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].
amazing article. I’m always impressed by the articles that have real world research and references to back them up
@emily or whoever it was in the last comment section that brought it up at dinner with a physician or whatever. Im not making my story up. That would be pretty ridiculous….and I don’t think your story applies well to me…..lol thanks for the encouragement tho… And @yeareally I had to bounce for a bit cause the last comment section was too drama ha. Like you, I’m not really on the side of “these girls are out to run the scheme and manipulate society into the feminine that is best for girls. It’s guys vs girls type mentally etc” I’m… Read more »
@ Forge the Sky 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. Interesting, but I don’t need a study for this self evident observation. Halfway through my marriage I was bringing in a shit-load of resources (money) and my wife could not restrain her impulses to spend it on projects, vacations and consumerism. I learned early on to figuratively shovel money outside her grasp (checkbook) into equities, municiple bonds, insurance and maximize every means possible to put it in 401K funds.… Read more »
“Try Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Lolita, or back another century with Carmen.”
Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary are all about it, and also have some of the best writing styles in history.
I think more reading of world realist classics would save a number of young Americans from their idealistic delusions. They were brutally truthful about male and female relationships.
@scribblerg: Sorry about your family. What a mistake. The most respectful children I know grew up in families where parents loaded them with work. It really builds character.
@Will
June 11th, 2015 at 10:44 pm
I’m still praying that you make it through triage. Good luck. Read more.
@sjfrellc I’ve been reading on here for almost 2 years now…. I’m simply asking yareally for thoughts
And @rollo can you elaborate on this for us, give an example maybe:
“It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.”
@KFG – My point was that the FI was able to express itself quite powerfully via the cultural norms of chivalry, romantic love and courtly love that emerged about 800-900 years ago. Of course the FI expressed itself throughout human civilization – as long as women choose and men compete for that choice it will always be so. But the development of romance and courtly love and chivalry formalized and amped up the intensity dramatically. And we live in a world where women were relieved of all their cultural burdens and restraints under those ideas while men are still expected… Read more »
@Definite Beta – “Does not compute” – no, what I said computes just fine. You just don’t like it. And I already did 50 years of that hero shit, wrote a song about it actually “Hero’s Game” and the entire point is that there is no payoff in our society for being that fucking hero. Nobody gives a shit – it’s just expected. Be your own hero. Be a hero to yourself. Let everyone else fend for themselves. Don’t have kids – it’s idiotic for a man in this day and age, sorry. Even in the best marriages I see,… Read more »
@Sjfrellc – Kubler-Ross. Yeah, I didn’t realize I still had a reservation about the Red PIll until I tried to really motivate myself selfishly. It was like I was turning the key on an car in which the starter solenoid had fried – lots of spinning and whining but the engine wouldn’t even turn over once. Turns out seeing the Red Pill as “lemonade made from lemons” hid from me that I still found all of this unacceptable. I’m still reeling a bit, trust me, but the emotion is gone. The regret and longing is gone. I’ve put the past… Read more »
@scribblerg “Even in the best marriages I see, fathers are stripped of authority and the mother runs the family in large measure.” “What will make me happy today? What will advance my projects and commitment and interests and work today? Who do I enjoy being with? Who seems to want to be with me on this journey? These are the things I ask myself now. It’s all very wobbly and my motivation is still weak, but I’m improving every day now.” description Me to going out to approach and work on more things on myself. Performance and rejection. “Self-reliance skills… Read more »
@DocG – There is no greater sign of a complete loser asshole than slinging around psychological diagnoses like “sociopath” without any basis. Fyi, I’ve been seriously diagnosed by mental health professionals and sociopathy was never considered. Hmmm – yet I call Insanity a cunt, how could that be? Taking you seriously is the best way to reveal your sophism. Let me ask you some basic questions about what you said: 1. Could one call Insanity a cunt and not be a sociopath? Answer: Of course. 2. Who initiated the denigration of people and the conflict here? Answer: Insanity, go back… Read more »
“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.” Yes indeed, futile and bordering on insane. Pretty much sums up the nature of women though, don’t you think? Something these narcissistic ones are incapable of seeing. They exploit… Read more »
Anything counter to the Feminine Imperative’s interests will always be labeled “sociopathy, misogyny or Dark Triad”
Insanity needs to read more: http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/10/the-bitter-taste-of-the-red-pill/ Myth of the Dark Arts According to common definition, the Dark Triad is a group of three personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, all of which are interpersonally aversive. Depending upon context, that may be a convenient assessment of a sociopathic personality, but it is hardly an accurate assessment of Game as a whole. In its desperation to come to terms with a more widespread acceptance of Game, the feminine imperative had to make some effort to disuade the common man (see Beta) from embracing the means to his release from the feminine Matrix.… Read more »
as for broads blowing themselves up:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/05/islamic-state-says-women-can-become-suicide-bombers-without-husbands-permission
“Discussions of women’s role in jihad reignited a few months later on July 12, 2008 following news that a female suicide bomber had carried out a suicide attack on June 22, 2008, killing 15 outside a courthouse in Baquba, the capital of Iraq’s Diyala Governorate.” –
http://news.siteintelgroup.com/blog/index.php/about-us/21-jihad/41-feb09-sp-102064454
Not saying that all these ladies are lesbians, maybe the FI is rearing itself amongst the muzzies?
