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].
@seraph She wants to do a threesome with me. Also- the two other things I’ve done with her that she’s never done before: anal and road head, and head in a park at night. I least I’ve got some conquests only I’ve had with her! Her willingness is not an issue. Thanks for your comment- I’m sure I could be rationalizing. I just have a bunch of data points that substantiate she’s trying to capture me as an alpha, and none to the contrary. (This could be selective perception). For example- one negative is that she’s career oriented/ambitious, not looking… Read more »
Aelorne,
The fact that you are here asking puts you way ahead of a lot of guys who have titanium blinders on. I was one of them, and I am still learning…slowly. I would pay a lot to be in your position. You are twenty seven, with a hell of lot of potential still to be realized. ALWAYS keep that in mind.
Just keep your head on a swivel and good luck.
Rollo (et al), While I have no problem with Evo-Psych, in fact I hope to do my own research in that field at some point, I think this point is still overlooked: Regardless of how we used to be and/or how we currently are, in terms of mating strategies and whatever else you care to bring up in this field, it does not mean that we “should” or “have to” stay this way. Similar to the section on naturalist-fallacy, Evo-Psych, in contrast to what most areas of study in Psychology, doesn’t seek to alter behavior towards something more healthy or… Read more »
@Yhufir
“So what would men want to change? How would we go about it?”
The current system is stacked against Beta men. Alphas enjoy a pussy bonanza like they never have before.
The question then is what Beta men should do, and that’s simple: kill the beta, up the alpha, and enjoy the bonanza because it won’t be changing any time soon. All you can change is yourself.
“How would you go about it?”
Adapt.
Thanks Rollo, I heard that radio clip before – hilarious, but revealing how women will still try to maintain their narrative in the face of the facts.
That said, you’re preaching to the choir here, as we’d say in England – is the American version ‘pushing at an open door’?
Thanks again though for the most valuable lesson ever – look at what they do, not what they say; that’s been life changing.
@insanitybytes One day Rollo will wake up and realize that there are two things he needs more than anything in life: Christ and a pious Christian woman like you. After his epiphany, he will take his staff and ram it into your middle aged yet somewhat functional quim. He will give up all this redpill nonsense, abdicate his evopsych throne and marry you insanity. You will move to Nebraska and buy a picturesque townhome in an affordable neighborhood with good schools. He will work as a midlevel manager in a small but growing car dealership. You will bake cookies and… Read more »
@Tom
I call dibs on the movie rights.
@Sun Wukong “Alphas enjoy a pussy bonanza like they never have before.” Not sure that’s true. Just a guess, alphas probably always had as much as they have now. More to the point: This still ignores the question whether the current system in place is desirable, even from an alpha standpoint. @Rollo The idea of adapting is logical. As Sun Wukong said above, “All you an change is yourself.” This is absolutely true. While, over time, adaptation will change the “game,” I think the question remains: If we/you believe that systemic change is necessary, then what can we/you do to… Read more »
@Yhufir
If you want to see hypergamy run amok, look at the plight of the black community. Betas build civilizations. Betas without brides or the hope of brides produce surplus labor. The most successful and stable societies (ie moderate patriarchal societies such as the west pre 1960) promised men that meeting preconditions assured their mating success.
@Yhufir
Should read:
Betas without brides or the hope of brides don’t produce surplus labor.
@Tom
I don’t want to see anything run amok, that’s kinda my point. Very few things in extremes are a good thing.
If society wants to correct the excesses of hypergamy, it might remove the perverse incentives that encourage divorce.
Men have become succulent roasts to be carved up in family court. A change in policy which reintroduces equity into the division of assets post divorce would be beneficial.
Reinforcing due process in the prosecution of sex crimes would help.
@Yhufir
Not sure that’s true. Just a guess, alphas probably always had as much as they have now.
Oh no doubt they’ve always had it good. The point is that with modern females considering promiscuity during their hottest years to be the norm rather than the exception, Alphas have it even better than they’ve ever had it. A buffet of women in their prime looking to fuck as much as they can with the most arousing men they can find.
