support B against A?
Something like that happened in the chimpanzee colony in the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands, where de Waal spent several years observing the primates. When he arrived at the zoo, the alpha male, A, was a dignified old chimpanzee named Yeroen, still physically powerful but beginning to show signs of age. B was Luit, a little younger but equally big and strong, and C was Nikkie, the youngest and most boisterous of the three, still gaining in size and strength.

For more than two years, A was the top banana. Then B began to challenge his supremacy. C sided with B and their coalition was successful in overthrowing A, so that both B and C became dominant over A. But now that A was acting submissive to C, C began a campaign against B and obtained A's cooperation. With A's backing, C toppled B and became the alpha male.

Such changes in status are accompanied by changes in behavior and demeanor. The alpha male looks very self-confident as long as he's the alpha male, but observed de Waal, "As soon as his position is seriously threatened, the self-confidence may disappear completely." The other chimpanzees are well aware of what is going on. Each adult member of the colony has to know who's currently on top, who's plotting a coup, and who's supporting each contender. The pages in a chimpanzee's lexicon have to be kept up-to-date.

Earlier I said that the dominance hierarchy is the result of pairwise interactions between individuals. That is true despite the existence of coalitions of the sort de Waal described. Chimpanzee A may be dominant over B either because he is bigger and stronger or because he has the support of C. In either case the relationship between A and B is one of dominance and submission.

Dominance hierarchies have also been observed in groups of human children. The cross-cultural psychologist Carolyn Edwards studied the multi-age play groups of traditional small-village societies and reported,
Older children respond to others younger and smaller than themselves by establishing dominance over them...Accordingly, a pecking-order of size and strength consistently emerges in multi-age groups, certainly in the multi-age play group of siblings, half-siblings, and courtyard cousins found in most of our samples.

In societies where children go to school and children's groups consist mostly of nonrelatives of roughly the same age, individuals who are taller or stronger than their agemates are likely to have higher status, especially in boys' groups. Researchers have studied children in nursery schools and found attention structures similar to those reported in other primates: high-status children are looked at more.

But in humans - even in boys - the attention structure is not identical to the dominance hierarchy. The child with the highest position in the attention structure is not necessarily the largest or most aggressive; he or she may instead be an organizer or initiator - one who thinks up interesting games and persuades others to participate in them. A child can have high status in a group without being at the top of the dominance hierarchy. In humans - I'll return to this point in a later chapter - status is complex and multidimensional.

The dominance hierarchy of a group depends on who's in it at the moment. If A is absent, the remaining members may simply move up a rung or, if coalitions are involved, there may be other repercussions: without A's support, B may lose his dominance over C. When a group splits up into two smaller groups or two groups coalesce, an individual's rank is likely to change. In ancestral times, when human families foraged together in small, temporary groups, a child's position in the dominance hierarchy might shift upwards or downwards whenever the adults decided to make a switch. A boy who could, for a while, dominate all the other boys in the play group might be quickly demoted when a family with a larger, stronger boy joined up. If children in ancestral times sooner or later became acquainted with all other children in their clan, they must also have learned which ones they could dominate and which could dominate them.

As de Waal observed, the behaviors associated with being the alpha male depend on remaining the alpha male; the ex-alpha has lost, not only his status, but also his air of self-confidence. Whether one behaves in a dominant or submissive fashion depends on one's rank in a particular group at a particular time. This is why a child who has been dominated for years by an older sibling can become a dominant member of a group of agemates - or, for that matter, of any group that does not happen to include the older sibling.   

No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. Harris, p. 175-181. 

https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1097180655090393090
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
“self-deceived individuals are happier...Lack of self-deception is, in fact, a sign of depression. Individuals who feel good about themselves, whether or not the facts merit this feeling, tend to achieve more.”
@tylercowen
ppe.mercatus.org/system/files/S

Ask a four-year-old boy who is the toughest or smartest in his nursery school class and the answer you will probably get is "Me!" The status sociometer arrives from the factory with a default setting of alpha. Even after many years of use, it is still apt to register high. The tendency for people to overestimate themselves - in toughness, smartness, looks, honesty, niceness, driving ability, you name it - has been demonstrated again and again. The exceptions are people suffering from depression. But depressed people don't actually underestimate themselves: they estimate themselves pretty accurately, which turns out not to be such a good idea.    

