You’ll have to forgive this exceptionally long post here, but for many critics of (and in) the manosphere of evolutionary psychology the following post articulates things better than I could. Some in the ‘sphere seem to think a reliance on evo-psych is some form of blind faith at worst; some sort of creative, purpose-built guesswork at best.
It is not.
When I apply anything regarding evolutionary psychology on Rational Male I approach it in the most deductive manner I can see fit insofar as connecting the behavioral dots with the social apparatus I observe. While Red Pill awareness isn’t reliant upon evo-psych it is founded upon a similar observationally deductive methodology.
Evo-psych is a very broad school of psychology that is not just limited to intersexual relations. While I do largely embrace the foundations of evo-psych, it’s important to remember that my particular education revolves around behaviorism.
The following re-blog here is a collection of ten answers to common criticisms of evolutionary psychology by Dr. David P. Schmitt. I’ve pared it down a bit for readability, but do see the link for all the sources cited.
Emphasis my own.
A few years ago, I was giving an invited presentation to an audience of mostly sociologists and family studies professors on the topic of evolution and human reproductive strategies. I mentioned that some social scientists hold false beliefs about “evolutionary psychology,” such as the mistaken assumption that evolutionary psychologists think all men are interested in bedding as many women as possible (often called short-term mating), whereas all women are only interested in marrying a single man and staying faithful to him for a lifetime (i.e., long-term mating).
When I tried to dispel this common misperception by noting, for instance, that evolutionary psychologists have hypothesized women are just as designed for short-term mating as men are—in some ways even more so such as women’s heightened desires for cues to genetic quality in short-term mates—an audible gasp swept through the conference hall. I kid you not, I could see rows of people who looked genuinely horrified. I was a little taken aback, so I asked an audience member near the front row who had her hand over her mouth if something was unclear, to which she proclaimed, “that’s not the evolutionary psychology I know.”
When I tried to explain that women’s evolved short-term mating desires have been studied by evolutionary psychologists since the early 1990s and the topic remains a very active area of inquiry today, heads swiveled in disbelief. My subsequent Power Point slides chock-full of studies confirming women’s specially designed short-term mating psychology were falling, I feared, on an auditorium of deaf ears (or blind eyes, I suppose). Alas, this stereotype about evolutionary psychology wasn’t going to change anytime soon.
It seems to me many critics of evolutionary psychology cling steadfastly to false stereotypes of the field, both theoretical and empirical. This is partly because so much evolutionary psychological research has been produced over the last 25 years it is hard for even evolutionary-informed scholars themselves to keep up (for an up-to-date review, I recommend Buss’ new edition of The Evolutionary Psychology Handbook[1]). Add to that the methodological breadth of different techniques used by evolutionary scholars to test hypotheses about the adaptive design of the human mind, and it is understandably difficult to know what all evolutionary researchers have been, and currently are, up to as active Darwinian scientists.
Perhaps more than other social scientists, evolutionary psychologists use an incredible variety of research methods, ranging from self-report surveys and behavioral field test experiments, to investigations involving genetics, hormones, and neuroscience, to cross-species and cross-cultural comparisons, to ethnographies of foraging societies and computer modeling of artificial intelligences[2] [3] [4]. To be aware of contemporary evolutionary psychology requires broad and deep knowledge of many scholarly disciplines, and a lot of evolutionary psychology’s critics simply do not know what they do not know about the field as it is practiced today.
Beyond simply not knowing about the empirical breadth and methodological richness of modern evolutionary science, many critics exhibit a certain kind of “empirical nihilism” toward any psychological findings even remotely portrayed as supporting evolutionary hypotheses. For instance, when one points to a set of studies that respond to a specific criticism, some critics reply with a “yes, but” attitude and set forth new criticisms requiring more evidence (sort of a serial “moving the goalposts” maneuver).
Now, in science extreme skepticism is generally a good thing. For scientists, there are no capital “T” Truths, and every claim about reality is tentatively true with a small “t” and is always adjustable as more evidence is accumulated over time. Sometimes, though, this attitude is more than healthy skepticism about a particular empirical finding and is, instead, clearly an attitude of irrefutable empirical nihilism toward evolutionary psychology studies in particular. As an example of this type of unshakeable attitude of disbelief, I list below 10 of the more common “yes, but” criticisms of evolutionary findings on women’s long-term mate preferences. It’s an illustrative (not exhaustive) list of just how impenetrable some scholar’s beliefs are when it comes to considering evidence that our evolved human mind might be something more than a domain-general learning mechanism writing on an asexual, ungendered blank slate.
Women’s Long-Term Mate Preferences
Looking across the animal kingdom, one cannot help but notice that members of most species tend to mate non-randomly. Whether it is peahens preferring peacocks with more elaborate trains[5] or female common chimpanzees preferring males who possess higher social dominance[6], males and females of most species display adaptive forms of preferential mate choice.
Evolutionary psychologists were among the first to propose similar sex differences might exist in human mate preferences. For instance, evolutionary psychologists hypothesized that women may possess specially-designed long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources to her and their offspring[7] [8] [9]. Such cues include a man’s status and prestige which, depending on local culture, may involve hunting ability, physical strength, or other locally-relevant attributes, as well as his ambition, work ethic, intelligence, social dominance, maturity, and slightly older age[10] [11]. Not all women desire the highest value long-term mate at all times, of course, but it is expected that women’s long-term mate preferences should be marked by some degree of “special design” that is reliably observable using the methodological richness of modern evolutionary psychological science.
One way to evaluate whether women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to status-related traits is to directly ask people whether they prefer those attributes in long-term mates (via methods such as self-report surveys), and then compare the intensity of responses of women and men. When doing so, psychologists typically evaluate the degree of sexual differentiation using the dstatistic, with an observed d value of ±.20 being considered a “small” sex difference, ±.50 is a “moderate” sex difference, and ±.80 is a “large” sex difference[12]. Negative d values typically indicate women score more highly on a particular preference, whereas positive values indicate men score more highly.
Buss and Barnes[13] were among the first to evaluate whether women (more than men) prefer cues related to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources. For instance, they found women more strongly prefer long-term mates who have a “good earning capacity” (a large sex difference, d = -0.82), “are a college graduate” (d = -0.60), and “possess intelligence” (d = -0.19). Obviously, these findings are not definitive proof that men and women differ in the evolved design of long-term mate preferences. The findings are merely tests of evolutionary-guided hypotheses, and the tests were supportive of specially-designed sex differences existing in human mate preferences. Still, some critics challenge these results, arguing yes, but…
1) Yes, but…that is just one study. One cannot trust the results of just one study. Evolutionary psychologists need to conduct many more studies before I am convinced these effects are legitimate, let alone evidence of evolved psychology. I’m sure many other studies wouldn’t find sex differences in mate preferences.
Actually, most investigations of sex differences in mate preferences have been supportive of these hypotheses (to be honest, virtually all studies have). In 1992, Feingold[14] meta-analytically reviewed the extant literature (including 32 independent samples) on self-reported mate preferences across college students and community samples and found women more greatly desired socioeconomic status (d = -0.69), ambition (d = -0.67), and intelligence (d = -0.30) in potential long-term mates. Numerous additional investigations have since replicated these basic sex differences in long-term mate preferences among college students[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. For instance, a recent study focused on women’s mate preferences for men with the ability to invest in them, revealing that college women desire a man who has earned his money (compared to other sources), ostensibly reflective of the aforementioned qualities (ambition, work ethic, intelligence), and that this effect is strongest in the long-term mating context[23].
2) Yes, but…those studies are mostly with college students. People in the real world (e.g., representative samples of adults) won’t display these stereotypical sex differences of youth.
Actually, yes they do[24] [25] [26]. For instance, Sprecher and her colleagues[27] examined sex differences in mate preferences across a nationally-representative sample of the United States and found women, more than men, valued a long-term mate who had a steady job (d = -0.73), earned more than they did (d = -0.49), was highly educated (d = -0.43), and was older by five years (d = -0.67). Young or old[28] [29] [30], gay or straight[31] [32], sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related attributes tend to reliably emerge.