@Denihilist – I have to agree with you subjectively that when female sexual agency is allowed to be expressed freely it can be quite potent and aggressive. But I’m not sure that obviates the evidence regarding the differences in intensity and frequency between men and women. Both could be true, yes? And it may only be so notable when it comes to pass that it seems more extreme.
@Yhufir
“So what would men want to change? How would we go about it?”
Relocate. Establish yourself in a new society amenable to your politics and needs. Seize control of said society. Sound crazy? The Mormons did it in Utah. The feminists did it in Sweden.
I think the future of men is opportunistic resistance in the west while creating intentional communities in the east.
“Have dick, will travel” is my motto.
Thanks for nothing, Tomassi. Have I called you a sad and pathetic human being yet? Well it’s true, you are. In fact, you like many red pills are more manipulative and deceitful then a dysfunctional woman with borderline personality disorder. How awful it must be to so weak, insecure, and paranoid.
There she is again, throwing herself in the middle of the bukkake ring that is the comment section of the Rational Male. Just jerking and sucking away at anyone that is ready to bust a nut on her face.
Disgusting.
^^^^ Good “Christian” at work” ^^^^
^^^^ refering to insanity^^^^
@Seraph “You are twenty seven, with a hell of lot of potential still to be realized. ALWAYS keep that in mind.” That’s encouraging @Yhufir “So, it seems apparent to me that the answer is “No” the best system for mate selection is not the one we have now. So what would men want to change? How would we go about it?” That’s a good question most of what I see is guidelines the iron rules help a lot but the framework helps guide me in changing all of me or at least what I used to be. “Alphas enjoy a… Read more »
Pay attention to me Rollo! Why do you insist on making me feel this way?!
I’m not going to be ignored Rollo…
@rugby
When I say relocate, I mean expatriate. I’m getting my CELTA and a masters degree on top of that. Might even go to a coding bootcamp if I get into a good one. Whatever skills increase my mobility, I will acquire. I don’t even care if I have to live in a middle income country like Malaysia or Poland. Yes, the healthcare and infrastructure is not comparable to a wealthy US suburb but, quality of life is more than the trains running on time.
@insanitybites
Please control yourself. You look like you are in heat 😉
Completely sleezy and dishonorable behavior, that pretty much affirms everything I’ve said about red pills. What next, dox me some more? This is the behavior of pathetic and weak bullies Tomassi, not real men.
Tomassi can ignore me all he wants, but I am going to speak out against this tragic caricature of weak and pathetic men trapped in their own bitterness.
Oh no Insanity, doxxing is for closed forums, afraid of ideas rather than individuals, you know about that.
I know about backstabbing, sissy assed men who act like women and truly ought to be ashamed of themselves. I know about people who lie and bear false witness and about those who couldn’t find their own balls with two hands and flashlight. I know about cowards and those who have no honor and those who lies are built on such a house of cards they live in fear having their ideas exposed.
I think I’ve heard a man say this once…
You wouldn’t know a real man if one bit you in the ass, Tomassi.
We need to start playing a fun game in the comments section called “Sadomasochist or Troll?” for each female that joins.
I’m gonna put Insanity in the Sadomasochist column.
@insanitybytes
Serious question. When you say “doxx”, do you mean somebody revealed your private identity online? Because I don’t see any post that has revealed any poster’s contact details. If what you mean “doxx” is somebody appropriating your handle, then yes that has obviously happened.
Sigh
I think Rollo was doxxed by RVF? I mean real doxxing.
I’ve had enough of you, Tomassi. You’re not a real man. You couldn’t find your balls with a flashlight and a pair of tweezers. I could find your balls for you, but you won’t let me. You won’t let me find your balls!!1! I’m going to find you one of these days and when I do…
Oh… me next!
*raising one hand, jerking wang with other*
Oh, yeah… that’s it…
*slurrp… slurrripp….sliisshp…shuurrth…*
You,
Filthy,
Filthy,
Girl!!!
