Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Ush1 · 25-02-2018 07:20PM

Brian? wrote: »

I'll start with this:

"The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women"

That sounds like the "alpha" is delusional.

No it doesn't.

Charmeleon · 25-02-2018 10:12PM

Wibbs wrote: »

OK. Actually we don't, certainly not when compared to the other great apes. Compared to them dimorphism has reduced over time.

And the great apes show less than some birds and other mammals where the male and female look almost like separate species. In comparison to the 'sex is only about genitals' social constructionist belief, our sexual dimorphism is stark.

We certainly don't show close to the dimorphism of apes that operate a alpha/beta harem setup. The male gorilla is significantly larger and stronger than the female and the leader of the harem is larger and stronger than other submissive males within the group(though contrary to popular their genes show up regularly among the offspring, King Kong's missus gets side action from the postman...). In more solitary setups like the Orang the male is larger again. In chimps the range narrows as they live in more socially cohesive groups, Bonobo similarly. This strongly suggests humans are not alpha/beta harem in setup and are more socially cooperative.

Yes indeed, sexual dimorphism has decreased over time, and for humans the invention of projectile weapons threw a giant spanner in the works. Even the largest, strongest male could be ambushed by rivals or assassinated by someone with a grudge. Physical coercion was no longer enough or even a reliable method of control, males formed coalitions and the alpha male was bestowed with authority rather than direct power.
Either way, polygamy was part of hunter gatherer life, and has likely been largely underestimated. Among the most monogamous hunter gatherers, the !Kung, the 5% of most successful men have more than one wife at any one time and more sequentially than the majority of the other men. The rates among other known groups is at least double that of the !Kung.

Today, polygamy is against the law in most western countries, yet successful men still practice vertical polygamy (more wives over time) rather then horizontal polygamy (more wives at the same time).

Of all things penis and testicle size tracks this too. Gorillas have tiny meat and two veg. Because the male has more of a "captive audience" he faces less mating competition so requires less energy diverted into sperm production. Chimps are more a free for all, so have huge clock weights, because they need to produce far more sperm to have any guarantee of mating success. Humans are somewhere in the middle. Not a harem and not a free for all either. I'll leave the migrating clitoris in humans for another day...

No other great ape practices war like human groups have done though. Often specifically to capture women. In the ugly spoils of war, there was a lot of competition among males.

Not quite that simple. Looking at genetics yes more women reproduced than men, more female lines survive than mens. It is not at a 17/1 ratio. In some populations(Asian IIRC) the gap narrows even further to near equal.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/03/20/the_brutality_of_the_stone_age_only_1_man_had_children_for_every_17_women.html

There are many more factors than the alpha/beta stuff. 1) Women have always outnumbered men in human populations(the modern Chinese demographic is an outlier). 2) pre modern medicine more male children died than female and by quite a margin. 3) in adulthood more reproductively fertile men died throughout history than women and many of them hadn't reproduced yet. War, hunting/farming, famine(women are more likely to survive famine) and even enslavement took them out of the gene pool. If one group takes over another what tends to happen is that men are killed or enslaved so no kids, women were/are considered a resource so would be reproduced with, so more kids. 4) Women also traveled more genetically. They tended to move to where their reproductive partner was, whereas men's genetics stay more local. That increases the diversity. This is not to say that polygyny wasn't a factor at times, but it was one of many. Oh and of those studies showing this difference sample sizes were small and narrow in scope. A common problem still to be found in human genetics. I suspect when a larger percentage of human DNA is sampled and examined we'll find out all sorts of stuff. Only a few years back a Black lad in America was found to have a Y chromosome found in nobody else yet tested.

More males are conceived and born than females though, so even with that head start the odds of a particular man passing on his genes was much less than a given female. War, polygyny and the male tendency to compete for the Darwin Awards all played a role, but male to male competition was hugely significant.

Wibbs · 25-02-2018 10:41PM

Charmeleon wrote: »

And the great apes show less than some birds and other mammals where the male and female look almost like separate species. In comparison to the 'sex is only about genitals' social constructionist belief, our sexual dimorphism is stark.

No it's really not C. Sure when compared to some non primate animals, but among the primates we're the least sexually dimorphic and by quite the margin.

Yes indeed, sexual dimorphism has decreased over time, and for humans the invention of projectile weapons threw a giant spanner in the works.

Slight problem with that C. Projectile weapons are largely a more "recent" thing in the human species(with the exception of the Schöningen spears, so the tech likely sprung up at different times with different hominids). Sexual dimorphism over the 500,000 years across all archaic humans has remained pretty constant regardless of such technology. Erectus were more like chimps it seems, but their descendants like heidelbergensis, neandertals et al and early versions of us were the same as moderns in that regard. Projectile weapons had little or nothing to do with it.

Either way, polygamy was part of hunter gatherer life, and has likely been largely underestimated. Among the most monogamous hunter gatherers, the !Kung, the 5% of most successful men have more than one wife at any one time and more sequentially than the majority of the other men. The rates among other known groups is at least double that of the !Kung.

As I said polygyny was one factor, but it was not an isolated one.

Today, polygamy is against the law in most western countries, yet successful men still practice vertical polygamy (more wives over time) rather then horizontal polygamy (more wives at the same time).

Yet the average CEO of a top end multinational has likely far fewer sexual partners and progeny than the average sink estate father on the dole. Success is not always so obvious.

No other great ape practices war like human groups have done though. Often specifically to capture women. In the ugly spoils of war, there was a lot of competition among males.

Chimps do. Gorillas too. So do dolphins.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/03/20/the_brutality_of_the_stone_age_only_1_man_had_children_for_every_17_women.html

The referenced study was extremely narrow in focus and sample group. Never mind that as the same article points out; “As more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again.” This stuff is more complex than a cursory glance might suggest. Especially if one is proceeding from an existing belief. We all do that C, though I do try(and TBH often fail) to step back from my own worldview's influence.