It wouldn't do, however, to run around with one's sociometer forever fixed at the factory default. A 97-pound weakling who goes around trying to dominate everyone he meets is likely to lead a life that is nasty, brutish, and short. An individual has to learn that there are areas of endeavor in which he might be able to compete successfully and others in which it is best to cut his loses and concede defeat. Childhood is the time to find these things out: a time when a mistake is less likely to have irrevocable consequences.

 Or Maybe I Don't Make Eye Contact With People Because I'm A Low Status, Subordinate, NOBODY Female! I Don't Know!

The very same four-year-old boy who told you that he is the toughest in his nursery school class tells a different story by his behavior: he averts his eyes and yields possession of toys when challenged by a bigger, stronger classmate. Dominant-submissive relationships are clearly visible in behavior at this age; and yet the child has little or no idea of his status in the group as a whole. Dominance and submission are the outcome of pairwise interactions between individuals and are handled by the relationship system, which (as I said in chapter 7) is ready to go from birth. A dominance hierarchy is the larger, group-wide structure that results from these interactions. Awareness of such structures and understanding of one's own position in them requires a higher level of cognitive sophistication. The status system is the slowest of the three systems to develop.

DAMIEN RINFLEISCH DIED, BUT AFTER THAT FIGHT WE HAD HE RESPECTED ME AND DEFERRED TO ME, ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS OF SPORTS.

By kindergarten age - five or six - boys have a much better idea of their toughness relative to other boys, and by first grade they are fairly accurate (though still overly optimistic) in their self-assessment. They can also, by first grade, do a pretty good job of ranking their classmates in toughness. Ranking themselves and others in smartness takes a little longer, because the necessary information is harder to come by. But by second or third grade, they can do this too. I'm focusing here on toughness and aggressiveness because a lot of research has been done on these things and because they are obviously pertinent to Darwinian fitness, especially in males.

Whether aggressiveness will be a successful behavioral strategy for a particular male depends in part on his genetic endowment, in part on environmental factors that his genes cannot forsee. An individual's size and strength are affected, not only by genes, but also by things like malnutrition, parasites, illnesses, and injuries, which would have taken a heavier toll under ancestral conditions than they do today. Moreover, bigness and toughness are not absolute: they depend on how you compare with the competition. The luck of the draw could give you Woody Allen or it could give you Shaquille O'neal. A kid who ranks alpha in his play group might be beta, gamma, or omega in another group. Culture matters, too. Aggressiveness works better in some cultures than in others. 

In earlier chapters I described evidence showing that children's experiences at home do not affect their aggressiveness outside the home. Firstborns who dominate their younger siblings are no more aggressive than laterborns when they're with their peers. Kids who are well-behaved in the presence of their parents may be bullies on the playground. My conclusion was that children's experiences at home have only short-term context-specific effects on their behavior. Now the question is whether children's experiences outside the home have long-term consequences. In order to convince you that the status system has the power I attribute to it, I need to provide evidence that children's experiences with their peers (in this case, experiences related to aggressiveness and dominance) do in fact have long-term effects on personality.

One way to do that would be to show that having high or low social status in childhood has effects on adult personality. Do the social experiences associated with being bigger, stronger, or more physically mature than others of his age have lasting effects on a boy's personality? There is plenty of evidence for a connection between physical size or strength, status, and personality in adulthood (tall or muscular men tend to have higher status and to be more competitive and aggressive), but what I need now is a link between physical size or strength in childhood and personality in adulthood.    

That link is provided by longitudinal studies of height. The starting point is the well-established finding that tall men, on average, earn higher salaries than short men. The difference isn't negligible: it amounts to around eight hundred dollars per inch in annual income. Though evolutionary psychologists are not surprised by this finding, economists find it puzzling. The salaried workers in question are not playing basketball; they're not even changing light bulbs. Mostly they're just sitting behind a desk. Why would it be worth it to an employer to pay a higher salary to a tall guy if all he's going to do is sit behind a desk? 

 Recently three economists - Nicola Perisco, Andrew Postlewaite, and Dan Silverman - attempted to answer that question. They were lucky enough to have access to two large databases of information on almost 4,500 white American and British males, including the subjects' salary and height in adulthood (around age thirty), height at age sixteen, and, for about half of the subjects, height at ages seven and eleven. There was also a good deal of background information on the subjects.