@insanity
What precisely do you want? What need are you looking to have met by coming here?
when your sociopaths view is celebrity endorsed by insanity you know that you’ve hit the nail right on the point
@Scribblerg : ” . . .the FI was able to express itself quite powerfully via the cultural norms of chivalry, romantic love and courtly love that emerged about 800-900 years ago.”
Don’t disagree at all, and would only add that its most critical victory was not getting the vote, but getting the children. Getting the vote was a consequence of having the children for three or four generations.
@Tilikum
To be in the center of a bukkake ring comprised of sociopaths?
@scribblerg
“Sociopath” is quite accurate, technically. I’ve had to accept that years ago with regards to the Red Pill. Neo, in the Matrix, is also technically a sociopath, in that he didn’t “do what the rest of society was doing”.
Take the negative connotation out of “sociopath” in this context. “Sociopath” is simply another FI term like “misogynist” to shame you back into the herd.
Embrace your perceived “sociopathy”.
@Vulpine The difference between garden variety selfishness and sociopathy is an utter disregard for the consequences to others internally, whether expressed externally or not. Myself personally (obviously I can’t speak for everyone), despite spinning plates and ignoring female complaints I still feel a pang of guilt when a woman really pours it on. That’s not how a sociopath reacts internally. I’m defying my empathic internal reaction by forcing myself to disconnect so that I can consider a situation logically and react rationally. I’ve known a couple of guys who were sociopaths. They could put a literal knife in your back… Read more »
“Sociopath” is the new “Misogynist”
“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.” Yes indeed, futile and bordering on insane. Pretty much sums up the nature of women though, don’t you think? Something these narcissistic ones are incapable of seeing. They exploit and manipulate this vulnerability in women and then call themselves men. Dominance as destruction, masculinity as power over instead of power within. The above question and retort is totally in-congruent in its assertions. Last time I checked a… Read more »
@ace I have seen her family photos, videos, etc- she is a girl. I don’t deny she probably has high T, despite her having no forearm hair (or hair anywhere except her head, really), small shoulders, small waist, wide hips, big eyes, small chin, etc, etc. It’s kinda odd. Her behavior sometimes indicates high T, though. Her father was absent (even actively rejecting her as the black sheep), and I KNOW she has anger because of that. One look through her college facebook years confirms it. Just anger coming out sideways as overboldness, eagerness to party/try everything. I guess my… Read more »
“Anything counter to the Feminine Imperative’s interests will always be labeled “sociopathy, misogyny or Dark Triad” Not at all, Tomassi. What you fail to differentiate is the difference between sociopathy, misogyny, and the dark triad, and those genuinely male characteristics that many women like me actually love. It is not women who accuse men of being “jerks,” it is you men who are believing that to be an actual man means to be a jerk. You are defining your own selves that way. The problem is, broken, wounded men come along who are seeking some wisdom and read “sociopathy, misogyny,… Read more »
http://therationalmale.com/2012/07/16/value-added/
“The problem is, broken, wounded men come along who are seeking some wisdom and read ‘sociopathy, misogyny, and dark triad traits’ and attempt to embrace those characteristics as if that is what defines masculinity. That is a perversion and a distortion of something I find rather beautiful, which is quite annoying to see.”