More males are conceived and born than females though,

True, likely because of a historical winnowing of males in childhood and life in general. Indeed it would go some way to prove that being male is dangerous to some degree, so best if evolution favours more males being born as a fallback.

War, polygyny and the male tendency to compete for the Darwin Awards all played a role, but male to male competition was hugely significant.

Oh I don't disagree C, but again I see it as but one factor in the mix. I would be a fan to some degree of evolutionary biology. It makes quite the bit of sense in a few areas. However like any specialty it tends to view everything through its own lens. If all you have is a hammer, every problem to explain looks like a nail kinda thing.

quickbeam · 27-02-2018 07:36PM

Oh wow! Just caught the last couple of minutes there, but another disastrous Cathy Newman interview just shown, this time with Max Mosley. She clearly didn't even understand the meaning of the word perjury. Not sure if it's made it online yet, but wouldn't be surprised if it did.

Pluto Planet · 27-02-2018 07:38PM

It's about more than just success in my opinion. The alpha/beta paradigm is about mindset. You can be a CEO and Beta and you can be unemployed and Alpha.

The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women.

We all have multiple potential versions of our personality, these are linked to social status. Put a man in position of CEO and he becomes more charismatic amongst friends, he more easily accesses that flow state where he is outside of his head. Put a man in a position of low status and he becomes less charismatic. Your brain chemistry is altered by the social status. The cues you signal change and women are very good at detecting these cues. There is "just something about him", they say.

What the alpha can do though, is behave as high social status regardless of titles etc.

Brian? · 28-02-2018 07:55AM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It's about more than just success in my opinion. The alpha/beta paradigm is about mindset. You can be a CEO and Beta and you can be unemployed and Alpha.

The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women.

We all have multiple potential versions of our personality, these are linked to social status. Put a man in position of CEO and he becomes more charismatic amongst friends, he more easily accesses that flow state where he is outside of his head. Put a man in a position of low status and he becomes less charismatic. Your brain chemistry is altered by the social status. The cues you signal change and women are very good at detecting these cues. There is "just something about him", they say.

What the alpha can do though, is behave as high social status regardless of titles etc.

This was posted, word for word, on the last page. Very fishy.

mzungu · 28-02-2018 10:14AM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It's about more than just success in my opinion. The alpha/beta paradigm is about mindset. You can be a CEO and Beta and you can be unemployed and Alpha.

The alpha mindset is about seeing the world through your own eyes, much less vulnerable to social conditioning. It's about putting your own interests first. It brings a core confidence, the alpha doesn't need a reason to be confident, he just is because why not. The beta needs a reason to be confident, he needs a job title, money, looks or whatever else. The alpha doesn't need any of that. As a result he is more charismatic and attractive to women.

We all have multiple potential versions of our personality, these are linked to social status. Put a man in position of CEO and he becomes more charismatic amongst friends, he more easily accesses that flow state where he is outside of his head. Put a man in a position of low status and he becomes less charismatic. Your brain chemistry is altered by the social status. The cues you signal change and women are very good at detecting these cues. There is "just something about him", they say.

What the alpha can do though, is behave as high social status regardless of titles etc.

It's more about a discredited idea being sold to impressionable youngsters looking for simplistic answers to complex issues. I'm sure somebody, somewhere is making some money off it too. It's still total BS though.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 10:26AM

mzungu wrote: »

It's more about a discredited idea being sold to impressionable youngsters looking for simplistic answers to complex issues. I'm sure somebody, somewhere is making some money off it too. It's still total BS though.

What specifically do you disagree with?

The evidence is there that a minority of men are sexually attractive to women. Women on average rate around 80% of men as below average in terms if attractiveness. This is because the majority are not even on their radar. It makes sense from an evolutionary perepective that women would only be aroused by the minority of men who are most attractive. And the evidence bears this out.

Wibbs · 28-02-2018 11:32AM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

It makes sense from an evolutionary perepective that women would only be aroused by the minority of men who are most attractive. And the evidence bears this out.

Eh no it's not and no it doesn't. From an "evolutionary* perspective" it would make sense if a) more men were attractive and b) if women were strongly selecting for 20% of potential mates then over time and quite quickly that 20% would grow within a population. It certainly wouldn't remain static. Case in point; blonde hair. It seems that mutation(in Europeans) came from a single event soon after the agricultural revolution. Sexual selection in both sexes positively selected for it and it rapidly grew in percentage within the population and spread across the continent. Now human evolution does have what appears to be strong sexual selection in both sexes. Women in particular look very different to our closest cousins. Permanently inflated breasts the obvious one. That would be a turn off for other great apes as it would signal breastfeeding and lowered fertility. Men show selection too. However to then bring that stuff to bear on modern human mating selections(which vary quite a bit culturally) is way too much Bro Science™

*a real buzzword de jour, but most commentators on the interwebs don't seem to understand what it means.

Brian? · 28-02-2018 12:56PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

What specifically do you disagree with?

The evidence is there that a minority of men are sexually attractive to women. Women on average rate around 80% of men as below average in terms if attractiveness. This is because the majority are not even on their radar. It makes sense from an evolutionary perepective that women would only be aroused by the minority of men who are most attractive. And the evidence bears this out.

That makes no sense from an evolutionary perspective.

Brian? · 28-02-2018 12:58PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no it's not and no it doesn't. From an "evolutionary* perspective" it would make sense if a) more men were attractive and b) if women were strongly selecting for 20% of potential mates then over time and quite quickly that 20% would grow within a population. It certainly wouldn't remain static. Case in point; blonde hair. It seems that mutation(in Europeans) came from a single event soon after the agricultural revolution. Sexual selection in both sexes positively selected for it and it rapidly grew in percentage within the population and spread across the continent. Now human evolution does have what appears to be strong sexual selection in both sexes. Women in particular look very different to our closest cousins. Permanently inflated breasts the obvious one. That would be a turn off for other great apes as it would signal breastfeeding and lowered fertility. Men show selection too. However to then bring that stuff to bear on modern human mating selections(which vary quite a bit culturally) is way too much Bro Science™

*a real buzzword de jour, but most commentators on the interwebs don't seem to understand what it means.