 The economists analyzed the data till smoke started coming out of their computers, but they didn't find the answer to the question of why tall guys get paid more. What they found instead was another puzzle. Employers, they discovered, are not paying for height per se - that is, they are not paying for adult height. What matters in terms of salary is not height in adulthood but height in adolescence. Though a man who is taller than average in adulthood is also likely to have been taller than average in adolescence, the rank ordering of individuals can change, and this enabled the economists to statistically separate the effects of height at different ages. They found that men with the fattest paychecks were not necessarily those who were tallest at age thirty: they were those who had been tallest at age sixteen. As for height at ages seven and eleven, it made little difference once height at age sixteen was statistically controlled.

 The economists tested several hypotheses that might explain what they called the "teen height premium." Differences in childhood health didn't account for it; nor was it a function of the socioeconomic status of the subjects' parents. Of the factors they looked at, the one that mattered the most - it accounted for about a third of the teen height premium - was participation in extracurricular activities in high school, especially participation in sports. Notice that participation in sports requires strength as well as size, and that high school athletes generally have high status among their peers. 

The economists' conclusion was that employers aren't paying a premium just to have tall employees. Employers are paying for something else - something associated with being tall in adolescence and with being good at sports, something that must persist into adulthood. What could it be?

The answer, had the economists known where to look for it, was provided by a much older, much smaller study done - no, not by a social psychologist, but by a developmentalist. Her name was Mary Cover Jones and her research was published in 1957. As far as I know it has never been replicated - except, in an indirect way, by the three economists.

 Jones studied two types of subjects: teenage boys who were maturing slowly (in the bottom 20 percent for their age in terms of bone maturity) and teenage boys who were maturing rapidly (top 20 percent). These boys differed considerably in size; the gap was widest at age fourteen, when the early maturers averaged a whopping eight inches taller and thirty-four pounds heavier than the slow maturers. 

The marked differences in size, strength, and success in sports (which Jones mentioned in passing) were accompanied, in adolescence, by differences in personality and social behavior. In ratings by trained observers, the early maturers scored higher on "behavior items suggesting a large component of self-acceptance": they were poised, relaxed, and matter-of-fact. In contrast, the slow maturers were eager, talkative, and tense,  and more likely to have mannerisms that Jones described as "affected" and "attention-seeking." Boys who are small for their age tend to be pushed around a lot by their peers; other researchers have found that such boys have more than their share of mental health disturbances. 

The slow maturers eventually caught up in size; in their early thirties, when Jones revisited them, the two groups of subjects differed by an average of only half an inch. They were also about equal in educational attainment. But the early maturers were more likely to have achieved what Jones called "status-conferring" positions in their careers, and there were still significant differences in personality (as measured now by standard personality tests) between the groups: the early maturers scored higher on personality characteristics associated with dominance.

Jones's study and the one by the three economists fit together like Lego blocks. Qualities such as tallness, strength, and athletic ability give a boy high status in his adolescent peer group, and having high status in adolescence has lasting effects on his personality. It makes him more sure of himself, more dominant, more competitive, more of a leader. These personality characteristics impress employers and they also impress voters. In presidential elections in the United States, the taller candidate usually wins.   

The finding that height in adolescence matters more than height in childhood implies that personality can still be modified as late as age sixteen. This is consistent with the results of the study of personality development across the life course, which I mentioned in chapter 1, and suggests that the status system does its work at a more leisurely pace than the socialization system. Sixteen is not too late for a boy to develop a self-assured personality, but it is too late for the son of a Japanese executive who has lived for several years in the United States to return to Japanese norms of social behavior, and it is too late for a new immigrant to learn to speak the language of his new country without an accent. Each system has its own developmental timetable.

Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"tall men were perceived as more socially attractive, better adjusted, more masculine, and as having greater professional status when compared with short men but not with men of average height...shortness is more of a liability than tallness is an asset" psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-09

https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/1257443102094131204

"Physically stronger men are less neurotic and this relationship remains after controlling for BMI"

You think this lack of fear is directly driven by the (self-perceived) safety of being physically strong? Do men who know they're strong just not have to worry as much? Or some 3rd variables? And to what extent do these links drive some of the sex difference in fearfulness? Hmmm
Yes, that’s the hypothesis—that strength buffers people from threats, & therefore threat detection thresholds are calibrated to strength. The reverse causal direction is also plausible—less fearful people are more  likely to invest in cultivating formidability. Likely reciprocal.
https://twitter.com/PsychoSchmitt/status/1256758068609789959
Personality can change during childhood and adolescence as a result of experiences. Theorists who believe that children's personalities are shaped early, presumably by experiences at home, have been misled by the continuities hey see in personality: the timid child who becomes a timid adult, the conscientious child who becomes a conscientious adult. Such continuities are due mainly to genetic influences on these traits. 
      