Translation: Blowjobs are demeaning and if you guys keep this up my husband is going to EXPECT one on his birthday.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/30/the-nice-guy-jerk-spectrum/ A new world Jerk order Another criticism leveled at Game is a fear that nominally Nice Guys will take this lesson to heart and become intolerable assholes. The fear is a new generation of arrogant pricks ‘not being themselves’ all in order to hook up. I understand the fear of a mass of men radically leaning their personalities towards the Jerk end of the spectrum as prompted by the PUA or MRA communities. Let me be the first to say those fears are unfounded. Guys don’t search out the community, blogs or forums because they’re getting too much pussy… Read more »
“Worry less about the guys tapping their “harems” and more about the chump crucifying himself to be the martyr for his singular “dream girl”. He’s far more common.” “We ought to worry less about social implications of converting nice guys into jerks than making them self-aware to begin with. The risk of creating a bona fide Jerk in an effort is a decent trade off.” I read both of those articles, Tomassi, and I must say, you have a very sweet and very naive view of the world. That’s not a bad thing at all, it’s just that often men… Read more »
TRP/TRM = “a very sweet and very naive view of the world”
do we get cupcakes now?
“You attempt to rationalize this away by claiming it’s just a decent trade off. Ai yi yi. It is not decent by any means, it is an appalling and abysmal state of affairs.” Translation: things were fine when men were willingly disposable, and demanded nothing in return for their sacrifices. Now you assholes expect fair value for your lives? Assholes! Worse yet now I might have to give my husband a blowjob. How dare he think I should provide anything to him other than the opportunity to sacrifice for me. Things were fair when women only had to reap rewards,… Read more »
@BP, Oh it goes much deeper than that. Didn’t you know that it’s the Nice Guys who are the ‘real’ assholes?
http://therationalmale.com/2012/09/04/play-nice/
@Badpainter
We’ll even help swing the hammer.
Hey, in their defense it’s hard work putting spikes through bones. The damn things have the audacity to give a little resistance before they break.
Sun Wukong – “The damn things have the audacity to give a little resistance before they break.”
It’s because misogyny.
Rollo – “Didn’t you know that it’s the Nice Guys who are the ‘real’ assholes?” Yep. I know, because I am one. I think my past crime in this regard is a patriarchal insistence on overt communication and honesty. Really I was such a bastard. I took them at their word and was disappointed, even angered when I discovered their word meant less than a fart in the wind. My current crimes are: trying to rise above my station, realizing the value of a woman’s love (fear is more valuable, and more fun), a refusal to sacrifice for any woman… Read more »
@Badpainter
You bones are patriarchal shitlords. Reject them.
Sun,
I just found my spine, and I intend to use it!
@insanitybytes What you so casually dismiss as nothing more then “a decent trade off,” really has some negative implications and far reaching consequences. Also, it is far more common then you imagine. I do have an assorted collection of threats of rape, death,and dismemberment, from many people within the manosphere. Than there is all the doxxing, bullying, and various games played by those I refer to as middle school mean girls. Not all mind you, some are actual sane and rational, but there is no doubt in my mind that many are not. You know what I notice about you?… Read more »
@Badpainter
Misogynist sociopath.
On a note related to the actual post… I have to honest, I do not have the time or patience to wade through all the different studies on these topics, and I lack the background that would allow me to easily digest them. IE, I never took a statistics course in my life. Thank you to those that can and do. What I have read of the interpretations makes a hell of a lot of sense based on my own observations, but I would like to read it for myself. If there is one seminal work on Evo-Psych I should… Read more »
@Seraph
Not that I expected much because you don’t really seem interested in debate or dialogue (shocking), but I find it queer that you complain about the ‘bullying’ and games, but that it is what you really seem to seek out here, what you respond to…I mean, if behavior is any real measure, which I believe it is.
If only Rollo had written an article about the subject at some point, then the poor girl might have some kind of chance at understanding her own behaviour. Alas…
“You only really RESPOND to the guys here who are rough with you. I have asked you a couple of questions over a couple of threads, nicely worded, and you have responded to neither. One of them was trying to find some common ground on something, and…nothing.”
I’ll second that notion.
Of course, though, it doesn’t fit her narrative. Not interested in a dialogue. Just likes to throw out a myriad of invectives.
@Sun Wukong,
If only Rollo had written an article about the subject at some point, then the poor girl might have some kind of chance at understanding her own behaviour. Alas…
Yes, pity Rollo does not bother to explain his ideas at length. Maybe he should start a blog or write a book.