3) Yes, but…many of those findings are from decades ago. Sex differences in mate preferences are probably not historically stable. They may have existed many decades ago (in the era of Mad Men), but sex differences in mate preferences are surely not present in more recent times.
Actually, yes they are. In a cross-generational analysis of the same mate preference questionnaire administered to Americans from 1939 to 1996, both men and women increased their valuing of good financial prospects and decreased valuing ambition/industriousness over time, but the degree of sex differences in these items largely persisted in strength across more than 50 years[33].
4) Yes, but…that is only when you have people self-report their ideal mate preferences from a pre-chosen list of traits given to them. If you ask them what they really want, say at a minimum, or maybe let them freely design their ideal potential partners, status-related traits aren’t emphasized by women more than men.
Actually, yes they are. Researchers have questioned people about their long-term mate preferences using a wide variety of self-report methodologies. Kenrick and his colleagues[34] asked people what the minimum threshold of possessing a particular attribute would need to be to agree to marry a person. Women, on average, required men’s earning capacity to be in the 70th percentile to be marriageable, whereas men required women to be in the 40th percentile (overall d = -1.41).
Using another nuanced form of self-report, Li[35] compelled men and women to engage in tradeoffs among various cues when intentionally designing a desirable long-term mate. Women devoted the most of their limited budget toward their mates’ social level (33%), whereas for men social level was of moderate budgetary importance (17%). Across a series of studies[36], researchers using this tradeoff paradigm concluded that women, but not men, consider a long-term mate’s social status a “necessity” and not a “luxury.” Indeed, when forced to make decisions with very limited budgets, sex differences in long-term mate preferences are stronger than with typical self-report surveys.
Self-report surveys also reveal men, more than women, appear effective at displaying status-related traits to the opposite sex[37]. Overall, self-report methods (via ratings, rankings, trade-offs, nominations, or open-ended questions[38]) consistently support the hypothesis that women possess long-term mate preferences for cues to a man’s ability and willingness to devote resources.
5) Yes, but…this is only because women are denied access to resources themselves. If women have higher status themselves, they would not prefer men with high status. It’s just basic rationality, not evolved psychology, causing these sex differences in mate preferences for status.
Actually, it is a compelling test of women’s long-term mate preferences for men’s status-related traits (including their ability and willingness to provide resources) to evaluate whether their expressed preferences disappear when women have ample resources of their own. It could be women only prefer cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources because women are structurally denied access to resources[39].
Addressing this alternative explanation, Townsend and his colleagues have found women in medical school[40] and law school[41] are more selective of a future mate’s financial status, not less. Similarly, Wiederman and Allgeier[42] found college women’s expected income was positively associated with their ratings of the importance of a potential long-term mate’s earning capacity. Regan[43] found as women’s mate value goes up, so does their insistence on men’s high status and resources (i.e., they “want it all”; see also[44]). Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!
6) Yes, but…that is only true in the United States. Americans happen to live in a culture with conspicuous gender stereotypes about mate preferences that the rest of the world does not share. If you look at more gender egalitarian cultures, in Scandinavia for instance, sex differences in preferences for status-related attributes “disappear” (as claimed by Marks[45]).
Actually, no, they do not. Numerous studies have found sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes are prevalent across cultures[46] [47] [48]. Lippa[49] conducted an internet sampling of 53 nations and Zentner and Mitura[50] conducted an internet sampling across 10 nations and both studies found 100% of cultures displayed expected sex differences, with women demonstrating especially heightened long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects, social status, ambition, and older age.
Some researchers have found the magnitude of sex differences in mate preferences for status-related attributes shifts from a large/medium effect size to a more moderate medium/small effect size in nations with higher gender egalitarianism. Zentner and Mitura found exactly this pattern of results after placing nations into three groups, low gender egalitarian cultures (within which women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more than men, d = -0.65), medium gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.53), and high gender egalitarian cultures (women valued Ambition-Industriousness moderately more, d = -0.48). Hence, sex differences in the preference for Ambition-Industriousness in long-term mates were reduced (though not by much, and were still medium in terms of effect size) in nations with higher levels of gender egalitarianism.
Most other sex differences in status-related mate preferences also were attenuated from larger to more moderate levels in Zentner and Mitura’s sample of nations that were higher in gender egalitarianism (e.g., Good Financial Prospects went from d = -1.04, to d = -0.84, to d = -0.55; Favorable Social Status went from d = -0.67, to d = -0.42, to d = -0.31). In most cases, these reductions were caused by women preferring status-related traits less in high gender egalitarian nations, though in many cases men’s preferences for status-related attributes also were reduced in high gender egalitarian nations (which seems counter to the logic of men appreciating women’s status-related traits more as women enter the workforce in high gender egalitarian nations). One thing is clear, sex differences in long-term mate preferences for status-related traits do not “disappear” in gender egalitarian cultures. They may only be moderate in size, but we see them just fine.
Importantly, Zentner and Mitura also found in low gender egalitarian nations, men valued Good Looks only a little more than women, d = 0.24; in medium gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was higher still than women’s, d = 0.43; and in the highest gender egalitarian nations, men’s valuation of Good Looks was the most different from women’s, d = 0.51. Thus, contrary to the expectation that gender egalitarianism always reduces sex differences, Zentner and Mitura found sex differences in Good Looks are largest in nations with the highestgender egalitarianism. What!? Actually, these findings are not unusual, as high gender egalitarian nations also exhibit larger sex differences in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[51]. If the sociopolitical gender egalitarianism found in Scandinavian nations is supposed to produce smaller psychological sex differences, it’s not doing a very good job of it.
7) Yes, but…all these studies showing men and women want different things in potential partners are merely evidence of gendered narratives as measured by self-report surveys. If ever tested in the real world, women would not preferentially choose or be affected by a partner’s status-related attributes more than men.
Actually, there have been dozens of studies of real world mating and mating-related cognition, and almost all find that women do choose and are affected by a partner’s status-related traits more than men are.
Feingold[52] meta-analytically examined what women ask for and what men advertise in public, real-world personal advertisements and found, as expected, women more than men ask for cues to willingness and ability to provide resources (e.g., 27% of women ask for high socioeconomic status compared to 7% of men). Men who advertise such status-related cues actually receive more responses from women, as well. For example, in a study that experimentally manipulated real-life personal ads, ads placed by men noting they were financially successful elicited the most interest, whereas for women physical attractiveness was the key[53]. In a study of Polish personal ads, the top four cues displayed by men that received responses from women were good education, older age, high resource levels, and tall height[54]. In a study of mail order brides from Colombia, Russia, and the Philippines, women universally listed ambition, status, and wealth as among their most desired attributes in a future husband[55].
Numerous studies of marital patterns also have found women tend to desire (and actually marry) men who are slightly older than they are, regardless of women’s own age[57] [58]. As men get older, in contrast, they tend to desire and marry younger and younger women[59]. Women have been found to preferentially marry higher status men across such diverse cultures as the Kipsigis of Kenya, the Hausa of West Africa, Trinidadians, and Micronesian islanders, among many others[60]. It is true that some speed-dating studies in urban settings find women do not choose higher status men more often as dates, but these studies are limited by having only high status men in their samples (no homeless men allowed) and potentially including those who are interested in short-term mating (women’s short-term mate preferences focus more on gene quality, not status). In speed-dating studies with low status men included, and when the context is explicitly long-term mating only, women do pick higher status men more often for dates[61].
There also are a wide range of cognitive studies that test for women’s desires for status-related traits without explicitly asking them what they want. For instance, as part of a study ostensibly helping a university develop a dating service, Kenrick and his colleagues[62] experimentally manipulated whether already-mated men and women were exposed to a target date either very high in dominance or very low in dominance. They found women, but not men, were less committed to their current long-term mating partner after being exposed to a high dominance member of the opposite sex. Merely being experimentally exposed to a man with very high dominance lowered women’s commitment to their current mate, and did so without consciously asking women about their preferences for dominance.
