Monday, September 21, 2015

"The secret of lasting love? Just answer 25 simple questions"

What's the old saying? Never discuss politics and religion? And, apparently, pornography. For many people, they're touchy subjects.

The Manosphere, as I've said before several times, gives very bad advice on what kind of man to be to attract women. Be a "Dark Triad Alpha"(which is a psychopath, all of whom have no conscience are incapable of love) and women will swoon over you? What sort of frauds and grifters came up with that nonsense? What sort of fatherless fools believe it works?

You don't even want to act like a psychopath or narcissist because there is a heavy price to pay for it. I've seen this more than once.

The women who are attracted to such men are crazy. Who wants to be involved with a crazy woman? You'll end up at the minimum with your scalp split open with a telephone or your clothes cut up - both of which I have seen.

I've had many men tell me they don't want to get married because of the poor quality of many American women. But there are many good women out there, many of whom, I'll add, are snatched up quickly.

One thing the Manosphere does get right is to stay away from feminist women, or even ones who have been infected by feminism even if they claim they aren't one. They're leftist, and leftism is always about destroying men.

This article was written by Amelia Hill and is from the Guardian. I have noticed that what she writes is true. Men and women should be compatible politically - and in other important ways, too. Unfortunately a lot of woman are ignorant as hell about politics and economics, which is why historically they've never been allowed to vote.

I once met a woman who believed in socialized medicine because her fiance - now ex-fiance - believed in it. For good or bad, women often follow men's leads. When they don't, their default position appears to be socialism/fascism, where they put a non-existent "safety" above freedom.

As for pornography I am indifferent to it but have found several women who enjoyed it. One told me she found it "very stimulating." I just rolled my eyes.

I consider it harmless. People who claimed it's harmed them are using it to blame their bad behavior on. It's the fool, not the tool.

I can't imagine someone with an IQ of 125 being compatible with someone with an IQ of 100. Their IQS and political beliefs have to be similar for them to get along. This is called "associative mating," and it's the only kind that works.


The course of true love never did run smooth and now scientists know why. Love, according to a new theory, is not a matter of lightning bolts or raw sexual desire but of pornography and politics.

Its proponents, who claim to be able to predict marital happiness, say society has the recipe for love all wrong: opposites do not attract. Instead, the only way to a life of happiness together is to share a single opinion, or more specifically, 25 of them.

‘Society today goes around the matter of finding love in the completely wrong way,’ said Dr Glenn Wilson, a psychologist at the University of London and co-author of The Science of Love

‘We tend to dismiss people who don’t fit the blueprint of perfection in our heads but our research proves that true love is doomed unless we have a number of what might appear to be mundane and obscure things in common.

‘There is obviously an area of love that involves chemistry and animal attraction,’ Wilson said. ‘But our research found 24 areas where - unless the couples felt almost identically - their relationship would be in trouble before long.’

Wilson has spent two decades applying the science of psychometric testing to the art of love, and devised the Compatibility Quotient, or CQ, test by studying the most severe causes of marital friction on test couples and whittling down the list to 25 vital areas.

He is so confident of the value of his CQ test that he and Jon Cousins, the former creative director of an advertising company, have founded Cybersuitors.com, an internet dating agency which uses the theory to match clients.

Each applicant is asked their opinion on each one of the 25 areas, and given five different answers to choose from. Each reply is compared with those of every other member on the database, and a list is produced of those with most similarities.

‘We have found that the CQ score is a virtual predictor of marital happiness,’ said Cousins, who found love himself on the site shortly after it launched six weeks ago.

‘Even though I helped devise the test, I would not necessarily have applied such a cut-and-dried approach to my own life until it happened almost by accident.’

After completing his own test, Cousins found he shared a CQ score of 134 with another member, 34 points higher than the 100 indicating average compatibility.

‘I could not resist contacting her to see if this magic formula would work for me and, although it is still early days, it is certainly a deeper relationship than any I have been in for a long time,’ he said.

