Blank slate (tabula rasa) theory thoroughly debunked (Steven Pinker)

screen-2011-04-02-06-54-29_thumb[2]Steven Pinker, one of the greatest minds in linguistics and evolutionary science, thoroughly debunks the blank slate theory that still dominates the standard social science model.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a best-selling 2002 book by Steven Pinker arguing against tabula rasa models of the social sciences. Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. The book was nominated for the 2003 Aventis Prizes and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. (wikipedia)

This tabula-rasa/blank-slate theory is responsible for most serious mistakes in social theories and public policies of the last century in fields like education, discrimination, gender relations. It also is related to rejection of inheritance based evolutionary theory. All this is very central to Human-Stupidity: how can a ridiculously false theory dogmatically dominate science and public policy for decades.

One simple example of always repeated conventional wisdom:

  • “Children that are beaten by violent parents become violent adults”. There usually is no test for the alternative  hypothesis that this has nothing to do with genetics, but that these children could have genetically inherited violent traits from their parents.

Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate

 

 


The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature

See also real important readings

  1. Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
  2. Evolutionary Psychology: Evolutionary Theory, Paleoanthropology, Adaptationism
  3. Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity.

The Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television

screen-2011-04-02-06-54-29_thumb[2]Steven Pinker, one of the greatest minds in linguistics and evolutionary science, thoroughly debunks the blank slate theory that still dominates the standard social science model.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a best-selling 2002 book by Steven Pinker arguing against tabula rasa models of the social sciences. Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. The book was nominated for the 2003 Aventis Prizes and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.  (wikipedia)

This tabula-rasa/blank-slate theory is responsible for most serious mistakes in social theories and public policies of the last century in fields like education, discrimination, gender relations. It also is related to rejection of inheritance based evolutionary theory. All this is very central to Human-Stupidity: how can a ridiculously false theory dogmatically dominate science and public policy for decades.

One simple example of always repeated conventional wisdom:

  • "Children that are beaten by violent parents become violent adults". There usually is no test for the alternative  hypothesis that this has nothing to do with genetics, but that these children could have genetically inherited violent traits from their parents.

Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate

 


The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
See also real important reading
  1. Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
  2. Evolutionary Psychology: Evolutionary Theory, Paleoanthropology, Adaptationism
  3.  Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity.

The Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television

screen-2011-04-02-06-54-29_thumb[2]Steven Pinker, one of the greatest minds in linguistics and evolutionary science, thoroughly debunks the blank slate theory that still dominates the standard social science model.

The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature is a best-selling 2002 book by Steven Pinker arguing against tabula rasa models of the social sciences. Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological adaptations. The book was nominated for the 2003 Aventis Prizes and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize.  (wikipedia)

This tabula-rasa/blank-slate theory is responsible for most serious mistakes in social theories and public policies of the last century in fields like education, discrimination, gender relations. It also is related to rejection of inheritance based evolutionary theory. All this is very central to Human-Stupidity: how can a ridiculously false theory dogmatically dominate science and public policy for decades.

One simple example of always repeated conventional wisdom:

  • "Children that are beaten by violent parents become violent adults". There usually is no test for the alternative  hypothesis that this has nothing to do with genetics, but that these children could have genetically inherited violent traits from their parents.

Steven Pinker: Chalking it up to the blank slate

 


The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature
See also real important reading
  1. Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List Leda Cosmides & John Tooby
  2. Evolutionary Psychology: Evolutionary Theory, Paleoanthropology, Adaptationism
  3.  Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity.

The Seven Words You Can’t Say On Television

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Blank slate (tabula rasa) theory thoroughly debunked (Steven Pinker)” »
Blank slate (tabula rasa) theory thoroughly debunked (Steven Pinke… » continues here »

Share

Innuendos are safer then overt language. Hidden meanings in communication (Steven Pinker)

In this Video, the great Steven Pinker how and why we convey innuendos instead of overt clear language.  Why do we use veiled hidden messages behind our words. The topic is  clarified with nice enlightening drawings by rsa-animate. Must see!

I leave it to the watcher, what this has to do with our favorite topics like dishonesty, unconsciousness,hypocrisy …

Share

Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity

an evolutionary perspective […] helps us understand why sexual transgressions by successful males, as well as the seemingly irrational levels of moral outrage at those transgressions, are both "natural," regardless of whether you personally feel that either is intrinsically good or bad.