Similarly, exposure to physically attractive women appears to evoke in men desires to fulfill women’s evolved preferences, such as increasing men’s attention toward and desires to possess resources and to display ambition, creativity, independence, and risk-taking[63] [64] [65]. And when exposed to men who are high in dominance, men tend to rate themselves as lower in mate value[66] and men’s feelings of jealousy are more strongly evoked[67]. All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so. Surely, to an open-minded scientist these types of non-survey findings should buttress the view that women possess mate preferences for men’s status-related attributes…
8) Yes, but…even though evolutionary psychologists may study real life cognition, emotion, and behavior, they fail to study the most important Darwinian outcome…fertility. If women evolved mate preferences for status-related traits, then women who marry men of high status men should have more children. Evolutionary psychologists haven’t even bothered to look at these outcomes, lazy-headed daisies…
Actually, several studies by evolutionary psychologists have found women who marry higher status men tend to have more children, and to have children survive to an older age. In a study of pre-industrial Finland (from the 1700s), women married to wealthier men had more children and decreased child mortality[68]. In another study, marrying a man four years older was associated with maximum levels of fertility among women[69]. Bereczkei and Csanaky[70] conducted a study of 1,800 Hungarians over 34 years of age and found women who married older and better educated men tended to have more children. These are important findings, as it is critical that women’s mate preferences for status-related attributes lead to reproductive success, or at least likely did so in our evolutionary past[71] [72].
One may also look at the effects of high personal status on men’s versus women’s reproductive success. Nettle and Pollett[73] and many other scholars have found men’s higher level of personal status is related to higher fertility, but the same is much less true (or not at all true) for women’s higher level of personal status. In fact, modern women who have higher personal incomes themselves tend to have fewer children[74]. Jumping Jehoshaphat…yes, but…
9) Yes, but…ancestral men were foragers and could not accumulate wealth, so these mate preferences for “good earning potential” are largely irrelevant to evolved mating psychology. Evolutionary psychology findings are extremely limited because they only apply to modern materialistic cultures.
Actually, it is correct that large masses of “material wealth” were not present in our ancestral past when we lived as foragers, but it is likely ancestral men did accumulate social capital or “status” (from among other things, hunting ability). Several studies have documented this form of male status as being the subject of selective pressures (i.e., high status men—whether that status comes in the form of land, livestock, money, physical prowess, or hunting ability—have more offspring[75][76]). Evidence of selection for men’s status has been found in many types of cultures, including studies of men’s hunting ability among the Aché, Hadza, and Tsimane[77]. Apicella[78], for instance, found men’s hunting reputation and upper-body strength both predicted reproductive success among Hadza hunter–gatherers.
Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that women’s preferences in modern nations do not seem to be calibrated on money, per se. Instead, women may view money as a proximal cue to the underlying qualities that they have evolved to care about, such as status, prestige, social dominance, ambition, work ethic, and intelligence[79]. So it is certainly true that ancestral men did not accumulate financial wealth, but focusing too much on the importance (or not) of money or wealth across all cultures is missing the adaptive forest for the trees.
10) Yes, but…I know so many people who strongly believe that sex differences in mate preferences simply cannot exist. The idea of evolved sexual desires of any kind are a theoretical impossibility from my point of view! Evolved sex differences in mate preferences have to be just a figment of the imagination of evolutionary psychologists bent on maintaining patriarchy. If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?
That’s a big question requiring several responses. First, the evidence of evolved sex differences in mate preferences is accumulating, but it is certainly not definitive. Evolutionary psychologists evaluate evidence of psychological adaptation in many ways[81], including cross-species, neurological, hormonal, genetic, and epigenetic evidence that has not been reviewed here (some examples of such evidence, see[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]). Nothing in science is ever set in stone, and more evidence could emerge that would cast serious doubt about evolved sex differences in mate preferences (though it would take quite a lot to tip the scales against the existence of this particular set of mate preferences). Scientists are skeptical and open-minded, so anything is possible.
Second, it is a mistake to pit post-modernism and social constructivism against evolutionary psychology as though they are in an intellectual death match that only one side can win. This tribalistic, us-versus-them thinking isn’t helpful to science. Much like partitioning the causes of human behavior into nurture versus nature or culture versus biology or learned versus innate, social constructivism versus evolutionary psychology is a false dichotomy that may feel intuitively correct but should not be utilized very often by serious scientists (exceptions include behavioral genetics studies). As insightfully noted by Tooby and Cosmides[88],
“To say a behavior is learned in no way undermines the claim that the behavior was organized by evolution because the behavior was learned through the agency of evolved mechanisms. If natural selection had built a different set of learning mechanisms into an organism, that organism would learn a different set of behaviors in response to the very same environment. It is these evolved mechanisms that organize the relationship between the environmental input and behavioral output, and thereby pattern the behavior. For this reason, learning is not an alternative explanation to the claim that natural selection shaped the behavior, although many researchers assume that it is. The same goes for culture. Given that cultural ideas are absorbed via learning and inference—which is caused by evolved programs of some kind—a behavior can be, at one and the same time, ‘cultural’, ‘learned’ and ‘evolved’.”
Mate preferences in humans are certainly to some degree cultural, learned, and evolved. Ultimately, the adaptations of the human mind unearthed by evolutionary psychologists will likely play key roles in explaining precisely how and why human social constructionists have the mate preferences they do[89].
Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence of these political beliefs, many scholars chauvinistically dismiss or ignore much of the extant evidence accumulated by evolutionary psychologists.
This is a mistake on several levels, not the least of which is that even if evolved sex differences in mate preferences do exist, that does not make them “desirable” or “good” or “inevitable” in any way. Thinking like that is fallacious, it is wrong. Even though humans have likely evolved to be omnivorous, that doesn’t mean we should eat meat. What is natural is not inherently connected to what is desirable and thinking that way is committing the so-called naturalistic fallacy (actually more related to the is-ought problem and appeal to nature fallacy).
Instead of this false point of view, evolutionary psychologists take the position that by knowing what our evolved psychological adaptations are, and precisely how they are expressed (e.g., how they are specially-designed and which environments especially accentuate or attenuate their expression), we will be more capable of creating effective tools for altering human behavior in ways we do find desirable. This includes utilizing the socially-constructive psychological adaptations in our mental toolkit to do so. Evolved sex differences are not to be ideologically feared, they are to be scientifically evaluated and, if they exist, knowledge about their special design can be used to more efficiently create the healthy society within which we wish to live[92] [93].
Lastly, there are some scholars who are actively deceiving people about empirical findings in evolutionary psychology (e.g., claiming that sex differences “disappear” in egalitarian cultures[94]). Many of these thinkers spread doubt about evolved mate preferences by alluding to a highly popular study by Eagly and Wood[95]. People’s memories of Eagly and Wood’s study, however, are often quite at odds with what they actually found, and with the hundreds of empirical findings since.
Eagly and Wood related the size of sex differences in mate preferences for “good financial prospects” to sociopolitical gender equality measures across nations (actual mate preference data came from a large cross-cultural study by Buss[96]). Eagly and Wood examined four indicators of sociopolitical gender equality and found only one indicator (that’s right, only one of four tests) was significantly linked to smaller sex differences in long-term mate preferences for good financial prospects. Based on that rather meager empirical finding, a generation of scholars seems to have fallen for a “Jedi mind trick” (these aren’t the sex differences you are looking for) and have been convinced that sex differences in mate preferences completely disappear in more gender egalitarian nations. Indeed, Eagly and Wood’s study has been cited over 1,000 times and has led to many to believe all psychological sex differences disappear in gender egalitarian cultures. Not true then, not true now.