Nick Auchincloss and his girlfriend, Vicky, met on the site in mid-April. ‘I have usually gone for girls because of an emotional and instant attraction,’ he said.

‘I was skeptical about this test because it asked things I would never have thought I cared about, either in myself or my partner, but which I have now realised are pretty important to a relationship if you want it to last.’

Auchincloss contacted Vicky after their responses scored 138. ‘Our relationship is already stronger than my usual experiences,’ he said. ‘Knowing we feel the same about these basic issues gives me an objective trust in her individually and in us together,’ he said.

Wilson admitted that although it was important for couples to share a range of common interests and values - including views on the type of relationship they wanted, children, sexual fidelity and leisure activities - he was surprised by some of the areas in which concordance was vital for long-term happiness.

‘Differing opinions on pornography and politics were most likely to spell disaster in any long-term relationship. Women were eight times more likely to admit their relationship was unhappy if their view on pornography differed from their partner’s,’ he said.

‘The big issue with men was if their woman was more, or less, experienced in bed than they were: that spelt long-term unhappiness for 40 per cent of men.’

Couples who like similar food were three times likelier to stay happy than those whose taste buds clashed, while those agreeing on what to watch on TV were three and a half times more likely to experience marital bliss than those who vie for control of the remote.

Also vital for conjugal harmony was agreement over the value of chivalry - ‘that’s our way of discovering what they feel about feminism,’ said Wilson - and a shared desire for pets.

There is, however, one area where it was better to disagree: alcohol. Cousins said: ‘Partnerships where one member drank heavily and the other abstained were deeply content.

‘While other differences seemed to lead inevitably to unhappiness in long-term relationships, differences in drinking habits brought couples closer together.’

6 comments:

Mindstorm said...

You advise assortative mating? Haha. Even if based on IQ only, I would have to reject about 39 of 'every' 40 possible matches (and I'm being generous here). Adding another dimension or two (like SES, BMI, preferences or personality traits) would make search time and costs skyrocket. The simple 'boner test' is taxing enough, with all these becankled hippos waddling around (to channel Roissy for a moment :) ). With poor odds for quality, I don't hold it against men that go for quantity instead.

Shaun F said...

I'm not sure but I would presume associative mating is something dating sites use. I find this statement “Partnerships where one member drank heavily and the other abstained were deeply content. While other differences seemed to lead inevitably to unhappiness in long-term relationships, differences in drinking habits brought couples closer together" unbelievable. A teetotaler married to a drunk will result in deep contentment? I have yet to see that in my life.

Bob Wallace said...

I've seen heavy drinkers act like they were possessed by demons.

Gigalax said...

Obviously having things in common will make day-to-day functioning smoother in marriage, but so much of "compatibility points" is bullshit psychology. The fact that dating sites use this crap should cause any man to be doubtful.

The deeper problem is that Western women are mired in entitlement and fantasy and that men indulge these bad women. I like to give Wendy Shalit as a good example, since she is ostensibly conservative but has a massive entitlement/princess complex when it comes to dating for women.

Rusty Shackleford said...

"I can't imagine someone with an IQ of 125 being compatible with someone with an IQ of 100. "

Bob, do you want to fuck her or do you want to play chess with her? I remember reading an interview with the US soldier who guarded Saddam Hussein after he was captured. Hussein had told him that he should find a woman who's not too smart but not too dumb either. It's good advice. All women already believe that they're smarter than men anyway, so all you're likely to get for those extra IQ points are extra sarcasm, condescension and bitchiness. Just look at literally any Jewish woman. Maybe to some people dating an IQ champion sounds like fun in the same way that keeping a tiger as a house pet does. They're both kind of dumb ideas, though.

Rusty Shackleford said...

You went a ways back for this. I actually remember reading this exact article when I was in my early 20s and taking the "CQ test" on the website. The only person on the website above 130 (which was supposed to be a really good match)for me was a woman in Finland. I wrote to her and we actually hit it off really well. Honestly, she was like the girl version of me, and we even kind of looked alike. That was in 2002, though, and she lived in the fucking arctic circle or something so nothing ever came of it.