Finally an intelligent comment about the moral condemnation hysteria of Tiger Woods.  Evolutionary Theory by Kurzban and deScioli

Men fantasize about novel women. Rich powerful man can actually get them

Tiger is a man with immense wealth and social status. Throughout history, men with wealth and status have tended to trade it for access to multiple mates. Evolutionary historian Laura Betzig has documented this pattern in modern societies and throughout history, as in the abundant cases of Roman emperors, Indian maharajahs, Arabian sheiks, and Chinese mandarins. Bhupinder Singh, the wealthy and powerful Seventh Maharajah of the state of Patiala, for example, had 350 wives, and he by no means held the record. European and North American states tend to be officially monogamous, but of course they are unofficially polygamous as well. Rock stars, famous athletes, politicians and even television evangelists are reliable sources of public outrage, which fires up every time we learn about their frequently overactive private lives.[…]

Kinsey found that the typical male masturbated with some frequency, during such activities men often fantasize about novel women. What if the man was sufficiently attractive that those fantasy women were actually ready, willing, and eager to turn desire into reality? The average heterosexual man would, under those circumstances, perhaps act like the average homosexual man (who is unconstrained by a more selective target audience), or like the average rock superstar: he would take hundreds of partners.

Psychology Today. December, 2009. Kenrick, D. T. “In "Defense" of Tiger Woods, AND of his critics." [link]

 

Moral outrage keeps others in check. So powerful men don’t monopolize too many women

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity” »
Tiger Woods, hypocrisy, moral condemnation of promiscuity » continues here »

Share

Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality

Why do we, in the land of the free, have a prohibition of polygyny, a victimless crime? Why does the law restrict people’s freedom needlessly? Why do consenting adults have many legal restrictions to their sexual liberty? Teenage sexuality is full of legal problems (Consult a lawyer before playing doctor. Perverse sex laws traumatize children).  

Why do we feel a compulsion to meddle in other peoples freedom to form whatever form of marriage or sexual relationship they might want to engage in?

Many women would rather be the second (or fifth) wife of an attractive, rich, powerful man like  Tiger Woods or Brad Pitt, then the first  and only wife of boring, fat, jobless, broke alcoholic Joe Bloke in a Detroit ghetto.  Even just being Tiger’s mistress is much more exciting then Joe Bloke. Why does our law restrict the liberty of these women, and of Tiger Woods?

Repression of other people’s sexuality is in the reproductive interest  of older married women, of unattractive men. Even vor the successful alpha male it is advantagous to repress sexuality in others,  while hypocritically pursuing his own promiscuous sexuality (remember Eliot Spitzer?). 

In this post we show that evolutionary theory suggests evolution has created mental modules in our brains to repress sexuality in others,  The gut feelings caused by these modules get rationalized into theories that give rise to repressive legislation.

Polygyny in birds

When good males are scarce, a female bird may prefer to become the second mate of a higher quality male with a bigger territory.



Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban $27.95 0691146748

(all quotes are from Kurzban’s book. This book is a must-read to really understand this topic here)
  • mating pattern of certain bird species illustrates what’s known as the "polygyny threshold model," which has to do with how female birds choose a mate in certain complex environments. […]

  • Is it better to be the only mate of a poorer male or share a better one?
  • I [a female bird]  can either nest with one of the remaining single – but lower quality- males, or I can nest with a [better high quality] male who is already paired, becoming the second female on his [bigger and better] patch. […]

  • When the payoff to being the second female on a patch is greater then the payoff to being the only mate of an inferior male, there will be polygyny. (Kurzban, pg. 208)

 

Morality for the birds?

To better understand how evolution could have formed modules for anti-polygyny morality, Kurzban analyzes a hypothetical bird population where moral rules prohibit polygyny.  He asks