What he said.

professore · 28-02-2018 01:03PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Case in point; blonde hair. It seems that mutation(in Europeans) came from a single event soon after the agricultural revolution. Sexual selection in both sexes positively selected for it and it rapidly grew in percentage within the population and spread across the continent.

Or a simpler explanation is blonde (and red) haired people absorb vitamin D easier from the poor sunlight we get at northern latitudes so therefore they and their offspring were much healthier and stronger and lived longer and healthier lives than their dark skinned brethren.

Therefore they were able to breed more successfully. Blonde hair is recessive so both parents need to carry genes for it.

That's why there are no flowing blonde locks in Africa where it would be a massively negative trait evolutionarily speaking.

But yeah that "confidence" is hard to explain. I didn't have it for a lot of my life but I have it now. Women do act completely differently around me than they used to. I can say all sorts of stuff that before would have been considered creepy but now makes them like me more. I guess it's being completely relaxed and not caring about what they think of you is the key thing. Then again I don't have creepy intentions - I think that might be it, it can be smelled a mile off by women if a guy is an actual creep.

mzungu · 28-02-2018 03:48PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

What specifically do you disagree with?

All of it. The same tropes have popped up time and time again down through the years with the Alpha/Beta bollocksology. Even though it's been debunked and is based off nothing, considering the gurus misunderstood what the whole Alpha/Beta means in nature. Like I said above, it makes people money so this stuff gains traction even though it's about as credible as Mystic Meg! People will always want easy answers, and this feeds into it.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

The evidence is there that a minority of men are sexually attractive to women. Women on average rate around 80% of men as below average in terms if attractiveness.

I disagree completely. There is no "evidence". It was one study from OK Cupid came to the above conclusion. I could probably find a study that backs up creationism, but that wouldn't be evidence of anything. The OK Cupid study amounted to two or three questions (to even try get at the root of something as complex as attractiveness you would need to be going way more in-depth) and it was only OK Cupid users that took part so it is in no way a representative sample that you can draw any meaningful conclusions from. The methodology was far from sound. Furthermore, regarding attractiveness, one question in that "study" was asked and that was to rate the pictures from 0-5 (least attractive 0 / medium 2.5 / most attractive 5 etc) which is a bit flimsy to say the least. Thats not to mention that the study also found that women messaged men in the so-called not attractive sphere in droves, so why exactly would they be messaging them if there was no attraction?

If it was really true that women believed 80% of men were below average, then why are the amount of people in relationships increasing? Are people out there hooking up in their droves with people they don't find attractive? Hardly!

When going all in on a statement like women find 80% of men unattractive, you need to have some serious (and credible) data to back you up. A quickie OK Cupid survey that can be filled out in 3 seconds is not going to cut the mustard.

TLDR; A flawed study from an online meat market that is well known for treating people as disposable commodities can in no way be viewed as being how things are in the real world. Not even close.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

This is because the majority are not even on their radar. It makes sense from an evolutionary perepective that women would only be aroused by the minority of men who are most attractive. And the evidence bears this out.

No, it makes no sense and absolutely no "evidence" exists at all. As above, Wibbs has already comprehensively refuted this, so I have nothing further to add.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 05:03PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no it's not and no it doesn't. From an "evolutionary* perspective" it would make sense if a) more men were attractive and b) if women were strongly selecting for 20% of potential mates then over time and quite quickly that 20% would grow within a population. It certainly wouldn't remain static. Case in point; blonde hair. It seems that mutation(in Europeans) came from a single event soon after the agricultural revolution. Sexual selection in both sexes positively selected for it and it rapidly grew in percentage within the population and spread across the continent. Now human evolution does have what appears to be strong sexual selection in both sexes. Women in particular look very different to our closest cousins. Permanently inflated breasts the obvious one. That would be a turn off for other great apes as it would signal breastfeeding and lowered fertility. Men show selection too. However to then bring that stuff to bear on modern human mating selections(which vary quite a bit culturally) is way too much Bro Science™

*a real buzzword de jour, but most commentators on the interwebs don't seem to understand what it means.

No that 20% wouldn't grow, women would simply continue selecting the top 20%, there us always a top 20%.

So your comparison to blonde hair is null and void, you misunderstand what most attractive means.

The second half if your post is a non sequitar, I made no mention of breastfeeding or permanently inflated breasts, yet you regale us with stories if such.

I believe you are taking the terms alpha and beta in the wrong context and getting your knickers in a twist. It is simply used as convenient language to refer to the dichotomy between sexually successful and unsuccessful men.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 05:07PM

mzungu wrote: »

All of it. The same tropes have popped up time and time again down through the years with the Alpha/Beta bollocksology. Even though it's been debunked and is based off nothing, considering the gurus misunderstood what the whole Alpha/Beta means in nature. Like I said above, it makes people money so this stuff gains traction even though it's about as credible as Mystic Meg! People will always want easy answers, and this feeds into it.

I disagree completely. There is no "evidence". It was one study from OK Cupid came to the above conclusion. I could probably find a study that backs up creationism, but that wouldn't be evidence of anything. The OK Cupid study amounted to two or three questions (to even try get at the root of something as complex as attractiveness you would need to be going way more in-depth) and it was only OK Cupid users that took part so it is in no way a representative sample that you can draw any meaningful conclusions from. The methodology was far from sound. Furthermore, regarding attractiveness, one question in that "study" was asked and that was to rate the pictures from 0-5 (least attractive 0 / medium 2.5 / most attractive 5 etc) which is a bit flimsy to say the least. Thats not to mention that the study also found that women messaged men in the so-called not attractive sphere in droves, so why exactly would they be messaging them if there was no attraction?