To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world. You read that correctly. Higher gender egalitarian nations tend to have larger sex differences in mate preferences for Good Looks, in Big Five personality traits and the Dark Triad traits of Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and psychopathy; in romantic attachment and love styles; in sociopolitical attitudes and personal values; in clinical depression rates and crying behavior; in tested cognitive and mental abilities; and in physical attributes such as height and blood pressure[97]. If sociopolitical gender egalitarianism is supposed to reduce sex differences to the point where they “disappear,” it’s doing a terrible job. In fact, it’s most often doing the exact opposite. Without the constraints of patriarchal sex role socialization, it appears men and women are freer to follow their evolved desires in ways that lead to even greater psychological difference[98].
[…] In Defense of Evo-Psych […]
“All of these cognitive processes occur differently in women and men without explicit, conscious awareness of why they are doing so.”
Going to do yard work while I think about that.
Rollo, before this post gets buried in the thread I’d like to ask. If you are referring someone to The Rational Male blog for the first time; which is the best post to get them started with? I have a current 23 yr old room mate trying to get back together with his ex and he says she’s different from the other girls in that she was his first, hasn’t been with anyone else, from a religious background and doesn’t have eyes for anyone else and isn’t interested in partying it up like other girls her age. I was telling… Read more »
Year One page at the top
Tomassi, one huge problem with evo/psych is how subjective it is, how easily it can be used simply to confirm our own biases. Much like the way we like to assign human characteristics to animals, we also like to try to perceive ourselves as members of the animal kingdom. Even in that however, we are being extremely subjective. So your own perceptions of alpha, based on wolves for example, is simply a very subjective metaphor, something you use to try and describe a metaphysical idea. In the actual science realm we all know that those studies no more represent the… Read more »
http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/02/alpha-tells/
Next stupid dismissive Retromasculine Red Pill presumption please.
@ insanitybytes22 The idea of analogy, metaphor an articulated theory isn’t a means of understanding complex and ever changing evolving contextual dynamics. . . . is an argument against understanding itself. . . . especially when it is based in a number of empirical studies, (Science), with an openness to re-interpritation as a result of further data, observation and peer review . . . . . . And if you consider that what the ‘critics’ are arguing and advocating as an alternative, (whim theory, IMO) is entirely baseless. . . . I know where I’m putting my money on. .… Read more »
Evopsych is a paradigm, no more, no less.
You can use that paradigm to formulate an hypotheses and then you test that rigorously…..
With all the hullaballoo recently, that would fit Kuhn´s narrative of a paradigm shift, it would satisfy scientific method puritans and noone would have to erect strawmen….
Why can´t we all get along ?
@ Rollo – Well played, using the words of a real scientist to contrast with Roosh’s amateur hour horseshit. Any sentient man reading Roosh’s screed of hyperbolic nonsense versus this carefully reasoned, analytic essay cannot help but see the huge quality difference in the reasoning, and the real care taken by the actual scientist at work here.
“http://therationalmale.com/2014/11/02/alpha-tells/
Next stupid dismissive Retromasculine Red Pill presumption please.”
“Alpha Tells” & “The Medium is the Message”….two of my favorite posts.
Also two of the most painful.
That’s often the case though.
The medium message post is the first post I read on TRM.
“Women with high interest level won’t confuse you. When a women wants to fuck you, she will find a way to fuck you”
My reading those two sentences caused my entire world to fall apart…and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Good times, makes me feel nostalgic lol.
Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.
This is the same line of logic as saying that because some people might not drive automobiles safely, no one should drive.
There are plenty of rational ways to critique the underlying theories advanced by Evo Pyscho, but that isn’t one of them.
Now, concerning the substance of Rollo’s post…
I find a lot here to support some critical components of my LAMPS theory. For example, the strong value of Status is amply supported here. Further, the (relative) weakness of money as a result of social conditions is also supported.
@donalgraeme,
Before he died my (intellectual agnostic) dad gave me this book and I really think it nicely sums up reconciling evolutionary principles with faith. I think you’d really like it:
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0061233501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1433885113&sr=1-1&keywords=finding+darwins+god
Rollo,
Thanks for the tip. i will check out the book when I get a chance.
Civilization breeds all sorts of behaviors and traits in dogs, and yet a dog is still at its heart a dog, it shares certain characteristics with all canines. Modern society may promote the breeding of certain traits in humans, but people are still people and it takes a long time to change the characteristics of a racial or ethnic group, even Vox recognizes that it takes perhaps thousands of years to “civilize” a group of humans and they are still human beings, we recognize the basic motivations of people through the centuries. It’s just another flavor of “special snowflake” thinking… Read more »
“Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.”
She runs a blog that is supposed to be about biology and debunking the myths and lies that feminists spread. (word to the wise, narcissism is hot in men not chicks)
But then she comes to this site and argues against evolution?
(comparing feminism [not based on science] and science [you know, real scientists and shit] is arguing against science in my book)
Me thinks she is trying to piggyback some traffic from Rollo to her own blog.
Does her trying to get traffic from TRM to her site mean that she is taking resources from a man?
Typical female…
*rolls eyes*
“Disregard what ev-psych says about human behavior” is a meta-shit test on the same order of women demanding you pay attention to what they say instead of what they do. Excellent rebuttal choice, Rollo. Not so much to Roosh (seriously his whole screed is just… bad), but to basically all the criticism I’ve heard on the internet at large. So many of the arguments come from a place of ego investment (“I can’t believe this or I’ll have to have some thoughts I don’t like about myself and those close to me”) that it’s good to see a logical reply… Read more »
@Sun, I thought the part about egalitarian societies being even more predisposed to traditional gender paradigms was telling.
Retro masculinity is a better word for it than Neo masculinity.
I read it, and all I could think was here was someone that thinks he can tell other men what to do, and the message boils down to “get back in the field”
“T-rex doesn’t want to be fed; he wants to hunt.
You can’t just suppress sixty-five million years of gut instinct.”
Hi Rollo, Given the evo-psych has biological roots and now Open Hypergamy is culturally reinforced and actively encouraged, how much would you being willing to excuse (by that I mean not NEXT as LTR material) for a girl’s past, on the understanding they’ve been subjected to feminine conditioning all their lives? Is it up to what the man can “deal with” without resenting her? Does it hinge on whether you observe real commitment-related red flags? I know there are no unicorns, but the line surely must be drawn somewhere, and all things equal, not having to mentally quarantine the horror… Read more »
@Aelorne, I’ll include your situation in a forthcoming post, but for now…
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/06/the-slut-paradox/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/12/03/saving-the-best/
http://therationalmale.com/2013/03/13/generation-alpha-widow/
Great question: ” If the evidence is, on balance, supportive of women possessing long-term mate preferences for men with high status, why do so many post-modernists and social constructionists insist evolved sex differences are not, indeed cannot, be real[80]?” He starts to get close to an answer here: “Third, some scholars believe, based on strict ideological commitments, that evolved psychological sex differences must not exist[90] or even if they do exist, studies of sex differences should be evaluated in ways that favor certain political ideologies over others, such as raising the evidentiary bar for evolutionary psychology hypotheses[91]. As a consequence… Read more »
@Rollo In a way I was surprised, but in a way I wasn’t. There are some ways in which I think socializing some aspects of a society are OK. For instance, military, police, fire, etc. People are freed from some concerns they might otherwise have and are able to focus more on whatever their area of specialty is. Many strict proponents of socialist ideas will echo this sentiment, and to a degree it is true. What’s funny is that some of those same people (SJWs and feminists for instance) then ignore what the effects of socializing resources traditionally associated with… Read more »
@ scribblerg and Sun – good stuff
Collectivism leads to Statism which leads to shit.
Rollo, Robb Wolf just shared this post on his fb. He has a great podcast on diet and health from an evo perspective. You once mentioned you might do more podcasts but hard to find a good fit. He could be.
@70’sAntiHero
To be fair I feel Socialism and Capitalism in truly successful countries (see: the US during the early-mid 20th century) have a delicate balance that must be struck where they each feed in to each other. Socialism creating a stable society and infrastructure that supports the development of strong capitalist ventures which feeds funds through taxes back in to the socialist side of things. A virtuous circle of sorts.