Which birds stand to gain reproductive advantage when polygyny is prohibited?
  1. "Clearly, female birds already paired with the best male mates will do better. Their mates won’t be able to acquire secondary females whose offspring would compete for the man’s resources." (Kurzban, p 209). Women married with good males have reasons to be feminists. Hillary Clinton only loses if hubby Bill gets entangled with interns. In contrast, Monica Lewinsky probably would have fared very well as Bill Clinton’s second or even fifth wife.
  2. "There’s a natural alliance between monogamously mated females and low quality males because they both gain by enforced monogamy". "low-quality males benefit, since they now might get mates who would otherwise wind up as secondary mates of high-quality males" (Kurzban, p.) In a polygynous animal, primate, or human societies, many low-quality get no wives and no offspring at all. "Low quality males would have a deep, abiding, even crucial interest in rules that force everyone into monogamy" (Kurzban, p 213). Remember, evolution selected for mental modules that gave us reproductive advantage in the EEA, in small groups of hunter-gatherers. It seems that for low quality males, monogamy is the only chance to get a wife, rear  offspring and thus have reproductive success!  Low quality males that successfully prevent the high quality males from monopolizing multiple females would have considerably more offspring then tolerant open minded men who would remain empty handed while the high quality males would get all the females.
  3. Almost all males "benefit from all other males being monogamous, even if they themselves are not [monogamous]? […] "it’s best to constrain others’ sexual behavior. We’re all in favor of moral rule that prevent others from doing things that harm our own interests, but it is to our advantage to not obey our own rule. 
  4. High quality alpha males can profit from imposing monogamy  on other males.  Powerful males have a better chance to remain unpunished if they violate these rules (at least in birds with no feminist dominated court system)
  5. The losers of polygyny prohibition are un-paired females who have to settle for a lower quality male (‘a loser’)  because they are deprived of the freedom to choose to be wife #2 of a high quality male (with better genes, bigger territory, and more resources). 
  6. The other losers  of enforced monogamy are the "cads" the sexy good looking promiscuous players. They are attractive to women for having good genes, but they can’t win the battle over who brings the most worms. "Without promiscuity, sexy males can’t make the most of what they’ve got." (Kurzban, p. 211). 
  7. "Dads, however, win if the sexy males can’t be promiscuous. (They also benefit from keeping their females at home, rather than searching for the good-gene cads)"  (p 211) "Dads" are mated male birds that invest in their family and bring home worms for their kids.
We have an "interfere in other people’s private sex life" mental module.

"Humans are extremely social, and our survival and reproduction are determined in large part by how well we navigate the social world. Given this, it’s reasonable to expect that our minds are designed to compete fiercely-if not subtly- for the benefits in the social world: the best mates, the best friends, membership in the best groups, and so on. The outcomes of these competitions would have had massive effects on reproductive success over the course of human evolution."

So birds, mammals, and humans that increase their reproductive success by restricting other people’s sexual access will out-compete the democratic, personal-liberty-respecting tolerant liberal individuals.

We will post more about Kurzban’s theory of the modular mind, and the evolutionary advantages of internal inconsistency, self-deception, hypocrisy to explain this further. But to get a deep understanding one probably needs to read evolutionary literature

  • Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List | Human-Stupidity
  • Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban) |Human-Stupidity book review
  • Social Evolution by Robert Trivers $40.00 080538507X  (Amazon)

     

    Humans have "moralistic modules designed to favor rules that promote their fitness interests".

    "The hypothetical birds would vote for policies that prevent others from engaging in sex outside mateships and anything else that goes along with promiscuity. "they probably would not know why they were opposed to these practices. Their decision would be based on the output of certain modules designed to limit other people’s promiscuity.  They would be insensitive to arguments about freedom and individual choice, and unaware of being inconsistent. They would probably rationalize this as being ‘pro-family", pro-life. Their resistance against abortion might be based in the desire to punish the females for having sex, and not in the desire to save embryos or in theories about the beginning of life."  (Kurzban)

    "They might be opposed to abortion -the availability of which by reducing the costs of sex, might well be linked to promiscuity" (Kurzban)

    Feminist anti-promiscuity sex laws are also in the reproductive interest of most (hypocritical) males
    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny in birds & human meddling in other people’s sexuality” »
    Repressive sex laws in the "Land of the Free". Polygyny … » continues here »

  • Share

    Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban)

    Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind by Robert Kurzban.
    Robert Kurzban is a student of the “modular mind” theory of John Tooby & Leda Cosmides.

    The modular mind

    “The human mind consists of many, many mental processes – think of them as little programming subroutines, or maybe individual iPhone applications – each operating by its own logic, designed by the inexorable process of natural selection”

    “the mind consists of many different parts. These parts often “believe” different, mutually inconsistent things. Sometimes this is obvious, as illustrated in case of brain damage and optical illusions. Other cases are less obvious, but no less interesting.”

    “the different bits of our brain have functions. Just as some of our mind’s subroutines are for seeing, some for processing language, and some for controlling muscles, […] choosing mates, […] making friends, and – one subject I currently study – some with morally condemning others for doing things.”