If it was really true that women believed 80% of men were below average, then why are the amount of people in relationships increasing? Are people out there hooking up in their droves with people they don't find attractive? Hardly!

When going all in on a statement like women find 80% of men unattractive, you need to have some serious (and credible) data to back you up. A quickie OK Cupid survey that can be filled out in 3 seconds is not going to cut the mustard.

TLDR; A flawed study from an online meat market that is well known for treating people as disposable commodities can in no way be viewed as being how things are in the real world. Not even close.

No, it makes no sense and absolutely no "evidence" exists at all. As above, Wibbs has already comprehensively refuted this, so I have nothing further to add.

I sense you have your ego invested in ideas which I am contradicting, this is why you are reacting as you are.

Allow me to inform you, just because a person is in a relationship does not mean they are attractive to the general population, neither does it even mean that they are attractive to their partner. Many women hook up with a minority of men.

Wibbs hasn't refuted anything, he misunderstands what most attractive means and posts non sequitars.

He thinks if women are only attracted to men who are most attractive then all men should be most attractive by sexual selection. :pac:

Wibbs · 28-02-2018 06:33PM

professore wrote: »

Or a simpler explanation is blonde (and red) haired people absorb vitamin D easier from the poor sunlight we get at northern latitudes so therefore they and their offspring were much healthier and stronger and lived longer and healthier lives than their dark skinned brethren.

Sure, though we were living in those latitudes for tens of thousands of years with darker skin. Pale skin is relatively recent a phenomena. It might be down to farming again. Switching from hunting to farming means more guaranteed food and more of it, but it also means less nutritious food and a much less varied diet. One vitamin that likely took a hit in this diet change was D. So at that point selective pressure was on for paler skin. Either way the trait and lighter hair was sexually selected for too. Interestingly Neandertals appear to have had some genes for both pale skin and light/red hair(though different to ours). And they were hunters. Then again they had lived through successive ice ages and in forests where light levels would be even lower, so maybe the selection pressures were stronger.

That's why there are no flowing blonde locks in Africa where it would be a massively negative trait evolutionarily speaking.

Funny enough P there are blonds in both native Australian and Papuan populations. It was a different mutation at a different time. Both would be very dark peoples, so it seems Blondes have more fun there too.

Plus Asian populations didn't have blond going on, yet they do have pale skin. It's a complex story, like much of human evolution.

I guess it's being completely relaxed and not caring about what they think of you is the key thing.

I suppose not being desperate really as many men particularly young guys tend to be.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

No that 20% wouldn't grow, women would simply continue selecting the top 20%, there us always a top 20%.

Eh, you really don't get this. If women were continually selecting for a set of traits found in 20% their male offspring would be far more likely to exhibit those traits over time than the 80%. Shortsightedness is around that kinda percentage. Now imagine if women "continually selected" for short sighted men as a default, over time the human male population would become increasingly shortsighted. There would be a strong selection pressure for the trait. Given this alpha 20% Red Pill stuff is usually considered to be innate in Women™ and since the days of the cave, funny how that ratio is still in play today.

The second half if your post is a non sequitar, I made no mention of breastfeeding or permanently inflated breasts, yet you regale us with stories if such.

It's called normal conversation and an illustration of how other sexually selected for traits have come along in humans. It would take some rigidly linear on the spectrum mind to be confused by that.

I believe you are taking the terms alpha and beta in the wrong context and getting your knickers in a twist.

My man pants remain happily unbunched. Given your penchant for cut price Tolle speak, that's projection maaaan.

It is simply used as convenient language to refer to the dichotomy between sexually successful and unsuccessful men.

Not according to the Bro Science™ its not. That's part of it but these yahoos apply this out of date alpha/beta(gamma/delta/sigma. Yeah they're like the imported from the US "Otherkin" types and are starting to run outa letters) stuff all over the place. It's kinda reflective of parts of American culture mind you. It's a more dog eat dog and individualistic society with one of the largest gaps between the haves and the have nots in the Western world, so naturally hierarchies tend to be more front and centre and how to climb them. They got the horn for Nietzsche and all that too. It's also a culture of the hard sell, which has been both a boon and a hinderance to them. If Napoleon called England a nation of shopkeepers(as a compliment BTW), then America might be called a nation of snake oil salesmen and this whole PUA/Red Pill stuff is a perfect example.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I sense you have your ego invested in ideas which I am contradicting, this is why you are reacting as you are.

Again with the Tolle ego investment stuff and again more projection.

Allow me to inform you, just because a person is in a relationship does not mean they are attractive to the general population, neither does it even mean that they are attractive to their partner. Many women hook up with a minority of men.

When? For much of history the average man and woman had far fewer sexual partners than today in the West. Was there "adultery" going on, of course, so many cultures and religions frown upon it, but again most people had few sexual partners. Beyond extremes like rulers and the like. Women had less than men. Until the 20th century and late enough within it the average woman was under near constant sexual scrutiny and any that strayed from that were pilloried.

Wibbs hasn't refuted anything, he misunderstands what most attractive means and posts non sequitars.

I understand what attractive means. I also understand that if any population of organisms where the females select for particular traits in males to the degree you seem to believe then those traits will become more common. It's basic natural selection. What women™ do seem to select for is diversity in the male population. Which makes good sense. As the environment and cultures change it's good to have a reserve of diversity in the mix. In a safe liberal western environment with social safety nets the measured office worker/"nerd" coder earning good money is a better bet than a musclebound testosterone aggressive headball, whereas if that society descends into chaos because of war or whatever then the latter become a better bet to have around. We can see that going the other way too. So a society's supply of food seems to influence what is seen as the attractive "ideal" in the bodyweight of women. Over supply of food, thin women, risks of famine, fat women.