Is your husband filming this?
insanitybytes22: I have read these forums for over a year now, never posted till now. First, IMHO I am all for females posting here but am against it being co-opted or disrupted by any poster. The reason I am finally posting after all this time is if I may be so bold as to respond in lieu of RT to your repeated concerns for “weak and pathetic men trapped in their own bitterness” may I propose to you that you may have better more meaningful ways to assist men out there then drawing lines in here, again I look forward… Read more »
Sometimes I wonder if hypergamy isn’t an irrational psychological and emotional tic, much like gambling. Aside from maybe poker, gambling is moronic and entirely irrational. Most gamblers, I assume, know that the house always wins, but for whatever reason, they’ll still drop little Timmy’s college fund into a slot machine regardless. Even if the gambler gets lucky, his winnings ultimately will disappear unless he stops gambling entirely, so really, gambling itself is pointless, but none of this matters because it’s pathological. Dangle a string before a cat and observe how the cat behaves. You’ll find that while it appeared at… Read more »
Insanity wouldn’t know the truth if it didn’t match her chosen narrative.
PROTIP: It doesn’t.
“Long story short InsanityBytes22, ‘what are you prepared to do’ about this?” The first step is to get the heck out of the manosphere with all their petty gossip, backstabbing, and bullying. It’s like being trapped with a bunch of middle school mean girls who do nothing but play childish games.The doxing, the death threats, the vulgar sexual references, and the relentless bitterness are enough to rot any soul. The second step is to suck it up buttercup, or in the case of men, man the hell up and get over yourself. It’s not all about you 24/7. You people… Read more »
@ instanitybytes22
Do you have any idea how utterly fucking loathsome any woman using the term “real man” is in 2015? Men have a right to be “bitter.”
“Do you have any idea how utterly fucking loathsome any woman using the term “real man” is in 2015?”
Ahhh, poor baby. Try being endlessly being called a slut, whore, cunt, bitch, delusional, stupid, insane, etc. It’s a bloody way of life, buddy. Again, get over your damn self.
The only men who find the term “real men” loathsome are those who aren’t.
@ insanitybytes22 “The second step is to suck it up buttercup, or in the case of men, man the hell up and get over yourself. It’s not all about you 24/7. You people think you’re the only ones with problems. Man up and pull your head out of your behinds.” They could “man up,” violently overthrow the government, herd the manginas and white knights into concentration camps, burn the Constitution, remove women’s right to vote and own property, erase your status as citizens, kick you out of the workplace, force you into burkas, legalize marital rape, and institute public stonings… Read more »
@ insanitybytes22
“hhh, poor baby. Try being endlessly being called a slut, whore, cunt, bitch, delusional, stupid, insane, etc. It’s a bloody way of life, buddy. Again, get over your damn self.”
So somebody called you a slut. Who gives a shit?
@Tom I hear you was thinking the same after school. @bites22popocorn viewing movie withsunafterfishing “but I am going to speak out against this tragic caricature of weak and pathetic men trapped in their own bitterness.” What do you define as masculine anyway? ” I know about people who lie and bear false witness and about those who couldn’t find their own balls with two hands and flashlight.” Hope your “male” partner has a flash light and a map to look for his before bedtime. “live in fear having their ideas exposed.” Expose me to the core open me up and… Read more »
You have no idea how hard it is for women…especially white women. Get over yourselves you big babies! Women should create a movement to change the system and free ourselves from this rule by men. A movement that will create true equality. Women uniting with women for the advancement of women! Womenism! Yes! I’m going to show you all…
You’ll regret this day. Especially you Rollo. We could have been so good together!. Now I’ll leave forever and spread the word that womenism has arrived! De opresso liber!
“So somebody called you a slut. Who gives a shit?”
You really don’t get it, do you? You think I give a shit about something petty like that?? Listen never mind, I’ve simply allowed some pathetic red pill losers to make me lose my temper and I know better. Go back to your stories about banging hotties and anxiously awaiting the decline of Western civilization.