No Two Alike: Human Nature and Human Individuality. Harris, p. 216-219. 


1. Women prefer tall men; tall men marry more desirable partners

2. Short women & men viewed as less attractive/successful

3. Height premium in earnings $

4. Height correlates with education

5. Short men report worse health

Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"Women, researchers have found, look for mates who are, on average, at least four inches taller and three and a half years older."
 Take, for example, short men. Women place an enormous value on height. In a study of personal ads, 80 percent of the women said they wanted a man at least six feet tall. Women value it so much that they end up overvaluing it in market terms. In a recent study of online dating, researchers found that a 5'6" man needed to earn about $175,000 a year more than a six-foot man in order to overcome his height disadvantage. A different online study basically replicated these results, finding that a 5'8" man needed to earn $146,000 more than the average salary to attract the same women as a six-foot-tall man, while a five-foot man needed to earn a whopping $325,000 more than the average.

By any measure, women are wildly overpaying for these extra inches of height, asking for roughly $30,000 a year in salary for each inch they are giving up. It's enough to make you wonder why any man 5'11" and under isn't wearing lifts. There is no denying that height is what biologists call a fitness indicator, a sign of good genes and good health, and studies have show that women attribute all sorts of excellent qualities to tall men based on their height. Other studies have shown that tall men do enjoy many societal advantages as well. For example, it's virtually impossible to become president of this country if you aren't tall. You have to go all the way back to the nineteenth century to find the last president who was of below-average height. Even so, it looks as if a certain amount of irrational exuberance has crept into women's valuation of men's physical stature. Compare, for example, how much a man's height is valued in the workplace. In one study of men's salaries, each inch of height for a man is worth less than six hundred dollars a year in salary. That's more than a $29,000 spread per inch between the value that the economic marketplace places on height and the value that women place on height, a classic example of a market imbalance ripe for exploitation.

 If a woman wants to be really smart about it, she can squeeze out even more value from a short man. She just has to find a short man who was tall in high school. This is not the oxymoron it may at first appear. What she should look for is a man who had his growth spurt early, giving him a chance to tower over his peers before they surpassed him in later years. Why is this an advantage? It turns out that adolescent height is an excellent predictor of intelligence. In addition, the height advantage during those formative years gives the men greater self-esteem, which also increases their chances of success later in life. In fact, all those salary statistics don't hold up when it comes to men who were tall in high school but short later in life. Those short men earn more like a tall man, despite their stature. The reverse is also true - short men in high school earn less later in life even if they are tall - so, considered from an economic point of view, women should avoid those men. (Decoding Love)

https://twitter.com/robkhenderson/status/1388177093176041473
Rob Henderson
@robkhenderson
"it wasn't how tall these men were at their current age that was most closely related to their salary, but rather their height at age sixteen. Something about having reached that height in adolescence had an effect on these men for the rest of their lives" amzn.to/3nyOrAn

    
"He Stood About 6 0r 7 Feet. Now That's The Creep I B C'Inn In My Sleep!" - Bill!

Cutting trough the nice guy, alpha male,
Low Status Male Chimpanzees Exhibit The Same Behavioral And Personality* Traits As Low Status Male Humans. They Tend To Be Socially Anxious And Avoid Eye Contact And Actual Contact With Dominant Males And Even Females (i.e. Shifty Eyes, Sweaty Palms, Shaky, Cracking Voice, Reluctance To Interact With Groups And Individuals, And Uneasiness While Interacting With Groups And Individuals).

*Insecure And Unsure Of Himself! 

I C U LOOKIN'!





WICCED NIGGA!

TUOMAS & MAC

 http://vengeanceizmine.blogspot.com/2014/06/no-love-feelings-hurt-ready-to-cry.html

To some degree paraphilias represent the desperation of relatively low-ranking individuals who have normal sex drives but lack the wherewithal to court successfully. For example, one of Judith's patients was a self-proclaimed sadistic paraphiliac. Caught painfully in a fear of both sexes, he developed an "addiction" to satanic images and black magic, engaging in blood rituals that he performed alone as an expression of rage at himself and the world. He masturbated to images of blood and bondage because he was afraid of anything more intimate and hated his shyness and everyone else for having more fun in life. (Making Sense Of Sex)

"A Scared Man Can't Win" - Lil Bruce Bruce
Posted by at