In essence "attractive" varies over time across cultures. There are few enough constants. Height in men, hourglass shape in women(better hormone profiles), symmetry in both(better growth in childhood and adolescence), emotional stability and clear skin(no parasites etc). Pretty much everything else is cultural. Hell, even in what appears to be much the same culture, a Miss World winner from the 50's wouldn't get past the local heats of the competition today.

And that folks is how you do "non sequitars". :pac:

mzungu · 28-02-2018 06:33PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I sense you have your ego invested in ideas which I am contradicting, this is why you are reacting as you are.

Not at all!

You haven't contradicted anything, that's your main problem right there. You made a few random statements with absolutely nothing to back it up and expect it to be taken as gospel truth. That's not how it works.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Allow me to inform you, just because a person is in a relationship does not mean they are attractive to the general population, neither does it even mean that they are attractive to their partner. Many women hook up with a minority of men.

And please allow me to inform you, that when you base how you view other peoples relationships off one three click study on OK Cupid, you are on a hiding to nothing. If you have any other sources for your claims then by all means feel free to share

As for the last part, that looks nearly word for word the same blanket statements others have made on these forums (and elsewhere) down through the years :pac: As previously stated, these tropes have been doing the rounds for many years now (with a few slight changes here and there) and they are just as wrong now as they were then.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Wibbs hasn't refuted anything, he misunderstands what most attractive means and posts non sequitars.

He thinks if women are only attracted to men who are most attractive then all men should be most attractive by sexual selection. :pac:

I don't think you read the post correctly tbh.

In your post you claimed there was "evidence" that women are attracted to a minority of men and that this "makes sense" from an "evolutionary perspective", but you have yet to provide it. I don't wish for you to state your opinion, what I do want to see is the "evidence" that made you form that opinion. So, if you would be so kind as to back up your statements with proper studies please (random OK Cupid studies and blogs will not be sufficient

) that would be great.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 07:32PM

mzungu wrote: »

Not at all! You haven't contradicted anything, that's your main problem right there. You made a few random statements with absolutely nothing to back it up and expect it to be taken as gospel truth. That's not how it works.

And please allow me to inform you, that when you base how you view other peoples relationships off one three click study on OK Cupid, you are on a hiding to nothing. If you have any other sources for your claims then by all means feel free to share

As for the last part, that looks nearly word for word the same blanket statements others have made on these forums (and elsewhere) down through the years :pac: As previously stated, these tropes have been doing the rounds for many years now (with a few slight changes here and there) and they are just as wrong now as they were then.

I don't think you read the post correctly tbh.

In your post you claimed there was "evidence" that women are attracted to a minority of men and that this "makes sense" from an "evolutionary perspective", but you have yet to provide it. I don't wish for you to state your opinion, what I do want to see is the "evidence" that made you form that opinion. So, if you would be so kind as to back up your statements with proper studies please (random OK Cupid studies and blogs will not be sufficient ) that would be great.

I don't base how I view relationships off an OK Stupid study, that's merely more evidence on top the evidence which drew me to my conclusions.

You simply state what I have posted is wrong without any rationale or reasonign behind your assertion, where is your evidence to support your claims.

Genetic evidence supports the fact that many more male lines dies out conpared to female lines.

Think about this for a second, it is a much bigger (potential) investment for a woman to have sex with a man than it is for a man to have sex with a woman. So it makes sense for a woman to only be aroused and attracted by the best men, the dna of the ones who are attracted to average and below average men die out as their progeny is of lesser quality.

This is not the case for men, being sexually aroused by average or below average women doesn't necessarily cause much of a problem as they can also have sex with many top quality women to produce top quality offspring.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 07:35PM

@Wibbs

You are the one who is missing the point regarding the 20%. There are no single physical traits they are selecting for. They are simply selecting the best men. By definition all men can not be the best men. This is the crucial point you are not grasping.

I never argued that women do not favour diversity, in fact it is perfectly compatible with women favouring the best 20%. What constitutes the best can be very different.

Wibbs · 28-02-2018 07:57PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Genetic evidence supports the fact that many more male lines dies out conpared to female lines.

It's not that simple as I pointed out earlier.

Me. Previously. wrote: »

Looking at genetics yes more women reproduced than men, more female lines survive than mens. It is not at a 17/1 ratio. In some populations(Asian IIRC) the gap narrows even further to near equal.

There are many more factors than the alpha/beta stuff. 1) Women have always outnumbered men in human populations(the modern Chinese demographic is an outlier). 2) pre modern medicine more male children died than female and by quite a margin. 3) in adulthood more reproductively fertile men died throughout history than women and many of them hadn't reproduced yet. War, hunting/farming, famine(women are more likely to survive famine) and even enslavement took them out of the gene pool. If one group takes over another what tends to happen is that men are killed or enslaved so no kids, women were/are considered a resource so would be reproduced with, so more kids. 4) Women also traveled more genetically. They tended to move to where their reproductive partner was, whereas men's genetics stay more local. That increases the diversity. This is not to say that polygyny wasn't a factor at times, but it was one of many. Oh and of those studies showing this difference sample sizes were small and narrow in scope. A common problem still to be found in human genetics. I suspect when a larger percentage of human DNA is sampled and examined we'll find out all sorts of stuff. Only a few years back a Black lad in America was found to have a Y chromosome found in nobody else yet tested.

Think about this for a second, it is a much bigger (potential) investment for a woman to have sex with a man than it is for a man to have sex with a woman. So it makes sense for a woman to only be aroused and attracted by the best men, the dna of the ones who are attracted to average and below average men die out as their progeny is of lesser quality.

This is not the case for men, being sexually aroused by average or below average women doesn't necessarily cause much of a problem as they can also have sex with many top quality women to produce top quality offspring.