Oh Insanity, you so crazy gurrrrl…
Real men love Tomassi. And they know when women are ready to be loved in every which way…ready to be taken Tomassi. That’s it! I’m done with this silly manosphere and I’m never coming back. You heard me. This is the last time I post here. You hear me, Tomassi!!?! I hate you so much. Why won’t you just listen?! Why can’t I just quit you!?
“I a dysfunctional woman with borderline personality disorder must be so weak, insecure, and paranoid”
that’s brutally honest, post more like this attention whore
Golf clapping
@rugby11ljh At least in the German-speaking parts of the EU, people (men) are irretrievably lost in the marxist murk. Everybody is pissed at our dear leaders wholesale destruction of societies here, and, because of that, are unaware of how the womynz are royally screwing them over. To know the truths which are spoken about here, that makes you scum worth of euthanasy. I’m losing my job because I spoke to an asshole who turned out to be a mangina white knight (I thought he’d been screwed enough through his divorce), who turned on ‘cuz he apparently was “triggered” by what… Read more »
@insanitybytes22
Tits or GTFO.
(or you want everybody here to think that you are smelly, short, ugly and PHAT?)
I’ll pass on the tits and settle for GTFO.
@Fanny farthing “I’m losing my job because I spoke to an asshole who turned out to be a mangina white knight (I thought he’d been screwed enough through his divorce), who turned on ‘cuz he apparently was “triggered” by what I told him.” Sounds weird and familiar in all the wrong ways… Could you still keep employment and not deal with him. The biggest issues about what’s discussed here is being open in person. Many people look at me strange when I say the word “hypergamy” or when I mention observation that will get be banned from places for speaking… Read more »
[…] In Defense of Evo-Psych | […]
Yes, but…..
biology contains “an infective agent that typically consists of a nucleic acid molecule in a protein coat, is too small to be seen by light microscopy, and is able to multiply only within the living cells of a host” and “an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host’s expense.”
Infantile scientist concludes rats who are attracted to cat urine are displaying their bravey (ie. fitness) to attract mates
http://news.discovery.com/animals/parasite-makes-cat-urine-sexy-to-rats-110822.htm
Insanity wants the D so bad lol, throwing out a shit test pretending she will leave to get more attention. Ah, these forums crack me up.
So this is outta left field, but there are 2 current topics I find myself obsessing on: mattress girl & Jenner. First mattress girl. I’m dumbfounded by her posting a porn-rape-fantasy last wk online. It’s of course the ultimate in attention whoring, but her delusions that she’s somehow “changing the world” disturb & insult me. Is anyone else bothered that a woman who in all likelihood is a fabricator can graduate from an Ivy League school by simply lugging a mattress around campus an entire school yr & write her “rules of engagement” graffiti style in her campus dorm room?… Read more »
Insanity and all, IMHO lots of TL;DR here. But when I ponder Preventative Medicine within the context of my own experience of 60 years, Rollo’s model fits awfully well. A careful read of its precepts validates most of my past visceral reactions to what feminized society had attempted to impose as “proper” thought and behavior. I am far happier when I interface with the world because I now better understand what is likely going on around me. Men and women experience the world differently. And if this difference is complementary, there is a chance for love – as long as… Read more »
“I hate you so much. Why won’t you just listen?! Why can’t I just quit you!?”
How many alpha’s have heard those exact words?
Bet insanity’s husband is happy right now, he’s probably getting some sex out of all these tingles.
Just realized it was not the same insanity…
Bleh
DeNihilist
June 10th, 2015 at 12:53 pm
“girls love to fuck as much as men is not just biological Rollo.”
This statement is based on…what exactly?