It’s when those forces get out of balance that things go to shit.
I do wonder: how many SJW/feminists won’t give a shit how the policies they push for affect men until they find their adult son hasn’t given them any grandchildren and is on anti-depressants because his right hand is the only partner he’s had in 20 years? Will they realize that they pushed for AF/bb without realizing there was an 80-90% chance any males they had would fail to reproduce in such an environment?
@ Sun Sure. Although the expectation of a balance is unrealistic, IMO, in lieu of special interest and the concentration of power of those in the club. . . . . It is the nature of a bureaucratic socialist government agency to self preserve and expand it’s influence. . . . Whenever you subsidize something your going to get more of it. . . . .Milton Friedman One could argue limited government as our fore fathers envisioned. . . is such a balanced, checks and balances and the limited role of the Federal Government. . . State rights, individual rights… Read more »
Sorry, should read : ‘should not be confused.’
@70’sAntiHero Although the expectation of a balance is unrealistic, IMO, in lieu of special interest and the concentration of power of those in the club. . . . . Haha, life is all about change. Anything that doesn’t change doesn’t exist. Entropy is the rule in our universe. The ideal situation is to have the two fighting each other and neither winning a decisive victory. The balance won’t remain “perfect” by any stretch, but it should remain within reasonable boundaries. sjfrellc and I were discussing this a week or two back. Individuals that expect to have a static world and… Read more »
insipidbites2 trots out the “subjective” when she can’t mount a serious argument. Last time it was “reality can be subjective”. She can use it for most anything: alpha can be subjective, dating can be subjective, attention whoring can be subjective, ATM can be subjective.
@Aelorne
She has never had a boyfriend before (she is 25), but has excitedly intro’d me to her whole family/all her friends.
She’s starting her downwards swing…
Btw I am 27, good looking, educated, and financially successful for my age, have manly hobbies, and am in fantastic shape. My game is evolving, but I’m not super alpha player yet.
And you are just starting your upwards. In your position I’d plate her. You’re gonna have shots with chicks that hot that don’t have a past if you’re patient. I’m keen to hear Rollo’s take on it though.
@Sun Yes, what you have now is a slow and profound move toward statism, or socialism. . . if we aren’t already there. Where wealth redistribution rules and disincentives entrepreneurial risk taking. . . which leads to less innovation. . . You could argue the redistribution of wealth as a result of Obama Care has created the so called “free lance” economy where millions of people have taken part time jobs just to get by and where companies refrained from hiring as a result of the uncertainty as to the true cost of health care relative to employees. . .… Read more »
While the majority of this post was created by David P. Schmitt, I found it funny how you choose to tout it for focusing extensively on long-term mating, as opposed to giving short-term mating its fair explanation and importance in mating. Much of the manosphere tends to engage in masturbatory techniques on female mating patterns, while also ignoring the big picture and only entertain the side they seem most fit to their narrative. This trite conclusion that “high status”, “dread game” and other nonsense can crack a magical Evo psych code is hilarious, especially when you consider that female choice… Read more »
@Roger, bear in mind this was the example Schmitt chose to use for his counterarguments because they were so common.
If anything the gist of my blog has been about exactly what you describe in terms of the influences of short term mating strategies. Dr. Martie Hasselton’s decades long research has been part of my sidebar link since the day I began TRM.
Poke around here you’ll see what I mean.
Well done, Rollo! A very good way to counter some of the nonsense-talk that’s been going around of late. —– @scribblerg It’s a bit of an Ouroboros kind of thing you see. Post modernism means rejecting reason, post structuralism means rejecting objective meaning – so the entire edifice is fully spring loaded to reject any evidence it doesn’t find convenient. Like classical liberalism (dismissed by supposed sophisticates as neo-liberalism) , free market economics and now evo psych. They really believe that all that matters are their perverted and childlike ideas about justice. Whatever means they have to pursue to achieve… Read more »
@Aelorne Would she make a great mother of your children? A Masters of Data Science is nice for money and career, and relatively pointless for being a mother of your children. “I don’t detect any manipulative behavior” Really? What do you think is going on with: “there has not been one instance of us hanging out where we didn’t have sex (multiple times.. sometimes 7-8 times a day). And we’ve hung out probably WAY too much over the last five months” this is fucking you to the point that you can’t fuck anyone else I suggest you take this relationship… Read more »
Hi, professionally educated evolutionary psychologist here. I strongly recommend that you read the book “Hustling on Gorky Street” by Yuri Brokhin. The description of female “mate status seeking” behavior in the Soviet Union, where everyone was equal, andhe who could make himself unequal was the most attractive, is extremely interesting, especially in light of reports about women in Russia from practicioners.
It’s nice to see that we theoreticians have spawned a community of engineering practice.
Aaaand as if on a schedule, BPD plate I dropped contacts me today. Subject of email “I need you”, email full of complaints about all the problems she’s having that she needs my advice and comfort on. I recognize an attempt to Time Plate me. Two sentence response email:
“You need me, but you don’t care about my needs. Funny how that works.”
Do not be her Time Ho, gentlemen. Your time is a reward for her good behavior, not a down payment on it.
You know Rollo, more I experience and see the world (using redpill) the more I realize this applies to a WESTERN, specifically, WHITE or at least AMERICAN approach to dating/mating. Anglo style. Of course we live in America and our culture is dominant worldwide But take Asia for instance. “Alpha” game is actually less efficient than beta game in getting sex, love, even attraction. Bank account + giving girl’s validation – CHASING THEM – is what gets their love. Being aloof, amused mastery, etc. if anything is a roadblock. This is uncomfortable as my default state is Alpha and I’ve… Read more »
Rollo’s work, the writings of Robert Green, Niccole Machiavelli, Shakespeare, any honest study of history, any honest study of religion and common sense all lead to the same revelations Evo-Psych is leading to. All of these works and others describe reality. Evo-Psych itself is an honest effort to study the reality of human motivation and behavior. Evo-Psych is merely a new name given to basically the same old, but perhaps more concerted and organized effort to understand the truth about how we are motivated and why we interact the way we do. Rollo is painstakingly articulate and honest in his… Read more »
@bob Rollo is quite smart, you don’t need to write some words in CAPS as if you were a troll. You do need to untangle what you are after, is it women’s hearts and their love? Or is it sex, attraction, slaying chicks, and getting blown? Certainly Bank Account + Giving Attention + Chasing them like a dog will put you on the beta program to finding long last love ™, that idyllic BluePill state until it crashes down. Yet you are saying, outside the CAPS world, that this very same program results in immediate hot passionate sex. Is it… Read more »
@Rollo
Dunno if you saw this, but it’s really quite awesome and the guy’s answers are pretty well thought out and written. I figure you’ve talked with a few guys like this at some point in your work:
http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/393jjb/ask_a_veteran_consumer_behavior_researcher/
Aelorne –
Your greatest danger is yourself because it is obvious from what you wrote about this girl that you are infatuated with her. Trust me she is not worth it.
“Insanity’s argument can be distilled down to this: because Evo Psych might be misused by some men, it should be disregarded.”
No Donal, my argument with Christian red pills is that they begin to put red pill ideology above scripture and completely forget about the love of Christ. I sure don’t see Christ running around calling women sluts.
“Next stupid dismissive Retromasculine Red Pill presumption please.”
You’re the one being dismissive, Tomassi. I’ve tried many times to explain the problem to you, but you are far too invested in puffed up male pride to even hear me.
@ redlight June 9th, 2015 at 7:41 pm Good perception. It is difficult to discern the modus operandi of a Borderline Personality Disorder chick early on because the sex is so good and falls out of the sky into your lap. But ditching a social circle of girlfriends and being hyper-sexual to the time of 7-8 times a day is a hallmark. Never had a boyfriend but is so into you? She idolizes you? That is BPD. She locks down all your attention. Watch what happens the first time you withdraw your attention or have to abandon her for a… Read more »
I think it’s simpler to look for the immediate cause for these behaviors in biology rather than evolution. It’s hardly unexpected that women prefer high status to low status. But the reason why men don’t particularly care is because they are hornier than the women, they take what they can get.