Yes there is more investment involved, it's even dangerous for women to risk pregnancy and birth. That's not in dispute. There is also investment going on in men. EG before paternity testing men risked investing in offspring that weren't their own, hence so many societies exerting more control over women's sexuality than men's.

As for "lesser quality" progeny, how does one measure this? Beyond genetic defects(which can often appear to be random in otherwise visibly healthy parents), "quality" is an extremely subjective measurement. It's where the eugenists got their heads ever further up their own arses(another popular thing in the US back in the day. It was only through the inbuilt American cultural individualism that they didn't fall down the rabbit hole of the later fascism or communism which were also hugely influenced by this cack handed approach to Darwin). There are any number of incredible individuals that have changed humanity for the better(or worse, but they stood out) who were on the surface coming from "low quality" stock or "low quality" themselves. I defy you to name more than two greatest men in history who were Perfect Alpha Ubermensch. Good luck with even naming two.

You are the one who is missing the point regarding the 20%. There are no single physical traits they are selecting for. They are simply selecting the best men.

Christ it's like playing chess with a wall. Look, "best men" are physical traits. All your talk about "alpha" behaviour? That set of characteristics trotted out by the PUA guys will have a strong genetic component. Intelligence, risk taking, physical stature, looks, height, even confidence. It looks like there are even sociability genes going on. Tall parents tend to have tall kids, intelligent parents tend to have intelligent kids, gregarious parents and so forth. If you give your description of the "best man" well over half those traits will almost certainly be heritable to one degree or another. If you can't pin them down and merely repeat what Real Social Dynamics or whomever have fed you as gospel then it's a lop sided debate.

Pluto Planet · 28-02-2018 08:05PM

Nope, best men does not necessarily mean physical traits. Ultimately what determines who the best men are is decided by women and what they respond to. There are a multitude of factors, height, looks, charisma, intelligence, social skills, leadership qualities, the ability to i fluence others, sense of humour etc. It is a complex concoction which you seem to think should be a simple set of traits which determine what makes the best men.

Women determine who the best men are. Just because a woman mates with one of the best men does not mean that her son's will be amongst the best men but it makes sense that it at least increases the probabilities.

Basically you are looking at this puzzle from the wrong perspective and under the wrong assumptions.

mzungu · 28-02-2018 10:32PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

I don't base how I view relationships off an OK Stupid study, that's merely more evidence on top the evidence which drew me to my conclusions.

You keep talking about evidence, but you still have not provided any.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

You simply state what I have posted is wrong without any rationale or reasonign behind your assertion, where is your evidence to support your claims.

The general rule of a forum is that if you make the claim, then it's up to you to provide the evidence to support your argument. You made the claim, I didn't, therefore the onus is on you to provide the proof. All I did was point out the fallacies in what you said, but I never made a claim. The burden of proof is all on you.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Genetic evidence supports the fact that many more male lines dies out conpared to female lines.

Not exactly. You are not accounting for social conditions with the above statement. Historically, mothers did outnumber fathers and study findings do show evidence for polygyny. Men with less means (majority) could not afford wives, hence richer men (minority) had more wives. It was a social thing. Anyways, as a result you have more women than men making a genetic contribution. As stated above, depending on where you lived, the variation would have been quite large (regional cultural and socio-economic factors at play most likely). Overall, the evidence does not support your claim. If you have an interest in that area then check out Mark Stoneking.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Think about this for a second, it is a much bigger (potential) investment for a woman to have sex with a man than it is for a man to have sex with a woman.

I dont disagree about the investment part (thats basically Robert Trivers' parental investment theory you are talking about there) as a woman does make the bigger investment. That was never in doubt.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

So it makes sense for a woman to only be aroused and attracted by the best men, the dna of the ones who are attracted to average and below average men die out as their progeny is of lesser quality.

This is not the case for men, being sexually aroused by average or below average women doesn't necessarily cause much of a problem as they can also have sex with many top quality women to produce top quality offspring.

How exactly do you measure "lesser quality" and "top quality"? If women are attracted to the "best men", is every individual woman the arbiter of what those "best men" traits are etc?

By the by, for a more nuanced view of attraction and mating patterns check out David Buss, David Schmitt and Joanna Scheib.

Charmeleon · 01-03-2018 12:11AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, you really don't get this. If women were continually selecting for a set of traits found in 20% their male offspring would be far more likely to exhibit those traits over time than the 80%. Shortsightedness is around that kinda percentage. Now imagine if women "continually selected" for short sighted men as a default, over time the human male population would become increasingly shortsighted. There would be a strong selection pressure for the trait. Given this alpha 20% Red Pill stuff is usually considered to be innate in Women™ and since the days of the cave, funny how that ratio is still in play today.

There's nothing to say that the most attractive traits are physical though. That's the point, if women are selecting for men who seek out and value prestige, you would expect that to be borne out in the population. And that is indeed what we see. Men are overwhelmingly more likely than women to risk their lives to boost their prestige, and a non-insignificant proportion of them lose both in the process. What does that say for your reproductive fitness when coming close to losing absolutely everything becomes a successful strategy?

You could also look at the 'patent gap', over 90% of patents for new inventions are claimed by men. Among the patents that are awarded to women, the majority are for clothing, personal effects and jewellery. That suggests that men have a drive to invent new technologies and solve existing problems which will raise their prestige in the wider group.

These are just two examples of the top of my head. You can't seriously argue that sexual selection has not been a strong influence in these traits in men, and that they are related to how women were selecting for men with prestige and authority.

I do agree that the stereotypical testosterone-dripping 'body builder', domineering control freak is not a single male type that women prefer, in fact men with these traits were probably more likely to die in violent combat or be ambushed by other men. There are accounts of such men being killed by a coalition of the entire community in hunter-gatherers. Even among chiefdoms, the chiefs tended to die of war, ambush or rebellion. Hence their tendency towards tyrannical control and paranoia, both very unattractive traits as measured in studies of female preference.