    With the concept of the modular mind, human irrationality, ignorance and self deception cease to be a confusing riddle.

    “This book is about contradictions. […] It’s about how you can, and one at the same time, want the government to leave people alone as long as they’re not hurting anyone and also very much want the government to interfere with people’s lives even when they’re not hurting anyone.”

    Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List

    The usefulness of being wrong and ignorant

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban)” »
    Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite (Robert Kurzban) » continues here »

    Share

    Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List

    Evolutionary psychology is essential to understand human behavior and the human mind. Evolution gives ultimate , not proximate explanations.

    In ethology, the study of animal behavior, causation can be considered in terms of these two mechanisms.

    • Proximate causation: Explanation of an animal’s behavior based on trigger stimuli and internal mechanisms.
    • Ultimate causation: Explanation of an animal’s behavior based on the principles of evolution. The ultimate causation requires that the behavioral and physical traits are genetically heritable, and explains behavior by correlating behavioral traits to mechanisms that favor evolutionary development, such as natural selection.

     

    Why are men more unfaithful and promiscuous then women?

    • ultimate explanation: A woman can only have one offspring every few years. No matter with how many men she has sex. So she can only influence the genetic quality of her offspring, and try to find a good father, a good caretaker. A promiscuous man can have an unlimited number of offspring, the world record being many hundreds. So more partners gets more offspring for men. And thus the genes for promiscuity in men spread faster then the genes for faithfulness.
    • proximate explanation: testosterone, culture, ….

     

    Literature on Evolution

    1. Evolutionary Psychology Primer by Leda Cosmides and John Tooby
    2. Evolutionary Psychology and the Emotions
    3. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture
    4. Human Behavior and Evolution Society
    5. Evolution and Human Behavior
    6. Human Behavior Research in Vienna
    7. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List” »
    Evolutionary Psychology Primer & Reading List » continues here »

    Share

    Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!

    Males are overrepresented in jail, death row, war death, work accidents, accidental death & involuntary middle age virginity, reproductive failures, mental retardation. Feminist and men’s right’s activist fail to request female quotas in jail.  Isn’t it funny? We need quotas in politics, management, Universities. But no quotas among homeless and war dead? No gender equality on Titanic life boat seats!

    Suffrage: Women wanting equal Rights
    Feminism: Women want equal Rights (Suffrage)

    Compare: Germany plans mandatory female quotas in top management

    some women systematically looked up at the top of society and saw men everywhere: most world rulers, presidents, prime ministers, most members of Congress and parliaments, most CEOs of major corporations, and so forth — these are mostly men.
    The mistake in that way of thinking is to look only at the top. If one were to look downward to the bottom of society instead, one finds mostly men there too. Who’s in prison, all over the world, as criminals or political prisoners? The population on Death Row has never approached 51% female. Who’s homeless? Again, mostly men. Whom does society use for bad or dangerous jobs? US Department of Labor statistics report that 93% of the people killed on the job are men. Likewise, who gets killed in battle? Even in today’s American army, which has made much of integrating the sexes and putting women into combat, the risks aren’t equal. This year we passed the milestone of 3,000 deaths in Iraq, and of those, 2,938 were men, 62 were women.

    From the beginning, feminism was against equal duties
    Equal rights, equal duty. Did feminists fight for conscription for women?

    One can imagine an ancient battle in which the enemy was driven off and the city saved, and the returning soldiers are showered with gold coins. An early feminist might protest that hey, all those men are getting gold coins, half of those coins should go to women. In principle, I agree. But remember, while the men you see are getting gold coins, there are other men you don’t see, who are still bleeding to death on the battlefield from spear wounds.
    Is There Anything Good About Men? by Roy F. Baumeister

    Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners

    Men take high risks. They reap high rewards, and pay with death, injury, abysmal failures. Feminists are envious of the winners, and oblivious of the losers. They want to get the gold coins without risking their lives in the fight.

    Evolution built this higher risk, higher variance even into genetics of male physical features:  There are more men that are extremely tall, extremely intelligent, etc and there are more men then women at the bottom, with the lowest IQ, shortest height, etc.

    Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men.

    Over half the males but very few females were reproductive failures

    Today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. [ . . ] Recent research using DNA analysis answered this question about two years ago [2005].

    I think this difference is the single most underappreciated fact about gender. To get that kind of difference, you had to have something like, throughout the entire history of the human race, maybe 80% of women but only 40% of men reproduced.