” I am far happier when I interface with the world because I now better understand what is likely going on around me.” That’s it, in a line. It’s like when I was handed a TV remote last year by the proud owner of a new huge-o flatscreen. WTF is this, what are all these buttons and what is all that teletext shite on the screen for? (I don’t watch TV unless it would be rude not to, can’t abide it, except for football occasionally, never owned one, so it was like giving a caveman a cuckoo-clock). Well, Rollo’s the… Read more »
@Johnnycomelately – I have to agree, but sympathetically. Fully ridding myself of my Blue Pill expectations and desires has taken two years of at times suicidal levels of suffering. I also think Roosh is probably staring down the barrel of a major life choice that he really hasn’t owned up to clearly enough. He wants to reproduce – it’s an inchoate desire in any man. He wants children, and the family which comes along with it. In many ways, he’s had the best kind of fantasy life a young guy could have in the short-medium term. Lots of pussy, no… Read more »
@Tam the Bam Ooh, boy, have I been frying while weedwhacking these last couple days! Fortunately, I’ve got a couple days of rain that’s breaking the heat spell. Time for some much needed indoor project work. @Tom “If society wants to correct the excesses of hypergamy, it might remove the perverse incentives that encourage divorce. Men have become succulent roasts to be carved up in family court. A change in policy which reintroduces equity into the division of assets post divorce would be beneficial.” I, being “society”, do want to correct the excesses of hypergamy. And, had to take matters… Read more »
@scribblerg
“You see, I spent 50 years treating women special. I bought all the romantic and chivalric horseshit hook, line and sinker.”
Man, me too. I love chivalry. Unfortunately, there are no “ladies” upon which to practice it anymore. I keep a saying in my head now to cut-off any anxieties and remorse about it, to remind myself that it’s a thing of the past:
“Ladies bend at the knees.”
Keep that in mind, and, you’ll be surprised how often you have to resist laughing out loud.
@Aelorne – What I don’t hear is how you are spinning plates. I hear serious oneitis – which will kill the relationship once the super-heated phase is over (you should be coming right up on that threshold any time now). I also realize that being seen as unfaithful could chase this high quality woman away, but here’s what i think you don’t get. If at 27, you can attract one woman as high quality as she is, do you not think that over the next 10 years you might attract others? You sound like I did with my erstwhile wife… Read more »
Serious questions: What value beyond the sexual do you think your grandfather’s generation really attributed to women? Roosh mentions happiness, love and children in his rehash post, but what does that look like beyond the abstract? Was our grandfather’s generation any more idealistic than our own? What do we really want to be possible with women in any generation? Roosh still can’t grok that men love idealistically and women love opportunistically in every generation. Retromasculinity doesn’t want a solution; they want a time machine. Only they’d be just as disappointed once they got back to whatever romanticized era they think… Read more »
@Rollo
“grok” lol in the middle of that book now. Picked it up on a lark. Have you talked about that concept on here before?
@scribblerg “but sympathetically. Fully ridding myself of my Blue Pill expectations and desires has taken two years of at times suicidal levels of suffering.” Still working this part out for myself. “Up until then I’d been told I was a “good father” and a “good brother” my whole life” Me to the sad part is that they resent me for taking them seriously. “You are disposable to your all women – daughters and sisters too, regardless of your track record. It’s perform or get the fuck out.” See Mr T I am an actor for this very reason. “Men should… Read more »
“Only they’d be just as disappointed once they got back to whatever romanticized era they think was best.”
The 50’s ain’t what they used to be.
From What Lies Beneath: two books by John Costello; ‘Virtue Under Fire’ and ‘Love, Sex, and War’ in which all too much of the above female psychology manifested itself; “Of the 5.3 million British infants delivered between 1939 and 1945, over a third were illegitimate – and this wartime phenomenon was not confined to any one section of society. The babies that were born out-of-wedlock belonged to every age group of mother, concluded one social researcher: Some were adolescent girls who had drifted away from homes which offered neither guidance nor warmth and security. Still others were women with husbands… Read more »
Rollo’s methods, Pook’s and Krauser’s are the most well reasoned and have some evidence to back them up. Evopsych isn’t physics, but it does cut across human history and geography. I’ll admit to being nostalgic about stable family life in bygone eras. What I’m realizing now is that women were always the same, it was just societal pressures that blunted the effects of hypergamy.
“So much for all that WWII ‘Greatest Generation’ romanticization.”
The 20’s make the 60’s look fairly constrained and conservative.
@Tom
“What I’m realizing now is that women were always the same, it was just societal pressures that blunted the effects of hypergamy.”