For much of history the average man and woman had far fewer sexual partners than today in the West. Was there "adultery" going on, of course, so many cultures and religions frown upon it, but again most people had few sexual partners. Beyond extremes like rulers and the like. Women had less than men. Until the 20th century and late enough within it the average woman was under near constant sexual scrutiny and any that strayed from that were pilloried.

Among subsistence faming communities, polygyny was extremely common, right up until the spread of Christianity and Islam. In Africa, it was the defining feature of marriage and only moderated when Islam limited the number of wives any given man could have while Christianity favoured strict monogamy. As mentioned previously, even among hunter gatherers, polygyny ranges from 5-10% and beyond. It's reasonable to suggest this was a common feature of most ancient societies.

You are correct though, it was usually not the 'average man' who had all these wives, it was men who had prestige and resources or who were goal-oriented towards this. This has caused selection for traits among the male population, like risk taking behaviour, assertiveness and less 'agreeableness' and personal achievements (particularly those that benefit the group) which raises their status.

Pluto Planet · 01-03-2018 07:47AM

mzungu wrote: »

You keep talking about evidence, but you still have not provided any.

The general rule of a forum is that if you make the claim, then it's up to you to provide the evidence to support your argument. You made the claim, I didn't, therefore the onus is on you to provide the proof. All I did was point out the fallacies in what you said, but I never made a claim. The burden of proof is all on you.

Not exactly. You are not accounting for social conditions with the above statement. Historically, mothers did outnumber fathers and study findings do show evidence for polygyny. Men with less means (majority) could not afford wives, hence richer men (minority) had more wives. It was a social thing. Anyways, as a result you have more women than men making a genetic contribution. As stated above, depending on where you lived, the variation would have been quite large (regional cultural and socio-economic factors at play most likely). Overall, the evidence does not support your claim. If you have an interest in that area then check out Mark Stoneking.

I dont disagree about the investment part (thats basically Robert Trivers' parental investment theory you are talking about there) as a woman does make the bigger investment. That was never in doubt.

How exactly do you measure "lesser quality" and "top quality"? If women are attracted to the "best men", is every individual woman the arbiter of what those "best men" traits are etc?

By the by, for a more nuanced view of attraction and mating patterns check out David Buss, David Schmitt and Joanna Scheib.

The top quality men are the ones women generally find sexually attractive. Most people know genuine stories of men who have had sex with over 100 hundred women. Meanwhile there are countless cases of male virgins in their thirties, much more so than female virgins.

You have made a number of assertions for which you have not provided evidence.

You assert that more people are in relationships today than in the past. (not that I particularly disagree or that this point is even relevant)

Pluto Planet · 01-03-2018 08:27AM

Wibbs wrote: »

As for "lesser quality" progeny, how does one measure this? Beyond genetic defects(which can often appear to be random in otherwise visibly healthy parents), "quality" is an extremely subjective measurement. It's where the eugenists got their heads ever further up their own arses(another popular thing in the US back in the day. It was only through the inbuilt American cultural individualism that they didn't fall down the rabbit hole of the later fascism or communism which were also hugely influenced by this cack handed approach to Darwin). There are any number of incredible individuals that have changed humanity for the better(or worse, but they stood out) who were on the surface coming from "low quality" stock or "low quality" themselves. I defy you to name more than two greatest men in history who were Perfect Alpha Ubermensch. Good luck with even naming two.

Once again you are missing the point, you seem to think that I'm arguing something that I'm not actually arguing.

I know of men who physically are nothing to look at, short, skinny and/or no oil painting. However, put them in a room of women and they have a magnetic affect to draw women in. "There is something about him" they say.

The top quality men are the ones women respond to, there are not static attributes to determine the top quality men. It is not as linear and black and white as you seem to think it is. It's more nuanced and complex. For example women are constantly "pinging" other people to gauge relative social status of each person in a group. There are two metrics women subconsciously use to gauge a man's value which come from "social pinging". They look at how the man interacts and responds with other people to gauge how high he measures his own value, they also look at how other people interact with the man to gauge how high other people value the man.

There is something know as "honest signals" which women are subconsciously scanning for to determine a man's value. For example, when a man is high social status and successful with women it is much easier to "be himself" and to be in the moment and out of his head when interacting with beautiful women or other high status men. It's almost as if there is a mechanism in men's brain to prevent them having access to their best personality when they are low status. I believe this evolved as a defense mechanism. Low status men displaying high status traits makes genuine high status men hostile.

If you don't believe me then conduct experiments yourself. Put an 18 year old man dressed in a tracksuit into a pub and tell him to sing loudly for a minute. Do the same experiment with a 45 year old man in a business suit with two attractive women on his arm and notice the difference. You'll notice that the 18 year old is more likely to be told to "Shut the fukc up" with a tone of aggression and hostility.

Men HATE low status men trying to behave as high status, and can often become aggressive in response. Typically the higher status a man is among his group the louder he will project his voice. Another subtle tell the female subconscious is scanning for.

mzungu · 01-03-2018 12:51PM

Pluto Planet wrote: »

The top quality men are the ones women generally find sexually attractive. Most people know genuine stories of men who have had sex with over 100 hundred women.

Ah c'mon now, that's just an anecdotes your touting there.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

Meanwhile there are countless cases of male virgins in their thirties, much more so than female virgins.

Not exactly. There are more male virgins than female virgins, but the differences in figures are not that large at all. The estimated percentage for male virgins between 30-34 is 3.1% and for women between 30-34 it's 1.9%. The figure for men between 35-39 it is 1.3% and for women in the 35-39 category its 0.9%. If the overall figures are taken from that study, roughly 11% of women up to the age of 44 are virgins, and 11.2% of men up to the age of 44 are virgins. Link: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -National Center for Health Statistics (2011) There is not much difference there at all.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

You have made a number of assertions for which you have not provided evidence.