@Wilson
You’re talking about the weather, evo-psych talks about the climate. One is immediate, the other is what brought us there.
“Dunno if you saw this, but it’s really quite awesome and the guy’s answers are pretty well thought out and written. I figure you’ve talked with a few guys like this at some point in your work: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/393jjb/ask_a_veteran_consumer_behavior_researcher/ ” Wow Quotes: Male vs female ad tactics are widely different for the most part, but our behavior research shows that the gender gaps are closing as more men become effeminate and vice versa. Women are more likely to lift weights, and do so more often, than men in the US. we see single Millennial aged males in two cohorts: those that… Read more »
Spanish music video, needs no translation to understand the message.
“One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge.” — Noam Chomsky Ever notice that the vast majority of “names” in the manosphere are people “educated” in the Psychology industry? Rollo, Zed, Angry Harry, Dr. Helen, Warren Farrell… There’s no doubt, Rollo, that those of you who have been “educated” in psychology, think that this movement is “your baby.” Something to think about – the ratio of psychologists giving more of their sage advice in the Manosphere is astounding… and wasn’t this the same asswipe industry that gave us “gender is a social construct” and all… Read more »
Aelorne: deti’s diagnosis is as follows: To add to what Sun Wukong told you, which is that you can do better later with a girl with fewer notches and less, ahem, experience. I’d enjoy this girl for all she’s worth right now. Enjoy the sex, enjoy the fun. Do not commit to this girl. Do not give her a ring. Do not wife her up. You haven’t been with her long enough to see all her baggage yet. She has some. No girl racks up 20-30 partners by age 25 without accumulating baggage. I doubt she’s being completely honest with… Read more »
“Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.”
Hang out with Rooshv and all the rest if this complex stuff is scary
“Probably the biggest thing that makes me question the manosphere on a deeper level is the over-presence of psychologists found within it.”
Yes! Amen to that. The same could actually be said of feminism, those who aren’t outright mentally ill, are psychologists. Some are both at the same time.
when your view is celebrity endorsed by insanity, you are well on the way to a threesome
@Jeb
Yeah, $DEITY_OF_CHOICE forbid we have professionals who’ve studied the field of human behavior commenting on the field of human behavior. After all, it’s not like they could produce quantifiable results.
Actually “gender is a social construct” comes courtesy of Women’s Studies and 3rd wave feminism.
“Actually “gender is a social construct” comes courtesy of Women’s Studies and 3rd wave feminism”
The social constructionist movement began in psychology, Tomassi. If it was born of nothing more then the ramblings of a few gender study Fems, it would never have gained any legitimacy. Go back and look, it’s very closely related to Marxism.
Ah yes, the Curse of Jung… http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/11/the-curse-of-jung/ The first Alpha to perfect Beta Game. Jung had nothing remotely as accessible to the biological, archeological and evolutionary information we possess today. Most of his theories were the result of an attempt to identify better with the feminine so as to facilitate his banging his female subjects (with his wife’s blessing no less). Game recognizes Game. Jung was just the Hugo Schwyzer of his time, and a man that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism embraced because his universality of genders and them being social constructs gelled with the egalitarian equalism narrative. “Women… Read more »
@Insanity, yeah, not so much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism Although the precise origin of social constructionism is debatable, it is generally considered[by whom?] that within the context of social theory, social constructionism emerged during the 1980s and further developed during the 1990s. This is evident from the list of academic works with the words “Social Construction of” in their title which Ian Hacking lists on the first page of his book The Social Construction of What?. Hacking lists two titles from 1970s, eight from the 1980s, and twenty-one from the 1990s[4] This chronology is corroborated by Dave Elder-Vass in his book The Reality… Read more »
“To the contrary, most cross-cultural studies find nations with the highest sociopolitical gender equality (e.g., Scandinavian nations) exhibit the largest psychological sex differences in the world.”
———————-
In first world nations women are pampered.
Everywhere else they have to have SOME ball sack to live.
That likely accounts or this ‘ironic’ observation.
“Having higher personal status and resource-related traits appears not to attenuate women’s preferences for cues to men’s ability and willingness to provide resources. Instead, at least in the USA, women achieving high status themselves appears to make their long-term mate preferences for men’s high status even more intense!”
—————————
Yes.
And so giving status and position to women that don’t need it takes status and position away from men that DO need it!
@Rollo
Insanity up to her usual schtick, eh?
Some angry men are violent, therefore all men are dangerous.
Some psychologists are incompetent or malicious, therefore all psychologists are dangerous.
Seein a pattern here.
And as real red pill guys do, I took a journey to the other side. Biggest downfall I see of Evo, is the findings of how plastic the brain is, i.e., our brains have changed significantly since the dawn of time and a lot of the environmental pressure argument that the Evo’s use, is basically baseless. An adaptation to a pressure from 300,000 years ago, is most likely no longer part of our brain structure. Pressures are different now then then.
https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=scientific+critique+of+evo+psych
Self surgery and weird observation of blue thoughts and concepts. Forge brought up a great point about the mental anguish of thinking your making progress than slowly regression into old patterns and self destructive behaviors. By self destructive I mean ones that least for me don’t get me anywhere. Their selfish and useless I have many bad habits. One thing I’ve noticed about them is my constant all come from a maladaptive response to things that don’t suit me and hurt me more than help. I am grateful for starting back up with a new rugby team. Been playing just… Read more »
Retro masculinity and anti evo psych is the last gasp ditch effort to hold on to the coat tails of the blue pill monogamy paradigm. It’s patently obvious that 99% of the sphere is bitter the monogamy paradigm is going by the wayside, why else all the vitriol sputtered against hyperagamy, promiscuity, divorce etc. Just look at the manosphere powerhouses, Heartiste and Roosh, their whole screed is a whine fest against the impending avalanche. They’re in cognitive dissonance trance, spouting the sex free for all mantra while pining for the chaste, virtuous ‘good girl’. The new shoots of acceptance of… Read more »
While evolutionary psychology does undeniably impact long-term mating choices, it’s simply not too relevant to most of the manosphere because manosphere guys are looking for lays not long-term mates – a girl who wants to ‘hook up’ with a guy with a condom has radically different criteria than one who wants to have children with a guy (that’s the ‘evolutionary’ part of evo-psych).
I think the manosphere tends to play up its pulpy understanding of elementary-level evolutionary biology to lend an air of credibility to the frat boy aspirations of the thirsty 20-something demographic it primarily targets.
” how many SJW/feminists won’t give a shit how the policies they push for affect men until they find their adult son hasn’t given them any grandchildren and is on anti-depressants”
click ..bzzt…click … “Weak Men Screwing Feminism Up®!” ..click!
is all you’re ever going to get on that subject, even with their own Beta/Gamma-sired children. “Weak, just like his father. Weak, weak, weak! If I were a man, why let me tell you …”.
It’s the only fact they know.
The Welfare State and state socialism in general arose, in Europe at least, as a way of mobilizing an entire society for Total War. Or at least as a way of trying to survive it.
I mean look at who started it off. Not Buddhists, Quakers, or Romantic poets.
The Prussians. That should tell you everything you need to know about it, and what it was for.
“If you see a ton of “Girl next door wants SEX NOW” clickbait ads as you surf the net, that means you have been targeted by the digital ad exchange networks as a BB. If you’re seeing ads about the new Remington model 700 series, we have targeted you as a badass outdoorsman or hunter.” Dammit, all I get is life insurance and medical stuff, shit I never even look at and have no intention to. No babes or guns. No idea what I’ve done to deserve it, I’m healthy like an animal and work outdoors (weather permitting). It’s like… Read more »
Fuck. I cannot believe that after years of studies, anecdotes, field reports, and the life observations of everyday men that we are fucking around with this topic. This stuff is “jump street”, Intro to Reality 101 sort of shit. @Wilson is right, Biology should be referenced more than Evo Psych. And the annoying thing is that it reinforces this topic over and over in species after species, AND these studies that do so have been around for decades. Why would humans be soooo different, so above it all, when the key selection criteria for species after species is fitness based… Read more »
“Ah yes, the Curse of Jung… Jung was just the Hugo Schwyzer of his time, and a man that 2nd and 3rd wave feminism embraced…. He was a whack job, but many Alphas are…”
Thank you, Tomassi, that’s exactly what I was trying to say.