It’s why I have always respected my grandparents more than mine. My mom didnt care about being open about hypergamy to a male. My dad didn’t stop or even bring up countermeasures. My grandparents knew about it and my grandma was the only one I could discuss any of this with. My grandpa never had to say a word he wanted me to see not hear what they do.
@Rollo “Serious questions: What value beyond the sexual do you think your grandfather’s generation really attributed to women? Retromasculinity doesn’t want a solution; they want a time machine. Only they’d be just as disappointed once they got back to whatever romanticized era they think was best.” I would take our culture 50+ years or so ago. No Feminine Imperative, women’s feral instincts were, as a consequence of our social moors, keep in check. So much is said on this forum of what should be done relative to the FI and hypergamy. IMO – just a simple expose on the ugliness… Read more »
Rollo, are you “putting a quarter in me” with this WWII business?
“I would take our culture 50+ years or so ago. No Feminine Imperative . . .”
I find it difficult to believe you are speaking from memory.
“Here is a clip form the movie ‘Courtship of Eddy’s Father’, circa 1963 . . . Caught it one late night on AMC, I found it fascinating for it was completely void of the FI. ”
Q.E.D.
Try Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Lolita, or back another century with Carmen.
Great movies, also.
I’m not speaking from memory. . . . that’s implicit
@kfg
. . . . relative to my family dynamic which was post Sex Rev and from memory . . . . but indicative of Patriarchy. . . .
” . . . that’s implicit”
No, it wasn’t. I had to deduce it from your unrealistic projection and idealized model.
I could do that because I do remember. I stared in The Courtship of KFG’s Mother.
. . . implicit as to a reader who chooses to read my entire post. . . . unrealistic is covered. . . .
implicit requires deduction. . . .
@kfg
Patriarchy. challenge? perhaps. Package deal if you choose to let your nuts swing and control frame in a LTR. . . . realistic . . IMO
Insanity,
You’ve come to a place of sociopaths, for sociopaths – men no normal woman would touch with a ten foot pole. If you did not know it before, you do now, after seeing how they’ve responded to you.
So my question to you is: why? What do you expect to accomplish here – change their sociopathic ways and save them from themselves? Hope you realize this is futile, bordering on crazy.
@kfg
“I stared in The Courtship of KFG’s Mother.”
Sounds to Damn familiar what was it rated?
. . . ‘normal women’ . . . . I’d like to see that definition. . . . . more foment. . . .
@70sAntiHero – A pickle will never become a cucumber again. I do think that the FI has been present in very large portions in western society since the advent of chivalric codes, courtly love and romantic love, and Christianity. This self-denying, half puritan, half sex maniac persona our culture has does not have a pretty past and it contributes to the current insanity. Many of you talk about Christianity here as though it’s the answer when in fact it fucked up human sexuality so badly in the first place. It was not always thus. I’m 52. I grew up in… Read more »
” . . . what was it rated?”
I only saw the PG version, but I can assure you with a young widow, left destitute with two children to feed, the search for a BP contained a shit ton of FI.
Wow, I go away for a couple of weeks and somebody turns over a huge rock and all kinds of slimy, troll like bugs infest the comments. Insanity, you still at it huh? Only I see you’re becoming more hateful in your rantings. I think we should charge you $1.00 for each ad hominem attack you level. You’re TRM’s version of ISIS. You pop up, make a big fuss, ignore reason for your own crazy idea of what real life is to the masses here, and then stumble off into the darkness in search of D cell batteries. @docg. Haters… Read more »
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-not-artificial-wombs This is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. Imagine a world where procreation is a choice made by both parties prior to conception with the genetic fidelity of both parties guaranteed. Women would be free to ride the carousel and “settle down” without the natural consequences of such – yes this is potentially problematic. HOWEVER, no man would ever have to fear the child wasn’t his, nor have and support a child without his consent, nor would he have to deal with a pregnant woman lol. Seems like a net positive for everyone. Plus, while women would be… Read more »
@70s – Madmen is a caricaturization and fetishization of the aesthetic of the time period, nothing more, nothing less. I could not get through a single episode, as the people are nothing like the reserved, more civil and dignified people I remember from those days. Society in general was much less crass in some ways, and the way the people behave on Madmen, well it’s ridiculous in any time period.