Freakin’ slacker…
Sun Wukong – “Misogynist sociopath.”
Loving every minute of it.
Here’s the profound realization of my day: the greatest gift I can give the world is my own happiness. Not by giving up my own happiness, but by letting the world bask in the warmth and yellow shifted glow of how awesome I am.
@Badpainter
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/61/6170f12f31b974158162d3cfdd01d76571b73aea8bacefd2683ed37e85f14681.jpg
@ Sun
It sounds like track one, side one of John Coltrane Live at Birdland.
“Not that I expected much because you don’t really seem interested in debate or dialogue (shocking), but I find it queer that you complain about the ‘bullying’ and games, but that it is what you really seem to seek out here, what you respond to…” Of course I am interested in debate and dialog. If I didn’t believe Tomassi had anything of value to say, I wouldn’t have bothered to read him at all. As to responding to lunkheads, true, I should just ignore morons who can’t do anything but call me a cunt, whore etc, but instead I wish… Read more »
Billy Joel has Insanity all figured out: She can kill with a smile, she can wound with her eyes She can ruin your faith with her casual lies And she only reveals what she wants you to see She hides like a child, but she’s always a woman to me She can lead you to love, she can take you or leave you She can ask for the truth, but she’ll never believe And she’ll take what you give her, as long it’s free Yeah, She steals like a thief, but she’s always a woman to me [Chorus: ] Ohhh…she… Read more »
@Badpainter
Ahhhh, nice choice!
@Seraph I get why Insanity responds to the rough treatment vs ” a nicely worded question “. She’s a chick. I guess. The stuff she rails against appear to turn her on, in a fashion. I’ve met her a few dozen times in my life. I cannot recall how many times I’ve said rude sexual comments to a woman ( because I wasn’t really wanting sex or anything else from them ) and have them in turn pursue me all the way to my bed where the screwing that proceeded required copious amounts of Gatorade post coitus to replace spent… Read more »
Call me evil. I’m necessary evil…Lol.
“I think she gets it more than even she knows, but she derives pleasure from confronting the Big Bad Red Pill Aware Men?” Actually true, I do, because those who are truly aware never perceive me as a threat and I am able to converse like an adult with them. Most of you however, are not Big Bad Red Pill Aware Men, you are actually rather sad and pathetic caricatures, more like immature frat boys than actual men. You conflate dominance with destruction, and you fail to differentiate between your own power and the weakness of trying to lord power… Read more »
“As I have said, it is actually not attractive at all, it is a perversion of masculinity.” So what? I can’t speak everyman here but I don’t want to fuck you. In light of that why should I care about what you find attractive? I can’t speak everyman here but I won’t provide for you. I won’t be rushing into a burning building to save you (not my job), I won’t be crying because you have badfeelz. In light of that why should I care about you at all? Thankfully, the internet means you’re only annoying. I care the same… Read more »
@BP, like I expressed to Insanity before, it’s not the manosphere she should concern herself with, it’s her sisters.
She can trot out as many schoolyard taunts as she wants here; it doesn’t change the fact that the majority of women embrace Open Hypergamy proudly now.
It wont be the ‘sphere that brings the vast majority of men to Red Pill awareness, it will be women will making their natures unignorable even to the Bluest Pill Beta that does.
@Aelorne: The answer to your questions is, “Yes.” You can add in because of the screaming rages accompanied by throwing anything that comes to hand at you, but you won’t see that until it’s too late. Don’t let it get that late, it’s something you don’t want to see. It may be late enough already that you’ll need to go ghost to avoid it, her type doesn’t take being dumped kindly. I’m not being flip, from your description it is 99 44/100% likely that she is that kind of girl. In any case, there will still be men here for… Read more »
@BP Wanna know the fucked up thing? All men are providing and caring for Insanity. On a basic level, that is what many find so irritating about her disdain. She woke up this morning, after a restful night on a mattress designed and build by men, from materials made by men. She turned on lights or coffee pot or television or radio, all provided and maintained by men. She showered/bathed in water that ran through plumbing from either a well that was dug by men, or a municipal water system built and maintained by men. She may drive to the… Read more »
” it’s not the manosphere she should concern herself with, it’s her sisters” Tomassi, my “sisters” are men, men who benefit far more from feminism then any woman ever did. “It wont be the ‘sphere that brings the vast majority of men to Red Pill awareness, it will be women will making their natures unignorable even to the Bluest Pill Beta that does.” Ah sheesh, did I mention naive? Sweet, rather optimistic, but incredibly blind? Good grief, you think that’s what I’m concerned about??! Okay, peace out, I’ve bothered you enough. Go back to banging the hotties and dreaming of… Read more »
“It is an unsurprising lack of empathy to complain about the carnage left in feminism’s wake. It comes from a place of comfort and an absence of understanding and appreciation for the myriad of experience that defines maleness, especially over the past 2 generations.” What would you do if somewhat showed up at a dinner party and trashed the host and all of the attendees with invectives. Calling them all kinds of losers. And then never have any positive input on the group interaction. The definition of someone overstaying their welcome. What positive contribution has she made? What empathy does… Read more »
“Tomassi, my “sisters” are men, men who benefit far more from feminism then any woman ever did.”