    In evolutionary times, in the “EEA” 100 000 years ago, only very few women failed to reproduce, but about 60% of the men were total evolutionary failures. They are the end of their genetic line.  Every man or women know that some guys are girl magnets, while others barely stand a chance: Nerds, socially inept, shy, ugly, handicapped. And even nowadays, with legally enforced monogamy, there still is serial monogamy after divorce, and affairs, both practiced mainly by successful men.

    In terms of the biological competition to produce offspring, then, men outnumbered women both among the losers and among the biggest winners. [ . . . ]  Experts estimate Genghis Khan had several hundred and perhaps more than a thousand children. […] For him, the big risks led to huge payoffs in offspring. My point is that no woman, even if she conquered twice as much territory as Genghis Khan, could have had a thousand children.

    And thousand’s of wanna-be Genghis Khan’s died before they had a chance to reproduce. And others were snubbed by women.

    Feminists look for equal rights without equal risk & equal losses.

    Most cultures have tended to use men for these high-risk, high-payoff slots much more than women. I shall propose there are important pragmatic reasons for this. The result is that some men reap big rewards while others have their lives ruined or even cut short. Most cultures shield their women from the risk and therefore also don’t give them the big rewards

    Men outnumber women both among the losers and among the biggest winners
    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by feminist zeal!” »
    Female quotas on death row? Unsuccessful male losers overlooked by… » continues here »

    Share

    Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance

    The power of feminists is awe inspiring. Feminists conquered and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, interpol, press,United Nations.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading »
    Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes feminist Language Distortions’ universal acceptance » continues here »

    The power of feminists is awe inspiring.
    Feminists conquered  and brainwashed the minds of lawmakers, police, press, the United Nations.

    And people are not even aware of the sweeping changes feminists did, to encroach upon men’s rights, men’s well being, freedom. How much terror feminists managed to sow with teenage sex and child porn witch hunts. This sounds exaggerated? Please read on.

    The feminist social manipulation skill superiority hypothesis

    Females are superior in social manipulation & language distortion to foster their reproductive interest (An evolutionary hypothesis).

    More provocatively it could be called “feminist cunningness hypothesis”, female evolutionary cunningness hypthesis, ……   Any more naming suggestions?

    Hypothesis: Females are vastly superior in social manipulation skills

    In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race.  (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks.  Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring).  In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons

    • economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
    • physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.

    So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?

    • Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).

    Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills.  They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.

    Women would have to manipulate epecially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.

    So the historical stone age balance of power is:
    • men have economical and physical superiority,
    • women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
    Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power
      Men surrendered both their advantages. Winning an argument with physical violence became criminalized. Women got to earn their own money, plus they get the government to collect pension money and child support from fathers that must pay up but have no say over how their money is being used. So most of the male power advantage waned.
      Mass media and the internet even increased the verbal manipulative power of women beyond what they had in the evolutionary EEA, 50 000 years ago. 
      This would explain womens total win on all fronts. They started winning when they outlawed bigamy, made it a crime for consensual adults to engange in marriage with several partners, and now are curtailing the rights to have consensual sex for pay, with adolescents, take one’s own photograph and doing DNA tests on one’s own children.

    Anecdotal and other Evidence

    It is self evident that women must have developed some skills to counter the obvious male physical superiority.

    I will explain the

    reasoning behind my female-social-manipulation-superiority hypothesis.

    I was inspired by the

    antifeminist blog’s feminist-trade-union-hypothesis.

    Feminism as middle aged womens trade union to promote their selfish reproductive interest, even their plain interest in an easy life, trying to curb men’s access to more attractive or cheaper competitors.

    I was wondering:

    Why and with which methods do the feminist trade unions score such resounding victories
    • how do feminists convince everyone else to promote their goals?
    • And why are they winning the war on all fronts with absolute resounding victory?
    • there must be a special evolutionary skill how feminists manage to convince male law makers to support their warped feminist  “women studies” logic and distract from the egalitarian goal of creating “men’s studies” and “men’s rights” (Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked)
    Distortion and re-definition of language

    When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language shows how language got re-defined for purely manipulative purposes.

    Wait, there is more! This article continues! Please read on, don’t miss the rest of the Feminist Social Manipulation Superiority Hypothesis »
    Female evolutionary Superiority in social manipulation causes femi… » continues here »

    Share