I think it’s actually written for gay men and cat-women…
“I do think that the FI has been present in very large portions in western society since the advent of chivalric codes . . . ”
How did Agamemnon die?
@70s – Have you sunk your junk into a 23 yr old recently?
Yhufir- “…but this still seems like a really good idea on some levels.”
You do realize Brave New World was a warning and not blueprint?
“I think it’s actually written for gay men and cat-women…”
I was under the impression that’s who it was written by.
@docg
Lemme get this straight: we’re men who are sociopaths that have to be explicitly taught to manifest Dark Triad behaviors since we don’t have the underlying conditions that will manifest them naturally. Makes total sense. You come up with that all on your own, or did you have to ask your mom about it?
@scribblerg Don’t disagree about enjoying the decline. . . However, not sure about the massive repression . . . perhaps there are studies and evidence. . . so maybe I not being fair. . . It wasn’t until I married a princess until I unknowingly recognized ‘hypergamy’ not by definition but by experience and its ruthless unselfish ways. . . . If anything understanding the FI make me feel more sorry for her than anger. . . . . I spin plates. . . . but it ain’t my style any more to sport fuck . . . so if… Read more »
@scribblerg
about 6 years ago when I was 44 and got a hold of a 22 year old. . . . .exquisite. . . . such symmetry . . . Lol
@scribblerg
got a 42 year old now – pretty face, nice cans, (bolt ons) 5- 10 lbs to many . . . . . . still looks good in a bikini . . . no funky belly wrinkles, nice shape, has a good job and doesn’t require me to check in every day . . . .
doesn’t mind the occasional comment about how fucked up women are these days . . . maybe this will last 5 months. . . . Lol
@scribblerg “Seriously think about it. Do you really give a fuck? What do you REALLY want out of your life? When I looked at it more closely and started really being honest, well the answers were much different than I thought. Much of my focus on family and women was about being a “good man” and really, it was a burden. Putting it down actually feels nice. Putting the focus on me and getting what I want, first and last is pretty eye opening. When I got honest, I saw that I don’t really want to be a gentleman or… Read more »
Aelorne June 9th, 2015 at 6:05 pm Are you sure your chick isn’t a tranny? Too many male characteristics: 1. extreme promisquity (trickle truth. Her number should be multiplied by 3). 2. never a serious relationship by age 25 (very unusual for a female, even for a ho). 3. STEM degree (working towards). All indicators of high T. What’s her relationship with her father like? Seems to me father was: 1. absent – which often breeds anger. 2. spineless weak beta father – translates to contempt Both anger and contempt can produce – extreme – promiscuity. Very problematic that you’re… Read more »
Does not compute.
Irrational optimism works well for societies as well as it works for individuals. Belief in the heroic creates heroes.
@scribblerg, What you wrote resonated with me, even if somewhat depressingly. I get where you are coming from. As for not reproducing, hell, humanity could take a real hit and start fresh with just a billion, no problem. I’m not continuing this madness by throwing another soul into it. Let the west slide in to decline and devolve and destroy itself. For those who have reproduced, it’s a little of a sticky-wicket. If it were just me, as I told my friends, I would sit back and watch the world burn, popcorn on my lap, pointing and laughing at the… Read more »
@Seraph
If we are surrounded by self-destructive morons determined to collapse the whole thing, how will we prevent it?
We won’t. You’ll teach your kids to be flexible and self-sufficient, and they’ll decide for themselves how to survive it.
