good luck, the nli is deep fucking rabbit hole, but i recommend every and any anon to check them out. as opposed to most of the shit posted here there's actually a light at the end of the goddamn tunnel. their findings are mostly just old /pol/-tier common sense, but without all the excess shitposting, schizo, quasi-religious glownigger nonsense interference. to elaborate a bit on the problem with feminine psychology/evolutionary strategy: women are specialized for (hyper-)consumption and prey psychology.  > why?  because it keeps them and their children alive (and thus the species as a whole). so their main evolutionary incentive is securing resources from a mate (primary means of energy/matter acquisition: social). as opposed to men, who have specialized into securing resources from their environment in order to attract a mate (primary means of energy/matter acquisition: material/physical). > why are humans like this? because specialization usually outcompetes universalization. this is why "different sexes" evolved at all. > why is is more effective? making everyone do the same thing drags us down towards the lowest common denominator. as a tangent, this is why communism failed; it's a fundamentally devolutionary ideology based on the same fallacies of female hyperconsumption. (though tbf it's "failure", e.g the destruction of centuries of genetic work in uplifting russia's middle class, may likely have been intentional by it's perpetrators.) > what does any of this have to do with neurology/psychology men are neurologically developed towards functioning in the real world, spaciality, causality. eat or be eaten. secure external value or no mating for you, thus no lineage survival. so naturally, there's been high selection pressure on males to be the pragmatic, realistic, responsible sex. as opposed to women, who have been evolutionarily selected for reading, manipulating and sending social cues.
Germany