@Tam
No idea what I’ve done to deserve it
You got old. Stop doing that.
What rather shocked me – I am certainly not competent to assess the merits of the various studies – is the ‘gasp’ that went through the writers audience – an audience of Sociologists and Family Studies Professors – when informed that women are just as, if not more so, designed for short-term mating. These people including (presumably) a sizable number of females are supposed to be dispassionate about evidence, but as we can see, despite their academic credentials, they hold their beliefs – false beliefs – with religious tenacity. These, regrettably, are the people who advise and inform governments when… Read more »
@ Mark Minter “Women can make all this stop right now. They can constrain other women and begin to work in a sense of cooperation with men. But until they start then men are fools to not protect themselves.” Okay, at the end of the day wether its Evo/psych or basic BIOLOGY or the combination which dictates ‘bad’ or uncivilized behavior, relative to women marriage and child rearing. . . . . Its Government that defines the landscape . . . the arbiters of rewards and punishment. Contingency behavior by men, outside of marriage, only fosters the withdrawing of the… Read more »
@70s & Sun – The idea that there is some necessary “balance” between socialism and capitalism is simply made up. No such equilibrium is demanded by the political system or the economic system – none. Let that simple observation settle, please. You are asserting that a dynamic of the system exists where there actually is none. This is likely a narrative to support your biases. Really. There is nothing about economics or politics that demands a balance between anything. In economics, in fact, one could say that it’s this fetishization of equilibrium that damns ideas such as those proposed by… Read more »
NB – I made some simple statements about complex systems above, I don’t want to get into a technical argument about complexity. I’m merely trying to make clear how crucial self-organizing agents are to capitalism and liberty. Perhaps could have said it better, but please, let’s not go down that rathole too…
@scribblerg
Yeah, right. Feminism is Socialism with tits. . .
I have no idea where your “balance” meme (trope?) fits into how I see the world.
I know, and I already expected you to pretty much call me wrong on all fronts and disagree with me. Not the least upsetting to me.
Nice thing is that our opinion on the subject doesn’t matter. We have no say in the matter. It’s gonna go where it’s gonna go. Doesn’t really change my individual strategy of improving myself, remaining personally flexible, and enjoying my life.
More easy reading – http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/magazine/men-women-sex-and-darwin.html?scp=4&sq=angier natalie darwin evolutionary psychology&st=cse&pagewanted=5 “Variation and flexibility are the key themes that get set aside in the breathless dissemination of evolutionary psychology. ”The variation is tremendous, and is rooted in biology,” Barbara Smuts said to me. ”Flexibility itself is the adaptation.” Smuts has studied olive baboons, and she has seen males pursuing all sorts of mating strategies. ”There are some whose primary strategy is dominating other males, and being able to gain access to more females because of their fighting ability,” she says. ”Then there is the type of male who avoids competition and cultivates… Read more »
@scibblerg I too am a libertarian. . . . However still reluctant to oppose ‘free trade’. Perhaps against my better judgement for I to lament the loss of the US industrial base. . . I do believe there are other contributing factors. . . . like corporate welfare and government protection for a select few . . . croneyism . . for example. It is Friedman and The Law of Unintended Consequence that gives me pause. . . . as to the invisible, negative and latent effects of ‘over regulation’ of the heavy hand of Gov’t. Here is Friedman on… Read more »
My latest field report supports this post. The girl, 28 responded to my OKC profile. From the start it was clear she wanted to get banged. Her shit-tests—which started with “You’re too old for me….” and me reframing this with “Do you want a boy or a man?” went on to her saying “A man but one who can still be horny…” It was clear she didn’t care so much WHO I was but was more concerned about WHAT I was…or what I could provide for her—in this case it was a chance to get back at her bf who… Read more »
LOL Minter, good to see your cognitive dissonance is still happily humming along. You do get that these ovulation shift studies are done in a lab with photo’s right? That the women pick the more masculine looking men in their horny phase right? Yet game teaches that looks are a small part of attracting women, that confidence and jerkboy attitude is the deal clincher. So tell me, how do these broads figure out the pictured males attitude? ” There are, of course, critics of this line of research, who believe that it’s overly focused on ovulation-related behavior, and that it… Read more »
walla – “All this is deeply hardwired into her brain. Once you spark attraction, a girl is powerless against her own nature.”
let me fix this for you – “once you spark a girls attraction, her nature kicks in.”
girls love to fuck as much as men, the opportunity was there and she took it, same as you. No biggee.
girls love to fuck as much as men,… Provably false. http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/ Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth. No woman will ever experience 17 times the amount of her own testosterone levels (barring steroids). Amongst its many other effects, testosterone is the primary hormone involved with stimulating human libido.… Read more »
@DeNihilist Exposure to perceived male rivals raises men’s testosterone on fertile relative to nonfertile days of their partner’s ovulatory cycle Meta-Analyses and P-Curves Support Robust Cycle Shifts in Women’s Mate Preferences Do Women’s Mate Preferences Change Across the Ovulatory Cycle? Ovulatory Shifts in Women’s Attractions to Primary Partners and Other Men: Further Evidence of the Importance of Primary Partner Sexual Attractiveness Kin Affiliation Across the Ovulatory Cycle : Females Avoid Fathers When Fertile Evidence for Menstrual Cycle Shifts in Women’s Preferences for Masculinity:A Response to Harris (in press) “Menstrual Cycle and Facial PreferencesReconsidered” Vocal cues of ovulation in human females… Read more »
@scribblerg . . . not to mention overtaxation as a HUGE ‘invisible effect’ . . . . The amount of Gov’t taxation, on the populist in effect makes people less affluent, more for gov’t coffers and less in the market where the so called ‘multiplier’ effect is diminished. . . . Another words, a start company that could compete, as a result of a better business model and greater efficiency with potential costumers that feel more affluent never comes into existence. . . . As a result of the crowding out and high cost entry threshold and the ‘established player’… Read more »
@scribblerg
BTW, talk of your playing plus some other folks and events in my life lately have had me thinking I’ll be picking up the piano and trumpet again. Been 20 years, but I still have a really nice Ensoniq KS-32 with weighted keys sitting around, and I always wanted to play the trumpet again with an opportunity to correct the bad habits I had in high school.
Getzen still makes the horn I was using back then too, and I’ve been listening to way too much Miles Davis and Maynard Ferguson lately…
@Sun
Saw Maynard Ferguson a fews back right before he died. . . . Fantastic show . . . . He had a vascular problem and had to sit down with one of his legs up on a chair . . . . . . . . could still hit the soaring high notes. . . .. . . . It was his MO to have his band entirely of young proteges, did that since the 70’s. . . . .
Miles Davis will always be the king of Cool . . . .
“Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does.” Tomassi, sexuality is far more complex then simple testosterone. All in good humor here, but that is a very male defined perception of what drives desire. Men and women are motivated to have sex for completely different reasons, based on entirely different chemicals. You are also attempting to equate frequency with love, another somewhat amusing male perspective. The statement (edited for language) was “women love sex just as much as men.” That much is quite true, women do indeed love sex just… Read more »
Once again Insanity, read the post, I address that. You really are intellectually lethargic.
So how long were you a man before you had a sex change and structurally rewired your brain and endocrine system to become a woman in order to make this assertion?
And while I’m at it…
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/Galperin%20et%20al%202013%20(trait%20anger%20attribution%20bias).pdf
Your irrational fear of male anger is due to an evolutionary adaptation for overestimating it as a survival trait.