Wait, what. Did that just get said or was that a Red Pill slip? A mirage perhaps.
@ Blaximus I hear ya. However, being one of the guys that works to provide civilization I see it more as cooperative effort that benefits men. I, for example get to shit on porcelain, and sleep on a well made mattress. Where it goes wrong is the civilization provided by men isn’t complimented by the society provided by women. Short of trying to be the 2015 version of Grizzly Adams I can’t escape that, and don’t really want to (bears smell). @ Rollo The subtext of your work here, and probably stated overtly in article somewhere I haven’t read is… Read more »
“Go back to banging the hotties and dreaming of the zombie apocalypse.”
Wait. What? Do you even a clue what forums you’re actually posting in these days?
I will admit, it is entertaining to watch Insanity’s post devolve from somewhat coherent to foaming blather as a Friday night goes on.
Box wine affects most women like this.
Rollo – “Box wine affects most women like this.”
Box wine results in box whine, eh?
“Box wine affects most women like this.”
Especially if they’re using it to wash down opioids.
@Insanitybytes, I know you said you were leaving (for what? the tenth time?), but the following is for me, not for you. Breaking down the BS helps me spot it more and more from women: Of course I am interested in debate and dialog. As I just pointed out, you are not. Your own behavior here says something entirely different. The fact that you won’t, or can’t, see it is very instructive. You respond the things which irritate, anger, annoy, excite you. You respond to insults and vulgar language, and not to polite, reasonable questions. You insult in return, hoping… Read more »
“It is simply a desire to rid the world of the stupid.”
Gone yet?
Yeah, Seraph, I know, but sometimes I’m just a sucker for a straight line that comes slow and easy right down the middle.
Insanity doesn’t understand what any of us are talking about b/c she hasn’t had the experience OR experienced the mistakes that blue pill dudes DO. You don’t even have to think of it as a blue pill/red pill extreme. It’s just knowing what soft beta is and hard alpha and WHEN to use it. AKA GAME. I will admit there are some over-the-top dudes on here that have a “red pill manosphere tribal” mindset. That’s not it. The best part of the sphere isn’t the “clan”. It’s the analysis. Breaking things down into why/what happened and what works when things… Read more »
And @insanity your time would be better spent channelling your energy to teaching the younger generation of GIRLS how to be less “feminist equality! Don’t shave your armpits! Party and chug alcohol!” And instead find your man and BE HIS girl.