In Defense of Evo-Psych and the subsequent comments here are a joke (except for the tangent of Scribblerg, Sun Wukong and 70’s hero). The attempt by Rollo to give scientific background to Evo-psych–which backs up red pill thinking–falls on childish deaf ears. The rebuttal comes in the form of logical fallacies. The following is adapted from Wiki although not a direct quote: Argument from ignorance , also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is false because it has not… Read more »
As an aside, Rollo wrote this in “Is Game Adversarial?” back in November of 2011: http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/07/is-game-adversarial/ “Now then, for the record, and to make Aunt Sue a bit more comfortable, let me express that I in no way believe that the sexes were meant to be adversarial. On the contrary, it is the adamant view of this blog’s proprietor that the sexes we’re, and are, meant to compliment one another. It is just in this belief that Game becomes a necessity as a logical step forward for masculinity in the face of the overwhelming feminization of the past 40 years.… Read more »
@sjfrellc As we see early in the comments hear, it is even the alleged anti-feminist women who mewling and screeching “foul”. I really don’t know what they expect to replace it with. A double-dose of JBY? Turbocharged Nice Guyness? A billionaire paycheck? If you’re anti-feminist, but also anti-Game, then how do you expect to undo the most grievous wounds feminism has inflicted on males as a group? “Oh we want to eliminate feminism, but we also want to keep the cowed, submissive males they created because they’re easier to hook up to the wagon.” You can’t eliminate feminism without eliminating… Read more »
@Scribblerg “I’m not even saying “Enjoy the decline” – that contains too much rage. Instead try to take on this thought: Why shouldn’t we live in a time of devolution and social collapse? Why not you? Why not me? All societies rise and fall. We are just another one. Instead of lamenting some past that kind of sucked anyway, why not figure out how to be happy now?” I have to say that accepting the current Decline of social values, the spirit of the United States (political, economic, monetary policies, foreign policy, you name it) and the devaluing and mocking… Read more »
@Sifrellc – Taleb has long been an intellectual hero of mine. You may not recall that I had a catbird seat on the derivatives meltdown given the risk systems and trading systems I sold AIG and others in the business. He really makes some basic things quite understandable, such as the importance of “skin in the game”. It turns out we don’t understand fat tails or tail risk at all really, particularly in any kind of complex setting. Taleb’s work taken to heart makes one realize just how abused statistics are by politicians and activists and media types. Risk isn’t… Read more »
Sun Wukong, great rhetorical question that summarizes the problem succinctly.
Taleb comments that the Arabs had a saying for trenchant prose–which you so amply demonstrate:
“No skill to understand it, mastery to write it.”
BTW, Sun, how do I use italics in Worpress? HTML codes? I only use Microsofe Wordpad to compose occasionally not a Word type editor.
Sun Wukong “If you’re anti-feminist, but also anti-Game, then how do you expect to undo the most grievous wounds feminism has inflicted on males as a group?”
They have no such expectations, just a desire to hold the whip. In lieu of feminism as the ideology they’d prefer some form of statism, or churchian jesusism or a combination of the two.
Rollo Tomassi June 9th, 2015 at 5:26 pm RE:Reconciling evolutionary principles with faith. I didn’t read the book you mention, but: I consider myself to to be fortunate to not be conflicted, and to be congruent in the fact that since age 19 after a brilliantly staged English class Humanities seminar at the University of Notre Dame I’ve never had a day in my life that I couldn’t reconcile evolutionary principles with Faith. Having a wildlife habitat farm and seeing Mother Nature and the wicked survival of species in the predator-prey interactions, the botany, the diversity and the overall successes… Read more »
“Being adaptive is a way of being anti-fragile.”
It most certainly is Scribblerg. And it is the essence of the value of the Manosphere which is a great tool that has evolved for us to be better at being good at being masculine men in the vise clamp of modern feminized society which is fragile at best.
@Rollo Excellent article you posted, I’ve studied evolutionary biology so I suppose I wasn’t under many illusions. But there are some cogent points there; I thought the data the author cited about how women demand more resources of a man as they become more affluent was an excellent demonstration of hypergamy. Only a poor man would pine for an affluent wife. The difference is striking. @SunWuGong I laughed when I read your comment about some chick trying to turn you into a time whore. I remember having an almost identical moment some weeks ago, when my old oneitis contacted me… Read more »