The porn industry isn’t a multi-billion dollar juggernaut because women’s sexual appetites are comparable to men’s.
You should really watch the video at the top of that post too.
Truth . . . the vibrator was invented to address female ‘hysteria’. . . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibrator_(sex_toy)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201303/hysteria-and-the-strange-history-vibrators
Interesting. . . .
girls love to fuck as much as men is not just biological Rollo. Agreed that biologically, men have a lower prompt level, but the desire to fuck is as strong in women as in men. Men come at it from the point of their penis, the small head, ejaculation, women come at it from a whole body experience, more holistic – :). When a woman orgasm’s she loses herself, most men just ejaculate. why else throughout history, men have tried to curb the women’s appetite for sex? Why else the growth of the FI? It is the female response to… Read more »
Which sex has the bio-evolutionary imperative to be ready for sex on a moment’s notice? Which sex requires convincing and is subject to qualitative filtering in order to be aroused to intercourse? Which sex’s impulse is constant and which is cyclic? women come at it from a whole body experience, more holistic – :). When a woman orgasm’s she loses herself And you know this because you were once a woman who’s experienced this? but the desire to fuck is as strong in women as in men. One would think that women would have a higher incentive to be less… Read more »
Christ Tomassi, can’t you just pick one study? Fuck, now I have a days worth of reading and analyzing! I will get back to you.
@ DeNihilist
A gross over simplification and inaccurate definition of Feminism and history.
Anti – not in my opinion. I have been in a cult that emphasized sex as a path to awareness. The women were voracious. They could not get enough cock. or different types of cock. When that feminine sexual energy is unleashed, the world becomes a different place.
I wholeheartedly stand by my statement – feminism is not about equality, it is the releasing of the female sexual energy, th3e freedom to fuck. And trust me, their sexual energy is levels above the males.
Really. . . . What cult?
http://www.osho.com/
@ DeNihilist
Whatever . . . It’s not the central organizing force of Feminism. . . . a minuscule faction at best. . . .
Still a mischaracterization on your part. . . . Your description of men in history too. . . .
Go take another hit from the Post Modern crack pipe. . . .
Ohso . . . . That’s micro brew in the town where I live.. . . . can’t wait to tell the owner. Lol
Sun Wukong, absolutely take up musical instruments again. The benefits are well worth the time expended. I played drums in HS & college, and then sold my set just before I married (my now Ex.) Two years ago, I volunteered to play in regular monthly gig. Recovering my drum skills was a months-long process of reawakening a dormant portion of my brain. On one occasion I was asked to fill in on short notice. The stress of performing new music with little preparation made a positive difference in my confidence, and my skills keep improving. But some of the bad… Read more »
@70’sAntiHero Saw Maynard Ferguson a fews back right before he died. . . . Fantastic show . . . . He had a vascular problem and had to sit down with one of his legs up on a chair . . . . . . . . could still hit the soaring high notes I am incredibly jealous. Never got to see him live, though I have gotten to catch Wynton Marsalis live a couple times. Incredible talent as well, just more low key in general. It was his MO to have his band entirely of young proteges, did that… Read more »
@LSCS Two years ago, I volunteered to play in regular monthly gig. Yeah, I’m debating how I want to go about doing it. Start my own thing, find a gig, just get a decent instrument mic and record some stuff, all the above… still not quite certain of my plan. But some of the bad habits I had back in the 70s still vex me some today. My big one was pressing too goddamn hard on my lips. Was a habit I got in that my first teacher didn’t notice and break. Dogged me all the way through high school,… Read more »
As I read the post, I couldn’t help but to see chicks reading from the cue-card as they sat with me on dates: “So, where do you work?” “Where do you live?” “What kind of car do you drive?” “Where did you go to school?” …and I got to relive that disgusting “she’s trying to get her hands in my pockets before she even knows my last name” feeling anew, x100. It became clear to me, somewhere along my dating experience, that women have substituted “money” in place of “provision”. With regards to evolution, that realization struck me as “off”… Read more »
@Vulpine
…and I got to relive that disgusting “she’s trying to get her hands in my pockets before she even knows my last name” feeling anew, x100.
“I’m not just a wallet” is the “My eyes are up here” for men.
No doubt, Sun. I went to college, briefly, until I understood the hustle. Once that three-card-monte showed itself as a bad investment (in my case, the field I was studying had just been destroyed/rendered obsolete by modern technology, and the current job I had made double what I’d make at graduation in 3-5 more years, with yet more technology in the pipeline), I had resigned myself to develop real, practical provisioning skills, and cultivate a plan b, c, and d in terms of career options. {watch your “success” closely, now… is it hiding under your student loan debt? *swish, swirl,… Read more »
@Johnnycomelately “Retro masculinity and anti evo psych is the last gasp ditch effort to hold on to the coat tails of the blue pill monogamy paradigm. It’s patently obvious that 99% of the sphere is bitter the monogamy paradigm is going by the wayside, why else all the vitriol sputtered against hyperagamy, promiscuity, divorce etc. Just look at the manosphere powerhouses, Heartiste and Roosh, their whole screed is a whine fest against the impending avalanche. They’re in cognitive dissonance trance, spouting the sex free for all mantra while pining for the chaste, virtuous ‘good girl’. The new shoots of acceptance… Read more »
Just wanted to say that I was John Townsend’s research assistant in the early 90’s. His approach and methods were rigorously scientific… At least as much as one could be in the social sciences.
His research was hated my the femcunts in the anthro dept at Syracuse, and they did their best to marginalize him.
“Aelorne – Your greatest danger is yourself because it is obvious from what you wrote about this girl that you are infatuated with her.” I agree. The way you wrote and how much you wrote struck me as rationalizing. You are really invested in wanting this to work, in thinking this woman is special, that she is different, or matured or whatever. Be WARY. If she IS that into you, she will stick around while you experience life like she did, having fun. FOR example… She did threesomes? Well, see if she will do one with you with another girl.… Read more »
I know I will likely regret this, but…
“Tomassi, sexuality is far more complex then simple testosterone. All in good humor here, but that is a very male defined perception of what drives desire. Men and women are motivated to have sex for completely different reasons, based on entirely different chemicals.”
Insanity,
If we rephrased it to “men have a much higher sex drive than women” and given free reign (unlimited selection of partners and opportunity), men would engage in sex more often than women but AT LEAST a factor of 3:1, would you be able to accept it?
Thanks for your insightful article, Rollo. I read Roosh’s corresponding post some days ago (last week?). I had the impression that much of what he states comes from him confusing evolution or “evo-psych” one one side, and the effects of first civilization and then marxist propaganda on humans, on the other side. While we have evolved lots of traits and behaviors which are positive for keeping the species alive, we have also evolved a giant brain which makes these traits and behaviors possible. The problem with our brain is that it’s biggest asset, namely it’s flexibility, is also it’s weakest… Read more »
Like you say Rollo, you can’t leave the game. In the same vein the ‘yes buts’ are part of evo psch, in that it’s in our nature (pre red pill) to make excuses for women. If a women is caught on tape, no room for error, acting egregiously the first reaction will be to look for extenuating circumstances. If a man is taped acting unruly we’ll send out a hunting party to get him, dead’s as good as alive. The chorus of ‘yes buts’ actually support your case instead of carrying good arguments against it. I would usually just let… Read more »
@Mark Minter “But until they start then men are fools to not protect themselves.” Agreed @Tam the Bam The seventh seal is a great film. Bergman understood redpill stuff in a way that was shocking. @Opus “despite their academic credentials, they hold their beliefs – false beliefs – with religious tenacity. These, regrettably, are the people who advise and inform governments when the latter seek advice on policy.” Welcome to Washington Dc @70’sAntiHero “Its Government that defines the landscape . . . the arbiters of rewards and punishment.” Death penalty “As time goes by in the downward spiral we get… Read more »
@justgetit:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/03/the-rush/