@Badpainter “altruism is suicide).” http://discovermagazine.com/2011/jan-feb/03 Human survival “my ongoing lament about my crisis of motivation has come to an end, I see the point now so to speak. Many thanks to you and the other commenters for all your assistance.” I have learned far more from you than I think you could learn from me. You have applied things that you know work and don’t work. Me in still slipping into oblivion unless I catch myself and move onward. Human redpill survival http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2t1z-gRiNm0 @Blaximus “Hold your fucking frame.” Taking that into the next game with me. description Gregory Colbert gots… Read more »
@Vulpine – All you reveal with your comment is that you don’t understand sociopathy. A propensity for violence is a necessary condition for both psychopathy and sociopathy, among other traits. These terms are thrown around very loosely today. Look up the DSM definition, you’ll see I’m correct. People who are actually sociopaths often have criminal records for assault etc. and things like orders of protection filed against them. Their school records will show violence – like say that of Lee Harvey Oswald. He wasn’t a psychopath, he was a sociopath. His adolescence was very typical of the type, actually being… Read more »
@InsanityBytes22cunt – You act like a cunt so I call you a cunt. Stop acting like a cunt and I’ll stop calling you one – easy peasy. But before anything else, please just answer this question. Who insulted and denigrated who first here? Go back through the comment thread, you will notice I didn’t chime in until you began denigrating Rollo, this site, the Red Pill and the men here. Tell me, are you so hopelessly confused that you don’t even know when you start an argument/fight? To men, this alone makes you ridiculous. You see, in a male world,… Read more »
@All – One more thing. Notice how Insanity dismisses my presentation of economics here as “the zombie apocalypse” – lol. Hey, InsaneCunt, your comment implies you have some kind of superior insight wrt our economic situation and global finance. Please, bring it – I’d be glad to debate the subject with you anywhere, anytime. But beware, I’ve helped little companies like Bank of New York manage its balance sheet’s market risk. I actually understand what economists from Say to Marshall to Keynes and Von Bombeverik and Menger were saying. Do you? Do you see your arrogance and intellectual overreach in… Read more »
Hey Glenn, please stick it where the sun doesn’t shine. You are calling a Christian wife and mother a cunt and you have done it over and over again because you are a pathetic excuse for a human being. I’d take it personally but I’ve watched you do it to other women too, other wives and mothers who happen to support many red pill ideas. “You act like a cunt so I call you a cunt.” No buddy, you are actually the cunt and your inability to perceive your self in any other way is why you try to project… Read more »
@ rugby11ljh
Thanks.
And remember that everyone has knowledge to share even you. Even Insanity brings a nugget or two (just not the ones she intended). Sometimes the biggest and most useful nuggets are just in one man’s description of the “thing.” It’s not that the description is right or wrong but in how it influences another’s thoughts about “things.” Call it inspiration.
@Insane “You have you head so far up your behinds all you can see is your own excrement. Mystery solved. Thank you for your time.” You bring a good point. But he’s no longer this Glenn you speak off where all here to change and in a weird way I kinda you think you enjoy the cross fire. If I where to curse at you as the way I would curse at perhaps for this I’ll use “Glenn” it would be ball bashing play. Not so much with the intent of disrespect but more for the sake of getting to… Read more »
“Also you are a total coward because the women you try to attack aren’t likely to fight back very much because we have some empathy for men’s pain.”
Not hardly. When have you empathized one word?
@Will – Read the The Way of Men by Jack Donovan and then get back to us on your clownish comments about a “Red Pill clan”. Men need “gangs”. We are innately drawn to male groups and rich social structures men create to enforce order and group harmony and purpose.
In fact, I think you may need a gang of men to be part of. Do you want to be part of this gang? Methinks not…
@Insanity – Do you even see how ridiculous you are? You can’t even answer the basic question I asked: Who started this? Answer: You did, I merely responded to your insults with greater insult. Can you at least see that? You see, it’s your unhinged need to attack men here that had me conclude you are a cunt. There is nothing wrong with noting a woman is a cunt, rather, there is something wrong with being a cunt. As for being a “good Christian woman”, lol, really, that’s just too much. How does prancing in here and insulting us all… Read more »
@scribblerg I’m not saying the manosphere is a bad place (for the most part). It has a lot of interesting analysis that explains a lot to men.
I think having a “cult”-like mindset on the internet is not as beneficial as having a cult in the real-world……like you and your hunting buddies, or you and your college buddies. Etc. that type of thing.
@Will – Tell me, do you even know what a cult is? How would you distinguish a community from a cult? Can you? No need for mention of the word cult when it comes to masculinity. In fact, men have developed highly sophisticated social structures and skills to facilitate cooperative and adaptive industry and projects. We are optimized to be most effective in groups and thrive in ordered social structures that we can voluntarily associate with or not. Have you read Jack Donovan’s The Way of Men? If not, you should. It’s the “missing piece” in the manosphere as far… Read more »
@scribblerg
Read the very last quote on the link below–it is taken from Donovan’s book. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT IM TALKING ABOUT. lol
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/19152955-the-way-of-men
[…] In defence of evo-psych. […]
Reblogged this on Dick Wheybrew's MGTOW Copy Pasta and commented:
Reblogged to remember to read. I’m a lazy fucker and it’s late.