Like I said, you jumped in with the 80% 20% malarky and then radio silence when asked for evidence (which you said existed). The onus is on you to provide evidence when you make a claim.

However, here are a few for your perusal.

David Buss (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the mind.

Buss, D & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in Human Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 559-570

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49

Buss, D. & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Scheib, J. (1997). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships.

Lippold et al. (2014). Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high-resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences. Investigative genetics, 5(1), 13.

Pluto Planet wrote: »

You assert that more people are in relationships today than in the past. (not that I particularly disagree or that this point is even relevant)

It's all part of discussion, the figures in this country are rising (counting for same sex and hetero marriage plus couples cohabiting etc.) IIRC it was a response to your 80% 20% assertion (that you still haven't backed up) earlier in the thread. The only defence you offered for this was.......

Pluto Planet wrote:

just because a person is in a relationship does not mean they are attractive to the general population, neither does it even mean that they are attractive to their partner. Many women hook up with a minority of men.

....which was more opinion from your good self and nothing to back it up. You were provided counter claims regarding male lineage (study in links above) to your above statement and thus far ignored it.

pumpkin4life · 01-03-2018 01:08PM

mzungu wrote: »

Ah c'mon now, that's just an anecdotes your touting there.

Not exactly. There are more male virgins than female virgins, but the differences in figures are not that large at all. The estimated percentage for male virgins between 30-34 is 3.1% and for women between 30-34 it's 1.9%. The figure for men between 35-39 it is 1.3% and for women in the 35-39 category its 0.9%. If the overall figures are taken from that study, roughly 11% of women up to the age of 44 are virgins, and 11.2% of men up to the age of 44 are virgins.

1: Because I've revealed too much of my identity here, I'm just going to reveal the fact that I am friends with someone who is very famous and very successful within the sports and fitness industry in this country. I've been out with this guy and I remember him being approached by a ride of a wan, with her, right there, begging him to take him home. Like a fùcking 10, Slovak model looking wan. This guy has told us stories that were absolutely crazy; threesomes, banging wans in the jacks 10 minutes after meeting them, all of that. When Donald Trump's pussy tape came out, it came of no surprise to me. There is a small percentage of men (very rich, very successful in sports, very very very Derek Zoolander goodlooking men) who get a wan and sleep with wans in a way thats foreign, alien to the rest of us. So I disagree with that part.

2: Out of interest, how do they calculate those numbers? If it's surveyed I'm going to call bullshìt.

Male virgins are associated with being losers. So they won't admit to it on a survey.

Wans who sleep with a lot of men are associated with being sluts. So they won't admit to it on a survey.

So those male virgin numbers are artificially low and those female virgin numbers are artificially high.

Great thread though, good stuff from Wibbs, a lot to think about.

xckjoo · 01-03-2018 02:18PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

2: Out of interest, how do they calculate those numbers?

Methodology is in the source link he posted. It would have been faster to read it than type the question.

The rest of your post is pure anecdote. "I know some lad knobbing all round him" isn't statistically relevant. Nor is "I'd be ashamed if I was a virgin and lie about it".

Pluto Planet · 01-03-2018 02:22PM

mzungu wrote: »

Ah c'mon now, that's just an anecdotes your touting there.

Not exactly. There are more male virgins than female virgins, but the differences in figures are not that large at all. The estimated percentage for male virgins between 30-34 is 3.1% and for women between 30-34 it's 1.9%. The figure for men between 35-39 it is 1.3% and for women in the 35-39 category its 0.9%. If the overall figures are taken from that study, roughly 11% of women up to the age of 44 are virgins, and 11.2% of men up to the age of 44 are virgins. Link: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -National Center for Health Statistics (2011) There is not much difference there at all.

Like I said, you jumped in with the 80% 20% malarky and then radio silence when asked for evidence (which you said existed). The onus is on you to provide evidence when you make a claim.

However, here are a few for your perusal.

David Buss (1999). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the mind.

Buss, D & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in Human Mate Selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 559-570

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49

Buss, D. & Schmitt, D. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Scheib, J. (1997). Context-specific mate choice criteria: Women’s trade-offs in the contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships.

Lippold et al. (2014). Human paternal and maternal demographic histories: insights from high-resolution Y chromosome and mtDNA sequences. Investigative genetics, 5(1), 13.

It's all part of discussion, the figures in this country are rising (counting for same sex and hetero marriage plus couples cohabiting etc.) IIRC it was a response to your 80% 20% assertion (that you still haven't backed up) earlier in the thread. The only defence you offered for this was....... ....which was more opinion from your good self and nothing to back it up. You were provided counter claims regarding male lineage (study in links above) to your above statement and thus far ignored it.

I don't think I was provided counter claims to the male lineage point, merely that it's multi faceted which I have always agreed with.

There are men who can have casual sex with with women with relative ease, these men are in the minority. Do you disagree with this point?

Casual sex is a much better indicator of sexual attractiveness in men than being in a relationship. Just because a man is in a relationship does not mean his partner finds him sexually attractive. It is more likely that a woman finds a man sexually attractive if she has casual sex with him compared to a relationship.

Pluto Planet · 01-03-2018 02:26PM

xckjoo wrote: »

Methodology is in the source link he posted. It would have been faster to read it than type the question.

The rest of your post is pure anecdote. "I know some lad knobbing all round him" isn't statistically relevant. Nor is "I'd be ashamed if I was a virgin and lie about it".

Anyone with a decent social life probably knows a few men who just seem to have a knack with women. Casual sex comes easy to them, they don't even have to chase it, women often chase them.

These so called scientists in their ivory towers completely miss the nuance of social interactions. Heaven forbid they actually test their hypotheses and approach women themselves.

Jordan Peterson interview on C4

Comments