[…] […]
Regarding “empirical nihilism”: I believe that an awareness of one’s evo-psych motivations might enable one to alter or disregard them. If that’s true, I believe such awareness would be selected against. I suspect this accounts for the horror the author describes (and I have felt) when encountering some evo-psych data. I asked about this when one of my professors stated that he was aware that he was likely to treat his biological son preferentially over his stepson, and being aware, was intending to do his best to overcome that motivational bias and treat them with equal attention because he had… Read more »
@Sun – Sorry I blew off the roundtable again, but I’m kind of losing respect for this site pretty quickly. If it’s going to be angry betas whining, fundo Christians spouting nonsense, Jew haters spewing their hate without challenge and white supremacists calling me a “bully” for telling them where they can shove their racism – topped off with cunts like Mark Minter, yeah, I’m not interested. For now, I’m on hiatus. Maybe I’ll be back, but I generally don’t spend time on sites where racists and fundo Christian dingbats run amok.
Armchair theorists love evo-psych because they can weave just-so stories to “prove” any dumbass solution into existence through the magic of bullshit.
So I take it you didn’t actually read the piece?
Lol.
Is this ” just-so stories ” some kind of new thing that angry guys like to throw around concerning things that they are unable to comprehend or something?
Psychologists love evo psych, while scientists laugh at it.
xcuse me, I’m off to watch documentaries on astrophysics. You know, actual science.…
” . . . documentaries on astrophysics. You know, actual science.…”
Oooooh, the irony!
It sucks that your pseudoscience isn’t popular in 2017:( Not my fault brah…..
Evo psych explains why you are omega, Arnie. Do you even lift?
It sucks that your pseudoscience isn’t popular in 2017
Science doesn’t care, Arnie. It just … is.
“Evo psych explains why you are omega, Arnie. Do you even lift?”
Please, don’t be a stereotypical EP supporter. lol
“Just So” stories are soooo compelling…to freshmen in freshman biology, lol. Frankly, if you haven’t studied Philosophy of Science, you are gonna be a bumbling fool when discussing Philosophy of Science, which is what this article is discussing along with some comments. Kind of like discussing econ when you are a freshman who hasn’t even taken econ 101. As I have published an article in Philosophy of Science on demarcation, I know whereof I speak. Unfortunately, even many philosophers who are out of field when discussing demarcation make major mistakes. For example, let’s look at philosophers discussing demarcation at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/.… Read more »
“For example, the greeks had a theory about a spherical earth which was rejected in favor of other theories . . .” Point of order: You are confusing sphericity of the Earth with the heliocentric model of the solar system. Aristotle established observational evidence, still used today, that the Earth is a sphere circa 350 BC and Erostothenes made the first rough measurement, with a method still applicable today, of its diameter circa 250 BC. By 0 even Second Temple cultists had largely been forced to give up the OT model, Hellenized Jews of Alexandria making up a substantial percentage… Read more »
Evo psych is just as religious as feminism
….and both are far from scientific
So, you didn’t read the piece either then? Another drive-by from the TL;DR Generation.
[…] Rollo Tomassi has an excellent post on Evolutionary Psychology which you can find here which takes on many of the objections that are common when debating this subject. And of course I highly recommend AC’s book on The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics. We are not blank slates; not by a long shot. And the leftist agenda cannot be made to succeed because humans simply do not work the way the left wants them to. […]
[…] • Peterson is egalitarian to a fault: The mantra may be for men to sack up and make something of themselves, but this is couched in an egalitarian equalism that’s prevalent today. If I had one question to ask Jordan it would be this; is there a dominance hierarchy in a healthy LTR or marriage? I don’t know for certain. My guess is he would say it passes back and forth between a husband and wife which is to say he falls back on an egalitarian ideal. However, outside the family structure he acknowledges that men and women in… Read more »
[…] • Peterson is egalitarian to a fault: The mantra may be for men to sack up and make something of themselves, but this is couched in an egalitarian equalism that’s prevalent today. If I had one question to ask Jordan it would be this; is there a dominance hierarchy in a healthy LTR or marriage? I don’t know for certain. My guess is he would say it passes back and forth between a husband and wife which is to say he falls back on an egalitarian ideal. However, outside the family structure he acknowledges that men and women in… Read more »
[…] In Defense of Evo-Psych […]
https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.box.com%2Fs%2Frdthllpbpfuk0g2lqtdt
Interesting experimentally-derived twist to evopsyche